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 Svalgaard says:
“Because TSI [as Eddy emphasized] is where almost all the energy is”
So? H2O and clouds is where almost all the GHE energy is.
“But from GHGs it is insignificant as compared to the changes wrought by the interactions between sun and oceans.”
And yet the world’s scientists for the past 170+ years have said, and are still saying, the exact opposite. Golly, I wonder why?
“Of course Desertphile you have left out of your theory the last 16 to 18 years of no statistical warming.”
Oddly enough, the data shows a very sharp increase in global average temperature for the past “16 to 18” years, more than two SD above the pre-industrial average (i.e., statistically significant warming). How do you justify your lie?
“What caused the Medieval Warm Period”
… a regional event, that was cooler than now….
“and the Little Ice Age?”
… also a regional event….
“Could not have been human generated CO2 now could it?”
No scientist claimed otherwise.
[snip. Over the top and insulting. Take it elsewhere. — mod.]
[snip. Read the site Policy. Abide by it or go elsewhere. — mod.]
Leif Svalgaard says: “Because TSI [as Eddy emphasized] is where almost all the energy is”
No. Solar variation does not affect Earth’s climate— a fact NASA stated, and Watts even quoted NASA saying that…. at the very same time Watts claimed NASA said the opposite.
John West says: “So? H2O and clouds is where almost all the GHE energy is.”
Yes, more or less. WV and CO2 are what has caused and is causing the anomalous retention of unprecedented retention of heat. As NASA and others have pointed out (including me in one of my latest YouTube videos), solar variation has zero effect on Earth’s climate. In the past 1.2 billion years the sun’s change caused three climate changes, but none in the past 800 million years.
[snip. Your insults about WUWT are not welcome here. Take them elsewhere. — mod.]
Funny isnt, we say sun has influence on climate and get told what ignorant simpletons we are.. Nasa says it and suddenly it is a maybe and could be and needs further study by an old buddy of mine response. geeze.
Desertphile says:
“…the world’s scientists for the past 170+ years have said, and are still saying, the exact opposite.”
Not really. Credible scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Eschenbach, Christy, Watts, Idso, Miskolczi, and many others would probably disagree.
Next, Desertphile claims:
“… the data shows a very sharp increase in global average temperature for the past “16 to 18″ years, more than two SD above the pre-industrial average…”
Mendacious nonsense. In fact, no credible scientist now believes that global warming is accelerating. Even the ultra alarmist Met Office now admits that global warming has stalled.
Next, Desertphile says regarding the MWP and LIA:
“… a regional event, that was cooler than now…” “… also a regional event…”
Mere assertions, and wrong. Numerous ice cores show conclusively that both events were world wide; they occurred at the same time in both hemispheres.
Stating the facts is “insulting?” The NRC stated the exact opposite of what Watts’ headline here states. Stating that fact is not an “insult.”
[snip -policy violation using the d-word to label people isn’t allowed here -mod]
FrankK says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:43 am
Leif with the greatest of respect, your answer is deflective – did I say the sun caused them?
With reference to the title of this post [let me remind you: “NASA on the sun…”] one might surmise that you meant the Sun, otherwise you comment would be [shudder] OT, and you wouldn’t stoop to that, would you?.
What in your opinion caused the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age??
I have said many times [as you should know – and if you pretend not to know reflects badly on you] that every sufficiently complex and non-linear system [and I surmise that the climate qualifies – do you disagree?] has natural, internal, almost stochastic fluctuations on many time-scales. The climate seems to have such fluctuations on times of 1000-2000 years. Perhaps one day we’ll have figured out the cause of those, or perhaps it is just chaos that we can’t predict, control, or understand the details of.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm
“So the unchanged surface temperature is what they call Global Warming?”
As you should know from my work there is no change from GHGs.
then you are a bit wrong. There is definitely some effect of GHGs, otherwise the temperature would be about 33 degrees cooler. What you wanted to say was ‘no significant change from GHGs’, but then we are down to ‘how much is significant?’, i.e. a number. Without such a number your statement cannot be tested and you are nowhere.
And I have NASA on side as regards the solar effects on circulation.
Your irrelevant [and incorrect] reference to NASA, reminds me of the Dunning–Kruger_effect: “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.”
You are in good company, though, many other people here suffer from the same to varying degrees.
Is that why you are grumpy ?
Not grumpy. I feel that as a publicly funded scientists I have an obligation to perform EPO [if you don’t know what that is, see here: http://aim.hamptonu.edu/team/4team.html ]. Explaining Science, the Scientific Method, correcting Mistakes and Misconceptions, etc are important for the education of future generations. That, rather than personal glory and gloating, should be the driving force.
