From Sun and Liu 2012: all of the deep solar minima of the last millennium (Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton) correspond to periods of drought in the Qilian Mountains of the northeastern Tibetan Plateau according to this tree-ring study.
Guest post by Alec Rawls
Like the Central Asian precipitation study that Anthony posted about yesterday, this one also comes via a review by “Cold Sun” authors Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt, as translated by Pierre Gosselin.
Using tree ring width as a proxy for precipitation (about a 50% correlation over the period of the instrumental rainfall record) Chinese scientists Junyan Sun and Yu Liu found the remarkable correspondence between solar activity and precipitation seen in the graph above. As summarized by Lüning and Vahrenholt:
The Great Drought occurred during a weak period of solar activity, the so-called Spörer Minimum, which occurred from 1420 to 1570. Interestingly, almost all other periods of drought occurred during times of solar minima, among them the Oort Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum. Every time the sun goes into a slumber for a few decades, the rains on the Tibetan Plateau stay away.
A frequency analysis of precipitation curves also delivers evidence on solar cycles. Here the Gleissberg Cycle (60-120 year period) and the Suess/de Vries Cycle (180-220 years) are seen in the datasets.
Yesterday’s study, which also looked at the Tibetan Plateau but about 1400 kilometers to the west, found the opposite relation, with “Bond events” (episodes of ice rafting in the North Atlantic, which Bond identified with periods of low solar activity), corresponding to periods of higher humidity (colder and wetter) in the Taklamakan Desert. The two studies taken together seem to suggest a solar driven shift in weather patterns.
Is this support for Stephen Wilde’s theory about high solar activity pushing the polar jet stream northward? Any significant change in the jet stream would likely cause its latitudinal waves to shift as well, so even though the two Tibetan sites are at the same latitude, it is plausible that rainfall in the two locations could be oppositely affected by the sun.
In general, if solar activity is by any mechanism a powerful driver of climate then corresponding changes in weather patterns would seem to be unavoidable. This would account both for the high number of studies that find solar signals in paleo-climate proxies and for the difficulty in fitting these studies together into a larger picture. Maybe with enough more precipitation studies at enough locations a coherent map of fluctuating weather patterns will emerge.
Are there enough old Coastal Redwoods to do tree ring studies up and down a thousand miles of Pacific coast? If Redwood rings correlate well with precipitation, that could be a good place to look for shifting weather patterns. Has this already been done? The Save the Redwoods group claims to be compiling their own such database now. Maybe it will show something.
On the difficulty of finding simple relationships, note that the correlation Sun and Liu found between solar activity and precipitation in the Qilian Mountains goes wobbly over the last dozen decades. If the correspondence between low solar activity and dry weather at this location is real then it seems that the 1900 lull in solar activity was not deep enough to trigger the changed weather pattern. Precipitation was actually high across the 1900-lull, then was below average in the 1940s, 50s and 60s when the sun was particularly active.
It’s a reminder to take the remarkable coincidence between precipitation and deep solar minima in the Qilian Mountains with a grain of salt. In any one location the relationship between climate and weather is going to be noisy, which not only can obscure real relationships but can also point to false ones. Still, the evidence for a powerful solar driver of climate keeps piling up.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a genuine question, how can they tell the difference between “periods of higher humidity (colder and wetter) in the Taklamakan Desert” and “periods of drought in the Qilian Mountains” and the the conditions in Yamal also said to affect tree growth or lack of?
Lui keeps hammering them out……
In China, there are no hockey sticks
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/
If finding signs of the known-to-be-powerful solar influences is this complex, then it may prove impossible to ever find the ‘greenhouse signal’, since the truth of CO2 ‘forcing’ is that a doubling only requires an 0.66K temperature rise over the rest of the thermal IR spectrum, and that’s only for all other factors held constant, and, of course, equilibrium.
It’s clear that a truly global signal of 1deg c would definitely be detectable by an honest surface-temperature network, if by that you mean everywhere the mean goes up about a degree. No fair if 10% of the Earth warms 10 deg and the rest does nothing.
