The problem with existing climate models:
Guest post by Stephen Wilde
Even those who aver that man’s activity affects climate on a global scale rather than just locally or regionally appear to accept that the existing climate models are incomplete. It is a given that the existing models do not fully incorporate data or mechanisms involving cloudiness or global albedo (reflectivity) variations or variations in the speed of the hydrological cycle and that the variability in the temperatures of the ocean surfaces and the overall ocean energy content are barely understood and wholly inadequately quantified in the infant attempts at coupled ocean/atmosphere models. Furthermore the effect of variability in solar activity on climate is barely understood and similarly unquantified.
As they stand at present the models assume a generally static global energy budget with relatively little internal system variability so that measurable changes in the various input and output components can only occur from external forcing agents such as changes in the CO2 content of the air caused by human emissions or perhaps temporary after effects from volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes or significant changes in solar power output.
If such simple models are to have any practical utility it is necessary to demonstrate that some predictive skill is a demonstrable outcome of the models. Unfortunately it is apparent that there is no predictive skill whatever despite huge advances in processing power and the application of millions or even billions of man hours from reputable and experienced scientists over many decades.
As I will show later on virtually all climate variability is a result of internal system variability and additionally the system not only sets up a large amount of variability internally but also provides mechanisms to limit and then reduce that internal variability. It must be so or we would not still have liquid oceans. The current models neither recognise the presence of that internal system variability nor the processes that ultimately stabilise it.
The general approach is currently to describe the climate system from ‘the bottom up’ by accumulating vast amounts of data, observing how the data has changed over time, attributing a weighting to each piece or class of data and extrapolating forward. When the real world outturn then differs from what was expected then adjustments are made to bring the models back into line with reality. This method is known as ‘hindcasting’.
Although that approach has been used for decades no predictive skill has ever emerged. Every time the models have been adjusted using guesswork (or informed judgment as some would say) to bring them back into line with ongoing real world observations a new divergence between model expectations and real world events has begun to develop.
It is now some years since the weighting attached to the influence of CO2 was adjusted to remove a developing discrepancy between the real world warming that was occurring at the time and which had not been fully accounted for in the then climate models. Since that time a new divergence began and is now becoming embarrassingly large for those who made that adjustment. At the very least the weighting given to the effect of more CO2 in the air was excessive.
The problem is directly analogous to a financial accounting system that balances but only because it contains multiple compensating errors. The fact that it balances is a mere mirage. The accounts are still incorrect and woe betide anyone who relies upon them for the purpose of making useful commercial decisions.
Correcting multiple compensating errors either in a climate model or in a financial accounting system cannot be done by guesswork because there is no way of knowing whether the guess is reducing or compounding the underlying errors that remain despite the apparent balancing of the financial (or in the case of the climate the global energy) budget.
The system being used by the entire climatological establishment is fundamentally flawed and must not be relied upon as a basis for policy decisions of any kind.
A better approach:
We know a lot about the basic laws of physics as they affect our day to day existence and we have increasingly detailed data about past and present climate behaviour.
We need a New Climate Model (from now on referred to as NCM) that is created from ‘the top down’ by looking at the climate phenomena that actually occur and using deductive reasoning to decide what mechanisms would be required for those phenomena to occur without offending the basic laws of physics.
We have to start with the broad concepts first and use the detailed data as a guide only. If a broad concept matches the reality then the detailed data will fall into place even if the broad concept needs to be refined in the process. If the broad concept does not match the reality then it must be abandoned but by adopting this process we always start with a broad concept that obviously does match the reality so by adopting a step by step process of observation, logic, elimination and refinement a serviceable NCM with some predictive skill should emerge and the more detailed the model that is built up the more predictive skill will be acquired.
That is exactly what I have been doing step by step in my articles here:
for some two years now and I believe that I have met with a degree of success because many climate phenomena that I had not initially considered in detail seem to be falling into line with the NCM that I have been constructing.
In the process I have found it necessary to propound various novel propositions that have confused and irritated warming proponents and sceptics alike but that is inevitable if one just follows the logic without a preconceived agenda which I hope is what I have done.
I will now go on to describe the NCM as simply as I can in verbal terms, then I will elaborate on some of the novel propositions (my apologies if any of them have already been propounded elsewhere by others but I think I would still be the first to pull them all together into a plausible NCM) and I will include a discussion of some aspects of the NCM which I find encouraging.
Preliminary points:
- Firstly we must abandon the idea that variations in total solar output have a significant effect over periods of time relevant to human existence. At this point I should mention the ‘faint sun paradox’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Despite a substantial increase in the power of the sun over billions of years the temperature of the Earth has remained remarkably stable. My proposition is that the reason for that is the existence of water in liquid form in the oceans combined with a relatively stable total atmospheric density. If the power input from the sun changes then the effect is simply to speed up or slow down the hydrological cycle.
An appropriate analogy is a pan of boiling water. However much the power input increases the boiling point remains at 100C. The speed of boiling however does change in response to the level of power input. The boiling point only changes if the density of the air above and thus the pressure on the water surface changes. In the case of the Earth’s atmosphere a change in solar input is met with a change in evaporation rates and thus the speed of the whole hydrological cycle keeping the overall temperature stable despite a change in solar power input.
A change in the speed of the entire hydrological cycle does have a climate effect but as we shall see on timescales relevant to human existence it is too small to measure in the face of internal system variability from other causes.
Unless more CO2 could increase total atmospheric density it could not have a significant effect on global tropospheric temperature. Instead the speed of the hydrological cycle changes to a minuscule and unmeasurable extent in order to maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium. As I have explained previously a change limited to the air alone short of an increase in total atmospheric density and pressure is incapable of altering that underlying equilibrium.
2. Secondly we must realise that the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole is largely irrelevant to what we perceive as climate. In any event those changes in the temperature of the Earth as a whole are tiny as a result of the rapid modulating effect of changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle and the speed of the flow of radiated energy to space that always seeks to match the energy value of the whole spectrum of energy coming in from the sun.
The climate in the troposphere is a reflection of the current distribution of energy within the Earth system as a whole and internally the system is far more complex than any current models acknowledge.
That distribution of energy can be uneven horizontally and vertically throughout the ocean depths, the troposphere and the upper atmosphere and furthermore the distribution changes over time.
We see ocean energy content increase or decrease as tropospheric energy content decreases or increases. We see the stratosphere warm as the troposphere cools and cool as the troposphere warms. We see the upper levels of the atmosphere warm as the stratosphere cools and vice versa. We see the polar surface regions warm as the mid latitudes cool or the tropics warm as the poles cool and so on and so forth in infinite permutations of timing and scale.
As I have said elsewhere:
“It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of energy transfer varies all the time between ocean and air, air and space and between different layers in the oceans and air. The troposphere can best be regarded as a sandwich filling between the oceans below and the stratosphere above. The temperature of the troposphere is constantly being affected by variations in the rate of energy flow from the oceans driven by internal ocean variability, possibly caused by temperature fluctuations along the horizontal route of the thermohaline circulation and by variations in energy flow from the sun that affect the size of the atmosphere and the rate of energy loss to space.
The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy differentials above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?).
Additionally my propositions provide the physical mechanisms accounting for the mathematics of Dr. F. Miskolczi..”
He appears to have demonstrated mathematically that if greenhouse gases in the air other than water vapour increase then the amount of water vapour declines so as to maintain an optimum optical depth for the atmosphere which modulates the energy flow to maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium. In other words the hydrological cycle speeds up or slows down just as I have always proposed.
3. In my articles to date I have been unwilling to claim anything as grand as the creation of a new model of climate because until now I was unable to propose any solar mechanism that could result directly in global albedo changes without some other forcing agent or that could account for a direct solar cause of discontinuities in the temperature profile along the horizontal line of the oceanic thermohaline circulation.
I have now realised that the global albedo changes necessary and the changes in solar energy input to the oceans can be explained by the latitudinal shifts (beyond normal seasonal variation) of all the air circulation systems and in particular the net latitudinal positions of the three main cloud bands namely the two generated by the mid latitude jet streams plus the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).
The secret lies in the declining angle of incidence of solar energy input from equator to poles.
It is apparent that the same size and density of cloud mass moved, say, 1000 miles nearer to the equator will have the following effects:
-
It will receive more intense irradiation from the sun and so will reflect more energy to space.
-
It will reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface compared to what it would have let in if situated more poleward.
-
In the northern hemisphere due to the current land/sea distribution the more equatorward the cloud moves the more ocean surface it will cover thus reducing total solar input to the oceans and reducing the rate of accretion to ocean energy content
-
It will produce cooling rains over a larger area of ocean surface.
