The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Cause

Kasmir 18:26:32
Mistaking the 1970-1998 warm-up as being caused by CO2 is the grandest example ever of the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy. And really, that’s all it was. It’s just stunning that so many fell for it.
==========================

“the temperature response of the ocean lags the forcing. This is in contrast to feedback, a process for which there is no time lag.”
I am not a climate scientist, I do electronics and the systems I deal with are simple compared with the climate, however …
It would take some strong arguments to convince me that the overall system response has significant delay but the feedback doesn’t. It may be possible that part of the system has rapid feedback but it is likely that the system as a whole has significantly delayed feedback. It also seems to me that, if you ignore the whole system feedback term, you will never be able to model the system accurately.
My candidate for overall system feedback is something like this: There are decadal oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. That means that the system’s response to a forcing is delayed by years. The ocean influences the atmosphere and thereby influences cloud formation. The clouds influence inputs to and outputs from the system. There’s your feedback, years after the original forcing.

Your are both wrong gentlemen over dark enthalpy and candle wicks.
T’was the electric light that slew the ghost.
Now all we need is a big enough lantern to get rid of all that dark matter that seems to be clogging up the universe.
Kindest Regards

Beneath Dr. Roy’s first chart is a link via the word “candidate” to one of his earlier reports. Include this in your reading.
His work, and studies and reports by others, marginalize the role of CO2 in climate change. The problem now is that a multitude of things, or pieces, have been put forward to account for the changes seen at different time scales. These pieces have not been put into a coherent whole that is sufficiently simple that I can present it to anyone. A comparison may be made to the notion of continental drift (matching coasts but no mechanism) and plate tectonics (messy details still being investigated) but considered sound science nevertheless.
So, say I buy that the cold phase of the PDO causes more clouds that block solar energy and the atmosphere cools. However, the PDO index is not easily explained to just about anyone, and we are still left with what causes the shift in the PDO index (or any of the other ocean descriptors.)
When a coherent story can be cobbled together from all the pieces such that a non-scientist can grasp its reasonableness in an under 10 minute explanation, then I think the CAGW train can be derailed. Until then it is only being slowed. Thus the big push to enact laws and treaties before someone makes a new story believable.

[snip – your email address of “nospam@hotmail.com” is invalid, in that it does not reach you directly. Per our posted policy on the policy page, your participation is denied, sorry. If you wish to use a valid email address, you can post a comment.]

Jerky (22:19:02) :
The link you provide leads to an analysis that relies on bogus temperatures about which readers of this site are well aware.
Perhaps instead of your misdirected remark you could read what is presented in this current post and comment on it, either pro or con, based on your analysis of it. I’d be happy to read your respectable comments rather than having wasted time reading the snide renderings of someone else. Thanks for wasting my time. Translation: I’ll not read anything by Jerky again.

jeez (18:44:42) :
Dr. Spencer,
Your recent findings could easily be explained by Dark Enthalpy
Enthalpy is the amount of internal energy of a thermodynamic system plus the product of its volume by the pressure exerted on that thermodynamic system by an external operator. U = E + VP
Well intentioned questions:
What’s “dark” enthalpy? Enthalpy cannot be known directly, so it would have been ignored absolutely if not were by the changes (ΔU) in the internal energy of the thermodynamic systems. Then, is enthalpy always “dark” because we cannot measure it directly or what are you talking about?
Another definition for enthalpy is ΔU = Cp (T2 – T1). It is the change of internal energy what we know as “enthalpy”; how could a variation be “dark”?

Further to Richard Mackey’s posting on the Saros Cycle, our local newspaper, the Telegraph-Journal, carried a long article on that very topic on Sept 26. I just went to the website of the paper for the article [http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/804396} and was surprised to find an entirely different article! (It is worth a read, but the “missing” one has more information.) I believe that they transposed the article on the topic that was supposed to appear on Monday (28th). Anyone interested in the subject of the Saros Cycle, Saxby Gale, etc., should have a look at the “generic” website [http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/] on Monday and see if the article that appeared in print on Saturday is posted on Monday.
IanM

Mr. Spencer,
I always look forward to posts from you. Thank you for this one.
Also, I remember your prediction of when public opinion of global warming could change : you said it might take cooler weather to change it since the science wasn’t. And you were right. The harsher winters in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres of the last 2 to 3 years are making people have doubts about Al Gore’s global warming.
The Farmers Almanac (if it’s ok to refer to that) says this winter will be a harsh one too. So public opinion should continue in the same trend.
The science (the data) was what formed my viewpoint of global warming/climate change. You had an important part in that. That was because I did a search on my own ; “Seek and you will find.” I can only wish the general public would have done the same. AGW would be long gone if it had.
Thank you again Mr. Spencer. I will be looking forward to your next post here,
Gene Nemetz, a fellow Yooper.

Hey moderator, how did I know about Scott’s comment. Heh.
=====================================

tallbloke (03:30:26) : “It’s doubly perplexing because according to ARGO data the oceans have been ’slightly cooling’ since 2003. If the energy from the oceans has been lost to the air, and the air hasn’t warmed up, it must be escaping to space. Yet the anomalies indicate no big increase in outgoing radiation.”
Look at the second to last figure.
tallbloke (03:49:08) : You know, I’ve been wondering about this myself, since it would be nice to see an apples to apples comparison with Lindzen’s ERBE analysis.
Roy, when might we expect your results to get published? It would be nice if you had some kind of bar on the webpage which tells us what stage you are at so we don’t need to keep asking. I get this idea because-big dork that I am-I read a lot of web comics, and many of them actually release print volumes etc. and anyway, the point is that they tell you when the scripts are written, when the line art is done, when the coloring is done, when the volumes are in print, shipping, etc.
You could have something that says what stage of publication your latest work is. In preparation, submitted, in review, undergoing revision (let’s hope that this isn’t continually necessary), Accepted for publication, and In Press.

michel (23:47:49) :
When the history of this lamentable episode is written, Dr Spencer will have an honorable and prominent place in it.
For most of us, Dr Spencer has an honorable and prominent place in the present.
His work is where the Rubber meets the road in the climate change debate, if the GCMs reflected the reality that he is measuring the debate would be over and the socialists would have to find a different excuse to run the world.

Scratching my head over the 0.4 W/m^2 for increase in GHG forcing since 2000. For CO2 only, using 368 ppm in 2000 and 385 ppm in 2008, get
ln (385/368) x 3.7 w/m^2 for doubling/ ln 2 = 0.24 w/m^2, or about 1/4 of the total change in forcing.
Thanks for the comment. Things get curiouser and curiouser.

Scott A. Mandia (07:22:22) :
I was interested in the following two comments (my emphasis added):
…probably due to natural increases in cloud cover, mostly low clouds, causing internal radiative forcing of the system
I think this is quite an assumption.
I think that you will find that Dr. Spencer is fairly “up to speed” on the issues involved in the Earth’s radiation budget. When you become familiar with his work you will find that he is refreshing forthcoming about what is known and unknown.
and
what if these occur on the time scales associated with global warming (decades to centuries)?
Yes, what if? That is a good question that cannot be answered now nor can we wait a few centuries using our satellites to find out
Perhaps a visit to his web page, http://www.drroyspencer.com, would be educational. Dr. Spencer is the Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. The methodologies developed by Dr. Spencer and Dr. John Christy are the reason that we can measure global temperatures from space.
You are preaching to the Pope.

