Study sheds new light on how the sun affects the Earth's climate

Image Courtesy of The New Scientist, click to enlarge

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

Advertisements

144 thoughts on “Study sheds new light on how the sun affects the Earth's climate

  1. 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.

  2. 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 🙂

  3. 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.

  4. Great, so all of a sudden an increasing sun has mask global warming by cooling earth….
    Think I will skip diving into this paper

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. “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

  8. 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 . . .

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. “today’s study improves our understanding of how the Sun influences our climate”
    Really?

  13. 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.

  14. Our results, simulated with a radiative-photochemical model, are consistent with contemporaneous measurements of ozone from the Aura-MLS satellite, although the short time period makes attribution to solar effects difficult. We also show that solar radiative forcing of surface climate – based on the SIM data – is out of phase with solar activity. Although there is currently insufficient observational evidence to establish that the spectral variations observed by SIM are characteristic of other solar cycles, our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.

    ->Bin … next!

  15. 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…

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. “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. 😐

  19. From many previous threads I was under the impression that Nature published crap. Has this changed?

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. I’m sure many posed the question before but I missed the answer.
    What would be the temp. of the earth if there was no Sun?
    If we take the CO2 hypotheses at face value, would we need only a minimal input from the Sun to maintain our climate provided we keep producing more and more CO2?
    I read many of the posts and linked PDFs etc. but I still come back to this basic question.
    What if the Sun would reduce its output by half?
    I’m not trying to be funny.
    Thanks

  25. What about how the previous solar maximum caused greater heat storage in the oceans which takes time to be released. As the sun cools of course there will be a delayed response by the oceans and thus the atmosphere. As the oceans cool (which they are doing) whilst the sun goes on with low activity – then we will see some serious cooling of the atmosphere (based on raw figures of properly calibrated records of course).

  26. Martin C says:
    October 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    I agree, not worth publishing, but “no problem”.
    The idea that a “Climate Scientist” has anywhere near the credentials to muse about solar physics is astoundingly lame. The word hubris was used in another post today, perhaps it is more applicable here. By the way, where is that button?

  27. Pamela Gray says:
    October 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    Except that the oceans are the storage battery, the trade winds are the wiring, but it is ultimately the Sun + tidal forces that is the alternator (strong nuclear/gravity). How it gets here and is distributed is another story.

  28. “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.”
    ……………………………………………………………………………..
    Well this explains everything… its done by computer modeling

  29. AJB says:
    October 6, 2010 at 8:28 pm
    There they go again: Without sunlight generated by fusion in the Sun to ostensibly provide the energy that is held by combined elements formed in stellar cores which is released by ignition of biomass from ancient photosynthesis in turn energized by the Sun…
    What was it that the Sun is overestimated to have caused???
    Whoop, there it is: The Sun is nothing more than a stellar show off, always hogging the limelight.

  30. If I remember correctly, the sun’s minimums show correlation with the Maunder and
    Dalton minimums. Can anyone find that graph? That should be a refutation of this 3 year study.

  31. In the early 1990s, the NSF published a pamphlet of about 100 pages relating the sun’s activity to temperatures as known then (and now as well, unless you are on the hockey team).
    The paper showed that two ions whose abundance are affected by the amount of solar radiation — 10Be and 14C — were correlated with the higher temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period and the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age. That is to say, the levels of each rose and fell with the temperatures. (I forget which was correlated and which was anti-correlated, but both moved in concert with temperatures.)
    This study, which admittedly is only 3 years long, goes against that earlier study, which covered over 1,000 years.
    I haven’t been able to access the paper itself, so this may be in error — but if there is more energy from the sun reaching the earth when the sun is sending less energy to the earth, then doesn’t that speak to reasons other than the sun’s activity for the increase in energy from the sun reaching the earth?

  32. The sun activity goes down and there is nothing that the AGW crowd can do about it. Therefore they have to find a way to make the sun going down warm the Earth, so eternal global warming rides in the sunset, literally.

  33. They are going to have to get Winston Smith from the Department of Truth to destroy all the previous papers, and for Squeeler to change the rules and issue an ‘adjustment’ from Comrade Napolean.

  34. Now, now, calm down people. We do not wish to suffer from sunstroke.
    So don you solar toupees and remember only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
    And then cooled by a splendid gin sling you can consider carefully how an observation is matched to an unknown computer model over a very short period and is claimed to be evidence of something.
    And wonder why the claimant is so uncertain about it, it might be an anomaly she says. Amazing word anomaly, it is used for all sorts of things: you might wish to contemplate how uncertain so many uses of it are too. Especially in so called climate science.
    On the other hand you might prefer to sip your cool gin sling and let the whole thing drift away from your mind. After all it is hardly worth thinking about: and I am sure you have better things to ponder upon.
    Kindest Regards

  35. The short duration of the MODELING in this study is suspicious as well as the timing of the “sun affects the Earth’s climate” study release, sounds like desperation to me!
    Have you notices the rash, onslaught/flood of remodelled, regurgitated doom and gloom climate disasters and end time scenarios on every media outlet of late?
    They are priming the uninformed up for the Cancun climate disruption conference, the bad news the hand wringing and phoney tears of the pampered delegates.
    There is a choking desperation in the warmist rehashed end time releases and articles, the pitiful cries of foul and how nasty those rotten cheating oil rich sceptics are.
    The warmist are in panic mode, so for them were no amount of distortion is to much, as evidenced in every foolish thing they say and every idiotic move they make!
    On a bright note the US midterm elections are going to drop a huge brick on this whole global warming or climate change or climate disruption crowd and the greedy power hungry politicos who desperately want maximum control and money from the taxpayers of the west.
    Watch out the climate crazy governments of the UK, New Zealand and Australia, the climate jig is almost up for you too without the USA, China, India and a host of others country’s just starting to realize the real cost of this whole CO2 rush off the cliff madness.
    For example see:
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691194,00.html
    Merkel Abandons Aim of Binding Climate Agreement
    A big change is coming and it’s not just the weather.

  36. I’ll keep an open mind on this, its too early to see which way their modeled/hypotheses (guess?) is going to pan out in the long term. The last thing we want to spur on is the climate modification dabblers wanting to artificially interfere with natural climate variations.
    Worth watching, thinking, time and climate will tell its own story.

  37. I would be upset to have my name associated with this abortion of scientific malfeasance.
    just wow…. round file basket ball anyone?

  38. Citizens,
    It has been known for MANY YEARS that solar activity (eg sunspot numbers or ANYTHING which follows the 11 year cycle) is NOT a detailed driver of world temperatures (ie on time scales of less than one solar cycle); this is evidenced by the FACT that the main signal in world temperatures is the magnetic ‘Hale’ (22 yr) cycle.
    SO – and this would be grasped by an 8 year old – for about half the time solar activity (eg smoothed on 3 year moving averages) and temperatures move together, and about half the time they move oppositely. THIS IS NOT NEW but the fact that temperatures and solar activity do not always move together is “rediscovered” and restated at approximately 6 monthly intervals (most notably Professor Lockwood but the Grantham Institute will rope in anyone they can). It is utterly pathetic that Nature publishes this piffle as ‘new’; but then where do they stand in the fight to defend evidence based science?
    The purpose of their misinformation is of course to undermine the observed fact of EXCELLENT correlation between smoothed-out solar activity** (on all time scales of more than the Hale cycle) and world temperatures; and these ‘experts’ move on (or imply) “It’s not solar activity so it must be CO2” (using its not a dog so it must be a cat, logic).
    It’s wonderous – no completely unsurprising – that the same ‘experts’ have yet to “discover” that world temperatures don’t always follow CO2.
    In fact temperatures statistically DON’T follow CO2 on ANY time scale:- years, decades, centuries, millennia, millions, or hundreds of millions of years. Now there IS something for Nature to “discover”.
    This campaign to mislead was the original subject of the ongoing post on Climate Realists (where RED BOLD highlights in the Comments indicate key items which I think help get to key points quickly) – “World cooling has……” =
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=5
    ** Importantly a better correlation is found between temperatures & geomagnetic activity than temperature and solar activity (eg on 22 yr smoothing).
    Peaks of temperatures are around peaks of odd sunspot cycles and troughs in temps are around peaks in even cycles.
    The DETAILS of temperature in the world or any region are NOT in general correlated in any simple way to sunspot counts on short time scales (of say months or a year). The proper relationships are complicated but very real and make solar based prediction possible.
    Examples of the chain of causality:-
    major events on the sun => events in the ionosphere & geomagnetic activity
    => jet stream changes => significant PREDICTED weather events are documented in Eg WeatherAction news no 31 –
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6165
    and the RTV film via
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6173
    Thanks, Piers

  39. ‘…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.”’
    There is no instrument or technique for determining the effect of human activity — it is implied by correlation or by trying to exclude all other known factors which are separately and together causal fallacies (non causa pro causa).
    I’d like to know how Sir Brian thinks the planet can be protected from the Sun’s influences or why it needs that protection.
    Of course, whatever they discover about the effect of solar activity on the climate, nothing prior to c. 1945 can be attributed to fossil fuel use.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global_ff_1751_2006.jpg

  40. Tom in Florida says:
    October 6, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    From many previous threads I was under the impression that Nature published crap. Has this changed?

