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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

This is unsettling science, to be sure.

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.

” 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

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)
🙂

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

‘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.

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.

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.

“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.

Unexpected? To whom? The UN?

“‘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?

Orbital mechanics were different during the Last Glacial Maximum which would have an affect on the TSI at TOA; less obliquity, more eccentricity and NH winter solstice at aphelion. Orbital mechanics do create differences in TSI at TOA throughout the year, so how does one use deposits to differentiate between real changes in solar activity and the perceived solar activity at TOA especially from ages past. As Leif explained on another thread, when discussing climate TSI at TOA is what counts and that those orbit created differences during the year are not the same as real changes in solar activity. So is it more likely that the Earth itself is the real culprit due to it’s changing orbit?

As Nature and global temperatures and the global climate refuse to do as instructed by the climate science chicken entrails modeling reliant climate scientists, the great backdown and cover up is now well and truly under way.
Remember how just how fixed in stone for eternity, the SCIENCE WAS SETTLED only a short three or so years ago and no debate or argument would be allowed or countenanced at all as it was a completely established unarguable fact that the Earth was inevitably heading into a CO2 driven climate catastrophe entirely of mankind’s own making.
Now we see an increasing volume of mostly seriously bad papers and unsubstantiated claims, nothing unusual in that with current climate science, all suggesting that perhaps there is something else other than m,an made CO2 that might be having an effect on the climate.
The above paper is another example of the backdown from yesterday’s hard fixed, not to be challenged or allowed to be debated climate science, a back down, a snake like sliming slithering away they hope to get away with after their sheer ineptitude and outright ignorance of the real drivers of the global climate has been so clearly revealed for all to see.
And god forbid, it might just even be that the Sun, that great fusion furnace way up there that pours it’s immense energy into the global atmosphere might just possibly have a minute effect on the climate. But only in some regions and patches you understand, regions and patches that somehow seem to link up an cover the earth’s surface as we are assured by those expert climate scientists.
And we are still most categorically assured by those same expert climate scientists that we will be all still going to a climate hell in a red hot carbon basket.
It’s just that the timetable has been delayed by unforeseen events such as the failure to warm and the unpredictability of the ENSO and the fact that they forgot about Clouds and have a few problems why the Antarctic ice is expanding as is the Arctic ice following the categorical assurance that we will have an” ice free Arctic by 2013″ and a few other minor hitches in the predictions such as we didn’t figure on the Sun having any effect on the climate but perhaps it does after all.
My contempt for climate catastrophe scientists rises by the day.
Not once, not a single one has ever even hinted at an apology for getting so much so wrong, a wrongness so wrong that the governments of the world on the heavily promoted ideologically driven advice of those same climate scientists have now expended close to a trillion dollars of the world’s treasure and wealth on to try and prevent those catastrophic outcomes in the climate so firmly and unashamedly predicted by those same climate scientists.
The resulting tens of thousands of deaths from energy poverty and the consequent lack of affordable energy for heating for the old and the poor leading to hypothermia in so many countries when the politicals and greens forced the closing down of the tried and true and absolutely reliable fossil fueled generators which were suposedly to be replaced by the totally unreliable, unaffordable, totally ineffective so called renewable energy, which it is anything but.
All proposed, promoted, and backed to the hilt by climate catastrophe scientists. based on nothing more than the outputs of some heavily biased climate models which are so damn primitive and ineffective that they can’t even get the past history of the climate right when that past climates observed data is fed into them
And the results of all this vast waste of lives and treasure at the bidding of climate science?
Zilch, nada, nothing !,
Not even a hint that all this totally unnecessary sacrifice of lives and treasure made one iota of difference to the climate or anything else except to create fear and societal dissension and to transfer vast amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich via the vastly corrupt and leech like renewable energy industry.
The climate just rolls right on and keeps right on rolling on as usual despite some of those same climate scientists aided and abetted by their unbounded and complete arrogance, ignorance and hubris imagining that they can control the global climate by twiddling a couple of Carbon knobs.
The message from climate science of only a couple of years ago has been that Nature has been stood aside and mankind is the one who now controls the global climate.
Nature laughed and turned the solar wick down and now it starts to cool and there is not a damn thing those abjectly ignorant climate scientists or their running dogs in the greens and enviro water melons can do about it.
I have no problems with climate science researching the climate and coming to the wrong conclusions as science in the long term is self correcting.
What I most strongly object to and which has brought me to the point of complete and open contempt for climate science and climate scientists is the way in which they used their trusted positions a scientists to impose their own brands of personal ideology and beliefs in a model predicted outcomes onto the rest of society to our extreme detriment in health, wealth, creation of unneeded economic malaise and societal dissension.
Modeled predictions that were nothing more than reflections on the climate modeler’s own biases but which were hyped up to the maximum by a group of arrogant, hubris laden, self promoting, narcissistic and as it turns out abjectly wrong climate scientists, into a predicted carbon dioxide driven climate catastrophe,
An ideological derived belief which had absolutely no underpinning in science other than pure conjecture on the part of those same hubris driven climate scientists.
When I see some deep humble apologies from climate science and climate scientists and a clean out of the worst of those climate charlatans by climate science itself and an admission and a full humble acknowledgment on how they, through their gross and complete hubris laden ignorance on their part and who have totally failed to comprehend how the global climate really works allied with their overwhelming hubris about their own omnipotence in climate knowledge, a position which they blatantly used to both impose their own ideology and suppress any others who dared to question or were at all skeptical about pronunciations of those oh so omnipotent climate scientists.
And who so deliberately and openly fed the hysteria of a predicted climate catastrophe due to mankind’s sinfulness in using fossil fuels with their CO2 emissions to enhance his health wealth and living standards over the last few centuries,
When I see a full open and humble apology from all of climate science and those same hubris driven climate scientists openly admitting that they were completely wrong in their climate catastrophe predictions and they humbly apologise and assume responsibility for the immense amounts of harm and destruction of lives and living standards and treasure they have created through their heavy promotion of what turned out to be nothing but predictions based on abject ignorance and hubris, then I will consider climate science with a somewhat better but still very wary consideration.

