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
Interesting question JamesG; what else could have caused the LIA? Some people have said that the temperature record has shown no real LIA; but looking at anecdotal: What caused the Thames to freeze over? And the venetian canals? Glacial pack ice extending to Great Britain, New York harbour freezing over etc?… Debates over temperature data aside, these events did in fact happen so what caused them?
This chart. The R^2 of a linear trend-line for the last 10 years is 0.0321 (AKA insignificant). The average monthly anomaly over the last 10 years is 0.2 C. Using 2 standard deviations, the range of natural variability is -0.11 to +0.51 C. Over the last ten years, 1 month was “unnaturally” warm and 4 months were “unnaturally” cool.
No climate crisis -> Far less research $$$ for gov’t & academic climate “scientists”.
QED
And when that pan is on the stove, is the output of the stove entirely directed at the pan?
Take that same stove outside (remove heat source from box !)
How’s the timing now?
Open the window next to the stove.
Repeat experiment and note changes.
The Earth’s atmosphere and anything that can alter it will open or close the window next to the stove, thereby making for a change in your dinner plans.
E.M.Smith (17:55:44) :
OK, so this is intensely anecdotal… but it does cause me to wonder if anyone has looked into the daily pattern of cloudiness? If it’s 10% or 20% more cloudy until 10am to 4pm but “normal” in the middle and the measurements only measure the middle, it will never show up in the numbers (but it will be a heck of a lot cooler mid day…).
The best I can do for you is the raw daily numerical data for the western states, including one (CA) the other 49 hope will secede. When you’re finished deconstructing Gisstemp, start your new project at:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ ;~P
Well wouldn’t you know it. I’m sure if you look down through the recent threads that are still visible; you will discover where I detailed the sunspot counts at least back to cycle #5 citing Willie Son’s book, and offering the average sunspot counts since cycle 15-16 era as evidence of at least a correlation between solar activity, at least as manifested by sunspot numbers and the recent period of admittedly somewhat warmer temperatures.
No I didn’t claim, and still do not claim; this as a CAUSE of that recent warming; just as evidence of an association for those who protested they couldn’t see any 11 year or 22 year temperature variation link. Neither can I, and I wouldn’t claim such exists. The first graph at the top of this report pretty much agrees with the data in Dr Soon’s book which I drew from.
Then if you throw in Dr Svensmark et al’s thesis of cosmic ray/solar cycle linkage; you have at least a mechanism for causality; or at least a partial causality.
Now I came up with my belief of this sun temperature linkage; basically with nothing more than a stick on a desert island sandy beach, and those sunspot cycle curves, and my knowledge of cosmic rays; and a belief that water is in control of the whole thing via cloud cover modulation.
So I don’t need NASA to reaffirm what I came up with by myself; but it is encouraging to know that others are seeing similar linkages.
This data; along with John Christy’s paper on the Argo buoy data (Jan 2001 Geophysical Research Letters; and Wentz et al’s paper “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring” Science July-7 2007 comprise the tool kit which I believe is sufficient to unmask Arrhenius, and his absurd thesis of “Climate sensitivity”, and CO2 caused global warming.
So I am convinced that the realists will win the day eventually; and hopefully before powerful fools do actual real damage to humanity and this planet. In the process we will probably learn a lot more of the physical linkages, that control these processes. Maybe one day “Climatology” will actually morph into a science.
George
George E. Smith (10:18:38):
This data; along with John Christy’s paper on the Argo buoy data (Jan 2001 Geophysical Research Letters; and Wentz et al’s paper “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring” Science July-7 2007 comprise the tool kit which I believe is sufficient to unmask Arrhenius, and his absurd thesis of “Climate sensitivity”, and CO2 caused global warming.
Absurd and arbitrary “climate sensitivity”. Adhered to experimental data, I’ve not derived those 5.35 W/m^2 for a gas which partial pressure in the atmosphere is 0.00034 atmo, which its absorbency is 0.001, and its total emittancy is 0.423 W/m^2.
Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:
You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.
The Sun has increased its radiative output throughout geological time and has not dimmed or decreased.
It is easy (or convenient) for some to conclude that an observed 0.1 % variation of TSI during a contemporary solar cycle is proof that the sun’s abient oupt of 1361 watts/m^2 is frozen in time and therefore the sun has a negligable connection to climate variation. This is similar to measuring the ocean tide high marks and low marks for several months and concluding that the sea level could not possibly been at a lower level than the contemporary low mark.
