I just finished participating in the press teleconference call in for reporters with NASA and their panel of solar experts today. There was a lot of interesting discussions and questions. Unfortunately even though I put in for a question, I was shut out, and judging from the order of the questions asked and the organizations represented, clearly they played favorites for getting maximum exposure by choosing the larger media outlets first, such as AP’s Seth Borenstein who got the first question. That’s understandable I suppose, still I really wanted to ask what they though about the step function in the Ap Index that occurred in October 2005 and has remained flat since.
I took quite a bit of notes, and I’ll write more later from them, but for now I wanted to give my readers a chance to weigh in.
See the written NASA press release here
The three general things that struck me most from this conference were:
1) We don’t know enough yet to predict solar cycles, we aren’t “in the game”, and “we don’t really know how big next maximum will be”.
2) We don’t see any link between the minimums, cosmic rays (which are increasing now) and earth’s climate. This was downplayed several times. Some quotes were “none of us here are experts on climate, and when asked about Galactic Cosmic Rays and Svensmark’s climate theory is the answer was “speculation”.
3) The minimum we are in now is “unique for the space age”, but “within norms for the last 200 years”, but we are also surprised to learn how much the solar wind has diminished on a truly “entire sun” scale.
Here are a couple of the graphics they provided, note the difference in solar wind pressure between the two measurement periods.
And the fact that the electron density and temperature have decreased about 20%
Anyone who has listened to this teleconference is welcome to weigh in. For those that did not hear it, The RealAudio file would not play on my PC, did anyone record it? If so advise and I’ll post it here.
Pamela Gray (06:48:11) :
“Is it possible that this ozone affect is timed with this magnetically weak Sun?”
Re ozone levels over the USA. Ozone is soluble in water. Industrial ozone generators used in wineries dry the air by cooling it to -80°C (temperature in the upper tropical tropopause). In the presence of water, ozone rapidly decays. The upper atmosphere is cooler today than at any time since the last big La Nina of 2000. That means more condensation. I surmise that when the sun shines in the daytime the ice crystals tend to sublimate. Presto, less ozone. Same in Antarctica. The stratosphere over the poles can get warm. But, I won’t speculate as to the reason for that.
The natural variations in ozone are considerable. As Leif reminds us it is formed predominantly in the tropics (strength of UV) and the specific and relative humidity of the air in the tropical troposphere and the tropical stratosphere is also very much dependent upon the temperature of the tropical oceans. For a mental picture of the dynamic see: :http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/plan_water_000.png
In the warmest tropical oceans extra energy tends to be resolved in evaporation rather than temperature increases. But the temperature of the tropical ocean is patchy. Added to that, the currents leak the energy away to higher latitudes. So, a lot of energy can be absorbed without a commensurate increase in evaporation. Nevertheless there is a big seasonal change in the temperature and evaporation at 10° to 20°S Lat. where albedo is least and OLR is greatest.
Despite the strong energy gain that is expressed as temperature at 10° to 20°S. Lat. the warmest tropical waters are usually found north of the Equator. The equatorial currents feed the energy into northern hemisphere. The largest air temperature fluctuations are found north of latitude 50° in winter. In winter the energy stored in the ocean is vital. You can download data from buoys parked in the Pacific off Alaska that chart the peak and decline in North Pacific temperature. I would give you a reference but it is forgotten. Too long ago.
I believe that both the PDO and the NAO are into negative territory. The collapse in temperatures in the tropical ocean at 10°S to 20°S began in southern hemisphere summer 2006.
Erl Happ (17:49:02) :
‘does not slip’, of course.
I repeat my question. How do you explain the maxima at 1hPa in March and September.
And I repeat my answer: geomagnetic activity peaks in March and September, and it is not me, but you who has to explain something.
Erl Happ (17:49:02) :
And BTW, UV in the important band [for absorption and heating] 242-310 nm is anti-correlated with solar activity: when solar activity goes down, UV in that band goes up.
Leif Svalgaard (22:49:03) :
Then we are happy that the twin maxima at 1hPa is due to geomagnetic activity/the solar wind? In that case this becomes a mechanism that affects the incidence of UV radiation at all wave lengths regardless of variations in the intensity of the radiation itself.
Leif Svalgaard (22:52:22) :
And we know that ozone is energised by UVB and that UVB penetrates all the way to the ground. We also know that UVB variation is strong, even on a daily clear sky basis. So, we have a mechanism to explain the extraordinary variation in temperatures, relative humidity and condensation levels in the upper troposphere. Given that, it is not hard to see why, except in periods of gross warming like that between 1978 and 1998, the correlation between 200hPa temperature and sea surface temperature at 10°- 20°S is near perfect.
