Another solar to climate amplification mechanism found?

ScreenShot3388[1]

From the Hockey Schtick: Paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate (video follows)

A lecture by professor Hiroko Miyahara of the University of Tokyo provides additional support to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, finding that both solar geomagnetic activity and the polarity of geomagnetic activity have significant effects upon cosmic rays and cloud formation. The polarity of solar geomagnetic activity flips with a 22-year cycle, with periods of negative polarity [such as the current solar cycle] having a greater effect upon cosmic rays and cloud formation.

The authors also find a remarkable correlation between solar rotational signals, cloud height, and the Madden-Julian Oscillation [third figure below], which may represent yet another mechanism by which small changes in solar activity can be amplified to large changes in climate. Other amplification mechanisms include via ocean oscillations, ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds.

Watch:

Pdf file of slides

Solar Activity and Climate

Hiroko Miyahara, The University of Tokyo

Abstract:

1. Introduction

Instrumentally measured or reconstructed past climate changes often show positive correlation with solar activity at the wide range of time scales, such as from monthly (Takahashi et al., 2010) to millennial (Bond et al., 2001). However, the mechanisms of their linkage have not been well understood. The possible solar-related parameters that can drive climate change are; total solar irradiance (TSI), solar ultra violet (UV), solar wind (SW) and the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). The galactic cosmic rays are attenuated by changing solar magnetic field in the heliosphere; the region where the wind of solar plasma and magnetic filed expend. The observed flux of GCRs shows inverse correlation to solar activity. It is known that the change in the cosmic ray flux results in the change in the ionization rate in the atmosphere. It is suggested that it may cause the change in cloud amount.

2. Variation of Galactic Cosmic Rays during the Maunder Minimum

It is difficult to evaluate the exact role of each of solar-related parameters above, since most of them are more or less synchronized for the instrumental period. However, the variation of solar radiation and GCRs may be different at the Maunder Minimum (AD1645-1715). The Maunder Minimum is a period of sunspot absence lasted about 70 years. The Sun has shown periodic variation with ~11-year period since the beginning of the 18th century. However, the sunspots had almost disappeared and apparent ~11-year cycles had been lost during the Maunder Minimum. It means that solar activity had been extraordinarily weak and that the environment of heliosphere had been different from today. We found that the variation of GCRs was very unique during the time. The variation of GCRs has been revealed by the measurements of cosmic-ray induced radio isotopes such as carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings or ice cores. The content of radio isotopes have shown that solar cycle had been kept during the long-lasting sunspot absence, but with ~14-year period. It has been also revealed that the 22-year cycle; the cycle of periodic reversal of solar dipole magnetic field, had been also kept but with ~28-year period and had been amplified during the time. The polarity of the Sun reverses at the maxima of solar cycles, and thus holds ~22-year period. The ~22-year cycle is not observed in the changes in solar radiations; however it appears in the variation of GCRs consisting of mainly changed particles. The changes in the environment of heliosphere had probably resulted in the amplification of the 22-year cycle in GCRs.

3. Variation of climate and its relation to Galactic Cosmic Rays

We have found that reconstructed climate data show unique variations similar to that of GCRs during the Maunder Minimum. For example, the northern hemispheric temperatures are significantly dependent on the direction of solar dipole magnetic field. At the phases of negative polarity of dipole magnetic field, when GCRs show anomalous increase, we observe colder climate. The dependence of climate change on solar dipole magnetic field results in the manifestation of 22-year cycle in climate change. The cause of decadal to multi-decadal climate changes had not been well understood, however, our study suggests that GCRs may be the playing important role in climate change at those time scales.

Conclusion

More detailed studies are needed to reveal the mechanisms of solar influence on climate change; however, our study has suggested that not only solar irradiative outputs but also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change possibly through changing the flux of GCRs. The mechanisms how the cosmic rays change the cloud property should be clarified in the future studies.
References
G. Bond et al., Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science, 7, 294, 2130, 2001.

H. Miyahara, Y. Yokoyama & K. Masuda, Possible link between multi-decadal climate cycles and periodic reversals of solar magnetic field polarity, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 272, 290-295, 2008.

Y. Takahashi, Y. Okazaki, M. Sato, H. Miyahara, K. Sakanoi, and P. K. Hong, 27-day variation in cloud amount and relationship to the solar cycle, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1577-1584, 2010.

About these ads

74 thoughts on “Another solar to climate amplification mechanism found?

  1. You mean to say that tiny variations in the output from that big bright ball in the sky, that provides all our light, heat and energy, might have some effect on the tiny meeting layer between the sun’s energy input and the oceanic energy battery storage and slow release output, which is known as our climate? Well who’da thunk it? /sarc.

