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.
It is more likely to be cosmic rays from near the Sun that affect CFC levels here, which in turn affect the ozone layer. This new research shows that CFC levels correlate well with climate records thus leaving carbon dioxide out of the picture, as I have been saying, because a correct application of physics shows that gravity forms an autonomous thermal gradient (lapse rate) leaving none of that “33 degrees of warming” needing to be done by water vapor and carbon dioxide etc. In fact, gravity causes even higher surface temperatures which are then reduced by water vapor, as empirical data shows when comparing similar moist and dry regions.
Borrowed from Janice’s post:
1. “…temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions… .”
And then the statement:
2. “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.”
So let me get this straight. On the one hand, human CO2 emissions will cause far greater warming than the large and abrupt changes (cooling) in temperature caused by diminishing solar output? Is this just a token to the alarmist community so they can get their paper published? Where is the large and abrupt effect of CO2 on climate?
A genuine question (as simple as it is):
Dr. Svalgaard,
Re: “e.g. by a 1000 times” (you at 3:46pm)
1. When (if ever) has solar activity been high enough for long enough to almost certainly have caused a general warming of Earth?
2. If re-wording my question in item 1 would make it more helpful to us here, please do that for me and answer that, better, question.
So grateful that you take the time to teach us,
Janice
Pity the poor sun. For 1,000 years it was head honcho of our climate, the big Kahuna, top dog, then along comes “carbon”, and whoosh; demoted, put out into a back closet with hardly room to turn around. The sun is the Rodney Dangerfield of climate forcings.
What will the onset of the sun becoming a red giant be like in affecting the Earth’s temperature? Gradual – over millennia, or sudden – over centuries?
COME ON FOLKS – If the sun stops shining how long would the earth support life even if the air was 50 % CO2 – silly science and totally absent any application of logic or the Scientific method?
Hi, Mario!
Re: “Where is the large and abrupt effect of CO2 on climate?”
LOL. I think I can answer that one.
It is in lines 3,205 through 5,333 of the computer code for the model simulation.
Seriously, good point. WHO IN THE WORLD DO THEY THING THEY ARE FOOLING with such statements? What a giant farce.
Time to shine a little common SENSE onto those AGW rats (sounds of scuttling into the shadows):
“That story’s {CO2 causes global warming} a crock of baloney. – Judge Judy
#(:))
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Read — it — and — weep, all you Envirostalinists.
Since changes in CO2 concentrations lag temperature changes and we’ve had a standstill in temperature the last 17 plus years, and temperature could go down with solar activity, we could end up seeing a decline in CO2 levels down the road. It would be fun to see how the alarmists would explain that away.
The Cardiff University researchers imply that a very small change in solar output over a long period, has little effect on earth surface temperatures, but a disproportionately large effect on ocean mixed-layer temperatures- the converse of anthropogenic CO2 forcing.
What’s wrong with that?
Reality and a possibility of a scientific proof. Other than that the GRANTS ARE FEEDING ME AND MINE?
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm
So… they can detect sudden and abrupt changes that were natural in sea floor sediments from 1000 years ago, but these are smaller than the changes caused by CO2 which, with over a century of modern instrumental records and 30 years of state of the art satellite records, we CAN’T measure?
LOL.
“Londo says:
March 10, 2014 at 2:04 pm
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.”
Mostly correct Londo. But they also say that it did cause large effects in the past like the cold winters in the LIA. But no more apparently. I also like that they admit that the changes they are seeing are amplified in the NH today but than can dismiss things in the past that may have been largely constrained to the NH.
Great comment by Leif Svalgaard that we don’t know what x, y, z, and w are but they could all be 25% within a factor of two. So roughly 10% to 50%. And that is lumping all human effects together, not just CO2.
So I guess our mild wet and windy winter this year in Europe was due to us being close to the peak of sun spot cycle 24?
But ocean current temperatures responding so promptly to sunspot changes – that takes some explaining.
“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 (in the climate model).”
