From: SOHO sheds new light on solar flares
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.kretzschmar
cnrs-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
Gravity on earth should be equal to 10 Nm, however it is just 9.81Nm. The difference 0.019 it is the combined rest of forces of the one and only field acting on it ( each part, of course, at its due angle. In each and every case it must be measured and considered.
typo: 0.19
Guillermo provided a link which contains
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_concept.pdf
Maybe little things in the TSI have far greater impact on climate than their respective ppm would suggest?
Curious, does anyone have follow-up research links? Ice crystal/cloud formation at high altitudes is of particular interest.
David Ball says: “I still dispute the idea that TSI is the only effect that the sun has on the earth and the earth’s climate.”
Dispute away. Solar-caused fluctuations in the ionosphere are orders of magnitude greater than fluctuations in TSI. The ionosphere is very tenuous, though, so it’s difficult, based on what we know, to see how it would affect the radiation budget and climate. Still, if you want to look anyplace, look there. Bring money. Be skeptical, even of your own findings. Keep your apparatus clean. And be prepared to come up dry.
DJ Meredith says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:49 am
Maybe little things in the TSI have far greater impact on climate than their respective ppm would suggest?
A 19% of the force of gravity it is more than a little. There are not separated compartments in the universal field of forces. See my last post above.
It is the same mistake when a patient of a doctor has an ulcer on its skin and he/she is delivered to a dermatologist, who tries to cure it with creams and unguents, as there would not exist the rest of a big, big, system called the human body.
We are at “interesting times” where some calluses in our brains should be and will be removed once a for all: We have superseded the French Revolution and its nearsighted “positivism”. It’s over!
BORIS posted here @ur momisugly WUWT ealier this year. In may of this year infact, here it is:
‘…………15 04 2010 Boris Komitov (00:30:41) :
I have found 25 years ago that studiying the “sunspots -temperature” dependence for a large number of metheorological stations (without smoothing) that the better relationships are of type:
T =a/Ri+b; T- temperature , Ri – the international sunspot number.
whree coefficients of correlation are between 0.35 and 0.55
The “a” values are negative in all cases, i.e the “sunspot-temperaature” relationship stay important near to sunspot minima epochs.
There are not exactly Ri= 0 mean annual values during the investigated period (1899-1979) and this is why the above mentioned relationship is possible.
However, if a shifting (cross-correlation) on 5 or 6 years is provided the relationship is transformed in the common linear with the approximately same coefficients of correlations………………’
————————————————————————————————————
The thing about Pier’s making money, but being unpublished, and the fact he has not hypothesized the mechanism the Sun/Earth connection works by is…interesting.
I’m not sure how bothered he is. If his model works, and he’s making money ( and I wonder if a statistical analysis of his forecasts has been done and shows his model is correct), why should he be bothered. It’s up to the physicists. Bit like the Wright Brothers not being too bothered about the actual mechanism of gravity while flying around in their tarped bedstead. The thing to do is to use what we do know while we figure out the finite details. Take the Iguazu River. I know there are many rivers, perhaps the Amazon even, whose water flow rate doesn’t follow Sun spot activity, but the Iguazu River does. It is said that the statisitical significance of the number of rivers following this trend means the Iguazu, isolated as it is, nulls the hypothesis that there is a link. The problem with that line of thinking, is that, the Iguazu River levels follow Sun Spot cycles which is a curious thing. To me this TSI issue IS everything. A 0.1% variance is a String in the violins of Patchy Morals and the Nupty of Nashville, Et Al. Maybe the Sun is emitting dark energy.
Minimums are irrelevant, are they not, if the TSI invariance doesn’t amount to a hill of beans?
Leif;
What do you think of Camp & Tung’s ‘Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection’? – Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L22710,doi:10.1029/2005GL024481
There are a good many scientific papers in reputable journals showing correlations with sea surface temperature and solar cycles – and Camp and Tun quantified the difference from solar max to solar min…..at 0.2 C.