Noblesse Oblige (10:33:49) :
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
forcing from all GHG’s change from 2000 to 2008 is 2.74-2.477=.263
Well, that doesn’t explain it. Golly, maybe something else? Global Brightening?

timetochooseagain (11:25:13) :
“Golly, maybe something else? Global Brightening?”
Not likely. Aerosols emissions should have increased over this period, presumably reducing overall forcing.

“beng:
Colder surface ocean water acts as a heat-sink, its effect depending on the amount & depth of mixing.”
Reply:
Actually I’m doubtful about that. Colder water cools the air but the amount of energy taken from the air is far too small to have a significant effect on the much denser water and that extra energy just goes to more evaporation anyway.
If there is rougher water one doesn’t get more downward mixing because rough water has a larger surface area and, again, that increases evaporation. It’s usually windier as well – more evaporation.
I’ve yet to find a plausible means of getting significant energy from warm air into cooler water and the ‘ocean skin’ theory of the AGW proponents doesn’t cut it either because of the evaporative response.
Furthermore if the ocean energy content could increase from energy transfer from air to water the oceans would have boiled away long ago rather than surviving huge volcanic disruptions and meteorite strikes over the billions of years since liquid oceans formed.
Instead of oceans keeping coastal regions cool the coastal regions would heat up the nearby oceans. That doesn’t happen though the shallower water around coasts is a little warmer than the ocean bulk because of solar penetration.

Mr Spencer
In brief
As I understand it, there is a lag of 6 years between oceanic warming from the sun, and “global cooling” from cloud cover and precipitation,as lower lying clouds give a cooling effect. This was predicted by some oceanographers (I forget which off hand) in 2001-2002, that around 2007, cooling would occur. Climatologists of course said at the time that we’d be on a path of yearly warmer global temperatures.

The 2007-2008 “global cooling” event? Don’t these years still belong to the warmest 10 since records began? (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)
Regardless, when discussing climate, how can one refer to 2 years as a “global cooling event”?

John F. Hultquist (21:54:38) :
Beneath Dr. Roy’s first chart is a link via the word “candidate” to one of his earlier reports. Include this in your reading.
His work, and studies and reports by others, marginalize the role of CO2 in climate change. The problem now is that a multitude of things, or pieces, have been put forward to account for the changes seen at different time scales. These pieces have not been put into a coherent whole that is sufficiently simple that I can present it to anyone. . .
So, say I buy that the cold phase of the PDO causes more clouds that block solar energy and the atmosphere cools. However, the PDO index is not easily explained to just about anyone, and we are still left with what causes the shift in the PDO index (or any of the other ocean descriptors.)
When a coherent story can be cobbled together from all the pieces such that a non-scientist can grasp its reasonableness in an under 10 minute explanation, then I think the CAGW train can be derailed. Until then it is only being slowed. Thus the big push to enact laws and treaties before someone makes a new story believable.

The difference between (1) the work of Dr Spencer and others posted here and (2) the Alarmists is that the first is science as it is supposed to function, in all its fragmentary and messy reality, and the second is a foregone conclusion trumpeted as ‘science’ for political ends. That makes the public debate one-sided, because we cannot tie up the Realist view into one neat package.
To the question, “If not CO2, how do you explain the warming?” we may answer: (A) looks like there was very little if any warming at all, because the data stinks; and (B) it was probably caused by natural cycles, which are enormously complex and poorly-understood. That is markedly unsatisfying to the average TV watcher.
John F. Hultquist is right: we need “a coherent story,” a Unified Theory, that the average science reporter can understand and present in 300 words, one that directly contravenes (‘disproves’) the AGW litany. Maybe with these current observations about the sun’s gravitation driving lunar-tidal cycles driving ocean cycles driving climate cycles (with some cosmic rays thrown in) we are getting close. Can we have something ready for Copenhagen, please?
/Mr Lynn

Also, when evaporation from oceans takes place from solar from heating, huge amounts of water vapour and heat are released into the air and into space

Bart Verheggen (13:06:02): My my, that’s a rather silly, and hysterical reaction. I never imagined that anyone was still denying that the temperature of the Earth decreased during that time. That was a major “event” and your criticism that it isn’t climate is irrelevant, since we are in fact 1. discussing it in a context which makes it relevant to other discussions about climate (that is, how clouds and water vapor respond to warming and cooling).

P Wilson (13:31:43) :
tallbloke (03:30:26)
Heat isn’t an easy thing to understand. In a liquid, it will asymptotically approach a state where all energy is evenly distributed. In other words, in nature there is a tendency to the dissipation (energy loss). If you heat to 70C a pan of water in a totally isolated environmment, considerably larger than the pan and stove ( a totally sealed kitchen) the heat, after the heat source has been switcced off, will disippate, as energy can change form one form to another. Even in a vacuum flask where convection and conduction is prevented its energy will degrade. Three days later, why isn’t it still at 70C? Degradation of energy is the essence of entropy
The only way to interpret entropy is as the means by which we measure the amount of energy dispersed or diffused out to more available microstates in a process.
The degradation of the energy consists on the transformation from one form of energy into another form that would not be available for doing work in our limited cosmos.

commieBob (19:56:03) :
I work with servo systems too.
I see a servo with ringing on several time scales, (~1000 & ~70Yrs being just two).
DaveE.

Nasif Nahle (17:00:40) :
In physics, very little is understood of heat and energy transformations. In the case of black body radiation at normal temperatures, if it is giving off radiation, then it is losing heat, and when it loses enough it receives heat from the ambient temerature. (so much for the Stefan Boltzman constant). This principle operates with the climate. so called Re-radiation from earth stabilises at the ambient temperature, and since heat is a poor conductor, even the effect of ambient air is greater than that of re-radiation: In other words – re-radiation is virtually non-existent.
This is the problem with much climatology. It thinks there is a huge equation of mechanical energy budgets, that somehow, incoming radiation is a constant that has to leave in the same magnitude.
I think the flask experiment – even one in a 100% heat sealed chamber is quite a good demonstration of how heat efectively disappears according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and that cooling is autonomous than dependent.

Thanks for the reply Dave E, but after studying the thermodynamics of William Thomson, (1st Baron Kelvin) – some time ago, and modern variations thereof and no doubt to my discredit, I see heat in a different way to modern physics, which – I hope I am wrong – contains errors of principle due to the determination of engineering and technology as the driving force of physics.

I’m sorry, but is there not one scientist who can answer these questions for me?
How many PPM of H2O are there in the atmosphere at any given time? What is the history?
I would also like to know; At what levels of the atmosphere does CO2 and H2O occupy according to their position in the atmosphere?