    Never underestimate the ability of dung to grow things in the dark.

  41. All this wonderful information on global warming baffles me as to why the normal condition for this planet is ice ages. How come they get all that warming information from ice cores tens of thousands of years old?

  42. Although the Sun’s activity declined over this period, the new research shows that it may have actually caused the Earth to become warmer.

    Now isnt this curious. I dunno any of the in and outs of the current science debate over this, but I do know that 100 years ago the solar cycle hypothesis was exactly this.
    A E Douglass invented tree ring analysis in order to show a correlation with 11 year climate cycles. The idea back then was that there were cycles of cooler-wetter to warmer-dryer. The warmer-wetter cycles were ‘optimal’ for high latitudes and the cooler cycles optimal for agriculture on the desert fringes (like the mid-west & middle east). In the 1880s Bruckner found a cycle varying in length from 20 to 50 years. Huntington proposed modulations across the centuries. Douglass was looking for evidence of 11 year cycles with the warmer periods coming in the sunspot minimums. (The science of natural climate variations that was booming back then is now obscured by the predominence of the AGW hypothesis and the history of its discovery – more on this on my latest blog-post, and more to come)

  43. So you now proclaim that the sun has influence on our climate but the opposite effect we are told/know by real data evidence.
    Let me get this right, it now cools us at it’s Max and warms us when it slumbers . Explaining why they see warming from proxies influenced computer models with bad data excluding the suns forces you say it has that aren’t seen in data reality.
    TO summarize, we(they, scientists) who said the sun had no influence on our climate, just AGW CO2 from computer models. Admit that there IS a solar force influencing the earths climate, but in the opposite direction creating heat proving the old model right, though no real data shows this…..
    BWAAHAHAH! LMFAOMFC!!
    But HEY, there is always a made up El Niño/La Niña ace in the hole explaining predictions that don’t quite panout or fit eh? No sun effect there…of course not, sorry, has no effect unless it is what the models say doen’t exist but now say has an influence… saying it doesn’t have a big influence?!?!!!!
    *head explodes
    Same old, same GIGO, trying to explain their belief in creationism/God/flat earth/AGW religion.

  44. So when the sun turns into a red giant I need to buy some furs to keep warm. This makes sense to me and the man in the white coat agreed.

  45. Stephen Wilde says: October 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    “When the sun is more active energy escapes to space faster and the stratosphere cools naturally.”
    Hmm.. The study is just 3 years long, and in the retreating phase of the Sun’s cycle. That would suggest a cooling phase. However, their study points to a warming, which I’d say is likely due to the oceans finally delivering the warming they received several years prior in the sunspot increasing phase.
    Energy will only escape faster if there’s more energy available to begin with. I did read the formula somewhere that it takes some 4x the energy to maintain a heat of double? Correct me if I’m wrong.
    However, it was always previously noted (in the ’70’s, from what I recall my mother teaching me) that more sunspots = more and different radiative energy = more energetic climatic conditions, or more turbulent weather.
    The oceans have a huge part to play in this. Again, my mother told me that when we have a strong El Nino off South America, here in Australia temperature will rise to somewhat above normal.
    The Sun and oceans are often in and out of sync. One will begin an effect and the other will either increase it, nullify it or be completely overshadowed. It must remain clear that the atmosphere simply slows down heat retransmission. If the Sun were to suddenly wink out permanently, the oceans could only keep us above freezing for about a week, considering you could be in a 50C desert during the day, and reach barely above freezing at night. Yes, CO2 isn’t much of a blanket at all.

  46. D. Patterson says:
    October 6, 2010 at 10:30 pm…..
    Another terrific comment.
    This mushroom has now been exposed to the light. “Nature” loves it.
    So this is a truly well fertilized cave offering that may attract future NASSA $’s, but I suspect that it will likely wilt before long. Afterall, it now carries the “no problem” slogan, and people will be looking for the button. And papers like this carry the theme of the button holders. Talk about a backfire with collateral damage.

  47. Piers Corbyn and Stephen Wilde between them have this nailed.
    Thank goodness Piers is around to restore the reputation of the Imperial College Physics Department from the (short term, maybe, simulated, possibility) likes of Joanna Haigh with her 3-year effect study.

  48. “twawki says:
    October 6, 2010 at 8:27 pm
    What about how the previous solar maximum caused greater heat storage in the oceans which takes time to be released. As the sun cools of course there will be a delayed response by the oceans and thus the atmosphere. As the oceans cool (which they are doing) whilst the sun goes on with low activity – then we will see some serious cooling of the atmosphere (based on raw figures of properly calibrated records of course).”
    Exactly, because the solar induced cooling of the atmosphere when the sun is more active allows the jets to shift poleward along with their associated cloud bands to reduce the angle of incidence of solar energy onto the clouds thereby decreasing global albedo for more energy entering the oceans.
    The oceans are always in control as Pamela said but the level of solar activity modulates the oceanic effects from above by varying the upward energy flux to space.

  49. “Phillip Bratby says:
    October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    Piers Corbyn and Stephen Wilde between them have this nailed”
    I don’t (yet) accept Piers’s claims to be able to predict anything other than general trends from changes in the level of solar activity. He doesn’t (yet) follow through the logic of the solar effects to create a general climate overview involving the cyclical swings from MWP to LIA to date.
    There’s a bit of an overlap in the middle but otherwise he and I are on different tracks.

  50. “… Models predict lags of 0–20 years due to the thermal inertia of the climate system [Rind et al., 1999; Schwartz, 2007]. Indeed, comparisons between Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature and solar activity reconstructions revealed lags of 10–30 and 6–12 years for the time periods 1650–1850 and 1610 – 2000, respectively [Waple et al., 2002; Scafetta and West, 2007]. However, sun-climate relationships become weaker over the last millenium. This is due to the fact that in many proxy records influences of other forcings and internal variability (e.g., North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), El Nin ̃o Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and monsoon) become at least temporarily dominant. In addition…”
    Source: http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/Publikationen/analytic/Eichleretal_GRL2009.pdf

  51. Re. “Dennis Sharp says:
    October 6, 2010 at 8:40 pm
    If I remember correctly, the sun’s minimums show correlation with the Maunder and
    Dalton minimums. Can anyone find that graph? That should be a refutation of this 3 year study.”
    –> [while I don’t vouch for all contents and views on sites I may link to for sought info], here’s a couple websites with embedded useful links and various interesting graphs re. the correlation between the sun’s activity and earth climate:
    http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=207
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html
    This one 6MB-download pdf (“Year Without A Summer – A weak solar maximum, a major volcanic eruption, and possibly even the wobbling of the Sun conspired to make the summer of 1816 one of the most miserable ever recorded.”
    by Willie Soon and Steven H.Yaskell; 2003) illustrates the powerful combination of solar and volcanic forcings:
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/GoldbergMay05-d/Summer_of_1816.pdf
    The 3-year study found something that can only get its significance in a much bigger context. Any conclusions would be premature.

  52. Piers Corbyn says:
    October 6, 2010 at 9:28 pm
    ……………..
    I entirely agree with Dr. Corbyn.
    major events on the sun => events in the ionosphere & geomagnetic activity
    => jet stream changes =>
    I would only add that for the long term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field should be factored in.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    P.S.
    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.

