Study: The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods

From Aarhus University:


The activity of the Sun is an important factor in the complex interaction that controls our climate. New research now shows that the impact of the Sun is not constant over time, but has greater significance when the Earth is cooler.

There has been much discussion as to whether variations in the strength of the Sun have played a role in triggering climate change in the past, but more and more research results clearly indicate that solar activity – i.e. the amount of radiation coming from the Sun – has an impact on how the climate varies over time.

In a new study published in the scientific journal Geology, researchers from institutions including Aarhus University in Denmark show that, during the last 4,000 years, there appears to have been a close correlation between solar activity and the sea surface temperature in summer in the North Atlantic. This correlation is not seen in the preceding period.

Since the end of the Last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, the climate has not been stable during this period, when temperatures have varied for long periods. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and the ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.

“We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear. Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity. The extent of the Sun’s influence over time is thus not constant, but we can now conclude that the climate system is more receptive to the impact of the Sun during cold periods – at least in the North Atlantic region,” says Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz, Aarhus University, who is one of the Danish researchers in the international team behind the study.

A piece of the climate puzzle

In their study, the researchers looked at the sea surface temperatures in summer in the northern part of the North Atlantic during the last 9,300 years. Direct measurements of the temperature are only found for the last 140 years, when they were taken from ships.

However, by examining studies of marine algae – diatoms – found in sediments deposited on the North Atlantic sea bed, it is possible to use the species distribution of these organisms to reconstruct fluctuations in sea surface temperatures much further back in time.

The detailed study makes it possible to draw comparisons with records of fluctuations of solar energy bursts in the same period, and the results show a clear correlation between climate change in the North Atlantic and variations in solar activity during the last 4,000 years, both on a large time scale over periods of hundreds of years and right down to fluctuations over periods of 10-20 years.

The new knowledge is a small but important piece of the overall picture as regards our understanding of how the entire climate system works, according to Professor Seidenkrantz.

“Our climate is enormously complex. By gathering knowledge piece by piece about the way the individual elements work together and influence each other to either strengthen an effect or mitigate or compensate for an impact, we can gradually get an overall picture of the mechanisms. This is also important for understanding how human-induced climate change can affect and be affected in this interaction,” she says.


Link to Geology: Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic


372 thoughts on “Study: The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods

    • In addition to the TSI, Dr. L. Svalgaard solar scientist Stanford University states:
      “As the magnetospheric ring current and the auroral electrojets and their return currents that are responsible for geomagnetic activity have generally North-South directed magnetic effects (strongest at night), the daytime variation of the Y or East component is a suitable proxy for the strength of the SR ionospheric current system..”
      Y component measurements (using Gauss magnetometer) since 1840s are currently used to recalibrate the existing sunspot records (Svalgaard et al)
      Solar activity effect on the N. Atlantic SST (the AMO) is unique.
      Data shows direct correlation of the AMO to the geomagnetic Y (East) component
      Why 60N ?
      N. Hemisphere’s climate is under control of the polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferrel and Hadley).

      • And if you can force the Polar Jet far enough south, tropical air masses never reach the higher latitudes and you get an Ice Age.
        So what was the geomagnetic Y (East) component doing, over the last million years? Any way of knowing?
        And what is it predicted to do, over the next 50-100 years?

      • Oh, and does the P.D.O. reflect the same kind of correlation with the geomagnetic Y (East) component?

      • No, no, and no!
        – We have magnetometer data only since 1840s.
        – Geomagnetic impact is combination of the two magnetic fields variability : solar and the Earth’s, and neither is predictable with any degree of certainty.
        60N in the Atlantic is south of Iceland (btw warm current down-welling area) traverses number of important warm and cold currents linking Arctic and N. Atlantic ( warm ~9Sv, cold ~10.5Sv).
        – PDO & Pacific, no!
        60N in Pacific catches only the northern part of the Bering Sea, with only one minor current (warm ~1.5Sv) flowing into Arctic. (Sv= Sverdrup)

      • Very carefully controlled collection methods are used to gain a very good idea of what the planetary magnetic field is doing at any given time. Magnetic dating is used in both geology and archaeology to estimate dates of features and formations of interest. The field affects the orientation of magnetic material in sediments and since the field changes over time the orientation can be used to estimate the age of objects like hearths, lava flows and similar objects. While the direction of the pole would only correlate to time, the angle of dip might correlate to other aspects of planetary environment.

    • Well that would be especially true at places like Vostock Station.
      I would think it would be a tossup as to which has more influence at Vostock; the sun or the ice ?? On the climate that is.

  1. This is also important for understanding how human-induced climate change can affect and be affected in this interaction,” she says.
    The standard genuflection to the political tyrants in the viewing stand.

    • But 2 of the authors , including the first- named , Jui Hang, are from China , a country which , perforce , due to its large dependent population , has to make a realistic appraisal of AGW and the arguments for and against.
      The name of these authors may be ones to bookmark for future reference to see what they produce in their own right , free of the political correctness required by Western researchers .

    • Thanks!! I needed that. Every time I’m in discussion about this topic I say this, and if outside, I point to it and say, “There’s your climate change model in real time.” 🙂 There’s usually a long silence fo;;owing my statement.

      • Hey Ralph,
        Where I live, it can be 25C during the day and after sundown, below 0C. The sun vs no sun causes a high gain response of ~25 C in less than 10 hrs. Day to night in a day = 25 C shift.
        What noise is associated with that signal? 1% ?
        With such a small N to S ratio, can’t there be at least a small contribution from Sol? How could you measure such a minuscule effect? We could pretend that it isn’t there I suppose.

    • I’m right there with you, been saying it for 15 yrs…
      Turn off the Sun and see what happens !
      Everything else is over thinking.

      • Given your suggestion, you are saying let’s measure the different sizes of chicken eggs with a measuring stick that only has marks for mile (or kilometer for those fortunate enough to live under the metric system).

  2. So the thing is, to make the models better, we have to understand the role of umpteen things. To understand the role of say just the sun, we then have to be able to predict its variations within tight bounds. Multiply that by the umpteen things that go into producing climate and it leads me to say that we are still years away from having models that are reliable.

    • The problem is that we still don’t fully understand all of the different ways the sun influences the climate, much less how those influences change as the sun changes.

  3. I do not have a subscription to Geology so I was not able to read the full pdf. I am just wondering if they did consider precession and obliquity changes with the corresponding decrease of summer insolation in the North Atlantic over time.

    • I am about a third the way through the video. I find nothing under IMDB. It seems to be only in a few places on the net.
      When was it made? It is obviously made before the “science” channels became politically correct.

  4. Paywalled, so one cannot look at the evidence. In particular, one cannot look at the inferred nonlinear sensitivity to determine if small variations are likely to be very important in the context of the little ice age/maunder minimum and the weak(er) solar cycle we are having now and are predicted to have for the next 1-3 cycles. As Lief has pointed out, there isn’t a good correlation in the short-run data (in part because solar state hasn’t varied that much) but if there is a compelling correlation in the long run data that would be a strong argument for confounding stuff in the highly multidimensional climate being responsible for masking a warming signal that is linked to solar state even over the last 150-400 years. There are plenty of candidates for the latter — the multidecadal oscillations being at the head of the list as they, too, have a very clear impact on climate.

    • The post’s link leads to a title only. Here is the abstract.

      “Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic
      Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes. However, the mechanisms for sun-climate links remain a topic of debate. Here we present a high-resolution summer sea-surface temperature (SST) record covering the past 9300 yr from a site located at the present-day boundary between polar and Atlantic surface-water masses. The record is age constrained via the identification of 15 independently dated tephra markers from terrestrial archives, circumventing marine reservoir age variability problems. Our results indicate a close link between solar activity and SSTs in the northern North Atlantic during the past 4000 yr; they suggest that the climate system in this area is more susceptible to the influence of solar variations during cool periods with less vigorous ocean circulation. Furthermore, the high-resolution SST record indicates that climate in the North Atlantic regions follows solar activity variations on multidecadal to centennial time scales.”

      • They have “built in” a fallacie in their background for their thesis….. “Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.” by using proxy they show lack of knowledge how to come up with a sound algoritm to be used. That’s one thing, but they also showed they aren’t familiar with problems involving using ice core as their proxy not to mention that had this been correct, which it isn’t, 320 samples had been too few….
        Can’t anyone teach them why ice cores can’t be used to prove anything for a specific Arctic past? They haven’t even taken difference in saltination nor taken in Arctic water where Ice always drift and never ever is on same “place” ten years let alone several thousands. They have missed the fluctuation in streams and straiths over seasons and over centuries. That they also misunderstood their math… well why am I not surprised…

      • Indeed, thanks! The money quote from the paper:

        The model results
        indicate that a reduced frequency of Atlantic blocking events during inter-
        vals of high solar activity promotes warmer and saltier conditions in the
        pathway of the Irminger Current due to stronger circulation of the subpo-
        lar gyre. This implies that combined atmospheric and ocean circulation
        effects are important for the sun-climate link observed at our location.
        Furthermore, using an intermediate complexity model in an ensemble
        approach, Renssen et al. (2006) showed that the probability of a solar-
        induced local reduction of the deep-water formation increases when the
        Arctic is already cold.
        The modeling results here may aid understanding of the processes
        underlying the sun-climate link over the past 4000 yr and the absence
        of such a strong link between climate variability and solar irradiation
        prior to 4000 cal. yr B.P. on the NIS.

        In other words, even though the changes in solar forcing are tiny, the system is chaotic and small changes can systematically trigger shifts in thermohaline circulation and its coupled atmospheric component that cool/warm the entire Arctic and by extension northern Europe and the northeast coast of the north american continent.
        Note that they offer a very specific pathway for solar activity to influence climate — “intervals of high solar activity promote warmer and saltier conditions in the pathway of the Irminger Current due to stronger circulation in the subpolar gyre”. As we are entering an apparent period of low solar activity, this is certainly a candidate explanation for the shifts in the polar vortex that are currently responsible for the snow that is still sitting, unmelted, outside of my window in NC in March. Snow that will melt this week (finally!) but that may be joined by still more snow by Thursday evening. We’ve missed an “unprecedented” two days of class at Duke two years in a row due to snowfall when we have gone six to eight year stretches without missing any at all.
        Speaking of unprecedented, figure 3 in the paper shows just how not unprecedented Arctic conditions and temperatures are compared to the last 10,000 years. Count the number of 1 C spikes in (for example) the lowest plot or second to lowest plot. Observe the secular variation of over 3 C over the last 8000 years from the Holocene Optimum. Observe that the LIA was the lowest stretch in the last 10,000 years. Observe that they assert “extra” sensitivity to solar state in colder conditions, although that’s a second order effect and I’m dubious that their data can really resolve this — I’m guessing that they are seeing and misinterpreting the rapidity of the shift based on the kind of shift that is most likely to occur out of cold or out of warm conditions.
        Yet another set of data that suggests that a great deal of the “unprecendented” abuse of language and statistics should simply be left out of the scientific debate on the causes of climate shifts over century plus timescales.

