Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.
A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).
But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:
Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.
But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.
Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony
=================================
Climate Regime Shifts
The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”
[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.
[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,
see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.
[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.
[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
Climate Regime Shifts
[last update: 2010/07/04]
|
“The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
|
|
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.” [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions” [http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998. [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift, see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
|
|
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
|
|
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area. [http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even. [http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
|
|
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
|
For very busy people like me, a ‘Conclusion’ paragraph would have been great.
Agree with Jim.
A positive Indian Ocean Dipole and a cool PDO means big floods in the land of Oz.
The same wrote in his essays Theodor Landscheid in 1990th and early in the current dacade:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.
SC20 should have been regime change down, as was SC14. The reason it did not is because the temp data has been monkeyed with. Remember, SC20 is the 70’s Cooling Period. It was also a long cycle, as was SC14.
RGO is a high-quality database until SC20. Afterwards, one should use Debrecen / 1.1
Interesting. So it’s the sun. The sun also influences El Nino and La Nina, doesn’t it? Seems it does.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Chris de Freitas with a little about 1976 Great Pacific Climate Shift
What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.
Alexander.
WRT the algorithm in question. you might take a look at it. I downloaded it a couple years ago and turned some people onto it over at CA. after playing around with it it became clear that I could tune the thing to fit my assumptions. Hint: if he set the cuttoff length at 11 instead of 10 the trick would have been too obvious. By diddling
the noise parameter and the p value you can make all sorts of pretty pictures.
Further, the series being correlated is as everybody knows.. highly massaged and infected with UHI. Basically, without a specific physical mechanism ( the missing CONCLUSION) this is numerology, al beit slightly more interesting than other attempts.
That would be fine if it is only possible solution.
Here I have superimposed the Geomagnetic Z flux of the dominant Hudson Bay – Greenland area, where the Arctic currents enter Labrador Sea.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC12.htm
Original graph can be found here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
‘The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current and combination of the Arctic cold currents create Labrador Sea currents; this tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.’
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down? The earth is in the sun’s atmosphere. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth. It doesn’t make sense that it would have no effect.
vukcevic says: July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
……..
May I add that the same type analysis produces high correlation with the Arctic temperature Anomaly and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
and is in good agreement with CETs all the way back to Maunder Minimum.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm
Steven,
I hear you. Yes, it is often possible to massage the data and to play with parameters to fit assumptions. Any UN statistical analysis and modeling, not only by the IPCC, and not only climatology-connected, is manipulated by definition. It may very well be that this is the case here.
My point is, climate DOES change depending on Solar cycles. I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Mechanism? Uncertain. Correlation? Obvious. What does it mean? We must explain the mechanism, instead of telling people who notice the obvious that they are fools and are not qualified to argue with bottle washers and button sorters.
To quote the Stranglers, “there’s always the sun”
Why no mention of Tsonis, he did some important work on oceanic phase shifts involving nonlinear mathematical analysis? i.e. at certain phase relationships of PDO and AMO for instance, a climate shift is caused:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/16/synchronized-chaos-and-climate-change/
If the sun doesn’t affect climate what would happen if the sun stopped shining?
Oh, that would affect the weather only? 🙂
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! For years scientists have been saying the Sun has all sorts of effects on our planet, electro-magnetic & otherwise. How can one simply deny its effects on our climate when in the atmosphere it can produce things of beauty such as the Northern & Southern Lights? I know the Met Office have solar scientists looking in to how the Sun “might” affect the climate, but if you’re coming in at it from a slanted angle you a distorted picture. If these chaps & chapesses are AGW believers from the outset, it seems rather pointless them studying solar activity other than from curiosity, or to produce evidence that it doesn’t affect the Earth.
Time to revisit my New Climate Model ?
Solar changes from above constantly interacting with oceanic changes from below to drive the mid latitude jets and the ITCZ latitudinally thus changing global albedo to cause changes in the global temperature trend and with regional climate changes depending on the shift of individual regions in relation to those latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.
It is noticeable that many of the upwards step changes coincide with El Nino. Bob Tisdale has already elucidated that. I have already made an attempt at explaining the el nino – solar link too:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
Has it occurred to Steven Mosher it might just be that the parameters fit the data because Alan Cheetham has zoomed in on the correct parameter values?
For sure we need to do a lot more work on this stuff, but to dismiss a study like Alan’s as ‘numerology’ (not the first time Mosh has offered this cheap insult to solar investigators, see the last Scafetta thread ), seems a bit facile to me.
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down?
One problem with the solar cycles – temperature relationship is clearly demonstrated during 1950 -1965 period, while solar activity was getting stronger, the temperatures were falling (to compensate for this anomaly ‘cycle length’ , ‘cycle gear shift’ etc were introduced, but neither is convincing).
No such problem with the geomagnetic correlation; see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423344
Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:55 am
Time to revisit my New Climate Model ?
Solar changes from above constantly interacting with oceanic changes from below to drive the mid latitude jets and the ITCZ latitudinally thus changing global albedo to cause changes in the global temperature trend and with regional climate changes depending on the shift of individual regions in relation to those latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.
I think there is a lot of merit in your hypothesis Stephen, having personally witnessed the difference the jet stream positions have made to the UK weather over the last few years.
I would add that the small changes in TSI which Leif Svalgaard never tires of telling us are too small to account for climate change are obviously amplified by the cloud albedo changing the actual insolation at the surface. Both TSI and surface insolation correlate well with these changes, so it’s time to smoke the red herrings.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:30 am
What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.
The upward shifts in the even cycles in 1925 and 1986/7 both come a decade or so after the weak odd cycles preceding them. Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.
The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.
On the face of it, the demonstrated correlation is astonishing. It could well be true, as there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that our local star has a fundamental effect on the climate.
However, it’s right to be – shall we say – sceptical. If the algorithm can be tuned to get a desired result, then that’s cause for concern. Climate science has been badly corrupted by that kind of behaviour (no names, but you know who I mean!)
I hope the writer can follow up on this potential problem. If he can demonstrate that the technique is ‘robust’ and does not depend on tuning of the algorithm, then I would say that this is a very important finding. But this question of tuning the algorithm does need to be addressed….
Chris
tallbloke,
I’m afraid Mosh is a lost cause and has been for some time now and especially since he’s been hanging out with the likes of Nick Stokes and Ron Broberg over at Lucia’s Blackboard.
Alan Cheetham in contrast still has an open mind as to whether or not the late 20th century warming trend was caused by man’s emissions of CO2 or not and like myself and many other skeptics of CAGW think that it’s not a good idea to attempt to de-carbonise your economy when the science is far from settled. Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.
vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:27 am (Edit)
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down?
One problem with the solar cycles – temperature relationship is clearly demonstrated during 1950 -1965 period, while solar activity was getting stronger, the temperatures were falling (to compensate for this anomaly ‘cycle length’ , ‘cycle gear shift’ etc were introduced, but neither is convincing).
No such problem with the geomagnetic correlation; see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423344
Vuk, isn’t geomagnetism affected by the heliomagnetism anyway? I think all these things tie in together. Your graph also shows temperature dipping below your Bz curve postwar after all. It looks like oceanic oscillations and cloud albedo have ‘overshoot’, just like your decaying Geomagnetic reaction from the 1600’s.
Coupled oscillators, with some system inertia thrown in.
KevinUK says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:46 am (Edit)
Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.
He is?! Got a link??
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Basically, without a specific physical mechanism ( the missing CONCLUSION) this is numerology, albeit slightly more interesting than other attempts.
This is Aristotle’s “argumentum ad ignorantium”. “We wont believe it because we dont know the mechanism”. This is one of the biggest epistemological diseases of the late 20th – 21st centuries. Science has become so conceited about its technical (“bottle washer and button counter” – nice quote Alexander) achievements that it has allowed the epistemological underpinning of science to atrophy. Subordination to political pressure has helped this process along. The other disease is inductivism (as opposed to deductivism) a.k.a. Karl Popper.
