September 6, 2009 1:28 PM

Here Comes the Sun

By
CBSNews
(CBS)  Since even before the dawn of civilization, the sun has been essential in farming, religion, and telling time. It's a star that's been worshipped and studied, and so to celebrate our 30th anniversary, correspondent Martha Teichner looks at the history of the sun, as well as a look forward to the future.

Some show-off, that sun. Performing its fire dance not just on Sunday, but every day, morning and night, the world over, for all of us Earthlings … rich and poor, old and young … no ticket required.

What exactly is the sun?

"It's a big ball of hydrogen gas," said Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and history of science emeritus, at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Not so big. In fact, kind of middling for a star … but enormous compared to the Earth.

"It's one thing to say, well, the diameter of the sun is 100 times the diameter of the Earth," Gingerich told Teichner. "But you don't really get the impression of how big the sun really is unless you can see it in three dimensions."

How old is the sun? "About five billion years," said Gingerich, who assured us, "it's just about halfway through its lifetime."

It's really hot, maybe 28 million degrees Fahrenheit at its core, and it's burning up. There are nuclear reactions going on inside it all the time. When the energy works its way to the surface, we see it as sunshine..

At the relatively safe distance of 93 million miles away, the Earth orbits around the sun. It takes 365 days … a year. Life-giving time for planting and growing and harvesting crops.

No wonder so many civilizations built great monuments, like Stonehenge in England, to plot the seasonal doings of the sun, or Chichen Itza in Mexico, or the Konark Sun Temple in India.

No wonder the sun was a god to the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Incas.

They knew then that the sun influenced almost every aspect of their existence. We know now it even determined the color of our skin.

"Our ancestors who evolved close to the equator have very darkly pigmented skin, adapted to very high levels of radiation," said Nina Jablonski, head of the anthropology department at Penn State University and an expert on skin.

"And then as we dispersed away from the equator, in our evolution we evolved lightly pigmented skin to cope with less solar radiation," Jablonski said.

Around the equator the earliest humans developed a kind of permanent suntan. This dark coloring containing something called melanin. How's this for amazing: Melanin acted like a natural sunscreen, blocking ultraviolet radiation but allowing in exactly the right amount of vitamin D.

"We need vitamin D," Jablonski said. "So the sun shines, ultraviolet B shines on the skin and makes vitamin D chemically in the skin, right there."

Now fast forward to, say, present-day Scandinavia, where sometime around ten thousand years ago people lost their permanent tans. In northern weather, under a weaker sun, they don't require protective color.

Speaking of weather … there is actually solar weather, and we're all affected by it.

Richard Fisher heads NASA's heliophysics division, which studies solar activity. He showed us images from 2003 when there was lots of sunspot activity.

"These guys are pretty big!" he said. "They're as big as Jupiter, 40,000 kilometers across."

Sunspots are intense magnetic fields, and when a lot of them appear, it's a signal that a season of violent solar weather is on the way.

The sun flings out swirling streams of electrical current called solar winds, and when they reach the Earth's atmosphere, we see the spectacular aurora borealis, the northern lights.

NASA can also simulate solar storms, in order to see these great explosions of radiation and magnetic particles erupting from the sun's atmosphere, called its corona.

"We'll see one of these disturbances on the sun, understand its direction, and we just start the stopwatch and say, 'Well, it's gonna be about, you know, fifty hours and we should expect to see a possible solar-induced effect at the Earth," said Fisher.

And that means trouble. An astronaut on a space walk could actually die from exposure to the radiation. Communications systems on planes flying over the poles often fail. GPS signals get screwed up. In 1989 a solar storm incinerated a transformer in Quebec, leaving 6 million Canadians without power...

For NASA, learning how to predict solar weather so that disruptions can be planned for (or even prevented) is a practical justification for the seventeen satellites it has in space already analyzing the sun, with more to come.

In a NASA "clean room," Fisher showed us the next satellite to go into orbit, the most sophisticated solar observatory that's ever been in orbit. "It is the cornerstone of our NASA program for about the next decade," he said.

Its planned launch, November. Its mission, barely thinkable even ten years ago ... in effect, a sonogram of the sun's gassy interior.

Yes, deep inside, where solar weather forms. It should send back pictures ten times better than high definition television.

But can those images beat our view of the sun, with the horizon as its stage, and the power to move us ...