As a rule the ITCZ is usually situated north of the equator because most ocean is in the southern hemisphere and it is ocean temperatures that dictate it’s position by governing the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air. Thus if the two mid latitude jets move equatorward at the same time as the ITCZ moves closer to the equator the combined effect on global albedo and the amount of solar energy able to penetrate the oceans will be substantial and would dwarf the other proposed effects on albedo from changes in cosmic ray intensity generating changes in cloud totals as per Svensmark and from suggested changes caused in upper cloud quantities by changes in atmospheric chemistry involving ozone which various other climate sceptics propose.
Thus the following NCM will incorporate my above described positional cause of changes in albedo and rates of energy input to the oceans rather than any of the other proposals. That then leads to a rather neat solution to the other theories’ problems with the timing of the various cycles as becomes clear below.
4. I have previously described why the solar effect on climate is not as generally thought but for convenience I will summarise the issue here because it will help readers to follow the logic of the NCM.Variations in total solar power output on timescales relevant to human existence are tiny and are generally countered by a miniscule change in the speed of the hydrological cycle as described above.
However according to our satellites variations in the turbulence of the solar energy output from sunspots and solar flares appear to have significant effects.
During periods of an active solar surface our atmosphere expands and during periods of inactive sun it contracts.
When the atmosphere expands it does so in three dimensions around the entire circumference of the planet but the number of molecules in the atmosphere remains the same with the result that there is an average reduced density per unit of volume with more space between the molecules. Consequently the atmosphere presents a reduced resistance to outgoing longwave energy photons that experience a reduced frequency of being obstructed by molecules in the atmosphere.
Additionally a turbulent solar energy flow disturbs the boundaries of the layers in the upper atmosphere thus increasing their surface areas allowing more energy to be transferred from layer to layer just as wind on water causes waves, an increased sea surface area and faster evaporation.
The changes in the rate of outgoing energy flow caused by changes in solar surface turbulence may be small but they appear to be enough to affect the air circulation systems and thereby influence the overall global energy budget disproportionately to the tiny variations in solar power intensity.
Thus when the sun is more active far from warming the planet the sun is facilitating an increased rate of cooling of the planet. That is why the stratosphere cooled during the late 20th Century period of a highly active sun although the higher levels of the atmosphere warmed. The higher levels were warmed by direct solar impacts but the stratosphere cooled because energy was going up faster than it was being received from the troposphere below.
The opposite occurs for a period of inactive sun.
Some do say that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere makes no difference to the speed of the outward flow of longwave energy because that outgoing energy still has to negotiate the same mass but that makes no sense to me if that mass is more widely distributed over a three dimensional rather than two dimensional space. If one has a fine fabric container holding a body of liquid the speed at which the liquid escapes will increase if the fabric is stretched to a larger size because the space between the fibres will increase.
Furthermore all that the NCM requires is for the stratosphere alone to lose or gain energy faster or slower so as to influence the tropospheric polar air pressure cells. The energy does not need to actually escape to space to have the required effect. It could just as well simply take a little longer or a little less long to traverse the expanded or contracted upper atmospheric layers.
The New Climate Model (NCM)
- Solar surface turbulence increases causing an expansion of the Earth’s atmosphere.
- Resistance to outgoing longwave radiation reduces, energy is lost to space faster.
- The stratosphere cools. Possibly also the number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere increases due to the increased solar effects with faster destruction of ozone.
- The tropopause rises.
- There is less resistance to energy flowing up from the troposphere so the polar high pressure systems shrink and weaken accompanied by increasingly positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
- The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move poleward and the ITCZ moves further north of the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle increases due to the cooler stratosphere increasing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.
- The main cloud bands move more poleward to regions where solar insolation is less intense so total global albedo decreases.
- More solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as more ocean surfaces north of the equator are exposed to the sun by the movement of the clouds to cover more continental regions.
- Less rain falls on ocean surfaces allowing them to warm more.
- Ocean energy input increases but not all is returned to the air. A portion enters the thermohaline circulation to embark on a journey of 1000 to 1500 years. A pulse of slightly warmer water has entered the ocean circulation.
- Solar surface turbulence passes its peak and the Earth’s atmosphere starts to contract.
- Resistance to outgoing longwave radiation increases, energy is lost to space more slowly.
- The stratosphere warms. Ozone levels start to recover.
- The tropopause falls
- There is increased resistance to energy flowing up from the troposphere so the polar high pressure systems expand and intensify producing increasingly negative Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
- The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move back equatorward and the ITCZ moves nearer the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle decreases due to the warming stratosphere reducing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.
- The main cloud bands move more equatorward to regions where solar insolation is more intense so total global albedo increases once more.
- Less solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as less ocean surfaces north of the equator are exposed to the sun by the movement of the clouds to cover more oceanic regions.
- More rain falls on ocean surfaces further cooling them.
- Ocean energy input decreases and the amount of energy entering the thermohaline circulation declines sending a pulse of slightly cooler water on that 1000 to 1500 year journey.
- After 1000 to 1500 years those variations in energy flowing through the thermohaline circulation return to the surface by influencing the size and intensity of the ocean surface temperature oscillations that have now been noted around the world in all the main ocean basins and in particular the Pacific and the Atlantic. It is likely that the current powerful run of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillations is the pulse of warmth from the Mediaeval Warm Period returning to the surface with the consequent inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 as that warmer water fails to take up as much CO2 by absorption. Cooler water absorbs more CO2, warmer water absorbs less CO2. We have the arrival of the cool pulse from the Little Ice Age to look forward to and the scale of its effect will depend upon the level of solar surface activity at the time. A quiet sun would be helpful otherwise the rate of tropospheric cooling as an active sun throws energy into space at the same time as the oceans deny energy to the air will be fearful indeed. Fortunately the level of solar activity does seem to have begun a decline from recent peaks.
- The length of the thermohaline circulation is not synchronous with the length of the variations in solar surface turbulence so it is very much a lottery as to whether a returning warm or cool pulse will encounter an active or inactive sun.
- A returning warm pulse will try to expand the tropical air masses as more energy is released and will try to push the air circulation systems poleward against whatever resistance is being supplied at the time by the then level of solar surface turbulence. A returning cool pulse will present less opposition to solar effects.
- Climate is simply a product of the current balance in the troposphere between the solar and oceanic effects on the positions and intensities of all the global air circulation systems
- The timing of the solar cycles and ocean cycles will drift relative to one another due to their asynchronicity so there will be periods when solar and ocean cycles supplement one another in transferring energy out to space and other periods when they will offset one another.
26) During the current interglacial the solar and oceanic cycles are broadly offsetting one another to reduce overall climate variability but during glacial epochs they broadly supplement one another to produce much larger climate swings. The active sun during the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period and the quiet sun during the Little Ice Age reduced the size of the climate swings that would otherwise have occurred. During the former two periods the extra energy from a warm ocean pulse was ejected quickly to space by an active sun to reduce tropospheric heating. During the latter period the effect on tropospheric temperatures of reduced energy from a cool ocean pulse was mitigated by slower ejection of energy to space from a less active sun.
Discussion points:
Falsification:
Every serious hypothesis must be capable of being proved false. In the case of this NCM my narrative is replete with opportunities for falsification if the future real world observations diverge from the pattern of cause and effect that I have set out.
However that narrative is based on what we have actually observed over a period of 1000 years with the gaps filled in by deduction informed by known laws of physics.
At the moment I am not aware of any observed climate phenomena that would effect falsification. If there be any that suggest such a thing then I suspect that they will call for refinement of the NCM rather than abandonment.
For true falsification we would need to observe events such as the mid latitude jets moving poleward during a cooling oceanic phase and a period of quiet sun or the ITCZ moving northward whilst the two jets moved equatorward or the stratosphere, troposphere and upper atmosphere all warming or cooling in tandem or perhaps an unusually powerful Arctic Oscillation throughout a period of high solar turbulence and a warming ocean phase.
They say nothing is impossible so we will have to wait and see.
Predictive skill:
To be taken seriously the NCM must be seen to show more predictive skill than the current computer based models.
In theory that shouldn’t be difficult because their level of success is currently zero.
From a reading of my narrative it is readily apparent that if the NCM matches reality then lots of predictions can be made. They may not be precise in terms of scale or timing but they are nevertheless useful in identifying where we are in the overall scheme of things and the most likely direction of future trend.
For example if the mid latitude jets stay where they now are then a developing cooling trend can be expected.
If the jets move poleward for any length of time then a warming trend may be returning.
If the solar surface becomes more active then we should see a reduction in the intensity of the Arctic Oscillation.
If the current El Nino fades to a La Nina then the northern winter snows should not be as intense next winter but it will nevertheless be another cold though drier northern hemisphere winter as the La Nina denies energy to the air.
