Claim: low solar activity will melt Greenland's ice faster

From the AGU: Sun’s activity controls Greenland temperatures

Greenland-Heat-Map[1]
A new study found that Greenland temperatures fell from the 1970s through the early 1990s while temperatures across much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere rose. This map shows the average difference in surface temperatures between 1920-1940 and 1975-1995. Grey areas indicate regions where not enough data was available to calculate long-term temperature changes. Credit: Takuro Kobashi
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The sun’s activity could be affecting a key ocean circulation mechanism that plays an important role in regulating Greenland’s climate, according to a new study. The phenomenon could be partially responsible for cool temperatures the island experienced in the late 20th century and potentially lead to increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet in the coming decades, the new research suggests.

Scientists have sought to understand why Greenland cooled during the 1970s through the early 1990s while most of the Northern Hemisphere experienced rising temperatures as a result of greenhouse warming.

The new study suggests high solar activity starting in the 1950s and continuing through the 1980s played a role in slowing down ocean circulation between the South Atlantic and the North Atlantic oceans. Combined with an influx of fresh water from melting glaciers, this slow-down halted warm water and air from reaching Greenland and cooled the island while temperatures rose across the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, according to the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The new research also suggests weak solar activity, like the sun is currently experiencing, could slowly fire up the ocean circulation mechanism, increasing the amount of warm water and air flowing to Greenland.

Starting around 2025, temperatures in Greenland could increase more than anticipated and the island’s ice sheet could melt faster than projected, according to Takuro Kobashi, a climate scientist with the Department of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern in Switzerland and lead author of the new study.

This unexpected ice loss would compound projected sea-level rise expected to occur as a result of climate change, Kobashi said. The melting Greenland ice sheet accounted for one-third of the 3.2 millimeters (0.13 inches) rise in global sea level every year from 1992 to 2011.

“We need to really consider how solar activity will change in the future,” said Kobashi. “If solar activity becomes really low, as scientists expect, the Greenland ice sheet will melt faster than we expected from the climate model with just greenhouse gas [warming].”

The new study compared past solar activity with historical temperature records to figure out if the cooling Greenland experienced during the late 20th century was part of a long-term pattern.

The authors of a new paper placed ice from subsections of Greenland ice cores in glass flasks. Under a vacuum, the ice melted, releasing the air trapped within the ice. The scientists used the trapped air to calculate the island's temperatures for the past 2,100 years and compare them to vacillations in solar activity. <br />  <em>Credit: Takuro Kobashi</em>

The team used ice cores drilled from the Greenland ice sheet to reconstruct snow temperatures for the past 2,100 years. A relatively new technique, which measures argon and nitrogen gases trapped in the ice, allowed the scientists to measure small changes in temperature at 10- to 20-year increments.

The ice cores showed that for the past 2,000 years changes in Greenland temperatures have generally followed any temperature shifts occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. The new research found that the change in Greenland temperatures vacillated up and down around the average change in Northern Hemisphere temperatures over time. The vacillations coincided with changes in the sun’s energy output that occurred over multiple decades, according to the new study.

When the sun’s energy output increased, there was a bigger drop in Greenland’s temperature compared to the change in average temperature across the Northern Hemisphere. When the sun’s energy output decreased, there was a larger increase in Greenland’s temperature compared to the change in average temperature that occurred across the Northern Hemisphere.

Climate models showed that changes in solar activity could prompt shifts in ocean and air circulation in the North Atlantic that affect Greenland’s climate, according to the new study.

Shifting circulation patterns

Water circulation in the Atlantic follows a steady pattern of movement, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Warm water flows from the South Atlantic toward the North Atlantic, transferring heat toward Greenland. As the water cools, it sinks to the ocean floor and travels south toward the tropics, completing the circular pattern.

During a period of high solar activity, more energy from the sun reaches Earth and is transferred to tropical waters. When this warmer-than-usual water reaches the North Atlantic, it is not dense enough to sink. With nowhere to go, the water causes a traffic jam and the water circulation pattern slows down.

Changes in solar activity can also alter the atmospheric circulation pattern over the Atlantic, which in turn affects ocean circulation, but how this process works is still unknown, said Kobashi.

