(Via the Hockey Schtick) A new peer reviewed paper published in The Holocene finds a significant link between solar activity and climate over the past 1000 years. According to the authors:
“Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima.”
The authors also find “a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960” and that:
“Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity.”
 |
IRBSi is the proxy for precipitation/climate change and shows good agreement with solar activity. Figure 12. The comparison between the graphs of the IR-BSi and that of the solar cycles shows good agreement between the percentage of mineral materials of allochthonous and solar cycles reconstructed on the basis of changes in concentrations of 14 C in macrofossils. A good agreement is also evident between the concentrations of 18 O of foraminifera in the Norwegian Sea and the index IR-BSi. |
Solar forcing of climate during the last millennium recorded in lake sediments from northern Sweden
U Kokfelt University of Copenhagen, Denmark
R Muscheler Lund University, Sweden
Abstract
We report on a sediment record from a small lake within the subarctic wetland complex Stordalen in northernmost Sweden covering the last 1000 years. Variations in the content of minerogenic material are found to follow reconstructed variations in the activity of the Sun between the 13th and 18th centuries. Periods of low solar activity are associated with minima in minerogenic material and vice versa. A comparison between the sunspot cycle and a long instrumental series of summer precipitation further reveals a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960. Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity. Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima, causing dry conditions with resulting decreased runoff.
============================================================
Recall that a paper published last year in Astronomy & Astrophysics shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years.
A paper published by a researcher at Max-Planck-Institute in Astronomy & Astrophysics reconstructs solar activity over the Holocene and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was near the highest levels of the entire 11,500 year record. The reconstruction spans the past 2,500 years, and the paper shows a ‘hockey stick’ of solar activity, following the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800’s.
Fig. 11. TSI weighted reconstruction since approximately 9500 BC. In order to provide a better visualization, the evolution since 1000 BC is displayed in panel (b). The filled gray band represents region limited by the KN08-VADM and KC05-VDM reconstructions.
For reference, the red lines represent the 10-year averaged reconstruction by Krivova et al. (2010a).
Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene
L. E. A. Vieira1,2, S. K. Solanki1,3, N. A. Krivova1 and I. Usoskin4
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace (LPC2E/CNRS), 3A, Avenue de la Recherche, 45071 Orléans Cedex 2, France
School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 446-701, Korea
Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu Unit), POB 3000, Universiy of Oulu, Finland
Abstract
Context. Long-term records of solar radiative output are vital for understanding solar variability and past climate change. Measurements of solar irradiance are available for only the last three decades, which calls for reconstructions of this quantity over longer time scales using suitable models.
Aims.
We present a physically consistent reconstruction of the total solar irradiance for the Holocene.
Methods.
We extend the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) models to estimate the evolution of the total (and partly spectral) solar irradiance over the Holocene. The basic assumption is that the variations of the solar irradiance are due to the evolution of the dark and bright magnetic features on the solar surface. The evolution of the decadally averaged magnetic flux is computed from decadal values of cosmogenic isotope concentrations recorded in natural archives employing a series of physics-based models connecting the processes from the modulation of the cosmic ray flux in the heliosphere to their record in natural archives. We then compute the total solar irradiance (TSI) as a linear combination of the jth and jth + 1 decadal values of the open magnetic flux. In order to evaluate the uncertainties due to the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment, we employ four reconstructions of the open flux which are based on conceptually different paleomagnetic models.
Results.
Reconstructions of the TSI over the Holocene, each valid for a different paleomagnetic time series, are presented. Our analysis suggests that major sources of uncertainty in the TSI in this model are the heritage of the uncertainty of the TSI since 1610 reconstructed from sunspot data and the uncertainty of the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment. The analysis of the distribution functions of the reconstructed irradiance for the last 3000 years, which is the period that the reconstructions overlap, indicates that the estimates based on the virtual axial dipole moment are significantly lower at earlier times than the reconstructions based on the virtual dipole moment. We also present a combined reconstruction, which represents our best estimate of total solar irradiance for any given time during the Holocene.
