Sun's activity influences natural climate change

Aug 18, 2014

For the first time, a research team has been able to reconstruct the solar activity at the end of the last ice age, around 20,000-10,000 years ago, by analysing trace elements in ice cores in Greenland and cave formations from China. During the last glacial maximum, Sweden was covered in a thick ice sheet that stretched all the way down to northern Germany and sea levels were more than 100 metres lower than they are today, because the water was frozen in the extensive ice caps. The new study shows that the sun's variation influences the climate in a similar way regardless of whether the climate is extreme, as during the Ice Age, or as it is today.

"The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and . It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regions", said Raimund Muscheler, Lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University and co-author of the study.

The sun's impact on the climate is a matter of current debate, especially as regards the less-than-expected global warming of the past 15 years. There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation.

"Reduced could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe. This is because the sun's UV radiation affects the atmospheric circulation. Interestingly, the same processes lead to warmer winters in Greenland, with greater snowfall and more storms. The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional change", said Dr Muscheler.

Explore further: Climate change not so global

More information: Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature Geoscience, 2014.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Changes in solar activity affect local climate

Dec 08, 2010

Raimund Muscheler is a researcher at the Department of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences at Lund University in Sweden. In the latest issue of the journal Science, he and his colleagues have described how the surface water temper ...

Climate change not so global

Aug 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists are calling for a better understanding of regional climates, after research into New Zealand's glaciers has revealed climate change in the Northern Hemisphere does not directly affect ...

Recommended for you

Icelandic volcano sits on massive magma hot spot

Oct 24, 2014

Spectacular eruptions at Bárðarbunga volcano in central Iceland have been spewing lava continuously since Aug. 31. Massive amounts of erupting lava are connected to the destruction of supercontinents and ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Ana still vigorous

Oct 24, 2014

NASA's TRMM satellite saw that Tropical Storm Ana was still generating moderate rainfall is it pulled away from Hawaii. The next day, NASA's Aqua satellite saw that wind shear was having an effect on the ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 18, 2014
Hmm... I guess the "science" ain't settled.
The AGW Cult's lies are certainly unsettling.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 18, 2014
" There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation."

But...AGWites keep saying the sun is not a factor?
supamark23
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 18, 2014
One hallmark of denier trolls - they only read the headline and comment based on that, instead of reading the article (which is too much for them to understand) and so end up making nonsensical comments.

Remember kids, if someone's post mentions the "AGW cult," "AGWites," or Al Gore etc. you can be certain it's from an uneducated idiot or someone paid to post lies.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 18, 2014
"but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation."
What are they?
These are the threads AGWites don't want pulled.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 18, 2014
Typical AGWite response:
"Another dissenter, the American atmospheric physicist Murry Salby, has produced a serious analysis that undermines key assumptions underpinning the AGW worldview. His work and its reception illustrate just how unsettled climate science remains—and how determined AGW proponents are to enforce consensus on one of the great questions of our age.

In April 2013, concluding a European tour to present his research, Salby arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris for a flight back to Australia, where he was a professor of climate science at Macquarie University. He discovered, to his dismay, that the university had canceled the return leg of his nonrefundable ticket. With Salby stranded, Macquarie then undertook misconduct proceedings against him that swiftly culminated in his dismissal. "
http://www.city-j...ing.html
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
"but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation."
What are they?
These are the threads AGWites don't want pulled.


I've told you many times on here ryggy.
I suggest you do a search.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
"Solar winds capable of triggering spectacular displays of the Northern Lights in the sky may also boost the rate of lightning strikes on the ground. The finding could allow researchers to use sun-monitoring satellites to improve weather forecasts of hazardous thunderstorms in the future."
http://spectrum.i...on-earth
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 18, 2014
"In 1996 we reported at a space science meeting in Birmingham, England, that the Earth's
cloudiness, observed by satellites, is strongly correlated with the galactic cosmic-ray flux.
Further investigation confirmed that the clouds are clearly linked with cosmic rays rather
than with other solar phenomena such as sunspots or the emission of visible light,
ultraviolet and X-rays. On closer examination of the satellite data (Figure 4) it turned out
that clouds at high and middle altitudes are unaffected by variations in the cosmic rays,
but low level clouds are influenced."
"William Herschel, a famous astronomer in England, suggested in 1801 that the price of
wheat was high when there were few sunspots. That link is now explained – a shortage of
sunspots implies more cosmic rays and cloudy, cool summers."
Influence of Cosmic Rays on the Earth's Climate
Henrik Svensmark
Danish National Space Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
"The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change. It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regions"