    • That depends what solar state you are talking about. Solar plasma density/pressure has fallen markedly in the same time frame as the AMO has strongly warmed, since the mid 1990’s. The multidecadal oscillations are more likely amplified negative feedbacks to the solar signal:

  5. Very well argumented article, I enjoyed reading it. I dare to say that oceans are a decisive climatic force, too, the second after the sun. The oceans affected by human activity, naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve.
    I emphasize with the idea that Naval War had a great impact in the climate change. I suggest visiting for more information.

    • smamarver
      Many thanks.
      I have no doubt that human activity affects the oceans.
      The amount of – mostly plastic-based – rubbish in them rather strongly indicates that.
      Localised effects – as suggested in the link, in the Baltic, perhaps – may be real, if not long-lasting.
      The oceans are big.
      Even very large container carriers [‘big box boats’] like the ‘MSC Oscar’ and ‘CSCL Globe’ are only about 400 metres long, and sixty metres wide.
      Now, there are between 50,000 and 80,000 ocean-going ships [depends on the definition’s precise parameters].
      Sounds a lot – indeed it is a lot (and remember they each have a crew of twenty or so – generally – away from home for weeks, months, even a year at a time!).
      If the average is 250m long by 40m in beam (probably high, but for the sake of argument] , each will cover a hectare.
      80,000 ships that big – about 800 square kilometres.
      The oceans are about 300,000,000 square kilometres – one part in 275,000 is covered by a ship at any time.
      Effects – surely: each ship [at an average 15 knots, ~ 28 kph] will pass through 24x 112 times its length in a day [yes, merchant ships operate 24/7]. So – with some approximations – one part in one hundred of the ocean will have had a ship pass through it in any 24 hours.
      On average.
      The English Channel, say, or the Malacca Straits, will far exceed that. the Southern Ocean – and some quite large areas of even the Atlantic and Pacific oceans will have fewer transits.
      I appreciate that, above, I am confining the passage to precisely the ship’s beam – her width.
      If it is two beams either side – so an average (as above) ship affects 200 meter-wide strips of the ocean, still only one part in twenty will have had a ship pass through it in any 24 hours.
      And draft – drafts today rarely exceed about 22 metres; the biggest supertankers – ULCCS – of the 1970s and 1980s reached about 30 metres draft. An average might be twelve or fourteen metres.
      And ‘the effect’ may be to three times the depth; shall we say 50 metres, for ease of estimation . . .
      Yet the oceans average about 3,000 metres depth . . .
      So, for me, with over forty years in shipping, and having transited many of the main sealanes at 15 knots or less, the idea is a little stretched – if viewed globally.
      On the Baltic scale – a fairly shallow sea – I would need to look more closely, so don’t rule it out.
      I’m not at all clear about the mechanisms – turbulence, noise, waste heat, use of explosives, change in albedo [smoke versus water, I guess] – but am happy to be enlightened.
      Welcome Monday with a smile, every Monday.

      • Or you could calculate the total energy used by the ships and how much of it is transformed into kenetic energy to move the ships through water and compare that to the total energy the oceans absorb. This would probably give a more accurate assessment of ships ability to affect the oceans. Probably very very very small.

      • Here, on, is another aspect of human presence on the oceans, and I quote: “Many ship propellers are plowing through the sea stirring the surface layer to a depth of 15 meters. In the North Sea and Baltic there are continuously ten thousand motor ships and more at sea. Several thousand offshore facilities on the bottom of the sea or anchored offshore rigs divert currents at sea and influence tides and currents as a permanent resistance against the normal flow of huge amounts of ocean water. (Fig. 3-8) The result is like stirring hot soup. Warm water will come to the surface and the heat will supply the atmosphere with warmth. The air will become warmer and the winters will be milder. The correlation is not to be overseen. It is not relevant to climate research or agencies allowing offshore structures who do not consider such evaluations.”

      • smamarver
        March 2, 2015 at 1:57 am
        Basis your comments, I assume this hypothesis is pretty much restricted to the shallow seas. There, I can – empirically – just believe an effect in good/bad [per definition] years
        The North Sea – per that peerless organ that even I can edit, Wikipedia, (authoritativeness to the fifth power, some say . . . .) – has an area of 750,000 [definition; error bar?] square kilometres.
        Even fifteen thousand motor ships [many obviously rather shallow draft – say three or four metres] will give one every fifty square Km – about every four mile square space, I think.
        Warm water will come to the surface, as you aver, but in the North (and Baltic) seas, given a modest average depth (95 metres, per the peerless organ Wikipedia), there may not be a huge difference between surface waters [say a meter down] and those at fifty or a hundred and fifty metres depth.
        As I noted in my previous post, the ‘Oceans’ average 3,000 metres depth – very roughly, oceanography is still getting to grips with the oceans, as we saw with the MH370 [I wonder if – given that the oceans are big] we will – in my lifetime – find out anything more about that tragedy . . . .]!
        Russia has an area of about 17,1 million square kilometres. The Indian Ocean – much smaller than the Atlantic or the Pacific Oceans, is about 73 million square kilometres. [Both numbers sourced on the ‘utterly infallible’ Wikipedia, which even I can edit, 2 March 2015, about 2115 Z].
        The suggested mechanism for this effect appears – basis your post – to be turbulence.
        Not totally ignorable – but I wonder if insolation, cloud shading, orbital geometry, albedo due to (lack of) phyto-plankton, ocean and sea currents [due to the disposition of continents and islands] – and perhaps other influences might have a similarly noticeable effect.
        I may have misunderstood, so do correct me if I err.
        wickedwenchfan – yours noted.
        Worldwide, my fleet – of about one-and-a-half hectare ships ( jolly roughly), trading world wide, at over sixteen knots average speed through the water, burn about forty thousand tonnes oil equivalent a year.
        Not – I suggest – just ‘very very very small’ – but, in truth, given the size of the oceans ‘vanishingly small’ to utterly – delete that rue Anglo-Saxon thought – irrelevant.

      • The most plausible mechanism for human effects on the ocean (outside of agricultural silting and fertilization and general pollution that affects things like water clarity and hence depth of solar penetration) is altering the surfactant properties of its surface, largely by means of fuel oil slicks. A single drop of oil on the surface of spreads out to cover many square meters. Those square meters have inhibited evaporation and significantly less atmospheric mixing and sea surface turnover — oil does indeed calm “troubled waters”. In WWII quite a few ships and all of the fuel oil that they carried went down to the bottom (but left the fuel oil on top) The “Exxon Valdez” disaster was something that happened literally every day, somewhere, in just about all of the seas of the world.
        The arithmetic for this still ends up being uncertain. As you note, the ocean surface is enormous. I had an extended argument with a WUWT poster on this very subject, where he alleged — with some backing — that oil eventually spreads out to a monomolecular layer that is the moral equivalent of covering large tracts of ocean surface with saran wrap. This effect is pretty demonstrable with a pond-sized body of water, where a tiny bit of oil will cover an acre or more of water quite rapidly with clear effects on its response to wind and so on. IMO the arithmetic still worked out orders of magnitude shy, and didn’t properly account for degradation of the oil both to surface evaporation (which might or might be a good thing GHG-wise:-) and to being eaten, which actually is the destiny of quite a lot of the oil that makes it into the water in short order. His argument didn’t really compare magnitudes of anthropogenic diesel from sinking oil tankers to estimates of oil seeps on the sea bottom, either, or natural sources of biological oils (dying whales, dying krill). I haven’t either, but I suspect natural sources are at least as large if not larger (although now we probably leak unknown quantities of ocean rig oil wells that are somewhere in between).
        The propeller argument fails all sanity checks, as you point out, even in small seas. People who haven’t been out to sea have no idea how big it is. Up next to the coast it can look “crowded”, two miles out it is less crowded, five miles out it starts to look a bit deserted, and a hundred miles out you can go a long, long ways and not see any sign that there are other humans on the planet. Against this vastness, a single storm mixes the ocean to any depth a propeller might help with across more area than all the boats of all the coasts traverse in a single day, and that doesn’t include the nearly constant mixing caused by the fact that the wind moving over the water is almost never still — there are whitecaps and long period waves in perfectly ordinary weather, just about all of the time, just about everywhere but “the doldrums”.
        Causality is not correlation (or is that the other way around?) or we’d be inclined to assert that “The Pause” is caused by improved regulations for discharge of fuel from boats. Which is currently at least mildly illegal and actively discouraged in US coastal waters, even for personal watercraft.
        An experiment to sort of illustrate the problem. Take a swimming pool. Try to alter its temperature profile, detectably, by beating the top cm of the surface with pins. Use all the pins you can hold in your two hands, but you have to lean over from the edge, the vast middle part of the pool is off limits. This isn’t properly scaled to the ocean — propeller turbulence is pretty much the top 1-2 meters out of 1000 to 5000 meters where your pool is 1 cm out of 1 to 3 meters (so the ocean is orders of magnitude harder to warm and is damned cold on the bottom where your pool probably won’t be in the summertime) but even with the huge advantage you have, I very much doubt that you could observe any systematic shift in pool temperature with any instrumentation you could afford to use.
        Now take that same pool, and put a single good sized drop of oil onto its surface and watch as it spreads out to thinly coat the whole pool, and actually alter the scale of ripples and waves caused by wind over the water. The one drop of oil mattered at the scale of the pool surface where beating the surface with two or three pins near the pool edge did not. You still might not be able to measure an effect on temperature, but at least now it is plausible that you could.

      • Auto,
        It’s interesting discussing with you. I have a few points:
        * It is evident, that North Europe has milder winters than average. In winter the sun’s influence is very much lower as during the summer. Extra warming is presumably comming mostly from the sea.
        * Concerning the ocean, one should bear in mind that its average temperature is only about 4°Celsius, and warm water is only at the very surface, which also has a very complex struture concerning temperature and salinity.
        * Ships interfere is this structure massively. Ship propellers stirring the surface layer together with the size of the generated resistance of the hull, over a daily distance of about 500 to 700 kilometer per day.
        That results in a lot of square/km of sea surface turned around p/d.
        Keep in touch! 🙂

    • For Rgbatduke: Concerning the third paragraph presumably you have experienced the width of the sea extensively. Awaiting such opportunity since long, my interest in sea matters was only raised, when reading some time ago, and after discussion with friends recently the book at: . It discusses the warming of the Northern Hemisphere from 1919-1939, the global cooling from 1940 to 1970, and particularly the very extreme winters in Europe 1940, 1941 and 1942. During the early WWII, naval war was highest in coastal areas along Europe’s shores, particularly from the Biscay to the Gulf of Finland. To these three events human activities in the sea have contributed to the warming, the cooling and the extreme winters, to which the book provides different explanations, based on sea temperature structure and salinity. In IMHO the most convincing yet. A better understanding of world war impact would presumably resolve the question: why is the increase of water temperature during winter in North Europe higher as average (see ref.: March 2, 1:57)? Is there any evidence that off-shore facilities, shipping, fishing etc. should be excluded?
      Thanks for your comments, I’m very keen for better understanding the matter.

