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
Stephen Rasey says:
January 16, 2013 at 10:57 am
Editors must accept or reject well written papers based upon some judgment about the importance of the topic and this is where openness of mind comes into play.
This is nonsense. A topic is important in its own right and its own merit, not depending on somebody’s open mind.
“Settled Science” when it is a manifestation of Group-think is close-mindedness, too.
The settled science we use every day did not arise from close-mindedness. Group-think has more to do with Bandwagons and Herd-instinct. To jump on a Bandwagon is perhaps something ‘open-minders’ do more readily.
Life is too short to be open minded on every topic.
One is either open-minded or not. The notion that my mind opens and closes depending on what comes my way is silly, and not supported by evidence.
A topic is important in its own right and its own merit
You cannot put a topic into a spectrograph and objectively read of the topic’s importance on a chart recorder. The importance of a topic is a subjective judgement call.
To jump on a Bandwagon is perhaps something ‘open-minders’ do more readily.
An interesting point. I’ll agree.
There is a difference between taking a lap on the Bandwagon and choosing to live on it.
Then there are the people who never get on — who are they more likely to be?
Some Bandwagons, like Plate Tectonics, go far playing sweet music.
Some Bandwagons, like Expanding earth, are out of tune and the wheels fall off quickly.
Some day we may find out how many wheels stay on the M-Theory Rubber-Band-wagon.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm
You cannot put a topic into a spectrograph and objectively read of the topic’s importance on a chart recorder. The importance of a topic is a subjective judgement call.
Well, that sounds to me that you proposing just such a spectrograph. It is like you imagine a sort of Maxwell’s Demon sitting in front of the mind, looking at what comes its way, and deciding whether or not the open or close the mind. I’m not buying either.
Some day we may find out how many wheels stay on the M-Theory Rubber-Band-wagon
I would say it requires a VERY open mind to jump on that Bandwagon. Such lets in more junk than useful stuff.
The only Demon I see is an Editor in front of a computer screen gatekeeping a journal.
Either all submitted papers are on topics of equal importance, or there is a human editor, or editorial staff subjectively weighting importance and priority of topics. I don’t buy that all topics are of equal importance.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:12 pm
I don’t buy that all topics are of equal importance.
Of course they are not. The Editor judges each paper for appropriateness for the Journal, the selects a set of referees based on his knowledge of who would be competent to review the paper [often authors prominent in list of references obvious choices, or the author himself submit a list of half a dozen suitable referees]. The referees check the paper for adherence to some minimal standard [often set by the Journal] and for reasonable analysis and methods. Most often, the referee will ask for clarifications in a revised version, or for omission or, at least, qualification of certain statements that are deemed too strong for the evidence presented, an so on. The whole process is somewhat formal, as is proper, and although not perfect, about the best that can be done. That the referee disagree with the author is not a valid reason for rejection. At no point, does an ‘open mind’ come into play. I review a paper about every week [there are three in my pipeline, so I have to get back to work on them 🙂 ], and as far as I can tell from my own work and from the reviews I get of my own work over several decades, the open mind is not in evidence. And God forbid it were, as I would rather have a skeptical review that forces me to rework and improve my paper.
from the reviews I get of my own work over several decades, the open mind is not in evidence
I suspect a non-random sample. It is not likely minds closed to a topic would be reviewing papers on that topic. Reviewers who work to get papers improved and approved have open minds on the topic. Open minds don’t have to be push-overs.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 18, 2013 at 12:02 am
I suspect a non-random sample. It is not likely minds closed to a topic would be reviewing papers on that topic.
I don’t think it is possible to be truly selective in open/close mindedness depending on the topic. An open mind is an intrinsic property of that mind. It was perhaps wrong to ascribe Einstein’s rejection of quantum mechanics to closed-mindedness. Einstein believed that Nature was understandable but as Feynman has said “nobody understands quantum mechanics”. Einstein rebelled against the notion that Nature could not be understood. I actually would not call that being closed minded. Instead, the view that Nature can be understood expresses optimism and belief in the power of an intellect. The great German mathematician Hilbert expressed the same thought in his famous saying “Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen!”, a hope which Gödel and Turing later demolished.
Leif,
I would like to know your opinion about the following statement which can be found in the Italian website: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=24467.
I made a temporary translation of an excerpt of it: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Michele_19012013.pdf
(The translation could be better, but my only purpose was to let see the opinion of the author of the webpage, named ‘Michele’.)
a. He asserts that the solar flares could present a particular indication of the solar activity. Is this approach helpful?
b. Within the framework of this thread, I was asking if the cycles of flares and CMEs could have any importance regarding the climate change on earth. Could a solar cycle with a high activity of flares and CMEs have more impact on the earth than a solar cycle with a low activity? Possibly the process can be similar with a boiling kettle. The TSI of the kettle at 100°C remains constant but in the direction of the spout, the warming up is more substantial.
c. Can the evolution of the four last solar cycles (SC24 inclusive) be compared with a “damping in which the period is not constant but tends gradually to increase”? Could such an evolution be the beginning of a ‘Maunder minimum’?
Rik Gheysens says:
January 19, 2013 at 11:00 am
in the Italian website: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=24467.
I made a temporary translation of an excerpt of it
I read Italian, so no problem with the translation.
a. He asserts that the solar flares could present a particular indication of the solar activity. Is this approach helpful?
Solar flares are one [of several] indicators, so could be helpful.
b. Within the framework of this thread, I was asking if the cycles of flares and CMEs could have any importance regarding the climate change on earth.
