(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
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Thanks for conceding that the IPCC exaggerates global warming from CO2 by a factor of 11
what is this ‘conceding’ nonsense? I don’t care what IPCC says. I do care about what the sun nuts say when they exaggerate global warming from Sun by a factor of 10
Why omit the 2000s?
“Why do I need to?”
Because you constantly berate skeptics …
Most are not skeptics at all, they just believe in a different ‘religion’, and uncritically it seems.
Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans.
You deny that the IR from the Sun [which is more than half of the total solar output] also heats the oceans? Be precise now. So, you believe that if I remove 53% of the solar irradiance, that will have no effect?
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Thanks for conceding that the IPCC exaggerates global warming from CO2 by a factor of 11
what is this ‘conceding’ nonsense? I don’t care what IPCC says. I do care about what the sun nuts say when they exaggerate global warming from Sun by a factor of 10
Why omit the 2000s?
“Why do I need to?”
Because you constantly berate skeptics …
Most are not skeptics at all, they just believe in a different ‘religion’, and uncritically it seems.
Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans.
You deny that the IR from the Sun [which is more than half of the total solar output] also heats the oceans? Be precise now. So, you believe that if I remove 53% of the solar irradiance, that will have no effect?
vukcevic says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm
good that you have accepted the notion that there is an Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data.
Again you attempt to take unwarranted liberty. Your “Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data” is still nonsense. The internal, natural variability is probably determined by the oceans, not the Earth’s core.
The UV changes are not established. They could be instrumental.
or not. But, it’s nice your friend Judith Lean of the Judithgate controversy agrees with you.
Once again, you provide a fictitious defense while avoiding the main point.
Whether UV variation is 5-6X higher than previously thought or not, the fact is there is a mechanism found by the paper by which changes in UV over solar cycles are amplified to produce climate change. You claim that’s not possible.
Shall I respond with a new CO2 paper?
Yes please provide me with all papers indicating that CO2 controls the NAO, AO, or any other ocean oscillation.
George E. Smith says:
January 2, 2013 at 8:59 pm
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.
Some problems with this reasoning: The fall and rise of CO2 over the seasons is from a quite different process than the removal of an excess amount of CO2. The seasonal swings over a year are caused by temperature: increased emissions from the oceans and increased uptake by vegetation in summer and reverse in winter. The flows involved are quite impressive: resp. 90 GtC in/out the oceans and 60 GtC in/out vegetation. The largest variability is visible in the NH, but globally it is only 5 ppmv/°C (10 GtC/°C), mainly caused by NH vegetation. That – again – is turnover and has nothing to do with the excess decay… What temperature does is changing the CO2 level setpoint within a year (and over the years).
The removal of the excess CO2 of 210 GtC above equilibrium is of a complete different order: only 4 GtC/year is effectively removed per year after a full seasonal cycle. To remove the extra 210 GtC thus needs 210/4 = 52.5 years e-fold time or ~40 years half life time. The seasonal temperature and following CO2 level swings reduce the speed of CO2 removal somewhat in summer and increases it in winter, as the equilibrium setpoint changes over the seasons…
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Whether UV variation is 5-6X higher than previously thought or not, the fact is there is a mechanism found by the paper by which changes in UV over solar cycles are amplified to produce climate change. You claim that’s not possible.
No, I claim that that has not been demonstrated. A proposed mechanism is just that: ‘proposed’.
And you still ‘forget’ to quote the conclusion:
“Any reduction in global mean temperature due to decline is likely to be a very small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”
please provide me with all papers indicating that CO2 controls the NAO, AO, or any other ocean oscillation.
The paper you referred to did not involve the ocean oscillation “avoiding the main point”.