@LiefS 11:59 pm
New theories are forced upon us by new data and observations.
While not false, that is an incomplete statement with respect to at least two dimensions.
“New Theories” are not animate objects. Nor are they spontaneous; growing autonomously like weeds. They do not FORCE themselves upon US.
New Theories are hatched and incubated in and between open minds. Bad New Theories die young when they fit data no better than favored theories. Good New Theories, those that appear to reduce the residual “error” find a home in open minds. It is evolution on the intellectual plane. New Theories can co-exist with other favored theories. New Theories don’t force their way into closed minds — They are invited into open minds.
How many new theories have you formed? …. that you can opine on it with some authority? Argumentum ad hominem et ad verecundiam? OK, I’ll play. My CV and <a href=http://wiserways.com/articles/index.htmlpubs As an exploration geophysicist most of my adult life, I have had to deal with multiple, albeit small scale, theories in realms of high uncertainty, subjectively using Bayesian updating of multiple working hypothesis on decision and probability trees, always with an eye on economics. From that experience I can point to the second missing dimension of your argument.
When confronted with a seismic volume or section, you are applying geological strat-structural theories to make sense of the geophysical data. On more than one occasion, you step back from the cube and posit, WHAT IF that is a Fault Propagation Fold instead of a diapir? (to name one example). No more data than yesterday — just new theories to test. Does the new theory better fit the existing data? The only FORCE involved is the desire to find a theory and plan to improve the reward/risk ratio by reducing uncertainty and potential error to find the better places to put your capital.
New Theories are invited into Open Minds. They stay if they fit in. They are sent away if they don’t. Furthermore, they don’t have to displace the Older Theories. Einstein might be more right than Newton, but we still use Newton to orbit Saturn because the math is easier and good enough for the job.
@mpainter: “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.”
+++++++
I think it would take the Mars Curiosity to find some underground dwellers living on the planet to be deserving of any major funding. At this point, I certainly can do without paying them to tell us the sun might, maybe has a little more to do with climate than once believed.
@LiefS.
Maybe I don’t have authority you respect. Let’s try Feynman:
It is a great, if over referenced, quote. New Theories aren’t force upon us — they are invited in as guesses.
I humbly think two points need to be added. First, if the guess agrees with observations, you cannot say it is right, only that the guess/theory might be useful. The weakest part of Feynman’s quote is that “wrong” is a fuzzy concept. It can be wrong and still useful if it is “good enough”. My favorite quote from Asimov:
It is the theories’ incompleteness and their domains of validity that allow different theories to be compatible.
“Your irrelevant [and incorrect] reference to NASA”
Please explain.
It is clear that the report of their findings contains several statements that mirror the position that I have been setting out for several years and the general approach is identical in all essential features to my previously expressed diagnoses of climate features.
Leif thinks progress only comes from data.
Guess he never heard of thinking differently than before about the same data.
And that explains a whole lot.
@LiefS 8:24pm:
I surmise that the Sun is a sufficiently complex non-linear system. So shouldn’t we expect, natural, internal, almost stochastic solar fluctuations on many time-scales?
You seem to be saying that the Earth can have significant climate fluctuations of 1000-2000 years because it is a non-linear system, but that the Sun’s non-linear systems are incapable of significant fluctuations on those time scales. What is the basis for such certainty?
Stephen Rasey
Thanks for the quotes from Feynman and Asimov.
I was a great consumer of Asimov’s work as a youth and the style of my narratives owes much to the sensible and logical verbal expression of scientific principles which he applied in his many articles designed for the intelligent layman.
As regards climate and ‘usefulness’ I have previously pointed out to Leif and others that the relationships I propose between various solar and climate phenomena can produce some useful predictive skill as regards the discerning of current trends and the most likely sequence of future trends.
For example:
As long as the sun stays quiet we will continue to see:
(i) More meridional jets than in the late 20th century, probably with a net equatorward shift of the average tracks in due course.
ii) A cessation of any increase in ocean heat content, possibly with a falling in due course.
iii) A continuing cessation of stratospheric cooling probably with warming in due course. In that respect I noted a report of record lower stratospheric warming over Antarctica recently and of course there is much in the news at present about sudden stratospheric warming events above the Arctic.
iv) More frequent and lengthier incursions of cold polar air across mid latitudes and likewise more frequent and lengthier incursions of warm dry equatorial air across the same regions. That is what leads to more weather extremes, not absolute temperature.
v) Continued cessation of tropospheric warming with possibly a cooling to come.
vi) Continuing higher levels of global cloudiness and albedo than was observed in the late 20th century.
vii) Continuing weakness of El Nino relative to La Nina over and above what we would expect from the background 60 year Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation.
