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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
pkatt says:
January 12, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Leif has put all his eggs in that basket and is determined to “make it work” even if it means changing all of the other data to do so.
This is a very serious accusation which you should be ashamed of.
I’ve long ago stopped considering you to be any more than an agenda driven scientist
And what you consider is really not important. It may be of passing interest, though, to inquire as to which agenda you think is driving me.
From the text that initiated the thread: 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.
Percentage increases, and other relative increases from a baseline or earlier low value, were in there from the start,
Matthew Marler and Stephen Wilde and others…do not give up. Resist the psy-ops…and just continue to pursue the truth. Long live the scientific method. Here’s to the truth.
~Chris
Norfolk, Va, USA
Matthew R Marler says:
January 12, 2013 at 9:29 pm
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.
Percentage increases, and other relative increases from a baseline or earlier low value, were in there from the start
You don’t get it. The variation of EUV is so large because the value at solar minimum is very close to zero, not because the actual amount is all that large at maximum [it is but a tiny fraction of the total TSI]. Note that Kopp does not use percentages when talking about EUV as they are meaningless when the base is near zero. The variation from minimum to maximum is linearly related to the number of sunspots [and their area and magnetic field]. This was discovered by Rudolf Wolf as far back as 1852. Our observations of that variation go back to 1722, so we know what UV was that far back. And we find no long-term trend from then to now. Whatever variation there is is simply linearly related to that of the sunspot number.
While breathing
1.1 Data drives the improvement in Theories.
1.2 Theory drives predictions.
1.3 Predictions drive the search for data.
Loop
(I rotated the cycle -120 degrees for the purposes of this argument and wrapped it in a loop structure for clarity)
LiefS 6:30pm: What I meant was that [2.0 new data and new observations drive new theories] , especially when the new findings are unexpected. Very rarely is it the other way around.
Your 2.0 and my 1.1 are almost identical rather than opposite.
For brevity, improvements in Theories contains the set of New Theories.
Yes, it is my theory; rather my restatement of the scientific method. I’m allowed aren’t I? I don’t have a union card, but I do have a silver diploma.
Scientific progress through the scientific method is a cycle. It has a non-zero curl.
I think we agree on (1.1). Data drives improvements in Theories.
New Theories are useless unless you put them to work making predictions. (1.2).
New Predictions require you to seek data, new or otherwise, (1.3)
for analysis to test predicions and revise/create theories (1.1) and repeat.
You seem to want to start with the data. (1.1) Fine.
Feynman started with the “guesses”, a.k.a. Theories. (1.2)
It really doesn’t matter where you start, because it is a never-ending cycle. Not to be restrictive, it isn’t a serial loop, but parallel processes with countless threads performed by millions. It is a scientific “Circle of Life.”
In Physics 101, you start with F=ma (1.2) and THEN go to the lab. (1.3)
Got error? Well there’s air resistance, friction, and rotational inertia to account for (1.1). Next chapter… see you next week.
1.3 assumes honesty in process of collecting data.
There can be a temptation to set Data = Prediction. No fair!
Don’t adjust or filter the data to meet Theory.
Even Einstein’s Thought Experiments were part of 1.3; they were experiments testing whether predictions would violate other theories and agree with current data.
In the development of Plate Tectonics, Hess (1960-62) rejected the Expanding Earth theory (Heezen 1960 and others) not because he had more data but because he rejected the problems it caused to other theories using the data he had. His theory of subduction meant he could allow for sea floor spreading, young ocean basins, and moving continents without the problems of an expanding earth.
savethesharks.
Thanks for the encouragement.
I won’t be giving up any time soon since I have made solid progress over the past 5 years and the evidence as to who first said what and when is out there, freely available.
One thing about being a lawyer is being accustomed to an adversarial process which provides an ability to resist what you refer to as psy-ops.
It is good that readers can see it for what it is.
It is now highly likely, as a result of reams of data, that something about solar variability affects the global air circulation by changing the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere above the poles. In particular, the intensity and shape of the polar vortices is affected which then drives the permanent climate zones and jet stream tracks poleward or equatorward changing jet stream zonality and meridionality in the process.
There is then an effect on global cloudiness, albedo, the amount of energy entering the oceans and the balance between El Nino and La Nina which then affects troposphere temperature trends.
As far as I know I was the first to set out that diagnosis.
