Paul Hudson of the BBC writes:
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
His article is, ahem, illuminating:
For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it’s been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.
Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.
In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog.
Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.
Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.
Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun’s changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures.
The work is based on an 11 year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time.
But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.
If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
David Corcoran says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations.
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.
______
I would expect that in the case of EUV, for extremely low periods of solar activity such as the Maunder minimum, the total effect is possibly more than 0.1C and could be as much as 0.3C globally, with larger regional impacts in areas such as Europe. I think Mann and Jones 2001 study found a high probability of the correlation of the LIA and solar influences, though at the time they did not know exactly the quantifiable EUV effects on the stratosphere. We are stuck with explaining the Bond Events, such as the 8.2ky event, in which we saw a much larger cooling, though with similar THC effects. If you can believe that it is likely that the 8.2 ky event (-5 C global temp decline!) was solar related, then there may indeed be longer-term solar cycles that take the sun into even longer term lower EUV output than seen during the Maunder. This EUV link could be the key to the Bond Event puzzle in general, as I tend to agree with his assessment that they were solar in origin and could explain the regular 1470 year or so fluctuations going back well into the last glacial period. (the DO events) In short, there may be a 1470 year solar cycle that takes the sun to EUV and TSI levels even lower for longer periods than the Maunder.
R. Gates
RE Co2 and Logarithm Rules
Which is warmer under a 100w bulb, a tone of Co2 or 100 tones of Co2?
Climate is “quite different” now, compared to what it was 108 years ago, says Leif Svalgaard.
And this is his argument against the solar influence on the climate, because, he says, “solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago.”
Really. How “quite” the climate was different in 1803, Leif?
Am I the only one not “quite” impressed by this pathetic reasoning?
R. Gates
RE Co2 and Logarithm Rules
Part 2
Then add that 100w bulb to a dimmer switch, then turn it up and down, which is warmer Now. /jk
So, changes in solar output are now admitted to having some influence on climate, even if it’s “dwarfed” by man-made CO2 output?
Kinda feeble, but at least it’s baby step in the right direction.
I think what’s happening is those involved with the entire global warming enterprise are beginning to realize they have painted themselves into a corner. Global warming ended last century and temperatures have fallen ever since.
The more enterprising advocates who aren’t committed diehard zealots don’t wish to go down with the sinking HMS Global Warming. They are beginning to seek an exit because they have a future careers to attend to.
Rats have a strong sense of self-preservation. Watch what they do. They will tell you what’s worth staying with and what has to be abandoned.
Re: Leif Svalgaard is wrong again
Make it 1903, not 1803, to correct my typo. It doesn’t change anything, though. Local weather patterns may have been a bit different in 1903 — but they always change anyway. Weather is not climate.
12th century or 17th century climate could have been quite different from what it is now — while the solar patterns were quite different then.
To make any meaningful comparison, Leif, you need to find a similar solar cycle as a whole; picking one particular year wouldn’t make any sense even if you were correct, which you are not.
Chris F said: “Isn’t this the same Paul Hudson who sat on the Climategate files for several weeks before they became public?”
IIRC, no. Hudson was forwarded a chain of emails about himself some time before the emails escaped. When the emails got into the wild he then confirmed that the email chain he had received was the same as the one in the lump.
So if the sun is giving off less heat to reach us pitiful humans(by whatever means)then it may cool? Damn. And here I thought turning my furnace down would produce more,if that less heat could get through my saturated CO2 living room!
I hope I don’t need the /sarc??
Correct me if I’m wrong, which I’m sure you will, am I to understand that a gas, that is not even 1% of the total atmosphere, with a maximum absorption spectrum of 2 microns (long wave) is so powerful that it can produce a temperature above the temperature achieved by the absorption abilities of the earth. If this is the case, does that mean that short wave radiation absorbed by the surface has less energy and therefore produces less heat (lower temperature) than long wave absorbed by CO2?
R.Gates seems totally incapable of responding to the many holes identified in his wooley logic. This seems to happen with tremendous regularity on WUWT threads.
I wonder if we are dealing with an adult with a minimum of science background or a 14 year old high school student? Whatever, the cause, it is embarrassing to watch such blundering scientific ineptitude from a poster who displays so much conviction and condescension.
Another Gareth –
Chris F is right to say Paul Hudson (and the BBC for that matter) sat on “Climategate emails”. that is all that is known. everthing else is speculation. Hudson was gagged and neither he nor the BBC was ever called to appear at any Climategate Inquiry to explain or provide the evidence.
whatever Hudson received in October 2009, after writing his article, “Whatever happened to global warming” has never been revealed by the BBC.
Hudson linked to the entire Climategate cache when he initially authenticated them, so it is possible he received the full Climategate cache minus the few emails dated later than the October date when he says he received whatever he did receive.
it is also possible the “leaker”, finding no satisfaction at the BBC, added a few later emails and eventually – with the help of the wonderful sceptics – brought us Climategate.
“solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago”
Is this observation static (a moment captured in time like photograph) or is there an associated trend line leading one to believe solar activity will be less in the future, perhaps even like it was 350 years ago?
As a layman, my understanding at the present rate sunspots may disappear within a few decades, an event not seen since Newton wrote the Principia Mathematica.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
David Corcoran says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations.
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.
REALLY?
———————————————————————————————————-
Dr. SValgaard as a fellow physicist I do admire your hardheadness and belief in that observation and precise calculation trumps speculation every time.
After all some very strange ideas do float about on this blog from the influence of Venus on the music of the spheres to wonderful ideas about photons and I do not what else: all of which you robustly resist. Indeed so. I could not agree more.
Nevertheless when it come to observations, such as they are, about regional climates let alone whether the globe is warming or cooling you must be aware how hopelessly defective these supposed measurements are.
Mere statistical artifacts which purport to be based on measurements of so called global temperature: many of which appear to have been manipulated or forged, to show something or another. Usually warming. You believe in these? as being accurate observation ?
Or are they merely the invention and fabrication of those who believe in little green fairies at the bottom of the garden? For their own ends whatever they may be.
As you observed not much has happened with old Sol in the last hundred years or so, but then as best we can tell from genuine accurate observation not much has happened to the climates around the world over the last hundred years either.
Of course a hundred years or two of observations do not mean much given the timescales of planets and stars.
But in time we shall learn more and free ourselves from superstitions whether those are that our sins produce bad weather or that there are mystical Gods in the heavens who vent their wrath upon us.
Whichever our ever advancing technology will cope with any such eventuality.
Kindest Regards
It starts to look like 1945.
No no no! I was with the Resistance!
I’m a word watcher.
No longer ‘taboo’ for climate scientists to acknowledge solar infulence
The word Taboo comes from religion magic anthropology.
Science shouldn’t countenance the existence of Taboo let alone be governed by it.
Very revealing.
Here in Australia CO2 and AGW is not considered to be a problem. Our ‘great’ challenge evidently is carbon pollution and climate change. Very taxing on the mind and soon to be taxing on the pocket.
It’s quite possible that Mr Hudson’s original article was even more emphatic before the BBC subs got to it.
Compare the article title:
Met Office wakes up to solar influence on climate
with the URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml
Maybe the title was shortened for reasons of space on the page, maybe not. it’s very easy to imagine double-dealing when considering the BBC and GW stories.
dave Harrison says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Before you all get excited about a possible general acceptance of the sun’s role in climate change – how are they going to tax the sun?
Quite easily, just have a sun tax addition to all the other taxes we pay.
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/feature-how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
I agree with Kohl’s comment, sounds good, but this is early days and from the BBC, watch your backs!
Dear Paul,
Talking about no longer climate changes TABOO is like CHOCOLATE for a baby.
Based on the principal of Matter & Energy Duration, CO2-O2 action-reaction means Global Warming plus the destructive effects of CO2 on climate. What have we done through years by now to stop the bad results against the EARTH?
I invite you to have a visit here:
http://acckkii.tumblr.com
Perhaps I am mistaken but I cannot recall R.Gates clarifying his/her gender. Therefore I think assuming male is sexist 🙂
I have long assumed R.Gates is female, or at least one of the people using the R.Gates sock-puppet is.
The TSI has never been constant. As the Earth moves in its orbit, it gets closer to the Sun in January and farther away in July. The TSI goes from a high of about 1407 W/m² to a low of about 1316 W/m². The average is around 1361 W/m² with a +47 W/m² and -44 W/m² range. This plot shows the changes during the year. This plot shows the TSI corrected to 1 astronomical unit. The satellite data starts in 2003 and shows the Sun cooling slightly till 2009 and then warming again.
Jim
This paper shows that the relationship between solar EUV flux and the F10.7 index during the extended solar minimum (Smin) of 2007–2009 is different from that in the previous Smin. This difference is also seen in the relationship between foF2 and F10.7. We collected SOHO/SEM EUV observations and the F10.7 index, through June 2010, to investigate solar irradiance in the recent Smin. We find that, owing to F10.7 and solar EUV flux decreased from the last Smin to the recent one with different amplitudes (larger in EUV flux), EUV flux is significantly lower in the recent Smin than in the last one for the same F10.7. Namely, F10.7 does not describe solar EUV irradiance in the recent Smin as it did in the last Smin. That caused remarkable responses in ionospheric foF2. For the same F10.7, foF2 in the recent Smin is lower than that in the last one; further, it is also lower than that in other previous Smins. Therefore, F10.7 is not an ideal indicator of foF2 during the recent Smin, which implies that F10.7 is not an ideal proxy for solar EUV irradiance during this period, although it has been adequate during previous Smins. Solar irradiance models and ionospheric models will need to take this into account for solar cycle investigations.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016301.shtml