    Absolutely. In my day, professors Dr. Leventhal and Dr. Brown taught us the importance of independent thought.

  53. “Energy will only escape faster if there’s more energy available to begin with. I did read the formula somewhere that it takes some 4x the energy to maintain a heat of double? Correct me if I’m wrong.”
    That only applies to simple radiative transfers.
    What we have here is a solar induced change in the speed of the hydrological cycle as the level of solar variability alters the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause.
    That results in changes of upward energy flux from surface to stratosphere partly independent of radiative processes but of course the faster upward flux from surface to tropopause does place more energy at the tropopause so that from there upward the radiative flux has more energy to play with as per your comment.
    As per my hypothesis the relevant other warming is the oceans surface temperatures and not CO2. The entire climate change phenomenon is a result of interplay between bottom up oceanic forcing and top down solar forcing and if CO2 has any effect at all then it will only be an unmeasurable miniscule change to the speed of the hydrological cycle with a miniscule shift of the jets due to faster evaporation at the surface from more downward directed IR.
    That is why the poleward shift of the jets during a period of active sun was always inconsistent with AGW theory. AGW theory in requiring a slowdown of energy transfer from troposphere to stratosphere would require more equatorward jets and a slower hydrological cycle which does not happen. The models reflect that poleward shift but have no means of recognising it as a sign of change in the speed of upward energy transfer because they do not accurately model clouds, convection and the effect of the phase changes of water on a global basis. A critical omission as it now turns out because logic then leads to a change in the sign of the solar effect on the atmosphere being necessary. Just as Dr. Haigh has now discovered with actual measurements.

  54. “The 3-year study found something that can only get its significance in a much bigger context. Any conclusions would be premature.”
    The most relevant ‘cycle’ for us is that 500/1000 year one from MWP to LIA to date. Indiviudual solar cycles are not so significant.
    Taking those longer time scales then of course we do have adequate long term data for the proposed solar effect. Once one reverses the sign of the solar effect on upward energy transfer rates then the whole thing slots into place provided one then adds the oceans as an independent countervailing force.
    Over very long periods the whole thing does even out but if one then takes into account the changing phasing between solar and oceanic effects then one needs to see a couple of glacial/interglacial cycles to see the entire process

  55. vukcevic says:
    October 7, 2010 at 12:08 am
    Agree wrt Imperial College. Since politically driven funding by the likes of Grantham began, you need to look at the source of the funding of any research to determine whether independent thought exists in that research.

  56. For those who think skepticism about (aspects of) climate change and politics is limited to pro-industry right-wing oil folks: not so. I was a member of WWF and Greenpeace for many years, worked for an environmental lobby group, and for years (over a decade ago) I used to be a radical (nonviolent environmental direct action) Earth First!er. Yup: Protester, treesitter, arrests for civil disobedience, the whole nine yards. But, just as did for the issues I spoke up on then, I’ve done my homework, and I think the ONLY legs the stop-emmitting-CO2 alarmists have (if so many weren’t scientifically disturbingly illiterate zealots, that is) is:
    – the precautionary principle (We have no clue whatsoever, but “what if?”)
    – curbing emissions also tackles pollution; Who could be opposed to reducing pollution? I don’t like smog, dead rivers or oily beaches, etc. Haven’t met anyone who does. (But CO2 itself is NOT a pollutant, and the trees I used to occupy would agree with me.)
    Anyhow, given Earth has ample warming room to remain within the temperature fluctuation range of the past one million years (previous interglacials were significantly hotter, if we go by the proxy data), and CO2 might be a side-show of near-irrelevance compared to ocean current dynamics, solar forcing, etc…. tackling pollution is really all that’s really left. (Land use, erosion, biodiversity, indigenous interests, spiritual aspects of our relation to the land, etc. are a whole other matter, though.)
    Here’s a link for laughter in the midst of all the science:

    🙂

  57. Can I again respectuflly suggest that Anthony invites both Stephen Wilde and Vuk to each write a concise self contained article on their respective theories?
    We tend to see only intriguing ‘snapshots’ of their ideas and it would be nice to see these expanded into a coherent theory that could be debated in full on these pages, as they deserve.
    Tonyb

  58. Piers Corbyn ““It’s not solar activity so it must be CO2″ (using its not a dog so it must be a cat, logic).”
    This was exactly what I was thinking. It’s nice to see that the number of climate drivers has been reduced to 2. It’ll be so much easier for the UEA and Hadley Centre to run their models now that they can do away with all that tricky stuff about oceans, clouds and volcanoes to name but three of the things that were previously thought to have had some small part to play.

  59. According to the eurekalert article you quote:
    “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.”
    Perhaps I missed an update along the way, but I thought that the latest results had demonstrated that for SW at least, smoothed solar activity had been *constant* over the 20th century (and hence SW is unlikely to have caused observed temperature changes during the first half of that century). Can anyone set me right?

  60. From the infographic: “Visible light filters through the atmosphere and warms the oceans.”
    Visible light? Sorry, I thought that it was infrared that did the thing…
    I’ll get my coat!

  61. This is the original study (linked to in the article) and it may help discussion if this somewhat dense paper is studied in detail before comments are made, as it greatly expands on the information available.
    https://fileexchange.imperial.ac.uk/files/ed69e40f87b/SIMpaper_5.pdf
    To me the most interesting thing in it were the extensive comments on ozone levels which have stopped declining noticeably since 2000, despite the modelled expectations that they would reduce.
    Qing Bin Lui believed there was a relationship to cosmic rays (and man made Cfc’s).
    http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf
    I’m not sure I saw his recent study at WUWT but it gives a very plausible explanation as to how CFC’s-rather than Co2-was the cause of warming from 1950 to 2000.
    Personally I remain doubtful that we fully know the cause. When asking the Max Planck institute and Cambridge University whether the ozone hole could always have existed and just couldn’t be measured prior to the 1950’s I was told this was ‘possible.’
    Our knowledge of the atmosphere, sun and climate in general is at a far lower level than we believe. Perhaps an update on the status of the hole and the impact of CFC’s on temperatures would be rewarding would be interesting to readers?
    In the meantime further interpretations by the knowledgeable of the original paper about the sun would be worthwhile.
    tonyb

  62. It seems to me that the only purpose of this most probably flawed study is to allow the next IPCC release to say that “however, other proponents think that the solar activity may have actually reduced the warming from GHGs [citation]”, when discussing the sun’s role in Global Warming, in order to reduce the importance of the huge ammount of evidence pointing to the contrary. I may be wrong, of course.

  63. Wow, almost as soon as I started to read this paper my bullshitometer started to twitch…
    “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.”
    Good start, an admission that climate science doesn’t fully understand the influence of the sun on Earth climate. However, the article was a Nature publication well known for it’s pro CAGW stance and it’s poor peer review process regarding pro-CAGW science.
    “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.”
    It starts to get worse. Even a first year student knows that a solar lasts about 22 years, to include the very important polar reversal, not 11 years as quoted in the article.
    The period used in the study was 2004-2007 – just 3 years! How has this got anything to do with climate? Climate has to be measured over at least 30 years (200 years is preferable) to have any meaning.
    “…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…”
    Finally we have the coup de grace…
    NASA data, which has had previous data management problems, was used.
    The rest of the study relies on two computer models. Time and time again computer models have produced results which have no relationship to observational phenomenon.
    Professor Joanna Haigh, the lead author of the study, should be ashamed of herself for producing such a travesty of a paper. Cargo cult science reaches new heights!

  64. rbateman says:

    AJB says:
    October 6, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    There they go again: Without sunlight generated by fusion in the Sun to ostensibly provide the energy that is held by combined elements formed in stellar cores which is released by ignition of biomass from ancient photosynthesis in turn energized by the Sun…
    What was it that the Sun is overestimated to have caused???

    You messed it up so badly! The new research shows that the variations of the Sun output that contribute to the 11-year cycle do not have such a significant effect to explain the changes in the climate.
    Instead of picking this up, you twist and say “Oh, the Sun, we need the Sun otherwise there would be no life on this planet”. Read up again: the new research says that the Sun variations in the output (11-year output) do not have a significant effect on the climate.