The opposite pathology has also emerged – fixation on a mechanism and belief in an outcome from this mechanism in complete disgregard of impirical evidence to the contrary, this could be called “argument ignarus res” or “argument despite the facts”.
Examples:
CO2 and Arhennius theory – IR absorption by CO2 means it must be warming the (cooling) planet.
Genetic modification: modified genes must be damaging the environment since they are introducing alien genes, despite accumulating evidence of no harmful effect
Ionising radiation must cause cancer down to zero dose since DNA strand can be broken by a single ionising event, ignoring overwhelming evidence of the reality of a threshold dose below which ionising radiation is either harmless or exerts a slightly positive health effect.
There is even a new abusive term for it: “phenomenological”. It refers to someone who places more weight on observed facts than on predictions from models or mechanistic hypotheses. Its a sure way to lose research grant funding.
Slightly O/T – [snip]
[Reply] Completely O/T. Take it to tips and notes please. RT-Mod
” The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed””
I find that a fairly plausible explaination as to the “how.” Shifting and earth rotation align with the sun’s own cycle periodically to have periods with more solar bombardment and periods with less solar bombardment, causing the oceanic oscillations, etc.
This notion that the sun only emits visible light, IR, and UV is wrong and oversimplifies the energy input from the sun…. you know, that hallmark of AGW theory that states that the sun’s energy input is constant.
The fact that the guy could get the regime change steps to align at all is pretty impressive in my book, even if he was picking numbers out of his hat until he found a set of parameters that worked.
tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?
You wrote, “It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.”
Isn’t the ball in your court? I check that thread regularly. Do you want to continue on that thread or start a new one?
“So you run and you run to catch up with the sun,
but it’s sinking.
Racing around to come up behind you again,
The sun is the same in a relative way but you’re older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. ”
The sun effects everything on Earth, absolutely everything. As it pulses so we pulse and those pulses are occurring over short , long and very long time scales, just talk to the geologists. Four and a half billion years and we witter on about the last 150 years, give me a break.
In my 62 year puff I have seen hotter and colder, wetter and dryer, lighter and darker here in Harare, Zimbabwe. What I haven’t seen here is a trend of any sort just climate change manifested in my experience of the weather which has been impossible to predict but fairly easy to adapt to.
It’s good to be alive people and able to add to what I know each day. What I have learned is that the sun is rather important to our happy existence here on the third rock and the trace gas CO2 that we add to by burning stuff doesn’t seem to do much at all.
If the sun causes an effect, it is not at all clear from reading this what the effect is, other than a change. I did not notice any sort of pattern to the solar cycle change/regime change in climate. What was the proposed mechanism that causes the changes? If it is the magnetic field, which is what the article focused on, how does that affect temperature?
OT [snip]
[reply] correct, it is OT. Please take it to tips and notes. RT-Mod
Dave F:
“What was the proposed mechanism that causes the changes? If it is the magnetic field, which is what the article focused on, how does that affect temperature?”
The implication is that temperature is an indirect effect. He correlated with PDO, implying that the sun drives PDO (changes in upper atmosphere causing shifting weather patterns, etc) which in turn changes temperature.
But beyond that, the sun issues a constant stream of energetic, ionized, particles. Each has energy, and when it enters a system the energy ultimately has to be transferred to the system. The atmosphere will be absorbing this additional energy (caused by the magnetic window opening further) and changes happen as a result. As the windows closes the system has a chance to dissipate or shift the additional energy again and reset to the previous state (although potentially with slightly higher temperatures, depending on whether the energy can be re-radiated out of the system or not.)
Re: Steve Mosher’s comment,
I think once the vertical lines are lined up across the Solar and temp graphs (provided that the graphs are genuine and they are lined up correctly), one can ignore the horizontal lines of the “numerology” shift detector and simply look and see if we can detect shifts. If we do see them (and we do), and if they are consistent, then that looks significant.
The temp graphs are surely massaged, but that tends to be done on an incremental basis, so should not overly affect these shifts.
Things like UHI and population density are very unlikely to show up so abruptly on a global basis so as to nullify the ability to detect the shifts.
I guess the next step would be to compare the solar with the sat temp graphs, and various other versions of the other temp graphs, and see if the pattern holds.
But I guess adjustments could matter if they started purposefully dinkin’ with ’em to try and make the pattern go away. So everybody screen cap all the temp graphs you can, ’cause I’m sure they’ll start trying to make any correlation disappear.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:36 am
tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?
Because volcanic aerosols have an immediate effect on surface insolation from the atmosphere, whereas the decadal scale interaction between the absorption of solar energy ino the ocean, and the ocean-atmosphere coupled interaction plays out on longer timescales.
You wrote, “It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.”
Isn’t the ball in your court? I check that thread regularly. Do you want to continue on that thread or start a new one?
Here’s where we left it at: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
Bob Tisdale says:
February 10, 2010 at 11:24 am
tallbloke: You wrote, “Looking at the rate the North Altlantic OHC is dropping, whereas it was rising in ‘98, this is one of the important differences.”
The variability of the North Atlantic SST anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.
I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature)
There seems to be a common issue with your replies to me on this thread and that thread on my blog. You are concentrating on short term atmospheric effects whereas I am trying to delve under the surface and understand the longer term changes.
Your insights into the way El nino causes decadal step changes is spot on. I’m just trying to get you to go the extra step and see what is causing those. El nino releases a bunch of solar derived heat-energy from the ocean which is hidden from the surface record in the deeper ocean heat content. In general, that heat-energy from the sun gets mixed down when the solar cycle is waxing and comes back out again when it it waning and just after minimum. Hence the correlation of the step changes with the solar cycles as noted by Alan Cheethams article.
Mosh
I agree with you up to a point, but when you can hit parameters that match ten times in a row as opposed to the CO2 modeling with has to jump though hoops to even get close I find it a compelling argument.
Your UHI comment is also off base since it affects the trend, not the steps. I’d like to see the algorithm applied to a detrended data set.
Written more than two years ago:
http://foro.meteored.com/climas+del+mundo+y+climatologia+historica/bloques+de+rangos+de+temperaturas+y+ciclos+solares-t89287.0.html
http://www.meteosat.com/imagenes/buf/bloques-temperaturas-g.gif
tallbloke says: July 5, 2010 at 3:49 am
I think the Arctic is the key to the most of climatic events affecting the Atlantic basin north of Equator, including the Atlantic oscillation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Exact coincidence of any ‘driver’ to climatic diagrams is probably almost impossible, and to be honest I was very surprised by correlation in the above link. For a time I was also puzzled by 6 year delay between AMO and GMG and finally got answer, see bottom of the same link or the and answer to Dr. S.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/a-note-of-sincere-thanks/#comment-423001
where you can find links to a couple of research papers.
I can only tell what I see and that is that after more than 2 years of low solar activity we had here in north Italy 2 years of abnormal snow **(ask to the winter industries) and 2 short summers (ask to the climatization industries).
Now we are living in the third short summer and I accept (small) bets on how much will be the snow this Year!
** this is not personal experience because millions of peoples here in europe had very good ski experiences this years.
Why do people repeatedly say “there is no (known) mechanism for this effect’ and then imply that therefore its not a real effect?
I doubt that any of the readers here know of or understand the mechanism by which alkaloid poisons kill you: But does that mean after watching several people eat toadstools and die, you will happily eat toadstools as well – as you don’t know ‘the mechanism’ so their dying cannot be a real effect?
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.
___________________________________________________________
The latest fight over the sun’s influence is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-beauty-of-a-near-spotless-sun/
oneuniverse has given a pretty good rebuttal that highlights the bias.
Landscheidt believed global temperatures lag the aa geomagnetic index by 4-8 years.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin found Arctic sea ice lagged global temperatures by 8 years, figure 2.16
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
The step changes in temperature resemble a ‘random walk function’.
Any studies done yet to try and determine the parameters which determine in which direction the random walk goes at each branch point, or is that still a couple of layers higher than is feasible at this time?
