Palaeoenvironmental evidence for climate response to solar variability: a critical review

Heat and light from the sun drives Earth’s climate. The sun’s output varies with time, and this will obviously affect Earth’s climate, but by how much? Over the eleven year sunspot cycle, total solar irradiation varies by about 0.1%, a small forcing compared to the effect of greenhouse gasses. The sun’s output also varies on longer time-scales, but the amplitude of these fluctuations is less well constrained. It is also possible that small changes in total solar irradiation are amplified through the impact of uv radiation on stratospheric ozone or cosmic radiation on cloud formation. These affects are discussed in more detail by Engels and van Geel (2012).

Past solar activity can be reconstructed from cosmogenic isotopes records; radiocarbon (14C) in tree-rings and Beryllium-10 (10Be) in ice cores. These isotopes are formed by interactions between cosmic radiation and gas in the atmosphere. When the sun is active, more incoming cosmic radiation is deflected by the solar wind, and less cosmic radiation reaches the atmosphere, so less 14C and 10Be are created.

The availability of long records of solar activity, showing more variability than found in the instrumental record, and uncertainty about the effect of solar variability on climate presents an opportunity for palaeo-sciences. Many palaeoclimatologists have taken advantage of this opportunity, and there are many papers purporting to find a relationship between solar activity and climate proxies. These papers are loved by fake climate sceptics, giving them the opportunity to say that it’s the Sun wot done it. I have always been sceptical of these solar forcing-palaeoclimate papers: palaeoclimate data are noisy, autocorrelated and the chronology is always uncertain, and these problems are often underplayed. At least some papers find links on the basis of poor application of statistics.

Engels and van Geel (2012) present a useful review of the palaeoclimatological evidence for the impact of solar variability on climate. However, the evidence is presented rather than critically assessed: it shows that there are many palaeoclimate papers reporting a solar-climate link, but does not determine if this evidence is robust. I want to address this deficit and subject the papers cited in Engels and van Geel (2012), and perhaps others I find that interest me, to critical review. The results will be posted on this blog.

About richard telford

Ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments
This entry was posted in climate, Peer reviewed literature, solar variability and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Palaeoenvironmental evidence for climate response to solar variability: a critical review

  1. Pingback: Solar-dinocyst correlations in the Eastern Mediterranean: Review of Chen et al. 2011. | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  2. Pingback: Solar-Rhine ice link melts under scrutiny | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  3. Pingback: Solar-salt marsh signal: Review of Di Rita 2013 | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  4. Bas van Geel says:

    For those who are interested:
    Recently I published – together with Peter A. Ziegler –
    van Geel, B. and Ziegler, P.A., 2013. IPCC underestimates the Sun’s role in climate change. Energy & Environment 24 (3/4): 431-453.
    Pdf available on request.
    best wishes,
    Bas van Geel

  5. Pingback: The Water Lilies – Setting Sun: Review of Stolze et al (2013) | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  6. Pingback: Cyclotella choctawhatcheeana and the sun: Review of Galloway et al 2013 | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  7. Pingback: Sun-kissed Skeletonema costatum? Patterson et al (2013) | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  8. Pingback: On the NIPCC, the sun, moths and flames | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  9. Pingback: Solar variability detected by trees in the Maunder Minimum? Rigozo et al (2007) | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  10. Pingback: Tibetan Hockey-sticks (with solar vibrations?) | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  11. Pingback: Numerical methods are methods | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  12. Pingback: The Sun on the Nile: how many degrees of freedom? | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  13. Pingback: Lasers, biomarkers and the Sun | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  14. Pingback: Tibetan tree-rings and the sun | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  15. Pingback: Apollo’s UV arrows | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  16. Pingback: A “Robust Response of the East Asian Monsoon Rainband to Solar Variability”? | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  17. Pingback: Diatoms, running correlations and solar variability | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  18. Pingback: Questions for Yan et al (2015), Willie Soon’s new paper | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  19. Pingback: Is there robust evidence of solar variability in palaeoclimate proxy data? | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  20. Pingback: You cannot smooth your way to significance | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

  21. Pingback: Are Tibetan chironomids mesmerised by solar variability? | Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s