  65. Everybody now..
    Cancun, Cabcun, Cancun, Cancun.
    This seems like nothing more than a ‘pick-me-up’/ or a bit of doma paliative care after the hidings of the last year.
    regards

  66. This looks like an attempt to refute the effect of an increasingly powerfull sun in order to add suport to the ‘CO2 causes warming’ theory.
    The graphic also seems to change the understood effect of cosmic rays, saying they cause ionisaiton on the surface of clouds leading to an increase in rainfall. Anyone who has used a cloud chamber to trace the paths of chardged particles will know that cosmic rays actually create coulds and thus by increased albedo cause cooling.

  67. This is so bad as to be almost beyond parody. A huge body of evidence and scientific research shows that the world is warmer when the sun is more active. For example, Lockwood recently showed that when solar activity falls, temperatures on the Earth also fall (he used the 350 year CET record). And yet apparently 3 years of data trump all this. No doubt the period was carefully cherry-picked to give the desired answer.
    Why? Because if a more active sun, as in the 20th Century, actually causes a cooling effect, then it means the warming effect of CO2 was even stronger than previously thought. This is a gift to AGW.
    Sometimes I almost despair. It seems there’s no real evidence-based science anymore. It’s been replaced by propaganda.
    Chris

  68. Hmmm! “we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun’s activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales”. I think I have heard this type of line before. More studies means more grants. Now if they they said the sun probably is the main cause of the surface warming not MM emissions of CO2, do you think they would get money for further research to take them comfortably into retirement.

  69. Tenuc says:
    October 7, 2010 at 1:59 am
    “Cargo cult science reaches new heights!”
    Unless of course they have spotted a real phenomenon ?
    The BS would then only lie in the way they have failed to think it through and produced a load of babble in the process 🙂

  70. “Adrian Mann says:
    October 7, 2010 at 12:58 am
    From the infographic: “Visible light filters through the atmosphere and warms the oceans.”
    Visible light? Sorry, I thought that it was infrared that did the thing…”
    Visible light and solar shortwave goes in up to 200 metres. Infra red gets converted instantly to latent heat via enhanced evaporation for no significant warming effect and possibly a net cooling effect due to evaporation being a net cooling process.

  71. tonyb says:
    October 7, 2010 at 12:40 am
    Tony, mine is already in the archive here and I have a first review in preparation.
    Anthony, could you remind me of your email address so I can send in the review when finished ? I assume you have my email address in your system but I have lost yours in the process of replacing my computer.

  72. Tune in next week to see if they get a grant to study the other 8(+) years of a solar cycle.

  73. Why all the venting over the direct radiation? Didn’t we hear a few years ago that it was the magnetic index that was correlated? I think it was Svendsmark that published the paper showing the connection between Solar magnetic index and cosmic ray incidence, which modulated cloud cover.
    The argument on direct radiation being inadequate to explain the cycles is over 30 years old.

  74. Stephen Wilde says: October 7, 2010 at 12:18 am
    “What we have here is a solar induced change in the speed of the hydrological cycle as the level of solar variability alters the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause.”
    Excellent response. It’s a very chaotic system but several pointers can lead to projection, at least on short time scales of maximum 60 year ocean cycles coupled with 11 year solar cycles. The oceans are definitely a damper with atmosphere having little long-term effect on climate, as differences in ocean temperature will influence weather all the way to the jet stream causing blocking anomalies and such.
    I’d put my money on :
    Milankovitch Cycles (very long term ~ 100Kya) -> Solar activity -> Oceanic oscillations -> Atmospheric climate (weather and climate variability)
    I think they’re correctly ranked in importance, even though they play on each other and at times one or more will outforce the other

  75. “Chris Wright says:
    October 7, 2010 at 3:34 am
    This is so bad as to be almost beyond parody. A huge body of evidence and scientific research shows that the world is warmer when the sun is more active. For example, Lockwood recently showed that when solar activity falls, temperatures on the Earth also fall.”
    Only because with the current phasing of oceanic and solar cycles the oceans tend to be in a warming phase when the sun is active and vice versa. That refers to multicentennial timescales only. There are lots of exceptions on decadal and annual timescales.
    So the active sun ameliorated the warmth that the oceans would otherwise have caused in the MWP and the Current Warm Period and the quiet sun ameliorated the cold that the oceans would otherwise have caused in the LIA.
    That offsetting setup explains the relative stability of climate during an interglacial.
    Over longer periods of time the sun and oceans cycles drift to different phasing so that they more often compound each other’s effects and then one gets much more unstable glacial epochs with much bigger climate swings and a buildup of ice. Add the Milankovitch and other astronomic influences and then you have a pretty complete mechanical system reconciling internal ocean induced system variability with external solar induced variability.

  76. The Grantham Institute has benefitted from extraordinary funding for a marvelous new scientific apparatus. They are now examining climate science through the Looking Glass.
    =====================

  77. “then you have a pretty complete mechanical system reconciling internal ocean induced system variability with external solar induced variability.”
    And all it needed to square the circle was to reverse the sign for the solar effect on the temperatures in the stratosphere which now seems to be supported by satellite based observations.

  78. Stephen Wilde says: October 7, 2010 at 3:42 am
    “Infra red gets converted instantly to latent heat via enhanced evaporation for no significant warming effect and possibly a net cooling effect due to evaporation being a net cooling process.”
    What we must remember, is that latent heat transferred via evaporation can remain in water vapour laden air (incorrectly described here by me) as humidity. Although there may be no initial net loss/gain of energy, there is still more energy incoming and affecting the moisture-laden air without further evaporation or cooling effect, which is (partly) why humid atmosphere is warm, including humid air reducing the ability for further evaporation and cooling effect. Therefore, the “greenhouse effect” is all water vapor, really. That was not very well written because I’m a bit drunk ATM.. 😉
    Thanks for your input. It helped me explain why water vapour IS the “greenhouse gas”.

  79. Stephen Wilde says: October 7, 2010 at 4:05 am
    “Over longer periods of time the sun and oceans cycles drift to different phasing so that they more often compound each other’s effects and then one gets much more unstable glacial epochs with much bigger climate swings and a buildup of ice. Add the Milankovitch and other astronomic influences and then you have a pretty complete mechanical system reconciling internal ocean induced system variability with external solar induced variability.”
    Just what I said earlier – but even better! Well done.

  80. Graeme says:
    October 6, 2010 at 7:32 pm
    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.
    And that is what this study is all about, CO2 being the driver.

  81. The problem with existing climate models:
    Guest post by Stephen Wilde: ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model )
    “If the power input from the sun changes then the effect is simply to speed up or slow down the hydrological cycle.”
    YES! Finally, somebody understands that more energy increases circulation – and climate uncertainty:
    The oceans are an atmosphere and climate system all their own, with energy transfers from ocean floor temps all the way to the surface (our) atmosphere. This “thermohaline” system as we call it, has been little understood. Much like the jet stream above our heads, it has supreme relevance, albeit somewhat slower influence, but its power can’t be negated, for 70% of the planet’s surface is ocean. That’s a massive influence.

  82. How much credence can we place on a press release that states:
    “4. About Imperial College London
    …Since its foundation in 1907, Imperial’s contributions to society have included the discovery of penicillin….”
    This is what Wilkipedia has to say about the discovery of penicillin:
    “Fleming served throughout World War I as a captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and was Mentioned in Dispatches. He and many of his colleagues worked in battlefield hospitals at the Western Front in France. In 1918 he returned to St. Mary’s Hospital, which was a teaching hospital. He was elected Professor of Bacteriology in 1928. …’When I woke up just after dawn on September 28, 1928, I certainly didn’t plan to revolutionise all medicine by discovering the world’s first antibiotic, or bacteria killer,’ Fleming would later say, ‘But I suppose that was exactly what I did.'”
    Fleming published his discovery in 1929, in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, but little attention was paid to his article. Fleming continued his investigations, but found that cultivating penicillium was quite difficult, and that after having grown the mould, it was even more difficult to isolate the antibiotic agent. ..
    Fleming finally abandoned penicillin, and not long after Florey and Chain took up researching and mass producing it with funds from the U.S. and British governments. They started mass production after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. When D-day arrived they had made enough penicillin to treat all the wounded allied forces.
    Ernst Chain worked out how to isolate and concentrate penicillin. He also correctly theorised the structure of penicillin. Shortly after the team published its first results in 1940, Fleming telephoned Howard Florey, Chain’s head of department to say that he would be visiting within the next few days. When Chain heard that he was coming he remarked “Good God! I thought he was dead”.
    Fleming was a Professor at St. Mary’s Hospital and Florey and Chain worked at Oxford University no connection with Imperial College.

