AGU: Link found between cold European winters and solar activity

“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”

Skaters take to frozen-over canals in the Netherlands in Feb. 2012. (Credit: De Vries)
From the American Geophysical Union

WASHINGTON – Scientists have long suspected that the Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth. Yet records of average, seasonal temperatures do not date back far enough to confirm any patterns. Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity – when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.

Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.

“The advantage with studying the Rhine is because it’s a very simple measurement,” said Frank Sirocko lead author of a paper on the study and professor of Sedimentology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Geosciences of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. “Freezing is special in that it’s like an on-off mode. Either there is ice or there is no ice.”

From the early 19th through mid-20th centuries, riverboat men used the Rhine for cargo transport. And so docks along the river have annual records of when ice clogged the waterway and stymied shipping. The scientists used these easily-accessible documents, as well as additional historical accounts, to determine the number of freezing episodes since 1780.

Sirocko and his colleagues found that between 1780 and 1963, the Rhine froze in multiple places 14 different times. The sheer size of the river means it takes extremely cold temperatures to freeze over making freezing episodes a good proxy for very cold winters in the region, Sirocko said.

Mapping the freezing episodes against the solar activity’s 11-year cycle – a cycle of the Sun’s varying magnetic strength and thus total radiation output – Sirocko and his colleagues determined that ten of the fourteen freezes occurred during years around when the Sun had minimal sunspots. Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked.

“We provide, for the first time, statistically robust evidence that the succession of cold winters during the last 230 years in Central Europe has a common cause,” Sirocko said.

With the new paper, Sirocko and his colleagues have added to the research linking solar variability with climate, said Thomas Crowley, Director of the Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment, and Society, who was not involved with the study.

“There is some suspension of belief in this link,” Crowley said, “and this study tilts the argument more towards thinking there really is something to this link. If you have more statistical evidence to support this explanation, one is more likely to say it’s true.”

The study, conducted by researchers at Johannes Gutenberg and the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, is set to be published August 25 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

When sunspot numbers are down, the Sun emits less ultraviolet radiation. Less radiation means less heating of Earth’s atmosphere, which sparks a change in the circulation patterns of the two lowest atmospheric levels, the troposphere and stratosphere. Such changes lead to climatic phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pattern of atmospheric pressure variations that influences wind patterns in the North Atlantic and weather behavior in regions in and around Europe.

“Due to this indirect effect, the solar cycle does not impact hemispherically averaged temperatures, but only leads to regional temperature anomalies,” said Stephan Pfahl, a co-author of the study who is now at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich.

The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland. So, sunspots don’t necessarily cool the entire globe – their cooling effect is more localized, Sirocko said.

In fact, studies have suggested that the extremely cold European winters of 2010 and 2011 were the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which Sirocko and his team now link to the low solar activity during that time.

The 2010 and 2011 European winters were so cold that they resulted in record lows for the month of November in certain countries. Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world.

“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”

Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.

To establish a more complete record of past temperature dips, the researchers are looking to other proxies, such as the spread of disease and migratory habits.

“Disease can be transported by insects and rats, but during a strong freezing year that is not likely,” said Sirocko. “Also, Romans used the Rhine to defend against the Germanics, but as soon as the river froze people could move across it. The freezing of the Rhine is very important on historical timescales.”

It wasn’t, however, the Rhine that first got Sirocko to thinking about the connection between freezing rivers and sunspot activity. In fact, it was a 125-mile ice-skating race he attended over 20 years ago in the Netherlands that sparked the scientist’s idea.