Conclusions.
We present the first physics-based reconstruction of the total solar irradiance over the Holocene, which will be of interest for studies of climate change over the last 11 500 years. The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima.
===============================================================
What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing reported by CDIAC here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Stephen Richards says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm
This does nothing to negate the case for AGW. It merely suggest that there is a noticable solar influence on global temps, maybe.
I’m happy to call it as another nail in the coffin. !!
Ferdinand – How does a molecule of CO2 know whether it is governed by the first case or the second?
Leif writes: “Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.”
1) Leif, do we observe tiny difference in solar output during a winter for instance?
2) Because for a given winter, we observe certain synchronous periods of extreme cold ejections over the entire hemisphere followed by periods of relatively milder cold air coming from the pole, then back again to strong cold. It cannot be related to planetary position nor if I understand Leif’s point correctly, to solar output difference. So what mechanism is responsible for these synchronous short term fluctuations in cold air polar ejections?
Thanks
Tom in Florida says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a lot of sleight of hand going on in the climate debates.
Paraphrased from WUWT link
Take a look at the radiative forcing table from the IPCC reports, where the explanatory variables that get included in the IPCC computer models are laid out. You will see that the only solar forcing effect listed is “solar irradiance.” In AR5 this table is on page 8-39:
The Graph
Also take a look at the water forcing effect compared to that of CO2. In actuality the forcing of water is rolled into that of CO2 because of the assumption that
1. CO2 causes warming.
2. Warming causes increased water vapor
3. Water vapor causes more warming.
But the evidence shows this is not what is happening. A graph and a WUWT link
Then look at CO2 vs Solar. Again there is sleight of hand. Look at these graphs:
The relative strength of the energy of a specific wavelength from the sun vs earthshine: graph 1
The absorption of various wavelengths of sun energy at TOA, surface and under the ocean: graph 2
A closer view of the energy absorbed by the ocean at various depths: graph 3
Oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface and earthshine reflected back to earth by CO2 has no real effect on the ocean heat content. Ocean Heat Content from 1955 to 2011 (Joules 10^22) graph 4
The other bit of information that is left out is although TSI may remain relatively constant over the short term the distribution of energy among various wavelengths does not and neither do other attributes of the sun. Despite claims to the contrary science really has no idea what the various changes might cause.
The fact we see all sorts of papers about the sun’s effect on the earth from Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman and Yuk Yung’s Does the Nile reflect solar variability? and The pattern of northern hemisphere surface air temperature during prolonged periods of low solar output (“We show that the reconstructed sensitivity of the sea level temperature to long term solar forcing in the Northern Hemisphere is in very good agreement with the empirical temperature pattern corresponding to changes of the North Annular Mode (NAM). This implies that long-term variations of solar output affect climate predominantly through the NAM that extends throughout the stratosphere and troposphere.)
To the “Shiva Hypothesis” show just how active this area of research really is despite the IPCC’s efforts to shut down this avenue of research with TSI is constant, nothing to see here move along, CO2 explains Climate Change and YOU are to blame.
vukcevic says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
The solar climate link is more likely in the higher latitudes since the strength of both the Earth’s and the solar induced magnetic fields changes are strongest there. Result of the combined effect is: the temperature natural variability
None of these have anything to do with the climate. There is no historical data to compare and the polar regions are but a very small part of the globe.
lsvalgaard says
“Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.”
The CO2 faithful just ignore that components of TSI can vary 10 times more than TSI itself. Varying the area under the curve is not the only way solar activity can effect climate, see Bond Cycles.
We’re all about to find out one way or the other anyway. Obviously, if CO2 dominates then global average temperature will resume it’s rise, if solar spectral variation that sunspots proxy dominate then global average temperatures will begin to decline, but if neither dominates (ie: close to 50/50) then global average temperatures will continue this sideways trend.
“What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing”
Just because something is in the same unit it doesn’t mean it is the same thing. The radiative forcing associated with a TSI change of 1.5 W/m2 is 1.5*0.7/4 = 0.26 W/m2 once you account for geometry and the albedo.
