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
Leif said:
“TSI [as Eddy emphasized] is where almost all the energy is”
It isn’t the location of the energy that matters. It is the speed of throughput within the atmosphere that matters and the amount that the atmosphere refuses to accept as a result of reflection (albedo).
So, if solar variations alter the chemical composition of an atmosphere then the effect on the change in the rate of throughput can be out of all proportion to any change in the amount of energy being supplied.
Furthermore, if such changes alter cloudiness (as they do seem to do) then there is a huge potential amplifying factor in the denying of energy to the oceans altogether (increased global albedo) or the adding of more energy to the oceans (decreased global albedo).
It is changes in chemical composition and consequent albedo changes that we must look to for an explanation of solar induced climate change.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 8:02 am
It isn’t the location of the energy that matters. It is the speed of throughput within the atmosphere that matters and the amount that the atmosphere refuses to accept as a result of reflection (albedo).
You can’t get more energy out than you put in. And your statement is extremely muddled: ‘Location?’, ‘Speed?’, ‘Refuses?’, etc
Alot of effort to support the “it’s the sun” conjecture, but I see nothing convincing. Even Mosher somewhere above asked some proper skeptical questions. Dr S has the patience of a stone.
When you see the road you’ve taken is a dead-end, turn back…
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 8:02 am
It isn’t the location of the energy that matters. It is the speed of throughput within the atmosphere that matters and the amount that the atmosphere refuses to accept as a result of reflection (albedo).
___________________________________________________________________________
Makes a great deal of sense to me – but how can something so insignificant as the sun have much impact 😉 Surely climate variations have to be attributable to something more major, like the piffling affect that CO2 has – NOT?
TC
TC says:
January 10, 2013 at 9:10 am
Makes a great deal of sense to me – but how can something so insignificant as the sun have much impact 😉 Surely climate variations have to be attributable to something more major
This is precisely the point. The ‘major’ element is the energy coming from the Sun, but people don’t want to consider that; instead they in desperation attribute climate change to the insignificant ‘other’ variables. Go figure…
The initial part of this blog post speaks about the ways in which the relatively large increases in UV radiation at the peak of a solar cycle can create more stratospheric ozone, which in turn might change circulation patterns in the troposphere, thus alterning temperature patterns and average temperatures.
A few months ago, a solar researcher named Joanna Haigh was castigated on WUWT (I don’t remember who did the castigating). But Haigh well known for linking changes in UV radiation with changes in upper atmosphere ozone, and thus in earth’s temperature and circulation patterns. Perhaps she is owned an apology?
Leif Svalgaard: As I said: new data and observations are what drive science and make scientists believe new theories.
You seem unwilling to accept that the error was of any importance. Yet the error had at least two components that are quite relevant to discussions of possible error in climate science. (1) Rutherford (it was Rutherford, wasn’t it, instead of Lord Kelvin? Was it both?) was supremely confident in his result (in this he was followed by generations of physicists); (2) he assumed that something not known did not in fact exist, a perversion of Occam’s razor which is a sort of warning against unfounded assumptions.
Now to TSI: it may be an error to assume or assert that variations in a fraction of incoming sunlight necessarily change the fraction of TSI that hits the Earth surface; but it is equally an error to assert that variations in fractions of incoming sunlight necessarily do not have any such effect. Variations in some aspects of solar output seem to have some association with variations in Earthly weather: instead of confidently asserting that no such variations can have any effect because TSI is the only thing that matters (thereby possibly repeating “Rutherford’s Error”), it would make a lot more sense to hold open the possibility (as the report of this thread does) and examine all possibilities in detail, as diverse researchers are doing.
Paraphrasing Planck, established scientists do not have open minds, but graduate students and other new entrants to the field do have open minds. It would be a disservice to them to advocate that they close their minds now and adopt your established view. In my humble opinion, anyway, though it may sound harsh in writing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
( all of the above LS responses))
—————————————————————————————————-
So Leif given you give the impression you have all the answers what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little ice age ??
Mario Lento says: January 10, 2013 at 1:09 am
@Larry in Texas says:
January 10, 2013 at 12:19 am
Good work, Anthony… Finally, NASA as an organization is beginning to see this and do the job they were hired to do…
++++++
You’re being too positive about NASA Larry. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institue is not beginning to see anything except they know that more people will know they are wrong headed. They see that it is inevitable that they will be found on the wrong side of the “politically motivated science propaganda” debate. We should NOT be paying them to fool us any longer.
