NASA on the sun: '…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate."

Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.

From NASA GSFC:  Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Sun-Climate (cycle, strip)

These six extreme UV images of the sun, taken by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, track the rising level of solar activity as the sun ascends toward the peak of the latest 11-year sunspot cycle. More

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem.  To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop.  The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important.  “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.

Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum.  Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Sun-Climate (tsi, strip)

Space-borne measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI) show ~0.1 percent variations with solar activity on 11-year and shorter timescales. These data have been corrected for calibration offsets between the various instruments used to measure TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of Greg Kopp, University of Colorado.

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface.  There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence.  For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent.  Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further.  He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it.  “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies.  [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.”  In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Sun-Climate (sep, strip)

How incoming galactic cosmic rays and solar protons penetrate the atmosphere. SOURCE: C. Jackman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “The Impact of Energetic Particle Precipitation on the Atmosphere,” presentation to the Workshop on the Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate, September 9, 2011.

Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics.  But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”  Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

Sun-Climate (pacific anomaly, strip)

Composite averages for December-January-February for peak solar years. SOURCE: G.A. Meehl, J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon, Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11 year solar cycle forcing, Science 325:1114-1118, 2009; reprinted with permission from AAAS.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.  The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a chance in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally.  The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature.  “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.”  This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.  The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

Sun-Climate (sunspot numbers, strip)

The yearly averaged sunspot number for a period of 400 years (1610-2010). SOURCE: Courtesy of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering.  More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.”   This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now.  Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years.  Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

Sun-Climate (faculae, 200px)

This image of the Sun’s upper photosphere shows bright and dark magnetic structures responsible for variations in TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of P. Foukal, Heliophysics, Inc.

In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps.  Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager.  Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number:  the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths.  This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.

In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex.  The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity.  Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae.  Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity.  Of particular interest are the faculae.  While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not.  This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum.  A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.

Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study.  Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results.  Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists.  However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores.  Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity.  A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars.   Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.

The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips  | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

See also the December Solar slump here

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
319 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. Lurtz
January 9, 2013 8:33 am

Should I respect NASA again???

January 9, 2013 8:34 am

From the report [page 7]:
“Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences”
REPLY: That’s an important point readers should embrace. They should also embrace the fact that NASA is considering the possibility and has convened a group to study it. One mechanism I see as a possibility is related to UV variation and ocean algae/plankton variation changing the albedo. NASA is keeping an open mind, looking for mechanisms. To me, that’s a good thing, and the way of science. – Anthony

Stephen Wilde
January 9, 2013 8:37 am

Very similar to my work of the past 5 years.

January 9, 2013 8:40 am

“Researchers say ….”.
When NASA researchers say something it is big news; when an independant researcher says the same thing here on WUWT it is ignored.

Kelvin Vaughan
January 9, 2013 8:42 am

Now where did I read it’s not the Sun?

David Schofield
January 9, 2013 8:43 am

In the tags at the bottom of the post I read ‘leave a comment’ as ‘Leif, a comment?’

temp
January 9, 2013 8:44 am

“The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains.
This sounds like they are already making up excuses as to why global warming failed but its still man’s fault.

January 9, 2013 8:47 am

Whoa, I thought the science was settled. This sounds like “We” need a great deal more study. pg

Mark Bofill
January 9, 2013 8:50 am

It’s nice to hear that solar amplification mechanisms are getting some research attention, despite the genuflection to the IPCC altar of CO2 (“…This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years…”). I guess I’ll take what I can get.

January 9, 2013 8:55 am

So, it seems like there are more influences and more complications to the Earth’s climate than just CO2 abundance in our atmosphere?

January 9, 2013 8:57 am

Bravo to NASA and NRC.
Only true scientists with an open mind and without prejudice can deal with this interesting problem.

commieBob
January 9, 2013 8:59 am

… “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” …

This is nice to hear. The CAGW alarmists have taken the cooling of the stratosphere to prove that an increased greenhouse effect is preventing radiated heat from getting to the stratosphere.

January 9, 2013 9:06 am

Solar and the Earth magnetic fields act in concert – result is natural temperature variability.
Solar magnetic field effect is at its strongest in the high geo-latitudes, where also geo-polar temperature amplification is the greatest.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ATO.htm

January 9, 2013 9:10 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:34 am
REPLY: They should also embrace the fact that NASA is considering the possibility and has convened a group to study it.
NASA has always been considering the possibility. Here is a report from 1978: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf
where, by the way, my work [with colleagues] on this has a prominent place.
‘Open mind’ has nothing to do with science. I would say, rather the opposite, namely healthy skepticism, not blindly accepting any ideas that comes your way.

