How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past

From Climate Etc.

by Javier Vinós

Part I of a three part series.

The Sun is a variable star and the amount of energy it emits varies from month to month, year to year, and century to century. One of the manifestations of these variations are sunspots, which are more common when the Sun is more active and disappear when it is less active. These spots follow a solar cycle of about 11 years, but sometimes there is a longer period, decades or centuries, when the Sun’s activity is so low that there are no spots. These periods are called grand solar minima. There are also periods of decades or centuries when the activity is higher. These are called grand solar maxima.

The Sun provides 99.9% of the energy that the climate system receives. So, there have always been scientists who thought that variations in the Sun were the cause of climate change. The problem is that they never had enough evidence to prove it. Until now.

  1. The IPCC and NASA say…

The IPCC and NASA are convinced that changes in the Sun have very little effect on climate. They rely on two arguments. The first is that changes in solar activity are very small. We measure them with satellites because they cannot be measured from the surface, and we know that the radiant energy coming from the Sun varies by only 0.1%. The magnitude of the changes is better appreciated when we use the full scale. Many scientists believe that such a small change can only produce small changes in climate.

The second argument is that the evolution of temperature does not coincide with the evolution of solar activity. Since the 1990s, solar activity has decreased while warming has continued.[i]

Actually, this argument is not valid because it does not say that the Sun does not affect temperature, but that it is not the only factor in doing so, something we already knew because temperature responds to many factors such as El Niño, volcanoes, the polar vortex, or changes in the Earth’s orbit. There are many natural causes that change the climate, and what we need to know is whether the Sun is one of the main ones.

To find out, we don’t need to care what the IPCC and NASA think, we need to ask the climate itself. It doesn’t matter how small the changes in the Sun are if it turns out that the climate responds strongly to them by causing big changes.

  1. Climate during the Holocene

And the best way to find out is to look at what has happened to the climate over the last 11,000 years, the interglacial period we call the Holocene. The advantage of doing this is that the Holocene climate changes could not have been caused by changes in CO₂. They must have been caused by something else.

To study the climate of the past, scientists use various climate proxies that they collect in different parts of the world. A major study published in Science used 73 of these proxies to reconstruct Holocene climate.[ii] I have used the same proxies, with a slight modification in the way they are mixed.

What we see, and what a large number of studies also support, is that there was a warm period of thousands of years, called the Climate Optimum, followed by a long period of cooling, called Neoglaciation.

How do we know that this reconstruction is correct? Another study reconstructed the progress of the Earth’s glaciers over the past 11,000 years.[iii] They divided the globe into 17 regions, and this graph shows the number of regions whose glaciers increased in size during each century of the Holocene.

Since glaciers grow when it is colder, we can invert their figure and compare it to the temperature reconstruction graph so that its meaning is the same. We find a high degree of agreement. The glaciers confirm what the temperature reconstruction shows. We also know that CO₂ has done the opposite of temperature, but that is a story for another day.

Note: y-axis is the Z factor, which is related to temperature anomaly.

Both graphs also show some severe cooling episodes that were accompanied by increased glacier growth. These abrupt climate events of the past have been studied and identified by paleoclimatologists. Of all of them, we will focus on four of the most important ones. The Boreal Oscillation, the 5.2 kiloyear event, the 2.8 kiloyear event, and the Little Ice Age.

The four are separated by multiples of 2,500 years and form a cycle that I have called the Bray cycle because that was the name of the scientist who discovered it in 1968.[iv]

Now that we know the climate of the past, we need to talk about the activity of the Sun in the past.

  1. Past solar activity

The Sun’s activity is recorded in the tree rings through the action of cosmic rays. A constant stream of cosmic rays from the galaxy reaches the solar system. Some interact with the atmosphere. Some collide with nitrogen in the atmosphere, converting it to carbon-14, which is heavier than normal carbon-12 and radioactive. This carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form radioactive CO₂, which is breathed by trees. The carbon is used in photosynthesis to make cellulose, which allows the tree trunk to grow in diameter. When the tree dies, the carbon-14 in the wood slowly decays over centuries and millennia. You just have to measure how much carbon-14 is left in the wood to know how much time has passed since the tree died.

Each growth ring of a tree records the carbon-14 that was in the atmosphere that year, and scientists have used millennia-old trees and preserved logs to construct a calibration curve that spans tens of thousands of years. This allows them to determine the age of any organic remains, even if it is not a tree trunk, just by knowing the carbon-14 it contains. This is known as radiocarbon dating.

