<p>It is impossible to know. Solar flares can have more than 500,000 kilometers. So if we consider them part of the sun, the moment when the earth is closer to the sun can be very different from perihelion if a big flare happens, making much of what was discussed in other answers irrelevant.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/lY1yd.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lY1yd.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T06:35:48.020Z
You might as well argue that the heliosphere or solar wind are part of the Sun, in which case our distance to the Sun is zero.  I'm not sure that is a very useful definition of "the Sun".  Consider that we normally say we are "on Earth".  If we are "in the Earth", we are most underground.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T17:33:26.583Z
The distance between the Earth and the Sun is hundreds of times even the full extent of a half-million-kilometer solar flare.  This is a very misleading image for the purpose of this answer.
WBT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T21:44:55.023Z
A 500,000 km flare is around 0.2 degrees from Earth's point of view. Thus (if Earth was a smooth ball) it might change the closes point on Earth by at most 0.2 degrees; that is around 20 kilometers. Not really enough to make other answers invalid.
JiK
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T21:49:15.403Z
And Earth's distance to Sun varies by 5,000,000 km between perihelion and aphelion; again a 500,000 km random variation is not enough to make the other answers completely irrelevant.
JiK
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T02:03:29.110Z
2019-01-22T02:03:29.110Z
Roberto
<p>The point on the surface of the Earth where the Sun is currently immediately overhead is called the Zenith Point. Its Latitude and Longitude correspond to the Declination and Greenwich Hour Angle of the Sun. </p>

<p>These data points can be approximated to any degree of accuracy and timeframe by a Fourier series of n terms.  Accuracy sufficient for sextant work for the current decade can be achieved with a Fourier series of 7 terms). These terms are published in nautical almanacs.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T01:47:56.933Z
Just because the Sun is immediately overhead a particular point on Earth does not mean that that point is closest to the Sun. To illustrate this, consider that for any zenith point I can get closer to the Sun by standing on a ladder 1 meter away. Or consider that the zenith point might be in a deep canyon, or adjacent to a tall mountain, etc. The Earth would have to be a perfect sphere for the zenith point to be analogous with the closest point. For this reason, I don't think this answer addresses the question.
JBentley
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T06:12:26.207Z
The difference can be close to 300 km when the zenith point is in the Pacific Ocean just outside Huascarán (a 6700-m peak in the Andes, the highest in the tropics).
hmakholm left over Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T13:43:12.447Z
You'd have to find what the zenith was at the closet  perihelion ever. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't even on the list.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-24T13:49:42.457Z
@Mazura As per my comment, the zenith is not necessarily the closest point.
JBentley
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-25T09:41:01.287Z
And light takes 8 minutes to get to the earth.  What you are seeing when the Sun is overhead is where the Sun was 8 minutes ago.
Nelson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-30T16:05:51.310Z
"*The point on the surface of the Earth where the Sun is currently immediately overhead is called the Zenith Point*". I'd not say that this way. The zenith (opposite to the nadir) of any point is the vertical of that point. The Sun is the closest of a point when it is at the zenith of the that point. Only points between tropics can have the Sun at their zenith.
mins
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T01:07:37.880Z
2019-01-22T01:07:37.880Z
Dave Kimble
<p>Whichever spot on the surface of the Earth is experiencing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahaina_Noon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lahaina Noon</a>, or would be if it wasn't cloudy, is at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsolar_point" rel="nofollow noreferrer">subsolar point</a> and pointed directly at the Sun, moreso than any other point on Earth at that moment.  Of course, you could get closer to the sun by climbing higher.</p>

