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.



“Global warming” in North America.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/dpcyl5.jpg
What caught my attention- The correltions shown are mainly biotic and not climate. Nick Stokes and others.
The biotic component of CO2 is significant, and the carbon cycle is poorly understood. BioBob
Therefore, the biotic changes from changing UV B may have significant climate implications.
As with the H2O cycle and its positive (vapor) and negative (cloud albedo) feedbacks, the carbon cycle with its many positive and negative feedbacks is very complex and poorly understood.
My take-away: climate science remains in it’s infancy partly because it is so complex and partly because so much of the funding is to confirm and promote the high CO2 climate sensitivity hypothesis, and so little is for the required baisc science required to understand its complexities.
Willis Eschenbach says
“All it means is that UV-B is correlated with the received solar radiation, and so is temperature.”
You cannot even say that based upon n=12. That correlation is no better than stretching a rubber band through the scatter diagram.
“””””…..Konrad says:
April 22, 2014 at 4:29 pm
As George E. Smith has noted the plot does not cover the oceans. In considering solar influence on climate, the oceans are important. This study looks at higher energy UV-B, but even UV-A still has the power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth in the oceans. …..”””””
UV-A is from 400 to 315 nm wavelength.
At 400 nm, the absorption coefficient in sea water, is 0.0007 cm^-1 which gives a 1/e absorption depth of 14 3 meters, or 95% absorption in 43 meters. At 315 nm, the coefficient is 0.01, so the 1/e depth is just one meter, and 99%lost in 5 meters.
Sea level solar spectral irradiance at 400 nm is about 500 W/m^2 /micron, so about 43 W/m^2 at 400 nm for 85 nm bandwidth, so that gives about 2W/m^2 at 43 meters and 400 nm.
The total 315-400 nm, at 50 meters depth, can’t be anywhere near 10 W/m^2.
Data from the Infra-red handbook.
“ignoring the large variations in solar UV ” ?????
….
Guess what.
..
..
The “T” in TSI stands for ….(drum roll)…….TOTAL !!!!
Thank you for posting this topic, which has made reading the comments equally enjoyable like it often is in WUWT. Specials thanks to KevinK and Janice Moore for sharing your thoughts here. Thanks also to Blackadderthe4th for helping me to see the forest for the trees, albeit in a different way.
The article mentions the 0.1% variation in Total Solar Irradiance over cycles. We could similarly analyze the variation in Total Atmospheric Composition during the same period. It cannot be a whopping figure when all atmospheric CO2 counts only for 0.04%. Let alone the supposedly meaningful part of it i.e. man-made variations in Total Atmospheric Composition. Mind you, the article already characterized 0.1% variation as ‘tiny’.
If man-made variations in Total Atmospheric Composition should be analyzed with more finesse, shouldn’t 100% variation in the sun’s UV radiation become highly relevant by the same token?
Now if only something could be done about the wave of people spreading over the intarweb after their daily read of WUWT, the news that a new paper provides evidence that “the sun did it.”
I’ve run into a few already.
“””””…..chuck says:
April 23, 2014 at 11:47 am
“ignoring the large variations in solar UV ” ?????
….
Guess what.
..
..
The “T” in TSI stands for ….(drum roll)…….TOTAL !!!!……””””””
What you are missing Chuck, is that not all parts of the solar spectrum (TSI) react the same way in the environment.
While the total energy maybe only has a 0.1% solar cycle amplitude, possible weather / climate effects of different parts of that spectrum, can have quite different results, so possibly larger cyclic amplitudes.
blackadderthe4th says:
April 23, 2014 at 5:55 am
You are wrong. Basic physics (in the lab, not the climate system) shows that a doubling of CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 560 ppm should produce a temperature increase of around 1.2 degrees C. Higher than that assumes positive feedback effects not in evidence.
There is indeed a 500 million year record of correlation between CO2 level & temperature, but you have the causation reversed. Temperature increases cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, & decreases cause more CO2 to go back into solution in the seas.
blackadderthe4th says:
April 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm
“What ever happened to the doubters saying.’that correlation does not mean causation’?”
I’m afraid the idea ‘cor doesn’t mean caus’ has come to mean something other than intended among the uninitiated. This caution has been so overplayed that it has come to mean if it’s correlated then it’s NOT causation. For those like blackadderthe4th, you have to understand that correlation of variables is often the first step in recognizing a possible theoretical connection. Indeed, if their is NO correlation, then you have NO related causation and there is NO hypothesis to consider. Correlation is of the utmost importance in science but spurious correlation happens frequently enough that that you have to consider that apparent correlation may not be a real function. The sun “coming up” and “setting” everyday is a worthwhile correlation with time that leads to understanding what is happening. The apparent correlation between copper prices and the height of women’s hemlines above the sidewalk will ultimately let you down!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/at-fashion-week-hemlines-are-up-and-down-just-like-the-markets.html
The post has been updated with this comment:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-paper-finds-solar-uv-is-correlated.html?showComment=1398355699772#c291248561718783507
Based upon the comment by Nick Stokes above regarding this paper:
“The words you have highlighted from the abstract (in your title),
“UV-B surfaces were correlated with global mean temperature and annual mean radiation data” have two possible meanings. We’re used to thinking of time correlation of spatial means. But it can equally mean spatial correlation of time means. Since they have cited a dataset of spatially distributed time mean temperatures, and used LISA to get the spatial correlations, it’s clear that they are using the second interpretation.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/22/new-paper-finds-solar-uv-b-output-is-correlated-to-global-mean-temperature/#comment-1619347
Nick was able to determine this from a read of the full paper, therefore, I requested confirmation and a copy of the full paper from the authors, received this morning. The authors confirm the paper shows a correlation between spatial UV-B and spatial mean annual temperature and that they did not test for temporal correlations. Thus, the abstract was incorrectly/misleadingly worded as finding
“UV-B surfaces were correlated with global mean temperature”
when it would have been more correct to state
“UV-B surfaces were correlated with spatial mean temperature”
as use of the term “global” to describe a spatial mean temperature is inappropriate.
Thus, based upon the now-clarified, albeit inappropriate, wording of the abstract, the claim of this post that UV-B has been demonstrated to be correlated to “global mean temperature” is withdrawn.
Nonetheless, there may or may not be a correlation between the two and it should be investigated for some of the following reasons:
1. Solar UV varies up to 100% over solar cycles
2. Solar UV greatly affects
a) ozone production, which can also act as one of many solar amplification mechanisms
b) temperatures of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere
c) photosynthesis and other large effects on the biosphere as shown by this paper
3. UV is the most energetic portion of the solar spectrum, and penetrates the deepest into the ocean in comparison to the rest of the solar spectrum. Therefore, it has the greatest effect upon ocean heating compared to any other portion of the solar spectrum, and likely is more efficient in heating land as well.
4. For these reasons, and others, the various portions of the solar spectrum can have vastly differing effects on climate and change far more than the TSI. It is woefully inadequate to dismiss this by only incorporating the tiny 0.1% changes in TSI in climate models.
And to think IPCC chairman, Dr Rejendra Pachauri, tells the world that the IPCC is now 95% confident that mankind’s CO2 emissions is the key driver of climate change. When Einstein remarked we do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us, he was certainly spot on!