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 (00:22:01) :
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].”
The change in rotation is what Wilson and I agree on. The calculation above was just to get a number for the total AM which is what Carsten calculates. The accuracy of Carsten’s calculation is much higher than a 1/200 part of the whole, so even if we only want to apply the change of rotation to a smaller mass it is still well within his accuracy. If we posit only a change near the surface then, of course, the mass goes down [say by a factor of 50], but the distance goes up by a factor of 4, so the total change is then about one order of magnitude, rather than the two you were talking about. But, all this is irrelevant, as the error in Carsten’s calculation is much less than that. It is not correct to call it a ‘gross’ calculation.
The issue is still one of a lack of coupling or lever arm, that furthermore must work both ways: first transferring AM to the rotation of the Sun, but then transferring it back again to the planets, as the changes are cyclic.
For stable orbits, the orbital AM for the Sun must perfectly balance the orbital AM for the planets as total energy is conserved. Carsten’s calculation [by numerical integration that ‘knows’ nothing about having to conserve anything] shows that that is indeed the case.
One can always cast doubt on the data or the calculation [‘does it agree with JPL’]. My cross-check showed that there was agreement. Carsten could address that again, e.g. by calculating something that JPL also calculates, e.g. the distance between the Sun and Jupiter, but I’m sure that even if those two numbers agreed perfectly, people would just say: ‘so what?’. This goes with the following post:
Geoff Sharp (06:25:46) :
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?
Both curves are computed from gravity alone. JPL’s just take into consideration the tiny perturbation from asteroids, comets, moons, and assorted things. Changes that are extremely minute but are needed for navigating to accuracy of meters [or kilometers in the outer solar system]. Assuming that Carsten’s and JPL’s numbers agreed. Would you then accept that there is no AM transfer to solar rotation [and to planetary rotation]? My guess is a ‘no’, but correct me if I’m wrong.
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 🙂
Hah! That’s Leif. I did never say it was not the composition. I wrote a paper where I describe the composition of the Sun. I still think 63% Hydrogen is almost all the stuff in Sun’s composition. The remainder elements are into the “non almost” portion. 🙂
Nasif Nahle (07:43:28) :
You should compare instantaneous against instantaneous, or 70 years average of TSI against 70 years average of HSG.
So you say that you have only an instantaneous value of of HSG every 70 years and that you plot that against the value of TSI for just that same year? Why 70 years?
Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
I still think 63% Hydrogen is almost all the stuff in Sun’s composition. The remainder elements are into the “non almost” portion.
That you are still wrong is hardly an argument that carries any weight. The issue was really whether the rest is Helium or not. I say it is, and you say it isn’t. And that is your error [apart from using the incorrect 63% when today we know better – the correct number is 71%].
Leif Svalgaard (07:51:39) :
Both curves are computed from gravity alone. JPL’s just take into consideration the tiny perturbation from asteroids, comets, moons, and assorted things. Changes that are extremely minute but are needed for navigating to accuracy of meters [or kilometers in the outer solar system]. Assuming that Carsten’s and JPL’s numbers agreed. Would you then accept that there is no AM transfer to solar rotation [and to planetary rotation]? My guess is a ‘no’, but correct me if I’m wrong.
The issue is if Carsten’s graph is correct….I would suspect the subscribed “perturbation theory” might not be included, which probably only makes a small difference. This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr. I can see you dont want to engage, I will persevere on my own.
Leif Svalgaard (08:00:07) :
Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
I still think 63% Hydrogen is almost all the stuff in Sun’s composition. The remainder elements are into the “non almost” portion.
That you are still wrong is hardly an argument that carries any weight. The issue was really whether the rest is Helium or not. I say it is, and you say it isn’t. And that is your error [apart from using the incorrect 63% when today we know better – the correct number is 71%].