P Wilson (18:02:29) :
Nasif Nahle (17:00:40) :
In physics, very little is understood of heat and energy transformations. In the case of black body radiation at normal temperatures, if it is giving off radiation, then it is losing heat, and when it loses enough it receives heat from the ambient temerature. (so much for the Stefan Boltzman constant). This principle operates with the climate. so called Re-radiation from earth stabilises at the ambient temperature, and since heat is a poor conductor, even the effect of ambient air is greater than that of re-radiation: In other words – re-radiation is virtually non-existent.
Perhaps you meant “air is a poor conductor of heat”? I agree on your last assertion, especially when considering induced negative emission, which cancels absolutely the idea of re-radiation.
This is the problem with much climatology. It thinks there is a huge equation of mechanical energy budgets, that somehow, incoming radiation is a constant that has to leave in the same magnitude.
A big problem because all the systems tend to thermalization. Fortunately for us, living beings, thermal equilibrium does not happen by the thermal contact Sun-Earth, neither through the thermal contact Earth-Space. If we reached the equilibrium at any of those systems, we would be toasted in the first case and congealed in the second case.
I think the flask experiment – even one in a 100% heat sealed chamber is quite a good demonstration of how heat efectively disappears according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and that cooling is autonomous than dependent.
The energy dissipated from the hypothetical 100% thermally isolated flask could be used for doing work in some other fields. I have speculated a bit about the thermal energy absorbed by the gravity field, for example; however, we don’t know a bit about it because we have not gone yet beyond our near surrounding cosmos. 🙂

Michael (18:58:20) :
“How many PPM of H2O are there in the atmosphere at any given time? What is the history?”
Since the CAGW’ers will never mention it, even googling for the information proved difficult. About a year ago I did some searching and the generally accepted one seems to be about
14,400 PPM for water vapor.
I don’t even know if there IS a history, if anyone has tried to determine it, or if it’s even possible to know.

Speaking of CO2 from an atricle;
“It obviously hasn’t even crossed the mind of Ms Jackson’s prejudiced script-writer that the moral current is in fact running in Australia’s favor – for, by supplying third-world countries with the means to generate cheap electricity, Australia is in fact providing them with the only support there is that will allow them to lift themselves out of poverty. As other writers have commented, to intentionally obstruct development in third-world countries by depriving them of the right to use cheap, coal-fired power generation is a type of genocide; in essence, in order to expiate the consciences of comfortably-off middle class moralists in western nations, millions of underprivileged people are going to die.”
Media Ecoevangelists
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/09/media-ecoevangelists

When the clouds in the atmosphere disperse without producing a major rain event; Is that the reason why we experience a rise in the level of humidity on the surface?

I am sorry… I forgot to include a reference for my next assertion:
“I don’t think so. It is simply an attempt to explain the essence of the gravitational field on the flow of heat (energy in transit) and the burden of energy transferred from a system which absorbs heat from an external source effect. My explanation depends on both Newtonian and Relativistic Cosmology.”
Here is it:
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~dupre/einsteq8.pdf

if clean air acts led to global warming
Clean air acts may have had some warming effect, but primarily they led to to the appearance of global warming in the 1970s to the 1990s, because of their effect on minimum daily temperatures explained above.

tallbloke (00:45:42) : Conclusion: The oceans are the major player in the earth’s climate system, not the air and any trace gases it may contain.
Exactly! See my post Invariant (23:35:23).

tallbloke (00:56:02) :
Climate is more complicated than you’ve been led to believe.
I have no beliefs! I have a small UNDERSTANDING.
Specncer in the entry is making assumptions in my view that did not agree with the plots e.g. lower temps give less outgoing radiation (true of course). But surely so would more thermal resistance between the satellite and the planet surface?

bill (02:23:42) :
The problem with this theory is that oceans have a high heat capacity – meaning that it takes a lot of energy to heat the oceans by 1C than something with a lower heat capacity. Air doesn’t have much heat capacity, and doesn’t retain much heat. For this reason, warmer air does not pentrate cooler oceans. Only the sun can do that. Thats partly why even on a hot summer day, oceans at the beach are cooler than the air, the sand and the promenade.

P Wilson (05:56:38) :
Primarily, oceans heat the air during evaporation. During evaporation, large amounts of heat, c02, and water vapour are released.
Don’t think so
Cold sea will never heat warm air. Cold sea will control warm air temperature acting as a heat sink. measuring air temp from sea surface at 20C to a couple of meters above the sea will show a decreasing temp as the sea surface is approached reachin 20C at the surface.
if at say 2metres above the sea the temp is 25C and sea surface temp is 20C (ignoring air circulation then chnging sea temp by 1C will change air temp by 1C. But it is not heating the air. With air temp below se temp the sea will increase the air temp losing temp as it does so.
Air movements will rip molecules off the surface of the ocean (increase evaporation) and cool it through latent heat of evaporation. – Remember the science experiment blowing air through alcohol causes the alcohol to cool to freezing simply through latent heat of evaporation of alcohol. Question is does the blown air get hotter? Not sure but I do not think so. It will become more humid however.

bill. My argument is that oceans control the air temperature through water vapour which has some 100 times the atmospheric ghg capacity of c02. Effectively, this is water vapour from oceans which are 70% of the surface, and which store huge amounts of solar heat. On this basis, the oceans regulate the temperature, meaning that atmospheric temperatures cannot regulate the oceans

“most climate change – including “global warming” – in the last 100 years or more has been caused by natural changes in low cloud cover, which in turn have been caused by natural, chaotic fluctuations in global circulation patterns in the atmosphere-ocean system.”
Good opening sentence for any text on the subject of climate.

Killing the Anthropogenic CO2 link:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4059&linkbox=true
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-part-3/ (see also part 1 and part 2)

After three decades of continual increase, the mean Earth temperature has been decreasing steadily since 2002, as precise satellite measurements show. As a result, the steady rise in sea level has stopped since 2005.
World climate is a regular quasi-periodic phenomenon (see Fig. 2.1 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm ) that is driven by solar activity with a period of 70 – 80 years (Gleissberg cycle). Because of this regularity, it can be stated with absolute certainty that the mean Earth temperature will continue to decrease until 2040.
1. There exists an extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth – two physically unrelated geophysical quantities – (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, and leaves little room for a human influence on climate. Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years. This close correlation results from the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and on the Earth (see http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf ).
2. The orbital periods of all Solar System planets are very close to integer multiples and integer fractions of the periods of the well-known solar cycles. This provides further evidence for the existence of super-Einsteinian gravitational waves and of their action on all celestial bodies of the Solar System. In the post of September 26, 2009 in http://www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam it is shown that all orbital periods of the planets of the Solar System are very close to integer fractions and integer multiples of the periods of the Hale (22.14 years) and the Gleissberg (78 – 84 years) solar cycles.
The Close Correlation between Earth’s Surface Temperature and its Rotational Velocity as well as the Close Correlation between the Planetary Orbital Periods and the Periods of the Solar Cycles Prove that Climate Changes are Driven by Galactic Gravitational Waves
Progress in climatological science can only be achieved if the above physical facts are looked into in full depth.

