‘unexpected link between solar activity and climate change’ found in Greenland ice

thumb its the sunLund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity vs snow accumulation in Greenland, which indicates a strong correlation between solar minima and a colder climate.

‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.

‘It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. ‘Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regions.’

According to the study abstract;
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2225.html

“We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.”

Dr. Muscheler emphasised that he does not believe that the sun is the main factor driving current global warming – but he does believe that climate modellers will have to pay more attention to the influence of the sun on climate change.

However, he warned that the sun was not the only factor in causing climate change.

‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.

‘What our paper shows is we need to include all processes – greenhouses, the sun and so on, especially for local climates which is important of course.

Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum

Florian Adolphi,Raimund Muscheler,Anders Svensson,Ala Aldahan,Göran Possnert,Jürg Beer,Jesper Sjolte,Svante Björck,Katja Matthes& Rémi Thiéblemont

Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2225

Changes in solar activity have previously been proposed to cause decadal- to millennial-scale fluctuations in both the modern and Holocene climates1. Direct observational records of solar activity, such as sunspot numbers, exist for only the past few hundred years, so solar variability for earlier periods is typically reconstructed from measurements of cosmogenic radionuclides such as 10Be and 14C from ice cores and tree rings2, 3. Here we present a high-resolution 10Be record from the ice core collected from central Greenland by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The record spans from 22,500 to 10,000 years ago, and is based on new and compiled data4, 5, 6. Using 14C records7, 8 to control for climate-related influences on 10Be deposition, we reconstruct centennial changes in solar activity. We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.

Key data used in this study.
Figure 1

a, δ18O variations as recorded in the GRIP ice core21. b, 10Be concentrations from the GRIP (red: this study, black: refs 4, 5) and GISP2 (ref. 6; blue) ice cores. c, 10Be fluxes using accumulation rates inferred from the GICC05 age

About these ads

104 thoughts on “‘unexpected link between solar activity and climate change’ found in Greenland ice

  1. That only makes sense, everything else in our universe has multiple parts, why shouldn’t climate change? Besides, it makes sense that the sun affects climate change.

  2. Seriously? The Sun influences the climate?
    No, that can not be. It must be humans for sure. The science said so!

  3. ‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.

    Duh……..

  4. From the Gizmag report:

    http://www.gizmag.com/suns-activity-influences-natural-climate-change/33409/

    “Reduced solar activity could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe. This is because the sun’s UV radiation affects the atmospheric circulation. Interestingly, the same processes lead to warmer winters in Greenland, with greater snowfall and more storms.” said Dr said Raimund Muscheler, Lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University. “The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change.”

    Further to their theory, the researchers believe that changes in wind patterns resulted from alterations in received temperatures, suggesting that a top-down solar influence increased oceanic feedback and may have acted as an additional amplification mechanism. In other words, variations in solar radiation affected the atmosphere, altering the barometric pressure which, in turn, changed the prevailing wind patterns in the upper atmosphere.

    In atmospheric physics parlance, these winds are known as eddy-driven jets and a high-pressure increase over the North Atlantic (as evidenced in today’s climate) is often accompanied by a displacement to the south of these winds. This results in a negative effect on the North Atlantic Oscillation (the atmospheric pressure difference at sea level between the Icelandic low and the Azores high), which can produce colder winds and higher levels of snowfall.

    As a result, the alteration of these winds changes the way in which heat is exchanged between the oceans and the atmosphere. In the Lund University reconstruction and modeling, evidence is shown that this particular effect was being exacerbated by the amount of solar energy striking the Earth’s atmosphere in direct relationship to the activity of the sun.

  5. ‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.’

    Classic. The results agree *exactly* with what climate skeptics have been saying for years, but he feels the need of producing such a apologistic remark just to placate the wrath of warmists.

    I wonder how much time we will have to disguise scientific results with political makeup like that. Perhaps ten years? Twenty? Perhaps until all warmists retire or die?

  6. How can the Sun possibly influence climate on Earth, it’s absurd. It’s carbon dioxide surely: well that’s what the models and my Climate Catechism say.

  7. But, but, that would mean that the “Furnace” has something to do with how hot or cold the “House” is getting?!?

    Need I say…/sarc?

  8. GaryM says:
    August 20, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Shhh, nobody tell Willis.

    Willis’s point has to do with the regular sunspot cycle, not long-term solar activity. His position is still safe.

  9. sturgishooper August 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    How can the development of high-pressure blocking systems to the south of Greenland not affect other regions?

    cuz their not butterflies – /sarc

  10. ” Dr. Muscheler emphasised that he does not believe that the sun is the main factor driving current global warming ”

    Without any explanation for past climate change in the recent past as per the IPCC climate chart showing no increase in co2 during those periods of change… what does he BELIEVE? Maybe he belongs to ” Save the Climate Grant Money” organization. Heretics of any kind are not allowed (aloud). Does that mean that there was change or no change? How could there have possibly been change without an increase or decrease in co2? Haven’t the IPCC and AGW in general stated with alarm that additional inputs of co2 control the temperature on this planet? And soon a Tipping point WILL be reached if we don’t take action now (going on 18 +/- 5 years now, depending)? These kind of studies just morph the religious aspect of AGW into something that will not be resemble anything of the original someday, / sarcasm

  11. I don’t think the results of this study will pass muster with Dr. Leif. There is no explanatory mechanism. The results can be a nice coincidence but dont illuminate any causation. Just like an increase in ice cream sales in the summer is not the cause of higher temps in July-Sept.

