After an exciting encounter last week with some genuine sunspots that weren’t arguable as specks, pores, or pixels, the sun resumes its quiet state this week.
People send me things. Here’s the latest email from Paul Stanko, who has been following the solar cycle progression in comparison to previous ones.
Hi Anthony,
Out of the numbered solar cycles, #24 is now in 7th place. Only 5, 6, and 7 of the Dalton Minimum and cycles 12, 14, and 15 of the Baby Grand Minimum had more spotless days. Since we’ve now beaten cycle #13, we are clearly now competitive with the Baby Grand minimum.
Here’s a table of how the NOAA panel’s new SC#24 prediction is doing:
November 2008: predicted = 1.80, actual = 1.67 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 83.7)
December 2008: predicted = 1.80, actual = 1.69 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 84.7)
January 2009: predicted = 2.10, actual = 1.71 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 73.2)
February 2009: predicted = 2.70, actual = 1.67 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 55.6)
March 2009: predicted = 3.30, actual = 1.97 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 53.8)
April would require the October data which is still very incomplete. If this analysis intrigues you, I’d be happy to keep you updated on it. Please also find a couple of interesting graphs attached as images.
Paul Stanko
Here’s the graphs, the current cycle 24 and years of interest are marked with a red arrow:
And how 2008/2009 fit in:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
E.M.Smith (21:32:02) :
Um, not so fast… UV levels influence plants. Water influences plants. Cloud cover influences plants. TSI is not everything.
UV is a part of TSI, and a small part at that. Of the 1361 W/m2 TSI, 105 W/m2 are in the UV, and most of that is in the Near UV that actually varies opposite to the solar activity. The UV that varies a lot ins the Extreme UV which does not reach the surface of the Earth.
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:46) :
Once again, Leif, it was not so much the cold that ruined the European wheat harvest, it was the unseasonable rains. And those unseasonable rains also wreaked havoc in the 2 Grand Minima preceeding the Dalton. 3 eras noted makes for a history.
It’s in the literature of the times, and I have posted more than once the references to them. Those are the accounts of what transpired. It was colder, it got to places well beyond Europe, and it was cold enough to make the writers of the time take note of it. Tambora was insult added to injury.
E.M.Smith (21:32:02) :
We are presently having a drop of solar activity AND an increase in vulcanism. It seems to happen in each minima.
It sure is happening. The pattern is repeating yet again.
Leif Svalgaard (20:03:09) :
Should be interesting.
Agree, I will be paying close attention.
As a side note, the shape of the HMF and GCR (10Be) values at SC22 is interesting. It looks to be following the temperature record to some extent, allowing for some lags etc. Independent of sunspots to some degree but perhaps working in unison, the TSI on the overall upswing with the HMF and GCR’s boosting the reduction in clouds to a greater extent around SC22 through extra UV and also reduced cloud nuclei, perhaps increasing the overall TSI at the surface. A combination of TSI and its positive feedback mechanisms, the movement away from the sunspot record being the important point. SC22 and SC19 HMF are both very similar.
This could be bad for the AGW crowd.
Geoff Sharp (22:38:13) :
SC22 and SC19 HMF are both very similar.
As was SC23 and SC13, and as [I think SC24 and SC14 will be.
But make further comments over in the dedicated thread for this.
kim (07:31:40) : Looking back, too, we seem to have had sub millenial scale alternations between warming and cooling phases, historically known at least as far back as the Roman Optimum.
It goes back well before that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_Cold_Epoch
Heck, even RC does not dispute that the Minoan Warm Period existed, they just dismiss the relevance:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group
“1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th Century Warm Period 1900–2010 AD.”
The issue is not whether climate changes have occurred (they have), but why it is changing now
So you get to go back all the way to 1450 BC at a minimum… FWIW, there is a 1500 or so year long “ripple” in climate history. This means that any “trend” analysis based on less than 1500+ years of data must detrend for that known cycle or it is just a fantasy based on not understanding what wave they are riding upon.