<p>If you were able to be <strong>at the summit of Chimborazo volcano in Ecuador (point furthest from the center of Earth) at Lahaina Noon at perihelion</strong>, that would be as close to the Sun as you can get and still be on the surface of the Earth.   You'd probably have to be very lucky or <em>extremely</em> patient for that to happen, though.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T16:59:50.670Z
You would indeed need extreme patience, because you'd have to wait for around 6000 years (give or take) until perihelion occurs when the sun is at Chimborazo's latitude. And if you're willing to wait _that_ long you may also want to take into account periodic variations in the earth's orbital eccentricy, which means that the perihelion distance will keep decreasing _after_ the subsolar-point-at-perihelion moves north of Chimborazo. You may need to wait several eccentricity cycles until perihelion-at-Chimborazo happens together with maximal eccentricity.
hmakholm left over Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T20:13:19.290Z
2019-01-22T20:13:19.290Z
WBT
<p>There are some wonderful answers here, but I think a simplified plain English answer would be helpful. Barring any nearby mountains, and various foibles, the closest point to the sun at the June solstice is where it is midday on the tropic of Cancer. At the December solstice, it is where it is midday on the tropic of Capricorn. At equinox it is where it is midday on the equator. Other times of year it is a proportional point in between (no doubt described mathematically by the above equations).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T00:22:20.123Z
2019-01-29T00:22:20.123Z
xpusostomos
<p>At any one specific moment the subsolar point is the point on Earth that is closest to the Sun at that specific moment.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The subsolar point on a planet is the point at which its sun is perceived to be directly overhead (at the zenith);[1] that is, where the sun's rays strike the planet exactly perpendicular to its surface. It can also mean the point closest to the sun on an astronomical object, even though the sun might not be visible.</p>
<p>To an observer on a planet with an orientation and rotation similar to those of Earth, the subsolar point will appear to move westward, completing one circuit around the globe each day, approximately moving along the equator. However, it will also move north and south between the tropics over the course of a year, so it is spiraling like a helix.</p>
<p>The subsolar point contacts the Tropic of Cancer on the June solstice and the Tropic of Capricorn on the December solstice. The subsolar point crosses the Equator on the March and September equinoxes.</p>
<p>When the point passes through Hawaii, the only U.S. state in which this happens, it is known as Lahaina Noon.[2]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a minor exception to this rule.</p>
<p>The subsolar point can be defined as a mathematical point, so that someone could theoretically be standing with their body over the exact mathematical subsolar point and with their two legs and feet on either side of the exact mathematical subsolar point.</p>
<p>Thus a place that is close to the the exact mathematical subsolar point and at a higher altitude than it might be closer to the Sun than the exact mathematical subsolar point.  The farther away from the exact mathematical subsolar point a place is the higher its altitude must be in order to be closer to the Sun than the exact mathematical subsolar point.</p>
<p>Earth has an polar radius of 6,356.8 kilometers and an equatorial radius of 6,378.1 kilometers, so a place at the equator is 21.3 kilometers farther from the center of the Earth than a place at one of the poles, not allowing for minor variations in the figure of the Earth and not allowing for altitude differences.</p>
<p>The subsolar point of earth is never farther north than the Tropic of Cancer and never farther south than the Tropic of Captricorn, and so in recent times is never North of about 23 degrees 26 minutes North Latitude or south of about 23 degrees 26 minutes South Latitude.</p>
<p>Of the points mentioned in the question Chimborazo and Cayambe Volcanoes in Ecuador, and Sairecabur and Licancabur Volcanoes in Chile, are within the tropics and thus can sometimes be the subsolar points, while Mount Everest is north of the Tropic of cancer and can never be the subsolar point.</p>
<p>If Earth as a radius of 6,356.8 to 6,378.1 kilometers, it must have diameter of 12,713.6 to 12,756.2 kilometers, and thus at any one moment the subsolar point, wherever it is at that moment,  will be about 12,713.6 to 12,756.2 kilometers closer to the Sun than the point that is farthest from the Sun, wherever it is at that moment.</p>
<p>The semi-major axis of the orbit of the Earth is 149,598,023 kilometers, which can be taken as the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. Whenever the Earth is exactly 149,598,023 kilometers, the subsolar point will be about 12,713.6 to 12,756.2 kilometers closer to the Sun than the point that is farthest from the Sun.</p>
<p>So at any moment when Earth was exactly 149,598,023 kilometers from the Sun, and the subsolar point happens to be 12,756.2 kilometers closer to the Sun than the point on Earth farthest from the Sun, the difference will be 1 in 11,727.475, or 0.0000852 of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.</p>
<p>The perihelion distance between Earth and the Sun is 147,095,000 kilometers while the aphelion distance between Earth and the Sun is 152,100,000 kilometers, a difference of 5,005,000 kilometers. Since it takes earth about half a year, or about 182.625 days, to go from Aphelion to perihelion, the distance between Earth and the Sun changes by an average of about 27,405.886 kilometers per day.</p>
<p>Thus any point on Earth, even the point on Earth that is farthest from the Sun, at the exact moment of perihelion should still be closer to the Sun than any point on Earth, even the subsolar point, on any other day of the year.</p>
<p>What about astronauts in orbit, bound by gravity to the Earth?  Do their capsules and space stations count?  Whether or not space capsules and space stations count as part of Earth, some astronaut in Earth orbit might have been closer to the Sun and another astronaut might in earth orbit have been farther from the Sun than any human in history.</p>
<p>And what about Apollo astronauts who traveled to the Moon and orbited or passed beyond it?  Does the Moon count as a place on Earth since it is bound to Earth by gravity?  And even if not, some Apollo astronaut or astronauts must have been farther from Earth than any other humans.</p>
<p>The Apollo missions all lasted for at least a quarter of a lunar orbit around the Earth.  The landings on the Moon were all on the near side of the Moon that faces the Earth, and all during the Lunar day, which means that the near side of the Moon must have been facing the Sun and thus farther from the Sun than Earth during the missions.</p>
<p>Earth is at perihelion, closest to the Sun around January 4, and at aphelion, farthest from the Sun, around July 4.</p>
<p>So of the manned missions that reached Lunar orbit, Apollo 11, July 1624, 1969, and Apollo 15, July 26-August 7, 1971, were closest to aphelion about July 4, and so their astronauts might have traveled farther from the Sun than any other humans, depending on where the Moon was during its orbit.</p>
<p>And Apollo 8, December 21-27 1968, Apollo 17, December 7-19 1972, and Apollo 14, January 31-February 9, 1971, were closed to perihelion about January 4.  And so the astronauts in one of those missions might have come closest to the Sun of all humans.  But I doubt that.  Probably some astronaut(s) who orbited the Earth several times on a January 4 passed close to a point above the subsolar point at a time very close to perihelion and came closed to the Sun - or least far from it - of all humans so far.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-30T16:35:03.937Z
"*Do their capsules and space stations count?*", they don't, but if it were the case, these local objects would be defeated by really remote objects, like [SOHO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory) satellite at L1 and the [Parker solar probe](https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/) which flew several times through the Sun corona, and will do it again.
mins
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-26T03:33:35.710Z
2019-01-26T03:33:35.710Z
2020-06-18T08:25:19.090Z
M.A. Golding
<p>The closest point on the Earth to the Sun needs be a subsolar point on a monumental tropical summit, on January 4th during a <a href="https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/micro-moon.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">micromoon</a>, when the the Moon is maximally out, and the Earth is maximally inside our shared Earth/Moon orbit.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-30T16:20:39.273Z
And so what was this point, say for the 3 last years?
mins
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-25T02:23:32.553Z
2022-06-25T21:28:54.233Z
2022-06-25T21:28:54.233Z
jonathan jay
<p>This is an interesting question, but it lacks a key factor that is crucial to the answer: <strong>TIME</strong>.</p>

<p>The point on Earth closest to the Sun <strong>varies through time</strong>, so the question can be asked about any moment in time, or over periods of time. Let's analyze the factors involved.</p>

<p>At any given moment in time, the point on Earth's surface that is closest to the Sun is what is called the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsolar_point" rel="noreferrer">subsolar point</a>”. This point corresponds to the point on the surface that intersects the imaginary line that connects the center of the Earth to the center of the Sun. In other words, the subsolar point correspond to the point on Earth surface where the sunlight hits the Earth perpendicular to the ground, therefore, a vertical object would project no shadow.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/aCoRYm.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/aCoRYm.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>(image from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsolar_point#/media/File:Subsolar_point.png" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia: subsolar point</a>)</p>

<p>The longitude of the subsolar point corresponds to that of the meridian experiencing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon#Solar_noon" rel="noreferrer">solar noon</a>. Over Greenwich (longitude 0°) that happens at the actual noon, and as the Earth rotates 15° every hour, that will happen one our later (at 13:00 h UTC) at longitude 15° W, two hours later (at 14:00 h UTC) at longitude 30° W, and so on. In general terms, you can use the following formula for the subsolar point longitude (<span class="math-container">$\text{SSP}_{\text{long}}$</span>).</p>

<p><span class="math-container">$\text{SSP}_{\text{long}} = \left(\text{UTC} -12\right)*15°$</span></p>

<p>This is a simplified formula, but accurate enough for our purpose. Let's take as an example the following date</p>

<p><strong>July 20, 1969, at 20:17 UTC</strong></p>

<p>In that moment, the longitude of the subsolar point was 124° 15' West:</p>

<p><span class="math-container">$(20+(17/60)-12)*15°=124.25°=124°15'$</span></p>

<p>Finding the latitude of the subsolar point is a bit more complicated, we need to know the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination" rel="noreferrer">declination</a> of the Sun. Declination is the equivalent of latitude for celestial coordinates. For that, use <a href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/solareqns.PDF" rel="noreferrer">a formula</a>, <a href="http://www.reuk.co.uk/wordpress/solar/solar-declination/" rel="noreferrer">a table</a>, or a online calculator like the <a href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html" rel="noreferrer">NOAA Solar Position Calculator</a>.</p>

<p>Just enter the date, and even that the location doesn't matter here, we need to select “Enter Lat/Long -->” to be allowed to enter the offset to UTC as 0, otherwise the time won't be interpreted as UTC time.</p>