In the late 20th century, there also was a compounding problem. Large amounts of freshwater gushed into the North Atlantic as climate change caused increased melting of glaciers, icebergs, and the Greenland ice sheet. Freshwater, being more buoyant than salt water, entered the intersection where cool water drops to the ocean floor and travels south to the tropics. Climate models showed that the water in the intersection became less salty and less likely to sink. Models also showed that additional freshwater came from an increase in rainfall, according to the new study.

The traffic jam worsened and the water circulation pattern that transfers heat from the South Atlantic to the North Atlantic slowed. This slow-down caused the air above Greenland to cool and temperatures there to drop, according to the new study.

Because the oceans take a long time to heat up or cool down, the temperature changes in Greenland lagged 10 to 40 years behind the high solar activity, showing up from the 1970s through the early 1990s, according to the new study.

The new study suggests low solar activity could have the opposite effect and lead to warmer temperatures in Greenland in another decade. When there is less solar energy reaching the Earth, water reaching Greenland easily sinks and returns to the tropics along the ocean floor. The water circulation pattern speeds up, quickly funneling heat toward Greenland and warming the island.

Greenhouse gases versus solar activity

The new study makes a good case that the solar maximum in the 1950s through the 1980s may have played a role in the cooling Greenland saw in the late 20th century, said Michael Mann, a climate  scientist with the Department of Meteorology at Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the new study.

Another recent study by Mann and his colleagues proposed that trapped greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning caused warming across the Northern Hemisphere and triggered an increase in ice melt. This led to the slowdown in ocean circulation and a cooler Greenland.

Both studies suggest buoyant meltwater from melting glaciers would have interrupted the sinking of the AMOC and its return to the tropics along the bottom of the ocean. But the new research suggests solar activity is the main driver behind the changes to the ocean circulation pattern.

“I’m open-minded that the real answer is more complicated, and it may be a combination of the two hypotheses,” said Mann. “This article paves the way for a more in-depth look at what is going on. The challenge now will be teasing apart the two effects and trying to assess the relative importance of both of them.”

Kobashi contends that solar activity explains the change in ocean circulation and Greenland warming since 1995, which he says cannot be explained by increasing greenhouse gases alone.

###

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
126 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
phodges
July 16, 2015 9:42 am

e new study makes a good case that the solar maximum in the 1950s through the 1980s may have played a role in the cooling Greenland saw in the late 20th century, said Michael Mann
April Fool’s??? When did they hire Michael Palin and Eric Idle to write the Climate Change script??

MarkW
Reply to  phodges
July 16, 2015 4:05 pm

Wait, what? I could have sworn that up till last year they were claiming that Greenland has warmed.
Now they are admitting that it has in fact cooled, but trust us it’s about suffer major warming.
This time we mean it.

July 16, 2015 9:43 am

If it warms, greenland cools, so if it cools greenland warms, see UAH trend
http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/rbailey/2015_05/MapNewUAHTemperatureTrends.jpg

Reply to  Hans Erren
July 16, 2015 11:15 am

Solar activity has number of components.
Greenland sits astride a largest gravity and geoid anomalies on the globe (see HERE )
Gravity and geoid anomalies in this part of the planet are function of the postglacial isostatic uplift starching from the North Canada to Scandinavia.
However, the major unknown here is that the uplift is not a simply linear but contains strong quasi oscillating component around 60 years (synchronised with every third even numbered sunspot cycle), and surprise, surprise the N. Atlantic sea surface temperature is following it in the periodicity but reversed in phase.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 16, 2015 11:38 am

You persist with this nonsense. No surprise there.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 16, 2015 2:09 pm

Your Scandinavian colleague, author of numerous articles on the subject, Martin Ekman in one of them wrote:
“Reconstructing old shorelines is an essential part of understanding the historical development of the Nordic area through the millennia. In principle we could in the same way also look into the future.”
Than he had to pay homage to the ‘consensus’ and said:
“However, the future is much more difficult to predict because of a large uncertainty: that of future climate changes influencing the level of the sea.”

