From NASA News. New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.
Scientists from NASA’s Langley Research Center and Hampton University in Hampton, Va., and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., presented these results at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco from Dec. 14 to 18.
Earth’s thermosphere and mesosphere have been the least explored regions of the atmosphere. The NASA Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) mission was developed to explore the Earth’s atmosphere above 60 km altitude and was launched in December 2001. One of four instruments on the TIMED mission, the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument, was specifically designed to measure the energy budget of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. The SABER dataset now covers eight years of data and has already provided some basic insight into the heat budget of the thermosphere on a variety of timescales.
The extent of current solar minimum conditions has created a unique situation for recent SABER datasets, explains Stan Solomon, acting director of the High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. The end of solar cycle 23 has offered an opportunity to study the radiative cooling in the thermosphere under exceptionally quiescent conditions.
“The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”
The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then. The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.
While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere cools the density will decrease, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through decreased drag over time.
The SABER dataset is the first global, long-term, and continuous record of the
Nitric oxide (NO) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the thermosphere.
“We suggest that the dataset of radiative cooling of the thermosphere by NO and CO2 constitutes a first climate data record for the thermosphere,” says Mlynczak.
The TIMED data provide a climate record for validation of upper atmosphere climate models, which is an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. SABER provides the first long-term measurements of natural variability in key terms of the upper atmosphere climate.
“A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that upper atmosphere will cool in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere,” says Mlynczak. “Scientists need to validate that theory. This climate record of the upper atmosphere is our first chance to have the other side of the equation.”
James Russell III, SABER principal investigator and co-director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at Hampton University in Hampton, Va., agrees adding, “The atmosphere is a coupled system. If you pick up one end of the stick, you automatically pick up the other – they’re intrinsically linked. To be as accurate as possible, scientists have to understand global change throughout the atmosphere.”
As the TIMED mission continues, these data derived from SABER will become important in assessing long term atmospheric changes due to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
TIMED is the first mission in the Solar Terrestrial Probes Program within the Heliophysics Division in NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
TIMED is the terrestrial anchor of the Heliophysics Great Observatory. Learn more of TIMED’s Heliophysics contributions and its role as a bridge to Earth science missions. Link to lessons learned in terrestrial aeronomy.
Stephen Wilde (09:15:03)
Thank-you for your clear answer. There are as you say heat transfer processes in both directions that are far from being well understood. Its quite exciting in a way to think that once the suffocating influence of the AGW dogma is removed or at least restricted, a new body of theory more respectful of the highly complex nature of these processes can emerge. The sun and ocean indeed are probably dominant – the heat in the troposphere is small by contrast.
BTW if you look at the global temperature record since the 70s particularly from UAH and RSS (e.g. at the http://www.climate4you site) in the 37-month averaged curve there is the appearence of regular “steps” or jumps of 7-8 years (1985-1993; 1993-2000;2000-2008). Does this relate to the “heat time constant” of the climate system? This is close to 8 years according to Nicola Scafetta 2008. Is heat added to then released from the system with a periodicity determined by this constant? Or is this pattern a coincidence?
phlogiston (10:03:10) :
BTW if you look at the global temperature record since the 70s particularly from UAH and RSS (e.g. at the http://www.climate4you site) in the 37-month averaged curve there is the appearence of regular “steps” or jumps of 7-8 years (1985-1993; 1993-2000;2000-2008). Does this relate to the “heat time constant” of the climate system? This is close to 8 years according to Nicola Scafetta 2008. Is heat added to then released from the system with a periodicity determined by this constant? Or is this pattern a coincidence?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/offset:-250/scale:0.001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/mean:37/detrend:0.6
phlogiston (10:03:10)
I can’t explain every apparent periodicity arising from the data. An 8 year ‘pulse’ could arise from a combination of solar cycle and ENSO events but that’s just a guess at present.
I’m concentrating on the biggest features and working backwards by proposing an overall scenario that fits as many observed phenomena as possible and amending it as necessary when new data comes available. The opposite approach to that involved in AGW theory. Essentially I’m doing what the established climatologists stopped doing 20 years ago when the CO2 aspect turned out to be a gold mine.
So far I’m finding that new data fits rather well so my overall approach seems to be valid.