This shows that while IPCC and railway specialists as Pachauri and Hansen (coal trains) and their play station models were only focused on the atmosphere, the real issue was in the seas, like this paper by Klyashtorin shows (page 50, fig.9.1):
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Our friend Vukcevic goes a step forward and show us the link between GMF and Climate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm
Now, the next Socratic question, according to the method of Mayeutics, would be:
How does the Sun cause changes in GMF, which, in turn, cause climate changes?
and, last but not least, what does it make the Sun change?
Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:00 am (Edit)
Now, the next Socratic question, according to the method of Mayeutics, would be:
How does the Sun cause changes in GMF, which, in turn, cause climate changes?
and, last but not least, what does it make the Sun change?
According to the planetary theory we are developing, the rest of the mass in the solar system causes changes in the distribution of the molten and magnetic materials inside the Earth. It also causes changes in the sun which affect it’s internal oscillations and sunspot production. We have some evidence behind our ideas.
For example:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/
tallbloke wrote: “Your insights into the way El nino causes decadal step changes is spot on. I’m just trying to get you to go the extra step and see what is causing those.”
You’re interested in cause of ENSO, and I’m interested in the aftereffects. There’s no extra step involved.
Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner.
I’ve been wondering about this. I’ve read several times that CO2 absorbs photons of a particular frequency, and this kicks electrons into a higher orbit, but after a while the electrons fall back to the former orbits, and the photon is re-emitted in a random direction. While the molecule is in this excited state, it can’t absorb another photon. So if an infrared photon emitted by the surface of the earth is captured by a CO2 molecule, it will re-emit this shortly afterwards with an equal chance of the photon being re-emitted upwards as downwards. So it would seem that there’s a 50% chance of the re-emitted photon either being absorbed by the earth’s surface, or disappearing into outer space. Yet I keep reading that the atmosphere re-radiates something more like 60% of its photons back to earth, and only 40% into outer space. I’ve also read that some climate models have 90% of the re-emitted photons going earthwards. Why is that? And what happens if some of the re-emitted photons get captured by other CO2 molecules?
So I’ve been thinking of building a little computer simulation model of a rather topical sort. The CO2 molecules would behave like footballers on a football pitch which represents the atmosphere, with the earth’s surface being the goal at the west end, and outer space the goal at the east end. The ball, which represents a photon, is kicked out of the west end goal mouth, and either rolls all the way through to the goal at the other end, or it is picked up by one of the football players. This footballer then turns with the ball at his feet and kicks it away, either returning it back towards the west end goal, or pushing it upfield towards the east end. In this way the ball gets passed around between the players until it finally ends up in one goal or the other. There is a constant stream of balls coming out of the west end goal. When a footballer has a ball at his feet, he can’t pick up another one until he’s kicked his current ball away somewhere. Who’s likely to win this sort of football match? Will it work out at 5-all, or 6-4, or 9-1? How will the results vary as more footballers are added?
Before I go away and start writing this model, I just thought I’d ask: is this an at all plausible representation of the passage of photons through a CO2-laden atmosphere?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:21 am (Edit)
You’re interested in cause of ENSO, and I’m interested in the aftereffects. There’s no extra step involved.
You asked “What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability?”
I was just trying to help you find the answer. But if you are only interested in aftereffects and not causes, then fair enough.
40 years ago I attended a weekend course on time series analysis run by the head of GE (USA). After a day and a half of maths somewhat beyond me someone asked him how he handled a change of trend.
He replied “Gee, a change in the trend – that’s a very deep concept”.
My scepticism about this sort of thing has lasted 40 years, and this article hasn’t changed my opinion….
I’d like to know if the graph with the temperature has adjusted or raw temperature data.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:36 am
tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?
There are possibly multiple effects taking place here. I haven’t fully assimilated this posting yet, but what certainly jumped out at me is the claim to find regime shifts at times of magnetic field reversals. I’ve used the regime shift algorithm in professional work, and have some sense of its sensitivity to the tuning parameters, so I’m holding back on jumping on the bandwagon here. But I’ve done enough work to know that there is some connection with global temperature changes and the Hale cycle, so I’m open to the possibility that there is something to this.
As for a response measured in months rather than years, there is that too. Anthony and I have shown that there is a “weak” response in temperature signals to the solar cycle that is of an order of magnitude that even Leif acknowledges is there. So there is the effect that you would be looking for. But that doesn’t rule out other effects on longer time scales, like a bidecadal effect influenced by the reversal of the sun’s magnetic field.
Personally, I think Alan might want to try running the regime shift indicator on a random noise series with mean and standard deviation comparable to the data in question to see if it picks up “regime changes.” I wouldn’t be surprised that it does: random walks reverse direction at random intervals. That doesn’t rule out the usefulness of the technique. It might show that “this” is not like “that” — i.e. yes, the method can find “regime shifts” in random data, but those shifts occur randomly, whereas here we have shifts occurring at harmonic or quasi-harmonic periodicity. And that would be something.
Finally, how does this square with Dr. Spencer’s thesis of being able to generate temperature variations of a magnitude seen in the instrumental data from “random” effects? Seems like we now have two competing theories here on WUWT. How do we decide which is the more likely? Which is the more “testable?” Any takers?
Point of view from one of the regular Joes that visit here (the peanut gallery as was once referred to on this blog).
It seems to me that on the subject of the Sun influencing climate there is a lot of discussion (arguing?) over apples and oranges with a few lemons thrown in. Dr S says that a change in TSI does correlate to a change in Earth’s temperature but one so small it doesn’t matter. However, if a change in TSI causes A which then causes B which then causes C which then causes some greater change in Earth’s temperature, does that really mean that the TSI change caused that temperature change? Or is the TSI change just a part of the entire process that depends on all the other causes being equal each and every time to result in the same temperature change? If any one of those individual causes gets modified then so would the outcome, so can the TSI change still be considered the cause of the temperature change? I would think not, especially in such a chaotic system. In the end it seems insolation is the key. Can we all agree that so many variables affect insolation that there is no simple cause and effect that can be pinpointed?
Again, just a comment from the sidelines. It does make for interesting reading though.
I’m a little further into reading and assimilating this. I’m not surprised by finding interesting effects at the times of solar magnetic field reversals. But I think Alan needs to explain why the “regime shifts” are continually upward throughout the second half of the 20th century. At least with the PDO, the regime shift algorithm finds alternativing phases. I have one possible explanation in mind, but I’d be interested in hearing Alan’s (or anyone else’s).
Three Hale’s Cycles in a PDO and cosmic wave crowns alternating in each phase of the Hale, or each Solar Cycle. Presto, changeo, a mechanism for the alternate heating and cooling of the two phases of the PDO cycle. Now, if we could only connect the shape of that cosmic ray peak with albedo…..
====================
Anthony,
One of my favorite papers on this topic is ” Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming” by Bratcher and Giese published in 2002. Of course, the IPCC completely ignores the paper and its prediction of a cooler climate regime “in about four years.” I thought the climate regime turned at the end of 2007/beginning of 2008, but the current warm El Nino has me wondering now. What I would expect to see when the PDO is in the cool phase is weaker El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, but this El Nino is pretty strong and is hanging on longer than I expected.
It will be interesting to see this play out.
I suggest that solar activity harmonically accelerates the oceans natural cylces such as PDO rather than forcing regime changes. The data is best fit with combinations of sine and cosine functions with harmonics that more often result in sawtooth and triangular forms rather square waves. It takes only a little force properly timed to magnify the amplitude of a vibration.
Nigel Calder has a blog called Calder’s Updates with many good posts on solar-cosmic and other topics, such as:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
It doesnt seem to have the hits it deserves, IMHO.
“”Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.””
Even the AGWer’s are trying to have it both ways. They say the sun does not affect climate, but yet use a weaker, cooler sun as the excuse for no run away global warming when CO2 levels were many times higher.
Ron Cram says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am
There is not such an El Nino time ago:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
This last El Niño was not a usual one, if you take into consideration that El Niño was named as such because of the appearance of a north-south warm current around Christmas, by peruviian fishermen; that´s El Niño 1-2 area not 3-4. A real El Níño opposes south-north cold Humboldt´s current.
Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:02 am (Edit)
I’m a little further into reading and assimilating this. I’m not surprised by finding interesting effects at the times of solar magnetic field reversals. But I think Alan needs to explain why the “regime shifts” are continually upward throughout the second half of the 20th century. At least with the PDO, the regime shift algorithm finds alternativing phases. I have one possible explanation in mind, but I’d be interested in hearing Alan’s (or anyone else’s).
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
40 SSN is also the ‘neutral’ value where the ocean neither gains nor loses heat-energy.
This means a lot more heat got stored in the oceans, as evidenced by the upwards trend of OHC from the ’50s. That heat-energy has to be solar in origin because long-wave radiation from the atmosphere can’t penetrate the ocean, whereas solar short-wave radiation goes down tens of metres or around 200 feet.
So even in negative phases of the PDO, we will still get some strongish El Nino’s as the ocean burps some of the excess energy back out while the sunspot number is low.
Whatever hypothesis you use it has to have an answer for SS cycle – temperature contradiction period 1950-1970 otherwise the proposition isn’t going to be credible.
I have searched extensively for it and found that only the Arctic magnetic field resolves this contradiction satisfactorily as well as correlates well with the records for 300+ years.
I was expecting that old doc Svalgaard might come in, maybe he is a bit of a rough diamond (not that he thinks much of my contributions), but still he is a gemstone when the matters solar are considered.
C’mon doc we may not always agree but still like to hear from you.
Ron Cram says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am (Edit)
What I would expect to see when the PDO is in the cool phase is weaker El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, but this El Nino is pretty strong and is hanging on longer than I expected.
If you look at a comparable time when the sun was getting weaker after a run of strong cycles, the same thing happened:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/sst-ssn1870.jpg
“What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.”
Circulation. Less(or more) output from the sun changes the air and water circulations(their extends I would think). The same way as heating water in a pot would create movements in the water by exciting the molecules. Exactly in detail how Earths circulation is influenced is not understood yet. But the strong correlation of the solar cycles and shifts in temperature trends can be seen even in the “adjusted” data.
Britannic no-see-um says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:22 am
I liked that letter from Nigel Calder!
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
moahahahah! It describes the situation so well!!
Well done, Nigel Calder!
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?
Very fascinating reading, and there is no doubt that the sun does play a role in climate regimes, as it were, but I think the very opening assumption that the build up of CO2 remains purely a logarithmic effect throughout the the entire range of increase may not be correct, and may be proven to create its own “regimes” as it were.
The chaotic nature of the climate would preclude a smooth logarithmic effect from CO2, and so we should see “jumps” to new “regimes”, or what could also be called attractors in the terminology of chaos theory. I think the recent appearance of the Arctic Dipole anomaly could be one such attractor, that would not be predicted from a smooth logarithmic effect of CO2, and while not predictable (certainly none of the GCM’s forecast its appearance) it is quite deterministic and not a random event. As a positive feedback event it behaves much like any attractor (or regime, if you prefer), and creates the conditions (i.e. the warming of the arctic) that will reinforce itself.
The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attactor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.
idlex says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
Interesting question – is the direction of photon emission / scatttering from CO2 random or not? Here’s my empirical take on it.
Longwave (IR) radiation within the very narrow window that interacts with CO2 can interact in 2 ways: (1) absorption resulting in heat energy deposition, or (2) scattering (absorption-re-emission) at a (presumably) random angle.
If all interactions are type 1 heat depositing, then CO2 absorbs all photons within about 10 m, and thus the saturation argument, CO2 cannot be a factor in atmosphere heat.
However for longwave IR to penetrate a long distance through the atmosphere, most interactions must be of the scattering (absorption-re-emission) type, resulting in a diffusive movement of IR photons.
In principle the direction of this “diffusive radiation” should be random, EXCEPT for one factor: the exponential reduction with height in air density.
An analogy: a one-celled animal – the paramecium – swimming in a pond homes in on food items in the following way: if it “smells” in the water an increasing food concentration, it reduced the number of times it changes direction (randomly) and if the food smell gets weaker, it increases the frequency of (random) direction changes. The result of this is, on statistical average, swimming toward higher food concentration and finding the source of the food smell.
So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.
Interesting to see what your model will output. I would hazard – following your football analogy – the earth surface would approximate Germany’s goal, and outer space the goal occupied by the English / Australian / Argentinian goalkeepers.
Vuk etc. says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:41 am
Whatever hypothesis you use it has to have an answer for SS cycle – temperature contradiction period 1950-1970 otherwise the proposition isn’t going to be credible.
I have searched extensively for it and found that only the Arctic magnetic field resolves this contradiction satisfactorily as well as correlates well with the records for 300+ years.”
Being aware of that problem caused me to propose independently varying ocean cycles underlying the ENSO phenomenon, becoming more apparent over longer time scales and in my view becoming highly visible on a 500 year timescale from MWP to LIA and then to date.
We don’t have much data on SST (sea surface temperature) conditions that long ago but we do have data concerning the positions of the jets and the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) back then so we can use those positions as proxies for the SSTs since the temperature of the equatorial SSTs must be one of the factors dictating the positions of the jets and the ITCZ.
Ocean SSTs must have been cooler than now because the jets were much further equatorward during the LIA according to various sources including ships logs.
So the period 1950 to 1970 was a time when negative ocean phases more than offset the effects of the more active sun.
The active sun was apparently trying to allow the jets to move poleward but the lack of support from the cooler SSTs meant that the poleward latitudinal shift if any was very weak. Then when the ocean SSTs warmed from the late 70’s onwards the necessary support was provided and the jets move significantly poleward.
Since the sun became weaker from the late 90’s the jets have moved back equatorward again but not as far as they will do soon enough because the ocean SSTs are not especially low as yet due to the energy overhang from a long spell of poleward jets letting more solar shortwave into the equatorial oceans.
And as I have previously shown the observed changes in global albedo match very well the latitudinal shifts in the cloud bands.
Alan of AppInSys [main article]
The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields
At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.
Willis E. posted this nice graph of the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa and the ice cores. Looks more like a hockey sick than the above data to me. This graph of 2004 to 2009 shows how linear the CO2 rise is (and that the data is changed)
The discussion about the CO2 measurements is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/
Despite Willis’s faith in the CO2 data, I do not believe CO2 is homogeneous through the atmosphere, that the rise is linear, or that the measurements in the early days at Mauna Loa (1950’s thru 1970’s) are accurate. Why?
Because in 1972 and later in 1979 the labs I work in tried to use Infrared Spectrophotometers to come up with an analytical test method… and failed miserably.
In the first case the staff included 2 PhD analytical chemists, one grad student finishing up his PhD thesis, two with MS degrees in Chemistry and one with a BS in Chemistry. The wet chemical method we were trying to replace took three days and had to be carried out under a nitrogen blanket. (we all hated it) The batch had to sit in the mix kettle for the entire time so adjustments could be made and the company lost money for every day it sat. Therefore there were major incentives to get that new test method working. Unfortunately the data was all over the place. (perhaps other older chemists can comment)
For those not familiar with chemistry, the generic analytical procedure is as follows:
1. Run the “unknown” sample and the pure chemical of interest.
2. Pick out a strong clean peak for the chemical of interest that has no interference in the “unknown” sample.
3. Pick out a “calibration standard” material that does not interfere with the peak of interest and has a strong peak in an area where the unknown does not.
4. Make up a series of five to ten “calibration standards” using a set amount of the calibration material and known amounts of the pure chemical so the range expected in the unknown is covered.
5. Run ten or more curves for each calibration standard amount to determine precision and accuracy.
6. Plot the calibration curve.
7. Spike the unknown with the calibration standard and use the two peaks and the curve to determine the amount of the chemical of interest in the unknown.
To actually determine the area under the peak of interest either cut out the curve and weigh the paper on an analytical balance OR draw a baseline and measure the height of the curve and the width at 1/2 the height and multiply. Computers were not hooked to analytical equipment until the end of the sixties and then only by “rube goldberg” methods. It was the eighties before combined analytical/computer equipment was really available.
