Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists – New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene

A new paper titled High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka appearing just recently in the AGU Paleoceanography Journal authored by Caroline Cléroux et al provides further, clear evidence of a major solar impact on climate during the Holocene. Hat/tip: http://kaltesonne.de/.

According to the paper’s abstract, the study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream.

Now if I recall correctly, this was the region that Stefan Rahmstorf deemed not long ago as good enough to be used to represent sea level trend for the whole world.

The above authors focused on the last 10,000 years to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and looked at centennial to millennial time scale variability. To do this, a seabed core was extracted off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina at a water depth of 620 m.

They observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. Around 8.3 ka and 5.2–3.5 ka, they reconstructed positive salinity anomalies off Cape Hatteras. For the 5.2–3.5 ka period they demonstrated that the salinity increase was caused by the cessation of the low salinity surface flow coming from the north.

What’s behind the anomalies? They found that variations were in sync with total solar irradiance. The abstract states (emphasis added):

Wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the d18O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.”

The paper’s introduction has a few sentences that the IPCC really needs to take note of (emphasis added):

The last decade of paleoclimate research has shown that the Holocene is not the stable, climatic event-free period as previously thought: both external and internal (oceanic) forcings have caused major climatic changes. […] On a shorter time scale, observations over about the last 50 years show interannual and decadal climate change. These fluctuations probably persisted throughout the Holocene, together with centennial to millennial variability.”

Dr. Sebastian Lüning writes at the Die kalte Sonne site:

The new findings once again clearly underscore that the last several thousands of years are characterized by natural temperature cycles that are controlled by fluctuations in solar activity (see p. 68-75 in ‘Die kalte Sonne’). The logical continuation of these natural cycles through today shows that an important part of the warming of the last 150 years has to be attributed to the increase in solar activity. It is not a mere coincidence that the last decades have been the most solar active of the last 10,000 years.

The climate models used by the IPCC are not able to reproduce these millennial cycles because they assign only a very small climate impact to the sun. Also the recently introduced new climate model from the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg suffers from the same deficiency, and thus the results of that model are essentially unrealistic.”

In layman’s terms: crap in, crap out.

Once again yet another study that emphatically shows that climate changed in the recent past (while CO2 was stable), and that these changes were in sync with solar activity. We’ve said it a thousand times before, and we’ll probably have to say it another thousand times:

“It’s the sun, moron!”


26 responses to “Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists – New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene”

  1. klem

    I can guarentee that this study will be ignored. If it actually gains some traction, oposition will form to say that it was funded with oil money.

  2. DirkH

    Great toy, Oulu neutron count query. Choose start date; activate checkbox “create chart” if you want to.

    1. DirkH

      the minima are caused by suppression of cosmic rays during solar maxima. Look HOW LITTLE the current weak maximum suppresses!

  3. matti

    Lets see now . We have Caroline Cleroux in the article above claiming that the sun has played a major role in our climate going back some 10,000 years. We have N.AKrivova and SK Solanki saying that solar variability caused all the global climate change from 1850 to 1970. We have NASA saying that variations in the sun caused the cooling during the Little ice age .

    But when we have extra warming during post 1970 era and we have global cooling starting in 2000 for a decade , the sun “cannot have been responsible for more than 30% (50% for the intercalibrationby Willson, 1997) of the strong global temperature rise since 1970.”

    Something is seriously wrong with logic coming from the global warming establishment .It sounds to me that the warming as stated may have never existed to the degree claimed becasue the events just dont make sense .Global satellite data shows that there has been no significant warming post 1970 that the warmist claim is due to CO2 levels . The sun’s activity has been dropping now for two solar cycles and so have been the global temperatures as they seem to have done for the last 10000 years .

    1. DirkH

      matti, the warmists have always ignored satellite data as best as they could, preferring UHI-contaminated land-based records. CAGW started as serious science and has long since deteriorated into thuggery and crime. They all have a lot to hide. Look how UVA fights for keeping Michael Mann’s workplace e-mails secret.

      There must be something juicy in there. Mann is pretty unhinged. He calls himself a “streetfighter” now.

    2. Mindert Eiting

      ‘Something is seriously wrong with logic…’. I would say with sampling. The answer may be surprisingly simple. Suppose, we start monitoring the health of all 17 million inhabitants of The Netherlands. In the course of time some will become more healthy and others less: each individual time series has its ups and downs. The government wants to know whether the total population becomes more healthy in the course of years and what the causes may be. Without a representative sample, they are are lost. The surface stations are not representative for the earth, not even for the land masses. In a biased sample you may obtain every trend you want. Apart from data manipulation, this is the reason why the surface record does not correspond with the satellite and oceanic records.

      1. DirkH

        Yes, manipulating the way temperatures are sampled is the easiest way for the CliSci criminals to falsify the temperature history. They are very inventive in this regard.

        Biggest component of 20th century warming is the infamous Time Of Observation (TOB)
        adjustment – McIntyre calls the adjustment largely BS

        1. Mindert Eiting

          From the bag of tricks in one-shot-case studies: if you want to prove that a medicine or therapy works, always begin with a group of patients. Because they are in a dip of their health time series, their health must increase. After one year or so you can attribute their improvement to the therapy. If you want increasing temperatures, look at the individual stations. Drop those stations from your sample that show increasing temperatures in recent times. Replace them by new stations. Success guaranteed.

