From Cardiff University
Sun’s energy influences 1,000 years of natural climate variability in North Atlantic
Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University.
Scientists studied seafloor sediments to determine how the temperature of the North Atlantic and its localised atmospheric circulation had altered. Warm surface waters flowing across the North Atlantic, an extension of the Gulf Stream, and warm westerly winds are responsible for the relatively mild climate of Europe, especially in winter. Slight changes in the transport of heat associated with these systems can led to regional climate variability, and the study findings matched historic accounts of climate change, including the notoriously severe winters of the 16th and 18th centuries which pre-date global industrialisation.
The study found that changes in the Sun’s activity can have a considerable impact on the ocean-atmospheric dynamics in the North Atlantic, with potential effects on regional climate.
Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.
The study, led by Cardiff University scientists, in collaboration with colleagues at the University of Bern, is published today in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez, lead author from Cardiff University School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explained: “We used seafloor sediments taken from south of Iceland to study changes in the warm surface ocean current. This was done by analysing the chemical composition of fossilised microorganisms that had once lived in the surface of the ocean. These measurements were then used to reconstruct the seawater temperature and the salinity of this key ocean current over the past 1000 years.”
The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data.
“By using the climate model it was also possible to explore how the changes in solar output affected the surface circulation of the Atlantic Ocean,” said Prof Ian Hall, a co-author of the study. “The circulation of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is typically tightly linked to changes in the wind patterns. Analysis of the atmosphere component in the climate model revealed that during periods of solar minima there was a high-pressure system located west of the British Isles. This feature is often referred to as atmospheric blocking, and it is called this because it blocks the warm westerly winds diverting them and allowing cold Arctic air to flow south bringing harsh winters to Europe, such as those recently experienced in 2010 and 2013.”
Meteorological studies have previously found similar effects of solar variability on the strength and duration of atmospheric winter blockings over the last 50 years, and although the exact nature of this relationship is not yet clear, it is thought to be due to complex processes happening in the upper layers of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere.
Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez added: “In this study we show that this relationship is also at play on longer time-scales and the large ocean changes, recorded in the microfossils, may have helped sustain this atmospheric pattern. Indeed we propose that this combined ocean-atmospheric response to solar output minima may help explain the notoriously severe winters experienced across Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries, so vividly depicted in many paintings, including those of the famous London Frost Fairs on the River Thames, but also leading to extensive crop failures and famine as corroborated in the record of wheat prices during these periods.”
The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.
Notes for Editors:
Funding for this research has come from the Natural Environment Research Council, UK, the National Science Foundation, Switzerland, the European Commission and NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL). This research forms part of the Climate Change Consortium of Wales (C3W; http://c3wales.org/).
==================================================================
The paper:
Solar forcing of North Atlantic surface temperature and salinity over the past millennium
Paola Moffa-Sánchez, Andreas Born, Ian R. Hall, David J. R. Thornalley & Stephen Barker
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2094
Abstract:
There were several centennial-scale fluctuations in the climate and oceanography of the North Atlantic region over the past 1,000 years, including a period of relative cooling from about AD 1450 to 1850 known as the Little Ice Age1. These variations may be linked to changes in solar irradiance, amplified through feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation2. Changes in the return limb of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation are reflected in water properties at the base of the mixed layer south of Iceland. Here we reconstruct thermocline temperature and salinity in this region from AD 818 to 1780 using paired δ18O and Mg/Ca ratio measurements of foraminifer shells from a subdecadally resolved marine sediment core. The reconstructed centennial-scale variations in hydrography correlate with variability in total solar irradiance. We find a similar correlation in a simulation of climate over the past 1,000 years. We infer that the hydrographic changes probably reflect variability in the strength of the subpolar gyre associated with changes in atmospheric circulation. Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds. We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
For all of you out there, today is the last day to submit your recommendations to the EPA on their carbon plan.
The conclusion of the paper appears to reflect a new consensus among climate shaman — natural forces can offset AGW, but AGW will continue unless we destroy our modern economies. The Economist has an interesting article: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being; which argues that pause in warming is not permanent and will be reversed soon because the drivers behind the pause — aerosols from China, a quiet sun, ocean currents, etc., are reversing. I am not an English major, but one would think the term “pause” implies that the underlying process will not go on for ever. Finally, I find it interesting that 17-18 years of no warming is considered a temporary phenomena, but an almost equal length period of warming is considered permanent. I wonder what the shaman will say when the earth starts cooling as Joe Bastardi and other real climate experts are predicting.
“Very Poor.”
1. “…temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions… .”
Comment: If they are ignorant enough to think that is bona fide science, why should I give any weight to ANYTHING they say?”
2.“By using the climate model it was also possible to explore how the changes in solar output affected the surface circulation of the Atlantic Ocean,… .”
Comment: IOW, it is possible to EXPLORE OUR OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS. Worthless.
3. “… regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account … .”
Comment: Since these solar effects are mere conjecture THEY BE CANNOT BE “TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.” Let’s play pretend science. Waste of time (and taxpayer’s hard earned money).
At the bottom… “Funding for this research has come from the Natural Environment Research Council, UK, the National Science Foundation…”
–
When they finished their research and opened the door, what did they yell — “Ok, who ordered the recycled modeling tripe, with a smidgeon of corruption?”
@ur momisugly M. Nichopolis – LOL.
Yeah, “…. AND A SIDE OF L1ES!”
Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds. We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2094.html
I get it, all natural climate variability is insignificant compared to co2 unless it happens to cancel the effect of co2, then it’s a fluke.
Okay, Dr. Svalgaard — How am I doing? #(:))
Where are the charts, graphs, data!
This link has four figures, but they are too small!
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2094.html
Non-linear emergent phenomena reacting chaotically to unknown inputs from poorly understood sources.
