Map of correlations suggest it may be affecting biomass and planetary albedo.
From the Hockey Schtick:
A paper published today in Methods in Ecology and Evolution describes a new satellite dataset of solar UV-B radiation for use in ecological studies. According to the authors, “UV-B surfaces were correlated with global mean temperature and annual mean radiation data, but exhibited variable spatial associations across the globe.” The finding is notable, since climate scientists dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change by only looking at the tiny 0.1% variations in total solar irradiance [TSI] over solar cycles, ignoring the large variations in solar UV of up to 100% over solar cycles, and which according to this paper, correlates to global mean temperature. Thus, the role of the Sun and solar amplification mechanisms on climate is only at the earliest stages of understanding.
In the supplemental information (SI) I found this correlation map, which was telling for me. Note the red of highest correlation – mostly in the tropics. This suggests to me that UVB is playing a role with ocean biomass, possibly modulating algae/plankton, which in turn changes the albedo, and absorption of other solar wavelengths into the oceans (which then affects nearby land-mass temperature).
The authors write: Finally, we mapped the four types of local spatial association for each pair of compared variables to show how the strength and type of spatial association vary geographically. Areas with non-significant relationship or negative (inverse) spatial association (Low-High, High-Low clusters) indicate locations where our glUV data provide new information (variability) that is not captured by considered existing climate variables. Below is an example of a LISA map for the above mentioned comparison of annual UV-B radiation versus annual temperature (Figure 4a in the manuscript).
Here is the press release:
Researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) have processed existing data on global UV-B radiation in such a way that scientists can use them to find answers to many ecological questions. According to the paper published in Methods in Ecology and Evolution, an online journal of the British Ecological Society, this data set allows drawing new conclusions about the global distribution of animal and plant species.
Many research projects study the effects of temperature and precipitation on the global distribution of plant and animal species. However, an important component of climate research, the UV-B radiation, is often neglected. The landscape ecologists from UFZ in collaboration with their colleagues from the Universities in Olomouc (Czechia), Halle and Lüneburg have processed UV-B data from the U.S. NASA space agency in such a way that they can be used to study the influence of UV-B radiation on organisms.
The basic input data were provided by a NASA satellite that regularly, since 2004, orbits the Earth at an altitude of 705 kilometres and takes daily measurements of the UV-B radiation. “For us, however, not daily but the long-term radiation values are crucial, as these are relevant for organisms”, says the UFZ researcher Michael Beckmann, the lead author of the study. The researchers therefore derived six variables from the UV-B radiation data. These include annual average, seasonality, as well as months and quarters with the highest or lowest radiation intensity.
In order to process the enormous NASA data set, the UFZ researchers developed a computational algorithm, which not only removed missing or incorrect readings, but also summed up the daily measurements on a monthly basis and determined long-term averages. The processed data are currently available for the years 2004-2013 and will be updated annually.
With this data set, scientists can now perform macro-ecological analyses on the effects of UV-B radiation on the global distribution of animal and plant species. “While there are still many uncertainties”, says Michael Beckmann, “the UV radiation is another factor that may explain why species are present or absent at specific sites.” The data set can also help addressing other research questions. Material scientists can identify strategies to provide better protection to UV-sensitive materials, such as paints or plastics, in specific regions of the world. Human medicine could use the data set to better explain the regional prevalence of skin diseases. “There are no set limits as to how researchers can use these data”, says Beckmann.
The data are now freely available for download on the internet and visually presented in the form of maps. These maps show, for example, that in countries in the southern hemisphere, such as New Zealand, the UV-B radiation is up to 50 percent higher than in the countries in the northern hemisphere, such as Germany. In general, the UV irradiation in winter is lower than in summer due to a shorter daily sunshine duration.
Background: Unlike the rather harmless UV-A radiation, the high-energy UV-B radiation causes health problems to humans, animals and plants. Well known is the higher risk of skin cancer in the New Zealand and Australia population if unprotected and exposed to sun for an extended period of time. Skin damage was also documented in whales and amphibians. In amphibians, UV-B radiation may also reduce survival rates of tadpoles and spawn eggs. In plants, the radiation reduces performance of photosynthesis, a process of using solar energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugars and oxygen. This inhibits production of biomass and thus reduces e.g. yields of agricultural crops.
The paper: glUV: a global UV-B radiation data set for macroecological studies
Michael Beckmann et al
Macroecology has prospered in recent years due in part to the wide array of climatic data, such as those provided by the WorldClim and CliMond data sets, which has become available for research. However, important environmental variables have still been missing, including spatial data sets on UV-B radiation, an increasingly recognized driver of ecological processes.