Reply to  vukcevic
July 16, 2015 3:25 pm

lsvalgaard : You persist with this nonsense. No surprise there.
But there is a surprise here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DrS-IS.gif

Owen in GA
Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 5:56 am

The rebound is occurring in a viscous medium which means the actual rebound should be modeled as a damped spring, (though I am not fully confident that the spring constant is not a function of displacement in this case) I would expect that in the time since the weight was released from the northern hemisphere ice sheets, that the rebound would have some oscillating components. Whether or not these would then affect circulation patterns and temperature is really anyone’s guess. If the oscillation were large enough, I could credit the theory, but I would think we would be able to measure the oscillation if it was having that kind of effect. I haven’t read all the papers out there on iso-static rebound, so I may have missed the paper that describes these oscillation measurements. The papers I have read talk about the tilt of the sub-plates but haven’t mentioned any oscillation component of the movement.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 1:35 pm

Owen hi, thanks for the your comment.
Uplift in the most active area i.e. Hudson Bay is of order of 3 meters/century. This has a considerable effect on volumes of fresh water flowing into the Bay affecting salinity of the Hudson current, important contributor to the Subpolar gyre, the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean, driver of AMOC, etc.
R.W. Fairbridge has already identified less defined relationship with double sunspot sycle or solar magnetic reversal (at ~22 years) via feature known as “the staircase” preserved in a of 184 isostatically uplifted beach lines on Hudson Bay.
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/images/rhodes6_000.jpg
Fairbridge: “The Hudson Bay “staircase”, a typical series of 184 successively uplifted strandlines, situated in Richmond Gulf on the eastern side of Hudson Bay, Canada. The sand gravel beaches are preserved by permafrost, and recur with great regularity about every 45 years, representing the cycle of storminess. There are longer cycles of 111 years and 317 years evident in the beaches, which are linked with planetary cycles.”
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm
I am not familiar with the accuracy of the Fairbridge’s dating method, but neither the high pass filter or spectral analysis I used have found significant presence of 45 year cycle.
High pass filter output and spectral analysis I used both show strong components at ~ 22 and ~ 66 years (see graphs above and below).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NECIUS.gif
It is far easier for Dr. S to declare it a ‘nonsense’, rather than contradict data analysis. His ‘theory’ says not possible, data says it is. No need to remind us of what Richard Feynman recommended if a theory and data don’t agree.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 1:59 pm

It is not about a disagreement between theory and data, it is about drawing unwarranted conclusions from the data; here are some examples that are just as flimsy as yours http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 1:42 pm

Number of errors in the above, including “~66 years”, it should be “~60 years”

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 2:20 pm

Doc, most of us would suspect that the sunspot magnetic cycle may not have sufficient power do drive postglacial uplift oscillations.
What must be of the greatest concern to you is that there might be (the) ‘something’ else far stronger driving both, the sunspot magnetic and the isostatic cycles.
Don’t wish to be sent to ‘naughty corner’, so ‘nuff’ said by me.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 3:01 pm

Spurious correlations don’t need a cause and do not cause concerns, except perhaps about the mental state of the one proposing a spurious correlation.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 2:32 pm

Owen in GA
“The papers I have read talk about the tilt of the sub-plates but haven’t mentioned any oscillation component of the movement.”
Existence of step by step uplift (as in Hudson Bay’s shore ‘staircase’) at the high pass filter’s output or in spectral analysis would show as ‘oscillations’.
As an example (in reverse) perhaps I could suggest a bouncy ball rolling down a staircase.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Spurious correlations
Hi again. I have not mentioned spurious or otherwise correlation. Fact that two sets of 400 years long data have synchronised ‘oscillations’ is indeed very odd unless somehow related.
If such ‘god forbid’ correlation did exist I would propose commonality rather than causality ‘modus’.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 4:27 pm

They real actual data do not have synchronized variations, so there is nothing to be surprised about.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 4:31 pm

The 400 years is not a valid point. You might also have said that there are 150,000 days of synchronized variations or 3 million hours. The number of degrees of freedoms is vastly smaller than you think it is, perhaps only 40 or so.

kim
Reply to  vukcevic
July 17, 2015 4:41 pm

If not spurious then almost surely commonality rather than causal either way. My suspicion is that the common cause is something we’ve not yet perceived, or at least not yet recognized the meaning of the perception.
================

Reply to  vukcevic
July 18, 2015 2:55 pm

Kim, hi
Perception of associations gives life to the otherwise dreary data files; it is a delightful way of drifting down the nature’s more obscure alleyways.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 18, 2015 3:18 pm

But is not in any way science

Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2015 6:52 am

Dr. S
You got that one wrong
Latin : scientia
English: knowledge, science, awareness
Knowing that isostatic postglacial uplift in the North East Canada contains two components, ~ 60 years of the same periodicity and opposite phase as the North Atlantic SST oscillation, and ~ 22 years of the same periodicity and phase as solar magnetic field oscillation it is a addition to our knowledge and therefore belongs to section of human endeavour generally known as science.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2015 7:19 am