The past winter is a prime example of what the NCM suggests for a northern winter with an El Nino during a period of quiet sun. The warmth from the oceans pumps energy upwards but the quiet sun prevents the poleward movement of the jets. The result is warming of the tropics and of the highest latitudes (but the latter stay below the freezing point of water) and a flow of cold into the mid latitudes and more precipitation in the form of snow at lower latitudes than normal.
So I suggest that a degree of predictive skill is already apparent for my NCM.
Likely 21st Century climate trend:
There are 3 issues to be resolved for a judgement on this question.
i) We need to know whether the Modern Warm Period has peaked or not. It seems that the recent peak late 20th Century has passed but at a level of temperature lower than seen during the Mediaeval Warm Period. Greenland is not yet as habitable as when the Vikings first colonised it. Furthermore it is not yet 1000 years since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period which lasted from about 950 to 1250 AD
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered
so I suspect that the Mediaeval warmth now emanating from the oceans may well warm the troposphere a little more during future years of warm oceanic oscillations. I would also expect the CO2 levels to continue drifting up until a while after the Mediaeval Warm Period water surface warming peak has begun it’s decline. That may still be some time away, perhaps a century or two.
ii) We need to know where we are in the solar cycles. The highest peak of solar activity in recorded history occurred during the late 20th Century but we don’t really know how active the sun became during the Mediaeval Warm Period. There are calculations from isotope proxies but the accuracy of proxies is in the doghouse since Climategate and the hockey stick farrago. However the current solar quiescence suggests that the peak of recent solar activity is now over.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
iii) Then we need to know where we stand in relation to the other shorter term cycles of sun and oceans.
Each varies on at least two other timescales. The level of solar activity varies during each cycle and over a run of cycles. The rate of energy release from the oceans varies from each El Nino to the following La Nina and back again over several years and the entire Pacific Decadal Oscillation alters the rate of energy release to the air every 25 to 30 years or so.
All those cycles vary in timing and intensity and interact with each other and are then superimposed on the longer term cycling that forms the basis of this article.
Then we have the chaotic variability of weather superimposed on the whole caboodle.
We simply do not have the data to resolve all those issues so all I can do is hazard a guess based on my personal judgement. On that basis I think we will see cooling for a couple of decades due to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has just begun then at least one more 20 to 30 year phase of natural warming before we start the true decline as the cooler thermohaline waters from the Little Ice Age come back to the surface.
If we get a peak of active sun at the same time as the worst of the cooling from the Little Ice Age comes through the oceanic system then that may be the start of a more rapid ending of the current interglacial but that is 500 years hence by which time we will have solved our energy problems or will have destroyed our civilisation.
Other climate theories:
Following the implosion of the CO2 based theory there are lots of other good ideas going around and much effort being expended by many individuals on different aspects of the climate system.
All I would suggest at the moment is that there is room in my NCM for any of those theories that demonstrate a specific climate response from sources other than sun and oceans.
All I contend is that sun and oceans together with the variable speed of the hydrological cycle assisted by the latitudinal movements of the air circulation systems and the vertical movement of the tropopause overwhelmingly provide the background trend and combine to prevent changes in the air alone changing the Earth’s equilibrium temperature.
For example:
Orbital changes feed into the insolation and albedo effects caused by moveable cloud masses.
Asteroid strikes and volcanoes feed into the atmospheric density issue.
Changing length of day and external gravitational forces feed into the speed of the thermohaline circulation.
Geothermal energy feeds into temperatures along the horizontal path of the thermohaline circulation.
Cosmic ray variations and ozone chemistry feed into the albedo changes.
The NCM can account for all past climate variability, can give general guidance as to future trends and can accommodate all manner of supplementary climate theories provided their real world influence can be demonstrated.
I humbly submit that all this is an improvement on existing modelling techniques and deserves fuller and more detailed consideration and investigation.
Novel propositions:
I think it helpful to set out here some of the novel propositions that I have had to formulate in order to obtain a climate description that complies both with observations and with basic laws of physics. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Other new propositions may be apparent from the content and/or context of my various articles
i) Earth’s temperature is determined primarily by the oceans and not by the air (The Hot Water Bottle Effect). The contribution of the Greenhouse effect is miniscule.
ii) Changes in the air alone cannot affect the global equilibrium temperature because of oceanic dominance that always seeks to maintain sea surface and surface air equilibrium whatever the air tries to do. Warm air cannot significantly affect the oceans due to the huge difference in thermal capacities and by the effect of evaporation which removes unwanted energy to latent form as necessary to maintain the said equilibrium.
iii) Counterintuitively an active sun means cooling not warming and vice versa.
iv) The net global oceanic rate of energy release to the air is what matters with regard to the oceanic effect on the latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems and the associated cloud bands. All the oceanic oscillations affecting the rates of energy release to the air operate on different timescales and different magnitudes as energy progresses through the system via surface currents (not the thermohaline circulation which is entirely separate).
v) More CO2 ought theoretically induce faster cooling of the oceans by increasing evaporation rates. Extra CO2 molecules simply send more infra red radiation back down to the surface but infra red cannot penetrate deeper than the region of ocean surface involved in evaporation and since evaporation has a net cooling effect due to the removal of energy as latent heat the net effect should be increased cooling and not warming of the oceans.
vi) The latitudinal position of the air circulation systems at any given moment indicates the current tropospheric temperature trend whether warming or cooling and their movement reveals any change in trend
vii) All the various climate phenomena in the troposphere serve to balance energy budget changes caused by atmospheric effects from solar turbulence changes on the air above which affect the rate of energy loss to space or from variable rates of energy release from the oceans below.
viii) The speed of the hydrological cycle globally is the main thermostat in the troposphere. Changes in its speed are achieved by latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems and by changes in the height of the tropopause.
ix) The difference between ice ages and interglacials is a matter of the timing of solar and oceanic cycles. Interglacials only occur when the solar and oceanic cycles are offsetting one another to a sufficient degree to minimise the scale of climate variability thereby preventing winter snowfall on the northern continents from being sufficient to last through the following summer.
x) Landmass distribution dictates the relative lengths of glacials and interglacials. The predominance of landmasses in the northern hemisphere causes glaciations to predominate over interglacials by about 9 to 1 with a full cycle every 100, 000 years helped along by the orbital changes of the Milankovitch cycles that affect the pattern of insolation on those shifting cloud masses.
xi) Distribution of energy within the entire system is more significant for climate (which is limited to the troposphere) than the actual temperature of the entire Earth. The latter varies hardly at all.
xii) All regional climate changes are a result of movement in relation to the locally dominant air circulation systems which move cyclically poleward and equatorward.
xiii) Albedo changes are primarily a consequence of latitudinal movement of the clouds beyond normal seasonal variability.
ix) The faint sun paradox is explained by the effectiveness of changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle. Only if the oceans freeze across their entire surfaces thereby causing the hydrological cycle to cease or if the sun puts in energy faster than it can be pumped upward by the hydrological cycle will the basic temperature equilibrium derived from the properties of water and the density and pressure of the atmosphere fail to be maintained.
A New And Effective Climate Model
The problem with existing climate models:
Even those who aver that man’s activity affects climate on a global scale rather than just locally or regionally appear to accept that the existing climate models are incomplete. It is a given that the existing models do not fully incorporate data or mechanisms involving cloudiness or global albedo (reflectivity) variations or variations in the speed of the hydrological cycle and that the variability in the temperatures of the ocean surfaces and the overall ocean energy content are barely understood and wholly inadequately quantified in the infant attempts at coupled ocean/atmosphere models. Furthermore the effect of variability in solar activity on climate is barely understood and similarly unquantified.
As they stand at present the models assume a generally static global energy budget with relatively little internal system variability so that measurable changes in the various input and output components can only occur from external forcing agents such as changes in the CO2 content of the air caused by human emissions or perhaps temporary after effects from volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes or significant changes in solar power output.
If such simple models are to have any practical utility it is necessary to demonstrate that some predictive skill is a demonstrable outcome of the models. Unfortunately it is apparent that there is no predictive skill whatever despite huge advances in processing power and the application of millions or even billions of man hours from reputable and experienced scientists over many decades.
As I will show later on virtually all climate variability is a result of internal system variability and additionally the system not only sets up a large amount of variability internally but also provides mechanisms to limit and then reduce that internal variability. It must be so or we would not still have liquid oceans. The current models neither recognise the presence of that internal system variability nor the processes that ultimately stabilise it.
The general approach is currently to describe the climate system from ‘the bottom up’ by accumulating vast amounts of data, observing how the data has changed over time, attributing a weighting to each piece or class of data and extrapolating forward. When the real world outturn then differs from what was expected then adjustments are made to bring the models back into line with reality. This method is known as ‘hindcasting’.
Although that approach has been used for decades no predictive skill has ever emerged. Every time the models have been adjusted using guesswork (or informed judgement as some would say) to bring them back into line with ongoing real world observations a new divergence between model expectations and real world events has begun to develop.