The problem for Phil above is that the timing and scale of stratospheric cooling and warming is not well correlated to CO2 quantities so again we are forced back to a combination of solar and oceanic effects to explain such phenomena.
For example someone mentioned those rather noticeable and sudden stratospheric warming events which seem to be precursers to colder outbreaks in the higher latitudes.
My scenario would explain such events as follows:
i) A quieter sun would result in more stability in the layers of the atmosphere from stratosphere upwards and so a reduced rate of energy loss to space.
ii) A positive ocean phase would energise the hydrological cycle and push more energy into the stratosphere where it would accumulate because of the reduced rate of radiation to space.
iii) the warmer stratosphere would in turn inhibit the speed of the hydrological cycle allowing more powerful polar high pressure systems that would try to push the jets equatorward against the influence of the positive oceans trying to push them poleward.
Thus I think sudden stratospheric warming is a consequence of energy being pumped up into the stratosphere by the oceans and the energised hydrological cycle and not in itself a primary cause of anything. However a warming stratosphere will induce cooling of the air in higher latitudes because the air that went up to dump it’s energy in the stratosphere then has to descend again in high pressure cells.
tallbloke (11:07:14)
Thanks, one could have a lot of fun at this site. I had thought of the sunspot cycle with its (usually) 11 year periodicity. However both global temps and the sea surface temps, as well as troposphere above oceans, all show apparent minima at around 1985, 1993, 2000 and 2008, suggesting a cycle of just under 8 years (this made me think of the 8 year time constant of the climate system as derived by Scafetta 2008). I’m sure in reality there are a number of cyclical forcings with various periodicities all jostling for influence. Scafetta in her paper puts it very well: “it is very well known tht climate is the combination, coupling and superposition of several phenomema. some phenomena respond quickly as the atmosphere, others as the deep ocean respond very slowly”[1]. In a later paper she adds the solar influence, identifying two time responses to solar forcing with 8 and 12 year lengths [2].
Small mismatch between for instance the solar forcing and an intrinsic periodicity or timecourse of some negative feedback system for instance could cause intermittent resonance and forcing as the two move in and out of synchrony.
1. Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant and sensitivity of earth’s climate system” by Schwartz. Nicola Scafetta, Geophysical Research Letters 2008. (draft, actual reference not known)
2. Scafetta N, Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 71, Issues 17-18, December 2009, Pages 1916-1923
Stephen Wilde (11:12:52)
Referring to my reply above to tallbloke, its tempting to see your i-ii-iii sequence as corresponding to Scafetta’s time constant. A negative feedback cycle with a periodicity. However this runs into the objection that you repeatedly raise, how can the atmosphere significantly affect or “push around” the ocean. I guess if its only surface temperature then it might just be possible.
“My scenario would explain such events as follows:
i) A quieter sun would result in more stability in the layers of the atmosphere from stratosphere upwards and so a reduced rate of energy loss to space”
This reminds me nostalgically of my marine biology at University – stability in the surface water column resulting in nutrient depletion of the surface layer and a strong temperature discontinuity, with the opposite happening in the presence of mixing and energy input to the system. Returning to my earlier question, would the mechanism of reduced heat movement in a stable upper atmosphere be reduced surface area of interface (flat) for radiative exchange?
The last 20 years have indeed been disastrous for many scientific disciplines, with the tendency for herd-like stampedes after faddish buzzwords or political, commercial or other agendas, and consequent great damage to the systematic search for and custodianship of real scientific knowledge.
Oliver Ramsay: “We are not seeing warming of the troposphere in this period, as the stratosphere continues to cool. So, what theory does that validate?”.
I see this hasn’t been addressed yet.
This is a ‘tale of two cities’, or should that be ‘a tale of one city with two influences’?
In the stratosphere, ozone is undoubtedly a ‘radiative gas’ that interacts with outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) that could provide ‘added insulation’, but in the stratosphere its ‘added insulation’ factor is denied by the sparsity of mass (not enough molecules to collide with before emission is achieved). Thus, ozone aids cooling in the stratosphere by emitting OLR (though it does warm in the lower troposphere).