(Omitted phrase inserted)
Didn’t the Senate answer all these issues in their overnighter on Climate Change?
The SUN drives the climate?!?! No F$%^&*G way!!!!
Re: “… there was a high-pressure system located west of the British Isles (in the climate model).” (Good one by Anony Moose, heh — 4:59pm).
Imagination is funny.. it makes a cloudy day sunny… oh well… .
#(:))
Tommy Dorsey and Frank Sinatra
(Sinatra comes in at 1:26)
@ur momisugly Pamela Gray — not the GREATEST dance music… but… you and Mr. Wonderful could just sort of slow dance to it at two beats per step (smile).
‘it’s the sun wot dun it‘!!
Who’d have thought the sun could have ANY influence on climate, any heat goes to the bottom of the sea !!
There must be an AlGore rhythm to explain it (:-))
Janice Moore says:
March 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm
1. When (if ever) has solar activity been high enough for long enough to almost certainly have caused a general warming of Earth?
The the Sun [and the Earth] was young solar activity was MUCH higher than now, the solar wind blew about a 1000 times stronger, but the situation then cannot really be compared to now.
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard.
the co2 stuff certainly looked added on.
if they have a correlation between sunspots and climate then we need a mechanism. From what i see the usual mechanism is claimed as vulcanism and the sunspots are just coincidence. If they start adding in sunspots then they will have to start adding in the Earth’s axial tilt , magnetic shield, x rays and all the rest?
“…the earth currently reaches its perihelion on January 3, close to the Northern Hemisphere’s winter solstice. This timing of the perihelion and Northern Hemisphere’s winter solstice reduces seasonal differences in insolation in the Northern Hemisphere because the hemisphere is closer to the sun in winter and hence relatively warmer. On the other hand, the earth is further away from the sun and relatively cooler during the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, reaching its aphelion on July 511,000 years ago, the reverse was true: the earth reached its perihelion during the northern summer, increasing the seasonal variability of earth’s climate”
“Earth’s axial tilt or obliquity varies from 24.5 degrees to 22.1 degrees over the course of a 41,000-year cycle. The current angle is 23.4 degrees. Changes in axial tilt affect the distribution of solar radiation received at the earth’s surface. When the angle of tilt is low, polar regions receive less insolation. When the tilt is greater, the polar regions receive more insolation during the course of a year. Like precession and eccentricity, changes in tilt thus influence the relative strength of the seasons, but the effects of the tilt cycle are particularly pronounced in the high latitudes where the great ice ages began.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html
Peter Huybers of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have compared the timing of the tilt variations with that of the last seven ice ages. They found that the ends of those periods – called glacial terminations – corresponded to times of greatest tilt. ..Earth’s axis is currently pointing at the North Star, Polaris, but it is always rotating around in a conical pattern. In about 10,000 years, it will point toward the star Vega, which will mean that winter in the Northern Hemisphere will begin in June instead of January.”
http://www.livescience.com/6937-ice-ages-blamed-tilted-earth.html
so there is a natural reversal of the seasons so one should expect reversals so all this warmest since x and wettest since x seems pointless if its going to flip anyway?
what a disaster for co2ers if its the earths tilt + Sunspots correlation + magnetic shield? no amount of tax is going to change that?
so if in 10k years winter in the Northern Hemisphere will begin in June instead of January then one should be able to plot that transition and see if what is happening now fits that trend? the model could be tested by seeing if it matches what has happened since the last seasonal flip? although that might be complicated by a possible pending magnetic reversal?
I agree with a theme repeated several times above–if the solar effect is much less than the AGW effect, why is there a “pause” instead of a modest decrease in the rate of acceleration? If I am pushing down the gas (AGW effect) and dragging a cinder block behind my car (solar variability), I should drive at 45 mph instead of 55 mph. But a “pause” suggests I am standing still–or even going backward. That says I’m not dragging a cinder block–I’m attached to tractor-trailer pulling the opposite direction.
