Personal tools
You are here: Home Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Sunspots
  NICHOLAS INSIDER: get the inside scoop on duke's school of the environment
      learn about us through:  THE GREEN GROK   |   student blogs   |   travel blogs   |   multimedia   |   my nicholas (profiles)   |   itunesu   |    facebook   |   insider home

Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Sunspots

by Bill Chameides | Oct 23, 2008
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)

Permalink |  Comments (16)
Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Sunspots

Sunspots are areas of strong magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun. They are caused by disruptions in the Sun’s magnetic field. Sunspots, the data show, are not responsible for global warming.

This is the second post in a 4-post series on the connection between the sun, sunspots, and climate.

Sunspots and cosmic rays are not the cause of the recent warming. How do we know? It’s all in the data.

Solar variations can have and have had a huge effect on our climate — that’s obvious. But have they been the cause of climate change over the past 30 years or so, when we have seen an accelerated rate of warming? (I will address the issue of the past ten years of warming or lack thereof in a subsequent post, so please hold your comments on that one.) In the first part of this series, I presented data from space-borne instruments that show that changes in solar output (i.e., total solar irradiance or TSI) were minimal over this period and therefore did not drive the temperature change.

But what about sunspots and cosmic rays?

The Basics

Sunspots are areas of strong magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun. They are caused by disruptions in the Sun’s magnetic field (believed to result from the different rates of rotation in the polar and equatorial regions of the Sun, which create a drag in the magnetic field). Why are they called “sunspots?” Because they appear as small dots on the Sun’s surface. Want to learn more about sunspots? Check out this site.

Other Posts in This Series
Part 1: Total Solar Irradiance
Part 2: Sunspots
Part 3: Global Warming Since 1998
Part 4: Predicting Future Climate

Sunspots correlate closely with what we call solar activity. They tend to reach a maximum at the same time that the solar output or TSI is at a maximum and vice versa. That is why the 11-year cycle, in which TSI cycles up and down, is called the "sunspot cycle."

A wide variety of parameters related to the Sun vary with the sunspot cycle. One of these is solar wind. The solar wind is a stream of charged, energetic particles emanating from the Sun’s surface and outwards into the solar system. (Read more about solar wind.)

The term cosmic rays is a catchall to describe the energetic particles impinging upon our atmosphere from outer space. They include galactic cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system, solar energetic particles coming to us in the solar wind, and anomalous cosmic rays consisting of particles that are not in the solar wind and not from outside the solar system. (Learn more about cosmic rays.)

The next section has been corrected as per Mark Adams's first comment

Hypothesis: Sunspots, Cosmic Rays, and Climate Are Linked

The hypothesized climate connection is often credited to Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, who published a paper on the subject in the late 1990s.

The idea goes like this (corrected version--see comments):

  1. An increase in solar activity (characterized by an increase in sunspots) results in a strengthened solar wind;
  2. A strengthened solar wind allows fewer galactic cosmic rays to penetrate into the solar system and impinge on the Earth’s upper atmosphere;
  3. The decrease in galactic cosmic rays raining down on the atmosphere decreases the ionization in the upper atmosphere;
  4. The decreased ionization in the upper atmosphere suppresses cloud formation in the lower part of the atmosphere;
  5. Fewer clouds mean less reflection of sunlight and more absorption of sunlight by the Earth; and
  6. Higher temperatures.

Sunspot Numbers 1950-2002

Is the Connection Real?

The connection between sunspots, solar activity, and cosmic rays has been verified; it exists, no question. The graphic shown here (plotted by scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, who monitor cosmic rays in Colorado) clearly shows the inverse relationship between sunspots and cosmic rays. Both run up and down with the 11-year sunspot cycle, but in opposite directions.

The connection between cosmic rays and cloudiness is more speculative. Some analyses of historical cloudiness data suggest that a correlation between the two does exist, as hypothesized; others do not (see here).

Maybe the Connection Exists, but There Is No Trend

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a connection between cosmic rays and cloudiness, as speculated. Could this explain the temperature increase over the past few decades? Clearly not. Why? Because there has been no net change in sunspot numbers or cosmic rays over this period. Take a look at the graphic above. Cosmic rays cycle up and down with the sunspot cycle, but there is no net change over the cycles covering the period from 1960 to 2005.