The other city, or influence? Oxygen is an attractor for the UV and soft X-ray component of this ionising solar insolation as the interaction causes the molecule to split into its single atom form of ozone (O). The ‘wandering’ oxygen atom often finds its way to form a loose connection with an oxygen molecule to generate the other, more stable, form of ozone, O3 (though oxides of other elements can also be formed [NOx as an example]). These processes actually ‘generate’ heat during their processing and are the main source of elevated temps in the stratosphere.
Choose which dynamic you want to be ‘first past the post’. My bet is on solar insolation of UV on oxygen. There’s more energy there.
Best regards, suricat.
phlogiston.
“i) A quieter sun would result in more stability in the layers of the atmosphere from stratosphere upwards and so a reduced rate of energy loss to space”
‘How on Earth’ can you justify this?
Best regards, suricat.
suricat (18:11:28)
The quote from phlogiston that you query comes from my earlier post and the issue is discussed by me at some length here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/The%20Missing%20Climate%20Link.pdf
Observations over time do, rather counterintuitively, suggest that an active sun gives a cooling stratosphere and a less active sun a warming stratosphere and it also seems that reversing the normally assumed sign of the solar effect (cooling of the upper air rather than warming) on the rate of energy loss to space from the atmosphere has the potential to explain a number of other observations, as I explain.
phlogiston (16:33:44) :
tallbloke (11:07:14)
Thanks, one could have a lot of fun at this site. I had thought of the sunspot cycle with its (usually) 11 year periodicity. However both global temps and the sea surface temps, as well as troposphere above oceans, all show apparent minima at around 1985, 1993, 2000 and 2008, suggesting a cycle of just under 8 years
You probably need to consider the effects of El Chichon and Pinatubo too.
By the way, Nicola Scafetta is a he not a she. 😉
Stephen Wilde.
Thanks for that. It looks promising, but I think it lacks a little depth.
For example: Ocean heat content is the mainstay for OLR rate, even if some of it ‘is’ latent (water vapour is ‘lighter than air’, so it is convected ‘invisibly’ to the TP anyhow); When you speak of “an active sun” do you mean ‘solar surface insolation’, or ‘solar activity per se’; On ‘in phase’ and ‘out of phase’ I think you begin to understand the phase lag/lead determined by the ~11 year sunspot/CME propensity and its effect on our upper/lower atmosphere (ozone generation/depletion).
All in all, we’re looking at the periodicity of an ~11 year sunspot cycle against an ~8 year Earth reaction cycle. The ‘reaction’ cycle must be the subordinate cycle, so the nearest periodicity between these two proponents will be ~’11:8′.
This not only doesn’t work out well, it also suggests that the Earth system reacts much more slowly to the solar cycle than the solar cycle alters. Thus, the subordinate Earth cycle reacts so slowly to the solar cycle that its ‘out of phase’ reaction time results in a shorter response time to the overall solar phase by responding to ‘partial phase changes’ in the solar phase.
Well, let’s look at the solar phase to start with. The ~11 year solar cycle is really only half the story (half cycle). Sol actually takes ~22 years to go through a full cycle, but each half phase is roughly the same for sunspots etc. Thus, the 11 year acceptance for a solar cycle.
If we take a full solar cycle against the ‘natural Earth cycle’ we end up with a ratio of ~’22:8′, which is pretty close to ‘3:1’. This suggests that Earth’s system slips one phase in four of the sun system’s ‘forcing’ episodes. Where is this lag caused? Is it the ocean? Is it the atmosphere (ozone alteration)? Is it both, or something completely different?
Whatever your decision, climate can change its course every three years (or so it seems) dependant on the current circumstance and recent forcings to weather for the long term.
Best regards, suricat.
sory if this is covered earlier :
in regards to the veriation in sun cycle not fiting with earth cycle has anyone looked into the planetary alinements interfearing with cosmic rays as a factor in the cycle and posible reason for the time line veriations?
tallbloke (02:14:33)
Thanks, should have suspected this. I know an Australian-Italian professor (male) also called Nicola, we all call him Nick.
suricat (20:14:27)
By ‘solar activity’ I mean solar turbulence as observed in the form of sunspots and flares. I tend to downgrade the short term cycle to cycle variation in total solar insolation because the amount of variation from the peak to trough of each cycle is so small as per Svalgaard, Lean and others. However over 500 years or so from, say, Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age the total insolation would become more significant but even then the effect of variations in solar turbulence would appear to be far greater.