Wow! How could I have made that arithmetic error? 71% is more than 63%!, so my almost grows. Heh! 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (07:55:26) :
Nasif Nahle (07:43:28) :
You should compare instantaneous against instantaneous, or 70 years average of TSI against 70 years average of HSG.
So you say that you have only an instantaneous value of of HSG every 70 years and that you plot that against the value of TSI for just that same year? Why 70 years?
70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.
@Leif… The remainder 29% is not pure Helium but He and other elements, like Iron, Carbon, Calcium, and all that stuff in the analysis.
Geoff Sharp (08:08:47) :
This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr.
The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.
Nasif Nahle (08:42:51) :
Leif Svalgaard (08:00:07) :
Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
Wow! How could I have made that arithmetic error? 71% is more than 63%!, so my almost grows. Heh! 🙂
How much Helium?
Nasif Nahle (08:45:24) :
70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.
Your graph had a data point only every 70 years. Make a plot of annual values of TSI and HSG. There should be at least 2×400 data points on that curve.
Nasif Nahle (08:45:24) :
70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.
The 70 years lined up with your plot of HSG data which was 1 point per 70 years.
I derived the data from your plot (admittedly not from data)
http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg
this has changes occuring on the 70year boundaries.
I have not seen yearly HSG data anywhere!
Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :
Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
Wow! How could I have made that arithmetic error? 71% is more than 63%!, so my almost grows. Heh! 🙂
How much Helium?
A smattering percentage of 27% mass. 🙂
Nasif Nahle (09:23:46) :
@Leif… The remainder 29% is not pure Helium but He and other elements, like Iron, Carbon, Calcium, and all that stuff in the analysis.
I have rarely seem someone squirm this much. The remaining 27% is pure Helium, and the remaining 2% is all the other elements.
Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :
Nasif Nahle (08:45:24) :
70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.
Your graph had a data point only every 70 years. Make a plot of annual values of TSI and HSG. There should be at least 2×400 data points on that curve.
Nope… It’s not the average of all 70 years, but the annual average corresponding to a sedimentary layer from every 70 years. When the data were stacked the author notified it was stacked data.
bill (10:00:42) :
The 70 years lined up with your plot of HSG data which was 1 point per 70 years.
But they are not averages of percentages of HSG, but annual percentages.
I derived the data from your plot (admittedly not from data)
http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg
this has changes occuring on the 70year boundaries.
But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
I have not seen yearly HSG data anywhere!
A shame…
Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.
Nasif Nahle (10:31:59) :
“How much Helium?”
A smattering percentage of 27% mass.
Leif Svalgaard (21:05:46) :
Nasif Nahle (20:40:02) :
But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made?
“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
And what do you think it is now? BTW, 24% of that Helium was generated all the way back at the Big Bang, as was also all the Hydrogen. Stellar evolution has since converted 5% of the Hydrogen into Helium and ‘the other stuff’.
Leif Svalgaard (11:06:31) :
Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.
I won’t talk for Bond and colleagues. From the paper by Bond et al:
“Sedimentation rates in both cores exceeded 10 cm per 1000 years, more than sufficient to resolve millennial-scale variability, and the rates were nearly constant (Fig. 2). We sampled both cores at intervals of 0.5 to 1 cm (equivalent to a resolution of 50 to 100 years), and in each sample we measured nine proxies (6).”
The authors gave specific measurements for specific years. I’m plotting just now the data considering the exact number of years corresponding to yours and Lean’s TSI reconstructions, so the precision will be higher.
Nasif Nahle (21:48:08):
Leif Svalgaard (21:05:46) :
Nasif Nahle (20:40:02) :
But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made?
“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
And what do you think it is now? BTW, 24% of that Helium was generated all the way back at the Big Bang, as was also all the Hydrogen. Stellar evolution has since converted 5% of the Hydrogen into Helium and ‘the other stuff’.
My response was: “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.” 🙂
Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
Leif Svalgaard (11:06:31) :
Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.
