This is interesting, especially since Solar Cycle 23 was quite long.
The Hockey Schtick writes:
A paper published by the Danish Meteorological Institute finds a remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice observations over the past 500 years to “the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.” The paper adds to several others demonstrating that Arctic sea ice extent and climate is controlled by natural variations in solar activity, ocean & atmospheric oscillations, winds & storm activity, not man-made CO2.
Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000
Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll
Abstract:
The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
…
Conclusion:
In view of the large significance observed we suggest that the correlation of 0.67, between
multi-decadal modes in the Koch ice index and the solar cycle length, is indicative of a relationship not due to chance. The multi-decadal modes still represent only a small fraction of the total variance in the ice series, which illustrates that while the kind of solar activity characterised by the variable length of the solar cycle may cause some of the variability seen in the ice series, the majority is caused by other factors.
Whereas the multi-decal mode may be a result of varying solar activity, the cause of the slowly varying mode is not directly seen from the data presented here. Obviously, it must be due to a natural variation of the climate. A variation of similar shape may be recognised in the solar cycle length (Figure 1.5), but it has not been possible from the present data to deduce a correlation that is significant. Nevertheless, the similarity of the variation of the ice export through the Fram Strait and the smoothed variation of the solar cycle length shown in Figure 1.7 speaks in favour of the assumption that the solar cycle variation may include both natural modes. This conclusion is in accordance with the finding by Bond et al., 2001 (their Figure 2) that a persistent series of solar influenced millennial-scale variations, which include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, reflect a baseline of the centennial-scale cycles.
values of solar cycle length (SCL121) (heavy curve).
The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.
Full paper is here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sure. We’ve got proxies for solar activity but let’s just ignore them and focus on a proxy for the proxies.
And we didn’t invent a process called gravity, we measured a process called gravity. And we figured it out to a lot of decimal places by taking as direct measurements as possible.
Just because a paper reports results that resonate with our skeptic viewpoint doesn’t mean we should cease being skeptics. If this paper holds water, then the proxy data should say the same thing as the proxy for proxy data. It doesn’t.
The sun is a massive source of energy and particles, that pulses and flips polarity with a frequency of about 1 cycle / 11 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup it does. We’ve got instrumental measurements of same for a number of years now and proxy data in the way of Be10 and sun spots. But let’s ignore those because they don’t tell us what we want to hear and instead focus on a proxy for the proxies because it does.
Long before we knew the physical process, people learned to predict that if you ate something cold you would get a serious head pain. Yet to this day we have no “name” for this process. Some call it ice cream fzckup, others cold stimulus headache. Watching TV years ago I recall Martin Mull came up with the idea to name things that had no name. As I recall he called it a glorn, but maybe that was a lizard creature on star trek.
In any case, to this day when eating ice cream our family now predicts a glorn will happen. we have some vague idea that maybe it has something to with blood vessels, but really it makes no difference. we know that eating ice cream can cause a glorn. the value of scientific prediction in action. made absolutely no difference why ice cream caused a glorn, only that there was a high correlation between eating it too fast and the appearance of a glorn, so take it slow.
Quote from Dr. Svalgaard:
“The ice data is probably good. The Solar Cycle Length analysis is nonsense.”
I have no quarrel with that.
Other_Andy says:
“Interesting but…..
Correlation does not imply causation.”
I think we can pretty conclusively rule out the ice level having an effect on the Sun. 🙂
Oh wait there.. if there is more ice, there will be more reflection back to the Sun, so the Sun will heat up.
davidmhoffer says: “Sorry, but 100 volts rms at 50 Hz heats the pot of water exactly the same as 100 volts rms at 60 Hz. This paper is telling you to ignore the volts and focus on the Hz.”
Can you say, “False analogy?”
I knew you could.
davidmhoffer says:
July 18, 2013 at 11:19 pm
And we didn’t invent a process called gravity, we measured a process called gravity.
===========
What we measured was something some believe to be a process and we invented the label “gravity” as an abstract representation of the patterns in our observations. to claim that gravity is a process is a matter of faith, a belief in a model of our observed reality. we know not what it is, only what it does.