  12. archonix said:
    August 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm
    Well, who’d have thunk it? I wonder how they’ll try and spin this out to meaning nothing?
    Time to make like a tree…
    ————
    and bark? oak-eedoke… bough wow!

    (I know, I’m Mark and two CATS – but I’m branching out)

    :)

  13. This is “surprising” only to those whose jobs depended on them publishing “unsurprising” articles that supported CAGW.

  14. dp says:
    August 20, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Willis’ position not only isn’t still safe. It never was. He claims never to have seen any evidence of any solar influence on climate, to include the ~11 and 22-year cycles, not just SSN.

    Have you actually read his posts on the subject and replies to comments?

  15. JEyon says:
    August 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    IMO, the authors knew that their study would never see the light of day had they claimed a global effect rather than just regional.

  16. “Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.”

    That’s pretty definitive: “more…than we think but I don’t think so.”

  17. Only one comment I am going to limit myself to. I have made to many comments at times in the past.

    The evidence is mounting from past historical data as well as what is happening presently that there is a solar/climate connection. This study helps..

    Post 2005 two items in the climate have changed which gives support to a climate solar connection when solar activity varies enough from an active phase to an inactive phase. Which took place in year 2005 although it started to some degree very late last century.

    They are a more meridional atmospheric circulation which will have further consequences if it should continue and a halt in the global temperature rise.

    Going forward we have to see how prolonged and deep this present solar minimum is and how it further impacts the climate.

  18. The point missed is that it shows a strong correlation between solar activity and precipitation. I wrote about this in my 1982 thesis, despite opposition from my committee. Theodor Landscheidt and I communicated at length about drought cycles in the middle latitudes (30-70 latitude) and the 22 year sunspot cycle. I published several articles on the relationship and, oh, by the way, it shows up in the tree ring data, because they are mostly about precipitation, despite being mann-handled.

    The distraction created by the IPCC to CO2 and warming is underscored by the author’s claim he still doesn’t think the sun is the main cause of global warming. It is the comment of a person who knows virtually nothing about climate and certainly is ignorant of the climate literature.

  19. Always good to throw in lots of “thinks” and “believes.” After all, we rely on climate scientists to editorialize instead of simply presenting scientific results.

  20. Have you actually read his posts on the subject and replies to comments?

    Yes – your reply does not refute what I said. I said nothing about SSN, and Willis said what you said re the 11 – 22 year cycle. That is not what this thread is about. It is about long term solar activity, not the 11 – 22 year cycle. The stuff Maunder minimums are made from, in other words, not sunspot counts over the short term. I see no 11 or 22 year cycles in any of the graphs. If you do perhaps you could point them out.

  21. JEyon says:
    August 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Butterflies flapping from the North Atlantic to Indian Oceans during & after the time period of this study:

    Abrupt changes in the Asian southwest monsoon during the Holocene and their links to the North Atlantic Ocean

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01340.html

    Solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon variability during the Ållerød period

    http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130925/srep02753/full/srep02753.html

    Possible link between Holocene East Asian monsoon and solar activity obtained from the EMD method

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGQQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonlin-processes-geophys.net%2F19%2F421%2F2012%2Fnpg-19-421-2012.pdf&ei=VRH1U_PYEKeIjAKRk4DgCg&usg=AFQjCNEYIOqcrbKjhmV-h9lpPgysACzMcQ&sig2=pll87zI7hg9JKro_SAo3Ng&bvm=bv.73373277,d.cGE

    Diatom response to Asian monsoon variability during the Late Glacial to Holocene in a small treeline lake, SW China

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/18/0959683614540951.abstract

    “Analyses of diatoms, grain size, magnetic susceptibility, total organic carbon, and total nitrogen were applied to a 9.26 m long sediment core, spanning the last 12.2 kyr, from a small treeline lake (Tiancai Lake, ~3898 m a.s.l.) in southwest China. Diatom assemblages are dominated by Cyclotella distinguenda, Aulacoseira species, and small fragilarioid taxa, all of which are sensitive to changes in water pH and light conditions that are probably related to vegetation development and runoff processes triggered by variations in the Asian monsoon. High abundances of C. distinguenda and Pseudostaurosira brevistriata reflected cold and dry climates during the Late Glacial (12.2–11.4 kyr BP). In the early Holocene (11.4–9.4 kyr BP), a steep decline in C. distinguenda and a visible increase in Aulacoseira alpigena responded to a strengthening monsoon intensity. The persistent increases in A. alpigena mirrored strong monsoon intensity in the middle Holocene (9.4–4.6 kyr BP). After 4.6 kyr BP, the reduction of A. alpigena was related to weak monsoon intensity in the late Holocene. The main trends of diatom evolution show a general correspondence to variations in solar insolation. Three visible excursions, with an increase in P. brevistriata and a drop in A. alpigena, centered at around 8.4, 2.5, and 0.3 kyr BP, correlate with low sunspot numbers and known cold events in the North Atlantic. Some similarities and correlations between the Holocene diatom data, the North Atlantic record, and solar insolation indicate that variations in the Asian monsoon response to changes in solar forcing and the North Atlantic climate.”

    So, this study’s finding should not have been unexpected, but then, given the corrupting influence of CACA on real climatology, not surprising that its authors claim to have expected some other result.

  22. So this is another one of those “The sun is responsible for the cooling but not the warming” excuses. Just marvellous. “The sun has influence, but not really.” Unless future funding points that way. Which it won’t.