“Most are not skeptics at all, they just believe in a different ‘religion’, and uncritically it seems.”
this is something we have seen more and more of recently. Not too long ago in the blog wars skeptics made good points about the gaps in knowledge, the shoddy documentation, the jumping to conclusions. They were… skeptics. Now instead of that we get people who think their ‘science’ of sun spots is settled. They have no doubt about their theory, they do not demand that folks produce their code, they dont pick through the various details the way mcIntyre picked through the details of mann. And to a man they all avoid reading Leif’s very lucid description of the mistakes in the sun spot record. I mean seriously, you can go look at the documents, you can see that they changed the method of counting. The data shows this discontunity . its as clear as any analysis willis or anthony has done on station data. yet, folks persist in ignoring this work. That is, they fool themselves all the while quoting Feynman about fooling oneself
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL demonstrating the mechanism by which the Sun controls the NAO and AO.
……..
I would suggest that the NAO is a direct response to the possible variability in the strength of a little known current (North Icelandic Jet). The NAO is strongly correlated to the geological movements in the far North Atlantic
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NorthAtlanticOutlook.htm
the area of Kolbeinsey Ridge.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1705-01=&volpage=var
Bear in mind that the NAO is dominated by its northern leg, the atmospheric pressure at nearby Stykkisholmur/Reykjavik.
lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Your “Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data” is still nonsense. The internal, natural variability is probably determined by the oceans, not the Earth’s core.
…………
How kind of you to agree again. Definitely ocean, there is either choice or combination of two: saline ions reaction (termohaline) to combination of the solar cycles and the Earth’s magnetic fields; Lorentz force, http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
or the geology as suggested above.
Do remember, the most of the global warming anomaly is in the high latitudes of the N. Hemisphere
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
under influence of the polar jet-stream, controlled by heat release from the ocean in the Nordic Seas (several hundred watts /m2.(see also NorthAtlanticOutlook link above).
vukcevic says:
January 3, 2013 at 2:01 pm
How kind of you to agree again. Definitely ocean, there is either choice or combination of two: saline ions reaction (termohaline) to combination of the solar cycles and the Earth’s magnetic fields; Lorentz force
The Lorentz force idea is still nonsense [much much too small, plus has a problem with skin depth]. There is no combination of the two fields. And all the other strikes against your ideas still stand.
@ur momisugly Mosher, “And to a man they all avoid reading Leif’s very lucid description of the mistakes in the sun spot record.”
Save us your sanctimonious wide brushstrokes… Svalgaard contribution to taming the “grand maximum” is appreciated, hence my surprise while attempting a discussion with the man…
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:39 am
Now, instead of kiddy’s stuff or 1969 schematics, update your references:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
With a 20-yr old wacky ‘theory’? You have been had.
As you say: No reply needed. EOM
==
Your contempt for an observation based scientific work that describes pertinently our changing climate is pathetic especially given the outdated references you have offered on the subject of atmospheric circulation: at least read the material in the links you provided! You apply onto others’ what you, often rightfully, denounce when it comes to your specialty. Sad.
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Your contempt for an observation based scientific work that describes pertinently our changing climate is pathetic
I have read that paper carefully and I think it does not represent reality. Perhaps I’m biased, but I do think you have been had. The references I gave you represents ‘current knowledge’ to the best of my knowledge. Let others here speak up if they agree with your assessment of the paper you referred to.
You forgot [?] to quote the conclusion:
“Any reduction in global mean temperature due to decline is likely to be a very small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”
1. IPCC projected anthropogenic warming is exaggerated by a factor of 11 per the above calculation. What else did you expect the highly alarmist Met Office to say?
2. They only studied two ocean oscillations in roughly the same region. They did not study any of the many other ocean oscillations on the globe. So sure, changes in one region are unlikely to have an effect on a global average. However, many other papers have shown that the Sun drives other oscillations around the globe, and thus, in toto could affect global avg temp.
3. Even if there was no change in temperature, the Sun has been shown to drive weather patterns and climate independent of temperature, but this should be impossible according to you.
what is this ‘conceding’ nonsense? I don’t care what IPCC says. I do care about what the sun nuts say when they exaggerate global warming from Sun by a factor of 10
ok got it, you don’t care that the IPCC says 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from GHGs causes 3C global warming [3C per Wm-2] compared to [1 Wm-2]/4 = .25 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from solar radiation causing 0.05 C warming, or 0.2 C per Wm-2,
Why omit the 2000s?
