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
“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.
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.
Tune in next week to see if they get a grant to study the other 8(+) years of a solar cycle.
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.
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
“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.
The Grantham Institute has benefitted from extraordinary funding for a marvelous new scientific apparatus. They are now examining climate science through the Looking Glass.
=====================
“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.
Well at least someone main stream (Sorry Antony you know what i mean i hope) has picked this up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1318425/Suns-impact-climate-change-overestimated-new-study-claims.html
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”.
Stephen Wilde
Is this it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
So you decide to post an articl;e on the day I go away abroad for two weeks? 🙂
How would the CFC theory fit into all this? (see my 12.40 am that you have already referenced)
tonyb
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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… 😉
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.
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
“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”.
“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.
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!
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.