No, I’m not squirming, you are looking for three feet to the cat knowing that it has four feet. I understand the results are amazingly contrary to what one could be expect; however, the results are there. Again, I won’t do the work of solar physicists. The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… 😉
Nasif Nahle (11:39:51) :
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.”
No, you did not, you said that you didn’t think the ‘quarter Helium’ was correct. If you like a number, just ask. And almost pure is not 29% other stuff: My drinking water is almost pure, it only has 29% sewer effluent in it…
Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
Not just the observable, but the whole shebang.
Nasif Nahle (11:57:05) :
The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;
Of course, not. But it also means that the statement that HSG is a very good proxy for TSI is on very shaky ground. Maybe it is, and maybe it is not. The ridiculously small overlap [with only 6 data points] does not allow one to make a very strong statement. It is even very likely that the climate [clouds, insolation, etc] is what really determines the HSG, rather than the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (12:01:31) :
Nasif Nahle (11:39:51) :
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.”
No, you did not, you said that you didn’t think the ‘quarter Helium’ was correct. If you like a number, just ask. And almost pure is not 29% other stuff: My drinking water is almost pure, it only has 29% sewer effluent in it.
That’s Svalgaards emerging again. 🙂 The quarter Helium is correct, that’s right; nevertheless, I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.
Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
Not just the observable, but the whole shebang.
Aren’t we traveling to other ring? Before any conjecture on a BB which could have given origin to the Universe from nothing, it must (forcibly) be something over there; that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).
Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :
The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.
Indeed, AM has a very clear definition, so there is no room for confusion on how to calculate it.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/angular_momentum.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
It seems this thread is starting to take on a life of its own, trying to replicate or compete with the “monster thread” in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/ …. 🙂
I can only confirm (rather than repeat) what Leif has said relating to the validity of the calculations and how I did them.
It is indeed true that the AM must be treated as a vector quantity, anything else is incorrect. If you do, the sum of orbital AM remains constant over time, just like physics says it should. If you only compute with scalars, you get a discrepancy, as this is an incorrect approach.
When using a vector formulation for AM, the AM scalar value can then be taken as the vector length. The AM vector directions (x,y,z in a suitable reference coordinate system) are normal to the respective orbit planes for each planet. The vector sum for the Sun+planets defines the normal of the solar system invariant plane
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/invariant_plane.html
Anyone proposing that the sum of orbital AM is not constant might ask themselves if both the scalar value (the vector length) and the normal (the vector direction) are variable. If the scalar is not constant as it is claimed [but this is shown to be untrue], you will have to explain how the direction can remain constant, as the scalar is the length of the sum of the vectors.
The implication for a non constant AM direction would be that the whole solar system would “wobble along” like a failing gyro, with a “variable invariant plane”. Clearly, it isn’t happening.
Leif Svalgaard (12:10:18) :
Nasif Nahle (11:57:05) :
The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;
Of course, not. But it also means that the statement that HSG is a very good proxy for TSI is on very shaky ground. Maybe it is, and maybe it is not. The ridiculously small overlap [with only 6 data points] does not allow one to make a very strong statement. It is even very likely that the climate [clouds, insolation, etc] is what really determines the HSG, rather than the Sun.
I’ve not given my conclusions… yet. Nonetheless, it could be that proxies for TSI should include iron stained grains for covering those gaps which cannot be filled with more accurate data. Don’t tell me that it is not a scientific way of knowing approximations of TSI. At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.
Correction to my previous post: “Aren’t we traveling onto another ring?”
Nasif Nahle (13:09:06) :
I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.
Be careful that your bank does not adopt the same attitude towards the money you deposit in your account and will only allow you to take 71% out again, saying you have got almost all your money…
that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).
The total energy content of the Universe may be zero, so no miracle necessary, c.f. for example http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
Nasif Nahle (13:16:33) :
At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.
You cannot make any conclusion based on six data points [with large scatter].