Not so interesting perhaps?
John West says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:06 pm
How about warming matching solar spectral variation patterns (not just TSI, i.e.: Bond Cycles)?
Yeah, how about them? The spectral variation has only been measured [with large error bars] for about a decade, and Bond Cycles don’t exist.
lsvalgaard says: Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.
1. Hardly. Per the IPCC formula, which includes alleged [but false] positive feedback from water vapor, the alleged forcing from CO2 + feedbacks from preindustrial times to the end of the 20th century is 5.35*ln(370/290) = 1.3 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere or about 1.3/3.7 = 0.35 Wm-2 at the Earth surface. The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
2. What is the “unknown mechanism” that the faithful believers of the “Solar activity doesn’t change” religion you subscribe to that accounts for the climate change shown in the 1st paper above and countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales?
“lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Tom in Florida says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.”
Yes well the unknown mechanism is not TSI but some of the obvious known affecting solar outputs of such as, proton flux, UV, magnetic, etc with react with ozone, upper level areas, earths magnetic structure, electric fields. pressure patterns, jetsreams, yes unknown, but plenty of papers setting out the effects that occur…and if they regularly occur, then they are real, njo matter if we know the real connections or not. If the solar different outputs change andn the weather-climate changes at the same time always then there is a true connection, whether we know it or not yet.
If we waited for all things to be fully proven, then mankind would never have advanced. We used fire, elecrocity, bread mold,, gravity, etc etc etc well before we really understood them. I use solar outputs every day and month and year to predict weather, together with the ussual oceans etc, and they work every time, so I know that the solar weather/climate connections are real. The mechanisms, well they may be many years off finding,, but if I wait that long I will never get to use them all very successfully. So why wait, if it works, it works, if I said they did not I would be lying.
People get so hung up on having to know exactly how something works. If it works well and consitently then use it. The truth will eventually come out and be found. We still are only scratching the surface of all knowledge and science.
TomRude says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm
1) Leif, do we observe tiny difference in solar output during a winter for instance?
Weather is not climate. And yes there are those tiny differences on top of a huge variation [70 times as large] due to the variation of the distance to the Sun. We are closest in January and thus gets the most then.
Hockey Schtick says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
and that 1.2 W/m2 yields a temperature of less than 0.1 degree. That I can endorse.
countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales?
Equally many invoke the great thermal inertia of the oceans to explain why there are no short time scales involved.
Ian Holton says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Yes well the unknown mechanism is not TSI but some of the obvious known affecting solar outputs of such as, proton flux, UV, magnetic, etc with react with ozone, upper level areas, earths magnetic structure, electric fields…
All of which vary the rhythm of TSI.
I use solar outputs every day and month and year to predict weather,
Some people consult their daily horoscope to decide what to do or expect.
Stevo says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Stephen Richards says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm
This does nothing to negate the case for AGW. It merely suggest that there is a noticable solar influence on global temps, maybe.
I’m happy to call it as another nail in the coffin. !!
======================
Well, to a simple seafarer, it looks like someone thinks that changes in the (relative) location, behaviour, and temperature of the Sun may – may, I said – have an effect on the Earth’s temperature; [Average, mean/mode/median – howsoever arrived at).
I think they might be right.
I mean – it’s nearly a million miles across, and is at over five thousand Centigrade.
[Argument from incredulity?] – no, not so; have you noticed the difference between summer and winter warmth?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh –
Does the Sun alone affect our climate?
Probably not.
Not alone, I think,.
It does affect it, I guess/understand, but – alone – I think not!!!
Arrangement of the continents; mountain range elevation; distribution of shallow seas; albedo [with/without clouds – and what affects cloud cover? Huh?]; orbital parameters; and vulcanism all seem likely to cause local, regional and – possibly – global climate effects.
I believe that there are many other variables that affect local temperaures [and so, over decades and centuries and millenia – our climate].
We could paint all our roofs white.
Car roofs, too, I suppose.
And umbrellas – and hats ( and line them with tin foil?).