    This is a let’s-watch-our-backs tactic with edging-towards-the-door thrown in for good measure. What they are HOPING for is that this will knock out the skeptical no warming for 17+ years (“it’s the quieter sun that’s doing it”), thus keeping the catastrophic global warming meme alive, while at the same time preparing the “Oh, look, it might be the sun after all,” card if they really need it.

  23. Lucius von Steinkaninchen : “I wonder how much time we will have to disguise scientific results with political makeup like that. Perhaps ten years? Twenty? Perhaps until all warmists retire or die?”

    There’s a parallel here with geology in the 19th century. Practically everything they were discovering conflicted with the Biblical account, but any sign of irreligion was socially unacceptable, particularily in the upper-middle class circles from which most scientists came. In effect, they really did have to wait for the old guard to die off, before they could speak freely!

  24. “We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland”

    And elswhere.

    I’ve been saying that since 2007 and see here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    Now we just need established climatology to get the sign of the solar effect right.

    To get polar air pushing to lower latitudes more often there has to be more ozone created above the poles when the sun is quiet which warms the stratosphere above the poles, pushes tropopause height downward and forces surface air masses equatorward.

    Currently, established climatology thinks that a quiet sun reduces ozone in the stratosphere.

    It may do that above the equator but it seems to do the opposite above the poles and the reason is that above 45km height the sign of the solar effect on ozone is reversed and that reverse sign effect descends above the poles through the downward flow involved in the polar vortices which are a stratospheric phenomenon.

    The polar vortices in the stratosphere must not be confused with the circumpolar vortex in the troposphere which is the ring of jet stream tracks around the poles which separate surface polar air from surface mid latitude air.

    Get that right and the rest falls into place.

  25. ‘unexpected link between solar activity and climate change’
    ===================================================================
    Something “unexpected” in the settled science of Climate Change?
    Am I wrong or has most of the advances in science been due to not accepting anything as “settled” and then learning from and adapting to the unexpected?
    There’s a chaotic labyrinth of “links” out there. Why pretend we have a handle on them? What understanding of any complex system really is “settled”?

  26. From drudgereport:

    “Economic contraction unexpected, say experts”
    “New jobless claims rise unexpectedly…”
    “New housing starts fall unexpectedly…”
    “Bengazi attacks unexpected, says Clinto”

    “Unexpected”, kinda the mantra for the anti-science community, isn’t it?

  27. ‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.

    Unexpected, yeah, in peer-reviewed publications and by the 97 Percenter consensus. The Global Average Surface Temperature has followed the Sun according to a simple transfer function with two lags, 46 years and 143 years, going back to the invention of the thermometer, and with an accuracy comparable to the 22-year smoothed version of HadCRUT3. Called Solar Global Warming (SGW), it was published online over four years ago. For details, click on name.

  28. This is how false ideas in science are unwound. Today it’s a regional effect. Next it will be effects in other “regions”, until it is slowly accepted that the sun has an influence on climate. Science is self correcting, even if it takes the death by old age of those with false ideas.

    Meanwhile, the rent seekers hold out their hands.

  29. “strong correlation between solar minima and a colder climate”

    The sun might be able to make the climate colder but warming can only be caused by increased CO2 emissions.

  30. It is likely the above process would cause an increase in deep water formation. This in tern will increase deep water upwelling in the eastern basins of the oceans resulting in two major changes. Firstly, a cooling on the eastern tropical oceans should cause higher air pressures promoting increased trade winds. Secondly, an increased upwelling should fertilise ocean biology promoting an increase in cloud forming nuclei.

  31. Lucius von Steinkaninchen says:
    August 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    ‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.’
    =======================================================================
    They like to play word games like that to confuse and manipulate others. No one around here adheres to that supposed argument that it is all about the Sun. Obviously, the Sun is the Earth,s energy source, but it is what happens to that energy after it enters the global system that is most important. In recent arguments I have had warmists try to twist and interpret my words in a similar fashion. The point being to not let them twist one,s words. I reply back with a clear unambiguous response. Then they look even more foolish if they try to further twist my words.

  32. “We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.”

    The mechanism may *not* have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions as well.

    Their mechanism entails a regional redistribution of energy flow, not a net increase in global energy accumulation.

  33. New paper finds the Sun controls Greenland climate
    An important paper published today in Nature Geoscience finds a persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the last ice age, and finds the link is similar to modern solar forcing of regional climate.

    According to the authors,
    “We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.”

    Reported at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-finds-sun-controls-greenland.html

    Please note that from their Fig 1, a missing piece of information shown in the above posting.

    “d18O [mean of 2 ice cores shown as blue line] is a proxy of temperature and precipitation. 10Be [orange line] is a proxy of solar activity [note 10Be is inversely correlated to solar activity]

  34. What do you think the regular sunspot cycle is, if not fluctuations in sunspot numbers? Your reply makes no sense.

    There is a big difference between discussing the difference between one solar cycle and the next or previous, and a long series of solar cycles from which a trend is derived. This article discusses trends, Willis discussed differences between one cycle and the next. That is to say, he cannot find a signal of solar cycle 15, or 16, or 17, etc., in the temperature record (solar cycle signal) though we can all see the longer trends that produce the Maunder, Dalton, etc., and LIA events and which correlate to global temperature. I have no reason to disagree with him.

    And you appear to be conflating solar activity which includes quite a bit (spots, flares, CME), and SSN which is one aspect of solar activity.

  35. “‘It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level.”

    Climate: “Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time.”