  6. We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear.

    Too bad we can’t turn off the sun and find out.
    I predict it would have no impact. It’s all about carbon dioxide … well, not all carbon dioxide — just the carbon dioxide produced by evil man.

    • Suggesting we turn off the sun to elucidate this study is illogical. The study focuses on solar variation, not the fact that we have solar heating.

      • Pamela,
        Do you think that day to night variation may indicate the strong effect solar radiation may have, and in so doing indicate the difficulty there would be measuring 0.1C in 20 years?

      • Day versus night variation is an apples and oranges comparison to measured Top Of The Atmosphere solar variations. Maximum variation with error bars would bury a smaller solar signal. What would be the point of teasing out such a small insignificant forcing when we have such a larger source of variation right here on Earth?

      • Pamela,
        In terms of S:N, I agree. So, If the sun does vary, or has varied, it would be impossible to detect evidence for it on the surface. Particularly if the variation contributes +/- 0.1 C? Ne ce pas?

      • Well we don’t really have solar heating; we have solar irradiating. It is our inefficiency that wastes most of that as heat.
        If we want to get full value out of the sun, we have to learn how to not waste all that radiant energy as heat.

    • Max,
      “Too bad we can’t turn off the sun and find out.”
      Every day for most of the planet, it’s tuned off.
      More people should be studying the effects of this, other than myself.

      • Mi Cro March 1, 2015 at 4:33 pm
        “Too bad we can’t turn off the sun and find out.”
        Every day for most of the planet, it’s tuned off.
        More people should be studying the effects of this, other than myself.

        Lord knows I’ve tried my best, but I keep falling asleep.
        I hope they have enough sediment cores for meaningful interpretation of the blocking events. I’d hate to find out that they studied the equivalent of a core taken from Wyoming and one from Alabama and tried to draw some conclusions.
        (H.R., back from Florida and looking at over a foot of snow. There is no Climate Justice here.)

    • What Pamela means is that TOA insolation varies by around 91 W/m^2 every year, invisibly. This is around a 7% relative variation. 7% is absolutely enormous compared to every other cause of variable “forcing” around the numbers assumed for “mean insolation”, which all put together and amplified by feedbacks (or not) and improved by some wistful imagination don’t add up to anything like one whole percent. This is because of the rather elliptical orbit of the Earth around the sun — it gets substantially closer and farther away over the course of a year.
      If that isn’t enough for you, note that the Earth is farthest from the sun and on the low end of this particular stick during the NH summer, when global average temperatures are typically the highest, and closest during the NH winter when global temperatures are the smallest. The usual proposed explanation for this stunning fact is that the NH has comparatively more continental land surface area and that the SH has comparatively higher albedo as a consequence, although personally I am highly skeptical of the glibness of this assertion — more ocean could mean more cloudiness, it could mean more efficient vertical latent heat transport and cloud-based albedo, but more ocean also means more water vapor and hence more GHE warming! It is probably not a single factor effect, in other words, and may depend on the shape and structure of the continents involved (where their mountain ranges are and how high they are and how much of the land is desert and what’s going on with the part of the surface supporting vegetation and where the continents are with respect to the Earth’s axial precession and cloudiness, albedo, water vapor warming, and don’t forget thermohaline circulation and the continent sized ice cube known as “Antarctica” that occupies the south pole instead of an ocean that gets an thread of tropically warmed water injected in it all year long).

  7. “In their study, the researchers looked at the sea surface temperatures in summer in the northern part of the North Atlantic during the last 9,300 years. Direct measurements of the temperature are only found for the last 140 years, when they were taken from ships. However, by examining studies of marine algae – diatoms – found in sediments deposited on the North Atlantic sea bed, it is possible to use the species distribution of these organisms to reconstruct fluctuations in sea surface temperatures much further back in time.”

    Seasonal changes in sea surface temperature dwarf long term trends. Considering the great variation in sea surface temperature measurement techniques, times & locations, and the corrections used to attempt to compensate for those variations, which make land surface TOBS adjustments seem inconsequential by comparison, I absolutely do not trust the 140 year sea surface temperature record. But I trust even less the attempts to tease another 9K years of sea surface temperature data from proxies derived from sediment analysis.

    • In my examination of Shakun’s paper claiming CO2 (except at polar ive cores) I looked in detail at his 72 ocean sediment proxies of various sorts one group were diatom species variations. There is absolutely no reliability in these proxies. They do not agree on when deglaciation began, nor when it ended. Yet we know those dates to within a millennium thanks to sea level rise. I would judge the study not worth the paywall cost on those grounds alone.
      Plus, exactly what proxy for solar radiation intensity is there that is reliable. All the radioisotope stuff like Be and C are confounded.

      • Exactly! As I have argued before, Shakun et al used 2 tricks to cook up a bogus case for CO2 leading the Holocene inception. One was – as you say – smearing together of many proxy records some so poor that they scarcely resolved the Holocene at all. This completely ironed out the Younger Dryas for instance. Shakun’s trick number 2 was to exploit the bipolar seesaw, specifically the fact that Antarctica and the southern ocean started warming first, about 20,000 yrs ago, long before the NH. Since there is more ocean/less land in the SH, this helped create the illusion that CO2 liberated from the warming Southern Ocean was somehow driving that warming. Strip away all the illusions and tricks and there is no case left for CO2 doing anything but passively following temperature.

  8. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years…really?
    ….so slight warming of a 1/2 degree would be normal and expected then

  9. Not impressed. We are so quick to eviscerate puny CO2 variation effects. Yet put on a parade for equally puny solar variations.

      • Nope. I be a wee little leprechaun with a long career centered on various handicapping conditions across the age span. I do not have a Ph.D.. I do have a BS, MS, and MA degrees plus teaching and administrative licenses and have published research on the auditory brainstem response to high frequency narrow band stimuli. As for the present topic, I am a climate and weather nerd.

      • Yes Milo I did find it. Having been raised in Wallowa County on a ranch, it was a given that I would attend OSU in Corvallis, Oregon. Moo U.

    • Only in your imagination has the repeatedly demonstrated profound effect of variation in UV (& magnetic flux) been “debunked”. Please show the evidence which you imagine has done this debunking. Thanks.
      It is a measure of the genius & profound learning of Jack Eddy that he correctly perceived that the sun is a variable star without benefit of the SORCE data, which showed his appreciation of decades earlier presciently to have been correct.

      • I see this is out of place. Hope Pamela will find it.
        Oregon State (when it was Oregon Ag) is my parents’ alma mater, & another OSU, Ohio State, my civil & mechanical engineer grandfather’s.
        She has the last word, as the boat in the South Pacific is about to lose the signal from the nearest cell tower.

      • Eddy [and the rest of us] believed in 1976 that the variation of TSI over the sunspot cycle was of the order of 1 to 2% which would explain the solar link. Observations a few years later showed that the variation was 10 times smaller, and at the Dinner Talk at the SORCE meeting in 2003, Eddy conceded that the observed variation was too small to have any significant effect:

      • TSI maybe, but not when factoring in the much greater variation in the most energetic end of the spectrum & magnetic flux the effects are out of proportion to just total irradiance.
        This is not speculation but observed & confirmed experimentally.

      • Leif, his comment, that he was wrong, makes him worthy of having the next prolonged quiet sun period named after him.

      • Sturgis Hooper March 2, 2015 at 5:23 am
        TSI maybe, but not when factoring in the much greater variation in the most energetic end of the spectrum
        It is like the large variation of loose change in someone’s pocket being a measure of the variation of his total wealth.

  10. We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear. Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity.

    I would have bet real money on this statement being true. Head, I win. Tails? I win.

    • So it states that this is a known unknown.
      Better than claiming there aren’t any unknowns (a falsehood).
      And better than ignoring that we do know of the unknowns (a lie by omission).

      • Mike
        During June to August at Lake LaBerge in the Yukon, your grand dad would have been wrong. During the three or four hours between sunset and sunrise, it was never dark and seldom rained.

      • The only issue I have with a statement like this is that while it is true, it is true only because it cannot be wrong. But it has no useful meaning. Better is to come clean and say those three words that seem not to be in any climate scientist’s list of catch phrases: “We don’t know”.

    • This is what I find so annoying about climastrologists … they have scant knowledge of the effect of the SUN yet proclaim such ‘compelling’ knowledge in respect of the miniscule effect of CO2 in warming the Earth. I’ll give them a clue, the SUN gives effect to EVERYTHING on our planet Earth.

  11. Another way of describing this effect would be to say that there is evidence that the climate is buffered against increases in temperature beyond a certain point. Hence as it becomes warmer it becomes less sensitive to `forcing’. There is also evidence for this in the long term climate history where we see what looks like an upper limit on temperature.
    If true this suggests scenarios of run away warming due to tipping points are just not possible.

      • Please state why you think so. Have you actually read the 1976 paper by Leif’s esteemed mentor? You may well know more & be smarter than Eddy but I’d like to see evidence to that effect.

      • From the article:
        “I have reexamined the contemporary reports and new evidence which has come to light since Maunder’s time and conclude that this 70-year period was indeed a time when solar activity all but stopped. This behavior is wholly un-like the modern behavior of the sun which we have come to accept as normal, and the consequences for solar and terrestrial physics seem to me profound.”
        “If this change is periodic, we can speculate that the sun may now be progressing toward a grand maximum which might be reached in the 22nd or 23rd centuries.”
        We now know that there has been no “grand maximum” and we also know that solar activity continued during the Maunder Minimum based on other reconstructed solar parameters now that the record has been corrected for miscalibrated sunspot numbers.

      • We do not know any such thing. You may imagine that the MM didn’t exist but all the available observational & proxy data, such as isotopes, show you’re wrong & Eddy was right.

      • Of course there was a Maunder Minimum (a period of time with fewer visible sunspots for a longer period of time compared to solar minimum), but it is not true that solar activity all but stopped.

