Here are some highlights of these two new papers published in Physics Letters A by :
- Central Pacific region temperature dataset SST3.4 from 1990 to 2014 is studied.
- SST3.4 contains a sustained signal at 1.0 cycle/yr implying solar forcing.
- SST3.4 also contains a signal (<1 cycle/yr) showing El Niño/La Niña effects.
- This signal contains segments of period 2 or 3 years, phase locked to the annual.
- A 12-month moving average improves on a “climatology” filter in removing annual effects.
- Global ocean temperatures at depths 0–700 m and 0–2000 m from 1990 to 2014 are studied.
- The same phase-locked phenomena reported in Paper I are observed.
- El Niño/La Niña effects diffuse to the global oceans with a two month delay.
- Ocean heat content trends during phase-locked time segments are consistent with zero.
The papers, the link downloads the full PDF:
Paper 1 Abstract
Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper). The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data. This is found to be significant for understanding the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon.
The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.057
Conclusions and summary
Phase-locked sequences are found in Pacific Ocean SST3.4tem-perature data during the periods 1991–1999, 2002–2008 and in 2009–2013. These three sequences apparently being separated by climate shifts. It is asserted that the associated climate system is driven by a forcing of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1)A direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2)A phase-locked response at either the second or third sub-harmonic of the putative solar forcing between 1991 and 1999; 2001–02 and 2008; and again between 2008 and 2013.
This study confirms the results of [1]that some of the largest maxima/minima in the oscillations of the phase-locked state corre-spond to well-known El Niños/La Niñas. For example, the sequence 1996 La Niña – 1997/98 El Niño – 1999 La Niña corresponds to a minimum–maximum–minimum portion of phase-locked segment #9. The climate system is presently (June 2014) in a phase-locked state of periodicity 3 years. This state, which began in 2008, con-tains a maximum (El Niño) at about 2010 followed by a minimum (La Niña) followed by a maximum (weak El Niño at about 2013). If the climate system remains in this phase-locked state, the next maximum will not occur until about 2016 – i.e., no El Niño before that date. On the other hand, if a maximum occurs before then, it will signal the end of the phase-locked segment (and therefore a climate shift).
On its web site [15]the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration asks: “How often does La Niña occur?” Answer: “El Niño and La Niña occur on average every 3 to 5 years. However, the histori-cal record the interval between events has varied from 2 to 7 years. …” Our findings show that duringphase-locked time segments the period is either 2 or 3 years. If a longer interval is observed, this is notrepresentative of a variable ‘period,’ but indicates the occur-rence of a climate shift between phase-locked segments.
It is pointed out that the 12-month moving average filter is demonstrably superior to the climatology method of removing sea-sonal effects in data. This is seen to be the case for interpretation of El Niño/La Niña data, which contains spurious annual effects when treated under the climatology scheme.
An extension of these results to global data will be presented in a second Letter [16]. It will be shown that patterns of sub-harmonics identical to those described here occur throughout the oceans.
Paper 2 Abstract
In part I, equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature index SST3.4 was found to have segments during 1990–2014 showing a phase-locked annual signal and phase-locked signals of 2- or 3-year periods. Phase locking is to an inferred solar forcing of 1.0 cycle/yr. Here the study extends to the global ocean, from surface to 700 and 2000 m. The same phase-locking phenomena are found. The El Niño/La Niña effect diffuses into the world oceans with a delay of about two months.
The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.058
Conclusions and summary
Global ocean temperature time series from the surface to depths of 2000m since the year 2000 are found to agree in detail with those of other diverse climate indices. It is asserted that these systems are driven by a forcing unquestionably of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1) a direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2) a second phase-locked response at a period of two years or three years.
With these findings it is becoming clear that the entire cli-mate system is responding to the varying incident solar radiation, and is subject to interactions, most likely nonlinear, thatproduce the subharmonics of two or three year period, and is moreover evolving non-continuously, as evidenced by breaks in the pattern whose timing can be identified with known climate shifts. The most prominent manifestations of the pattern are found in the El Niño/La Niña phenomena. As emphasized in [2], the “natural” pe-riodicity of El Niño/La Niña is two or three years, and observations of longer intervals should be considered probable evidence for an intervening climate shift.
wot, no CO2? Can’t ‘av that can we??
/sarc
Just what I was thinking. One more nail in the coffin of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming from man’s production of CO2.
Gee wiz, no pending multi-decadal deep freezer?
What will the media do with no pseudo-predictable pending doom catastrophe?!
They could break bones to see if the fracture is up or down. But then that is more reliable than the current climate models.
That is precisely why all this about the sun affecting the climate is just garbage. As I have pointed out on JoNova, the sun is thermonuclear. It doesn’t produce CO2, so it can’t affect the climate.
BWAGAHAHA…
Vuc your thoughts?
Articles point in the right direction, but conclusions will be dismissed by our resident solar expert, for the reason that just two sunspot cycles (1990-2013) is not long enough to draw a definitive conclusion.
We know that the ENSO (Pacific region) is strongly correlated to the Earth’s rate of rotation (with some years of delay), so is the de-trended global temperature (no delay-with a reverse correlation). Further more it has been shown that the Earth’s rate of rotation contains strong (~25% of its magnitude), 22 year cycle coincidental with the solar magnetic cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-GT-Nino.gif
Ergo: sun appear to be the ultimate driver, but the exact processes are not clearly defined.
Not only by him. Me too, I also consider that the examined record is not long enough to conclude anything. And given that we do have data from much earlier times, one wonders why it wasn’t used.
The “exact processes”, concerning the intake of heat from the sun, and the release of heat into the atmosphere is steered and controlled by the oceans. The ocean is the ultimate driver of climate! ___Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519): “Water is the driver of nature“, or
___“In the time-scale range from a few weeks to thousand years, the dynamics of climate is strongly controlled by the oceans.”, Klaus Hasselmann, 1990, “Ocean Circulation and Climate Change”, Tellus. (SSN 0937-1060), p. 1-37 (3).
Vuk, this is an interesting theory and you should keep banging away with it. Your temperature vs NINO 3.4 graph could also be interpreted to show the 60 year cycle, which imho may be related to orbital mechanics (tidal action pulling ocean water through mixing points). Changes in LOD would be a side effect.
Vuk
Yes, two solar cycles is far too short a time to draw any conclusions. Hope they have accurate data to go back a few more decades at least
tonyb
You’re in so much trouble when “blood sport” shows up lol
Isn’t the LOD change a response to the piling up of water (about 18″) in the Western Pacific? Bob T says it is wind driven and part of the ENSO process. If the mass shifts around the LOD changes. Vuc you note the correlation that is the result, not the cause. Possible?
Hi there in the land of the Mongols
LOD data spectrum does show minor component (among others) just under 5 years which I assume is caused by ENSO. However, as it is shown on the bottom graph the LOD (green time scale at the top) leads ENSO (black time scale at the bottom) by nearly two decades. Majority of the LOD changes come from the Earth’s core, it is unlikely that LOD itself causes anything, it is most likely a side effect.
Dr. J. Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
“One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. ”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
Mr Tisdale is certainly the expert on the Pacific, with immense knowledge on the subject, same as Dr. Svalgaard is on the matters solar, but that shouldn’t stop me or anyone else digging into data for correlations which may be coincidental or causal.
sorry, didn’ close bold: LOD (green time scale at the top) leads ENSO
We know that the ENSO (Pacific region) is strongly correlated to the Earth’s rate of rotation (with some years of delay), so is the de-trended global temperature (no delay-with a reverse correlation). Further more it has been shown that the Earth’s rate of rotation contains strong (~25% of its magnitude), 22 year cycle coincidental with the solar magnetic cycle.
None of those things are ‘known’ or have been ‘shown. Regardless of your persistent carpet-bombing claims.
but that shouldn’t stop me or anyone else digging into data for correlations which may be coincidental or causal
But it should stop you from claiming that your fantasies have been ‘shown’ or are ‘known’ to be causal.
vukcevik: Articles point in the right direction, but conclusions will be dismissed by our resident solar expert, for the reason that just two sunspot cycles (1990-2013) is not long enough to draw a definitive conclusion.
Do you know the reason they took such a short temperature series?
Dr. Svalgaard
They may have not been ‘known’ or have been ‘shown’ before, but then I took the dim-witted decision to put some effort into it, so now they are ‘shown’ and should be known, but that doesn’t mean there is a coherent or rational explanation.
Mr. Marler
No I don’t know, but could guess that their ‘curve fitting’ correlation exercise failed, thus didn’t support their claim outside the time range shown. That said, it is not correct to assume that the effort is total failure and should be dismissed. It is just possible that many of internal feedbacks very often overwhelm the driving force. Once the feedback energy subsides the ‘driver’ may pop-up again to be clearly identifiable.
I’ve produced a ‘disproportionate’ number of various correlations (yes, I know c is not c) , and more often than not they show periods of failure or intermittency, just take a look at graphs I contributed above.
“But the length of an Earth day also fluctuates over much longer timescales, such as interannual (two to 10 years), decadal (approximately 10 years), or those lasting multiple decades or even longer. A dominant longer timescale mode that ranges from 65 to 80 years was observed to change the length of day by approximately 4 milliseconds at the beginning of the 20th century.
These longer fluctuations are too large to be explained by the motions of Earth’s atmosphere and ocean. Instead, they’re due to the flow of liquid iron within Earth’s outer core, where Earth’s magnetic field originates. This fluid interacts with Earth’s mantle to affect Earth’s rotation. While scientists cannot observe these flows directly, they can deduce their movements by observing Earth’s magnetic field at the surface. Previous studies have shown that this flow of liquid iron in Earth’s outer core oscillates, in waves of motion that last for decades with timescales that correspond closely to long-duration variations in Earth’s length of day.”
It is the interannual variations in LOD (2-7 years) that correlate with ENSO, without lead or lag.
= = = = = = = = = =
ENSO events occur when both the QB [quasi-biennial] and LF [low frequency] components add constructively, with positive LOD and MSOI anomalies indicative of an El Nino (warm event—in which an increase in atmospheric angular momentum results in high LOD values), while a decrease in LOD and MSOI reflects cold (La Nina) events. No discernible lags or leads between the two series are observed. ‘It is the sum of these components, LF plus QB—-the full ENSO variability—that is the most coherent, indicating the robust link between the ENSO phenomena and interannual LOD variations.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/22759
Here’s an independent plot of interannual LOD variations superimposed over the ENSO index:
http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-bhHlUSmFWfc/VH8u_rZgK5I/AAAAAAAAAiw/r13isbqjt5A/s800/LOD-vs-ENSO.png
Khwarizmi
Yes, agree t as I said above:
LOD data spectrum does show minor component (among others) just under 5 years which I assume is caused by ENSO.
Your graph shows 6-7 notable peaks for the 1960-90 period, which might correspond to ~ 5 year periodicity.
Another strong-ish component is around 16 years, assuming corresponds to the Himalayan monsoon and the Arctic ice variability, changes in which again could affect LOD.
I am of the view that it is unlikely that LOD itself causes anything, it is most likely a side effect.
Hence if the LOD can be correlated to the solar activity it would indicate that sun is affecting some of the events (ENSO, monsoon, Arctic ice) that periodically cause changes in the LOD.
Solar activity yet again! Oh how the words echo back in my mind! “No one can explain what effect the Sun’s power has on our climate, but whatever it is, it has already been overtaken by manmade Global Warming!” i.e. We don’t know what effect element A has upon element B, but we know for a fact that it’s overpowered by element C! Makes sound scientific sense, doesn’t it? 😉
Solar influence? Surely heresy. Off to Salem with’em.
How can the output from a nearby star, without which we are at near absolute zero, be the main driver? Huh.
superior to climatology? how can such a thing be possible?
Well a moving average filter is superior at removing any kind of effects in “data”.
Filters remove information; they don’t add information. The raw data is the only information about the data you will ever have.
Now there is an endless supply of “processing algorithms”, which can produce a whole host of other numbers, none of which tell you anything about the data that the data isn’t all ready telling you. They mostly tell you stuff about the processing algorithms.
For example, you can always simply add up all of the data numbers, to get a “grand total” of all the data.
The more data you have the bigger will be the grand total; well only if they are all positive numbers. If you want a bigger grand total, then add more data numbers together.
You can also divide the grand total sum, by the number of data numbers that you added to get the grand total.
So now you have used the “summation” algorithm, and the “division” algorithm. Both of those are well known to mathematicians.
Some people call that second result, the “average” of the data values. You can perform both of those summation and division algorithms, on ANY set of real rational numbers whatsoever; no matter where those numbers came from, or how you got them or made them up.
In all cases, so long as the number of data numbers is finite, the summation algorithm gives a unique value, that relates ONLY to that set of numbers, and the properties of the summation algorithm.
Likewise, the subsequent use of the division algorithm, always produces a unique value, unless the number of data values you added in the summation algorithm is zero. In other words you didn’t do anything. It that case, it is impossible to determine what the result of not doing anything will be.
Some people call this sort of process, “numerology”, and they do it for amusement.
Others call it “statistics”, and they usually get paid for doing it; but it really isn’t amusing.
I don’t do statistics; I don’t find it amusing, or useful.
But I sometimes repeat an experiment, just to confirm that I did the first one correctly.
If I don’t get good agreement, I generally try to figure out a better way to do the experiment.
If you do a crappy experiment a thousand times, you end up with a thousand crappy answers, and you can’t depend on any of them. Better to devise a good experiment, and then do it properly once. Doing it twice only confuses you.
If you have two clocks that show different times, you don’t know that you can believe either one of them, so you know less than if you just had one clock that worked properly.
G
By the way; not withstanding any of the above, I do find the first graph, fig.3 a interesting.
Although I do not have a grasp of exactly what is being plotted, here, just by my eyeball, I seem to see a 24 year time during which it has been getting cooler; or maybe hotter, depending on which they subtract from what to get the “anomaly” number.
But the blue “stick” graph is apparently generated by some climatology algorithm. Apparently the blue dots are in fact measured or calculated numbers of some kind. I’ll just assume that is ok.
Now I plot numbers like this quite regularly using M$ Excel. They call them “scatter” plots. And as in the present case, my X-axis number is always monotonically increasing from left to right, although that axis is not always, in fact it is seldom a time axis. Now I can have Excel connect the dots with a stick graph, just like in this fig 3 a.
But why do people do that, and end up with a discontinuous function; in this case infinite second derivatives.
The graphs I end up with in Excel never have infinite second derivatives, because the plot a continuous function through my data points.
And to boot, my graphs always do go through the original data points.
All the other infinity of points on the graph, are of course made up numbers, but that has to be a better representation of what is going on than these angular stick graphs.
Of course, if my original data set is a correct sampling of a band limited continuous function, then my smooth graph could be very close to an exact reconstruction of the original continuous function.
Now in my case, what I am mostly plotting, is in fact numbers that are computed from a specific formula. They are almost never the results of actual measurements of something, so I’m dealing with a special case.
But I still am curious as to why Climate folks, don’t draw plots that are a bit more imaginative than these stick graphs, which they must know cannot be accurate, even if their raw data points are quite accurate.
I must be missing something somewhere.
Classic , i have often thought same ,but my linguistics aren’t honed enough to explain it like you have.
I often find the term “cubic spline” associated with “smooth” graph plotting. I’m not fully up to speed on exactly what a cubic spline is, but they seem to be quite well known in a lot of engineering circles. I did not take Engineering Math courses; but so called “pure” and “applied” maths in a Science course (Maths and Physics) so I’ve not studied them.
I believe you can fit a parabola (second degree polynomial) to any three non co-linear points, but you get no point(s) of inflexion (zero curvature).
A cubic polynomial can fit any four non co-linear points, and can have points of zero curvature.
That leads me to guess (WAG) that a cubic spline involves fitting third order polynomials to groups of four points or something along those lines.
I invented a special form of optical low pass filter, that employs a rotationally symmetrical ripple shape, that is made up of sections of cubic polynomials. Each polynomial starts with a maximum (or minimum) slope, and proceeds through a point of zero slope to a point of minimum (or maximum) slope of the same magnitude as the starting point. So each half wave of the ripple, is a separate cubic that fit together continuously in value and slope, with points of inflexion at the junctions. The maximum slope magnitude is the same for each half wave. Then there are quarter cycle cubic polynomials that either start or end at zero slope, and match the same maximum slope magnitude as the half cycles, so the complete curve goes from a zero slope start point to a zero slope end point, with a quarter cycle at start and finish and some number of half cycles in between.
The polynomial are all third order, and all different, but they all derive from a single proto cubic function. This type of filter, seems to produce very low spurious responses in the stop band, which was the intent of developing it for anti-aliasing optical filters.
The point of all that manipulation is that the derivative of the complete profile is a curve that is bounded between positive and negative equal slope magnitude values.
That shape is scaled in maximum radial size, and maximum slope deviation as a perturbation on an otherwise smooth lens surface which itself can be aspheric.