  2. The Sun is very active, energetic, and dynamic. I can well imagine that if the Sun even hiccups we here on Earth will notice it some how. And the way that cosmic rays can increase cloud cover, and all the various Solar cycles, surely the Sun has a big effect on our climate.

  3. @steveta-uk. Makes sense. I don’t think you can use solar reflectors on your property to turn my property into a solar furnace.

  4. also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change

    Don’t tell Dr. Svalgaard,
    vukcevic has been ‘rattling’ about that kind of ‘nonsense’ for number of years now:
    Phase relationship between SOLAR and the EARTH’s MAGNETIC VARIABILITY is of the fundamental importance, when in phase oceans warm, when out of phase oceans cool. Got it?

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

  5. I don’t really trust the eye to compare two time series plotted on top of one another. Why not show a scattergram, coloured if necessary by solar magnetic phase?

  6. I wonder if it’s a coincidence that Jupiter orbits the Sun every 11.86 years, compared with the sun’s ~11 year cycles.

  7. Is there a connection between solar influences and the jet stream? I read an article several months ago that was describing some aspects of solar dynamics. A section discussed an inner middle-latitude, cyclical flow that breaks up and disappears periodically. I had an immediate thought pop up, ‘ what if the jet stream is affected by that flow?’. Could that be due to harmonies between the magnetic fields of the Sun with the Earth? I am a complete amateur in anything regarding solar, but I do have a curious way of sometimes seeing how things fit together, and I am curious enough to ask the question.

  8. You don’t want to go overboard with this solar stuff, Anthony. It’s still crackpottery in certain circles. About one in six or seven articles will do it. Myself, I’m into it.

  9. Not sure why they are calling variation in OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) a variation in cloud height. Would seem to be more a measure of total cloudiness (combining both heat trapping by clouds and the albedo decrease in shortwave that is available to re-emerge as longwave). Anyone up on this?

    In any case, a clear OLR signal of the rotation of the heliospheric current sheet is strong evidence for Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory.

  10. Understanding the lag time effect, the recharge and discharge cycles of energy absorbed and released due to solar cycles, will help us adapt more easily to climate changes. Knowing the weather is not our fault and you are not to blame for climate changes, will make you feel better as well.

  11. goldminor says April 17, 2013 at 11:56 am

    I had an immediate thought pop up, ‘ what if the jet stream is affected by that flow?’. Could that be due to harmonies between the magnetic fields of the Sun with the Earth?

    In what way, how would the movement of (basically) ‘air’ be influenced by magnetic fields? Would not the (more or less) static mag field of the earth (about 1/2 Gauss at the surface) have more of an influence? Would not some ‘connection’ have been made by now between the jetstream and the earth’s mag field?

    The relative permeability of air (μr) = 1.00000037 (one point zero zero zero zero zero zero three seven). Relative permeability is denoted by the symbol μr (mu sub r) and is the ratio of the permeability of a specific medium (air in our case) to the permeability of free space, μ0 (mu sub zero). Steel, by contrast has μr =100 (one hundred).

    So, air comes really, really close to being as permeable as free space is the take-away; other effects (winds due to low/high pressure centers, orographic lift, solar, etc) will quite literally ‘swamp’ the very minuscule effects a mag field could yield …

    Additional
    .

  12. References in the paper to “magnetic” all appear to mean that of Sun; not of Earth. Maybe I missed it.

  13. Yet another paper pointing to the Sun having more of an influence on climate than is currently accepted by, well lets say the IPCC and others. This is hardly a surprise to me and many here, and if not scientific proven yet, it is certainly intuitive to believe the Sun has the major influence. My question is, are we near a stage yet where all these theories can be put in to a forecast so it can be tested in reality? it has to explain the late 20th century warming, the current standstill and the expected cooling, when these have been nailed so will AGW. How far off do you think we are to that, as it will certainly kill off any major AGW effect

    Regards to all
    Keith Gordon

  14. I think that the following comment needs repeating:
    lgl says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:12 am
    Remember the Moons orbital period is also ~27 days.

    Thanks lgl for not going with the herd.

    A 27/54 day period between cloud height and AA index may just a result of the fact that ~ 27 day rotation period on the Sun matches the ~ 27 period of the anomalistic (Lunar perigee to perigee) or Draconic (Lunar node to node) Month.

    Watch this space.

  15. I hate to even suggest it but it seems increasingly probable that these phenomena are directly corrosponding with the cycles governing astrology. Gee, we might actually find a scientific basis for some of it. Oops.