The SABER satellite is showing us that substantial solar induced changes in the thermosphere occur and Leif concedes that but departs from me in considering whether that could have an effect on climate in the troposphere.
As has been pointed by someone else out I do not accept that changes in the upper atmosphere could be transmitted downward to affect the oceans. The oceans are in supreme control of energy transfers up to and into the stratosphere.
I do though believe that from the top of the stratosphere upwards the solar effects would be in control not directly but by influencing the rate at which upward energy transfers can occur from one layer to another upwards from the top of the stratosphere to space.
That upper level rate of energy transfer could be affected by variations in solar turbulence by altering the surface areas of the boundaries between each layer in the upper atmosphere.
So that is my current view as to what is going on as regards the main variable components of the Earth’s energy budget as a whole and that explains a lot of real world observations as per my article that I linked you to.
I am not yet sufficiently advanced with that concept to extend it to all the apparent correlations which affect the different components of the system on shorter timescales i.e. less than one full 22 year solar cycle.
Nor am I yet in a position to be specific about how or why oceanic rates of energy release vary as they do. I think Vincent Grey and Bob Tisdale and others are on the right track there.
The ‘phases’ I refer to can operate on several different timescales as follows:
i) ENSO interannual variability equates to variations in solar surface turbulence from year to year.
ii) PDO variability equates to such solar variability over 2-4 decades.
iii) The oceanic (I think) variability from MWP to LIA to what may be a recent peak of warming equates to the solar variability we have observed from the Maunder Minimum to the Modern Maximum.
Now the point I am driven to in order to make all this fit to the observed phenomena (including the difference in the scale of climate swings from glacial to interglacial) is that we are currently in a 10,000 or so year interlude when solar and oceanic effects are in phase. By ‘in phase’ I mean that low solar activity tends to coincide with periods of low rates of energy transfer from oceans to air.
By reversing the sign of the solar effect (quiet sun means less, not more, energy loss to space) that means that when sun and oceans are in phase they offset one another and reduce the size of the climate swings that can occur.
When oceans are causing the troposphere to warm then generally a more active sun is cooling the stratosphere thus allowing faster energy transfer into the stratosphere (thence to space) and mitigating the ocean warming effect. When oceans are cooling the troposphere then generally a less active sun is warming the stratosphere thus reducing energy loss from troposphere to stratosphere and mitigating the ocean cooling effect.
Leif previously mentioned that in his view the timing of the inactive sun with the coolness (presumably ocean induced coolness) of the LIA is coincidence and not cause and effect. At the moment I am going along with that because if the solar and oceanic cycles can go out of phase then we have a means by which they can then start supplementing each other rather than offsetting each other thus giving rise to the huge and violent climate swings of glacial epochs.
That deals reasonably well with medium and long term climate variability.
As regards shorter term variability I have been getting some predictive success by reviewing the interaction between and the timing of the current level of solar surface turbulence and oceanic ENSO phase. That seems to work on a seasonal basis but not on a month to month basis where the background chaotic behaviour of day to day weather starts to dominate and hides the background signal.
Having put all that together I am actively looking for an observed phenomenon that does not fit because if there is even one then either my scenario needs to be extended or in extremis it might need to be abandoned.
If we have a quiet sun does this mean we have increased comic rays bombaring our oceans?
Would this increacing there temerature?
Stephen Wilde.
I think I pretty much understand what you say and I only hope that my gobbledegook can be understood. I’m no scientist.
Granted that greater temperature difference encourages an increase in radiated energy, but OLR still encounters an identical total mass on its way to space when the upper atmosphere contracts and the GHE (greenhouse effect) is dependant ‘mostly’ on total column mass. Does OLR really undergo alteration and make that much difference to the upper atmosphere? I don’t believe it does, otherwise the upper atmosphere wouldn’t contract so much when it encounters reduced ionising radiation levels from Sol. In fact, I believe that this phenomenon has little impact on OLR.
With all due respect Stephen, you would be well advised to take a look at the processes that regulate solar insolation at the other end of ‘the budget’ before committing yourself solely to OLR for changes. I realise that you take sunspot activity into account, but there is greater definition than this which involves ‘changing’ attractors in the stratosphere that affect surface insolation (and deep ocean energy).
