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
Berényi Péter
January 9, 2013 12:54 pm

Should have lots of photodetectors floating in the ocean at a depth of 100 m or so, reporting how much SW radiation (mostly UVA & blue light) penetrates to that depth, measured in W/m². It depends on
1. solar short wave
2. clouds
3. organic stuff floating
Determines ocean volume warming/cooling, as opposed to thermal infrared, which is absorbed at surface.

Jean Parisot
January 9, 2013 12:57 pm

Why haven’t we had a conference like this before?

January 9, 2013 1:03 pm

At last some research of note into solar-climate-weather co0nnections. They are real and this is well overdue…way too much research money wasted on CO2, etc, so far, by a country mile or trillion dollars or so!!!

Editor
January 9, 2013 1:10 pm

Perhaps it’s a minor point, but isn’t the variation in solar output 0.2%, and not 0.1%? From the graph it looks like 3 W/m2 out of ~1362, or about 0.2% …
w.

January 9, 2013 1:12 pm

“The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. ”
Implying the evidence for GHG warming is global. Which is false.
Change in a global average isn’t evidence for a global effect.
Until we start to look at individual stations in relation to other local variables, clouds, aerosols, DMS, surface albedo, humidity, etc, and at what times of day warming/cooling occurs, we are never going to find out what actually drives surface temperatures. Nor are we going to know what proportion of local warming is due to global effects.
IMO the biggest impediment to understanding the climate is climate science’s mania for global (and large scale) averages.

January 9, 2013 1:17 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:35 am
“However, he was unwilling to discuss these effects because any mention of relatavistic effects induced suspicion of his hypothesis.”
One would think that would be long since resolved. It’s one of the first observable effects of Special Relativity one learns in upper level physics.

janef
January 9, 2013 1:20 pm

It doesn’t seem to me there will be any difference in main-stream thinking. This article convinces the reader that the problem will be back in 2020.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23060-has-global-warming-ground-to-a-halt.html

Manfred
January 9, 2013 1:26 pm

John West says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“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 solar variation “rather than to anthropogenic influences”
——————————————–
You are right, dismissing only TSI is a very weak formulation with almost no information content. That Leif Savalggard jumped on that is a bit disappointing.
They have probably crafted this statement carefully, so the take-away should be that they deliberately excluded other solar parameters in this statement. That’s the real memo.

Editor
January 9, 2013 1:28 pm

David Oliver Smith says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:10 am

… The energy from lightning heats the atmosphere.

It does, but I ran the numbers once. It’s not that large an effect, particularly when averaged over the globe. It does, however, increase the thermal cycling rate of the thunderstorm.
Roughly, it’s 5 gigajoulses/strike, and about 60 billion strikes per year. That’s about 300 gJ/year, which is a lot. On a continuous basis, thats about 10e+12 watts … but there’s about 5.1e+14 square metres of surface area on the planet, so we only end up with a net heating of 0.02 W/m2 as a global average.
w.

January 9, 2013 1:30 pm

John West says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“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 [solar variation] “rather than to anthropogenic influences”
IF there is a strong correlation between global average temperature and sunspot numbers then there’s almost definitely a common cause
But since there is no such strong correlation…
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Perhaps it’s a minor point, but isn’t the variation in solar output 0.2%, and not 0.1%? From the graph it looks like 3 W/m2 out of ~1362, or about 0.2%
Depends on the time scale, from day to day it can be as much as 0.4%, but for yearly average the variation is about 0.1% [again depending a bit on the cycle – for the current one probably less, 0.06% so far]

January 9, 2013 1:32 pm

January 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm
John West says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“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 [solar variation] “rather than to anthropogenic influences”
IF there is a strong correlation between global average temperature and sunspot numbers then there’s almost definitely a common cause
But since there is no such strong correlation…
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Perhaps it’s a minor point, but isn’t the variation in solar output 0.2%, and not 0.1%? From the graph it looks like 3 W/m2 out of ~1362, or about 0.2%
Depends on the time scale, from day to day it can be as much as 0.4%, but for yearly average the variation is about 0.1% [again depending a bit on the cycle – for the current one probably less, 0.06% so far]

January 9, 2013 1:35 pm

Manfred says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm
You are right, dismissing only TSI is a very weak formulation with almost no information content.
TSI is where almost all the energy is, that is the strong informational content. Dismissing the overwhelming energy source is the weak viewpoint.

January 9, 2013 1:41 pm

‘You are probably right since all papers trying to explore this would have been blocked in peer-review by Leif S.

Do you believe we landed on the moon?

u.k.(us)
January 9, 2013 1:54 pm

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.
================
I’ll add, insatiable curiosity.
To avoid piling on.

January 9, 2013 2:01 pm

vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:17 pm
…..the solar/earth magnetic field effect is at its strongest….. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ATO.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:01 pm
“There is no such effect”
Consequently, there is no such thing as the climate change !

January 9, 2013 2:09 pm

“It would have been nice to have had some attribution given the overlap with my earlier work and the similarity of the language used.