Another example of the eternal conflict between findings and funding… the one who pays the piper calls the tune. This is why we need LoserPaysResearch.com
Funny how they have to pay respect to man-made warming
So lets see…
The only real data was 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. We can ignore “data” from a model because it is not data, merely computer enhanced prejudices.
So, some questions:
Please describe exactly how, and in what way, there was “low solar energy output”, be specific. How “low” compared to “normal”, exactly? What specific kind(s) of “energy”? Low “total solar irradiance” is the exact phrase used, yet I have seen no evidence that low sunspot activity leads to such, hence the obvious need for clarification (or withdrawal of the paper).
The sun has “low sunspot activity” about every 11 years or so, so it should also have “low solar energy output”, or even low “total solar irradiance,”right?
Please show data of the expected 11 year cycle of “ large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current” which we should see during these 11 year spaced periods of “ low solar energy output”.
I see no description of the mechanism of how this “low solar energy output” is creating this “high-pressure system located west of the British Isles”, merely “our computer model told us so”. Perhaps there is such in the paper, yet there is no link to said paper seen here.
I live in California, there is just such a blocking high pressure system here. Computer climate models have failed to predict it’s presence, and have also predicted it would go away, and yet it stays. Excuse me if that makes me skeptical of models that predict such here. I also have seen no evidence that it is caused by “ low solar energy output”, nor has it even been suggested.
There is also the problem that the Little Ice Age seems to have effected a larger area than just what would be effected by such a blocking high pressure. It would therefor seem that one would have to show how this effect happened in those other places as well.
At least some of the cold associated with said LIA happened before the periods of “ low solar energy output”, how was that, exactly?
Next, the measurements show the following:
CO2 has gone from 280 to 395 parts per million.
This should result in trapped longwave radiation heating the atmosphere at 12KM altitude in the tropics by 2.1 C.
The measured heating at this place is 0.7 C, 1/3 the predicted amount. (Note that this does mean that CO2 is having an effect, just not a dangerous one.)
CO2 alone is not enough to create any catastrophe, it is said that an increase of water vapor will increase it’s effect by 4 times. Measurements completely fail to show any increase in water vapor.
The predicted catastrophic heating is 3C, multiplied by the 1/3 of ¼ of the actual, measured heating seen, is 0.25C.
The LIA cooling was 2C.
2C is larger than 0.25C, a lot larger.
So, since the temperature change will be only 1/12 the amount predicted to be caused by “human carbon dioxide emissions”, an amount much smaller than happened during the LIA, the following statement is shown false “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.
Note that that also assumes that “low sun activity” will have a significant effect, especially the current “low” activity. I say this because other periods of “low” activity appear to have had no such effect (other periods outside of the LIA), and because we have to define “low”, how “low” is “low” enough, and what, exactly, is it that is “low”?
And I would sure like to know the physical mechanism by with the specific yet unmentioned type of “low solar energy output” caused this effect, rather than just “our computer told us so”.
Janice Moore says:
March 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm
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!
========================================================================
I originally wrote the comment that way however, I would never place an absolute on something that still could true even in the slightest way. So I took the safe route and used the words “almost nil”. Too many posters tend to attack absolutes as a distraction so there was no need to go there as the point I was trying to make was not dependent on it.
My dear Tom (in Florida),
I understand your caution. And I respect your goal of not being inflammatory. However, with regard to this, “I would never place an absolute on something that still could be true … .” (you)
Au contraire: we CAN say (absolutely): “There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth.” (me)
Be BOLD, dear Tom, be bold!
Let ’em attack us bold, confident, speakers — we can take it!
(I’ve had some pretty big boulders heaved at me on WUWT — and, thanks largely to Gunga Din and my ever-supportive hero, Mario, I’m STILL here.)
#(:))
Respectfully (if in slight disagreement) yours,
Janice
lsvalgaard says: 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.”
Translation:
“Overall, blame CO2 emissions for having a much greater impact on temperature than a waning sun. But when model projections fail miserably, blame regional scale, the waning sun for inducing oceanatmosphere induced feedback loops.”
How convenient.