“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”

###

Title:

“Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe”

Abstract:

The last two winters in central Europe were unusually cold in comparison to the years before. Meteorological data, mainly from the last 50 years, and modelling studies have suggested that both solar activity and El Niño strength may influence such central European winter coldness. To investigate the mechanisms behind this in a statistically robust way and to test which of the two factors was more important during the last 230 years back into the Little Ice Age, we use historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the

period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

Authors:

Frank Sirocko and Heiko Brunck: Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz;

Stephan Pfahl: Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

==============================================================

I hope to have a copy of the paper soon – Anthony

UPDATE: Dr. Leif Svalgaard provides the paper, as did the AGU press agent Kate Ramsayer per my emailed request, along with a copyright admonishment. Thank you both. Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:

From the paper:

In agreement with the 20th Century Reanalysis central European temperature observations from the CRUTEM3 dataset [Brohan et al., 2006] from winters directly following a sunspot minimum are also significantly lower than the average temperature during the remaining winter seasons (Fig. 6a). The relation between cold winter conditions and sunspot activity is thus not specific to rivers alone (which could also be affected by a number of additional factors, for example warm water from the numerous powerplants constructed along the river). The strong variations of the time series in Fig. 6a, which are largely independent of the sunspot cycle, show the important role of internal, stochastic variability of the atmosphere for European winter temperatures. The relation shown above holds true only for central European temperatures. When the CRUTEM3 winter temperature data are averaged over the whole Northern Hemisphere, no relation to the solar minima is found.

This suggests a regional circulation pattern effect, as the authors state connected to figure 5a and 5b:

To identify the atmospheric circulation anomalies in the North Atlantic and European region associated with cold winters during solar minima, Fig. 5a shows the difference in the geopotential height fields at 500 hPa (Z500) between the winters directly following a year with a sunspot minimum and the remainder of the period 1871 to 2008, obtained from the 20th Century Reanalysis dataset [Compo et al., 1996]. A strong, statistically significant positive anomaly occurs over the eastern North Atlantic in the region of Iceland, while negative anomalies are found over the Iberian peninsula and over north-eastern Europe (the latter being not significant). These Z500 anomalies are associated with an enhanced northerly flow and cold air advection from the Arctic and Scandinavia

towards central Europe, leading to significantly negative temperature anomalies over England, France and western Germany (Fig. 5b). The centre of the cooling is in the region of southern England, the Benelux countries and western Germany down to middle Rhine area. Eastern and southern Germany are not effected as much as the above region. Accordingly, it is only the Rhine and possible some Dutch rivers that provide the possibility to reconstruct this specific temperature anomaly pattern, which corresponds to an anomalously negative NAO and a preference for blockings over the eastern North Atlantic.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
308 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 28, 2012 7:04 am

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:12 am
So in your example the SIDC SC24 future figures will need to have several peaks of around 130 to match SC14
And several dips around 30 or 40 as well. What matters is that the average [the smoothed value] comes out the same, which it already has, so far.
“It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.”
This statement makes no sense. SC5 and SC14 are both pre Waldmeier and have different heights so they cannot be the same unless you are comparing initial ramp ups.
As you can see [if you care to look] http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png they have the same smoothed height [perhaps SC5 being a bit higher]. This has nothing to do with being pre-Waldmeier.
If SC24 has already peaked like some are suggesting you will have to give up on SC14. Correct?
SC24 will have a long drawn-out maximum [like SC14]. The smoothed value has reached SC14 already http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png so SC24 and SC14 and SC5 all seem to be comparable, which is not really surprising as they are near the minima in the 100-yr ‘cycle’ that we have had the past three centuries.

August 28, 2012 8:02 am

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:12 am
Notice the spectrum of oxygen /ozone on the left hand side and note (on the top, incoming solar) that the ozone part cuts a lot of the incoming radiation of below o.3 um. It is the white area between the red line and the red marked area. Eyeballing, it looks easily like perhaps 15-20% of all incoming solar energy.
The correct number is 1%

August 28, 2012 8:31 am

Henry@Leif One.percent on incoming solar? Never. Maybe you mean outgoing from earth…that could be about right..
Anyways it seems I got a virus on my computer. I cannot comment further. This is from my phone.:H

August 28, 2012 8:48 am

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:31 am
Henry@Leif One.percent on incoming solar? Never.
Whatever you think, the correct value of incoming is 13.5 W/m2 or 1% of the total 1360 W/m2