      • Yes Eddy wrote about the Maunder Minimum (but he did not discover it). And yes solar activities that result in visible sunspots retreated to less activity than usual (again something he did not discover). But Eddy was heading down an unsupported hypothesis: He believed that it was much worse than it turned out to be, and that it likely was one if not the main reason for global cooling at the time. Neither one of those ideas have born fruit.
        In case Milo still does not read carefully,
        1: There was a period of time of lower solar activity referred to as the Maunder Minimum.
        2: It has since been upgraded to a period of time with somewhat greater than “all but stopped” activity, while still retaining its status as a prolonged solar-quiet period.
        3: No published peer reviewed study has found a robust correlation, one which uses standard statistical measures and only lightly (or less) parametized data.
        4: No one in the peer reviewed literature has proposed and demonstrated a plausible mechanism.

      • Dr. Svalgaard himself questioned whether current solar activity compares to that of the Maunder Minimum in his paper, Calibration of Sunspot Numbers, concluding, “Should such deviations from `normal’ observed sunspot activity be substantiated in the near future, the question naturally arises whether [and when] they might have occurred in the past as well, e.g. during the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715.”
        Concerning the significance of the EUV spectrum, the paper The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate states:
        “Although the ultraviolet region of the spectrum provides only a small fraction of the TSI, ultraviolet irradiance can change by several percent over the solar cycle, and thus represents an important source of modulation of the energy deposition and composition in the middle and upper atmosphere. Ultraviolet irradiance both changes the radiative balance of the atmosphere and affects the shape of the spectrum of radiation reaching the lower atmosphere. Such variations are thought to drive the top-down coupling mechanism.”
        Further, Solomon et al(2011) concluded that an Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum had occurred for which the F10.7 and Total Electron Count proxies did not detect.
        Cited in Dr. Svalgaard’s paper, Dr. Ken Tapping may have been the first to document this discrepancy between in the pdf slide show, Properties of the Sunspot Number and 10.7cm Solar Radio Flux Indices, Their Inter-Relationship and Unusual Behaviour Since the Year 2000,
        with lecture description here. The concluding slide of the presentation summarizes the discrepancies.
        When pressed with the evidence of anomalously low EUV data, Dr. Svalgaard either questions their accuracy, their significance, or both.
        On the issue of the solar wind, Dr. Svalgaard’s proxies may correctly account for year over year changes, however, the proxies cannot explain the solar wind’s multi-decade decline. For example, compare Leif graph of the solar wind flux,
        with the solar wind pressure provided by David Archibald:
        The solar wind deflects cosmic rays.

      • @ jonesinger, Thanks for the Ken Tapping presentation. We do not live far from his observatory. They do very good work there with very limited resources. If any one would like to know it? It is called the White Lake Observatory. located south of Penticton BC Canada. It works with a very limited budget. The work also includes (as far as I can recall) as a base point for a world wide radio “telescope” creating a very large footprint to investigate radio signals impossible to do with a single dish, as I remember it is a effort that uses two or three radio dishes in different countries and two (?) satellites to give a huge baseline. Here they are. As to penetrate very far into radio spectrums. I am not sure how far they have gotten with this project. Not directly related to climate as such but hey as far I think, any thing coming at us from “out there” is related to climate and why I also believe the CO2 thing is a scam!

        • Yes, I asked Ken about the EUV anomaly. He and a research assistant are writing up a paper now. Don’t know how he finds the time!

  12. The sun is responsible for the heat we have. Without an atmosphere we would have about the same climate as the moon. Call we a lukewarmer if you like but I think global warming is good thing no mater what is causing it. I see no evidence for tipping points and I see no need for a theory of AGW to explain anything. Natural variation AMO, PMO(PDO) and ENSO do a nice job of it.

  13. This study uses diatom species as proxies for SST. Plausible except that such proxies are not always reliable. Also, the Gulf Stream is a very changeable current, with eddies, meanderings, etc. hence these proxies may simply reflect the gyrations and variations in that. In short, the conclusions of this study need independent confirmation.

  14. Makes sense. When the sun is too hot, the equatorial storm belt does a good job of keeping a lid on temperature. But if the sun falls below some threshold, its influence over climate could easily increase. Obviously this is a speculative response – love to see more research into this issue.

      • Eric Worrall, It’s not an either/or.
        A) There just isn’t the evidence to say “It’s the Sun that done it”.
        In my opinion,
        B) There is the evidence to say “It isn’t the CO2 that done it except at the end of an ice-age”.
        But the fact that I’m persuaded of B does not prove to me A.

      • Please cite those which you have read, especially those published since the SORCE data showed how variable the sun is.
        PS: I assume you haven’t yet signed the petion to the AAS of Anth*ny W*tts & Leif Svalgaard to name the next solar minimum after Jack Eddy, whose work you feel free to disparage in an entirely evidence free manner.

      • Eric Worrall
        March 1, 2015 at 1:07 pm
        Tell us why CO2 does such a good job of explaining the climate Pamela.
        You asked Pamela, yes but I could not resist…
        Because CO2 correlation with climate and climate change is the best and the most strong correlation observed, then is sea level variation and so on.
        Even in that case is clearly understood and accepted that still CO2 does not cause climate change, for as far as climate seen in the natural angle. Does not trigger or causes climate change.
        Even Mann is not and will not claim that CO2 emissions caused any climate change before the anthropogenic era..
        That is why there is a metric, the CS, climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions.
        and so on and so forth…
        Sun (the variations) never had that luxury, and probably never will…

      • CO2 does not do a good job of explaining past and present weather pattern variations. Likely because the anthropogenic portion of total atmospheric CO2 does not have enough chops to increase downwelling longwave infrared radiation outside the natural variation and the oceans do not absorb downwelling longwave infrared radiation to the degree hypothesized.

      • whiten
        … Because CO2 correlation with climate and climate change is the best and the most strong correlation observed, then is sea level variation and so on. …
        Nonsense. Warming events which occurred in the recent past, which cannot have been caused by CO2, are statistically indistinguishable from the recent warming, which is alleged to have been caused by CO2. Even alarmists like Phil Jones, one of the stars of Climategate, and director of the CRU, admit this.
        1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
        1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
        1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
        1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
        I’m not saying that the case for the sun has been proven, far from it. But there is also a lot wrong with the claim that CO2 can explain the recent warming.

      • @ Eric Worrall
        March 1, 2015 at 3:41 pm
        You say:
        Nonsense. Warming events which occurred in the recent past, which cannot have been caused by CO2, are statistically indistinguishable from the recent warming, which is alleged to have been caused by CO2. Even alarmists like Phil Jones, one of the stars of Climategate, and director of the CRU, admit this.
        Sorry Eric but I think you have not read the rest of my reply to you, or you in intent have cherry picked from it.
        If you re-read it you will see that I and you say the same thing.
        I say Mann you say Phil the only difference at that point, apart from the big one, that you deny the correlation all together, while I do not.
        And that correlation helps a lot in explaining and understanding the climate.
        Its clarity and obviousity (in the data) is a big problem for AGWers when they try to pull things further than supposed to.
        Is the best correlation propagated from the climate data…..
        Sun is no where near that.

      • Our Sun (2011) by Tony Broxton is a great first read handbook. It is for me one of the better books that sets you up with solar vocabulary. I recommend starting there. I also recommend reading articles found on Leif website. The efforts of other noted researchers can be found on his site as well as his own work.

      • “Because CO2 correlation with climate and climate change is the best and the most strong correlation observed” – Whiten
        Both are roughly going up over the last half century. Detrending the data shows that they do not correlated well apart form that.
        Doing something similar with the derivative of the CO2 levels shows a much better correlation.
        I don’t want to bring up anything else except that you would expect the correlation to be better in the first instance if the warming was due to CO2.

      • The recommended read stands. Given the amazing lack of knowledge demonstrated in the thread, I could not have, in good conscience, recommended a higher level text. When basic solar science is thrown aside for an entirely unsupported idea, it is back to basics education. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    • Eric, if you have not, read Lindzen’s adaptive ir iris paper, BAMS 2001. In the strong form he puts forth, probably not true. (subsequent response papers). In the weak slower form you put forth, probably is true. Explains the absence of the modeled tropical teoposphere hot spot. Willis’ thermoregulation by tropical T storms. Plus delta wandering/ expansion of the ITCZ as the equator pole temperature gradient shifts. Vuc’s stuff above.

      • Willis’ hypothesis is not his discovery. Please see Roy Spencer on the decades of research by professional scientists ignored by Willis.

      • Much study on this predates Willis, who neglected to give due credit to those before him. So lots of bloggers think that it was Willis who originated the “homeostasis” of the tropics.

      • MP,
        True. Willis has himself acknowledged that his papers leave out the usual literature step. He enjoys crunching numbers even when the same crunching has already been done by others and repeatedly verified.
        IMO he could make original contributions by looking at data sets which haven’t been qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed adequately yet, as he did with the CA coastal buoys.

  15. The data tells the story more to follow.
    More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.
    My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.
    Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things.

    • It may be the case that the Greenland ice cores under record the warmth/variation.
      The Greenland ice cores suggest that during the Viking Warm Period (Medieval Warm Period) that Greenland was warmer than today by only 1 degC, and yet today gGlaciers are retreating revealing old Viking Settlements, and with the Viking’s limited technology there is no way that they could have farmed and liived in the settlements that are now beginning to see the light of day, if the land was only 1 deg warmer than present.
      For the Vikings to have flourished for so long, Greenland (at least around the old Viking Settlements) must have been more like 2 to 4 degrees warmer than today.

    • Hi Salvatore, the MWP being 1° C higher than current climate is coherent with data from vegetation here in NW Italy… Some town in the Monferrato Hills had medieval regulatory plans about the planting of olive trees, and there are records about the trading of olive oil… Olive trees need a climate with a mean temperature 1° C higher tham today, to get from them enough fruits to produce oil….

  16. Judging only from what said here in this post, it seems like a very tricky and cherry picking method to show what clearly thus far can not be shown by the paleo climate data, the famous deceptive correlation of the sun.
    Showing a correlation of North Atlantic SST as correlating with the Sun does not really mean a sun- climatic correlation with climate. Trying to use the term North Atlantic climate based only on the variation of SST, could be misleading.
    The Maunder Minimum during LIA has clearly no correlation with climate, As the end of LIA was triggered there happened to follow shortly the Maunder, but never the less the climate warmed with no any sign of care.
    According to this study, and the North Atlantic variation we now may conclude that actually that Maunder did correlate with climate change. What a nobrainer…
    Is not unusual that in Transient anomaly climate, not stable climate, the SST in places may show a strong signal in opposite way of the climate signal.
    Failing in one angle to show a correlation may just happens to support it in the other opposing angle, like during LIA. That is no more than a trick and a cherry picking method.
    The giveaway line:
    “Since the end of the Last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, the climate has not been stable during this period, when temperatures have varied for long periods. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and the ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.”
    Very messy indeed…..
    Climate is an Atmospheric energy configuration.
    Yes it is coupled and influenced by other earth system functions, but a correlation of some effect on climate must be related to climate and atmosphere first, otherwise a mess follows.
    Any other indirect correlation may be of no any value, especially while climate and atmosphere in plain contradiction as far as such correlations concerned.

