This story was previously covered on Sept 24 on WUWT, but because it appeared in Nature today, everybody is exploding my inbox like maybe I’ve never seen it before. Thanks. 😉 So in hopes of avoiding more flooding, here it is again.
Be sure to read the essay by David Archibald on the Hathaway SC24 prediction.
Also please please pay attention to the bolded (mine) caveat by professor Haigh below about the duration of the study. Link to the paper follows also, though it is missing figures for some reason.
From Imperial College, London via Eurekalert:
The sun’s activity has recently affected the Earth’s atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways, according to a new study published today in the journal Nature
The Sun’s activity has recently affected the Earth’s atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways, according to a new study published today in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun’s activity does not always mean that the Earth becomes cooler.
It is well established that the Sun’s activity waxes and wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching the Earth decreases. Today’s study looked at the Sun’s activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a declining part of its 11-year activity cycle.
Although the Sun’s activity declined over this period, the new research shows that it may have actually caused the Earth to become warmer. Contrary to expectations, the amount of energy reaching the Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than decreased as the Sun’s activity declined, causing this warming effect.
Following this surprising finding, the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true and that in periods when the Sun’s activity increases, it tends to cool, rather than warm, the Earth. This is based on what is already known about the relationship between the Sun’s activity and its total energy output.
Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is possible that during this period, the Sun has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather than a small warming effect as had previously been thought.
Professor Joanna Haigh, the lead author of the study who is Head of the Department of Physics and member of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said:
“These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun’s effect on our climate. However, they only show us a snapshot of the Sun’s activity and its behaviour over the three years of our study could be an anomaly.
“We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun’s activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun’s role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it.”
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, added: “We know that the Earth’s climate is affected both by human activity and by natural forces and today’s study improves our understanding of how the Sun influences our climate. Studies like this are vital for helping us to create a clear picture of how our climate is changing and through this, to work out how we can best protect our planet.”
The researchers used satellite data and computer modelling to analyse how the spectrum of radiation and the amount of energy from the Sun has been changing since 2004. Instruments on the SORCE satellite have been measuring the Sun’s energy output at many different wavelengths. The researchers fed the data from SORCE into an existing computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere and compared their results with the results obtained using earlier, less comprehensive, data on the solar spectrum.
For further information please contact:
Laura Gallagher
Research Media Relations Manager
Imperial College London
email: l.gallagher@imperial.ac.uk
Tel: +44(0)20 7594 8432
Out of hours duty press officer: +44(0)7803 886 248
Notes to editors:
1. “An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate” Nature, 7 October 2010
Corresponding author: J.D. Haigh, Imperial College London.
For full list of authors please see paper.
Download a copy of the study using this link: https://fileexchange.imperial.ac.uk/files/ed69e40f87b/SIMpaper_5.pdf
2. The SORCE satellite (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) is a NASA-sponsored satellite that is measuring incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements from SORCE’s instruments will help us address long-term climate change, natural climate variability, enhanced climate prediction, atmospheric ozone and UV-B radiation.
Stratosphere/mesosphere. The stratosphere is a layer in the atmosphere that begins about 6-8km above the Earth’s surface and extends to an altitude of 50km. The mesosphere lies above the stratosphere and extends to an altitude of 95-120km.
3. The University of Colorado was founded in 1876 in Boulder and is nested in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. CU-Boulder is a national public research institution with an enrollment of more than 30,000 students, both undergraduates and graduates. The student population comes from all 50 American states and from more than 100 foreign countries.
4. About Imperial College London
Consistently rated amongst the world’s best universities, Imperial College London is a science-based institution with a reputation for excellence in teaching and research that attracts 14,000 students and 6,000 staff of the highest international quality. Innovative research at the College explores the interface between science, medicine, engineering and business, delivering practical solutions that improve quality of life and the environment – underpinned by a dynamic enterprise culture.
Since its foundation in 1907, Imperial’s contributions to society have included the discovery of penicillin, the development of holography and the foundations of fibre optics. This commitment to the application of research for the benefit of all continues today, with current focuses including interdisciplinary collaborations to improve global health, tackle climate change, develop sustainable sources of energy and address security challenges.