As a kid, I was so proud of NASA for what they were doing. Now, I feel embarrassment for the US to go with the rest of the world monetizing fear…
==================================
The great mission of NASA, i.e., exploration of the solar system, has reached its bounds. They are casting about for a new role to enthrall the public.The global-warming bandwagon holds the best prospects of generating the funding levels that NASA needs to sustain itself. NASA still dreams of a space station:
“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.”
These big government entities are positively organic in nature.
mpainter
Leif Svalgaard: Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 8:02 am
It isn’t the location of the energy that matters. It is the speed of throughput within the atmosphere that matters and the amount that the atmosphere refuses to accept as a result of reflection (albedo).
LS response: You can’t get more energy out than you put in. And your statement is extremely muddled: ‘Location?’, ‘Speed?’, ‘Refuses?’, etc
Are you being dense on purpose? Nobody has asserted that “you” can “get more energy out” than “you” put in. Energy out does not equal energy in at every place in the climate system at all times, or else there would never be any temperature changes: such a state is called “steady state” and the Earth doesn’t have it.
“Refuses”: absorption in the upper atmosphere, reflection from the top of the clouds, friction in air and water .
“Speed”: rate of transfer of heat from one part of the climate system to another fluctuates, as when jet streams alter course, when cyclones form over oceans and traverse their courses, when cold masses of air move from the poles toward the Equator, when water evaporates and then cools and descends as rain.
“Location”: some parts of the Earth absorb more energy from the sun than other parts (e.g. tropics vs poles”; and some parts radiate more to space than other parts (poles vs. cloud-shrouded areas.) All of the energy transfer processes in the climate happen in particular places at particular times, and face particular impedences. This is the fact, or rather a large collection of facts, overlooked in the “equilibrium” portrait of climate as presented in such books as Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”.
oops: (tropics vs poles), not (tropics vs poles”
Plenty of interesting comments here. I would reaffirm that even though the sun may vary by 0.1%, that is significant in that the volume of energy and the type of energy can have exclusivity in how it affects another system. For example, the energy of GCR’s compared to the visual spectrum, or ultraviolet radiation. And the problem of volume in that 0.1% of the ocean compared to 0.1% of my morning coffee; we see how statistical numeration affects our perception and weighted importance.
My point is, I have been on the wagon that the sun, though varies little in TSI, because it is the master of a wide variety of energy regimes, has been the driver of global temperatures, all else being equal.
Leif said:
“You can’t get more energy out than you put in”
I never said you could. But you can alter the speed of throughput by one mechanism (GHGs absorbing more energy) and have a negative system response to cancel it (changed air circulation).
and:
“The ‘major’ element is the energy coming from the Sun,”
So what ?
We are considering what happens within the atmosphere as a result of solar effects on chemical composition and not absolute energy input.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 10, 2013 at 10:30 am
Are you being dense on purpose?
I am trying [in vain] to get Stephen to put numbers to his assertions, without which he has no theory, just hand waving.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
So what ? We are considering what happens within the atmosphere as a result of solar effects on chemical composition and not absolute energy input.
So, now we are considering an apparatus [a ‘box’] where by your mechanisms we can change the temperature more than by the total energy applied to the box. Correct?
FrankK says:
January 10, 2013 at 10:14 am
what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little ice age ??
The climate system has variations on the order of 1000-2000 yr duration. There is no good evidence that these are caused by the Sun. If you claim they are, then what caused those variations of the Sun? You can accept such changes in the Sun but not in the climate…
“So, now we are considering an apparatus [a ‘box’] where by your mechanisms we can change the temperature more than by the total energy applied to the box. Correct?”
A distinctly perverse interpretation.
We are considering a box in which one factor can change the speed of throughput and another can negate it but the net outcome is a change in circulation pattern leaving surface temperature and top of atmosphere balance unchanged but a noticeably different arrangement of climate zones and jet stream tracks.
The irritating thing is that Leif knows perfectly well by now the nature of my propositions (much the same as now belatedly produced by NASA) yet in every post in which he attempts a rebuttal he behaves as if he has no idea and comes up with an infinite variety of avoidance measures.
It’s like dealing with one of those toys with a large round base that pop up again however hard one hits them.
All we have to do is wait and see. All the evidence is going my way.
“I am trying [in vain] to get Stephen to put numbers to his assertions, without which he has no theory, just hand waving.”
The numbers are not currently available as you well know.
However there is data of various kinds and I constantly link to it.
The changes in trends over the past 1000 years are clear enough and the correlation with solar activity is becoming clearer with time. Even Leif’s flattened sunspot charts have not rubbed it out.