  16. My question is, are we near a stage yet where all these theories can be put in to a forecast so it can be tested in reality? it has to explain the late 20th century warming, the current standstill and the expected cooling

    Thinking there is a single primary driver of climate change is the error the CO2 GHG crowd make. It’s entirely possible, and likely IMO, that there are multiple significant drivers of climate change.

    Clouds seem to be the primary mechanism, and we are a long way from understanding clouds sufficiently that we can model and predict their effects.

    Otherwise, my theory is that climate change results from factors that affect the phase changes of water.

  17. The magnetic poles of the sun are tilted ~12 degrees off of the axis of rotation, so as the sun rotates on its 27.32 day period its magnetic fields swinging from a N to S polarity and back to N take the center line of the neutral sheet of the solar wind into the spiral pattern discussed in the movie.

    The barycenter of the Earth/Moon system sweeps a smooth ellipse on the ecliptic plane with both the Earth and Moon taking turns bobbing above and below the ecliptic plane about 1200 Km. Which is the driving mechanism for the lunar declinational movement in phase with the shifts in polarity in the solar wind, (the two stay synchronized to within a 5 minute window).

    The declinational movement imparted on the moon transfers its energy into the earth, oceans, and atmosphere via the declinational tidal interactions, which cause surges in the meridional flows in the oceans, and atmosphere that can be used as a basis for forecasting the weather effects it repeatably induces into the global circulation.

    http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/lunar-tidal-movie-sample/

    http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/

    Sample of how the outer planets assist the driving mechanism above normal levels to trigger extreme events; http://research.aerology.com/severe-weather/derecho-storm-seen-from-space/

    Weather maps can be viewed here; http://www.aerology.com/

    http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/temperature-scale-update-on-maps/

    Lots more info and details in the research pages, take your time look around when you find the time, no commercial content, totally free access to all maps processed at this time.

  18. Philip Bradley:

    At April 17, 2013 at 4:50 pm you say

    Thinking there is a single primary driver of climate change is the error the CO2 GHG crowd make. It’s entirely possible, and likely IMO, that there are multiple significant drivers of climate change.

    I agree, and I write to add that there may be no driver of climate change because an oscillating chaotic system can be expected to vary without any driver.

    Chaotic systems vary, and purely harmonic variations may occur independently of any chaotic effects.

    Please remember that global temperature rises 3.8 deg.C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8 deg.C during the other 6 months of each year. But global temperature only rose about 0.8 deg.C throughout the last century.

    In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.

    And an oscillating system can be expected to exhibit harmonics over periods much longer than a single oscillation. The observed changes with apparent frequencies of ~900 years and ~60 years could be harmonics.

    So, both chaos and harmonics could be expected to vary global climate and neither requires any driver of the variation.

    Richard

  19. Ian Wilson says:April 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    Regarding the moon, I was curious and took the partial 1990 chart and added the new and full moons. The July 1990 full moon was an eclipse. So would have been Jan of ’91, but that is beyond this chart. Nothing strikes me right off. Would be curious if the declinational/node cycle showed up. Might need several years of monthly data to see a correlation with declination/node.

  20. Preliminary analysis indicates that the period of the variation in cloud height is closer to 25.9 days. This matches the AA variation (i.e. equatorial solar rotation) period much better than the 27.3 day lunar periods. Indeed, if you compare the lunar anomalistic (perigee to perigee) cycles and the lunar draconic (node to node) cycles with the cloud height data you get a noticeable phase drift between the two over the year.

  21. In other words, it look like its more likely to be the Sun rather than the Moon that affects cloud height.

  22. Good to see more looking at this.

    A top barrier to further understanding has been the propagandist-convenient “accidental” skewing of cloud trends from the most commonly reproduced source (the ISCCP) since a satellite orbit change several years ago, but, as usual, other data is illuminating, such as the blatant correlation of cosmic ray variation with specific humidity at medium altitude throughout the entire period of observation with modern instruments, illustrated with references and more examples in http://s7.postimg.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif

  23. For anyone who has participated in international “scientific” conferences, I am sure we can congratulate Miss Hiroko for an excellent presentation.

    Very interesting. I had not ever been aware of the solr rotation period effect on Earth; as, probably, none of us did. I personally never would have thought it so direct – but then, who am I? A train engineer?

  24. John Bell said @ April 17, 2013 at 9:45 am
    I can well imagine that if the Sun even hiccups we here on Earth will notice it some how.

    In Canada, we say that if the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold. But, that may be changing … Yey, go Canada!

  25. A thought has popped into my head. My local meteorologist has a theory regarding a 50-55 day cycle of weather, sufficient to be fairly accurate for predicting the occurrence of storms across the country. That seems close enough to the 27/54 day cycle referred to by other commenters to be more than coincidental. But, then, I’m an amateur here.