    The good doctor tells us that it “influences the climate, especially on a regional level.” What other damn level could it affect? Does he not know what “climate” means?

  36. Gunga Din says:
    “Why pretend we have a handle on them?”
    Stay with the program. How can you expect the eco-facists to get grants if the admit that maybe other links DO exist?

  37. Uncle Gus says:
    August 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Some of the Old Guard did change their minds about “Flood Geology” as more evidence became available. Even in 1785, Hutton got a respectful hearing from the Royal Society of Edinburgh for his views of the great antiquity (at least) of the earth, & published two volumes in 1795. Lyell was able to publish his three volumes in 1830-33. In 1831, Darwin worked for Sedgwick, an Anglican cleric, on his geological expedition to Wales, which helped him identify the Cambrian Period.

    Even the eccentric but distinguished Anglican cleric Buckland, of dinosaur fame, came around in 1840 after joining Agassiz in Scotland, where they found clear signs of glaciation, not a universal flood of water, but of local & regional ice.

  38. statement A:
    Lund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity vs snow accumulation in Greenland, which indicates a strong correlation between solar minima and a colder climate.

    and

    statement B:
    “Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.”

    So which is it? Skeptics agree with statement A, that the sun has more of an effect than “we think”. Statement B contradicts statement A. –And since non climate skeptics believe the sun has no influence (ref IPCC).

    The 2 statements are at odds with each other.
    The author had to throw a big bone to the CAGW proponents to get published.

  39. Orbital mechanics were different during the Last Glacial Maximum which would have an affect on the TSI at TOA; less obliquity, more eccentricity and NH winter solstice at aphelion. Orbital mechanics do create differences in TSI at TOA throughout the year, so how does one use deposits to differentiate between real changes in solar activity and the perceived solar activity at TOA especially from ages past. As Leif explained on another thread, when discussing climate TSI at TOA is what counts and that those orbit created differences during the year are not the same as real changes in solar activity. So is it more likely that the Earth itself is the real culprit due to it’s changing orbit?

  40. As Nature and global temperatures and the global climate refuse to do as instructed by the climate science chicken entrails modeling reliant climate scientists, the great backdown and cover up is now well and truly under way.
    Remember how just how fixed in stone for eternity, the SCIENCE WAS SETTLED only a short three or so years ago and no debate or argument would be allowed or countenanced at all as it was a completely established unarguable fact that the Earth was inevitably heading into a CO2 driven climate catastrophe entirely of mankind’s own making.

    Now we see an increasing volume of mostly seriously bad papers and unsubstantiated claims, nothing unusual in that with current climate science, all suggesting that perhaps there is something else other than m,an made CO2 that might be having an effect on the climate.

    The above paper is another example of the backdown from yesterday’s hard fixed, not to be challenged or allowed to be debated climate science, a back down, a snake like sliming slithering away they hope to get away with after their sheer ineptitude and outright ignorance of the real drivers of the global climate has been so clearly revealed for all to see.

    And god forbid, it might just even be that the Sun, that great fusion furnace way up there that pours it’s immense energy into the global atmosphere might just possibly have a minute effect on the climate. But only in some regions and patches you understand, regions and patches that somehow seem to link up an cover the earth’s surface as we are assured by those expert climate scientists.
    And we are still most categorically assured by those same expert climate scientists that we will be all still going to a climate hell in a red hot carbon basket.
    It’s just that the timetable has been delayed by unforeseen events such as the failure to warm and the unpredictability of the ENSO and the fact that they forgot about Clouds and have a few problems why the Antarctic ice is expanding as is the Arctic ice following the categorical assurance that we will have an” ice free Arctic by 2013″ and a few other minor hitches in the predictions such as we didn’t figure on the Sun having any effect on the climate but perhaps it does after all.

    My contempt for climate catastrophe scientists rises by the day.
    Not once, not a single one has ever even hinted at an apology for getting so much so wrong, a wrongness so wrong that the governments of the world on the heavily promoted ideologically driven advice of those same climate scientists have now expended close to a trillion dollars of the world’s treasure and wealth on to try and prevent those catastrophic outcomes in the climate so firmly and unashamedly predicted by those same climate scientists.

    The resulting tens of thousands of deaths from energy poverty and the consequent lack of affordable energy for heating for the old and the poor leading to hypothermia in so many countries when the politicals and greens forced the closing down of the tried and true and absolutely reliable fossil fueled generators which were suposedly to be replaced by the totally unreliable, unaffordable, totally ineffective so called renewable energy, which it is anything but.

    All proposed, promoted, and backed to the hilt by climate catastrophe scientists. based on nothing more than the outputs of some heavily biased climate models which are so damn primitive and ineffective that they can’t even get the past history of the climate right when that past climates observed data is fed into them

    And the results of all this vast waste of lives and treasure at the bidding of climate science?
    Zilch, nada, nothing !,
    Not even a hint that all this totally unnecessary sacrifice of lives and treasure made one iota of difference to the climate or anything else except to create fear and societal dissension and to transfer vast amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich via the vastly corrupt and leech like renewable energy industry.

    The climate just rolls right on and keeps right on rolling on as usual despite some of those same climate scientists aided and abetted by their unbounded and complete arrogance, ignorance and hubris imagining that they can control the global climate by twiddling a couple of Carbon knobs.

    The message from climate science of only a couple of years ago has been that Nature has been stood aside and mankind is the one who now controls the global climate.
    Nature laughed and turned the solar wick down and now it starts to cool and there is not a damn thing those abjectly ignorant climate scientists or their running dogs in the greens and enviro water melons can do about it.