Bill,
High cloud is generally accepted as warming
Low cloud reflects SW during dayligh. BUT low cloud also retains LW and this predominates at night (no SW to reflect) i.e. cloudy nights = warm nights
So what is the forcing of low clouds? Do low clouds disappear at night?
It’s always daylight where the sun is shining, which it always is. You are picturing what happens at the spot where you are standing, a better perspective is to look at the earth from space. From that perspective, it’s like the earth is cooking while rotating on a spit. SW radiation is far more energetic than the diffuse LW that the earth radiates. Low (water) clouds lead to cooling.
Don’t think so
Cold sea will never heat warm air.
Whatever water evapaorates will remove the heat vaporization from the body of water, and transfer it to the atmosphere during condensation. This process doesn’t depend on a temp. difference. Naturally the water vapor will not condense immediately above the water, but at some altitude, the vapor will condense and transfer the heat.

Gravity waves – are they looking for the wron colour of gravity wave – is this why they cannot find one?

Leif Svalgaard (10:34:53):
Nasif Nahle (07:35:50):
The references address the energy density of the gravity field on my second post.
Where do they say that “the thermal energy is absorbed by the gravity field”. Please, just copy paste the statement in the reference that mentions that.
“The references address the energy density of the gravity field on my second post.”
“About the basis of my hypothesis:
Guth, Alan H., Lightman, Alan P. The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Perseus Books Group, 1997, New York, New York. Pp. 335-339″
“…when an object is lifted the gravitational field stores the energy exerted by the lifter as potential energy.”
http://www.wlsyw.com/thesise/13.asp
I wrote in my message to P. Wilson [Nasif Nahle (19:46:45)]:
I have speculated a bit about the thermal energy absorbed by the gravity field, for example; however, we don’t know a bit about it because we have not gone yet beyond our near surrounding cosmos.”
So, as you say, they do not mention my speculation. It would be a fluctuation of the electrochemical field. Although, it could be that someone else has mentioned it somewhere. Nevertheless, my speculation finds its sources on those articles, from which we find that:
1. There is a measurable energy density in the gravity field.
2. Work is transferred to the gravity field.
3. For a gravity field is created, a release of energy from the new gravity field is needed.
4. The gravity field absorbs thermal energy every time an object acquires potential energy, i.e. every time an object converts its thermal energy into potential energy.
Thus, we are not expecting to find my hypothesis in any Cosmology treatise. Not yet.

Everyone is familiar with the argument that smoking causes lung cancer. A personal friend of mine, recently retired from U of Miami; as a Professor of Psychology (behavioral) and Pediatrics; but he was more of an epidemiologist attached to the med school. The way he put the smoking thing was; “There’s a body of evidence that smoking causes lung cancer; and there’s a body of evidence that sex causes children; it’s just that the lung cancer data is much more convincing.
So back to the global climate; and we see there’s a body of evidence that clouds cause cooling.
Now Doctor Roy cautiously puts the little word “low” in there as a cloud selector.
Well I’m not as cautious as the good Doctor is, so I can afford to be rash. I’ve never met a cloud, high or low, that warmed me up when it passed in front of the sun; they all block sunlight from reaching me, either by reflection or absorption or both; in any case the solar irradiance that strikes me, and the ajacent surface when a cloud passes in front of the sun; always goes down; it NEVER goes up. And I even have taken meter readings (crude to be sure) with my Gossen Lunasix light meter to prove that it always goes down.
And I don’t buy the notion that the higher the clouds form the more they warm the surface; because I simply don’t believe that it is the clouds that cause the surface conditions; I’m convinced that it is the other way around.
Those high clouds are the RESULT of the surface conditions, and the warmer the surface; the higher the moist air has to rise to reach the dew point and form clouds, and the lower the humidity (less moisture content) the higher yet those ethereal clouds will form.
So Doctor Spencer I am on your team; it’s the CLOUDS; all of the clouds.
George

Terry (13:05:38) “Re Dr Spencer
While I fully understand your phase-space diagrams, I wonder if they might not be more visually instructive if they were presented as 3D plots with lag time as the 3rd dimension, thus avoiding the need to follow the “strings”.”
I have used the approach suggested by Terry in the past. For the z-axis I used a spinner that allowed control of depth (so I was looking at a slice and spinning the height of the cross-section slicer).
One sees pattern-cycles as one rolls the lag through harmonics. For example, striations become right-slanted-ovals, which become straight-lines, which become left-slanted-ovals, which become striations, etc.
This relates to visualization methods that data analysts call “coplots” (short for “conditioning plot”), which can be used to overcome paradox in areas where intuition is unsuspecting. Parametric approaches are based on assumptions that blind to some varieties of patterns which show up in coplots. Of course, if/when a parametric practitioner becomes aware of such patterns, they can modify their assumptions to easily make parametric methods notice a paradox with crystal clarity …but the problem is that analysts (particularly ones following traditional convention) don’t always [or even generally] run non-parametric exploratory diagnostics.
I have some ideas about the 2000, 2004, & 2007 spikes in Dr. Spencer’s plots, but before commenting, I need to know why there is a gap in the record at 2005. Even a single missing datum in a time series takes out a wide swath in a moving-average — (to avoid this I usually insert an estimate for missing values). The ideas I have might make sense if there is also a spike at 2005 …but if there is no spike there, I have more work to do on the conditioning…
A final note: These striations, ovals, circles, loops, etc. can arise due to relative variations in cyclical amplitude. This becomes evident when running detailed diagnostics on wavelets [which I’ve done to develop awareness of statistical coincidences that drive spurious power cycles in wavelet spectra – a problem that can, fortunately, be largely overcome with filters].

“”” bill (02:00:51) :
High cloud is generally accepted as warming
Low cloud reflects SW during dayligh. BUT low cloud also retains LW and this predominates at night (no SW to reflect) i.e. cloudy nights = warm nights “””
First of all, clouds don’t change their optical behavior based on any clock. Day or night, clouds keep on doing the same things. Of course what the clouds are doing, may result in those clouds changing; and that in turn will have their behavior changing; but those changes are because of the cloud changes; not because a clock says it is night time.
We are taught that during the day, the earth absorbs solar energy and warms up, and during the night the earth radiates long wave IR radiation and cools down.
Actually the earth is cooling (radiating LW) much more efficiently during the hottest hours of the day; not at night.
And where is the evidence that the earth warms up at night because of the presence of high clouds. And the graphs say the warming is greater when the clouds are higher and wispier.
Is that even sensible ? The higher you go in the atmosphere, the lower the atmospheric density becomes, the CO2 and water vapor densities also go down at the same time, so their absorption of LW infrared Radiation also goes down with increased altitude. For most of the important part of the atmosphere where clouds reside, the temperature also goes down with increasing altitude, and since thermal radiation goes as the 4th power of the Temperature (Kelvins), the long wave emission from the atmosphere and or clouds, goes down big time, as the altitude increases.
Also the higher and less dense, and lower temperature the atmosphere is, the narrower is the spectral widths of the major absorption lines of the GHGs water vapor, and or CO2/ozone etc, so the fraction of the surface emitted LW that gets absorbed, will diminish as the altitude increases.
So you have a forever diminishing thermal radiation source that is blocking less and less of the outgoing IR, and returning some to earth through an increasingly hostile denser warmer atmospheric layer, at lower altitudes.
Does this sound like a mechanism for increasing the efficiency of surface warming from cloud emissions ?
Yes warm surfaces, and high clouds tend to occur together. The silly part is trying to present the clouds as the cause, and the surface warming as the result; particularly since it actually cools down after sundown; it does not warm up, clouds or no clouds; UNLESS A BODY OF WARMER AIR MOVES IN FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. All bets are off in that case; which is differerent from the cloud/surface interraction.

not sure if you have read http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/ which looks at cloud cover and its effect that it has on Australian temperature?