It is not what you know that gets you in trouble, but what you know that ain’t.
That two things may be occurring at same time [and they actually arn’t] does not mean that they have anything to do with each other. Let me quote Feynman: “the easiest one to fool is oneself”. You are a good example of that truth.

kim
Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2015 8:53 am

Again, if not spurious, then a commonality is most likely. Consideration of unknown unknowns, exploration of the imagination, is science, as Leif knows perfectly well. I can’t decide if it’s funny or sad that he pretends otherwise.
=============

kim
Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2015 8:57 am

You belabour one obvious point while dodging admission of another obvious point. Nonetheless, I highly respect what you do know. Have similar respect for what you don’t know.
================

kim
Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2015 9:05 am

I respect that you have contemplated majestically, your entire career, looking for a sun/climate connection, and haven’t convinced yourself that there is one.
You should not admit it is beyond you to find one, but so far that is so.
=====================

William Astley
Reply to  Hans Erren
July 16, 2015 12:19 pm

The planet cools (particularly the Greenland Ice sheet) when solar activity drops due to increase cloud cover and changes in cloud properties.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. The 9 warming periods correlate with increased solar activity and were all followed by cooling periods when solar activity reduced.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
More than 75% of the warming in the last the last 30 years was due to reduce planetary cloud cover which in turn was caused by specific solar activity. (More complicated than how many ruddy sunspots are on the sun. Come on man, this is getting tedious.)
If that assertion is correct the planet will now cool, as Solar activity is the lowest in 150 years. If the planet cools the game is over for the cult of CAGW and the cottage industry of data changing and manipulation.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
There is now quarter by quarter solar observational evidence (multiple parameters) that supports the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted as opposed to a slowing down of the solar cycle. There will be spotless days by the end of this year and next year there will multi day periods when there are no sunspots.
There is a mechanism that delays the solar modulation of planetary cloud cover by roughly 12 years. The large warm blob in the Pacific is caused by that transient mechanism.
There are now large regions of the ocean that have cooled. That fact and the fact that there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for ever month of the year and there is the rapid recovery of multi year sea in the Arctic supports the assertion that the planet has started to cool due to the abrupt change in the sun.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.7.16.2015.gif

Reply to  William Astley
July 16, 2015 12:44 pm

There is now quarter by quarter solar observational evidence (multiple parameters) that supports the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted
There are no indications of this [and you have not defined what ‘interrupted’ means, so your statement is meaningless]. And, sure, there will be spotless days in the future as is normal in the declining phase of a solar cycle.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  William Astley
July 16, 2015 2:13 pm

re: William Astley July 16, 2015 at 12:19 pm
“The planet cools (particularly the Greenland Ice sheet) when solar activity drops due to increase cloud cover and changes in cloud properties”
I think you may want to rewrite that. Cloud cover and changes in cloud properties have no effect on what the Sun is doing.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  William Astley
July 16, 2015 3:40 pm

Thanks William for that contribution with charts.
I noticed this in the article: “…the solar maximum in the 1950s through the 1980s may have played a role in the cooling Greenland saw in the late 20th century”
Cooling in Greenland (?) coinciding with the warming of Greenland (?) that saw the loss of ice mass and the whole freshwater argument? Since when does cooling on the continent lead to warming and melting of the continent, with rising temps (measurements) during high solar activity and rising temps that correlate with low solar activity (claims)?
They state forthrightly that cooling leads to more melting. We know from proxies that historically increased solar activity increases the Greenland Temp. We know from measurements that during recent high solar activity Greenland cooled which we are not told led to increased melting caused by global warming. They claim there was more fresh water ‘pouring’ into the Atlantic, so much as to affect the currents and overturning.
This confused paper doesn’t pass the smell test. And Mann’s supporting comments contradict the authors.

MarkW
Reply to  William Astley
July 16, 2015 4:08 pm

The pause did start right about the time the last solar maximum ended.

kim
Reply to  William Astley
July 17, 2015 5:01 pm

TiF, the clause starting with ‘due to’ refers to ‘the planet cools’ rather than to ‘solar activity drops’. Rewrite would help, a refining.
===============

richard
July 16, 2015 9:44 am

Another from the ain’t going to happen school of alarmism.