It's only unexpected if you thought TSI was the only thing that influenced climate...
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
supamark23, since it is now well known that the Democratic Party, Public Service Unions, and Government employees ARE paid to post Pro Government propaganda and agenda's in comment sections of articles, I want to know how much the government is paying you to make your posts?
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
Who would have guessed the Sun has influence on climate? Only those that still follow the AGW cult and their profit Al Gore.

supamark23
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
supamark23, since it is now well known that the Democratic Party, Public Service Unions, and Government employees ARE paid to post Pro Government propaganda and agenda's in comment sections of articles, I want to know how much the government is paying you to make your posts?


[citation needed]

the only gov't money I'm involved in goes out of my bank account to sallie mae for my student loans.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
supamark23, since it is now well known that the Democratic Party, Public Service Unions, and Government employees ARE paid to post Pro Government propaganda and agenda's in comment sections of articles, I want to know how much the government is paying you to make your posts?


[citation needed]

the only gov't money I'm involved in goes out of my bank account to sallie mae for my student loans.

That explains it. A recent product of a 'liberal' 'education'.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
supermark23, for the education of those who think there aren't paid government/democratic trolls I'll be glad to:

http://www.americ...lls.html

http://www.infowa...ebsites/

So how much money is there being a troll for the Government or for the Democratic party?
Toiea
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
Well, we can just recall my theory of global warming, driven with dark matter at the galactic plane. At any case, the recent publications about Holocene climate point to many deviations from accepted AGW model.
supamark23
4 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
So how much money is there being a troll for the Government or for the Democratic party?


I have no idea, probably a little less than the conservatives pay (they have more money) - what are you making per post? Hopefully more than the 50 cents/post that the Chinese get.
Toiea
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
We have already many indicia for it (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) across whole solar system (1, 2, 3, 4,...)
supamark23
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2014
supamark23, since it is now well known that the Democratic Party, Public Service Unions, and Government employees ARE paid to post Pro Government propaganda and agenda's in comment sections of articles, I want to know how much the government is paying you to make your posts?


[citation needed]

the only gov't money I'm involved in goes out of my bank account to sallie mae for my student loans.

That explains it. A recent product of a 'liberal' 'education'.


I didn't know a bachelor's in biochemistry was a "liberal" education. I suppose it's better than your "no education" and abject stupidity.
orti
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
He-he. It must pain phys.ord to publish this. All I've heard from the CAGW crowd until now is "It's not the Sun. It's not the Sun". Now that they need to explain their model's inadequacies, it's a different story. CAGW, no matter how we have to torture the logic.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
supamark23, since it is now well known that the Democratic Party, Public Service Unions, and Government employees ARE paid to post Pro Government propaganda and agenda's in comment sections of articles, I want to know how much the government is paying you to make your posts?


[citation needed]

the only gov't money I'm involved in goes out of my bank account to sallie mae for my student loans.

That explains it. A recent product of a 'liberal' 'education'.


I didn't know a bachelor's in biochemistry was a "liberal" education. I suppose it's better than your "no education" and abject stupidity.

What qualifies you to talk about atmospheric physics?
But then you never really do. Like the other AGWites, you can only make feeble attempts to insult.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Even democrats are dropping the veil that the Republicans are the party of the rich.

http://www.huffin...088.html
And it's democrats that far outspend Republicans

http://news.inves...cans.htm

But here is more about how government manipulates people by hiring trolls:
https://firstlook...nternet/

So supermark23, you are either a bad paid troll of the government, or just an ignorant person.

Me, I own a couple of businesses, have several patents in my name, one of my children is a scientist in a hard science field another in an engineering field, another going into medical.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Just wow..

This thread becomes yet another paranoid rant about how Democrats and left wing groups are manipulating the internet.