August 28, 2012 9:06 am

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:31 am
Henry@Leif One.percent on incoming solar? Never.
You may benefit from reading:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BjDs212OqFYJ:www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/symposium/061909presentations/Foukal-WigleySymposim09.pptm+&cd=44&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

August 28, 2012 9:54 am

HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 1:54 am
” Obviously ambient temperatures may change somewhat towards more cooler and winters may become a bit longer, but in general, I predict that there will be no extreme weather events between 2017 and 2027″
Cold episodes do show a strong tendency to occur at the two places in the solar cycle where the geomagnetic index is usually at low points. Warming or cooling periods do not dictate when they happen, that is suggesting that Earth’s climate affects solar activity. The only sure way of saying exactly when they will happen, is to explain how past ones came about.

August 28, 2012 10:58 am

Henry@Ulric
I did explain evrything in previous posts.
Without looking at the chart I was able to predict correctly that there was no elfstedentocht between 1964-1976.
Henry@Leif
It seems to me you and yours googled cannot read the solar spectrum.

August 28, 2012 11:14 am

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:58 am
It seems to me you and yours googled cannot read the solar spectrum.
this is textbook stuff that has been known for decades. See Froehlich and London (1986): Revised Instruction Manual on Radiation Instruments and Measurements, World Climate Research Program Publication Series 7, World Meteorological Organization Technical Document No. 149, Geneva,

August 28, 2012 11:43 am

Henry@Leif
Do you not see the white area bewteen the red line and the red marked area and how much percent that is?
Which components in the atm cause this white area?

August 28, 2012 11:52 am

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 11:43 am
Do you not see the white area bewteen the red line and the red marked area and how much percent that is?
That is 1% because the scale is logarithmic.

August 28, 2012 11:59 am

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:58 am
It seems to me you and yours googled cannot read the solar spectrum.
this is textbook stuff that has been known for decades. See Froehlich and London (1986):
As it is unlikely you will take the trouble, I here show you the table that gives in column 3 the total amount of energy [in W/m2] from wave length 0 to the wave length given in the first column. E.g. between 0 and 250 nm [=0.25 um] there is 2.092 W/m2. From 0 to 295.5 nm there is 13.19 W/m2 out of a total of 1367 W/m2. Show me you can do the math:
http://www.leif.org/research/Integrated-Flux.pdf

August 28, 2012 1:18 pm

Henry@Leif
0zone spectrum shows absorption from o.o max to 0.8 min.
If not so you would have been correct. It is curved. I think my estimate of 20 is fair but it could even be a bit more.

August 28, 2012 1:40 pm

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm
0zone spectrum shows absorption from o.o max to 0.8 min.
You were correctly talking about from 0 to 0.3 um, which is where ozone absorbs UV.
I think my estimate of 20 is fair but it could even be a bit more.
No, ozone does not absorb 20% of incoming radiation, only 1%.

August 28, 2012 2:00 pm

Henry@Leif
Ozone re-radiates ca 20 percent of incoming solar to space.
The fluctuation in ozone explains the warming and cooling periods.

August 28, 2012 2:22 pm

HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Ozone re-radiates ca 20 percent of incoming solar to space.
No it doesn’t. Totally off your rocker here.
Ozone absorbs 14 W/m2 of the incoming solar radiation, table 4 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Atmosphere-Energy-Budget.pdf which is 1% of the total 1361 W/m2
The fluctuation in ozone explains the warming and cooling periods.
not at all. During the first half of the 20th century the globe warmed even though solar radiation was a tad lower, and during the second half the globe also warmed even though solar radiation was a tad higher.

August 28, 2012 2:40 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Ozone absorbs 14 W/m2 of the incoming solar radiation, table 4 of …
See, you even got me to be sloppy. One should divide the total by 4 to account for the Earth being wrong, so Ozone absorbs not 1% by 4%.