It is now some years since the weighting attached to the influence of CO2 was adjusted to remove a developing discrepancy between the real world warming that was occurring at the time and which had not been fully accounted for in the then climate models. Since that time a new divergence began and is now becoming embarrassingly large for those who made that adjustment. At the very least the weighting given to the effect of more CO2 in the air was excessive.
The problem is directly analogous to a financial accounting system that balances but only because it contains multiple compensating errors. The fact that it balances is a mere mirage. The accounts are still incorrect and woe betide anyone who relies upon them for the purpose of making useful commercial decisions.
Correcting multiple compensating errors either in a climate model or in a financial accounting system cannot be done by guesswork because there is no way of knowing whether the guess is reducing or compounding the underlying errors that remain despite the apparent balancing of the financial (or in the case of the climate the global energy) budget.
The system being used by the entire climatological establishment is fundamentally flawed and must not be relied upon as a basis for policy decisions of any kind.
A better approach:
We know a lot about the basic laws of physics as they affect our day to day existence and we have increasingly detailed data about past and present climate behaviour.
We need a New Climate Model (from now on referred to as NCM) that is created from ‘the top down’ by looking at the climate phenomena that actually occur and using deductive reasoning to decide what mechanisms would be required for those phenomena to occur without offending the basic laws of physics.
We have to start with the broad concepts first and use the detailed data as a guide only. If a broad concept matches the reality then the detailed data will fall into place even if the broad concept needs to be refined in the process. If the broad concept does not match the reality then it must be abandoned but by adopting this process we always start with a broad concept that obviously does match the reality so by adopting a step by step process of observation, logic, elimination and refinement a serviceable NCM with some predictive skill should emerge and the more detailed the model that is built up the more predictive skill will be acquired.
That is exactly what I have been doing step by step in my articles here:
for some two years now and I believe that I have met with a degree of success because many climate phenomena that I had not initially considered in detail seem to be falling into line with the NCM that I have been constructing.
In the process I have found it necessary to propound various novel propositions that have confused and irritated warming proponents and sceptics alike but that is inevitable if one just follows the logic without a preconceived agenda which I hope is what I have done.
I will now go on to describe the NCM as simply as I can in verbal terms, then I will elaborate on some of the novel propositions (my apologies if any of them have already been propounded elsewhere by others but I think I would still be the first to pull them all together into a plausible NCM) and I will include a discussion of some aspects of the NCM which I find encouraging.
Preliminary points:
-
Firstly we must abandon the idea that variations in total solar output have a significant effect over periods of time relevant to human existence. At this point I should mention the ‘faint sun paradox’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Despite a substantial increase in the power of the sun over billions of years the temperature of the Earth has remained remarkably stable. My proposition is that the reason for that is the existence of water in liquid form in the oceans combined with a relatively stable total atmospheric density. If the power input from the sun changes then the effect is simply to speed up or slow down the hydrological cycle.
An appropriate analogy is a pan of boiling water. However much the power input increases the boiling point remains at 100C. The speed of boiling however does change in response to the level of power input. The boiling point only changes if the density of the air above and thus the pressure on the water surface changes. In the case of the Earth’s atmosphere a change in solar input is met with a change in evaporation rates and thus the speed of the whole hydrological cycle keeping the overall temperature stable despite a change in solar power input.
A change in the speed of the entire hydrological cycle does have a climate effect but as we shall see on timescales relevant to human existence it is too small to measure in the face of internal system variability from other causes.
Unless more CO2 could increase total atmospheric density it could not have a significant effect on global tropospheric temperature. Instead the speed of the hydrological cycle changes to a miniscule and unmeasurable extent in order to maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium. As I have explained previously a change limited to the air alone short of an increase in total atmospheric density and pressure is incapable of altering that underlying equilibrium.
-
Secondly we must realise that the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole is largely irrelevant to what we perceive as climate. In any event those changes in the temperature of the Earth as a whole are tiny as a result of the rapid modulating effect of changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle and the speed of the flow of radiated energy to space that always seeks to match the energy value of the whole spectrum of energy coming in from the sun.
The climate in the troposphere is a reflection of the current distribution of energy within the Earth system as a whole and internally the system is far more complex than any current models acknowledge.
That distribution of energy can be uneven horizontally and vertically throughout the ocean depths, the troposphere and the upper atmosphere and furthermore the distribution changes over time.
We see ocean energy content increase or decrease as tropospheric energy content decreases or increases. We see the stratosphere warm as the troposphere cools and cool as the troposphere warms. We see the upper levels of the atmosphere warm as the stratosphere cools and vice versa. We see the polar surface regions warm as the mid latitudes cool or the tropics warm as the poles cool and so on and so forth in infinite permutations of timing and scale.
As I have said elsewhere:
“It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of energy transfer varies all the time between ocean and air, air and space and between different layers in the oceans and air. The troposphere can best be regarded as a sandwich filling between the oceans below and the stratosphere above. The temperature of the troposphere is constantly being affected by variations in the rate of energy flow from the oceans driven by internal ocean variability, possibly caused by temperature fluctuations along the horizontal route of the thermohaline circulation and by variations in energy flow from the sun that affect the size of the atmosphere and the rate of energy loss to space.
The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy differentials above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?).
Additionally my propositions provide the physical mechanisms accounting for the mathematics of Dr. F. Miskolczi..”
He appears to have demonstrated mathematically that if greenhouse gases in the air other than water vapour increase then the amount of water vapour declines so as to maintain an optimum optical depth for the atmosphere which modulates the energy flow to maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium. In other words the hydrological cycle speeds up or slows down just as I have always proposed.
-
In my articles to date I have been unwilling to claim anything as grand as the creation of a new model of climate because until now I was unable to propose any solar mechanism that could result directly in global albedo changes without some other forcing agent or that could account for a direct solar cause of discontinuities in the temperature profile along the horizontal line of the oceanic thermohaline circulation.
I have now realised that the global albedo changes necessary and the changes in solar energy input to the oceans can be explained by the latitudinal shifts (beyond normal seasonal variation) of all the air circulation systems and in particular the net latitudinal positions of the three main cloud bands namely the two generated by the mid latitude jet streams plus the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).
The secret lies in the declining angle of incidence of solar energy input from equator to poles.
It is apparent that the same size and density of cloud mass moved, say, 1000 miles nearer to the equator will have the following effects:
-
It will receive more intense irradiation from the sun and so will reflect more energy to space.
-
It will reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface compared to what it would have let in if situated more poleward.
-
In the northern hemisphere due to the current land/sea distribution the more equatorward the cloud moves the more ocean surface it will cover thus reducing total solar input to the oceans and reducing the rate of accretion to ocean energy content
-
It will produce cooling rains over a larger area of ocean surface.
As a rule the ITCZ is usually situated north of the equator because most ocean is in the southern hemisphere and it is ocean temperatures that dictate it’s position by governing the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air. Thus if the two mid latitude jets move equatorward at the same time as the ITCZ moves closer to the equator the combined effect on global albedo and the amount of solar energy able to penetrate the oceans will be substantial and would dwarf the other proposed effects on albedo from changes in cosmic ray intensity generating changes in cloud totals as per Svensmark and from suggested changes caused in upper cloud quantities by changes in atmospheric chemistry involving ozone which various other climate sceptics propose.
Thus the following NCM will incorporate my above described positional cause of changes in albedo and rates of energy input to the oceans rather than any of the other proposals. That then leads to a rather neat solution to the other theories’ problems with the timing of the various cycles as becomes clear below.
-
I have previously described why the solar effect on climate is not as generally thought but for convenience I will summarise the issue here because it will help readers to follow the logic of the NCM.Variations in total solar power output on timescales relevant to human existence are tiny and are generally countered by a miniscule change in the speed of the hydrological cycle as described above.
However according to our satellites variations in the turbulence of the solar energy output from sunspots and solar flares appear to have significant effects.
During periods of an active solar surface our atmosphere expands and during periods of inactive sun it contracts.
When the atmosphere expands it does so in three dimensions around the entire circumference of the planet but the number of molecules in the atmosphere remains the same with the result that there is an average reduced density per unit of volume with more space between the molecules. Consequently the atmosphere presents a reduced resistance to outgoing longwave energy photons that experience a reduced frequency of being obstructed by molecules in the atmosphere.
Additionally a turbulent solar energy flow disturbs the boundaries of the layers in the upper atmosphere thus increasing their surface areas allowing more energy to be transferred from layer to layer just as wind on water causes waves, an increased sea surface area and faster evaporation.
The changes in the rate of outgoing energy flow caused by changes in solar surface turbulence may be small but they appear to be enough to affect the air circulation systems and thereby influence the overall global energy budget disproportionately to the tiny variations in solar power intensity.