So how is the early data at Mauna Loa with a lot of “noise” tortured into giving results with a 0.1 PPM “precision”?
“4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.”
In other words run a line through the data (remember no computers in the fifties) and toss out the data that does not fit the line.
This also puts a question mark on the Mauna Loa data. Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago… Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
This information is especially interesting when the 1972 Earth Summit was already claiming “Global Warming” as a problem BEFORE we finished coming out of the cooling. This is shown in the above article’s graph of PDO shifts. The shift was in the mid 70’s not at the beginning of the decade.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:30 am
What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.
If I may be so immodest as to call attention to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/figure6.png
I’m wondering if the “regime shifts” that Alan is discerning are not simply the “turning points” shown on the above graph, which are closely aligned with phases of the solar and lunar nodal cycles? Here the mechanism is straight-forward: the broader amplitudes are governed by variations in TSI, and the frequencies are related to the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle. What is curious is that the TSI signal tends to be stronger with the odd numbered cycles than with the even numbered cycles. What this chart doesn’t explain, by itself, is the upward trend in the late 20th Century; it just demonstrates some evidence of periodicity in the global temperature data. And maybe the “regime shifts” are just mirroring that periodicity. This would explain their frequency. It wouldn’t explain the trend.
In other words, explaining shifts of global temperature, and relating them back to a solar influence, is not hard at all. What is hard is explaining the trend in the data. Incidentally, there is a trend in the figure linked to above, but it is so minor in relation to the the amplitudes of the decadal and bidecadal cycles that it seems inconsequential. Which is why I think the trend could well be “random” along the lines of what Dr. Spencer has been positing.
The matches are impressive, how these “shifts” correspond very well to solar cycle transitions. The question is, is there a way to use this finding to create a quantitative model of these temperature changes, to see what the implications are? A match is suggestive that you’ve found something important. How important, is something more difficult to determine.
Interestingly, the ramp up of cycle 21 corresponds to the 1976 climate shift very well, and marks a ramp up from cycle 20 after dropping from the record cycle 19. Then, the last three cycles have remained at elevated solar activity levels, but declined fairly steadily, behaving remarkably similarly to the PDO. HOWEVER! The problem is that the previous PDO shift, downward from 40’s, occurs about a decade before the ramping up of cycles ends, the shift associated with cycle 18 instead of 19. So that is a problem which remains to be explained.
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Indeed, so you have observed [or at least perceived and now believe] how the climate has become considerably warmer while solar activity has decreased significantly.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:06 am
KevinUK says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:46 am (Edit)
Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.
He is?! Got a link??
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A link would indeed be interesting because I don’t think he’s going to have one.
KevinUK,
I don’t think Steven mosher is who you describe. Check into again.
Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?
Even Leif’s adjustments, which have not been accepted by the mainstream no matter what he tells you, aren’t so large from 1880 as to make much difference to the situation. The fact remains, the average SSN over the second half of the C20th was significantly higher than the average over the period of record, or even just the C20th as a whole.
OT but . . . [snip]
[reply] But me no buts, butter me no parsnips, take it to tips and notes please. Thanks, RT-Mod
Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:09 am (Edit)
We don’t have much data on SST (sea surface temperature) conditions that long ago but we do have data concerning the positions of the jets and the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) back then so we can use those positions as proxies for the SSTs
We do? Cool, where can I find them please.
phlogiston says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:08 am (Edit)
So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.
Will the curvature of th Earth also increase the chance of a free path to space? If half the photons were to head downwards and half upwards, those going sideways would also encounter less dense air as they effectively gained altitude.
vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
That would be fine if it is only possible solution….
____________________________________________________________
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables. If there was one dominant independent variable it would be very obvious. I am not including the ocean oscillations because they are dependent not independent variables.
Come to think of it the Sun/cosmic rays, the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, volcanoes and possibly the earth’s geomagnetic field are the only independent variables I can think of. CO2 is certainly not an independent variable. A point everyone seems to forget.
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation, or question whether we are measuring temperature correctly it is almost impossible to separate the one from the other at this point in time. Perhaps that is all we need in the end, another century of observation to truly understand the role of CO2. In the meantime we will just have to put up with people who are on the gravy train.
Innocentious says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:54 am (Edit)
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation
Which of these correlates better?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/soon-arctic-tsi.jpg
RT-Mod,
I appreciate you directing OT’s to Tips and Notes.
🙂
tallbloke:
“Will the curvature of th Earth also increase the chance of a free path to space? If half the photons were to head downwards and half upwards, those going sideways would also encounter less dense air as they effectively gained altitude.”
Actually, given the curvature of the earth, you can make a simpler arguement yet.
At any point on a sphere the volume of the shell in the inch outside that point is greater than the volume of the shell inside that point. Given that radiation is totally random, it’s the radiation is more likely to move outward from the radiating atom than inward.
Given the huge curvature, it should be a minor increase to the odds, but multiply by HUGE numbers of interactions and it would start adding up I’d wager.
Anthony,
In your Glossary, CAGW is missing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:29 am (Edit)
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Indeed, so you have observed [or at least perceived and now believe] how the climate has become considerably warmer while solar activity has decreased significantly.
Your own TSI reconstruction graph shows a ‘second peak’ in the eighties after the highest cycle ever in the 50’s. And although the amplitudes have diminished over cycles 21-23 they were short cycles with steep ramps which kept the average sunspot numbers high compared to the C20th average. Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels and low and behold, the planet cooled not long after.
It almost beggars belief that someone with your expertise still uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
OT, but this should probably be in tips & notes. 😉
tallbloke: You wrote, “The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
But the graph you presented in your post shows little correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg
Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?
This article does NOT use sunspot counting. It uses sunspot area measurements.
You have 2 choices of measurements to consider:
1.) Uncorrected (as seen from Earth)
2.) Corrected for foreshortening (as occured on the Sun)
tallbloke: You replied, “I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature).”
Let me correct my reply: The variability of the North Atlantic OHC anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:24 am (Edit)
tallbloke: You wrote, “The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
But the graph you presented in your post shows little correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg
I wouldn’t expect it to. Something closer to a phase shifted anti-correlation is what I would expect. I did do another graph on a different averaging period which seemed to make it more explicit. It’ll be somewhere on my backup disk. The surface record is noisy though, and winds, tides, currents and cloud comes into play. Do you really expect to find nice neat correlations?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:28 am
tallbloke: You replied, “I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature).”
Let me correct my reply: The variability of the North Atlantic OHC anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.
I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?
If so, what makes you so sure?
R.Gates:
The chaotic nature of the climate would preclude a smooth logarithmic effect from CO2,
I told you more than once that whenever you find something apparently “chaotic” we must see the chaos in ourselves=Ignorance about causes. God doesn’t play dice, little silly humans do. However, FORGET about CO2, the atmosphere CAN NOT HOLD ENOUGH HEAT AS YOU MAY DREAM OF (Air heat capacity=0.001297 jcm-3 K-1; Water=4.186, so 3,227 times) then IT’S THE SEA saving or spending SUN’s heat.
Alan of AppInSys,
Thanks for your article. Solar related discussions are always great. And, Anthony thanks always for the solar posts . . . . they are the greatest.
**************
Question to Alan and all: Leaving out the “regime” and “regime shift” terminology, is Alan describing a basis for a theory that during the changing (reversal ) of the Sun’s magnetic field polarity there is some cause for upward and sometimes downward shifts in the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly? I noticed on Alan’s chart of the HadCRUT3 data that from 1900 to 2008 there have be 7 upwards temps shifts and 2 downwards shifts which he tried to correlate to the process of the sun’s magnetic polarity changes. During that (1900 to 2008) period there were basically an equal number of odd & even solar cycles . . . . how to account that some temp shifts were negative? How to account for predominance of warming shifts? I am missing a consistent picture from Alan’s article.