For more info:
  • NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory
  • "Skin: A Natural History" by Nina Jablonski (University of California Press)
  • Owen Gingerich, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
    Add a Comment See all 20 Comments
    by skyguide-2009 June 26, 2011 11:13 PM EDT
    More than two years since our original comment exchange. As I made several predictions, it seems fair that I take a moment to see how well my forecasting has done.

    Yes, we did come out of solar minimum, and solar cycle #24 is (as I predicted) well apace. In spite of leashl's fears ("Sun Dying as Ice Age Looms"), the Sun has woken up from its slumber. The sunspot number for today is 47 (ranging from 18 to 122 this month), and there have been a number of significant solar flares in the past two weeks.

    I enjoyed the aurora (caused by an interaction between the Earth and a Coronal Mass Ejection from the solar flare) two nights ago; very pretty.

    In spite of other posts in this thread predicting that we were entering an ice age, 2009 was the 5th warmest year on record, 2010 tied with 2005 for the 1st warmest year, and 2011 is well on its way to also be a record-setting year.

    I'll check in again next year. I expect that the Sun will still be there.
    Reply to this comment
    by skyguide-2009 February 3, 2010 12:56 AM EST
    Wow! Déjà vu all over again....

    I was last on this web page a year ago. While preparing for the launch next week of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory mission (scheduled to launch on Tuesday, February 9th, at ~10:30 am US Eastern time) I was surprised to stumble back here again.

    Here is the NASA link that brings you back to this page:
    http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/newsroom/item/newsitem.php?i=13

    And here is the countdown timer to launch:
    http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    I find it interesting that NASA links back to this page. Perhaps my comments from last year may have helped a bit?

    MekhongKurt, thank you for your kind comments; appreciated!

    So, in the past year, how has the Sun's story changed? How have my predictions compared to leashl's expectations of an imminent ice age?

    About that pending ice age thing: 2009 was the 5th warmest year on record. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. As much as I would like to be wrong, it appears that yet another year's worth of data have further supported the reality of global warming.

    About that no more sunspots thing, and that the Sun is somehow "broken" (displaying behavior far out of norm): We have now passed solar minimum, as was expected, and we are now entering the upswing for solar maximum - just as we do every 11-ish years:
    http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/newsroom/item/newsitem.php?i=12

    The solar minimum just past was somewhat deeper than we have seen in a century, but not extraordinary. It was like a season where you have 3 hurricanes, rather than the usual 10 or so. Just because there were far fewer this year, does not lead you to expect that next year there will be none. There is variability in weather, whether that weather is on the Earth, or weather on the Sun. We watch the long trends; what occurs over decades.

    I will grant to leashl that it is too early to be certain as to the extent of this solar max. Proof will come with time; one year from now we will know with certainty as to whether "this solar cycle is proceeding apace" (my comment from a year ago), or if "Where is your evidence for the outrageous comment 'The transition between cycle #23 & #24 is proceeding apace'." (leashl from last year).

    Now, if I may be allowed to extrapolate from the data.... We have had record-setting temperatures, even though the Sun as been in a deep solar minimum. It's been getting hotter, even though the Sun has slowed down its output to idling speed.

    It bears repeating: THE EARTH HAS BEEN GETTING HOTTER, EVEN THOUGH THE SUN HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT QUIETER THAN USUAL!

    My great concern, as we approach solar maximum; now that we are heading to the hottest part of the Sun's cycle, we will see temperatures REALLY take off.

    Why was I brushing up on the SDO mission (and ended up back on this page)? I have been invited to be a guest on Astronomy.FM's live coverage of SDO's launch (http://astronomy.fm). I invite you to join us, via call-in and live chat, as we talk about the Sun and our exploration of the Solar System (including the Earth).

    ~Michael, a.k.a. "The SkyGuide"
    Reply to this comment
    by MekhongKurt October 4, 2009 10:15 PM EDT
    Talk about "terribloe" spelling. Oh me, me and my fat fingers!
    Reply to this comment
    by MekhongKurt October 4, 2009 10:13 PM EDT
    sky-guide 2000, glad you saved me the trouble to look up data to refute this misconception that the Earth's baking merrily away and getting hotter. Sometime back in a different thread I spent nearly a full day pulling in data from around the world, and from both public and private sources. I also pulled in a couple of those that dispute it, and showed their industry links, comparing them to doctors swearing tobacco is harmless, only to find out they worked for the tobacco company.

