From C3 headlines – Scientists Say Norwegian Sea Research Confirms Large, Robust Solar Impact On Temperatures
Read here. Map source here. (click on image to enlarge)
There are multiple factors that affect both regional and global temperatures, but the most important source of long-term temperature change is solar activity. Using data from the Norwegian Sea and multiple solar proxies, the peer-reviewed research by Sejrup et al. confirms a robust and synchronous correlation between solar activity and temperatures.
Note: This research was conducted and completed without the use of magical “hockey stick” science and statistics, perfected by Penn State University personnel.
“…worked with two sediment cores they extracted from the seabed of the eastern Norwegian Sea, developing a 1000-year proxy temperature record “based on measurements of δ18O in Neogloboquadrina pachyderma, a planktonic foraminifer that calcifies at relatively shallow depths within the Atlantic waters of the eastern Norwegian Sea during late summer,” which they compared with the temporal histories of various proxies of concomitant solar activity…..This work revealed, as the seven scientists describe it, that “the lowest isotope values (highest temperatures) of the last millennium are seen ~1100-1300 A.D., during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and again after ~1950 A.D.” In between these two warm intervals, of course, were the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age, when oscillatory thermal minima occurred at the times of the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer and Wolf solar minima, such that the δ18O proxy record of near-surface water temperature was found to be “robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium,” with decade- to century-scale temperature variability of 1 to 2°C magnitude.” [Sejrup, H. P., S. J. Lehman, H. Haflidason, D. Noone, R. Muscheler, I. M. Berstad, and J. T. Andrews 2010: J. Geophys. Res]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Frostbite says:
March 24, 2011 at 5:47 am
Then, paleomagnetism could it be a better “proxy”? ……
One of the possibilities in case of the Arctic area.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
On the other hand, professional scientists have different view
If you can’t prove this with actual observational data, The past correlation of two or more proxies add nothing.
Get some proof of causation for the proxies.
steven mosher says:
March 23, 2011 at 11:29 pm
“…Also, folks note that they are talking about a LOCAL effect. and further the solar component only explains a fraction of the response, albeit substantial. The fact that they find a dynamical response in N latitude SST, doesn’t motivate a similar conclusion for the ROW…”
However, it is probable that changes in weather regime in the NH subarctic zone is a key precursor for global climate change.
richard.
“I would have preferred to calibrated the dates and constructed the age-depth model constructed using a Bayesian deposition model (for example in OXCAL), but the results would probably be little different.”
I wasnt able to look at the full paper, But recalled an interesting presentation at AGU WRT wiggle matching and carbon dating.. err memory is failing me now but it was showing a preference for a baysian approach over the wiggle matching.
Leif says
“So, perhaps there is correlation of climate with climate to some extent.”
That’s funny or should that be disheartening!
Leif do you know roughly the centennial scale variation in TSI from the Hoyt and Schatten reconstruction, I can’t access the full paper? Also why is it still so popular? Alot of publication even now are using it to compare with climate reconstructions. There seem to be many newer TSI reconstructions (persumably with much lower TSI variation assuming you’re going to tell me the variation is high in H&S). Is it used because it basically ‘works’ when it comes to telling a neat story? I imagine a just right solar influence helps with the present AGW theory, too high or too low and you have to start think hard about things?
HR says:
March 24, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I can’t access the full paper?
Here it is: http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf
The actual values can be found here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).txt
Also why is it still so popular? Is it used because it basically ‘works’ when it comes to telling a neat story? I imagine a just right solar influence helps with the present AGW theory, too high or too low and you have to start think hard about things?
You nailed it.
HR says:
March 24, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Is it used because it basically ‘works’ when it comes to telling a neat story? I imagine a just right solar influence helps with the present AGW theory, too high or too low and you have to start think hard about things?
Yes. Contrary to popular belief, the “warmers do recognise solar activity as a cause of climate change. The above paper references papers by Amman, Shindell, Mann, Schmidt and others. The Shindell (with Mann & Schmidt) looked at “Solar forcing of regional climate change during the maunder minimum”. However with most solar reconstructions there is a divergence between solar activity and temperature in recent decades which to them can only mean one thing …….
The norwegian sea study seems to come to much the same conclusion as the Shindell et al study (and others), i.e. solar activity has an impact on regional temperatures – possibly due to shifts in weather patterns – but has less influence on global temepratures.
in which they concluded the global temperatures were about 0.3-0.4
I think the answer is that regional changes via changes in the air pressure distribution are rapid as we recently saw with the extreme solar minimum.
However for the effect on albedo to alter ocean heat content significantly takes decades with the subsequent oceanic modulation of atmospheric temperatures often being out of phase with short term solar variability.
However on multicentennial timescales such as MWP to LIA to date the shorter term. regional and apparently chaotic behaviour of the climate is largely smoothed out and we see solar activity/ ocean heat content/ air circulation behaviour and atmospheric temperatures all trending in the same direction on average over time.
So during the MWP as a whole, as opposed to shorter time spans, the sun was active, ocean heat content rose, the jets moved poleward and atmospheric temperatures rose together , just as happened in the late 20th century.
And of course in the descent from MWP to LIA the direction of trend in all those parameters was reversed.
The critical point is that one must look past the shorter term timescales when the competing influences are as often as not offsetting one another temporarily and regionally to obscure the multicentennial global background signal.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 25, 2011 at 6:00 am
So during the MWP as a whole, as opposed to shorter time spans, the sun was active, ocean heat content rose, the jets moved poleward and atmospheric temperatures rose together , just as happened in the late 20th century.
The late 18th century and middle 19th century were as active as the late 20th….
Leif Svalgaard said:
“The late 18th century and middle 19th century were as active as the late 20th….”
Maybe so but you have ignored this:
“The critical point is that one must look past the shorter term timescales when the competing influences are as often as not offsetting one another temporarily and regionally to obscure the multicentennial global background signal.”
Taking words out of context is not helpful.
We just saw what happens when the air circulation systems respond to a very low level of solar activity.
You suggested that because the level of solar activity was at a level commensurate with the Maunder Minimum then we should instantaneously enter Maunder Minimum climate conditions.
Well in terms of the surface pressure distribution we probably did for a while.
However (so far) it has not lasted long so we are as yet nowhere near Maunder Minimum conditions globally.
However what do you think would happen if the recent scenario went on for 50 to 100 years?
In my opinion we would be duplicating the Maunder Minimum.
Your earlier comments about radiative processes and the inability for the system to ‘store’ energy do not apply here. What matters is chemical processes in the atmosphere feeding or not feeding a vast oceanic energy storage system.