This is thought too big a difference to be accounted by the small change of insolation at the sea surface due to the 0.1% fluctuation of visible wavelength radiation.
So – either they have an artefact , or there is another mechanism causing the changes – such as modulation of cloud or aerosols. Some new papers are pointing toward UV light – which varies by as much as 8% from solar peak to trough and is absorbed in the stratosphere, but the chemical reactions there induce heat and heat transfer effects extend down into the troposphere – most particularly marked on the winds of the polar vortex (Drew Shindell worked on this at NASA between 2001-2003 with several publications).
Now Mike Lockwood at Rutherford Labs here in England has looked at the relation of solar cycles, the jetstream and the blocking effect of Arctic high pressure systems on the transfer of heat from the Atlantic into Europe – he restricts his analysis and comments to ‘regional’ effects from the solar cycle…..but any oceanographic climatologist will tell you this has at the very least northern hemispheric implications (the same phenomenon will affect the Pacific North West of the USA), and teleconnections may also spread to the southern hemisphere.
Lockwood M.,Bell C., Woollings T., Harrison R.G., Gray L.G. and Haigh J.D. (2010a) Top-down solar modulation of climate: evidence for centennial-scale change
Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (July-September 2010) 034008
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034008
Lockwood M., Harrison R.G., Woollings T. and Solanki S.K. (2010b) Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (April-June 2010) 024001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001
I don’t knwo if you have seen the chapters on this issue in my book, but I reviewed much of the discussion through to 2008 – since then, several papers have been published that lead me to think the UV-Jetstream link is a good candidate mechanism, both for short term cycles and also the long term Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum type episodes when the jetstream shifts for longer periods. The recent prolonged cycle has coincided with a southerly shift and cold winters in the USA, Europe and Northern China/Mongolia. If we were to enter a new Maunder or even Dalton type minimum, then such a mechanism would presumably be prolonged, the oceans would cool, and then rewarm when the solar cycles turned up.
see also:
Scafetta N. & West B.J. (2007) Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437, 2007
Scafetta N. (2010) Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
and the following paper which shows that an abrupt drop in sea surface temperature during 1970 was not as was first thought due to anthropogenic sulphur, but to natural oceanic events – you can’t drop ocean temperatures that quickly without there being a concommitant shift in cloud cover – and hence it is studies of cloud patterns, storm tracks, heat storage in and extraction from ocean surface waters, heat transfer to land
and the links to the jetstream and Solar/UV that I think will lead us further.
I think people are also not looking at voltage shocks. I know little – but those flares look to carry quite a wack! What happens when that hits the Earth’s magnetic and electrical sphere? When Svensmark was doing his cloud-chamber experiments, he used voltage to clear the aerosols ready for the next experiment. Are these voltage hits communicated to atmospheric voltages and what effect do they have on aerosols (natural ones) that reflect light. The ‘brightening’ after the still unexplained ‘global dimming’ (thought by IPCC due to anthropogenic sulphur, but this is now known to be wrong) noted from 1980 across the globe (even in unpolluted areas) also occured for cloud-free data and hence points to an increasingly transparent atmosphere (as well as overall cloud reduction from 1980-2000).
See Thompson et al for studies on this issue:
Thompson D.W.J., Wallace J.M., Kennedy J.J. & Jones P.D. (2010) An abrupt drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970 NatureVol:467 Pages:444–447(23 September 2010)DOI:doi:10.1038/nature09394
I know you are very skeptical of solar-terrestrial links to climate but I would be interested to receive feedback via email on those chapters in the book (and happy to send you a copy if you haven’t seen it) – the literature is all referenced there and I wonder if you have looked at that literature (on sea-surface temperatures correlated with cycles) in any detail?
Leif;
Are you aware of any studies regarding the influence of ionizing radiation on the atmospheric chemsitry?
Although the impact of tsi changes during flares is insignifacant, large events can have a bigger impact on the chemistry which would change the absorption spectra of the atmosphere in the affected regions. I’ve read the Bastille Day event destroyed a little less than a percent of ozone, however, the NOx compounds and other compounds formed/destroyed were not included in the study. (Jackman)
It would only take a very small change in atmospheric chemistry to affect the greenhouse effect. No?