The result is zones of equal positive and negative spherical aberration added to a prototype lens surface that previously was very well corrected. This produces a spherically aberrated spot of a controlled size, where each quarter cycle of the profile produces a spot of the same radial size. The result is an anti-aliasing low pass optical filter, that produces controlled fuzzy images that are larger than the pixels of a digital image sensor, which is a two dimensional sampling device.
This cubic form tends to spread the focused energy, uniformly along the axis, on both sides of the original sharp focal point, to get something akin to the Gaussian beam waist of a laser beam (but NOT Gaussian.).
So I don’t know why something like cubic spline fitting is not done in plotting these climate data graphs, to get rid of the stick like appearance.
Now I think this is quite different from Dr. Roy Spencer’s cubic polynomial fit that he used to provide “just for amusement only”.
G
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicSpline.html
My immediate reaction is: “How in the world did these papers get published?” But then, does “pacemaker” mean “primary driver?” The climate change extremists do love to quibble over words, you know.
“Pacemaker,” at first glance, does appear to be a misleading term. “Heart” (so far as the metaphor can go, that is, as in a heart steadily pumping and maintaining the body’s homeostasis with mild variations within a very limited range) would be the more accurate analogy, I think.
Nicely said, a solar heart is a much better descriptor. If we didn’t have a sun we would not have climate (but we wouldn’t be here to worry about it.) We’d look a lot like Pluto or Eris look today, only colder. Radioactive decay and the moon’s tidal energy would be our only heat sources… not much energy to live on.
Janice Moore At least half the heat comes from this “Heart”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
” About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth. “
J. M. (re: you at 12:33pm today):
I would go even farther and say that the Sun provides MOST of the earth’s warmth.
Just to clarify: the Sun is to earth’s climate what a violinist’s heart is to the music she or he is playing. The music is supported by the beating of the heart, but it is the violinist’s arms and fingers, muscles and tendons, which change the music’s dynamics (volume) and tempo. That is, the Sun does very MUCH to make music possible at all; the Sun does very little to create variety in tone and pace.
Hi again Janice
Just thought you might like this read .
“Do you feel inner peace and generally happier when you’re out in nature, away from crowds, traffic and the city?”
http://www.schumannresonator.com/
No. Generally, when I am out in nature, away from crowds and the (civilizations around the city) I feel some or all of the following: cold, hungry, tired, thirsty, isolated, out-of-hot-coffee; away from a snuggly bed; unable to find, keep, and preserve food; and worried about grizzly bears; dire wolves; unhappy wolves, not-so-unhappy wolves, hungry wolves; soon-to-be hungry wolves, sabre-toothed tigers; cave bears, polar bears, panda bears, and/or koala bears. And T-rex’es.
1. Thank you, Niel’s Zoo (sorry for the delayed acknowledgement!).
2. J. M. (re: your post of 1:25pm today)
Yes.
However…. this is the Schumann I prefer:
Good for changing the climate of the mind from city (ugh) to country (aah).
RACookPE1978
January 9, 2015 at 1:38 pm
And when the lights go out for say a week , your biggest threat will be man. Being a free range chook has to be a better life then one locked in a cage. You can stick your city life were the sun don’t shine. This little tune comes to mind ” Green acres is the place to be , farm liven is the life for me , land spreading out so far and wide ,to keep man happy, just give me that country side.
@ Janice
Good for changing the climate of the mind from city (ugh) to country (aah).
Cheers for that . If music can sooth the savage beast , I guess it can excite the very same beast as well . Sound is a powerful tool we use every day ,some we hear and some we don’t.
such could be implied from most dictionary definitions, altho I would have chosen a stronger term such as your ‘primary driver’ to avoid ambiguity and split hairs.
The most plausible scenario for causation that I am aware of is described here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Essentially, solar variability affects global cloudiness and then ENSO modulates the thermal response.
It’s like the heat from the sun evaporates moister in to the air to form clouds and when it cools and condenses it falls from the sky as rain or something /src
It doesn’t sound like you read it.
Anyway, I’m not so sure that these new papers are so relevant to me now since they don’t deal with cycles longer than one year. I seem to have misunderstood on first reading.
We all know there is an annual solar effect so I assumed they were talking about a full solar cycle effect but it seems not.
It’s okay Stephen some people don’t get sarcasm, I do agree that variability of solar cycle activity increases and decreases temperature on earth, what is strange (I’m just saying) is how anomaly’s seem to have this ‘thing’ where the last value carries over and is added to the next value,
A phase lock (loop) requires that the locking mechanism is totally dominant. If it isn’t the phase will drift. So, if their wording is precise, they are saying that the climate may try to vary under whatever influence but will brought bak into “phase” by the sun.
Am I right ?
Stay safe, over there near Paris, Stephen Richards. Glad to see you post today.
It’s over apparently, all hostages safe & abductors dead!
GOOD!
Even if the vermin were still at large, Paris would be much safer to roam than, say, Chicago or DC. Just to pick two cities at random. 😉
“…all hostages safe…”
Tragically, it appears that’s not the case.
brians356: Ever notice that Chicago & DC also have some of the strictest firearms control ordinances in the U.S.?
Any correlation to sun spots?
I can’t see any…
You never know, but I have read a book some 35 years ago about the influence of the sun on our climate. That included an influence on clusters of earthquakes in certain parts of the sun’s cycle, but also the number of conflicts from households to countries…
The latter was explained by the increase of cloudiness and rain in parts of the sun cycle (which is true, as the jet stream shifts polewards at high sun activity, including cloud/rain patterns). More bad weather gives more bad mood and thus more conflicts…
I have never seen any confirmation of the earthquake clusters, neither of the number of conflicts… Thus I have no opinion on this.
However interestingly there have been a lot of smaller scale earthquake clusters reported recently.
Does this overlap with the notch-delay theory of David Evans?
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
Stephen
I was following the development of the theory and then I lost track. I thought they were still working out some issues. Is this a new document? Bad eyes today, I cant see a date.
It is a summary of the present position.
There was a mathematical error which is being corrected but it makes little difference to the outcome and a new paper is in preparation.
It appears that David’s theory relates to longer term cycles than the annual ones referred to in this post but it does work by solar modulation of global cloudiness as per my hypothesis and that is consistent with these new papers.
My thoughts precisely.
That is with regard to David Evans notch filter.
“With these findings it is becoming clear that the entire climate
system is responding to the varying incident solar radiation,
and is subject to interactions, most likely nonlinear, that produce
the subharmonics of two or three year period, and is moreover
evolving non-continuously, as evidenced by breaks in the pattern
whose timing can be identified with known climate shifts.”
Willis, help!
The climate remains locked except at those points where there is a climate shift. Problem I see with that is that it isn’t locked if there are intervening “climate shifts” whatever to heck those are. Just reading this article, not the papers, but this sounds like it could be interpreted as saying the climate moves along until some level of CO2 is reached which causes the climate shift, then it locks in again until the CO2 level again causes a climate shift. And THAT is probably how they got published since the climate shift is a forcing that overpowers the locked solar cycles. Or maybe the triggers are volcanic in origin, It is rather obvious that the “furnace” effects the warmth level of the climate, but what causes these climate shifts, and how is that defined?
The climate remains locked except at those points where climate is not locked. A statement worthy of publocation and grant money for the CAGW crowd.
Tom O,
ENSO controls the climate until some level of solar induced cloudiness change sufficiently affects ocean heat content which then causes a climate shift then ENSO locks in again until a further cloudiness change forces another shift.
CO2 not needed.
From the paper:
“It is of course not surprising that an annual signal is found in all the ocean–atmospheric climate indices.”
I’ve got one of those signals in my back garden 🙂 Winter, less sun = cold. Summer, more sun = warm
The anomaly from the long term mean for the month shouldn’t show an annual signal if it were just the change of seasons (like the SH. http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3nh/from:2005/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2005 ) and there was not a change in the difference between seasons as well as an overall warming.
Interesting that the drift in differences between seasons is more pronounced in the NH.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3nh/from:1950/isolate:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1950/isolate:12
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1950/mean:3/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1950/mean:3 shows it better. That’s not natural.
There is usually a peak which occurs within weeks of the peak of the sunspot cycle. The secondary peak is likely caused by the previous sunspot cycle re-emerging 15 years later. That’s why it is sometimes two years and sometimes three.
There is also a 40 year delay delay, which links the giant 1960 sunspot cycle to the giant 1998 temperature spike.
I can’t embed images, but here’s a link: http://oi57.tinypic.com/1z3w1uv.jpg
This image shows the correlation of the current sunspot number to small bump in temp.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2db2ttg.jpg
This image shows how the 15 year delay makes it appear that there is a 2 or 3 year cycle:
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2m2vy1j.jpg
This image shows sunspot number affecting temp after a 40 year delay:
http://oi57.tinypic.com/1z3w1uv.jpg
“This image shows sunspot number affecting temp after a 40 year delay:”
Shows a correlation, dear boy. Something causes both is the postulate.
Another paper is coming up in GRL soon with the same conclusion:
The sun IS the main driver of climate on earth, through the ozone.
This paper is also showing way of giving medium range weather forecast by analyzing the sun’s radiation.
This guy nails it with above 90% accuracy!
What do they mean “medium range”? Are they talking 6 months? That would be very useful if it can be backed up and actually works. Now you’ve got me curious.
My first impression: the record examined is too short to draw any valid conclusions about any correlation that they may have found. Chances for it to have happened just by coincidence are too big.
I’m confused. These papers aren’t talking about 11-year solar cycles at all, but rather seasons which occur on a 12-month cycle.
>”SST3.4 contains a sustained signal at 1.0 cycle/yr implying solar forcing.”
Yes, I’ll agree with Barry on this. Without any further justification it just implies a correlation, not necessarily a cause.
Earth’s four seasons are also on a 1.0 cycle/yr (up to a 6 hour or so calendar anomaly), but they’re caused by the inclination of the Earth’s axis. So at most, you could say the Sun ‘enables’, rather than ’causes’ the seasons.
But the Sun pretty much “enables” everything we do on Earth, so that doesn’t tell us anything new.
If the temperature variation is a seasonal effect, then the effect is due to the earth’s orbital mechanics, and not due to any variation in solar activity, nicht wahr? This does not mean there is no effect from solar activity, but the equator is the wrong place to look for it.
I’m puzzled by the term 1.0 cycle/yr in conjunction with “The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data”
I wonder if they mean that one solar cycle divided by the length of that cycle in years is providing a sustained solar signal year by year over and above the seasonal effects?
Clarification would be helpful.
Stephen Wilde, the way I read it is that they’re isolating annual variability due to the planet’s axial tilt and hemispheric land/ocean asymmetry from the varying solar signal so as to better characterize the frequency and amplitude of the latter. Sustained solar signal doesn’t seem to belong here, the whole point is that it’s not constant.
Thanks Brandon,
On that basis these papers could be supportive of my hypothesis after all since they appear to propose a solar effect on global cloudiness / albedo.
It is possible that the effect could appear on an annual basis as well as from solar cycle to solar cycle as proposed by me and others. I would have thought the annual change too small but maybe not.
I agree that the solar effect on global albedo is variable and likely due to factors other than simple TSI changes such as wavelength and particle variations.
Stephen Wilde,
You’re quite welcome.
I don’t see anything inconsistent with solar variability driving albedo via cloudiness. At its root, Milankovich theory rests on much longer cycle ice albedo effects at high northern latitudes. There it’s not solar variability but orbital and rotational wobbles as the timer and contributor to amplitude of the global temperature response. These things do all fit together quite nicely from my point of view.
We do disagree on the estimates of CO2’s observed role in all this, however. I’ll meet you half way. Over long periods of time, say 50-100 and beyond years, CO2’s role is that of amplitude, not so much timing. Prior to human activities, CO2 almost always lagged temperature so far as we can presently determine.
My instinct is that the annual changes are quite (relatively) small. TSI doesn’t do anything for me when I look at the data unless I take a multi-year average, usually 11. What that lead me to believe is that the level of detail I’m looking at stuff is not granular enough to pick up anything else but the chaotic “noise” of the planet’s annual internal variability. These papers don’t do that kind of low resolution modeling, so I wouldn’t expect to see what they’ve found in the data ….
…. except …. somewhere, once, I did an analysis where I did observe some phase locking with TSI variability, but it was only good from about 1940 to present, and the clear relationship went away prior to that. I was looking at GISS or HADCRUT4, so 1880 or 1850 is as far back as I went.
I know those sort of things are being studied, but I don’t know much about it other than it’s being done.
The potential top down effect from stratosphere to troposphere is becoming a very hot topic:
http://www.rmets.org/events/stratosphere-troposphere-coupling-earth-system-where-next
Of course, it has nothing to do with what I have been saying for years 🙂
Stephen Wilde,
That looks interesting, thanks for the tip. What about this have you specifically been saying for years?
That solar induced stratospheric temperature changes affect the global air circulation in the troposphere.
Stephen Wilde, I’d be interested in some elaboration.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
In reply to:
Warmists need to take solar modulation of planetary climate 101. If one does not understand the mechanisms the discussion goes in circles, does not converge on the truth. There is a physical reason why the planet warmed in the last 150 years and there is a physical reason why the planet stopped warming 18 years ago. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
Sun spot count is a roughly measure of one of the two solar phenomena (closed magnetic flux) that creates solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions from the high latitude regions on the earth and add ions to clouds in the tropics which changes the amount of cloud cover in high latitude regions and the changes the properties of the clouds in tropics. Solar wind bursts move charges in the atmosphere by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere. The process where solar wind bursts remove and add ions to clouds is called electroscavenging. Electroscavenging is what amplifies or inhibits El Niño events and cause high latitude regions to warm or cool.
Coronal holes, open magnetic flux regions on the sun, also cause solar wind bursts. What causes coronal holes to form is not known. Coronal holes can persist for months/years and have for some unknown reason occurred late in the solar cycle in low latitude regions thereby causing solar wind bursts to occur when there are few sun spots on the surface of the sun or no sunspots. Coronal holes make it appear that the solar magnetic cycle is not the primary modulator of the earth’s climate.
Comment:
The solar magnetic cycle also modulates the amount of high speed particles (called cosmic ray flux (CRF) or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) for historical reasons, the discoverers thought the phenomena was caused by a ray rather than a particle and the misleading name stuck) that strike the earth’s atmosphere creating cloud forming ions. The solar magnetic cycle and the solar wind create what is called the solar heliosphere which extends well past the orbit of Pluto.
Solar wind bursts remove and change the ions in the atmosphere, so solar wind bursts change make it appear that an increase in CRF/GRF does not cause there to be an increase in cloud cover in high latitude regions.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
The following is a review paper that discusses some of the mechanisms by which solar changes modulate planetary climate.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
The link in my above comment is no longer active. The following is new link to the review paper in question.
http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/TinsleyYuAGU_Monograph.pdf
William,
I abandoned the cosmic ray idea some time ago on the basis that there is no shortage of condensation nuclei in the Earth system.
I much prefer the idea of longer lines of air mass mixing causing more clouds when the jets loop about meridionally.
Since the changes from zonality to meridionality are solar induced we can regard cosmic rays and magnetic fields as proxies for the underlying solar variations but I don’t believe they are causative of climate changes in themselves.
The thing is that the only way to get the jet streams to loop about more meridionally or to get the climate zones to shift latitudinally is to change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which has the effect of changing the amount of space availabe below the tropopause for the jets and climate zones to slide around in.
To get such changes in tropopause height gradients one has to invoke changes in the balance of the ozone creation/destruction process in the stratosphere and, furthermore, the ozone changes must be different above equator and poles.
I don’t see any other plausible solution.
The current south solar polar CH is surprising given that we are just 3 month’s past NASA’s declared cycle 24 peak.
William Astley,
Odd thing to write when the topic is not one, but two, examples of primary literature attempting to understand those very mechanisms.
I am really pleased to know that more of these types of studies are being published ….. which infers the lessening of the author’s fears of retribution for doing said from their pro-CAGW peers and/or influential persons in authoritative positions.
If this trend continues then the pro-CAGW MSM, College Professors and High School Teachers, …… as well as Congress and other government entities, …. will be forced to respond to said “study results”.
The CAGWers are religious global warming/climate change fanatics and are unlikely to respond.
Religious zealots are almost impossible to convert. IMO
Alberta Slim, allow my responses to serve as notice that your probability estimates need work.
Alberta
Habits are hard to brake. The way to create changes in our lives is to stop doing what were been doing first , so we can create new habits . It only takes about 30 days to create a habit. Good habits take commitment and bad habits can sneak up on us without knowing.
jmorpuss,
Which is pretty much the consensus AGW mitigation stance that I endorse in a nutshell, including the allusion to the pedal which is opposite the one that works the throttle.
There you go Brandon, in the clutch, your analogy breaks down in a vehicle with three pedals .