A hypothesis/theory does not require numbers. It does need data of some sort but observed changes in trends are good enough as data to form the basis of a workable proposition without it being decried as ‘hand waving’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:24 am
FrankK says:
January 10, 2013 at 10:14 am
what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little ice age ??
The climate system has variations on the order of 1000-2000 yr duration. There is no good evidence that these are caused by the Sun. If you claim they are, then what caused those variations of the Sun? You can accept such changes in the Sun but not in the climate…
—————————————————————————————————————–
Leif with the greatest of respect, your answer is deflective – did I say the sun caused them?
You have not answered my question:
What in your opinion caused the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age??
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:34 am
We are considering a box in which one factor can change the speed of throughput and another can negate it but the net outcome is a change in circulation pattern leaving surface temperature and top of atmosphere balance unchanged
So the unchanged surface temperature is what they call Global Warming?
“Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.”
I assume the petroleum industry means “a role in the current global temperature anomaly.” Note that all of the evidence shows the sun has had no effect at all on Earth’s current global temperature. The fact, over the past 33 years the sun has cooled by a very tiny amount, with the energy budget being -0.04 watts per meter squared, plus or minus 0.02 watts per meter squared. Only human-released CO2 explains the global temperature increase, which is a damn shame.
“So the unchanged surface temperature is what they call Global Warming?”
As you should know from my work there is no change from GHGs.
However there is a change from the global air circulation altering to allow more or less energy into the oceans.
But from GHGs it is insignificant as compared to the changes wrought by the interactions between sun and oceans. I have said that many times but as usual you raise dead debating points by simply ignoring everything I said in the past.
And I have NASA on side as regards the solar effects on circulation.
Is that why you are grumpy ?
Desertphile says:
January 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Only human-released CO2 explains the global temperature increase, which is a damn shame.
———————————————————————————————————
Of course Desertphile you have left out of your theory the last 16 to 18 years of no statistical warming .
And I will ask you the same question:
What caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? Could not have been human generated CO2 now could it?
Lleif Svalgaard: I am trying [in vain] to get Stephen to put numbers to his assertions, without which he has no theory, just hand waving.
I think that you are trying to do more: you are asserting that there is no value in trying to develop quantitative theories of the sort that Stephen Wilde is working toward; based on the fact that the quantitative theories are not now available.
FrankK says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:43 am
……..
Here is an alternative view.
We have a good record of the MWP and LIA proxies and many written records, mainly related to the N. Hemisphere.
The N. Hemisphere climate can and I think it does change depending on the ratio of the energy absorbed and released. This is mainly controlled by the polar jet stream. Change the jet stream’s direction from longitudinal to meridional and you changed the N. Hemisphere’s climate.
Critical factor here is the semi-permanent atmospheric pressure system known as the Icelandic Low, the cause of jet-stream ‘blocking’. The Icelandic Low pressure system is direct consequence of the down-welling both South and North of the Iceland where several hundred W/m2 is released into atmosphere.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/04.18.jpg
Intensity of down-welling is dependant on the balance of warm and cold currents flowing through the Denmark Strait.
Why this would change, it is not exactly known but the geological records from the area show a good correlation with the CET, the longest temperature record the science has:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
The most interesting aspect of this is that the same geological records also correlate well with the solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
Since Earth can’t influence the sun, it is either the sun or some other common cause (e.g. some planetary configuration) which is the driver of these events.
I suggest take also a look at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ATO.htm
It should be remembered that the magnetic field is reflection of what is going on in the Earth’s interior, also the GCR modulation by the Earth’s magnetic field is an order of magnitude stronger than the modulation by the heliospheric magnetic field.
More on the subject in the near future.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Stephen Rasey says:
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
———————————————————————————————————
Leif, you are wrong to say Stephen Rasey is wrong. It’s so obvious that lots of the greatest scientific discoveries were made exactly as Stephen says. One can think of examples straight away, concerning the greatest discoveries. Newton. Copernicus. Galileo. Kepler. Etc.
But the fact that you are wrong on the above count, does not make your second sentence wrong. It is not even too different to what Stephen says. You simply miss the unfortunate fact that there are lots of trained scientists who will defend their pet theories to the death, rather than admit they are untenable, even when new (or even pre-existing) data and observations are available and even pointed out repeatedly. And such people are not the people who ever make great science breakthroughs. They are the ones who stifle them.
That’s largely what WUWT has been about. Countering folk like Michael Mann and IPCC.
Leif, you have a lot of expertise that is precious. But I’ve never heard you admit to having been wrong, in exchanges here. It would endear you a lot more to a lot of us, if you were to do so sometimes. This seems to be an obvious place to do so.