    Besides, *this* article has nothing at all to do with global warming; I get really tired, since I spend many hours daily (I'm retired) online browsing through various articles and their discussion threads only to find completely off-topic comments. Just earlier today I read a really nice, feel-good, makes-you-all-warm-and-fuzzy piece about the triply-confirmed confirmation of the presence of water on Luna only to run across, in the second or third response, a diatribe (complete with a lot of capital letters, exclamation marks, and terribloe spelling -- against the space program, and how we ought to be using this money on Earth, how Obama is worthless, blah, blah, and more wretched, irritating blah.

    NOW to the article. A nicely presented piece, one easily accessible to anyone, even if they previously had never thought about Sol and the role it plays in our lives.

    A rhetorical mquestion just popped into my mind: wonder if Google is going to have a Google Sun on up the road? I suspect they will, since they already have Google Earth/Sky/Moon/Mars, though maybe Google Mercury might be the next project, since it's being mapped now.

    Well, I never tire of astronomical topics, so I really enjoyed this article (and will be looking forward to "Google Does Sol"!).
    Reply to this comment
    by leashl February 4, 2009 2:19 AM EST
    The current solar inactivity is once in a century, with figures close to the first half of the Dalton Minimum (Cycle5) and heading for a Maunder Minimum = cold.

    Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, lasting from about 1790 to 1830. Like the Maunder Minimum and Spvrer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.

    You will find a lot of concerned people with more knowledge than I at the link below. It is not only the lack of sunspots that is of concern but also their weakness.

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general
    Reply to this comment
    by skyguide-2009 February 4, 2009 12:08 AM EST
    [I have too long a post, so this is part 1 of 3]

    I''m an astronomer. My first area of study was solar physics. I''m not currently working on the Sun, but I''m reasonably familiar with the issues. (I''m now working on exoplanet detection, with minor work on Mars geo.)

    In a nutshell, I''m saying that the current transition between solar cycle #23 & #24 is within the range of data values we have seen in the past century.

    You seem to be arguing that the current transition is the start of a little ice age.

    Really - which of the two statements seems the more outrageous (to use your term)?

    Example - the Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st to Nov 30th. If there were no hurricanes as of June 15th, would you then assume that there would be zero hurricanes the year? Or, would it be less outrageous to say that there is some variability on when hurricanes show up?

    Sunspots are the tops of solar magnetic storms. They are a visible manifestation of the Sun''s weather. And much like predicting the weather here on Earth, we do not yet have the ability to predict when, exactly, a storm will brew on the Sun. We are confident that there will be storms, but they may be two weeks away rather than next week.

    BTW, here is the official sunspot count for the past month (Wolf Method):
    Jan 7th = 11
    Jan 9th = 11
    Jan 10th = 14
    Jan 11th = 17
    Jan 12th = 20
    Jan 13th = 12
    Jan 19th = 11
    Jan 29th = 11

    A slow month, but not spotless, just as we would expect during solar minimum.

    [continued...]
    Reply to this comment
    by skyguide-2009 February 4, 2009 12:04 AM EST
    [This post is the 2nd of 3]

    Your link from NASA on the magnetic field, while interesting, does not mention weather or climate once on the page. That page is not making your point for you, so what is your point?

    Since you are quoting NASA (from science.nasa.gov):
    "It does seem like it''s taking a long time," allows Hathaway, "but I think we''re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last." In the early 20th century there were periods of quiet lasting almost twice as long as the current spell. Most researchers weren''t even born then. Hathaway has studied international sunspot counts stretching all the way back to 1749 and he offers these statistics: "The average period of a solar cycle is 131 months with a standard deviation of 14 months. Decaying solar cycle 23 (the one we are experiencing now) has so far lasted 142 months--well within the first standard deviation and thus not at all abnormal. The last available 13-month smoothed sunspot number was 5.70. This is bigger than 12 of the last 23 solar minimum values." In summary, "the current minimum is not abnormally low or long."

