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
I am so friggin happy that someone finally told the truth, [an end] to Global Warming (AGW) anyway, hope they dont spin this somehow.
@Leif…
Here, a reference to iron stained grains:
I. P. Martini (Editor), W. Chesworth. Weathering, Soils & Paleosols (Developments in Earth Surface Processes). Chapter 12, page 283-299.
Nasif Nahle (16:33:12) :
Leif… Where did I say that the precision for measuring TSI from the examination of iron stained quartz is better than direct measurements?
The reason that we go around in circles is that you have not shown me a graph or table that shows the TSI derived from the grains. Until you do, this is non-existent. And it is not enough for me that we might, or we could, or it is conceivable, or some such. Has it been done? Where and what is the result?
Leif Svalgaard (10:27:36) :
Milankovich cycles, which has nothing to do with the Sun.
One thing I have learned from Carsten’s now de bunked “falsification” of spin-orbit coupling is how much of an effect the gravity perturbation of orbits has on angular momentum.
With the 100,000 yr Milankovich cycle which is responsible for big changes in orbit shape, we could also expect big changes in angular momentum. This could have a major impact on solar output.
Geoff Sharp (19:04:29) :
One thing I have learned from Carsten’s now de bunked “falsification” of spin-orbit coupling is how much of an effect the gravity perturbation of orbits has on angular momentum.
First of all, Carsten’s falsification has not been debunked by anybody knowledgeable about physics. Second, the Sun’s orbital momentum is precisely balanced by the planet’s angular momentum and neither has any influence on the spin angular momentum. This did not really take Carsten’s calculations to show as it was clear from simple physics [e.g. as Shirley showed], but Carsten’s calculations were important for him to understand the physics and the solidify the falsification in his mind.
With the 100,000 yr Milankovich cycle which is responsible for big changes in orbit shape, we could also expect big changes in angular momentum. This could have a major impact on solar output.
The cycles have to do with changes to the Earth’s orbit which are tiny compared to the orbits that matter for angular momentum. And the orbital angular momentum has nothing to do with the solar output. The use of weasel word ‘could’ does not change that.
Leif Svalgaard (17:52:50) :
The reason that we go around in circles is that you have not shown me a graph or table that shows the TSI derived from the grains. Until you do, this is non-existent. And it is not enough for me that we might, or we could, or it is conceivable, or some such. Has it been done? Where and what is the result?
It’s a difficult task for me to create such a graph or table; however, it’s not impossible. Would you be happy if I don’t go back farther than 300 years?
Leif Svalgaard (19:12:48) :
First of all, Carsten’s falsification has not been debunked by anybody knowledgeable about physics.
Its not rocket science….spin orbit coupling requires two components, orbital AM & spin AM. You cant toss one of them out (spin), then do a test on the other, find they match and claim its falsified. This is very poor science and I am surprised you have supported it, and while the data suggests the Sun has a varying equatorial rotation speed the door will remain open. If you think it still has merit lets see it presented properly and have it peer reviewed….I am sure you could help him.
The cycles have to do with changes to the Earth’s orbit which are tiny compared to the orbits that matter for angular momentum.
So you are saying that only the Earth’s orbit changes over time?
Nasif Nahle (19:34:06) :
It’s a difficult task for me to create such a graph or table; however, it’s not impossible. Would you be happy if I don’t go back farther than 300 years?
You mean that none of the works you reference has such graph or table? Well, let’s see what you can do that they haven’t been able to or not felt the importance of doing…
Geoff Sharp (20:07:19) :
You cant toss one of them out (spin), then do a test on the other, find they match and claim its falsified.
Yes, because there is no coupling between them.
This is very poor science and I am surprised you have supported it,
No, this is the correct science as has been known for centuries. And I honestly think you do not know what science is, let alone being able to distinguish good from bad.
and while the data suggests the Sun has a varying equatorial rotation speed the door will remain open.
There are winds in the Sun’s atmosphere that [just as in the Earth’s] move angular momentum [or actually moment of inertia] between the equator and the poles. This does not change the Sun’s angular momentum which stays strictly constant.