  26. Tommy says:
    April 17, 2013 at 11:44 am
    “I wonder if it’s a coincidence that Jupiter orbits the Sun every 11.86 years, compared with the sun’s ~11 year cycles.”

    Solar cycle lengths are below. Now if you can match Jupiter’s orbit time to each of these then you may have something. Or not.

    No L
    1 11.0
    2 9.0
    3 9.2
    4 13.6
    5 12.1
    6 12.9
    7 10.6
    8 9.6
    9 12.5
    10 11.2
    11 11.7
    12 10.7
    13 12.1
    14 11.9
    15 10.0
    16 10.2
    17 10.4
    18 10.1
    19 10.6
    20 11.6
    21 10.3
    22 9.8
    23 12.1

  27. richardscourtney says: “In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.”

    … which makes it quite significant!

    That’s a good way to compare things. I’m not capable of “feeling” a 0.7 deg C rise in a day , let alone over decades, but I do know things got hot around the turn of the century. I’ve always thought that what shows as a global average was about an order of magnitude smaller than what is experienced “on the ground” as a daily reality but 10x was too big. Your 5x makes sense.

    The change between winter and summer is huge in temperate latitudes. Even one fifth of that “matters” as an increase.

    Stating it relative to the magnitude of the annual cycle is good way to make this somewhat abstract statistic real.

  28. Ian Wilson says:
    “Preliminary analysis indicates that the period of the variation in cloud height is closer to 25.9 days. This matches the AA variation (i.e. equatorial solar rotation) period much better than the 27.3 day lunar periods. Indeed, if you compare the lunar anomalistic (perigee to perigee) cycles and the lunar draconic (node to node) cycles with the cloud height data you get a noticeable phase drift between the two over the year.”

    Hi Ian. Thanks for checking that. It was my first reaction when I saw your original post.

    This solar rotation may be what is behind the circa 14 day ripple seen in the Artic ice cover.

    My initial expectation was that it would turn out to be a lunar influence. However, I did not find anything clear in fourier analysis. How regular is solar equatorial cycle?

  29. Richard Holle says:
    “The magnetic poles of the sun are tilted ~12 degrees off of the axis of rotation, so as the sun rotates on its 27.32 day period its magnetic fields swinging from a N to S polarity and back to N take the center line of the neutral sheet of the solar wind into the spiral pattern discussed in the movie.”

    Hi Richard, one should be careful in talking about a rotation period of a ball plasma. The mind instantly starts thinking in terms of billard ball planetary models. It induces a lot of false assumptions.

    As you are certainly aware the poles and the equator of the sun rotate at very difference speeds.

    Could you explain how your 27.32 day period relates to Ian’s 25.9 days ?

  30. Richardscourtney:

    In comments to some previous posts, you wrote about our preprint (Belolipetsky PV, Bartsev SI, Degermendzhi AG, Hsu HH, Varotsos CA (2013) Empirical evidence for a double step climate change in twentieth century. Preprint. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf) that there would be benefit in an article on WUWT about our hypothesis.

    Please get in contact with me. My email is available in preprint.

  31. Greg Goodman says:
    April 17, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    richardscourtney says: “In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.”

    … which makes it quite significant!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Well not really. 0.8/200 = 0.004 degrees per 6 month period. Not significant at all. Read richardscourtney’s response again, he nailed it.

  32. To answer some of my own questions:
    it seems that the different periods given by Ian and Richard are stated relative to stars or relative to Earth observation.

    hope wordpress does mess up this URL :?

    http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CE4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tau.ac.il%2Finstitutes%2Fadvanced%2Fcosmic%2Fsolar_rotation%2520-%2520FINAL.ppt&ei=OGlvUdaBA8nAhAe594CADQ&usg=AFQjCNFNVGWpuAG_U25C8q9unshnjyJ7QQ&bvm=bv.45368065,d.ZG4&cad=rja

    The longer, Earth obs period presumably being the more directly applicable to climate. Though Ian may have something to add.

    The rotation has varied considerably over the last solar cycle , reaching a minimum around 2002 when climate was hottest.

  33. davidmhoffer says: “Well not really. 0.8/200 = 0.004 degrees per 6 month period. Not significant at all. Read richardscourtney’s response again, he nailed it.”

    Perhaps you need to re-read the part of my comment that you snipped, and try to understand it, instead of posting from the hip.

    The difference between winter (freezing my nuts off) and summer (sleeping naked and being too hot) is huge. Now if you add one fifth of that range on top that makes a very humanly noticeable difference. Equally if you subtract that from what we have now you get an idea what winters must have been in first decades of 20th c.