    I have no problems with climate science researching the climate and coming to the wrong conclusions as science in the long term is self correcting.
    What I most strongly object to and which has brought me to the point of complete and open contempt for climate science and climate scientists is the way in which they used their trusted positions a scientists to impose their own brands of personal ideology and beliefs in a model predicted outcomes onto the rest of society to our extreme detriment in health, wealth, creation of unneeded economic malaise and societal dissension.
    Modeled predictions that were nothing more than reflections on the climate modeler’s own biases but which were hyped up to the maximum by a group of arrogant, hubris laden, self promoting, narcissistic and as it turns out abjectly wrong climate scientists, into a predicted carbon dioxide driven climate catastrophe,
    An ideological derived belief which had absolutely no underpinning in science other than pure conjecture on the part of those same hubris driven climate scientists.

    When I see some deep humble apologies from climate science and climate scientists and a clean out of the worst of those climate charlatans by climate science itself and an admission and a full humble acknowledgment on how they, through their gross and complete hubris laden ignorance on their part and who have totally failed to comprehend how the global climate really works allied with their overwhelming hubris about their own omnipotence in climate knowledge, a position which they blatantly used to both impose their own ideology and suppress any others who dared to question or were at all skeptical about pronunciations of those oh so omnipotent climate scientists.
    And who so deliberately and openly fed the hysteria of a predicted climate catastrophe due to mankind’s sinfulness in using fossil fuels with their CO2 emissions to enhance his health wealth and living standards over the last few centuries,
    When I see a full open and humble apology from all of climate science and those same hubris driven climate scientists openly admitting that they were completely wrong in their climate catastrophe predictions and they humbly apologise and assume responsibility for the immense amounts of harm and destruction of lives and living standards and treasure they have created through their heavy promotion of what turned out to be nothing but predictions based on abject ignorance and hubris, then I will consider climate science with a somewhat better but still very wary consideration.

  41. In a series of posts at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    I have forecast a coming cooling based on the 60 and 960 year periodicities in the temperature data and used the 10Be record and neutron count as the best proxy for solar activity. The new Lund paper is also based on isotope data from ice cores. It confirms the same occurrence of weather patterns during the last age as I forecast in 2010 as likely to be more frequent on a cooling earth.
    At the end of the latest post at the link above I say

    b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
    I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
    “There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA. At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
    This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United States. Indeed, as I write this in Houston on July 29, 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, the snow cover finally never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop, as suggested by Steve Goddard:” See Fig 18 at the link .above.
    For evidence of the important 960 year periodicity see Figs 5,6,7,8,and 9. at the same post for evidence of the 960 year periodicity in the Holocene temperature data.
    The same 960 year periodicity is seen during glacial times in the new paper check the 480 year peak (960/2) seen in Fig S4 top and bottom panels at

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/new-paper-shows-solar-activity-is-linked-to-the-greenland-climate-even-20000-years-ago/#more-37812

    Just scroll down the link to find the Figure.
    The key to climate forecasts is knowing where we are right now relative to the current peak in this quasi-millennial cycle.

  42. The problem is that Adolphi and Muscheler measure 10Be and 14C on Earth as
    value for INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION (“Insolation”) and reckon this was theTSI
    (“Total solar irradiation”) – which is the different Sun´s OUTPUT. They forget that
    the Earth orbit oscillates on a centennial scale, thus received Insolation on Earth
    can go up and down, while the Earth orbit oscillates – and, at the same time – the
    TSI, the Sun´s activity OUTPUT remains CONSTANT.
    More at: see website. JS.

  43. Tim Ball says:

    August 20, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    …”It is the comment of a person who knows virtually nothing about climate and certainly is ignorant of the climate literature.”
    ==============
    So, we’ve got “knows virtually nothing” vs “ignorant”.
    We need more innuendos to flesh this one out.

  44. The overall TSI variance is small but as Einstein’s photoelectric effect showed, not all bandwidths are equal. UV radiation that affects stratoshpheric ozone varies much more widely than TSI. Maybe these guys need a talk with the CCl4 guys to see if their model knows all this stuff. Another interesting study would be carbon and oxygen isotope variations by solar cycle. Carbon dating is fine without considering the variations but I’d bet CO2 is a bit more sensitive. Isotope variation would shed light on carbon sources. A few years ago it was revealed that plants preferred isotopes of carbon as the minute nuclear changes made a difference in some of the rate equations.

  45. “What our paper shows is…” you got some money.
    “It (the toilet paper) shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new”…really?? ” and that solar activity influences the climate…” OMG!!! Solar activity declines sharply after sunset = temps fall. Then, amazingly, solar activity increase sharply at sunrise = temps rise.

  46. Of course Dr. Muscheler ruins it when he gives the usual, and obviously necessary, ass kissing to the AGW crowd. Money talks.

    “Local climate”? Only when warmer than normal in the Lower 48 is that climate. When it is cooler than normal in the Lower 48 that’s weather. Someone clue him in. LOL

  47. “The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change.”

  48. Dr Norman Page says:
    August 20, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    I have often thought that with all these various cycles of variable length, is how to determine what the algebraic sum is at any given time. With a 60 year and 960 year cycle, they will correlate nicely, but are they in phase? Or is there a lag/lead?

