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
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.
“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.
“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.
“… 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
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.
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.
Nature magazine finally admits it’s the sun, stupid.
Oh, wait…
“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.
“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
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.
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:
🙂
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
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.
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?
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!
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
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.
Christopher Hanley says:
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
I think my version of the CO2 correlation could be a bit more telling:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 🙂