Seemingly Strange Solar Cycle May Be Sorta Normal
The current solar maximum appears to be weak. But the few previously measured maxes could have been unusually strong. Clara Moskowitz reports
By Clara Moskowitz
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Space
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Every 11 years, the sun’s magnetic activity ramps up, sometimes to a frenzy, causing large sunspots and strong flares. Right now we should be in the middle of such a solar maximum. But we’ve yet to see the expected level of activity. In fact, this latest solar max has been a bit of a dud.
“Compared to say the five or six previous cycles, this is really weak.” That’s astronomer Sarbani Basu of Yale University, at the 224th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Boston on June 3rd.
“And then when we went back and started comparing with whatever little data we had of the previous cycles, we realized it may not be that peculiar after all.”
We don’t really know yet whether the current cycle is the oddball, or if previous cycles were unusually strong. Ground-based telescopes started closely monitoring solar activity only around 60 years ago. And high-quality space-based observations go back just a decade—not even a full solar cycle.
So astronomers are eagerly awaiting what the future can tell us. “It’s going to be fun the next few years, I’m looking forward to it.”
—Clara Moskowitz
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