<p>From there we can find that the solar declination for our example date is 20.58° (20° 34') which corresponds to the latitude of the subsolar point: 20° 34' North.</p>

<p>Therefore, on July 20, 1969, at 20:17 UTC, the subsolar point was at 20° 34' N, 124° 15' W, which is somewhere between Mexico and Hawaii. That was the point on Earth closest to the Sun at that moment.</p>

<p><strong>Now, what would happen if there were a very tall mountain close to the subsolar point? Would that mountain be closer to the Sun?</strong></p>

<p>The answer is: probably. It depends on how far and how much higher it is relative to the subsolar point.</p>

<p>We can do a quick calculation based on the following diagram (in this approximation we assume that Earth is spherical, that the sun is infinitely far away and other simplifications)</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/pmO4X.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/pmO4X.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>From there we have</p>

<p><span class="math-container">$r-r'=\Delta H$</span></p>

<p><span class="math-container">$D = r ~ \theta$</span> (<span class="math-container">$\theta$</span> in radians)</p>

<p><span class="math-container">$\frac{r'}{r}=\cos(\theta)$</span></p>

<p>After some algebra you can write that the extra height <span class="math-container">$\Delta H$</span> needed to be as close to the Sun as the subsolar point is</p>

<p><span class="math-container">$\Delta H = r \left(1-\cos\left(\frac{D}{r}\right)\right)$</span></p>

<p>Where <span class="math-container">$D$</span> is the distance and <span class="math-container">$r$</span> is Earth's radius (in this case makes sense to use the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth" rel="noreferrer">equatorial radius</a> of 6378.1 km)</p>

<p>If we plot this equation we get the following</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FCOfE.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FCOfE.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>(the vertical axis is logarithmic)</p>

<p>We can see that around 10 km away from the subsolar point, ~10 meters are enough to be closer than it to the Sun. ~30 meters at 20 km, ~800 meters at 100 km, ~3,000 m at 200 km, and if you go further than 340 km, not even Mount Everest will get you closer to the Sun.</p>

<p>So, <strong>the closest point to the Sun will be whatever geographical feature that maximizes the value <span class="math-container">$\text{Altitude}-\Delta H$</span></strong>, where <span class="math-container">$\text{Altitude}$</span> is the altitude of the geographical feature. Let's call that point “<em>proxisolar</em>” point. I just made up that name, but it will be handy for the following discussion.</p>

<p>Now that we understand the basis to establish what is the closest point to the Sun at a given moment, we can tackle the question that probably most people meant when asking this question:</p>

<h2>What is the point on Earth that gets closest to the Sun over a year?</h2>

<p>The most important fact to keep in mind, is that the variations of the distance between the Earth and the Sun over the year dwarf any topographical feature and even the diameter of the Earth itself. Earth’s distance from the Sun (center-to-center) varies from 147,098,074 km at perihelion (closest) to 152,097,701 km at aphelion (most distant). Therefore, the difference is <strong>5 million kilometers!</strong>.</p>

<p>The perihelion happens around January 4th, when the solar declination is about -23°, therefore, the latitude of the subsolar point is around 23° South. That rules out Chimborazo, Cayambe and Everest, because they are too far to be the “proxisolar” point. In contrast, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sairecabur" rel="noreferrer">Sairecabur</a> (5,971 m at 22.72° S) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licancabur" rel="noreferrer">Licancabur</a> (5,916m at 22.83° S) are reasonable contestants.</p>

<p>The problem is that the perihelion happens on different days of the year and at different times of the day every year, so the point that gets closest to the Sun on a given year is just the one that happen to be the “proxisolar point” at the time of the Perihelion.</p>

<p>People who argues that Sairecabur or Licancabur are the points that get closer to the Sun, are implicitly assuming that the distance Earth-Sun doesn't vary much during the day of the perihelion. Therefore, the extra elevation of these mountains allows them to get closer to the Sun during that day. Unfortunately, that assumption is completely wrong. Let's see why:</p>

<p>An approximation of the distance Earth-Sun can be obtained from the following formula</p>

<p><span class="math-container">$d = \frac{a(1-e^2)}{1+e \cos\left(\text{days}\frac{360}{365.25}\right)}$</span></p>

<p>Where <span class="math-container">$a$</span> is the semi-major axis of Earth's orbit, <span class="math-container">$e$</span> is the eccentricity, and <span class="math-container">$\text{days}$</span> is the number of days elapsed since the perihelion. To see the simplifications behind this equation <a href="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/80-how-can-i-find-the-distance-to-the-sun-on-any-given-day-advanced" rel="noreferrer">look here</a> (note that the conversion factor 360/365.25 is erroneously inverted in that link, thanks @PM2Ring for spotting that).</p>

<p>If you solve the above equation for the perihelion and for one day before/after it, you will get that the difference is 358 km, and for half a day you get 89 km. Therefore, if the subsolar point happens to be on the opposite side of the Earth than, let's say, Licancabur volcano, this volcano would need to be <strong>89 km higher that the subsolar point</strong> to get closer than it to the Sun that year. 89 kilometers!</p>

<p>Therefore, <strong>we can discard the idea that a given mountain could be the point that gets closer to the Sun on EVERY year</strong>.</p>

<p>If we plot the above equation with distances relative to the perihelion we get the following (using <span class="math-container">$a$</span> and <span class="math-container">$e$</span> from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit" rel="noreferrer">here</a>)</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/qShAo.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/qShAo.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Here we can see, that if the perihelion happens a bit more than 3 hours before or after the solar noon at Licancabur, the ~6,000 m of elevation advantage would not be enough to get closer to the Sun than the subsolar point at the perihelion, even if such point is at sea level.</p>

<p>Note that three hours corresponds to 45° in Longitude, which at that approximate latitude corresponds to approximately 4,600 km.</p>

<p>Therefore, it can be argued that Licancabur is the point on Earth that has more chances to be the closest to the Sun in an arbitrary year. But in a given year, it might or might not be the closest depending on where the subsolar point is at the moment of the perihelion.</p>

<p>Finally, it is important to note that the distance Earth-Sun at the perihelion varies widely from year to year. If you look at <a href="http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/perap2001.html" rel="noreferrer">this table of perihelions between years 2001 and 2100</a>, you will see that <strong>perihelions often vary by several thousand of kilometers</strong>.</p>

<p>Therefore, for example between years 2001 and 2100, the closest perihelion by far is the perihelion of next year (2020), and it will happen when the subsolar point is in the middle of the Indian ocean, about 12,700 km away from Licancabur and Sairecabur volcanoes. Therefore, the point that will be closest to the Sun this century will be one in the middle of the Indian ocean about 320 km south of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues" rel="noreferrer">Rodrigues Island</a>.</p>