And that’s present climate with an ideal network. Good luck with paleoclimate.
Thank goodness that science is being done in China.
Also, good to see a positive reference to Stephen Wilde’s theory. Not that it is necessarily correct, but at least the possibility is being considered. Next step is to see if there is anything that can ‘prove’ it, though I suspect that it is one of several processes at work including Svensmark’s GCRs/clouds, and Roy Spencer’s oceans/clouds.
What a unique finding. My 7th Grade science teacher, Ms Savage, would be proud that her section on weather included what she thought had been known for many years, that solar radiation has a significant effect on global temperature.
How come this solar stuff still gets posted, I thought it was “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”
/sarc off
Mike Jonas says:
May 15, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Thank goodness that science is being done in China.
Also, good to see a positive reference to Stephen Wilde’s theory.
Yes, as I’ve said to Stephen before he should get his name on one or more such publications so there are journal references to his theory for citation – perhaps there is one, I have not seen it.
Even climate scientists say the Sun drives the climate. Their CO2 backradiation argument still requires the so-called solar constant of TSI to maintain the “base” climate temperature no matter how they spin it – the real discussion is what that base is, does it vary and is the solar constant really constant ?
My interpretation is they have the “base” wrong, YES and NO.
There is an implied criticism regarding correlation of solar maxima/minima with events in the climate record.
Surely relatively small changes in solar radiation into a system as large as the Earth’s climate system are going to require a fairly long time span to work their way through.
Perhaps we’ve become too much of a cake eat it now culture.
A wee bit off topic, but some people just don’t get it.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/politics.jpg
clipe says:
May 15, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“A wee bit off topic, but some people just don’t get it.”
Nice. 🙂
Yesterday’s study, which also looked at the Tibetan Plateau but about 1400 kilometers to the west, found the opposite relation, with “Bond events” (episodes of ice rafting in the North Atlantic, which Bond identified with periods of low solar activity), corresponding to periods of higher humidity (colder and wetter) in the Taklamakan Desert. The two studies taken together seem to suggest a solar driven shift in weather patterns.
Is this support for Stephen Wilde’s theory about high solar activity pushing the polar jet stream northward?
This looks to me like a monsoon intensity effect. Basically the strength of the Monsoon is determined by the amount of solar insolation in central Asia. More sunshine -> more intense summer low pressure -> more rain bearing air drawn in from the south.
It also explains colder and wetter in the Taklamakan Desert. Almost no Monsoon rain falls in this area because of the rain shadow from the mountains to the south. But if the Monsoon is weak, the low pressure systems that move west to east track further south bringing cloud and some rain to the area.
And in the 20th century the relationship broke down due to cloud seeding anthropogenic aerosols (changes in) affecting the strength of the Monsoon.
Just slipping in again with the possibility that ionization directly controls plant growth, especially conifers. (I’m calling this the Shepardson effect.) It would be the most elegant explanation, which seems like a pretty good reason for studying it…….
This looks spurious to me. Sure, tree ring width is “correlated” with precipitation (though at only 50%, I have to use that term loosely. But it’s ALSO correlated with TEMPERATURE (which is what MOST of the tree ring studies, at least by the Hockey Team, count on). Neither is anywhere near perfect correlation, because it’s not possible to separate the two effects in the historical record. But point is, if tree ring width was larger when the sun was more active, and smaller when the sun was less active, then the MOST LIKELY connection between solar activity and tree ring width is temperature, not precipitation. Especially since we KNOW (through the use of other proxies) that temperatures were low during the Dalton, Maunder, Oort, Wolff, and Sporer minima, and we’re only 50% sure that precipitation was low during those periods.
I’ve criticized Mann, Briffa, and the other dendro-chronolarmists for ignoring the non-temperature determinants of tree ring width. It would be intellectually dishonest to withhold criticism of these authors for ignoring the non-precipitation determinants of tree-ring width, just because the results are more favorable for the skeptics. This paper is, in my opinion, just as worthless as Mann’s and Briffa’s tree ring temperature reconstructions.
