Guest post by David Archibald
The prognostications based on spotless days are now a distant memory. From here, given that the green corona brightness indicates that solar maximum will in 2015, the big unknown is what the maximum amplitude will be. We are now eighteen months into a six year rise to solar maximum. What is interesting is that in the last few days, the F10.7 flux has fallen to values last seen in late 2009:
The red line is a possible uptrend based on the data to date. That uptrend would result in a maximum F10.7 amplitude in 2015 of about 105. Using the relationship between F10.7 flux and sunspot number, that in turn means a maximum amplitude in terms of sunspot number of 50 – a Dalton Minimum-like result. Dr Svalgaard has kindly provided a graphic of the relationship between sunspot number and F10.7 flux:
Dr Svalgaard has also done the work to show that Solar Cycle 24 is looking less and less like Solar Cycle 19:
The red line is the Solar Cycle 18 to 19 minimum, and the blue is the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 minimum. Dr Svalgaard updates this graphic daily at: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Less heat in, less heat out.”
Well yes, clearly.
But if we accept what Leif says the change of heat in from the sun is negligible and so one needs to suggest an additional mechanism for changing the amount or speed of heat going out when solar activity levels change.
From Leif’s own links the most likely such mechanism is in the rate of upward propagation of waves in the atmosphere. One can easily envisage slower upward propagation when the atmosphere contracts and becomes denser and less turbulent during an episode of quiet sun with faster upward propagation when the atmosphere expands becomes less dense and more turbulent during a period of more active sun.
That would be a seperate and distinct effect from the simple “less heat in, less heat out. scenario
rbateman says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:08 am
Think of a chilly desert at night *
“Simply stating that a blackbody emits no more than input does not tell one that the input has remained constant.”
I would have thought the amount of water vapour present above any given region of the Earth, would be a dominant factor in the actual radiative loss.
Think of an equally hot & dry (or cold & dry) desert during the day.
The effect of very dry weather is to increase the diurnal.
eg:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/1955.GIF
The effect of humid/wet weather is to decrease the dirunal.
eg:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/1958.GIF
TSI variations might be small, but the processes that control cloud cover must have a big impact on ocean heat uptake. The solar variances (solar wind, UV & magnetic) that some say change cloud cover is where the research should be funded.
With this area still relatively unknown everything else is just a sideshow.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:58 am
Its just another case of barking up the wrong tree, it`s pandemic in this area of science. As there is an obsession with sunspots, the highly variable solar wind gets overlooked. At the end of the day, the issue with sunspots has been misunderstood. As I have pointed out, the general rules are (exceptions aside) that colder winters are more likely at solar max than min because of the nature of the solar wind at maximum. Cycles with higher maximums have worse cold winters than cycles with lower maimums, and minmums with higher SSN are also prone to colder winters. Looking at detail in each cycle, a raise in monthly SSN can often be seen colder winters.
The big distraction with solar forcing of climate has been TSI. If it does not change much, what does? the solar wind of course. Does it follow temperature changes well? yes very well. Can we forecast these changes, even without understanding the mechanisms of heat transfer fully? you bet, and hincast with precision.
Ulric Lyons:
May 21, 2010 at 2:34 am
So a strong solar wind has a warming effect and the solar wind is stronger when sunspots are less as now. Hence (by your account) the overall global warmth we currently see despite the colder mid latitudes in winter.
Most surface temperature sensors are and always have been in the mid latitudes and it is now apparent that depending on the state of the polar oscillations the temperature of the troposphere over the mid latitudes can either go along with the global temperature trend as it did during the late 20th century or move against it as now. My New Climate Model accommodates all those varied observations.
From 1975 to 2000 or so there were lots of sunspots so the solar wind was weaker and therefore there should have been a cooling effect.
That clearly doesn’t fit observations within the troposphere because that warmed while the sun was active. However the stratosphere cooled whilst the sun was active and is now warming with the less active sun.
Do you see the logical problem ?
We can say that the solar effects you propose (but reversed) are seen in the stratosphere but not in the troposphere. The stratosphere cools whilst the sun is more active (both sunspots and solar wind) and warms when the sun is less active. That accords with observations.
On longer timecales the sunspot numbers, speed of solar wind and general solar surface activity rise and fall together so I don’t see much point in seperating them.It’s not an either sunspots or solar wind scenario.
Then there is the problem as to how stratospheric changes impact on the troposphere. That can only work via the varying intensity of the inversion at the tropopause which has a profound effect on the air circulation systems below and leads to variability in the polar oscillations. We then see those polar oscillations working either with or againt sea surface variability to create a specific climate pattern at any given time. That climate pattern varies as the relative solar and oceanic influences interact over time.