    When talking about climate people can’t understand why 0.7 deg C “matters” . The point is that we do not live in air that is at the global annual mean temperature.

  34. ie I heat/cool my house as a function of actual air temperature not the “anomaly” relative to the monthly “climatological” average of 1960-1990. ;)

  35. Pavel Belolipetsky paper: “Lo and Hsu (2010) investigated extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies and suggested that the main reason for recently observed warming in these latitudes is a climate shift in 1987, which is in accordance to our hypothesis in this study. ”

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=210

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=208

    It could also be argued that event was the origin of the current loss of Arctic sea ice.
    There was a similar but opposite spike in Antarctic.

  36. Greg Goodman says:

    Perhaps you need to re-read the part of my comment that you snipped, and try to understand it, instead of posting from the hip.

    Good advice, that you should rather be taking than handing out.

    The difference between winter (freezing my nuts off) and summer (sleeping naked and being too hot) is huge.

    Yes, it is. In fact it is much larger than the 3.8C that Richard was discussing. That is because he was talking about something very different than you think he did. What he was talking about was not the difference between winter and summer that your testicles experience.

    “When talking about climate people can’t understand why 0.7 deg C “matters” .”

    Largely because it doesn’t.

    “The point is that we do not live in air that is at the global annual mean temperature.”

    Nor do our gonads.

  37. Greg Goodman says:
    April 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    “As you are certainly aware the poles and the equator of the sun rotate at very difference speeds.
    Could you explain how your 27.32 day period relates to Ian’s 25.9 days ?”

    [reply; Typed the above comment in a hurry, The rotation of the surface where the strongest magnetic pole effects are located on the sun, is 27.32 days as seen from the moving earth. The declinational effects of the moon being driven magnetically, converts this energy over into declinational tidal effects, giving rise to both the meridional flow surges, and the shifts in ionic charge distribution on a global scale in phase that cause the weather to occur along the clashing fronts where the separate air masses creating the tidal bulge meet, then by carolis effect head off more poleward as the classic coma shaped pattern.

    The 25.9 day rotation of the equatorial solar area is mostly radiative energy with shifts in spectrum with activity level changes, that being surges in the strength/density of the solar wind not its polarity at the time, the two effects are separated, and should drift as Ian observed.]

    “This solar rotation may be what is behind the circa 14 day ripple seen in the Artic ice cover.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    [reply; There are both primary and secondary bulges in the lunar tidal effects in all three mediums, the solid earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere, so you should see a 13.8 day pattern in the arctic sea ice extent, if you adjust for the fact there are four different patterns of lunar atmospheric declinational tidal bulge patterns X two bulges per cycle = 8 different patterns of surges of air masses into and out of the arctic.]

    “My initial expectation was that it would turn out to be a lunar influence. However, I did not find anything clear in fourier analysis. How regular is solar equatorial cycle?”

    [reply; with 8 different basic patterns and seasonal shifts you need to use a repeating pattern analog method to sort out the most similar cycles and plot them side by side, or averaged together, to find any signal with strength enough to use. I find that 6558 days long is 240 lunar declinational cycles of 27.32 days that retains the 8 separate patterns in sync for the whole global circulation routine cycle. It is this pattern repeated four times that I composite together to form the maps found on my site. [Hint; How regular is solar equatorial cycle you ask? I would think that Piers Corbyn would be the best at answering that question, he uses it in his forecasts, I have not yet found a way to include it, but I am looking.]

  38. _Jim says: “In what way, how would the movement of (basically) ‘air’ be influenced by magnetic fields? Would not the (more or less) static mag field of the earth (about 1/2 Gauss at the surface) have more of an influence? Would not some ‘connection’ have been made by now between the jetstream and the earth’s mag field?”

    But if that air or those clouds are ionized and have a charge, motion of a charged object in a magnetic field can generate currents and various other effects. If there’s lightning, then there’s ionization, so…

  39. vukcevic says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:06 am
    when in phase oceans warm, when out of phase oceans cool.
    ===========
    It seems unlikely the solar wind interaction with the atmosphere at the poles does not have a affect on climate. Isn’t the greatest climate change observed at the poles?

  40. Tom in Florida says:
    April 17, 2013 at 7:46 pm
    Solar cycle lengths are below.
    ==========
    strange how the long stretch of very regular cycles are clumped from cycle 15 to 21. This does not look random It does suggest something is keeping time, preventing the oscillation from drifting too far one way of the other.