I’m not: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
You deny that the IR from the Sun [which is more than half of the total solar output] also heats the oceans? Be precise now. So, you believe that if I remove 53% of the solar irradiance, that will have no effect?
LWIR from the Sun and GHGs can only heat land, not the oceans. For the 4th time, read the post on Realclimate for the reasons. And I suggest you suspend an 100 W IR heat lamp over a bucket of water and report back on the temperature change of the water.
In addition, almost all IR from the Sun is near IR with a wavelength below 2 microns. The shorter the wavelength, the further the penetration into water. There is almost no longwave IR from the Sun, whereas radiation from CO2 is all LWIR with a wavelength of about 15 microns, which only penetrates water by a few microns.
REPLY: It helps to read before condemning, though your history shows condemning things you don’t like is what you do best.
Finally, all statistical tests are probabilistic and depend on the specification of the model. Type 1 error refers to the probability of rejecting a hypothesis when it is true (false positive) and type 2 error refers to the probability of not rejecting a hypothesis when it is false (false negative). In our case the type 1 error is very small because anthropogenic forcing is I (1) with very low probability, and temperature is polynomially cointegrated with very low probability.
—————————
It would help immensely if you quoted from the correct paper!
REPLY: I quote from the paper discussed on this thread. You must be looking at something else. Was your comment not directed at critiquing this paper?
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 3:45 pm
1. IPCC projected anthropogenic warming is exaggerated by a factor of 11 per the above calculation. What else did you expect the highly alarmist Met Office to say?
So, you accept what they say when it confirms your belief, and reject it when it does not. There is a word for that. Actually two words: beginning with ‘C’ and ‘B’, respectively.
in toto could affect global avg temp.
‘could’. If pigs had wings, they ‘could’ fly.
the Sun has been shown to drive weather patterns and climate independent of temperature, but this should be impossible according to you.
A claim is not ‘has been shown’ [and there are many, including some of mine:
Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Wilcox, John M.; Scherrer, Philip H.; Svalgaard, Leif; Roberts, Walter Orr; Olson, Roger H.
Science, Volume 180, Issue 4082, pp. 185-186, 04/1973.
Abstract
The solar magnetic sector structure appears to be related to the average area of high positive vorticity centers (low-pressure troughs) observed during winter in the Northern Hemisphere at the 300-millibar level. The average area of high vorticity decreases (low-pressure troughs become less intense) during a few days near the times at which sector boundaries are carried past the earth by the solar wind. The amplitude of the effect is about 10 percent.]
ok got it, you don’t care that the IPCC says
No I don’t care. People say many things that are not true.
“Why omit the 2000s?” I’m not
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
“many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980′s-1990′s from locations around the globe”
LWIR from the Sun and GHGs can only heat land, not the oceans.
You are confusing IR from the Sun and from GHGs. 53% of the 340 w/m2 that is the incoming solar energy is IR. Explain what happens to that.
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:24 pm
In addition, almost all IR from the Sun is near IR with a wavelength below 2 microns. The shorter the wavelength, the further the penetration into water. There is almost no longwave IR from the Sun, whereas radiation from CO2 is all LWIR with a wavelength of about 15 microns, which only penetrates water by a few microns.
Ah, you are catching on! So, why confuse the issue about the sun’s influence with that of LWIR? And repeating it four times!
REPLY: I quote from the paper discussed on this thread. You must be looking at something else. Was your comment not directed at critiquing this paper?
You quoted from Beenstock et al. This page is about Kokfelt and Muscheler’s paper.
REPLY: You are correct. I’ll have to stop moderating in a limited screen. The WP app I used this AM doesn’t show all the context. My apologies for that confusion and comment that was truly off-topic – Anthony
You are the party that conflated near IR from the Sun with LWIR in your question above. You will note above I specified LWIR when I said “Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans.” And the chart of penetration depth above shows the difference between near IR and LWIR .