Latitude
July 16, 2015 9:50 am

this slow-down halted warm water and air from reaching Greenland and cooled the island while temperatures rose across the rest of the Northern Hemisphere…..
…and yet, somehow, NW Europe got warmer???

Owen in GA
Reply to  Latitude
July 17, 2015 5:59 am

Sure, the heat just teleconnected, bypassing large swaths of ocean…just like the missing heat reaching the depths without ever warming a single layer above it. (do i need /sarc?)

jayhd
July 16, 2015 9:53 am

Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure someone(s) will), but I thought the AGW crowd have been saying the sun’s activity does not affect climate.

CaligulaJones
Reply to  jayhd
July 16, 2015 11:08 am

Only when it doesn’t. When it does, it does.
Simple, really.

JimS
Reply to  CaligulaJones
July 16, 2015 12:08 pm

Exactly. Here is an example of an upcoming newspaper heading: “Little Ice Age Will Melt Northern Ice Cap By 2035”

old fella
July 16, 2015 9:56 am

The result of lower solar radiation…This unexpected ice loss would compound projected sea-level rise expected to occur as a result of climate change, Kobashi said.
I never realized that the entire globe’s ocean levels would not be affected by lower solar radiation.

July 16, 2015 9:58 am

The new study suggests high solar activity starting in the 1950s and continuing through the 1980s played a role in slowing down ocean circulation between the South Atlantic and the North Atlantic oceans
Except that solar activity rose to high values in every century since telescopic observations began:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
so this should have happened in every century…

Gary Hladik
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 16, 2015 10:15 am

Not to worry. Now they’ll find “proxies” that say it did! 🙂

mwhite
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 16, 2015 11:05 am

So I’m thinking that Greenland must have been a tropical Paradise during the Maunder minimum.

Eyal Porat
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 16, 2015 11:08 am

And during the Maunder Min. Greenland should have been ice free…
Another example of “climate science” gone wild.

emsnews
Reply to  Eyal Porat
July 16, 2015 3:42 pm

Yes, the Vikings multiplied there during the Maunder Minimum and they farmed all across Greenland and then suddenly, when the rest of the world began warming up after 1800, the entire place froze a mile deep! See?
Easy peasy!
And of course, there was no Medival Warm Period nor Roman Warm Period or any warm period because the only warm weather in the last 2 million years was last year and this year! Another amazing fact none of us could have guessed living today where snow is ignored and distant tropical storms are earth shattering events.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 16, 2015 11:08 am

I think, with so many variables and lots of input manipulation, the trunk of this study has now learned how to type on a cell phone while dancing on the head of a pin, not just wriggle its trunk.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 16, 2015 10:37 pm

Something tells me you are skeptical of these claims. This is simply more “climate change porn” published for the CAGW congregation by the bishops to keep at bay any falsification of the CO2- CC linkage.

ren
July 16, 2015 10:00 am

Larger solar activity causes the polar vortex is strong. Temperature above the polar circle more falls in winter.

July 16, 2015 10:01 am

Where is the data, not model output, that says AMOC actually slowed?
Another case of climate change can be anything we say. Which now includes, unrelated to CO2, increasing solar activity which cools where we didn’t expect it to. But in a post hoc reanalysis we “predicted it all along.”
Climate change proponents will continue.
So here is the truthful revision to last sentence, “which he says cannot be explained by increasing greenhouse gases alone, which models said should have forced Greenland’s warming.”

Paul
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 16, 2015 11:57 am

“Where is the data…”
What is this thing called “data” that you speak of?

david smith
Reply to  Paul
July 16, 2015 1:59 pm

Why, didn’t you know?
Here at Climate Science Headquarters we have all the data we need – we call this data “models” and for some reason this data always confirms our fervent beliefs.
Ain’t life grand?!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Paul
July 16, 2015 4:25 pm

Wasn’t Data a character on Star Trek Next Generation? Of course his likeness was stolen without acknowledgement from Issac Assimov’s character R. Daniel Olivaw.

DD More
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 16, 2015 3:14 pm

Joel – “Where is the data, not model output, that says AMOC actually slowed?”
No data that the Gulf Stream portion has ‘slowed’, but 20 years worth that is about the same.
H. Thomas Rossby, a professor at the URI Graduate School of Oceanography, has spent much of his long career studying ocean circulation – especially the Gulf Stream – and how it makes its way across the Atlantic towards Europe and as far north as northern Norway. For the last 20 years he and his colleagues have measured the Gulf Stream using an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) attached to a ship, the freighter Oleander, which makes weekly trips across the Gulf Stream from New Jersey to Bermuda. The instrument, which measures the velocity of water moving beneath the ship down to more than 600 meters, has collected some 1,000 measurements of the Gulf Stream since it was installed in late 1992.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The ADCP measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current,” said Rossby. “There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.”