  83. Thanks Philip Bratby (Oct 6 11.47pm).
    Further to Oct6th 9.28pm, I should also make clear of course there is Al-Gore-INCONVENIENT-TRUTH-correlation between solar activity and CO2 on time scales of millennia but that shows that Temperatures DRIVE CO2 – the reverse of the warmers’ claim.
    When I was a student and doing research in Imperial evidenced-based science WAS at the fore; now however it appears spin rules.
    Re Stephen Wilde all talk of Ocean feedbacks etc is important but they are NOT the cause of climate change. They ARE climate change. Our task is to identify the drivers – and that is NOT CO2 but, evidence shows, solar activity modulated by lunar effects.
    Forget about if one knows or doesn’t know how it all works. Many things – like eggs (but not oval shaped stones) turn into chickens (mostly) even if we don’t know why or how. LOOK at the evidence:- We predicted that solar activity would drive last gasps and then the termination of the West Russian Heat wave and the Pakistan super-deluges and you can SEE the chain of events from double-sunspot flares to the events we predicted from a long time ahead where and when we said:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6165
    And for discussion with Stephen Wilde please see COMMENTS in
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=5
    Cheers Piers

  84. Piers Corbyn says:
    October 7, 2010 at 5:27 am
    Our task is to identify the drivers…
    That´s it, precisely, not to get lost in a sea of multiplicity and complexity, in local details and peculiarities (“the devil is in the details”-that´s the work of technicians, when they have to apply the particularities to solve an specific case), but to find the general laws that govern our universe is the duty of man. This is the way of the philosopher: He who wants to know the truth.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
    So, the Sun would be a regular manifesting source if not interferred and modulated by other sources, as you mention is the case of the Moon.

  85. The data used in the study are “cherry picked”, I think. Everybody can check it out here:
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html .
    If you select 700nm (visible light) you get this plot:
    http://www.dh7fb.de/tornado/spektrumlicht.gif .
    You can see an increase from 2004 to 2007 indeed… and a return after 2004 to now. If they had used all the available data… the paper would have another message.
    So we can see: it’s not the lack of data… 😉

  86. and is the suns factor greater then the .0002 of Co2 I wonder 🙂
    I also noted they put the details in to an aready created Model..
    what model? I feel curious to know.

  87. Vukcevic said in reply to me
    “October 7, 2010 at 4:45 am
    Hi Tony
    Mr Wild is welcome to it. I don’t mind occasionally being shot at, but facing whole firing squad, no thanks.
    However, here is something of interest
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Mc.htm
    that the established science may have to reconsider.”
    You are a wise man-they can be a tough audience here but you would be allowed to wear a blindfold 🙂
    tonyb

  88. “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.”
    Actually it shows that the role of other factors is enhanced and that need not be CO2 or GHGs. The oceans are themselves carrying out the same function as GHGs in the air by slowing the release of incoming solar energy back to space.
    The temperature of the troposphere is barely influenced at all by the air. That temperature is almost entirely set by all that water due to it’s hugely greater density and heat carrying capability.
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487&linkbox=true&position=3
    “The Hot Water Bottle Effect”.
    and:
    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.”
    from here:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=4
    “Greenhouse Confusion Resolved”.

  89. “How would the CFC theory fit into all this? (see my 12.40 am that you have already referenced)
    tonyb”
    Hi Tony,
    It suggests that the entire process is entirely natural with the CFC and CO2 propositions being red herrings at best.

  90. 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
    Ha, Ha!….then if we were at a Maunder like minimum the world will be set on fire!
    Fixed it!, we go to Cancun!

  91. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 7, 2010 at 6:59 am
    Japanese philosophers advice: “Cold heads, warm feet”, however these guys follow the contrary principle: “Hot heads, cold feet”. It is not only a matter of teaching them your “Hot Water Bottle Effect”(HWBE) but also teach them where to put the hot water bottle on.

  92. Cool, flamboyant, nice, beautiful, intellectual, gays, free thinkers, artist, poets, nature lovers, charming atheists, Gaia lovers, haters of those nasty and decadent people who work for a living, sons and daughters of Mommy and Daddy, equally qualified and selected people; summarizing: “They”

  93. Enneagram says:
    October 7, 2010 at 7:40 am
    the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true —–
    Ha, Ha!….then if we were at a Maunder like minimum the world will be set on fire!

    The world would both freeze and be set on fire (freezer burn). Remember, the theme now is Climate Disruption.

  94. This has been picked up by today’s Daily Express “SOLAR PROBE WARMS HOPES OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS”
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/203989/Solar-probe-warms-hopes-of-climate-change-sceptics
    An interesting and common sense comment is my by Lord Monckton:-
    “You really have to look at a much bigger time-scale, not just three years. But we know there’s a very close correlation between changes in temperature of the earth’s surface and solar activity.”
    Lord Monckton added: “The conclusion this report comes to is consistent with the growing movement among solar physicists that the sun has a much greater effect on climate change than the straight-forward measurable changes in its output would lead us to suspect.”

    The sun drives climate by many different energy transfer processes, which are inextricably to the Earth/Moon and the rest of the solar system. Climate is simply the long term average (200y) of our (poorly) observed weather and out comes depend on the inherent deterministic chaos which drives this complex, interlinked, turbulent system.

  95. Piers Corbyn says: October 7, 2010 at 5:27 am
    When I was a student and doing research in Imperial evidenced-based science WAS at the fore; now however it appears spin rules.
    Hi Piers
    I was doing applied acoustics there in the early 70s; to paraphrase old prof. Leventhal: ‘science is built on reasoning of an individual’, or something like that.

  96. All you folks are thinking yourselves into a puddle of mush. The earth heats up when people get fat. Fat people absorb more solar energy than skinny people. The effect is multiplied when fat people wear dark clothing (typically black) which tends to camouflage their girth. Al Gore should be required to wear a white sheet during daylight hours.
    Claude Harvey

  97. “The Sun’s activity has recently affected the Earth’s atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways,…..”
    So…according the way this article is written, this hasn’t happened before? Never? Ever?

  98. As solar activity waned at the end of one of the Sun’s 11-year cycles, the new data show the amount of energy reaching the Earth at visible wavelengths rose rather than fell.
    Well, the Sun has a much larger spectrum than merely “visible wavelengths”

  99. Piers Corbyn says:
    October 7, 2010 at 5:27 am
    Thanks Philip Bratby (Oct 6 11.47pm).
    Piers, you obviously don’t remember, but I was in the same physics year as you at Imperial (65 to 68).
    Cheers, Phil

  100. vukcevic says:
    October 7, 2010 at 8:46 am
    Leventhal: ‘science is built on reasoning of an individual’
    [sarc on]That is quite an antidemocratic thought; wasn’t it that “folklore” is the wisdom of the masses. Wow!, you look like a retrograde conservative [sarc/off]
    Really, information being a quantity cannot be democratically distributed.

  101. Anthony,
    Where you normally place things very well in perspective, to my knowledge, you make a mistake here in the intro. The article in New Scientist talks about the ways in which the sun’s activity affects the earth’s temperature. More activity gives higher temperatures. The new article in Nature is exactly the opposite. More activity gives lower temperatures on earth. The only thing that is the same in both articles is that prof Joanna D. Haigh is one of the authors. The new article will fuel the thoughts that the sun has played no role in the warming at the end of the last century and it is going around the globe now at record speed.
    To me it is counter intuitive but it is quite a piece of independent thinking and as such worth more study.

  102. Actually, the REAL trick here is to not measure sunspots or whatever, but SIMPLY measure sun’s intensity at ground level. This change could be soot, change in cloud cover, change orbit or yes a change in the sun’s output (it will not matter what changed, but just that you measure at ground level).
    In the following short video, towards the end, this sun’s intensity issue is mentioned, and it leaves VERY little energy left over for co2. Taking just 35% of this intensity means IPCC numbers for co2 are off by 500%, and taking much above 40% leaves NO ROOM for man’s co2.
    Measuring sun’s intensify at ground level is likely the key to this whole issue.



