New ideas on Total Solar Irradiance and flares

From: SOHO sheds new light on solar flares

ESA Science & Technology

After detailed analysis of data from the SOHO and GOES spacecraft, a team of European scientists has been able to shed new light on the role of solar flares in the total output of radiation from our nearest star. Their surprising conclusion is that X-rays account for only about 1 per cent of the total energy emitted by these explosive events.

This SOHO/EIT image records two huge solar flares that were detected in October 2003. (Click here for the movie and further details.)

Credit: ESA/NASA

Flares are sudden energy releases in the Sun’s atmosphere that occur when the solar magnetic field is locally unstable. When the magnetic field lines break and reconnect, large amounts of energy are released, accelerating the surrounding particles to almost the speed of light. The temperature of the flares can soar to millions of degrees. At such sizzling temperatures, much of their radiation is emitted as X-rays.

Not surprisingly, most flares are imaged and studied at X-ray or extreme ultraviolet wavelengths, since they are more difficult to observe and analyse in visible light. Although more than 20 000 flares occurred in the last solar cycle (1996-2007), only four exceptionally large ones were identified as contributors to the total solar irradiance (TSI), i.e. the light received at all wavelengths on Earth.

In an effort to calculate how much energy is actually contributed to the TSI by flares, researchers from the Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace (LPC2E) in Orléans (France), collaborating with Swiss and Belgium teams, have been analysing 11 years of observations from space.

The team analysed the record of X-ray data acquired by the US GOES spacecraft during the entire solar cycle to detect the flares and record the times of their peak activity. The scientists eventually selected about 2000 flares which occurred near the centre of the solar disc. They then turned to the PMO and DIARAD radiometers of the VIRGO experiment on board the ESA/NASA SOHO spacecraft for information about the overall solar radiation heading toward Earth.

The next task was to identify any small peaks in TSI caused by the flares. This task was complicated by the random ‘noise’ generated by the Sun’s turbulent atmosphere. In order to recognise the contribution due to flares alone, the team used a statistical method to superimpose X-ray and TSI data taken at short time intervals around the period when a flare occurred. In this way, they were able to remove the random ‘noise’ from the data.

The problem was to recognise the overall output from flares, radiated simultaneously at all wavelengths and in the visible domain, despite the natural fluctuations of the solar irradiance,” said Matthieu Kretzschmar, researcher at the LPC2E and first author of the study in Nature Physics. “It is like looking for 1-metre-high waves, caused by flares, within a rough sea where there are 70-metre-high waves caused by natural fluctuations.”

To solve this problem, we amplified the ‘one-meter-high waves’ using the ‘superposed-epoch analysis’ method. The idea was to temporally superpose the total irradiance light curves for several flares. Natural random fluctuations in the solar irradiance cancel each other out, but the fluctuations caused by the flares are added and amplified.”

A significant peak was apparent in the total solar irradiance using the method of Kretzschmar et al. (Click on the image for a larger figure and further details.)

Credit: Image from Kretzschmar et al.,(2010).

The analysis led to a surprising result: there was a significant peak in the TSI when a flare occurred. Not only was the total radiative output of the Sun sensitive to both large and small flares, but the total energy radiated by flares was found to be over 100 times greater than the energy that they radiate in X-rays. It turns out that X-rays contribute only a tiny part of the overall output of radiation during solar flares.

These results, obtained within the framework of the European Community’s SOTERIA project, will help to improve current theoretical models of flares and understanding of the variability in the solar irradiance that reaches our planet. They could also help to shed light on the behaviour of more distant stars, some of which may also host planetary systems.

Many stars are much more active than our Sun and emit extremely powerful flares,” said Bernhard Fleck, ESA’s SOHO Project Scientist. “This new estimate of the energy distribution of solar flares suggests that such flares may be extremely bright in visible light as well as X-rays, possibly with dramatic consequences for any nearby planets.”

Related publication:

M. Kretzschmar, T. Dudok de Wit, W. Schmudtz, S. Mekaoui, J.F. Hochedez, S. Dewitte, “The effect of flares on total solar irradiance”, Nature Physics, vol. 6, pp. 690–692, 2010. DOI: 10.1038/nphys1741

Contacts:

Matthieu Kretzschmar

LPC2E: Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace

CNRS / Université d’Orléans, France

Email: matthieu.kretzschmarcnrs-orleans.fr

Phone:+33 2 38 25 50 39

Bernhard Fleck

ESA SOHO Project Scientist

Science Operations Department

Science and Robotic Exploration Directorate, ESA

Email: bfleckesa.nascom.nasa.gov

Phone: +1 301 286 4098

For further information please contact: SciTech.editorial@esa.int

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
95 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mojo
October 15, 2010 8:22 am