August 28, 2012 2:55 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:40 pm
See, you even got me to be sloppy. One should divide the total by 4 to account for the Earth being wrong, so Ozone absorbs not 1% by 4%.
sloppiness is contagious. How about:
“account for the Earth being round, so Ozone absorbs not 1% but 4%”

Stephen Wilde
August 28, 2012 3:19 pm

Ozone fluctuations influence the temperature of the stratosphere and is the reason there is a temperature inversion at the tropopause in the first place.
Even though the stratosphere is much less dense than the troposphere that inversion provides a physical obstacle to upward convection so Leifs density based points are not sound in my opinion.
If one changes the amount of ozone then one also changes the height of the tropopause which is what enables climate zone and jetstream shifting.
The problem is that the stratosphere cools when the sun is more active, or rather it did in the late 20th century. A more active sun creates more ozone at certain levels so the usual view is that there should be warming not cooling when the sun is more active.
It has been noted that ozone actually reacts differently above 45km so there lies ta possible answer.
I think that the observed stratospheric cooling was a natural solar induced effect but established climatology suggests it was caused by human emissions of CO2 and / or CFCs.
Anyway, you have to have that cooling stratosphere to get the jets to shift poleward (as witness the effect of sudden stratospheric warming events that push the jets equatorward) which is what they did in the late 20th century. They shifted poleward in the MWP too which suggests that back then the more active sun cooled the stratosphere without the aid of human CO2 output or CFCs.
So, I think Leif is wrong about the lack of potential for ozone to cause changes in the troposphere. All that is necessary is for there to be a change in the temperature of the stratosphere and the lower density there means that less energy variation is required to alter stratospheric temperatures as compared to tropospheric temperatures.
Henry may be wrong in going along with standard meteorology which says a more active sun warms the stratosphere. It may increase ozone at certain levels but the warming effect seems to be more than offset by decreasing ozone at other levels.
However I think Henry’s findings still hold with that reverse sign solar effect on the stratosphere even though his earlier timings may be upset by the interplay between sun and oceans.
He has nailed the mid 90s change in trend which is not long before I first noticed the beginning of a change in jet stream behaviour in 2000.
Much to think about and more data is needed to resolve these issues.

August 28, 2012 3:48 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Anyway, you have to have that cooling stratosphere to get the jets to shift poleward (as witness the effect of sudden stratospheric warming events that push the jets equatorward)
As we have discussed so many times, you have this backwards. E.g. “In a usual northern-hemisphere winter, several minor warming events occur, with a major event occurring roughly every two years. One reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur in the Northern hemisphere is because orography and land-sea temperature contrasts are responsible for the generation of long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, producing the warming by decelerating the mean flow. ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming

August 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:04 am
And several dips around 30 or 40 as well. What matters is that the average [the smoothed value] comes out the same, which it already has, so far.
The bottom line here is that the average needs to increase and be sustained by a large margin before SC24 will look like SC14. SC24 has been on a downward slope for the last 9-10 months.
“It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.”
As you can see [if you care to look] http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png they have the same smoothed height [perhaps SC5 being a bit higher]. This has nothing to do with being pre-Waldmeier.
No, this is where you introduce further confusion to bolster your claims. You are using one of the reconstructions by Wolf for SC5 because it suits you. Our universe uses the official SIDC record for SC5 which is much lower than SC14.

August 28, 2012 4:25 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
The bottom line here is that the average needs to increase and be sustained by a large margin before SC24 will look like SC14.
It already matches SC14.
SC24 has been on a downward slope for the last 9-10 months.
Since February, SC24 has increased from 32.9 to 66.5 in July.
No, this is where you introduce further confusion to bolster your claims. You are using one of the reconstructions by Wolf for SC5 because it suits you.
I am using the reconstruction Wolf made and published in 1882. You complain that Wolf is under attack and that you are trying to go back to use his original method. I use what Wolf left us. Later, in 1902, Wolfer [using a method that you claim is wrong] compromised SC14, and those numbers are what SIDC reports today, so it seems you will disregard Wolf when it suits you and glorify him when that suits you.
In any event, the data for SC5 [and SC6] are so uncertain that not much can be said about what the activity actually was. It is the task of the 3rd SSN workshop in January in Tucson, AZ, to re-examine all available data [some newly digitized] to arrive at [hopefully] a better estimate for the period 1750-1825: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs%20-%20Croatia.pdf

August 28, 2012 6:36 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
You are using one of the reconstructions by Wolf for SC5 because it suits you.
Since you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” it makes sense to actually use Wolf’s reconstruction, don’t you think?
His table of observed sunspot numbers was published in Mitteilungen no. L (50) http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-L.pdf in 1880 [and referred to in 1882, hence was labelled 1882].