Simple, make a quantitative prediction ( use numbers ) .
“The bit they fail to get as yet is that those circulation changes alter global cloudiness to alter the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans which skews ENSO towards El Nino or La Nina for an effect on global tropospheric temperatures until the solar changes fade away again.”
1.What variable changes in solar output.
2. What circulation change does it create.
3. How is cloudiness altered
4. What is the change in input to the oceans
5. under what cases does it sku to El nino and what cases la Nina
You must put numbers on this to verify or falsify. Suggesting what data to look at PRIOR to the solar changes would be a real test. And the sun is cooperating as the next 5 years should be interesting.
in fact its a perfect time for folks who think the sun dunnit to propose testable theories.
Looks like we are at a max or approaching one. So predict away? what will change in the climate? and will that change happen right away or be lagged. Not to hard a question.

January 9, 2013 2:13 pm

vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Consequently, there is no such thing as the climate change !
The correct statement would be: “there is no such thing as Vuk-‘science'”

TomR,Worc,MA
January 9, 2013 2:29 pm

Has anyone checked in with RealClimate? Not that I would give them the traffic.

Stephen Wilde
January 9, 2013 2:37 pm

“Suggesting what data to look at PRIOR to the solar changes would be a real test”
Already done in my various articles and in exchanges with Leif on this very site.
I’m just going to sit back and laugh 🙂

Stephen Wilde
January 9, 2013 3:02 pm

I’ll help Steven Mosher out a bit :
1.What variable changes in solar output ?
Changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths so as to alter atmospheric chemistry especially as regards ozone thereby altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and interfering with the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator.
2. What circulation change does it create ?
The climate zones and jet stream tracks are then enabled to slide to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
3. How is cloudiness altered ?
More meridional or equatorward jets increase the length of the lines of air mass mixing to produce more clouds
4. What is the change in input to the oceans?
Less clouds when the sun is active and the jets more poleward or zonal allows more energy into the oceans especially beneath the expanded subtropical high pressure cells.
5. Under what cases does it skew to El nino and what cases la Nina ?
More energy into the oceans skews ENSO in favour of El NIno and less energy into the oceans skews ENSO in favour of La Nina. The basic ENSO oscillation continues in the background.
All that and more is already set out in detail in my work and in my past blog posts.
NASA apparently agrees with me but I think I am several steps ahead without the aid of supercomputers or vast amounts of grant money.

Richard M
January 9, 2013 3:16 pm

IF there is a strong correlation between global average temperature and sunspot numbers then there’s almost definitely a common cause
Leif responds: But since there is no such strong correlation…

Maybe there is no correlation because the temperature record has been incorrectly adjusted. It’s going to be difficult to determine the effects when we can’t trust the temperature numbers.

Matthew R Marler
January 9, 2013 3:29 pm

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.”
Everything that happens in weather is local or regional, with general effects due to general circulation. The “climate” is merely all of the weather, with analytical focus on the spatio-temporal distributions of measurements (rainfall, temperature profiles, wind, humidity, etc), and the gross energy flows (jetstreams, currents, hurricanes, “blue northers”, sciroccos, etc.) Bradley’s comment is almost as useless as if he had said: “Changes in solar activity are mostly unrelated to climate change because every photon falls in a particular place.”
Steven Mosher: 1.What variable changes in solar output.
2. What circulation change does it create.
3. How is cloudiness altered
4. What is the change in input to the oceans
5. under what cases does it sku to El nino and what cases la Nina

I agree but I would replace “change” with “changes” — a minor rhetorical change. If any reliable correlations (and other models of vector time series like polynomial co-integrated VARs) are computed between attributes of solar change and attributes of climate change, those provide clues of where to look for mechanisms responsible for the correlations (a paraphrase of a point from “Causality” by Judea Pearl.)

Mooloo
January 9, 2013 3:29 pm

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].

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.
Galileo didn’t show heavy things fall as quickly as slow ones because the data changed. He proposed an experiment after he worked out the theoretical issues.
There was precious little new data when Newton worked out his inverse square law of gravity. He was just clever enough to invent calculus first, so he could actually prove his theory. I bet others had the idea, but didn’t have the maths.
Dirac proposed anti-matter long before it could be found. Entirely on theory without a shred of evidence. So much so that he almost regretted suggesting it.
Plate tectonics didn’t rely on new data, just a better interpretation of current data.
There are many, many examples of theory preceding new data, especially at the paradigm shift level.
The “observations make the new theories untenable” way of working is very rare (although it was what drove quantum theory, for example). All theories pretty much have holes in them all the time. Only sometimes do they collapse under their own weight. The rest of the time they limp on, often which enormous holes – for centuries even.
There’s major issues with the “standard model” of particle physics. Yet no-one can construct a better model. When they do, it will be because someone makes the intuitive leap (or discovers the requisite maths) not because the old data is untenable. It has been untenable for decades now.

rogerknights
January 9, 2013 3:34 pm

The reason the IPCC SOD allowed a role for solar variation is now apparent, for those who can connect the dots: It was given a heads-up as to what the likely outcome of this confab would be.

FrankK
January 9, 2013 3:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:10 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
………………………….
‘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.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Indeed that’s true. But that can also mean that ones views can become entrenched, inflexible and fixed! The theory of Lord Kelvin earth’s core cooling period comes to mind which was subsequently found to be substantially in error.!