Sigh. I’ll take all that ignoring of my low-information posts as a clue. Thanks for your honesty.
**************
(will I EVER learn! here I go again….) Hey, Andy G! I hope all is going well after that rough week you mentioned about two weeks ago. I was praying. Take care, down there! #[:)]
Janice,
If you said 2 and 2 is 4 and I said it was 3, would you agree to saw it off at 3.5? Sorry, but in math and physics, there is little room for compromise.
For those still twisting the facts to fit their world view, see vuckevic’s comment above quoting Leif. When those two agree on something regarding solar physics that bluntly, I for one sit up and pay attention.
Thank you, David Hoffer, for honoring me with a response. I want to argue with the logic and reasoning of your assertions above, but, this is a science forum. Since I simply cannot argue the science, I’ll stop interrupting you wonderful science guys. Even more, I want to be your truth in science pal (virtually speaking), so, I’ll just say that I hope that you and Ian and Steve W. can communicate well enough with each other to understand exactly what each of you is saying and to find SOME common ground. Surely, there must be something!
Take care.
J.
Correlation between the solar cycles intensity (SSN) and solar cycles length (SCL) is slightly negative but negligible (R^2 = 0.12).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SCL-SSN.htm
Since when was an R value of 0.67 a good correlation?
davidmhoffer says: “Sorry, but 100 volts rms at 50 Hz heats the pot of water exactly the same as 100 volts rms at 60 Hz. This paper is telling you to ignore the volts and focus on the Hz.”
___________
For being so finiky about causality, you seem to have completely missed the boat that without a mention of wattage or the amount of water being heated (or the time scales measured) you have just spouted utter nonsense.
If you looked at very cold water on very short time scales with very small energy levels (low wattage), you would see a very significant variation in the way the pot was heated. In fact, you would see spurts of heating timed closely to the phase of the current.
All in all, your analogy seems to support what you purported it to undermine.
Typo in the post: the probability of correlation with R=0.67 is 50%, not 0.5%
Correlation between the solar cycles intensity (SSN) and solar cycles length (SCL) is slightly negative but negligible (R^2 = 0.12)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SCL-SSN.htm
wrong! please forget my earlier comment
jimmi_the_dalek says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:41 am
Since when was an R value of 0.67 a good correlation?
Good question… In general that is a fair correlation with a 50% chance to be spurious. But for natural processes it is quite high as so many processes are involved which all influence ice sheets…
But still correlation is not causation…
When it’s sunny, the ice melts.
Please send me my PhD.
Vukcevic
Try some smoothing
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
http://virakkraft.com/SSN-SCL.png
Off course it’s the sun.
While a .67 is not that high in and of itself, the fact it holds over hundreds of years is what drives the probability so high. Anything that has a 99.5% relationship cannot be dismissed with a hand wave. OTOH, keep in mind that there could be a third process driving both items. Or, a combination of other factors could be involved. The appearance of ice in the Fram straight does not necessarily mean low ice. It could be wind patterns that create this situation and wind patterns are driven by changes in atmospheric pressure.
The number of possibilities might be quite large.
Is it just me or is the Arctic (so far) been the coldest summer on the record for the north of the 80th northern parallel of the the Centre for Ocean and Ice?
“Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel, as a function of the day of year.”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Come on. It is the area under the curve that provides the energy. It is the length times the height!!! Usually, less height [sunspots] produces longer frequency; and more sunspots produce shorter frequency. Remember shorter frequency means more energy produced more often.
One can not take just a single cycle to determine to the energy produced over 100 years. Complete the average of sunspots over the cycles times cycle length over the 100 years to get the trend.
Quit looking at the weather [instantaneous] and look at the climate [long term average]!!
We must wait for this cycle to end before the full impact of the reduced energy is felt on the Earth. This cycle is enough to keep the Global temperatures steady. But, we are at the peak of this 360 year cycle [2 x 180 years] with all of the oceans stored heat. In two years [or sooner] the pain of the reduced energy will be felt.
davidmhoffer says:
__________________________
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?
Or do you have a proof that there is no way there can be any physical relation? No, you just don’t believe there is. That’s okay. And you may actually be right. Or not. So far it’s just belief against belief, no science involved.