  49. Lee It is certainly possible ,even likely, that the early 21st century temperature peak represents a peak in both quasi-periodicities. I think that because of the number of variables involved that the exact length and amplitude of both solar activity cycles will vary about some mean. There is also a variable lag time between the solar driver peaks and the corresponding peaks in the climate data.
    This lag has been variously estimated between 12 and 20 years.
    Thus I suggest that the solar activity peak seen in the neutron data at about 1991 ( see Fig 14 at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com ) would produce the possible 960 year peak at 2003 or thereabouts. The lag in the shallower ocean OHC data would likely be closer to 20 years.
    My reason for thinking we are just past the peak is shown by the drop in solar activity from the 1991 peak and especially the sharp drop in 2005/6 as seen also in the Ap index ( Fig 13 ) and the high neutron count at the cycle 24 maximum (Feb 2014) relative to solar cycle 23 and earlier maxima.
    Taking a best guess as to the lag time I am suggesting a sharp drop in temperature about 2017-18.

  50. lee says:
    August 20, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    “The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change.”

    Damn, lost the comment.

    The IPCC say the models don’t do predictions.

  51. Paging Willis E.

    Seriously, I’m hoping that he reviews this paper for validity/reliability/believability. It seems like there are lots of papers the are only very weakly supported by the evidence they show.

  52. “The results of this study showed that the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex plays an important part in
    the mechanism of solar-climatic links. The vortex strength reveals a roughly 60-year periodicity influencing
    the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the sign of SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems
    at middle and high latitudes. The vortex location is favorable for the mechanisms of solar activity influence
    on the troposphere circulation involving variations of different agents (GCR intensity, UV fluxes). In the
    periods of a strong vortex changes of the vortex intensity associated with solar activity phenomena seem to
    affect temperature contrasts in tropospheric frontal zones and the development of extratropical cyclogenesis.”

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  53. u.k.(us) says:
    August 20, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    Tim Ball says:

    August 20, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    …”It is the comment of a person who knows virtually nothing about climate and certainly is ignorant of the climate literature.”
    ==============

    So, we’ve got “knows virtually nothing” vs “ignorant”.
    We need more innuendos to flesh this one out.

    Agnorant.

  54. william says at August 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    I don’t think the results of this study will pass muster with Dr. Leif. There is no explanatory mechanism. The results can be a nice coincidence but don’t illuminate any causation. Just like an increase in ice cream sales in the summer is not the cause of higher temps in July-Sept.
    If the correlation is real and not mere luck…
    We don’t need an explanatory mechanism in this case to determine the line of causality.

    It can’t be Greenland affecting the Sun. That’s like a gnat’s wing knocking over the ox.
    It can’t be a third factor affecting both Greenland and the Sun as the Sun is far away. We would notice something else out there (planetary movements aside, of course, but that isn’t observed to correlate).

    So, If the correlation is real and not mere luck…we know it is the Sun that dominates at this timescale.

  55. Trying again with formatting.
    william says at August 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    I don’t think the results of this study will pass muster with Dr. Leif. There is no explanatory mechanism. The results can be a nice coincidence but don’t illuminate any causation. Just like an increase in ice cream sales in the summer is not the cause of higher temps in July-Sept.

    If the correlation is real and not mere luck…
    We don’t need an explanatory mechanism in this case to determine the line of causality.

    It can’t be Greenland affecting the Sun. That’s like a gnat’s wing knocking over the ox.
    It can’t be a third factor affecting both Greenland and the Sun as the Sun is far away. We would notice something else out there (planetary movements aside, of course, but that isn’t observed to correlate).

    So, If the correlation is real and not mere luck…we know that it is the Sun that dominates at this timescale.

  56. OK, here it is: I am 97% sure, no let’s make that 99.999% sure the Sun is going to rise tomorrow morning somewhere on planet Earth ( the 0.001 is in case of my untimely demise). Result: It will be a 100% surety it will get warmer (unless of course the sun rise is followed by an Arctic Polar Vortex, so see how easy the “unless, maybe, could etc can change a sure statement and CYA)).

  57. lee:

    In your post at August 20, 2014 at 7:18 pm you claim

    The IPCC say the models don’t do predictions.

    Your claim raises two issues: viz.
    the truth of the claim
    and
    the warmunist myth of the claim.

    The claim is untrue because the IPCC says the models do predictions but the predictions are “inherently limited”.
    This is stated in the glossaries of the IPCC reports and is most recently stated by the IPCC in its IPCC WG1 AR5 Glossary which is here and provides these definitions

    Predictability
    The extent to which future states of a system may be predicted based on knowledge of current and past states of the system. Because knowledge of the climate system’s past and current states is generally imperfect, as are the models that utilize this knowledge to produce a climate prediction, and because the climate system is inherently nonlinear and chaotic, predictability of the climate system is inherently limited. Even with arbitrarily accurate models and observations, there may still be limits to the predictability of such a nonlinear system (AMS, 2000).

    Prediction quality/skill
    Measures of the success of a prediction against observationally based information. No single measure can summarize all aspects of forecast quality and a suite of metrics is considered. Metrics will differ for forecasts given in deterministic and probabilistic form. See also Climate prediction.

    Projection
    A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Unlike predictions, projections are conditional on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realized. See also Climate prediction and Climate projection.

    The warmunist myth that “The IPCC say the models don’t do predictions” is an attempt to pretend that the IPCC models cannot be shown to be wrong.
    However, the IPCC makes no such claim and, as I have quoted from the IPCC Glossary, the IPCC says, “Measures of the success of a prediction against observationally based information” are called “Prediction quality/skill”.