By admitting that the sun may play a role, (but not as much as human-caused CO2), they are slowly morphing their way back to scientific sanity. Next, they will drop the modifying aspect of it being caused by humans, etc. etc.
Interesting in that our Article V project to Restore Liberty and would de-fund most GRANT Science studies has had a considerable increase in visits from the DOD, DOE, NASA, Universities, and colleges since we starting asking for real science PEER REVIEWS.
Our project is growing larger everyday and when you ask serious questions and recommend taking the power of money and bribes away from the Federal government some panic sets into the E=GREEN movement. Make them apply this method to all research or no more money.
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html
Their conclusion:
“Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller [my bold] than the warming from future CO2 emissions, regional climate variability associated with solar-induced oceanatmosphere feedbacks could be substantial and should be taken into consideration when projecting future climate changes.”
The variables are infinite and the modeling programs are finite therefore new methods are necessary or we are just as well off with a Ouija board. We are all fighting over a few thousand of years worth of data in a system that is billions of years old.
I think taxes might be a better indicator of climate – do we have money for heat and transport?
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-taxation-in-the-united-states.html
“Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.”
That’s an odd statement considering we have already had a decade and a half of no warming and we are just now entering the period of predicted low sun activity. If carbon dioxide emissions have done nothing for 17 years, why should we think they will suddenly warm temperatures during “a prolonged period of low sun activity”? Talk about blind faith in CAGW!
“but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions”
Since temperature changes created by human carbon dioxide emissions are almost nil, it means natural temperature changes created by solar activity are less than almost nil. Are they agreeing with Dr S?
Despite their failure to recognise the effects of low solar activity as being global their data supports my New Climate Model.
I suggest that solar wavelength and particle variations alter the ozone creation / destruction processes in the stratosphere to change the equator to pole tropopause height gradient.
That is what causes the shifting climate zones and changes in jet stream tracks.
They also overstate the assumed effect of our CO2 emissions as compared to the size of the natural solar induced climate variations.
From MWP to LIA and from LIA to date the jet stream tracks approaching western Europe varied latitudinally by 1000 miles.
I doubt that our emissions would shift them by as much as one mile.
@ur momisugly John Boles (2:07pm) — NICE. And, precisely.
That’s why this weaselly, useless, language above:
“These variations may be linked to”
“hydrographic changes probably reflect variability”
“this process could have contributed” {this is almost a bold faced l1e — for, they have NO EVIDENCE, only conjecture, that changes in solar irradiance over long time scales can cause anything but homeostasis in earth’s climate}
*********************************************************
DISCLAIMER OF SUPPORT FOR AGW
Lest I be misunderstood right along with Dr. Svalgaard (he, unlike me, puts out world class science and yet is completely misunderstood and then unfairly maligned as supporting AGW) —-
Asserting that there is no evidence (yet) that the sun drives climate changes over long time scales (as opposed to its merely maintaining earth’s homeostasis), i.e., that there is no evidence that the sun’s changes in irradiance are not outweighed by more powerful drivers like ocean currents and winds,
is NOT saying that human CO2 is an effective driver of climate. So far, the null hypothesis on human CO2 remains NOT DISPROVEN.
(I hope I made my anti-AGW position perfectly clear #(:))
PS. Don`t forget the pay cheque..
lsvalgaard says:
March 10, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Their conclusion:
“Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller…
====
…less than zero
noaaprogrammer says:
March 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm
“By admitting that the sun may play a role, (but not as much as human-caused CO2), they are slowly morphing their way back to scientific sanity.”
No, they’re not. They’re just banking the fires and hoping for the best, which would be that warming resumes or they get retired before the grants run out.
lsvalgaard: Their conclusion:
“Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller [my bold] than the warming from future CO2 emissions, regional climate variability associated with solar-induced oceanatmosphere feedbacks could be substantial and should be taken into consideration when projecting future climate changes.”
The authors studied TSI effects in a small region of the globe and found them larger than they anticipated, possibly due to the indirect effects through changing circulation patterns. That possibility was supported in part by model simulations. Is it not at least as likely that the global effects of small TSI changes have been underestimated? It seems to me that this study will stimulate other studies of small TSI changes in other parts of the world aimed at the same time interval to see how general the results are.
I do not know the answer to the question as I posed it. I became interested in reading more about climate when an article in Science prompted me to think that the effects of seemingly small changes in solar output were not well characterized. This paper contributes to my sense that there is much to be learned, including about the “indirect” effects, such as the changes in circulation.
Dear Happy on His Lovely Beach Tom (in Florida),
If I may, perhaps you intended instead to say:
“temperature changes created by human carbon dioxide emissions {are} nil {so far as there being any evidence for such changes}.”
There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth. First of all, whether or not CO2 per se is a controlling driver of climate is not known. Second, the tiny percentage of human CO2 is easily overwhelmed by a magnitude of 2 by the net CO2 of NATURAL sources and sinks.
Just want to keep us on the path of evidence-based truth!
Enjoy your beautiful beach,
Janice
It would be interesting if someone (not me) could gain acces to and analyze the reviewer’s comments and editorial direction for this and a great many other “peer reviewed” climate science papers to determine what changes were made to accommodate? In other words to measure if initially submitted papers were more supportive of AGW or less, prior to accommodating comments? I wonder if the slant toward buttressing AGW despite contrary evidence is voluntary on the part of the researchers or the result of pressure from the “peers” tapped by the climate journals?
Actually, it just occurred to me that this could be done without violating any sanctimony if somehow the originally submitted manuscripts could be compared to the final, published result.
Janice Moore says:
March 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm. But it’s not science, it’s a toxic mixture of cargo-cult and environmentalist politics, thickened with the need for more grant funding.