But look at the comments on this one thread. 11 of the 18 comments are from known - right wing - persistent spammers. 2 comments from a crazy person talking about dark matter at the galactic plane - and 5 are from the 2 die hard science supporters who are willing to play pop a mole with the anti science paranoids (at least one of which is the most prolific right wing troll - who must never come out of the basement - spends so much time on dozens of threads simultaneously).

I guess Al Gore is paying the wrong people. Just wow.....
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
We have already many indicia for it (http://tinyurl.co...69.,...) -Zephir
What a dbag maneuver, puking 27 tinyurls in one post. The third one is broken, so obviously you didn't even check to make sure they work.
Eddy Courant
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
The Sun? THE SUN??? My cat guessed right. It was the sun all along!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
"The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change", said Dr Muscheler.

Isn't that special? Silly me for remaining skeptical of AGWism in light of the fact that something as insignificant as the "various solar processes" are not included in the climate models.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
"The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change", said Dr Muscheler.

Isn't that special? Silly me for remaining skeptical of AGWism in light of the fact that something as insignificant as the "various solar processes" are not included in the climate models.


Cantdrive, you never let me down. You can always be counted on to get it wrong. All of the GCMs include the sun and variation for the sun. What they are talking about here is longer term changes in the sun.

What people such as yourself and the other deniers misunderstand is that "short term" changes in the sun and the earth are already built into the models. They are constantly being improved. Adding a stochastic approach to longer term changes in the sun and the earth will improve the present models. The GCM models in the 22nd century will be built the improved versions of the present models.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
@thermodumbonics;
"Deniers", that's rich coming from a Chicken Little type. It's amazing how you can be so completely wrong when there are but a couple of paragraphs. That is a completely asinine statement considering there are not even accurate models of the sun itself let alone how it affects the atmosphere and climate. BTW, you should probably complain to the scientists doing the study being they seem to portray nothing similar to what you claim.

"The sun's impact on the climate is a matter of current debate, especially as regards the less-than-expected global warming of the past 15 years. There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation. "

Thermodumbonics says what? Very little as usual...
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
@thermodumbonics;
"Deniers", that's rich coming from a Chicken Little type. That is a completely asinine statement considering there are not even accurate models of the sun itself let alone how it affects the atmosphere and climate.

Thermodumbonics says what? Very little as usual...


Yes, you are a denier. I, proudly, wear the term "chicken little" or AGWite or anything else you want to describe me as if it means that I am concerned about the AGW that is on-going and will have a serious impact on the environment.

What do you want to be called? Do you not deny that AGW is real and important?

Let me compare models of the sun. You see it as a focal point for electric energy that flows between the start. You say that the sun is driven by electricity. This is in direct opposition to the general acceptance that stars run off thermonuclear fusion. So, here is Cantdrive saying that electricity between the stars run the stars and nuclear engineers saying it is fusion. Cont
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
Continued: Cantdrive thinks that stars are driven by Birkeland currents. Actually, Birkeland currents do exist:

http://en.wikiped..._current

However, just because the Birkeland currents exist, it does not mean they have anything to do with powering our star. Just looks at orders of magnitude between electrical power and fusion power. Anyone who thinks those can be similar is delusions.

http://en.wikiped...on_Power

I'll be waiting for you strange reply Cantthink.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
supermark23, for the education of those who think there aren't paid government/democratic trolls I'll be glad to:

http://www.americ...lls.html

So how much money is there being a troll for the Government or for the Democratic party?
@freefromthought
1- a blog is NOT a valid source of information unless supported by links to studies or peer reviewed empirical data
2- http://phys.org/n...ate.html ,
3- here is a LINK to a STUDY that PROVES THAT large corporations are ACTIVELY trying to obfuscate science for nefarious purposes
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
Cantdrive thinks that stars are driven by Birkeland currents
@Thermo
He also believes that the grand canyon was carved by a plasma/electrical discharge (which would leave behind evidence that is NOT found today) and that the asteroid marks on the moon/etc are formed from plasma/electrical discharges rather than the OBSERVED asteroids which routinely pummel the solar system.
He also seems to be religiously fanatical about the EU system which has been DEBUNKED TIME AND AGAIN with regular physics as well as by science and evidence

sorry cantthink... all you are doing here is proving that you have NO IDEA what physics is, how it works and how science and the scientific method works.

eu is a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE

push that garbage in your pseudoscience forums and at sites who cater to it, like thunderboltgarbage or electricstupidityuniversewithnoevidence

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

http://www.tim-th...eas.html
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
proudly, wear the term "chicken little" or AGWite or anything else you want to describe me as if it means that I am concerned about the AGW that is on-going and will have a serious impact on the environment.