Hypothesis:
Atmospheric chemistry changes due to solar ionizing radiation thus altering the abosorption spectra of the atmosphere.
If, this is true, we may very well see a change in temperature should the sun remain quiet for an extended period.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:57 am
As far as we know the Sun has no effect on the generation of the Earth’s magnetic field. Response: I did not say anything about field generation.
David A. Evans says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:24 am
I have been reading and commenting on WUWT? for a long time now. I have found Dr. Svalgaard to be kind and generous with those who kiss his (snip). Otherwise, he has been childish, ignorant, bullying, condescending (shall I go on) to those who do not agree with every statement. Calling Vukevic “Einstein” on a previous thread was the last straw for me. That is not encouragement. Unacceptable behavior.
@ur momisugly DJ Meredith October 15, 2010 at 4:23 am:
Exactly. I am with you on this, DJM. 20-40 ppm increase in CO2 = planet killer, but 20 ppm energy is ho hum, don’t bother us with that.
An extra point to me is that they are all – including Leif – so certain TSI has so little to do with it, yet they are still just doing what seem like fundamental research. Is it me or shouldn’t something like this – looking at ALL frequencies – have been done like 20 years ago? What other fundamental stuff are they going to learn next year or in five years? The lack of fundamental knowledge is mind boggling. (And again, that is with all due respect to all of them, including Leif.) The science is still getting its feet on the ground, IMHO, and them making any kind of projections out to 2100 seems the height of numb nuts.
I am GLAD they are doing this study. More fundamental data = good.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:40 am
Another important part is independent verification and replication and he fails big in that department. You have to show that Corbyn…….
___________________________________________________
NetWeather do the independent verification for Weather Action, pdf links on this page;
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0
Maybe I’m thick, but regardless of the impact of these flares, we still have the issue that a 0.1% change in TSI has no impact. What is the temperature of interstellar space? Apparently 0.1 degrees with each sunspot cycle. So why does Leif insist that the sun doesn’t drive climate change? Help me here.
Less than half what I typed went through the first time, so I will try again.
Maybe I’m thick, but regardless of the impact of these flares, we still have the issue that a 0.1% change in TSI has no impact. What is the temperature of interstellar space? Apparently 0.1 degrees with each sunspot cycle. So why does Leif insist that the sun doesn’t drive climate change? Help me here.
Let’s stop playing the “blind chicken” game. There are some obvious links left aside.
M.Vukcevic is taking the pulse of the earth by observing the correlation of temperature and the GMF (and its relation to the electric field of the solar system -A.K.A: solar “wind”)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
However, being the field one and only, gravity acceleration changes should be observed too.
Same problem. What gives? One more try with different wording.
The climate change we are concerned with is plus or minus 0.5 degrees, or plus or minus less than 0.25% of the warming we get from the sun (>200 degrees K) relative to interstellar space at 0.1 degree just due to solar sunspot cycles. With other changes larger than TSI and earthly mechanisms to magnify them, why isn’t the sun the climate change driver?
Sorry Anthony. Something is redacting my attempts to post. I give up.
REPLY: You are writing too technically. Try not using brackets and GT/LT symbols. Those will get eaten -A
> Dr. Svalgaard … has been childish, ignorant, bullying, condescending …
Who among you have never been guilty of the these pecadillos? Raise your hands.
Leif has made many, many _thousands_ of postings on blogs all over the world, sharing his considerable knowledge with all who will listen. Yes, he occasionally slips and steps on some toes. I think most of us feel we have learned quite a lot from his postings and responses to questions.
Fortunately, he has a thick skin (and so does Vuk). So, in spite of our best efforts, we have not succeeded in driving Leif away with our silly questions, theories and complaints. He keeps coming back for more punishment, from us.
Leif, keep up your good works! Lev laenge og blomstre!