    Measuring intensity at ground level is VERY much being avoided by mainstream climate scientists.

  103. On one or two occasions in the past I questioned reconstruction of 10Be data.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-McC.htm
    Now I think I have for the first time good 10Be data for the Dalton minimum period (not aware of existence anywhere else!).
    I am aware that this is going against accepted wisdom that the Dalton minimum was period of ‘very low’ solar activity. My permanent ‘adversary’ Dr. Svalgaard has for some time advocated the idea that this was not entirely correct. I found myself in an odd situation that now my own work indicates that he could be correct.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mc.htm
    In the above graph, from the suspect McCracken data, by subtracting raw data for NAP (North Atlantic precursor, I mentioned on the WUWT before), I obtained 10Be graph which is relatively flat bar SC7, where there is a bit of a gap in my NAP data
    p.s. I do not expect Dr.S’s agreement on this, let alone praise.

  104. I am awaiting , probably still this month just before the us mid-term elections the continuation of this study , more a political pamphlet that the sun is cooling earth , even as a joke it is making you cry , that all warming is due to increasing carbondioxide levels . Yeah , the sun would only help us freeze to death . So carbondioxide is so powerful that a new ice-age would be out of the question . Would not everybody be happy to hear this . The proven scientific discussion is starting to get real interesting nowadays .

  105. Chris Wright says:
    October 7, 2010 at 3:34 am
    This is so bad as to be almost beyond parody. A huge body of evidence and scientific research shows that the world is warmer when the sun is more active. For example, Lockwood recently showed that when solar activity falls, temperatures on the Earth also fall (he used the 350 year CET record). And yet apparently 3 years of data trump all this. No doubt the period was carefully cherry-picked to give the desired answer.
    Why? Because if a more active sun, as in the 20th Century, actually causes a cooling effect, then it means the warming effect of CO2 was even stronger than previously thought. This is a gift to AGW.
    Sometimes I almost despair. It seems there’s no real evidence-based science anymore. It’s been replaced by propaganda.
    Chris
    It is well known that the UK education system has been dumbed down over recent years, I had not realised how dumbed down it had become.

  106. Some contributors seem not to realise that the effect described is limited initially to the stratosphere and mesosphere.
    The temperature of the entire climate system including the oceans and troposphere is not immediately affected and initially, if ocean cycles are favourable, the temperature of the troposphere may indeed move in the opposite direction to that of the stratosphere.
    The real effect follows on some time later as the changed temperature at the tropopause changes air circulation positioning to shift the rest of the globe fitfully with many stops and starts between net warming and net cooling.
    Because the oceans are so powerful the short term effects are small and chaotic. It takes a century or more for solar induced changes to become significant. Say 0.7C per century or whatever it is we have observed and even the bulk of that would be ocean induced. The ocean cycles seem to take 1000 to 1500 years as energy moves along the horizontal track of the thermohaline circulation.

  107. Robuk says:
    October 7, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    This is a gift to AGW.. Yes this is. The truth is, as it has been pointed out many times here in WUWT, that cooling precisely began when there was the big 97-98 El Nino, just because that was energy being emitted from the warmer sea waters to the cooler atmosphere, and it has not stopped until now when we are at a La Nina, when it is suppose the cold sea waters are ready and prepared to be warmed up again, however, this time, we are having a Sun that apparently caught the AH1N1 virus and it is not strong enough to give us a decent El Nino after the next NH winter (SH summer to warm waters up).

  108. Piers Corbyn was a very active Imperial College Students Union President when I was there 1969-71. I am quite disgusted to find that Imperial College now has a Climate Change research unit that seems to be a propaganda arm of the UK government. Now independent of London University, it used to be a world-renowned institution. Incidentally Brian Hoskins was mentioned quite freqently in Clinategate emails.

  109. Is it the case that all the current climate models contain provision for a climate forcing component for human CO2 and CFCs ?
    I seem to recall that that was deemed necessary to explain the unexpected cooling of the stratosphere when the sun was more active.
    Now it seems that Joanna has observed that a more active sun may be enough to cause the observed stratospheric cooling on it’s own, exactly as often proposed by me.
    So every model must have the anthropogenic forcing assumptions stripped out, be recalibrated with the newly found solar effect and re run on that basis.
    I think that is pretty devastating is it not ?
    In one innocent sounding paper Joanna has removed the legs from under every current climate model and climate theory except mine.
    Back to the drawing board chaps. No policy decisions are now possible in the light of this fundamental reordering.

  110. Read this a few hours ago but was busy on other things, (communicating with R. North, & NotoO2.org, some other stuff too,) but my immediate thought was, ‘Oh NO, it’s worse than we thought!
    DaveE.

  111. Stephen Wilde wrote: “Because the oceans are so powerful the short term effects are small and chaotic. It takes a century or more for solar induced changes to become significant.”
    The lag between solar variations and ocean lag is approximately 3 months. It’s visible in the seasonal cycle of SST.

  112. “The lag between solar variations and ocean lag is approximately 3 months. It’s visible in the seasonal cycle of SST”.
    Apples and pears, Bob. You’ll be asking me to consider diurnal variations next.
    I call the seasonal changes small compared to the changes from MWP to LIA to date.
    I regard the changes caused by individual solar events within a single year as chaotic and even smaller. Only on a multidecadal basis does the underlying signal start to emerge and on a multicentennial basis it becomes clear enough to anyone prepared to see what is in front of their noses.
    It is the major long term background trends and the timing of changes in those trends that I am concerned with. I have tried to get you to look at the broader long term picture several times already but you told me you have no interest in that and I accept your decision.

  113. Sounds to me like this paper is actually setting the stage for hedging their bets in preparation for the possibility of an up and coming cooling phase… ie: the next solar cycle is expected to be a strong one, so hence they’ll be able to say that the “temporary” cooling glitch is “explained” via the sun.
    The exact same way they’ve hedged their bets with : drought/rain, more storms/less storms, more snow/less snow, extreme heat/extreme cold, etc etc.
    The IPCC credits ONLY solar irradiance in the AR4… meanwhile solar physicists understand there’s a hell of a lot more to solar output than just that. These guys are just simply trying to now slip the physics in under the radar in baby steps.
    Watch and see how some of these solar physics will be accounted for in the IPCC’s AR5 (in the ‘uncertainties’ section)… I don’t know about you guys, but I’ll be laughing my butt off watching the IPCC try to play catch up with real science – otherwise known as, physics.
    Pass the popcorn.

  114. “Toto says:
    October 7, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    See Nigel Calder’s response to the Nature paper
    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/sun-cools-how-daft/
    Sun cools? How daft!”
    Our Nige regaled us all with a horrendously alarmist TV tirade about the coming new ice age back in the 70s so I don’t listen to him much.
    In this case he is one of those who have read Joanna’s observations about effects in the upper atmosphere as a comment about the energy content of the Earth system as a whole.
    The active sun does not cool the entire system in a fast acting process. It just alters the temperature at the tropopause which strengthens or weakens the temperature inversion and that affects the latitudinal position of the air circulation systems with certain climate consequences.
    All it does, therefore is slightly modulate the rate of energy loss to space thus in turn modulating the climate effect of the primary driver of change which appears to be ocean oscillations.
    So called Bond Events occur every 1500 years or so and that equates nicely to the length of time water takes to travel the length of the thermohaline circulation which is estimated at 1000 to 1500 years.
    In changing the rate of energy loss to space and shifting the jetstreams those solar changes also alter global albedo via a shift in cloud band positioning.
    That affects the rate at which energy enters the oceans and then the thermohaline circulation.
    So the solar changes set up a series of pulses of water with slightly differing temperatures along the line of the thermohaline circulation and 1000 to 1500 years later those pulses resurface again, modify the climate and in turn that oceanic climate modification is itself affected by whatever level of activity the sun happens to be displaying at the time.
    It may only be a hypothesis at this stage but the observations from Jo Haigh make it all a lot more likely to be true. I needed her confirmation of the sign of the solar effect on the atmosphere to verify my earlier proposition that currently solar events mostly offset oceanic events rather than compounding them.