The only problem is that the production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays is not constant. The Sun’s magnetic field deflects the path of cosmic rays, causing many to miss the Earth, and changes in the Sun’s activity affect its magnetic field.

As the Sun’s activity increases, fewer cosmic rays arrive, less carbon-14 is produced, and organic remains appear older because they contain less of it. When the Sun’s activity becomes weaker, more cosmic rays arrive, more carbon-14 is produced, and the organic remains look younger because they contain more of it.

This produces deviations in the calibration curve that allow us to know what the Sun’s activity was in the past.

  1. Spörer-type solar minima

When we analyze the radiocarbon curve over the last 11,000 years, we observe large deviations that indicate long periods of low solar activity. These extended periods of low solar activity are called grand solar minima and increase carbon-14 production by 2%. The most common ones last about 75 years, and there have been about twenty in the last 11,000 years. The most recent was the Maunder Minimum in the late 17th century. But there are other types of grand solar minima that are much more severe because they last twice as long, about 150 years. The last of these severe solar minima was the Spörer Minimum, which occurred in the 15th and 16th centuries.

There have been only four such Spörer-type grand minima in the entire Holocene. 2,800 years ago, there was the Homer Minimum, 5,200 years ago the Sumerian Minimum, and 10,300 years ago the Boreal Minimum. We know when they occurred thanks to tree rings.

If the dates sound familiar, it is because the four grand Spörer-type Holocene minima coincide exactly with the four major climatic events on the graph we saw earlier. We know that during each of these grand solar minima, when the Sun’s activity dropped for 150 years, the climate experienced a tremendous cooling that had a major effect on climate proxies around the globe.

We also know that low solar activity during the grand minima has had a major impact on human populations. Past human settlements and their component structures can be radiocarbon dated. When humans were doing well in the past, the population grew and they built more, and when they were doing poorly, usually because there was less food, the population decreased and they built less. Scientists have estimated the evolution of the human population of the British Isles by analyzing the radiocarbon dates of thousands and thousands of remains from hundreds of archaeological excavations.[v]

What they have found is that the population increased greatly with the advent of agriculture, but every time there was a severe deterioration in the climate, the human population suffered from diminishing resources. And the largest declines occurred when grand Spörer-type solar minima took place. Other population declines also coincide with other cooling periods, confirming our reconstruction.

This tells us that the worst climate changes in the past have been caused by changes in solar activity. It also tells us that what is bad for humanity is cooling, not warming.

Now we can respond to the IPCC and NASA. Never mind that solar irradiance changes very little, and never mind that temperature does not always do the same thing as solar activity. Clearly there are other factors at play. But we can state emphatically that changes in solar activity affect the climate because that is what the climate says. The study of past climate leaves no room for doubt. The Sun changes the climate. And if we don’t know how it does it, we should study it.

  1. The 20th century solar maximum

Since low solar activity causes cooling, it stands to reason that high activity must cause warming. Solar activity in the 20th century was very high, in the top 10% of the last 11,000 years.

If we count the number of sunspots in each solar cycle over the last 300 years and divide by the length of each cycle, we can see how much solar activity has deviated from the average. Since the Maunder Minimum, during the Little Ice Age, solar activity has been increasing and was well above average between 1933 and 1996, a period of six cycles of increased solar activity that formed the 20th century solar maximum.

Although we cannot know how much of the 20th century warming is due to this modern solar maximum, there is no denying that it is a significant part, because as we have seen, the Sun has been the cause of much of the major climate change over the past 11,000 years.

  1. Conclusions

There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum. It is not like CO₂, which can keep going up. The Sun’s activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.

In 2016, I developed a model to predict solar activity in the 21st century. At the time, some scientists believed that solar activity would continue to decline until a new grand solar minimum and mini-ice age. But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.

The second piece of good news is that if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency. Believing that all climate change is due to our emissions is one of those errors that sometimes occur in science, like believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that interplanetary space is full of ether, or that stomach ulcers are caused by stress, not bacteria.

This article can also be

[i] NASA. Is the Sun causing global warming?

[ii] Marcott, S.A., et al., 2013. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. science, 339 (6124), pp.1198-1201.

[iii] Solomina, O.N., et al., 2015. Holocene glacier fluctuations. Quaternary Science Reviews, 111, pp.9-34.

[iv] Bray, J.R., 1968. Glaciation and solar activity since the Fifth Century BC and the solar cycle. Nature, 220 (5168).

