From the University of Edinburgh , another one-paper syndrome in the making funded by an NGO research council with a political mission to grab a headline. And, another poorly written press release where they don’t even cite the name of paper. Sigh.
============================================================
Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows
Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.
The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.
Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions. These tend to prevent sunlight reaching the Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.
The findings show that periods of low sun activity should not be expected to have a large impact on temperatures on Earth, and are expected to improve scientists’ understanding and help climate forecasting.
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh carried out the study using records of past temperatures constructed with data from tree rings and other historical sources. They compared this data record with computer-based models of past climate, featuring both significant and minor changes in the sun.
They found that their model of weak changes in the sun gave the best correlation with temperature records, indicating that solar activity has had a minimal impact on temperature in the past millennium.
The study, published in Nature GeoScience, was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council.
Dr Andrew Schurer, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, said: “Until now, the influence of the sun on past climate has been poorly understood. We hope that our new discoveries will help improve our understanding of how temperatures have changed over the past few centuries, and improve predictions for how they might develop in future. Links between the sun and anomalously cold winters in the UK are still being explored.”
=============================================================
I’m not so sure this fellow is fully versed on climatology. His papers up to 2011 were all about cosmology, then all of the sudden he starts publishing on climatology issues. One wonders if his previous funding dried up to make such a dramatic shift in study. Then there is: “…climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations…”. IPCC Models haven’t been able to reproduce the last ten years; what makes them think they are worth anything 100-200 years ago?
Here is the abstract: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html
Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium
- Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040
- Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013
The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere1. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly2, 3, 4, 5 (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained5, 6, with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude7, 8, 9. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions10, 11, 12, 13. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions14 for the past millennium. Our methodology15 also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.
Figure 1: Simulations and temperature reconstructions.
a, Simulations with all forcings (red and green) compared with a reconstruction ensemble14 (blue), and instrumental HadCRUT4 (ref. 24) time series (centred on the average reconstruction over time of overlap, black).
The SI is here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2040-s1.pdf
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I went as far as this line
“Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.”
And stopped reading. The first sentence was too much to bear!
is there a rush on studies being published for Christmas!
22 Dec: Nature Geoscience: Extensive liquid meltwater storage in firn within the Greenland ice shee
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2043.html
22 Dec: BBC: Matt McGrath: ‘Massive’ reservoir of melt water found under Greenland ice
The melting of the Greenland ice sheet has been a significant contributor to a rise in sea levels over the past 100 years.
According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ice sheet lost 34 billion tonnes of ice per year between 1992 and 2001 – but this increased to 215 billion tonnes between 2002 and 2011…
But crucially the scientists don’t know the ultimate destination of the water in the reservoir…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25463647
22 Dec: AFP: Vast water store beneath Greenland’s ice
The secret store appears to have been around for some time and was not initiated by man-made global warming, the scientists believe…
The next step is to determine whether the reservoir helps or hinders the survival of Greenland’s icesheet.
“It might conserve the meltwater flow and thus help slow down the effects of climate change,” said Forster…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2zLeeXZz438B40Bx1GoxqhjJXgA?docId=a388886e-3ddb-4410-bfbe-a374da9fbcdd
22 Dec: io9: A huge reservoir of meltwater has been discovered beneath Greenland
The researchers don’t know if the water will ever make its way to the ocean.
“It depends on whether it is currently connected to a system that is draining into the ocean or if it is a bit isolated and completely acting as a storage source without a current connection,” said Forster. “We don’t know the answer to this right now. It’s massive, it’s a new system we haven’t seen before — we need to understand it more completely if we are to predict sea level rise.”…
http://io9.com/a-huge-reservoir-of-meltwater-has-been-discovered-benea-1488508774
@Gerald Kelleher 12:48,
Sorry your link not working.
You may have a fine point, the joke being learned stupidity but how does such a oxymoron differ from the claimed accuracies for temperature anomalies, or the amazing Global average Temperature?
here’s some good news for the festive season:
20 Dec: Scientific American: Reuters: Damaged Reefs Show Resiliency in Cayman Islands
A 13-year study of coral reefs spontaneously recovering in the Cayman Islands offers hope of refuting often doomsday forecasts about the worldwide decline of the colorful marine habitat…
Scientists monitoring the Cayman reefs noted a 40 percent decline in live coral cover between 1999 and 2004 during a period of warmer seas in the Caribbean.
However, seven years later, the amount, size and density of the live coral had returned to 1999 levels as sea temperatures eased, according to Tom Frazer, professor of aquatic ecology at the University of Florida and part of the research team.