John
This is very very good, you have to get past the old idea the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold? it is powered up by plugging it into a power source. the earth can be heated or cooled by adding power. don’t agree? well, this is to me the same indifference than the voodoo CO2 CAGW “science” going on. we need heat to live, with out heat we die, it is just that simple yet week after week “they say it is too hot” well it will be plenty hot where they are going to end up! after the lies and obfuscation they have perpetrated on all of us!
sorry for the truth full rant.
fluffy clouds
R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:06 am
The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attractor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.
Interesting idea. However I don’t think atmospheric concentration of one gas such as CO2 is a good candidate for a parameter displaying non-linear / non-equilibrium dynamics and thus having an attractor. A key characteristic of such systems is being far from equilibrium. In the case of gas concentrations this would be reflected in significant concentration gradients and spatial differences. However in other threads, the AGW side has argued (probably correctly) that CO2 concentration is close to uniform, the atmosphere can be considered well mixed. This points to equilibrium in terms of composition. (But not energy – energy is very much at disequilibrium, thus temperature gradients, differences, winds, clouds etc.) In fact, the energy disequilibrium probably ensures the composition equilibrium.
Gail Combs says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:45 am
____________________________________________________________
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables. If there was one dominant independent variable it would be very obvious. I am not including the ocean oscillations because they are dependent not independent variables.
Come to think of it the Sun/cosmic rays, the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, volcanoes and possibly the earth’s geomagnetic field are the only independent variables I can think of. CO2 is certainly not an independent variable. A point everyone seems to forget.
Gail Combs,
Perhaps there is a “one solution” which is a “unified forcings/feedbacks theory” I am paraphrasing Einstein’s “unified field theory” attempt in theoretical physics.
Do we know enough to say there cannot be a “one solution” composed of many components? I could not say that.
John
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
1) they are the whole story
2) I was commenting on Feht: “I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate.”
Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels and low and behold, the planet cooled not long after.
We are indeed back to 1900 levels, but the TSI reconstructions we were discussing [e.g. your beloved Hoyt & Schatten] for 1900 are much lower [and therefore likely in error] and that is the point. The planet cooled? The past ten years have been the warmest recorded, but, of course, you can always hope the next ten years will drop to 1900 levels.
And there has not been a ‘steep’ drop. Just the expected drop from solar max to solar min. There is no firm evidence that TSI this minimum is any lower than previous minima, see e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf
Gail Combs says: July 5, 2010 at 8:45 am
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables.
I hope so, have added some more details (as a lead up to a short article) you may be interested to see.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
John
Tim L says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
… the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold?John
Tim L says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
This is very very good, you have to get past the old idea the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold? it is powered up by plugging it into a power source
Chemically pure common sense!, but the problem is nobody dares to say he/she is seeing the wire connecting to the power source, though magnetism is produced by electrical fields. That is forbidden by the Holy Inquisition of Post Normal Science.
☺
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels
The conclusions from the 2010 SORCE workshop might enlighten you:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session7/7.05_Woods_Summary.pdf e.g. slide 2. The 200 ppm lower comes from PMOD which likely is not calibrated correctly, see: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster%20Presentations/Poster_Svalgaard_PMOD_TSI.pdf
For perspective 200 ppm is 0.02%
BarryW says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:09 am
Mosh
“I agree with you up to a point, but when you can hit parameters that match ten times in a row as opposed to the CO2 modeling with has to jump though hoops to even get close I find it a compelling argument.”
That’s why I note that this numerology is more interesting than other numerology.
WRT C02 “modelling”. I’ll take this as an inexact reference to GCMs. As far as models go GCMs Kick the BEJESUS out of any of these “toy” approaches. I don’t tire of asking:
1. How well does this model hindcast the past.
2. how well does this model predict precipitation.
etc..
The point being a GCM attempts to simulate the entire climate process. The model above does ONE THING. it shows that regime “shifts” are aligned. That’s it. No predictions about precipitations, about temperature LEVELS, etc. The other issue is one of falsifiability.
“Your UHI comment is also off base since it affects the trend, not the steps. I’d like to see the algorithm applied to a detrended data set.”
I’m not so easily convinced. The other issue is that the instructions for the program ( its been two years since I played with it ) suggested using variance when the measures were means from zero. In short, use variance when your dealing with an anomaly series. Somebody can go check the instructions. In any case, regime shift analysis is not a magic wand. It doesnt answer the basic fundamental question of “HOW” how do changes in this, product changes in that. It can give you a PATH for investigation, but it’s nothing more than that.
Finally, I’m ever amused by people who want to
1. Say there is no warming, and then try to explain the warming seen in the record
to the sun.
2. Say the record cannot be accurate to .1C and then embrace analysis that depends
upon detecting shifts of .1C
Innocentious says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:54 am
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation, or question whether we are measuring temperature correctly it is almost impossible to separate the one from the other at this point in time. Perhaps that is all we need in the end, another century of observation to truly understand the role of CO2. In the meantime we will just have to put up with people who are on the gravy train.
______________________________________________
You are making the assumption that CO2 is an independent variable driving temperature. There is plenty of data from many sources that show it is not. To name just two:
As temperature rises you get more plant growth. The higher the temp AND CO2 the more absorbed by plants and the faster they grow, lowering the amount of CO2.
As the temperature rises the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed by water decreases.
If you’re an R fan you can do this yourself at home.
Install the package “strucchange”. Download Hadcrut3 (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly) and make a time-series object of it. Then run ‘breakpoints’ with h=0.05 (because the best solution is 13 segments). You’ll get much the same answers as above but also back to 1850. Unlike the one above, though, you get confidence intervals for the break points. They’re really tight for all the points after 1900. And the only parameter to tweak is the minimal segment size so you get a definite best model. I guess regime change algorithms will do fundamentally the same things but I find it interesting that two different methods give very similar answers.
I’ve got a picture but no idea how to include it.
hi tallbloke
“Has it occurred to Steven Mosher it might just be that the parameters fit the data because Alan Cheetham has zoomed in on the correct parameter values?”
There is no such thing as the correct parameters for detecting regime shifts. Just take a look at the underlying approach and you’ll see that’s its a form of data mining. In the end you cannot attribute any confidence to the overall result. It’s an investigative tool.
WRT the numerology insult. Of course numerologists will be insulted. But people who understand that science depends upon explanation will not be offended.
two sets of numbers are shown to have some sort of “similarity”. they “line up”. they “track each well”, they “correlate.” That’s an observation about NUMBERS.
Its’ not a physical theory. A physical theory would propose a mechanism and be testable. The numerology games of finding similarities between time series is a wonderful hobby. I find it amusing that people who claim the climate is too chaotic to predict or understand, will gladly accept a huge oversimplification if it matches their preconceptions about the role of the sun.
So, just to recap. The regime change approach gives you a place to START real science. It’s not a physical theory. without a physical theory its just numerology. Fun with numbers.
idlex says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
idlex, I like the way you’re approaching the problem. The model you describe for the input/output energy for the CO2 molecules is just the way I visualize the situation. The little computer simulation you describe would likely be just the first step in a long model simulation because from what I’ve read here, the feedback or secondary effects from CO2 re-radiation are the real drivers of overall global temperatures.
One thing that sticks in my mind is the fairly recent NASA images of CO2 in the atmosphere being “clumpy”. The images created show CO2 concentrations looking like floating hot dogs in the sky. These images make me think that drawing a Gaussian surface around the distinct clumps of CO2 and then assuming an evenly distributed re-radiation from the Gaussian surface would imply that a smaller percent of the energy would be directed back toward the earths surface. The majority of the energy leaving the surface would miss the earth and be lost to space. The devil will be in the details i.e. feedbacks.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:55 am
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down? The earth is in the sun’s atmosphere. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth. It doesn’t make sense that it would have no effect.
***************************************************************
Excellent point. I don’t, and leif does not, argue that the sun has No influence. That’s just a strawman.
1. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth.
This is so vague as to be “untestable” Which changes? that’s the first question.
The second question is the “MUST” question. There is no LOGICAL NECESSITY.
you have a reasonable assumption that changes there MAY lead to changes here.
The proper way to proceed is to establish a testable hypothesis.