    • Wait a minute,,,,,, I said North Atlantic, …… even worse, …actually is only north North Atlantic…..:-)

      • Far North Atlantic is where all the action is, mixing of warm and cold currents, warm currents down-welling striped of the heat energy by cold westerly wind, hundreds of W/m2 of heat rising into higher atmosphere creating the Icelandic Low atmospheric pressure system, diverting polar jet-stream etc.
        Southern portion of N. Atlantic except for occasional hurricane is for the most of time a docile creature.

      • The sun and “water vapor” variation both considered as constant according and in regard to climate…..There you have it… the famous correlation,……. the correlation of the constants..:-)

  17. One of the problems is that there is often a big volcano quite soon after a large drop solar activity. This can lead to false attrubution.

    • Remember Willis did a piece of Volcano’s that tended to show that temperature drops BEFORE the eruption takes place. That global temperature anticipates large eruptions.

  18. Willie Soon style unfounded smear campaign against Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz to begin in 3,2,1……………….
    Funded by Big Sun etc etc. Where is this university ? Can’t we get it shut down ? Do they get any UN funding ? If they do, pull it. Expel Denmark from the UN. The Danes are DENiers, geddit ?
    Yeah, that should do it.
    Send that out – Greenpeace, WWF, BBC you know, all the usual green blobbies.
    It will be FACT well before we are found out – usual drill.

  19. So for this one part of the earth, for this oneperiod of time, there’s a correlation. The rest of the earth we didn’t study, and by our own admission, there’s no correlation outside this period of time.

    • And why are you playing the (wo)man not the ball?
      Argue the science.
      This isn’t a political thread.

      • Pam could have been a little more upfront about her views, if this is the same Pam. She obviously has some very strong feelings about the climate “crisis”.
        Having said that, she has offered very little science to argue – very evidence to support the CO2 theory, just lots of pooh poohing of solar theories.

    • Not me Eric. Ask Willis and his lovely bride. I had the pleasure of their company last summer.

    • Eric Worral … that is despicable, and borders on stalking. ‘Pamela Gray’ is a very common name, and you have the wrong ‘Pamela Gray.’
      Why are you practicing ‘science’ like the worst of the AGWers that we all here despise. She disagrees with you about the properties of the sun … so what? I thought this blog was all about skepticism and open debate. What’s wrong with you?
      You have lost a great deal of credibility and good will, today.

      • It didn’t upset me in the least. In fact I rather enjoyed the debate. My feathers rarely ruffle.

    • Nonsense. Earthquake and volcanic eruption physics has come a long way. There is absolutely no correlation between magnetic changes during minimum and its affect on Earth’s geology. Not enough energy.

      • Pamela, do yo even understand the difference between correlation and cause? One does not necessarily cause the other if there is a good correlation. It could be complete coincidence ( that magnetic changes were at a maximum while temperature increases were at a maximum, but the correlation for the data at Toronto is actual good. Better than that with CO2 levels.
        Not enough energy? If gravitational pull on the Earth changes the currents then the climate changes. It might also cause a change in declination, hence the correlation.

      • Robert B
        March 1, 2015 at 9:58 pm
        Pamela, do yo even understand the difference between correlation and cause?
        Robert, a very wrong question…….
        In the case of the Sun, correlation either is something inflated and purely coincidental, with no any meaning, or otherwise means only causation……
        Hard for some to see this.
        Think it over please…….

    • it’s easy to gravitate to solar variations driving large variation in global temperature. Just look at the difference between average temperatures at the equator vs south pole. Equatorial variation is 15 F between day night with little seasonal change. South pole can vary over 100 F between the long night season and the long day season. The equator at sea level is saturated with water, the south pole is dry and high (over 9000 ft). To me, promoting CO2 as a climate change driver is ludicrous On the other hand (dexter) to promote solar influence on global temperature changes, one only has to look at day/night variation and polar/equator variation.
      The jet stream variation certainly has influence on weather as we have seen in recent winters and summers. An increased semi-permanent flow of arctic air masses into the mid North American continent would present longer freeze/snow season, while leaving the west coast warmer and dryer. That might explain the ancient dunes along the west side of the Columbia River south of Kettle Falls from the last ice age jet stream producing a ridge of high pressure, preventing the west coast from the typical rainfall.

      • My granddad’s company built the first (1929) Kettle Falls Bridge, inundated by Lake FDR behind GCD. Also the sea wall & turnaround at Seaside, highways to the Coast & Central OR & the Crown Point overlook in the Gorge.
        The dunes & nearby Miocene full body rhino cast fossil were my introduction to geology & paleontology, plus a sub fossil mammoth tusk from a road cut near Walla Walla brought home by my dad from a road crew. And the moraine at Lake Wallowa. Not to mention the very Athena series Palouse sandy loam soil we farmed, gift of the glaciers.
        Thanks for bringing back those PNW memories while anchored in the S. Pacific.

      • milodonharlani March 1, 2015 at 5:49 pm Thanks for bringing back those PNW memories while anchored in the S. Pacific.
        I have a ranch there high above the reservoir I try to get to on occasion. I find entire gorge geological features very interesting, as well as most of the west. Amazing variety.

      • I know the geology well having been raised in Wallowa County. Milo, there is another moraine. The one at the lake is famous because of the lake. Look at the topography over in the Lostine River Canyon (West of the Wallowa Lake area) and you will find a dry moraine every bit as interesting as Wallowa Lake’s moraine.

      • @ Milon ( South pacific, you lucky guy take some SST’s while there:)) The soils you mentioned as a farmer are they similar to what we called “Loess” in areas of SW Germany and that general area? Also a left over from the EU’s Glacials , very rich and reddish/tan colored, the stuff was worth gold as a farmer!

      • Pamela,
        I mentioned only the lake cuz that’s what I studied as a kid. Since then I’ve walked, ridden & flown over the one you cite too.
        My great grandad bought horses from Chief Joseph, pere et fils.
        Palouse soils are indeed loess, deep wind blown glacier dust. They’re part of the global loess belt so important in the history of agriculture.
        I’m not in the tropical South Pacific but subtropical, about the same south latitude as San Diego, CA in the north. But still pretty nice, if sometimes too windy.

  20. When Earth is cooler, atmospheric water vapor is less. That’s the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and it is used in IPCC’s pet GCMs, but only in the reverse to amplify anthropogenic global warming. When the atmospheric water vapor is less, the cloud cover is less, but not in those GCMs, because that tends to negate the desired result that man and capitalism are guilty by definition. This effect of cloud cover is the negative feedback that mitigates warming from any cause, and because it gates the Sun on and off, it is the most powerful feedback in all of climate (though not GCMs).
    At the same time, the same cloud cover is a positive feedback to solar variations which the IPCC long ago determined were insignificant. Cloud cover amplifies solar variations through the burn-off process, which perpetually proceeds apace on the morning side of the planet.
    Click on my name to read about SGW, Solar Global Warming (2010). If you only read professional climate journals you’re only getting the dogma. Ordinary phenomena and observations will come as a surprise.

    • P.S. Cloud cover perpetually mitigates warming, which has the numerical effect of reducing Climate Sensitivity in each of its various forms. That fact has been demonstrated by Lindzen and others, and it puts Climate Sensitivity below the minimum deduced by IPCC climatologists. That invalidates the GCMs.

      • Rud Istvan, 3/1/2015 @ 2:27 pm:
        Your topic over at Climate Etc. led reader HAS to say
        The test of a model is utility, not necessarily predictive power. And GCM have utility, just not in decadal projections of global temperatures.
        Unfortunately that is what they have become poster children for.
        On the other hand, having just written that, perhaps they do have utility there 🙂

        My response was unpublishable in that environment, cutting to the quick where postmodern models fail and PM scientists practice “publish in our controlled journals or perish”. What I had to say to you and HAS on the parallel topics of Study: The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods, a paper by Jiang, et al. suggesting models should link the effects of solar activity to SSTs, and Monckton, et al., Why models run hot, results from an irreducibly simple climate model, was about the history and background of climate models. It went thus:
        What on earth, so to speak, is the value in industry of a model that can’t make useful predictions?
        GCMs have utility — political utility. The IPCC, an agency of the UN, is after all a political body, not a scientific one. It pretends to rely on peer-reviewed and published papers, except where they are insufficient for the cause Its Assessment Reports are addressed to Policymakers, not to scientists.
        The original charter of the IPCC was to explore the science of climatology. Shortly after it was formed in 1988, it revised its own charter to study the impact of human-induced climate change. [The details are in Part E, in my paper SGW. Click on my name.] IPCC baked its bias into the cake. Thus the science was settled. Physics non-conforming to the dogma (e.g., dynamic cloud cover albedo, thermodynamic equilibrium, Henry’s Law of solubility, source-independent CO2 solubility coefficients) was omitted.
        Manmade climate change is part of a larger political movement. The objective of the GCMs is, and always been, to assume and exert government control over capitalism, and to provide funds for ever bigger research computers. At that alone, they have had, and continue to have measurable success.
        Climate Change attributed to Anthropogenic Global Warming is a set of disasters manufactured to frighten the public and their Policymakers into urgent action against CO2. AGW, like a flash of lightening, has all but gone away, meanwhile Climate Change continues to reverberate, like the roll of a distant thunder. Just to calibrate the problem, we are now told that climate change is a far more serious threat than the onset of World War III, proceeding apace on two fronts — from Iran out through the Middle East, and from Russia down through the Crimean Peninsula.
        The IPCC through its Assessment Reports elevated a conjecture to a hypothesis, and thence to non-science. IPCC, though, acted as if the model had gone from hypothesis to theory. The nonscientific public, up to its hips in snow, is applying an unfair reality check. Models must work.
        At least the first six of the seven skeptics now under attack by Congressman Grijalva (D, AZ) [David Legates, John Christy, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Robert Balling, and Roger Pielke Jr., plus Steven Hayward], defended on Climate Etc., are only skeptical about the extent of AGW. None of the seven, including the injured host of the blog, is skeptical enough. None will openly state that AGW, being unmeasurable, cannot be a scientific fact, less he be branded a — hiss, boo — denier. They are agnostics, where the science demands atheists.