[v] Bevan, A., et al., 2017. Holocene fluctuations in human population demonstrate repeated links to food production and climate. PNAS, 114 (49), pp.E10524-E10531.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 41 votes
Article Rating
174 Comments
April 21, 2024 6:25 am

This article can also be watched in a 13-minute video with English and French subtitles.
https://youtu.be/PNgOuROW2iw

April 21, 2024 6:36 am

The article says:”The IPCC and NASA are convinced that changes in the Sun have very little effect on climate.”

So a change of 0.1% in our heat source causes no change, but a 0.0001% change in an atmospheric gas will cause a change?

Rick Wedel
April 21, 2024 6:50 am

Thanks for this excellent report. It is clear and easy to understand.

Mr Ed
April 21, 2024 7:12 am

Thank you, nice read to start my day. You put a lot of pieces in order very well.

April 21, 2024 7:26 am

An excellent climate discussion which is sadly missing from the main-stream media.

John Hultquist
April 21, 2024 8:00 am

“When the tree dies, the carbon-14 in the wood slowly decays …”

Why does the tree need to die? Would not C-14 begin to decay immediately upon formation, regardless of whether or not it is incorporated in wood?

April 21, 2024 8:10 am

Funny. I was just reading up on 14C dating two days ago for other purposes.

Cosmic rays generate stratospheric thermal neutrons by spalling nuclei. A thermal neutron will very likely be captured by atmosphere’s most abundant 14N (7P, 7N). The nucleus then ejects a proton and becomes 14C (6P, 8N), which oxidizes to become 14CO2. The 14C radioactive decay half life is 5730 years. The mechanism is beta decay whereby a neutron (a combination of an electron and a proton) spontaneously ejects the electron and converts to a proton. 14C==>14N.

Libbey won the Nobel in Chemistry for working out radiocarbon dating. His original paper radiocarbon dated two ancient wooden Egyptian sarcophagi whose dates were already known by the Pharaohs they contained.

Libbey’s method measured the beta decay events to estimate remaining 14C. Took a fairly long time and a large sample. Modern method uses accelerated mass spec (fast, small sample) to measure all the remaining 14C directly. Robust dating out to about 50,000 years now.

Vinos use of the very well established radiocarbon dating calibration curve to show low solar activity influence on pre-established Holocene cold periods is brilliant and very persuasive. And Holocene’s just two 14C half lives means very robust dating.

I agree it should follow that high solar activity implies warm periods even if NASA disagrees and we don’t exactly know why —although Vinos excellent book provides a very plausible mechanism hypothesis. This post provides very nice physical support followup. Kudos.

April 21, 2024 8:52 am

There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum.

….

The second piece of good news is that if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency.

_____________________________________________________________

And if you’re wrong? You know that government funded climate science is going to say exactly that, and all of your charts, tables & graphs (9) will never see the light of day except on venues like Watts Up With That, and there won’t be any public debate.

There needs to be a public debate, but it’s not about how much temperature change is in the future, but rather, is it the existential crisis of our times?

     1. More rain is not a problem.
     2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
     3. More arable land is not a problem.
     4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
     5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
     6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.

April 21, 2024 8:55 am

Facts and evidence are unimportant compared to their feelings.

rovingbroker
April 21, 2024 8:57 am

When will we see this reported in the New York Times? They have a section labelled, “Climate and Environment.”

April 21, 2024 8:58 am

“There are many natural causes that change the climate, and what we need to know is whether the Sun is one of the main ones.”

True, but it would help if you could identify which ones are causing temperatures to rise whilst solar activity decreases.

The increase in CO2 would be the obvious cause, but that’s ignored here, with no alternative.

If the sun is having a large negative effect on temperatures, an obvious conclusion is that whatever is causing the warming is having a greater effect than observeres, which is being masked by the solar decline.

Fran
April 21, 2024 9:08 am

Vinos released an excellant video of this material 3 days ago that I got to from a comment on JoNova’s site. Shockingly, there are only 356 views, and it does not appear when I put Vinos’ name into the utube search.

Clearly it is being shadow banned. Can we help by sending it to our contacts?

April 21, 2024 9:20 am

the radiant energy coming from the Sun varies by only 0.1%. The magnitude of the changes is better appreciated when we use the full scale. Many scientists believe that such a small change can only produce small changes in climate

I’m no scientist but I’d think that it’s actually quite a bit – a change of .1% would be about a half deg C?? That with some possible positive feedback? Just a wild ignorant guess. 🙂

rbabcock
April 21, 2024 9:52 am

While there isn’t that much happening with TSI going up and down over a solar cycle, the Sun is spitting out a lot more material and photons during an active cycle compared to a calm cycle which influences a lot of things here on Earth.