If you think it still has merit lets see it presented properly and have it peer reviewed….I am sure you could help him.
It has been done [e.g. Shirley] and it is a non-problem and one does not get brownie points for trying to publish what is already known. And, even if we did, you either wouldn’t understand the paper or would dismiss it anyway for other reasons.
So you are saying that only the Earth’s orbit changes over time?
This is a blatant example of how little you know. The big planets perturb the little planets much more than the little planets perturb the big planets, and all planets dance to their mutual interactions, but none of these dance steps change the rotation of any of the dance partners, including the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (20:12:18) :
You mean that none of the works you reference has such graph or table? Well, let’s see what you can do that they haven’t been able to or not felt the importance of doing…
Exactly, no one of the works that I’ve read has such graph of table. Perhaps because those books doesn’t deal directly with solar physics, but with global climate, not precisely because they didn’t feel important doing it.
What if they go from the Tango, to the Watusi, to the Funky Chicken, to the Mashed Potato (or potatoe, for Quayle fans)?
Nasif Nahle (21:16:05) :
Exactly, no one of the works that I’ve read has such graph of table. Perhaps because those books doesn’t deal directly with solar physics, but with global climate, not precisely because they didn’t feel important doing it.
Or more likely that they know the precision is not high enough [and the assumptions are too many] to say anything meaningful about TSI. Which was my point from the beginning, that we don’t have any independent and precise measurements or proxies of TSI from before the sunspot era. Even the sunspot number derived from cosmic ray count is twice removed from TSI, as the deposition of radionuclei depends on many other factors than just solar magnetic activity. So, it seems we need to go around the bush several more times, …
Jeff Alberts (21:23:45) :
What if they go from the Tango, to the Watusi, to the Funky Chicken, to the Mashed Potato (or potatoe, for Quayle fans)?
Geoff should be qualified to answer this.
Leif Svalgaard (19:12:48) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:12:48) :
First of all, Carsten’s falsification has not been debunked by anybody knowledgeable about physics. Second, the Sun’s orbital momentum is precisely balanced by the planet’s angular momentum and neither has any influence on the spin angular momentum. This did not really take Carsten’s calculations to show as it was clear from simple physics [e.g. as Shirley showed], but Carsten’s calculations were important for him to understand the physics and the solidify the falsification in his mind.
Since I have become the subject of this discussion, let me just confirm Leifs accurate description of what my calculations showed and why I performed them. The fact that Geoff apparently has an axe to grind does not influence the physics or the conclusion.
Leif Svalgaard (20:22:56) :
No, this is the correct science as has been known for centuries.
Put it up for review then….you know it will fail because the premise is wrong.
There are winds in the Sun’s atmosphere that
You are confusing differential rotation with overall equatorial rotation.
This is a blatant example of how little you know.
What I do know is that all orbits vary over time. Any changes to the outer 3 jovians will affect Jupiter’s AM. What those changes are I dont know, or which direction they are moving, but I am just showing the possibility of AM changes because of orbit eccentricity changes. Whether this translates to a change in solar output is still an open issue….hence the weasel word.
Leif Svalgaard (21:29:39) :
“Even the sunspot number derived from cosmic ray count is twice removed from TSI, as the deposition of radionuclei depends on many other factors than just solar magnetic activity.”
The long term negative trend in Be10 C14 Isotopes indicate CR flux reducing at a rate of about -0.05 %/year for say the last 500 years
Geoff Sharp (21:38:39) :
Put it up for review then….you know it will fail because the premise is wrong.
It will fail because the reviewer will [rightly] ask what is new from already published works, e.g. by Shirley at JPL [ http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf ].
Shirley points out that:
“The rotational velocity of a particle is proportional to the perpendicular distance of the particle from the axis of rotation; this may be obtained from V = ω × r , (1) where ω represents the angular velocity of rotation. It seems quite reasonable to apply this equation to the case of orbital revolution, by employing an appropriate value for ω and substituting R + r for r in the above equation. If we do this […], we obtain different inertial system orbital velocities for particles found at different locations within the body of the Sun. These differences are hypothesized to give rise to material flows within the Sun, thereby altering the rotational velocities, and thus coupling the orbital and rotational motions.