George E. Smith (14:18:47) :
Oh dear! this is ridiculous!
Obviously clouds actions do not change night and day. In sunlight they affect albedo and also act as a GHG. In the dark There is nothing to albedo so they act as a GHG.
Take away the cloud moisture and the heat stored in the ground radiates away more quickly. No where has it been said that clouds will warm the night. They retain heat!
In UK a cloudy night can make a large difference to the night temperature (5 to 10C)
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/kidder/Oskar.pdf
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/5dac76137ab0d6f4b731a6ecab3a7398,0/3__Sun_and_clouds/-_Clouds_and_climate_25x.html
There are huge differences in day and night time temperatures in deserts. Very few clouds form over deserts because the air is so dry. This means the surface heats up during the day and escapes rapidly at night. Night-time temperatures can be 35oC lower than daytime ones.
Clouds can begin at 0 metres but more importantly at 300 to 600 metres. The air at these heights is not a lot different to sea level.
http://www.maltaweather.info/clouds3.html
Clouds aren’t really a ‘blanket’ on warm nights
You sometimes hear that “clouds act like a blanket” to keep temperatures from falling as low as they otherwise would if the sky were clear. It’s true that the effect of clouds can be like a blanket. But they work in a different way. …The tiny water droplets that make up clouds radiate even more heat than the gases in clear air. For one thing, the tiny droplets absorb some frequencies of infrared energy that the air’s gases don’t. As the energy is absorbed, it heats the droplets, which causes them to radiate energy. Then too, the cloud has more matter – the cloud droplets – to radiate heat in all directions, including back toward Earth, than clear air.

Michael (11:30:53) :
It doesn’t need a scientist to waste his time answering such a basic question. You can easily answer it for yourself.
Here’s a start.
Ws( 0°) = 3.84 g/kg Ws(20°) = 15.0 g/kg
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=water+vapour+atmosphere+mixing+ratio (227,000 results)
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit2_1110.pdf

Looking at AMSU data at 3300ft shows imminent global death!
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9631/globalfrying.jpg

Leif Svalgaard (14:25:16) :
Nasif Nahle (13:59:32) :
Oh, no! I think we’ll know more about it when the existence of gravitons and Higgs’ particles in our near neighborhood is revealed.
So the Higgs is important for our climate…
REPLY: Nasif this has to be one of the most ridiculous things ever said. The Higgs Boson has yet to be revealed. It is only theorized.
Again I grow weary of your constant silliness. Take a 24 hour time out. This continued back of and forth is pointless and a waste of my time and my moderators time. – Anthony
I didn’t say Higgs’ particles has been discovered.
Regarding thermal energy in the gravity field, I have a reference for it:
Guth, Alan H. The Inflationary Universe. Perseus Books Group, 1999, New York, New York. Pp. 29-31.
Please, be fair and publish this post and do not put words in my mouth that I have never said.

“””bill (13:16:23) :
George E. Smith (10:56:53) :
so we agree that low clouds act as GHGs “””
Well actually, I think we don’t. I don’t distinguish clouds by height; they all do pretty much the same; but with important differences.
H2O, is the ONLY GHG candidate which exists in the atmosphere in all three phases, all the time; Vapor, liquid, and solid. In the vapor phase, H2O absorbs long wave IR from either primary surface emissions, or secondary atmospheric emissions, and arguably, the downward radiated portion of the thermal radiation that arises from the vapor absorption of primary surface IR, is mostly absorbed in the top 10 microns of the earth’s oceans and other water bodies which comprise about 73% of the earth’s surface area, and a larger portion of its tropical surface area. That water surface absorption leads to prompt evaporation from the water surface, which transports vast quantities of thermal energy back into the atmosphere, and cools the ocean surface, and the increased atmospheric water vapor that results, leads to further LWIR capture, so it is a positive feedback warming effect. Moreover, this effect begins with the least amount of water vapor possible in the atmosphere, so no CO2 or other GHG “trigger” is required to create this positive feedbaclk effect; water is perfectly capable of doing the whole thing on its own.
BUT !! that very same water vapor, is also a very efficient absorber of incoming solar radiation, beginning at around 750 nm wavelength in the deep red, and continuing in around seven prominent bands out to about 7-8 microns, on the leading edge of the10 microns so-called atmopsheric window. About 45% of the total solar spectrum energy, is contained in that range, and water vapor is capable of addressing about half of that total spectral range, and with enough water vapor probably 20% or more of the total solar energy. That is the extra ground insolation that reaches the surface in the arid tropical deserts and leads to their high surface temperatures. But with the presence of the water vapor, the surface soolar irradiance is reduced, and the more water vapor, the more it is reduced; so in that case, Water vapor acts in a negative feedback cooling fashion. So it depends on conditions, whether the negative or positive feedback dominates. We do know that absent that water vapor, and the “equilibrium” earth temperature would be sub zero C. So at least at low concentrations the warming evidently wins.
But it is in the liquid and solid phases, as clouds, that H2O alone comes into its own, since the top surface of the clouds (all clouds) reflects incoming solar radiation back out into space, and then the liquid and solid water absorb further solar energy, and both effects result in a lowering of surface insolation and ALWAYS results in surface cooling. It NEVER results in a surface temperature rise, when a cloud (any cloud) moves in front of the sun; it always cools. That is so obvious, that I doubt that anybody ever considered writing a peer reviewed paper relating to that common observation; maybe for a sixth grade science essay.
And it is equally obvious, that the higher those cloud layers form, the colder, and less dense, and less water content the atmosphere is, so the total upward reflection diminishes with the molecular density of the water
and the bulk scattering and absorption also gets less, so more of the soalr spectrum energy reaches the ground; the higher the cloud layers form,so the surface temperatures get increasingly hot, because of the increased insolation; and not because of some increase in long wave IR trapping of surface emissions; in fact as I pointed out those absorptions and emissions decrease as the cloud altitude increases.
This isn’t rocket science. The long wave absorbing and re-emitting molecules (not necessarily the same) diminish in number with increasing altitude, and their temperature diminishes, so the Stefan-Boltzmann emission reduces steadily with altitude.
That is NOT a recipe for increased warming of the ground.
And the cloud in front of sun experiment proves that the cooling wins ALWAYS; it never gets warmer in the shadow zone of the cloud.
Now a polar scientist once told me that he had seen it warm up in the arctic under a cloud layer. Well the cloud layer was due to a body of warmer moist air that had moved into the region (overhead); but the sun was down low on the horizon, and the cloud wasn’t anywhere near in front of the sun, and if another distant cloud, had moved in front of the sun; even though miles from his position, the temperature would still drop during the occultation; regardless of whether some water laden moist air and cloud layer had move in from some other (warmer) place.
So I don’t care what the climatology text books say about high clouds warming the surface. The higher they are the less sunlight they block; and sunlight does not disappear on earth for climatically significant times; it always seems to reappear on about a 24 hour time schedule. So yes the sun will warm the earth more with wispier lower density colder higher clouds. And the existence of those clouds is a result of the previous surface temperature and moisture conditions.
Under a midwest thunderstorm in mid summer; even inside a house out of the air, it gets darn cold when the storm passes overhead, and blocks out the sun; often to night time levels.
As for the “other” GHGs “having their input”; the arid desert experiment proves they are totally ineffective; specially compared to the much greater influence of the predominent GHG which is H2O.

