<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>For more details see my blog post <a href="https://thesciencegeek.org/2015/04/26/the-future-of-humanity/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Future of humanity</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-15T16:19:05.437Z
Downvote: Self-promotion. Please cite primary sources if possible. And in this case there are plenty.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-15T16:28:42.893Z
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.
Science Geek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-15T17:23:00.793Z
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.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-16T04:49:15.957Z
@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.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-16T09:21:28.873Z
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
Science Geek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-13T07:17:38.063Z
The question asks about cycles.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-15T12:30:08.790Z
2019-05-16T06:56:07.467Z
2019-05-16T06:56:07.467Z
Science Geek
<p>The Sun’s life cycle has warmed… over a billion years or three.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 (&gt;200 years) and direct magnetometry/UV astronomy (&lt;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-13T07:20:00.657Z
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.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-12T14:09:03.807Z
2022-08-12T14:09:03.807Z
caInstrument
<p>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 <span class="math-container">$0.2\sideset{^{\circ}}{}{\mathrm{C}}$</span>). Over a billion-year timescale the Sun is getting hotter as helium builds up in its core. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-04T18:09:55.483Z
This is on the average. I would like to still know if the Sun could fluctuate in temperature when it's magnetic poles move?
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-13T20:11:25.403Z
2019-05-16T00:33:33.090Z
2019-05-16T00:33:33.090Z
James K
<p>Can the Sun go through seasons or cycles to cause a temperature change? </p>

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

<the-sun><orbit><earth><magnetic-field><thermodynamics>
Does the sun have cycles causing temperature changes on Earth?
Muze
# Does the sun have cycles causing temperature changes on Earth?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-13)

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?

**Tags:** the-sun, orbit, earth, magnetic-field, thermodynamics


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-05-13. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: This is on the average. I would like to still know if the Sun could fluctuate in temperature when it's magnetic poles move?  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-05-15. Score: 2

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](https://thesciencegeek.org/2015/04/26/the-future-of-humanity/)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Downvote: Self-promotion. Please cite primary sources if possible. And in this case there are plenty.  
> **username_1**: 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.  
> **username_2**: 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.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 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.  
> **username_1**: 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  
> **username_4**: The question asks about cycles.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-08-12. Score: 0

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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: 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.  

---