A possible reduction in UHI effects.
But there is a lot more to this climate lark . . .
For what it’s worth – not being a crimatologist [a truly magnificent neologism!] – I suggest
We don’t really know what affects climate – WUWT has a list of things that may [and I bet it’s not exhaustive for 2053!] – we know some of the variables [possibly most of them], but mostly do not fully understand their effect [short, medium and long term – even taken singly] on our planet’s climate. Even taken singly.
Now I think that interaction betwen any two factors is not really understood, generally. And we have – what? – scores? A very, very, complex stew here I fear.
I would like a little more warmth in the next twenty years. I fear more cooling.
And I don’t have a blind idea what to expect.
lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm
vukcevic says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
The solar climate link is more likely in the higher latitudes since the strength of both the Earth’s and the solar induced magnetic fields changes are strongest there. Result of the combined effect is: the temperature natural variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GYCR.htm
None of these have anything to do with the climate. There is no historical data to compare and the polar regions are but a very small part of the globe.
———————————————————
Have you heard of polar amplification, main contributor to the GW ?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTSD.jpg
NASA: Temperature pattern is a manifestation of “Arctic Amplification”, which is characterized by temperature increases 1.5°C greater than (more than double) the increases at lower latitudes (Overland et al., 2011; Stroeve et al., 2012).
lsvalgaard says:
“The spectral variation has only been measured [with large error bars] for about a decade”
So, you’ve excluded it as a potential cause or even a significant contributor of recent warming (that happened over a decade ago) based on this paltry data?
rgbatduke, we did the bolus addition of 14C using the atmospheric H-Bomb tests. The pseudo-first order decay is approximately a decade. The only fly in the ointment is that the steady state level of 14C changes with cosmic ray flux, means that natural abundance is hard to calculate.
The models suck, mostly because they are exquisitely sensitive to the rate at which 14C fixed by plankton falls to the bottom of the sea bed as organic particulates and then returns to the surface as 14C gasses,CO2 and CH4, the latter is a pig to model as {CH4} is inversly proportional to [O2].
One would expect, a prior, that if cosmic rays had a large impact on the climate then one could look for the relative 14C abundance in tree rings vs. tree ring width.
Overlaying the 11.5K year TSI reconstruction, Fig. 11, on the GISP2 temperature reconstruction doesn’t do much for me. Didn’t see an obvious offset in x-axis either.
http://i49.tinypic.com/oji4b7.jpg
Thanks for that reference, Gail
fret
lsvalgaard says: Hockey Schtick says: January 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
and that 1.2 W/m2 yields a temperature of less than 0.1 degree. That I can endorse.
1. According to the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 results in an increase of 3.7 Wm-2 at the TOA and about 1 Wm-2 at the surface, allegedly resulting in 3C global warming at the surface. So which is it Leif:
a. An increase of [1.2 Wm-2]/4 = 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of << 0.1 degree as you claim
or
b. An increase of 0.3 W/m2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of ~ 0.9 C
2. I see you prudently avoided answering my question #2 above, so I'll restate it again:
What is the “unknown mechanism” that the faithful believers of the “Solar activity doesn’t change” religion you subscribe to that accounts for the climate change shown in the 1st paper above and countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales? So Leif, what is the “unknown mechanism”?
3. Leif also says:
countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales?
Equally many invoke the great thermal inertia of the oceans to explain why there are no short time scales involved.
a. Only shortwave solar radiation can heat the oceans, not changes in IR from GHGs
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
b. Many papers have demonstrated a link between solar activity and ocean oscillations, which brings us back to question #2 above.
vukcevic says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Have you heard of polar amplification, main contributor to the GW ?
Which has nothing to do with the cycles you are peddling. There is still no data from the polar regions to determine any cycles.
NASA: Temperature pattern is a manifestation of “Arctic Amplification”, which is characterized by temperature increases 1.5°C greater than (more than double) the increases at lower latitudes
The ‘effect’ goes the wrong way. You want to polar regions to control the rest, but clearly they do not.