Socrates,
Your feeble attempt to shift the flow of discussion away from my most excellent analogy would normally greatly fuel my ire. However, since yours is friendly fire, my forgiveness is obviously automatic. Now go thee hence and petrol for worthier ways in which to toot your own horn.
They’ll just yell louder, tell you that the new studies are paid for by the evil corporations, the debate is settled, 97% of scientists, and so on and on.
Alan Robertson, thus far I have read nothing in these two papers warranting any sort of refutation. Why I should want to yell at what appears to be good science which reaches reasonable and intuitive conclusions is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.
Brandon, I spoke to Samuel’s musings about possible response to the papers from the climate fearosphere, concerning the papers’ irrefutable conclusions (as you put it.) Your proclaimed acceptance of good science is one thing, the typical response we see from the fear manipulators is quite another.
You have essentially erected your claim of pristine understanding as a strawman, in order to deflect commentary about climate propagandists and to enable a subtle ad hom, to wit: Brandon “gets it”, therefore climate science gets it, so why doesn’t Alan?
Alan Robertson,
I don’t see myself as an outlier on this score, but then I have been known to wear rose colored glasses. Certainly I see “my side” loudly engaging in appeals to emotion — I particularly dislike the fear and guilt rhetoric. So my standard bit is that I don’t carry anyone’s water for them and argue my points of view for me.
Look to the hasty generalization in the comment I initially responded to. I sometimes fight fire with fire. Not the best tactic, it’s usually an emotional reaction and it does paint me out to be duplicitous. OTOH, I know that it only takes one example to falsify someone else’s non sequitur.
Let there be no mistake: I have no illusions about my understanding being pristine. By dint of us being human, none of us do.
Elsewhere I’ve explained specifically why I believe these two studies do not challenge the GHG theory of AGW. I should also like to point out that they are examples of consensus climatologists looking at how natural variabilities affect the system.
Curve fitting is “necessary” but can be dangerously misleading. I create models and curve fits for financial markets analysis and prediction. As you change your variables you can pretty much come up with a great fit 97% sucess rate….you could be a millionaire! Yeah right, it doesn’t work like that. In fact I can tell you I have been slapped badly by a heavy bet on a “perfect model” that breaks down at the worst time.
Models are always backtested, tortured. But a model that can stand the test of time, and also be based on some logical physical science are much desired. Create a model with known data and then observe over years if it is predictive, without tweaking the variables. Now you have something.
Great forum here, love all the original thinkers.
Personally, I think any climate model that doesn’t take the sun into account is wacked in the head. In particular solar magnetics (which are a very complex subject, but getting easier due to STEREO) and not just sunspots which are just part of the story, so magnetics and their effect on cosmic rays around earth, and cloud nucleation from this cast of characters.
stock out
Badger, in your business, you have an aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy. “Technical Analysis” is taught for divining short term future of the markets and is universally used. This has the effect of forcing the markets. Example from 40 years ago in commodity futures, everyone read a book(s) that I can’t recall the name(s) of that took two moving averages of the actual futures prices (100 days[?] and two weeks [?]). When the shorter crossed the longer going up, this was considered momentum for a buy, when the cross occurred going down, this was a sell. By the time so many people came to use the ‘system’, it began to influence markets somewhat. Gamblers ruin was always there for those who did no fundamental analysis of course (a frost in Florida – buy orange futures and sell orange juice futures because when the crop is frost burned, they make it into juice).
About 10-15 years ago, I came second in an international predict-the-gold-price one year hence (can’t remember the sponsor) and the price of one particular South African Gold Stock. I was almost right on with the gold price but the stock didn’t respond because of internal company shennanigans that I was unaware of. I remember the CEO became the victim of a carjacking murder many believed was a hit. Anyway, being in the mineral industry I used old fashioned supply and demand fundamentals (which could have been confounded of course if some president got killed or a new war started).
AT Pease, yes I was a master at Tech Analysis, there are many types, I had many of my own constructs also, which worked better because there weren’t 100,000 people using the same method….when that happens, its time for the HAL 20000 computers to “blow up the trade” and catch as many as possible on the wrong side of the trade. the HAL 20000 army by Goldman et al is what made tech analysis become less valuable. Sadly my expert skills became dinosaured by corrupt computers.
But I digress, in my main example of a “tuned” system failure, it was a brand new system, proven to create 33% annual returns over a 90 year period of data, with 92% winning trades, and the biggest loss being around 7% of money invested…..sounds perfect. Dropped 100K into that trade system (only a hundred people were using the system), and ended up with a $15k loss on the first trade! The first trade was by far the worst of 90 years……back tested or back tuned systems have a way of incorrectly forecasting the future.
Ya those small gold miners are amazing corrupt, even when listed on AMEX or TSX they still cannot be trusted. I would put more faith into a Warmist coming to their senses.
badger777,
Yup.
An especially hazardous place for users of probabilistic models. Less hazardous for the rare user whose model is connected to large enough asset accounts to nudge the market in a desired direction, but then only if those models are constantly updated due to a different model connected to a similarly massive war chest having figured out how to beat it at its own game.
That’s a game which is about as far from how thermodynamic equilibrium systems work. Newton, not Nash, is the better way to think about climate … until it comes time to making policy decisions.
The assumption here being that laws of physics don’t change, which, if we can’t assume, we may as well not bother.
The problematic assumption you make is that the known data are sufficiently accurate and representative expressions of the underlying physical processes to achieve the desired level of predictive skill. And it is of course always possible some fatal misunderstanding of the physical principles themselves will bite us unawares.
I do speak in extremes here. Point being that science is the process of incremental gains in knowledge either by new discovery, refining and enhancing previous knowns, or discovering errors and fixing them. Not the sort of thing one easily, or advisably, halts in the name of holding input parameters static just to see how they fare over some number of years.
Oh me too, it would be completely whacky to totally ignore the most significant source of heat in the system. Not ignoring it is one of the better explanations I can think of for why the Sun is studied so extensively.
The solar wind is cold by the time it reaches Earth , And the only reason were here is because the “resistance” created by this sun inside the Earth . http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
jmorpuss,
Well I was raised to believe that solar photons, not charged particles were responsible for why I feel hot in the daytime and cold at night.
Another popular press editor who needs to be dragged out back and shot for writing an unclear headline. Better would be “Radioactive decay estimated to account for half of Earth’s interior heat”
Let’s see what the body text has to say:
Geophysicists believe that heat flows from Earth’s interior into space at a rate of about 44 × 10^12 W (TW). What is not clear, however, is how much of this heat is primordial – left over from the formation of the Earth – and how much is generated by radioactive decay.
I comment: Geophysicists also believe that Earth absorbs solar radiation at an average rate of about 129,970 x 10^12 W. Divide by 5.1 x 10^14 m^2 = 239.2 W/m^2, a number which should look familiar:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/Fig1_GheatMap.png
Article continues:
The most popular model of radioactive heating is based on the bulk silicate Earth (BSE) model, which assumes that radioactive materials, such as uranium and thorium, are found in the Earth’s lithosphere and mantle – but not in its iron core.
Now that the dreaded keyword has been invoked, the conversation should now come to a screeching halt. That is if Trenberth’s energy budget cartoon didn’t kill it already.
@ Brandon Your cartoon is comical and thanks for the laugh
jmorpuss, yeah well I’m having fun trying to imagine how you explain diurnal and seasonal temperature differences with the planet’s internal heat providing on the order of 50% of surface temperatures on average.
Solar activity has been considered, and can’t possibly have created the variations in temperature which we see. That is settled science, and can’t be changed. So why are these people still in their jobs?
The only way you can get the variations we see is if the temperature data is adjusted properly. This is very convenient for climate theorists – it means the models can be proven accurate against observation without going to the trouble of taking any observations…
Exactly! That is the number one concern for me with respect to climate science. The claim is that the effects of the sun have, apparently, been completely quantified and there is no room for other views.
In my opinion, any group of scientists that make this kind of claim about a system as complex as the climate should NOT be working in science. Period. The hard fact is that climate “science” (and likely much of environmental “science”) is a haven for the intellectually lazy and ideologically driven.
I hate these blown up graphs…and making some big deal out of less than 1/2 a degree
…a 1/2 degree you can only get through adjustments
Right on… How about making a graph of global temps in degrees Kelvin??
In degrees C…PLEASE! I realise you Americans are still stuck in F, but the rest of the world uses C. For F’s sake use the C word!
It’s not mine guys……James did it….ask him to do it for you
ask James to make you one….
http://suyts.wordpress.com/
@ghost, that is hilarious!
Latitude, really? GISTemp LOTI converted to Kelvin absolute:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:14/offset:273.15/compress:12
Converted to Fahrenheit absolute:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:14/scale:1.8/offset:32/compress:12
Converted to Celsius absolute:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:14/compress:12
Click on the “Raw Data” link below each chart to get the data and graph to your heart’s content. The smallest y-axis value for K is obviously 0. -459.67 for F, -273.15 for C. Easy, no need to ask anyone to do anything.
Show of hands now, how many people here think we can fool Nature by playing silly tricks with unit conversions and y-axis scaling?
Who here understands that the purpose of plotting a chart is to help us understand what Nature is doing?
Latitude, really?…..yes Brandon really
Look at the damn scale…..
I hate these blown up graphs…
Latitude, I know you do. But looking at the non-blown up ones only changes your perceptions of reality, not reality itself. The salient debate here starts with whether the data themselves are accurate and representative of the underlying physics. By posting that graph, you are tacitly accepting the underlying data as correct. If you don’t realize that’s what you have done, then even more so it’s apparent you’re just playing games with images and have no intention of actually discussing the implications of what the data are telling us.
IOW, if you want to be taken seriously, engage in a serious discussion about the data in lieu of spamming the Internet with the same ridiculously uninformative plot which relies on arbitrary y-axis scaling to make a non-scientific argument.
It’s the way it looks on a Fahrenheit alcohol thermometer…..period
get over it
Latitude, that would be taking the “not to be taken seriously” avenue. But hey, to each their own.
Yes , dammit ! Computations MUST be done in Kelvin . Here’s a graph which puts the rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature in their true 0-based proportions :
http://cosy.com/Science/CO2vTkelvin.jpg
The total variation in temperature this politically genned hysteria is only about 0.3% . The earth’s equilibrium temperature varies about 4.3 degrees from peri- to ap-helion .
Bob Armstrong,
For calculating percentage changes in energy, if you’ll pardon the pun, yes, absolutely. For comparison, the percentage change in absolute surface temperature are 2.45% and 5.39% on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales respectively.
Isn’t abusing math fun? On that note …
Which clearly isn’t a problem, else we might not be here.
The percent changes in F or C degrees are mathematically meaningless . You must have a true 0 , ergo , Kelvin , to talk ratios , ie , percentages .
Were the orbit of the earth circular at the aphelion distance , our temperature would be even more dangerously close to the gorilla tipping point around , 273.15K . As it is , the mean 278.7 gray ball temperature in our orbit is uncomfortably close . As it is , the mean temperature of an ocean blue ball will dip below freezing close to half a year .
To me the consequential aspect of these papers is the confirmation of the yearly oscillation which MUST be in the data . People seem to be getting off into all sorts of esoteric explanations of longer period phenomena . I would like to see a simple spectrum for monthly or finer grained data over the decades for which commensurable data are available . I cannot imagine that the yearly cycle will not blow away all others in terms of total variance explained . And one should be able to get a handle on the phase lag and dampening . And perhaps be able to ferret out an estimate of the effect of our north-south asymmetry .
These are some of the first analyses I would expect from a classical physics , quantitative analytical approach to understanding the planet’s mean temperature .
Bob Armstrong,
I agree. That was the point of my doing the percentage calculations on both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales.
Ok, a particular example might help.
The highest frequency and amplitudes are found in the diurnal cycle.
One should definitely try. Big difference between trying and being able.
Start with the relative differences in land vs. ocean surface. Consider also that the Arctic ocean is surrounded by land and the Antarctic is an ocean surrounding a continent. Keep going from there.
Me too.
I thought that might be the point .
All the stuff about solar cycles , etc , when the headline issue is the annual cycle and its obvious , on the basis of the most basic physics , orbital cause .
🙂 OK , I left that out of my thought . The diurnal variance of course swamps everything else . Here are the diurna temperatures ( from Accuweather or Weather.com , I can’t remember which ) for sea level , NYC , and 2500 meters where I live above Colorado Springs :
http://cosy.com/Science/NY_WPtemps.jpg
The diurnal variance at sea-level is about 8 degrees , or 2.8% , about 10x the 0.3% change over the century . Up here , the variance is about 19 degrees or 6.6% .
This change in variance is the overwhelming effect of CO2 and other radiantly active gases transducing radiant energy back and forth to thermal energy in the mass of the atmosphere . Yet I have never seen this overwhelming effect , as opposed to any minor change in the mean , discussed on the web .
Yep .
Bob Armstrong,
It comes up from time to time. So, from monthly GHCN/CAMS data, which I grabbed from KNMI Climate Explorer, from 1948-present the mean global annual seasonal range is 11.6 °C. For the 30-65N latitude, the range is 29.3 °C, and for 65-90N it’s 35.8 °C. Trends are 1.9, 2.3 and 2.8 °C/century respectively. 16.5%, 7.9% and 7.8% are the respective percentages.
Given that we’re not dead, obviously the seasonal range isn’t an issue. You’re asking what’s the big deal about a 2 °C/century change? Well there are some other percentage calculations we can do. Over the past million years, the range between top and bottom of an ice age cycle is ~6 °C. That’s estimated global average temperature. 2 °C is 33% of that. The Holocene is about in the middle of that range, -3.5 to the last glacial maximum, and + 2.5 for the Eemian interglacial.
Another thing to think about is rate. It took oh, call it 10,000 years to cover that 3.5 rise from the LGM to the Holocene mean, which works out to 0.035 °C/century. That’s nearly 60x slower than the observed trend from 1948.
How do we know that the observed rate isn’t just a natural variability that doesn’t show up in the ice core data? Well, that’s exactly what a lot of these long-term variability studies like the one being discussed here are all about — trying to understand the planet’s own rhythms over longer-period cycles so that we can separate out our own signal from the “noise”.
It’s just like you said; “classical physics , quantitative analytical approach”.
Brandon , We seem to agree on a lot .
I’ve only implemented the half dozen or so relationships , each a one line functions , the longest of which is the Planck distribution , required to calculate the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated uniformly colored ball , an another few definitions for arbitrarily partitioned spheres . All my effort now is toward fleshing out my 4th.CoSy language implementing recursive lists of lists structures in open Forth abstracted from a lifetime in APLs . In APL languages , a very competitive physical model of the planet can be implemented in just a few pages of succinct definitions .
One of the next steps I’d like to do is simply implement the temperature distribution as function of coordinates over the sphere , throwing on a lambertian function at each point just to see what the unconfounded distribution of temperature is as a function of latitude . I’d particularly like to see where the “tipping point” 0c boundary moves as function of mean temperature . Also , high on my list is implementing the relationships for semitransparent media , eg , atmosphere and oceans . I’m really looking for collaborators who know this physics deeply from teaching it and are interested in expressing it cleanly in executable form any talented teen can implement and play with on computers of any size .
I’ve never stated that a 2c change in mean temperature is inconsequential — particularly to the down side . A crude approximation to an ocean blue spectrum , reflecting about 9% of the solar spectrum brings our equilibrium temperature down to perhaps half a degree above 273.15 . And , of course , it’s the tipping into ice ages the planet has repeatedly experienced .
Love it! Hard to play Hockey with a straight stick, though. 😉
Oh, but see how close it got to the line? Think of the children!
Yes solar activity is always influencing the climate but at times of no solar extremes (solar flux 90-150 range) the solar contribution is going to be lost to noise in the climate system.
Also the mean state of the climate/earth dynamics at the times of solar forcing are going to cause given solar conditions to result in different climate outcomes. This statement applying to all items that may exert a force on the climate.
In summary I think climate sensitivity to various forcings is EXPONENTIALLY dependent upon the mean state of the climate/earth dynamics at the time the forcing is taken place which is why correlations are hard to come by and so many different climate outcomes (although a similar trend in a general sense) is always the result.
.
This is why knocking yourself out to try to prove a climate connection beyond a reasonable doubt will always wind up questionable which as we know is exactly the case, hence the debate keeps going on and on back and forth with no conclusive 100% proof.
Willis won’t be able to stay a way from this one! Do they not give a physical reason? It would have to be related to something like the slight elliptical orbit (Willis could find no evidence of this in the Ceres data), or the fireworks and wild dancing of New Years celebrations if you want something anthropogenic, or Earth Day turning out the lights. I believe future statistics texts will have a cautionary chapter on wiggly lines. If this only began to happen in the last 30 years or so, I would mark this one down as one of the millions of temporary coincidences that people keep climatologist’s hearts beating too fast. This is why there is so much emphasis on CAUSE.
Length of day? Seriously? Do I have that right?
