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
What this report acknowledge is something said in numerous papers including mine since 2005 widely discussed on this blog.
It is nice to know that NASA is rediscovering its true mission of studying space phenomena and their relevance to humanity and are realizing that the empirical evidences for a significant solar effect on climate are too strong to be denied further just because the GCMs (such as Hansen’s GISS model) do not reproduce those effects.
About figure 2 showed above, which plots the various TSI satellite measurements on a common scale, note that the pattern resembles the ACRIM TSI composite pattern with a TSI increase from 1980 to 2000 and a decrease afterward. This contradicts both the PMOD pattern that the solar activity decreased since 1980 used by the IPCC and Leif’s flat-sun model.
So, NASA is finally getting around to acknowledging solar variations as a climate driver. But by insisting such effects are “regional” they avoid crossing up the United Nations IPCC story that solar variations have little effect on global climate (and therefore said variations are “manmade”).
It seems to me such announcements are further evidence of various scientific bodies beginning to distance themselves from AGW theory while simultaneously pretending fealty to that political hot potato.
Perhaps recognition of the need to save face has motivated the practice of science.
David Oliver Smith says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:10 am
“Clouds are the conducting medium. ”
If so I must revise my previous understanding that clouds are electrical insulators and that property causes a space charge to develop across them. This space charge promotes an electro-scavenging process that helps to nucleate cloud droplets. But my memory is a bit fuzzy on this.
Report says: “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.”
I guess the experts they got together failed to look at all the data showing that the LIA was a global not a regional event. They mention the “biterly cold winters”, but since crops failures leading to starvation were a summer event the summers were no great shakes either.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/paper-shows-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
NSA,
Raymond Bradley of UMass states,
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.
Perhaps someone will explain why solar variability is NOT considered the cause of global warming over the last 50 years when its activity was at an 11,500 year high and yet it is speculated that it could be the cause of the Maunda minimum, also how can the sun only effect the Northern hemisphere.
Since I am interested in the CETs long record, in the report I found a good reference on page 20.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Report-p20.htm
their TSI is at odds with one being ‘sold’ by Dr.Svalgaard.
I detect a , “oops we got it wrong on co2 but let’s slowly reveal the why we did have some warming”
I am way over my head on the science but can assure you that among “great unwashed” we assume that the Sun affects weather, climate, and temperature based on our personal expeirence. Statements against that belief helped lead to the general AGW skepticism the polls show. I will say that the “complexity” hedge in this statement and the recent UK Met Office statement is different in tone than what we were hearing in 2009/10 leading to COP. The big team does seem to be sticking with the general line for now but fraying around the edges is noticable. I agree with Tim Ball on the need for a good house cleaning. No amnesty.
I’m sure Mann et all are NOT happy being upstaged by a bunch of sophisticated and specialized scientists convened by NASA. But then, them’s the breaks!
This paper is exciting. It would be wonderful if this multi-disciplinary approach could someday result in the ability to make ex ante climate predictions that are borne out by reality.
But I can see that the paper is laced with phrases designed to tread lightly around AGW and to automatically pooh-pooh the idea that the sun could be responsible for warming in the last century.
The climate is very complicated and I think climate researchers in general really ought to use the “method of multiple working hypothesis” where one entertains multiple hypothesis simultaneously. This way the author doesn’t end up being biased trying to support “his” hypothesis; instead, he considers what the evidence means for each of his hypothesis.
Jeff Glassman says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:42 am
“Cloud cover albedo is the most powerful feedback in all of Earth’s climate because it gates the Sun.”
When a cloud forms it is in local thermal equilibrium with the strata of the atmosphere that formed it. That means the energy balance at that level remains unchanged; there is more scattered shortwave going up and more reflected longwave going down. The inputs and outputs still balance and the overall energy balance is unaffected. So our senses can deceive us about the effect of clouds, but having said that there is still an effect. Clouds form at low altitude so the air parcels that rise to form them do not need as much of an energy boost as they would for clear air convection which would otherwise take place, and which pushes air parcels to a much higher altitude. So the difference is in surface temperatures, which are reduced in either case. All convection generates a negative feedback factor, but clouds are more negative than clear air. And precipitation is most negative of all. The point here is that clouds are somewhat more negative than clear air, but precipitation dwarfs them both. Gray and Schwartz discuss this.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf
David Y says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:42 am
Slightly OT, but really, we need to silence denier skeptics…
————————————————————————–
Joe Stalin couldn’t have put it better.
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 rather than to anthropogenic influences”
————————————————————-
This statement is not based on this new report, but a reference to the party line, see the following sentence:
“The IPCC Fourth Assessment23 and the recent National Research Council report on climate
choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years.”