  41. Greg Goodman;
    Perhaps you need to re-read the part of my comment that you snipped, and try to understand it, instead of posting from the hip.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Oh I read it all, twice. I always read any comment I respond to a couple three times before responding.

  42. Richard Holle:
    [There are both primary and secondary bulges in the lunar tidal effects in all three mediums, the solid earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere, so you should see a 13.8 day pattern in the arctic sea ice extent, if you adjust for the fact there are four different patterns of lunar atmospheric declinational tidal bulge patterns X two bulges per cycle = 8 different patterns of surges of air masses into and out of the arctic.]

    Thanks Richard. Yes it may just be too complex to analyse simply. I meant I was expecting a clear influence of the major lunar tides. That was probably too simplistic.

  43. Entirely consistent with my proposition that the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun alter stratospheric temperatures differentially between equator and poles so as to allow the climate zones and jet streams to shift latitudinally.

    The change in cloud amounts when the jets become more meridional or more zonal is what affects global cloudiness and not the amounts of cosmic rays.

    Much simpler than the Svensmark hypothesis in which the chain of causation remains vague.

    The MJO would be affected by stratosphere temperature changes.

  44. JJ says: “Yes, it is. In fact it is much larger than the 3.8C that Richard was discussing. That is because he was talking about something very different than you think he did. ”

    All right, both of you. Try to get past the knee jerk of: I said something about climate change matters so you have to dismiss it without thinking, and try again.

    Richard was comparing globally averaged seasonal variation to globally averaged longer term trend. I was extending his one fifth idea to the ration between NON-globally averaged temperatures, ie actual air temperatures ie the ones we feel and that make plants grow/die.

    There’s not much point in comparing 0.7 deg change in globally-averaged, seasonally-adjusted anomalies to the temperature we experience and saying : poof, it’s nothing to worry about. Apples and oranges …

    I lived through 1963 and 2002 and I can tell you the difference was not 0.7 deg. C around here.

    Richard’s idea of comparing the long term change in global averages seems a good one to me. Expressing 100 yr warming as one fifth of the seasonal variation makes more sense than comparing it to oranges.

    It also gels with my personal experience : annual cycle circa -5 to +35 deg C. One fifth of that is 8 degrees. Here in the med 2003-2003 we were seeing air temps frequently getting above 40. In 1957 there were persistent very hard frosts the killed of most of the olive production. Neither of those were not 0.7 deg shifts.

    Neither was the winter of 1812 ‘ a couple of degrees’ cooler.

    That fact that the tropics are pretty stable all year round may help the averages but it does not make me warm in winter.

    It has often been said here that global average temperature has no meaning. I’m suggesting that Richard’s idea of seeing it a proportion of the annual swing seems a good one, that may also be applicable on a regional or local level.

    Now, if you want to argue against they by all means do so and come up with some arguments. But come up with something more than a one line dismissive comment that indicates you have not even understood what I said.

  45. ferd berple says: April 17, 2013 at 10:30 pm
    (@ vukcevic) It seems unlikely the solar wind interaction with the atmosphere at the poles does not have a affect on climate. Isn’t the greatest climate change observed at the poles?

    Yes indeed, the Arctic has strongest warming anomaly, however, in the long polar summers clouds prevent warming, while in the long winters clouds prevent cooling; it would be expected near zero sum in the long term.
    I would assume that any warming is due to the increase in the temperature of the currents inflow, increase in the currents intensity (more warm water reaches polar areas) or most likely both of the above.
    Since temperature change in the Arctic, is much greater than temperature deviation of the incoming currents, than I would say that the predominant component is the increased inflow. How that might work, here are some ideas:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic-NV.htm

    • vukcevic says: I would assume that any warming is due to the increase in the temperature of the currents inflow, increase in the currents intensity (more warm water reaches polar areas) or most likely both of the above.

      I quite agree with you and want to add that Arctic temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4, 60N-75N) have near the same dynamics as SST at North Atlantic (HadSST2, 30N-60N, 75W-0W). Main trends of Arctic temperatures are reproduced by regression on SST at North Atlantic. Coefficients of regression can be fitted by small amount of data from 1900 till 1940. See figure 11 at http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0172v1.pdf

  46. Pavel Belolipetsky says:

    Greg Goodman:
    I have some questions about plot of Arctic melting season length (http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=210). Could you also add Arctic temperatures during melting season? Are temperatures correlated with length?
    Thank you.

    I’ve uploaded the melting season data that I derived if you would like to compare to temp.
    There is also annual change in ice area in 3rd col, but I have not checked that in any way.

  47. Friends:

    At April 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm I provided a caveat to a comment – which I agree- by Philip Bradley.