The thermosphere temperature rises and falls as do the neutron counts lockstep with the sunspot counts. Solar flares send out high energy photons that interact with our ionosphere, ozone levels and even our health. CME’s pump a lot of energy into especially the polar regions. And the magnetic/electrical influence causes high and low pressure systems to change which can also impact relative strength and where they and the jet streams track. Additionally who knows exactly what it is doing to the magma beneath the crust but big earthquakes typically follow certain solar events, so it has to have some influence.

So looking at the macro events pointed out in the article, there can be a large number of changes that occur here on Earth that follows the Sun’s activity generally and over time matter. Cloud cover percent can change along with more/fewer cosmic rays and more or less UV hitting the surface depending on ozone. The list goes on.

Bob Weber
April 21, 2024 10:02 am

“Since the 1990s, solar activity has decreased while warming has continued.”

The SATIRE TSI plot from your second figure is among the poorest TSI reconstructions:

comment image

“The Sun changes the climate. And if we don’t know how it does it, we should study it.”

OK, Dr. Obvious, what do you think other people other than you have been doing for decades?

“Since low solar activity causes cooling, it stands to reason that high activity must cause warming.”

Fine, but I told you a few weeks ago that the 2023 warming was caused by the high solar activity of solar cycle 25, not the water vapor from HT-HH, and you didn’t retract your claim or address mine.

comment image

If you were up on the lastest sun-climate research, you would’ve known in 2022 that I predicted the 1.5°C ‘limit’ would be exceeded in this solar cycle from this cycle’s irradiance, which it did.

“…that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum.”

No one knows that for sure. Also, you don’t exhibit the knowledge that a series of smaller but still moderately large cycles can provide the same warming effect, due to your lack of understanding of the non-linear relationship between sunspots & irradiance, and the irradiance-climate influence.

“Now we can respond to the IPCC and NASA. Never mind that solar irradiance changes very little,”

Do you really think the IPCC or NASA is going to just capitulate to endless rhetorical assertions?

No Javier, you are just not in a position scientifically to respond to the IPCC or NASA!

You are not even in a position to respond to me, after I have shown you all the solution to climate change is found by adding those little irradiance changes over time. You still haven’t responded.

Did you know that I have brought my empirical sun-climate science in person to NASA scientists four times since 2018, some who have encouraged me to publish papers and a book?

comment image

“The Sun’s activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.”

You show no evidence or theory that solar warming can’t accelerate, nor be dangerous at times.

“But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.”

Your sunspot model is guess work run amok. That you predicted SC25 to be larger than SC24, the lowest cycle in 100 years was trivial, and you should know that.

The 20th century had the Solar Modern Maximum, which you know I fleshed out of the sunspot data before you did, where the sunspot number averaged 108.5 for 70 years from 1935 to 2004.

You stated in this article this was “in the top 10% of the last 11,000 years.” [Solanki etal, 2004]

So, what is your reason unusually high 20st century solar activity will continue through the 21st?

“…if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency.”

There is no climate emergency regardless of cause, and emissions didn’t drive climate change.

I’m betting eventually my major scientific findings will be plagiarized without recognition by you claiming someday that TSI had to cause the 20th century climate change via absorbed solar radiation in the ocean, which accumulated heat, as I’ve shown the science community since 2014.

If you can’t say the truth about how the climate changed vis-a-vis the sun’s TSI, you’re not helping.

Editor
April 21, 2024 10:22 am

This study depends heavily on the Marcott reconstruction, or to be fair, an unspecified reconstruction which Javier did using the Marcott proxies.

Before getting much further into this question, let me suggest that people read Steve McIntyres 17 posts about the Marcott reconstruction. They are here. I suggest that your read them in order from the bottom up, then do the same after pushing the “Newer posts” button at the top of the page.

TL;DR version? Steve discusses a host of problems with the Marcott reconstruction, none of which seem to have been discussed or corrected by Javier.

There’s another issue. I cannot replicate his radiocarbon dating calibration curve. Unfortunately, he hasn’t provided a link to his data. Here’s his curve;

comment image

However, I find the following:

comment image

Hmmm …

Finally, the radiocarbon calibration curve is affected by things other than solar strength. There’s a good discussion of these issues here.

Best to all,

w.

KevinM
April 21, 2024 11:48 am

“How we know that the sun changes the Climate.” Did someone say the sun does not change the climate?