However none of that precludes your claim to being able to discern shorter term linkages between individual solar wind events and terrestrial weather and climate changes. It’s just that to my mind it doesn’t seem to work across decades involving several solar cycles. On that timescale there are other underlying periodicities as well. They are not all solar hence my need to involve oceanic variability.
@jinki says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Hot summers and cool winters would be the greatest path to increasing atmospheric water vapour. Temperature drops in summer, and temperature rises in winter, both increase precipitation, and will reduce total vapour amount present. A warmer World with more, rather than less water vapour is ideal (up to a sensible limit). Then we don`t have to suffer the extremes in temperature that occur when the atmosphere is dryer. See how spikey European temperatures were before 1860 even at yearly resolution:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm
1666 and the fire of London is another good example.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:58 am
““Less heat in, less heat out.”
Well yes, clearly.
But if we accept what Leif says the change of heat in from the sun is negligible and so one needs to suggest an additional mechanism for changing the amount or speed of heat going out when solar activity levels change. …”
_________________________________________________________________________
The total TSI only changes a little but the “mix” also changes. However some at NASA think the change is significant. (And yes I remember the “fight” between Judy & Leif)
“… To the amazement of many researchers, the solar constant has turned out to be not constant.
“‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,” says Lean. “How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate.”
….SDO will observe the sun at wavelengths where the sun is most variable, the extreme ultraviolet (EUV)….” NASA
“..A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:
Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” ….” NASA
This one I read with great amusement:
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
Drew T. Shindell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, David Rind, Anne Waple
Abstract:
“We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures. “
Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2149 – 2152
Their assumption there was no cooling in the southern hemisphere is because Analysis of the Southern Hemisphere is limited by the small amount of terrestrial surface from which proxy records may be retrieved…In this study climate model simulations of the Maunder Minimum are investigated for the purpose of advancing the understanding of LIA patterns in the Southern Hemisphere. Back to scientific research being replaced by computer models. GRRRrrr
This study indicates there was at least some sort of change in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/2797/2008/acp-8-2797-2008.html
and there is this: Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies
Graphs of interest:
Graph plots by wavelength:
C 14 link to Sunspots:
Leif’s TSI graph:
Graph: Cosmic Ray since 1965:
Vukcevic graph Geomagnetic field at N. Pole vs sunspots:
@ur momisuglyStephen Fisher Wilde says:
May 21, 2010 at 4:06 am
“From 1975 to 2000 or so there were lots of sunspots so the solar wind was weaker and therefore there should have been a cooling effect.”
It cuts both ways. Look in detail at C21; http://www.solen.info/solar/solcycle.html
And see the hot bits of 1976 occur at notches, and the cold 1979/82 winters at peaks SSN. The big cycle will give effectively, hotter, and colder episodes. The same is for C22. See the drop off in SSN in mid 1990 that led to such a hot summer, then rises in Jan 1991, making cold, then rises again to set Pinatubo off. C23 being smaller, didn`t have many cold winters until this minimum. So the big cycle is spikey, more highs, more lows.
“On longer timecales the sunspot numbers, speed of solar wind and general solar surface activity rise and fall together so I don’t see much point in seperating them.It’s not an either sunspots or solar wind scenario.”
I don`t think that is true, and there is no point in looking at longer time scale, it serves no purpose at all in evaluating weather or climate, as the SHORT TERM changes relative to the seasons are totaly instrumental in deciding whether we get a cold winter, a heat wave, an El Nino, a drought and so on and on. Just look at all the cold winters on CET, and see how many months it takes to get above average temp`s after most of them. Thats the solar signal doing that, it changes fast.
I don`t see any problem with mapping changes to the polar vortex pressure, and the jet stream position, relative to the seasons, from the ups and downs in the solar signal.
As far as I am concerned, the longer term changes or cycles you refer to, are cyclic events as descibed above, and are not actually cycles, in the sense of something like a sine wave.
If your New Climate Model can tell me@ur momisugly cold winters, heat waves, droughts and floods accurately at a weekly level, then you have something.
The strato/tropo temp` relationship is interesting yes? how do you think that works?
Had you seen the near surface temp` profile on here, notice the peak around the vernal equinox: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
May 21, 2010 at 5:52 am
Typo; then falls again to set Pinatubo off.
Gail Combs says:
May 21, 2010 at 5:47 am
The solar wind velocity can climb 200% or more in less than a day, turbulance and density are also important cosiderations, particularly around solar max.