John West says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm
So, you’ve excluded it as a potential cause or even a significant contributor of recent warming (that happened over a decade ago) based on this paltry data?
Would be base policy on paltry data?
lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm
“Hockey Schtick says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
and that 1.2 W/m2 yields a temperature of less than 0.1 degree. That I can endorse.”
With a natural trend in place of 0.5-0.6º C per century since the LIA, this extra 1.2 Wm-2 gives us the 0.7º C for the last hundred years.
Its the Sun, stupid!
Thank you Leif. So indeed we observe during a winter tiny differences of output. I noticed you did not comment on my point #2…
BTW Leif, weather is not climate except that climate expresses itself through the succession of weather events over the years. Thus explaining these weather variations within a season is key in deconstructing the various elements at work rather than plastering CO2 everywhere.
LKMiller says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
…..I have seen statements such as the above occur occasionally on WUWT posts over the past few years (sometimes also applied to tree growth rates), and believe it necessary to challenge the not-so-veiled implication that, were it not for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we would not be enjoying the significant increases in crop and forest production rates of the past 80-90 years…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Response curve for C3 and C4 plants Graph Note Wigley (1983) claims a pre-industrial CO2 level of 270ppm.
Actually it is both. Given enough nutrients and water, CO2 is going to be the limiting factor in plant growth. That is why greenhouses use 1000 to 2000 ppm CO2 and air fans. C3 plants are much more sensitive to CO2 compared to C4 and C3 plants also become more drought resistant at higher levels of CO2. However remember carbon/petrochemical based products/energy is also responsible for the fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, tractors and other machinery that went into that increase in harvest so it is CO2 coming and going. (Grin) The increase in drought resistance would play a part in the yields of non-irrigated fields and fields at the upper northern limit in the Northern hemisphere.Wind (air circulation) will also have a significant effect.
photo and link
The Earth’s biosphere is booming, data suggests that CO2 is the cause, part 2
CO2 depletion
EXPERIMENTS: Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for 300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air’s CO2 Concentration
video
Anthony, I don’t know why you just don’t tell people the truth!
The real reason for 20th century global warming is actually CCF (Cricket Chirp Frequency). Yes, CCF slightly lags temperature but this is merely because CCF is both a feedback and a forcing. You get a little bit of warming and that increases CCF, which increases temperature, which increases CCF and so on and so forth. Luckily for us there’s a limit to how fast and how long crickets chirp or they would have boiled away the oceans long ago. Also, different species of crickets have different chirp frequencies as well as varying stamina and season (as in mating, etc.) frequency variations. For example, the snowy tree cricket of the north has a slower chirp frequency than his more southerly cousins. This is actually why we have daily, seasonal, and geographic temperature variations; it has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun or Earth’s rotation or tilt or any of that fictional stuff they teach in school, it’s simply the average CCF of the crickets in the area. The 20th century simply saw an expansion of higher frequency chirping crickets. To combat this all we have to do is institute programs that retards expansion of faster chirping crickets and aids expansion of slower chirping crickets. But we have to be careful, slow chirping cricket population explosions cause ice ages.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~genchem/0102/spring/6winn/cricket.html
In order to develop and implement the best possible program before it’s too late I’ll need funding right away.
[Just in case ….. /sarc]
In case you haven’t been following the “debate” long, the standard CS (BS) answer to why CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years in the ice core records is basically because CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing. You get a little bit of warming and that increases CO2, which increases temperature, which increases CO2 and so on and so forth. Apparently, that explanation works for CO2 or CCF. Actually, it works a little better for CCF, at least CCF has a mechanism to keep it from going to runaway global warming.
lsvalgaard says:
”Would be base policy on paltry data?”
Perhaps for politicians/lawyers it’s ok to exclude possibilities just on the basis of not having enough evidence to draw a conclusion, but not scientists. As skeptical as I am of CO2 induced dangerous climate change, I still haven’t excluded it even though the weight of the evidence is against it at the moment, conclusive evidence one way or the other isn’t in yet.