“”” commieBob (19:56:03) :
“the temperature response of the ocean lags the forcing. This is in contrast to feedback, a process for which there is no time lag.”
I am not a climate scientist, I do electronics and the systems I deal with are simple compared with the climate, however … “””
Well then commieBob, I presume that your electronics also has zero propagation delay, from input to output, since that would be a pre-requisite for have no delay in feedback from the output back to the input.
You mean all that SPICE analysis I did was just a waste of time?

Leif Svalgaard (09:02:35) :
Geoff Sharp (02:11:26) :
Loebert: “…Prove that Climate Changes are Driven by Galactic Gravitational Waves”
Your paper had no data on these “gravitational waves”.
Geoff, this is high carat pseudo-science. Entertaining for ‘open-minded’ people, but not science.
Yes, I was thinking the same and fishing for some sort of data to support the wild claims.

George E. Smith (19:00:11) : HERE! HERE!

******
Joel Shore (20:35:35) :
This is all very basic non-controversial science that can be found in an atmospheric science textbook. In fact, I just recently discovered this explanation myself in Richard Goody, “Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry” (1995), pp 146-147, which I was reading through in my attempt to bone up on some of the fundamentals of atmospheric science that I didn’t get in my physics education. I might suggest that you do the same!
*******
Joel, simple observations conflict w/your statements. High-level cirrus dimming the sun causes surface temps to drop from an otherwise clear, sunny sky — I’ve experienced and measured it many times. Tho I understand they absorb some energy, they also reflect some non-zero amount of solar energy back into space that would otherwise get further down. What would the net result of that be, compared to a clear-sky condition? Net warming? Maybe the end effect is that they cause some warming at higher tropospheric levels, but not at the surface — just the opposite.
Yes, the situation at night is reversed — high, thin clouds or better, low, thick clouds retard radiation to space & reduce nighttime cooling. But, at least for thunderstorm/convective clouds producing cirrus decks, there is typically a daytime bias (usually late afternoon) for this action, so in this case would clearly be a net cooling for the surface, which is what we’re concerned about. Even for jet-stream-produced cirrus, I doubt there’s any nighttime bias for this action, so the net effect at worst (from your AWG viewpoint) would prb’ly be very small.

Joel,
Let me try to give you some inkling of why I have so much “suspicion” for what we are all being told is gospel by the “climate science” community.
Take the issue of “Climate Snsitivity”, evidently a standard climatology technical term purportedly dreamed up by the (in)famous Arrhenius who evidently was one of the first to blame CO2 for “global warming”.
According to this notion, there is a universal constant; the amount of increase in the “mean global temperature” (whatever that is) that occurs for every doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; presumably by volume or molecular numbers.
That concept leads to a mathematical form:- y = a.ln(bx) (self explanatory); which in turn leads to the statement that the changes in mean global temperature (????) vary as the logarithm of the CO2 fractional abundance in the atmosphere.
When I challenged the validity of that statement; arguing there was no physical reason for such a relationship; Phil (whose opinion I value greatly), said ‘well yes there is’ or words to that effect, and he then went on to explain that the Temp/CO2 relationship was linear for low concentrations, and then logarithmic for intermediate concentrations, and then Square root (if my memory serves me) for higher concentrations.
Well clearly that is NOT the behavior of the function y = a.ln(bx) which really IS a logarithmic function. I take Phil’s comment to mean those linear/log/Sqrt functions can be fitted to the actual measured Temp/CO2 data by some choice of arbitrary scaling parameters.
Well hey; if it is an issue of curve fitting; I can fit any continuous single valued function to some set of Tchebychev Polynomials; or Bessel functions, or sin functions, or any other set of orthogonal functions, over some limited range of the data. And moreover I can make such a fit to a much greater accuracy than is represented by the actual measured, observed values and their uncertainty.
And to get back to my original objection; there is in fact no physical explanation for any such formulation of the curve fitting; based on fundamental physical processes.
So consider the local behavior of the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 molecules absorb long wave infrared radiation which excites some well understood molecular oscillation mode; well assuming the photon moves within the crossection for that particular capture mechanism, and that it has the required photon energy (wavelength). That energy is subsequently shared with ordinary atmosphere molecules (N2/O2) by collisions, based on local temperature and density, and that atmosphere; presumably warmed by the transferred energy, eventually radiates some form of thermal long wave radiation based on the air temperature. Some of that re-radiation which is inherently isotropic in emission, eventually reaches the ground where much of it is absorbed.
Now there is a problem with this picture.
The available primary surface emission of long wave IR is dpendent of the surface temperature and emissivity over the likely emission wavelength range.
For the extreme observed range of earth surface temperatures; all of which could be present somewhere on earth at the same time, the total radiant emittance from the surface can have a renge of more than an order of magnitude; about 11:1 before taking emissivity into account.
So the amount of primary surface LWIR available to the atmospheric CO2 for capture in the process described above, varies over the globe by more than an order of magnitude; and moreaover it is not adequately sampled globally to obtain a proper sampled map of the total earth surface emissions. So it is not even possible to rigorously compute any kind of global average “forcing” due to the CO2; or to the effect of the doubled CO2 from such a highly variable physical interraction.
So the whole notion that there is a believable measureable global value to explain even the radiation change due to a doubling of CO2; let alone the resulting temperature change (globally), in order to support Arrhenius’ idea of a “climate sensitivity”, just defies common sense.
Well that is borne out by the fact that nobody seems to know just what the value of this “climate sensitivity” universal constant is; and it seems to be inferred indirectly from statisticall manipulations of data from a system, that involves far more complex interractions than the mere absorption of a LWIR photon by a CO2 molecule.
But “climatologists” are heavily invested in the idea, and in the logarithmity of that clearly non logarithmic function; and they aren’t going to abide any sort of “explanation”, that seeks to describe aspects of climate, that does not adhere to what is a really silly idea.
If you are going to talk climate with peer reviewed “climate scientists” you have to first swear allegiance to Arrhenius, and climate sensitivity; otherwise you are simply incompetent to discuss the matter in polite society.
Well yes; the earth used to be the center of the universe; and no contrary view was permissible; and that blocked scientific progress for many years, until observations made that belief completely untenable.
Well that is just one of the many stones strewn on the ground Joel; that simply do not fit back into place, when trying to construct what that pile of rocks is supposed to be.
Far be it from me to dissuade those who are emotionally or financially invested in the gospel as it is still taught today. But I hate to see what generations of truly great people have constructed in the form of this modern technological world; be systmeatically destroyed by adherence to a belief that is fitting of ancient astrology
As for me; I have neither emotional nor financial investment in climate; I just hate to see my fellow Americans being screwed over, by what is demonstrably bad science; and being asked to lead like the pied piper; the rest of the developed world with them back into the dark ages.
Just get the science correct, and the future will take care of itself.

