A quiet cue ball sun

In late May or early June, the photo of the sun on space weather.com had no observable sun spots, even when the photo was enlarged to maximum on my iPad. Yet space weather.com did not update the sun sport number for three days until there were obvious sun sports. Did anyone else catch this? Space weather.com still indicates that there were no zero sun spot days this year. How small does the “spec” (what magnification) have to be before not being counter?
Bill

Bill Yarber says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm
How small does the “spec” (what magnification) have to be before not being counted?
The sunspot number should be counted with a small telescope [aperture 8 cm and magnification 64]. In addition, it should have a life time exceeding a few hours and be seen by multiple observers. So, short-term variations can [and do] easily occur.

And that ranks a 13 according to http://spaceweather.com.

Sparks says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
have I read Leif say that “Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles” more than usual?
I have a bit of a problem parsing your comment, but such days are not unusual in weak cycles. In fact, cycle 14 had perhaps an even higher incidence than the current cycle.

@Me
I don’t think I quite followed what you said. More explanation please.

Already have plans to get south if the Snow Hits the Fan.
At our current population levels and dependency on others for fundamentals like energy, if we do go into even a minor cooling period it will get very ugly.

J. Martin-
Leif Svalgaard, Bob Livingston, and Bill (?) Penn are showing a changing sun wherein the magnetic field which drives sunspots is changing. Data here on Leif’s webpage:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
What this shows is that the magnetism per sunspot is changing, and some specualte this could lead to a grand minimum. Some posts at WUWT are on topic here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Minimum mention here: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn%20Data%20and%20Findings%20so%20far.pdf
Now to my comment, there was no Livingston and Penn effect in cycle 14, so is it the right comparison?

Of specific note is slide 11: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn%20Data%20and%20Findings%20so%20far.pdf

It is quiet for this point in the cycle, but some spots are out there: http://www.solarham.net/pictures/regions.jpg
Farside: http://www.solarham.net/farside.htm

Eric Simpson, early mention of CO2 causing temperature increases.
WUWT has had several articles on very early predictions and errors in those predictions.
I found an Encyclopedia Americana 1957 yearbook at a thrift store and in the section on meteorology there was an article written by H. E. Landsberg, Director of Climatology, US Weather Bureau that stated: “A recomputation of the inflared absorption of carbon dioxide helps substantiate the belief that changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can bring about considerable temperature variations. For example, a doubling of the atmospheric content of CO2 would lead to a surface-temperature rise of 6.5 degrees F”. I was very surprised to see it mentioned in a 1957 book.

ClimateForAll says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm
It really is a shame to see sunspots so poorly counted.
It is very important that we count sunspots today the exact same way as two hundred years ago. Otherwise the historical record would be useless. So we go to great length and effort to make sure that we don’t count differently today.

Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?

When was the last solar grand minimum ? And what solar cycles were involved ?

Mike says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:42 pm
When was the last solar grand minimum ? And what solar cycles were involved ?
Depends on how you define grand minimum. With my definition [really low for a long time] the last grand minimum was 1640-1710, and cycles were not numbered back then [one could give them negative numbers if one cared]

