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 http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/02/02/G36377.1.full.pdf+html
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.
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.
Seriously?
Bingo.
Pamela Gray is on a mission… 🙂
https://twitter.com/DrPamelaGray/status/532751438770745345
Not our Pam.
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.
Fair nuff 🙂
Our Pam is not a Dr, has red hair and is a self confessed leprechaun. 🙂
@ur momisugly James 3.50 pm: thanks sir, + 100, 🙂 ( and I am not Pam.)
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.
@ur momisugly Pam, “My feathers rarely ruffle” . As a leprechaun, I thought it would be the wool 🙂
http://spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf
This data shows a strong correlation between sunspot minimum and major geological activity.
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 (http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/sec-eng.php) 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…….
cheers
This pulls it all together neatly:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
Asbyot,
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.
Thank you Stephen
It is only data showing over and over again the solar/climate connection. Denial by many ,oh well.
Which by the way is going to happen again before this decade ends. Expect global cooling not warming going forward tied into this current prolonged solar minimum.
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.
See upcoming (later today) guest post at Climate Etc. You will have shiny sharpened tools…
Rud Istvan, 3/1/2015 @ur momisugly 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.
Here is the supplementary data for that paper….
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015073.pdf
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.
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.
cheers
Hopefully, the Doom blogs will remove solar forcing from their list of “myths”.
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
yes
Very true, but it seems that Pamela doesn’t know that yet!
@ur momisugly Salvatore Del Prete
Probably, I hypothesize a major volcanic eruption (next decade)
I have a new study in progress (EGU 2015).
We must wait next major magnetic transition.
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/relationship-between-major-geophysical-events-and-the-planetary-magnetic-ap-index-from-1844-to-the-present.html
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.
Richard
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
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50733.pdf
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/relationship-between-major-geophysical-events-and-the-planetary-magnetic-ap-index-from-1844-to-the-present.html
“….with a period of about two and a half years….”
or
Second hypothesize (2033-2035) SC25-SC26
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/3395/2013/nhess-13-3395-2013.html
“….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)
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/possible-relationship-between-changes-in-imf-m7-earthquakes-and-vei-index-.html
“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.
Richard
Google my name and you will get over 3 million results, ranging from call girl, convicted criminal, stay at home mom, actress, scientist, teacher, doctor, etc. It gave me a good belly laugh!
This is me and the original thesis paper is at Oregon State University:
http://www.audiology.org/sites/default/files/journal/JAAA_02_01_04.pdf
I just knew it.
So, just what do we really know about our Pam ??
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 !!
Too damned much
You realize of course that my name is very common and shared by millions.
@ur momisugly Pam, “You realize of course that my name is very common and shared by millions.”
But to me there is only one real Pamela Gray, Love your science and your empathy.
Come on guys. Pam is clearly a good listener.
How many shades of gray does that amount to, Pamela?
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.
This is our Sun telling us something:
Monthly and smoothed sunspot number (Ri) (SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels):
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfmms.png
From http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
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.
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.
http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
Pamela Gray, presenting Leif Svalgaard, lsvalgaard presentation at the solar conference,
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 http://www.theresilientearth.com/
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?
yes
I suppose that rain has more impact during dry periods, as well. What a discovery!
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 f.ck up, the “all action happens around a single tree in Jamal”, by knowing that this is even a worse f.ck up, when considering climate.
cheers
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”.
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.
This chart is very revealing (click to enlarge):
http://www.rapid.ac.uk/
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.
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:
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Space-Astronomy-Astrophysics-Library/dp/3540769528/
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”
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_currents_in_space_plasmas
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….
cheers
Didn’t you get the memo? “Electricity” is verboten.
How do you get electricity? From a varying magnetic field.
Plasma behaves identically in form from miniature to cosmic proportions, that is proven.
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!
You know what is so FANTASTIC about the skeptic community … well, it can have discussions like this, no shackles of ideology to stifle discourse!
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?
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.
And a cosmic plasma is electrically neutral. BTW, you also consist of charged particles: positive atomic nuclei and negative electrons.
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.