(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
LKMiller says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
We know that CO2 is used to enhance growth in commercial greenhouses, and controlled studies have shown that higher CO2 increases tree growth. However, most of the increases of
the last 80+ years are due to breeding and culture, not CO2.
Correct as the level of CO2 has not materially risen until the last few decades.
The 1st large scale test of yield increase was in the USA during the 2012 production year. Current production models indicated the drop in yields should have been over 1/3 more than that observed. The only variation of substance in 2012 was the level of CO2 verses the level of CO2 during the drought of 1988.
This was probably the 1st recordable function on a large scale of the benefit of additional CO2.
TomRude says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm
nor if I understand Leif’s point correctly, to solar output difference.
=============
It depends on what you define as “solar output difference”. Leif has stated above that the solar wind is not constant, most noticeably at times of low solar activity. The question then becomes what effect does the solar wind have on climate.
Leif says “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.”
Yes, they do but do you use the total atmosphere to see what Co2 does? nNo of course not, so why use bulk TSI, when there are so many individual solar outpuits that have different known consequences?!
Leif says “Ian Holton says..”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
Yes, but they are not correct! My forecasts have a high success rate. Otherwise I would not be in business helping farmers, etc, they would not stay if the forecastys did not have a high success rate…..There is a marked difference…not a valid comparison at all, ortherwise we could say your solar forecasts are like horoscopes but they are not, neither are mine…and I use all ocean data in addition and I am a qualified weather forecaster by trade.
DocMartyn says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm
What you are looking at there, Doc, is the “residence time” of a molecule. How long does the average CO2 molecule stay in the atmosphere? You are right, it’s short, about 5-8 years.
That’s not the measurement Robert Brown (rgbatduke) is discussing. He is looking at what is called the “e-folding time”, or perhaps the half-life. Suppose we add a large bolus (a big bunch) of CO2 to the atmosphere. It will increase the CO2 concentration.
Other things being equal, over time the CO2 concentration will decay back down to the equilibrium CO2 level. We can measure the decay in a couple of ways. First is “half-life”, how long it takes to drop by half. The other way is “e-folding time”, how long it takes to drop to 1/e = 0.37 of its original value.
That is the number over which there is dispute. My own calculations put it at around 32 years. The problem is that the time frame is way too short to reliably differentiate between the standard “Bern Model”, and other calculations. It will take some more years before we can see who is right.
w.
Here’s one I came up with: Climbatologist
@John West says:
Priceless!
“Despite claims to the contrary science really has no idea what the various changes might cause.”
Therefore, we conclude from this ignorance that changes we see in the climate must be caused by the things we dont understand.
That is the sun nut case in a nutshell.
The climate is complex and changes.
The sun has various changes we dont understand.
Ignorance explains ignorance
QED.
The little understood sun, explains the complex climate.
Leif, that about sums up the gist of all your opponents arguments.
to rgbatduke
Your request for a bolus addition of CO2 followed by a decline to zero has been answered by the CMIP5 people: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
They provide an estimate of anthro emissions and resultant CO2 increments (above the 280 ppm pre-industrial background) all the way out to 2500. The first of their four scenarios (RCP3) envisions an increase of emissions up to about 2080 and then a sharp fall to zero (actually slightly negative–CO2sequestration, I guess) by 2100. The associated delta CO2 reaches a peak of 162 ppm in about 2040, dropping off to 58 (162/e) in about 2440. So a 400-year e-folding time tau.
I tried fitting the four scenarios using a single parameter (tau) for each, with indifferent results. (Actually I used two parameters, the volume V of the troposphere being the other one, just to see if it would come out anywhere close to 8 * 10^18 m^3. Which it thankfully did, with errors of 1%, 11%, -35% and -38%.) Some very nice fits out to 2050, but not too good out to 2250. Values of tau were in the range of 100-400 years for the first 3 scenarios, but the fourth one (RCP8.5) looks very strange and gives a negative value for tau.
Steven Mosher says:
“Therefore, we conclude from this ignorance that changes we see in the climate must be caused by the things we dont understand.”
No!
Therefore we conclude from this ignorance that it is premature to draw a conclusion.