Stephen Wilde (09:13:01) : Sometimes one can post before engaging brain 🙂
Sometimes? Braggart!
Leif Svalgaard (06:35:53) :
Leif Svalgaard (05:36:17) :
Various people have noticed that “progress is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration”.
Or “perspiration”.
Some of us are animals, others are vegetables. Some choice, eh?
Vukcevic (09:53:49) : As far as I am concerned, I sit back and wait for either of them or anyone else, to come up with something better.
To the extent you are right, it will be a very long wait. Glad to see you are still attending, btw. I like your work, but just can’t quite tease out a mechanism. Then again, we don’t know how gravity works either…
Leif Svalgaard (18:29:03) : I think this might fit in any one of the possibilities you suggest.
It actually is rather strong support for the thesis. Cold limited in the cold north, moisture limited in the hot south (with expected opposite sign), and neutral in the middle away from the marginal influences. Exactly what one would expect from a change of climate warmer / colder. A shift of the range of survivability north / south.
Leif Svalgaard (19:33:03) :
E.M.Smith (18:41:03) :
surly curmudgeon…
“An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions”
and surly to boot, eh?
I said I admired your curmudgeonly moments and that I aspired to the surly part. I very carefully did not connect surly with you. While you enjoy sniping, you do not rise to the level of surly, try as you might. I hope to one day exceed my mentor 😉
Leif Svalgaard (21:48:59) :
UV is a part of TSI, and a small part at that. Of the 1361 W/m2 TSI, 105 W/m2 are in the UV, and most of that is in the Near UV that actually varies opposite to the solar activity. The UV that varies a lot ins the Extreme UV which does not reach the surface of the Earth.
The bad news is perhaps it doesnt need to hit the surface, the interaction at the top of the atmosphere is enough to change weather patterns, pressures and cloud cover say some.
Ripper (19:34:16) : E.M. (love your work) Maybe you could clear this up.
Thanks! Though I’ve taken another ‘sanity break’ to recharge and make a bit of money before diving back into the STEP3 warming measurement and the STEP4_5 bigendian “issue”. Sometimes it’s that “put food on the table” thing that needs tending…
I was reading the climate alarmism the other day
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html
And this caught my eye.
“Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.”
Is this an accurate Gisstemp number for 1940 – 1972?
I don’t think so. GIStemp generally puts in artificial warming to the data. Then again, in that time period the GIStemp code was not as it is today. The GHCN data that is the input to GIStemp shows no such trend, though it is strongly dependent on just which thermometer records you use:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/
Has the trend from 1939-69 of “global average of all thermometer records” for the 4 quartiles of thermometer record longevity as:
top: -0.5 C
2nd: -0.5 C
3rd: -0.1 C
Bottom: +7.7 C
So that’s about -0.9 F for the two best thermometer records which is a bit shy of the 2.7 F number. (Then again, this is the data pre-GISification, so it might well be buggered further in GIStemp by 1.8 F, but I would believe the basic GHCN data more than the GIStemp product.)
You can also see in these numbers how all the “warming” in carried in the small set of thermometers with the shortest lifetime. These are largely airports in the tropics and southern hemisphere; and while the AGW True Believers will rant that grids, boxes, and anomaly processing will erase this effect, I’ve shown that it does not.
So my best estimate is that the world cooled by about 1/2 C during that interval based on the best longest lived thermometer records and ignoring the airports added on tropical islands after WWII.
E.M.Smith (23:20:46)
Thanks ! So as far a CRU is concerned they< .6 C as well.
So either the "adjustments" have been severe or the alarmism was exaggerated by a factor of three back then.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Leif Svalgaard (21:48:59) :
E.M.Smith (21:32:02) :
“Um, not so fast… UV levels influence plants. Water influences plants. Cloud cover influences plants. TSI is not everything.”