Leif’s protestations about solar changes being insufficiently large to have such an effect therefore sound increasingly hollow.
There are a lot of scientists now coming to realise that the accumulating evidence is driving in that direction, hence the above NASA piece and some nice new hardware being sent up to measure temperatures and composition between tropopause and mesopause.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 13, 2013 at 12:54 am
1.1 Data drives the improvement in Theories.
1.2 Theory drives predictions.
1.3 Predictions drive the search for data.
Loop
Describes what Kuhn calls ‘normal science’ [which is what most scientists do on a daily basis]. The issue was with the emergence of a NEW theory, that breaks with the past [like Plate Tectonics]. This almost always only occurs when new and unexpected data becomes available. Such data forces us to seek a new theory, and forces acceptance of such. As always, there will be people that will not change their view, but time and mortality take care of that.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:50 am
something about solar variability affects the global air circulation by changing the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere above the poles. In particular, the intensity and shape of the polar vortices is affected which then drives the permanent climate zones and jet stream tracks poleward or equatorward changing jet stream zonality and meridionality in the process.
This has been looked numerous times and the result is generally the opposite of what you suggest, e.g.see http://www.leif.org/EOS/SWC-Extract.pdf
“This has been looked numerous times and the result is generally the opposite of what you suggest”
That would be because they have the sign of the atmospheric response to solar variability wrong in the stratosphere and mesosphere as Jo Haig and others have begun to suspect.
Funny how sudden stratospheric warming drives the jets equatorward and how the jets moved poleward when the stratosphere cooled.
I know you put it down to CO2 and CFCs but I think you were wrong.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm
“This has been looked numerous times and the result is generally the opposite of what you suggest” That would be because they have the sign of the atmospheric response to solar variability
This was a test, a trap you fell into. You did not even go to the link and read it. Here is what it actually says:
“The […] low-pressure […] seem to be closer to the pole in years of low sunspot activity and move towards the equator in high sunspot years. Storm tracks likewise seem to migrate equatorward as annual sunspot activity increases; this may be due to alterations of the latitudinal temperature gradient and planetary wave pressure structure”
Funny how sudden stratospheric warming drives the jets equatorward and how the jets moved poleward when the stratosphere cooled.
As we have discussed so many times [that it is not funny any more] the stratospheric warmings are caused by waves from the troposphere. So causality goes in the opposite direction.
I know you put it down to CO2 and CFCs but I think you were wrong.
You are wrong about what I put it down to.
“The […] low-pressure […] seem to be closer to the pole in years of low sunspot activity and move towards the equator in high sunspot years. Storm tracks likewise seem to migrate equatorward as annual sunspot activity increases; this may be due to alterations of the latitudinal temperature gradient and planetary wave pressure structure”
That was written back in 1978 and refers to single solar cycles at a time when meteorological observing techniques were very primitive.
Since then it has become abundantly clear that the opposite happens on multidecadal timescales involving several solar cycles.
“stratospheric warmings are caused by waves from the troposphere. So causality goes in the opposite direction.”
Doesn’t matter how they are caused.
It takes a warmer stratosphere near the poles to send surges of air equatorward.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:41 pm
That was written back in 1978 and refers to single solar cycles
Very wrong. Clayton used data from 1858 to 1920; Shaw [1928] published a similar result for 87 locations over many cycles; Angell and Korshover [1974] found the result using pressure maps from 1899-1967. Mitchell [1965] used data from 1780 to 1959, etc.
at a time when meteorological observing techniques were very primitive
Measurement of pressure has been accurate for a couple of centuries now. So nothing ‘primitive’ aboutit.
the opposite happens on multidecadal timescales involving several solar cycles
This is the hallmark of spurious correlations: they go away or reverse or are different over time. A lesson there.
LiefS 9:14: The issue was with the emergence of a NEW theory, that breaks with the past [like Plate Tectonics]. This almost always only occurs when new and unexpected data becomes available. Such data forces us to seek a new theory, and forces acceptance of such.
First, I think Plate Tectonics theory was far more evolutionary than you imply. Hess 1960 had 75% of Plate Tectonics on paper a year before the Zebra map. See details below.
Second, even when there is such powerful data that forces you to adopt a new theory… that doesn’t mean it will be the right theory. See “expanding earth” below.
Is it fair to point to the Zebra Map of Raff and Mason (GSA 1961) as an exampe of your “new unexpected data”? Let’s consider the following points.