    As for your observation on the stratosphere, I thought that we were talking about the Sun. I''ll leave comments about atmospheric physics to those who are more knowledgeable about such matters.
    Reply to this comment
    by skyguide-2009 February 4, 2009 12:02 AM EST
    [This post is the 3rd of 3]

    You raise a great question about how the sunspot count has to be adjusted over time, to account for the steady improvements in astro instruments. The daily sunspot number is computed using a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848: R = k (10g+s),

    R is the sunspot number; g is the number of sunspot groups on the solar disk; s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups; and k is a variable scaling factor (usually 1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.). Scientists combine data from lots of observatories -- each with its own k factor -- to arrive at a daily value. The k value adjusts data from scope to scope and from one era to the next.

    Back when I was working at a reporting observatory I ALWAYS saw far more sunspots than the "official" number we reported. We had to adjust the count to even the sensitivity of our equipment to what could be seen by the standard 1850''s ''scope.

    Bottom line - I''m not aware of a single solar physicist who is concerned about the length of the current solar minimum. Are there any out there?

    ~ Michael
    Reply to this comment
    by MekhongKurt October 5, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
    Bravo! A most excellent tour de force! Of course, since you're a professional astronomer (how I envy you, satr guide. . .), can we expect any less???

    Of course, if you want "proof" that Terra has just experienced a "Deca-Ice Age" or so, um, well, you can ask those fine folks at a place like Heartland, the members of which are, um, maybe cousins of the doctors who worked for tobacco companies in the 50's and 60's. . . . THEY'LL sure set you straight. Ahem.
    by MekhongKurt October 5, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
    Bravo! A most excellent tour de force! Of course, since you're a professional astronomer (how I envy you, satr guide. . .), can we expect any less???

    Of course, if you want "proof" that Terra has just experienced a "Deca-Ice Age" or so, um, well, you can ask those fine folks at a place like Heartland, the members of which are, um, maybe cousins of the doctors who worked for tobacco companies in the 50's and 60's. . . . THEY'LL sure set you straight. Ahem.
    by leashl February 3, 2009 11:36 AM EST
    Where is your evidence for the outrageous comment "The transition between cycle #23 & #24 is proceeding apace." NASA has had to keep changing the transition date as it shows no sign of happening. You say "A connection between the sunspots and climate is possible but unproven." - from NASA just released regarding a massive hole in the magnetic field in 2007. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm Just a few days ago there was a Sudden Stratosphere Warming (SSW) event triggered by cosmic rays (remember Global Warming is supposed to cool the stratosphere). http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-19313.html You say "Sunspot activity is on an 11-year cycle, tracked by astronomers since 1755, and very regular." Our methods of detecting sunspots is far more sensitive than in 1755 and we should be highly concerned by the lack of sunspot activity...and yes, there is regularity, so where is it this time? Cooling events correlate with sun inactivity. We shouldn''t argue the semantics of Global Warming or the sun but instead be realistic. It is like being on a railway crossing and suddenly stopping. We know we will be hit by the car behind but the train screaming toward us makes that irrelevant. We are heading for a major earth cooling event, the media should be reporting it and we should make preparations. The reason it isn''t is fairly obvious. "I don''t see how you can project the current solar minimum into a little ice age." Oh really?! You just watch.
    Reply to this comment
    by skyguide-2009 February 3, 2009 1:38 AM EST
    oldefortran- your information on sunspots is a stretch. Your conclusion, a cooling Earth, is not borne out by the evidence.

    You said, "It is to bad that the article didn%u2019t dwell more on cycles of sunspot activity. These cycles correspond to global climate conditions."

    A connection between the sunspots and climate is possible but unproven.

    You said, "The sun has been absent of sunspots for more than a year."

    Mostly correct, and as expected. Sunspot activity is on an 11-year cycle, tracked by astronomers since 1755, and very regular. The transition between cycle #23 & #24 is proceeding apace.

    This cycle: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

    Since 1755: http://spaceweather.com/glossary/images2009/zurich.gif

    You said, "This diminished sunspot activity could become a cooling trend similar to the Little Ice Age."

    A huge leap! The solar minimum we are in now has been expected and predicted. I don''t see how you can project the current solar minimum into a little ice age.

    You said, "So, get out those carbon dioxide machines and help to stop the coming ice age.... Earth climate report: The earth is beginning to cool. Really cool."

    That''s just silly. The Earth is not cooling.

    2008 was the 10th warmest year on record. (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12198) The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997.

    The Earth is warming. And, the cause is NOT the Sun.
    Reply to this comment
    See all 20 Comments
    .
    Scroll Left
    Scroll Right More »
    CBS News on Facebook