UPDATE: The paper itself is available below.
There is a new paper published yesterday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters from NASA GISS/Columbia University and Brown University titled Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing
Key Points
- Holocene northeast US hydrological change is consistent with solar forcing
- Small changes in solar forcing are amplified in our region by Arctic Oscillation
- Leaf-wax abundances in peatlands provide high-resolution climate information
This paper looks at hydrogen isotope proxy records over the past 6800 years and finds that the hydroclimate of the Northeastern U.S. is “highly sensitive” to solar activity.
The abstract of the paper says:
“The Sun may be entering a weak phase, analogous to the Maunder minimum, which could lead to more frequent flooding in the northeastern US at this multidecadal timescale.”
It is interesting to see this solar-hydro relationship defined in the USA. Previous similar works include defining a solar-hyrdo relationship to Nile River flow in Africa.
Here’s the paper and abstract:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L04707, 5 PP., 2012
Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing
Jonathan E. Nichols
Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Earth Institute at Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Yongsong Huang
Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
Dramatic hydrological fluctuations strongly impact human society, but the driving mechanisms for these changes are unclear. One suggested driver is solar variability, but supporting paleoclimate evidence is lacking. Therefore, long, continuous, high-resolution records from strategic locations are crucial for resolving the scientific debate regarding sensitivity of climate to solar forcing. We present a 6800–year, decadally-resolved biomarker and multidecadally-resolved hydrogen isotope record of hydroclimate from a coastal Maine peatland, The Great Heath (TGH). Regional moisture balance responds strongly and consistently to solar forcing at centennial to millennial timescales, with solar minima concurrent with wet conditions. We propose that the Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO) can amplify small solar fluctuations, producing the reconstructed hydrological variations. The Sun may be entering a weak phase, analogous to the Maunder minimum, which could lead to more frequent flooding in the northeastern US at this multidecadal timescale.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Here is the full paper (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alec Rawls says:
March 1, 2012 at 6:36 pm
So just start your time period during the Maunder Minimum instead of right after. Then you get an upward trend from the Maunder Minimum to 2000, and expected warming over that period.
So, the trend is the cause of the warming…
compare with what you said: “Are you one of those who thinks that it is the trend in solar activity (or any climate driver) that causes warming”
Ocean equilibration need not take 6000 years in order to take 300+ years
The geosystem is never in equilibrium, but you make the assumption that there is a significant change in the forcing over a long time. This is the point I object to. There is very little evidence for that. Whatever change there might have been would result in temperature changes of about a 0.1C, thus insignificant.
No, if you want to say that it can’t happen, you have to show that it can’t happen.
I’m saying that it didn’t happen.
Alec Rawls says:
March 1, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Ocean equilibration need not take 6000 years in order to take 300+ years
It is generally believed that the time constant of the climate is about 100 years, not 300+:
“The estimated time constant of the climate is large (70∼120 years) mainly owing to the deep ocean heat transport, implying that the system may be not in an equilibrium state under the external forcing during the industrial era”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/acp-10-1923-2010.pdf
Other estimates place it lower at only a few decades.
Strange, but when I add a trendline to my graphic I get a trend of 8.6 aa index units / century. What could account for this?
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 1, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“Two things:
1) the aa index does not go back far enough to include the high activity in the decades before 1868
2) the aa index is not calibrated correctly, it is systematic too low before 1957”
So, the trend depends on what data is included and how it is adjusted.
Well, I cannot claim that the 8.6 index units / century will continue for very long as I believe we have already seen maximum activity for this 179 year cycle. In fact the data suggests to me that a reversal is immanent.
MAVukcevic says:
March 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
“Problem here is that very often the temperature peaks don’t correspond to the solar activity peaks, which indicates that may be it is the geomagnetic storms which could be a critical factor. Since 1940s & 50s there are good data for number of variables which can be synchronised only by introducing delays, but only for about 50 or so years.”
There is the 1/4 cycle lag which is characteristic of electric circuits with a resistor and a capacitor in series, and this does show up in sun / earth interactions. See
http://landshape.org/enm/phase-lag-of-global-temperature/
Leif wrote: “So, the trend is the cause of the warming.” No, the change in the level causes the warming. You are the one who insists on looking at changes in level in terms of trend, which you can do if you want, so long as you remember that it is the change in level that affects climate.
Leif wrote:“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate
Earth’s long‐term climate change.”Pretty much proves TSI is not driving climate, but other solar variables actually vary by large amounts. Obviously they are the place to look for the mechanism behind the discovered correlations between solar activity and climate (as found by the authors of the paper that is the subject of this post).
Alec Rawls says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm
it is the change in level that affects climate.
the change in level is what is called the trend, so the trend affects climate, as I said.
but other solar variables actually vary by large amounts.
The point is that they do not over the long term. They vary a lot from hour to hour, day to day, even year to year, but without any long term trends over centuries.
Leif wrote: “The point is that they do not over the long term. They vary a lot from hour to hour, day to day, even year to year, but without any long term trends over centuries.”