Murray Duffin says: “…What is the temperature of interstellar space?”
A better question would be “What is the black body temperature of the sky, day and night, and how does it vary?”
Lief.
I’ve digested most of the posts here and I can well understand your interest in this thread.
There’s a lot of ‘hand-waving’ here, but the UV connection seems valid at first glance (but don’t take this as ‘read’, as I’m only an engineer and no ‘scientist’!).
For a few years now I’ve toyed with the possibility that the ‘ozone hole’ could increase the insolation capability of UV to warm deep ocean and ice temperature (this is ‘probable’ in theory), but most data on this is to do with EUV that precursors skin cancer and is (to my understanding) not relevant to a climate observation (though could, perhaps, be used as a ‘proxy’).
I’ve had thoughts, (again) for a few years now, that an extreme burst of UV would overwhelm the atmospheric ‘blocking’ effect of ozone and permit an elevated level of UV to enter Earth’s ocean and ice systems, but I’ve no way to show this (perhaps stratospheric ice content during an ‘event’ may provide some provenance?). The electrolytic process of converting atmospheric O2 into ozone requires the time factor of the energy level of the ‘attractor’ that causes the process of change (e.g.. Ozone is produced at a rate that ‘lags’ the insolation factor that generates it).
The ‘warming’ from this is likely to be at least a ‘third hand’ order.
Hope this helps and hope I’ve not ‘waived’ too many hands.
Best regards, Ray Dart.
Murray Duffin says on October 15, 2010 at 2:44 pm
If you want to insert < and > in a posting, you need to write < and >.
That is, to insert < enter the four characters: & l t ; (without the spaces between them) and to insert > enter the four characters: & g t ; (again, without the spaces between them).
David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I did not say anything about field generation.
You certainly fooled me with:
“David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 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.”
What is the This then? Why mention the ‘core’ twice? The geomagnetic field [that comes from the core] meets the Sun’s magnetic field 40,000 miles away from the Earth, and that interaction is very well determined and understood [and has been for decades], see f.ex. http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
David Ball says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Calling Vukevic “Einstein” on a previous thread was the last straw for me.
Apparently, Vuk does have such a high opinion of himself to qualify:
“Vuk etc. says:
October 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm
One recent Nobel price winner had PhD theses of 2 pages, I think I will manage that plus page of numbers for the NAP.”
And, don’t forget, he works for the ‘benefit of all mankind’.
JG says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Are you aware of any studies regarding the influence of ionizing radiation on the atmospheric chemsitry?
Lots of studies. UV and Xrays are generally absorbed high in the atmosphere and do change chemistry [O3, NOx, etc], but those changes are minor as far as the resulting total absorption [what reaches the ground].
suricat says:
October 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Hope this helps and hope I’ve not ‘waived’ too many hands.
There are many waves involved: Alfven waves, Rossby waves, Kelvin gravity waves, etc. The most important waves seem to be ‘hand waves’ judging by how often they are used. 🙂
Peter Taylor says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm
What do you think of Camp & Tung’s ‘Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection’?
There is such an effect. I disagree with the magnitude, it looks closer to 0.1C than to 0.2C. We would expect such changes. If they are correct, then if we have a permanent minimum [e.g. a Maunder], then that would account for 0.1-0.2C, which I can also live with. There is no doubt that solar activity influences the climate, but there is also no doubt [at least in my mind] that such influence is minor and inconsequential.
I have not read your book [yet].
Nature magazine pdocast of June 10, 2010, has a discussion of how increased visible light warms the earth during solar minima. It seemed relevant, delete this if not or if already covered.
“see”:
http://media.nature.com/download/nature/nature/podcast/v467/n7316/nature-2010-10-07.mp3
at about 40 seconds in. For more pablum see also:
http://media.nature.com/download/nature/nature/podcast/v465/n7298/nature-2010-06-03.mp3
at about 6 minutes in
PS increased radioactive decay during a solar event could be a relativistic effect. just sayin.