Having read through some of the comments, its good to see a light discussion on geomagnetism.
Also good to see Leif hasn’t given up entirely on WUWT.
Several things have become evident regarding cosmology.
First.) IBEX discovered over a year ago a band of energy stretching around the heliosphere.
It was undoubtedly thrilling to discover at the time this new ‘thing’ in the heliosphere, but without further studies, its implications may never be known.
Second.) the IBEX mission discovered just a few months ago, or at the very least announces, that there is no bow shock beyond the heliosphere.
I have my doubts that the bow shock just doesn’t exist. it just may be that it fails to appear in its current state. I imagine that we could have more intruments paying closer detail, we would find a bow shock does exsist, but that certain elements have reduced its form, capacity and strength to a nominal state.
Third.) HESS has drawn conclusions that energy in the form of hard photons are discovered along the galactic plane.
For the lack of better understanding, cosmological evolution is in its infancy. If a few telescopes in Africa detect higher energy waves to the power of 10 above what was previously understood, we should give the science some latitude to investigate further.
Science may yet be able to determine the exact physical makeup of dark matter soon.
Four.) Direction, speed and intensity of geomagnetic polarity has to be effected by some other outside source other than the Earth’s core.
While some have speculated that the Sun may play a minor role, I doubt it. To presume that geomagnetism is uneffected by outside influneces would seem a fools errand.
In all recorded data recent magnetic movement, never has the path of MNP(magnetic North Pole) ever been so unnatural as it is now. For thousands of years, the MNP meandered and traveled very slowly and never in the same direction for very long.
In the last one hundred years, the path of MNP has been nearly flawless in one direction. The annual velocity nearly doubles every 14 years. It is unmistakably clear that some outside influence is at work, and only an extremely energetic source has that kind of attraction.
Based upon past evidence, current understanding and near future discoveries, we may learn much in the coming weeks, if not days.
Let me go on record that I postulate that our solar system has or is currently passing through a strong energetic field that has essentially pressed upon the heliosphere in such a way that the detection of the bow shock has made it undetectable. Previous science just doesn’t cease to exist because data can’t provide an answer. Scientists just can’t explain it.
Let me also go on record that I postulate that a very high energetic field, either from the galactic plane or from dark matter is directly involved in effecting the earths magnetic field.
Laugh and giggle all you want. I already know what most of you are thinking. Bear with my thought analysis for just bit longer.
Just as our moon has found a certain balance with the Earth, so may our solar system with the galaxy that it travels within.
All of the evidence I lightly present here and postulate on may very well be the beginning of a polar flip.
Not Armageddon.
If I read our current science right, the highly energetic galactic plane may take our solar system centuries to pass through. But if my calculations are correct, its already begun.
The Heliosphere has shrunk and has become deflated. Several thousand millenniums of rotation can do that- at certain intervals.(Such as it is at this time)
The Sun has entered a protracted state of lull. L&P figures suggest a complete nod in a few years. In addition, recent history suggests that this cycle may well have several maximums, like Lief commented. I imagine that after a century of compressed high solar cycles, the Sun needs to relax.
Having a large amount of gravitational pressure placed upon it, causing both a band of energy and compressing the layers of its outer boundaries placed upon it, the heliosphere is in a position to withstand the upcoming events.
As the Solar system continues on its path, we may certainly experience only what many will regard as a naked singularity event.
Then again, I only postulate.
Much like previous scientists did regarding bow shocks. Maybe I’ll become famous too, solely based on a hypothesis.
Who knew !

ClimateForAll says:
June 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Four.) Direction, speed and intensity of geomagnetic polarity has to be effected by some other outside source other than the Earth’s core.
The conductivity of the core is so high that for all intents and purposes it acts as a superconductor preventing any outside magnetic influence to penetrate more than a few hundred meters into the core. To say that something ‘has to’ influence is just wishful thinking.
never has the path of MNP(magnetic North Pole) ever been so unnatural as it is now.
Well, ‘never’ is a big word…More to the point is that what we observe at the surface bears little relation to the actual field in the core. The latter is 20 times stronger than at the surface and is very irregular, does not really have well-defined dipoles, but consists of many individual poles scattered over the surface. This is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Magn-Field-Core-Boundary.png and this is what the change from year to year looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png
Having a large amount of gravitational pressure placed upon it, causing both a band of energy and compressing the layers of its outer boundaries placed upon it, the heliosphere is in a position to withstand the upcoming events.
There is no gravitational ‘pressure’ placed on the heliosphere or the sun.
Maybe I’ll become famous too, solely based on a hypothesis.
We all like to discover something new and wonderful. It is just VERY hard to do, so be prepared for some sobering up.

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 24, 2012 at 9:03 pm
David says:
June 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Has the rush to the poles happened yet?
An alternative meaning to the question could be whether or not folks have started jogging, canoeing, driving, or skate boarding to the NP, or the N magnetic P, or to where the NMP was some time in the past. Maybe they got over that after freezing their butts and their booze during the last two years.