    I then said

    Please remember that global temperature rises 3.8 deg.C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8 deg.C during the other 6 months of each year. But global temperature only rose about 0.8 deg.C throughout the last century.

    Subsequent comments suggest that some may not know or understand why global temperature varies throughout the year. I write to provide brief explanation.

    The southern hemisphere (SH) is mostly covered in water and the northern hemisphere (NH) is mostly covered in land. Land changes temperature more than water when subjected to the same additional heating (or heat loss). Therefore, the NH temperature and SH temperature vary by different amounts with the seasons. But global temperature is the average of the NH and SH temperatures. The difference between NH and SH seasonal temperature variation provides a variation in global temperature throughout the year. The result is that global temperature is 3.8deg.C higher in June than in January.

    This variation in global temperature is lower than it would be if the Earth’s orbit were a circle. The eliptical orbit puts the Earth nearer the Sun (so the Earth gets most solar heating) when the global temperature is lowest. And the Earth is furthest from the Sun (so the Earth gets least solar heating) when the global temperature is highest.

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  48. Thanks for that comment Richard. So the annual variation in global mean (I guess you are using monthly in this case) is in some way a measure of difference between land and sea response to the annual cycle. It may also be regarded as an index of major land areas of NH. (The bit where most readers here will live).

    This will not work for Pacific islanders and probably not apply to Alice Springs ;)

    It may be interesting to do some stats for NH land temps and define whether it applies to daily spikes, monthly averages or weekly heat-waves/cold snaps.

    My comment was just an observation that roughly ties in with my personal impressions of local climate, having noticed that what we perceive as being hotter or colder and what matters for people and plants prospering of falling over, is different from the global mean, seasonal anomaly that climatology seems obsessed with.

    Life does not depend upon global anomalies. I think your idea of 1/5 is probably also applicable to local temperatures , again comparing like to like. But it needs defining more clearly what we are referring and verifying with some actual data.

  49. Greg Goodman:

    I am replying to your comment at April 18, 2013 at 2:19 am because it is addressed to me. However, I am conscious of a risk that my having posted a caveat could drag this thread off-topic.

    Hence, my answer to you attempts to focus on the relevance of my comment to the subject of this thread.

    I usually observe but do not contribute to threads concerning solar effects because I do not know and understand sufficient to contribute towards solar issues. In this case, I draw attention to my statement in my post (at April 18, 2013 at 1:43 am) which you answered. I said

    This variation in global temperature is lower than it would be if the Earth’s orbit were a circle. The eliptical orbit puts the Earth nearer the Sun (so the Earth gets most solar heating) when the global temperature is lowest. And the Earth is furthest from the Sun (so the Earth gets least solar heating) when the global temperature is highest.

    The variation in global temperature is +/-3.8 deg.C during each year.

    Anyone who – like you – wants to consider effects of solar variation on global climate has to recognise that the variation in solar forcing from the difference between the Earth’s perihelion and aphelion is completely swamped by the effect of the difference between the NH and SH oceanic heat sinks.

    On face value, this puts any direct – and short-term – solar amplification mechanisms into perspective. It implies that solar variations are trivial when compared to the magnitude of effects of thermal distribution within the Earth’s climate system.

    Similarly, the variation in global temperature is +/-3.8 deg.C during each year but effects from the putative rise in GHGs are only at most 0.8 deg.C, and this implies that variations in GHG forcing are trivial when compared to the magnitude of effects of thermal distribution within the Earth’s climate system.

    Both these implications are face value and may be wrong. But it needs to be shown that they are wrong if effects of solar amplification mechanisms and variations in GHG forcing are to be accepted as being other than trivial.

    Richard

  50. OK that idea I had wants looking into separately since it is rather OT here.
    Thanks for your wise comments.

  51. Richard: “Similarly, the variation in global temperature is +/-3.8 deg.C during each year but effects from the putative rise in GHGs are only at most 0.8 deg.C, and this implies that variations in GHG forcing are trivial when compared to the magnitude of effects of thermal distribution within the Earth’s climate system.”

    1/5 is not what I would call “trivial”, however, neither would I necessarily attribute (all of) that to GHG. AFAIK, after 30 years of modelling and 15 years of heated debate, no one has even got as far as establishing that yet.

  52. 2011-2012 displayed a good period of pulses of f10.7 flux at solar rotation periods too:

    It breaks down Feb 2012 and Feb/Mar 2013 when we had the cold weather. The general profile for 2011 matches the weather well too: cool start, very hot spring, cool summer, very warm autumn.