You are claiming that ALL solar variables are close to invariant over the long term, not just TSI? Please tell us then, to what does the “Minimum” in “Maunder Minimum” refer?
To what do Usoskin’s “Grand minima and maxima of solar activity” refer? I presume you have seen his Figure 4. Pretty clear long term up and downs.
I know you have some unique ideas, but did not realize you were this far off on your own.
Alec Rawls says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:52 pm
You are claiming that ALL solar variables are close to invariant over the long term, not just TSI? Please tell us then, to what does the “Minimum” in “Maunder Minimum” refer?
To the reduced visibility of sunspots during that time. We may be entering such a time again in the next few years.
To what do Usoskin’s “Grand minima and maxima of solar activity” refer? I presume you have seen his Figure 4. Pretty clear long term up and downs.
I know you have some unique ideas, but did not realize you were this far off on your own.
It is Usoskin et al. that are off on their own. There is no modern Grand Maximum. C.f.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Leif: Usoskin et al. did a 11,000 plus year carbon-14 reconstruction. Your Waldmeier adjustment only applies since 1945. It would not affect the other 99.5% of their record, which is full of longer term ups and downs.
pochas says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm
…………..
That is not what is actually happening. The facts are a bit more complicated. The global temperature (for some unknown reason to science, see Best report on the natural variability) has very strong imprint from the AMO, which oscillates with a 9 year period, while the sun’s is around 11. Two drift in and out of phase which gives a misleading impression of a direct relationship.
Alec Rawls says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Leif: Usoskin et al. did a 11,000 plus year carbon-14 reconstruction. Your Waldmeier adjustment only applies since 1945. It would not affect the other 99.5% of their record, which is full of longer term ups and downs.
Of course there are ups and downs, that is the whole point: there are cycles. Activity was high in the 1950s, in the 1850s, the 1750s and so on, but those highs were about equal, so no long-term trend.
Usoskin’s data most certainly does show long term trends.
Finally, someone is going to right the natural way to solve the mystery still unsolved.
I must again note that the human factor is irrelevant when it comes to climate change on Earth.
The main cause of all the relevant drivers of change on Earth and throughout the solar system, the interaction between the Sun and planets.
What chain of influence is established, it is necessary to examine the natural laws that civilization can not be affected.
It is certain that everything comes from the mutual forces, specifically, as a result of gravity and magnetic fields, leading to the occurrence of cyclic phenomena on Earth and the Sun.
The study participants GIS partly confirms the true causes of climate change, but in my opinion, it is necessary to enter further into the core of radical causes the appearance of almost all the phenomena that take place in the sun.
It is important to note, that all phenomena related to sunspot cycles and the reconnection of magnetic poles of the Sun.
I have a strong need that with my evidence (strictly mathematical), I am helping to clarify this enigma, which science has not yet been deciphered.
Unfortunately, I have not met with interested institutions to assist in this. This time I ask the authors of this article and the evidence that enable collaboration with the condition, that my evidence, if it is a true, is adequately valorized. This mine, I do not intend to publish without contractual obligations, because, you see, all mankind is trying to solve it.
The previous discussion, such as they are, will never allow finding solutions.
Just the right approach to the logical and natural laws can give a good result. No way no mathematical models with illogical assumptions set as the foundation model.
Here can not be said about any predictions. In these rules, I have, everything is fixed for all time.
When analyzing the entire case, for example. with the sunspot cycle, it can be seen that there are so many cycles and sub-cycles at all times. These include cycles such as the Maunder and other cycles. Depending on the strength of magnetic fields, and there are variable effects of the change in the number and intensity of sunspots, solar wind, explosions and all other phenomena.
Which institutions around the world would not want to fund this important project that would solve many problems on Earth. I think that this can predict the earthquakes. Can prevent major damage to all facilities and installations, etc..
It is not my purpose to point out, but to break the barren discussion, which will not solve anything.
Leif wrote:
Thanks for the link to that Bin et al. paper. Good to see that somebody has tried to estimate an energy balance model with a two-part ocean heat sink instead of Schwartz’ one. Their 70-120 year time constant is much more sensible than Schwartz’ 5 years, but note that moving to a three part ocean heat sink would expand the time constant by a similar factor, and their key finding–that 85% of upper ocean layer heating gets transferred to the deeper ocean–militates in favor of incorporating even deeper ocean layers into the model. If such a high proportion of heat mixes down, it makes sense a substantial portion of it will mix down further still.
I don’t think I’d put too much stock in their sensitivity estimates, however, given that they are based on the assumption that the only forcing over the last 120 years was from CO2. Talk about begging the question.
Time lag is a function of frequency. The time lag you find depends on the frequency of the phenomena you are looking at. Surface temperatures vary with a lag of a few hours.
That’s what I’ve been saying to Leif: that longer term changes in forcing create longer term responses. He denies there are long term changes in solar forcing, a claim that is glaringly contradicted by Usoskin’s 11,000 year cosmogenic isotope study.