So is there a sunspot-cosmic ray-climate connection? Quite possibly.

Could it hold the key to understanding the linkage between solar activity and climate change on long-time scales? Maybe.

Does it explain the warming we have experienced over the past 30 years? No.

And this no is based not on models or theories — it comes from just data.

Next up in this series – has global warming stopped?

Other Posts in Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age

Part 1: Total Solar Irradiance

Part 3: Global Warming Since 1998

Part 4: Predicting Future Climate

Document Actions
  • Send this
  • Print this

You have it backwards

Posted by MarkAdams at Oct 23, 2008 03:53 PM
Bill,

Your Hypothesis steps 3 and 4 are backwards to Henrik Svensmark's theory which basically says: More cosmic rays, more clouds, cooler.

Svensmark's theory is that cosmic rays are the primary cause of cloud formation, in particular the formation of low level clouds, those 3,000 meters above the ground and lower. Muons, basically very dense electrons, which are among the few cosmic particles to survive the solar winds and contact with the earth's atmosphere to sufficiently interact with with atoms near the surface, liberate electrons in the atmosphere which in turn join with molecules that form stable clusters. These clusters attract a small amount of sulfuric acid and then water molecules to ultimately generate water droplets, the basis of cloud cover.

Bottom Line Is the Same

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Oct 23, 2008 05:27 PM
Dr. Chameides responds:

Mark - Thanx for the comment and yea I got things a little turned around; obviously it works this way:

More sunspots --> more intense solar wind --> less cosmic rays --> fewer clouds --> higher temperatures.

Still the bottom line is the same. Svensmark's hypothesis may be correct, but since sunspots and cosmic rays have not had a net change over the past 30 years, it is not an explanation for warming over this period. 

Bottom line is not the same

Posted by Greg Goodknight at Nov 02, 2008 09:17 AM
Dr. Chameides,

Dr. Solanki has investigated (2004) solar activity of the past 11,000 years through a radiocarbon analysis of tree rings, and found that solar activity started increasing 60 years ago to levels not seen for the past 8000 years.

http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

The Solanki plot of sunspot activity looks remarkably like the infamous hockey stick temperature graph. If the increase was a step up 60 years ago, you wouldn't see much change in the last 30, would you? And in the meantime, since the Solanki paper, solar activity has substantially quieted to very low levels.

We are living in interesting times, and the hypotheses of Svensmark and company are looking better as time goes on.

Question Is What's Behind Warming Over Past Few Decades

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Nov 03, 2008 11:50 AM
Dr. Chameides responds -

Greg: I do not -- repeat do not -- dispute the fact that sunspots and solar activity have played a major role in climate change over the past thousands of years.

The question is what has caused the warming over the past few decades.

Sunspots are clearly not in the mix, since they have not changed over that period. And a "step up" (in sunspot warming) 60 years ago that has been flat since cannot explain the acceleration in the warming over the past 2-3 decades.

this isn't simple linearity

Posted by Greg Goodknight at Nov 03, 2008 02:37 PM
Bill,

Of course a doubling or more of the sun's non-luminescent energy output can cause the late 20th century warming. This is not a simplistic linear relationship. A sudden change in the sun's protective sphere, as has been documented, will cause fewer clouds. For example, one study quoted in the Svensmark 3/07 paper found, over a 50 year span, that overcast weather was 17% more likely in Britain on high cosmic ray days than on low. That gradual warming would continue until the Earth reached a new equilibrium. It does not require a continuing change of incident GCR.

It isn't "sunspot warming". Sunspots are only a proxy for the strength of the solar magnetic field and the solar wind.

That equilibrium temperature can be very high. The Permian-Triassic extinction ~251 million years ago was once thought to be the holy grail of AGW theory, a CO2 positive feedback warming event. However, the PT was also coincident with the lowest galactic cosmic ray flux since the start of the Phanerozoic. Our solar system was in a part of our galaxy with relatively few stars, hence few GCR. It got hot enough to kill 90% of life on earth. Hot enough? Unfortunately, despite atmospheric CO2 being as much as 4000% higher than now in the geologic record, and as much as 1000% higher than now in the middle of a major ice age, not one positive feedback warming event has been identified.