<p>Said this, the question of which point on Earth will get closest to the Sun depends on the period of time on which it is considered. For each year, each century and any other arbitrary period of time, the answer will be different.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T18:14:05.133Z
Time, yes. Geology's best and only friend. What was the height of the tallest mountain on Pangaea... ?
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T19:13:19.880Z
I think it would be interesting to see which point was closest if you assume the Earth has a perfectly circular orbit.  Or at least assume that the exact distance of the perihelion lasts 2-3 days.  In other words, this is amazing, but its exhaustively specific.  With a _slightly_ more general answer you could at least pick out a point that could reasonably tell tourists that it is the closest point to the sun.
JPhi1618
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T19:18:03.023Z
@JPhi1618 But such a more general answer would be wrong. Or correct some times only, like a broken clock. Better to tell tourists to travel to different places of the world chasing the perihelion proxisolar point of the year... that sounds fun too.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T19:22:58.187Z
Oh, I totally get that it would be wrong, but a lot of the stories you are told on vacation are exaggerated if not plain false.  I'm just saying that if it was generalized a little, you could say that this point on Earth is less of a lie than some other possible locations.  But your idea of an interactive site that would show the future proxisolar points does sound fun.  It could even be an interactive map that would show a line that was closest to the sun for any time of the year, but that would require vast topographic data and computational power.
JPhi1618
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T21:13:24.767Z
Exercise for the reader: *what place on Earth is farthest from the Sun?* and I like how you are calculating the place closest to the Sun while assuming the Sun is infinitely far away, which is of course correct, but funny regardless.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T21:27:58.867Z
Your question is specific, but I wonder if it's specific enough. The Earth also rotates around the Earth-Moon barycentre, on average 4,671 km from the Earth's centre. So in this day, the Earth not only gets 95 km further from the Sun, but also moves from fraction of 4,671 km, which may be toward or away from the Sun. Your perihelion may be accurate for the barycentre (depending on how Jupiter and other planets impact it), but how far in time from perihelion may be Earth's actual shortest distance to the Sun any given time? We may need a 4-body gravitation simulation to answer this one...
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T21:57:03.773Z
@gerrit I think that all that dynamic have been taken into account in the calculation of the Earth-center-to-Sun-center distance for each perihelion displayed on the linked table at astropixels.com . However, the Moon-Earth dynamic would certainly add more error or maybe invalidate my simplistic calculation of the distance variations around the perihelion. It would be something interesting to explore. In any case, the final answer wouldn't change much. It still depends on the period of time involved and some complex celestial mechanics calculations.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T23:51:03.670Z
wow, that's an excellent explanation and incredible detail. I feel like you could add even more complexity if you consider the dynamics of the sun. The surface is very dynamic, and the earth-sun distance probably changes by much more than a few kilometers when there are sun spots or Coronal Mass Ejections in the region facing earth. Or when the sun rotates about the barycentre of the solar system... The sky's the limit.
craq
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T17:43:32.503Z
As far as I can calculate, the earth-moon dynamic would flatten the "half a day out" value from 89 km to about 63 km at worst, namely if the perihelion happens exactly at a new moon. This would give a 6000m peak slightly less than 4 hours on each side of the perihelion (rather than 3 hours) to dominate.
hmakholm left over Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-24T08:21:58.587Z
I think the second paragraph after the last image should say "corresponds to 45° in Longitude", instead of "Latitude".
atturri
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-24T16:15:02.830Z
@atturri You are right! Thanks. I just fixed it.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-24T19:33:39.417Z
This is a fantastically researched and explained answer. I'm curious though, given that that's a point on the seafloor - are you considering its altitude as 0 meters or negative whatever?
Skyler
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-24T19:35:25.193Z
@Skyler Thanks. I'm considering its altitude as 0 m. I think is reasonable in this case to consider that the Ocean can be considered part of the Earth surface.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-26T08:59:44.523Z
I also thought this question made no sense
ycomp
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T15:32:45.113Z
2019-01-25T20:27:19.510Z
2019-01-25T20:27:19.510Z
Camilo Rada
<p><strong>What is the location on Earth that is closest to the Sun?</strong></p>

<p>I've seen this question asked many times, and answered in varied and contradictory ways:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The most common answer is “the summit of <strong>Chimborazo volcano</strong> in Ecuador”. This volcano is the <a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2772/farthest-point-from-the-center-of-the-earth/2777#2777">point on Earth's surface that is furthest from the center of Earth</a>, and that is then equated to being the closest to the Sun.
This is very commonly spoken of around the Chimborazo volcano area and among the people involved with tourism there (<a href="https://shawnwashere.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/climbing-to-the-spot-on-earth-closest-to-the-sun-day-388/" rel="noreferrer">here is an example of this answer</a>)</p></li>
<li><p>Others argue that it is <strong>Cayambe volcano</strong> in Ecuador, it being the highest point along the equatorial line (<a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-place-on-Earth-closest-to-the-Sun" rel="noreferrer">answer example</a>).</p></li>
<li><p>Others say <strong>Mount Everest</strong> in Nepal/China because it is the highest point on Earth (<a href="http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question21808.html" rel="noreferrer">example</a>).</p></li>
<li><p>And others argue it is <strong>Sairecabur volcano</strong> in Chile/Bolivia, because it is the highest point at the latitude which is closest to the Sun on January 5th, when the perihelion happens (i.e. the point in Earth's orbit that is closest to the sun) (<a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-place-on-Earth-closest-to-the-Sun" rel="noreferrer">example</a>).</p></li>
<li><p>A fifth answer, with the same logic as the previous, is <strong>Licancabur volcano</strong> in Chile/Bolivia, which quite as close to the latitude of the perihelion but is significantly higher than Sairecabur.</p></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>What is the correct answer and why?</strong></p>