I like how trees are either thermometers or rain gauges, seemingly upon the whim of the researcher involved.
To the credit of the authors of this paper, they did explicitly calculate and report the precipitation to ring width correlation of about 50%.
The precipitation calibration was from 1958 to 2004. The period when anthropogenic aerosol changes were the greatest. Which indicates the pre-1950 correlation might be better than 50%.
Since tree ring widths – like all plant matter on earth using photosynthesis – vary definitely and proportionality with the levels of CO2 in the air (at least until CO2 is saturated w/r tree growth!) … we still need to see how the “classic” dendrochronologists back-correct their measured tree ring widths for the rising CO2 levels found since the 1959 measurements began.
Not implying that the “reverse growth” (the late 20th century “decline in temperatures” that seems to so frustrated the CAGW dendro-crowd) is caused by a false CO2-level correction, or no CO2-level correction at all) but these guys haven’t displayed much original throught in anything else they’ve ever published either.
So, the weak sun makes it both wetter and more dry.
and fewer sunspots means more GCR which means more clouds, but both wetter and dryer.
Notice the paper say nothing about GHGs. Go figure, it is possible for the sun and ghgs and aerosols to effect the climate.
Note: if small changes in the sun drive the climate, sensitivity has to be high.
In any case It would be nice to see what “some association” means, mathematically.
to some I suppose this means everything is settled. Settled science. the sun done it
A tree ring (Sabina przewalskii Kom.) based millennial precipitation reconstruction on the south slope of the middle Qilian Mountains in the northeastern margin of Tibetan Plateau, China, was completed, which explains 48.5% of the variance in the instrumental precipitation from 1958 to 2004. The long-term precipitation variation patterns were confirmed on the basis of the duration, magnitude, and intensify of the multidecadal dry (wet) events. There are several stronger multidecadal dry periods, 1092–1172, 1441–1517, and 1564–1730, whereas there is only one outstanding severe wet event of 1352–1440. The variations of the precipitation reconstruction are accordant with the glacier accumulation and dust contents of Dunde ice core and also with the variations of the precipitation, runoff, Palmer Drought Severity Index, and tree ring width series in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. The spatial extent of the great drought in the latter half of the 15th century also concentrated on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. The moisture variations in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau are synchronous over a large spatial and temporal range in multidecadal scale for the last millennium, especially during dry periods. Wavelet analyses and comparisons with the minimal solar activity show that the precipitation variations for the last millennium may have some association with the solar activity on multidecadal to centennial scales.
Most of the researchers have used pine and fire trees for west coast precipitation studies. Here are two:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/260.pdf
http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~cayan/Pubs/57_Biondi_J_Clim_2001.pdf
[Fir trees? Many species become fire trees after ignition due to low water conditions. 8<) Robt]
So much evidence… …so little time.
Rivers in Western Canada (the Athabasca, the North Saskatchewan, etc.) exhibit a cyclical flow – as I recall, warmer is dryer (lower river flow).
Pacific salmon runs are (again from memory) much stronger in cooler weather, and decline sharply in warm periods. We recently had a near-record salmon run, after decades of decline.
Evidence from many sources seems to be building, to indicate we are entering a global cooling period – we’ll see.
I just don’t have the time to chase this data any more. Regrettably, those that are funded to do so seem to be programmed to fabricate evidence of global warming, even though there has been no global warming for 10-15 years!
If these warmist scoundrels and imbeciles would just look at the evidence all around them and get rid of their programmed CAGW (Church of Al Gore, Warmist) religious dogma, they might even write some worthwhile scientific papers…
Mind you, they’d have to leave the Church of Gore and the House of Hansen, and all the financial and social benefits of being on the cutting edge of BS.
So, the weak sun makes it both wetter and more dry.
and fewer sunspots means more GCR which means more clouds, but both wetter and dryer.
We are constantly told that CO2 manages this feat.
The monsoon is a regional scale phenomena that produces precipitation in different locations and by a different physical mechanism than the global scale west to east low pressure systems. The relative strength of these 2 processes at any given location will affect the amount of precipitation. A more plausible explanation than the CO2 one.