Robert Mackey,
What is the period of the interaction between this 18.6 year LNC and the 22 year solar magnetic cycle? Might we find another climactic cyle there? Perhaps also a minor one in the interaction of the 18.6 and the (roughly!) 11 year activity cycle? The variation in pitch between the Saros cycle and the LNC suggest the possibility of another long-scale cycle. I suspect that there are even more cycles invovled. If we overlay them and add and subtract the vectors correctly I wonder how good a fit we will find?
Now, due to lack of sufficient 1, 3,7 trimethylxanthine, my head is going to explode.

Re: Richard Mackey (01:08:47)
Hi Richard,
The LNC alone only ‘explains’ (in the statistical sense) a small fraction of the variance, but consider the following, which takes into consideration both high-frequency solar system dynamics and terrestrial polar motion (in addition to the LNC):
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAMO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/TPM_SSD_LNC_3_1850.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO_AltDataSource.png
Regards,
Paul.

Several correspondents have asked about relationships between the 18.6 yr Lunar Nodal Cycle (LNC) and the 18.03 yr Saros cycle. Others have asked about interaction effects between solar periodicities of whatever type and the LNC. This note is a response to these queries.
It is essential to understand that the LNC and Saros cycles are fundamentally different categories.
The LNC is the period of a full rotation of the Moon’s orbital plane around the geometric plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun (the ecliptic). The Sun’s gravitational field makes the Moon’s Earthly orbit swivel around in a clockwise manner, over a cycle of 18.6 years, with respect the ecliptic, which is the plane of the Earth’s orbit. The Moon moves with respect to the ecliptic up and down a northerly latitude throughout the LNC. This arises because the Earth is titled on it axis and inclined away from the Sun and because the Moon’s orbit is tilted a little relative to the ecliptic. It is as if the Sun strives to pull the plane of the Moon’s orbit into its own plane, the ecliptic. But there is an alternate motion at right angles to the applied force, resulting in a revolution of the pole of the Moon’s orbit around the pole of the ecliptic.
The LNC defines how the angle of the Moon’s orbit to the Earth’s equatorial plane combines with, or partially cancels out, the tilt in the Earth’s axis. From the perspective of an observer on the Earth, during the LNC the Moon moves along a northern latitude about ten degrees from a position about 18.5 degrees north of the equator to one that is 28.5 degrees, which it reaches after 18.6 years.
The Saros cycle is a means for predicting lunar and solar eclipses. The word “Saros” means “repetition” was given to the cycle by Edmund Halley in 1691.
There is a very good entry about the Saros cycle in Wikipedia here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
The Saros cycle is 6,585.277 days long, but depends on the number of leap years in the cycle. After one Saros cycle, the Earth-Sun-Moon geometry will be nearly identical: the Moon will have the same phase, be at the same node, and have the same distance from the Earth. If one knew the date of an eclipse, then one Saros Cycle later, a nearly identical eclipse should occur.
The Saros Cycle is connected to the LNC in that Saros is a simple arithmetic function of three lunar months one of which is an element of the LNC: (i) the time between lunar phases e.g. two full moons; this month is known as the synodic month. (ii) The time between two passages of the Moon at the point at which it is closest to the earth (perigee): this month is known as the anomalistic month. (iii) The time required for the Moon to return to the ascending node (i.e. crossing the ecliptic from south to north): this month is known as the nodal month (and also known as the draconic month). It is this month that links the Saros Cycle to the LNC.
The Saros Cycle was devised around the fifth or sixth century BC by Chaldean astronomers (who in those days were called astrologers) because of the absolute importance of being able to predict eclipses. They had thousands of cuniform clay tablets made by the ancient Babylonians as their data base. The Chaldean equivalent of Rajendra Pachauri knew that fame, fortune and great power would be his if he could persuade the powers-that-be that he could predict things and make the powers-that-be seem godlike to the masses. The way to do that in those days was to be able to predict eclipses more accurately than anyone else. The Saros Cycle gave the top astrologers of the day that power.
The Saros Cycle is now no more than a curiosity, an indicator of the observational skill, record keeping skills and (arithmetic) calculating skills of the ancients. We have far more sophisticated lunar ephemerides on the www than the Saros Cycle.
Nevertheless, there are two important lessons for us moderns from Saros. One is that the existence of Saros means that there must be a periodic repetition of some special geometries and that this would mean there is resonance acting within the Moon-Earth-Sun system. Resonance is ubiquitous in the solar system. Resonance is the subtle gravitational effect of Newton’s laws at work that determines the dynamical structure of the solar system; and so with the solar system’s Moon-Earth-Sun sub-system. The second lesson, taking the resonance into account, is that if there can be demonstrated relationships between lunar periodicities and our planet’s climate dynamics, we can use the mathematics of the lunar periodicities to predict climate dynamics, just as the ancient astrologers used them to predict eclipses with such great success.
Mazzarella and Palumba (1994) point out that bistable modes of oscillation with respect to time are well known in physical and engineering systems and have been extensively studied. This research from Physics and Engineering demonstrates that a sinusoidal force applied to any dynamic system induces sinusoidal periodicities in the system.
Accordingly, the LNC induces bistable sinusoidal periodicities in the atmosphere (pressure, temperature and rainfall) and the ocean (temperature and sea level). The sinusoidal, highly stable 18.6 year LNC has a distinctive and significant effect on the Earth’s climate dynamics.
There is a substantial published literature that shows the significant role of the LNC in regulating our planet’s climate dynamics. Amongst other things, it is largely responsible for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is regulated by the solar cycle in a non-linear manner. Heightened and weakened solar activity activates the large Rossby and Kelvin waves.11 The effects of these waves on atmospheric circulation are intensified by the creation of Ozone during times of increased solar activity. The AO is stronger with more zonal circulation over mid-latitudes, especially in the European-North Atlantic sector, and more variable during the peak of the solar cycle.
The AO is also regulated by the peak 9.3 year and 18.6 year LNC tidal oscillations. The processes by which the effect occurs are different from those of variable solar activity. The tidal oscillation impacts on atmospheric circulation and on the large Rossby and Kelvin waves. It also impacts on the churning of the oceans.
Nevertheless, the two solar processes interact amplifying each other’s contribution.
The AO has a key role in Northern Hemisphere climate variability and its behaviour is largely the result of the interaction of the solar cycle and the 9.3 and 18.6 year LNC tidal oscillations.
Berger (2007) found that solar modulation of the NAO is amplified by tidal cycles. He found that there is non-linear resonance between solar cycles and tidal cycles, especially the LNC and the perigean tidal cycle the effect of which is to amplify solar modulation of the NAO.
Treloar (2002), of the Queensland Centre for Climate Applications, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, reported that the variability in ENSO and seasurface temperature anomalies is partly a result of lunisolar tidal factors.