Ulric,
Thanks for that detail I’ll give it some more though. However I think the longer term underlying climate trends are pretty important in my view because they will affect the size and scale of all the phenomena that you describe. My model is aimed at the background trend and I am having success anticipating the general character of an upcoming season. I’m happy to leave the weekly detail to you.
Gail,
Many thanks. Some good material for me to use against Leif there
especially:
” a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases.”
Particularly nice to see a recognition that the air circulation systems do respond to solar variability which is a concept at the heart of my proposals 🙂
@Stephen Fisher Wilde says:
May 21, 2010 at 7:26 am
“However I think the longer term underlying climate trends are pretty important in my view because they will affect the size and scale of all the phenomena that you describe.”
Not really. The phenomena that I am describing are far greatrer magnitude than any so called cycle. A great example is the cold episodes during the MWP, notably the 1120`s and the 1170`s;
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No2/HV3N2Morony.html
(freezings of the Euphrates)
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1100_1199.htm
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
These are event clusters, that are cyclic, modulated by longer event periods, and are all astronomically forced. Its the big jumps that really matter, like those 2-5C drops in temperature in 2-5yrs that occurred during the Dryas episodes. I think the important terrestial factor above solar forced temp` change, is loss and accumalation of atmospheric water vapour, this would smooth things to degrees. But how fast does it really change, probably quite fast over a few years, looking at history.
Ulric Lyons :
May 21, 2010 at 8:25 am
Ok, I’ll go along with that. It’s a useful way to explain the cold spells in warm periods and warm spells in cold periods.
However it’s still important as to whether one starts off with a warm period or cold period in the first place.
It then comes back to my proposal that during interglacials the solar and oceanic cycles generally offset one another to reduce overall climate variability which then allows the ice to melt.
During ice ages the solar and oceanic cycles generally supplement one another with large climate swings producing enough winter snowfall to get through the summer or subsequent short warmer spikes.
That’s a bit outside your week to week concerns though.
@ur momisugly Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2010 at 9:18 am
“However it’s still important as to whether one starts off with a warm period or cold period in the first place.”
When last winter hasn`t made much difference to the weather now. The Younger didn`t make much with the rapid rise out of it.
“It then comes back to my proposal that during interglacials the solar and oceanic cycles generally offset one another to reduce overall climate variability which then allows the ice to melt.”
That didn`t stop last the last 2 winters, or the LIA, Dark Ages, Greek minimums etc.
“During ice ages the solar and oceanic cycles generally supplement one another with large climate swings producing enough winter snowfall to get through the summer or subsequent short warmer spikes.”
There would be bigger swings with less water vapour around.
“That’s a bit outside your week to week concerns though.”
I am clearly concerned about all scales. Weekly definition allows precise forecasting for timing of heat waves and cold periods, essential for realistic planing for any extemes, and implications for flood or drought, and also maps out all the liitle bits of weather that eventually becomes the climatic signal when smoothed.
On the lighter side…
Yes this solar radiation and activity is a heavy discussion and can bring upheated debates. 🙂
But on the lighter side. When I was discussing weather in 2008 in Alaska because I lived there… People were trying to say that 2008 was one of the warmest winters on record… I tried to tell them about the bad information that GISS was putting out and one of the characters from skeptical science blog came at me with this reply…
“What does snowiness have to do with coldness?”
I know I’m not a scientist per se like the rest of you commentors here but I was so dumbfounded by that serious question that I had to avoid the website for a few days for fear I’d be ejected for slinging an Ad Homonym or two.
1personofdifference says:
May 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“What does snowiness have to do with coldness?”
I lived and worked once on top of the Greenland Inland Ice [78N,45W]. It was VERY cold, but it was also a dessert with hardly any show.
Yes sir. Having lived in Alaska, I’m well aware that just because it’s cold doesn’t mean it’s going to snow. However in line with the predictions that have been going on in this thread, I’ll go out on a limb and state emprically and emphatically and categorically and anything else you want including the kitchen sink … I predict it will snow more when it’s 20 degrees F than when it’s 90 degrees F.
I think i’m safe in that prediction. 🙂
I will stipulate for the record (45 or 72rpm?) that while it’s not always snowing when it’s cold, that the scientific method would safely show that the inverse is a given.
I’m right with you
Michael, this is my favorite topic. I’m also telling friends that the hurricane forecasts are way off as I did last year. Also forecasts and forecasters need some accountability and scrutiny if they veer off track this much, otherwise it is meaningless media filler. I’m also collecting the few good UK research studies on solar effects. I can’t decide which is more interesting, the research findings or the BBC coverage that slaps on standard warning labels that the findings do not overturn AGW. We are getting a glimpse of what life was like in the dark ages. I also get off on details of history and how much more context the details provide relative to the oversimplified spin.