1. Raff and Mason worked with the data for 3 years and in 1961 they still didn’t know what to make of it. They were collecting data over a known ocean ridge. Raff and Mason were not forced to adopt a theory.
2. By the late 1950’s Mid-Ocean ridges were known to have high heat flow, shallow moho.
3. Sea floor spreading was already in discussion with early estimates of spreading rates. Several authors (Egyed (1957), Carey (1958). Heezen (1960)) were being forced to accept (your words) an expanding earth theory, which any of us today would think daft. Hess 1960-62 spent a page outlining why he chose a different path.
4. It was Vine, Mathews and Morley in 1963-64 that took a) the Zebra of 1961, b) polar reversal paleomag work of 1957-1960, c) sea floor spreading and down-limb crustal destruction of Hess 1959-62 and Dietz 1961, diagnose what the zebra was, and then predict they would find the zebras on all mid ocean ridges. They found the predicted zebras (Vine 1966, 1968, Pitman 1966).
5. The Zebra Map turned out to be iconic evidence of spreading from mid-ocean ridges concept under discussion for at least 5 years. But spreading is less than half of the Plate Tectonic theory.
Plate Tectonics isn’t just sea floor spreading. It is Sea Floor Spreading at ridges PLUS sea floor destruction in subduction zones or what Hess 1960-62 called “jaw crusher of the descending limb”, PLUS a couple other details (transform faults, poles of rotation of rigid plates).
The Zebra map reminds me of another quote from Asimov:
“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, ‘hmm… that’s funny…'” – Isaac Asimov
Stephen Rasey says:
January 13, 2013 at 10:20 pm
First, I think Plate Tectonics theory was far more evolutionary than you imply.
Nobody predicted the zebra pattern, or the young age of the ocean bottom. Those were the new data that led Hess on the track and forced acceptance later on.
Second, even when there is such powerful data that forces you to adopt a new theory
Nobody said or implied that…
Hess did not predict the zebra stripes, and he was led to his ideas by the unexpected regularities in the spherical harmonics of the Earth’s topography http://www.leif.org/EOS/Hess1962.pdf
No matter how you cut it, it is almost always data that drives the theory. In my own fields [geophysics/solar-space physics] I know of only case of the reverse [Alfven waves]. Plate tectonics is a prime example of data-driven new theories: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html#anchor10912731
“The discovery of magnetic striping naturally prompted more questions: How does the magnetic striping pattern form? And why are the stripes symmetrical around the crests of the mid-ocean ridges? These questions could not be answered without also knowing the significance of these ridges. In 1961, scientists began to theorize that mid-ocean ridges mark structurally weak zones where the ocean floor was being ripped in two lengthwise along the ridge crest. New magma from deep within the Earth rises easily through these weak zones and eventually erupts along the crest of the ridges to create new oceanic crust.”
Stephen Wilde says:
Funny how sudden stratospheric warming drives the jets equatorward and how the jets moved poleward when the stratosphere cooled.
Leif Svalgaard says:
As we have discussed so many times [that it is not funny any more] the stratospheric warmings are caused by waves from the troposphere. So causality goes in the opposite direction.
Sudden Stratospheric Warming has nothing to do with solar activity, CO2, Ozone or such like. It is triggered by the Kamchatka’s volcanic eruptions.
In Kamchatka in the last few weeks two volcanoes Sheveluch and Tolbachik are firing simultaneously
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.gif
Take a look at
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.shtml
around 22-24 December when volcanic eruptions intensified.
Read more here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/34/77/PDF/SSW.pdf
“This is the hallmark of spurious correlations: they go away or reverse or are different over time. A lesson there.”
Just integrate ocean cycles with the waxing and waning of AO and AAO and it isn’t so spurious.
A strong indicator is more meridional / equatorward jets in the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, and every other period when cooler temperatures coincided with lower solar activity.
Plus more poleward zonal jets in MWP and late 20th century and every other warmer period.coinciding with higher solar activity.
Due to the 60 year ocean cycles the correlation can be 5 or 6 solar cycles adrift depending on phasing characteristics.
You got it wrong in your 1978 article and are still getting it wrong today.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:57 am
A strong indicator is more meridional / equatorward jets in the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, and every other period when cooler temperatures coincided with lower solar activity.