      • Re: Low temperatures enhance SGW, 3/1/2015:
        Since posting at 10:02 am that six of Grijalva’s seven targets were only AGW agnostics, I found The Environment with Steven Hayward, an interview on YouTube. At the relevant point, the moderator begins:
        13:09: Peter Robinson: So you granted the globe is warming, do you grant it is because of human activity?
        13:12: Steven Hayward: Ah, partially. Almost certainly it’s partially due to human activity, sure. I don’t know what proportion to assign.
        Steven Hayward, PhD, is a historian, not a scientist, but his writings show him a skilled reporter on the chronic problems with AGW. Above, he shows that he completes the set of seven, fitting right in as no more than an agnostic on an invalid conjecture.
        As shown in my SGW paper, the IPCC-certified best model for the Sun predicts the Global Average Surface Temperature (HadCRUT3) over the entire record since the advent of thermometers almost as accurately IPCC’s 20-year smoothed estimate represents GAST. If man’s fingerprint is on GAST, it must have come from anthropogenic solar radiation. Not only is there no evidence supporting the existence of AGW, evidence is available to support that AGW does not exist.
        Dr. Hayward, et al., the proportion to assign is zero.
        And as a bonus, the close relationship between SGW and GAST tends to validate the accuracy of HadCRUT3, heat islands or not.

      • Re: Istvan’s shiny sharpened tools, 3/1/2015:
        The following summary of a healthy discussion here and at Climate Etc. was automatically rejected at Climate Etc. What it shows is that Judith Curry, in practicing her unquestioned editorial prerogatives, runs her blog as if it were a professional journal, allowing only the dogma de jour to see the light of le jour. Her alleged skepticism, and her vaunted academic freedoms, have narrow limits.
        >>Just one month ago, Jiang, et al. wrote a paper with the long and oddly oblique title, Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic. Anthony Watts posted a topic [WUWT above] on the paper under the title, Study: The Sun has more impact on the climate in the cool periods, a direct and important extraction from Jiang, et al. It is like the relationship between the parent Global Warming and its daughter, Climate Sensitivity — the former is an unverifiable catastrophic prediction, and the latter is an immediate, implied, and invlaidating derivative. I responded serially [WUWT above] with several comments to the point that, of course, SGW is less in cool periods. That is a direct consequence of dynamic cloud cover, the most powerful feedback in all of climate, one omitted from the GCMs, and the one that mitigates warming from all causes. The converse, requiring just a little thought, is that a cooler atmosphere enhances warming, allowing more solar radiation to reach the boundary layer.
        >>On WUWT, 3/1/2105 at 2:27 pm [WUWT above], Rud Istvan, author of the Climate Etc. post, Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle, responded to my comments, inviting me to find some “shiny sharpened tools” on his treatment of the Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs paper, Why models run hot, results from an irreducibly simple climate model. As Istvan noted, complete with links, that kerfuffle boiled over into the attack by Congressman Grijalva (D, AZ) on the Grijalva Seven: Legates, Christy, Curry, Lindzen, Balling, Pielke, and Hayward, discussed on Climate Etc. on 2/25/2015, Conflicts of interest in climate science. [What happened to poor Soon and Baliunas?]
        >>My comments posted the same day [on CE] discussed the substantive issue behind both scientific papers — Jiang, et al. and Monckton, et al. — namely, that the modelers have ignored dynamic cloud cover, so omitted its strong mitigating effects. That led to models that, while they run too hot, are nonetheless suited to their political purpose, as specifically stated by IPCC. I discussed that “too hot” implies a comparison with real world data, a criterion unnecessary and disinvited in the academic publish or perish world, but applied by both the public and scientists outside the enclave of IPCC climatologists. I pointed out that while every one of Grijalva Seven is critical of where IPCC has taken Climate Change, each nonetheless still assumes that AGW exists.
        >>Dr. Curry found that I had strayed too far off topic, so brought the discussion to an abrupt end with a snip on 3/2 at 9:47 am.
        >>On these grounds, which I submit are consistent and on-topic, and in the broader interests of science, I respectfully appeal to Dr. Curry to reconsider her decision by simply allowing this post to appear.
        The instant, automated answer: Sorry, this comment could not be posted.
        These transactions are evidence that Climate Etc. is not an open window, but a closed door. It is but one more postmodern outlet, interfering with the progress of science and knowledge. It explains how such patent nonsense as AGW can gain currency (of two kinds), and all in the guise of science.

    • PPS. For any climatologists who read WUWT, and any others who talk about feedback without really understanding it, cloud cover is a negative feedback WRT global average surface temperature (GAST), and a positive feedback WRT solar radiation (S). So when GAST is low, cloud cover does not mitigate warming from the Sun as much. Hence, the subject paper and headline.

  21. I have read most of the papers related to the AMO, accesable on the web, and found that many authors just do not understand dynamics of the far north Atlantic.

  22. Don’t get too excited about that paper. It must be scientific trash of course, because according to the common wisdom of Greenpeace, The New York Times, The Guardian and other “holy and infallible” institutions of our planet, those “scientists” can only be paid thugs of “Big Oil”, since their “research” does bolster the sinful claims of that infamous pseudo-researcher and “Big Oil”-slave Dr. Willie Soon, who actually maintains – believe it or not – that activity changes of the sun could possibly alter the Earths climate. What an absurd Idea !!!!!!!
    Or is it not? / sarc off 😉

    • Don’t worry Gentle,
      Dana at the Guardian already tryed the Sun variation as the best excuse for the hiatus.
      It did fail horribly the first time around with that.
      Perhaps if this study was around then than he would have had a better luck with it.
      Doubtful he would fail again if tried the same again now, in the new light of this study.
      Could even refer to WUWT about the credibility of this study.

  23. Hopefully, the Doom blogs will remove solar forcing from their list of “myths”.

    Our climate is enormously complex.

    This is the essence of the skeptic approach.

    • May I humbly suggest that mankind has only just begun to unravel the processes that govern this planet, and the universe in which it resides.

      • The problem is that scientists of every generation mistakenly underestimate how much is unknown in their field of study. The unknowns are always assumed to be finite, and likely less than what is known. The assumption is always that what is yet to be discovered must be relatively minor.
        However, if this was true, then the pace of scientific discovery should be dropping off as we start running out of unknowns to discover. Yet the pace of scientific discovery is continuing to accelerate in all fields. This suggest that what we know is only a very small fraction of what is unknown.
        In an infinite universe, what is unknown is infinite. There is always more to discover. While at the same time what is known is always finite. On this basis, we know exactly finite/infinite*100% = 0% of what there is to be discovered.

      • Of course you can. Anybody can put forward any nonsense at all, for example I can say that the life in this locality may well be dependent on the energy from the sun but that the thing that is consciousness of that might transcend that molecular world and simultaneously inhabit several worlds not blighted by blobs of things but rather some gaseous flitting from one to another in dreams might well be the story.

      • zemlik, if what I said is nonsense to you then so be it, to you I am an old fool. Perhaps it was not wasted on those who also question the egocentric narcissism of this century.

      • ferdberple:
        we know exactly finite / infinite*100% = 0% of what there is to be discovered.
        So – if it’s your aim to show that mankind came forth 2.000.000 ys without scientific support –
        you’ve won the discourse.
        Regards – Hans

    • Michele
      Please define “next decade”:
      is it 2021 to 2030, or 2025 to 2035, or etc.?
      And please define “major volcanic eruption”:
      is it an eruption of an existing volcano, or of a new volcano, and of what minimum magnitude in what possible place(s)?
      At present your hypothesis (as explained by your linked Abstract) is not an identifiable prediction and, therefore, it is not falsifiable.

      • A major volcanic eruption is a VEI5+
        Quote : “….Please define “next decade”….”
        Transition solar cycles in the deep solar minimum (ascendet phase)
        Firt hypothesize (2021-2023) SC24-SC25
        “….with a period of about two and a half years….”
        Second hypothesize (2033-2035) SC25-SC26
        “….That the GSL is somehow connected with SAA is also confirmed by the similar result when an analogous critical-like fit is performed over GSL: the corresponding critical point (2033 ± 11 yr) agrees, within the estimated errors, with the value found for the SAA. From this result, we point out the intriguing conjecture that tc would be the time of no return, after which the geomagnetic field could fall into an irreversible process of a global geomagnetic transition that could be a reversal or excursion of polarity.”
        Transition solar cycles in solar minimum output (rise phase)
        “We conclude that this research further confirms that while coming out from periods of low activity, in the long period – deep solar minima, and the simultaneous fast oscillation, in the short period and impulsive electromagnetic activity, the recovery of the EM activity of the Sun can trigger significant geophysical events in terms of energy release as regards the magnitude or the VEI index.

      • Michele
        Thankyou for the clarification on timings;
        i.e. you are saying “a major volcanic eruption” will occur in “(2021-2023)” and/or “(2033-2035)”.
        However, for your hypothesis to be making a falsifiable prediction then you still need to define what you mean by “a major volcanic eruption”.
        Please note that I am trying to help you by pointing out the need for these clarifications. 2023 is not far away and a clear, accurate prediction of a volcanic event years in advance would be a significant achievement demanding further study.

    • do you fancy a shag after we rob the bank ? You would have to get somebody to babysit while you dressed up in the outfit to hide the explosives, I assume you are still able to make those from your years teaching chemistry, and don’t forget to bring the first aid kit !!

      • I taught all CORE classes in a self-contained middle school class for students with behavioral and/or emotional problems. Yes I introduced them to chemistry in their Science class. But I would hardly call that “years teaching chemistry”.

      • And just who would they be babysitting? I’m an old chicken and if I still can lay an egg, it is undoubtedly without a shell.

    • Good heavens Pam, you have had a varied career, I know women can multi-task but that’s just greedy, hope you pay income tax on all those jobs !!

  24. Alan: I wish I were as sure about anything based on evidence as Pamela is about everything based on none.

    • Then we agree. It is not good to adhere to ideas so poorly evidenced.
      1. There is very little by way of plausible mechanism that solar variation drives measurable temperature change. 2. There is very little by way of anthropogenic CO2 downwelling longwave infrared radiation calculation and modeling compared to observations that anthropogenic portions of atmospheric CO2 is driving measurable temperature change.

      • ‘There is very little by way of anthropogenic CO2 downwelling longwave infrared radiation calculation and modeling compared to observations that anthropogenic portions of atmospheric CO2 is driving measurable temperature change.’
        Say that again?

      • The added anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in downwelling longwave infrared radiation, thus adding warming to the surface. However, we are talking about a teeny tiny addition of this absorbing-reemitting molecule. Without some kind of amplification, it alone does not have the energy to push a warming trend. This is why the models add a water vapor increase, since water vapor does indeed have the chops to warm us up. But even this fudge factor cannot be plausible. Indeed, measurements of water vapor trends do not show the proposed amplification.
        All this is to say that both solar parameters and anthropogenic CO2 are sideline players. Water boys if you will.

