NCAR: Solar cycle linked to global climate

Basil Copeland and I also found linkages between surface temperature and solar cycles in two articles we published in the last year. We were roundly criticized and ridiculed by warmists mainly due to a statistical error in the first essay, but the base premise remained and the second essay was improved due to that error. I’m pleased to see that NCAR has found other solar to earth linkages, such as this one in ENSO. This is exciting news, but by no means a complete solution to the climate puzzle. There is much more to be learned about this. This is but one connector of the hydra-like patch cable that Dr. Jack Eddy imagined – Anthony

http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/solarcycleli.jpg

Scientists find link between solar cycle and global climate similar to El Nino/La Nina. Credit: NCAR

Establishing a key link between the solar cycle and global climate, research led by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

The research may pave the way toward predictions of temperature and precipitation patterns at certain times during the approximately 11-year solar cycle.

“These results are striking in that they point to a scientifically feasible series of events that link the 11-year solar cycle with ENSO, the tropical Pacific phenomenon that so strongly influences climate variability around the world,” says Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences. “The next step is to confirm or dispute these intriguing model results with observational data analyses and targeted new observations.”

The total energy reaching Earth from the sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the solar cycle. Scientists have sought for decades to link these ups and downs to natural weather and climate variations and distinguish their subtle effects from the larger pattern of human-caused global warming.

Building on previous work, the NCAR researchers used computer models of global climate and more than a century of to answer longstanding questions about the connection between solar activity and global climate.

The research, published this month in a paper in the Journal of Climate, was funded by NSF, NCAR’s sponsor, and by the U.S. Department of Energy.

“We have fleshed out the effects of a new mechanism to understand what happens in the tropical Pacific when there is a maximum of solar activity,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the paper’s lead author. “When the sun’s output peaks, it has far-ranging and often subtle impacts on tropical precipitation and on weather systems around much of the world.”

The new paper, along with an earlier one by Meehl and colleagues, shows that as the Sun reaches maximum activity, it heats cloud-free parts of the Pacific Ocean enough to increase evaporation, intensify tropical rainfall and the trade winds, and cool the eastern tropical Pacific.

The result of this chain of events is similar to a La Niña event, although the cooling of about 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit is focused further east and is only about half as strong as for a typical La Niña.

Over the following year or two, the La Niña-like pattern triggered by the solar maximum tends to evolve into an El Niño-like pattern, as slow-moving currents replace the cool water over the eastern tropical Pacific with warmer-than-usual water.

Again, the ocean response is only about half as strong as with El Niño.

True La Niña and El Niño events are associated with changes in the temperatures of surface waters of the eastern . They can affect weather patterns worldwide.

The paper does not analyze the weather impacts of the solar-driven events. But Meehl and his co-author, Julie Arblaster of both NCAR and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, found that the solar-driven La Niña tends to cause relatively warm and dry conditions across parts of western North America.

More research will be needed to determine the additional impacts of these events on weather across the world.

“Building on our understanding of the solar cycle, we may be able to connect its influences with weather probabilities in a way that can feed into longer-term predictions, a decade at a time,” Meehl says.

Scientists have known for years that long-term solar variations affect certain weather patterns, including droughts and regional temperatures.

But establishing a physical connection between the decadal and global climate patterns has proven elusive.

One reason is that only in recent years have computer models been able to realistically simulate the processes associated with tropical Pacific warming and cooling associated with El Niño and La Niña.

With those models now in hand, scientists can reproduce the last century’s solar behavior and see how it affects the Pacific.

To tease out these sometimes subtle connections between the sun and Earth, Meehl and his colleagues analyzed sea surface temperatures from 1890 to 2006. They then used two computer models based at NCAR to simulate the response of the oceans to changes in solar output.

They found that, as the sun’s output reaches a peak, the small amount of extra sunshine over several years causes a slight increase in local atmospheric heating, especially across parts of the tropical and subtropical Pacific where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce.

That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing extra water vapor. In turn, the moisture is carried by trade winds to the normally rainy areas of the western tropical Pacific, fueling heavier rains.

As this climatic loop intensifies, the trade winds strengthen. That keeps the eastern Pacific even cooler and drier than usual, producing La Niña-like conditions.

Although this Pacific pattern is produced by the solar maximum, the authors found that its switch to an El Niño-like state is likely triggered by the same kind of processes that normally lead from La Niña to El Niño.

The transition starts when the changes of the strength of the trade winds produce slow-moving off-equatorial pulses known as Rossby waves in the upper ocean, which take about a year to travel back west across the Pacific.