Plus more poleward zonal jets in MWP and late 20th century and every other warmer period.coinciding with higher solar activity.
And yet you claim that
Stephen Wilde says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“That was written back in 1978 and refers to single solar cycles at a time when meteorological observing techniques were very primitive.”
Apparently they were not so primitive 1000 years ago…
Stephen Wilde says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:57 am
You got it wrong in your 1978 article
Not my article, but NASA’s conclusion in their Special Publication 426.
Speaking of NASA articles..in the image above, entitled “Atmospheric Structure,” is this what is called ionospheric precipitation?
In another recent aricle from NASA, a magnetic highway was discovered at the edge of the heliosphere.
NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381#9
December 03, 2012
PASADENA, Calif. — NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region at the far reaches of our solar system that scientists feel is the final area the spacecraft has to cross before reaching interstellar space.
Scientists refer to this new region as a magnetic highway for charged particles because our sun’s magnetic field lines are connected to interstellar magnetic field lines. This connection allows lower-energy charged particles that originate from inside our heliosphere — or the bubble of charged particles the sun blows around itself — to zoom out and allows higher-energy particles from outside to stream in. Before entering this region, the charged particles bounced around in all directions, as if trapped on local roads inside the heliosphere.
The Voyager team infers this region is still inside our solar bubble because the direction of the magnetic field lines has not changed. The direction of these magnetic field lines is predicted to change when Voyager breaks through to interstellar space. The new results were described at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Monday. …
Do interstellar magnetic field lines “pile up,” at the heliospheric nose as the solar system travels on its orbit through the galaxy? Do they “pile up” and then snap in approx. every 11 or so years? If they don’t snap, do they just keep wrapping around the solar system? Thereby squashinging the polar regions of the sun as they wrap?
Did you hear the one about comet Love Joy?
Leif Svalgaard: Note that Kopp does not use percentages when talking about EUV as they are meaningless when the base is near zero.
True: he talked about ratios; like percentages, ratios are factors.
Matthew R Marler: You need to elaborate that example. if y1 = x1^2; y2 = x2^2; … ; yp = xp^2, and if x1, …, xp all increase by different % from different baselines (as is the case with changing insolation across the spectrum [x1, —, xp being the energies in different spectral bands], according to the target paper of this thread), then y1, …, yp do not all increase by the same % as x1, … xp. If, say, x1 increases from 3 to 4, and x2 changes from 4 to 5 (1/3 and 1/4 increases), then y1 changes from 9 to 16 (a change of 7/9) whereas y2 changes from 16 to 25 (9/16). Only for linear functions of y on x do % changes in y1 to yp match the % changes in x1 to xp.
The argument does not depend on using percentages, but applies to any factors when the functions of y on x are nonlinear. In our case, if the percent change of x1 + … +xp was different from the percent or multiplicative change of x1, then the percent change of y1 + … + yp will not be linearly predictable from the percent change of y1. This is the closest to the case of the paper of this thread, where x1 + … xp is TSI and x1 (“without loss of generality”) is UV or IR. You can not use a purely algebraic argument to prove that a large change in a minor constituent of TSI can not have a large change in the combined effects of all TSI changes just because the change in TSI is small relative to TSI. As asserted in the lead article, all the effects of all of the constituents of TSI have to be studied in order to completely characterize the effects of solar changes, even though the relative change of TSI is small.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 14, 2013 at 9:31 am
You can not use a purely algebraic argument to prove that a large change in a minor constituent of TSI can not have a large change in the combined effects of all TSI changes just because the change in TSI is small relative to TSI.
Since I am not making that claim, your protest is not relevant. What I’m saying is that UV changes linearly with the sunspot number, that we can [and have since 1722] keep track of UV, and that UV linearly tracks variation of TSI, hence whatever the climate effect from UV is can be monitored simply by monitoring the sunspot number.
Speaking of NASA articles, in the image above entitled, “Atmospheric Structure,” is this image also depicting ionospheric precipitation?
In another recent NASA article, it has been discovered that there is a “magnetic highway,” near the edge of the solar system.
NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space
December 03, 2012
PASADENA, Calif. — NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region at the far reaches of our solar system that scientists feel is the final area the spacecraft has to cross before reaching interstellar space.
