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
@ur momisugly 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.!
@ur momisugly 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.
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/coursenotes/modules/guide09.pdf
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.
Solar activity affecting the Earth is not just the TSI variability caused by sunspots occurrence.
This is your sun today
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_4500.jpg
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
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_kp_3d.gif
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
http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/ovation/images/Ovation_USA.png
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.
Check out location of auroral oval above, and here location of the polar vortex and jet stream
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/polar-vortex/img/2.jpg
You are again spouting nonsense [flaunting your ignorance]. The power input to the upper atmosphere is not ignored or inconvenient for solar and atmospheric scientists. On the contrary, the phenomenon is well understood and well-observed, e.g.
http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/
http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf
There is no good evidence that this [puny] power input is instrumental in changing the weather.
Dr. Svalgaard
No, it does not change the weather, weather is changed by polar jet-stream as I clearly stated, but then you may prefer to pretend otherwise.
Solar particles electrically change the upper layers of stratosphere, presence of the Earth’s magnetic field affects polar vortex.
Since you ignore written word, here some images
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.gif
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Stv.jpg
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Thank you for your attention.
presence of the Earth’s magnetic field affects polar vortex.
There is no evidence for that. Lots of conjectures and claims, but no evidence.
Solar particles electrically charge the upper layers of stratosphere
Solar particles electrically charge the upper layers of stratosphere
No, solar EUV ionizes the layers above the stratosphere.
Take your foot out of your mouth.
Readers may like to know following :
Aurora is not caused by UV ! !
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. Colours come from energised gas ions .
Blue and violet usually appear below, while green and red above 100 km .
The earliest records of aurora are found in Babylonian tablets dated arond 560BC.
This animation shows the upper atmosphere votrocity affected by the earth’s magnetic field
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Aurorae do not occur in the ‘upper stratosphere’. Again you are trying to mislead people.
Right you Dr. S, EUV not particles.
Down in the stratosphere variation in various UV wavelengths affects climate via, among other means, ozone production. This accounts for at least some of the interconnections between the WX and climate phenomenon ENSO and solar cycle effects in the stratosphere.
Here is one of many such recent studies. Everywhere real science looks, the solar cycle correlates with major climatic fluctuations, along with demonstrated or plausible causative connections:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522335.pdf
Your link does not demonstrate solar influence on climate, but simply the fact that ozone production is governed by solar EUV, and disturbed a bit by ENSO messing with the Brewer-Dobson circulation.
Left out the verb “are”.
It shows that the effect works both ways on ENSO just as the present & many other studies have found for solar influence on the PDO and AMO.
At the very least it shows both correlation with and causation by the solar cycle, specifically its highly variable UV component.
The ENSO doesn’t just move heat around. The oscillation itself is solar driven.
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.
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.
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0495555061_137179.pdf
Pam, did you get this info from the beginner’s guide to the Sun by Tony Broxton??
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:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/more-tsi-variation-and-big-uv-variance/
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
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.
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.
The data on the strength of the N.H. polar vortex and solar variability is very convincing.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/increasing_winter_cold_in_recent_years_and_the_arctic/
Vuk , this study by Joe D ‘Aleo ( one of the best when it comes to having analogs on the climate and analysis of the climate), supports much of what you are saying about solar/climate connections.
You are in very good company. I find myself constantly on the same page as him.
VUK, you are correct it is the charged particles that cause Aurora.
I stand corrected.
Now thought to result from the electrons & protons of the solar wind.
lsvalgaard
March 2, 2015 at 11:48 am
Aurorae do not occur in the ‘upper stratosphere’. Again you are trying to mislead people.
NASA:
What causes the aurora?
The typical aurora is caused by collisions between fast-moving
electrons from space with the oxygen and nitrogen in Earth’s
upper atmosphere.
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/polar/EPO/auroral_poster/aurora_all.pdf
You try to mislead people by claiming that the aurora occur in the upper STRATOSPHERE.
You NASA links says: This ghostly light originates at altitudes of 100 to more than 400 km (60 to more than 250 miles).
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.”
Vuk:
As I’m sure you’re aware there are layers of atmosphere above the stratosphere, which ends above about 30 miles.
yes, it was a ‘lapsus’ corrected in the later comment of March 2, 2015 at 11:21 am.
Yet you still try to mislead people with your ‘stratosphere’ nonsense. So, no correction at all.