August 28, 2012 7:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm
SC24 has been on a downward slope for the last 9-10 months.
———————————
Since February, SC24 has increased from 32.9 to 66.5 in July.

February is not 9-10 months ago, another attempt by you to confuse. In Nov 2011 the SIDC value was 96.7, a sustained rise from this value is required if SC24 is to match SC14. The reverse has occurred.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lay_monthly.png
I am using the reconstruction Wolf made and published in 1882. You complain that Wolf is under attack and that you are trying to go back to use his original method. I use what Wolf left us. Later, in 1902, Wolfer [using a method that you claim is wrong] compromised SC14, and those numbers are what SIDC reports today, so it seems you will disregard Wolf when it suits you and glorify him when that suits you.
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5, he wasn’t around of course so had to use other observers and proxy records. The end result settled on by the SIDC is backed up by the Group Sunspot Number and solar proxy records.
Wolfer did get it wrong by changing the Wolf method and did not test the conversion factor in times of grand minima. That conversion factor is not working today with the increased speck ratio that I have shown with solid data. If we had stayed with the Wolf method and his threshold (and also not allowed Waldmeier to create his own method) we would not be having theses discussions today.
In any event, the data for SC5 [and SC6] are so uncertain that not much can be said about what the activity actually was.
This is just rubbish as explained in part above. The GSN has ample records over the peak of SC5 and almost complete daily records with around 10 observers during SC6. You are grabbing at straws again.

August 28, 2012 8:32 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm
sustained rise from this value is required if SC24 is to match SC14. The reverse has occurred.
No, SC24 has already matched SC14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png
And there is no reason to believe and no evidence for the notion that this will not continue to be the case.
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5, he wasn’t around of course so had to use other observers and proxy records.
One would have to accept that the one he left us with is the best that he could obtain with his methods that you so admire. And you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles”, so man up and use Wolf’s.
The end result settled on by the SIDC is backed up by the Group Sunspot Number and solar proxy records.
SIDC did not settle on anything, but simply swallowed Wolfer’s numbers raw [as you would like to do]. The Group Sunspot number is flawed and will shortly be abandoned. Now, experience shows that some people will still use flawed data if it somehow suits their pet theory. Are you one of them?
Wolfer did get it wrong by changing the Wolf method and did not test the conversion factor in times of grand minima.
Yet the values you want to use for SC5 was constructed by Wolfer using those wrong factors.
If we had stayed with the Wolf method and his threshold (and also not allowed Waldmeier to create his own method) we would not be having these discussions today.
Yet Wolfer strayed and now you advocate using his values. Having a threshold is simply a bad idea as you do not cover the full spectrum of solar variability.
The GSN has ample records over the peak of SC5 and almost complete daily records with around 10 observers during SC6. You are grabbing at straws again.
The issue is not observers, but how to determine the k-values to use for them, and the Group Sunspot Number values are simply incorrect as I show here: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
Going back in time the error begins already at the transition between Wolfer and Wolf, where observations show that Wolfer observed 65% more groups than Wolf, yet Hoyt and Schatten use k-factors that are almost identical with only a 2% difference. So, right there they force the GSN to by off by ~50%

August 28, 2012 9:30 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm
The GSN has ample records over the peak of SC5 and almost complete daily records with around 10 observers during SC6.
Again you are economical with the truth. Over the peak of SC5 there was only one observer, ans the average number of observers per year of SC6 was 2.9 and of course that is not enough for almost daily records.

1 7 8 9 10 11 13