However, the use of the above equation for representing particle motions associated with the solar motion is incorrect.To see why this is so, we must recognize a fundamental difference between rotation and revolution. In rotation, the constituent particles of a subject body move in concentric trajectories with velocities that depend upon their position in relation to the axis of rotation (equation 1). In revolution, the particles of the body move in parallel trajectories with identical velocities (aside from small differences produced by the gradients that give rise to the tides). In gravitational physics, this motion is identified as a state of free fall.
The velocity with respect to the barycentre β of the location A (or A’) is at all times identical to that of the solar centre of mass (CMS). The orbital velocities of A and CMS are identical, but their curvilinear trajectories are not concentric. In effect, each particle of the subject body revolves about its own unique centre of revolution. Thus, there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar system barycentre; and the spin–orbit coupling hypothesis must be discarded.
Juckett (2000) presents a solar spin–orbit coupling mechanism that involves a transfer of angular momentum between the orbital and rotational reservoirs. The spin angular momentum for particles may be written as l = m ω r 2. (2) Substituting R + r for r in this equation, and referring once more to Fig. 1, it is evident that the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum l for particles situated at the locations A and A’ must differ significantly. Juckett (2000) relates differences such as these to the observed variability of the solar differential rotation, suggesting that the differences in orbital angular momentum are in effect compensated by changes in the spin angular momentum. As noted in the introduction, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that something of this sort may indeed be occurring [Shirley is a strong believer in the correlations and thinks that some other mechanisms should be looked at]. However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution.
The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modeling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem (yet another example is found in Section 2 of De Jager & Versteegh 2005). The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type.”
“There are winds in the Sun’s atmosphere that”
You are confusing differential rotation with overall equatorial rotation.
‘overall’? The equatorial rotation is at the equator. I think most solar physicists would agree that I’m somewhat on an expert on solar rotation [having published on it and actively measured it], so it is not likely that I can be so confused.
What I do know is that all orbits vary over time. Any changes to the outer 3 jovians will affect Jupiter’s AM. What those changes are I dont know, or which direction they are moving, but I am just showing the possibility of AM changes because of orbit eccentricity changes.
The AM is constant, but each planet’s contribution to the sum varies with time, sometimes one planet contribution is more and another one’s is less to conserve the constant sum, but it is all completely balanced as Carsten showed.
Whether this translates to a change in solar output is still an open issue….hence the weasel word.
Since there is no coupling there is no change, and if it is an open issue as you claim, then statements such as you ‘can precisely predict solar activity centuries in advance’ are on flimsy ground indeed.
maksimovich (22:13:59) :
The long term negative trend in Be10 C14 Isotopes indicate CR flux reducing at a rate of about -0.05 %/year for say the last 500 years
I don’t think there is any good evidence for that. First of all, the geomagnetic field is decreasing which should increase the CR flux, second [and more importantly] a high-quality ice core from
Greenland shows no such systematic change over the past 600 year: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf [Figure 1]. There are the usual ups and downs associated with the various swings in solar activity, with about equally deep minima [corresponding to activity maxima] around 1600s, 1740s, 1790s, 1850s, 1875s, 1950s, but I see no long-term trend and the paper does not claim any. Perhaps if one corrects for the decrease in the geomagnetic field one could infer a slight decrease in the ‘real’ CRF over the interval, possibly due to a change in the interstellar flux, but that would be very speculative, and would have no bearing on the effect of the CRF as what we see is what we get.
Leif Svalgaard (22:20:54) :
but I am just showing the possibility of AM changes because of orbit eccentricity changes.
The AM is constant, but each planet’s contribution to the sum varies with time,…
just getting the tags right.