Thus when the sun is more active far from warming the planet the sun is facilitating an increased rate of cooling of the planet. That is why the stratosphere cooled during the late 20th Century period of a highly active sun although the higher levels of the atmosphere warmed. The higher levels were warmed by direct solar impacts but the stratosphere cooled because energy was going up faster than it was being received from the troposphere below.
The opposite occurs for a period of inactive sun.
Some do say that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere makes no difference to the speed of the outward flow of longwave energy because that outgoing energy still has to negotiate the same mass but that makes no sense to me if that mass is more widely distributed over a three dimensional rather than two dimensional space. If one has a fine fabric container holding a body of liquid the speed at which the liquid escapes will increase if the fabric is stretched to a larger size because the space between the fibres will increase.
Furthermore all that the NCM requires is for the stratosphere alone to lose or gain energy faster or slower so as to influence the tropospheric polar air pressure cells. The energy does not need to actually escape to space to have the required effect. It could just as well simply take a little longer or a little less long to traverse the expanded or contracted upper atmospheric layers.
The New Climate Model (NCM)
-
Solar surface turbulence increases causing an expansion of the Earth’s atmosphere.
-
Resistance to outgoing longwave radiation reduces, energy is lost to space faster.
-
The stratosphere cools. Possibly also the number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere increases due to the increased solar effects with faster destruction of ozone.
-
The tropopause rises.
-
There is less resistance to energy flowing up from the troposphere so the polar high pressure systems shrink and weaken accompanied by increasingly positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
-
The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move poleward and the ITCZ moves further north of the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle increases due to the cooler stratosphere increasing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.
-
The main cloud bands move more poleward to regions where solar insolation is less intense so total global albedo decreases.
-
More solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as more ocean surfaces north of the equator are exposed to the sun by the movement of the clouds to cover more continental regions.
-
Less rain falls on ocean surfaces allowing them to warm more.
-
Ocean energy input increases but not all is returned to the air. A portion enters the thermohaline circulation to embark on a journey of 1000 to 1500 years. A pulse of slightly warmer water has entered the ocean circulation.
-
Solar surface turbulence passes its peak and the Earth’s atmosphere starts to contract.
-
Resistance to outgoing longwave radiation increases, energy is lost to space more slowly.
-
The stratosphere warms. Ozone levels start to recover.
-
The tropopause falls
-
There is increased resistance to energy flowing up from the troposphere so the polar high pressure systems expand and intensify producing increasingly negative Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
-
The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move back equatorward and the ITCZ moves nearer the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle decreases due to the warming stratosphere reducing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.
-
The main cloud bands move more equatorward to regions where solar insolation is more intense so total global albedo increases once more.
-
Less solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as less ocean surfaces north of the equator are exposed to the sun by the movement of the clouds to cover more oceanic regions.
-
More rain falls on ocean surfaces further cooling them.
-
Ocean energy input decreases and the amount of energy entering the thermohaline circulation declines sending a pulse of slightly cooler water on that 1000 to 1500 year journey.
-
After 1000 to 1500 years those variations in energy flowing through the thermohaline circulation return to the surface by influencing the size and intensity of the ocean surface temperature oscillations that have now been noted around the world in all the main ocean basins and in particular the Pacific and the Atlantic. It is likely that the current powerful run of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillations is the pulse of warmth from the Mediaeval Warm Period returning to the surface with the consequent inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 as that warmer water fails to take up as much CO2 by absorption. Cooler water absorbs more CO2, warmer water absorbs less CO2. We have the arrival of the cool pulse from the Little Ice Age to look forward to and the scale of its effect will depend upon the level of solar surface activity at the time. A quiet sun would be helpful otherwise the rate of tropospheric cooling as an active sun throws energy into space at the same time as the oceans deny energy to the air will be fearful indeed. Fortunately the level of solar activity does seem to have begun a decline from recent peaks.
-
The length of the thermohaline circulation is not synchronous with the length of the variations in solar surface turbulence so it is very much a lottery as to whether a returning warm or cool pulse will encounter an active or inactive sun.
-
A returning warm pulse will try to expand the tropical air masses as more energy is released and will try to push the air circulation systems poleward against whatever resistance is being supplied at the time by the then level of solar surface turbulence. A returning cool pulse will present less opposition to solar effects.
-
Climate is simply a product of the current balance in the troposphere between the solar and oceanic effects on the positions and intensities of all the global air circulation systems
-
The timing of the solar cycles and ocean cycles will drift relative to one another due to their asynchronicity so there will be periods when solar and ocean cycles supplement one another in transferring energy out to space and other periods when they will offset one another.
26) During the current interglacial the solar and oceanic cycles are broadly offsetting one another to reduce overall climate variability but during glacial epochs they broadly supplement one another to produce much larger climate swings. The active sun during the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period and the quiet sun during the Little Ice Age reduced the size of the climate swings that would otherwise have occurred. During the former two periods the extra energy from a warm ocean pulse was ejected quickly to space by an active sun to reduce tropospheric heating. During the latter period the effect on tropospheric temperatures of reduced energy from a cool ocean pulse was mitigated by slower ejection of energy to space from a less active sun.
Discussion points:
Falsification:
Every serious hypothesis must be capable of being proved false. In the case of this NCM my narrative is replete with opportunities for falsification if the future real world observations diverge from the pattern of cause and effect that I have set out.
However that narrative is based on what we have actually observed over a period of 1000 years with the gaps filled in by deduction informed by known laws of physics.
At the moment I am not aware of any observed climate phenomena that would effect falsification. If there be any that suggest such a thing then I suspect that they will call for refinement of the NCM rather than abandonment.
For true falsification we would need to observe events such as the mid latitude jets moving poleward during a cooling oceanic phase and a period of quiet sun or the ITCZ moving northward whilst the two jets moved equatorward or the stratosphere, troposphere and upper atmosphere all warming or cooling in tandem or perhaps an unusually powerful Arctic Oscillation throughout a period of high solar turbulence and a warming ocean phase.
They say nothing is impossible so we will have to wait and see.
Predictive skill:
To be taken seriously the NCM must be seen to show more predictive skill than the current computer based models.
In theory that shouldn’t be difficult because their level of success is currently zero.
From a reading of my narrative it is readily apparent that if the NCM matches reality then lots of predictions can be made. They may not be precise in terms of scale or timing but they are nevertheless useful in identifying where we are in the overall scheme of things and the most likely direction of future trend.
For example if the mid latitude jets stay where they now are then a developing cooling trend can be expected.
If the jets move poleward for any length of time then a warming trend may be returning.
If the solar surface becomes more active then we should see a reduction in the intensity of the Arctic Oscillation.
If the current El Nino fades to a La Nina then the northern winter snows should not be as intense next winter but it will nevertheless be another cold though drier northern hemisphere winter as the La Nina denies energy to the air.
The past winter is a prime example of what the NCM suggests for a northern winter with an El Nino during a period of quiet sun. The warmth from the oceans pumps energy upwards but the quiet sun prevents the poleward movement of the jets. The result is warming of the tropics and of the highest latitudes (but the latter stay below the freezing point of water) and a flow of cold into the mid latitudes and more precipitation in the form of snow at lower latitudes than normal.
So I suggest that a degree of predictive skill is already apparent for my NCM.
Likely 21st Century climate trend:
There are 3 issues to be resolved for a judgement on this question.
i) We need to know whether the Modern Warm Period has peaked or not. It seems that the recent peak late 20th Century has passed but at a level of temperature lower than seen during the Mediaeval Warm Period. Greenland is not yet as habitable as when the Vikings first colonised it. Furthermore it is not yet 1000 years since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period which lasted from about 950 to 1250 AD
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered
so I suspect that the Mediaeval warmth now emanating from the oceans may well warm the troposphere a little more during future years of warm oceanic oscillations. I would also expect the CO2 levels to continue drifting up until a while after the Mediaeval Warm Period water surface warming peak has begun it’s decline. That may still be some time away, perhaps a century or two.
ii) We need to know where we are in the solar cycles. The highest peak of solar activity in recorded history occurred during the late 20th Century but we don’t really know how active the sun became during the Mediaeval Warm Period. There are calculations from isotope proxies but the accuracy of proxies is in the doghouse since Climategate and the hockey stick farrago. However the current solar quiescence suggests that the peak of recent solar activity is now over.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
iii) Then we need to know where we stand in relation to the other shorter term cycles of sun and oceans.
Each varies on at least two other timescales. The level of solar activity varies during each cycle and over a run of cycles. The rate of energy release from the oceans varies from each El Nino to the following La Nina and back again over several years and the entire Pacific Decadal Oscillation alters the rate of energy release to the air every 25 to 30 years or so.
All those cycles vary in timing and intensity and interact with each other and are then superimposed on the longer term cycling that forms the basis of this article.