    • Tells me the sun explains the frigid ’60s and ’70s, warmer ’80s and ’90s and plateau of the ’00s and ’10s to date. Odds favor future cooling. The ice moons cometh.

        • Pamela Gray, presenting Leif Svalgaard, lsvalgaard presentation at the solar conference,

          No, it does not explain cold years. Total Solar Irradiance (which is in step with SSN change) variation pales in comparison to variation caused by Earth’s orbital changes in distance.

          Good source, thank you.
          Two questions please.
          1. Sheet 9 of 17. The spoken words during your presentation at the symposium in 2010 perhaps made thie slide clear, but it certainly is not clear to me now without further explanation. “Aa-index and Method Wrong” means what? One of the two graphs is wrong? Both are wrong? Both show an old way of calculating solar energy that is not supposed to be used now?
          2. The last ten years of SORCE measurements show that TSI (at avearge distance of earth-sun) is slightly under 1362 watts//m^2. The graphic on page 4 shows that successive TSI measurements by different systems also all go down over time, but the result is a current TSI = 1362 watts/m^2. But page 9 shows ALL “reconstructions” of TSI over time going up towards a TSI = to the “old value” of 1372 – 1366 watts/m^2.
          How can page 4, page 9 and page 12 be reconciled to a single steady TSI value between AD 1500 (before the LIA in 1650) and 2015 if all three show variation from 1361 to 1372 in just 12 years of measurements? Or are the slides (the graphics) settling towards different values somehow that the text does not make clear?

      • Circle the correct responses:
        Compared to, say, a million years ago:
        1, The average annual distance of the Earth from the Sun is now: smaller, greater, the same, unknown.
        2. The average annual TSI is now: more, less, the same, unknown.

    • Over the life of the reliable sunspot data does that data continuously correlate at a confidence level of 95% or greater to any independently identified weather or climate data? If not then what you have is a plot of no known significance.

    • Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis on Solar activity:
      “When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is stronger and as a result fewer global cosmic rays (GCR) arrive in the vicinity of Earth.”
      “The variations of the cosmic ray flux, as predicted from the galactic model and as observed from the iron meteorites, are in sync with the occurrence of ice age epochs on Earth. The agreement is both in period and in phase.”
      “The inverse relationship between temperature and CRF is clear; when CRF rises, temperature falls, when CRF drops off, temperature climbs.”
      “The evidence of correlations between paleoclimate records and solar and cosmic ray activity indicators, suggests that extraterrestrial phenomena are responsible for climatic variability on time scales ranging from days to millennia.”
      “The movement of the solar system in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy is responsible for changes in the amount of cosmic rays impacting Earth’s atmosphere.”
      Time frames:
      “Decadal – Cosmic ray muons regulated by the Solar cycle. This accounts for temperature variability in sync with the 11 year sunspot cycle.”
      “Hundreds to thousands of years – Solar regulation of cosmic rays plus changes in Solar irradiance. This variability includes historical climate change as witnessed in the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.”
      “Tens to hundreds of thousands of years – The Croll-Milankovitch cycles that combine Earth’s attitudinal and orbital variations. This variability drives the glacial-interglacial cycles during ice ages.”
      “Millions to hundreds of millions of years – The solar system’s transit of the galactic spiral arms, causing variation in overall cosmic ray intensity. This variability regulates the cycles of ice ages and hot-house periods.”
      From The Resilient Earth (Book. Doug L. Hoffman & Allen Simmons, 2008). Chapter 11, Cosmic Rays. At

  25. More proxies and guesswork. More “appears to” “may” and “suggests”.
    Are there just too many scientists these days? Is this what is behind all this wishy washy research? Not enough hard science to go round?

  26. Well, the warmest establishment behind the ‘Church of Man-Made Global Warming’ is certainly not going to be happy about this. It is blasphemous!
    If ‘Die kalte Sonne’ by Dr Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning was deemed a book by heretics, then this latest study will surely be deemed an heretical study that deserves a “burning at the stakes” moment.

    • Really doubtful.
      They all probably having a laugh at it.
      Even Mann must be laughing and be proud of his total up, the “all action happens around a single tree in Jamal”, by knowing that this is even a worse up, when considering climate.

  27. The paper claims “a robust negative correlation between the SST’s and solar activity records over the last 4000 yr”, but quotes an absolute minimum in SST’s c.600 BP “during the Little Ice Age”.

  28. Nice to know grant money is never wasted studying the obvious. Oh, and how is this knowledge helping understand how the whole climate system works? Isn’t the science settled? Don’t the models know all?
    The whole field is a joke.

  29. This chart is very revealing (click to enlarge):
    Low AMOC events in Jan-Feb 2010, Dec 2010, Feb 2012 and March 2013, precisely during the much colder winter months. But also nearer mid year in 2007 and 2012 when there was a greater loss in summer sea ice.

  30. Re Max Photon March 1, 2015 at 4:56 pm
    “Pamela, do you have a recommendation for a book on solar physics?”
    I asked this before and Leif recommended:
    Which he didn’t author, so no COI issues if congressmen come knocking. It’s a nice bio of my namesake, and a fair section of the book is citations if you want to learn more. Which if you read it, you probably will because although intuitively it should drive our climate, the numbers don’t always add up. That’s just the joy of climate science. Which straw breaks the camel’s back, or which nail loses the battle? Or is it just one of those natural variability things where events conspire against us, and we add a little bit to the problem. Or we think we’re adding to the problem, but our contributions are insignificant on a planetary scale.

    • Thank you for the recommendation. (You’re not Pamela’s atomic hairdryer by any chance, are you?)
      You know, speaking as Maxwell C. Photon, I always cringe when I see solar physicists discussing magnetic this and magnetic that. Magnetic fields are the effect; electric currents are the cause. So why are physicists not focusing on electric currents instead? And this whole “magnetic reconnection” business only makes me … cringier.
      Maxwell’s Equations are just … not … that … difficult. I even have a t-shirt with them emblazoned across the front. People ask if I graduated from DeVry.
      But I guess we are supposed to settle for settled solar science.
      C’est le soleil.

      • The Electric Universe peaks out of the dog house.
        But…plasma works a bit different in the solar environment. Don’t ask me how because I would have to read again Leif’s material on this issue. But just be forewarned that plasma here in the lab does not act like plasma on the Sun.
        “changing magnetic fields in a plasma (consisting of charged particles) generate electric currents that are described by Faraday’s law”

      • Ouch. A double ad hominem.
        Last time I check it was called the “electromagnetic spectrum.” Is electricity a no-no in Pamela’s Universe?
        And what … are there different laws of physics for plasma Here vs There? Interesting.
        And yes, of course changing magnetic fields can induce currents. Any freshman in physics knows that. But they also learn that while there are electric monopoles (sources and sinks), there are no magnetic monopoles.
        What causes magnetic fields to vary?

      • Max Photon
        March 1, 2015 at 9:06 pm
        What causes magnetic fields to vary?
        Probably electricity, like in electrical fields, electrostatic fields of energy,,,,,just maybe…:-)
        Same may hold true for the Earths Magnetic field…just maybe….

      • Pam has already recommended an excellent book on the Sun. I think it’s the book where she gets all her vast knowledge from. It’s full of amazing information. For example, you learn how hot the Sun is, how do we know the Sun rotates, and how far the Earth is from the Sun. A must read, and the ebook is very cheap!

  31. You know what is so FANTASTIC about the skeptic community … well, it can have discussions like this, no shackles of ideology to stifle discourse!

  32. BTW, is this a joke? (Sorry if I am slow.) Why are you linking to the Plasma Universe, in particular to a link about Birkland currents?

    Just as electric currents generate magnetic fields described by Ampere’s law, changing magnetic fields in a plasma (consisting of charged particles) generate electric currents that are described by Faraday’s law. The characteristics of the electric current and magnetic field depend on the characteristics and nature of the plasma.
    In other words, electric currents produce magnetic fields which in turn produce electric currents. They are sometimes described as a self-generated electric and magnetic fields, and Birkeland currents, and field aligned currents.
    Rotating plasma in a magnetic field generates electric currents because it behaves as , also known as a Faraday disk, or magnetic dynamo.

    Rotating plasma in what magnetic field … one created by a giant bar magnet?

    • No Max, there is no giant bar magnet. Plasma = charged particles. Relative motion of the charged particles = an electric current. An electric current induces a magnetic field. The interaction between the two self-organizes into a Birkeland current. But why am I telling you what you already know? You graduated from DeVry.
      Bar magnet … you’re a funny guy, Max. Just watch whom you say “electric current” in front of.

  33. And finally, February SSN is down 22 points, and unless there is another peak, it has been ‘nailed’ here, a year late but what is one year in so many gone and even so many more to come.
    It is the sun, but the Earth is a living planet, it has its say in the matter.

  34. @ vuk, “It is the sun, but the Earth is a living planet, it has its say in the matter.’
    After reading all the back and forth and as always educating here on WUWT, Vuk to me it is CHAOS.!

  35. @ Ms. Gray and anyone else interested
    MIT is a premier world scientific and education establishment, the course on magnetism starts with:
    9.1 Biot-Savart Law
    Currents which arise due to the motion of charges are the source of magnetic fields.
    There is no frozen magnetic field, there is no one magnetic field of one kind and another of another kind, there is only one kind of magnetic field and that is one of the four fundamental forces as described by the Biot-Savart Law.

    • Since plasmas are electrically neutral electric currents [and associated magnetic fields] do not arise. Move a plasma across an existing magnetic field, however, and an electric field is generated which can drive a current. A good example is the impact of the [neutral] solar wind on the magnetic field of the Earth. In addition, reconnection of oppositely directed magnetic fields embedded in a plasma [as directly observed in the laboratory and in space by spacecraft] can cause explosive releases of the energy stored in the magnetic field. This fundamental process is ubiquitous in the universe.

  36. Solar activity affecting the Earth is not just the TSI variability caused by sunspots occurrence.
    This is your sun today
    can you spot a sunspot, well there are one or two, so the TSI should be moribund.
    But what solar and climate scientists don’t want you to see is this
    Yellow is minor and red major geomagnetic storm, as you can see we had a bit going on in the last 48h.
    One 2h average geomagnetic storm hits Arctic oval strip with equivalent to M5.5 earthquake’s energy, someone calculated to be 8 Hiroshima bombs (CAGW method of measurements).
    We had 12 h of major and 9 hours of minor storms, equating to about 30h of average storms equivalent of 15 x 8 = 120 Hiroshima nukes in 32 h concentrated on a narrow strip of the auroral oval
    Not enough to change course of the world climate, but enough to disturb polar vortex, the key to the orientation of the Arctic jet stream, the rest is done buy wind and ocean coupled climate systems.