Once again:
Why omit the 2000s?
I’m not: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
A claim is not ‘has been shown’ [and there are many, including some of mine:
OK fine I’ll restate it:
Many many papers have claimed the Sun drives weather patterns and climate independent of temperature [including papers by Dr. Svalgaard], but these claims are baseless and impossible according to Dr. Svalgaard.
Leif writes: “I have read that paper carefully and I think it does not represent reality”
So I guess that cold air anticyclones thickness must be different than the observed, measured usual 1500m, that satellite imagery showing these cold polar origined air masses moving through mid latitudes into the tropical circulation must be wrong, that the discontinuities observed over the meteorological equator must not exist etc…
To sum it up, the geometry of circulation observed is the reality. Leroux merely describes it instead of guessing it like Ferrell 1856, Bjerknes 1923 or Rossby 1939, all models proposed before the advent of satellite observation. Leroux through detailed reconstruction work in tropical Africa first and its extension later is simply correcting them and presenting a coherent reconstruction of this reality.
BTW, since predictive ability is still a scientific way to differentiate between concepts, may I suggest browsing the work of Barbier 2005 on the Panama Isthmus and how Leroux’s MPH reality yielded much better data matching results and understanding than NOAA’s models. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/04/73/65/PDF/tel-00007550.pdf
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm
You are the party that conflated near IR from the Sun with LWIR in your question above.
The LWIR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing the influence of the Sun. I’ll give you that. So, perhaps we have heard the last of this.
Once again:
“Why omit the 2000s? I’m not…
So, Once again:
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
“many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980′s-1990′s from locations around the globe”
Many many papers have claimed the Sun drives weather patterns and climate independent of temperature [including papers by Dr. Svalgaard], but these claims are baseless and impossible according to Dr. Svalgaard.
while you are on the re-stating trip, oerhaps one more time:
“these claims have with time invariably turned out to be spurious.” [inclusing mine]. Even after 400 years, the claims keep coming, a sure sign that they have not been established. Established and generally accepted phenomena do not generate a continuous stream of new claims. We don’t see claims anymore that the Earth is round, or that the Sun is a star, and that we revolve anbout the Sun and not the other way around, etc.
“these claims have with time invariably turned out to be spurious.” [inclusing mine]. Even after 400 years, the claims keep coming, a sure sign that they have not been established. Established and generally accepted phenomena do not generate a continuous stream of new claims. We don’t see claims anymore that the Earth is round, or that the Sun is a star, and that we revolve anbout the Sun and not the other way around, etc.
Oh please, a chaotic nonlinear system with grossly inadequate measurements over long timescales can hardly be compared to the Earth being round. And new claims are necessary to look at new data and different aspects of the most complex system ever studied.
Chao
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 5:06 pm
suggest browsing the work of Barbier 2005 on the Panama Isthmus and how Leroux’s MPH reality yielded much better data matching results and understanding than NOAA’s models
so where in that tome does one find a comparison [tables, plots, statistical significance, etc] of extensive testing of the predictions of the MPH and NOAA?
Sorry, you’ll have to read the work, carefully.
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Oh please, a chaotic nonlinear system with grossly inadequate measurements over long timescales can hardly be compared to the Earth being round. And new claims are necessary to look at new data and different aspects of the most complex system ever studied.
I have studied this system for more than forty years and read hundreds of those papers [and written many myself] and my take is that the quality of the papers stand in gross disparity with what is needed or expected for the ‘most complex system ever studied’. What characterizes a mature science is that workers build on each other’s studies, results, and findings. Very few of sun-weather-climate papers do that [besides mentioning other work in passing]. This is probably appropriate as one might say that S-W-C science is still in its infancy and is not at all a ‘mature science’. But if one does that, then it follows that the claimants are still groping in the dark and that policy cannot be based on [or even influenced by] that groping. And that every new claim is just one more straw to clutch at.