Mark and two Cats
January 9, 2013 9:11 am

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/main.php?v=item&id=164
I’m getting: “server not found”.
Did obama and hansen make them take it down?

pochas
January 9, 2013 9:15 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:34 am
“From the report [page 7]:
“Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI ”
And I agree that TSI alone will not change anything very much. This is about rays and UV. Time to think about changing your tune, Dr S.

January 9, 2013 9:18 am

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
From the “We’ve been trying to tell you” department. The exact mechanism may be in dispute, but it defies reason to assert that that great big ball of flaming plasma in space has less influence on the Earth’s climate than the very questionable influence of human-introduced CO2. Very interesting article, well worth reading.

john robertson
January 9, 2013 9:18 am

Hansen is losing his grip? Models are giving way to data?
Makes the claims of AR4 even more dubious.
Has NASA and NRC gone back to trying to do science?
Budget Cuts are imminent?
Of the 16 identified drivers of climate… CO2 done it.
Sorry to be flippant but the number one rule of bureaucracy is cover your butt.
From the idiocy of claiming to rule out solar influence on our climate, allowing staff to operate Real Climate on paid time, to Moslem outreach, NASA and its sub-departments are not looking so good.
If the NRC is doing good science here, my thanks to the staff, but do we have adequate information, to make useful correlation that hint at causation?
Does the data from the new solar satellites help yet?

Gail Combs
January 9, 2013 9:19 am

Sounds like another tiny step away from the CAGW altar.

January 9, 2013 9:19 am

No mention of Svensmark here. I really dislike people who don’t give others their due.

January 9, 2013 9:31 am

Wow, who would have thunk it. Small variations in the big energy source are more significant than small variations in the immeasurable.

richardscourtney
January 9, 2013 9:35 am

Anthony:
Thankyou for this report.
The article includes these statements

A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

and

In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Some years ago, during a conversation at a RS meeting in London where he was a speaker, Henrik Svensmark told me that relatavistic effects enabled galactic particles – modulated by solar effects – to penetrate to the lower atmosphere. Thus, they can affect cloud nucleation low in the atmosphere. However, he was unwilling to discuss these effects because any mention of relatavistic effects induced suspicion of his hypothesis.
If solar-induced climate effects are “complex” then they will be difficult to unravel when some occur in the upper atmosphere (as the article says) while some happen in the lower atmosphere (as Svensmark claims). All the solar effects are likely to interact with each other and with other climate effects.
In these circumstances simple correlations are not likely to disprove any hypothesis of solar effects in the atmosphere.
Richard

January 9, 2013 9:35 am

O, NOW you tell us. (If I had a dime for every time, over the past ten years, an Alarmist told me the sun had no effect on temperatures, I’d really be jingling. Worst, they always sneered as they said it.)

Tim Clark
January 9, 2013 9:36 am

{ REPLY: That’s an important point readers should embrace. They should also embrace the fact that NASA is considering the possibility and has convened a group to study it. One mechanism I see as a possibility is related to UV variation and ocean algae/plankton variation changing the albedo…………Anthony }
And increasing cloud cover in response to UV. More here on DMS.
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=45946&sectionid=1000

January 9, 2013 9:38 am

Finally, NASA seem to have broken free of the “settled science” that the IPCC imposed. Climate science was effectively frozen for thirty years and NASA are now getting back to where they were in the 1970s. The last valuable contribution they made was Herman and Goldberg’s, “Sun, Weather and Climate”, in 1978.
It was an article about this scientific block by IPCC that triggered the first of my current lawsuits. Here is that article, slightly amended so Anthony and I likely don’t have to worry about another lawsuit.
http://drtimball.com/2011/corruption-of-climate-science-has-created-30-lost-years/
It appears this publication also marks the breaking of the control Hansen had over climate research at NASA. The comments of Hansen’s boss indicate the degree of political power Hansen had as a bureaucrat. What Hansen was doing publicly and politically probably should have been censured, even prosecuted under the Hatch Act.
http://drtimball.com/2012/nasa-scientist-out-of-control/
I understand that upper management were advised by much higher authority not to touch Hansen. When you look at the manipulations used by Senator Wirth for his appearance before Al Gore’s committee it is not surprising.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html
This article is a small break through scientifically, but its political implications are profound. Put this with the revisions at the UKMO, and it marks an even greater shift. Can the mainstream media be far behind? They will all want to be on the winning side, especially if it affects funding and credibility.
Ironically, some of the scientists will have more trouble adjusting. As Tolstoi reportedly said,
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
This will particularly apply to those scientists who also hold the political view of those who hijacked climate science for a political agenda.
I think NASA and others who let themselves be bullied must be held accountable. I remember in Winnipeg three Environment Canada employees telling me after a presentation that they agreed with me but would lose their jobs if they spoke out. I used to have sympathy for this position – not any more. It is precisely this type of coercion that must be countered at all levels. Why is there need for a whistleblower law in a supposedly open and democratic society.
Maybe now the person(s) who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) will reveal themselves.

1 2 3 13