This is not that difficult to understand.
@Ferd berple: thank you for that precision. Indeed understanding how solar wind variations can influence weather would help understand what drives climate since climate is the sum of weather.
@Mosher, should we assume from your comments you have an answer to my initial point #2 and can describe for instance how solar wind variations affect the nature -colder/denser or not- of synchronous polar air ejection that control weather, or not and why? I guess we know that answer…
Well I rely on the Mauna Loa data since 1957/8 IGY to estimate the CO2 lifetime.
That data shows a p-p annual oscillation of 6ppm due due natural causes. The detail shows that th CO2 climbs 6ppm in about 7 months, and falls about 6ppm in five months.
Assuming the present level is 395ppm, and for some unknown reason taking 280 ppm as a stable equilibrium level, then the CO2 excess driving the re-absorption natural processes is 115 ppm. which is (115/6)x5 months to remove ALL of the excess at the rate of 6ppm in 5 months, and that comes to 95.83 months. If the process of removal is a normal exponential decay process, then 95.83 months is the decay time constant (to 1/e of the starting excess).
Then 95% of the excess is removed in three time constants, or 99% in five.
So that is 24 years and 40 years respectively; BUT!!
At the north pole, and for virtually all of the arctic, the annual p-p CO2 cycle amplitude is 18 ppm; not 6 as at ML.
So at least in the arctic, where the oceans are colder, the uptake rate is three times what it is at ML, so those time constants may be as short as 8 and 13.3 years respectively.
So no way is the residence time 200 years as some claim, or even 100. Natural processes are much faster than that, and if the atmospheric CO2 addition stopped, that 115 ppm excess would be cleared out in less time than it has been since we last had any significant global warming.
In any case, I consider both CO2 and H2O to be PERMANENT COMPONENTS of earth’s atmosphere, and an H2O/CO2 molecule I just made in my body and exhaled, is just as good as one that Noah exhaled when he was building his ark.
Hockey Schtick says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm
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
‘a’ of course. You calculation is wrong. CO2 has nothing to do with it. It is much simpler. A percentage change of TSI of S%, leads to a change of temperature of S/4%. Since 1.2W/m2 is 0.1% of S, the change in temperature will be 0.1/4% = 0.025%. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07K, Tim.
So Leif, what is the “unknown mechanism”?
You tell me, Tim, as the known mechanisms are not effective enough. Believers claim ‘amplification’, ‘feedback’, etc, but can’t explain how that works and calculate what the amplification should be, Tim.
a. Only shortwave solar radiation can heat the oceans, not changes in IR from GHGs
GHCs have nothing to do with this. All radiation that is absorbed heats the oceans no matter the wavelength, Tim.
b. Many papers have demonstrated a link between solar activity and ocean oscillations, which brings us back to question #2 above.
Many papers have made that claim. Many papers make the claim the CO2 determines the temperature. Claims do not truth make, Tim.
Will says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:57 pm
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.
That is backwards reasoning, since you are assuming the conclusion.
TomRude says:
January 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm
I noticed you did not comment on my point #2…
Do I have to comment on everythingthing. Here is one comment: weather is not climate. Here is another one: the ‘polar front’ is very ‘wavy’ so you see those [Rossby] waves roll by if you stay at a fixed position.
TomRude says:
January 2, 2013 at 4:48 pm
BTW Leif, weather is not climate except that climate expresses itself through the succession of weather events over the years.
Only if the weather events mostly go in the same direction. If they are cyclic [like the seasons] they don’t affect climate.
John West says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:01 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?”
As Willis always points out, you should be clear what you refer to. My interpretation of your ‘paltry’ data was that you meant the recent SIM measurements. They are so paltry that even scientists should not draw any firm conclusions from them, yet.
ferd berple says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Leif has stated above that the solar wind is not constant, most noticeably at times of low solar activity.
Don’t know what you refer to. Probably that the solar wind is not the same in all directions at solar minima, but since the Earth does not sample all directions, the solar wind we get at solar minima is pretty much the same in every minimum.
Ian Holton says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:28 pm
so why use bulk TSI, when there are so many individual solar outputs that have different known consequences?!