This appears to be another curve fitting exercise, with appropriately adjusted delays/lags, etc. I have always considered that at some stage we will be able to ‘see’ a primary solar connection/driver/link with the primary climate variations, but I have equally considered that sufficient data needs to be collected to be able to reach a reasonable conclusion of and such the link(s) – which we simply do not have. Hence, this requires more time and data – something the alarmists can obviously enjoy in the meantime!
About the only comfort we can take is that the CO2 ‘story’ (I refuse to call it even a hypothesis anymore) is gradually becoming less and less believable. I dunno, maybe another 10 years of frenzied feeding at the CO2 trough before someone finally says ‘Enough!’………..?
Well, in paper #2 there is reference to the fact that they found 10 such phase shifts from 1870-2008.
It is acknowledged that they were just going to examine the 1990-2013 period in both paper’s “Data and Methods”, but why they chose to drill in on just that period isn’t completely clear. I can speculate it’s just to demonstrate the phenomena.
Below is what someone said then I commented. I do not think the point I am trying to make is connecting. I will give it one more try with this post. I do think this is the heart of the problem, and I think the past 20000 years of climatic outcomes shows this to be the case.
gallopingcamel says:
“However, it bothers me that nobody has been able to use Milankovitch theory to predict when the next glaciation will commence.”
Of course because as I have said which no one seems to want to accept is as follows:
THE PROBLEM
Climate SENSITIVITY to various forcings is EXPONENTIALLY dependent on the mean state of the climate and earth dynamics ( state of the earth) which results in so many different climate outcomes and correlations not holding up over periods of time.
This is so true when it comes to Milankovitch Cycles which all break down over time in that at one time obliquity is thought to be the main regulator in glacial/inter-glacial cycles then it switches to precession around 1.4 million years and then oh no wait then it seems to correlate to eccentricity of the earth’s orbit for the last 800000 years.
Just a perfect example of my point which nothing so far is holding up even though the correlations are there because the mean state of the climate /earth dynamic is changing the climate SENSITIVITY to these forcing agents.
So everyone can keep knocking themselves out to prove beyond a doubt what makes the climate tick but all the correlations will break down to one degree or another overtime for the reason above..
Just take the last 20000 years of climate history so many UNKNOWN ABRUPT changes while the basic items which we think force the climate are present through out the time span, but look at the outcomes completely different.
I think it brings home what I am trying to convey
I agree. Another Small Ice Age does not have to be similar to the previous one.
Surprised that I did not find other comments that note the obvious fact that Willis pointed out; namely that there is an annual cycle of solar insolation of about 22 W/m^2 peak to trough due to the elliptical earth orbit. We are nearer the sun in early January each year. To my chagrin, I posted an article in which I had failed to realize that the corresponding temperature cycle was removed month by month, locale by locale, from anomaly records, but I did correctly calculate the mean 0.45C swing that it should produce on ocean surface temperatures. It will show up in direct unadjusted temperature records, and should be about double the mean in the equatorial zone.
If you think like a warmist there is only one possible conclusion. The CO2 is more powerful than we initially thought. It is causing variable output from the sun!!
fro the conclusioin:
“With these findings it is becoming clear that the entire cli-mate system is responding to the varying incident solar radiation,”
So they are addressing insolation not so much solar variation at the source. Is that correct?
That is correct.
I made the projection (below) in response to Bob “Carnac” Tisdale’s call for WUWT-reader’s ENSO predictions in his post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/06/final-the-201415-el-nino-part-22-january-2015-update-you-make-the-forecasts-for-the-201516-season/
http://i62.tinypic.com/2rn9ezt.png
When I examined the ENSO record, it seemed clear there are sets of El Nino-La Nina occurring in waves of various periods. The difficulty being that other factors conspire to blunt an El Nino or La Nina from always meeting the 5 consecutive 3 month ONI +/- 0.5º C criteria. In these two papers presented, these “other factors” are suggested by the authors to be “climate shifts.” As they suggested, and I agree, these are non-linear responses in a chaotic system, i.e. the climate system moves to a new “attractor.”
From my analysis, the stochastic record indicates a good chance for an El Nino starting in the second half of 2016. But after that, a new set starts. But with the current diminishing solar magnetic activity, all bets are off as to whether the climate system can stay phase-locked to such a weak solar magnetic signal. What I think is more likely is that the Earth’s climate will drift along for a decade or more, until solar magnetic activity picks up to again reassert phase-locking.
“Further more it has been shown that the Earth’s rate of rotation contains strong (~25% of its magnitude), 22 year cycle coincidental with the solar magnetic cycle.” –Vuk
¿Vuk-san, did you mean to say: Furthermore, it has been shown that variation in the Earth’s rate of rotation contains [a] strong (~25% of the variation magnitude), 22-year cycle coincidental with the solar magnetic cycle.
Right now solar activity is on the rise due to an increase in the solar wind probably related to coronal holes. Coronal holes complicate the already complicated solar dynamic climate relationship even further.
CORRECTION – it should read solar magnetic activity not solar activity . (ap index)
With the impending usefulness of CO2 for advancing the agenda the race is on to advance the next great threat. My money is on the theory that manages to suggest the greatest anthropogenic component.
Presently, the threat of a Carrington class event on our unshielded power grids would be more worthy of alarmism, or preemptive action, IMHO. If they’d switch the “Save the World” train to this track, it might even stimulate the economy.
Potentially, it is arguable that a Carrington event during a Maunder minimum could easily snowball into a near-extinction event for humanity. Certainly a repeat of The Dark Ages.
Ya exactly, there is simple and economy stimulating mitigating measure. Order 300 of those super large transformers that take 2 years to build, and stage them around the country where they may be needed, or put them into use as a type of capacitor to help absorb and release renewable energy gluts and sinks.
Question for Lief and the solar experts on this blog, can one interpret that coronal holes emitting solar winds, regulate the relatively constant background level of inbound cosmic particles, while CMEs produce pulses of magnetic plasma that intensify the shielding effect? (I assume this is demonstrated by the Forebush effect that follows a CME.)
Also, are there variations of incoming particle density as our heliosphere traverses the galaxy?
Should have checked myself, that was ‘Forbush Decrease’
Can’t spell Leif right, either. (i before e except after c dyslexia)
Yes CMEs produce additional shielding. Coronal Holes to not directly, but do indirectly by issuing fast solar wind that will collide with ambient wind and create interaction regions which do provide more shielding. And no, our travel through the Galaxy is too slow to expose us to varying cosmic rays.
Leif With the sun traveling at about 500’000 mph would there be a change in flow rate for when we are out in front of the sun to when we pass through it’s tail?
The cosmic ray intensity in the Galaxy is extremely uniform: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/cosmic_rays1.html
meaning that cosmic rays come with equal intensity in all directions so it matters not how fast the Sun is moving [and I think it is 50,000 mph not 500,000 mph]. The tail of the heliosphere is attached to the Sun and moves with it so we don;t pass through that one either. If we enter a very think interstellar cloud that will have an effect, but the nearest cloud is so far away that we won’t encounter it for thousands of years.
Leif Here’s some useful facts http://www.iop.org/activity/outreach/resources/pips/topics/earth/facts/page_43079.html
“solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. ”
Is the 1 cycle per year tied to each orbit and obliquity?
or is it tied to the polar field cycles ~12 months within the 21-22 yr cycle that ran from 1992-2013?
See below.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
note: the big El Nino’s of 1982-83 and 1997-98 were both about 5 years into the ascending node of the Southern Polar field cycle.
With out question ! . The variation in equilibrium temperature for a ball in our orbit from perihelion to aphelion is about 4.3K .
That is not optional . It is the most basic physics , and it is time this field gets back to starting with the basics .
This annual variation in insolation MUST be accounted for in any model of planetary temperature .
“SST3.4 contains a sustained signal at 1.0 cycle/yr implying solar forcing… This signal contains segments of period 2 or 3 years, phase locked to the annual…”
Would that be, like, something to do with SEASONS?
Like, summer and winter? [weeps into beer].
Solar activity is NOT a ‘climate pacemaker’ solar activity is a fact.
Not entirely new – here is Tziperman, Cane and Zebiak 1995 with a similar take:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/reprints/Tziperman-Cane-Zebiak-1995.pdf
Talking about ENSO – insiders in Peru’s anchovy fishery hit by the weak almost-el Nino suggest a rebound of the fishery this year, indicating (a) renewed Peruvian upwelling and (b) likely a La Nina for 2015:
http://www.sharejunction.com/sharejunction/listMessage.htm?topicId=10237&msgbdName=China%20Fishery&topicTitle=China%20Fishery%20-%20Low%20PE
Your average Peruvian anchovy knows more about ENSO than most salaried climatologists.
I look forward to Bob Tisdale commenting on this. Particularly with reference to the following sentence “The El Niño/La Niña effect diffuses into the world oceans with a delay of about two months.” from the “Abstract paper 2”.
I think Bob has clearly demonstrated the diffusion into the global oceans following an El Nino.
Wait, I am confused. The science is settled, how are they still publishing conflicting work? This isn’t how neo science is supposed to work!!
A slightly belated Happy Perihelion !
I come at the question of how to explain the 0.3% variation in our planet’s estimated mean temperature associated with a 30 to 40% rise CO2 concentration as an APL programmer and implementer for whom claiming to understand quantitative relationships implies being able to express them in computable expressions .
So , picking up where my half century old PSSC highschool physics left off , the first relationship to implement is the temperature of a ball as a function of its distance from the sun . Here’s the relevant slide from my Heartland presentation last summer , The Basic Basics :
I mentioned that Tom Wysmuller had just presented ( in a slide on sea level thermal expansion ) the first evidence I had seen of that non-optional 1.7% variation in orbital equilibrium temperature .
I more recently commented on a post by Tom Harris :
It is to see this effect ( I still don’t know what the quantitative definition of a forcing is ) , several times larger than century+ secular trend , much less the decade scale variations , being examined . Given how precisely we know the driving quantities , it should be very useful in splitting out such effects as north-south hemispheric differences in absorption=emission spectra .
( I tried using the editor on another WordPress site to be sure this posted correctly . Where the hell are instructions as to what markup works on this cite ? )
There should be an image in the post above : http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptSBplanetTemps815x613.jpg
Don’t use the image tag – just post the naked url for the image without the A tag. WordPress will convert it to an image tag…voila:
http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptSBplanetTemps815x613.jpg
For a complete list of tags & special characters that work, or to test your markup, click the word “test” on the bar under the WUWT banner.
Wow , thanks !
Much Grass !
To measure the temp of a planetary sphere , don’t you measure the temp at its centre not the surface. ?
A hot 6000 C core is always going to radiate into cold space. On the sunny side this creates a resistance called the bow shock and lies some 90,000 km or 50,000 miles from earth’s surface .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock
In reply to:
William:
Issue 1: Condensation Nuclei
There is a shortage of condensation nuclei in the region of the atmosphere above the ocean. Note precipitation removes cloud forming particles. There are multiple peer reviewed papers that support that assertion.
Ions created by high speed cosmic particles increase the efficiency of cloud formation, increases the lifetime of the cloud, and changes the size of cloud droplets.
Issue 2: Change in Solar Heliosphere Density which reduces the impact of solar wind bursts
Due to the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle, the solar heliosphere density has reduced 40%. The reduction in density of the solar heliosphere has reduced the space charge rise created by solar wind bursts. This is the reason why even though there are persistent coronal holes on the sun, that the El Niño ocean warming is being inhibited. The reduction in the solar heliosphere density and its impact on solar wind burst was discussed at the 2013 AGU meeting.
Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which changes the amount of cloud cover in high latitude regions and changes the cloud properties and lifetime of clouds in the tropics.
As solar magnetic cycle 24 continues to weaken we are now starting to see cooling over large region of the ocean. The blue regions in this diagram.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.1.8.2015.gif
Coronal holes in a low latitude position on the sun continue to create solar wind bursts which mitigates the cooling which would occur due to the increase high speed cosmic particles that are now striking the earth. It will be interesting to see if the coronal holes dissipate or move to high latitude regions of the sun where the winds that they create no longer affect the earth.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=17&startmonth=07&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=08&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Issue 3: Interruption to the solar magnetic cycle
The solar large scale northern magnetic field is flat lining. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly one year behind the solar northern hemisphere. The sun will be spotless and the solar large scale magnetic field will be flat lining by this time next year.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
Issue 3: Interruption to the solar magnetic cycle
The solar large scale northern magnetic field is flat lining. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly one year behind the solar northern hemisphere. The sun will be spotless and the solar large scale magnetic field will be flat lining by this time next year.
There is no ‘interruption’. It is quite normal that the hemispheres are a year or more out of sync
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
It is also quite normal that the polar fields have a plateau during reversal as even your own link so clearly shows.
William,
You said:
“There is a shortage of condensation nuclei in the region of the atmosphere above the ocean.”
I read that organic material in the oceans provides plenty of condensation nuclei in the air above.
The recent ocean cooling could just as well be a result of more meridional jets increasing total cloud cover.
I suppose we will just have to wait and see how the science develops over the next few years.
Stephen Wilde . these links may help you see how the oceans and land produce plenty of ions.
A ion is a molecule that has lost or gained a electron .
About air ions http://www.trifield.com/content/about-air-ions/
Conducting saltwater https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2295
How to make hydrogen and oxygen from salt water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwGx7qqQe-Y
The Sun also appears involved with daylight…………………..
Most of this thread could have been written by Umberto Eco. Foucault’s Pendulum comes to mind, but a few others fit.
Indeed the authors are confirming what has been known and published in the literature for decades, that ENSO is a nonlinear oscillator. The disagreement is only over whether it is unforced, stochastically or astrophysically forced. This study agrees with Tsipean Cane and Zebiak 1995, that the main driver is the annual cycle. The end of year peak phase locking is a pretty damn big hint.
Of course the yearly cycle is “astrophysically forced” . What would be hard to explain is if the 3.4% eccentricity in our orbit which , given the inverse square-root law of temperature versus orbital distance , causes a 1.7% oscillation in our equilibrium temperature did NOT produce an observable annual temperature cycle .
To me , the fact that there is any debate whether that is the cause is an example of how removed from the most essential non-optional physics the whole AGW debate has strayed . Whatever the observation this 1.7% variation in equilibrium temperature , close to 6 time as large as the total 0.3% variation over the century+ MUST be accounted for in anything that purports to model the planet’s temperature .
By computing temperature anomalies [i.e. the deviation from average for each station], the yearly variation with eccentricity is taken out of the data, so will not show up in plots of temperatures as a function of time.
That explains a lot of the disconnect between “climate science” and the simple physics which allows such a quantitative howler as James Hansen’s claim that Venus’s surface temperature , 225% the gray ball temperature in its orbit ( as opposed to our 3% ) is due to a “greenhouse” effect to not have been universally discredited years ago .
The paper I was referring to – which should be read together with the new Douglass paper, is Tziperman, Cane and Zebiak 1995:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/reprints/Tziperman-Cane-Zebiak-1995.pdf
In reply to:
William:
Your above comment is incorrect. We appear to be looking at different graphs or for some reason you do not understand the difference between flat lining and a plateau.
A plateau at zero is flat lining, different than a plateau at 50% or 75% (a plateau at 50% or 75% is a pause in the rise or fall of the large scale magnetic field which is different than a ‘pause’ at zero). A flat lining large scale magnetic field is anomalous. The solar large scale magnetic field has not in the past, flat lined.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
You appear to be obvious to the observational changes to the sun. Yes the solar hemisphere have for some reason shown been out of sync in time. The fact that they are currently out of sync in time is not anomalous.
The fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly is anomalous. The solar southern hemisphere is following the same pattern as was observed in the solar northern hemisphere.
It appears the sun will be spotless with an extraordinarily low large scale magnetic field by this time next year. An extraordinarily low intensity large scale solar magnetic (insufficient field strength to drive the standard dynamo) is the key change, the observation to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. What we are currently observing (warming followed by cooling) has happened before.
P.S. The solar cycle 24 interruption will move to front page news when the planet starts to significantly cool. The public and the media will demand an explanation (a physical cause, answers to the question how much cooling will occur, answers to what happened to global warming, and so on) for unequivocal cooling.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
William, your naivete is in a sense almost touching. Here is the figure you linked to with the near-zero polar fields [ovals] at reversals [this is nothing special]
http://www.leif.org/research/No-Flatlining.png
You forget that I was the first to measure the polar fields accurately [back in 1976].
The fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly is anomalous.
There has been no linear decline in the magnetic field of sunspots of late
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
There is no indications that the Sun will be spotless in a year. You keep saying that [always in a year] like people predicting the end of the world, and the time is always a year out. Keep this up and eventually you will be correct [at the next solar minimum].
The trend behavior of the magnetic field of the sun is visible on the graph.
The graph shows the solar polar fields [not the small, new sunspots William is raving about] and the decrease of the polar fields is what we use to predict the solar cycle with [see slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf ]. The decline is not unusual [happens every 100 years or so].