For example: “By ‘in phase’ I mean that low solar activity tends to coincide with periods of low rates of energy transfer from oceans to air”. Why? Well UV will penetrate down to 700m of pure water, or ice, but the vis spectrum is < a 10th of this and IR (including IR 'back radiation') has only a few metres of penetration. Water doesn't interact well with UV, but it does absorb energy from it because UV does achieve extinction here. Thus, water does attenuate UV, but isn't ionised, so it's a thermal attractor. Moreover, it forms part of the attractor for deep ocean energy increase due to the length of UV's 'survival to extinction' in water. I hope this establishes UV as a major contributor to deep ocean energy and temps!
Wouldn't it now be a good idea to look into the processes that can increase, or reduce, the effects of solar insolation to deep ocean (etc.) that affects the OLR process?
Best regards, suricat.
suricat (17:02:17)
I think I have dealt with ‘the other end’ by noting that the oceans do vary in the rate at which they release energy to the air above and also that although the sun and oceans tend to be ‘in phase’ during the current interglacial they need not be in phase at all times and their becoming out of phase (so that they then supplement each other) could explain the extreme climate swings during glaciations.
I am only proposing a significant solar effect on OLR from the top of the stratosphere upwards. I accept that the total column mass remains the same but what I have suggested is turbulence at the layer boundaries increasing the surface areas at those boundaries and thereby changing the rate of energy flow through the boundary. If there is a sound rebuttal for that proposition I would like to hear it.
We know that OLR changes in response to solar surface turbulence such as solar flares from the SABER measurements. The issue is to ascertain why and how and whether the changing rates of energy transfer between layers can affect the energy content of the layers above and below.
It seems logical to me that if energy stays longer in the stratosphere then the flow of energy to the layers above will be reduced and those higher layers will then cool as has been observed.
Indeed AGW theory itself says that CO2 causes energy to stay longer in the troposphere thus cooling the stratosphere so the general principle is accepted. What I am saying is that CO2 need not be a significant factor because the combined effects of ocean variability from below and solar variability from above seem to be having just that effect on the different layers of the upper atmosphere on a far greater scale than anything that CO2 variations could achieve.
Stephen Wilde (08:29:37)
While I respect your POV there is a common denominator here that can also be ‘in, or out, of phase’ with both solar insolation and OLR. I think that ozone fits this particular category.
If you look at the ozonosphere (placed low in the ionosphere and high in the stratosphere) you can see that a propensity of ozone both reduces the insolation of UV to Earth’s surface as it also reduces the penetration of OLR to space when ozone levels are high. The inverse is also true. I would consider this a stabilising factor. Would you?
If you concur, any ‘phase change’ that may be apparent between insolation and OLR can only be due to the time scale invoked between insolation and the reactionary atmospheric response.
Best regards, suricat. (BTW, happy new year)
suricat (17:41:55)
Yes, I’m aware of the opinion of various posters here concerning the power of ozone reactions to affect temperatures.
However so far I’ve been unable to attribute a primary function to it in the face of the power of solar and oceanic forcings.
I see it as comparable to the cosmic ray issue, an undoubted influence but not paramount in driving or initiating global temperature trends in the face of solar and oceanic.
If you could have a go at persuading me to the contrary then I would reconsider.
Stephen Wilde.
There is no way that I’d presume to make your mind up. This is your responsibility.
If I had my data at my fingertips then I’d offer it. However, since my mother (97 YOA) broke her pelvis last year I’ve been a carer 24-7 for just over a year now. If you’ve done this then you’ll know that it’s ‘tough’, but for me there are also added complications (sod’s law).
There’s an online ‘bible’ of UV on the net, but I can’t link to it without booting my local network at home (I’ve only got my laptop at mum’s just now). If you can find this it gives a good grounding and insight.
Can someone please give a link to this online ‘UV bible’?
Let’s just see if the ‘bible’ materialises before we go any further.
Best regards, suricat.
[REPLY – Gosh, yes, it’s tough. I cared for my father for his last four years, after he broke his hip. Best of luck to you and yours. Hang in there. All caretakers have a common bond. ~ Evan]