'unexpected link between solar activity and climate change' found in Greenland ice

thumb its the sunLund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity vs snow accumulation in Greenland, which indicates a strong correlation between solar minima and a colder climate.

‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.

‘It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. ‘Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regions.’

According to the study abstract;

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2225.html

“We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.”

Dr. Muscheler emphasised that he does not believe that the sun is the main factor driving current global warming – but he does believe that climate modellers will have to pay more attention to the influence of the sun on climate change.

However, he warned that the sun was not the only factor in causing climate change.

‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.

‘What our paper shows is we need to include all processes – greenhouses, the sun and so on, especially for local climates which is important of course.

Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum

Florian Adolphi,Raimund Muscheler,Anders Svensson,Ala Aldahan,Göran Possnert,Jürg Beer,Jesper Sjolte,Svante Björck,Katja Matthes& Rémi Thiéblemont

Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2225

Changes in solar activity have previously been proposed to cause decadal- to millennial-scale fluctuations in both the modern and Holocene climates1. Direct observational records of solar activity, such as sunspot numbers, exist for only the past few hundred years, so solar variability for earlier periods is typically reconstructed from measurements of cosmogenic radionuclides such as 10Be and 14C from ice cores and tree rings2, 3. Here we present a high-resolution 10Be record from the ice core collected from central Greenland by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The record spans from 22,500 to 10,000 years ago, and is based on new and compiled data4, 5, 6. Using 14C records7, 8 to control for climate-related influences on 10Be deposition, we reconstruct centennial changes in solar activity. We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.

Key data used in this study.
Figure 1

a, δ18O variations as recorded in the GRIP ice core21. b, 10Be concentrations from the GRIP (red: this study, black: refs 4, 5) and GISP2 (ref. 6; blue) ice cores. c, 10Be fluxes using accumulation rates inferred from the GICC05 age

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

That only makes sense, everything else in our universe has multiple parts, why shouldn’t climate change? Besides, it makes sense that the sun affects climate change.

MattN

This is not news to anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention.

Moose

Seriously? The Sun influences the climate?
No, that can not be. It must be humans for sure. The science said so!

William McClenney

‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.
Duh……..

cnxtim

Now that IS a DOH moment…Only the myopic CAGW flock could find this “surprising” …

BallBounces

Is the Bank of Climate Scientists beginning to hedge?

Unexpected by whom?
How can the development of high-pressure blocking systems to the south of Greenland not affect other regions?

Well, who’d have thunk it? I wonder how they’ll try and spin this out to meaning nothing?
Time to make like a tree…

From the Gizmag report:
http://www.gizmag.com/suns-activity-influences-natural-climate-change/33409/
“Reduced solar activity could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe. This is because the sun’s UV radiation affects the atmospheric circulation. Interestingly, the same processes lead to warmer winters in Greenland, with greater snowfall and more storms.” said Dr said Raimund Muscheler, Lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University. “The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change.”
Further to their theory, the researchers believe that changes in wind patterns resulted from alterations in received temperatures, suggesting that a top-down solar influence increased oceanic feedback and may have acted as an additional amplification mechanism. In other words, variations in solar radiation affected the atmosphere, altering the barometric pressure which, in turn, changed the prevailing wind patterns in the upper atmosphere.
In atmospheric physics parlance, these winds are known as eddy-driven jets and a high-pressure increase over the North Atlantic (as evidenced in today’s climate) is often accompanied by a displacement to the south of these winds. This results in a negative effect on the North Atlantic Oscillation (the atmospheric pressure difference at sea level between the Icelandic low and the Azores high), which can produce colder winds and higher levels of snowfall.
As a result, the alteration of these winds changes the way in which heat is exchanged between the oceans and the atmosphere. In the Lund University reconstruction and modeling, evidence is shown that this particular effect was being exacerbated by the amount of solar energy striking the Earth’s atmosphere in direct relationship to the activity of the sun.

Lucius von Steinkaninchen

‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.’
Classic. The results agree *exactly* with what climate skeptics have been saying for years, but he feels the need of producing such a apologistic remark just to placate the wrath of warmists.
I wonder how much time we will have to disguise scientific results with political makeup like that. Perhaps ten years? Twenty? Perhaps until all warmists retire or die?

John Law

How can the Sun possibly influence climate on Earth, it’s absurd. It’s carbon dioxide surely: well that’s what the models and my Climate Catechism say.

GaryM

Shhh, nobody tell Willis.

dp

This is unsettling science, to be sure.

Steve

But, but, that would mean that the “Furnace” has something to do with how hot or cold the “House” is getting?!?
Need I say…/sarc?

dp

GaryM says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Shhh, nobody tell Willis.

Willis’s point has to do with the regular sunspot cycle, not long-term solar activity. His position is still safe.

sturgishooper August 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm
How can the development of high-pressure blocking systems to the south of Greenland not affect other regions?
cuz their not butterflies – /sarc

” Dr. Muscheler emphasised that he does not believe that the sun is the main factor driving current global warming ”
Without any explanation for past climate change in the recent past as per the IPCC climate chart showing no increase in co2 during those periods of change… what does he BELIEVE? Maybe he belongs to ” Save the Climate Grant Money” organization. Heretics of any kind are not allowed (aloud). Does that mean that there was change or no change? How could there have possibly been change without an increase or decrease in co2? Haven’t the IPCC and AGW in general stated with alarm that additional inputs of co2 control the temperature on this planet? And soon a Tipping point WILL be reached if we don’t take action now (going on 18 +/- 5 years now, depending)? These kind of studies just morph the religious aspect of AGW into something that will not be resemble anything of the original someday, / sarcasm

william

I don’t think the results of this study will pass muster with Dr. Leif. There is no explanatory mechanism. The results can be a nice coincidence but dont illuminate any causation. Just like an increase in ice cream sales in the summer is not the cause of higher temps in July-Sept.

archonix said:
August 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Well, who’d have thunk it? I wonder how they’ll try and spin this out to meaning nothing?
Time to make like a tree…
————
and bark? oak-eedoke… bough wow!
(I know, I’m Mark and two CATS – but I’m branching out)
🙂

Nigel in Waterloo

This is “surprising” only to those whose jobs depended on them publishing “unsurprising” articles that supported CAGW.

Luckily for us Leif has adjusted all the solar data to prove that there is no link between solar activity and climate. So this has to be nonsense…right?

dp says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Willis’ position not only isn’t still safe. It never was. He claims never to have seen any evidence of any solar influence on climate, to include the ~11 and 22-year cycles, not just SSN.
Have you actually read his posts on the subject and replies to comments?

JEyon says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm
IMO, the authors knew that their study would never see the light of day had they claimed a global effect rather than just regional.

Remarkable, isn’t it, how the same “only regional” solar influences are found in every region of the planet?
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228748235_Solar_influence_on_the_Indian_summer_monsoon_during_the_Holocene

Taphonomic

“Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.”
That’s pretty definitive: “more…than we think but I don’t think so.”

Only one comment I am going to limit myself to. I have made to many comments at times in the past.
The evidence is mounting from past historical data as well as what is happening presently that there is a solar/climate connection. This study helps..
Post 2005 two items in the climate have changed which gives support to a climate solar connection when solar activity varies enough from an active phase to an inactive phase. Which took place in year 2005 although it started to some degree very late last century.
They are a more meridional atmospheric circulation which will have further consequences if it should continue and a halt in the global temperature rise.
Going forward we have to see how prolonged and deep this present solar minimum is and how it further impacts the climate.

The point missed is that it shows a strong correlation between solar activity and precipitation. I wrote about this in my 1982 thesis, despite opposition from my committee. Theodor Landscheidt and I communicated at length about drought cycles in the middle latitudes (30-70 latitude) and the 22 year sunspot cycle. I published several articles on the relationship and, oh, by the way, it shows up in the tree ring data, because they are mostly about precipitation, despite being mann-handled.
The distraction created by the IPCC to CO2 and warming is underscored by the author’s claim he still doesn’t think the sun is the main cause of global warming. It is the comment of a person who knows virtually nothing about climate and certainly is ignorant of the climate literature.

Michael Jankowski

Always good to throw in lots of “thinks” and “believes.” After all, we rely on climate scientists to editorialize instead of simply presenting scientific results.

dp

Have you actually read his posts on the subject and replies to comments?

Yes – your reply does not refute what I said. I said nothing about SSN, and Willis said what you said re the 11 – 22 year cycle. That is not what this thread is about. It is about long term solar activity, not the 11 – 22 year cycle. The stuff Maunder minimums are made from, in other words, not sunspot counts over the short term. I see no 11 or 22 year cycles in any of the graphs. If you do perhaps you could point them out.

milodonharlani

JEyon says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Butterflies flapping from the North Atlantic to Indian Oceans during & after the time period of this study:
Abrupt changes in the Asian southwest monsoon during the Holocene and their links to the North Atlantic Ocean
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01340.html
Solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon variability during the Ållerød period
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130925/srep02753/full/srep02753.html
Possible link between Holocene East Asian monsoon and solar activity obtained from the EMD method
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGQQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonlin-processes-geophys.net%2F19%2F421%2F2012%2Fnpg-19-421-2012.pdf&ei=VRH1U_PYEKeIjAKRk4DgCg&usg=AFQjCNEYIOqcrbKjhmV-h9lpPgysACzMcQ&sig2=pll87zI7hg9JKro_SAo3Ng&bvm=bv.73373277,d.cGE
Diatom response to Asian monsoon variability during the Late Glacial to Holocene in a small treeline lake, SW China
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/18/0959683614540951.abstract
“Analyses of diatoms, grain size, magnetic susceptibility, total organic carbon, and total nitrogen were applied to a 9.26 m long sediment core, spanning the last 12.2 kyr, from a small treeline lake (Tiancai Lake, ~3898 m a.s.l.) in southwest China. Diatom assemblages are dominated by Cyclotella distinguenda, Aulacoseira species, and small fragilarioid taxa, all of which are sensitive to changes in water pH and light conditions that are probably related to vegetation development and runoff processes triggered by variations in the Asian monsoon. High abundances of C. distinguenda and Pseudostaurosira brevistriata reflected cold and dry climates during the Late Glacial (12.2–11.4 kyr BP). In the early Holocene (11.4–9.4 kyr BP), a steep decline in C. distinguenda and a visible increase in Aulacoseira alpigena responded to a strengthening monsoon intensity. The persistent increases in A. alpigena mirrored strong monsoon intensity in the middle Holocene (9.4–4.6 kyr BP). After 4.6 kyr BP, the reduction of A. alpigena was related to weak monsoon intensity in the late Holocene. The main trends of diatom evolution show a general correspondence to variations in solar insolation. Three visible excursions, with an increase in P. brevistriata and a drop in A. alpigena, centered at around 8.4, 2.5, and 0.3 kyr BP, correlate with low sunspot numbers and known cold events in the North Atlantic. Some similarities and correlations between the Holocene diatom data, the North Atlantic record, and solar insolation indicate that variations in the Asian monsoon response to changes in solar forcing and the North Atlantic climate.”
So, this study’s finding should not have been unexpected, but then, given the corrupting influence of CACA on real climatology, not surprising that its authors claim to have expected some other result.

So this is another one of those “The sun is responsible for the cooling but not the warming” excuses. Just marvellous. “The sun has influence, but not really.” Unless future funding points that way. Which it won’t.
This is a let’s-watch-our-backs tactic with edging-towards-the-door thrown in for good measure. What they are HOPING for is that this will knock out the skeptical no warming for 17+ years (“it’s the quieter sun that’s doing it”), thus keeping the catastrophic global warming meme alive, while at the same time preparing the “Oh, look, it might be the sun after all,” card if they really need it.

Uncle Gus

Lucius von Steinkaninchen : “I wonder how much time we will have to disguise scientific results with political makeup like that. Perhaps ten years? Twenty? Perhaps until all warmists retire or die?”
There’s a parallel here with geology in the 19th century. Practically everything they were discovering conflicted with the Biblical account, but any sign of irreligion was socially unacceptable, particularily in the upper-middle class circles from which most scientists came. In effect, they really did have to wait for the old guard to die off, before they could speak freely!

“We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland”
And elswhere.
I’ve been saying that since 2007 and see here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Now we just need established climatology to get the sign of the solar effect right.
To get polar air pushing to lower latitudes more often there has to be more ozone created above the poles when the sun is quiet which warms the stratosphere above the poles, pushes tropopause height downward and forces surface air masses equatorward.
Currently, established climatology thinks that a quiet sun reduces ozone in the stratosphere.
It may do that above the equator but it seems to do the opposite above the poles and the reason is that above 45km height the sign of the solar effect on ozone is reversed and that reverse sign effect descends above the poles through the downward flow involved in the polar vortices which are a stratospheric phenomenon.
The polar vortices in the stratosphere must not be confused with the circumpolar vortex in the troposphere which is the ring of jet stream tracks around the poles which separate surface polar air from surface mid latitude air.
Get that right and the rest falls into place.

dp says:
August 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm
What do you think the regular sunspot cycle is, if not fluctuations in sunspot numbers? Your reply makes no sense.
Contrary to your baseless assertion, Willis specifically denies any evidence of the 11 & 22-year cycle. To take but one example, please see his comment on July 26, 2014 at 1:51 pm in the blog post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/26/solar-cycle-driven-ocean-temperature-variations/.

