Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s Die kalte Sonne website brings up another study that shows the sun plays a significant role in climate development.
How many more of these are we going to need? I don’t know why there are still people out there who deny what ought to be obvious.
New Norwegian studies: A significant part of climate warming of the last 150 years is caused by the sun
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt (translated by P Gosselin with permission)
Three Norwegian scientists, led by astrophysicist Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo, have taken a close look at the interaction between the temperature development on Earth and solar activity in the past. The scientists investigated the length of individual Schwabe solar sunspot cycles since 1850 until today and found a systematic correlation with the annual mean temperature of the subsequent cycle.
Here the scientists analyzed temperature data from Norway, Spitzbergen and other North European weather stations. Normally a sunspot cycle is about 11 years on average. If the cycle is longer, then it is a sign for a solar activity slumber. Solheim and his colleagues Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum have now been able to determine that the temperature lowered after a long and weak solar cycle. The temperature rose accordingly after a short and intense cycle. This points to a time delay of about 1 decade between the heat impact of the sun and the climatic reaction on Earth.
The length of individual Schwabe sunspot cycles correlates well with the annual mean temperature of the subsequent cycle (see diagram middle right). Example Tromsoe, from Solheim et al. (2011a).
Because the last Solar Cycle No. 23 was significantly longer (see p. 299-302, “Die kalte Sonne”) and by looking at the empirically obtained interrelation, the scientists expect an imminent cooling at Spitzbergen of several degrees Celsius (Solheim et al. 2011b). On a Norwegian and global scale, that could translate to up to 1°C (Solheim et al. 2011a, 2012). Moreover, using their correlation data, the Norwegian scientists estimate that about half of the warming since 1850 was caused by the sun.
In a parallel study, the Norwegian trio investigated the temperature history of the last 4000 years using the Greenland GISP ice core. Here the scientists found a characteristic temperature cycle with a period of about 1000 years. In the Greenland temperature curve it is plain to see the Minoic Warm Phase (3000 years ago), the Roman Warm Phase (2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Phase (1000 years ago) and today’s Modern Warm Phase. Cold periods occurred between these warm phases, with temperatures dropping more than 1°C. According to Humlum et al. (2011) the logical continuation of this natural cycle indicates that a large part of the 20th century warming is due to natural climate mechanisms (assumed to be foremost the sun).
- Solheim et al. (eingereicht 2011a): Temperature prognosis based on long sunspot cycle 23.
- Solheim et al. (2011b): Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures. Advances in Meteorology, Band 2011, Artikel ID: 543146.
- Solheim et al. (eingereicht 2012): The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
- Humlum et al. (2011): Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change. Global and Planetary Change, Band 79, S. 145-156.
5 responses to “Sorry – Yet 2 More Studies Show Significant Part Of Warming Since 1850 Is Caused By The Sun”
So who are the deniers now? The sun has been found guilty of being the most guilty among all climate-forcings in the climate-change story. (Who’d have thunk it?).
The old warmists ( they’re becoming old now, after 30 years telling us that we are all gonna die of the heat or something) have become the new deniers, denying the truth that has become so obvious and proven by so many scientists that it is, as they say, “it’s the sun, stupid”.
I did a similar analysis in February of this year and reached a similar conclusion about a lag factor of about 9 years between the solar event and global temperature change . What does this mean ? It means that if the analysis above is correct we are currently experiencing the temperatures that were set in motion by the sun ‘s energy input to the oceans back about 2003. For the next 5 years at least we may be receiving from the oceans less and less heat since the solar cycle 23 wound down by 2008 . So I am sceptical about any predictions that call for yet more warming of global climate for the next 5 years at least [ like the Met Office , IPCC , etc.] Of courese this cooling could be longer by a decade or two if solar cycles #24 and #25 end up being very minor cycles as some are suggesting and no major solar energy like injected during the past century is injected again this time
For those in the church of climastrology saying that climate change is caused by anything other than human emitted CO2 is pure blaspheme. Climate alarmism is a new faith and you are all heathens.
More and more puzzle pieces paint the same clear picture. Very good.
-German energy usage lowest in 40 years (notice, energy usage, not only electricity – total energy usage should IMHO be about seven times the electricity usage)
The article doesn’t mention it, but supply & demand, leading to rising prices, should be responsible for it, a la Obama and “skyrocketing energy prices”; he prays it, we do it – and a lot of energy intensive operations have simply been dismantled over the last 40 years… (Latest is Thyssenkrupp steel operations – yes, Thyssenkrupp stops doing steel! No more Kruppstahl.)
-Constitutional lawyer says German renewable energy cross-subsidy law (EEG) violates German constitution. Reasoning is: It is not the task of the electricity user to support the “Energiewende” (the change to renewables) but it is a task of the entire society. There is precedence for it, a 1994 decision of the supreme constitutional court of Germany that abolished the “Kohlepfennig”, a similar levy to support German coal mining.
Now, several textile industry companies plan to stop paying the renewables levy in order to get sued to enforce a supreme court decision. (28% percent of current industrial rates are going to the renewables. For private households, who pay twice the rate, it is about 14%. So for the industrial users, it’s a, ahem, skyrocketing cost.)
Thanks Pierre, I used this paper in my recent article on climate tricks, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/03/climate-tricks-4-dont-use-air-temp-data.html.