The problem is that Adolphi and Muscheler measure 10Be and 14C on Earth as
value for INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION (“Insolation”) and reckon this was theTSI
(“Total solar irradiation”) – which is the different Sun´s OUTPUT. They forget that
the Earth orbit oscillates on a centennial scale, thus received Insolation on Earth
can go up and down, while the Earth orbit oscillates – and, at the same time – the
TSI, the Sun´s activity OUTPUT remains CONSTANT.
More at: see website. JS.

The overall TSI variance is small but as Einstein’s photoelectric effect showed, not all bandwidths are equal. UV radiation that affects stratoshpheric ozone varies much more widely than TSI. Maybe these guys need a talk with the CCl4 guys to see if their model knows all this stuff. Another interesting study would be carbon and oxygen isotope variations by solar cycle. Carbon dating is fine without considering the variations but I’d bet CO2 is a bit more sensitive. Isotope variation would shed light on carbon sources. A few years ago it was revealed that plants preferred isotopes of carbon as the minute nuclear changes made a difference in some of the rate equations.

Of course Dr. Muscheler ruins it when he gives the usual, and obviously necessary, ass kissing to the AGW crowd. Money talks.
“Local climate”? Only when warmer than normal in the Lower 48 is that climate. When it is cooler than normal in the Lower 48 that’s weather. Someone clue him in. LOL

Many things remain either unknown, or totally wrong in sciences understanding of how the sun works, let alone what its many nuances and moods do to our climate. We have a long way to go before anyone can clearly enunciate what does what.
The last twenty years in climate science by the mainstream has been a dark ages for real discovery. We have but one heater, alter it in any way and an effect will be felt on the Earth. The last odd million years or so have been a see saw ride for our planet, totally without mans input. This needs some explanation by our erstwhile climate scientists before they point to any trace gases.
This study is a faint glimmer of light into a dark abyss of stupidity.

‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.
Followed by:
‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.
Don’t these people even try to be logically consistent???

The real climate deniers are grudgingly starting to see the truth, because it’s biting them in the ….
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/why-the-global-temperature-ris/32560214
They have many more revelations coming their way!

statement A:
Lund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity
Tonights forecast, dark, followed by widely scattered light in the morning.

Where’s Willis?

sturgishooper says:
August 21, 2014 at 8:57 am
dp says:
August 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm
What is hard for you to grasp about this? Willis flatly states that he has seen no evidence of any solar influence on climate, period, despite other commenters repeatedly showing him studies to that effect, to include Dr. Ball’s own research.
What you imagine Willis says and what he really says are two different things. You’re confusing your own opinions with reality.

I’m surprised to say you are correct. I had not yet seen or don’t recall having seen this article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/) when I posted above. He reiterates he cannot see an 11-year cycle which is old stuff but he then goes on to say he’s just gone looking for long-term solar activity correlation with global temperature and doesn’t see it. It appears my information was incomplete.

Pamela Gray says:
August 22, 2014 at 7:25 pm
“Jim, having been well schooled in research methods and proper statistical analysis,”
So have I, bottom line, peer review has little meaning anymore, if it ever did, so why reference it as proof of validity.

Pamela Gray says:
The speech was not necessary. I have not questioned your capabilities only your need to reference “peer review” as if it were a form of validation, which it is not. And from I can see, and have seen over the years, neither is “publication” in “appropriate” journals. Also, I can tell you for certain from many years of experience that anyone, and I do mean anyone, with the time and money can obtain a PHD behind their name, or an MD for that matter.