Scientists refer to this new region as a magnetic highway for charged particles because our sun’s magnetic field lines are connected to interstellar magnetic field lines. This connection allows lower-energy charged particles that originate from inside our heliosphere — or the bubble of charged particles the sun blows around itself — to zoom out and allows higher-energy particles from outside to stream in. Before entering this region, the charged particles bounced around in all directions, as if trapped on local roads inside the heliosphere.
The Voyager team infers this region is still inside our solar bubble because the direction of the magnetic field lines has not changed. The direction of these magnetic field lines is predicted to change when Voyager breaks through to interstellar space. The new results were described at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Monday.
“Although Voyager 1 still is inside the sun’s environment, we now can taste what it’s like on the outside because the particles are zipping in and out on this magnetic highway,” said Edward Stone…
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381#9
As the solar system travels or orbits through the galaxy, does this interaction with interstellar magnetic fields, cause the Interstellar fields to “pile up” at the helispheric nose? How often do they snap? How far does the sun travel in a solar cycle. Depending on the background Interstellar magnetic fields configuration, the heliosphere could sometimes be wrapped in more intensely above the N.solar pole (more top down squashing) or vis versus to S.solar pole.
1phobosgrunt says:
January 14, 2013 at 10:00 am
As the solar system travels or orbits through the galaxy, does this interaction with interstellar magnetic fields, cause the Interstellar fields to “pile up” at the helispheric nose?
Not any more than the solar wind magnetic field piles up at the nose of the Earth’s magnetosphere.
How far does the sun travel in a solar cycle.
About 9 billion km,or 60 times the distance between the sun and the Earth. This is actually somewhat smaller than the size of the heliosphere.
Depending on the background Interstellar magnetic fields configuration, the heliosphere could sometimes be wrapped in more intensely above the N.solar pole (more top down squashing) or vis versus to S.solar pole.
It is thought that interstellar magnetic field does not change its properties much over the time scale [centuries] that are of interest. On the time scale of tens of thousands of years, rather large changes can happen. These changes do not affect the Sun much as the solar wind keeps the interstellar medium at bay.
@LiefS: 11:29pm Nobody predicted the zebra pattern, or the young age of the ocean bottom. Those were the new data that led Hess on the track and forced acceptance later on.
From the chronology, Hess was presenting and writing his theories (1959-62) before the Zebra Map of Riff 1961. In Hess 1962 his latest citation is 1960 which implies that this is largely the public presentation of his 1960 report for the Off. Of Naval Research. He does not cite Riff. To be fair, Hess was an Admiral in the Naval Reserve and under contract for the ONR; who knows what he saw and heard behind the secret door.
The young ocean bottom, the scarcity of sea mounts, the appreciation for the mid-ocean ridges as “the largest topographic features on the surface of the Earth”, and indications that ridges might be spreading centers, were some parts of the data puzzle Hess was attempting to fit into a theory.
it is almost always data that drives the theory
We agree on this. (Rasey 1/13 12:54 am)
Where do we disagree?
‘Open mind’ has nothing to do with science. (LiefS 1/9 9:10 am)
An Open Mind has everything to do with science. An Open Mind is the nursery for New Theories.
New theories are forced upon us by new data and observations. (LiefS 1/9 11:59 pm)
The great discoveries are soon backed up by new data and observations, but on the basis of the new proposed mechanism. The theory often comes first. Mooloo 1/9 3:29 pm (Well said, I agree), reply to LiefS
Plate tectonics was forced upon us by observations of magnetic stripes on the sea floor, and did not spring from open minds. LiefS 1/11 7:13.
I think the chronology of 1957-1961 refutes that. Hess had the foundation for plate tectonics before the magnetic stripes was published. New Theory in Open Minds made sense of later data, such as the zebra.
I do believe, however, that the magnetic stripes were essential to force the idea of Plate Tectonics into closed minds.
We only change/reject/update/accept new theories when forced to do so by new data. LiefS 1/11 7:13 am
Replace “only” with “may” to make this one of many ways new theories get accepted.
Let’s go back to repeated observations by thousands of people for hundreds of years that the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa are an unexpectedly good geographic fit. Add in the geology and zoology of the continents. A lot of unexpected new data, entirely correct in hindsight, yet did it force the acceptance of Wegner’s Continental Drift? No.
Did these data even force the acceptance that S. Am and Africa were somehow joined in the past? NO! Existing Theories trumped the data. Open Minds were smothered under consensus of Closed Minds for decades.
Shall we agree to disagree?