All of that is implicit in my earlier work and indeed now at last n the NASA report but currently I am way ahead of them in interpreting the data and the interconnected climate consequences of the various observations.
For the past 5 years I have been awaiting climate events that might go contrary to the above list of ‘predictions’. None have occurred as yet.
As for qualifications I find that 60 years of observations and the obsessive study of weather and climate trumps the formal paperwork of narrow specialists who have the arrogance to move to such a complex multidisciplinary field and think that they have something useful to say after a few years of ‘dipping their toes into the water’.
That is where astrophysicists went wrong with their radiative equations which fail to take adequate account of non radiative processes and so led to a daft theory that humans could make a significant difference to climate trends just from GHG emissions.
Of course I could be wrong but it is the real world that will tell me and not some big headed paper laden newbies living high on the hog from grant money, with nice safe pension arrangements or with vast funds in their pockets from the sale of assets to oil billionaires such as the Quatari Royal Family or from the commercial exploitation of technologies that are more destructive of the environment than modern methods of fossil fuel usage or from the carbon trading Ponzi schemes that seem to go down the drain as soon as they are created.
Do I seem annoyed ? 🙂
Mario Lento says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:20 pm
@mpainter: “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.”
+++++++
I think it would take the Mars Curiosity to find some underground dwellers living on the planet to be deserving of any major funding. At this point, I certainly can do without paying them to tell us the sun might, maybe has a little more to do with climate than once believed.
=================================
NASA [snip] thinks to hook some skepticals. Note the carefully pitched appeal to the notion of “sun-climate link”. But then note above how Caspar Amman and Raymond Bradly are also allowed their spins. This is a very carefully crafted press release, a product of a perpetual campaign to trump up support, and should be taken for nothing more. The fact is, NASA has pinned its hopes on surfing the AGW wave. That is why they have put up with the antics of James Hansen.
If they wise up, they then will play up the skeptical side and play down the AGW point of view, for as it stands now, their credibility is hurting and it won’t be easy to remedy that. IF they wise up, but such organizations have tremendous inertia. The first sign of an improved NASA will be the retirement of that Hansen miscreant.
Bill Illis says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:47 am
“A tiny, tiny difference in the Sun’s energy received versus the energy emitted each day is going to accumulate over time. I’m just saying, no one has ever looked at the issue this way that I am aware of.”
It’s not energy, but I’ve been looking at the daily temperature difference between today’s temp rise, and tonight’s drop in temps.
http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg
This is the average daily anomaly North of 23 lat for 1950-2010 time 100.
http://www.science20.com/files/images/Global%20Annual%201940-2010%20Diff_1.jpg
Here’s a similar graph for the continental US.
With regard to palace intrigue at NASA, I suspect that Hansen was tossed under the bus because investigation of variations in Solar output is, A.) more likely produce funding for space-based programs and B.) affords NASA first-tier access to all data obtained. This allows them to continue to control the message and access to data in much the same way they did when Hansen was slinging his AGW BS.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 11, 2013 at 12:21 am
You seem to be saying that the Earth can have significant climate fluctuations of 1000-2000 years because it is a non-linear system, but that the Sun’s non-linear systems are incapable of significant fluctuations on those time scales. What is the basis for such certainty?
The Earth’s fluctuations are observed. We have no observations of the Sun’s variability on that scale. But your claim that I think the sun is incapable of such is wrong. Your use of the word ‘certainty’ is disingenuous, there are no certainties in science.
New Theories aren’t force upon us — they are invited in as guesses.
How often do we not hear the statement “these new observations show that X [does something] more than previously thought”. New data and observations are what cause us the change our theories. We only change/reject/update/accept new theories when forced to do so by new data. This is my personal experience. It is not that new theories bubble out of thin air and then we go and see if we can find data that support them. Geology is actually a good example. Plate tectonics was forced upon us by observations of magnetic stripes on the sea floor, and did not spring from open minds.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:35 pm
“TSI is where almost all the energy is, that is the strong informational content. Dismissing the overwhelming energy source is the weak viewpoint.”
Wouldn’t the majority of the energy from the sun come from the shorter wave lengths UV-X-Ray? And while most doesn’t make it to the earths surface, it interacts with the upper atm.