Covered Here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/uri-oceanographer-refutes-claims-that-climate-change-is-slowing-pace-of-gulf-stream/

July 16, 2015 10:02 am

I thought low solar activity drove the Vikings from Greenland? Does that mean they were flooded out?

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  mpcraig
July 16, 2015 2:32 pm

The deal isn’t that Greenland temps warm during low solar activity, but rather that if world-wide temps go down X during low solar activity, Greenland’s go down some fraction of X less than 1.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
July 16, 2015 3:47 pm

DJ What you are talking about then is the anomaly. There is no mention of relative changes in the anomaly (Greenland v.s. the reference temp of everything else).
They refer to temperatures going up and down. Given the contradicting evidence that there is no change in the Gulf Stream and no change in the overturning circulation, I conclude the article is speculating about what might happen ‘if”.
Personally I think the Greenland ice sheet will melt entirely. It is not very old and it has completely disappeared many times before. Why not again? If sea level rises far enough to cover Florida and parts of Georgia, the Gulf Stream will be headed towards Greenland, not Scandinavia. It will melt the whole Eastern Arctic.

Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
July 16, 2015 10:29 pm

Crispin, now you are talking about a time scale of thousands of years for Greenland meltpulse waters.
It’s the Alarmist enviro-nutjob crazy sect of the Church of AGW that believes we only have a few decades, maybe a century and half before a hothouse hell and 10 meters of sea rise swamps not just Florida but every major coastal city in the world.
By that time, whatever triggers the end of interglacials *could* be the coming next ice age doom. (Taking a page from the alarmist’s Precautionary Principle abuses.)
(the word “could” is so badly misused, anything “could” happen.)

July 16, 2015 10:05 am

When the sun’s energy output increased, there was a bigger drop in Greenland’s temperature compared to the change in average temperature across the Northern Hemisphere. When the sun’s energy output decreased, there was a larger increase in Greenland’s temperature compared to the change in average temperature that occurred across the Northern Hemisphere.
Year-by-year the solar variations play increasing roles in the climate variations.

son of mulder
July 16, 2015 10:09 am

“Combined with an influx of fresh water from melting glaciers, this slow-down halted warm water and air from reaching Greenland and cooled the island while temperatures rose across the rest of the Northern Hemisphere”.
So how much of the warming of the Northern hemisphere was not caused by CO2?

July 16, 2015 10:11 am

Except they dont mention that Greenland Norse colonies dissapeared as the sun apparently entered the Wolf min and then Sporer min.

DontGetOutMuch
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 16, 2015 10:42 am

Don’t forget, there is a simple rule when you see a study done by alarmists. Change the sign, and the results of the study will be closer to reality. This work on almost every single one.

Reply to  DontGetOutMuch
July 16, 2015 12:16 pm

this isn’t just funny, it’s likely true. humans often act 180 degrees out of phase with oscillating phenomenon. it’s one of the weaknesses of our evolved psychology. you can see this in the stock market, investment in hurricane prone areas, etc

Larry
July 16, 2015 10:25 am

It becomes more and more clear with every study that comes out that Climate scientists really have no clue what’s happening or why.

Resourceguy
July 16, 2015 10:31 am

At least we have established which is the preferred ocean circulation system for arm waving. No other circulation system is pushed and pulled as much as this one. It may beat out tree rings at this rate.

climanrecon
July 16, 2015 10:47 am

Climate scientists invoking “solar activity” to explain data are effectively saying that they don’t have a clue what is going on. I can’t believe that “solar activity” is allowed to be invoked in these papers, why not also invoke the price of fish?
Climate science journal editors should strip out all useless speculations from this kind of paper (including the politically correct and funding friendly CO2 thing) and ensure that only the phenomenological facts remain, which appears to be that there might have been a change to the ocean currents near Greenland.