Then we have the chaotic variability of weather superimposed on the whole caboodle.
We simply do not have the data to resolve all those issues so all I can do is hazard a guess based on my personal judgement. On that basis I think we will see cooling for a couple of decades due to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has just begun then at least one more 20 to 30 year phase of natural warming before we start the true decline as the cooler thermohaline waters from the Little Ice Age come back to the surface.
If we get a peak of active sun at the same time as the worst of the cooling from the Little Ice Age comes through the oceanic system then that may be the start of a more rapid ending of the current interglacial but that is 500 years hence by which time we will have solved our energy problems or will have destroyed our civilisation.
Other climate theories:
Following the implosion of the CO2 based theory there are lots of other good ideas going around and much effort being expended by many individuals on different aspects of the climate system.
All I would suggest at the moment is that there is room in my NCM for any of those theories that demonstrate a specific climate response from sources other than sun and oceans.
All I contend is that sun and oceans together with the variable speed of the hydrological cycle assisted by the latitudinal movements of the air circulation systems and the vertical movement of the tropopause overwhelmingly provide the background trend and combine to prevent changes in the air alone changing the Earth’s equilibrium temperature.
For example:
Orbital changes feed into the insolation and albedo effects caused by moveable cloud masses.
Asteroid strikes and volcanoes feed into the atmospheric density issue.
Changing length of day and external gravitational forces feed into the speed of the thermohaline circulation.
Geothermal energy feeds into temperatures along the horizontal path of the thermohaline circulation.
Cosmic ray variations and ozone chemistry feed into the albedo changes.
The NCM can account for all past climate variability, can give general guidance as to future trends and can accommodate all manner of supplementary climate theories provided their real world influence can be demonstrated.
I humbly submit that all this is an improvement on existing modelling techniques and deserves fuller and more detailed consideration and investigation.
Novel propositions:
I think it helpful to set out here some of the novel propositions that I have had to formulate in order to obtain a climate description that complies both with observations and with basic laws of physics. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Other new propositions may be apparent from the content and/or context of my various articles
i) Earth’s temperature is determined primarily by the oceans and not by the air (The Hot Water Bottle Effect). The contribution of the Greenhouse effect is miniscule.
ii) Changes in the air alone cannot affect the global equilibrium temperature because of oceanic dominance that always seeks to maintain sea surface and surface air equilibrium whatever the air tries to do. Warm air cannot significantly affect the oceans due to the huge difference in thermal capacities and by the effect of evaporation which removes unwanted energy to latent form as necessary to maintain the said equilibrium.
iii) Counterintuitively an active sun means cooling not warming and vice versa.
iv) The net global oceanic rate of energy release to the air is what matters with regard to the oceanic effect on the latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems and the associated cloud bands. All the oceanic oscillations affecting the rates of energy release to the air operate on different timescales and different magnitudes as energy progresses through the system via surface currents (not the thermohaline circulation which is entirely separate).
v) More CO2 ought theoretically induce faster cooling of the oceans by increasing evaporation rates. Extra CO2 molecules simply send more infra red radiation back down to the surface but infra red cannot penetrate deeper than the region of ocean surface involved in evaporation and since evaporation has a net cooling effect due to the removal of energy as latent heat the net effect should be increased cooling and not warming of the oceans.
vi) The latitudinal position of the air circulation systems at any given moment indicates the current tropospheric temperature trend whether warming or cooling and their movement reveals any change in trend
vii) All the various climate phenomena in the troposphere serve to balance energy budget changes caused by atmospheric effects from solar turbulence changes on the air above which affect the rate of energy loss to space or from variable rates of energy release from the oceans below.
viii) The speed of the hydrological cycle globally is the main thermostat in the troposphere. Changes in its speed are achieved by latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems and by changes in the height of the tropopause.
ix) The difference between ice ages and interglacials is a matter of the timing of solar and oceanic cycles. Interglacials only occur when the solar and oceanic cycles are offsetting one another to a sufficient degree to minimise the scale of climate variability thereby preventing winter snowfall on the northern continents from being sufficient to last through the following summer.
x) Landmass distribution dictates the relative lengths of glacials and interglacials. The predominance of landmasses in the northern hemisphere causes glaciations to predominate over interglacials by about 9 to 1 with a full cycle every 100, 000 years helped along by the orbital changes of the Milankovitch cycles that affect the pattern of insolation on those shifting cloud masses.
xi) Distribution of energy within the entire system is more significant for climate (which is limited to the troposphere) than the actual temperature of the entire Earth. The latter varies hardly at all.
xii) All regional climate changes are a result of movement in relation to the locally dominant air circulation systems which move cyclically poleward and equatorward.
xiii) Albedo changes are primarily a consequence of latitudinal movement of the clouds beyond normal seasonal variability.
ix) The faint sun paradox is explained by the effectiveness of changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle. Only if the oceans freeze across their entire surfaces thereby causing the hydrological cycle to cease or if the sun puts in energy faster than it can be pumped upward by the hydrological cycle will the basic temperature equilibrium derived from the properties of water and the density and pressure of the atmosphere fail to be maintained.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is that graph on ozone.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=62
Trend is defintely upwards since 1995 and holds steady upwards since 2000.
Here is the graph on earth albedo
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
the trend is upwards from 1997 and seems to follow the same upward trend.
There must be some correlation between these two parameters!
Stephen Wilde (10:28:11) :
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”
The suggestion that this warming is a consequence of reduced human CFC output is a mere guess.
Signe would also go along with the CFC suggestion, as such a trend is indeed expected. This sounds very reasonable. To suggest that it is solar related is countered by solar activity not following this trend.
As she says: “Measurements of effective equivalent stratospheric
chlorine (EESC, in parts per trillion; solid black line) through to 2005
indicate that the Montreal Protocol and its amendments are succeeding in reducing atmospheric chlorine loading.”
If we correct for volcanic activity and CFCs, all that is left is the cooling trend.
You have no evidence that in general [as it must be if we are dealing with climate] the Stratosphere and the layers above behave oppositely as your model claims. But perhaps your ‘model’ doesn’t really need this assumption. If it does you are in trouble, or your model is only valid since 1994 in which case one would hardly call it s ‘climate model’.
So, it is time for you to accept the verdict of the data.
Henry Pool (12:41:36) :
Here is that graph on ozone.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=62
Trend is defintely upwards since 1995 and holds steady upwards since 2000.
That is not global, but just for Antarctica. There is a reason for the trend:
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 9, 1703-1726, 2009
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/1703/2009/
Antarctic stratospheric warming since 1979
Y. Hu and Q. Fu
Abstract. In the present study, we show evidence of significant stratospheric warming over large portions of the Antarctic polar region in winter and spring seasons, with a maximum warming of 7–8°C in September and October, using satellite Microwave Sounding Unit observations for 1979–2006. It is found that this warming is associated with increasing wave activity from the troposphere into the stratosphere, suggesting that the warming is caused by enhanced wave-driven dynamical heating. We show that the Antarctic stratospheric warming has close correlations with sea surface temperature (SST) increases, and that general circulation model simulations forced with observed time-varying SSTs reproduce similar warming trend patterns in the Antarctic stratosphere. These findings suggest that the Antarctic stratospheric warming is likely induced by SST warming. …
The polar regions are not driving climate.
Here are the observational facts:
1) more active sun, warming in stratosphere and above
2) less active sun, cooling in stratosphere and above
3) trace gases can temporarily alter these general situations, e.g. CFCs in stratosphere, H2O in mesosphere, and CO2 in thermosphere
4) climate in troposphere acts upwards, e.g. through upwards traveling waves [leading to warming], wetter strato- and meso-sphere.
” To suggest that it is solar related is countered by solar activity not following this trend.”
The stratospheric warming correlates with the weakening of solar activity since the peak of cycle 23. There have been other climate changes occurring around the same time which I drew attention to above. Several climate signals have gone into reverse since the mid 90s. If the reduced human CFCs are responsible for the stratospheric warming then those CFCs help to drive climate but you have previously denied that.
” It is found that this warming is associated with increasing wave activity from the troposphere into the stratosphere, suggesting that the warming is caused by enhanced wave-driven dynamical heating. We show that the Antarctic stratospheric warming has close correlations with sea surface temperature (SST) increases, and that general circulation model simulations forced with observed time-varying SSTs reproduce similar warming trend patterns in the Antarctic stratosphere. These findings suggest that the Antarctic stratospheric warming is likely induced by SST warming. ”
Now that is constructive.
I’ve been asking for some time for a possible alternative to the solar effect from above that could deal with the cyclical behaviour of the polar high pressure cells and this is first plausible one that I’ve seen.
It also has the advantage of keeping Leif happy by keeping the process internal to the system.