We developed a set of global UV-B surfaces (glUV) suitable to match common spatial scales in macroecology. Our data set is based on remotely sensed records from NASA’s Ozone Monitoring Instrument (Aura-OMI). Following a similar approach as for the WorldClim and CliMond data sets, we processed daily UV-B measurements acquired over a period of eight years into monthly mean UV-B data and six ecologically meaningful UV-B variables with a 15-arc minute resolution. These bioclimatic variables represent Annual Mean UV-B, UV-B Seasonality, Mean UV-B of Highest Month, Mean UV-B of Lowest Month, Sum of Monthly Mean UV-B during Highest Quarter and Sum of Monthly Mean UV-B during Lowest Quarter. We correlated our data sets with selected variables of existing bioclimatic surfaces for land and with Terra–MODIS Sea Surface Temperature for ocean regions to test for relations to known gradients and patterns.
UV-B surfaces showed a distinct seasonal variance at a global scale, while the intensity of UV-B radiation decreased towards higher latitudes and was modified by topographic and climatic heterogeneity. UV-B surfaces were correlated with global mean temperature and annual mean radiation data, but exhibited variable spatial associations across the globe. UV-B surfaces were otherwise widely independent of existing bioclimatic surfaces.
Our data set provides new climatological information relevant for macroecological analyses. As UV-B is a known driver of numerous biological patterns and processes, our data set offers the potential to generate a better understanding of these dynamics in macroecology, biogeography, global change research and beyond.
The glUV data set containing monthly mean UV-B data and six derived UV-B surfaces is freely available for download at: http://www.ufz.de/gluv.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Marine phytoplankton also affect climate by producing cloud condensation nuclei.
Very interesting study. Thank you.
The “sun has nothing to do with it” moment was when media-mainstream climatology “jumped the shark” for a lot of observers.
It was on the level of “there ain’t no such animal,” as the apocryphal zoo visitor said of the giraffe.
‘ New paper finds solar UV-B output is correlated to global mean temperature’
What ever happened to the doubters saying.’that correlation does not mean causation’? When it’s applied to releasing co2 and increased temperatures? Surely some mistake here?
Pay walled of course.
I’m curious to know if they published a temperature reconstruction versus the instrumental record? I’m kinda waiting to see if Leif pokes giant holes in this or not. But if not, then the correlation ought to diverge starting about 1950 or so if sensitivity to CO2 is significant.
“the tiny 0.1% variations in total solar irradiance [TSI] over solar cycles, ignoring the large variations in solar UV of up to 100% over solar cycles”
And around 15% minimum-to-peak variation in cosmic ray flux over an ordinary solar cycle, plus more over the “global warming” since the Little Ice Age when average absolute terrestrial temperatures in Kelvin rose by around 0.3% (as in my usual multitude of solar-climate correlation demonstrations in http://tinyurl.com/nbnh7hq ).
Anyway, I’ll have to look more at this to piece out what is causing what part, since high versus low solar activity times differ in more than UV though it is a factor.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/radiacion/ultravioleta?l=barcelona&f=anual
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/radiacion/ultravioleta?datos=mapa
I noticed that my birds don’t want to be in the direct sun and when they are sunbathing they go to the part were they can sit behind glass.
Anthony,
All of the colored areas denote high (i.e. statistically significant) correlation. Only the gray areas denote low (i.e. not statistically significant) correlation. There is no gradation of high to low correlation provided, apart from the single p value criterion.
The high-high … low-low categories provide the “flavor”, not the strength, of the correlation. The dark red and dark blue areas denote high positive correlation – high UV with high temp, low UV with low temp. The baby red and light blue areas denote high negative correlation – high UV with low temp, low UV with high temp.
The authors call out the existence of the uncorrelated and inverse correlated areas as the new information provided by their study. They assert that the positive correlation is already accounted for in existing climate variables.
David, (1.55)
Sadly the data is only from 2004 as it is extracted from a NASA satellite sent up to monitor ozone so there will be nothing to compare to historically. No proxies in the paper, just daily UVB data which has been aggregated to give monthly numbers. Any correlations to temperature will interesting, but unlikely to lead to anything concrete for at least two solar cycles unless some intermediate steps in a postulated pathway can be studied (as Jesper Kirby has done for the cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis). The suggestions above about phytoplankton would be interesting as there are some experimental studies that could be done to see if (i) phytoplankton density does change with UVB and (ii) phytoplankton have an effect on cloud seeding.
Still interesting though.
Rob says:
April 22, 2014 at 2:10 pm
The mixed effects of UV (primarily A) on phytoplankton have been studied:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913777/
Not just direct effects however must be considered, if, as seems at least possible, there is also an indirect effect on ocean temperature.