    However, the myth has a long history of promotion by warmunists. For example, I recount the following anecdote.

    In June 2000 there were 15 scientists assembled from around the world to give a briefing at the US Congress in Washington, DC. The briefing was in three sessions each with a Panel and I accepted a request for me to Chair the second panel. In each session the panel members each gave a presentation and after that the session was opened to the floor for questions. In our session, one ‘questioner’ made a speech and when he sat down I replied saying,
    “Sir, I agree much of what you say but not all. For example,
    you say, “The IPCC doesn’t make predictions”.
    The IPCC says the Earth is going to warm.
    I call that a prediction.”

    The ‘questioner’ did not reply, and that was probably wise because since then the Earth has not warmed discernibly although IPCC AR5 predicted (n.b. predicted and not projected) the rate of warming from 2000 to 2020 would be at 0.2°C per decade, and IPCC AR5 glossary says, “Measures of the success of a prediction against observationally based information” are called “Prediction quality/skill”.

    Richard

  58. Unexpected. Where have I heard that before.

    “‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.” No matter what my data says, and what the data has been saying all along, I am still clinging to my old beliefs.

    “‘What our paper shows is we need to include all processes – greenhouses, the sun and so on, especially for local climates which is important of course.”

    So, add another new theory to explain why the data does not fit the “settled science”.

  59. Many things remain either unknown, or totally wrong in sciences understanding of how the sun works, let alone what its many nuances and moods do to our climate. We have a long way to go before anyone can clearly enunciate what does what.

    The last twenty years in climate science by the mainstream has been a dark ages for real discovery. We have but one heater, alter it in any way and an effect will be felt on the Earth. The last odd million years or so have been a see saw ride for our planet, totally without mans input. This needs some explanation by our erstwhile climate scientists before they point to any trace gases.

    This study is a faint glimmer of light into a dark abyss of stupidity.

  60. “It is the comment of a person who knows virtually nothing about climate and certainly is ignorant of the climate literature.”

    I think it’s the comment of someone who knows where his funding is coming from.

  61. ‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.

    Followed by:

    ‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.

    Don’t these people even try to be logically consistent???

  62. By the middle of solar cycle 25 I’m willing to bet that many “beliefs” will change.

  63. dp says:
    August 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    What is hard for you to grasp about this? Willis flatly states that he has seen no evidence of any solar influence on climate, period, despite other commenters repeatedly showing him studies to that effect, to include Dr. Ball’s own research.

    What you imagine Willis says and what he really says are two different things. You’re confusing your own opinions with reality.

  64. Utter nonsense. After work I will post links to Greenland icecore correlations with PDO AMO combinations. We know that the AMO is atmospherically connected to and follows ENSO dynamics. Further, there is a bridge between the AMO and PDO with the PDO following an AMO dynamic. One must look to the oceans and in particular the all-important equatorial band as the initiation of things happening at the poles. Some will invariably ask, “Then what drives ENSO?” Good question.

  65. statement A:
    Lund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity
    Tonights forecast, dark, followed by widely scattered light in the morning.

  66. Pamela Gray says:
    August 21, 2014 at 9:07 am

    ENSO is not “the” driver of the climate system. All the oceanic oscillations are connected. Changes in tropical Pacific insolation may be more important than at temperate and polar latitudes and in other oceans, but no one part of the global ocean and atmosphere is the be all and end all. The North Atlantic is also important, for instance, in the present configuration of the continents, as is the Southern Ocean. How active submarine volcanism is figures prominently, too.

  67. dp says:
    August 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm
    …. I said nothing about SSN…..That is not what this thread is about. It is about long term solar activity, not the 11 – 22 year cycle. The stuff Maunder minimums are made from, in other words, not sunspot counts over the short term.

    Wait, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the definition of the Maunder minimum was “no sunspots”.

  68. Lucius von Steinkaninchen (August 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm) :
    “I wonder how much time we will have to disguise scientific results with political makeup like that. Perhaps ten years? Twenty? Perhaps until all warmists retire or die?”

    Uncle Gus (August 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm):
    There’s a parallel here with geology in the 19th century…In effect, they really did have to wait for the old guard to die off, before they could speak freely!

    did Thomas Kuhn express something like this – that the the old paradigm lingers til the traditionalists die off

    doesn’t the AGW debate seem to be following Thomas Kuhn’s roadmap – i only know of his ideas indirectly – i really should read the book while the AGW debate rages

  69. richardscourtney says:
    August 21, 2014 at 2:12 am
    ========================================================
    Their use of the word ‘projection’ and the claim that this does not mean prediction, fits in with all the other misguided thoughts that come from them. AKA….Orwellian doublespeak!!!

  70. Wow…such a stunning declaration….NOT.

    The Earth has been going through “climate change” for likely some 4.2 Billion years…that would and should be the point of discussion. We have had how many ice ages in our past..?? Seems to me each and every one of them ended due to Global warming. That it is now acknowledged that the sun has something to do with all that at this stage is utterly condescending to most sentient beings on this planet.

    Global Warming – Climate Change – AGW: Each and Every one a method to swindle your money into someone else’s pocket.

    Ex: British Columbia has a Carbon Tax on Gasoline @ $0.065 per litter (or close to that)…I would ask British Columbians how their local climate has benefitted from that pretty good infusion of cash.??? LMFAO. Pure BS in my opinion….leftist – steal your money BS.