The energy then reflects from the western boundary of the tropical Pacific and ricochets eastward along the equator, deepening the upper layer of water and warming the ocean surface.

As a result, the Pacific experiences an El Niño-like event about two years after solar maximum. The event settles down after about a year, and the system returns to a neutral state.

“El Niño and La Niña seem to have their own separate mechanisms,” says Meehl, “but the solar maximum can come along and tilt the probabilities toward a weak La Niña. If the system was heading toward a La Niña anyway,” he adds, “it would presumably be a larger one.”

Source: National Science Foundation (news : web)

h/t to Leif Svalgaard

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

202 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Vaughan
July 21, 2009 11:02 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:46:54) “a thief thinks that everybody steals”
Oh come on – rather than resorting to hurling unmerited insults, admit that you are worried that people might use this to (try to) pull nails out of a coffin you (believe you) have previously nailed shut. (Most folks around here are familiar with that chapter (on 90s research claims), so you are fooling very few.)

Paul Vaughan
July 21, 2009 11:27 pm

Leif Svalgaard (19:13:57) “[…] if a statistician wears blinders he cannot get out of his box.”
To make sure misunderstandings do not arise:
I’m not claiming to be a statistician. However, I do have a very solid grounding in some branches of that discipline – and I spent a number of years teaching stats.

July 22, 2009 5:37 am

Paul Vaughan (23:02:07) :
Oh come on – rather than resorting to hurling unmerited insults
I think the insult was here:
“you are willing to use the weight of your stature in this community to deceitfully distort…”
Paul Vaughan (22:50:35) :
You appear to have missed the point made above (in response to tallbloke’s original inquiry) that it provides monthly estimates.
If the whole concept is dubious, a monthly estimate is even more meaningless. Perhaps, if we measured the sunspot number every minute [which is feasible – and might one day be done], you could provide a minute-by-minute estimate of the length of the solar cycle…

July 22, 2009 5:41 am

Paul Vaughan (23:02:07) :
(Most folks around here are familiar with that chapter (on 90s research claims), so you are fooling very few.)
Most folks, perhaps, but you lost me. What chapter? And I would consider ‘fooling’ an insult, so look who is hurling. But perhaps what you hurl are merited insults in your mind.

bill
July 22, 2009 7:45 am

Paul Vaughan (22:34:02) :
That the Chandler wobble reversed phase in ~1931 is not in dispute – see the literature. For example:

There is no 45 to 135 phase change in 1930s in my plot. I assume that we are talking phase between x and y offsets?. I have removed the annual cycle, I have removed the chandler cycle. The phase stubbonly refuses to change much from an average of about 90 deg in 1930s. This period is of course before the improvement of measurement in 60s when noise is much reduced.
During the nulls of the beat frequencies (1year and 1.2 years) amplitudes become negligible and phase cannot be accurately determined. But when amplitude is again usable the phase is as before the dip (I suppose one could suggest that the phase changed by 360 degress). During the minima phase differences can go to near zero.
The pahse is calulated by measuring peak to trough and trough to peak periods and dividing by the time between zero crossing pos and zero cross pos. This gives 2 measures of phase per cycle. The 10 sample/year era data were increased to 20 by interpolating. The data was obtained from the source you suggested.
I say again there is no oddity in the 1930s in my plots. A phase change of 180deg would be easily seen in the amplitude plots. No need for wavelets.
The FFT was obtained from raw unfiltered data (at 20 samples / year)
Someone somewhere is wrong. I cannot see errors in my data handling. Perhaps you could tell me where I am going wrong!

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 8:10 am

So you label the results as both dubious & solid – and you expect me to believe you are not trying to deliberately obfuscate?
You are only fooling people who lack a solid conceptual understanding of wavelet analysis.
The only substantive issue you have raised is that solar science might need to consider revising its terminology to more clearly differentiate between the different uses of the term “solar cycle”. In the meantime, don’t slander the current mainstream convention as “dubious”.
…And you know very well what study I’m referring to — I’ve seen you attack it with zeal (…& there’s a sign of it on the image to which you linked).

July 22, 2009 9:34 am

Paul Vaughan (08:10:06) :
So you label the results as both dubious & solid – and you expect me to believe you are not trying to deliberately obfuscate?
The statistics is solid, the physics is dubious. It is like saying that a climate that swings between only temperatures -50C and +90C is comfortable because the average temperature is 20C.
You are only fooling people who lack a solid conceptual understanding of wavelet analysis.
since what you find is no different from what everybody else finds, the people who lack a solid understanding of wavelets are no worse off.
don’t slander the current mainstream convention as “dubious”.
The convention is what it is, the dubious bit comes when one attaches too much meaning or significance to the concept, like pinning it down to a month or better and ignoring that different hemispheres and different measures [sunspots, areas, radio flux, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, TSI, etc] have minima and maxima occurring at different times.
…And you know very well what study I’m referring to — I’ve seen you attack it with zeal (…& there’s a sign of it on the image to which you linked).
And I don’t now what you are referring to. Do we have yet another [would make it #3] instance of you don’t wanting to tell me [or anyone else]?