What data do the deniers of solar terrestrial climate influence have that shows that the ambient level of the sun does not vary with a cycle time of many centuries? What data do they have that shows periods of higher sunspot and magnetic activity are not associated with a higher ambient output level of the sun?
Sarcasm is not data!
Isn’t this the same result that the US Army reported about 2 years ago ?
Leif Svalgaard (11:22:53) :
Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
The Sun has increased its radiative output throughout geological time and has not dimmed or decreased.
I’m talking about normal fluctuations of the solar power:
“You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.”
Thus, we can attribute the changes of global climate throughout the geological timescale to intrinsic and inherent factors of Earth (besides and secondary to the Milankovitch Cycles) which are not related to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for the physics reasons to which I have alluded here, in some university forums and in Biocab’s website.
On this aspect, I have considered other factors like external operators of Earth’s climate, like extrasolar cosmic radiation, for example. But you and I have discussed the latter issue in other forums and it has been weary; we could discuss it again if you wish to start a dialogue on this issue.
David Reese (11:29:11) :
What data do the deniers of solar terrestrial climate influence have that shows that the ambient level of the sun does not vary with a cycle time of many centuries?
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23”. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is
Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ‘modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. One could imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn’t change] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer [e.g. during the Maunder Minimum] than it is now at activity minimum.
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.
For these [and other reasons] we believe that significant changes in the ‘ambient’ solar output have not been demonstrated and that it therefore is premature to ascribe significant climate change to non-observed changes in the Sun.
What data do they have that shows periods of higher sunspot and magnetic activity are not associated with a higher ambient output level of the sun?
But it is, all of 0.1%
Sarcasm is not data!
Neither is anger and frustration over AGW.
Ron de Haan’s comment earlier about microbes got me thinking – is there any evidence that the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 during the 20’s in the US due to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages (hence no fermentation products from alcohol brewing) had any effect on temperatures?
Maybe this could solve the problem now – perhaps the west should ban alcohol and leavened bread. Should play well in the Middle East 🙂
Quote:’Leif Svalgaard (11:22:53) :
On this aspect, I have considered other factors like external operators of Earth’s climate, like extrasolar cosmic radiation, for example. But you and I have discussed the latter issue in other forums and it has been weary; we could discuss it again if you wish to start a dialogue on this issue.’ end Quote
I think we are missing something major regarding solar forcing and would like to have a list of hypotheses about how the clear link between solar activity and global temperature can happen with the apparent small increase in solar energy hitting our planet?
One of the many things I’ve thought about is the effects of extra cosmic radiation and I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this please, along with any ideas of how this could catalyse other possible significant climate processes.
All ideas more than welcome from anyone, no matter how tenuous they may seem.
Nasif Nahle (12:53:54) :
“The Sun has increased its radiative output throughout geological time and has not dimmed or decreased.”
I’m talking about normal fluctuations of the solar power
There is no evidence for such fluctuations aside from what we see the last few centuries.
Tenuc (13:38:00) :
I’ve thought about is the effects of extra cosmic radiation and I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this please, along with any ideas of how this could catalyse other possible significant climate processes.
This is the current ‘orthodoxy’ of sun/climate connections and everything one says will be met with fierce resistance from the cult members. But here are my thoughts:
1) cosmic ray flux [CRF] varies [inversely] with solar activity
2) CRF is supposed to work its magic through changing the albedo which should then vary as the solar cycle [cf. 1]
3) such variation is not observed
4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
5) climate has varied over time
For these reasons the CRF hypothesis is weak and does not IMHO form a firm basis on which to stand in the fight against AGE, if that is one’s goal, or as a viable explanation of climate change.
Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :
does not IMHO form a firm basis on which to stand in the fight against AGE
The ‘E’ and ‘W’ are next to one another on my keyboard 🙂
Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
“A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:
You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.”