Note: if small changes in the sun drive the climate, sensitivity has to be high.
If the Forcings Model is correct. If not, then the Forcings Model concept of sensitivity has no meaning.
Nice try Phillip.
I love the way you guys lose your skepticism and embracing your inner confirmation bias.
BTW, anybody ask these guys for their code and data?
Trevor said: on May 15, 2012 at 6:10 pm …
You make some very good points. Goose, gander, and all that.
our published aussie CAGW study of the day:
16 May: SMH: Nicky Phillips: Ocean temperature made Queensland floods worse: study
Abnormally high ocean temperatures off the coast of northern Australia contributed to the extreme rainfall that flooded three-quarters of Queensland over the summer of 2010-11, scientists report.
A Sydney researcher, Jason Evans, ran a series of climate models and found above average sea surface temperatures throughout December 2010 increased the amount of rainfall across the state by 25 per cent on average.
While the study did not look at the cause of ocean warming in the region, a physical oceanographer, Matthew England, said climate change could not be excluded as a possible driver of this extreme rainfall event…
“While the La Nina event played a big role in this record ocean warmth, so too did the long-term warming trend over the past 50 years,” Professor England, the co-director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, said…
If increases in sea surface temperatures can be attributed to global warming, the probability of La Nina events producing extreme rainfall in the future would also rise, he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/ocean-temperature-made-queensland-floods-worse–study-20120516-1ypvy.html
look forward to comments.
Philip Bradley says:
>…Almost no Monsoon rain falls in this area because of the rain shadow from the mountains to the south. But if the Monsoon is weak, the low pressure systems that move west to east track further south bringing cloud and some rain to the area.
And in the 20th century the relationship broke down due to cloud seeding anthropogenic aerosols (changes in) affecting the strength of the Monsoon.
++++++++++++++
Pardon for asking but do can you point to any evidence that cloud seeding and anthropogenic aerosols have been so large in magnitude as to cause regional climate change in this manner? I ask because it implies a really high sensitivity to those two factors.
I have always viewed the rather ‘convenient’ aerosol explanation of 1940-1975 cooling as wildly inflated. The inverse of cloud seeding, contrails from jet fuel burning aircraft on a much larger scale seem to have much less influence so I am on the lookout for factual support for the seeding/aerosol arguments. The formation of the monsoon is partly understood and I have my doubts that human activity can be shown to affect it even slightly. I am sure you are aware of the arguments that have been provoked between farmers over who stole whose clouds in a drought. As there is much larger scale recent Chinese cloud seeding (routine) is there perhaps current evidence of a current ‘broken relationship’ because of it?
Thanks
Edcaryl, et al. (above),
I call your attention to the University of Arizon study of Giant Sequoias
done in 2010 with a link posted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/17/medieval-warm-period-seen-in-western-usa-tree-ring-fire-scars/
Of paticular interest (to me) is the factiod they included… that
the tree corers used by dendrochonolgists can’t bore deeper than
about roughly three feet into a tree.
Even if they take a core every 45 degrees around the circumference
of the tree, they still can’t get to the really interesting stuff
deep inside an 1,800 year old Sequoia. They can wait ’till it falls or
cut it down to count the rings… and they had old logging cuts and falls
to use in this study.
The same applies to old oaks in the Plains or any tree with a diameter
greater than 8 feet.
This is one more dirty little dendro secret… and one more unspoken
limitation or bias in the tree ring databases from the word “go”.
Check out the distribution of ice in the most recent (Wisconsin) glacial. The jet streams must surely have been at average closer to the equator, but the ice didn’t just descend evenly with latitude, it projected far further south in eastern North America (yeah, Wisconsin) and eastern Eurasia. Of course, this had a lot to do with the marine effect in the westerlies, but nevertheless a pronounced longitudinal oscillation is clear. The effects of cooling or warming on precipitation and drought are not simple.
It is not even clear whether warming or cooling will produce the greater latitudinal gradient.