katherine009
July 16, 2015 10:48 am

The caption says “Greenland temperatures fell from the 1970s through the early 1990s while temperatures across much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere rose.” But it appears to me that most of the Northern Hemisphere had no change or was colder.
Then he says, “Large amounts of freshwater gushed into the North Atlantic as climate change caused increased melting of glaciers, icebergs, and the Greenland ice sheet.” If Greenland was colder, why were glaciers and icebergs in the North Atlantic melting?
This article feels like the author thinks it’s all about solar activity, but has thrown in the CAGW stuff in order to get it published.

emsnews
Reply to  katherine009
July 16, 2015 3:39 pm

When absolutely all the basic data is screwed up, anything goes.
Then we get rid of say, the cold cycle in North America during the 1970’s which I lived in during that cold period and did tons literally of snow removal (I was a super in NYC).
This idea that NA wasn’t cold in the 1970’s is lunacy, of course. Unless one is talking about LA. LA is the center of the universe for warmists and no other place matters.

Ockham
Reply to  katherine009
July 16, 2015 4:07 pm

This one confused me as well. I read it something like, Greenland cooled over a 20 year period causing large amounts of fresh water to gush into the North Atlantic.

ulriclyons
July 16, 2015 10:52 am

Basically this is saying that solar controls the AMO, which is what I have been saying for over two years here and elsewhere. Though they have the AMOC relationship reversed. A warm AMO is driven by increased negative NAO, but if you look at low AMOC events on the RAPID data, they occur during negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes.
The AMO appears to move anti-phase with solar cycles in its warm mode. Based on that it would of cooled temporarily around this sunspot maximum, and warm again through the next decade, strongly too as negative NAO episodes will increase greatly in this solar magnetic phase, following the same pattern as the Dalton and Gleissberg (1880-90’s) minima, with the weakest magnetic phase being between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak sunspot cycles.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise
The bottom line though is that increased GHG’s should according to the IPCC, increase positive NAO, which would cool the AMO+Arctic+Greenland. So the decline in solar forcing of the NAO since the mid 1990’s is very much overwhelming increases in GHG’s, as the recent Arctic warming is almost as fast as the post 1925 Arctic warming.

July 16, 2015 10:55 am

Having a time delay on cause and effect is a pretty good way to obfuscate the one from the other.

Paul Westhaver
July 16, 2015 11:06 am

When the sun’s energy output increased, there was a bigger drop in Greenland’s temperature compared to the change in average temperature across the Northern Hemisphere. When the sun’s energy output decreased, there was a larger increase in Greenland’s temperature compared to the change in average temperature that occurred across the Northern Hemisphere.
Huh? Wha?
Oh!
It is still the sun stupid, only, it is opposite day.

Reply to  mwhite
July 16, 2015 11:09 am

Except Wikipedia is incorrect on this one.

Reply to  mwhite
July 16, 2015 9:41 pm

About all Wikipedia is good for is birth and death days of movie stars and celebrities.
It can *not* be trusted for much else. Too many editors with agendas make Wikipedia edits.

TheLastDemocrat
July 16, 2015 11:07 am

I don’t care what you skeptics say. This summer will be the summer I reach the North Pole by kayak.
I know last year I had problems with lay-a-way at Dick’s sporting goods. This year, I am just saving up, joining REI, and just buying the kayak outright – with a gofundme campaign.
Which of the gofundme sites should I use?

Robert Ballard
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 16, 2015 6:33 pm

All Federal agencies, States, and many municipalities have money to spend on “public information campaigns”. NIH might be a good place to start or maybe Commerce.
btw don’t forget the sun screen!

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Robert Ballard
July 17, 2015 10:40 am

Great idea – the cost to get me set up will be nothing compared to the cost to rescue me…but I won’t include that as a line item.

Brent Hargreaves
July 16, 2015 11:12 am

Lots of “suggests” in their findings. I suggest they go out and get proper jobs. Twonks.

1sky1
July 16, 2015 11:29 am

It’s amazing what wrong-headed notions about multi-decadal changes in solar activity and ocean circulation spawn in terms of speculations about multi-decadal variations of Greenland temperatures. The principal transporter of tropical waters to that region is the Gulf Stream and related North Atlantic Drift, which never sink in corpore to the bottom. The AMOC is but a very weak and sporadic adjunct, with negligible impact upon surface temperatures.

RWturner
July 16, 2015 11:29 am

A compounding feedback of waning solar flux on global temperature. With the planet receiving less solar radiation, more of the global heat generated from solar radiation goes into melting ice on Greenland. This paper must be very unsettling for the settled science cult.

1 2 3