          1. DirkH

            Nice 🙂

  4. matti

    Here is another article by SK Solanki called

    Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1, 2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.


    Notice the words
    Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

    He seems to use vague words like “unlikely” with no back up other than his own opinion. These words seem to be used by some of the scientists to show their allegiance to the global warming priests and in order to get their papers published . This to me is not science where fundamental science statements are made with no back up.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Matti, it’s reflex, like Catholics crossing themselves when passing a church.

    2. bob

      “He seems to use vague words like “unlikely” with no back up other than his own opinion.”

      You should be aware of the backup. Solar output has been flat for decades, even taking a large drop in recent years.

      It can’t explain the warming of the past 30 years. Study after study has found this. Sunspots, TSI, even cosmic rays. They don’t go in the right direction.

      If this study is correct about a strong correlation between the sun and global temperature then it’s all the more reason why the recent warming – which doesn’t correlate with the sun – stands out as requiring a different explanation.

      1. DirkH

        The ocean is an integrator for heat. Ignoring the last few years of GISS’ corrupt trackrecord, we had a global average temperature record for the 20th century where there was a warming period from 1910 to 1940ies with the exact same slope as the later warming period from 1975 to 2000.

        I think you can still find that – now forgotten – temperature graph in IPCC AR4 (albeit decorated with progressively shorter and steeper trend lines, illegitimately creating the impression of accelerating warming).

        So the constantly high solar activity (that you call “flat”) during the solar cycles of the 20th century lead to decades of slightly increasing atmospheric temperatures.

        GISS needed to distort the record to save the CO2 narrative; as before 1950 there were simply not enough CO2 emissions to explain the first warming period.

        Nothing like we now see happened in the 20th century – the sun going into a long time funk. The CO2 narrative collapses. The alarmists will defect, switch sides, and continue being alarmists, but warn of cooling instead of warming. The exact same leeches; they will only narrate a different story.

        Happens all the time:

        1. DirkH

          BTW, an integrator in a signal theoretical way dampens high frequencies; the higher the frequency, the more it is dampened, meaning that low frequencies stay intact. This would explain very well why climate and solar activity can appear synchronized on the century- to millenial time scale, yet we see integrative effects on the decadal time scale.

  5. matti


    You maybe right about the last 3 decades , but I think there may be another logical explanation.

    The average decadal sunspot number during the 1980’s , 1990’s and 2000’s were 84.2, 67.2 and 49.6 respectively. The mean global temperature anomalies during the same decades[HADCRUT3GL] were +0.079C, +0.235C and +0.411C respectively . I went back and crunched the numbers for UAH Satellite data and got mean temperature anomalies of -0.135C, -0.0295C and 0.0178C. So on a decadal basis the sun and the global temperatures seem to be going in different directions when measured by satellite or ground stations during the last 2-3 decades . The common thread seems to be that as the sun went to a long decline and low activity [49.6 average sunspot # during the 2000’s]or since 2000, the global temperatures too have gone flat and show a negative least square trend , so you go and figure . I think there is an explanation that we have not yet clearly identified .There has been a correlation going back for thousands of years as shown by several peer reiviewd papers posted during the last decade. In my studies ,the connection was clearly there for each of the decades 1900 to 1940’s. The 1950’s went in opposite directions when we had major solar activity[91.7 average solar sunspot #] but the global temperatures were flat .The connection was there again during the 1960’s and 1970’s when solar activity levelled off at a decadal average sunspot # of about 61 and we had cool spell in global temperatures during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Scientists have been looking at various lag factors and other concepts to get a better handle on the sun /ocean/ atmosphere link. In my judgement ,it could be that the ocean cycles that are out of sink with solar efffects during certain decades . For example PDO and the Pacific Ocean after the 1954-1957 long La Nina were in the negative or cool mode [ PDO was negative 1944- 1976] while the sun peaked in 1957.This tends to offset the higher solar effects warming even when lagged a decade later. Yet during the period 1980-2010 , the sun was declining but the oceans were in a positive or warm mode [AMO and PDO both] , resulting in the surface temperatures going up while the sun was declining. This makes sense to me.

    1. DirkH

      Also see this chart of the sunspot count in the 20th century:

  6. Ed Caryl

    We know that there is a one cycle delay between sunspot number at temperature. There are also the AMO and PDO cycles just now going negative. All the cycles , including the 150-200 year cycles, are now going negative. We are on the beginning of a long down-slope. Don’t sell (or give away) your coat.

  7. New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene | Watts Up With That?

    […] Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists – New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocen… […]

  8. mwhite

    “Wind Power Adds £45 Billion To Cost Of Climate Targets”


    “The study was supposed to be published last year but was killed by its sponsor, KPMG, one of the government’s closest advisers on energy policy, after some of the findings leaked, provoking an outcry from the wind farm industry”

  9. John Marshall

    Some more good news. But the claim above about the stability of atmospheric CO2 levels is wrong. Actual measurements undertaken in the mid to late 1800’s shows a CO2 level at 490ppmv. somewhat higher than today whilst temperatures then were colder than today.

    Yes it is the Sun.

  10. Doug Cotton

    See my first site http://earth-climate.com re cycles, and also note the plot at the foot of the Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com

  11. Solar dissonance « The Daily Bayonet

    […] Escaping Carbonite » Solar dissonance It’s the Sun, stupid: Once again yet another study that emphatically shows that climate changed in the recent past […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy