NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution
From the Daily Tech, Michael Andrews. (h/t to Joe D’Aleo)
Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.
[NOTE: there is evidence of solar impact on the surface temperature record, as Basil Copeland and I discovered in this report published here on WUWT titled Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Anthony]
Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA
study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.
Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center,
“Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”
Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes,
“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”
According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.
While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.
The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.
NOTE: for those that wish to see the original NASA Goddard article which sparked both the Daily Tech and Science Daily news stories referenced above, you can read it here:
http://erc.ivv.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html
– Anthony
africangenesis (19:12:24) :
At times at least, there must be torque.
“For a torque to work there must be a lever arm and there is none.”
There is a lever arm for tidal forces, namely the body being acted on. The ‘arm’ doesn’t work all that well when the body is a gas though, and the tidal forces are minuscule to boot, so there is not much to get from them, and in addition they only work one way [if caused by planets with an period of revolution larger than the Sun’s rotation period, which is always the case], namely always to slow the Sun down, never to create cycles.
bill (19:38:34) :
Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
As you can see, the correlation between TSI and HSG is clear. I have the complete databases on iron stained grains and other proxies.
I’ve plotted something similar but although there is a similarity of 10Be flux to TSI there is little similarity between HSG and either a 70 year average or yearly average TSI (Leif’s data)
That’s because you’re comparing averages of TSI with absolute values of HSG.
Leif Svalgaard (16:16:51) :
Nasif Nahle (14:52:45) :
But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made? Just a question.
It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.
I think it’s not; I think as Hoyle said some day, that the Sun is 36% hydrogen and 64% other elements, including that smattering of stuff that makes we up.
Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
That’s because you’re comparing averages of TSI with absolute values of HSG.
You should not, like F&L, plot averages and ‘absolute’ values [by which I think you mean ‘instantaneous’ values] on the same plot, lest you be as bad as F&L.
Nasif Nahle (20:40:02) :
But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made? Just a question.
“It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.”
I think it’s not; I think as Hoyle said some day, that the Sun is 36% hydrogen and 64% other elements, including that smattering of stuff that makes we up
Apart from 36% not being ‘almost all’ Hydrogen, good ole Hoyle was wrong on this [you’ve got to update to modern knowledge, not dredge old things up on the internet]. Here is a modern table:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/suncomp.html
Element, % of number of atoms, % of total mass
Hydrogen 91.2 71.0
Helium 8.7 27.1 <====
Oxygen 0.078 0.97
Carbon 0.043 0.40
Nitrogen 0.0088 0.096
Silicon 0.0045 0.099
Magnesium 0.0038 0.076
Neon 0.0035 0.058
Iron 0.0030 0.14
Sulfur 0.0015 0.040\
etc.
Leif Svalgaard (20:45:31) :
Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
That’s because you’re comparing averages of TSI with absolute values of HSG.
You should not, like F&L, plot averages and ‘absolute’ values [by which I think you mean ‘instantaneous’ values] on the same plot, lest you be as bad as F&L.
I ‘m not… I’m comparing apples with apples, i.e. annual averages with annual averages.
Nasif Nahle (21:11:17) :
I ‘m not… I’m comparing apples with apples, i.e. annual averages with annual averages.
So, you have only one value pair every 70 years?
Leif Svalgaard (21:05:46) :
Apart from 36% not being ‘almost all’ Hydrogen, good ole Hoyle was wrong on this [you’ve got to update to modern knowledge, not dredge old things up on the internet]. Here is a modern table:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/suncomp.html
What’s worst, I took it from a book… I read everyday those figures that you’re including in your post about the Sun’s composition from academic books on astrophysics, astronomy and astronomy. What I did was to push you to show the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium. 🙂
Nasif Nahle (21:48:08) :
the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.
I wouldn’t call it ‘almost pure’ with 2% Helium, but you did claim that this was NOT the composition, so you learned something. My existence has not been in vain 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (22:14:13) :
Nasif Nahle (21:48:08) :
the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.
I wouldn’t call it ‘almost pure’ with 27% Helium, but you did claim that this was NOT the composition, so you learned something. My existence has not been in vain 🙂
Wilson, et al, calculate:
“If, as is more likely, it is actually the outer 2% of the Sun’s mass, rather than the Sun as a whole, that are affected, then over one Jupiter–Saturn synodic period, approximately 0.09–0.15% of the total orbital angular momentum transferred back and forth between the Sun and Jupiter would have to be subtracted from, and then added to, the rotational angular momentum of the surface layers of the Sun.”
“We also found that the average change in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed is 4.3ms−1. This is remarkable close to the velocity amplitude of the torsional oscillations seen on the surface layers of the Sun. Thus, it raises
the possibility that the torsional oscillations seen in the outer layers of the Sun may be a product of the spin–orbit coupling between Jupiter and the Sun.”