  115. I must stop right now and clear up some statements I made here on WUWT way back in last winter. On some story of the sun’s influence on the climate I stated that this minimum if real would likely last to 209x something and even made some remarks about the likely repeat near mid 2390’s.
    MVB just placed some links to some very interesting articles and papers and one by Willie Soon, physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Steven H. Yaskell, Ericsson Radio Systems in Sweden titled “Year with out a Summer” (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/GoldbergMay05-d/Summer_of_1816.pdf) rather startled me. Within the text I came across the same dates and at first thought they might just have read my statements here. Silly me. It was written in 2003 so I must tell everyone that my research pointing to those dates did not come form their paper and had nothing to do with the center of mass inertia as they were questionably mentioning of all possibilities. It is curious though how those dates fall so very close to each other. That is interesting and deserves some deeper peering.
    My study has been more on solar harmonics. Since my major was physiology I have study an incredible number of wave or harmonic functions from most areas of any living creature. Why do these processes exist? It’s physics at the lowest level. This is one area I can say a rather firm ‘belief’ in. I don’t care if you are speaking of the universe, a galaxy, solar system, or the bodies that form them, there is always many harmonic processes in play. Many are like clockwork, the tides, the seasons, the diurnal cycle, on larger to the Milankovitch cycles.
    These are all real with real physics reasons for their cyclic nature and that is the only one’s I will even consider real. Cycles have gotten a bad rap due to the millions of different cycles you can create, especially now with a computer on your desk, that have no proven effect and no physics behind the cause. Those are out of my realm and the one I’m about to describe might fall right in that basket.
    Some cycles, as volcano’s eruptions or tropical storms that though we know the physics behind the cause, there are too many unknown or poorly measured parameters to ever get an remotely real answer let alone predict them. Others are accurate to a very fine factor as the tides.
    But it seems real to know that our sun, inherently simple in principle, being a ball of gases with a fusion reactor at it’s core has some internal cyclic processes in play. Everyone knows of the 11 year cycle. But there are deeper cycles and overlying harmonics that vary from about two years to four hundred years to take one beat or cycle best I can tell. Overlay this with the fact that the internal heat takes a long, long time to reach the surface which smoothes any sharp divisions you would see if deep within and near the fusion core.
    I’m going to throw some results I have come up with and any solar physicist that want to delve deeper or just keep in the back of your mind to help me see if this is real or not, have at it. Seems there is a sub-harmonic or beat of some 2.776 years the best I can compute it beginning in September 1699. This beat is not always in phase with the realized cycle we see in the sunspot counts as a proxy to the magnetic activity. This misalignment might have something to do with these periods of extreme suppression (grand minimums) or enhancement (super maximums) in the magnetic or thermal activity. And if you have not multiplied, four of these beats are 11.1 years or the established 11 year cycle.
    One thing I have noticed though is these beats tend to fall nearly exactly on the edges (mid of last maximum and next minimum) between all major transition as out of Maunder, into and out of the Dalton period or in mid-1936 that began the grand maximum period we just exited from or January 2008 when the sun went quiet. If you average all 28 past 11 year cycles since 1700 that puts an average length at 11.107 years. It also places one of these divisions at the end of September 2010, could be extra active, totally quite, or anything in between. I simply don’t know. Need some physics and observation help.
    Well, there it is, there have been 112 of these beats between September 1699 and September 2010 and I simply don’t know why they seem to be there with some possible physics behind them. If not, they are just another curiosity. BTW, within these beat’s harmonics there seems to be major ones falling within months of 1711, 1811, 1911, 201? which prompted my extension to 209? and the perk-up of the sun again and if the 400 years is cyclical holds, 239?. Of course, this is if the sun does actually have deep regular cycles in it’s convection layer and/or the core.
    So Drs Soon and Yaskell, I didn’t mean to appear that I was merely taking your numbers from your paper and merely posting here as mine.
    If any real science could emerge from WUWT, that would be so fantastic! (but it has to be real, and proper)

  116. vukcevic says:
    October 7, 2010 at 4:45 am
    Hi Tony
    Mr Wild is welcome to it. I don’t mind occasionally being shot at, but facing whole firing squad, no thanks.
    giggling..
    Where is the interstellar background in all this.. well Carla it isn’t mentioned. But.. why not? They keep talking about cosmic rays like some how these cosmic rays are evenly distrubted in the interstellar regions around the solar system. Must be there is no interstellar background.. what are you talking about?
    An even distribution of cosmic rays on all time scales modulated by solar cycles..hahahhahahhaha
    Are you happy now? .. yes thank you. And a Happy Friday to all.

  117. Stephen Wilde replied, “I call the seasonal changes small compared to the changes from MWP to LIA to date.”
    Really? Show me a graph of Northern Hemisphere SST anomalies from the MWP to the LIA to date that shows a 4.5 deg C swing. That’s the seasonal variation. And it only lags by a few months:
    http://i51.tinypic.com/8yyez5.jpg
    You wrote, “Only on a multidecadal basis does the underlying signal start to emerge and on a multicentennial basis it becomes clear enough to anyone prepared to see what is in front of their noses.”
    Please feel free to link data or a study that confirms your claim, “Because the oceans are so powerful the short term effects are small and chaotic. It takes a century or more for solar induced changes to become significant.”
    This multicentennial ocean lag you claim was the common misunderstanding during the 1980s and early 1990s. Are you attempting to resurrect it again?
    Again, it appears that if your model fails to work on an annual to decadal basis, you proclaim multidecadal of centennial timescales–timescales for which there is no data to confirm or refute your claims. Interesting the way your model works.

  118. Bob,
    The solar effect is slow and gradual over a 1000 year cycle or more with much variability along the way. The issue of short term lagging effects is not relevant on such timescales and in any event I have already often proposed a high degree of independence in the long term ocean cycles that overrides the issue of lags.
    The only multicentennial lag that I have proposed is that a period of high solar activity moves the jets poleward to allow more energy into the oceans and then that pulse travels the length of the thermohaline circulation to emerge 1000 to 1500 years later when it’s climate effects are themselves modified by the state of the sun at that time
    The total temperature swing over the period is not as large as you say the seasonal swing is but it is far larger in terms of accumulation and dissipation of total ocean heat content. The main effect on climate is not from a large change in the temperature of the entire system but lies in the latitudinal position of the jets relative to the regions below them. The system works to smooth out variability in total system energy content and is very effective at doing so.
    We are not discussing comparable phenomena. Apples and Pears.

  119. tonyb says:
    October 8, 2010 at 3:12 am
    See also my jont article here which found a sine like wave pattern

    Tony, I do remember your article. A very good analysis, that pattern is there. I wish our records went a bit further back and you might find that the cool/warm cycle you showed reaches all the way back to the Maunder period. It’s amazing that this ringing is very close to one hundred years as nine times 11.x years, and the fourth back was the Maunder period with little activity at all. I can’t seem to answer it. Is the next four hundred back the dark ages cooling, was it also a grand minimum with the medieval warming in between? it would take someone with more records into the past than I can find.
    Your right about a blog, sometimes I feel like a snail, seems by the time you get the time, read all of the links, and write something back of any depth everyone has left the thread, oh well. Just wanted the chance to get a thought out there that has been bugging me for nearly a year now. This record from the sun has something like a ringing overtone imprinted over the eleven year pattern but I know little of proper harmonic analysis, just reaching for some help. Possibly three or more longer and longer term sinusoidal processes and we just see in the combination in the activity, for one in the sunspot records.