<p><strong>What place on Earth is closest to the Sun?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T15:31:37.887Z
You mean instantaneous closeness? Because, after all, the Earth rotates, and [its orbit precesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession)...
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T15:43:32.413Z
@Spencer I came upon this discussion on Facebook and after seeing so many wrong answers on internet I wanted to put the question here, just as it is generally stated, and give below what I think is the right answer. But you got the right point, you have to link the question to a period of time.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T17:53:03.913Z
Currently, where there are no shadows being cast by vertical objects.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T17:55:56.587Z
*What location on Earth **has been** the closest to the Sun?*
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T17:56:24.857Z
@Mazura, not quite, look at the answer below. Specially the $\Delta H$ part
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T18:02:56.750Z
I can only assume it's the part of the Earth that sticks out the farthest from its gravitational center. And you'd otherwise have to run a 4By computer simulation to find out, using geological (tl;dr:) **data we simply don't have.**
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T21:40:30.663Z
Related: [*When is Earth closest to the Sun?*](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/29271/1462)
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T01:43:46.593Z
I'm not sure about the merit of this question. You've self-answered it, but your answer is only possible because the question is deliberately flawed. Obviously, it makes no sense to ask which point on earth is closest to the sun without mentioning *when*. A question better suited to your answer might be "how does the point on Earth which is closest to the sun vary with time?" or something along those lines.
JBentley
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T02:09:17.843Z
@JBentley You are right in some sense but I don't fully agree. I decided to post the question in its most common form. But I agree with you that people usually meant something different, probably something like "What place on Earth GETS closer to the Sun each year?" and I made sure to answer that question too. I don't think the question you suggest really address what the people asking the questions I linked is thinking about.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T08:12:46.657Z
The answer is likely some location in the middle of the pacific, near equator. The sea level is affected by gravity, and will be drawn towards the sun, giving you an extra meter or two. All other places will cancel out when you average the days, years and orbit wobble.
Stian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T22:43:39.890Z
Like Mazura's comment, the place on Earth that is closest to the Sun is probably the location that corresponds with the Sun's zenith. However, if a tangential sphere centered on the Sun were defined passing through that point and surrounding hills or mountains were found to pass through that sphere, then whatever geographical point inside that sphere closest to its middle would be closest to the Sun.
Noctis Skytower
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T01:11:15.103Z
It's whatever the zenith was at the closet perihelion ever. Likely that's some spot in the ocean that may or may not have been an ocean at the time.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-26T00:51:10.043Z
"The zenith [at the closet perihelion ever] is not necessarily the closest point." - Discrepancies in the Earth's surface are some pretty arbitrary considerations, given the context.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-10T10:06:13.480Z
The Universe as a whole is a vastly superior, complicated and powerful entity. I think that we will never know the answer to this particular question albeit quite interesting. Maybe we just aren’t meant to know?
Lee Ann Walters
<geography><earth-system><astronomy><orbit><geodesy>
What place on Earth is closest to the Sun?
Camilo Rada
# What place on Earth is closest to the Sun?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-21)

**What is the location on Earth that is closest to the Sun?**

I've seen this question asked many times, and answered in varied and contradictory ways:

* The most common answer is “the summit of **Chimborazo volcano** in Ecuador”. This volcano is the [point on Earth's surface that is furthest from the center of Earth](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2772/farthest-point-from-the-center-of-the-earth/2777#2777), and that is then equated to being the closest to the Sun.
  This is very commonly spoken of around the Chimborazo volcano area and among the people involved with tourism there ([here is an example of this answer](https://shawnwashere.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/climbing-to-the-spot-on-earth-closest-to-the-sun-day-388/))
* Others argue that it is **Cayambe volcano** in Ecuador, it being the highest point along the equatorial line ([answer example](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-place-on-Earth-closest-to-the-Sun)).
* Others say **Mount Everest** in Nepal/China because it is the highest point on Earth ([example](http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question21808.html)).
* And others argue it is **Sairecabur volcano** in Chile/Bolivia, because it is the highest point at the latitude which is closest to the Sun on January 5th, when the perihelion happens (i.e. the point in Earth's orbit that is closest to the sun) ([example](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-place-on-Earth-closest-to-the-Sun)).
* A fifth answer, with the same logic as the previous, is **Licancabur volcano** in Chile/Bolivia, which quite as close to the latitude of the perihelion but is significantly higher than Sairecabur.

**What is the correct answer and why?**

**What place on Earth is closest to the Sun?**

**Tags:** geography, earth-system, astronomy, orbit, geodesy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You mean instantaneous closeness? Because, after all, the Earth rotates, and [its orbit precesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession)...  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I came upon this discussion on Facebook and after seeing so many wrong answers on internet I wanted to put the question here, just as it is generally stated, and give below what I think is the right answer. But you got the right point, you have to link the question to a period of time.  
> **username_2**: Currently, where there are no shadows being cast by vertical objects.  
> **username_2**: *What location on Earth **has been** the closest to the Sun?*  
> **username_0**: @username_2, not quite, look at the answer below. Specially the $\Delta H$ part  
> **username_2**: I can only assume it's the part of the Earth that sticks out the farthest from its gravitational center. And you'd otherwise have to run a 4By computer simulation to find out, using geological (tl;dr:) **data we simply don't have.**  
> **username_3**: Related: [*When is Earth closest to the Sun?*](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/29271/1462)  
> **username_4**: I'm not sure about the merit of this question. You've self-answered it, but your answer is only possible because the question is deliberately flawed. Obviously, it makes no sense to ask which point on earth is closest to the sun without mentioning *when*. A question better suited to your answer might be "how does the point on Earth which is closest to the sun vary with time?" or something along those lines.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 You are right in some sense but I don't fully agree. I decided to post the question in its most common form. But I agree with you that people usually meant something different, probably something like "What place on Earth GETS closer to the Sun each year?" and I made sure to answer that question too. I don't think the question you suggest really address what the people asking the questions I linked is thinking about.  
> **username_5**: The answer is likely some location in the middle of the pacific, near equator. The sea level is affected by gravity, and will be drawn towards the sun, giving you an extra meter or two. All other places will cancel out when you average the days, years and orbit wobble.  
> **username_6**: Like username_2's comment, the place on Earth that is closest to the Sun is probably the location that corresponds with the Sun's zenith. However, if a tangential sphere centered on the Sun were defined passing through that point and surrounding hills or mountains were found to pass through that sphere, then whatever geographical point inside that sphere closest to its middle would be closest to the Sun.  
> **username_2**: It's whatever the zenith was at the closet perihelion ever. Likely that's some spot in the ocean that may or may not have been an ocean at the time.  
> **username_2**: "The zenith [at the closet perihelion ever] is not necessarily the closest point." - Discrepancies in the Earth's surface are some pretty arbitrary considerations, given the context.  
> **username_7**: The Universe as a whole is a vastly superior, complicated and powerful entity. I think that we will never know the answer to this particular question albeit quite interesting. Maybe we just aren’t meant to know?  

---

## 7 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2019-01-21. Score: 154 | Accepted answer

This is an interesting question, but it lacks a key factor that is crucial to the answer: **TIME**.

The point on Earth closest to the Sun **varies through time**, so the question can be asked about any moment in time, or over periods of time. Let's analyze the factors involved.

At any given moment in time, the point on Earth's surface that is closest to the Sun is what is called the “[subsolar point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsolar_point)”. This point corresponds to the point on the surface that intersects the imaginary line that connects the center of the Earth to the center of the Sun. In other words, the subsolar point correspond to the point on Earth surface where the sunlight hits the Earth perpendicular to the ground, therefore, a vertical object would project no shadow.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/aCoRYm.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/aCoRYm.png)

(image from [Wikipedia: subsolar point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsolar_point#/media/File:Subsolar_point.png))

The longitude of the subsolar point corresponds to that of the meridian experiencing [solar noon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon#Solar_noon). Over Greenwich (longitude 0°) that happens at the actual noon, and as the Earth rotates 15° every hour, that will happen one our later (at 13:00 h UTC) at longitude 15° W, two hours later (at 14:00 h UTC) at longitude 30° W, and so on. In general terms, you can use the following formula for the subsolar point longitude ($\text{SSP}\_{\text{long}}$).