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 11:16 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:34:48) “It is like saying that a climate that swings between only temperatures -50C and +90C is comfortable because the average temperature is 20C.”
This is not analogous. Ridiculous!

Leif Svalgaard (09:34:48) “[…] ignoring that different hemispheres and different measures [sunspots, areas, radio flux, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, TSI, etc] […]”
The instantaneous period can be estimated for any of these variables …and if I then ran a factor analysis, I would certainly not expect to find all of the resulting series to be orthogonal.

Leif Svalgaard (09:34:48) “I don’t now what you are referring to.”
More nonsense – WUWT readers know what you were trying to demonstrate with the image you attached. That paper is famous “AGW-road-kill”. I’ve seen you gunning at it more than once whenever some (poorly-informed) latecomer cites it in these forums.

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 11:37 am

Hi bill,
Of course the phase difference between x & y is relatively constant at a quarter-cycle – that is the nature of a wobble. If you review my comments in the earlier threads – and the papers to which I have linked – you will see that this is not the phase being discussed.
Question:
How are you estimating the period in this plot?
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8189/chandlerwobbleaveragepe.jpg
As for this plot …
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4861/chandlerperiodfft.jpg
… the higher frequency is nonstationary, so unwindowed-FFT is not good enough. You need to use a method that facilitates time-localization as well as frequency-localization.

bill (18:19:12) “you seem to get a chandler period with a 1 day accuracy – how is this possible from a 18 day measurement period?”
This will be evident once you follow the steps I have outlined.
As you will see, the first step is to estimate the polar motion group-wave period. Then the following assumption is made: The annual cycle has a period of 1 year. This facilitates application of the Helmholtz acoustic equation to arrive at a series of time-localized estimates of the Chandler period (which has a period of 432 to 433 days on average – see the literature). As you can see from your FFT power spectrum, the assumption of stationarity is not bad for the annual cycle — this, of course, is not surprising (….but note the spread for the Chandler frequency – a very strong hint to look deeper).

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 11:39 am

“higher frequency”
pardon me – should read: “higher period

July 22, 2009 11:51 am

Paul Vaughan (11:16:45) :
This is not analogous. Ridiculous!
Gave me a laugh, this time. Thanks.
The instantaneous period can be estimated for any of these variables …and if I then ran a factor analysis, I would certainly not expect to find all of the resulting series to be orthogonal.
But which one would be THE solar cycle period? The point is that there is no ‘THE’ period. All cycles overlap and overlap differently and are, of course, correlated to a large degree, but with non-stationary lags, etc. So picking one and saying that that one is the one of interest must be justified on physical grounds. Statistics can’t help you here.
That paper is famous “AGW-road-kill”. I’ve seen you gunning at it more than once whenever some (poorly-informed) latecomer cites it in these forums.
Refresh my memory – I don’t recall/remember that famous paper.
Pretend you are that poorly-informed person and cite it. Even a search with Google doesn’t bring up any obvious hits.

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 11:58 am

Also bill, why the 10 year averaging?
– –
tallbloke,
Erl’s got the right idea with his equator-pole contrasts. Speculation: The Chandler wobble phase reversal (& associated phase reversals) is (are) related to pole-equator flows (meridional vs. zonal) and the NH phasing should be opposite to SH phasing (on average for some bands of latitude …and as you wisely mention “at some timescales” – indeed the higher timescales show a different phase relation).

July 22, 2009 12:18 pm

Paul Vaughan (11:58:16) :
The Chandler wobble phase reversal (& associated phase reversals) is (are) related to pole-equator flows
It is well-established that the Chandler wobble is mostly caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and a smaller part by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. The effect of atmospheric winds and ocean currents on the wobble are very minor.

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 12:39 pm

Leif Svalgaard (11:51:31) “Gave me a laugh, this time. Thanks.”
It’s not analogous. We are talking about periods – not ranges & averages.

Leif Svalgaard (11:51:31) “[…] So picking one and saying that that one is the one of interest […]”
No one is “picking one”. If this is what you have concluded, you have erred. “One” has been presented, but others have been (& will be further) explored – and analyses will be varied (…and as you acknowledge: “[…] correlated to a large degree […]” anyway …but analyses will be varied anyway – just a core ingredient in robust data analysis).
I don’t think you are thinking through the utility of the estimates. They are needed for studies of phase relations – (and the estimates I’ve seen are always in wide time-steps – usually only one per cycle). It isn’t enough to look at 2 variables at a time and ignore phase relations — that is the “linear” flaw in conventional thinking that is plaguing the research and dead-stalling progress. Once capable people work out the phase relations, then the folks with amplitude-talent might be empowered to quickly clean house. The complexity stems from the interaction of multiple nonstationary cycles. (My money is not on ‘mysterious’ forces.) I’m working on the conditioning – this is just basic Stat 400 (which very, very, very few researchers have since it is pushed aside to make room for more popular (& more theoretical) advanced stats courses).

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Leif Svalgaard (12:18:07)
You should consider reviewing (more of the detail of) the work of Richard Gross & other EOP experts.
Also, there you go again conflating the terms “related” & “caused”. When someone says “related to” it DOES NOT equate with “caused by”.
Such conflation is either:
a) deliberate obfuscation (strawman)
– or –
b) error (failure to read carefully & interpret words literally).
Again we see that you fail to appreciate the value of confounding. Confounding is not only a hazard; sometimes it is a blessing (like if there is an important (perhaps not-so-obvious) lurking variable that is not being measured). You might scream “unphysical”, but the “physical” might be in the lurking variable(s). All a data analyst needs to find the signal is a “related” variable (and there’s a huge & important branch of statistics known as multivariate stats, as you surely know).

July 22, 2009 2:03 pm

Paul Vaughan (13:01:36) :
You should consider reviewing (more of the detail of) the work of Richard Gross
It is Gross that established that the Chandler wobble is mostly caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and a smaller part by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. And that the effect of atmospheric winds and ocean currents on the wobble are very minor.
We are talking about periods – not ranges & averages.
The conceptual error you commit is the same.
I don’t think you are thinking through the utility of the estimates.
They may seem useful to you pursuing numerology, but have little meaning and usefulness considering the nature of the physical phenomena.
They are needed for studies of phase relations […] is plaguing the research and dead-stalling progress.
Progress is not dead-stalled. It is being made on a broad front and at a good clip. Adding numerology and overly ‘precise’ estimates that ignore the physical reality are perhaps satisfying for some, but has rarely [if ever] lead to real progress, and I don’t expect it in this case either.
complexity stems from the interaction of multiple nonstationary cycles
The cycles do not interact [that is Cyclomania], the physical bodies and forces that wax and wane interact and couple.
When someone says “related to” it DOES NOT equate with “caused by”.
Then WHAT does it mean? If they both have a common cause, for example, it is still wrong to say that they are ‘related’ to each other.
a) deliberate obfuscation (strawman) ‘thief thinks everyone steals’
b) error (failure to communicate what you mean)
Again we see that you fail to appreciate the value of confounding.
A lurking variable is an extraneous variable that correlates with both the dependent variable and the independent variable and gives rise to a type 1 error: an erroneous ‘false positive’ conclusion that the dependent variables are in a causal relationship with the independent variable. I fail to see that the value of such erroneous conclusions can be anything but non-existent.

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 3:25 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:03:40) “If they both have a common cause, for example, it is still wrong to say that they are ‘related’ to each other.”
FALSE.
You also use an exceptionally narrow definition of “lurking” variable.
I will reiterate that I suggest you review the EOP literature for more detail.

Leif Svalgaard (14:03:40) “The conceptual error you commit is the same.”
My impression is that you do not understand the analysis-related factors that can cause (spurious) cycles in wavelet power. More generally, your inattentiveness to the convergence of phase & amplitude in linear correlation appears to be a serious blindspot – (this is what I mean when I say “narrowly linear”). Resorting to charges of “numerology” & “cyclomania” is as ridiculous as claiming the day & year are “irrelevant”. There’s no need to be blinded by the most dominant cycles and you can’t integrate-out inter-cycle signals if you don’t know periods. Pretending everything after first-order/stationary is “just noise” is a prescription for meeting a dead-end.

July 22, 2009 4:11 pm

Paul Vaughan (15:25:41) :
“If they both have a common cause, for example, it is still wrong to say that they are ‘related’ to each other.”
FALSE.

Give an example that makes sense to me.
You also use an exceptionally narrow definition of “lurking” variable.
I don’t think so. Pearl [2000] has shown that that confounding variables cannot be defined in terms of statistical notions alone, but that some initial causal assumptions are necessary. So we are back to physics.
I will reiterate that I suggest you review the EOP literature for more detail.
May I suggest you do the same. What counts for me is that Gross have identified the main causes and influences that determine the Wobble. I’ll go with his assessment.
prescription for meeting a dead-end
What I’m questioning is that we at a a dead-end, and that your contribution is needed.
your inattentiveness to the convergence of phase & amplitude in linear correlation appears to be a serious blindspot
Nobody I know [and respect] is confounded by these problems, so I think you are overstating your case that everybody [including me] have serious blind spots in that regard.

July 22, 2009 4:16 pm

Paul Vaughan (15:25:41) :
That paper is famous “AGW-road-kill”. I’ve seen you gunning at it more than once whenever some (poorly-informed) latecomer cites it in these forums.
Refresh my memory – I don’t recall/remember that famous paper.
Pretend you are that poorly-informed person and cite it. Or are we having yet another example [count stands at 3 now] of you not wanting to tell anybody…

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 5:17 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:11:24) “I think you are overstating your case that everybody [including me] have serious blind spots in that regard.”
Have you carefully considered why the time-normalization brings out such smooth bands? Think about wavelet shape-variation. Don’t be fooled into thinking wavelet power is objectively physical. Wavelet shape introduces spurious power-cycles. There are ways to minimize (& work around) this problem.

Leif Svalgaard (16:11:24) “I don’t think so.”
Now you appear to be conflating confounding with lurking. Also, understand that definitions of terms even so basic as “standard error” vary (…particularly if one gets philosophical …but no need to waste our time).

Don’t you think the most sensible thing to do is admit that climate is a multi-disciplinary challenge? You have a good understanding of the role a physicist can play, but you seem to fail to understand (or perhaps choose to deny) the role of others.
At present, the bottleneck in research progress appears to be a lack of awareness of conditioning factors.

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 5:40 pm

Gross’ findings are impressive, but my point is that they do not constitute an end. The question just switches to “So what causes that?” and “What is related to that?” Also, it is important to understand that Gross can’t apply his methods to investigate the Chandler wobble phase reversal (because OAM & AAM records do not go back far enough).

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 5:52 pm

One way I might explain the wavelet power thing to students would be with an analogy: Say 2 carpenters are working together and one complains to the other that he just can’t get any power to turn a screw. The other shows him that the heads on the screws are different shapes. (And now imagine that the heads are changing shape cyclically…)
Regarding your request. Unrelated-peoples’ daily activity cycles are related even though one is not causing the other.

July 22, 2009 6:50 pm

Paul Vaughan (17:52:56) :
Regarding your request. Unrelated-peoples’ daily activity cycles are related even though one is not causing the other.
They are not ‘related’ in any sensible way. They may be ‘similar’ because they are driven by the same underlying factor: time of day. Not related.
Don’t you think the most sensible thing to do is admit that climate is a multi-disciplinary challenge?
Sure, there are many disciplines involved: atmospheric physics, measurement theory, solar [perhaps], etc. Statistics [like English] in this respect is not a discipline, but simply a tool, and all too often a blunt tool standing in the way of physical insight.
Chandler wobble phase reversal
Other people seem to have difficulty finding the ‘phase reversal’…
Now you appear to be conflating confounding with lurking
I can only go by mainstream established definitions. e.g. Wikipedia’s: “In statistics, a confounding variable (also confounding factor, lurking variable, a confound, or confounder) is an extraneous variable …”
Don’t be fooled into thinking wavelet power is objectively physical
Now, who in his right mind would do this? All analysis has to be taken with caution and the only real guide is one’s subjective physical insight and intuition, honed by dealing with physics for decades.
That paper is famous “AGW-road-kill”. I’ve seen you gunning at it more than once whenever some (poorly-informed) latecomer cites it in these forums.
Refresh my memory – I don’t recall/remember that famous paper.
Pretend you are that poorly-informed person and cite it. Or are we having yet another example [count stands at 3 now] of you not wanting to tell anybody…

Paul Vaughan
July 22, 2009 8:49 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:50:08) “Other people seem to have difficulty finding the ‘phase reversal’…”
This is pure distortion. This exchange is terminated. Do not address me in future.
Sincerely,
Paul Vaughan.

July 22, 2009 9:12 pm

Paul Vaughan (20:49:13) :
This exchange is terminated. Do not address me in future.
That is one convenient way of avoiding to answer:
That paper is famous “AGW-road-kill”. I’ve seen you gunning at it more than once whenever some (poorly-informed) latecomer cites it in these forums.
Refresh my memory – I don’t recall/remember that famous paper.
Pretend you are that poorly-informed person and cite it. Or are we having yet another example [count stands at 3 now] of you not wanting to tell anybody…