  37. No surprise that small changes in TSI and big ones in spectral composition & solar magnetic flux affect multidecadal to centennial scale climatic fluctuations. Consider the huge effect on climate of the small variation in insolation due to the orbital mechanical changes behind Milankovitch Cycles.
    This should be a no brainier, especially with the discovery of oceanic oscillations in the 1990s. Had it not been for the baleful influence of the Carbonari on “climate science”, the major role of solar variability would be well established by now, as should have been obvious.
    The sun shining on the tropics, especially the tropical Pacific, with varying intensities is the primary driver, if such there be, of climate fluctuations on the scale of Bond Cyvles and shorter periods. Bob Tisdale’s posts on this blog are IMO important contributions in understanding how solar effects affect weather and climate, the air, sea & land surface. Maybe even the lithosphere.

      • Yet another “solar physics” source suitable for your middle school slow learner science class. Too bad it doesn’t support your false, baseless assertion about solar variation.
        You’d also benefit from studying the work of scientists who disagree with Leif and indeed question his crusade to change SSN counting, which just so happens to provide aid & comfort to the CAGW mafia.
        Here are some papers to further your education:
        Please note the wide variation in observed and reconstructed UV component of TSI over various time frames. Doing so should show you how wrong is your assertion.

      • re: Sturgis Hooper March 2, 2015 at 8:27 am (above)
        “Please note the wide variation in observed and reconstructed UV component of TSI over various time frames. Doing so should show you how wrong is your assertion.”
        From the conclusion of the paper cited in your chiefio link:
        “We note that our conclusions cannot be tested on the basis
        of the last 30 years of solar observations because, according
        to the proxy data, the Sun was in a maximum plateau state in
        its long-term evolution. All recently published reconstructions
        agree well during the satellite observational period and diverge
        only in the past. This implies that the observational data do not
        allow to select and favor one of the proposed reconstructions.
        Therefore, until new evidence becomes available, we are in a situation
        where different approaches and hypothesis yield different
        solar forcing values. Our result allows the climate community to
        evaluate the full range of the present uncertainty in solar forcing.”
        I hope you are not basing your assertions on this.

      • I base my statements on the body of the paper. If you want to disagree with them, please read the relevant parts of the study and respond on that basis.
        As you may know, scientific papers include boilerplate hedging and calling for more research.

        • Sturgis Hooper commented

          Yes Sturgis. A variation in tilt would have a substantial effect on weather pattern variations as a result of gaining, or losing insolation due to inclination. But again, this Earth-related variation is far greater than solar variation of any and all parts of TSI and related parameters.
          I base my statements on the body of the paper. If you want to disagree with them, please read the relevant parts of the study and respond on that basis.

          Interestingly I’m in the process of adding an approximation of the daily solar energy received at each station reading based on RACookPE1978’s equations (h/t). It is however still pretty slow, and there is a lot of data that need calculated.
          I’m using an up to date Solar Constant for each day (on days there’s a reading), I’d love to add atmospheric attenuation from real data if it’s available (currently using a fixed 0.66), but other than that, looks interesting, can’t wait until it finished (right now I’m estimating near 30 days). This is approximately the same base BEST calculates, site forcing from solar based on latitude to separate out the variable weather portion.

      • MiCro:
        Look forward to your result. Hope you and maybe RACook can write it up as a blog post here, at the very least. Thanks.
        Would also like to see Jonesingforozone work up a post so that Leif and other CO2 advocates could comment on his thoughts in detail.

  38. The data is in support of solar/climate connections and correlations. Those who say this is not true are in denial of the data.
    The spin by those trying to show solar/climate connections do not exist is not convincing or impressive in the least. I have yet to see anything in anyway, that is even remotely convincing.
    The historical climatic data especially recent data (post Holocene Optimum -present) supports a Milankovitch gradual very slow cooling cycle with solar variability superimposed upon this cycle sometimes acting in opposition with Milankovitch Cycles ( counter trend warming periods such as the Minoan, Roman ,Medieval, and Modern Warm Period each period not as warm as the one proceeding it), while at other time acting in concert with Milankovitch Cycles, (cold periods such as the Hallstatt, Dark Ages, and the recent Little Ice Age ,this being much greater in duration then the previous cold periods).
    That is what the data shows.

    • I stand corrected.
      Now thought to result from the electrons & protons of the solar wind.

  39. vukcevic
    March 2, 2015 at 11:21 am
    ” When a coronal mass ejection particles collide with the magnetosphere they generate currents of charged particles, guided and accelerated by magnetic field force into the Polar Regions. In the Earth’s upper atmosphere they collide with oxygen and nitrogen atoms producing aurora.”

    • Maybe because you parametized your data to the point that not only is the trunk wriggling, but the elephant can make its tail write in cursive?

  40. Vuk, the problem is I disagree 100% with the premise of the article you sent ,which states a weakening geo magnetic field may be the cause for global warming. I think it is the opposite. A weakening geo magnetic field leads to global cooling.
    Now I understand. The conclusions are the opposite of what I think.

    • it is terminology problem:
      Geomagnetic field has two components :
      solar originated up to 1000 nT
      Earth’s generated up to 64000nT
      The Earth’s much stronger component has been (mainly) decaying since 1650, while temperature going up
      Two graphs are in essence the same thing except they are based on two slightly different data bases (old -HTZ, new- NOAA).

  41. Let me clarify unless the sun is very active then I could see how a weakening geo magnetic field could lead to global warming.
    But my thought is very weak solar/geo magnetic fields in tandem will result in the greatest cooling.

    • That’s a good book, Pam. I’ve just been reading a book called ‘Nature’s Third Cycle – A History of Sunspots’ by Arnab Rai Choudhuri. It was published recently, and it’s pretty interesting, but unfortunately, he let’s himself down in a chapter where he is writing about Svensmark, and I quote: ‘Svensmark actually claims that GW is over and the Earth has started cooling!. I can only say that this assertion is completely at odds with what is found by the IPCC’. A bit of a cop out……..

  42. So much fuss over misplaced prefix strato / atmo -sphere, but regretfully no alternative explanation to above three phenomena, no competing hypothesis.
    Occam’s razor: When faced with competing hypotheses (here absent), select the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
    Make of it whatever you like, nature doesn’t care much for anyone’s opinion.
    See you sometime again.

  43. VUK, the reason the temperatures have been going up in general on your graph(1880-2012) in my opinion is not due to a weakening magnetic field but rather stronger solar activity ,with the PDO/AMO/ENSO phases superimposed upon that activity ,not to mention varying degrees of volcanic activity.
    A weak geo magnetic field during a prolonged minimum solar period in my opinion is going to enhance the cooling caused by weak solar conditions due to the following:
    First, a weakening geomagnetic field is going to enhance the amount of charge particles and galactic cosmic rays which can penetrate our atmosphere, which could aid in the formation of clouds which promotes cooling. In addition there are studies showing MUONS a by product from galactic cosmic rays may help trigger high latitude volcanic eruptions which again would promote cooling. The MUONS adding just enough additional instability to an already unstable situation to make this possibly occur.
    A weak magnetic field will also make it more likely for magnetic excursions to take place (North or South Magnetic Poles transiting to lower latitudes), which would direct galactic cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere to lower latitudes where moisture would be more abundant to help in the aid in the formation of clouds. If this theory is correct. which again would promote cooling.
    At the same time if the sun should have an isolated burst of activity from time to time (in an otherwise prolonged solar minimum period) a weak geomagnetic field will magnify those solar effects which would cause more upheaval to the magnetic field of the earth possibly adding to more geological instability.
    Note: Since the Holocene optimum the temperature of the earth has been in a very slow gradual down trend punctuated with warm periods of time, while geomagnetic activity has been in a weakening trend.
    My basic take on the very slow overall gradual down trend in the temperatures since the Holocene Optimum -Present ,is due to Milankovitch Cycles, which are less favorable for warming then they were 8000 years ago with solar variability superimposed upon this cycle.
    The geomagnetic field to my way of thinking is not a driver of the climate but rather an enhancer or moderator of solar variability.
    For further data/information if interested look at my post done on March 02 at 8:30 am and March 01 at 12:54 pm. under this topic.
    I have one more item to send following this post.

  44. Ren, here is the correct answer
    As discussed in Chapter 5, most ozone production occurs in the tropical stratosphere as the overhead sun breaks apart oxygen molecules (O2) into oxygen atoms (O), which quickly react with other O2 molecules to form ozone (O3). The problem with this simplified picture is that most ozone is found outside the tropics in the higher latitudes rather than in the tropics. That is, most of the ozone is found outside of its natural tropical stratospheric source region. This higher latitude ozone results from the slow atmospheric circulation that moves ozone from the tropics where it is produced into the middle and polar latitudes. This slow circulation is known as the Brewer-Dobson circulation, named after Brewer and Dobson.
    The simple circulation model suggested by Brewer (1949) and Dobson (1956) consists of three basic parts. The first part is rising tropical motion from the troposphere into the stratosphere. The second part is poleward transport in the stratosphere. The third part is descending motion in both the stratospheric middle and polar latitudes, though there are important differences. The middle latitude descending air is transported back into the troposphere, while the polar latitude descending air is transported into the polar lower stratosphere, where it accumulates.
    This model explains why tropical air is lower in ozone than polar air, even though the source region of ozone is in the tropics. However, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves, and it is necessary to look at the big picture in more detail.
    In addition I disagree with much of what this link has to say about magnetic/climate relationships.

    • This does not mean that the temperature in the stratosphere over the polar circle does not increase locally in the winter and it is related to solar activity (reflected waves in the upper stratosphere).

    Vuk ,below is a small part from the study above which you endorse apparently. I will bite, reconcile what they say below which makes absolutely no sense to me. Can anyone explain it?
    The areas of greatest warming are where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the northern polar region, whereas the area of greatest cooling is where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the southern polar region.

  46. Think of the energy of cosmic rays (primary and secondary) that reaches the area of the magnetic poles of the Earth’s surface to same (or even below the surface). The increase in temperature in the stratosphere means increase in the average kinetic energy of air molecules. Collision gas particles of GCR increase the kinetic energy of the particles. GCR is concentrated in the vicinity of the magnetic poles, as shown by measurements.

  47. Ren , you are not addressing my question in my last post which is that study said the following:
    The areas of greatest warming are where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the northern polar region, whereas the area of greatest cooling is where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the southern polar region.
    That statement Ren, does not make sense to me.

  48. Funny they should say that because, just the other day when standing in the Sunshine I felt rather warm and so then walked into some shade and soon felt a little cold………………

    • Of course you realize that the Sun did not change it’s energy output, you simply changed the conditions at your location. So in your example there was zero change in TSI yet you became cooler due to less energy reaching you. But again, that is not the same as a change in TSI.

Comments are closed.