  71. ren says:
    August 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm
    ===================================
    I see that today,s DMI page is showing the next down step in Arctic temps. Here is where a diiferenec will show depending on the movement over the next month. Last year, after a below average summer Arctic temps then surged above average for months afterwards. I would bet that we will not see the same trend this year, and so the Arctic temps will set a new below average record.

  72. Gets a bit squirmy trying to have solar influence without deprecating human at the same time. Showing symptoms of logical dissonance.

  73. Sturgis, again, you have not been around here for very long. Of course these areas are important with regard to weather pattern variations. Never said they were not. But not even the blind can ignore how massive the equatorial Pacific Ocean processes and the larger ENSO parameters are and how obviously they impact these other indices. The peer reviewed literature is replete with this understanding. Do you think otherwise?

    Funny how both solar and CO2 proponents will sometimes state that ENSO processes are just noise and can be disregarded. They almost have to say that. If they don’t they leave the door wide open to intrinsic sources of both short and long term weather pattern variations that are active in-between the colder pendulum points of the Milankovitch Cycle.

  74. Pamela Gray says:
    August 21, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    You’ve been around here too long instead of studying actual geology, atmospheric and oceanic science. That I haven’t been around here long hardly disqualifies me from correcting your mistaken opinions and unsupported conjectures.

  75. Dr Norman Page says:
    August 20, 2014 at 7:03 pm
    Taking a best guess as to the lag time I am suggesting a sharp drop in temperature about 2017-18.
    100 %.

  76. Pamela Gray says:
    August 21, 2014 at 8:30 pm
    “But not even the blind can ignore how massive the equatorial Pacific Ocean processes and the larger ENSO parameters are and how obviously they impact these other indices. The peer reviewed literature is replete with this understanding. Do you think otherwise?”

    The peer reviewed literature is also replete with support for the man made CO2 theory of global warming. Do you also agree with this? The point you make regarding Pacific Ocean processes and the larger ENSO parameter is a good point, just don’t use known politically driven peer review as a crutch for your arguments.

  77. sturgishooper says:
    August 21, 2014 at 8:57 am

    dp says:
    August 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    What is hard for you to grasp about this? Willis flatly states that he has seen no evidence of any solar influence on climate, period, despite other commenters repeatedly showing him studies to that effect, to include Dr. Ball’s own research.

    What you imagine Willis says and what he really says are two different things. You’re confusing your own opinions with reality.

    I’m surprised to say you are correct. I had not yet seen or don’t recall having seen this article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/) when I posted above. He reiterates he cannot see an 11-year cycle which is old stuff but he then goes on to say he’s just gone looking for long-term solar activity correlation with global temperature and doesn’t see it. It appears my information was incomplete.

  78. Jim, having been well schooled in research methods and proper statistical analysis, I can discern weeds from fruiting plants. I prefer to use good scientific inquiry (while also admitting that journals are filled with trash as well as gold nuggets).

    Anecdotal or seat of the pants speculation is all well and good on your own time but you had better come to the group table with something pretty damned good before I hitch up. So far, solar proponents seem to be in the same pickle as CO2 proponents (and just as political). Lots of talk, not much to show for it.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass about the political persuasions of climate scientists or climate bloggers on either side of the debate. And I will call a spade a spade when I see it. It seems there are lots of spades.

  79. Pamela Gray says:
    August 22, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    “Jim, having been well schooled in research methods and proper statistical analysis,”

    So have I, bottom line, peer review has little meaning anymore, if it ever did, so why reference it as proof of validity.

  80. Jim, unless you are unable to bring adequate critique to methods, then yes peer review is your only source of validity. Which is a poorman’s fallback position. As for unpublished or nonpeer reviewed work, buyer beware. We harangued the previous IPCC reports for using such papers. However, with regard to peer reviewed papers, I could not care less about who did the peer review or what methods they used to inform my critique. I use methods critique I learned from taking two graduate level classes in research critique, in addition to graduate level classes in research design, as well as engaging in and publishing my own research, through two masters programs.

    If inadequacies show, I have learned to take the paper with a grain of salt, which is the majority of papers related to intrinsic factors. Most CO2 modeling papers I have read I unfortunately have to dismiss. Most solar-linked climate papers I have also had to dismiss. Papers that have not been submitted and accepted for journal publication get even more of my scrutiny. And in general, do not fair well at all.

    A case in point. The What Works Clearing House (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/default.aspx) reviews educational research to help practitioners choose reliable and valid methods and curriculum in educational settings. They review published research and then write these reviews for public consumption. There are precious few published papers that meet their standards, meaning that the methods used place results at risk of being unreliable and/or invalid. They publish a handbook (see link below) on their methods of critique. Although I am only a fraction percent as thorough as they are, it does reflect the kind of review we should be using when digesting both published and unpublished papers. I dare say that many commenters here do not use adequate research critique.

    http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19

  81. Pamela Gray says:

    The speech was not necessary. I have not questioned your capabilities only your need to reference “peer review” as if it were a form of validation, which it is not. And from I can see, and have seen over the years, neither is “publication” in “appropriate” journals. Also, I can tell you for certain from many years of experience that anyone, and I do mean anyone, with the time and money can obtain a PHD behind their name, or an MD for that matter.

  82. The reverse happens during inter-glacials and warm DO events, the Arctic warms during weaker solar conditions because of increased poleward ocean transport. During Glacial Maxima, the oceanic flow to the Arctic is halted, probably due to extended ice shelves, and its temperature then moves in unison with the mid latitudes and south pole, instead of in opposition.

Comments are closed.