Richard Greene
April 21, 2024 12:48 pm

Satellite measurements of top of the atmosphere TSI since the 197-s have shown that sunspot counts are incompetent proxies for TTOA TSI
The satellites also show a slight TOA TSI decline since the late 1979s

That means TOA TSI changes were NOT the cause of the post 1975 global warming

In adition most the warming was at night, unaffected by sunlight. Arctic warming was entirely in the low solar energy winter months, for one example.

And there was no stratosphere warming that would result from mpre solar energy. There was stratosphere cooling that would result from greenhouse warming.

Reconstructions using sunspots are meaningless based on what we now know about sunspots

This article did not disprove NASA and IPCC at all.

The author is a sophisticated Warming is Mainly Natural Fan when most of the evidence supports manmade warming.

His claims are either weak, based on sunspots, or more speculation than fact. Solar possibilities that need mre study. I agree with that.

The focus on manmade causes of climate change is not justified, when so much more needs to be learned about clouds and the sun

“The Sun changes the climate.”
Vinos

So far there are no measured correlations of TSI with a measured global average temperature (GAT).

There is no indication of an 11 year GAT cycle that matches an 11 year sunspot cycle.

For several hundred years there is no evidence of a TSI – GAT correlation.

Unfortunately, using sunspot counts for TSI, and surface measurements for GAT, are both very questionable data

But we do have satellite GAT and satellite TOA TSI since 1979 and they say there is no correlation.

April 21, 2024 1:43 pm

“The only problem is that the production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays is not constant.”

Another potential problem is that some plants (I don’t know if or how many types of trees) can “filter out”
CO2 where the “C” is Carbon-14?
(I think the marsh mallow plant is one of them?) 

April 21, 2024 4:48 pm

Javier Vinos:

You made the comment that, since the sun is responsible for our temperatures, there is no concern of higher temperatures because the temperature of the sun cannot increase (if I understood you correctly). This is offered as good news.

Unfortunately, Earth’s temperatures CAN continue to rise, even if the temperature of the sun remains unchanged.

This is because their is a layer of industrial SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere which reduces the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface. In 1979, these emissions totaled 139 million tons, and, due to Clean Air legislation to reduce SO2 emissions, and efforts to ban the burning of fossil fuels, SO2 aerosol emissions fell to 73 million tons by 2022, a decrease of 66 million tons. Since decreased atmospheric pollution will cause temperatures to rise, this has to be the cause of our modern (since 1980) warming, rather than CO2..

This decrease is obvious from satellite Chem map images of SO2 aerosols, available since 1980.

Unless all actions that reduce SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere are halted, temperatures will continue to rise (although temporary reprieves due to volcanic SO2 may occur)

David Wojick
April 21, 2024 5:13 pm

I do not believe we know the average global temperature over 100 year periods, thousands of years ago, to tenths of a degree as the graphs claim. The claim is preposterous.

April 21, 2024 6:23 pm

The oceans can probably also store up a small amount of extra heat from increased irradiance each year, for a hundred years or more, to make a measurable difference, like the warmer oceans we see today.

Bob
April 21, 2024 6:39 pm

Very nice Javier.

Richard Greene
April 22, 2024 4:23 am

Starting in 1979 we no longer have to compare INACCURATE proxies of solar energy with INACCURATE surface statistics of the global average temperatures (GAT)

Surface GAT initially showed a lot of global cooling from 1940 to 1975 … but then in the 1990s almost al the cooling “disappeared”

Since 1979 we have had satellite MEASUREMENTS for TOA TSI and GAT

First satellite data lesson:

Sunspot counts were not accurate as a proxy for TOA TSI

Second satellite measurement lesson

Satellite data compiled by UAH reflected significantly less global warming than surface data with its never verified infilling and other questionable “adjustments”

Conclusion for post-1979 warming using actual measurements rather than some inaccurate proxies compared with other inaccurate proxies:

TOA TSI did not cause any warming after 1979

Any claim that TSI or some other solar variable caused warming and cooling in past centuries MUST explain why TOA TSI after 1979 did NOT correlate positively with GAT. The actual correlation was negative. Using sunspot counts the negative correlation was larger.

Sunspot counts
Rising from 1940 to 1960
GAT falling

Falling from 1980 to 2023
GAT rising rapidly

comment image

Joe
April 22, 2024 4:50 am

funny how the Klimat Change Corp argue amplification of direct CO2 effect for significant change, while deny amplification of solar effect