UV is a part of TSI, and a small part at that. Of the 1361 W/m2 TSI, 105 W/m2 are in the UV, and most of that is in the Near UV that actually varies opposite to the solar activity. The UV that varies a lot ins the Extreme UV which does not reach the surface of…
My point was that shifting energy from UV to, say, “yellow” would leave TSI unchanged, yet a living thing, such as me would be sunburnt under one and happy as can be under the other. The point about what does not reach the surface is interesting, but does not explain why I was able to go all summer in the garden with no sunscreen and even left my (obligatory) sun hat in the bedroom. The UV at the surface that causes sunburn was much less than in the recent past. Enough that I could feel the difference (I get a distinct ‘tingle’ as the UV dose approaches ‘1st degree burn in 20 minutes’ level of UV irradiation. After a few dozen burns, you start to notice these things 😉
Plants have similar issues with spectrum. For example, they reflect green and don’t use it very well and some can sunburn from too much UV. Also insufficient UV will result in seedlings that extend length until they fall over and die. I learned this attempting to grow radishes in a box in my room as a 12 year old and learned that normal window glass blocks enough UV to cause the ‘infinitely extending seedling’ problem. Greenhouse operators pay particular attention to issues of spectrum. The glazing has to let in the right mix and any “grow lights” must have the right mix. Even minor changes can result in plant death, spindly growth, failure to flower, or other problems; and each species has it’s own particular sensitivities. Some, like beans, don’t seem to care. Others, like Orchids and radish seedlings and Onions can be terribly picky.
Onions, for example, are ‘day length sensitive’. You must pick a variety matched to your latitude and expected total hours of light of sufficient strength during your growing season. If you don’t get the “match” right, you get poor or no onions. The onion waits until the day is short enough to say “winter soon – but enough summer remains to make a bulb” to make the bulb. If that signal is at the wrong time and early, it bulbs too early and small. If that signal is too late, the onion does not bulb. So what happens with a small spectrum shift that moves the energy in the particular band that signals ‘day length’ to a different quantity?… (this, btw, has driven me nuts for years. Only in the last 2 years have I finally gotten to the point where I can grow onions with any reliability. You simply MUST match the onion to the seasonal timing to the latitude).
And that is why TSI makes me nervous. There is a great deal that is hidden in that “average” that is of great importance to plants and other living things… especially those that are red, or trying not to become more red…
So yes, I could easily see TSI staying of constant energy, yet a spectral shift of that constant energy leading to a crop failure or crop reduction. (Early flowering, late flowering, seedling ‘lodging’, failure to bulb, reduced growth rates, etc.) There are particular ‘incantations’ for some species that greenhouse operators need to know to get crops ‘out of season’.
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=770_20
http://www.umass.edu/umext/floriculture/fact_sheets/greenhouse_management/photo.html
When it comes to plants the TSI is important, but so is each constituent part.
rbateman (22:04:15) :
Once again, Leif, it was not so much the cold that ruined the European wheat harvest, it was the unseasonable rains. And those unseasonable rains also wreaked havoc in the 2 Grand Minima preceeding the Dalton. 3 eras noted makes for a history.
Bob, I think you got it right there.
From late 1700s, centre of the North Atlantic precipitations was moving eastwards across Europe towards Siberia. Inflow of fresh waters from great Siberian rivers Ob, Yenisey, etc, affected salinity of the Arctic Ocean, and consequently the Labrador Sea circulation. While the Gulf Stream along the European west coast was hardly affected, cold Arctic waters did cool the east coast of US. This was a reason for differences in climatic changes as shown in temperature graphs produced by H. Lamb (most notable British climatologist of 20th century) and American J. Eddy.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Temps.jpg
It should be remembered these are regional, NOT global temperature variations. Since even two sides of the North Atlantic cannot be standardised, it seems to me, attempts to produce a uniform global chart are a futile exercise and bound to not make the grade. Good old doc looks to be correct, it was not due to solar irradiance, but certain other factors were coming into play.
My interpretation of the wheat crop phenomena is simply that very small changes in TSI appears to cause a shift in weather patterns, which may create significant localized climate changes (for better or worse).
A .1k temp change is below the noise threshhold, but if, say, jet streams shift by a couple of hundred miles north or south (a small deflection) for an extended period, then regional weather will be significantly altered. What happens to the average ‘global climate’ would be a matter of conjecture, and for practical purposes a moot point. (If the wheat belt became colder/wetter, negatively and severly impacting agriculture, and the South Pacific became warmer/dryer impacting nothing, the result would be no net change in the global climate, but who cares? We’ll still be in a bad way). It would be interesting to see the debate if globally temperature began to rise again, but the heavily populated areas of the world actually cooled. Most of the higher temps seem to be in the polar/Siberia areas as it is.
I would say at this point everyone is right concerning the piece-parts, but we can’t yet predict the end result. That’s a good thing – science would be far less interesting if we had all the answers.
I’d guess that Nile River levels have fewer variables than wheat production and marketing. Then again.
===============================
Hello all,
I’ll be able to fully respond to Leif’s issues and criticisms on Saturday evening my time when I’m at work, because that’s where my spreadsheet is that I take this data from. In the meantime, here is a partial answer…
Regarding solar cycle 0, there is in fact substantial data from before solar cycle 1, more than enough to paint in the maximum of the preceding cycle. There is, however, not enough before that to nail down the minimum. That is why Schwabe started the cycle numbers where he did. So it is in fact legitimate to talk about the minimum from 0 to 1.
Regarding missing days due to clouds, the people of the 1700’s and 1800’s weren’t very sophisticated by our standards, that is true. But they weren’t dumb. They recognized clouds as an issue for sunspot observations. That’s why they organized a Europe-wide observing network. Even if their communications were crude, they got the job done so there are very few missing days due to clouds in the record. Even so, if it would satisfy Leif, I’ll add a ‘~’ to the chart to say ‘approximately’. By the way, if you notice solar cycle 3-4 is missing, that’s because the data gaps here were huge. I ended up with 29 spotless days and just said, “er, right…”. So I threw out cycle 4. Our best guess is that the Napoleonic wars kind of messed up the works.
Anyway, on Saturday, I’ll post a full detail of how many years had how many days of records. I’m sure most will agree that most years are quite sufficient, and the least worthy I’ve already discarded.
Thanks to all,
Paul
kim (07:12:26) :
I’d guess that Nile River levels have fewer variables than wheat production and marketing. Then again.
The Nile flows out of Lake Victoria and the level of LV was following the sunspot cycle in the late 19th century, then it drifted out of phase in the 20th, and may now again have drifted back in phase. This is the basic problem: there are approximately decadal changes of climate/weather. These drift in and out of phase with the approximately decadal changes of solar activity, causing a ‘now you see it, now you don’t’ type of correlation. Depending on your agenda and other outlook on the world, the field is thus open for all kinds of speculation.
Paul Stanko (07:40:21) :
Anyway, on Saturday, I’ll post a full detail of how many years had how many days of records. I’m sure most will agree that most years are quite sufficient, and the least worthy I’ve already discarded.
For each cycle lists: how many days in the cycle [spots, observations, or not – just the number of days], how many days with observations, how many days with no spots observed.
Leif Svalgaard (19:33:03) :
E.M.Smith (18:41:03) :
surly curmudgeon…
“An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions”
and surly to boot, eh?
Leif, I’m not sure if you are a native speaker of English. (I suspect not). If you are, please forgive this bit… but if you are not, you may not appreciate an odd subtlety of the word “curmudgeon”: It has an “endearment” quality.
It is used about the Uncle who is sometimes “difficult” to deal with, but just happens to be right all the time when you are saying something stupid.
It has the quality about it of the “bright person experienced in the world who is not suffering fools well” and also of the person who stays centered in “the old ways” when fools are running this way and that with silly fads.
Basically, the “stubborn notions” is more ambiguous as to whom is right than the straight dictionary meaning might imply. And the implication is often that the “ill tempered” part comes from a “voice of authority and experience” while the “resentment” has an implication of “resentful of fools wasting his time” more than general unhappiness.
I first encountered this word, and the person to whom it was applied, in High School. That person was Mr. McGuire. I never heard any other name for him than that. He, in large part, shaped who I am today (though I doubt he recognized it at the time; I didn’t.) He was a retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force (from WWII) and did not “take crap” from folks. He liked to put you on the spot in a somewhat uncomfortable way when you were being stupid, but with a bit of help to point you at the way out…
He was my Chemistry and Physics teacher. On one occasion I made the “mistake” of asking him what what gasoline was made of. (He was also a retired research chemist from U.S. Steel). His answer is prototypical of the “curmudgeon” whom you respect and admire: “Mr. Smith, here is the CRC handbook. The library is down that hall. Report to me in 1 week with your answer.” I learned a great deal about refineries, alkanes, gasoline chemistry, fuels, crude oil. Things I still use to this day. Things I would not have known had he said “Hyrocarbons from C5 to C12 in length, both rings and linear molecules, with a boiling point in a modest range near that of hexane to octane”
I knew he could tell me in 10 seconds. He knew I knew. He also knew that I was ready to do the research myself and that the best thing he could do for me was to assure I learned that.
It was from him that I learned why the Diesel was superior (and why I drive a Mercedes Diesel today. He had a 190D IIRC. I now have a 240D. Not in emulation, but in understanding.) It was from him that I learned why my 2 tons of metal would take its share of MV as M and the little tin car would take it as V and that the energy was distributed at V^2…
And it was him whom I sat next to at a violin concert in our gym and watched tears sneak down his cheek at the exquisite music from the performer (who’s name meant nothing to me, but played a Stratavarious and was getting about $100 a ticket in 1970… and gave us a free concert). I still can here him commenting to another teacher (my Biology teacher, another “curmudgeon” I can only thank…) that the physics knowledge displayed by the player was of high caliber ( he was positioning the audience in just the right places to correct acoustic ‘issues’ with the gym).
It is in that context that I aspire to become a “Surly Curmudgeon”.
And you ought to take it as a compliment to be labeled a “curmudgeon” as it does imply someone who is just a bit ahead of the rest, has been for a long time, and sometimes just gets a bit ‘resentful’ of folks asking so many stupid questions… “Mr. Smith, The library is down that hall!”
If someday I can earn the word “curmudgeon” on my tombstone, I will feel like I’ve finally made it into the company I admired most.
One final note: It may be a sub-cultural artifact, but the specific phrase “surly curmudgeon” is often used in the computer support arena for that “difficult by exceedingly bright” programmer that just happens to be the best one on the staff. I’ve managed several “surly curmudgeons” and did so with pride that I could provide a place where they could excel with minimal irritation from the merely gifted. That has probably colored my willingness to use the phrase. To be granted the label “surly curmudgeon” is something of a badge of honor among geeks, hackers, and programmers.
Sidebar: CNBC World is reporting a couple of 7.x quakes near Vanuatu in the pacific and another tsunami warning. SOMETHING is going on with the earthquakes / volcanoes thing…
E.M.Smith (17:37:29) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:33:03) :
E.M.Smith (18:41:03) :
surly curmudgeon…
“An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions”
and surly to boot, eh?
My attempt of humor didn’t have the intended effect, but I agree that curmudgeon can be a term of endearment and will carry that badge with honor.
Leif:
I’m returning a bit late to this thread, I fear, but I wanted to set something straight.
There was the question earlier whether temperatures were lower during the Dalton Minimum and I get comments on the order of “it wasn’t abnormally cold globally below what the volcanoes obviously wrought” or “yhe temperature record, such as it is, is severely ‘contaminated’ by several large volcanic eruption in the decade 1810-1820”. Based on these comments, it seems the answer is that temperatures WERE lower during the Dalton.
So, Leif, I don’t believe you directly answered my original question. Do you attribute the lower temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton minimums to coincidence or do you feel that there is some mechanism linking the two? You said earlier: “I personally would not discount coincidence”, so should I infer that you are unsure or are you convinced in coincidence? I am truly trying to understand.
Thanks,
Craig
Leif Svalgaard (18:07:33) :
E.M.Smith (17:37:29) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:33:03) :
E.M.Smith (18:41:03) :
surly curmudgeon…
“An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions”
and surly to boot, eh?
My attempt of humor didn’t have the intended effect, but I agree that curmudgeon can be a term of endearment and will carry that badge with honor.
Given the lack of a smily the ‘tone of voice’ was ambiguous. So I waited for the ‘humor comeback’ to the “I’m the surly one” comment. When there was none I started to think maybe I’d gone “an adjective to far” 😉
Glad to finally get the ‘tone’ right …
Madman (19:10:30) :
Based on these comments, it seems the answer is that temperatures WERE lower during the Dalton.
The issue is if there were much lower such that they could be said to unusual. As there were many periods in the past 200 years that had equally low temperatures, it would not be appropriate to single out the Dalton minimum cold as something that required a special explanation. There were a couple of exceptional years, like ‘the year without a summer, 1816’ but they were due to volcanoes. This is my view. You can find opposing views, especially from people with agendas or pet ideas, and you may buy into those as you please, of course.
Hi all,
It was definitely not my intent to be evasive, sorry if I seemed that way! This spreadsheet where I store all my data is at work and I happened to be on vacation. This being my first day back, I’m happy to supply the information Leif requested. I’m sure that this will please all other readers as well. In addition, I’ll post my proposed definition of the months and years where each cycle began, which may well prove necessary for the other requested information to make sense. I’ll work backward since most people here seem to suspect the information gets less reliable the farther back you go.
Since the info for min-to-min is already available in the graphs above, I’m assuming Leif means the spotless days within each cycle boundary, so that’s what I’m providing below.
Cycle 10: Jan 1856 to Feb 1867, total 4077 days, 4077 obs (100%), 535 0-day
Cycle 9: Jul 1843 to Dec 1855, total 4567 days, 4526 obs (99.1%), 579 0-day
Cycle 8: Oct 1833 to Jun 1843, total 3560 days, 3458 obs (97.1%), 474 0-day
Cycle 7: May 1823 to Sep 1833, total 3806 days, 3764 obs (98.9%), 901 0-day
Cycle 6: Apr 1810 to Apr 1823, total 4778 days, 4625 obs (96.8%), 2197 0-dy
Cycle 5: Apr 1798 to Mar 1810, total 4382 days, 3113 obs (71.0%), 1892 0-dy
Cycle 4: Aug 1784 to Mar 1789, total 4991 days, 1016 obs (20.4%), 429 0-day
Sorry, I’ll have to finish this analysis tomorrow… I’m just about out of time.
Don’t worry, the data won’t be changing (promise!) 🙂
Late catching up here. Mercifully I am away from the computer during the work week.
From Leif:
“Erl is trying to say that the conditions at the poles drives conditions in the subtropics and thereby in the tropics. And that solar activity heating the poles drives the whole system. He has no physical theory for this, no calculations of the energies involved, no estimates of the time constants, no statistical analysis of the data, nothing except feeding on animosity towards IPCC.”
Perhaps if Leif took the time to study the atmosphere he would learn a little more about the dynamics of the polar vortexes, the modulation of ozone by vortex activity and the contributing role of irradiance and the solar wind in determining the concentration of nitrogen oxides AND OZONE in the mesosphere and (by virtue of the polar vortex) in the stratosphere). Then perhaps we might have a meaningful discussion about the role of the sun in determining the rate of energy pickup by the oceans and the rise and fall of surface temperature over sixty to seventy years.
If Leif simply refuses to learn, or even to contest any particular observation that I put forward there is little point in contributing. Some remarks follow.
From Leif: “He has no physical theory for this.”
That’s bull. The theory and the identities involved are encapsulated in figure 1 and 2 of http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/a-different-view-of-enso-and-systematic-climate-change/
From Leif: “no calculations of the energies involved”.
This is currently beyond the abilities of supercomputers I would think. Determining the change in radiation at any given latitude and working out how that energy is distributed into the sea would be a massive task because of seasonal effects and the changing dynamics of the climate system over time.
From Leif: “no estimates of the time constants”.
Better fill me in on what you mean by this. Sounds impressive. But if you mean lags, there is virtually none.
From Leif: “no statistical analysis of the data”.
You could boot out lots of observation on this basis because of the competing effects of the two polar vortexes that influence SST variably by latitude and time of year and also over decades. Better have a look at the document referred to above to see what I mean. The atmosphere ocean system is complex. But manifestly, as the stratosphere (and the upper troposphere down to 200hPa) warms, so does the sea and there is no time lag.
From Leif: “nothing except feeding on animosity towards IPCC.”
That is just plain surly.
From Leif: “What more can I say? I’ll challenge anybody, Erl and you for that matter, to state in a single paragraph the basic idea. You might say that that is impossible, but I have yet in my life to see a physical theory that is so complicated that the core, the essence, the crux cannot be expressed clearly and with the brevity necessary for grokking the idea [if I may use that wonderful term]. And if you cannot state clearly what the idea is, you don’t have it.”
Here is the idea: The level of irradiance at the surface (and surface temperature) depends upon the amount of energy intercepted by the atmosphere. Do you grok that?
The mechanism works like this. Cloud in the form of ice crystals is the agent of interception. The rate of interception depends upon atmospheric temperature which is very sensitive to local ozone content. (No change in UV is necessary). A change in ozone content (most energetically above the winter pole) is observably associated with change in stratospheric temperature and the alignment of SST with stratospheric temperature. The parts affected, and the degree to which they are affected is different in each hemisphere and changes over time. That relates to the competing activity of the two unequal vortexes as they determine stratospheric ozone content. Prior to 1978 the monthly temperature anomaly at 10hPa over Antarctica is centered on March. After 1978 it is centered on September causing a marked warming of the southern ocean in southern spring. That has been the source of the warming between 1978 and 2003.
From Leif: “No UV there. The UV bit comes in because he believes that the atmospheric ‘thickness’ [controlled by solar wind] or some such absorbs the UV. But, as I have said so many times, his writings are so incohenrent that it is really hard to suss what he proposes.”
Now grok this: When surface pressure falls in Antarctica, 10hpa temperature over Antarctica rises. Simultaneously, surface pressure at the equator rises with tropical sea surface temperature. And…wait for it, 10hPa temperature over the equator falls.
So, the interesting bit is the fall in 10hPa temperature over the equator as equatorial sea surface pressure rises and the sea warms. I suggest that the zone of atmospheric ionization at the equator moves outwards as the surface pressure increases at the equator and falls at the pole. So, a temperature drop occurs at the highest elevations above the equator as the amount of short wave radiation received falls away. It is simply absorbed at a higher level. How can this be? The ionized parts of the atmosphere shift so that there is more of it over the equator. Any other suggestions to explain this set of phenomena will be most welcome.
Leif, you should be aware of what happens on the dayside under the influence of geomagnetic activity. Observe the phenomena. By all means check it out for yourself. Then tell me why it happens in that way.
Not so ‘incohenrent’ after all and all the words are generally spelled correctly according to USA usage.
Leif,
I must say I am surprised at your apparent arrogance/humor? Not sure which. But I would guess that it is humor. It is as though you feel to know all… The sun can have no significant affect on our climate other than TSI…? or maybe when it finally becomes a Red Giant? Can you hold out no possibility that other factors are at play? Einstein once saide that “an idea if at first not absurd, has no chance”. There is some uncommon sense in that statement. I hope Svensmark keeps up the good work!
Len