In 2007, Imperial College London and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust formed the UK’s first Academic Health Science Centre. This unique partnership aims to improve the quality of life of patients and populations by taking new discoveries and translating them into new therapies as quickly as possible.
Website: www.imperial.ac.uk
Nature magazine also has a paper on how scientists from Wyoming have discovered a global warming signature in the metabolic rate of some cold-blooded animals.
S0 . . . , a short study (3 yrs out of 12+ yer solar cycle), with little or no statistical significance, appears to support the AGW religious dogma.
I expect we’ll hear the “conclusions” minus the caveats for the next 8 months while fall and winter engulfs the northern hemisphere in drizzle and snow.
On the face of it the new findings appear to fit my New Climate Model perfectly.
When the sun is more active energy escapes to space faster and the stratosphere cools naturally.
The late 20th century warming was actually caused by all those strong El Ninos and the phasing of the solar and oceanic effects was such that the oceanic surface warming effect on the troposphere was less than it otherwise would have been because the extra energy was released to space faster during the period of active sun.
During the current interglacial (possibly during all interglacials) the sun and ocean cycles are phased so as to minimise each other’s effects thus the relative stability of interglacial climates as compared to the huge climate swings of glacial epochs.
However I don’t think they’ve worked all that out yet 🙂
Didn’t these folks get the memo? CO2 is the main driver of the climate, not the Sun.
Consistently rated amongst the world’s best universities, Imperial College London is a science-based institution with a reputation for excellence…
OK, that explains it. They’re science-based.
Great, so all of a sudden an increasing sun has mask global warming by cooling earth….
Think I will skip diving into this paper
Hi.
As far as I understand a lot of people seem to think that all science that lessens the importance of CO2 in the global warming models are blocked from being published.
Indeed, politics play a great deal in todays science. But doesn’t this research, among others, show that this claim might be exaggerated?
Cheers
All of your regular fans will have been aware of Sept. 24 post.
Anything relating to Grantham and Imperial College makes the hairs on my neck rise in a most uncomfortable fashion. A once proud and reliable source of scientific information reduced to …… possibly the level of LSE.
O/T interesting news from N.Z. a small country of many firsts, including female emancipation.
“During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up.”
Anthony, the earlier thread said the above. Only now is it clear that an active sun has a net cooling effect hence the cooling of the stratosphere which we saw throughout the late 20th century warming period until about 1996 when it stopped cooling and now there is a slight stratospheric warming just as the sun entered it’s downswing in activity.
As I previously said, a reversal of the sign of the net solar effect on the atmosphere is critical to my New Climate Model and here we have it confirmed.
Did anyone else ever propose such a thing ?
It appears that the mesosphere also cooled when the sun was more active:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Australian-Scientists-Probe-Distant-Clouds-With-Giant-Antarctic-Laser-103849314.html
Excuse me . . ? OVERESTIMATED the role in the sun’s warming the planet . . ?
The sun IS what warms the planet !
OK, it seems to me what might have been meant was ‘changing the warming’, or ‘changing the warming cycles’ of the planet.
But why would one want to release a study like this, without data at the other times of the cycle. If doing a study for just a few years, why wouldn’t one want to pick the top, or bottom of the cycle? This study began in the middle of the cycle, and went on towards the end of the cycle.
Wow . . .
Doesn’t seem even worth publishing to me . . .
Is this the same thing as when you have a fever, you get the chills? Inverse metabolic reaction?
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, . . . added: “We know that the Earth’s climate is affected both by human activity and . . .”
Do we now? What evidence do we have besides the scurrilous claims of the IPCC?
Drunk the Kool Aid, too? Or just looking for more funding?
enough says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“Great, so all of a sudden an increasing sun has mask global warming by cooling earth”
In a sense, yes but that warming was from the oceans and not from more CO2.
Those late 20th century El Ninos were large and persistent. Given the vast energy carrying ability of water as opposed to air they could well have warmed the troposphere much more during a time of a quiet sun.