Gee, let’s see: we’ve got one magnetosphere sitting inside another, much larger magnetosphere and being bombarded bu charged particles at a good fraction of light-speed.
Think there might be a coupling there?

johnnythelowery
October 15, 2010 8:36 am

(Layman) Wow. Back to where we started on the TSI. What an incredible enigma this (now deadpan) sun is.
Leif: Is there any instrument sets we havn’t heard from, or data collected from some of the new craft recently coming online, that has not been analyzed fully? Or is this the end of the line for any evidence to come forward that could show a more variable TSI than what we’ve (you’ve) found in the past?
So, if it’s not the Sun’s TSI causing the run up in the warming of the earth upto 1996
(all agreed) and it ain’t CO2(!), even though Piers Corbyn is making cash out of his Sun based Climate/Weather model….. Then it must be related to the T-ES-I incoming total extra-solar Irradiation(T-ES-I) …..modulated by the Sun? So, it’s about what the Sun’s TSI does to the Total, Incoming, Extra-Solar radiation?

Muddy Wadders
October 15, 2010 8:49 am

@mojo: “Think there might be a coupling there?”
Got your particles working,
but it just won’t work on photons.

October 15, 2010 8:57 am

mojo says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:22 am
Gee, let’s see: we’ve got one magnetosphere sitting inside another, much larger magnetosphere and being bombarded bu charged particles at a good fraction of light-speed.
These magnetospheres actually protect us a bit from what is coming at us. And ‘bombarded’ is hardly the correct description of the trickle of particles trying to make their way though the various shields [including our thick atmosphere] that keep them out.

Ron Griffis
October 15, 2010 9:07 am

Yes, 0.03 Watt/m2 compared to the full TSI of ~1361 W/m2 appears to be a trivial amount of energy. However, based on a very rough calculation, that comes to about 3.8 terawatts, or about one third the total annual power consumption of human civilization, hitting the Earth per second. Though still trivial compared to the total energy delivered, it is nevertheless a lot of energy. Yes, both the daily and annual fluctuations are much larger, but those are short cycles compared to decade or multi-decade cycles.
While I do not suggest that the atmosphere would be directly warmed to a significant degree by this additional energy, I do think it is worthwhile to consider what cumulative effect might result from a portion of this energy (about 2.5 TW/sec?) absorbed by the world’s oceans. Also, this is just taking solar flares into account, it does not include the larger total change in TSI throughout the solar cycle. Isn’t it possible that this could indirectly affect the climate?

DirkH
October 15, 2010 9:11 am

Very nice analysis method.

Ron Griffis
October 15, 2010 9:15 am

Clarification: In my previous post, I am not considering the effect of a single solar flare, rather the cumulative affect all solar flares as the number and intensity fluctuates over time. Naturally, a single solar flare on its own is of little consequence.

October 15, 2010 9:25 am

johnnythelowery says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
that has not been analyzed fully? Or is this the end of the line for any evidence to come forward that could show a more variable TSI than what we’ve (you’ve) found in the past?
Do data ts ever analyzed ‘fully’. With new knowledge and insight, even old data can yield surprises upon re-analysis.
though Piers Corbyn is making cash out of his Sun based Climate/Weather model
“There is a sucker born every minute”…
TSI does to the Total, Incoming, Extra-Solar radiation?
TSI is the total. That is perhaps the problem, as the distribution within that total could be important. But I don’t think any ‘extra’ variation is needed as a complex system [as climate] has natural random fluctuations built in. It has proven very difficult to establish any external causes [no shortage of conflicting claims, of course].

October 15, 2010 9:54 am

Ron Griffis says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:07 am
I do think it is worthwhile to consider what cumulative effect might result from a portion of this energy (about 2.5 TW/sec?) absorbed by the world’s oceans.
In a solar cycle there are a few thousand flares each lasting about 10 minutes. Over the 11 year cycle there are about 600,000 10-minute intervals, i.e. a hundred times as many, so the cumulative effect is very small.
Also, this is just taking solar flares into account, it does not include the larger total change in TSI throughout the solar cycle. Isn’t it possible that this could indirectly affect the climate?
Indeed, the total cycle-related change is much larger than that from flares, and, yes, we would expect [and do find] about a 0.1 degree effect from the total change in TSI.

Guillermo Gefaell
October 15, 2010 10:14 am

Leif,
Do you knoe Komitov’s work on Sun and Climete?
http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf
http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/07_BKomitov.pdf
http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n13/07_BKomitov1.pdf
He says it s not TSI by itself what is important to alter climate, but the Sun’s modulation of cosmic rays plus the addition fluxes of high energy solar particles, with energies higher than 100 MeV.
What’s your opinion?