Perhaps you can explain this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.gif
inot forgeting the NASA animation !
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.gif
or you may choose not to..
When you completed the above explanation, perhaps you care to explain why the N. Atlantic SST (AMO) is correlated to the geomagnetic component you use to revise the solar output going back to 1840.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMEC-AMO.gif
or you may choose not to.
And finally when all of the above is done, perhaps you can tell us why the Arctic temperature is strongly correlated to the average of the Arctic magnetic field strength.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net//AT-GMF1.gif
or again you may choose not to.
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?
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Chap10Elsevier.pdf
Vuk , more data supporting solar/climate connections.
http://www.megakastro.gr/weather_agro/solar_modulation.htm
This data in contrast to your graph says Arctic temperatures are warm when Arctic Magnetic Field strength is strong, and vice versa. Commentary welcomed..
That is not conclusion from the link you gave.
See ‘appinsys’ link for http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Johnston_MagneticGW.pdf
You can reproduce my graph using NOAA geomagnetic calculator as per first ‘appinsys’ map in your link for averaging two strongest points in the N. Hemisphere (62N100W & 64N105E, mid point about centre of Arctic Ocean, see polar projection further down).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif
This is what should have been shown. Which you produced.
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).
regards
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.
It appears my suggestion of a simple handbook was right on the mark.
So let us know what book you would suggest reading for a serious student? Just curious.
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Space-Astronomy-Astrophysics-Library/dp/3540769528/
Expensive but worth it. However, I am also looking forward to new texts. I also recommend Leif’s website, http://www.leif.org/. Great material there. Finally, the SSN Workshop home page is a great source of current information. http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
A serious student’s curiosity goes beyond any suggested reading, how about you let us know where it led you.
Don’t want to hear about others “cop outs”.
Let’s there be light (hope soon in the climate science too)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150302104731.htm
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……..
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.
Again you have misrepresented Occam’s Razor to fit your current discussion. Every time you do that you take away your credibility on other matters.
Occam’s Razor simply says “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”
The fuss is not over anything misplaced, but over your unwillingness to correct. Instead you dish up a load of irrelevant comments [also wrong].
The simplest hypothesis is that your ‘correlations’ are spurious.
So the stratosphere and ozone distribution in the winter over the polar circle, the temperature of the stratosphere above the polar circle does not depend on solar activity? Is this yours observations?
In the winter there is no sunlight over the poles and so no UV ozone production.
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/ozone/images/graphs/gl/current.gif
You will notice that the high ozone concentration is not over the poles or the polar circle but at lower latitudes
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/05mb9065.gif
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2hzthr5.jpg
Enough that ozone is within the polar vortex.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/15i413o.jpg
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.
http://iceagenow.info/2011/05/magnetic_reversal_chart/
Thanks
With regard to a magnetic reversal, I am hopeful that the current level of interstellar dust will moderate any sudden climatic changes that may have been otherwise been the result.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503158v1
Ren, here is the correct answer
THE BREWER-DOBSON CIRCULATION
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.
http://www.megakastro.gr/weather_agro/solar_modulation.htm
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).
You are barking up the wrong tree. In Vuk’s original attempt to mislead people he first claimed that solar wind charged particles penetrated to the stratosphere where they might have an influence on the polar vortex. Nothing to do with UV or ozone.
Do you know why in North America does not have global warming?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_nh_f00.gif
Whoa lsvalgaard ,
do you really believe Vuk is in an “attempt to mislead people”.
Or simply mistaken.
There is a BIG difference.
Arctic air attack in Texas.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/98g6li.jpg
I think his comments (and [his] attempts to wiggle out of the hole he has dug for himself) speak for themselves. If it was simply a mistake, then he would immediately upon being made aware of the problem has acknowledged that, but no, he keep up the charade for a long time thereafter. Either that is deliberate of just incompetence. You make the call. As the saying goes: “don’t ascribe to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity”, but I don’t think vuk is stupid, so there you have it.
The heat is released only when ozone is created, not when it breaks down. The increase in temperature are the waves that cause the flow of ozone over the Arctic Circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2015.gif
http://www.megakastro.gr/weather_agro/solar_modulation.htm
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.
Look carefully where radiation is greatest.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2ch5gl1.jpg
Salvatore also in the southern hemisphere ozone accumulates in the area of the magnetic pole. See for yourself.
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/ozone/images/graphs/sh/current.gif