Because TSI is where almost all the energy is.
Otherwise I would not be in business helping farmers […]
Many farmers go by the Farmer’s Almanac, too.
I use all ocean data in addition and I am a qualified weather forecaster by trade.
And that is why you often succeed. The solar stuff is just noise on top of what you otherwise do well. Now, I can understand that throwing solar variability into the mix may impress some people and give you a marketing edge.
Roger Knights says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm
“The little understood sun, explains the complex climate.”
Leif, that about sums up the gist of all your opponents arguments.
If you don’t know anything, everything is possible.
Steven Mosher says:
January 2, 2013 at 7:42 pm
The climate is complex and changes.
The sun has various changes we dont understand.
The little understood sun, explains the complex climate
Reminds me of a scene in a play by Holberg [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Holberg ]:
“A stone cannot fly, you cannot fly, ergo: you are a stone.”
To reiterate what Neal states @ur momisugly 2:26 pm:
The comment:
“What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing reported by CDIAC”
is an invalid comparison.
The TSI values mentioned in this paper are of solar irradiance impinging on the earth from space. To make a valid comparison with the CO2 forcing value, the 1.5 W/m2 TSI range value must be adjusted (downward) by a geometry factor of 4 and an albedo factor of 0.7. This makes the TSI radiative forcing range 1.5/4*0.7 = 0.26 W/m2, almost seven times smaller than the CO2 forcing (1.79 W/m2) reported by CDIAC.
I’m surprised there have not been more comments pointing out this elementary error. Perhaps because Neal’s observation “Not so interesting perhaps?” pretty much hit the nail on the head.
TomRude says:
January 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Indeed understanding how solar wind variations can influence weather would help understand what drives climate since climate is the sum of weather.
Apart from that not being precisely true [cyclic changes do not change the climate; imagine all solar cycles had the same size, then we would not claim that the Sun drives the climate] I have investigated the Sun-Weather connection. This ‘connection’ has been discussed for centuries and generally proceeds in a ‘boom-and-bust’ fashion. By 1970 the notion was practically dead, but then a series of papers [of which I am a coauthor] revived the field and S-W connection became almost an accepted fact [see e.g. NASA Special Publication 426, http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf ]. Read at least the Foreword and the Introduction. Unfortunately the correlations turned out to be spurious [although to this day there are still people clinging to them] and the field died again. Now the field is reborn, mainly as an antidote to CO2-driven CAGW [regardless of the scientific merit of either].
George E. Smith says: January 2, 2013 at 8:59 pm
BUT!!
At the north pole, and for virtually all of the arctic, the annual p-p CO2 cycle amplitude is 18 ppm; not 6 as at ML.
===================================
Would you care to substantiate this? Please and thanks.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs
I didn’t notice Mosher was commenting @ur momisugly 7:42 pm on your excellent comment @ur momisugly 2:22 pm until I got off the mobile, and now that I’ve read it I simply can’t resist using a tiny bit with a bit of WW (Willis Wisdom):
@ur momisugly Steven Mosher and Lief Svalgaard
Are you really so confident in the conclusion that because TSI is constant(ish), CO2 explains Climate Change and humanity is to blame in light of all the predictive shortcomings of that model that no additional data should be evaluated or other explanations explored before taking action that in all probability will increase current suffering in a likely futile attempt to avoid future suffering?
John West says:
January 2, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Are you really so confident in the conclusion that because TSI is constant(ish), CO2 explains Climate Change and humanity is to blame
not just TSI but solar activity as a whole. But from that it does not follow that CO2 explains recent climate change. Every sufficiently complex system has internal, natural fluctuations. It is strange that you deny the Earth that property, but cheerfully accept that the Sun has fluctuations in its output. It is also strange that everything must be so black-and-white. In my view some, X, of the climate change is due to CO2, some, Y, is due to the Sun, and some, Z, is due to internal, random fluctuations. The only question is how much of each. The debate has deteriorated into X=100%, Y=Z=0% and Y=100%, X=Z=0%, which is dang silly. Perhaps it is X=10, Y=10, and Z=80, but as long as the ‘debate’ [hardly worth calling it that] is so polarized we can’t make progress in pinning down X, Y, and Z [they may even vary with time].
lsvalgaard says:
“In my view some, X, of the climate change is due to CO2, some, Y, is due to the Sun, and some, Z, is due to internal, random fluctuations. The only question is how much of each.”