  120. It seems the inverse sign problem is indeed one of Houston proportions as Gavin admits
    What is a surprise is that for the visible wavelengths, SIM seems to suggest that the irradiance changes are opposite in sign to the changes in the TSI. To be clear, while the TSI has decreased since 2003 (as part of the descent into the current solar minimum), SIM seems to indicate that the UV decreases are much larger than expected, while irradiance in visible bands has actually increased! This is counter to any current understanding of what controls irradiance on solar cycle timescales.
    What are the implications of such a phenomena? Well, since the UV portion of the solar input is mostly absorbed in stratosphere, it is the visible and near-IR portions of the irradiance change that directly influence the lower atmosphere. Bigger changes in the UV also imply bigger changes in stratospheric ozone and temperature, and this influences the tropospheric radiative forcing too. Indeed, according to Haigh’s calculations, the combination of the two effects means that the net radiative forcing at the tropopause is opposite in sign to the TSI change. So during a solar minimum you would expect a warmer surface!
    Much of the longer term variance in solar output has been hypothesised to follow what happens over the solar cycle and so if verified, this result would imply that all current attributions to solar variability of temperature changes in the lower atmosphere and surface ocean would be of the wrong sign. Mechanisms elucidated in multiple models from multiple groups would no longer have any validity. It would be shocking stuff indeed.
    Conceivably, there might be another missing element (such as a cosmic-ray/cloud connection) that would counteract this physics and restore the expected sign of the change, but no-one has succeeded in finding any mechanism that would quantitatively give anything close the size of effect that would now be required

  121. Stephen Wilde wrote, “The solar effect is slow and gradual over a 1000 year cycle or more with much variability along the way.”
    Again, I will ask for documentation of this lag that you now claim is as long as or longer than 1000 years. Seems as though your ocean lag is growing with every reply on this thread, Stephen.

  122. The issue of the correct sign for the solar effect on stratospheric temperatures is now gaining some momentum so let me try to share my reasoning in terms that are as simple as possible because I’m not currently aware of anyone else who figured it out before Joanna’s findings came to light.
    i) I noted the poleward drift of the jets throughout the late 20th Century warming spell and on the face of it that was consistent with a warming troposphere. Clearly a warmer troposphere would invigorate the hydrological cycle and push the jets poleward and AGW theory recognised that with the models supporting just such a poleward shift. Indeed that poleward shift was supposed to be accompanied by a tropospheric hot spot as the enhanced upward energy flux was then constrained by extra GHGs so that the ‘surplus’ energy was retained in the troposphere and thereby denied to the stratosphere which then cooled as per observations and despite the ‘normal’ warming of the stratosphere that would otherwise have been expected from the highly active sun at the time. So far so good.
    ii) But then around 2000 I noted that the jets had started moving equatorward again and no one said anything about it. To my mind that broke the expected (AGW) pattern and I was puzzled so I watched and thought and read but no one ever picked up on the point and not being a climate professional and being otherwise occupied in earning a living I did not raise the issue with anyone.
    iii) Then the AGW thing reached a crescendo with Al Gore’s film and I felt that something was not right and started participating on the blogs.
    iv) It soon became clear to me that the essential point was being missed by everyone, AGW proponents and sceptics alike. That is, if the poleward jets represent a faster hydrological cycle with energy being propelled upward faster yet no tropospheric hotspot where the energy is being backed up then how the hell can anyone assert that the energy being supplied to the stratosphere from below has been reduced by the presence of more CO2 in the troposphere. If anything the poleward shift of the jets inevitably implies that more CO2 results in energy being propelled upward faster not slower and of course that would be consistent with the observation that more downward IR from any additional CO2 gets converted instantly into latent heat by enhanced evaporation to be released higher up when condensation occurs. So for AGW theory to have been correct we would have to have seen that hot spot at the top of the troposphere and the presence of that hotspot would have prevented the jets moving poleward, indeed it should have sent them equatorward instead because it would have had the same effect as a reduction of the height of the tropopause and an enhancement of the intensity of the tropopause.
    v) So if the stratosphere was not being cooled by a dearth of energy from below it must be cooling from an even greater increase of energy flowing upward.
    vi) Joanna Haigh’s observations, if verified, prove that to be the case. Thus AGW theory collapses totally and we have to dump all existing climate models and theories except mine which is the only hypothesis that anticipated those observations and accommodates them in the overall narrative.
    At the base of all this is the simple failure of anyone to note the start of the equatorward shift in the jets around 2000. Everything I say is a simple logical extrapolation from what should have been the obvious implications of that change in trend as regards jetstream behaviour . The climate establishment clearly took it’s eye off the ball and has led us a merry dance for at least ten years.
    It is for others to decide whether there has been fraud or simply gross negligence.

  123. “Bob Tisdale says:
    October 8, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Stephen Wilde wrote, “The solar effect is slow and gradual over a 1000 year cycle or more with much variability along the way.”
    Again, I will ask for documentation of this lag that you now claim is as long as or longer than 1000 years. Seems as though your ocean lag is growing with every reply on this thread, Stephen”
    Please stop wasting my time.

  124. The issue of the correct sign for the solar effect on stratospheric temperatures is now gaining some momentum so let me try to share my reasoning in terms that are as simple as possible because I’m not currently aware of anyone else who figured it out before Joanna’s findings came to light.
    i) I noted the poleward drift of the jets throughout the late 20th Century warming spell and on the face of it that was consistent with a warming troposphere. Clearly a warmer troposphere would invigorate the hydrological cycle and push the jets poleward and AGW theory recognised that with the models supporting just such a poleward shift. Indeed that poleward shift was supposed to be accompanied by a tropospheric hot spot as the enhanced upward energy flux was then constrained by extra GHGs so that the ‘surplus’ energy was retained in the troposphere and thereby denied to the stratosphere which then cooled as per observations and despite the ‘normal’ warming of the stratosphere that would otherwise have been expected from the highly active sun at the time. So far so good.
    ii) But then around 2000 I noted that the jets had started moving equatorward again and no one said anything about it. To my mind that broke the expected (AGW) pattern and I was puzzled so I watched and thought and read but no one ever picked up on the point and not being a climate professional and being otherwise occupied in earning a living I did not raise the issue with anyone.
    iii) Then the AGW thing reached a crescendo with Al Gore’s film and I felt that something was not right and started participating on the blogs.
    iv) It soon became clear to me that the essential point was being missed by everyone, AGW proponents and sceptics alike. That is, if the poleward jets represent a faster hydrological cycle with energy being propelled upward faster yet no tropospheric hotspot where the energy is being backed up then how the hell can anyone assert that the energy being supplied to the stratosphere from below has been reduced by the presence of more CO2 in the troposphere. If anything the poleward shift of the jets inevitably implies that more CO2 results in energy being propelled upward faster not slower and of course that would be consistent with the observation that more downward IR from any additional CO2 gets converted instantly into latent heat by enhanced evaporation to be released higher up when condensation occurs. So for AGW theory to have been correct we would have to have seen that hot spot at the top of the troposphere and the presence of that hotspot would have prevented the jets moving poleward, indeed it should have sent them equatorward instead because it would have had the same effect as a reduction of the height of the tropopause and an enhancement of the intensity of the tropopause.
    v) So if the stratosphere was not being cooled by a dearth of energy from below it must be cooling from an even greater increase of energy flowing upward.
    vi) Joanna Haigh’s observations, if verified, prove that to be the case. Thus AGW theory collapses totally and we have to dump all existing climate models and theories except mine which is the only hypothesis that anticipated those observations and accommodates them in the overall narrative.
    At the base of all this is the simple failure of anyone to note the start of the equatorward shift in the jets around 2000. Everything I say is a simple logical extrapolation from what should have been the obvious implications of that change in trend as regards jetstream behaviour . The climate establishment clearly took it’s eye off the ball and has led us a merry dance for at least ten years.
    It is for others to decide whether there has been fraud or simply gross negligence.

  125. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 8, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    ………………………………………………………..
    As i have watched the weather patterns change over the last three or four years I was astounded that the diminished size and speed of the equatorial streams was mirrored in the polar jets size increases and depth of penetration of the equatorial regions. As the Globe begins to cool from diminished solar output in the UV/IR bands and magnetic waves (Solar Wind) is diminished, how does the earths own magnetic fields shift?
    i would suppose they would expand at the equatorial regions and thin at the polar. this would cause the advanced cooling in high latitudes which in turn would drive the temperature imbalance as the cause for the change in heat distribution.
    the weighting factors on the teeter toter have changed.. and the Sun is the master of the weight…
    Is this a correct path of explanation?

  126. Bill H
    You’ve got the basic essentials but I’m not sure that it is necessary to invoke a shift in magnetic fields though such shifts may occur.
    The observed effects seem to be adequately explained by differential heating effects and a combination of fluid dynamics with radiative characteristics.
    Still, I’m open to suggestions and some are very keen on magnetic explanations. Generally though I share Leif Svalgaards view that the effects would be too small.

Comments are closed.