Lund 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.
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
Unexpected. Where have I heard that before.
“‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so.” No matter what my data says, and what the data has been saying all along, I am still clinging to my old beliefs.
“‘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.”
So, add another new theory to explain why the data does not fit the “settled science”.
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.
“It is the comment of a person who knows virtually nothing about climate and certainly is ignorant of the climate literature.”
I think it’s the comment of someone who knows where his funding is coming from.
‘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???
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y4Lpb4lVHww/T1LDwAJwYyI/AAAAAAAAAR0/DdsftYL6dmI/s400/GW7.jpg
.
Potete sommarci pure il calore prodotto dal decadimento degli elementi radioattivi presenti nella Terra.
By the middle of solar cycle 25 I’m willing to bet that many “beliefs” will change.
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.
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!
Utter nonsense. After work I will post links to Greenland icecore correlations with PDO AMO combinations. We know that the AMO is atmospherically connected to and follows ENSO dynamics. Further, there is a bridge between the AMO and PDO with the PDO following an AMO dynamic. One must look to the oceans and in particular the all-important equatorial band as the initiation of things happening at the poles. Some will invariably ask, “Then what drives ENSO?” Good question.
statement A:
Lund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity
Tonights forecast, dark, followed by widely scattered light in the morning.
Pamela Gray says:
August 21, 2014 at 9:07 am
ENSO is not “the” driver of the climate system. All the oceanic oscillations are connected. Changes in tropical Pacific insolation may be more important than at temperate and polar latitudes and in other oceans, but no one part of the global ocean and atmosphere is the be all and end all. The North Atlantic is also important, for instance, in the present configuration of the continents, as is the Southern Ocean. How active submarine volcanism is figures prominently, too.
Where’s Willis?
Wait, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the definition of the Maunder minimum was “no sunspots”.
Lucius von Steinkaninchen (August 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm) :
“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?”
Uncle Gus (August 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm):
There’s a parallel here with geology in the 19th century…In effect, they really did have to wait for the old guard to die off, before they could speak freely!
did Thomas Kuhn express something like this – that the the old paradigm lingers til the traditionalists die off
doesn’t the AGW debate seem to be following Thomas Kuhn’s roadmap – i only know of his ideas indirectly – i really should read the book while the AGW debate rages
The data are clear. Temperature above the polar circle is below average.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2014.gif
richardscourtney says:
August 21, 2014 at 2:12 am
========================================================
Their use of the word ‘projection’ and the claim that this does not mean prediction, fits in with all the other misguided thoughts that come from them. AKA….Orwellian doublespeak!!!
Wow…such a stunning declaration….NOT.
The Earth has been going through “climate change” for likely some 4.2 Billion years…that would and should be the point of discussion. We have had how many ice ages in our past..?? Seems to me each and every one of them ended due to Global warming. That it is now acknowledged that the sun has something to do with all that at this stage is utterly condescending to most sentient beings on this planet.
Global Warming – Climate Change – AGW: Each and Every one a method to swindle your money into someone else’s pocket.
Ex: British Columbia has a Carbon Tax on Gasoline @ur momisugly $0.065 per litter (or close to that)…I would ask British Columbians how their local climate has benefitted from that pretty good infusion of cash.??? LMFAO. Pure BS in my opinion….leftist – steal your money BS.
ren says:
August 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm
===================================
I see that today,s DMI page is showing the next down step in Arctic temps. Here is where a diiferenec will show depending on the movement over the next month. Last year, after a below average summer Arctic temps then surged above average for months afterwards. I would bet that we will not see the same trend this year, and so the Arctic temps will set a new below average record.
Gets a bit squirmy trying to have solar influence without deprecating human at the same time. Showing symptoms of logical dissonance.
Sturgis, again, you have not been around here for very long. Of course these areas are important with regard to weather pattern variations. Never said they were not. But not even the blind can ignore how massive the equatorial Pacific Ocean processes and the larger ENSO parameters are and how obviously they impact these other indices. The peer reviewed literature is replete with this understanding. Do you think otherwise?
Funny how both solar and CO2 proponents will sometimes state that ENSO processes are just noise and can be disregarded. They almost have to say that. If they don’t they leave the door wide open to intrinsic sources of both short and long term weather pattern variations that are active in-between the colder pendulum points of the Milankovitch Cycle.
Pamela Gray says:
August 21, 2014 at 8:30 pm
You’ve been around here too long instead of studying actual geology, atmospheric and oceanic science. That I haven’t been around here long hardly disqualifies me from correcting your mistaken opinions and unsupported conjectures.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 20, 2014 at 7:03 pm
Taking a best guess as to the lag time I am suggesting a sharp drop in temperature about 2017-18.
100 %.
Pamela Gray says:
August 21, 2014 at 8:30 pm
“But not even the blind can ignore how massive the equatorial Pacific Ocean processes and the larger ENSO parameters are and how obviously they impact these other indices. The peer reviewed literature is replete with this understanding. Do you think otherwise?”
The peer reviewed literature is also replete with support for the man made CO2 theory of global warming. Do you also agree with this? The point you make regarding Pacific Ocean processes and the larger ENSO parameter is a good point, just don’t use known politically driven peer review as a crutch for your arguments.
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.
Jim, having been well schooled in research methods and proper statistical analysis, I can discern weeds from fruiting plants. I prefer to use good scientific inquiry (while also admitting that journals are filled with trash as well as gold nuggets).
Anecdotal or seat of the pants speculation is all well and good on your own time but you had better come to the group table with something pretty damned good before I hitch up. So far, solar proponents seem to be in the same pickle as CO2 proponents (and just as political). Lots of talk, not much to show for it.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about the political persuasions of climate scientists or climate bloggers on either side of the debate. And I will call a spade a spade when I see it. It seems there are lots of spades.