However, we've now experienced the opposite. The sun's magnetic and solar wind output are now said to be at levels lower than have ever been seen with modern instrumentation. It may be a complete coincidence that temperatures of the lower Troposphere are dropping, and all that CO2 warming is going somewhere that can't be measured. We shall see.

Cooler, not warmer

Posted by MarkAdams at Oct 24, 2008 08:38 AM
Bill,

The greenhouse signature is missing; hot spots in the atmosphere are not to be found anywhere. CO2 in the atmosphere cannot heat anything if it is not hotter than anything. You may find the time to ask presidential candidates for CO2 regulations, but you must be avoiding time to study fundamentals of heat exchange.

It’s not what we humans are doing; it’s the Sun’s effect on the Earth. The Sun has been more active in the 20’Th century than in thousands of years, now it seems to have changed to a quiet state this new century.

I am here to tell you now Bill – your global warming party is over. The very mechanism which is cooling this planet, you can only bumble up backwards. I find is to be satisfying irony and leave you with it.

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Oct 24, 2008 11:27 AM
Dr. Chameides replies -

Mark, I am not sure what you mean by a missing greenhouse signature. The most obvious signature is observations from space of the strong depression of infrared radiation leaving the Earth in the parts of the spectrum where CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases absorb.

Perhaps you mean fingerprint. In that case, here's one:
For many years, some were claiming that attribution of the warming to greenhouse gases was flawed because of an inconsistency between the observed mod-tropospheric temperature trend and model predictions (see for example: http://scienceandpublicpoli[…]at_greenhouse_warming_.html). But that apparent discrepancy has been shown to be the result of a flawed data analysis, and the two trends are consistent. In short, there is no discrepancy: https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/[…]/NR-08-10-05p.html. If the apparent discrepancy was a reason for dismissing greenhouse warming and invoking solar warming, shouldn't the removal of the discrepancy require a change in perspective on the subject?

And by the way, where is the solar signature/fingerprint -- no recent trend in TSI, sunspots, cosmic rays.

As for the "cooling of this planet," stay tuned to the next post in the series.

Sunspots

Posted by Richard Carpenter at Nov 02, 2008 08:51 AM
Could you comment on the so-called "Little Ice Age" and the supposed lack of sunspots during this supposedly very cold period from 1550 to 1850? Was it real? Or was it just the earth's baseline natural temperature, followed by warming in the 1800s because of CO2?
Thanks!
-Richard

 

Warming Beyond ~1950

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Nov 03, 2008 11:57 AM
Dr. Chameides responds -

Richard: As I summarize in my post, it has been theorized that the Little Ice Age may have been in large part caused by reduced solar activity as evidenced
by the Maunder Minimum (~1645-1715), and there is much in support of that hypothesis. I think it is also likely that the initial warming trend the Earth experienced in the late 1700s, the 1800s, and even the early part of the 1900s was caused in part by a recovery in the Sun's output. But beyond 1950 or so the only significant additional source of heat we have been able to document that could have caused the warming is from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Warming Beyond ~1950

Posted by rob at Nov 10, 2008 03:57 PM
Why leave it at 30 years, thats cherry picking, how much has the TSI increased from the end of the little ice say from 1840. The sun and its increasing TSI brought about the end of the little ice age and started the modern warming. Over the last 60 years or so the average TSI has been higher than at any time in the past 11,500 years, all that energy has been stored in the oceans that cover 74% of the planet, this stored heat has to be released, it does not always need a rising TSI to increase global temps especially if the TSI over the preceding years has been extremely high, the oceans will need to release the stored heat over time further raising global temps even though the TSI has become stable, in this case stable at a very high level. global temps have not risen since 1998 and in 2008 they dropped substantially, TSI has been at a very low level now for approximately 2.5 years and the oceans are now cooling even though CO2 is still increasing.

YOU SAY, Global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution have increased just under 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, ten times that of average TSI. NO they have not, UHI can take care of at least 50% of that figure. Google (UHI and population growth), and don`t tell me Giss/Hanson have allowed for UHI. Just ask yourself why Giss use station pairs instead of just rural sites and don`t tell me there are not enough rural sites. Funny, these rural sites invariably show little or no warming, Armagh for one.

One Small Problem ...