  53. One thing I think that the classic dismissal of the influence of planets on the sun misses is that planets are not neutrally charged bodies, they have and hold charges, both induced through magnetic fields and through charged particle impingement. Electrical forces are vastly larger than gravitational forces, although the universe tries to keep them balanced, given the large quantities of plasma floating around, I’m not convinced you can assume they really are balanced.

  54. Greg Goodman says:

    JJ says: “Yes, it is. In fact it is much larger than the 3.8C that Richard was discussing. That is because he was talking about something very different than you think he did. ”

    All right, both of you. Try to get past the knee jerk of: I said something about climate change matters so you have to dismiss it without thinking, and try again.

    Try to listen more closely. The point you are making is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of what Richard said.

    When Richard said that global temp varies 3.8C seasonally he was speaking about the spatially averaged global temp. This has absolutely nothing to do with the seasonal variation that you experience personally at a single location, and comparing a ratio derived from one to the range derived from the other (as you do) is fundamentally wrong.

    In temperate latitudes, the seasonal temp swing can easily be 80C – it has been greater than that where I live. That is +/- 40C seasonally. One fifth of that is 8C, or 14.4F. I challenge you to find a place on the globe where the temporally averaged (annual) local temp has changed by 14.4F over the last 100 years. Your misunderstanding of mathematics results in an extreme scare tactic for those that live in the temperate zone.

    The 0.7C per century figure is the spatially averaged change for the globe. Another way to say that, is that it is the average temp change experienced locally over the last century. In point of fact, that temp change is not evenly distributed around the globe, and a larger portion of that average change has occurred in places where people do not live – and thus it has not really been experienced by anyone – but we will ignore that point for the sake of making this one more efficiently.

    Thus, a proper perspective for interpreting the experience of that average 0.7C per century change would be for an individual to compare 0.7C to the range of temps that they personally experience. The 0.7C is not one fifth of my local seasonal temp range – nor is it for anyone in the temperate climes. Rather, over the last century the local temps around the world have increased by 0.7C on average, which is about 1/50 (not 1/5) of the +/- seasonal variation that freezes my Schwetty Balls.

    I was extending his one fifth idea to the ration between NON-globally averaged temperatures, ie actual air temperatures ie the ones we feel and that make plants grow/die.

    Yes, you certainly were. And you should not have been. Apples to oranges.

    I lived through 1963 and 2002 and I can tell you the difference was not 0.7 deg. C around here.

    Are you sure? It wasn’t that far from it. Your local change in annual temp over that period was certainly much closer to 0.7C than 8C. The 100 yr change for the Western US is something like 2C. On the other hand, 8C is the foaming-at-the-mouth upper end of the Algorian doom and gloom predictions of what will happen if we don’t change our wicked ways. It is not anyone’s notion of what has already happened, anywhere.

  55. Ian
    “Preliminary analysis indicates that the period of the variation in cloud height is closer to 25.9 days.”

    Based on what? 1990 only? The authors call it “the 27-day signal” and show a power spectrum peaking at 27 days, and this from Leif also show a solar variation of >27 days (at least i m o)

  56. ***
    wsbriggs says:
    April 18, 2013 at 7:02 am

    Electrical forces are vastly larger than gravitational forces, although the universe tries to keep them balanced, given the large quantities of plasma floating around, I’m not convinced you can assume they really are balanced.
    ***

    William, I think you answered your own point. The net electric charge is zero, especially over larger & larger volumes.

  57. richardscourtney says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Philip Bradley:

    At April 17, 2013 at 4:50 pm you say

    Thinking there is a single primary driver of climate change is the error the CO2 GHG crowd make. It’s entirely possible, and likely IMO, that there are multiple significant drivers of climate change.

    I agree, and I write to add that there may be no driver of climate change because an oscillating chaotic system can be expected to vary without any driver.

    Chaotic systems vary, and purely harmonic variations may occur independently of any chaotic effects.

    So, both chaos and harmonics could be expected to vary global climate and neither requires any driver of the variation.

    Richard

    This is an important point that I have tried to make also several times here. Climate being a nonlinear / nonequilibrium oscillatory system can change by itself without necessarily any outside driver.

    However there is a class of nonlinear oscillators that can be periodically forced, either strongly (direct relationship between forced and forcing frequency) or weakly (weak or complex relationship between forcing and driven frequency). This is a kind of diplomatic compromise between the astrophysical camp and chaos-nonlinear pattern (internally driven oscillation) camp.

    Just trying to be nice.

  58. phlogiston:

    re your post at April 19, 2013 at 3:17 pm.

    In light of your final sentence I think that for clarity I need to write to say I agree all you say.

    I hope you noticed my words which you quote saying;
    “I agree, and I write to add …”.

    Richard

Comments are closed.