Gunga Din

‘unexpected link between solar activity and climate change’
===================================================================
Something “unexpected” in the settled science of Climate Change?
Am I wrong or has most of the advances in science been due to not accepting anything as “settled” and then learning from and adapting to the unexpected?
There’s a chaotic labyrinth of “links” out there. Why pretend we have a handle on them? What understanding of any complex system really is “settled”?

From drudgereport:
“Economic contraction unexpected, say experts”
“New jobless claims rise unexpectedly…”
“New housing starts fall unexpectedly…”
“Bengazi attacks unexpected, says Clinto”
“Unexpected”, kinda the mantra for the anti-science community, isn’t it?

‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.
Unexpected, yeah, in peer-reviewed publications and by the 97 Percenter consensus. The Global Average Surface Temperature has followed the Sun according to a simple transfer function with two lags, 46 years and 143 years, going back to the invention of the thermometer, and with an accuracy comparable to the 22-year smoothed version of HadCRUT3. Called Solar Global Warming (SGW), it was published online over four years ago. For details, click on name.

Edim

It’s obvious, not unexpected. The experts are indeed ignorant in science.

coaldust

This is how false ideas in science are unwound. Today it’s a regional effect. Next it will be effects in other “regions”, until it is slowly accepted that the sun has an influence on climate. Science is self correcting, even if it takes the death by old age of those with false ideas.
Meanwhile, the rent seekers hold out their hands.

jaffa68

“strong correlation between solar minima and a colder climate”
The sun might be able to make the climate colder but warming can only be caused by increased CO2 emissions.

Bruce Sanson

It is likely the above process would cause an increase in deep water formation. This in tern will increase deep water upwelling in the eastern basins of the oceans resulting in two major changes. Firstly, a cooling on the eastern tropical oceans should cause higher air pressures promoting increased trade winds. Secondly, an increased upwelling should fertilise ocean biology promoting an increase in cloud forming nuclei.

Lucius von Steinkaninchen says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm
‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.’
=======================================================================
They like to play word games like that to confuse and manipulate others. No one around here adheres to that supposed argument that it is all about the Sun. Obviously, the Sun is the Earth,s energy source, but it is what happens to that energy after it enters the global system that is most important. In recent arguments I have had warmists try to twist and interpret my words in a similar fashion. The point being to not let them twist one,s words. I reply back with a clear unambiguous response. Then they look even more foolish if they try to further twist my words.

Not a surprise, not unexpected, but then again who counts on a sceptic amateur researcher to come up with anything useful:
North Atlantic – Arctic Environs

Mark and two Cats says:
August 20, 2014 at 2:06 pm
=============================
I am also Mark, but my cats seem to have multiplied a bit.

Matthew R Marler

“We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.”
The mechanism may *not* have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions as well.
Their mechanism entails a regional redistribution of energy flow, not a net increase in global energy accumulation.

DD More

New paper finds the Sun controls Greenland climate
An important paper published today in Nature Geoscience finds a persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the last ice age, and finds the link is similar to modern solar forcing of regional climate.
According to the authors,
“We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.”
Reported at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-finds-sun-controls-greenland.html
Please note that from their Fig 1, a missing piece of information shown in the above posting.
“d18O [mean of 2 ice cores shown as blue line] is a proxy of temperature and precipitation. 10Be [orange line] is a proxy of solar activity [note 10Be is inversely correlated to solar activity]

Rhutch

Unexpected? To whom? The UN?

dp

What do you think the regular sunspot cycle is, if not fluctuations in sunspot numbers? Your reply makes no sense.

There is a big difference between discussing the difference between one solar cycle and the next or previous, and a long series of solar cycles from which a trend is derived. This article discusses trends, Willis discussed differences between one cycle and the next. That is to say, he cannot find a signal of solar cycle 15, or 16, or 17, etc., in the temperature record (solar cycle signal) though we can all see the longer trends that produce the Maunder, Dalton, etc., and LIA events and which correlate to global temperature. I have no reason to disagree with him.
And you appear to be conflating solar activity which includes quite a bit (spots, flares, CME), and SSN which is one aspect of solar activity.

Gamecock

“‘It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level.”
Climate: “Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time.”
The good doctor tells us that it “influences the climate, especially on a regional level.” What other damn level could it affect? Does he not know what “climate” means?

Justthinkin

Gunga Din says:
“Why pretend we have a handle on them?”
Stay with the program. How can you expect the eco-facists to get grants if the admit that maybe other links DO exist?