“People have said these systems don’t have a chance,” Frazer told Reuters. “What we are saying is: ‘Hey, this is evidence they do have a chance.'”…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=damaged-reefs-show-resiliency-in-ca
Until we have a positive explanation for the correlation between certain measures of solar activity and global temperatures, I won’t be impressed. No amount of “it can’t be the sun” makes that correlation go away.
davidmhoffer says:
December 23, 2013 at 10:39 am
Steven Mosher says:
December 23, 2013 at 9:48 am
I’m not so sure this fellow is fully versed on climatology.?
hmm. are you talking about Ross mcKittrick? Steve McIntyre?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t recall either claiming to be versed in climatology. Their claims have been entirely about the mishandling of data analysis and statistics in climate papers. I don’t need a degree in physics to point out that if a paper is predicated on 2+2=5.39 that it is wrong.
You have a great deal of knowledge to share. It is too bad that you choose instead condescension and misdirection.
—————————————————————————————
+3
Dr. James Hansen switched from
astrologyastronomy to climastrology. He published a paper back in the 1960s that blamed dust on Venus warming. When he got into climate he blamed the warming since the late 1970s on non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as CFCs. Then he moved onto soot and finally settled on Co2. What next? Cow fart? With a record like that I want a second opinion.—————
Abstract
Dr. James Hansen et. al. – 2003
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
…..Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.short
Sorry, I forgot the soot and Venus link
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha05400j.html
Mannian tree rings and computer models. Yep, got great confidence in that study (sarc off).
Fine point indeed John !,when you can’t correlate the daily temperature fluctuation within a 24 hour period with one rotation of the planet and keep them in step day in and day out then the issue is not a global climate problem,it is a very troubled era populated by people too blinkered and too vicious to see the point.
The fact is that the imagined imbalance between days and rotations was created out of the first attempt to model the motions of the Earth using the emerging technology of accurate watches just as they now try to model climate using the emerging technology of computers. I will even show you the offending original statement which went on to constitute rotating celestial sphere science –
“.. our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical [constant]..” John Flamsteed 1677
He may as well have said the Earth is flat because the expanded qualifiers disprove such a notion,these qualifiers are that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds of an average 24 hour cycle within a 365/365/365/366 day framework. It is not that,so enchanted were men by their use of a watch to extract the motions of the Earth that they are still willing to ignore an impossible imbalance between days and rotations even when common sense should intervene.
You are bound together by hatred of each other and not an attempt to elevate the standards for climate science so forget about fine points,when a society can’t support the most basic experience of temperature fluctuations and its rotational cause within a 24 hour period then all other issues fade into irrelevance.
Our methodology also accounts for internal climate variability
How one can account for the ‘internal climate variability’ if its extent or magnitude is not known? Another case of numerology?
I returned to the RC blog, possibly foolishly promoting solar contribution to the natural variability, where of course it was (as often is case here too) classified as numerology.
Surprisingly one of the comments said kindly:
I don’t know what numerology is, and I understand these graphs are simplistic, but I ask of natural variation, where’s the beef?
With a due praise to the Gavin’s benevolence this answer was allowed:
“Difficult to tell, we just have to wait and see. If my calculations prove to be correct then ‘the beef’ will show itself, in which case most of the currently promoted climate models may prove to be closer to numerology than their authors would care to admit.”
There are only two sources of heat for our atmosphere, that from below and that big shiny ball in the sky. Neither can be perfectly constant. How can people accept paychecks for this stuff?
So if the sun suddenly goes out or explodes, it will have no effect on our climate. Sounds logical to me. So I should not waste money on running my furnace this winter because it will have no effect on the temperature inside my house.
Apparently that last ice age was caused by 100,000 years of extreme volcanic activity.but where is the evidence that such happened? Ice cores must be loaded with volcanic ash and particulate matter. Considering the apparent correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures in the paleoclimate record, if CO2 is a cause then it should be an H of a lot warmer then it actually is today. So apparently the oceans have not effect on our climate either.
One can program simulations to provide any desired results. Actually realizing these results in the real world is the real problem.
Nicola Scafetta,
Thanks for the graph update. Remarkable. It would be nice if Anthony could post the currently updated version on the sidebar.
“Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows”
Who says you can’t have your paradigm shift into the “Anthropocene Age” and your data too?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/nasa-cooling-down-the-whole-worlds-past/
Another clumsy, shabby, foregone-conclusion driven piece of drivel. The authors of this paper should be embarrassed at how obvious their errors are even to the uninitiated.
what was it Einstein said?
