How can the Sun cause an increase in temperature, when solar radiation is decreasing?

Question

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Answer 1

I would say that even with a slight decrease in solar radiation entering the earth,  less of it is escaping back out as lower wave UV radiation.  If less of it escapes, the oceans absorb more of it, and the amount of thermal energy the oceans contain is a huge driving factor in climate.   So I would put the emphasis of the answer on what is happening on Earth, and not so much about the decrease in radiation from the Sun.

Answer 2

Because even with small variations in solar irradiance (either direction), the sun is by many orders of magnitude the single greatest input of energy into earth’s energy budget.

And as I’m sure you are aware, orbital variations (Milankovitch cyles) can affect the whole planet, while axial tilt can have localized effects like those we are seeing at the North Pole. .

Answer 3

You don't need to look far for your answers:

"...the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...

Sun's direct role in global warming may be underestimated, Duke physicists report

http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

"Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds:

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

Answer 4

why do you think solar radiation is decreasing?  Its in a constant cycle of up and down.  Do you not understand that?  I bet you arent a real scientist.  There is a rough 10-13 year solar cycle involving the sunspots, which has an effect on the climate because the level of UV rays is drastically different when there are many sunspots on the sun opposed to when there is none.  The UV rays react with oxygen in the atmosphere and make O-zone, a greenhouse gas.

The sunspots also have a connection with low cloud cover, which is what svensmark's work was all about.  Cloud cover reflects sunlight.

Answer 5

Maybe we measured the suns radiation wrong.

Answer 6

I feel the problem lies with you and the rest of the AGW believers deciding to take the sun completly out of the equation. As if we could get heat from any other source. The thing is we can't. If we didn't have the sun at all we'd be a dead planet.

I also don't see that we have been warming up since this decline in the suns output. In fact we have been slowly trending downwards with this decline. You want to believe the temperature is still going up, since if you were to see it otherwise you'd have to do a paradigm shift.

So how many more years of lower temperatures than the last year do we have to have before you open your eyes?

Answer 7

Not much of a case for the oceans either.

Answer 8

Jim Z - While it would be wonderful if we had satellite measurements of solar output going back to 1880 (like the land-based temperature measurements) we don't. So instead we deal with the data we do have, rather than speculate about data we don't have.  And in this case, 20 years of solar data that overlaps a 20 year period of significant warming is quite meaningful.  It means we can not attribute the recent significant warming to any changes in solar output.  That hypothesis is dead and buried, so it's time for the doubters of AGW to acknowledge that.

Mark Anthony - The cosmic ray hypothesis took another serious blow last week:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

Answer 9

Solar physicists Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich reject the claim that the warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since about 1850 is the result of solar variations.[81] Lockwood and Fröhlich conclude that:

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute this in a recent reply[82] arguing that tropospheric air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. A linear warming trend of about 0.14 K/decade is however left unaccounted for. As of October 2007, this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Answer 10

Lockwood and Frolich are mistaken.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131

You can read the reply from Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E. .  First go to

http://icecap.us/index.php

Look under what is new and cool column, read article "BBC Keeps on Denying the Sun’s Influence on Climate"  You will see the link there.  Unfortunately the link does not take you to the web site, but opens up the Adobe reader with their article automatically.

Edit:  A news article cannot debunk a scientific article.  Those links I have provided have debunk your question and has also debunked Lockwood and Frolich.

Answer 11

Apparently, the slack is being taken up by an increase in cosmic rays.

No doubt coming out the exhaust pipes of SUV's.

Answer 12

How you ask.  It could be the principle of Thermal Inertia.  If in fact the oceans absorbed more heat than it gave off with respect to the amount of heat absorbed and emitted by the atmosphere and land, we would have an imbalance in the thermal equilibrium.  After peak TSI we would see a trend in the oceans giving off this excess heat to the atmosphere, one indication of such an activity would be a trend to the positive of ENSO, and a cooling of the oceans.

It's just a possibility, since you ask.

ENSO has trended positive, but ocean temperatures have remained unchanged since 2003.  But since the amount of energy required to heat a volume of water vs air is about 1000:1 the temperature drop may not be measurable using the current instruments.

Has there been a study?, not that I am aware of, other than the ARGO data.  So if there are any grads looking for a career ending thesis, you can have this one for free.  But please take more care that Dr's J Willis and J Hansen who in 2005 looked at a very limited amount of ocean temperature data and announce they have it all figured out, "the numbers fit", then 2 years later find out otherwise.

Answer 13

The climate is caused by many factors including solar output (magnetic, heat, etc.), as well as other factors such as cloud formation, eccentricity of orbit and axis of rotation, and even greenhouse gases such as water vapor and to a lesser extent CO2.  Focusing on a small time interval is a waste of time and there is no way to know what are causing those minor variations.  I would be concerned that solar radiation is decreasing.  Warmth has always been a harbinger of prosperity, it that is indeed the trend.  Cooling has always had the opposite effect.

Answer 14

In simple english, our plsanet is constantly bombarded with cosmic rays, cosmic rays create cloud cover when they reach our atmosphere. When the sun is active, the storms stop most of the cosmic rays from reaching our atmosphere, which means we don't get alot of cloud. When the sun is calm as it is at the moment, we get a 5hit load of cosmic rays which build up clouds which reflect the suns rays back into space, which, in turn, cools the planet down, which is happening at the moment.

Answer 15

It is quite possible for the atmosphere to warm in the short term by removing solar energy from prior years stored in the oceans.  For this to happen the oceans must cool to balance the energy equation.  The oceans can also absorb heat from the atmosphere to produce a year, such as 2008, that is cooler than normal. Further, the process of heat exchange has a characteristic time constant of about 5 years.  The Lockwood and Frolich paper cited deals a decisive blow to this explanation because both the atmosphere and oceans (to great depth) are BOTH warming and the trend has persisted much longer than the time constant.

Answer 16

I asked the a similar question recently.  If the Sun was responsible for the recent global warming, there's no reason for it to have stopped in 1998.  The two arguments are incompatible - they contradict eachother.  In reality both are wrong, because as you note, solar irradiance has not increased over the past 30 years, nor have global temperatures stopped rising.

As usual, none of the 'skeptics' could answer my question.  They won't be able to answer yours either, because we know the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming.  No scientist has claimed otherwise (with the exception of the theorized indirect effects via the cosmic ray theory, which has also been all but disproven).

Answer 17

i seriously doubt if you have any first hand knowledge of science bob. it appears that you let others do your thinking for you. i also bet you drive a car, heat and a/c your home and pollute the earth with your f***s and other bodily discharges, not to mention the garbage you fill land fills with. . when are you going to be a true environmentalist and global warming supporter and quit doing these things? perhaps you would be much better served, along with the earth if you concentrated on these matters instead of trying to scare people with your phony liberal global warming scare tactics.

Answer 18

what a coincidence! i was reading about this study last night in a back copy of the new scientist;

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...