$\text{SSP}\_{\text{long}} = \left(\text{UTC} -12\right)\*15°$

This is a simplified formula, but accurate enough for our purpose. Let's take as an example the following date

**July 20, 1969, at 20:17 UTC**

In that moment, the longitude of the subsolar point was 124° 15' West:

$(20+(17/60)-12)\*15°=124.25°=124°15'$

Finding the latitude of the subsolar point is a bit more complicated, we need to know the [declination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination) of the Sun. Declination is the equivalent of latitude for celestial coordinates. For that, use [a formula](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/solareqns.PDF), [a table](http://www.reuk.co.uk/wordpress/solar/solar-declination/), or a online calculator like the [NOAA Solar Position Calculator](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html).

Just enter the date, and even that the location doesn't matter here, we need to select “Enter Lat/Long -->” to be allowed to enter the offset to UTC as 0, otherwise the time won't be interpreted as UTC time.

From there we can find that the solar declination for our example date is 20.58° (20° 34') which corresponds to the latitude of the subsolar point: 20° 34' North.

Therefore, on July 20, 1969, at 20:17 UTC, the subsolar point was at 20° 34' N, 124° 15' W, which is somewhere between Mexico and Hawaii. That was the point on Earth closest to the Sun at that moment.

**Now, what would happen if there were a very tall mountain close to the subsolar point? Would that mountain be closer to the Sun?**

The answer is: probably. It depends on how far and how much higher it is relative to the subsolar point.

We can do a quick calculation based on the following diagram (in this approximation we assume that Earth is spherical, that the sun is infinitely far away and other simplifications)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/pmO4X.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/pmO4X.jpg)

From there we have

$r-r'=\Delta H$

$D = r ~ \theta$ ($\theta$ in radians)

$\frac{r'}{r}=\cos(\theta)$

After some algebra you can write that the extra height $\Delta H$ needed to be as close to the Sun as the subsolar point is

$\Delta H = r \left(1-\cos\left(\frac{D}{r}\right)\right)$

Where $D$ is the distance and $r$ is Earth's radius (in this case makes sense to use the [equatorial radius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) of 6378.1 km)

If we plot this equation we get the following

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/FCOfE.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/FCOfE.png)

(the vertical axis is logarithmic)

We can see that around 10 km away from the subsolar point, ~10 meters are enough to be closer than it to the Sun. ~30 meters at 20 km, ~800 meters at 100 km, ~3,000 m at 200 km, and if you go further than 340 km, not even Mount Everest will get you closer to the Sun.

So, **the closest point to the Sun will be whatever geographical feature that maximizes the value $\text{Altitude}-\Delta H$**, where $\text{Altitude}$ is the altitude of the geographical feature. Let's call that point “*proxisolar*” point. I just made up that name, but it will be handy for the following discussion.

Now that we understand the basis to establish what is the closest point to the Sun at a given moment, we can tackle the question that probably most people meant when asking this question:

## What is the point on Earth that gets closest to the Sun over a year?

The most important fact to keep in mind, is that the variations of the distance between the Earth and the Sun over the year dwarf any topographical feature and even the diameter of the Earth itself. Earth’s distance from the Sun (center-to-center) varies from 147,098,074 km at perihelion (closest) to 152,097,701 km at aphelion (most distant). Therefore, the difference is **5 million kilometers!**.

The perihelion happens around January 4th, when the solar declination is about -23°, therefore, the latitude of the subsolar point is around 23° South. That rules out Chimborazo, Cayambe and Everest, because they are too far to be the “proxisolar” point. In contrast, [Sairecabur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sairecabur) (5,971 m at 22.72° S) and [Licancabur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licancabur) (5,916m at 22.83° S) are reasonable contestants.

The problem is that the perihelion happens on different days of the year and at different times of the day every year, so the point that gets closest to the Sun on a given year is just the one that happen to be the “proxisolar point” at the time of the Perihelion.

People who argues that Sairecabur or Licancabur are the points that get closer to the Sun, are implicitly assuming that the distance Earth-Sun doesn't vary much during the day of the perihelion. Therefore, the extra elevation of these mountains allows them to get closer to the Sun during that day. Unfortunately, that assumption is completely wrong. Let's see why:

An approximation of the distance Earth-Sun can be obtained from the following formula

$d = \frac{a(1-e^2)}{1+e \cos\left(\text{days}\frac{360}{365.25}\right)}$

Where $a$ is the semi-major axis of Earth's orbit, $e$ is the eccentricity, and $\text{days}$ is the number of days elapsed since the perihelion. To see the simplifications behind this equation [look here](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/80-how-can-i-find-the-distance-to-the-sun-on-any-given-day-advanced) (note that the conversion factor 360/365.25 is erroneously inverted in that link, thanks @PM2Ring for spotting that).

If you solve the above equation for the perihelion and for one day before/after it, you will get that the difference is 358 km, and for half a day you get 89 km. Therefore, if the subsolar point happens to be on the opposite side of the Earth than, let's say, Licancabur volcano, this volcano would need to be **89 km higher that the subsolar point** to get closer than it to the Sun that year. 89 kilometers!

Therefore, **we can discard the idea that a given mountain could be the point that gets closer to the Sun on EVERY year**.

If we plot the above equation with distances relative to the perihelion we get the following (using $a$ and $e$ from [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit))

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/qShAo.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/qShAo.png)

Here we can see, that if the perihelion happens a bit more than 3 hours before or after the solar noon at Licancabur, the ~6,000 m of elevation advantage would not be enough to get closer to the Sun than the subsolar point at the perihelion, even if such point is at sea level.

Note that three hours corresponds to 45° in Longitude, which at that approximate latitude corresponds to approximately 4,600 km.

Therefore, it can be argued that Licancabur is the point on Earth that has more chances to be the closest to the Sun in an arbitrary year. But in a given year, it might or might not be the closest depending on where the subsolar point is at the moment of the perihelion.

Finally, it is important to note that the distance Earth-Sun at the perihelion varies widely from year to year. If you look at [this table of perihelions between years 2001 and 2100](http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/perap2001.html), you will see that **perihelions often vary by several thousand of kilometers**.

Therefore, for example between years 2001 and 2100, the closest perihelion by far is the perihelion of next year (2020), and it will happen when the subsolar point is in the middle of the Indian ocean, about 12,700 km away from Licancabur and Sairecabur volcanoes. Therefore, the point that will be closest to the Sun this century will be one in the middle of the Indian ocean about 320 km south of [Rodrigues Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues).