See here
No translation required
Well CO2 is rising, and solar activity is falling, so we’ll soon see which is in control. Unfortunately there’s no penalty in academia for being wrong (eg. your pension is cut by a third for every wrong prediction). It would remove the need for peer review. People’s language would be a lot more measured. It might cramp academic expression, but who cares? Who needs wild speculation anyway? It’s costing me money.
A few observations:
1. Nicola Scafetta wrote:
“If hockey-stick like temperature reconstructions are used, then the solar signature is very small.”
I’m not sure that applies here – their detection and attribution analysis, according to Tables S2 and S3, was based on regressions over 1000-1900 and 1450-1900, before the blade of the hockey stick takes off.
2. I’ve not come across Andrew Schurer, but Simon Tett and (particularly) Gabi Hegerl are pretty experienced in this type of study. The Hegerl et al (2006) last millenium Bayesian climate sensitivity study is pretty thorough, although I think its estimate was biased up significantly by the inappropriate prior distributions it used. The study under discussion is not Bayesian, however.
3. One issue with this sort of study is that there is much more variance in the smoothed volcanic forcing series than in the smoothed solar and GHG series. That means the regression coefficients for solar and GHG ould be dominated by incidental relationships with volcanic activity. The last part of section S3 claims that is not the case if decadal variability is used. Whilst I have no reason to disbelieve that claim, equally I have no practical way of checking it.
4. The paper suffers, so far as I can tell, from the usual climate science defect of failure to archive the data and computer code used, making it difficult, probably impossible, to verify the results.
I think that the disclaimer is in the main claim:
“Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun”.
I cannot recall anyone seriously claiming that variations in heat from the sun have had much effect on the temperature of earth. Indeed, I seem to recall discussions regarding the mechanisms which had allowed earth to be warm in the distant past when the sun was probably providing significantly less heat. It is my understanding that claims of significant effects from solar variations have to do with indirect causes such as magnetic fields which may allow significant variations in the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. My suspicious nature may be showing, but is it possible that the study was deliberately designed to consider only one insignificant solar variation so that the desired claim could be obtained?
Anthony,
Who is this Mosher that seems to be an acquaintance of yours but rarely backs up his assertions with data?
The warmists are running out of time to publish goofy papers to try to pushing the extreme AGW hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Observational proof to confirm that assertion will be significant in your face cooling, due to the solar magnetic cycle interruption. The warmists need to start working on plan B whatever that might be.
TSI has dropped roughly 1.5 watts/meter^2. It is odd that there is no discussion of that fact in the media.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1971
GCR at solar magnetic cycle 24 maximum is as high as past cycle averages.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
There is the start of cooling at both poles. Antarctic sea ice is two sigma above average, for all months of the year, which is unprecedented in 40 years of data. Arctic sea ice has made the fastest recovery in the 40 years of data.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the southern and northern hemisphere that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The question is not if solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary temperature but rather how. There is no need to sweat over how the sun modulates planetary climate we can answer that by observation as the planet cools.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
“Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled “Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history” and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (Nature, 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. …. ….. We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years at apparently irregular intervals (though we have not analyzed for subtle regularities, which may exist). The 342 NWEs we identified by this method are reminiscent of the two more recent NWEs reported in the Mulvaney et al. paper. (William: The 342 warming events were followed by 342 cooling events. The regions of the planet that warmed and cooled – high latitude regions both hemispheres matches the pattern of warming of warming experienced in the last 70 years.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings
William: In the last 70 years, the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 6000 years. The solar magnetic cycle has abruptly slowed down with the fastest reduction in 8000 years of data.
Richard Mallett said at 10:46 am
“Looking at the graphs in the Supplementary Information, one sees large decreases in temperature at the time of the Dalton minimum in so many of them. That was a time of low solar activity, right ?”
Correlation is not causation unless alarmists say it is. They say it is, if and only if, it suits their “cause”.
“a new scientific study shows.” Uh huh. How about a “really, really, reeeeally, certainly, indisputably sciencey, scientific study.”
acementhead says:
December 23, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Richard Mallett said at 10:46 am
“Looking at the graphs in the Supplementary Information, one sees large decreases in temperature at the time of the Dalton minimum in so many of them. That was a time of low solar activity, right ?”
Correlation is not causation unless alarmists say it is. They say it is, if and only if, it suits their “cause”.
__________________
You’ve been paying attention.