If appropriate I can slot it into my NCM in place of the assumed solar effects but for the moment I’ll just keep an eye on the incoming data before I make a decision.
After all, a persistently warming stratosphere while the sun remains inactive would bring the solar proposition back into play. You can only go so far with the CFC proposition.
To resolve the issue we need to compare the reaction of the polar high pressure oscillations to both solar activity levels and SST behaviour to see which gives the best fit.
One problem is that the abstract refers to winter and spring so it might only be a seasonal phenomenon which would not be so useful.
Another problem is that it doesn’t help so much with the Arctic Oscillation because the Arctic is surrounded mostly by land. We really need a mechanism that affects both poles.
Of course there could be a combination of solar, CFC and SST influences on the stratosphere.
And I’d like an answer to my question about ozone. Do we have any definitive evidence that the effect of higher solar activity is to increase the processes creating ozone more than it increases the processes destroying ozone ?
I assume it is a given that a warmer stratosphere induces stronger (more negative) polar oscillations by increasing the strength of the inversion at the tropopause.. The issue is whether the stratospheric temperatures are affected by solar effects from above, internal system variability from below, CFCs or a mixture of all three (and maybe even something else).
On further reflection:
i) SSTs don’t work globally whatever happens above the southern oceans because from 1975 to 2000 there were lots of strong El Nino episodes yet the stratosphere cooled and the polar oscillations were very weak (positive) with the jets well poleward.
ii) CO2 doesn’t work because the polar oscillations have strengthened and the stratosphere has warmed despite a continuing increase.
iii) CFCs are a candidate but not if the stratosphere warms for much longer. They cannot be the primary climate driver.
iv) That gets us back to solar again unless someone can produce a better idea. Ignore the warming then cooling upper atmosphere for the moment. The stratosphere cooled, the polar oscillations weakened (positive) and the jets moved poleward throughout the active solar spell. The stratosphere is now warming, the polar oscillations have strengthened (negative) and the jets have gone back equatorward with the less active sun. I wouldn’t bet on all that being coincidental.
Stephen Wilde (15:32:31) :
i) SSTs don’t work globally whatever happens above the southern oceans because from 1975 to 2000 there were lots of strong El Nino episodes yet the stratosphere cooled and the polar oscillations were very weak (positive) with the jets well poleward.
Just showed that the polar oscillations have nothing to do with anything. They are accidental consequences. Not drivers.
ii) CO2 doesn’t work because the polar oscillations have strengthened and the stratosphere has warmed despite a continuing increase.
Because of declining CFCs
iii) CFCs are a candidate but not if the stratosphere warms for much longer. They cannot be the primary climate driver.
Nothing in the stratosphere is the primary climate driver, so that we agree on. As per Signe’s figure one, the effect of CFCs might peter out around 2050…
iv)The stratosphere is now warming, the polar oscillations have strengthened (negative) and the jets have gone back equatorward with the less active sun. I wouldn’t bet on all that being coincidental.
One shouldn’t go by bets or hunches, but on demonstrated physics and observations. The stratosphere is warming because of decreasing CFCs [and for next 5 years by increasing solar activity]. Tropospheric dynamics [polar oscillations, jets streams] travel upwards and drives changes in the stratosphere. Nothing solar here.
I ask again [third time], is your model viable without a solar influence?
Stephen Wilde (14:45:14) :
The stratospheric warming correlates with the weakening of solar activity since the peak of cycle 23.
Nonsense, since 1994 [the minimum before cycle 23], and weakening solar activity should cool the stratosphere.
If the reduced human CFCs are responsible for the stratospheric warming then those CFCs help to drive climate but you have previously denied that.
The stratosphere does not drive climate, climate drives the stratosphere.
These findings suggest that the Antarctic stratospheric warming is likely induced by SST warming. ”
Now that is constructive.
As i said: climate drives the Antarctic stratosphere.
this is first plausible one that I’ve seen.
I’ve been saying this for months…
After all, a persistently warming stratosphere while the sun remains inactive would bring the solar proposition back into play. You can only go so far with the CFC proposition.
Until 2050. And you have the warming backwards: inactive sun means cooler stratosphere.
And I’d like an answer to my question about ozone. Do we have any definitive evidence that the effect of higher solar activity is to increase the processes creating ozone more than it increases the processes destroying ozone ?
Of course we have, but ‘definitive’ would not be operative here as you would automatically deny that the evidence is definitive.
A ‘definitive’ article on ozone is this one http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999RG900008.pdf
and Signe’s [of course 🙂 ].
I’ll have a look at that ozone item over the next few days.
The solar component is not critical provided one accepts that climate changes are a consequence of the cyclical latitudinal shifting of the air circulation systems.
Warmer ocean surfaces send them poleward. Stronger,negative, polar oscillations send them equatorward.
Cooler ocean surfaces cause them to draw back equatorward. Weaker, positive,polar oscillations cause them to pull back poleward.
It is the interplay that creates climate shifts.
It doesn’t matter what process dictates the cycling of the polar oscillations. Just insert the correct answer once known. That’s why I’ve been inviting alternative suggestions.
I’m not sold on the CFC proposal because it can only cover a very short period of recent history so the behaviour of the upper atmosphere has to remain in the equation for the time being even if the correlations are askew for whatever reason.
You can’t have climate driving the entire stratosphere whatever happens in the Antarctic because the state of the stratosphere must influence the state of the polar oscillations. That’s another chicken and egg issue of which there are several in the climate debate.
The thing is that the temperature of the stratosphere will always have influenced the polar oscillations so we really need a scenario that predates CFCs. A warm stratosphere enhances the inversion at the tropopause and would enhance the polar oscillations. A cool stratosphere does the opposite.
In the LIA the jets were well equatorward which suggests strong polar oscillations and a warm stratosphere but at that time the sun was relatively inactive just as today.
In the MWP there is evidence that the jets were much further poleward which suggests weak polar oscillations and a cool stratosphere but at that time the sun was relatively active just as during the recent warm period.
Thus on those timescales my solar proposal holds up and indeed it was informed by those observations.
We have two examples when the active sun was accompanied by weak polar oscillations and two when the quiet sun was accompanied by strong polar oscillations.
We have no occasions when an active sun was accompanied by strong polar oscillations or a quiet sun accompanied by weak polar oscillations.
To have strong polar oscillations at a time of active sun you would also need a warmer stratosphere but it hasn’t been observed to happen.
Attributing the absence of a warm stratosphere at a time of an active sun to CFCs might have been a mistake.
I should make it clear that my analysis works only on timescales in excess of several decades. Ideally over 60 years to smooth out the effect of the main ocean cycles.
On shorter timescales the background signal is overlain by chaotic variability and lesser solar and oceanic cycles.I’m sure one can find all sorts of contradicting examples on short timescales.
For the period Mediaeval Warm Period to LIA to Modern Warm Period the signal is clear and I think it is also discenible in the lesser periods of quiet sun in the Dalton et al when again we saw a relatively quiet sun but a strong (negative) polar oscillation suggesting a warmer stratosphere.
Stephen Wilde (23:28:30) :
The solar component is not critical provided one accepts that climate changes are a consequence of the cyclical latitudinal shifting of the air circulation systems.
Other way around: the shifts are a consequence of climate change
because the state of the stratosphere must influence the state of the polar oscillations.
Where does the must come from?
What the AO does is to modulate the stratospheric ozone concentration. You can learn more about the AO here: http://jisao.washington.edu/wallace/ncar_notes/
Especially section 6.
we saw a relatively quiet sun but a strong (negative) polar oscillation suggesting a warmer stratosphere.
You as usual have this backwards. An active sun means more UV and a warmer stratosphere.
I should make it clear that my analysis works only on timescales in excess of several decades.
Yet as ‘evidence’ you trot out a trend since 1994 [neatly explained by decrease of CFCs, so really irrelevant].
The points of difference between us are now quite clear and neither can convince the other so there’s no point continuing.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 27, 2010 at 8:37 am
The points of difference between us are now quite clear and neither can convince the other so there’s no point continuing.
In ordinary science, it is precisely when the differences have become clear that it pays to continue, but if you already throw in the towel, I can accept that.
“Thus one would expect the upward trend in the AO to lead to some ozone depletion, and this expectation is confirmed in figure 26.”
Interesting.
The AO was positive right through the warming period. The AO is usually positive during a period of active sun.
That provides a mechanism by which the active sun would reduce ozone without needing CFCs to explain it.
If ozone warms the stratosphere then less ozone will allow it to cool despite the active sun.
I know you won’t agree so no need to respond.
Stephen Wilde says:
If ozone warms the stratosphere then less ozone will allow it to cool despite the active sun.
But, I do agree that the AO provides the mechanism needed, no matter what the sun is doing. This is my whole point: there are enough internal variations that we don’t need the sun. So, we have finally reached the sought after agreement, so I guess you are correct: the thread can close.
I was a bit out and I guess I lost you guys on the main argument but I just wanted to make a final point.
a) we know ozone increased, due to the elimination of CFC’s. If we cannot use the antarctic data then perhaps this one?
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=31685
That is a 14% rise from 1995 to 2008
b) we know that CO2 rose by 70 ppm or 0.007% during the past 50 years, that is about 6% over the same period 1995 to 2008
These are two gases that would trap radiation from earthshine between 13 and 15 um, causing warming, bottum up.
Both gases have spectra showing absorptions in the 0-5 um range meaning it also causes cooling by deflecting radiation from the sun. Said cooling would probably be more noticable from the top.
Unfortunately we have no test results that would tell us what the net effect is of the cooling and warming of each gas. My best guess on that would be that the ozone is cooling slightly more than warming and that CO2 is slightly warming more than cooling. Taken together that would mean that the net effect of the increase in these gases is close to zero.
I admit that this is just a rough estimate – but what do you expect from me if no one did any testing?
That brings us back to where we were. ie. the sun, the cloud formation and what drives continuing overcast conditions.
Leif Svalgaard (27/10/9.15)
Save that we aren’t quite agreed that the AO is entirely internally generated but we can leave that until there’s more certain evidence.
Thank you for the mental exercise. I’ll consider the sources provided and see if I can use any of the contents in an updated NCM.
I’m happy to engage further with other contributors on other aspects.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 27, 2010 at 8:58 am
The AO is usually positive during a period of active sun.
A large part of your problem is your statements like the above that have no root in facts.
From Figure 16 of http://jisao.washington.edu/wallace/ncar_notes/#6Change that I referred you to, we can get AO back to 1860. Here I have overlain that with the sunspot number. As you can see there is no correlation or similarity:
http://www.leif.org/research/AO-and-Sunspots.png
So I expect that you will never again claim: “The AO is usually positive during a period of active sun”. You can acknowledge that now and here. Now, if one parses your statement very closely there is ambiguity in it. The way a reasonable person would read it is as if it were: “The AO is usually positive during periods of active sun”. If you meant that one can find a period where that is the case amongst all the other ones where it is not true, then you can squeak by on that, but then the word ‘usually’ becomes a problem as it implies that most of the time your statement should hold, which it does not. So in any case, you are in trouble.
But, being constructive, I’ll offer my overlay for your education, so we never need to go down that road again. Agreed?
I appreciate the time you have put into that but I don’t think 1860 is far enough back to remove the obscuring effects of the lesser solar and oceanic cycles and chaotic internal system variability. I’ll go on a bit longer because you seem content to continue.
We have seen the jet streams move poleward when the AO is positive so in the Mediaeval Warm Period we must have had a positive AO despite the more active sun because the jets seem to have been even more poleward then than at the peak of the Modern Warm Period (so far).
The opposite for the LIA.
A positive AO may well be associated with a cooler stratosphere on the basis of late 20th century observations if one discounts anthropogenic effects. That makes sense because a cooler stratosphere weakens the inversion at the tropopause so as to provide reduced resistance to upward energy transport which would allow the jets to move poleward.
If a more active sun were to warm the stratosphere I would expect to see a negative AO from an intensified inversion at the tropopause with more equatorward jets and not a positive AO with more poleward jets.
Remember too that the strength of the AO is also affected by oceanic behaviour. Warm oceans push extra energy into the air which can itself reinforce the AO. That point favours your internal variability idea but recent events cause me to doubt that the oceans are in sole control.
Over the past year or so we have had a strong El Nino with a high global temperature overall but still the jets remained equatorward compared to the late 20th Century. The only natural change since we had similar El Ninos over the past 60 years is that then the sun was active and now it is not.
If SSTs were in control the reaction of the jet streams and the AO to the recent El Nino would have been just the same as it was during the late 20th Century warming spell but it has been quite different. Thus I don’t see internal system variability as the sole explanation.
Even in your overlay the correlation from 1970 to 2000 shows up and we see the start of the opposite correlation from 2000 to date.
Solar cycles 19 and 20 could be said to cancel out with little effect on the AO.
The single high solar cycle in the late 1800s would have little effect on it’s own and the period 1900 to 1940 is pretty stable for both AO and solar activity.
I think I need to bear your data in mind but it is not conclusive either way.
I note that you are content to rely on the AO (even without human CFCs) to regulate ozone and you seem to concede that the AO is powerful enough in that respect to dictate the temperature of the stratosphere.
I am content with that too but there are implications.
Firstly it means that the positive AO from 1950 or so to 2000 could have been enough on it’s own to cause stratospheric cooling by reducing the amount of ozone.
Secondly the negative AO now could be the reason the ozone is recovering and the stratosphere warming.
Thirdly that would allow a cooling stratosphere at a time of active sun if the AO is indeed rendered more positive by more solar activity.
So we are back to the point that our discussion previously ended on. Namely whether or not the AO is entirely driven by internal system variability or whether there is some solar influence.
Unless you can produce an overlay back to the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period I prefer to keep an open mind especially since there are many reputable scientists who do not adopt your firm view.
It would improve your overlay if you could also do a smoothed line for solar activity and just show that line with the smoothed AO line. It wouldn’t look anything like as discordant. However I suspect that for real impact you would need both smoothed lines over a 1000 year cycle.
As I said previously much of my time is spent trying to sort out which scientist to believe.
Stephen Wilde says:
We have seen the jet streams move poleward when the AO is positive so in the Mediaeval Warm Period we must have had a positive AO despite the more active sun
All you are saying is that clearly [“despite”] the AO has little if anything to do with the Sun.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 27, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I note that you are content to rely on the AO (even without human CFCs) to regulate ozone and you seem to concede that the AO is powerful enough in that respect to dictate the temperature of the stratosphere.
Of course. But note that the cause and effect is from the ground and up. Most of what happens in the stratosphere and above [apart from cyclical sunspot effects which go in the same direction – not opposite – everywhere] derives from the big dog [the climate in the oceans and the troposphere] wagging the tiny tail [the 1000 to 1000,000,000,000 times thinner upper atmosphere].
There is no evidence of solar long-term changes in the AO. Keeping ‘an open mind’ and hoping for future data to show something is hardly something to build a NCM on.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 27, 2010 at 4:43 pm
It would improve your overlay if you could also do a smoothed line for solar activity and just show that line with the smoothed AO line.
The sunspot number is already smoothed to the same degree as the AO thick curves. There is simply no correlation. If you can produce AO for that past 2000 years, I
ll be happy to overlay that with solar activity to show you even more starkly that there is no correlation [unless you claim that the correlation only exists up until 1860].
Secondly the negative AO now could be the reason the ozone is recovering and the stratosphere warming.
That is much more likely to be CFCs decreasing [as we know they are]. It would be nice if you would pay attention to actual data, rather than hand waving ‘could be’s.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 25, 2010 at 2:26 pm
However, having relied upon two anthropogenic processes to explain observations he then goes on to say that human activity has no effect on climate. I find that inconsistent.
That is because you do not pay attention. The processes explain changes in the stratosphere and above, but these layers have nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere. There is the consistency. You create an inconsistency by assuming that the human influence aloft controls the climate at sea level.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 27, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I prefer to keep an open mind especially since there are many reputable scientists who do not adopt your firm view.
Show me some papers from reputable scientists that state:
“the AO is usually positive during a period of active sun”…
I’ll take your posts in sequence as follows:
i) The AO would have been positive in the MWP despite the active sun and negative in the LIA despite the quiet sun. On timescales of 500 to 1000 years there is therefore a prima facie negative correlation.
ii) It cannot be a process only from ground up otherwise the recent El Nino would have had the same effect on the jets as did the El Ninos of the late 20th Century. Something has put a lid on the poleward migration of the jets and the only natural change has been the level of solar activity.
iii) You need to smooth the solar cycles not just the sunspot numbers but it isn’t a long enough period anyway because of the disruptive effects of the lesser solar and oceanic cycles and natural chaotic variability.
iv) There is no reason for the CFC explanation to be more likely since you have never established the true extent of natural ozone variability from AO variations. It is you who has jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
v) You appeared to link CFC changes to stratosphere changes and then to climate changes. I note that you think the stratosphere has no effect whatever. What, pray, does the tropopause do then ?
vi) It wouldn’t be a NEW Climate Model if I were relying on others would it ? The fact that the AO would have been positive and thus stratosphere cooling in the MWP but then AO negative and stratosphere warming in the LIA has not been noticed or commented on before. I am using that observation as a base and comparing the implications with current events. Lo and Behold we had a cooling stratosphere, poleward jets and an active sun from 1950 ish to 2000 and now all three factors in reverse since 2000
Go figure.
I’d place more weight on that than a short run of data such as yours which is less accurate as one goes back.