Don’t have a heart attack but I agree with that 100% and most of the broader comment except for solar activity as whole being constant(ish) and the implication that I’m saying it must be 100% this or 100% that and 0% the other thing. I don’t know what the likely percentages are but I’m pretty darn sure solar activity isn’t as low as the models incorporate nor CO2 as high judging by their RF component chart.
Also, you didn’t answer the question. Yes or no, in your opinion do we have enough information to act knowing that we cause suffering by acting and possibly suffering by not acting?
lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:56 pm
vukcevic says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Have you heard of polar amplification, the 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..
………………..
Not correct.
There is plenty of data since 1880 when my graph starts
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NV.htm
Polar Amplification data is related to 1970s -2010, see the last illustration in the link
You are running out of arguments, dismissing data from most recent decades, but confidently talking about data 6000 years ago.
What a nonsense.
Leif, yet again I’m very impressed by your patience. Thanks for perservering.
lsvalgaard says:
In my view some, X, of the climate change is due to CO2, some, Y, is due to the Sun, and some, Z, is due to internal, random fluctuations. The only question is how much of each.
Perhaps it is X=10, Y=10, and Z=80 [they may even vary with time].
Now you are talking, indeed Z is due to the Earth’s internal (oceans to the core) fluctuations. These natural fluctuations (whatever mechanism/s) are reflected in the changes of the geomagnetic field and therefore easy to measure.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Let’s summarise:
CO2 ~10%
TSI ~10%
Earth’s internal ~ 80%
“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:”
Yes, while also cloud cover changes (GCR influenced) amount to much more W/m^2 than the TSI change alone (since TSI is far closer to constant in terms of percentage variation albeit varying somewhat), with both adding up to allow a substantial temperature effect despite Earth’s low climate sensitivity, as in such as http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
“TSI weighted reconstruction since approximately 9500 BC.”
In that plot, 20th century solar activity is substantially higher than the average in the 19th century. A simple but effective illustration, sidestepping the bulk of opportunities for obscuration and revisionism, is the particularly straightforward metric of solar cycle length, where shorter solar cycles tend to be more intense: the average solar cycle length over 1901 to 1996 was 10.5 years, compared to slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901 ( ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/docs/maxmin.new )
Then there is my usual set of illustrations (a majority posted before but with only a very small fraction of site visitors ever having seen such, most just ignorant, judged from pageview counts on related links, so I keep up the opportunity for new viewers from time to time):
http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif
(click to enlarge)
which relate to
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
while also particularly nice is
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing
which is from
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS134/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/more/Kirkby_cosmic_rays_and_climate_2007.pdf
A purported cause cannot possibly follow its purported effect.
My article http://thinkinghighways.com/publications/issue/?issue=716&view=true uses a one year lagging correlation on IPCC’s own data to show that ocean temperature (actually ‘air over ocean’) is driving CO2 rather than the converse. That HUGE graphic alone is worth a visit. It shows the time location of all the confounders (ENSO and volcanoes) in trying to link solar radiation to the observed surface temperature of this old globe.
Note that the article includes, for those not comfortable with computer calculations, tabular data giving a visual comparison of the annual numbers (this time with the ENSO water temperature variations replacing the IPCC’s ‘air over ocean’ temperatures). The correspondence of the annual ocean temperature increase with the annual increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the following year is practically perfect … in both time and intensity!
Note also that this research avoids all the uncertainties and controversies associated with interpreting tree rings and drill core layers from eons ago. In comparison with that ‘ancient history’ this is current research using modern measurements practically in real time … as it is happening!
LKMiller says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
=======================
“Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since 1940”
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html
Nitrogen fertilizer production converts nitrogen from the atmosphere into urea, the main macronutrient used by plants. Doesn’t the natural gas used to generate it give off CO2 when combusted?