I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above. It probably would help if Carston can fill in with more accurate figures. Given the lower density of the outer layers of the Sun, I wonder if significantly impacting even less than 2% of the mass, and so less angular momentum transfer would be needed.
Part of the “lever arm” would be the angular difference between the plane of the solar equator and the plane of the orbits of the planets. The effect on a gas might look like density waves, in addition the equatorial speed change. Another piece of leverage is the solar deviation from the sperical ideal itself. Shirley’s assumption of free fall did not include such quadrupole moments, and was simplistic compared to gravitational analyses such as these, which definitely find the deviation from spherical uniformity relevant.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~scheeres/reprints/CMDA_mutual.pdf
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/538/1/386/50681.text.html
Based on the Sheeres article and other readings, it appears that the gravitatiional quadrupole moment effect is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. If the spin orbit coupling is based upon this, then the significance of the jovian planets are significantly reduced relative to their overwelming proportion of the solar system angular momentum. Given that we know the solar oblateness contributes to mercury’s orbital precession, I’ve done some calculations and normalized them to the reciprical influence mercury would have on the solar oblateness.
Here are the relative contributions (M/d^3) of the planets with mercury being unity:
mercury 1.0000
venus 2.2706
earth 1.0541
mars 0.0319
jupiter 2.3771
saturn 0.1140
uranus 0.0022
neptune 0.0007
Note that earths contribution is as large as mercury’s and venus’ is as large as Jupiter’s and about 2.3 times that of mercury. The other Jovian planets are less signficant. Since Jupiter dominates in Wilson’s analysis and Saturn contributes to the understanding, this relatively minor influence of Jupiter would seem to point to the phase locking with the periodicity of some internal solar dynamic with Jupiter as the reason that the solar cycle is 11 (22) years instead of correlated with Venus or some combination of the periods of Mercury, Venus and Earth.
Leif Svalgaard (21:42:57) :
Nasif Nahle (21:11:17) :
I ‘m not… I’m comparing apples with apples, i.e. annual averages with annual averages.
So, you have only one value pair every 70 years?
That’s almost correct because the TSI databases are incomplete (another ring for running around?). Other proxies were stacked, but I didn’t do it, the authors did it. I’ve not used the stacked data, but the data for each year. Anyway, the plots give similar results.
Here the graph including the stacked proxies:
http://www.biocab.org/Stacked_and_TSI.jpg
I’m sorry if the graph doesn’t make it well. I don’t publish too often at Biocab’s website.
africangenesis (19:12:24) :
I don’t see how a gross newtonian calculation calculation can rule out a level of angular momentum transfer that might be significant to solar dynamics.
Agree….and we havent seen any of the data yet. It may be the scale but I noticed the solar AM shape around 1970 differed to Carls’ graph. AM is a calculated vector not readily available via JPL. I am currently having a go at calculating Jupiter’s AM using JPL…Carl could do this in 5 mins I suspect.
The spin momentum also needs to be included in this work, which is probably a difficult exercise. Also I wonder if anyone has thought of a conservation of spin momentum.
One thing is for sure…it would be scientific arrogance to dismiss spin-orbit coupling, Shirley and many others certainly have the door open.
Leif Svalgaard (08:48:12) :
“Except that they are not, as he knows [and if he does not …].
J: 318 5.2 13; AM = 21500
S: 95 9.6 9.7; AM = 9125
U: 14.5 19.2 6.8; AM = 1890
N: 17 30 5.4; AM = 2750
Sum of S,U,N is 13765 or 64% of J, so not ‘relatively negligible’.
Yes very aware, but if Carsten’s Jupiter AM graph is right, the overwhelming influence is from Jupiter. I have been looking at the fluctuations in Jupiter’s AM which looks to be caused by normal gravity perturbations from the outer 3. Has anybody else looked at this?
africangenesis (22:17:36) :
“We also found that the average change in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed is 4.3ms−1. […]
I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above.
why would you think so? Makes me distrust your judgment in general…I said 1/200 from Figure 8: 0.015 urad/s compared to rotation speed of 3 urad/s, a factor of 200. The equatorial rotation speed is 2000 m/s, which divided by 200 is 5 m/s in good agreement with the 4.3 m/s.
Given that we know the solar oblateness contributes to mercury’s orbital precession,
Not that we can measure: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Sci/sci.space.news/2008-10/msg00012.pdf
“These results have far ranging implications for solar physics and theories of gravity,” comments solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “They indicate that the core of the sun cannot be rotating much more rapidly than the surface, and that the sun’s oblateness is too small to change the orbit of Mercury outside the bounds of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.”