David Ball
October 15, 2010 10:17 am

I still dispute the idea that TSI is the only effect that the sun has on the earth and the earth’s climate.

October 15, 2010 10:20 am

Guillermo Gefaell says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:14 am
I know Boris Komitov well.
He says it s not TSI by itself what is important to alter climate, but the Sun’s modulation of cosmic rays plus the addition fluxes of high energy solar particles, with energies higher than 100 MeV. What’s your opinion?
There is even less energy in those particles, so for that to work they must act through an intermediate, e.g. cloud formation and albedo changes. Observations have tended not to support that view [although you can find claims both ways]

David Ball
October 15, 2010 10:23 am

Despite what Leif’s opinion of Corben is, Corben seems to have the predictive capability which is a big part of the scientific method. You know, the ability to use the available data to make predictions.

October 15, 2010 10:24 am

David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:17 am
I still dispute the idea that TSI is the only effect that the sun has on the earth and the earth’s climate.
Disputing is not enough. You have to positively come up with something else that is energetically viable and physically plausible [perhaps even supported by some data].

October 15, 2010 10:27 am

David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:17 am
I still dispute the idea that TSI is the only effect that the sun has on the earth and the earth’s climate.
BTW, your statement is disingenuous as there are lots of effects that the Sun has on the earth [e.g. aurorae, HF radio communication], and these are not caused by TSI. This has nothing to with climate and should not be thrown into mix.

Guillermo Gefaell
October 15, 2010 10:33 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:20 am
I know Boris Komitov well.
There is even less energy in those particles, so for that to work they must act through an intermediate, e.g. cloud formation and albedo changes. Observations have tended not to support that view [although you can find claims both ways]
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Well, cloud cover variation due to cosmic rays and high energy particles from the Sun seem to be intriguing enough as for the CERN spending several million euros (70?) and 10 years investigating, as you know.
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

October 15, 2010 10:34 am

Amazing how they are always SURPRISED by their findings when they are so positive that they have the right model for how the sun works!!

October 15, 2010 10:40 am

David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:23 am
Despite what Leif’s opinion of Corben is, Corben seems to have the predictive capability which is a big part of the scientific method. You know, the ability to use the available data to make predictions.
Another important part is independent verification and replication and he fails big in that department. You have to show that Corbyn follows the scientific method: you know, forming a hypothesis, publishing it for review making it part of the scientific ‘corpus’, prediction, verification, replication, solid science.

David Ball
October 15, 2010 10:48 am

Perhaps an Iron/Nickel core spinning in a magnetic field surrounded by a much larger magnetic field (sun’s)? Have we been able to quantize the energies created by this interaction? I think not, as we really do not know much about the earth’s core, other than what is surmised through conjecture. This is just one possible effect of the sun on the earth. I am NOT an academic, but I am very interested in the subject. You should not discourage this in people.

October 15, 2010 10:53 am

Guillermo Gefaell says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:33 am
seem to be intriguing enough as for the CERN spending several million euros (70?) and 10 years investigating, as you know.
But nothing has come of it, except for the finding [!] that they need to keep their apparatus clean.

October 15, 2010 10:57 am

David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:48 am
This is just one possible effect of the sun on the earth.
As far as we know the Sun has no effect on the generation of the Earth’s magnetic field.
I am NOT an academic, but I am very interested in the subject. You should not discourage this in people.
As anybody who has followed WUWT knows I strongly encourage interest in this subject by providing whatever I can of background material, analysis, and [yes, when needed] constructive criticism.

October 15, 2010 11:04 am

Guillermo Gefaell says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:33 am
CERN spending several million euros (70?)
CERN has not spent any money, just lent some no-longer used facility to non-CERN researchers funded by their own institutions.

David A. Evans
October 15, 2010 11:05 am

Alan the Brit says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

“innocent people have nothing to fear!” That’s when I get scared!

Me too. Already on the records despite never having been charged, let alone convicted of a criminal offence.
DaveE.

David A. Evans
October 15, 2010 11:24 am

David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:48 am
I think the last thing Leif wants to do is discourage interest an seeking after knowledge. I think he just doesn’t want you going off half assed on a fools errand.
On the other hand, some great discoveries have been made that way, cites bacteria causing stomach ulcers.
DaveE.

October 15, 2010 11:27 am

Alan the Brit says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:18 am
but these, what are at times unimaginable humungous natural forces, pale into insignificance when you take manmade CO2 (15ppm out of 390ppm) production into account!

Certainly, when you get the numbers right: ~100ppm not 15ppm.