Thank you and best regards. In California will again heat and high temperature of the ocean.
Jumping the gun here and we need to say how this plays out going into the future. Thus far solar cycle 24 has been very different from previous cycles and it appears this could be one of the longest solar cycles ever.
correction we need to see
Leif, we had a conversion concerning why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is no longer declining. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has stopped declining as the lowest field strength magnetic flux tubes that rise up to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are now being torn apart.
There are now only short lived pores on the surface of the sun where previously there was a mixture of short lived pores and high field strength, larger, longer life sunspots. The sun is at the end of a road in a process.
I hope you are not saying this picture is the same as solar cycle 22 or solar cycle 23. There is no logical reason to contradict observations.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
The northern solar large scale magnetic field is flat lining. A flat lining profile is different, there is not a mixture of two different polarities, there is no or almost no magnetic flux in the solar northern hemisphere.
I see you have no comments about the peer reviewed paper that notes solar cycle 24 is anomalous.
You keep singing the same tune, nothing unusual is happening to the sun and regardless of what happens to the sun, solar magnetic cycle changes do not modulate the amount of cloud cover on the earth, solar magnetic cycle changes.
The public and media will demand an explanation for significant global cooling. I am truly curious how the politicians will react to observations that support the assertion that roughly 90% of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
Clearly, observations will determine which set of assertions are correct, Leif’s or William’s.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
I see you have no comments about the peer reviewed paper that notes solar cycle 24 is anomalous.
Here is my peer-reviewed paper saying that the Sun is not doing anything special. just business as usual:
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
The public and media will demand an explanation for significant global cooling
There has been no significant global cooling.
Actually if the passionate people at the IPCC and others that claim that the math is correct for the relationship between the amount of co2 and temperature, then absolutely temperatures have fallen. They haven’t risen to the level that they are suppose to be. Additionally, and it seems to be the case, the temperatures are actually below the lowest levels predicted, and to further complicate matters, even if, the temperatures have remained flat over the last 18 yrs + then it represents a significant cooling as per the math. There is simply no way for AGW to get around it. Unless the AGW can point to a cause for the LIA (which had fairly stable co2 levels before and during) then the theory of AGW is in extreme doubt. Solar cycles, while maybe not conclusive, are a much better indicator than co2 levels.
Adjusting temp records, reordering numbers and other mathematical gee whiz stunts only convinces the uneducated, gullible, and ignorant. Running a media campaign that ostracizes, hamstrings, and marginalizes legitimate science or anyone that has legitimate questions hardly helps your case in the long run. Nearly every winter snowstorm, headlines were running “Winters last Hurrah” only to be followed by additional storms. What now? Going to claim it’s warming up this year if the Great Lakes don’t freeze over again? If we have 2 or more hurricanes next year? Going to claim I don’t know the difference between climate and weather, when most of the AGW people purport that when it’s warm, that’s climate change, while cold and snow isn’t?
The really bad thing about this is, if the solar cycles are the cause of global cooling, there has been no planning or effort put in to how to handle a multi decadal long cooling. From my perspective, it seems that AGW wants people to be unprepared so that a lot of people will die before or during which they figure out they’ve been hood winked.
There are now only short lived pores on the surface of the sun where previously there was a mixture of short lived pores and high field strength, larger, longer life sunspots.
Like here? http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2014/loc-d20141218.JPG
There are now only short lived pores on the surface of the sun where previously there was a mixture of short lived pores and high field strength, larger, longer life sunspots.
You mean like this one
http://spaceweather.com/images2014/23oct14/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=ectmp5a5cdvne2o6p6k0qhq874
If global warming was caused by CO2 (which it isn’t), warming rate (rate-of-change of average global temperature) instead of (as usually presented) the temperature itself would vary with the CO2 level. To be valid, the comparison should be between the temperature and the time-integral of CO2 level and/or the time-integral of any other factor(s) proportional to energy rate (such as TSI).
Thus any co-plot of CO2 level and temperature or any other implication that average global temperature depends directly on CO2 level is misleading and physically and mathematically wrong. But ignorance can be fixed.
An analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com derives a physics-based equation which, using the time-integral of forcings, accurately calculates the uptrends and down trends of average global temperatures irrespective of whether CO2 change is included or not. The paper at this link discloses:
1. A reference which provides historical evidence that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
2. The two factors that do explain climate change. The correlation is 95% with measured average global temperatures since before 1900; including the current plateau. The analysis also predicts the ongoing down trend of average global temperature.
3. An explanation of why any credible CO2 change does not cause significant climate change.
The two factors are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
In reply to:
William:
Yes there has as yet been no significant global cooling. We are waiting for the next step in the process. If one understood the mechanisms and what is currently happening to the sun a prediction could be made.
Ops, highest extent of Southern sea ice in recorded history. An unprecedented change, requires a physical change, something to cause what is observed.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The trend is your friend. When unequivocal global cooling arrives, it will be unequivocal, unprecedented in written human experience. What will happen is however recorded in the paleo climatic record. If the climate wars were not at full intensity, the paleo climatic researchers might point out that fact.
I am less enthusiastic about being correct, as I (believe I)understand what is happening and what to expect next. On a brighter note, the physics of how the solar magnetic cycle restarts will lead to a significant breakthrough in fundamental/applied physics.
To use your device: you didn’t comment on my peer-reviewed [a[er, but just trotted out yet another straw man
The solar cycle will not ‘restart’ as it ain’t dead yet. And you show no signs of understanding of what is going on.
And here the rest of the story:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
You are a master of cherry-picking what you like and disregard what you don’t.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
so the solar interruption both cools and warms…
so the solar interruption both cools and warms…
——————–
That’s ok, you don’t need a sarc tag (but it’s still funny.)
As Al Gore once said: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
Cherry Pickers to the left of me, more to the right……http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/antarctic-sea-ice-same-as-40-years-ago/
lsvalgaard
January 9, 2015 at 11:02 pm
“””The tail of the heliosphere is attached to the Sun and moves with it so we don;t pass through that one either. “””
____________________________________________________________________________________
Think IBEX, IBEX, IBEX. Yes Earth does pass through, green dot with associated black line showing orbit.in image below.
http://inspirehep.net/record/879488/files/fig4a.png
This next depiction shows C, O, Ne and He in the Upwind crescent and downwind focusing cone ( note the Carbon to Oxygen ratio)
nooooooo, yes. You mean there is more O than C like 2 to 1 or something?
Inflow direction of interstellar neutrals deduced from pickup ion measurements at 1 AU
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JA017746/full
Christian Drews Lars Berger Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber
Peter Bochsler Antoinette B. Galvin Berndt Klecker and Eberhard Möbius
Article first published online: 22 SEP 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2012JA017746/asset/image_n/jgra22063-fig-0007.png
Figure A2. The w-spectra of C+ (top left), O+ (top right), Ne+ (bottom left), and He+ (bottom right) sorted into the respective ecliptic longitude with respect to the vernal equinox. The w-information is given by the radial distance from the plot center, whereas the innermost and outermost magenta circles correspond to a w of 1.0 and 2.25, respectively. The angle at which the data is plotted corresponds to the ecliptic longitude at which the measurement was conducted. The color represents the average number of counts that have been observed in a period of 28 days around the respective ecliptic longitude. To give an impression of the global velocity distribution of pickup ions and their dependence on the ecliptic longitude, 1450 days of STEREO A pickup ion data have been accumulated. Two prominent features are clearly resolved. The focusing cone, which is visible for Ne+ and He+, forms around an ecliptic longitude of 75° with a sharp cutoff at w ≈ 2, as expected for interstellar pickup ions. The interstellar crescent, which is prominent in the upwind region, spans over almost 180° and also shows a cutoff at w ≈ 2. Both structures are believed to be symmetrically aligned around the inflow direction of interstellar neutrals.
Carla, neutrals do not shield us from cosmic rays, so your comment is misplaced.
and the pickup ions are so few compared to the protons that they have almost no screening effect either.
He said, “Also, are there variations of incoming particle density as our heliosphere traverses the galaxy?”
But … anyway… If the Interstellar Magnetic Field direction changes, doesn’t also the direction of trapped GCR? How many locally operated field directions have we found thus far?
The cosmic ray sky is completely uniform, no variation across the sky. The direction of the interstellar magnetic field changes if we look in different directions in the sky, but no variation of cosmic rays has been observed so the answer must be ‘no’.
Did you see the rain coming from the Radiation belts in this article
Observations of nitric oxide in the Antarctic middle atmosphere during recurrent geomagnetic storms
Schematic view of the Ne+ pickup ion flux in the upwind region of the heliosphere. The strong anisotropy is formed by the interplay of the interstellar neutral inflow, the radially varying ionization efficiency, and the radial expansion of pickup ions after their ionization. The structure at 1 AU strongly resembles the form of a crescent (shown here as a black shaded area). The crescent’s intensity, which is normalized to 1 and drawn along Earth’s orbit in polar coordinates (thick red line), shows a maximum that is aligned along the axis of the inflowing interstellar wind. Consequently, observations of the related pickup ion count rate at 1 AU allow us to determine the inflow direction of interstellar matter in two separate regions of space using the interstellar focusing cone on the downwind side (not shown) and the interstellar crescent on the upwind side of the sun. Contrary to the formation of the focusing cone, the crescent is most pronounced for species that have a high ionization probability, such as oxygen or hydrogen.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2012JA017746/asset/image_n/jgra22063-fig-0001.png?v=1&t=i4s8801n&s=11d434bff902a46bdb4289a79974f84027a2e0cd
Stephen Wilde
January 10, 2015 at 6:27 pm
__________________________________________________________________________________
Wondering aloud if you have seen this study yet?
Observations of nitric oxide in the Antarctic middle atmosphere during recurrent geomagnetic storms
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.5445N
Authors:
Newnham, D. A.; Espy, P. J.; Clilverd, M. A.; Rodger, C. J.; Seppälä, A.; Maxfield, D. J.; Hartogh, P.; Holmén, K.; Horne, R. B.
04/2012
Abstract
The odd nitrogen (NOx) species nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are produced in the middle atmosphere by precipitating energetic electrons and protons. In the thermosphere and upper mesosphere NOx exists mainly as NO but below 70 km conversion to NO2 occurs. In darkness NOx has a sufficiently long lifetime to be transported downward by the polar vortex at high latitudes during winter and impact on ozone abundances. NOx may be produced more frequently and persistently by energetic electron precipitation from the Earth’s magnetosphere than by solar protons. However, it is unclear which electron energies are most important for stratospheric chemistry. Electrons in the range 10 keV to several MeV precipitate from the radiation belts in the subauroral zone at geomagnetic latitudes <= 75° , and particularly in the southern hemisphere and pole-ward of the South-Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SMA). Although in general the precipitating flux decreases rapidly with increasing electron energy this mechanism can produce NOx directly in the stratosphere and mesosphere. To establish high-latitude NOx production throughout the polar night, follow its transport, and determine its effects on the composition and chemistry of the mesosphere and stratosphere we have developed and deployed a 230-250 GHz passive microwave radiometer in Antarctica to observe NO, ozone (O3), and carbon monoxide (CO). Here we report ground-based measurements made from Troll station (72° 01'S 02° 32'E, geomagnetic latitude 65° ), a location equator-ward of the auroral zone, pole-ward of the area of radiation belt precipitation and the SMA, and deep within the polar vortex during the Austral winter. Our observations show enhanced mesospheric NO volume mixing ratio (VMR) reaching 1.2 ppmv at 65-80 km during a series of small recurrent geomagnetic storms in the 2008 polar autumn and winter. The Lomb normalized periodogram of the NO VMR time series averaged over 65-80 km for days 80 to 220 of 2008 (20 March to 7 August) shows a peak exceeding the 95% confidence limit at 27 days, matching the solar rotation period.
Our observations show enhanced mesospheric NO volume mixing ratio (VMR) reaching 1.2 ppmv at 65-80 km during a series of small recurrent geomagnetic storms in the 2008 polar autumn and winter.
Is hardlynot where the stratospheric ozone layer is.
Why do some people trot out such irrelevant stuff?
The effect appears to drop down through the polar vortices ahich are columns of descending air above the poles.
The ozone response to solar variations is reversed above 45km and towards the poles contrary to established climatology. The polar vortices then bring that reverse sign response down to lower levels to affect tropopause heights.
The consequence is jet stream and climate zone shifting.
Good find, Carla.
I haven’t seen that one before but was aware of NO as one of the possible culprits.
There is a lot of evidence accumulating with regard to a reverse sign ozone response to solar variations above 45km and towards the poles as first proposed by me in 2010 or thereabouts.
“In the thermosphere and upper mesosphere NOx exists mainly as NO but below 70 km conversion to NO2 occurs.”
Only surprising thing is that currently sun is surprisingly normal.
Temporary increase in activity at the end of the cycle is normal.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2003&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=01&endyear=2005&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
In reply to:
Yes. The solar northern hemisphere is roughly a year advanced in the process. What we are now observing in the solar southern hemisphere, an occasional single large complex sunspot, in addition to the pores is what was observed in the solar northern hemisphere at the end of the process. There are no large sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere, only pores. There are very few sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere which explains why the solar northern large scale magnetic field is flat lining. The solar southern hemisphere is following the solar northern hemisphere.
There is a sudden net increase in sea ice both poles.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
As I noted you appear to be oblivious to observations and analysis in peer reviewed papers that do not support your beliefs. You have told as again and again that nothing unusual is happening to the sun and you have told us again and again regardless of what happens to the sun that the solar changes will not have a significant effect on the earth’s climate.
You have told us that the sun was not unusually active in the later half of the 20th century. In every case the warm periods in this diagram occurred during very high solar magnetic cycle activity which was followed by significant cooling when the sun when into a Maunder minimum. There is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record (high latitude regions, same as warmed in the last 50 years).
The sun is heading very quickly into a special Maunder minimum. If the past is guide to the future the planet will cool.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
You have told us that the sun was not unusually active in the later half of the 20th century.
That is the considered conclusion of most solar observers, e.g. in this contribution to be presented at the EGU in Vienna in April:
The recalibrated Sunspot Number series and a trend-less solar climate forcing (CL2.2)
Clette, Lefèvre, Cliver, Svalgaard, Vaquero:
Our understanding of solar activity and in particular its influence on the Earth environment is based on multi-secular reconstructions that rely only on a single direct record: the sunspot number based on visual observations of sunspots since the invention of the astronomical telescope. Currently, two main sunspot series are available; the Sunspot Number created by R. Wolf and currently produced by the WDC-SILSO in Brussels and the Group Number constructed by Hoyt and Schatten (1998). The large discrepancies between those two series demonstrate the need to revisit both data sets and to look for inhomogeneities in their calibration.
After retracing the main steps in the construction of those key series, we present here all corrections that have been established for both series following a 3-year joint investigation by the authors and a community of experts in the framework of Sunspot Number Workshops (Clette et al. 2014). We find that that both series suffer from inhomogeneities, over different periods and are due to several distinct causes for each series. The resulting corrections are based either on the use of newly recovered observations (mainly for the 17th and 18th centuries), on the construction of new and improved long-term references (“backbone” observers) or on the full statistical re-calculation from large sets of observers for the recent modern period. Other indirect indicators, like the daily modulation of the geomagnetic field or solar indices (e.g. sunspot areas, F10.7cm radio flux) are used only to provide a validation. Corrections can reach up to 40%. Involving the whole 1610-2014 interval, they lead to a full reconciliation between the sunspot and group number series, within the uncertainties. They also result in a global decrease in the overall upward trend of solar activity since the Maunder Minimum that characterized the original uncorrected series. After corrections, the high solar activity of the late 20th century does not exceed the levels of past centuries anymore, thus questioning the notion of a recent Grand Maximum and calling for redoing many long-term studies and reconstructions published over past years.
We conclude on the forthcoming release of the new re-calibrated sunspot numbers via the new WDC-SILSO Web site. This major milestone will also include other fundamental changes tracing the way for the future: a new method for the derivation of future sunspot numbers, a change of scaling convention, the determination of uncertainties and the implementation of a versioning scheme. The latter will open the way to future well-documented upgrades of this fully-modernized reference series as new knowledge is acquired.
you have told us again and again regardless of what happens to the sun that the solar changes will not have a significant effect on the earth’s climate
But you seem to be a slow learner…
Are you sure there is no impact on the climatewhen the second year in a row pattern repeats itself polar vortex? Does climate change in the US?
The area of the strongest radiation shows the lowest pressure area above the Arctic Circle. You can see that the polar vortex is shifted. Consequently, the air can flow over America straight from Siberia over Alaska. Air flows over Europe from the Atlantic.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/1zml01v.jpg
If this graph shows a typical cycle is me probably I’m blind.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/27ywc9f.jpg
You can also see that peaks the graph of neutrons every other cycle are flatter. Thus, the GCR stream is modulated in a different way.
This is a well-known and well-understood effect having to do with the sign of the solar polar fields.
See slide 35 of http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
Different stations show slightly different variations.
Here are some more:
http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-nm/SRU%20Neutron%20Monitors%20Monthly%20Graphs.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png
Maybe the South Pole?
http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/TheSpnPlot2.gif
The cosmic ray intensity at the South Pole has been decreasing the past 50 years
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50655-South-Pole.pdf
You stopped in 2006.
You can’t read? The graphs show data through 2010 at least and some are up-to-date.
lsvalgaard
January 11, 2015 at 9:55 am
The cosmic ray intensity at the South Pole has been decreasing the past 50 years
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50655-South-Pole.pdf
________________________________________________
Changes in cut off rigidity and the last sentence of the document is hinting that something is amiss down there.
“””At this time therefore we believe that there is a solid justification for a program to investigate
in detail geomagnetic cutoff change at South Pole and its influence
on the radiation environment.”””
No didn’t read the entire article..
Earth’s S.Pole is positive and Earth’s N.Pole is negative. (note to me)
Currently the N. Pole of the Sun is… and the S. Pole is negative?
And currently the Interstellar Magnetic field lines draping over the heliosphere is..?
And has been Postive or Negative for how long?
And Dr. S., the sea ice graph for the N. Pole looks like it is in a pause …. not a decline any longer.
One more thingy Dr. S.,
The recalibrated Sunspot Number series and a trend-less solar climate forcing (CL2.2)
Clette, Lefèvre, Cliver, Svalgaard, Vaquero:
Fixing the sunspot count is one thingy but going out on that limb about a “trend-less solar climate forcing” is another thingy that is just asking for trouble, unless oh never mind. Get ready then..
Good job, Ren, Vuks, Wilde, Astley.
Keep on truckin’
Eddie Kendricks 1973
Changes in cut off rigidity and the last sentence of the document is hinting that something is amiss down there.
Nothing is amiss down there. What is amiss is our understanding of the cutoff, which is based on oversimple theory anyway.
And currently the Interstellar Magnetic field lines draping over the heliosphere is..?
And has been Postive or Negative for how long?
Doesn’t matter as the solar wind is supersonic and the interstellar field is stable for thousands of year anyway.
Fixing the sunspot count is one thingy but going out on that limb about a “trend-less solar climate forcing”
If there has been no trend in solar activity for 300 years, one would presume that there is no trend in the forcing to the trend-less activity, so ‘no limb’.
Good job, Ren, Vuks, Wilde, Astley.
Most of these people are just our resident pseudo-scientists, and they can be quite entertaining in [as I said] their naivety.
Activity decreases.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/animations/enlil/latest.jpg
The area of ice in the Antarctic record high. This will have an impact on the thermohaline circulation.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Antarctica ice is back to 1973/5 levels when it was feared the next Ice Age was on its way.
Bears can wander from Canada to Greenland.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/data/201501/AM2SI20150110IC0.png
It will be a long winter, especially in North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2015.gif
Good you can see the delayed response of the troposphere (surface temperature increase, inhibition of ice).
A direct correlation in temperature response (using an adequate sample of temperature sensors here at the surface or up in a satellite) to cyclic solar parameters cannot be demonstrated. Unless you filter, strain, and reduce the broth. However, a statistician worth the payscale will tell you that all you are doing is making some kind of potion that hopefully will make an elephant’s trunk wriggle.
Not impressed.
In response to Lief Grand Solar Maximum
In response to Lief Grand Solar Maximum
William:
Leif, it appears it has been your lifetime goal to eliminate the Maunder minimum, to hide the fact that the sun was at its highest activity in 8000 years during the most recent 30 year warming period, and to hide the fact that past cyclic planetary warming correlates with high solar magnetic activity. In every case the past warming periods were followed by significant cooling periods when the sun went into a Maunder like minimum for 100 to 150 years. You are now trying to hide the fact that the sun is moving rapidly to a Maunder like minimum. You are fighting a losing battle with current observations of the solar magnetic cycle vs sudden unexplained cooling of high latitude regions.
We had this discussion before: Was there a recent grand solar magnetic cycle maximum? Was there a Maunder minimum? Does planetary warming and cooling correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes? Your paper attempts to eliminate the Maunder minimum based on Wolf not have access to a larger telescope. You infer that if Wolf did not have access to a larger telescope that the Maunder minimum did not occur.
Cosmogenic isotope analysis, in multiple peer reviewed papers, however supports the assertion that the Maunder minimum occurred and that the warming period in the last 30 years correlates with the most active solar magnetic cycle in 8000 years.
I specifically provided peer reviewed papers (1999, 2004, and 2013) written by multiple authors to support the assertion that:
1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum (Note past tense as the solar magnetic cycle is declining. The decline in solar activity is the greatest decline in 8000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.)
2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.
In addition to the peer reviewed papers I provide a link to a 2013 BBC interview of the senior scientist Lockwood. Lockwood’s comment in that interview also supports the three above assertions.
The peer reviewed paper you provided a link to disputes Lockwood’s 1999 paper. Lockwood’s 1999 paper is being vindicated as the solar magnetic cycle declines. It is odd that you do not note that fact and in 2015 ignore peer reviewed analysis and current observations that supports the assertion that the sun is rapidly moving to a Maunder minimum.
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/1999/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
This also is an interesting paper see figure 1.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0385v1.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
it appears it has been your lifetime goal to eliminate the Maunder minimum, to hide the fact that the sun was at its highest activity in 8000 years during the most recent 30 year warming period
No, the Maunder Minimum is very real, but the solar output back then was not much smaller than it is now at recent minima, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.”
TSI and all other solar activity measures varies the same way as all activity is due to the magnetic field.
The cosmic ray proxies do not support the idea that solar activity has been unusually high lately, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf
“The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/musceler05nat_nature04045.pdf
” as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun”
And this important peer-reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
“Similarly, observations of the spicule forest (the ‘‘red flash’’) during the total solar eclipses in 1706 and 1715 seem to require the presence of bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric and chromospheric magnetism during at least the last decades of the Maunder Minimum (Foukal & Eddy 2007).”
Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf shows that the Steinhilber 10Be data does not indicate unusually high recent solar activity, and so on and on.
Slide 5 of same shows that Lockwood and company have finally reached agreement with our reconstructions of a decade ago, so trotting out their old papers is misplaced.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
Below is my response to all of those that claim correlations between the climate and various items which exert an influence on the climate do not exist.
I think climate sensitivity to various forcing is EXPONENTIALLY dependent upon the mean state of the climate/earth dynamics at the time the forcing is taken place which is why correlations are hard to come by and so many different climate outcomes (although a similar trend in a general sense) is always the result.
Just hand waving without any ‘meat’ on it. Where are the the numbers, the analysis, the error bars, the science? Nowhere in what you persistently comment.
In fact, if the sensitivity EXPONENTIALLY dependent on anything, the response should be EXPONENTIALLY larger and easy to see, perhaps even a run-away disaster
This is why there have been so many different climatic outcomes in the historical climatic record of the earth despite more or less the same forcing from various sources being in play.
The meat is in the historical climatic record which shows a different climatic outcome despite more or less the same forcing in place.
That means either this statement is correct or that various forces acting upon the climate in the past have not been consistent.
It has to be one or the other or a combination of the two because of the simple fact the climate of the earth has changed over time sometimes in a rather drastic manner while at other times hardly at all. The climate has not been static ,that is the fact of the matter.
Something is causing this to occur.
What it shows is that your various statements are incorrect, so ‘no meat’
The bottom line is the climate has changed as a result of out side forcing or earth dynamics or a combination of the two.
One can not get around that unless one wants to make the argument that the climate of the earth has always been static with no glacial periods or inter- glacial periods for example never mind other oddities in the climatic record such as the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum.
The glacial periods are well explained by the effect of [mainly] Jupiter on the Earth’s orbit and have nothing to do with solar activity or cosmic rays or CO2 or whatever other straw men people trot out. Still no meat on your utterances.
What is the “effect of Jupiter”?
Jupiter perturbs the orbit of the Earth, making it more round at times and more oval at other times and also moves the time of closest approach to the Sun around a bit affecting the amount of sunlight we get. Jupiter does not change solar activity IMHO: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
Environmental Earth Sciences
November 2014
Date: 18 Nov 2014
Jupiter’s effect on Earth’s climate
O. G. Sorokhtin, G. V. Chilingar, N. O. Sorokhtin, M. Liu, L. F. Khilyuk
Abstract
This paper deals with cyclical effect of Jupiter on Earth’s climate. The period of Earth’s interaction with Jupiter and of its effect on the position of Earth’s orbit is approximately equal to 11.86 years and the Earth’s temperature seasonal fluctuations is equal to 12 months. Modeling indicates that the superposition of large planets’ (mostly Jupiter) that effect Earth’s climate should result in the modulation of seasonal temperature fluctuations of ±2.5 °C with the total period of 12 years. The real climatic fluctuations in the near-surface areas of Earth are modified first of all by the Sun’s revolution around the center of mass of the Solar system, as affected by the gravitational pull of large planets (Jupiter and Saturn).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12665-014-3694-7
Leif,
I don’t think I have ever read before about the glacial period influence by Jupiter, but if I had seen it before I don’t remember it.
But it would not surprise me a bit.
Now I don’t think the orbital period of Jupiter is anywhere near as long as the interval between ice ages, so it can’t be that simple.
Do you know the period of this orbital eccentricity shift; or is it even a periodic effect rather than just cyclic ??
Thanks for mentioning it anyway. I will have to look out for any papers on that subject.
G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The evidence is in the FACT the climate is not static. I rest my case..
Please do. And leave it resting forever.
Leif and you always prove my point by showing how the various forcing correlations do not hold up over time. So thanks for making my point.
Your point being that the alleged correlations including the ones with solar activity do ‘not hold up over time’. So we seem to agree on that, so you can now rest.
Wrong for the reasons I just stated. That is where the connect is missing in that climate sensitivity to given forces is not going to be the same due to the mean state of the climate of the earth and the earth dynamic at that particular point in time. That does not mean however the climate does not react to those forces only that it reacts in a different degree to the given force.
You have tried to show this to be the case over and over again. Your last post is a great example.
Perhaps you painted yourself into a corner with “prove my point by showing how the various forcing correlations do not hold up over time”.
Now you are trying to save face by saying that sometimes they hold and sometimes they don’t and all ti different degree, sometimes this way, sometimes that way. All of that are simply excuses for the fact that there are no demonstrated valid correlations. And now, go rest your case. I think we have heard enough of meatless nonsense.
Leif again thanks for helping me draw these conclusions which I believe are on the correct path.
“the various forcing correlations do not hold up over time” is indeed a good conclusion. Glad to have been of help to get you to this point.
Exactly because the sensitivity of the climate to forcing depends upon the mean state of the climate/earth dynamic at that time of the given force.
This is my last post Anthony is going to get tired of this I think.
If one want to get into Milankovitch Cycles and see all the inconsistencies this a great paper to read.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf
The main conclusion of the paper is “The start of interglacials is in line with the canonical view
of Milankovitch forcing dictating the broad timing of interglacials” and they go on “These observations suggest that one may be able to predict the broad duration of an interglacial from its very outset”.
My conclusion is that the M-cycles are well understood and the ‘inconsistencies’ are not important.
Whatever the forcing, it relates to the rate-of-change of temperature, not the temperature itself. To relate the forcing to temperature requires the time-integral of the anomaly of the forcing where the anomaly is the deviation from an average value.
In ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, it is asserted that the graph which shows that CO2 level and temperature go up and down together indicates that climate change is caused by CO2 change. Actually, with application of valid science (that the temperature depends on the time-integral of the forcing), that graph PROVES that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
that the temperature depends on the time-integral of the forcing
Clearly not, as the body continuously cools by radiating…
And the planet is continuously heated by insolation which is also not relevant to the point. The point being that the effect of a factor related to energy rate on temperature is cumulative with time.
It appears the difference is in the definition of the word ‘forcing’. I have used it to be synonymous with energy rate (power) while most, if not all others, use it to mean the time integral of power which is energy. To clarify, replace my use of the word ‘forcing’ with ‘energy rate’.
An integral is taken between a lower and upper limit of the dependent variable [the domain D]. If you do not specify what D is, the result is indefinite. As the integrand is positive [in your case], the integral diverges as time goes by. It is thus not clear what you mean.
Cancel “It appears the difference is in the definition of the word ‘forcing’” in my 3:57 post. I goofed on what I (briefly) thought others mean by ‘forcing’. All others that I looked at use W/m^2 which is power, same as I use it.
As to your 5:16 PM post, The ‘domain’ is the time period being considered. Pick any start date and end date. The domain may include both glacial and inter-glacial periods. The net effect of CO2 on temperature must be the time-integral of the CO2 forcing anomaly where the anomaly is the deviation from the average CO2 value. High levels of CO2 will produce up trends in temperature and low levels of CO2 will produce down trends in temperature. This produces a graph completely different from what has been measured at e.g. Vostok thus proving that CO2 is not a forcing.
If you have any [reasonable] function then the integral of the difference between the function and its average over any domain is zero [hint: there is as much area above the average line as below].
Leif,
You said “there is as much area above as below”. Exactly. Do that for any time period before 1900 and experience the epiphany of discovering that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Use a number slightly above or below the average and see the average slope of the calculated temperature trend change. Offset it up or down to match the temperature on any date. But always, the calculated temperature trajectory will show no similarity to the measured.
Understand the analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and discover that CO2 has had no significant effect on climate after 1900 either.
No. Not ‘exactly!’ The point is that the integral is ALWAYS zero no matter what the domain is.
You are barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps you didn’t see the correction of my typo: “not” was missing.
Let me try to clarify. Select a time period that includes part of both glacial and contiguous inter-glacial periods. The integration (using CO2 values from e.g. Vostok data) is of the CO2 anomaly (which is the difference between the value for that year and the average for the total period) from the start year to the second year, and then the anomalies from the second and third years from the start year to the third year, and then the anomalies of the second, third and fourth years from the start year to the fourth year, and so on. The result of the integration from the start year to the second year is a point (which is a temperature anomaly) on the trajectory at the date of the second year, the result of the integration from the start year to the third year is a point on the trajectory at the date of the third year, and so on. The result (with appropriate scale factors and offset) is a calculated trajectory of the temperature anomalies vs. time based on the CO2 level as it varies from the start time. The observation that this temperature anomaly trace has no resemblance to the measured temperature anomaly trace, and can not be made to resemble the measured anomaly trace by adding or subtracting any amount from the average, proves that CO2 does not act alone and at most is a very minor player.
In “agwunveiled”, CO2 is handled as shown in Equation 1 of http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html. As described in “agwunveiled”, I added temperature values calculated using the equation (with and without CO2) for each year to an approximation of the contribution from ocean cycles for that year. Coefficients on each factor were (alternately and repeatedly) adjusted to achieve the absolute maximum R^2 when compared to a HADcrut4 based combination of reported temperature anomalies. As shown in Table 1 of the analysis at “agwunveiled”, R^2 is more than 0.9 and not significantly different whether the influence of CO2 is included or not which demonstrates that the effect of CO2 change on climate is insignificant.
This whole methodology is somewhat better laid out in the paper published at Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
Lots of folks have been barking up the same tree. That doesn’t make it the right tree. Many will be embarrassed as it becomes more obvious that it was the wrong tree.
The equation (the first one in agwunveiled) allows prediction of temperature trends using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend tthrough 2013 calculated using data to 1990 (24 years earlier) and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013. The predictions depend on sunspot predictions which are not available past 2020. The predictions to 2037 for two assumptions of SS numbers are graphed in Figure 1 of the “AGWunveiled” paper. Click on my name to see the graph through 2013 with 2.5 sigma limits wrt the calculated trend.
There is a lot of what appears to be random uncertainty in reported measurements of AGT. I found s.d. = 0.09 k wrt the trend calculated by the equation. The calculated trend is down but because of the large uncertainty in the measurements it could be up to 5 years before the calculated trend is verified.
Regardless, the integral will always be exactly ZERO.
Leif,
You are not paying attention. The result is a series of integrals.
As a simple example, assume the case of CO2 varying lineally from 280 at time 0 to 300 at time 20. The trajectory of the integrals is a series of numbers that vary as a parabola starting at -10 at time 0, bottoming a bit lower than -55 at 289.5 and curving back up to zero at time 20. Zero only occurs at the end of the time interval.
Hi Leif Is the ice at the poles the same reason the windscreen of my car ices up on a cold day when I turn the heater on.? A hot interior radiates outwards till it meets a surface and the cold of space radiating inwards till it meets the same surface and the result icing
No, cold doesn’t radiate inwards. The surface loses heat by radiating in all directions. Space is a good sink for the heat. Turning on the heater does not cause icing up.
Heater circulates air. When the air inside the car cools down against the cold windscreen (your cold “radiating inwards”), its relative humidity increases and some moisture condenses. If the windscreen is cold enough, some humidity can first condense and then freeze on the glass. It is sometimes awful to be already driving along highway and then suddenly some humidity melts in the heater just enough to end up frozen in the windshield blocking all visibility.
If the sky is cloudless during a night, a car parked out may get its windshield heavily frozen even when the air temperature is not necessarily below freezing point. The windshield cools by radiating so that it ends up colder than the air, then it condenses and freezes some moisture from the warmer and relatively humid air. But this is just my theory – never measured the air temp above by windshield compared to the windshield temp.
Cold doesn’t radiate inwards? I thought it did.
Just like when you turn on a light, you’re really turning off the dark.
☺
Proof: the wick of a burning candle turns black from all that dark it is sucking up…
..funny but untrue – it`s actually spitting it out..
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
I have believed this was the case for years from several sources of data but these are just 2 more confirming that the Sun controls our climate and weather. Piers Corbyn after all does a good job of predicting weather using the Sun in combination with the Moon. I know he doesn’t get everything right, nor does he have predictions of events that happen. Sometimes there is not enough indication of an event. Where he shines is in the prediction of off the wall events that no one could have foreseen like the blizzard in the midwest in 2008, the 4 huge snowstorms from the day after Christmas thru Jan in winter 2011-2012 to name a couple. Hurricane Irene was another. Anyway, this appears to be a pretty thorough analysis.
The politicians who have been flirting with the UN’s IPCC, and its human CO2 global warming mantra, are not interested in such research. It is irrelevant to them. Leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, they proclaimed that the science was settled and that AR4 was the gold standard in climate science, based solely on peer reviewed research. They decided human activity CO2 is the culprit.
So who is going to educate today’s politicians who have adopted the environmental doctrine as an article of faith?
Leif, let us assume everything you are saying about the climate is correct and that very SLOW Milankovitch Cycles are the key to climate change.
If this premise you hold to be true is correct ,how do you reconcile/apply Milankovitch cycles to all of the many abrupt climatic changes that took place from 22000 years ago to 10000 years ago as the article below confirms has happened through ice core data?
In addition how do you reconcile the fact that at one time glacial/ interglacial phases corresponded highly to the obliquity phase of Milankovitch Cycles only to correlate more to the precession phase of Milankovitch Cycles then finally in the last 800000 years the glacial/inter-glacial cycles started to correspond to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and no longer to obliquity? Why are there inconsistencies? What is the explanation ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Not EVERY climate change is due to M-cycles. Only the very long time scales. And there really aren’t serious inconsistencies. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
“The available evidence supports the essence of the original idea of Koeppen, Wegner, and Milankovitch as expressed in their classic papers [Milankovitch, 1941; Koeppen and Wegener, 1924], and its consequence: (1) the strong expectation on physical grounds that summertime insolation is the key player in the mass balance of great Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets of the ice ages; and (2) the rate of change of global ice volume is in antiphase with variations in summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes that, in turn, are due to the changing orbit of the Earth.”
The key is to analyze the right variable:
“the results presented here demonstrate the critical physical importance of focusing on the rate of change of ice volume, as opposed to the ice volume itself”.
Here is the classic Milankovitch paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/197-203-Milankovich.pdf
Not EVERY climate change is due to M-cycles.
Correct so the question is what is the something else that must be causing some of the other climate changes?
Any complex enough system has internal random fluctuations and the climate is no exception.
One direction I am leaning in, is the climate changes due to the random chaotic nature of the climate system which gives a mean climate that at times only needs to be moderated to the slightest degree (by any potential climate force no matter how slight ) which results in a cascade of changes due to the non linearity of the climate system.
One must remember the climate is in a delicate balance between glacial versus inter-glacial.
Where my earth dynamic part of my thinking comes in is in times prior to around 2.7 million years ago Milankovitch Cycles were still present and probably the same as they are currently are and yet the climate would not under go glacial-inter-glacial cycles.
I propose the earth dynamics of ice coverage, land-ocean arrangements ,land elevation were different and are some of the players that can account for this.
I propose the earth dynamics of ice coverage, land-ocean arrangements ,land elevation were different and are some of the players that can account for this
You don’t need to propose this, as this is the standard, generally accepted assumption
The apparent difference being you are of the opinion the earth has enough internal random fluctuations to account for this due to the non linearity of the climate system combined with the state of the force of Milankovitch Cycles at any given time. I think that is where you are at. If so I finally have where you are coming from. .
You cannot make such a simple-minded assertion with any hope of being realistic. I am not ‘coming from’ anywhere or anything. I am perfectly willing to accept any specific hypothesis provided evidence that convinces me is presented [with numbers, physics, math, error bars, the works]. So far, I have not seen any regarding the shorter-term variations that pass the ‘smell test’.
Hi again Leif
Our wireless com’s and remote sensing use a forcing (watts) to create a feedback (photons) This is not nature at work rather man manipulating nature . http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0hzDN81ei5cC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=atmospheric+heat+electrons+and+microwaves&source=bl&ots=cLRLKS7Wsq&sig=1yhQcbzhihVjII2TrivMfcVTIio&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8LhjVPSdJqXLmwXAg4CABw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBw
Here’s just a snippet of north American broadcasting and power (ERP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_broadcast_station_classes
Co2 debate is a distraction away from this truth. No mater how long I microwaved water I couldn’t get it to react like this to microwaves . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8
I don’t know what this has to do with the topic under discussion.
Fair enough
Not only, ‘fair enough’, but the way it should be. It is OK to speculate and fabulate as long as it is clearly labeled as such.
This exchange today was very good in my opinion.
lsvalgaard
January 11, 2015 at 2:28 pm
No, cold doesn’t radiate inwards. The surface loses heat by radiating in all directions. Space is a good sink for the heat. Turning on the heater does not cause icing up.
Hi again Leif
For heat to transfer , doesn’t it have to come in contact with something cold for a photon to release. As heat rises cold wants to rush in and replace the void.
At the macroscopic level, heat is the transfer of energy from the high temperature object to the low temperature object. At the particle level, heat flow can be explained in terms of the net effect of the collisions of a whole bunch of little bangers. Warming and cooling is the macroscopic result of this particle-level phenomenon. At a particle level Coulomb’s Law rules (opposites attract and likeness repel )
Fascinating !!!
Still cold does radiate ‘inwards’
No, for a black body the rate of emission is set only by the temperature of the object.
A ‘not’ was missing.
Hi Eli Rabett
If you place a 100c sphere in a oven and set to 300 C , at some point the sphere starts to radiate inwards to the centre and gain temperature .
Like a cool atmosphere does NOT towards a warmer Earth either..?..
The sphere is ALWAYS radiating inward, The sphere is always radiating outwards. If you have a greenhouse gas in the sphere it is always radiating everywhich way.
What you are talking about is the NET energy transfer. If the surface and the inside are at the same temperature then the net is zero. If the surface is warmer then the net transfer is from the inner surface to the gas inside.
One of the confusions here is the definition of heat, which has its roots in the 18th century before people had a very good handle on radiative transfer. FWIW you can distinguish the NET energy transfer as heat and the radiation from bodies as thermal radiation. That reserves heat transfer by radiation as a NET exchange of thermal radiation (Eli is calling it thermal radiation because the intensity and spectrum is determined by the temperature of the body and the emissivity)
OTOH you would have to convince a whole lot of people and rewrite considerable textbooks and journal articles. Good luck with that:), but the distinction does keep things clear in one;s mind.
I believe it’s because of cold space that hot spheres exist. Cold space allows the sun to build pressure .While it’s trying to emit (hot) in all directions, cold space has it contained from all directions . If cold doesn’t create cooling then wouldn’t the big bang be a runaway affect
If you embed a hot sphere in a hot space, it would still be hot…
Perhaps you should read up on some elementary physics on this.
http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/index.html
http://www.physics4kids.com/
Leif I see hot as a forcing and cold as a feedback.
How important is flowing cold water for a nuclear reactor ?
http://www.physics4kids.com/
take the tour
davidswuk January 13, 2015 at 2:34 am
Like a cool atmosphere does NOT towards a warmer Earth either..?..
A “radiate” was missed…..
Re: “Two new papers on ‘climate pacemaker’…” by Douglass and Knox.
The headline “… solar activity …” is misleading. Let me explain the essence of these papers.
First, the “pacemaker” is the annual solar irradiance from the Sun. From astronomy one knows that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is eccentric. As a result the Earth is closest to the Sun in early January [perihelion] and more radiation strikes the Earth than in July. This annual signal has an amplitude of 22.6 W/m2 and is constant. This 22.6W/m2 solar radiation signal drives the Earth’s climate at 1.0 cycles/year. This signal should not be confused with the more familiar much larger seasonal effect, also annual, which is observed at locations north or south of the Equator.
Next, one knows that any non-linear system driven at a fixed frequency can cause a response at subharmonics of that frequency. For a frequency of 1.0 cycles/year this means that responses at ½, 1/3 … cycles/year—i.e. periods of 24, 36 … months. Observation of a subharmonic signal is evidence of both the existence of such a forcing and a nonlinearity. If there is no nonlinearity, then there can be no subharmonic response.
Our papers report the observation of phase-locked signals at subharmonics of 1.0 cycles/year in various climate indices — such as the sea surface temperature signal, SST3.4. We identify these oscillating phase-locked signals with the familiar El Nino/La Nina signals. We point out that the climate system is presently in a phase-locked state of period 3 years. If the climate system remains in this state the next maximum will be at about Nov 2015. This means no El Nino before that date.
One can find these papers at http://www.rochester.edu/~douglass/recent-publications.html.
David Douglass
Department of Physics
University of Rochester
Jan 13, 2015
David , could you give an example of the sort of equation which produces subharmonics ?
BTW , you link 404s
The solutions of the equation for the forced non-linear 1-D oscillator yields subharmonics.
See Stoker (reference 10 in first paper): Section 7 in chapter IV
The corrected link to our two papers is http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/recent-publications.html.
David
This is from Leif , (last paragraph of this post) which makes much sense to me and is needed in this field to bring balance.
On the other side you have speculators like myself which is good but I can not nor can anyone else prove they are correct in what they say.
A perfect example( and there are many others so many others) would be the Younger Dryas sudden beginning ,ending and the climate changes within the period.
This mystery, is still that a mystery and I feel quite strongly until this area of climate change can be solved any future climatic forecast are speculation. Still this is not going to stop me from putting forth my best guess and hope that evidence as years go by support it but evidence as the years go by could as easily go the other way.
I think from all the diverse opinions that have been put out there and people of Leif’s persuasion saying they have no proof that the truth(I speculate) is probably a blend of all this.
The upshot of all of this for me is not to stop speculation but to be much more open minded to opinions that are different from mine. This is what I am learning as I proceed in this most difficult field.
You cannot make such a simple-minded assertion with any hope of being realistic. I am not ‘coming from’ anywhere or anything. I am perfectly willing to accept any specific hypothesis provided evidence that convinces me is presented [with numbers, physics, math, error bars, the works]. So far, I have not seen any regarding the shorter-term variations that pass the ‘smell test’.
The Younger Dryas, imho , was not unusual within the context of the Pleistocene. This sort of thing is seen many times in the ice core record, with the sudden temperature spikes or interstadials followed by a stepdown to previous cold conditions.
You have put your finger on the real paradox of the ice age, that is, when ice extent is at it’s greatest and hence ice albedo is likewise, it suddenly warms, max ice albedo notwithstanding.
I will add that this has >nothing< to do with CO2.
Another mystery or something that I can not understand (Milankovitch Cycles aside) is why when glaciation gets along on it’s way (Younger Dryas for example) why it does not feed upon itself due to an increase in ice/snow cover hence greater albedo more reflectivity result colder temperatures. That however does not work because the climate never moves in the same direction for an indefinite period it always reverts back toward the mean no matter how far it strays from the mean.
I can not get my hands around this.
My understanding is that when orbit becomes more circular (or the axis less oblique), there is less seasonal variation. Winters may be mild, but the ice does not melt much in summer. That creates a positive feedback via albedo.
My comment at 8:56 am belongs here.
Okay, M. Painter, here ya go!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/two-new-papers-suggest-solar-activity-is-a-climate-pacemaker/#comment-1838784
#(:))
(how in the world did I even find this? when I saw “mpainter” in the recent comments queue, I wanted to read what you wrote — your enthusiastic forthrightness is a joy to read… not here, as it turned out …. I mean when you have a deserving recipient of it, heh)
Thanks Janice,
I should have referred my comment to Salvatore’s observation at 9:31 am.
Good to know that someone likes my style…XXX
One last thought those who think(such as AGW theory) that one item is going to have a cause /effect on the vast climatic system are dead wrong.
This is not speculation.
The Sun will ; specifically our distance from it , as this article shows .
And the angle of the dangle (the Milliecycles).
And the much argued sun spot number is only a single proxy for aspects of solar activity and cosmic ray interference.
The sunspot number has an excellent correlation with all the other solar indicators, as the SSN goes, do go all the other.
However, the solar wind is out of phase with the sun spot proxies, and there is not better proxy for EUV rays than EUV rays. Among other things, cosmic rays are influence by interstellar dust, which is also a source of halides. Deposition of the 10be proxy in a locality correlates with precipitation some time after their creation in the atmosphere. Not all cosmic rays produce 10be, and so on.
Don’t know if we’ll solve the climate puzzle in our lifetimes, however, the approach by Douglass and Knox is a start.
The solar wind follows the same cycle as sunspots
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Climatology.png
The shape of the cycle is different, but quite reproducible from cycle to cycle.
The EUV follows the sunspot cycle very precisely:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1834-2014.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
and the geomagnetic proxies for EUV are excellent.
It is true, however, that the cosmic ray proxies that we observe on Earth are not very well correlated with solar activity, although the cosmic rays themselves are.
Only in so far as your proxies themselves are concerned!
Equatorial coronal holes are better at short-term forecasting of the solar wind.
Only in so far as your proxies themselves are concerned!
Elaborate. As it stands, your comment is unintelligible…
Your EUV reconstruction is from 1834, however, the data set goes back to 1977.
It’s circular to point to a proxy reconstruction as validation of a proxy.
When the physics is understood, a proxy is inherently valid.
Thank you directing my attention to the Solar Full Disk EUV Flux at Earth presented in Reconstruction of Solar Extreme Ultraviolet Flux 1834–2014
The corrected data from 1996 to present does correlate EUV rays with the sunspot group numbers, however, it does so with a less than perfect correlation.
Apparently, the physics of the EUV/sunspot correlation is not as precise as measuring stationary temperature with a mercury thermometer, leaving much latitude in predicting EUV flux for the time period from 1834 through 1995.
An example: you measure the temperature with an ordinary mercury-filled thermometer. What you are really doing is using a proxy: the length of the mercury string rising in its glass enclosure. We know that mercury expands with increasing temperature, we know by how much, the physics is well-known and even if it weren’t we can still calibrate the thermometer [dipping it in melting ice water and boiling water], so the proxy [the length of the mercury string] is a perfectly valid measure of the temperature. Same thing with the EUV reconstruction [see http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1834-2014.pdf ]
So far I see solar cycle 24 as being completely different from all previous cycles post the Dalton Minimum. This is my observation not speculation but this is my opinion and as times goes by this will become much clearer.
Thus far I see very little correlation between sunspot number/solar flux versus ap index/solar wind.
One reason I believe for this are coronal holes which have impacted the speed of the solar wind /ap index of late why sunspot activity has been pretty much the same.
This is just my observation and I am not going to draw any definite conclusions until this plays out more.
This cycle is just different to me.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
This cycle looks very different from me. Look at the comparisons..
As the solar wind speed increases in the last half of a solar cycle, we will expect a significant increase of geomagnetic activity in the coming years. There is significant correlations, they are, however not simple, but nevertheless well-understood.
The solar variation of the relevant quantities is shown here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Climatology.png
We can calculate geomagnetic activity, A, accurately from the formula
A ~ B V^2 n^(1/3) where A could be any of the aa or ap class of indices, B is the heliospheric magnetic field, V the solar wind speed, and n the solar wind density, all measured near the Earth.
All this is well-understood physics
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Even more of a difference in contrast to more recent solar cycles.
As the solar wind speed increases in the last half of a solar cycle, we will expect a significant increase of geomagnetic activity in the coming years.
My reply
Yes this is what I am starting to notice already. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues as it has done in the past.
I see no reason why it shouldn’t as SC24 is quite normal in many respects.
In your paper, Calibration of Sunspot Numbers, you conclude that the sunspot number as currently defined may no longer be a suitable proxy. “Should such deviations from `normal’ observed sunspot activity be substantiated in the near future, the question naturally arises whether [and when] they might have occurred in the past as well, e.g. during the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715.”
In that paper, you reference the following slide presentation by Ken Tapping, Properties of the Sunspot Number and 10.7cm Solar Radio Flux Indices, Their Inter-Relationship and Unusual Behaviour Since the Year 2000,
with lecture description here. The concluding slide of the presentation summarizes the descrepancies.
Naturally, I remain suspicious of your mercury thermometer analogy when describing the ‘physics’ of the sunspot number.
You are barking up the wrong tree. We do not know the physics of the sunspot number. We know the physics of the F10.7, the EUV, and the interaction with the sun’s magnetic field. The sunspot number as currently defined is deficient in fitting those other, well-understood, variables. Our work points that out and we suggest correcting the wrong sunspot number to match the well-understood indices. So, the fault is with the sunspot number, not with the ‘proxies’. The latter being simply analogous to the proxy consisting of the length of a string of mercury in a thermometer.
Found the ppt file which appears to be the Supplementary Data Section of your paper, providing a detailed reconstruction for the years 1834 to 2014 using the proxy based upon the F 10.7 cm radio signal.
Use of the Mg II core-to-wing ratio rather than the F 10.7 cm proxy reduces the RMS error by 13% to 40%, according to the paper The Mg II Index: A Proxy for Solar EUV by Viereck et al. The Mg II index reduces the 81 day delay for the F 10.7 proxy down to 13 days.
Another paper, Modified solar flux index for upper atmospheric applications by Takashi Maruyama produces an “MEI 10.7” proxy calculated using a neural network, further reducing the RMS error. The author notes by applying the same neural learning techniques to the Mg II proxy rather than the F 10.7 cm proxy, the RMS error could be reduced even more.
Cheers!
Since you have become interested in the MG II index, you might enjoy my correction of the spacecraft data: http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf
The best proxy is the geomagnetic response as that is the only one going back far enough to be important. Because we know the physics we can simply use the Earth itself as our measuring device.
The problem with correlating EUV and F10.7 is that while F10.7 has no instrumental degradation, EUV has making it sort of meaningless to compare directly, see Fig. 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1834-2014.pdf
When the degradation is corrected for, F10.7 and EUV match each other very closely.
Yes, Space Environment Technologies Solar Irradiance Platform (http://spacewx.com) provided Maruyama with EUV signal data for his paper (2011).
Viereck et al. (2000) notes, “Models of solar EUV irradiance (e.g. [Hintergger, 1976] use F10.7 and the commonly used Mass Spectrometer/Incoherent Scatter Radar (MSIS) [Hedin et al., 1977] uses F10.7 as the solar forcing function. The values used for input into these models are the daily and the 81-day running mean of the F10.7. We will use the combined F10.7+F10.7avg in our comparisons of solar irradiance and irradiance proxies.”
So, instead of using MSIS, the authors chose the 3 solar day average of the F10.7 signal in their model, in addition to the daily signal, to produce the F10.7 index, or 0.5 (F10.7 + F10.7avg81).
The correlation between the F10.7 signal and the EUV SEM signal was 0.959, while the correlation coefficient between the F10.7 index versus EUV was 0.983. In the period of low solar activity around 1996, use of the F10.7 index consistently overestimated the EUV signal, according to the authors.
In the period of low solar activity around 1996, use of the F10.7 index consistently overestimated the EUV signal, according to the authors.
Mostly because the EUV signal was a bit too weak because of degradation of the instrument.
OK. Please educate me about the continuing downtrend of reported solar cycle minimum TSI values over time.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
You’ve said before that the differences are due to better instruments, and today’s TSI of 1361 (at solar minimum of each cycle) is “accurate”. Fine.
But look at the reported minimum at each solar cycle over time:
So, if “today’s” actual TSI solar radiation is 1362 watts/m^2 at the average earth orbit, then today’s calculations using “any” TSI value at all = 1361 should be accurate, right. (Basically, I’, redundant: If water boils at 100 deg C today, then all over the world, water boils at 100 deg C.) But if yesterday’s thermometers were WRONG (and they read water boiling at 101 deg C, then do not ALL previous calculations involving ANY temperature calculation or radiation heat balance have to re-done using the actual “today’s instruments” lower TSI of 1361.
The “total” credit of doubling CO2 is only 3 watts/m^2. Here, it appears we are looking at a difference in input radiation of almost 11.5 watts / m^2 at top of atmosphere since 1986. Now, water is NOT boiling at a different temperature (that we know of at any rate) between 1986 and 2015; and you state that the sun is NOT changing its thermal output between 1986 and today’s solar cycle 24 maximum. But, do not every calculation and every computer program run between 1986 and 2014 using ANY value of TSI other than 1361 watts/m^2 require “repair” and “recalibration” to the right TOA values?
This paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777 explains the adjustments of TSI
Not when the SOHO satellite was launched on December 2, 1995.
Solar EUV flux(0. 1-50 nm), F 10. 7 cm flux, sunspot number and the total electron content in the crest region of equatorial ionization anomaly during the deep minimum reported even more difficulty resolving the F10.7 signal with EUV data in the 2008-2009 period.
The Mg II index used by Viereck et al. was 13 days, or half of a solar day, obtaining correlation coefficient of 0.996 for the four year 5 month sample.
Longer term calculation of the Mg II index is not as straight forward. See A composite Mg II index spanning from 1978 to 2003.
(Now that I try to open the link, http://nopr.niscair.res.in is not found, however, this is the google search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Solar+EUV+flux%280.+1-50+nm%29%2C+F+10.+7+cm+flux%2C+sunspot+number+and+the+total+electron+content+in+the+crest+region+of+equatorial+ionization+anomaly+during+the+deep+minimum)
You are not paying attention. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1834-2014.pdf shows that the SOHO EUV signal degrades with time. After correction for the degradation the flux matches very accurately the EUV flux from the Solar EUV Experiment (SEE) data from the NASA ‘Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED)’ mission. Read lines 195-202 of my paper.
Thus F10.7 and the EUV flux and MG II [as I showed earlier] all match each other and there are no discrepancies. You have to come off the idea that there are problems with these things [after they have been suitably calibrated and corrected]. They are all extremely good proxies for true solar activity. That they don’t match the sunspot number too well is due to deficiencies in the SSN. and we are in the process to correcting those know errors.
No. All papers account for the degradation, except for the one by Viereck et al. (2000) In that case, the degradation was so small, that had the degradation been discovered, it would not have affected the result.
If that small degradation didn’t matter, why did you make a big deal about it?
And why do you say ‘no’? What exactly is it that you are objecting too?
As you will recall, it was your paper that described the Mg II index as being averaged over a full solar cycle.
The paper by Viereck et al. (2000) used a half cycle.
That paper, together with the one by Chakrabarty et al.(2011), show that all F10.7 derived proxies overstated the EUV signal for the entire duration of the last two solar minimums.
Again, the paper Viereck et al. (2000) did not use the degradation of the SOHO SEM because the degradation had not yet been discovered, and by early 2000, the degradation was too small to affect their results.
The papers by Maruyama (2011) and Chakrabarty et al.(2011) do account for the SOHO SEM degradation.
(The http://nopr.niscair.res.in server is still down, but I downloaded Chakrabarty et al.(2011) earlier.)
You are particularly dense today. The problems is that the SOHO [SEM] EUV measurements suffer from uncorrected residual degradation [over and above that already corrected for]. You can see this clearly by comparing with the SEE EUV flux measured by TIMED as I refer to in Figure 2 and by comparing with F10.7. There are no differences in trends between Mg II, F10.7, Total Electron Content [TEC], and EUV flux. Because of contamination of SOHO/SEM data the whole data set must be re-calculated, but this has not yet been done.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf
Thank you. (ref: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf)
1. This reference, provided with neither your acceptance nor your approval/imprimatur/endorsement (nor your disagreement), does then confirm what my observation above concluded: All Anthropogenic Global Warming calculations and programs run prior to 2010 using ANY value of TSI NOT equal to 1361.5 watts/m^2 MUST be redone, and ANY Anthropogenic Global Warming calculation or computer run performed AFTER publication of that paper in 2010 MUST use 1361.5 watts/m^2 or be considered – to be blunt – dead wrong.
2. I note their description for Figure 2 with interest:
Is this also just an example of “curve fitting” of TOA solar radiation changes over time, assumed earth-bound trends observed 1980-2010, and one global average temperature plot … added and subtracted together to create yet another “anthropogenic global warming signal” plot?
The adjustments of TSI are done without reference to any climate models or assumptions, so no curve fitting to climate. That the influence of TSI on the climate is minute is well-documented, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf :
“The marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.”
[140 to 360 ppm ? Why ppm for TSI units? .mod]
TSI researchers usually work in parts per million [ppm] as the various sources of errors are of the order of 1-200 ppm, and it is easier to work with 10 ppm than with 0.000014 W/m2
So I should think of the “unit” as a part-per-millionth of a TSI?
Thank you.
Well, if it says ‘ppm’ it is part-per-million [of TSI or whatever the ppms are of].
Perhaps its the authors attempt at a shorthanded way of stating their hypothesis.
Using ppm is standard procedure in this business.
Haste is waste: 10 ppm is 0.0014 W/m2.
Gee, it is getting late here. 10 ppm is 0.014 w/m2.
IMHO opinion, the change in TSI is so small that it doesn’t matter much for the climate models.
The solar minimum of 1996 did not require an adjustment since the SOHO was placed into orbit the previous December.
This is what a corrected graph of EUV data looks like taken from this article. “Current (Version 3.1) calibrated irradiance measurements from the on-orbit SEM are in agreement with all sounding rocket measurements (which includes a total of eight sounding rocket flights between 1996 and 2012) to within about 5%”, the authors state.
Just to be sure, I’m checking with Dr. Chakrabarty to see if they accounted for the discrepancy in their paper for the 2008-2009 solar minimum.
I explained to Dr. Chakrabarty that I have a colleague that insists on applying the discrepancy twice, in the opposite direction!
Space Environment Technologies has a free 30 day trial of their Solar Irradiance Platform at http://spacewx.com , if necessary.
The Figure shows a reconstruction [SOLMOD] of EUV in the narrow wavelength range 26-34 nm compared to the uncorrecteed for residual degradation SEM data, so, no cigar.
The Haberreiter paper states:
“Recent refinements to the SEM data processing algorithm (Wieman et al. 2014) for the period of overlap between the SOHO and SDO missions have resulted in calibrated SEM irradiance values which are in better agreement with those from SDO/EVE (Woods et al. 2012). The most pronounced effect of these refinements is a systematic reduction of approximately 20% in the values of the SEM 26–34 nm irradiance compared to the SEM Version 3.1 values. While a new release of the SEM data based on this revised data processing approach is imminent, we compare the SOLMOD reconstruction with the Version 3.1 SEM irradiances as they are, at the time of the present work…”
So they recognize that version 3.1 still needs a further correction which is what I have done in Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1834-2014.pdf in order to have SEM match the SEE flux from TIMED [and F10.7]. Bottom line: All our EUV measurements and reconstructions agree when appropriate correction for degradation is made. I have lost track of what it is you want to show.
Thank you for your patients in loking at my question. (er, patience.) You did answer the primary issue:
1. The actual TSI has been reset (or established more accurately – depending on how you want to phrase it) to a lower numerical value.
2. The sun’s actual radiation levels at the earth’s average orbit distance has NOT changed (other than the known cyclical, daily and sunspot count variations) already accounted for.
3. ANY solar radiation “balance” calculation or computer simulation using ANY TSI input made prior to this paper issue in 2010 must be de-done with the correct lower irradiation level of 1361.3 watts/m^2.
4. ALL future solar radiation balances made after 2010 MUST use the corrected TSI radiation levels or they will predict the wrong (too high) global warming influence for the future. That is, because ANY radiation balance made prior to 2010 assumes too high an “energy in” value, the
required “energy out” value will be too high, and thus man’s contribution to the energy balance will always be too high. (Assuming the intermediate calculations and coefficients are correct of course.)
Revised downward, not upward as you have done!
The disparity between the F10.7 signal and the EUV bands would become even more pronounced if values around the solar minimums decrease by 20%!
You are not paying attention. We have two spacecraft measurement series, SOHO-SEM and TIMED-SEE. The SEE data has been corrected for degradation, while the SEM data [version 3.1] still has some un-accounted for degradation. My correction [deduced from F10.7] brings SEM in almost perfect agreement with SEE, and makes all our proxies and series agree: SEM, SEE, TEC, F10.7, MG II, geomagnetic data. What is not to like?
And a tiny voice pipes up from the back of the classroom — THIS IS GREAT! Thank you, esp. Dr. Svalgaard and R. A. Cook (I only read the bottom dozen or so posts of this thread today) for the GREAT EDUCATION!
@ Jones guy — your writing, IMHO, really could use some more detail for clarity… I know you know what you think you wrote but you seem not to know that what you wrote does not make us think what you thought.
Point well taken. I have been told as much in the past.
In my defense, the threads became crossed, and, for the time being at least, Dr. Svalgaard chooses not to comprehend my point!
It is hard to make sense of ‘your point’ as it ignores the direct spacecraft measurements [SEM compared with SEE]. In addition, it is not clear [in view of that] what your point is. My point is that all the proxies and all the spacecraft data agree when corrected for detected [and so far unaccounted for] degradation.
Generally, the proxies do agree and are highly correlated, however, the behavior of the often used F10.7cm signal during the solar minimums is disturbing.
For the minimum of 1996, the paper The Mg II Index: A Proxy for Solar EUV by Viereck et al., notes that use of the F10.7 signal or index consistanly underestimated the EUV 26-34nm signal throught the minimum. While overall correlations were high between the F10.7 data and the EUV data, they simply overshoot the EUV 26-34nm signal for the entire minimum.
For the minimum of 2008-2009, the paper Solar EUV flux(0. 1-50 nm), F 10. 7 cm flux, sunspot number and the total electron content in the crest region of equatorial ionization anomaly during the deep minimum by Chakrabarty et al. notes that the discrepancy between the F10.7 signal and the EUV 0.1-50nm signal doubled from the 1996 minimum.
How are we to reliably reconstruct the EUV signals during minimums in the past, thus preserving our climate record?
The question I have resisted asking thus far is, “Would the rY signal discussed in the paper Reconstruction of Solar EUV Flux 1834 2014 provide a more robust EUV proxy than does the F10.7 signal?”
(The difference is not due to the discrepancies between the raw and corrected EUV data sets.)
Measuring EUV directly is very difficult because of severe degradation, so the proxies are actually much more reliable indicators of EUV than our shaky direct measurements. In particular the rY signal uses the Earth itself as the measuring device and allows us to go back to 1834 with confidence and to ~1740 with less accuracy. Bottom line: if there are any discrepancy between EUV and the proxies, the fault is with EUV [SOHO/SEM; TIMED/SEE has correct corection for degradation].
“Bottom line: if there are any discrepancy between EUV and the proxies, the fault is with EUV [SOHO/SEM; TIMED/SEE has correct corection for degradation].”
Among other practical uses, The SOHO SEM EUV signals are used to calculate drag as satellites and spacecraft travel through the ionosphere. The goal is to provide more accuracy, which explains the data versions, and explains why anomalous EUV irradiance is so distressing.
The true EUV irradiance is not anomalous. The SOHO/SEM is just wrong and will be corrected soon when version 3.1 is finally dumped. And the small error is SEM is much less than the errors in the [40-year old?] model used to calculate drag, anyway.
I checked further through the references section of Chakrabarty et al(2011) and found the paper Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum by Solomon et al. to be more revealing concerning the EUV data sources.
They are exhaustive, and include the SOHO SEM “calibrated with similar instruments on eight suborbital rocket flights, and have a 6% estimated uncertainty.”
Still doesn’t matter. The real uncertainty is probably more like 20% as needed to agree with SDO/EVE.
Why don’t you look at the TIMED/SEE data? The SOHO/SEM data is being re-calibrated as we speak and version 3.1 that everybody uses is simply no good. Some people’s reluctance to let go of old, obsolete, and wrong data is quite amazing. Perhaps they desperately need confirmation bias. Which is yours?
The Solar EUV Experiment (SEE) on the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite was also included in the analysis by Solomon at al.(2010) above.
And?
If you plot SEE you will find that it matches F10.7 precisely.
Solomon et al(2011) concluded that an Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum had occurred which the F10.7 signal did not detect!
And which the TIMED/SEE EUV measurements did not detect. The Solomon paper is old [in this rapidly developing field]. The thermospheric density computed from F10.7 is done with a 40+ year old model which is not precise enough.
If you say so.
Seems a bit early to write off a Maunder Minimum, though, as you have pointed out, there is not sufficient proof.
I wait with interest for further information as it becomes available.
And thanks for all your help, Dr. Svalgaard.
You are welcome. BTW, I do think that a Mauder Minimum soon is a possibility, we just don’t really know. cycle 25 will probably [judging from the polar fields] be like cycle 24, so a new MM is some ways out.
Thank you, Jones guy, for that gracious response.
Slide 26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf shows how well-behaved F10.7 is and how exquisitely it follows rY. Nothing wrong with, or ‘disturbing’, the F10.7 microwave flux.