So, no effect, because the oblateness is so small.
mercury 1.0000 0.20 mm
venus 2.2706 0.46 mm
earth 1.0541 0.21 mm
mars 0.0319 0.006 mm
jupiter 2.3771 0.48 mm
saturn 0.1140 0.023 mm
uranus 0.0022 0.0004 mm
neptune 0.0007 0.0001 mm
I have added to your table the height of the tidal bulge on the Sun raised by the various planets. The biggest is Jupiter’s, all of less than half a millimeter [1/50 of an inch]. Saturn is way down [1/40th] compared with the inner planets, that alone disqualifies Saturn.
The half millimeter tides [rising and falling on a time scale of 13 days] should be compared to the million Texas-sized granules rising and falling at 500 m/s or 1800 km/hour at any given moment.
Nasif Nahle (22:17:42) :
“So, you have only one value pair every 70 years?”
That’s almost correct because the TSI databases are incomplete
What nonsense is that? We have a value every year.
Anyway, the plots give similar results.
I only see a handful of data points plotted for the past 400 years…
Geoff Sharp (22:47:26) :
Shirley and many others certainly have the door open.
But emphatically points out that it is an error to claim that there is any exchange of angular momentum.
Geoff Sharp (22:57:44) :
“Except that they are not, as he knows [and if he does not …].
J: 318 5.2 13; AM = 21500
S: 95 9.6 9.7; AM = 9125
U: 14.5 19.2 6.8; AM = 1890
N: 17 30 5.4; AM = 2750
Sum of S,U,N is 13765 or 64% of J, so not ‘relatively negligible’.
Yes very aware, but if Carsten’s Jupiter AM graph is right, the overwhelming influence is from Jupiter.
What has that to do with Carsten’s graph? The calculation above should that J is 36% of the whole.
I have been looking at the fluctuations in Jupiter’s AM which looks to be caused by normal gravity perturbations from the outer 3. Has anybody else looked at this?
Carsten [page 7]:
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1940_1992_20090327_r1.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (23:05:59) :
africangenesis (22:17:36) :
“We also found that the average change in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed is 4.3ms−1. […]
I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above.
why would you think so? Makes me distrust your judgment in general…
africangenesis (22:17:36) :
Based on the Sheeres article and other readings, it appears that the gravitatiional quadrupole moment effect is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. If the spin orbit coupling is based upon this, then the significance of the jovian planets are significantly reduced relative to their overwelming proportion of the solar system angular momentum.
This is in contrast to the usual assumption that the Jovian planets [and especially Uranus and Neptune] are the major players. But the main issue is that the solar oblateness is so extremely small as to have no measurable influence even on Mercury’s orbit.
Leif Svalgaard (23:21:37) :
What has that to do with Carsten’s graph? The calculation above show that J is 61% of the whole.
My bad, the 36% should be 61%. Bigger, but hardly overwhelming.
Leif Svalgaard,
“I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above.” — me
“why would you think so? ” — you
It is this angular momentum calculation below that utilizes much more than just the 2% of the solar mass used by Wilson:
“Assuming that the Sun’s mass [for this calculation] is at a point 1/4 of the radius from the center, the AM is 1.75E41 [SI units].”
Nasif Nahle (22:17:42) :
That’s almost correct because the TSI databases are incomplete (another ring for running around?). Other proxies were stacked, but I didn’t do it, the authors did it. I’ve not used the stacked data, but the data for each year. Anyway, the plots give similar results.
I am sorry but I do not understand your criticism of my plot:
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3388/tsihsg10beg.jpg
I have plotted yearly TSI
I have plotted all available data for 10Be Flux from the Fuji Dome series
I have plotted HSG for the relevant time sequence
I have plotted the average of TSI for the 70 years preceding each HSG value.
The 10Be flux plot lines up reasonably with the TSI (over the short overlap)
Nothing lines up with HSG on my plots – where am I misinterpreting the data please?
Leif Svalgaard (00:02:30) :
What has that to do with Carsten’s graph? The calculation above show that J is 61% of the whole.
My bad, the 36% should be 61%. Bigger, but hardly overwhelming.
Your missing the point Leif, if the Jupiter graph is good I wouldnt need anything else. I would come to the same conclusions, Jupiter and the Sun are almost mirrors, I am keen to see this data reproduced from JPL.
Have a look at the Jupiter curve….and look at a solar system viewer for the key changes, the changes look to be a product of gravity alone?
bill (01:32:45) :
I am sorry but I do not understand your criticism of my plot:
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3388/tsihsg10beg.jpg
I have plotted yearly TSI
I have plotted all available data for 10Be Flux from the Fuji Dome series
I have plotted HSG for the relevant time sequence
I have plotted the average of TSI for the 70 years preceding each HSG value.
The 10Be flux plot lines up reasonably with the TSI (over the short overlap)
Nothing lines up with HSG on my plots – where am I misinterpreting the data please?
Mine is not a criticism, but an observation. The problem there is that you compared 70 years averaged TSI against instantaneous magnitudes of HSG. You should compare instantaneous against instantaneous, or 70 years average of TSI against 70 years average of HSG.