Biotic enhancement of weathering and the habitability of Earth
David W. Schwartzman* & Tyler Volk†
AN important question in the Earth sciences is the role of the biota in the chemical weathering of silicate rocks, which affects atmospheric CO2 and therefore climate1-10. No comprehensive study of biotic influences, however, has quantitatively examined the climatic consequences were weathering to take place under completely abiotic conditions. Here we calculate that if today’s weathering is 10, 100 or 1,000 times the abiotic weathering rate, then an abiotic Earth would be, respectively, approx15, 30 or 45 °C warmer than today.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v340/n6233/abs/340457a0.html
This has been understood for a long time
eg http://openlibrary.org/b/OL20223085M/cycle-of-weathering-…
We even have a “nice” mathematical model ..eg
“The complexity of biological phenomena”
Kolmogorov, A. N., I.G. Petrovskii, and N.S. Piskunov 1937
A Study of the Equations of Diffusion Accompanied by an Increase in the Amount of Matter, and Its Application to a Biological Problem
NASA seems to be soliciting our advice.
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/06/nasa_asks_for_public_comment_o.html
I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time. Beyond just Veizer & Shaviv, I know there are some ongoing studies looking at salt formations, like this one, to identify variations in the CRF…Primarily looking for indications of past supernovae.
If Veizer’s & Shaviv’s meteorite-derived CRF cycle has any validity, the salt studies should see a similar pattern.
Dave Middleton (14:59:58) :
4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time.
Now, don’t confuse the issue. We are talking about historical time, not millions or billions of years. Solar activity was also MUCH stronger billions of years ago, so all bets are off, when it comes to the longest view. For now, we are only discussing what we know about and what [more importantly] have relevance for the current situation.
maksimovich (14:44:59) :
Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
“A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:
You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.”
Biotic enhancement of weathering and the habitability of Earth
The whole thing can be taken in the opposite way. What is sure is that the Earth has oceans and a relatively-large satellite which modify its climate. We are sure that the oceans are the main regulators of the atmospheric temperature.
On the other hand, angiosperms had to evolve under a continuous evolution of abiotic conditions, which means that those plants could not be promoters of any cooling, but that the cooling forced the evolution of angiosperms, especially when we know that changes of condenser agents happened before any biotic change.
Dave Middleton (14:59:58) :
Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :
4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time. Beyond just Veizer & Shaviv, I know there are some ongoing studies looking at salt formations, like this one, to identify variations in the CRF…Primarily looking for indications of past supernovae.
If Veizer’s & Shaviv’s meteorite-derived CRF cycle has any validity, the salt studies should see a similar pattern.
Of course there have been variations of the interstellar cosmic radiation (ICR). There are cosmic clouds which are the remainders of supernovas through which our solar system travels from time to time. For example, the current cosmic cloud we are crossing now:
Stone, E. C., et all. Voyager 1 Explores the Termination Shock Region and the Heliosheat Beyond. Science, Vol. 309, Issue 5743, 2017-2020, 23 September 2005.
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J. Is the Solar System Entering a Nearby Interstellar Cosmic Cloud. The Astrophysical Journal. Vol. 223; pp. 589-600. July 15, 1978. Website: http://adsabs.harvard.edu.
D. A. Gurnett and W. S. Kurth. Electron Plasma Oscillations Upstream of the Solar Wind Termination shock. Science; Vol. 309, pages 2025 – 2027. 23. September 2005.
Dorman, L. I.; Kaminer, N. S.; Kuzimicheva, A. E.; Khadakhanova, T. S. Increase in cosmic-ray intensity before the Forbush decrease of April 1971.
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, vol. 20, Aug. 1980, p. 82, 83.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v94/i4/p1017_1
http://www.cosmicrays.org/muon-rays.php
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JA013689.shtml
Camp and Tung find a solar cycle impact of about .2 degreesK from solar min to solar max in the observations. None of the models, presumably the NASA model included managed to reproduce this:
“Currently no GCM has succeeded in simulating a solar-cycle response of the observed amplitude near the surface. Clearly a correct simulation of a global-scale warming on decadal time scale is needed before predictions into the future on multi-decadal scale can be accepted with confidence.”
Perhaps the reason the simple radiative calculations are exceeded is that the earth’s climate is in a regime where the water vapor pressure increases rapidly with temperature. Under representing the climate response to the key competing hypothesis to AGW does not inspire confidence in the models.
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :
There is no evidence for such fluctuations aside from what we see the last few centuries.
And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of solar irradiance, etc. 🙂
Dear moderators… I’d like to know how to post a pdf here. Thanks in advance for your explanation. 🙂
REPLY: You have to upload it to a file service, web server, or ftp server then link to it in the comment. – Anthony
Thanks a lot, Anthony… Alas, it is a third party article, so I got the service for the pdf. Here it goes:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978ApJ…223..589V&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf