Bob Tisdale writes:
NINO3.4 SST Anomalies Make A Surge
NINO3.4 SST Anomalies have reached 1.5 deg C for the week centered on October 28, 2009.
http://i37.tinypic.com/nzoyvn.png
NINO3.4 SST AnomaliesSOURCEOI.v2 SST data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
Here’s a look at the current global SST map:
In a rather unassuming way Houston Cygnus atratus has landed,
NZ climate summary for october -1.4c a 64 year record clearly explanations are in order.
Coldest October in over half a century
* Oct09_summary.pdf
* Temperature: The coldest October in 64 years, with all-time record low October temperatures in many areas. Exceptionally late snowfalls. Record low October temperatures were recorded on the 4th/5th in most North Island locations, and on the 9th at many South Island sites.
* Rainfall: Well above normal rainfall in the east of the North Island, as well as in Wellington, Marlborough and parts of Canterbury. Very dry on the West Coast of the South Island.
* Sunshine: Extremely sunny on the West Coast of the South Island.
Record or near-record low October temperatures were experienced in many locations, with temperatures more than 2.0°C below average throughout eastern and alpine areas of the South Island, as well as in the lower half of the North Island. Temperatures were below average (between 0.5°C and 1.2°C below average) elsewhere. Overall for New Zealand, it was the coldest October in 64 years (since 1945), with a national average temperature of 10.6°C (1.4°C below the long-term October average). Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years. Record low October temperatures were recorded on the 4th/5th in most North Island locations, and on the 9th at many South Island sites.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/publications/all/cs/monthly/climate-summary-for-october-2009
Phil (16:46:02)
If there is not enough vertical movement in the stratosphere to achieve the required regulatory function then it most work some other way.
I suggest variability in the depth and density of each layer so as to influence the rate of radiative flow of energy to space.
It would make sense for that to be the case because the primary engine of energy transfer from surface to tropopause is the phase changes of water whereas you point out that the primary engine of energy transfer from tropopause to space is radiative.
That gives another reason for the sharpness of the tropopause. Two entirely different energy transfer regimes.
If the height of the tropopause varies depending on the relative dominance of each section then the layers in the stratosphere will vary in height, density and thickness as well thus affecting the rate of radiative energy flow.
We can tie that in with the observed changes in the depth of the entire atmosphere between surface and space as it responds to changing energy flows from the sun. It must follow that such changes in depth and density at various levels within the stratosphere induced by the sun would have an impact on the rate of radiative energy transfer from stratosphere to space.
Leif: Thanks for the Monthly CRF data. I’ve looked for a solar signature in SST data a number of times and never really found it. So I wanted to use the same data in yonason’s link.
yonason:
The use of Monthly CRF and SST data in place of Annual data reveals different results. Leif provided the Thule CRF data in a link above. I inverted it as noted in the graph you linked. I detrended HADISST Global SST data. To remove the effects of ENSO, I shifted NINO3.4 SST anomalies three months, scaled it by a factor of 0.1, and subtracted it from the detrended Global SST data. When I compared the Inverted CRF with the Adjusted and Detrended Global SST, it was really apparent that volcanic eruptions were influencing the SST data, making the SST and CRF data appear to agree in places, so I removed the volcanic aerosol influence using Sato Index data (Scaling Factor of 2).
Of course, removing ENSO and volcanic aerosol influences always leaves a residual, because if you key the scaling on one ENSO event or volcanic eruption, there’s always a residual left on the others. Here’s the result.
http://i35.tinypic.com/2rfu0ld.png
I don’t see a long-term correlation between the two datasets. Some of the wiggles match, but not all.
I’ve examined the solar-Global SST “link” before and you can adjust the scaling factors so that you get a better fit in one portion of the curves, but that throws off the agreement in others.
The below SST anomaly chart seems easier to read & the zero-anomaly areas are easier to see:
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/psu_sst_anom.gif
Main site is:
http://vortex.plymouth.edu
bill (19:50:55) :
I still do not understand.
Oh well, do some reading around.
Leif Svalgaard (16:44:49) :
tallbloke (15:24:04) :
You avoided this again [beginning to take count, now at 2], so I try again:
The energy to compare with is the incoming energy over the time when you have the excess. How big is that?
I need to check my notes but I seem to remember I calculated that between 1993 and 2003 the ocean retained some significant percentage of the solar energy which entered it. That was the amount of energy required to cause 5400cubic kilometres of thermal expansion as measured by satellite altimetry. I think it was around 8×10^23J.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve asked you how the oceans can thermally expand by 5400 cubic kilometres over ten years if they don’t retain heat, but you’ve always avoided this question, and never goiven a straight answer. So now I’ve answered your question, please answer mine.
tallbloke (09:27:27) :
You avoided this again [beginning to take count, now at 3], so I try again:
The energy to compare with is the incoming energy over the time when you have the excess. How big is that? You had a number for the excess in W/m2, so you must compare with another number in W/m2.
how the oceans can thermally expand by 5400 cubic kilometres over ten years if they don’t retain heat
It is called Global Warming.
Maybe we should be using the ERBE/CERES data on incoming solar radiation rather than the top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance data.
Starting in 1993, there is 4 watts/metre^2 less of solar irradiance being reflected in the stratosphere (ozone depletion by the Pinatubo eruption).
Bob Tisdale has started down this path adjusting the volcano impact out of the SST data using the SATO index, but if we use the ERBE/CERES data and look at the Pinatubo impact on solar energy getting through the stratosphere, it almost looks like the Ocean Heat Content data is actually modulated by the impact of volcanoes.
Volcano happens, Ocean Heat Content falls (for a few years) as the sulfates and other particles absorb/reflect solar energy in the stratosphere. The OHC then rises since more solar radiation in getting through (for a decade or more due to ozone depletion).
The OHC data is stable from 1955 until the Agung volcano occurs in 1963. OHC then falls for 6 years before it starts rising again until the 1982 El Chichon eruption. OHC then falls for 3 years and starts rising again until the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. OHC then falls for 2 years and then starts rising again until 2003 when it stabilizes for the past 5.5 years (with no major eruptions since 1991). There are some other minor eruptions which could be incorporated as well.
Leif Svalgaard (20:34:06) :
yonason (20:15:02) :
But TSI is inversely correlated
No CRF is inversely correlated. Note the scale is upside down.
I assume you are referring to the Shaviv paper? (fig.3 here)
http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/1105389911/1113511992_en/
I hope he’s just mislabeled the axis, because if you’re right, then the whole theory breaks down, because increased CRF has to correlate with increased clouds in order for it to work.
This one I gave above has it right, for both solar irradiance and cosmic rays.
http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/tsi-vs-gcr-vs-clouds.jpg
Also, see figure 2, here
http://www.tau.ac.il/institutes/advanced/cosmic/Conferences/2002_COSPAR_Houston/CosmRays_WheatPrice1.pdf
The axis appears to be correctly labeled there. (note the excellent correlation over 20 years, too.)
And when TSI increases, CRF decreases, so TSI has to be inversely correlated, again otherwise none of this works. I think they would have been caught on that by now if it were the case?
Which is why all the Global Climate Models work so well? Models are fine, but depending on them to extrapolate into the unknown can be quite risky.
Besides, the Folks at CERN take the correlation seriously enough to look for the mechanism.
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf
And you don’t waste those kinds of resources looking for a mechanism for an imaginary process.
Bob Tisdale (03:10:55) :
Nice bit of work.
I.e., more worms to add to the already overflowing can?
Oh, well, I guess that’s why we’re still at it here. On the up side, one can hardly say the debate is over.
“The Nino is heating up now after being stuck in neutral for several months. The indicators are pointing to a moderate event now.”
SOI has gone firmly negative. It would appear I was quite wrong, this will be an official El Nino.
yonason (12:27:15) :
Leif Svalgaard (20:34:06) :
yonason (20:15:02) :
“But TSI is inversely correlated”
“No CRF is inversely correlated. Note the scale is upside down.”
I assume you are referring to the Shaviv paper? (fig.3 here)
http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/1105389911/1113511992_en/
Take a look at Figure 3. Note that the upper left scale is upside down [as it should be]. All I’m saying is that low CRF occurs at the same time as high TSI [and vice versa], and both could make sense. The point is that you cannot tell which one it is that is the driver, CRF or TSI, because they both correlate [sort of].
Besides, the Folks at CERN take the correlation seriously enough to look for the mechanism.
Not the folks at CERN. CERN just lists the experiments going on at their facility. Does not mean that the ‘Folks at CERN” are doing it. They are not.
Leif Svalgaard (09:51:45) :
tallbloke (09:27:27) :
how the oceans can thermally expand by 5400 cubic kilometres over ten years if they don’t retain heat
It is called Global Warming.
Thanks Leif that’s all I need to know about your thinking.
tallbloke (16:18:44) :
Thanks Leif that’s all I need to know about your thinking.
But you, again, avoiding the question [count = 4].
One way to explore the understanding of the physics is to go to extreme cases. I have already outlined one and would like to pursue that a bit more: imagine that for a million years the solar output was constant, then it suddenly increased by 1/1000, at which level it would sit for the next one million years. What would be the difference in temperature between these two epochs [e.g. just before the end of each]? Others can weigh in too.
I’m not clear on what you mean by “make sense?” In what way does TSI make as much sense that CRF?
As to CERN.
“CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) is a novel experiment at CERN conducted by an interdisciplinary team of leading scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries.“
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html
That can’t be cheap. And you don’t throw that kind of time and effort into a project unless you think it will pay off.
Here’s an interesting talk. As much of it I’ve watched so far touches on all the important stuff, though only after paying the obligatory homage to AGW.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073?ln=ru
“Estimated changes of solar irradiance [TSI] on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds.”
Anyway, from everything I read it’s cosmic rays in the lead as we round the bend, with solar irradiance taking up the rear.
If you want me to see TSI as closing ranks [i.e., “making sense” in any direct way], you have to show me, please.
yonason (18:39:45) :
I’m not clear on what you mean by “make sense?” In what way does TSI make as much sense that CRF?
Because the TSI provides a direct forcing without any intermediate process. You simply supply more heat and it makes sense that things heat up, no?
That can’t be cheap. And you don’t throw that kind of time and effort into a project unless you think it will pay off.
You’ll be amazed at what is spend on things that don’t pay off. Often it is worth spending money simply to see if it pays off.
Anyway, from everything I read it’s cosmic rays in the lead as we round the bend, with solar irradiance taking up the rear.
The point is that the cosmic rays involve a poorly understood process so there is a lot of wiggle room, while with TSI there is not.
If you want me to see TSI as closing ranks [i.e., “making sense” in any direct way], you have to show me, please.
I think that neither have any great influence. For every paper espousing cosmic rays there are papers that dispute it. In any case, the issue has become so political that the science plays second fiddle to people’s beliefs [which have been accorded religious status, c.f. another thread on this blog]. The correlations with either TSI or CRF are so weak that not much can be said with any confidence, unless you, of course, have chosen a view point ahead of time and just want confirmation; then you’ll look where you find it and ignore anything else.
Leif Svalgaard (19:04:59) :
“the issue has become so political that the science plays second fiddle to people’s beliefs”
Well, at least we have that for common ground.
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html
I’ll leave it there, and wait to see what the CLOUD expts., come up with.
yonason: You wrote, “I’ll leave it there, and wait to see what the CLOUD expts., come up with.”
Joel Norris is one of the cloud experts. In the following 2009 paper, he and Anthony Slingo explain, in great detail, the problems with cloud cover/amount data here:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/02_Norris%20and%20Slingo.pdf
With the lack of reliable data, we may have to wait a long time before the cloud experts can come up with anything worthwhile.
Leif Svalgaard (16:48:34) :
Imagine that for a million years the solar output was constant, then it suddenly increased by 1/1000, at which level it would sit for the next one million years. What would be the difference in temperature between these two epochs [e.g. just before the end of each]? Others can weigh in too.
We do have something similar with the Milankovitch Cycles.
The total global solar irradiance received over a full year goes up by 4 watts/metre2 (3/1000ths) when the Earth’s orbit is at its most circular. This only lasts for about 30,000 years but that should be close enough to a million.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations predict this would increase the Earth’s temperature by 0.207C (assuming Albedo stays the same but there should be a small impact here as well). So, overall, not much impact.
But the last time this circular orbit position was reached, the Earth was already heading into the last ice age and temperatures actually fell by about 5.0C as the peak was occuring. High latitude solar irradiance was at it lowest even though the Earth as whole was at its highest so the ice-Albedo affect overwhelmed it.
Bill Illis (06:35:28) :
We do have something similar with the Milankovitch Cycles.
No, not at all. The important thing is not the irradiance but the insolation on the Northern hemisphere in summer, and THAT varies quite a lot.
Bill Illis
But the last time this circular orbit position was reached, the Earth was already heading into the last ice age and temperatures actually fell by about 5.0C as the peak was occuring.
Interesting statement Bill, I would be be very interested to see the accomplishing data.
Geoff Sharp
Here is a chart showing the data. (There is one line missing from this chart – solar insolation at high latitudes which will have to wait till later).
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2127/last3iceages.png
We only see the data for 65N but there is a global solar irradiance value as well. From Berger and Loutre 1991 at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html
And Leif, I was attempting to back up your points. Maybe it didn’t come off right.
Bill Illis (10:00:36) :
And Leif, I was attempting to back up your points. Maybe it didn’t come off right.
Guess not. The point was that the Milankovich variations are huge compared to solar activity variations.
Leif Svalgaard (11:06:08) :
Bill Illis (10:00:36) :
And Leif, I was attempting to back up your points. Maybe it didn’t come off right.
Guess not. The point was that the Milankovich variations are huge compared to solar activity variations.
Oh I don’t know about that, the orbital parameters which affect the milankovitch cycles don’t vary much in percentage terms, whereas the heliomagnetic flux increased 40% -70% during the C20th to 1990 or so before rapidly dropping off again to 1900 levels.
Since the variation in TSI seems to have a terrestrial amplification factor of between 7-10 (Shaviv) This is not insubstantial either. Then there’s the variation in the UV which is large in percentage terms… Plenty of large solar variations we don’t yet know the effects or consequences of.