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Nov 10, 2008 03:59 PM
Dr. Chameides responds -

Rob, one small problem with your "ocean stored the heat and then gave it up" theory. The ocean has been gaining heat over the same time period that the TSI has been stable. Where did that heat come from? And if the ocean has been gaining heat, it hasn't been releasing it to the atmosphere.

With regard to temperatures: already commented on and already responded to.

impending iceage

Posted by Rob at Nov 12, 2008 01:48 PM
Dr. Chameides responds -

Rob, one small problem with your "ocean stored the heat and then gave it up" theory. The ocean has been gaining heat over the same time period that the TSI has been stable. Where did that heat come from? And if the ocean has been gaining heat, it hasn't been releasing it to the atmosphere.

THAT IS THE POINT, it has been stable at the highest level in 1500 years, that means more energy, higher ocean temperatures and more heat released from the oceans into the atmosphere, hence the rising air temperatures since the early 80`s. The TSI has now been low since 2003, the oceans are cooling, the air temperatures are now falling and the arctic is gaining ice. CO2 is still rising, odd that.
Stick a low light under a pan of water, wait awhile then place your hand close to the water, feel the heat, you don`t need a rising heat source to raise air temperatures.

It Doesn't Work That Way

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Nov 12, 2008 01:50 PM
DR. CHAMEIDES resplies -

Sorry Rob, it just does not work that way.
> The oceans can't increase their heat content and lose heat at the same time.
> The Arctic is not gaining ice; it's losing it -- in fact at an accelerating rate.
> Air temperatures are not falling. 2007 was the third warmest on record, and average temperatures over the past 5 years were higher than those in the preceding 5 years.

sunspots

Posted by David King at Oct 01, 2009 09:05 AM
Dr. Chameides,

Have you taken a look at the Arctic ice coverage lately? Arctic ice coverage is actually exceeding the fall of 2007's coverage, and, as you should recall, the winter of 2007 / 2008 experienced record ice coverage. In a progressively warming world, how is this possible? The fact is, global warming is severely hyped up. In 50 years (or even less) we will look back on this time with embarrassment and disgust. We must stop giving man so much credit for natural cycles. Solar activity is in a downward spiral and the dramatic 2007 global temperature drop just so happened to coincide? We have become blinded by "go green for global warming" machine. The earth is in the early stages of a very long and expensive cooling trend. Not only are we due for a little ice age, but we are also due for the big one. very soon, when crops fail year after year from abnormally severe cold, and those who rarely need to heat their homes find themselves constantly needing the heat, even the funded scientists won't be able to convince us that global warming is will melt and flood our world. Also, don't always trust data. Don't think that NOAA's little "goof" when they put September temperatures onto October's in Russia was an accident. There's an agenda going on here, my friend. wake up.

Dr. Chameides replies -

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Oct 01, 2009 11:59 AM
David King, I think it is quite likely that we will look back on this "time with embarrassment and disgust," more disgust on the part of our children, but not because climate scientists got it wrong. For the umpteenth time -- you need to look at the long-term trend not the year-to-year fluctuations.

cycles continued during Maunder

Posted by Hank Roberts at Oct 01, 2009 09:05 AM
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038004.shtml

points out that -- using sunspot proxy data now available from a second ice core -- it's clear that the studies relying on only the first ice core capture local variations in the marker for solar variation; their conclusions will need to be reviewed.

about The Green Grok
Dean Chameides

We are on an unsustainable course. While world populations and consumption grow, resources diminish and global warming threatens our way of life. We must find a more sustainable path. But how?

In The Green Grok, Dr. Bill Chameides elucidates causes of and potential remedies for environmental change and identifies pathways towards a more sustainable future.

meet team Grok »

Grok video

Double-click on video for a larger version (for best quality click youtube's HQ button).

A Cautionary Tale of Trees

City Parks: Great Places to Visit and Good for the Environment

DIY: Eight Tips for a More Sustainable Food Shopping Trip

more Grok videos »

Grok series

Cap and Trade In 6 parts »

Cash for Clunkers A series from 2009 »

Coal Ash Ongoing series »

Electronic Waste Ongoing series »

Global Warming and Predictions
of an Impending Ice Age
In 4 parts »

Senators on the Climate Bill Fence Ongoing series »

The Smart Grid Part 1 » :: Part 2 »