A 2008 study attributed the failure of GCMs to model Cretaceous climate on their ignoring the effect of clouds, which could have been reduced then by the depressing effect of unusually hot oceans on phytoplankton:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080410-ancient-warming.html
Suggests to me that the “loopy jet stream” (aka the dreaded polar vortex) we have come to know and love is associated with variation in solar UV. The UV generates ozone, the ozone absorbs incoming SW, the Brewer-Dobson circulation moves the whole heated mass to the poles where a temperature inversion forms which destabilizes the polar vortex so that cold arctic air masses can move southward. This affects northern continental landmasses which are nearer the poles and provide an avenue for the cold air moving south, but not the southern continents except for small areas nearest antarctica. This may not by itself cause global cooling, as the northern oceans seem to warm as the continents cool. We will have to wait to see the longer term effects of the quiescent solar cycles.
..the 4th:
correlation is NOT causation, certainly. But it provides clues as where to look.
And despite the rhetoric, anthropogenic CO2 and warming have precious little correlation.
If more UVB warms the oceans even more there should be more cloud formation that stops much of this radiation reaching the surface.
This morning we had rain in Barcelona .And the rest of the day had variable clouds.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/radiacion/ultravioleta?l=barcelona
Had it backward. Strong UV creates the temperature inversion which stabilizes the polar vortex and the cold air stays put. Weak solar cycles remove the temperature inversion and destabilize the polar vortex so that cold air moves southward and northern oceans warm. Sorry!
By all means my jolly climate scientists, continue to examine and measure and when you feel quite confident predict the future weather, accurate forecasts are most useful.
But please give up this pursuit of the myth of CAGW and expecting taxpayers to fund your folly.
And also give up trying to blame “big oil” for everything that doesn’t happen to your liking in the world – the rest of us have REAL work to do that requires energy provided for the best all over ROI, .and that means exploiting our oil and gas reserves to depletion if there are no worthwhile alternatives beforehand.
What they need to do is look at the changes in frequency of UV during solar maximums (there was a series of very strong solar maximums during the latter half of last century). There are significant changes in sea water penetration in the 300-350 nm range which would have a significant effect algal growth. as well as warming of the surface.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/download/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
The plot here shows a spatial correlation of BIO1 with UVB. BIO1 is a mean (normal) annual temperature. It seems to be just an eco climate classification – not time-varying temperature data. It’s just saying that hot places get more UV-B. This may be important for ecologists to know, but it doesn’t tell anything about the Sun and climatic variations.
REPLY: Well if the actual paper wasn’t paywalled so that only high-preists of eco-sci can look at it, I’d have gladly provided such a plot if they had it. Rather than whine about it Nick why not use your status as an insider and get us a copy to look at? – Anthony
Actually looking a bit more at this:
This, as in the quadmap, may be mainly merely a glorified version of such as finding that sunny near-equatorial lands tend to be hot (and have high UV-B too), far from the kind of correlation over time demonstration which is more relevant and which I prefer.
For example, the Sahara desert has high UV, high sunlight, and of course is hot. That’s not what is most interesting to see, rather that patterns in solar activity match patterns in temperature over the decades (my usual http://tinyurl.com/nbnh7hq ).
Well the first think I noticed about their four color map, is that the oceans are all white, so it would seem they aren’t talking about oceanic algae. And how could ocean algae affect albedo much.
If some critter or other doesn’t absorb sunlight /UV in the deep ocean, well it just keeps on going till something does. So UV absorption in the ocean, must be total. I suppose some algae types might reflect some other colors, but the UV is going to get absorbed by something; animal, vegetable or mineral.
But it sounds like an interesting paper to get out from under the bushel.
Nick Stokes preempted my post by 1 minute it looks like, though I was writing it since several minutes ago, but that is the idea.
More likely that it’s affecting atmospheric chemistry of ozone at TOA. Ozone is a greenhouse gas which IPCC regards as about 25% effective as CO2. UV-B also interacts with aerosols which also interacts with ozone. If this is done by satellite, it’s not clear how much would be reaching the surface. The answer lies in between stratosphere and troposhere.
” blackadderthe4th says:
April 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm
What ever happened to the doubters saying.’that correlation does not mean causation’? When it’s applied to releasing co2 and increased temperatures?”
But CO2 has been rising for the past 17 years and temperature hasn’t so what are you talking about?
The interesting thing about this and some other recent studies is that the publishing portion of the science world is beginning to acknowledge that something other than CO2 may be driving climate.
[SNIP Mosh, stop leaving cryptic half-comments, please. If you have something to say, say it. Don’t make people try to reverse engineer what you are snarking on about – Anthony]