Paul Hudson of the BBC writes:
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
His article is, ahem, illuminating:
For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it’s been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.
Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.
In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog.
Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.
Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.
Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun’s changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures.
The work is based on an 11 year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time.
But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.
If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He had me until he contradicted himself……………..
About time indeed.
But from a BBC correspondent. That’s a shock. Richard Black is going to be squirming.
About time.
Isn’t this the same Paul Hudson who sat on the Climategate files for several weeks before they became public?
This statement is not credible:
“If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
1. The general consensus amongst most scientists is…. The paper is new. Not only has there been insufficient time for ‘most scientists’ to study it’s implications, but there has absolutely been not time to survey sufficient scientists to dertermine what is the consensus amongst ‘most’ of them.
2. The numbers in relation to this mechanism, as for most of the postulated solar mechanisms, are not well enough known to allow comparisons with other mechanisms – e.g. AGW
3. The range of possibilities for warming due to man is also too wide to allow the sort of comparison implied by the statement.
Even a cursory reading shows that this is blather.
“global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
I lol’d.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
Perhaps somewhat simplistic, but science is starting to catch onto the changes in pressure patterns and jet streams during low EUV.
I have writing about this for sometime.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/128
“For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”
By who? There has never been a time when there have not been papers published which investigate solar influences on climate. See eg the rather well known works by Solanki and collaborators.
Hmmm…considering research and scholarly articles about the connection between the sun and earth’s climate have been produced in abundance every year for many decades (including even by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc.), I don’t see how anyone can honestly say there was a taboo against the subject. It certainly has seen peaks and valleys in terms of being a hot topic, but its never been “taboo”. I think now, with some of the EUV data actually being assimilated into climate models, there should be some renewed interest in solar effects.
What is fascinating to me though is how some will go to the extreme and suddenly think that newly integrated and quantifiable solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2, and large percentage increases in other greenhouse gases we’ve seen over the past few centuries.
But in 20 or possible 30 years, (assuming we get a Dalton or even Maunder type minimum), we’ll be able to judge the relative climate forcing caused by a quiet sun versus these increases in greenhouse gases. Of course, should we get a large volcanic eruption or several (as we did during the LIA), then we’ll have even more data to integrate. What an exciting time to follow the workings of Earth’s climate!
One is in awe of the sheer denseness of these so called climate scientists. 11 year cycle. Hmmmm. Where have we heard of those before. /
I suspect that the climatologist are getting concerned that they have lost the field to real scientists.
is this hedge betting by Mr Hudson? a grdaual ‘softening’ or ‘warning’ approach by the met office?
I dunno – just smacks of a back-tracking to me…….
Latitude says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:06 pm
“He had me until he contradicted himself……………..”
True enough. But it is progress in the right direction to even dare write something contradicting the “general consensus” – though Hudson sucked extra hard to come up with that “dwarfed” line.
I imagine the pro-AGW peer pressure at the BBC must be rather heavy.
The statement contains plenty of CAGW religion weasel words (requisite for a BBC journalist wanting to keep their job) but if you read between the lines it is indeed, as Anthony’s pun goes, “illuminating” – especially the admission that it is taboo to discuss anything as influencing our climate other than man-made CO2.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
But in 20 or possible 30 years, (assuming we get a Dalton or even Maunder type minimum), we’ll be able to judge the relative climate forcing caused by a quiet sun versus these increases in greenhouse gases. Of course, should we get a large volcanic eruption or several (as we did during the LIA), then we’ll have even more data to integrate. What an exciting time to follow the workings of Earth’s climate!
Whoa dude, just where did you get your shopping list from:-)? Santa or Santer?
Who knew the solar variability played a part in the climate? Next, they’ll be saying that the moon has a part to play as well!
(http://www.predictweather.com/)
“R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Hmmm…considering research and scholarly articles about the connection between the sun and earth’s climate have been produced in abundance every year for many decades (including even by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc.), I don’t see how anyone can honestly say there was a taboo against the subject. ”
You Sir are bring totally disingenuous.
It is well known that the IPCC has consistently refused to consider the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. There is also plenty of evidence that scientists who have proposed alternate theories have all had difficulty getting their papers published, as well as faced attacks. Dr. Svensmark, Dr. Shaviv, Dr. Friis- Christensen – just to name a few. Svensmark was derided by the former Head of the Met office during a presentation (captured on camera).
In the last 30 years, it is patently obvious that papers which speculate about the strong impact of man-made CO2 have been welcomed by science, media and politicians. Meanwhile any papers that speculate that natural factors could be just as important (or dare one suggest possibly even more important) have been treated like the plague and derided.
This is absolutely obvious to anyone who does not live in a propaganda infested cloud cuckoo land.
” thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been
largely overlookedcovered up”FTFY.
History re-write. The AGWSF claim was that the Sun was insignificant in the changes of the ‘recent’ rise in warming which is all the fault of carbon [dioxide the toxic] and man’s fault for making more of accumulate in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years causing run-away global warming.
It’s because there has been so much contradicting this meme about insignificant Sun, that they given up trying to claim any different.
I remember when first investigating the arguments that ‘insignificant’ sun was always claimed – because the minute differences of the Sun had no noticeable effect – even while being told that the minute amounts of CO2 were highly significant and given examples of it only takes minute amounts of poison to affect a whole body..
Don’t expect logical consistency and you won’t be disappointed.
R.Gates: “…solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2…”
The CO2 increase of 40% represents an increase of between 1.5% to 0.4% of ‘greenhouse’ gases. Water vapour being the dominant IR-active (‘greenhouse’) gas and which is about 25 to100 times more prevalent than CO2. Water also covers up to two thirds of the earth’s surface and into depths of 10,000m.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
the effect of a 40% increase in CO2
======================================
There you go again……
…a 40% increase in nothing, is still nothing
The question is, why did CO2 levels drop so low?
“The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.”
And this fellow is a meteorologist? What is the density of the air in the stratosphere? A fraction of the density of cold air in the troposphere is, and yet Mr Hudson brings it down and make it move denser air. As noticed before, the Ineson paper never points to a process at a synptic scale, only to a vague correlation to indexes that are themselves defined as mean pressures, i.e staistical entities. Finally Paul Hudson has obviously never observed the true patterns of circulation during cold winters over Europe such as on December 02, 2010 during a cold spell over much Western Europe and the UK… no easterly winds there but a beautiful southward bound 1025hPa MPH that descended from Scandinavia!
Regarding the comment about the “general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”, that is straight from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation:
“However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.” This was the standard IPCC position from years ago.
It would be interesting to see if this has changed lately since 2011 is only the 11th warmest year so far despite huge increases in CO2 since 1998. There appears to be no way that 2011 can even make it to the top 10 according to HADCRUT3 by the end of the year.
erl happ says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:07 pm
About time.
======
Vindication, is a start.
Annihilation is the goal.
I can’t help thinking that Paul Hudson would not have written his rather shallow piece had Dr David Whitehouse had not published this detailed analysis a few days beforehand.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4063-the-sun-and-the-winter-of-2011.html
R. Gates is correct.
There was never a taboo about discussing climate as being cyclical and closely related to the 11 year and 22 year sunspot cycles that so heavily influence UV levels.
I think the correct word was “forbidden”.