Can we have our R-12 and R-22 back now? It looks like the sun is what causes these ozone fluctuations, maybe it’s time to go back and check those models that show that hydrofluorocarbons cause the ozone decrease.
It is said that in Science, lies have short legs and don’t run far.
While it is heartening to see (finally) some serious consideration of solar effects, it has been in the long term inevitable that real Science wins out over socially acceptable semi-science.
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study.
A thousand climate alarmists heads just exploded with this statement. “But, but, we have to keep the data to ourselves.”
Stephen Rasey says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:36 am
I submit that the greatest scientific discoveries were done with a mind open to unconventional theories that better fit observations than the accepted conventional theories/dogma
And I submit that you are wrong on this. Progress comes when new data and observations make the old theories untenable [and when old scientists die off].
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:52 am
the ACRIM TSI composite pattern with a TSI increase from 1980 to 2000 and a decrease afterward. This contradicts both the PMOD pattern that the solar activity decreased since 1980 used by the IPCC and Leif’s flat-sun model.
As Werner Schmutz [SORCE 2011] concedes: “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008!”
Robuk says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:09 am
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Perhaps someone will explain why solar variability is NOT considered the cause of global warming over the last 50 years when its activity was at an 11,500 year high
Because it is not true that activity is at an 11,500 year high.
Manfred says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:38 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”
This statement is not based on this new report
Read it on page 7.
This is encouraging. I suggest a number of additional meetings will be needed in the not to distant future. I think we need a higher degree of skepticism. That said, it is encouraging that many seem to recognize the logic associated with the sun’s activities and conditions here on earth. Something most of us of the “great unwashed mass” figured out about 5K years ago at the least. Now the trick is keep everyone cooperating and sharing ideas and suppress those all to highly inflated egos of many researchers. Everyone needs to be reminded that empirical measures are king and numerical models are tools not results.
Bill Illis
I’m just saying, none has ever looked at the issue this way that I am aware of.
You are probably right since all papers trying to explore this would have been blocked in peer-review by Leif S.
“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”.
Yes……and “Climate Scientst” …….is not mentioned.
Egyptians knew about solar fluctuations 4500 years ago and the effect’s on climate – That,s why they raised the Sun stature to a God RA which had direct influence over every aspect of their lives. In addition Khonsu God of the Moon was also worshipped and understood as a mayor influence on life on earth through regeneration/tides etc..
They were a lot smarter than many of the so called see no sun influence scientists of today!
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:10 am
“‘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.”
Word-Smith.
Two words … magnetic reconnections. The amount of energy generated is huge.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard
Note that they didn’t say:
“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”
TSIsolar variation “rather than to anthropogenic influences”Assuming this team was assembled to actually investigate the possibilities and not to determine the best way to prop the dogma against the idea then I salute the effort.
Obviously, TSI variation is too small to greatly affect climate directly unless climate sensitivity is way higher than we think.
To dismiss solar variation out of hand just because the mechanism is unknown is absurd. At one time the mechanisms for CO2 to affect temperature and for temperature (ocean) to affect atmospheric CO2 concentration were unknown. While I can’t say I’m anywhere near convinced that solar variation is a significant driver (let alone dominant) of global average temperature (sigh), I do realize that a correlation is stronger positive evidence than a correlation with CO2 since there are mechanisms for the CO2 to Temp cause and effect to be either way, no such possibility exists (or at least none that are remotely feasible) for global average temperature to affect solar activity. Such that, IF there is a strong correlation between global average temperature and sunspot numbers then there’s almost definitely a common cause and some mechanism for that common cause to affect global average temperature. There’s certainly enough reason to warrant an exploration/investigation that I think of as the “Rawls Objection”.
I would also salute investigations into other objections to the CAGW meme:
An increase in atmospheric (thin hollow sphere) internal energy (increasing CO2 concentration slightly increases the average number of molecular degrees of freedom in the atmosphere) necessarily increases the outgoing radiation not just the down-welling radiation. “Lindzen Objection”.
Feedbacks being strongly net-positive are highly unlikely given the billions of years that temperature has remained within a narrow range. “RGB Objection”
Cloud feedbacks aren’t necessarily small or positive. “Spencer Objection”
Extreme weather events don’t increase with warming. “Christy Objection”
Surface temperature record inadequately accounts for UHI and other effects. “Watts Objection”
Earth’s climate/weather systems encompass mechanisms to dump excess heat. “Willis Objection”
The cost of adaptation is orders of magnitude less than mitigation efforts which would most likely be ineffectual anyway. “Monckton Objection”
The so-called evidence for unprecedented warming is wrought with statistical errors. “McIntyre Objection”
I want it warmer: Tropics from Pole to Pole! “West Objection” (LOL)
(Yes, I realize there’s a lot of overlap between the “players” and the objections and that this “list” is nowhere near complete.)