Said this, the question of which point on Earth will get closest to the Sun depends on the period of time on which it is considered. For each year, each century and any other arbitrary period of time, the answer will be different.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Time, yes. Geology's best and only friend. What was the height of the tallest mountain on Pangaea... ?  
> **username_18**: I think it would be interesting to see which point was closest if you assume the Earth has a perfectly circular orbit.  Or at least assume that the exact distance of the perihelion lasts 2-3 days.  In other words, this is amazing, but its exhaustively specific.  With a _slightly_ more general answer you could at least pick out a point that could reasonably tell tourists that it is the closest point to the sun.  
> **username_0**: @username_18 But such a more general answer would be wrong. Or correct some times only, like a broken clock. Better to tell tourists to travel to different places of the world chasing the perihelion proxisolar point of the year... that sounds fun too.  
> **username_18**: Oh, I totally get that it would be wrong, but a lot of the stories you are told on vacation are exaggerated if not plain false.  I'm just saying that if it was generalized a little, you could say that this point on Earth is less of a lie than some other possible locations.  But your idea of an interactive site that would show the future proxisolar points does sound fun.  It could even be an interactive map that would show a line that was closest to the sun for any time of the year, but that would require vast topographic data and computational power.  
> **username_3**: Exercise for the reader: *what place on Earth is farthest from the Sun?* and I like how you are calculating the place closest to the Sun while assuming the Sun is infinitely far away, which is of course correct, but funny regardless.  
> **username_3**: Your question is specific, but I wonder if it's specific enough. The Earth also rotates around the Earth-Moon barycentre, on average 4,671 km from the Earth's centre. So in this day, the Earth not only gets 95 km further from the Sun, but also moves from fraction of 4,671 km, which may be toward or away from the Sun. Your perihelion may be accurate for the barycentre (depending on how Jupiter and other planets impact it), but how far in time from perihelion may be Earth's actual shortest distance to the Sun any given time? We may need a 4-body gravitation simulation to answer this one...  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I think that all that dynamic have been taken into account in the calculation of the Earth-center-to-Sun-center distance for each perihelion displayed on the linked table at astropixels.com . However, the Moon-Earth dynamic would certainly add more error or maybe invalidate my simplistic calculation of the distance variations around the perihelion. It would be something interesting to explore. In any case, the final answer wouldn't change much. It still depends on the period of time involved and some complex celestial mechanics calculations.  
> **username_19**: wow, that's an excellent explanation and incredible detail. I feel like you could add even more complexity if you consider the dynamics of the sun. The surface is very dynamic, and the earth-sun distance probably changes by much more than a few kilometers when there are sun spots or Coronal Mass Ejections in the region facing earth. Or when the sun rotates about the barycentre of the solar system... The sky's the limit.  
> **username_12**: As far as I can calculate, the earth-moon dynamic would flatten the "half a day out" value from 89 km to about 63 km at worst, namely if the perihelion happens exactly at a new moon. This would give a 6000m peak slightly less than 4 hours on each side of the perihelion (rather than 3 hours) to dominate.  
> **username_20**: I think the second paragraph after the last image should say "corresponds to 45° in Longitude", instead of "Latitude".  
> **username_0**: @username_20 You are right! Thanks. I just fixed it.  
> **username_21**: This is a fantastically researched and explained answer. I'm curious though, given that that's a point on the seafloor - are you considering its altitude as 0 meters or negative whatever?  
> **username_0**: @username_21 Thanks. I'm considering its altitude as 0 m. I think is reasonable in this case to consider that the Ocean can be considered part of the Earth surface.  
> **username_22**: I also thought this question made no sense  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-01-22. Score: 10

It is impossible to know. Solar flares can have more than 500,000 kilometers. So if we consider them part of the sun, the moment when the earth is closer to the sun can be very different from perihelion if a big flare happens, making much of what was discussed in other answers irrelevant.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/lY1yd.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/lY1yd.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: You might as well argue that the heliosphere or solar wind are part of the Sun, in which case our distance to the Sun is zero.  I'm not sure that is a very useful definition of "the Sun".  Consider that we normally say we are "on Earth".  If we are "in the Earth", we are most underground.  
> **username_9**: The distance between the Earth and the Sun is hundreds of times even the full extent of a half-million-kilometer solar flare.  This is a very misleading image for the purpose of this answer.  
> **username_10**: A 500,000 km flare is around 0.2 degrees from Earth's point of view. Thus (if Earth was a smooth ball) it might change the closes point on Earth by at most 0.2 degrees; that is around 20 kilometers. Not really enough to make other answers invalid.  
> **username_10**: And Earth's distance to Sun varies by 5,000,000 km between perihelion and aphelion; again a 500,000 km random variation is not enough to make the other answers completely irrelevant.  

---

### Answer by username_11 on 2019-01-22. Score: 4

The point on the surface of the Earth where the Sun is currently immediately overhead is called the Zenith Point. Its Latitude and Longitude correspond to the Declination and Greenwich Hour Angle of the Sun.

These data points can be approximated to any degree of accuracy and timeframe by a Fourier series of n terms. Accuracy sufficient for sextant work for the current decade can be achieved with a Fourier series of 7 terms). These terms are published in nautical almanacs.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Just because the Sun is immediately overhead a particular point on Earth does not mean that that point is closest to the Sun. To illustrate this, consider that for any zenith point I can get closer to the Sun by standing on a ladder 1 meter away. Or consider that the zenith point might be in a deep canyon, or adjacent to a tall mountain, etc. The Earth would have to be a perfect sphere for the zenith point to be analogous with the closest point. For this reason, I don't think this answer addresses the question.  
> **username_12**: The difference can be close to 300 km when the zenith point is in the Pacific Ocean just outside Huascarán (a 6700-m peak in the Andes, the highest in the tropics).  
> **username_2**: You'd have to find what the zenith was at the closet  perihelion ever. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't even on the list.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 As per my comment, the zenith is not necessarily the closest point.  
> **username_13**: And light takes 8 minutes to get to the earth.  What you are seeing when the Sun is overhead is where the Sun was 8 minutes ago.  
> **username_14**: "*The point on the surface of the Earth where the Sun is currently immediately overhead is called the Zenith Point*". I'd not say that this way. The zenith (opposite to the nadir) of any point is the vertical of that point. The Sun is the closest of a point when it is at the zenith of the that point. Only points between tropics can have the Sun at their zenith.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2019-01-22. Score: 2

Whichever spot on the surface of the Earth is experiencing [Lahaina Noon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahaina_Noon), or would be if it wasn't cloudy, is at the [subsolar point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsolar_point) and pointed directly at the Sun, moreso than any other point on Earth at that moment. Of course, you could get closer to the sun by climbing higher.

If you were able to be **at the summit of Chimborazo volcano in Ecuador (point furthest from the center of Earth) at Lahaina Noon at perihelion**, that would be as close to the Sun as you can get and still be on the surface of the Earth. You'd probably have to be very lucky or *extremely* patient for that to happen, though.

