From the HockeyShctick, via GWPF:
A paper published by the Danish Meteorological Institute finds a remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice observations over the past 500 years to “the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.”
The paper adds to several others demonstrating that Arctic sea ice extent and climate is controlled by natural variations in solar activity, ocean & atmospheric oscillations, winds & storm activity, not man-made CO2.
 |
| Solar Cycle Length [SCL] shown by dotted line, Koch sea ice extent index from observations in the Greenland Sea shown by solid line. |
Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000
Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll
Abstract: The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Like Rog I spotted this one yesterday but felt I couldn’t add anything at the time.
To me the most interesting feature is extending a possible ice record.
On solar we are getting a demonstration, polar region is continuing with unusual conditions, with the sun also odd.
A snippet I spotted a few days ago mentioned polar ice melt 1817, at least as seen from a sea captain’s point of view. That would contradict this paper.
Perhaps simply ice varies and in many ways.
tim;
Yes, R .67 p .05 is pretty weak proof, notwithstanding CS practices. Green jelly beans cause acne!
“suggests” is permissible, but then the real work on mechanisms begins.
This is a report dated 2005.
Nick, useful since the 2007 sea ice export can’t have influenced the authors.
Brian H (July 18, 2013 at 10:48 pm) suggested:
“R .67 p .05 is pretty weak proof”
0.5% = .005 (not .05)
That’s 1/200 — i.e. very significant.
The p-value (not correlation) determines significance.
But:
p-values are conditional probabilities …conditional on assumptions …and climate stat inference is almost never based on sound assumptions.
Until we have a firm handle on spatiotemporal climate aggregation fundamentals, meaningful stat inference isn’t feasible, so for now the only sensible option is to stick to exploration.
A glance at the graph suggests this is a powerful exploratory insight. I’ll take a look a the paper…
TB.
If a long solar cycle results in greater ice melt than a short solar cycle, don’t we need to focus on the insolation ‘Planck weighting’ and CME event differences between a short and long solar cycle?
Surely, it can’t just be the temporal property itself.
Best regards, Ray.
I’ve been posting more on polar ice on my own blog, just put up another casual
Follow-up:
I sacrificed a day to refine earlier work.
I can now confidently assert the following about global SST evolution:
a) 78 to 97% is determined by solar activity.
b) 19% is at the timescale of ENSO.
c) 3% is a monotonic increase (an undetermined proportion of which is natural).
Illustration in the weeks/months ahead.
(That’s all for now…)
I have read the paper and looked at the graphs, and I think what they found is that the Arctic Sea Ice extent increases with increased solar activity. Can someone please help me read the passage in the paper that says otherwise? Or explain to me how a “longer solar cycle” is much different than increased sunspots?
Put that another way, more active sun = more ice. Have I got something turned around?
Zeke, solar activity & solar cycle length may be related, but it isn’t a simple linear relationship. For whatever reason, a lot of solar & climate discussion participants can’t seem to wrap their heads around cycle length …but all everyone has to do is think of the tachometer in a car. The tach tells something quite valuable about the rate of a whole bunch of coupled mechanical processes. One need not be able explain the “physical mechanisms” happening in the car to get a feel for what it’s like when the car revs. That has long been one of the things I’ve found very comical about all the “show me the mechanism” dark agents that make a total nuisance of themselves day in & day out in the climate discussion. When we were kids we used to race ATVs and launch them through the air. We didn’t need a degree in physics to develop a good feel for how the machine works. I guarantee you we’d all be dead if we lacked instinct. When you rev an engine at the right time, lots of neat things are possible – especially on gravel, snow, & ice…
Ah yes, torque reactions and gyroscopic effects, whole raft of fun.
Might be posting an article which mentions flywheels turning at 225rpm, not fast except
they weigh 775 tonnes.
Throttling jets into an arctic near you:
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif (new 2-slide animation)
80% of SST is that simple. (Remember RJ Salvador?)
NH = responsive
SH: not so much
It’s all about heat capacity & gradients.
no 50 page publication necessary — 2 images say it all (less is more — skip the pageantry and have time to do other things…)
Thank you Tim and Paul.
Sounds good Paul, though Ian argues for lunar effects at the regional level too. That may or may not affect global sst evolution. Would be cyclical on shorter timescale than some solar effects anyway.
Thanks TB.
Ian acknowledges that the lunisolar role is modulation. That interpretation is consistent with earth orientation data, so there’s no conflict.
I aim to share minor refinements sometime during the next 2 months. It was effortless to determine empirically that the thermal equator is the balance point.
The main thing that happens due to sunspots is a modulation of the cosmic ray flux. I don’t know why it’s not obvious that cosmic rays have a unique capability of creating clouds and affecting weather. Correlations between cloud cover and cosmic ray flux are clear. CERN experiments lean towards confirmation of the mechanism. How clouds couple with the arctic vortex isn’t so clear to me, but my intuition says that they probably do. It’s not the amount of visible that’s involved, it’s the charged particles.