Smaller flares [the C-flares that make up the bulk of the Figure on the Italian site] are so small [a C5 is 100 times smaller than an X5] so they are hardly important. The most energetic flares are so rare that they also will have but a small influence overall.
Could a solar cycle with a high activity of flares and CMEs have more impact on the earth than a solar cycle with a low activity?
One would think so, but remember that all the solar indicators vary together, so it is hard to say which one(s) are doing what, if anything.
c. Can the evolution of the four last solar cycles (SC24 inclusive) be compared with a “damping in which the period is not constant but tends gradually to increase”? Could such an evolution be the beginning of a ‘Maunder minimum’?
The solar cycle is not an oscillator in the usual sense, so the analogy would be poor from the outset. So, trying to fir the number of flares to a simple damped oscillator is not very helpful, especially if extrapolated into the future. There are other signs that we are approaching a low minimum. Whether it will be a Dalton or Maunder-type minimum remains to be seen.
Leif says (14 Jan)
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.
Henry@Leif
The mechanism I have proposed for the Gleisberg weather cycle (average=88 years) is that a change in distribution in TSI, affecting UV mostly, causes a change in ozone- and NOx- and HxOx production on TOA which in turn affects incoming radiation. If there is more ozone and others more solar radiation is back radiated. Hence we are now cooling whilst ozone and others are increasing.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Now, in another blog on same subject, you quoted this graph.
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-1700-2013.png
From there on, you argued with me that there is no 88 year solar cycle .
Could I just ask: what FFT stands for? What is the unit on the left hand side of the graph (y)?
I am slightly concerned about using SSN to determine cyclic solar periods. Does SSN not depend a lot on the relative strength of a person’s vision? Hence we must doubt the centuries old measurements.
That the 88 year Gleissberg (weather) cycle does exist is clearly not in doubt.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
It has been determined physically.
If it does not show exactly in the SSN graph, there must be something wrong with it.
In light of the above I consider it possible that we should interpret the 2 peaks at 55 and 105, as found here,
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-1700-2013.png
as one, and taken together, peaking at around 88 (average).
Alternatively these two solar cycles just seem to act in tandem to produce the earthly average 88 year weather cycle.
Do you have any other graphs proving to me that there are only 55 and 105 year solar cycles and that indeed there is no 88 year solar cycle?
HenryP says:
January 20, 2013 at 5:25 am
I am slightly concerned about using SSN to determine cyclic solar periods. Does SSN not depend a lot on the relative strength of a person’s vision? Hence we must doubt the centuries old measurements.
The SSN is determined by using dozens of person’s observations, including photographs of the Sun.
If it does not show exactly in the SSN graph, there must be something wrong with it.
Much more likely that your assumption that the weather cycle [which is in doubt – e.g. by me] is caused bya similar solar periodicity….
Leif says
Much more likely that your assumption that the weather cycle [which is in doubt – e.g. by me] is caused bya similar solar periodicity….
Henry says
I am not sure what you mean here. That a 88 solar/weather cycle exists is not in doubt. Even the ancients (Egyptians/Hebrews) knew about it. They just looked at the flooding of the Nile.
I already quoted you this paper here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
It was again confirmed by the observations of the flooding of the Nile (by William Arnold) and now also by me, as explained here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-192
So I am counting quite a number of witnesses here now that say that the sine wave with wavelength 88 years for energy-in does exist, as opposed to only one person – namely you – asserting doubt.
So, I repeat the question @ur momisugly anyone
Do we have any other graphs proving to me that there are only, 11, 55 and 105 year solar cycles and that indeed there is no 88 year solar cycle and there are no other cycles?
@Henry: I love reading your posts. You make a lot of sense. And I can’t help but hope that you are right about your assertions.
Rik Gheysens says
http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Michele_19012013.pdf
Henry says
Interesting graph. Note that it follows my determination that the maximum acceleration of warming in degrees K / yr2 occurred in 1972 and we will reach our maximum rate acceleration into cooling by around 2016.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
just for Leif: that it has been cooling can be seen here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
Mario Lento says
You make a lot of sense.
Henry says: thanks
It is just a hobby for me, but I never lie and I would not say what I am saying if I was not 100% certain.
I am puzzled that the “solar” guys keep looking at obscure and subjective parameters when we should be looking at maximum temps. as it gives us a good sense of energy coming in (from the sun).
I anxiously await your predictions to come true… 2013 may have some warmth… but it is going out to space with the weak max we are in… 2014 and years after should continue a flat line and start decreasing our built up warmth. I am excited about a future of so many gullible people believing the hype starting to understand how they’ve been duped.
NASA says the suns temperature variability is causing this? Nooo… NASA says the opposite, and you pretty much linked to the very information that disproves what your article says. So..what to believe…Nasa, or a petroleum industries blog?
The effect is so SIGNIFICANT that the scientists Watts claimed he was quoting has said they have never observed it and cannot detect it.
REPLY: Dude, this article was written by NASA scientist Dr. Tony Phillips, not me. Get your facts straight before engaging your bloviator. See right at the bottom: Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate / – Anthony
@reanchi: You wrote: “So..what to believe…Nasa, or a petroleum industries blog?”
Your ignorance and offensiveness are not without notice. You have no idea where funding is for this blogsite. If you choose your beliefs based on ideology, that is certainly your problem. But at least get some education before you spew nonsense.