Thanks, Leif. 70 years Wow! That is grand. That would be more than 6 nominal solar cycles in that time period. Is that possible today ? Or are you expecting just a couple of weak cycles – 24,25 ? Or what ?

@Leif Svalgaard + mikelorrey
>>any EE can explain induction.
>But induction cannot proceed more a few times the skin-depth. Any EE knows that too.
It depends on the frequency. Basic EE’ing. That is one reason why chokes don’t have plates.
How can an induced magnetic field created externally be separated from one generated at the core if you can only measure the sum at the surface?
Perhaps an observed field reversal is necessary to add depth to the discussion (literally). They can take place in a very small number of days (according to research on SW USA lava flows). That is unlikely from a liquid core but I will await a real event before deciding.

@Me
An interesting PDF from Leif, and yes, page 11 may well be the bottom line. The straight line extrapolation of the Livingston & Penn graph on page 9 works out at about 2025 (by eyeball), and similarly a straight line extrapolation of the lower graph on page 19 gives about the same date. Staying with that graph the current reluctance to cross the line is also seen in the late 1960s early 1970s. But this time, I think, there is a difference, and we can see that on page 16.
I fear we’re not looking at a 1970s cooling event here, it can now only go deeper and longer, (I hope not) though I think the Jury is still out as to whether we are looking at a repeat of the Dalton or Maunder. There was an interesting graph, (not fully fleshed out, based on tsi of all things, on Tallbloke’s blog), that hints at deeper than the Maunder.
Leif’s last line “what a Wonderful Time”, I would replace with “what an interesting time”, if one lives somewhere warm, otherwise “what a scary time” if one lives somewhere potentially cold, might be more appropriate.
@ WiIliam Astley
The idea that geomagnetism is a significant player is attractive, but can you expound on what you said please in “It (is) this orbital parameter that explains why the interglacial periods are roughly 10,000 years long.”
@ClimateForAll & @William Howard Astley
I find the ideas of external geomagnetic influence intriguing and currently feel that the sun may be the main local driver, but is not the only player, and must be influenced or even driven by external forces. Alternatively it may be that the Sun is not the cause here, but merely a visible beacon of larger solar system and or galactic effects.
@
We know that earthquakes can affect the motion of the entire planet, I think I read that last years Japanese earthquake had an effect on the wobble and or LOD that had been measured. We also know that earthquakes and volcanic activity increase during quiet solar periods, there is a graph of this somewhere, (Landscheidt, perhaps). It seems inevitable that the cause of all this is external to the Earth, and it seems reasonable that this could have a significant effect on the Earth’s presumed internal magnetic gyro, and that, crucially, the effect could lead to a relatively sudden step change in, for instance, obliquity, to produce the Younger Dryas, and the regular(ish) slide into glaciations, though the really sudden effect would seem to be the climb out of glaciations.
Recently on WUWT we have seen extensive and well argued cases for different causes of the Younger Dryas, but, neither succeeded in being entirely convincing. However, a shift in the internal magnetic gyro could well produce the required effect without running into any of the counter evidence that plagued Chilcot and Evan’s posts.
We have the evidence of a marked reduction in magnetic field strength, an increasingly mobile North pole(s), reduced sunspots, a restless planet etc.
Regardless of the causes of glaciations, the timing and pace of this inevitable event is of crucial importance to mankind and will determine the fate of most of this planets population. Beside this, public and political concern about co2 and global warming are misplaced and is suicidal mass sleepwalking in the wrong direction.
The Hypothesis that several of us are now considering is as follows;
The relatively sudden change in magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth that are being measured may be a viable mechanism to explain a similarly relatively sudden change in obliquity which would in its turn be a viable mechanism to explain significant climatic shifts or phase changes such as the Younger Dryas and the beginning and end of glaciations. In all probability combined with a significant change in solar input.

Today there is a SN of 24… 24 must be the new “blank”.

Steve says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?
—-
Why shouldn’t we?