As it is the active sun then ameliorated the ocean warming just as the quiet sun now will ameliorate the developing ocean cooling.
The mid latitudes may get severe winters but the poles should be a little warmer with the oceans not yet especially cold after the current strong La Nina has dissipated. The ocean setup is well short of LIA conditions as yet.
Re enough – It’s often desirable to study all inputs, overcoming your preconceptions, in order to add to your understanding of the important parts of the science. Virtually all new ideas start out as minority opinions, are often reviled at first, but then go on (sometimes) to become mainstream. To be a particpant in that process, to be able to contribute, you might consider being less dismissive. Unless, of course, you are expressing a mood about the rocky road of scientific progress.
“today’s study improves our understanding of how the Sun influences our climate”
Really?
Conclusion of the study: Wriggle matching without mechanism. The null hypothesis stands. Neither the Sun nor CO2 outweigh the effects of oceanic/trade wind forcings that heat up/cool down land temps.
->Bin … next!
So if we do indeed cool globally over the next decade (or remain the same), then the AGW hypothesis REALLY takes a hit as the Sun slobers along ADDING to the warming.
Either they are putting all their chips in one basket or CYA’ing…
This climate model is overweight.
Sure she has shapely curves, a little top heavy maybe, but her ankles are thin.
I know she wobbles a lot on the walk, and amongst her Peers she’s often lusted after,
but seldom loved, except by her stalkers.
True the youth of the world do like to emulate her, and she has powerful friends,
but surely the writing is on the wall, She must know her career is over.
When she says things like:
“The Sun has nothing to do with my career”
And next week,
“The Sun has been hiding what’s really going on with my career”
I have to scratch my head and wonder, has the peroxide started to get to her?
It seems to have affected her fans.
Did they provide their procedure, computer/data code, and methods somewhere?
I find it suspicious the fact that they take 3 years out af an 12 year cycle, and claim that we’ve overestimated the suns impact on earth.
There is a significant lag time in the response of earths stratosphere, the maunder minimum in the 1700’s didn’t see the cooling take off right when the it began…. as far as proxy data goes.
“Also please please pay attention to the bolded (mine) caveat by professor Haigh below about the duration of the study. “……………………….sure, thanks, you’ve once again rendered me speechless. I hadn’t realized they put any weight into the sun’s warming effect to begin with. Are they asserting the sun has a cooling effect on the earth? That’s….wt? You know, I missed that on the first go around. 😐
From many previous threads I was under the impression that Nature published crap. Has this changed?
AGWeird says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Hi.
As far as I understand a lot of people seem to think that all science that lessens the importance of CO2 in the global warming models are blocked from being published.
Indeed, politics play a great deal in todays science. But doesn’t this research, among others, show that this claim might be exaggerated?
Cheers
Sorry AGWeird – you got your reasoning backwards.
If a more active sun has been cooling the Earth, and yet we have seen warming during an active sun phase (late 20th Century) – then the role of CO2 and other GHGs is enhanced.
This notion neatly supports the AGW dogma… and is at no risk of being blocked from publication or from grant solicitation.
Did they really not even mention the cosmo-climatology mechanism linking solar activity with terrestrial surface cosmic ray influx, in turn hypothesized to be linked to lower cloud formation over oceans, and hence with temperatures?
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate.aspx
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
It would be interesting to lay their data in graphs over the Boulder cosmic ray influx graph, and the graph for cloud cover over oceans, to see if there are correlations that open up more interpretations.
Solar science is in its infancy, every bit of new info is welcome. Even in only 5 years we may start seeing patterns that may not be apparent yet due to lack of data.
May scientific integrity prevail on Earth.
Didn’t a paper mentioned here last month confirm a 1-2 year lag time before the sun’s warming/cooling effect was noticed? I think that would explain the problem with the (cherry picked?) dates of 2004-2007.
I was wondering how they were going to prop up the scam…
3 years out of a normal 12 year cycle..
little or no supporting data…
insufficient time to come to any conclusions…
Draw Conclusions to support AGW…
Didn’t the EAU/MET teach scientists anything? or did they ignore it as it didn’t meet their prearranged talking points?