The Moon and the Sun periodically amplify each other’s gravitational effect on the Earth in a non-linear manner that closely correlates with major earthquakes. These periodic non-linear amplifications produce elastic energy that resides in the Earth’s core and crust. Barkin and Ferrandiz (2004), Barkin et al (2005) and Barkin et al (2007) demonstrated that the variable gravitational field of the Sun, interacting with the Moon’s, generates a range of significant periodic changes amongst the Earth’s shell-like structures: atmosphere, oceans, liquid core, mantle, another layers and plates.
Barkin and Ferrandiz (2004) derived an analytic expression for the elastic energy of planet tidal deformations induced by other bodies, including the central star, in a planetary system.
The elastic energy is not simply a sum of the elastic energies of the separate pairs of bodies but contains additional terms which are non-linear functions of the superposition of the variable gravitational fields of the Sun, Moon and other planets. As a result, there are large and significant variations in conditionally periodic variations in the elastic energy of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Moon, especially, but with additional coefficients for the planets.
Some of the elastic energy is dissipated as heat and contributes, as the periodicities of the tides determine, to the warming of the Earth and the oceans. Most of the remainder is retained in the solid material of the Earth, resulting in deformations, ultimately in the form of earthquakes and volcanoes. Some of the elastic energy is retained by the Moon, resulting in moonquakes which correlate closely with earthquakes.
The Moon and the Sun periodically amplify each other’s gravitational effect on the Earth in a non-linear manner that closely correlates with major earthquakes. Major earthquakes and moonquakes coincide with extreme variations in tidal elastic energy. The large additional mechanical forces and moments of interaction of the neighbouring shell-like structures of the Earth have significant impacts on climate dynamics, including the sea level. They produce cyclic perturbations of the tensional state of the shell-like structures, including deformations, small relative translational displacements and rotational oscillations, and the redistribution of the plastic and fluid masses of which the planet is composed. These additional forces and moments of a cyclic solar system nature produce deformations throughout the all layers of the Earth, regulating variations of almost all natural processes.
Apart from the immediate catastrophes that earthquakes and volcanoes induce, there are also longer term climate change consequences. These non-linear gravitational effects of the Sun and the Moon on climate change can be calculated with reasonable precision.
Here are some other well-established relationships:
• LNC maximum jointly with a Hale cycle minimum results in severe drought in the western US.
• LNC, in conjunction with resonance from the Rossby wave locked topographically into position by the Tibetan Plateau and the Rocky Mountains, most likely induced Northern Hemisphere droughts.
• LNC, in the Arctic, accelerates the warming effect of other solar processes, contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice and higher sea surface temperatures at northern latitudes. As a result, there is a larger volume of liquid water to respond to the tidal forces. In addition, the changes in ocean stratification that follow improve the mixing efficiency.
• LNC effects interact with the seasons because of the relationship between the tilt of the plane of the Earth’s equator in relation to the ecliptic (which causes the seasonal changes and the regular seasonal movements of the Sun north and south of the equator) and the rotation of the Moon’s orbital plane. Once every 18.6 years the plane of the Earth’s equator will tilt above the ecliptic in the same direction as the plane of the Moon’s orbit will tilt below it.
References
Barkin, Yu, Ferrandiz, J., Ferrandez, M. G., Navarro, J., 2007. Prediction of catastrophic earthquakes in 21 century. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 9, 08643, 2007, SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU2007-A-08643.
Barkin, Yu. V. and Ferrandiz, J. M., 2004. Tidal Elastic Energy in Planetary Systems and its Dynamic Role. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 23, (4), 369 – 384.
Barkin, Yu. V. and Ferrandiz, J. M., and Ferrandez, M. G., 2005. Earth, Moon, Mercury and Titan, seismicity: Observed and expected phenomena. 36th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2005), Abstract #1076. The paper is available here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1076.pdf
Berger, W. H., 2007. Solar modulation of the North Atlantic Oscillation: Assisted by the tides?
Quaternary International, 188, 24-30; doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.028.
Mazzarela, A. and Palumbo, A., 1994. The Lunar Nodal Induced-Signal in Climatic and Ocean Data over the Western Mediterranean Area and on its Bistable Phasing, Theoretical and Applied Climatology 50, 93-102.
Treloar, N. C., 2002 Luni-solar tidal influences on climate variability. International Journal of Climatology 22 No: 12 pps: 1527-154 2002 DOI: 10.1002/joc.783.
Here are some others:
Camuffo, D., 2001. “Lunar influences on climate”Earth, Moon and PlanetsVols. 85-86: pps 99-113.
Cerveny, R. S. and Shaffer, J. A., 2001. “The Moon and El Nino”Geophysical Research Lettersvol 28, No. 1. pps 25-28. Chain, A. C-L., Kamide, Y., Rempel, E.L., and Santana, W. M., 2006. “On the chaotic nature of solar-terrestrial environment: Interplanetary Alfven intermittency”. Journal of Geophysical Researchvol111, A07S03, doi:10.1029/2005JA011396.
Cook, E. R., Meko, D. M. and Stockton, C. W. 1997. “A new assessment of possible solar and lunar forcing of the bidecadal drought rhythm in the western United States”. Journal of Climate vol 10 pps 1343 -1356.
Currie, R. G., 1987. “Climatically induced cyclic variations in United States crop production: Implications in economic and social science”, in Erickson, G. and Smith, C. R. (eds) Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods in Science and Engineering Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987.
Currie, R. G. 1987. “Examples and Implications of 18.6 and 11 year Terms in World Weather records” Chapter 22 in Rampino, Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA. Currie, R. G. 1995. “Variance contribution of Mn and Sc signals to Nile River Data over a 30-8 Year bandwidth” Chapter 3 in Finkl, Charles W., (Editor) Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 17, Holocene Cycles: Climate, Sea Levels, and Sedimentation. A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80thBirthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. Coastal Education and Research Foundation.
DaSilva, R. R., and Avissar, R., 2006. “The impacts of the Luni-Solar Oscillation on the Arctic Oscillation”. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L22703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023418,2005.
McKinnel, S. M. and Crawford, W. R., 2007. “The 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle and surface temperature variability in the north-east Pacific”. Journal of Geophysical Research vol 112, C02002,doi:10.1029/2006JC003671; 15 pps.
Wood, Fergus J. 1986. Tidal Dynamics: coastal flooding, and cycles of gravitational force. D Reidel Publishing Co. (Note: this is a revision of Wood, Fergus, J. 1978. The Strategic Role of Perigean Spring Tides in Nautical History and North American Flooding U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Washington D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office).
Wood, Fergus J., 2001. Tidal Dynamics Volume 1 theory and analysis of tidal forces. Third Edition Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 30.Coastal Education and Research Foundation. (Note: this is a revision of the theoretical and analytic elements of Wood (1986). It includes new material written by Fergus Wood plus several additional papers of the author. It includes new computational material. The author, with the assistance of Emeritus Professor Rhodes Fairbridge, reorganized the text substantially resulting in a book in the standard textbook format. Fergus completed the book in 2000, but died that year before the new work was published in 2001. Wunsch, C. and Ferrari, R., 2004. Vertical mixing and the general circulation of the oceans. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 36, 281–314 doi: 10.1146/ annurev.fluid.36.050802.122121.
Yndestad, H., 2006. “The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Journal of Marine Science, vol 63, pps 401-420.