@ Lief
“Quo usque tandem abutere, Vuk, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?”
++++
Usquequo dubie sanctos patres vestros? De sancta gradalis dicitur: “Nihil sub sole novum,” apparently.
Vuk, keep an open mind. I loved your sum of N magnetic poles v.s. temperature.

vukcevic, there’s something phase-confounded with solar magnetic ~22 year. I’ve never seen it reported or discussed anywhere. So far as I can tell, it’s completely off everyone’s radar.

ferd berple says:
June 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
Thus, the earth’s magnetic field is more likely induced by the earth’s motion within an existing field. The source of this field is quite possibly the sun.
In fact, the induction part is very correct, except that the existing field is that of the earth itself, not the sun’s. The process is called a self-sustaining dynamo. The sun does the same, complete with reversals and all.

Steve says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?
__________________________________________
Steve, How warm would the earth be if there was no sun HMMMmmm?
The sun is a variable star, even Lief will tell you we do not know everything there is to know about the sun. Hathaway & Wilson Predicted 160 ± 25 in 2006 and Horstman 185 in 2005 while Lief predicted 70 ± 2 in 2005 SEE: Prediction Panel: May 24, 2007 List http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf
Even the National Geographic News seems to think the sun is going into a less active state.

….Three independent studies of the sun’s insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what’s known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity….
The predicted solar “sleep” is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
…”We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don’t understand the association,” said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn’t think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap…..

Another article on the same studies: Universe Today
It looks like Nature herself is going to answer the question about whether the Sun has a major effect on the earths climate.
If you have an inquiring mind you might want to look at these graphs:
Solar spectrum from ~ LASP Colorado
Solar and Terrestrial Radiation
Solar radiation and intensity at diferent wafelengths at different Ocean depths
Total Solar Radiance 2003 to 2012 ~ LASP Colorado
PAPERS and NASA ARTICLES:
Dec 2, 2003 ~ Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years.
Sept. 23, 2008 ~ NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

NASA: Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (Sorce)
….Analyzing the Sun and its affects on climate, however, is further complicated by the fact that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI—1,368 W/m2—on a daily basis…. Variations in TSI are due to a balance between decreases caused by sunspots and increases caused by bright areas called faculae which surround sunspots. Sunspots are dark blotches on the Sun in which magnetic forces are very strong, and these forces block the hot solar plasma, and as a result sunspots are cooler and darker than their surroundings. Faculae, which appear as bright blotches on the surface of the Sun, put out more radiation than normal and increase the solar irradiance. They too are the result of magnetic storms, and their numbers increase and decrease in concert with sunspots. On the whole, the effects of the faculae tend to beat out those of the sunspots. So that, although solar energy reaching the Earth decreases when the portion of the Sun’s surface that faces the Earth happens to be rife with spots and faculae, the total energy averaged over a full 30-day solar rotation actually increases. Therefore the TSI is larger during the portion of the 11 year cycle when there are more sunspots, even though the individual spots themselves cause a decrease in TSI when facing Earth….

NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
…In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.
“We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md….
Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.
However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.
The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate….

These wavelengths, “….the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum,… that increased, are the portion of the Sun’s spectrum that penetrate the ocean as seen in the above Graph So while the Total Solar Insolation may not vary much the ratios DO VARY. Do not forget that 70% of the earth is covered by oceans and the ocean has a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. CO2 back radiation has very little if any impact on the ocean because the energy can not penetrate beyond the surface as the energy from the sun does..

9/22/09 ~ NASA EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
…When the sun is active, solar EUV emissions can rise and fall by factors of hundreds to thousands in just a matter of minutes. These surges heat Earth’s upper atmosphere, puffing it up….
Although EVE is designed to study solar activity, its first order of business is to study solar inactivity. SDO is going to launch during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years. Sunspots, flares and CMEs are at a low ebb. That’s okay with Woods. He considers solar minimum just as interesting as solar maximum.
“Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”
The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary. EVE will improve confidence in the trend by pinning down the EUV spectrum with unprecedented accuracy.
The sun’s variability and its potential for future changes are not fully understood—hence the need for EVE. “The EUV portion of the sun’s spectrum is what changes most during a solar cycle,” says Woods, “and that is the part of the spectrum we will be observing.”

Here is the change of the field at the core boundary http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png which one of those blobs are you talking about?

@Eric Simpson,
Interesting, my less understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted. Only with the rise of the environmentalists did the greenhouse gas theory find its new home
Actually, it is imho even more interesting than that from the point of view of the history of science. Unless I am mistaken, the greenhouse effect,” although known long before, was first popularized in the media when Carl Sagan sallied forth to do combat against the arch-heretic Emmanuel Velikovsky, who had upset the gradualist apple cart by claiming that Venus would be a hot planet because it was youthful in comparison to cooler planets of the solar system. When he turned out to be correct, the gradualists had to come up with an alternative explanation, and since Venus does have a very large amount of atmospheric Co2, the Greenhouse theory fit the fill.
Again — I am far from an expert, but I have read that this explanation is impossible, since Venus actually radiates more heat than it absorbs from the sun, even given its close orbit. But no one bothered with that in the days of these heroic battles. Sagan was called upon to smite the boar, and he did.
Assuming that this analysis is correct, it would raise some very interesting questions about the close connection between AGW theory and the defense of standard gradualist cosmology in the 20th (and now 21st) century.
I am far from being a doctrinaire defender of Velikovsky — but it does seem to me that he was right about a number of things, and that in particular his emphasis on catastrophic events as shapers of the cosmos is far more correct than the dogmatic gradualism whose narcissism he had so offended by suggesting, for example, that the planets were not all formed at the same time through the gradual accretion of disparate particles of dust. That his offense may have shaped the ensuing history of the environmental movement makes the episode all the the more intriguing.
-psi

Hi Leif … I find it interesting that in this figure http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png
the most core secular change appears to occur in seismically and/or volcanically active areas.

rstritmatter says:
June 26, 2012 at 5:44 am
sounds like you are lecturing to an 18 year old freshman on theology.
It was not meant that way, but there is a certain necessity here: the rocky planets [or with rocky cores] must have assembled from interstellar dust, so must have started from smaller particles that grew by accretion. The early solar system was a very violent place with lots of collisions and bombardments and probably even rearrangement of planetary orbits. The rest of the Universe is even more violent, so ‘gradualism’ is certainly not the current paradigm.

Leif says: I’ll not discount that there is a connection, but the eye sometimes ‘see’ things that are not there. A more precise investigation is needed to confirm/deny any connection.
_____________________________________
It would be an interesting study to do!

I have question for Leif Svalgaard
http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Table 2 page 9
Year IDV09 IDV HMF B Observed HMF B
2008.5 5.29 4.25 4.23
2009.5 5.04 4.13 4.05
2010.2 5.50 4.45 4.95
I need date years : 2011 and 2012 for my graph
Correlation heliosphere & earthquakes
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=11690
thanks,
michele

Michele says:
June 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Correlation heliosphere & earthquakes
To show that B is enhanced at sector boundaries, we can make a superposed epoch analysis of solar wind variables around sector boundaries as key times: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Sector-Boundaries.png and something about the sector boundaries: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf

Michele says:
June 27, 2012 at 4:43 am
so the geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a both coronal hole and from a CME mainly. depends on their position relative to the Earth. For the CMEs an additional factor is their size and speed. Faster and wider CMEs are more geoeffective……”
The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs.

Michele says:
June 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“…The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs…”
I do not think [so]…
There are lots of wild claims out there. The standard approach in science is called reproducibility. In the case at hand, one simply takes all CMEs [geomagnetic storms. proton flux, magnetic field, etc] observed in the last 100 years or so [when we have good earthquake data] and checks if there are any strong earthquakes at or just after such storms. That was the objective superposed epoch that I showed you. As you can see for yourself, the claimed effect is simply not there, so the claim is not reproduced using all available data, and thus the claim is falsified. Now, many people believe in things that are false, so you are probably in good [or at least, in numerous] company.

AJB says:
June 28, 2012 at 3:18 am
How much has been learnt since this was posted in 2004?
NOAA has an assessment from 2010:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/
That may be a good place to start. One conclusion: the long-term decrease in Ozone is not due primarily to the Sun.
Generally, there are two causes of stratospheric cooling:
a: depletion of stratospheric ozone
b: increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
Figure 7 of http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html shows the continued cooling of the lower stratosphere.

Leif Svalgaard says, June 28, 2012 at 5:04 am
One might argue that both TLT [lower troposphere) and TLS (lower stratosphere) have stabilized the last decade. It is hard to tell.
Hmm, I see what you mean. Here’s a longer view:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1385.jpg
You could argue the same thing about the period between the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions so what caused the step change either side of both? Sudden fry-ups did something else perhaps, like driving H20 further up? NLCs on the increase sometime later perhaps, is that how more water gets right up there and why they appeared 2 years after Krakatoa went pop in 1883? More questions than answers.
Isn’t the brightness temperature series heavily gridded/smoothed though and quite deceptive? What struck me more after quickly plonking around the RSS/MSU site was the TLT/TLS global picture in March each year, particularly 2011 when the arctic hole appeared. For example:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tls/medium/global/ch_tls_2011_03_anom_v03_3.png
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tls/medium/global/ch_tls_2012_03_anom_v03_3.png
… then compare with
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/larctic7.jpg
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/arcticdev372012.jpg
Large effect (ozone depleted by vortex driven brewing pot, etc. as down south). It seems to be a fast moving chaotic place up there; big globs of energy shunting around pretty quickly and randomly making their way from the tops of Willis’s big ‘ole tropical anvils to the poles.
What happens in the other dimension? Does the shape of the temperature gradient up through the stratosphere and beyond lurch about violently in a similar manner? A lot for an uneducated layman with a day job to get a feel for.
I’m having difficulty gauging the effect of stratospheric ozone in the IR. Is it wrong to think of the ozone layer as a GHG acting in both directions (i.e. diffusing incoming and outgoing IR at different frequencies)? I can’t find the IR spectrum (everything is UV focused) and I’m not sure how that would work at the quantum level anyway. Two lights shining through wispy fog but different colours [not refractive, probably irrelevant] and not directly opposing or static? Hmm, gradients everywhere; that changing zenith angle is the mother of complexity. The concentrations top and bottom would presumably alter the net effect significantly too; causing any assumed radiating height for S-B calculation purposes to shift up and down despite the layer remaining broadly in the same position. Or maybe that shifts too. Since there are different depletions top and bottom and it’s all blowing about like crazy, the IR performance of the layer as a whole must be immensely complex and chaotic. There are a lot of drivers potentially altering its IR characteristics, not to mention the question of thermosphere expansion/contraction top side following large solar particle events and heating from UV driven chemistry.
It’s as if the Sun is gradually feeding the ozone layer popcorn [varying with the solar cycle and shifts in incoming UV frequencies] and occasionally instantly trimming its afro hairdo while a polar vortex arrives randomly and rips a hole in the seat of its pants. And it’s spinning about like a drunken sailor with a toothache the whole time. Heck there’s a tad more going on up there than the superficial outreach stuff portrays with its lovely smooth curves. Good luck modelling that lot; a Bayesian field of error bar tulips with lots of butterflies springs to mind. So what is in the climate models?
Fantasy express journey terminated; please don black hat and point out where it started to leave the rails, no need to elaborate. This old graph with its rather well defined straight line trends has struck me as uncanny for a while though (Arosa balloon series):
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1287.gif
After all the anecdotal Viking arguments and zillions of dollars spent whittling things down, isn’t warming during the latter trend period more or less what we’re all now focused on? Arctic ice decline doesn’t follow directly but I tend to regard that as just another tulip field.
Can’t get to the up-to-present Arosa graph (server appears down for maintenance) but Bronnimann et al (2004) ) made an interesting first pass read:
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2004_broennimannetal.pdf

AJB says:
June 29, 2012 at 2:00 am
I can’t find the IR spectrum (everything is UV focused)
The solar spectral irradiance is a subject of intense study, here is a pointer to a recent workshop:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/workshops/3_01_2012/
My daugther-in-law (Signe) is the ozone expert in the family, here is what she had to say a few years back:
http://www.leif.org.EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf

Gist scanned briefly. Excellent! Thank you once again Leif.