Then you can make NO claim that you support the scientific method.
yep
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2014
I always felt the AWG debate detracted from the other serious pollution issues as CO2 is seemingly innocuous in comparison to other air, water, land and soil pollution from farm, industrial, and pharmaceutical chemicals.
The problem is ocean acidification and mass extinction does not sound innocuous.
http://link.sprin...8-0381-8
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2014
I always felt the AWG debate detracted from the other serious pollution issues as CO2 is seemingly innocuous in comparison to other air, water, land and soil pollution from farm, industrial, and pharmaceutical chemicals
@Yep
on the one hand I can see some of your point... but on the other, there is already a great deal of work being done to counter point source and non-point source pollution. (and other pollution)
The CO2 problem is not innocuous either... it is a common and necessary thing, but when it grows out of balance...
This is similar to Iodine in the body. It is needed, but get too much and you are dead.

and there is also the science behind the extremely complex climate/weather system, which is important...
yep
2 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2014
I posted that abstract on Ocean Acidification, because it gives people a different reason to get behind CO2 control, something I was less concerned with, always believing the sun had more influence on global warming and cooling then was credited.

Well Thermo, CD does not seem to be around so lets talk about delusion mkay.
Funny thing about your fusion link it happens to mention Z pinches were the first method for man-made fusion. As in electrical currents through magnetic fields can create fusion. Might also need to read your link on Birkeland currents and the fact they produce the plasma Z pinch phenomena.

Come on Captain tons of evidence (literally)
http://phys.org/n...act.html

Your gonna love this one its bonafide!
http://worldnpa.o...6439.pdf

You guys might need to start rethinking things because the only debunking has been in your own minds.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2014
I posted that abstract on Ocean Acidification, because it gives people a different reason to get behind CO2 control, something I was less concerned with, always believing the sun had more influence on global warming and cooling then was credited
@yep
And It gladdens me to see that your mind can change considering the evidence. I hope this is something that continues to be true. This was one issue that also changed MY mind... and the preponderance of evidence from Runrig et al in the past regarding global warming.
Come on Captain tons of evidence (literally)
It sure is... but it is also off topic, really

more to the point... when have I ever stated that I didn't believe in empirical evidence?
i don't believe in eu bull, mostly because, even thought SOME of it might be legitimate, there is a great amount of it that is based upon a fallacy.

One reason i always ask for legit links
one reason cd always fails epically
no legit links...
but that is another topic
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2014
You guys might need to start rethinking things because the only debunking has been in your own minds
@yep
and again... I've never claimed that z-pinches don't exist, nor that birkeland currents don't exist. i WILL however, always ask for evidence that what you CLAIM is backed up by science... and cd has a LONG history of only supplying PSEUDOSCIENCE links... never (rather seldom, anyway) any hard proof... and sensationalism from an article is not unexpected... so comments like "There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate" are a dime a dozen... cd makes them regularly...
but if you will follow Runrig's posts... you will see that the impact of the SUN is included in AGW, so cd's comment is not only off base, but WAY off the mark!
shall I begin presenting evidence?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2014
Come on Captain tons of evidence (literally)
http://phys.org/n...act.html

You guys might need to start rethinking things because the only debunking has been in your own minds.
@yep
and I will leave this with the following

WHAT are you trying to prove with your two links?
that comets/impacts on earth are the cause of AGW or something less AGW related? (sarcastic hyperbole)

IOW - WHATS YOUR POINT
please specify what your specific point is regarding your links.
one is an article on PO about New evidence supporting theory of extraterrestrial impact found... the other is about z-pinch meteor impact crater modelling

i've never said that z-pinch was not capable of creating a crater... I HAVE stated that it is far more likely that the bulk of the MOON craters are physical strikes (as we've observed some) and that until there is EMPIRICAL evidence tying one to a z-pinch, you cannot ASSUME that all craters are formed thus

get it right