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: You would indeed need extreme patience, because you'd have to wait for around 6000 years (give or take) until perihelion occurs when the sun is at Chimborazo's latitude. And if you're willing to wait _that_ long you may also want to take into account periodic variations in the earth's orbital eccentricy, which means that the perihelion distance will keep decreasing _after_ the subsolar-point-at-perihelion moves north of Chimborazo. You may need to wait several eccentricity cycles until perihelion-at-Chimborazo happens together with maximal eccentricity.  

---

### Answer by username_15 on 2019-01-29. Score: 2

There are some wonderful answers here, but I think a simplified plain English answer would be helpful. Barring any nearby mountains, and various foibles, the closest point to the sun at the June solstice is where it is midday on the tropic of Cancer. At the December solstice, it is where it is midday on the tropic of Capricorn. At equinox it is where it is midday on the equator. Other times of year it is a proportional point in between (no doubt described mathematically by the above equations).


---

### Answer by username_16 on 2019-01-26. Score: 1

At any one specific moment the subsolar point is the point on Earth that is closest to the Sun at that specific moment.

> The subsolar point on a planet is the point at which its sun is perceived to be directly overhead (at the zenith);[1] that is, where the sun's rays strike the planet exactly perpendicular to its surface. It can also mean the point closest to the sun on an astronomical object, even though the sun might not be visible.
>
> To an observer on a planet with an orientation and rotation similar to those of Earth, the subsolar point will appear to move westward, completing one circuit around the globe each day, approximately moving along the equator. However, it will also move north and south between the tropics over the course of a year, so it is spiraling like a helix.
>
> The subsolar point contacts the Tropic of Cancer on the June solstice and the Tropic of Capricorn on the December solstice. The subsolar point crosses the Equator on the March and September equinoxes.
>
> When the point passes through Hawaii, the only U.S. state in which this happens, it is known as Lahaina Noon.[2]

There is a minor exception to this rule.

The subsolar point can be defined as a mathematical point, so that someone could theoretically be standing with their body over the exact mathematical subsolar point and with their two legs and feet on either side of the exact mathematical subsolar point.

Thus a place that is close to the the exact mathematical subsolar point and at a higher altitude than it might be closer to the Sun than the exact mathematical subsolar point. The farther away from the exact mathematical subsolar point a place is the higher its altitude must be in order to be closer to the Sun than the exact mathematical subsolar point.

Earth has an polar radius of 6,356.8 kilometers and an equatorial radius of 6,378.1 kilometers, so a place at the equator is 21.3 kilometers farther from the center of the Earth than a place at one of the poles, not allowing for minor variations in the figure of the Earth and not allowing for altitude differences.

The subsolar point of earth is never farther north than the Tropic of Cancer and never farther south than the Tropic of Captricorn, and so in recent times is never North of about 23 degrees 26 minutes North Latitude or south of about 23 degrees 26 minutes South Latitude.

Of the points mentioned in the question Chimborazo and Cayambe Volcanoes in Ecuador, and Sairecabur and Licancabur Volcanoes in Chile, are within the tropics and thus can sometimes be the subsolar points, while Mount Everest is north of the Tropic of cancer and can never be the subsolar point.

If Earth as a radius of 6,356.8 to 6,378.1 kilometers, it must have diameter of 12,713.6 to 12,756.2 kilometers, and thus at any one moment the subsolar point, wherever it is at that moment, will be about 12,713.6 to 12,756.2 kilometers closer to the Sun than the point that is farthest from the Sun, wherever it is at that moment.

The semi-major axis of the orbit of the Earth is 149,598,023 kilometers, which can be taken as the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. Whenever the Earth is exactly 149,598,023 kilometers, the subsolar point will be about 12,713.6 to 12,756.2 kilometers closer to the Sun than the point that is farthest from the Sun.

So at any moment when Earth was exactly 149,598,023 kilometers from the Sun, and the subsolar point happens to be 12,756.2 kilometers closer to the Sun than the point on Earth farthest from the Sun, the difference will be 1 in 11,727.475, or 0.0000852 of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

The perihelion distance between Earth and the Sun is 147,095,000 kilometers while the aphelion distance between Earth and the Sun is 152,100,000 kilometers, a difference of 5,005,000 kilometers. Since it takes earth about half a year, or about 182.625 days, to go from Aphelion to perihelion, the distance between Earth and the Sun changes by an average of about 27,405.886 kilometers per day.

Thus any point on Earth, even the point on Earth that is farthest from the Sun, at the exact moment of perihelion should still be closer to the Sun than any point on Earth, even the subsolar point, on any other day of the year.

What about astronauts in orbit, bound by gravity to the Earth? Do their capsules and space stations count? Whether or not space capsules and space stations count as part of Earth, some astronaut in Earth orbit might have been closer to the Sun and another astronaut might in earth orbit have been farther from the Sun than any human in history.

And what about Apollo astronauts who traveled to the Moon and orbited or passed beyond it? Does the Moon count as a place on Earth since it is bound to Earth by gravity? And even if not, some Apollo astronaut or astronauts must have been farther from Earth than any other humans.

The Apollo missions all lasted for at least a quarter of a lunar orbit around the Earth. The landings on the Moon were all on the near side of the Moon that faces the Earth, and all during the Lunar day, which means that the near side of the Moon must have been facing the Sun and thus farther from the Sun than Earth during the missions.

Earth is at perihelion, closest to the Sun around January 4, and at aphelion, farthest from the Sun, around July 4.

So of the manned missions that reached Lunar orbit, Apollo 11, July 1624, 1969, and Apollo 15, July 26-August 7, 1971, were closest to aphelion about July 4, and so their astronauts might have traveled farther from the Sun than any other humans, depending on where the Moon was during its orbit.

And Apollo 8, December 21-27 1968, Apollo 17, December 7-19 1972, and Apollo 14, January 31-February 9, 1971, were closed to perihelion about January 4. And so the astronauts in one of those missions might have come closest to the Sun of all humans. But I doubt that. Probably some astronaut(s) who orbited the Earth several times on a January 4 passed close to a point above the subsolar point at a time very close to perihelion and came closed to the Sun - or least far from it - of all humans so far.

> **Comments:**
> **username_14**: "*Do their capsules and space stations count?*", they don't, but if it were the case, these local objects would be defeated by really remote objects, like [SOHO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory) satellite at L1 and the [Parker solar probe](https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/) which flew several times through the Sun corona, and will do it again.  

---

### Answer by username_17 on 2022-06-25. Score: 0

The closest point on the Earth to the Sun needs be a subsolar point on a monumental tropical summit, on January 4th during a [micromoon](https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/micro-moon.html), when the the Moon is maximally out, and the Earth is maximally inside our shared Earth/Moon orbit.

> **Comments:**
> **username_14**: And so what was this point, say for the 3 last years?  

---