Erl Happ (02:12:47) :
Then we are happy that the twin maxima at 1hPa is due to geomagnetic activity/the solar wind? In that case this becomes a mechanism that affects the incidence of UV radiation at all wave lengths regardless of variations in the intensity of the radiation itself.
You have to explain how that works. I can’t see that UV has anything to do with the solar wind.
Also, the 242-310 nm UV is anti-correlated with solar activity: lower solar activity -> higher UV flux. How does that fit with your ideas?
Leif Svalgaard (09:17:15) :
The changing mix of flux of UVA, UVB, and UVC depending upon sunspot activity is not the only dynamic and this is precisely my point.
The twin maxima at 1hPa are evidence of a solar impact on temperatures at the top of the stratosphere. Whether coincidental or not this is the time of the strongest coupling of the solar wind with the magnetosphere, and for this knowledge, laboriously gained, I have to thank you Leif. How it works in terms of the actual mechanics is a mystery except that we know that it will be related to the impact of short wave energy which does the heating. The sun is further from the Earth in July and if the level of UV irradiance were the only determinant of stratospheric temperature there could be only a single temperature maximum at the top of the stratosphere and it would be on January the third.
Speaking of the tropics as a zone. Above 150hPa in the troposphere and into the stratosphere up to 20hPa we have August maxima that is due to the peak in OLR in mid year. OLR excites ozone. At 30hPa we have the first signs of a September lift in temperature and above that level the September peak becomes more obvious with increasing elevation.
Below 150hPa we have Feb-March maxima that are related directly to orbital and irradiance peaks. That it is not in January is probably related to the force creating the March peak at 1hPa.
Temperature varies more on an inter-annual basis at 200hPa in the tropics than it does on a seasonal basis. The inter-annual variation is greater than sea surface temperature variation. The seasonal variation is much smaller than sea surface temperature variation. This shows us that this is a serious dynamic and it is unrelated to surface conditions.
The peculiar and very interesting thing is that the largest variation in monthly temperature at 200hpa, depending upon latitude, is in September. This points to a solar related variability in 200hPa temperatures that operates strongly in late year that is unrelated to irradiance levels as determined by orbital and sunspot considerations. By elimination, it must related to geomagnetic/solar wind activity, mechanism yet to be explained. If this variability were related to OLR it would be in July-August like it is in the stratosphere.
Because we have moisture at 200hPa (above and below it too) and because temperature change influences condensation phenomena we have a solar mechanism that operates to change cloud cover. The mechanism is multi factorial. It relates to forces that can change 200hPa temperatures, (irradiance at different wave lengths) that reach into the atmosphere in a way that relates not only to orbital and sunspot cycle considerations but also to geomagnetic influences, the only influence that creates a September maximum.
Many workers have pointed to correlations between geomagnetic activity and surface temperature. What has been lacking is a mechanism. The overlap of ozone and water vapour in the upper troposphere provides that mechanism. Because geomagnetic activity peaks are occur at different times to sunspot peaks we have a reason why the temperature cycle does not follow the sunspot cycle.
We also have a mechanism for ENSO. What happens in the Pacific is just the most dramatic manifestation of a tropical warming event. The south east Pacific is not the only place around the world where there is a cloud free window opening and closing seasonally, much more in some seasons than others. If you look at a map of sea surface temperatures today, all the cold spots in the tropics are places where there is normally very little cloud. But since mid 2007 all these places are extraordinarily cold up at 200hPa. There is cloud there today and it is responsible for the pattern of cooling that we see.
Deus ex machina.
===========
Leif Svalgaard (09:17:15) :
“You have to explain how that works. I can’t see that UV has anything to do with the solar wind.”
Gcr and the Ozone cycle.The photochemical mechanisms are well understood eg Paul Crutzen.It is the penetrating capability of UV during higher GCR ozone modulation.
Rozema et al science 2002 give a reasonable overview.
It is the secondary and tertiary PC mechanisms (reaction and autocatalytic that are coupled)
Erl Happ (03:02:46) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:17:15) :
The twin maxima at 1hPa are evidence of a solar impact on temperatures at the top of the stratosphere.
No, not at all. I have previously said that there could be a geomagnetic component to this, but the the preferred reason [by people that actually study this – not my cup of tea] is that the [semiannual oscillation] SAO is caused by dynamical processes [gravity waves and the like] affecting the zonal circulation at 50 km. E.g. see: http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/2131/2006/angeo-24-2131-2006.pdf
If you look at Figure 8 of the above paper that shows the equatorial temperature anomaly from 95 km down to 15 km, you’ll see that the phase of the semiannual variation changes almost 360 degrees through the year as you go from the top (95 km) to the bottom (15 km). It is only at 50 km that the maxima are in March and September.
Leif Svalgaard (13:07:48) :
‘dynamical processes [gravity waves and the like]’
There is a problem in logic and it is this. Wind is a response to temperature and density variation. Except in exceptional circumstances, i.e. close to the surface where mountains interrupt the flow of air, density variations do not spontaneously arise and cause temperature differences.
Its one thing to name a phenomenon, plot its variations and generate models that fail to predict its performance (thus demonstrating a true failure of understanding) and it’s another thing entirely to work out the force that is driving the phenomena.
The stratosphere owes its temperature in the main to short wave radiation from the sun. The seasonal maximum in lower stratospheric temperature occurs when ozone is excited by outgoing long wave radiation in August. That is a function of the distribution of land and sea. That peak disappears at 30hPa. Ozone itself is the product of incoming short wave radiation splitting O2. Without the ozone that maximum would disappear. We are discussing twin maxima at 1hPa (45km) in March and September, maxima that clearly overwhelm the almost 7% swing in irradiance due to orbital considerations. In the upper stratosphere we don’t have a temperature record by the month. The study you cite is based on a couple of years data. We do have a temperature record by the month at 20hPa and 30hPa in the lower and middle stratosphere that starts in 1948. Looking at that record we find that the greatest variability is in September.
The upper stratospheric temperature maxima at 1hPa occur at the equinoxes when the sun is vertically over the equator. It is known that the solar wind couples with the Earths magnetosphere at that time resulting in peaks in geomagnetic indices as measured at the surface of the Earth. The peak in March tends to morph with the irradiance peak due to the orbital factor in January. The September peak can however be easily differentiated in data for the southern hemisphere which is cool at that time. September is the month of the greatest variation at 30hPa and also at 200hPa over the equator and also between 20° and 40°south latitude.
Recently, temperature spikes at 100hPa (tropopause) have been found to align with the 28 day rotation period of the sun. Is that dynamical? Obviously not. It’s radiative in origin. The study you cite finds that temperature variations increase with altitude. The migrating diurnal tide shows the highest temperature in March and September with a strong variation from year to year.
Let’s face it, we don’t know enough about ionospheric flows to work out what is happening in the atmosphere / ionospherere mix that begins above the tropopause. (lets caution about hard boundaries in a gaseous medium). We do know that when the ion count is weak due to low levels of sunspot activity (short wave radiation) radio signals do not bounce from one hemisphere to another. We also know that a well populated ionosphere reacts to geomagnetic forces because radio signals are immediately disrupted by solar wind/geomagnetic activity. Ion count is related to short wave radiation and geomagnetic activity. You seem very willing to maintain that the mass of the atmospheric column over the tropics on the dayside is invariable? What I see is an atmosphere above the tropopause that contains very little material, highly mobile, loosely held and very reactive.
Your assertion as to the cause of these temperature variations or the nature of the atmosphere above the tropopause is not important. It is actually irrelevant to my thesis. Any reasonable observer would allow that extreme variability in temperature at the top of the stratosphere in September, that is felt with gradually diminishing amplitude down to 200hPa, would be most likely due to some factor related to the sun and its radiation rather than the Earth or ‘autonomously generated dynamical process’ that just happens to have a strongly annual periodicy.
That same extreme in variability is present at 200hPa. So, it is also evident in the troposphere. If the variations above that level are due to ‘dynamical processes’ they begin in the troposphere where the air is sufficiently dense to create a wave when heat is applied. But that is really drawing the long bow.
At 200hpa there is water vapour. The rest I should be able to leave to your imagination. But if not, I have a paper at http://www.happs.com.au/downloaders/The%20ENSO%20mechanism.pdf
devoted to tracing the origins of atmospheric warmth and the implications for cloud cover and climate change.
The long and the short of it is that ENSO is driven by the sun. ENSO is demonstrably responsible for global temperature change. Energy gain in the tropics exceeds energy loss and the size of the surplus determines winter temperatures at high latitudes. It is at high latitudes in winter time that we have seen strong warming since 1978, in both hemispheres. Prior to that, between 1948 (when the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis record starts) and 1978 there was cooling. In mid latitudes there is no change. In low latitudes there has been a small increase in surface temperatures in summer.
From 2006 we are seeing cooling at high latitudes, particularly north of the 50th parallel but extending southwards into subtropical China and the Great Plains areas in 2007-8.
This is normal, natural change related to solar activity and consequent change in the Earths atmospheric albedo.
But, there are a large number of people who do not want to hear this. They prefer to think there is a malaise in human affairs that is due to man himself. This is an old story used by witch doctors over time immemorial.
It’s a machine; a heat engine that is also a huge analog computer. Don’t sacrifice my virgins, for your superstitions.
==========================================
Erl Happ (03:57:40) :
Your assertion as to the cause of these temperature variations or the nature of the atmosphere above the tropopause is not important. It is actually irrelevant to my thesis.
If it is irrelevant then why do you bring it up again and again? What else is irrelevant? I have asked you innumerable times to stick to what is relevant, instead of presenting a large post with an unknown percentage of irrelevant and therefore obscuring detail.
Leif,
You deny the solar connection to cloud cover and temperature gain. You ignore the evidence. You seize on irrelevancies to challenge the thesis. What do you expect me to do?
Perhaps you can accept that there is an overlap between ozone and water vapor in the upper regions of the tropical troposphere where temperatures are driven in large part by the sun?
Erl Happ (08:25:44) :
You seize on irrelevancies to challenge the thesis. What do you expect me to do?
I expect you to repeat your earlier post with all the irrelevant things removed.
Erl Happ (08:25:44) :
Perhaps you can accept that there is an overlap between ozone and water vapor in the upper regions of the tropical troposphere
I don’t know what you mean by overlap. There is ozone and H2O at all levels of the troposphere, so why ‘upper’?
“You do a disservice to other readers by pretending that you understand the physics”
“reductio ad absurdum is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue”, to the effect that increased consequence of “solar forcing is support for AGW”.
And you, dear Watson, are deluded regarding you’re facility with logic. If all crucial facts were effectively in hand, deduction, vis a vis, induction, might be sufficient to decide a point.
In fact, setting aside the very many crucial issues remaining to be decided, we disagree on very many facts, particularly anything to do with AGW. Yes, you are in command of very many facts, but skill with their use, particulary in AGW, is not granted perforce.
Moreover, you’ve inverted the customary relation (where by “sensitivty”, I acknowledged admits exception): decreased consequence of “solar forcing implies support for AGW”.
So, I hear you fancy yourself a reader of Wittgenstein? Tell us more.
Gary Gulrud (09:36:47) :
In fact, setting aside the very many crucial issues remaining to be decided, we disagree on very many facts, particularly anything to do with AGW.
So, from this I deduce that you are an ardent proponent of AGW. This was not totally clear from you previous postings, but thanks for this explicit clarification of your view.
“” a possible multiplier, with giant impact measured in W/m2.””
Not my utterance, Sir. If I maintained the obsessive concern with minutiae that some are prone to I might have edited the quote but I have an interest in encouraging others when the are conceptually accurate rather than nit-picking every detail.
I am seldom, if ever, the smartest man in the room, why bother?
“So, from this I deduce that you are an ardent proponent of AGW.”
Perhaps Pancho can right you in the saddle once again.
Gary Gulrud (11:21:43) :
“So, from this I deduce that you are an ardent proponent of AGW.”
Perhaps Pancho can right you in the saddle once again.
This is no way to conduct yourself in a serious debate. Are you or are you not an ardent AGW proponent?
Leif Svalgaard (09:11:39) :I don’t know what you mean by overlap. There is ozone and H2O at all levels of the troposphere, so why ‘upper’?
The point is covered meticulously in the paper that I sent you. It may also be downloaded at:http://www.happs.com.au/downloaders/The%20ENSO%20mechanism.pdf
See in particular figures 9 through 14.
It’s actually the central thesis of the paper. Strange you missed it.
Erl Happ (08:25:44) :
You seize on irrelevancies to challenge the thesis. What do you expect me to do?
I expect you to repeat your earlier post with all the irrelevant things removed and with the central thesis highlighted.
“Are you or are you not an ardent AGW proponent?”
Obviously not. What delightfully embarrassing trap have I walked into now? Tendentious, contradictory and oh, so tiresome, but a snare carefully laid, ‘eh.
Whether large or small solar forcing cannot imply greater or lesser import to AGW. Nought plus or times nought, is nought.
Gary Gulrud (12:02:23) :
“Are you or are you not an ardent AGW proponent?”
Obviously not.
Yet you claim to disagree with me on this issue, so you must be.
Whether large or small solar forcing cannot imply greater or lesser import to AGW.
Nonsense, as you well know.
global warming diagram…
Some weblog software programs, such as WordPress, Movable Type and Community Server, support automatic pingbacks where all the links…