2
$\begingroup$

Can the Sun go through seasons or cycles to cause a temperature change?

Could the Sun have to go through any kind of thermal cycle to change the climate on Earth and by how much?

$\endgroup$
0

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

The Sun's magnetic field is way too weak to have any measurable effect on the Earth's orbit. The sunspot cycle does produce a small but detectable signature in the global average temperature (about $0.2\sideset{^{\circ}}{}{\mathrm{C}}$). Over a billion-year timescale the Sun is getting hotter as helium builds up in its core.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This is on the average. I would like to still know if the Sun could fluctuate in temperature when it's magnetic poles move? $\endgroup$
    – Muze
    Commented Jul 4, 2019 at 18:09
2
$\begingroup$

The Sun is gradually increasing in brightness by 1% every hundred million years. This increase in solar output will, over the long term, cause a gradual warming of the Earth’s surface.

In roughly 1 billion years, which is long before it becomes a red giant, the combination of the Sun’s gradual increase in output and the "moist greenhouse effect" will make the Earth’s surface too hot for liquid water to exist.

For more details see my blog post The Future of humanity

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Downvote: Self-promotion. Please cite primary sources if possible. And in this case there are plenty. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ I think you are being a little harsh 'AtomsphericPrisonEscape' I agree that I wrote the orginal blost post but at the same time it answers the question well and pulls it all the information together in one place. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 16:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On SE we do not promote answers that essentially are "Here, link", but should be self-contained on their own SE site, so that people looking for the same question in the future find coherent Q&A. This is not only a stance against self-promotion but also because websites move and are later not accessible. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 17:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AtmosphericPrisonEscape IMHO, the actual text of this answer is an adequate answer, the link just adds further details. Also, there's no rule against someone linking to their own off-site articles, as long as they don't hide the fact that they're the author. $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented May 16, 2019 at 4:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @PM2Ring I am a newbie on the site and wanted to provide a short succinct answer and a further link to my blog to provide additional information rather than write a very long answer $\endgroup$ Commented May 16, 2019 at 9:21
0
$\begingroup$

The Sun’s life cycle has warmed… over a billion years or three.

The early Sun had to “warm up”, while there was also remnant debris from the protosolar nebula affecting the incoming insolation. We call this the “Faint Young Sun” period.

The later Sun will, too, become better at what it does: derive energy from fusion. Stellar physics is not something to tie up neatly in a post but this is not really speculative anymore.

If you mean cycles on the scale of humans, then not really. We are measuring the Sun: we can account for the insolation we have seen, and account for unseen factors. e. g., the Sun has not increased or decreased in flaring/storms over ~200 years. Solar flares result in direct changes in emitted solar wind ions, and indirectly in changes to ions sparked on Earth when this activity reaches us. We measure the ions implanted in meteorites (and thus, halted when those meteorites entered our protective planet), and the isotopes captured by sediment layers, tree rings, ice layers, “bone” rings, and other stratigraphies.

Since we have been objectively saving meteorites for ~200 years now, we can back-catalog ion implantation levels that far back. Sediment layers/stalactites, tree rings, ice cores, fish otoliths/coral “rings”, etc. give cross-confirmation; so does the direct record of sunspot observation (>200 years) and direct magnetometry/UV astronomy (<150 years), plus indirect histories of radio inteference and general auroral sightings. All told, the Sun cannot account for current global warming: changes are too low by a factor of several times.

This is in addition to failures of the alternate, null hypotheses: the “cloud generation” hypothesis, an indirect process, has failed to show by experiment anywhere near the levels of clouding needed. The “cosmic ray response” hypothesis is even more indirect, and its time series appeared to show correlation up to years 2003-2005, when the series started failing to correlate.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The question isn't about global warming. It is asking whether there are cycles on the Sun that cause (or are perhaps correlated) with measurable temperature changes onEarth. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Aug 13, 2022 at 7:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .