New study finds that a Carrington class solar event could cause global cooling of more than 3C

A paper recently published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that “a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to the Carrington Event of 1859″. Based on the results of the study it would be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone, resulting in a “significant [global] cooling of more than 3C”.

From the paper: Solar energetic particle events, frequently referred to solar proton events (SPEs), occur when protons and other particles emitted by the active Sun are accelerated to very high energies (for protons up to 500 MeV) either close to the
Sun’s surface during a solar flare or in interplanetary space by magnetic shock waves associated with coronal mass ejections (Reames, 1999). They typically last for a few days. The high energy protons are deflected, when they enter the Earth’s magnetic field, and upon penetrating the atmosphere can cause massive ionization including significant production of HOx and NOx (Sepp¨al¨a et al., 2004; Jackman et al., 2009).

Based on the modeling done here, and while the Carrington Event of 1859 lasted only 2 days, the proton event caused persistent changes in atmospheric ozone lasting up to several months, the authors predict such an event could cause a “cooling of up to 5 K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3 K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina.” as shown in figure 9 below:

Fig. 9. Left panel: polar stereographic projection of changes in surface air temperature for the NH for November resulting from the Carrington-like Event. Right panel: same for the SH. Hatched areas show 95% statistical significance.

Influence of a Carrington-like event on the atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics

M. Calisto, P. T. Verronen, E. Rozanov, and T. Peter

Abstract: 

We have modeled the atmospheric impact of a major solar energetic particle event similar in intensity to what is thought of the Carrington Event of 1–2 September 1859. Ionization rates for the August 1972 solar proton event, which had an energy spectrum comparable to the Carrington Event, were scaled up in proportion to the fluence estimated for both events. We have assumed such an event to take place in the year 2020 in order to investigate the impact on the modern, near future atmosphere. Effects on atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics were investigated using the 3-D Chemistry Climate Model SOCOL v2.0. We find significant responses of NOx, HOx, ozone, temperature and zonal wind. Ozone and NOx have in common an unusually strong and long-lived response to this solar proton event.

The model suggests a 3-fold increase of NOx generated in the upper stratosphere lasting until the end of November, and an up to 10-fold increase in upper mesospheric HOx. Due to the NOx and HOx enhancements, ozone reduces by up to 60–80% in the mesosphere during the days after the event, and by up to 20–40% in the middle stratosphere lasting for several months after the event. Total ozone is reduced by up to 20 DU in the Northern Hemisphere and up to 10 DU in the Southern Hemisphere.

Free tropospheric and surface air temperatures show a significant cooling of more than 3 K and zonal winds change significantly by 3–5 m s−1 in the UTLS region. In conclusion, a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to of the Carrington Event of 1859, must be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone.

From the concluding remarks:

Comparing the outcome for temperature and dynamics modeled with SOCOL with results of Jackman et al. (2007), who investigated the SPE of October/November 2003 using
their 3-D TIME-GCM, we see that these results are in good qualitative agreement. They show that shortly after the event happened, the southern hemispheric polar region has a decrease in temperature throughout the entire mesosphere, similar to our results for the northern hemispheric polar region.

The difference between their results and ours is in the intensity of the changes. For the temperature a decrease of more than 3K is shown in this work while Jackman et al. (2007)
depict a decrease of up to 2 K. The fact that our results show a larger effect can be due to the intensity of the solar proton event. The Carrington-like event presented in this paper
represents an event that is more intense than the SPE of October/ November 2003.

The qualitative agreement of our results, modeled with the 3-D CCM SOCOL, for the changes in NOx, ozone, temperature and dynamics, with those obtained by Thomas et
al. (2007) and Jackman et al. (2007), corroborates the finding that solar proton events of this strength have intense atmospheric interactions in a broad altitude range starting from
80 km down to 30 km, with repercussions for surface air temperature.

The latter range from a cooling of up to 5K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina. Therefore
it is important to analyze the impact of energetic particles with a 3-D CCM to ensure that the dynamical and transport aspects are properly taken into account. In this paper,
the solar proton event was placed during equinox. We think that the impact could even be larger if it would happen during earlier winter because the polar vortex prevents the exchange of fresh air from the mid-latitudes with the polar region.

Final Revised Paper (PDF, 1740 KB)   Discussion Paper (ACPD)

H/t to The Hockey Schtick

About these ads

132 thoughts on “New study finds that a Carrington class solar event could cause global cooling of more than 3C

  1. Who would CARE what the temperature would be? I think there would be more pressing problems.

    REPLY: Excellent point, we probably would lose the technological capability to measure and record the cooling – Anthony

  2. @Anthony:

    I still have a LIG thermometer ( mercury too!) from back in the ’70s in my chemistry kit somewhere… So after The Event, I’ll send you the readings… Got any carrier pigeons? ;-)

  3. The thing with Carrington level events being rare on a once in 500 year frequency, is that only tells us how many times we happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the events could be much more common given how narrow a firing arc we have to be in to get hit.

  4. @Mark W:

    Sweden shows cooling in the decade following, but with some amount of jitter…

    http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/upps_www.pdf

    ( I link to it in: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/ )

    First graph here, and the drought level in Colorado further down, both show a decade scale cooling as well:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/drought-is-not-a-global-warming-sign/

    Looks like solar particle events might well have some kind of impact.

  5. I wonder, is it possible for alarmists to eventually swing so far the other direction that they end up exaggerating the future cooling as badly as they do with warming today?

    And skeptics have to respond,, “Oh for heavens sake, just a few years ago you alarmist were telling us it was warming. That was after years earlier when you claimed it was cooling. Now you’re starting all over again?”

    Some of the younger alarmists will have participated in every chapter.
    Will they claim they were going with the best science every time?

    So they are always right when they are always wrong ???

    Eeeek!

  6. Solar cycle was relative quiet at that time. Are you sure it is carrington itself that caused global cooling?

    I’d say we’d need another event like that to see of that happens but that would have been pointless anyway.

  7. REPLY: Excellent point, we probably would lose the technological capability to measure and record the cooling – Anthony

    Aren’t there still a few max/min thermometers left? And pencil and paper?

    We may lose the computing power, and we may go to less technological record keeping, but hopefully there will still be scientists out there who will want future civilizations to see what we went through.

    Imagine how much less we’d know about events if people in 1859 hadn’t written anything down. If they were able to make measurements WITHOUT computers, maybe we should be stocking up on whatever they used. Or developing shielding for what we have now.

    Think of ways those data loggers and that equipment can be shielded. We’ve got an idea of the levels (the ionization rates for the August 1972 solar proton event) as a baseline, don’t we?

  8. Steve Oregon says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    I wonder, is it possible for alarmists to eventually swing so far the other direction that they end up exaggerating the future cooling as badly as they do with warming today?
    ==================================================================
    If they can figure out a way make it Man’s fault and so increase control via regulations and taxes, then yes. (Of course then, as now, the Sun would have to be ignored.)

  9. I get that electronics made of Integrated circuits will be dead. What about discrete components such as resisters, capacitors, diodes, and transistors? My friend has 4 model T Fords restored, so we will have transportation until the gas runs out.

  10. henrythethird says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    I’d be more concerned about biker bill wanting to use my skull for a soup bowl.

    I was probably in the last year that the slide rule was taught/used. Ahh, the slide rule. Didn’t Buzz use one of these to calculate the few seconds of fuel left as the eagle approach the lunar surface?

  11. ”New study finds that a Carrington class solar event could cause global cooling of more than 3C”

    WOW!!! It’s not enough bullshine produced by IPCC and Hansen, for the terminal bullshine addicts – now need to dig old lies from 1883. Shell we name it ”Guano addiction”

    Because somebody produced a big lie 130y ago; not to go to waste; demand for crap is now bigger than ever. They should state on the label: how many calories per wheelbarrow /is it fattening… Go for it gays, from both camps; demand controls supply.

    The TRUTH: the planet wasn’t getting warmer – it’s not going to get colder. ”Self-adjusting mechanism” and my formulas are fanatically ignored. the truth will win, time is against the Bulshine producers and their addicts.

  12. E.M.Smith says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    @Anthony:

    I still have a LIG thermometer ( mercury too!) from back in the ’70s in my chemistry kit somewhere… So after The Event, I’ll send you the readings… Got any carrier pigeons? ;-)

    Will telegraph systems still work?

    Turn the internet “on” for a dot, “off” for a “dash” ….. Heck, it’s binary.

  13. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html (bold added)

    The period from 2,000,000 – 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 – 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.

    4-5°C colder during the coldest periods of glaciation.

    And “New study finds that a Carrington class solar event could cause global cooling of more than 3C”.

    With a cooling of up to 5°C (5K) in Eastern Europe and Russia (including Siberia), places where increasing glaciation at the end of the current interglacial would be expected to start.

    Offhand that seems a pretty slim safety margin. And the several months of cooling could happen around late winter and spring, when the seasonal snow and ice should be melting off at the marginal areas around the Arctic? Tipping point, perhaps?

  14. the way I understand a carrington event only those electronic things that are turned on at the time of impact will be wiped because of power surges that is why they are trying to get the power companies to setup emergency shut down procedures for thier most sensitive equipment so that the power is out for only a few days instead of months.

  15. David Ball says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:49 pm
    Who would CARE what the temperature would be? I think there would be more pressing problems.

    REPLY: Excellent point, we probably would lose the technological capability to measure and record the cooling – Anthony

    Actually no it’s not a good point, because if it happens during winter and without power you and billions of others would wish it was 5° C warmer. Remember no power = no home heating sources outside of wood burning stoves = millions freeze to death.

  16. MarkW says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    I don’t remember reading about a similar cooling event following the 1859 Carrington even.
    Indeed there wasn’t any. That puts the whole thing into the realm of fairy tales.

    REPLY: Leif, thermometry was pretty crude then with thermometer exposure variances being so poor that the noise was often greater than the signal. – Anthony

  17. Hold on.
    A Carrington even WOULD cause a drop in temperatures of 3 degrees?

    Well if that is true, by extension, the Carrington event in 1859 DID reduce temperatures by 3 degrees.

    And if THAT is true, then the next question would be:

    How long would it take for temps to recover? 10 years? 100 years? How much of the “warming” during the instrumental record is just a recovery from the Carrington event in 1859?

    On the other hand, I question the results of this study for the simple reason that we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period.

  18. boballab says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    Uhmmm, that is what I was talking about. No power? It would be anarchy.

  19. @Steve Oregon:
    Your post was so good I had to repost part of it. Thank you!
    Steve Oregon Wrote:
    And skeptics have to respond, “Oh for heavens sake, just a few years ago you alarmist[s] were telling us it was warming. That was after years earlier when you claimed it was cooling. Now you’re starting all over again?”

    Some of the younger alarmists will have participated in every chapter.
    Will they claim they were going with the best science every time?

    So they are always right when they are always wrong ???
    -_-_-_-_-_-_-
    Priceless!

  20. What the study does not consider is the inability to document the impact. Such an event would have major implications on electricity transfer and the technology that feeds on it. Particularly on developing countries.

    Just sayin, your Directv , and subsequent NFL Sunday Ticket would be toast too. Unacceptable, but probably inevitable…..

    Does the NFL get replacement satellites with the replacement ref’s package?

  21. From boballab on September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm:

    Actually no it’s not a good point, because if it happens during winter and without power you and billions of others would wish it was 5° C warmer. Remember no power = no home heating sources outside of wood burning stoves = millions freeze to death.

    You’re making a good case for having an underground bunker with the ceiling no less than 12-15 feet from the surface, so you’re in the range where it stays around the low 50’s°F year round. Put on the thermal underwear, pile on the blankets, and tough out the winter. In the cities, large buildings may have basements that deep. Be prepared to defend your territory, and make sure the entryways are such that you can get in and out even with deep snow and built-up ice.

    Plus underground bunkers are useful for other things. They’re cool enough for food storage, as basically they’re root cellars. And they’re handy to have in case of a zombie apocalypse.

  22. PaulID: “the way I understand a carrington event only those electronic things that are turned on at the time of impact will be wiped …”

    Sorta. There’s off and then there’s off. By and large, anything with a mechanical power switch close to the electronics will be fine. But a very large number of electronic devices are ‘on’ when they’re ‘off’. This is true for most kitchen electronics (microwave, etc.) as well as most entertainment devices. Even then, anything with a ‘soft off’ still has to deal with any antenna effect from an attached power cord whether the cord is plugged in or not.

  23. These skeptics, these shoemakers go running right to the data and discover there was no cooling in 1859, ruining a perfectly good computer game. 3d even!

    Did we say how long it lasted? Maybe it was just a week and everyone wrote it off as “weather”.

    FWIW, Andrew Lacis got similar cooling the first year when he pulled the non-condensing greenhouse gasses out of his computer game a couple years back.

    I don’t think that one was 3d.

  24. Henry says:
    This is utter and complete rubbish:
    “resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone, resulting in a “significant [global] cooling of more than 3C”.”

    An increase in ozone causes cooling – as we have just discovered from my applicable correlations (ozone going up from 1996, globally, both NH and SH, and maxima falling globally, from 1995)

    A sudden massive decrease in ozone would cause more warming – as less high energy photons will be back radiated to space.

  25. Given that HADsst2 shows a warming over the 1859-69 decade, perhaps more than anything, this study indicates how much ozone has been used incorrectly as a negative forcing in the models to help counteract the overestimation of the positive forcing of co2.

    Good job fellas.

  26. There wasn’t cooling around the 1859 event because very few volcanoes were active. Stratosphere volcanoes were quiet.

    I don’t agree with Eschenbach and his conclusions.

    We were toasty and dry up through 2007 in NA. Then poom, Chaiten in May 2008. Then the other big honkers soon followed, oceans cooled and we all got cooler and wetter. Okmok , Kasatochi, Sarychev Peak, Redoubt and Bizmianny hitting the stratosphere.

    Eschenbach says volcanic activity doesn’t do anything! Lol

  27. tallbloke says:
    September 26, 2012 at 11:09 pm
    Given that HADsst2 shows a warming over the 1859-69 decade, perhaps more than anything, this study indicates how much ozone has been used incorrectly as a negative forcing in the models to help counteract the overestimation of the positive forcing of co2.

    Pretty much everything is used in the climate models has an incorrectly high negative forcing or an incorrectly low positive forcing.

    Gotta maintain that high CO2 forcing at all costs. Otherwise the gravy train gets derailed.

  28. IF…a solar proton event, took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to the Carrington Event of 1859…….well, that’s a big IF. Since ice cores suggest CE’s occur about every 500 years or so and the last one happened in 1859 I guess I shall not worry too much.

  29. Maus says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    PaulID: “the way I understand a carrington event only those electronic things that are turned on at the time of impact will be wiped …”

    Sorta. There’s off and then there’s off. By and large, anything with a mechanical power switch close to the electronics will be fine. But a very large number of electronic devices are ‘on’ when they’re ‘off’. This is true for most kitchen electronics (microwave, etc.) as well as most entertainment devices. Even then, anything with a ‘soft off’ still has to deal with any antenna effect from an attached power cord whether the cord is plugged in or not.

    Since there’ll be a day’s warning, or more, warning, unplug them.

    For protection angst unpredictable power surges, I recommend using hefty Uninterruptible Power Supplies. These use standard lawm mower batteries, which can be replaced at a local budget battery store.

  30. Based on a model? Interesting, but has about as much credence as other model based predictions, all of which are wrong when compared to the present.

  31. Another paper, that simply shows that models are wrong.
    No reduction of this magnitude & duration exists in the Central England Temperature record for any period, let alone for 1859+.
    Thermometers may not have been as accurate as today, but a 3C difference isn’t going to get lost in “noise”.

  32. A solar proton event came at us
    but there was nothing we could do
    We’d spent all our money
    to reduce CO2.

  33. RACookPE1978 says:

    Turn the internet “on” for a dot, “off” for a “dash” ….. Heck, it’s binary.

    Head in hands …argghhhh! Don’t they teach anything now?

    dot is a short term change to a state. A dash is the long change to the same state
    What you are suggesting is a binary state transmission code but to know when to read the code, you also need a clock. We could of course use that big bright thing in the sky as a clock, so that the internet state could be taken at sunrise/sunset, but then it wouldn’t work worldwide because we all have different sunset/sunrise.

    We could agree an internationally agreed “time to read the internet”, however as such things are highly political, we would need several “dot-dash” conferences. So, far it has taken three climate conferences since CLimategate/jokenhagen … and they still haven’t agreed a replacement for Kyoto that runs out on the 31st December.

    But of course, we would need this communication system in place in order to organise the conference and then how would all those 1000s of delegates find their way their without GPS and telephones.

    In other words …. we are doomed.

  34. I am intrigued by the apparent acceptance that the solar effects involved in a Carrington event would reduce ozone higher up and thus cool the upper atmosphere.

    The result would be a cooler mesosphere and stratosphere and a rising tropopause especially towards the poles allowing a poleward shift in the climate zones and more energy into the oceans to warm rather than cool the troposphere just as I have proposed previously.

    Thanks to tallbloke for pointing out that according to HADsst2 there was warming after the Carrington event.

    Also thanks to HenryP who shares my view that the models have the sign of the system response wrong as regards the effect of ozone changes.

    The actual observed system response may be opposite to that used within their model and Joanna Haigh recently pointed out there is some evidence that the response to solar changes above 45km is the opposite of that previously thought.

    The question then is whether solar variability on a 500 year timescale such as from MWP to LIA and LIA to date is also capable of reducing upper atmosphere ozone in the way observed during the late 20th century.

    We do know that the mesosphere cooled along with the stratosphere at that time and my proposition has been that the cooling response higher up outweighed any warming response lower down to produce a solar induced cooling of both stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun was more active.

    The observed climate changes on the surface would all be a consequance of the resultant shifts in the climate zones, jet stream behaviour and cloudiness / albedo variations causing a change in the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans to drive the climate system.

    We also know that the cooling of the stratosphere stopped in the late 90s as solar activity declined from the peak of cycle 23 and that slight warming of the stratosphere may now be in progress coinciding with low cycle 24.

    Simultaneously we see more meridional jets, a cessation of tropospheric warming (possibly slight cooling), and a stall in the increase in ocean heat content.

    A lot of stuff comes together if one proposes a solar effect on ozone differentially at different heights plus a reversal of the usually assumed ozone response to solar variations.

  35. more taxpayer money wasted:

    27 Sept: Tampa Bay Times: AP: Gore to visit Nova’s coral reef research center
    HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) — Former Vice President Al Gore is slated to speak at the opening of Nova Southeastern University’s $50 million coral reef research center…
    Nova received a $15 million dollar federal stimulus grant to help fund the center. University officials said the center has created 22 new academic jobs, 300 construction jobs and will employ 50 graduate students.
    Researchers will also study the effects of climate change on reefs and examine their ability to recover from damage.
    U.S. Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz will also attend Thursday’s event.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_GORE_CORAL_REEF_RESEARCH_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME

  36. Cars electronics should still work. The steel bodies will act as a Faraday cage, works with lightning so it should work against the odd proton. Put your computer etc. in a metal box.
    Interesting post.

  37. @Steve Oregon says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    “Some of the younger alarmists will have participated in every chapter.
    Will they claim they were going with the best science every time?

    So they are always right when they are always wrong ???”
    ==========================================================
    Yeah, it’s easy to pick the winning horse in yesterday’s race based on the best available information at the time.

  38. stefanthedenier says:

    September 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    The TRUTH: the planet wasn’t getting warmer – it’s not going to get colder. ”Self-adjusting mechanism” and my formulas are fanatically ignored. the truth will win, time is against the Bulshine producers and their addicts.

    I have just decided what I want written on my headstone. “I told you it wasn’t warming!”
    and you can have “My formulas were fanatically ignored!.”

  39. davidmhoffer says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Hold on.
    A Carrington even WOULD cause a drop in temperatures of 3 degrees?

    Well if that is true, by extension, the Carrington event in 1859 DID reduce temperatures by 3 degrees.

    And if THAT is true, then the next question would be:

    How long would it take for temps to recover? 10 years? 100 years? How much of the “warming” during the instrumental record is just a recovery from the Carrington event in 1859?

    On the other hand, I question the results of this study for the simple reason that we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period.
    ——————– And, looking at Central England’s temperature over the period implies …
    AJB says:
    September 27, 2012 at 1:55 am

    Cat: http://postimage.org/image/4adfejjij/full
    Pigeons: http://postimage.org/image/jx4orwxaj/full
    ———————

    Good find!

    So this implies that the temperatures measured in rural England’s with an (analog) thermometer “implies” a 2 year drop in daily temperature of about 2 degrees. After two years, no change from the the year before the previous event.

    BUT, if my experience with a massive electronic arc/surge/”EMP” when the power lead to my house breaker panel was pulled out suddenly under load (ground settlement yanked the input power cable out from the breaker panel) means anything, ANY electronic device plugged in will be destroyed. Microwave, digital TV, dishwasher, Playstation, VCR, DVD players, radios, thermostats, coffee pot, garage door opener controller, blood pressure monitor, rechargeable battery controllers, ….. ANYTHING plugged in that had electronics was destroyed. computers and printers were isolated by a UPS power supply – They were fine. Everything else? Gone.

  40. davidmhoffer:

    At September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm you say

    Hold on.
    A Carrington even WOULD cause a drop in temperatures of 3 degrees?

    Well if that is true, by extension, the Carrington event in 1859 DID reduce temperatures by 3 degrees.

    And if THAT is true, then the next question would be:

    How long would it take for temps to recover? 10 years? 100 years? How much of the “warming” during the instrumental record is just a recovery from the Carrington event in 1859?

    On the other hand, I question the results of this study for the simple reason that we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period.

    I think the most important issue your raise is,
    “How long would it take for temps to recover?”
    because I think it would be months.

    Each year global temperature rises by 3.8 K from June to January and falls by 3.8 K from June to January. This variation in global temperature results from the varying distance of the Earth from the Sun in its travel around its elliptical orbit and the greater coverage of the Southern Hemisphere by oceans.

    Clearly, the Earth responds to difference in heating from the Sun within months (probably much less than three months). The above article says;

    The model suggests a 3-fold increase of NOx generated in the upper stratosphere lasting until the end of November, and an up to 10-fold increase in upper mesospheric HOx. Due to the NOx and HOx enhancements, ozone reduces by up to 60–80% in the mesosphere during the days after the event, and by up to 20–40% in the middle stratosphere lasting for several months after the event. Total ozone is reduced by up to 20 DU in the Northern Hemisphere and up to 10 DU in the Southern Hemisphere.

    Assuming that is true, then the event lasts a few days and its direct effects would last “several months after the event”. Assume the total duration of those direct effects is 6 months and the recovery is 3 months then the effect of the event would last for a total of 9 months.

    So, the cooling would be at most 5 K for less than a year. In 1859 people would have noticed cold weather that year but nothing more than that. And it would be similar if such an event were to again occur.

    This would explain why “we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period” if it did occur: such “massive cooling” is only significant when sustained for more than a single year.

    In other words, either
    (a) the study is wrong because “we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period”
    or
    (b) if the study is right then the lack of evidence for sustained “massive cooling” following the 1859 event indicates its effects are so transient that they are not dissimilar to other weather events of similar magnitude.

    Richard

  41. John Marshall says September 27, 2012 at 2:23 am

    Cars electronics should still work. The steel bodies will act as a Faraday cage,

    Faraday cages can be ineffective John, unless you are only looking to shield the electrostatic (E-field) part of things; the magnetic (or H-field) proceeds on unimpeded … look it up, or alternatively, click my name …

    (A common misconception that continually gets repeated and re-repeated because it looks so good in print and sounds so authoritativein tone.)

    This EMP thing is overblown regardless; today’s electronics aren’t your Dad’s electronics (early solid-state devices) of the 1960’s fabricated w/o intrinsic static discharge protection, and the actual transmission ‘grid’ operators are primed to look out for geomagnetic events in order to invoke protection protocols and procedures.

    .

  42. RACookPE1978 says September 27, 2012 at 4:26 am

    BUT, if my experience with a massive electronic arc/surge/”EMP” when the power lead to my house breaker panel was pulled out suddenly under load (ground settlement yanked the input power cable out from the breaker panel) means anything, ANY electronic device plugged in will be destroyed. Microwave, digital TV, dishwasher, Playstation, VCR, DVD players, radios, thermostats, coffee pot, garage door opener controller, blood pressure monitor, rechargeable battery controllers, ….. ANYTHING plugged in that had electronics was destroyed. computers and printers were isolated by a UPS power supply – They were fine. Everything else? Gone.

    There is a good chance that everything saw 240V too, when that accident happened. That is more than likely what happened … loose the Neutral connection and Katy bar the door (you should know this!) and this doesn’t take into consideration other ‘shorts’ or shorting that may have occurred in the fuse panel or meter base as the service drop wiring was yanked out … twice line voltage supplied to most all appliances is highly detrimental exc those with ‘universal’ 110 – 240 VAC input …

    .

  43. The CET (or indeed the temperature trend in any single region) is only loosely related to global temperature changes often being out of phase with them.

    If the Carrington event altered ozone quantities it would likely take time for the thermal effects to build up to a maximum and then more time for the effects to dissipate. 10 to 20 years does not seem unreasonable.

    That said I think such a short event is unlikely to have the large consequences that they suggest. In contrast a multicentennial drift in the upper atmosphere ozone balance in response to long term solar variations would be a very different matter.

  44. 60+ comments and no one has actually noticed that the paper doesn’t anywhere discuss “global” cooling. This appears to have been invented by the headline writer of this post – as is the insertion of the “[global]” in the quote from the paper. It is obvious from their fig 9 (shown above) that the cooling is regional and associated with a shift in the arctic oscillation with cooling of *up to* 3K.

    Way to go with the skepticism people…

  45. Hopefully, if we have enough sensors watching, we’d have some warning (maybe 12-24 hrs?) and could take precautions. However, given the politico’s inability to make fast decisions, they’d be arguing about it as the plasma blasted into the the earth’s magnetosphere.

  46. Anthony,

    In theory…a large meteor passing close to our atmosphere could disrupt our atmosphere and take some particles in it’s trailings.
    The velocity of objects has very different effects depending on the speed of velocity.
    If hitting the sun, a slow moving object would melt but an extremely fast object would disintegrate by friction and impact depending on size. Rotation helps greatly in deflection but our poles have the smallest velocity and vastly less atmosphere…

  47. Gary said:
    “no one has actually noticed that the paper doesn’t anywhere discuss “global” cooling”

    They say:
    “cooling of up to 5 K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3 K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina.”

    Sounds like a global effect to me.

  48. The way I see it is that it is just a model so take the results as an improbable occurance. The chemical reactions modeled are well understood but SPEs not so much. The angle of impact on the atmosphere, the energy of the photons, and the total area of contact all equate into the final answer which would be different for every simulation resulting in a different temperature outcome. Remember we have no recent documentation to base these simulations on so the complete atmosphereic cycle is not understood.

  49. vukcevic:

    re your post addressed to me at September 27, 2012 at 6:36 am, you quote part of what I said at September 27, 2012 at 4:48 am and dispute it by showing the CET for 1859 was similar to its adjacent years.

    Firstly, as Stephen Wilde says at September 27, 2012 at 5:32 am

    The CET (or indeed the temperature trend in any single region) is only loosely related to global temperature changes often being out of phase with them.

    so, of itself, that regional data is not conclusive.

    Much more importantly, my point was that the event had so trivial a climatological effect that it was not recorded and, therefore, a similar future event could be expected to also have trivial climatological effect and any effect it did have would only be seen as weather.

    I remind that I explained my reasoning and concluded by writing:

    In other words, either
    (a) the study is wrong because “we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period”
    or
    (b) if the study is right then the lack of evidence for sustained “massive cooling” following the 1859 event indicates its effects are so transient that they are not dissimilar to other weather events of similar magnitude.

    Richard

  50. @Stephen Wilde – I agree with Gary here. It isn’t ‘global’ cooling just because it affects the two geomagnetic poles. The effects shown are regional and temporary wrt to the atmosphere. Not cool to add words into the text.

  51. Paul Vaughan:

    You are plain wrong in your post at September 27, 2012 at 7:18 am where you assert

    Commenters referring to global average temperatures (& CET) haven’t listened carefully before reacting. The paper speculates about terrestrial circulatory morphology changes due to solar modulation of temperature gradients (not averages) in the polar (not global) regions. Discussion: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/14747/2012/acpd-12-14747-2012-discussion.html

    No!
    You and the discussants at your link have not read the paper.

    Its ‘abstract’ says

    In conclusion, a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to of the Carrington Event of 1859, must be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone.

    and its ‘concluding remarks’ say

    The qualitative agreement of our results, modeled with the 3-D CCM SOCOL, for the changes in NOx, ozone, temperature and dynamics, with those obtained by Thomas et al. (2007) and Jackman et al. (2007), corroborates the finding that solar proton events of this strength have intense atmospheric interactions in a broad altitude range starting from 80 km down to 30 km, with repercussions for surface air temperature. The latter range from a cooling of up to 5K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina..

    A “major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere” with sited temperature reductions near both poles is a global effect.

    Richard

  52. henrythethird says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    REPLY: Excellent point, we probably would lose the technological capability to measure and record the cooling – Anthony

    Aren’t there still a few max/min thermometers left? And pencil and paper?

    We may lose the computing power, and we may go to less technological record keeping, but hopefully there will still be scientists out there who will want future civilizations to see what we went through.

    Imagine how much less we’d know about events if people in 1859 hadn’t written anything down. If they were able to make measurements WITHOUT computers, maybe we should be stocking up on whatever they used. Or developing shielding for what we have now.

    Think of ways those data loggers and that equipment can be shielded. We’ve got an idea of the levels (the ionization rates for the August 1972 solar proton event) as a baseline, don’t we?

    We have plenty of paper in the computer printer, but I think I’ll have more important things to do than record temps. Perhaps I’ll add a mechanical clock, perpetual paper calender and a thermometer to the stockpiles in the Panic Room?

  53. Since the entire global air circulation is a single entity I fail to see how one can have regional changes that do not have global implications.

    Simply, any regional changes are a reflection of a changes in the global energy balance.

    I think the effect of the Carrington event may have been spread over the subsequent couple of decades producing the global warming that occurred from 1859 to about 1880 though it is clear that regional effects were much less straightforward and clearly varied within that two decade period.

    The important thing is that warming followed it in global terms and not cooling.

    Even if that single event was too short lived to account for observations it remains my view that solar variations on a multicentennial timescale nonetheless produce the proposed or similar ozone effects but with a reverse sign system response.

    An active sun cools the stratosphere for more zonal jets and a warming troposphere.

    An inactive sun does the opposite.

    The changes being implemented by global cloudiness and albedo variations.

  54. Tallbloke says
    Given that HADsst2 shows a warming over the 1859-69 decade,

    Henry says
    I see some of you guys are picking up on this: a reduction in ozone causes warming, not cooling.
    Clever. You figured it out. Thanks.

    I would imagine that the upper atmosphere acts like a sponge taking solar effects and converting it into chemical reactions (NOx, HOx + Ox) and distributing it. A massive ozone loss, if this is what the C-effect causes, would ultimately lead to a warming effect, but probably spread over 5-10 years.
    Can you show me that graph, Tallbloke?

  55. Stephen Wilde,

    That chart apparently shows accelerating temperatures. But when using a trend line chart, we see that the warming since the LIA has been steady, with no acceleration:

  56. richardscourtney says: September 27, 2012 at 7:48 am
    vukcevic:
    re your post addressed to me at September 27, 2012 at 6:36 am, you quote part of what I said at September 27, 2012 at 4:48 am and dispute it by showing the CET for 1859 was similar to its adjacent years.

    Mr. Courtney
    Well, that has to be some kind of misunderstanding, I thought the graph was clearly confirming the point you made (with no further comment was required), as I also stated in my earlier previous comment of September 27, 2012 at 3:29 am, where I said:
    I had a quick look at the CET temperatures for the time http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm (pannel3)
    Nothing exceptional there either in the autumn 1859 or winter 1860 temperatures, that was not present in the previous or the subsequent decade.

    I hope that clears the matter.

  57. vukcevic:

    re your post to me at September 27, 2012 at 9:17 am, if I misunderstood anything then I apologise. I hope there is now mutual understanding.

    Richard

  58. David Ball says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    boballab says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    Uhmmm, that is what I was talking about. No power? It would be anarchy.

    You wouldn’t need to worry about the anarchy that follows since you would already be dead. Let me put it in perspective. If the power goes out for a long time people have the erroneous assumption that everyone will start attacking each other instantly. They won’t, it will take a while for the reality of he situation to sink in. Human beings are very good at self deception. So lets say it happens in late December, now we need to take a look at how long each possible killer is out there:

    Starvation takes 30-60 days
    Lack of water (Dehydration) takes 3-5 days
    Freezing to Death (Hypothermia) <12 hours

    A vast majority of deaths north of 40° Lat will be from Hypothermia long before they run out of water, or starve and well before the anarchy of the thing sets in. Freezing to death does not equal anarchy, anarchy is the breakdown of government and order and has nothing to do with the temperature.

    Two things to look up is what happened at the end of the MWP to France and read John Ringo's "The Last Centurion" both deal with what happens in a slowly cooling world. In both cases the deaths from anarchy is a pittance to deaths from freezing, lack of water and food.

  59. _Jim says:
    September 27, 2012 at 5:20 am
    RACookPE1978 says September 27, 2012 at 4:26 am

    BUT, if my experience with a massive electronic arc/surge/”EMP” when the power lead to my house breaker panel was pulled out suddenly under load (ground settlement yanked the input power cable out from the breaker panel) means anything, ANY electronic device plugged in will be destroyed. Microwave, digital TV, dishwasher, Playstation, VCR, DVD players, radios, thermostats, coffee pot, garage door opener controller, blood pressure monitor, rechargeable battery controllers, ….. ANYTHING plugged in that had electronics was destroyed. computers and printers were isolated by a UPS power supply – They were fine. Everything else? Gone.

    There is a good chance that everything saw 240V too, when that accident happened. That is more than likely what happened … loose the Neutral connection and Katy bar the door (you should know this!) and this doesn’t take into consideration other ‘shorts’ or shorting that may have occurred in the fuse panel or meter base as the service drop wiring was yanked out … twice line voltage supplied to most all appliances is highly detrimental exc those with ‘universal’ 110 – 240 VAC input …

    In the event of a lost neutral, the voltage imbalance will be a function of the relative sizes of the connected loads on each leg. The ratio of the voltages will be the same as the ratio of the total resistive load on the “A” leg and “B” leg.

  60. richardscourtney says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:13 am
    vukcevic:
    re your post to me at September 27, 2012 at 9:17 am, if I misunderstood anything then I apologise. I hope there is now mutual understanding.
    Richard

    Thanks, but no need to. I am the one to blame for not stating clearly what the graph is suppose to show. I find your comments informative and arguments well constructed, an example to follow, but that requires the knowledge and communicating skills, hence ‘mutual understanding’ may not be readily achievable.

  61. D Böehm says:
    September 27, 2012 at 9:05 am

    I don’t disagree DB.

    If the Carrington event had any effect at all it was to enhance warming for a couple of decades until the underlying trend from the LIA re established itself.

  62. boballab says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:18 am
    “You wouldn’t need to worry about the anarchy that follows since you would already be dead.”

    You are mistaken about this. I have lived without power for three years in the Canadian wilderness. I would be fine. Thank you very much.

    Anthony understood what I meant. You did not. You went off on some tangent that had little or nothing to do with what I posted. People would care if it was cold, but they would not care as to the accuracy of that temperature. Jump on someone else.

  63. “Notice also the el Nino events at solar minima”

    Looks like the extra energy entering the oceans during solar max is discharged some years later in El Ninos around solar minimum.

    I hadn’t seen evidence on the timescale of single solar cycles before but it fits in well with my proposition that a more active sun alters the air circulation to allow more energy into the oceans to skew the ENSO balance in favour of El Nino.

  64. Stephen Wilde says:
    “Looks like the extra energy entering the oceans during solar max is discharged some years later in El Ninos around solar minimum.
    I hadn’t seen evidence on the timescale of single solar cycles before but it fits in well with my proposition that a more active sun alters the air circulation to allow more energy into the oceans to skew the ENSO balance in favour of El Nino.”

    More like the warmed water accumulates at the surface rather than being replaced by the cold up-welling of the Humboldt current. When the Sun is *less* active, e.g. slower solar wind, the trade winds weaken and encourage Nino conditions. This is marked by the typical sharp drop in the Ap index within the first 2yrs from solar cycle minimum, which are the events Tallbloke is referring to.

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/e/summaries/ensogw.php

  65. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm
    MarkW says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    I don’t remember reading about a similar cooling event following the 1859 Carrington even.
    Indeed there wasn’t any. That puts the whole thing into the realm of fairy tales.

    I love Leifs absolute denial that the sun can influence the temp or the climate…..classic

  66. Stephen Wilde (September 27, 2012 at 8:47 am)
    “Since the entire global air circulation is a single entity I fail to see how one can have regional changes that do not have global implications.”

    Careful here. Be wary of accidental misinterpretation.

    Global implications? Of course, but a gradient is not the same thing as an average. AAM & LOD tell us not that a global average temperature is modulated by the solar cycle, but rather that the midlatitude westerly winds are. That points directly to a modulation of equator-pole temperature gradients (via the thermal wind relation).

    There’s NOT a 1:1 correspondence between equator-pole gradient changes and global average changes.

    Cordial advice: Tell a story that’s consistent with observation.

    Best Regards.

  67. Ulric Lyons says:September 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Ulric, trade-winds have NOTHING to do with El Nino 2] when extra energy enters the sea -> evaporation increases INSTANTLY. Evaporation is a ”cooling process” (your freezer works on evaporation process) / when you are running, get hot; sprinkle some water – the hotter you were – the colder you get; because extra heat increases evaporation.

    3] extra evaporation means extra clouds; clouds are as sun-umbrellas for the sea – clouds intercept part of the sunlight, that never reaches to the water = less warming of the water, until equalizes. Doesn’t take years, but few days. It’s called ”self adjusting mechanism”. 4] extra clouds = extra rain, rain brings extra coldness to the sea and land. tallblocke is not here to inform, but to confuse; it’s not in his interest the truth to be known

  68. Ulric and Peter,

    I don’t see anything in your comments that is inconsistent with what I said.

    I deliberately left the fine details of the process alone in order to focus on the grand overview. Your comments simply help to flesh out the fine detail

    Stefan,

    Not all the solar energy gets to provoke more evaporation immediately. A lot of it penetrates the surface to depths of up to 300 metres and is moved around before it can return to the surface in order to affect the evaporation rate. The return to the surface at other places and other times affects the winds as Ulric points out.

    Furthermore the actual data shows reduced cloudiness when more energy is getting into the oceans..Tallbloke correctly draws attention to that counter intuitive fact. Most of the extra energy going into the oceans when the sun is active occurs under dry, cloud free, subtropical high pressure cells where cloud development is suppressed by descending air.

  69. Kelvin Vaughan says: September 27, 2012 at 3:34 am said: ”I have just decided what I want written on my headstone. “I told you it wasn’t warming!” and you can have “My formulas were fanatically ignored!.”

    Hi Kelvin, idea is goood.
    2]It’s no point proving to them; that they are wrong; they know that they are wrong – by trying to silence you – they are admitting that they know that they are wrong. 3] when you see some juicy lies, copy and keep for record, for the time when ”truth and reconciliation” comes. .

    4]If one ”pretend” to know what was the GLOBAL temp for 1885, he will be on a witness stand under oath. By having temp for London for that year – knowing what was daily temp on Easter island, Midway in Pacific, Antarctic ocean / continent… he is talking about his integrity, not about the GLOBAL temperature

    At that time wasn’t collected for Oceania, inland Australia; but now is. Will be compared: if when the temp in London goes up or down by a degree – does it goes same simultaneously on those places also?! THEY ARE 70 TIMES LARGER THAN ENGLAND!!!

    5] nobody knows the GLOBAL temp for last year, to save his life, because on 99,9999999% of the planet nobody is monitoring now, they know about 19 century…?! Now they monitor for the hottest minute, but the other 1439 minutes is ignored – the other minutes are much more important, than the hottest – thousand to one influences… they don’t get cooler simultaneously by 2C, if the hottest minute is colder by 2C than yesterday. 6] if between two monitoring places is 100km and gets warmer by 2C than yesterday – but between the next two monitoring places is 1300km gets colder by 0,5C ====== for them larger area doesn’t have any different meaning. Because of their misleadings, trillion $$$ has being squandered, children brainwashed in school and university, lots of other crimes in progress. Punishment must fit the crime. The more evidences = the better for the jury. They are avoiding my proofs, facts and formulas as the devil avoids the cross

    Kelvin, guess what’s the temp in your room – then look at the thermometer – most of the time you will be wrong guessing by 1-2-3-4C, your room temp, Kelvin, now. They can guess what was the temp in midway / mid pacific, 130y ago, on the other side of the planet… They know even what the amount of ozone was then…? using ozone as a smokescreen… because they started panicking – time is against them. People on the street will not buy for much longer; warmer / colder / warmer planet. It only proves that they don’t even know how the ozone functions. We overlooked the white lie regarding ozone, to prevent plastic burning, CFC; but using ozone to con about global temperature – they will discover that in industrial chemistry, the truth is already known; and the manipulators are 101% WRONG. Cheers.

  70. @Stephen Wilde

    Can you point me to cloud data that matches solar variables?
    I need a direct link to a plain-text data-page.

    Tallbloke or anyone else:
    I make the same request of you.

  71. Is there anyone here that thinks atmospheric wind patterns have nothing to do with surface temperature gradients?

  72. Paul Vaughan:

    I assume you are aiming to win the ‘Mosher Award’ for cryptic irrelevance.

    At September 27, 2012 at 7:18 am you asserted

    Commenters referring to global average temperatures (& CET) haven’t listened carefully before reacting. The paper speculates about terrestrial circulatory morphology changes due to solar modulation of temperature gradients (not averages) in the polar (not global) regions. Discussion: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/14747/2012/acpd-12-14747-2012-discussion.html

    At September 27, 2012 at 8:08 am I replied saying

    You are plain wrong

    because

    You and the discussants at your link have not read the paper.

    I then gave pertinent quotes from the paper and concluded saying

    A “major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere” with sited temperature reductions near both poles is a global effect.

    At September 27, 2012 at 7:08 pm you have replied by saying in total

    <@richardscourtney (September 27, 2012 at 8:08 am)
    An average isn’t a gradient.

    Oh! So you think that makes your original comment right? You’ve got to be kidding!

    Subsequently, at September 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm, you talk about pole-to-equator gradients and say

    There’s NOT a 1:1 correspondence between equator-pole gradient changes and global average changes.

    But I am not aware of anybody who has ever claimed there is such a “1:1 correspondence”.

    Then, at September 27, 2012 at 10:04 pm you post in total

    Is there anyone here that thinks ocean surface currents have little or nothing to do with atmospheric wind?

    Immediately followed by your post at September 27, 2012 at 10:07 pm which says in total

    Is there anyone here that thinks atmospheric wind patterns have nothing to do with surface temperature gradients?

    The answer to both those questions is ‘Probably not’.

    Do you have other cryptic irrelevancies to throw into the thread?

    Richard

  73. Stephen Wilde says:
    “I don’t see anything in your comments that is inconsistent with what I said.”

    You say a more active Sun favours El Nino, I say a less active Sun favours El Nino, you can’t get more opposite that that. The studies in the link I provided are also entirely inconsistent with what you said.

    @stefanthedenier
    The trade winds force upwelling of colder water by Ekman pumping.

  74. Ulric.

    One just needs to time shift the El Ninos by 5 years or so which is approximately half a solar cycle.

    It is reasonable to accept some delay between solar energy entering the ocean and accumulating during solar max and then being released at or around solar minimum.

    Obviously it isn’t quite that simple since other factors affect the ENSO process but in broad terms that is entirely plausible and seem to be largely borne out by tallbloke’s link.

  75. Henry@Paul

    I think Richard’s remarks were correct. Your last remark against Richard was rude.
    \ nevertheless, concerning your last question to which you were hoping to get some reaction,

    I believe that the net effect of some more or less clouds, due to whatever reason, cancels each other out, largely, due to more or less deflection (of sunlight) during the day and more or less GH effect (of earthshine) during the night. Since nobody can show me any (real, average) figures on that I will stay with that opinion.

    I did find a correlation that shows increasing maxima against decreasing ozone and decreasing maxima against increasing ozone; it checked out that way on both hemispheres.
    I think the reason for this is the change in chemical reaction (top of the atmosphere) of UV with NOx, HOx and Ox to a small change in the distribution of energy, mainly in the UV region coming from the sun.
    In turn this changes the shield of earth: if there is more ozone & others, there is more back radiation of high energy light by the ozone & others, so the oceans (mainly) get less energy.
    This is why I said that the belief stated in this paper that a decrease in ozone will have a cooling effect is nonsense.
    Hope this helps a few people here.

  76. Stephen Wilde says:
    “One just needs to time shift the El Ninos by 5 years or so which is approximately half a solar cycle.
    It is reasonable to accept some delay between solar energy entering the ocean and accumulating during solar max and then being released at or around solar minimum.
    Obviously it isn’t quite that simple since other factors affect the ENSO process but in broad terms that is entirely plausible and seem to be largely borne out by tallbloke’s link.”

    We often get Nino episodes around solar cycle maxima too, as there is usually an Ap index drop there as well. There are no large delays, just a strong seasonal bias, ENSO likes to change at particular times of the year, but it’s still generally following the solar wind speed variations. If the solar wind speed is high around cycle minimum, you’ll see a La Nina there instead, as in the 3yrs from 1973-76.

    Picking up on your earlier comment, you said at 8:32 pm;
    “The return to the surface at other places and other times affects the winds as Ulric points out.”

    I said nothing of the sort, I said the solar signal affects the trade winds, which then affect ENSO.
    What I describe corroborates with the evidence that my last link provided, that much warmer periods in the past had very little Nino conditions, while cold periods saw an increase in Nino episodes. Can we get on the same page on this most important point Stephan?

  77. HenryP (September 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm)
    “I think Richard’s remarks were correct.”

    Again: A gradient is not an average.

    Take the time to understand AAM & LOD features.

    I don’t have time for silly arguments.

  78. Ulric Lyons says: ”@stefanthedenier The trade winds force upwelling of colder water by Ekman pumping”

    Ulric, I wasn’t arguing with you; but pointing that: trade-winds do many things, but don’t cause El Nino. ,Same as: you don’t use umbrella, to bring rain, but rain makes you to use umbrella.

    2] people avoid the ”self adjusting mechanisms”; because are in details, in my book. People that hate me for bringing the truth and real proofs.
    a] yes, seawater serves as shock absorber, and takes few months to readjust, but not ”many years”! If you want to ignore that evaporation is cooling process – if you want to ignore that extra clouds = extra sun-umbrella for the sea and land… you are maybe suffering from ”truth phobia” same as tallblocke.

    b] but the biggest precursor of all misleading comes from; avoiding my proofs that: temperature in the troposphere OVERALL, adjust itself in less than 10 minutes / in ice age and in all the phony GLOBAL warmings; overall – warmth in the troposphere is and was ALWAYS the same!!! Laws of physics don’t change and don’t tell lies / they are the most reliable – if they don’t approve of some theory = that theory is a misleading crap. Avoiding those laws has created all the confusion – confusion doesn’t bring solutions to real problems

    P.s. heat in the sea is ”STORED HEAT” sometimes more, others less – some places more / other places less. 2] ”stored heat”; as in the sea, in new trees, in fossil fuel, in plutonium, in the magma are not part of the official GLOBAL temperature, before that heat is released into the atmosphere. Therefore, sea-temperature can tell if is going to be more or less rain for the next few months – but incorporating the sea-temperature into the official global temp is for creating more confusion for the already confused. Same as if you incorporate Bill Gates’ money into your bank account, will not make you richer or poorer, but would be accused of dishonesty.

    P.s. extra heat in the sea doesn’t come from the sun; but from activated submarine volcanoes / hot vents. b] 99% of the faulty line is on the bottom of the sea. Movements of the tectonic plates activates El Nino than la Nina – sometime neutral. c] when the sun intensity increase – so does the glare / reflection (sea-surface has mirror effect) ALL, 100% of the heat from submarine volcanoes / vents is absorbed by the water and spread by currents. d] the ocean is 2-4-6km closer to the earth’s center than land. e] 1km deep in the mine-shaft is 40C – average dept of the sea is more than 1km – all the dots are connected on my blog. Most people are for creating / increasing confusion; I’m for simplifying and bringing the truth – truth always wins on the end. Cheers!

  79. The evidence for a solar cycle influence over ENSO is very weak. SC19 being the highest with no apparent corresponding high or low ENSO pattern. The PDO is clearly the main influence over ENSO with the PDO in correlation with the Aleutian Low. The Aleutian Low follows the same 60 year cycle as the geomagnetic and Aurora records, finding this driver will be the key perhaps.

  80. Ulric said:

    “What I describe corroborates with the evidence that my last link provided, that much warmer periods in the past had very little Nino conditions, while cold periods saw an increase in Nino episodes. Can we get on the same page on this most important point Stephan?”

    I think we will need to respectfully disagree until more up to date data becomes available.

    There is no doubt on the basis of recent observations that El Nino warms the troposphere and La Nina cools it or at the very least there is a redistribution of warmth and cold between regions.

  81. Paul Vaughan:

    At September 28, 2012 at 8:49 pm you say

    I don’t have time for silly arguments.

    Then stop making them: they waste the time of everybody.

    Richard

  82. “On what basis do you disagree with all these findings?
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/e/summaries/ensogw.php

    I don’t disagree with any findings of fact, merely your interpretations of them or of their significance.

    It is quite possible for all those findings to be accurate yet, on time scales that are relevant for us today, El Nino and LA Nina events and their varying dominance over time still to be the primary causes of tropospheric temperature changes and solar variations to be the primary causes of the changes in the relative dominance of El Nino and La Nina.

    Quite simply, there are many factors that could be more influential on paleological time scales but that does not detract from the power of El Nino and La Nina on shorter time scales.

  83. Stephen Wilde says:
    “I don’t disagree with any findings of fact, merely your interpretations of them or of their significance.”

    That’s a bit ripe Stephen, I’m taking the findings at face value, there is no need to interpret them. And the verdict of the observations are that El Nino frequency reduces in warmer periods at a multi-decadal scale, which is plainly the opposite of your postulate that you have held for some time. Mind you you’re not alone in making that assumption.
    At the annual & seasonal scale, ENSO displays the same behaviour of favouring La Nina during periods of high solar activity. Which is the opposite of your suggestion earlier, quote:

    “I hadn’t seen evidence on the timescale of single solar cycles before but it fits in well with my proposition that a more active sun alters the air circulation to allow more energy into the oceans to skew the ENSO balance in favour of El Nino.”

    The cooling resulting from stratospheric volcanic eruptions also promotes El Nino periods, so plainly El Nino is a feedback response to cooling. The tropospheric temperature effects of an El Nino are an overshoot in the response to a cooling condition. That’s why global temperatures peak at such events in the short term, but that does not stop cold winters occurring simultaneously during the episode, as El Nino usually happens when the AO/NAO are negative, as they are driven by the same solar signal.

  84. “El Nino usually happens when the AO/NAO are negative, as they are driven by the same solar signal.”

    During the late 20th century we had run of powerful El Ninos at a time of generally active sun with positive AO.

    Since 2000 we have seen less El Ninos, a quieter sun and more negative AO.

    The recent record low solar minimum was accompanied by a record negative AO and we now have weaker El Ninos as compared to La Ninas.

    It isn’t El Nino frequency or timing that matters. What matters is the thermal effect of El Ninos as compared to the thermal effect of La Ninas so the data you linked to does need interpretation.

  85. richardscourtney (September 29, 2012 at 9:06 am) & also HenryP

    Apologies for the ambiguity. I’ll rephrase:
    It’s not the lines of reasoning I’m calling silly. It’s the process of trying to condense argument resolution into the short lifetime of a single thread that’s silly.

  86. Stephen Wilde says:

    “What matters is the thermal effect of El Ninos as compared to the thermal effect of La Ninas so the data you linked to does need interpretation.”
    What matters is that the coldest Holocene periods have seen an increase in El Nino.

    “The recent record low solar minimum was accompanied by a record negative AO and we now have weaker El Ninos as compared to La Ninas.”
    That negative AO was accompanied by a fairly strong El Nino.

    “Since 2000 we have seen less El Ninos, a quieter sun and more negative AO.”
    Several months back you asked me why there have been more El Nino’s since 2000, though apart from 2009/10 they have been fairly weak. The negative AO has only dominated since 2009.

    “During the late 20th century we had run of powerful El Ninos at a time of generally active sun with positive AO.”
    The 1997/98 Nino had -AO (neg) and very -NAO. The 1991/92 Nino would have driven by Pinatubo. The 1982/83 Nino had El Chichon. The 1987 Nino was largely -AO. And the stronger La Nina’s were during positive AO/NAO.

  87. Ulric, I think the difference is one of time scales.

    On shorter time scales such as those you refer to regarding recent events there is lots of scope for out of phase events and distortions due to volcanic outbreaks but over multiple decades and centuries the pattern seems clear enough to me.

    As for the coldest periods of the Holocene having seen an increase in El Nino that may or may not be so but supposing it is so then all that is necessary is for the recharge process during La Nina to be weaker than the discharge process during El Nino whereupon there will be a net system cooling even though there may be more El Ninos.

    Thus it is not the frequency of El Ninos that matters, nor the strength of the El Ninos that do occur but rather the cumulative net thermal effect over time between the discharge (El Nino) and recharge (La Nina) processes.

  88. Stephen Wilde says:
    “Thus it is not the frequency of El Ninos that matters, nor the strength of the El Ninos that do occur but rather the cumulative net thermal effect over time between the discharge (El Nino) and recharge (La Nina) processes.”

    More frequent Nino’s would mean less time for recharge. With a colder base temperature, both recharge and discharge would be less effective.

  89. “More frequent Nino’s would mean less time for recharge. With a colder base temperature, both recharge and discharge would be less effective.”

    Not if the El Ninos become shorter or less intense relative to La Ninas they won’t.

    With a colder base temperature, recharge would tend to dominate over discharge and with a warmer base temperature discharge would tend to dominate over recharge and the base temperature would be set by the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans which in turn depends on cloudiness changes forced by solar variations.

  90. Stephen Wilde said
    “Not if the El Ninos become shorter or less intense relative to La Ninas they won’t.”

    Well that would characterise a warming period, like the multi-year La Nina’s at 1973-75, 1983-85 and 1998-2001, which had major El Nino’s following them.
    A colder base temperature could only exist due to increased discharge, and would remain so while El Nino dominates.

  91. Ulric Lyons says: ”Well that would characterize a warming period, like the multi-year La Nina’s at 1973-75, 1983-85 and 1998-2001, which had major El Nino’s following them.”

    Ulric, El Nino / La Nina doesn’t mean warmer, or colder years. It means: in El Nino some parts of the oceans are warmer / others colder – then changes places in La Nina years. Where is warmer ocean – evaporation increases and makes nights warmer / days milder. Where is less evaporation, days become hotter / nights colder. Because only one minute in 1440 minutes in 24h is taken into account = creates confusion. All the other 1439 minutes have same value – because they don’t go up, or down, as the hottest minute in 24h. None of those variations suggest warmer the WHOLE planet. Don’t waste your life on outdated / pagan beliefs.

  92. @Stephen Wilde

    To correct my last comment, the El Nino episodes following the multi-year La Nina’s are where the up steps in Global/SST temperatures occurred that Erl Happ and Bob Tisdale have written about. The El Nino’s immediately before the multi-year La Nina’s are actually the stronger El Nino’s (’72, ’82 and ’97), but possibly did not produce comparable up steps in climate as they were not preceded by such long and strong La Nina episodes.

  93. Hi Henry.

    Like you, I would be inclined to await better evidence of any link between the position of the magnetic pole and the shape of the atmospheric circulation or the size of the polar ice caps.

    Overall I’m doubtful unless the magnetic changes serve as a proxy for the solar induced ozone changes which do appear to alter the air circulation from above.

  94. Henry@Stephen Wilde
    I shall be publishing that sine wave (wave length 88 years) that seems to correlate with my curve showing the deceleration of maximum temperatures shortly. Remember: the evaluation of maxima is like looking at energy-in which is not the same as energy out.
    Looking at that curve, it looks like the deceleration in degrees C or K/ annum2 started around 40 years ago. It changed sign around 1995 to negative (cooling). I am not yet sure which of the two dates is the most significant.
    I am just picking your brains here before I speak to the solar experts…
    Don’t you think it is quite possible that it is the change in earth’s magnetic field that could cause a change in the amount of FUV and EUV coming in?
    (I must admit that I haven’t yet had the time to investigate what the E and the F here stands for)

  95. I think FUV is Far Ultra violet and EUV is Extreme Ultra Violet.

    The magnetic field only affects charged particles so I have proposed that the quantities of them could contribute to the ozone changes higher up especially since some of them affect NOx production which is highly reactive with ozone.

  96. Well, if photons can be affected by the magnetic field then that would favour their arrival at or around the poles but so far as I know they can’t.

    Doesn’t affect my proposition either way so I haven’t gone deeply into it.

  97. Remember that our ozone shield is not equal over the earth. It is much less in the SH and therefore, %wise, the drop in ozone until 1995/6 was much more spectacular in the SH. The SH oceans are really earth’s biggest energy store. I am thinking that this unequal distribution of ozone between the SH and the NH could have something to do with H-O compounds being naturally more available above the SH oceans, landing on top of the atmosphere by diffusion and with a bit of energy could collide and turn into peroxides that eat the ozone away? ( I am not sure of the potentials involved in those reactions, I will have to check). If I am correct on that, then that would explain a lot of things for me at the same time.

    (your assumption that N-O could have something to do with it could also be correct, but then I would expect to see a more equal distribution of ozone over both hemispheres?)

  98. Climatology Animation (freezes on January in some browsers – Firefox works, not Chrome):

    Column-integrated Ozone

    [ Credit: Climatology animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ] images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI). ]

  99. stefanthedenier says:

    September 27, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    stefan

    I enjoyed reading you blog up to the end, but 101%? That means out of 100 statements they made they were wrong 101 times?

  100. Kelvin Vaughan says: ”I enjoyed reading you blog up to the end, but 101%? That means out of 100 statements they made they were wrong 101 times?”

    Hi Kelvin; almost in every statement, they are wrong on 2-3-4-5 things. I said as 101%, as a conservative estimate

Comments are closed.