Leif Svalgaard (22:20:54) :
Lets get Shirley’s work into perspective. It is VERY different to the work Carsten has done. Shirley argues the non existence of spin-orbit coupling in relation to TWO authors, namely Juckett & Zaqarashvili.
Later he writes:
“The disqualification of the particular hypotheses of Zaqarashvili
(1997) and Juckett (2000) does not diminish the scientific interest of
this problem. Evidence for the existence of some form of solar spin–
orbit coupling has accumulated in recent years, and it is possible that
some more successful hypothesis will in future resolve this puzzling
conundrum.”
You forgot to incl this part but he obviously leaves the door open. His work is in no shape or form consistent with Carsten’s work. Carsten argues that if planetary AM equals Solar AM there can be no spin orbit coupling. If your going to provide evidence at least make it applicable. I’ll say it again, present this “new evidence” properly or dont use it at all.
Leif Svalgaard (22:35:16) :
“possibly due to a change in the interstellar flux,”
Indeed
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/negativetrendgcr.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:40) :
The AM is constant, but each planet’s contribution to the sum varies with time,…
There is a positive from Carsten’s work for me…The individual Planet AM graphs are revealing. I am beginning to think only Jupiter matters when it comes to Solar AM, BUT the outer 3 jovians regulate the “Jupiter AM” possibly through gravity perturbations only. More work to be done.
But if this pans out, a change in orbit eccentricity of the outer 3 could very well influence Jupiter’s AM.
Geoff Sharp (22:45:46) :
Lets get Shirley’s work into perspective. It is VERY different to the work Carsten has done. Shirley argues the non existence of spin-orbit coupling in relation to TWO authors, namely Juckett & Zaqarashvili.
Not at all, his result and Carsten’s are precisely the same namely that there is no coupling, and the two authors are just two examples of the wrong application of the mechanisms. You sould fall in the category with Juckett [section 4].
Later he writes:
“The disqualification of the particular hypotheses of Zaqarashvili
(1997) and Juckett (2000) does not diminish the scientific interest of this problem…”
You forgot to incl this part but he obviously leaves the door open.
He is a strong believer in the correlations, but has realized [as should you] that there is no coupling with AM.
His work is in no shape or form consistent with Carsten’s work. Carsten argues that if planetary AM equals Solar AM there can be no spin orbit coupling. If your going to provide evidence at least make it applicable. I’ll say it again, present this “new evidence” properly or dont use it at all.
They are precisely equivalent. Shirley shows from theory that there can be no transfer of AM between the revolution and rotation and Carsten shows from actual calculation of the AM budget that there isn’t any consistent with Shirley’s that there can’t be any. You insistence of presenting this is but a straw man. Everybody knows that the AMs balance, so no paper can be written on that. Do you think an editor would publish a paper where I demonstrate that Kepler’s second law follows from Newton’s? And if we published the calculation would you then accept that as falsification?
Leif Svalgaard (21:29:39) :
Nasif Nahle (21:16:05) :
Exactly, no one of the works that I’ve read has such graph of table. Perhaps because those books doesn’t deal directly with solar physics, but with global climate, not precisely because they didn’t feel important doing it.
Or more likely that they know the precision is not high enough [and the assumptions are too many] to say anything meaningful about TSI. Which was my point from the beginning, that we don’t have any independent and precise measurements or proxies of TSI from before the sunspot era. Even the sunspot number derived from cosmic ray count is twice removed from TSI, as the deposition of radionuclei depends on many other factors than just solar magnetic activity. So, it seems we need to go around the bush several more times, …
Judge by yourself:
http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg
It’s a shame that solar physicists don’t work as fast as we do, and have a compact database on solar irradiance when the proxies are over there, at different depths underground, waiting for someone to dig and uncover them. 🙂
Geoff Sharp (23:12:00) :
There is a positive from Carsten’s work for me…The individual Planet AM graphs are revealing. I am beginning to think only Jupiter matters when it comes to Solar AM,
This is a good example of how unscientific you are. The laws of gravity and mechanics work equally for all bodies, and do not allow special cases or only work for Jupiter.