2. It makes perfect sense that some changes would have no effect. Drop a ball
from your rooftop. measure the time to impact. Now change the mass of the ball.
That change should have an effect right?
So just to be clear. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that some changes in the sun will lead to changes in the climate here. The issue is this. There is a difference between:
A. Observing an interesting relationship between two sets of data. A nice hobby.
B. Constructing a physical theory based on laws of physics that allows you to
EXPLAIN and QUANTIFY how changes in one time series produces changes in the other.
“A” is numerology. Sometimes good science starts with numerology. It never ENDS with numerology. It ends with B.
So, I see some interesting numbers in this post. Maybe somebody will create a physical theory that spits out predictions about the climate from this interesting fact about numbers.
(Leif will get this.) These types of ‘studies’ are merely and soley studies about ‘numbers’ and not what those numbers represent. That’s why I call them numerology. Because they are literally ABOUT NUMBERS.
REPLY: Mosh is right. Without the physical mechanism, the cause and effect becomes numeric speculation. All sorts of science began by finding patterns of numbers in data, quantifying it, and then proposing and finally proving a physical mechanism. This is no different. However, some other work is going to have to be done to establish the physical mechanism. While it would be tempting to imagine a giant Hurst Helios gear-shifter, it is much more nuanced than that 😉 – Anthony
It’s a “little cooling” in figure 3 since 2005?
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/bering_status_overview.html
Interesting, isn’t? Would be a shift?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
The Sunspot activity is slipping behind 1900. Just like your SC19 vs SC24 graph, SC23 came in lower and SC24 goes out lower than the 1900’s episode. This falling behind behavior has been a hallmark consistency of SC24.
The planet is in the process of cooling right now.
The bad thing is that certain scientists made a deal with the devil as far as the weather records go, so the compromised HADcrut3 will have to do.
When the climate records are searched out and put right (talk to Dr. Curry), then we will have a much better chance at answering global questions. In the meantime, we have the doctored climate records we have, not the ones we wish were not spoiled or sold for profits.
Mosh>
Do you always have to be so forthright? I see you popping up all over the place, and whilst you generally have a point, you also generally insist on smashing people over the head with it instead of discussing it politely. Standard MO in all these debates, though – you’re hardly alone. Please try not to do it, and we’ll all benefit.
I agree with you that ‘numerology’ is technically accurate, but it’s akin to calling someone ‘fat’ to their face. You may need to refer to their size, but there are ways to say it that don’t rub people up the wrong way.
The point for discussion is of course how much weight to put on this matter at this stage. On the basis solely of this one article, there’s no more than a ‘dig here’, but it’s interesting to see how these results came into being.
My personal opinion, based on little evidence bar a strong hunch, is that these graphs are too good to be true, and so if they show either that there is an incredibly strong correlation between solar activity and climate, or that the research tool will bring out pretty results appropriate for any theory you care to run through it, then I find the latter far more plausible in context, especially considering the unreliability of Hadcrut.
I know this is a bit off topic, but why are we showing the HADCRUT Global Temp anomaly of the Hadley Center??? Its obvious that Graph has been adjusted (Manipulated) over, and Over again, Mainly Before The Sattelite Era so why are we Using it to compare solar anomalies that could Match up better without the adjustments?? Maybe I’m Missing Something HUGE, and If so, I’m Sorry for Acting Like a complete Idiot.
Cheers,
Philly
Steve mosher (1:41): “it it became clear that I could tune the thing to fit my assumptions. Hint: if he set the cuttoff length at 11 instead of 10 the trick would have been too obvious.”
The cutoff length by definition does affect the results – that’s because the cutoff limit causes it to ignore any regimes shorter than the defined cutoff limit. Choosing a cutoff that is longer than solar cycles will by definition prevent the solar cycles from being identified. Using 11 instead of 10 makes only a slight change – in the 1914 – 1930 time frame when the solar sysles are weaker.
View this to see the effect of the cutoff length and noise parameters: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RegimeParams.htm
Re: Use of Hadcrut3 data: I tend to use the “official” data as much as possible. Even though it is adjusted and manipulated, using it removes the potential criticisms of selecting a data set to match the desired outcome.
REPLY: Supposedly HadCRUT is being “reworked” as a result of Climategate. You’ll be able to run it again when/if it becomes available. Weather balloon data might be another choice in the meantime. – Anthony
Dave (11:06): “these graphs are too good to be true, and so if they show either that there is an incredibly strong correlation between solar activity and climate, or that the research tool will bring out pretty results appropriate for any theory you care to run through it”
The Hadcrut3 data is easily downloaded from the link in the article; the algorithm is easily downloaded from its link in the article. Anyone can easily experiment with this. Use the algorithm right “out of the the box” (i.e. without adjusting anything) and you will see virtually the same results (only difference is in the 1914-1930 time frame when the solar cycles are weaker). Add their recommended noise filter and you get the results I have described. Try it. (Also see my previous response to mosher about the cutoff length.)
tallbloke:
Some stuff here about the jets having been in different latitudinal positions during the LIA:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
“During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions. Impact of Glaciers
During the post-MWP cooling of the climate, glaciers in many parts of Europe began to advance. Glaciers negatively influenced almost every aspect of life for those unfortunate enough to be living in their path. Glacial advances throughout Europe destroyed farmland and caused massive flooding. On many occasions bishops and priests were called to bless the fields and to pray that the ice stopped grinding forward (Bryson, 1977.) Various tax records show glaciers over the years destroying whole towns caught in their path. A few major advances, as noted by Ladurie (1971), appear below.”
There are also ships logs showing storms well equatorward of those seen during the past 50 years and the Viking settlements in Greenland suggest the polar jet well poleward at that time.
So, lots of bits of data from a wide range of sources and evidence that the ITCZ was similarly involved so here’s a google search result for your use.
http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=ITCZ+Little+Ice+Age&brand=ouk&tab=web&p=searchbox&pt=home_web&home=false&x=27&y=17
Leif (8:17: “At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.”
Not sure what facts you are referring to. If you look at the figure showing the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field from 1975 – 2010 you can see when the field is polarized and when it starts its trend to reversal (i.e. the maximum subspot area occurs when the field is reversing at the suns equator).
Regarding the empirical aspect of this reasearch (since numerology is an inappropriate term here if you actually look up its definition)
Science is often empirical – starting with observations of a phenomenon. The lack of a known mechanism does not invalidate the observations.
If we had longer-term observations of various parameters (such as coronal mass ejections or magnetic clouds) we might be able to get closer to the mechanism.
A study of solar magnetic clouds during 1994 – 2002 by Wu, Lepping & Gopalswamy, “Solar Cycle Variations of Magnetic Clouds and CMEs” http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Pap.pdf states: “The average occurrence rate is 9 magnetic clouds per year for the overall period (68 events/7.6 years). It is found that some of the frequency of occurrence anomalies were during the early part of Cycle 23: 1. Only 4 magnetic clouds were observed in 1999, and 2. An unusually large number of magnetic clouds (16 events) were observed in 1997 in which the Sun was beginning the rising of Cycle 23”
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:36 am
I find it amusing that people who claim the climate is too chaotic to predict or understand, will gladly accept a huge oversimplification if it matches their preconceptions about the role of the sun.
But, but: D.A. claims it’s so simple that anybody can do it [even he].
Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:44 am
Leif (8:17: “At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.”
Not sure what facts you are referring to.
Read the article. It claims “The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields” which is incorrect. But, perhaps, inaccuracies don’t matter much in this debate.
Flavio Feltrim says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:56 am
It’s a “little cooling” in figure 3 since 2005?
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/bering_status_overview.html
Interesting, isn’t? Would be a shift?
___________________________________________________________
Am I missing something here???
The article says:
”In the past, the Bering Sea was known for large differences in weather conditions from year-to-year. Change in the last five years is characterized by the persistence in warm ocean temperatures and lack of sea ice in the southern Bering Sea. Without sea ice, the ocean can absorb more solar energy and provides resistance to ice formation in the following winter. There may be additional warm ocean temperatures brought by currents from the Gulf of Alaska. The changes in the Bering Sea are part of a large regional climate change from Siberia eastward to northern Canada. Thus, while it is impossible to predict future climate, the balance of the evidence suggests a continuation of current conditions. “
Yet the referenced graph shows the maximum (and minimum) temperatures has DECREASED for the last four years. Don’t they even bother to look at their own graphs?
Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:58 am
A study of solar magnetic clouds during 1994 – 2002 by Wu [..] “An unusually large number of magnetic clouds (16 events) were observed in 1997 in which the Sun was beginning the rising of Cycle 23”
unusual? for the short interval 1994-2002? What other rising cycles were there in 1994-2002 to compare with to make the statement that 1997 was unusual?
phil says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:07 am
You can always use this formula (and the idea of sorting according to solar cycle lengths) to check on your local climate area data. Data which you can check out by careful comparison with provenance.
After all, the most important piece of climate is where you live.
Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:17 am
magnetism is produced by electrical fields
You are saying this is the mechanism?
Alan
I think it is an interesting analytical tool but as a hypothesis is a non starter.
I would like to see it backdated to 1650, we got sunspot numbers andthe Met Office CETs data.
As you can see here (bottom graph)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm
there was a very sharp jump in temperatures from 1685 to 1700 with no sunspots to speak off, no ‘gears to be shifted’.
In contrast period from 1740 to near 1900, there is a lot of solar activity, ‘plenty of gears’, but CETs barely moved relative to the late 1600’s and the early and late 1900’s.
For credibility you have to come up with something covering at least the known data range, not to mention the transfer mechanism!
Follow the money or follow the Sun?…That’s the question!☺
Gail Combs says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Yet the referenced graph shows the maximum (and minimum) temperatures has DECREASED for the last four years. Don’t they even bother to look at their own graphs?
Like they want you to accept the very opposite to the facts right before your eyes, but…
I SEE FOUR LIGHTS!
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:54 am
So just to be clear. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that some changes in the sun will lead to changes in the climate here. The issue is this. There is a difference between:
A. Observing an interesting relationship between two sets of data. A nice hobby.
B. Constructing a physical theory based on laws of physics that allows you to
EXPLAIN and QUANTIFY how changes in one time series produces changes in the other.
This explanation has a different feel to it then just calling it numerology. I think it was 1:30 am when you posted the numerology comment so at that hour you may not have wanted to expound. But now with this comment I can see I agree with you much more than I did last night.
Anthony’s explanation helped clear it up too:
REPLY: Mosh is right. Without the physical mechanism, the cause and effect becomes numeric speculation. All sorts of science began by finding patterns of numbers in data, quantifying it, and then proposing and finally proving a physical mechanism. This is no different. However, some other work is going to have to be done to establish the physical mechanism. While it would be tempting to imagine a giant Hurst Helios gear-shifter, it is much more nuanced than that 😉 – Anthony
Leif (12:04): Thanks for the clarification of what you were referring to. You are correct: the onset of an odd-numbered solar cycle does not “result” in the relative alignment of the fields. I have changed the original to state that the onset of an odd-numbered cycle “occurs” during the relative alignment (which is obvious from the two figures showing magnetic fields).
I am wondering if the IPCC had 1976 in mind when they used a proxy of solar activity that showed no increase in activity instead of the instrumental which did:
“Nicola Scafetta, PART 1, on which solar data set to use, the IPCC was incorrect”
“Nicola Scafetta, PART 2, on which solar data set to use, the IPCC was incorrect”
What if someone dares to provide such asked “mechanism”? Will it be accepted or rejected as blasphemous?
Leif (12:07): If you think the Wu et al study is invalid, state why.
rbateman (12:13): I am not saying magnetism is “the mechanism” for these “regime shits”. But it could be the initiator of the process which gets propagated by an as yet undefined mechanism.
I happened to catch a story in the German online Sueddeutsche Zeitung today about a brand new Max Planck Institute study on the earth’s CO2 cycle. I was writing a post about it and, much to my frustration, the story disappeared after being up only an hour or so. The report concluded that CO2 feedbacks from additional warming were exaggerated.
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/max-plank-institute-especially-alarmist-scenarios-are-unrealistic-oops-german-newspaper-takea-it-off-its-website/
I don’t know why the SZ would take it down. (It was awfully damn inconvenient).
Vuk (12:21): Regional data sets (such as CET) will likely produce different temperature regimes since not all areas of the globe respond in the same way.
There seems to be some confusion about what this work is.
I did not propose a hypothesis in terms of a mechanism for all “global warming”.
I did not propose that these solar events (onset of solar cycle) are the only source of climate variation.
I observed that there is a definite correspondence between the onset of solar cycles and changes in temperature regime. I observed that this correspondence appeared to exist (see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SolarCycleHadcrut3.jpg)
Then I discovered there was regime shift identification software and used it to examine that hypothesis (that temperature regimes correspond to solar cycles in the 20th century). This indeed appears credible.
I am not saying all warming / cooling events are caused by this. These observations show that the onset of solar cycles result in a temperature shift.
The observations are a beginning and hopefully the mechanism will be discovered (because CO2 as a major driver of these events does not seem credible even though there is a defined mechanism).
Aldi says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:48 am
Circulation. Less(or more) output from the sun changes the air and water circulations(their extends I would think). The same way as heating water in a pot would create movements in the water by exciting the molecules.
Could it be waves on the ocean surface that would have a different effect than calm, flat water?
Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm
What if someone dares to provide such asked “mechanism”? Will it be accepted or rejected as blasphemous?
____________________________________________
Tallbloke has been working on it. see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-beauty-of-a-near-spotless-sun/#comment-418872
Aldi says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:48 am
Willis Eschenbach gave a nice presentation on the physics of of wind, waves, and ocean. Variations in energy from the sun could have a varying effect on wind, waves, and ocean. Plausible?
“Willis Eschenbach, PART 1, negative feedback, the physics of wind, waves, and ocean”
“Willis Eschenbach, PART 2, negative feedback, the physics of wind, waves, and ocean”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
1) they are the whole story
No They’re not.
Once again:
although the amplitudes have diminished over cycles 21-23 they were short cycles with steep ramps which kept the average sunspot numbers high compared to the C20th average.
And in any case, as Rob Bateman pointed out, this study uses sunspot areas not numbers.
Or have you shrunk those in the wash so they are all the same size too?
Alan Cheetham>
“The Hadcrut3 data is easily downloaded from the link in the article; the algorithm is easily downloaded from its link in the article. Anyone can easily experiment with this.”
I didn’t mean to imply that I in any way distrust the reported results. It’s just that they imply a flawed algorithm (or temperature dataset) more strongly than a ground-breaking and incredibly strong correlation between solar activity and climate. The results are just too neat to be credible, because they imply such a strong correlation as to be unbelievably obvious – and yet everyone’s missed it up until now. In fact, the correlation shown graphically is so clear and direct that there’s no room for any damping factors – it acts like a switch.
It seems far more plausible to me that solar activity is directly affecting Hadcrut temperature measurements than so closely correlating to actual climate.
Basically, this article is very interesting, and there are three possible explanations: bad algorithm, bad data, or a genuine very strong correlation. The first seems unlikely – the algorithm seems to be working ok, going by the naked eye. The second is very plausible. The third is possible, but relatively unlikely. It seems to me that what’s been found here is a new factor for which Hadcrut needs to be adjusted.
@ Leif Svalgaard, July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
Leif wrote: “We are indeed back to 1900 levels, but the TSI reconstructions we were discussing [e.g. your beloved Hoyt & Schatten] for 1900 are much lower [and therefore likely in error] and that is the point. The planet cooled? The past ten years have been the warmest recorded, but, of course, you can always hope the next ten years will drop to 1900 levels.”
Leif, the suns rays are strongest around 12 noon while the hottest part of the day is around 3pm. Just curious, if the sun were to all of a sudden output TSI at say 10% higher and stay at that level, how long would the delay be before the earth fully warmed up from the additional energy?
I wonder what would happen if the regime change program were applied to the corrections of ground temperature stations to their actual values? It would be interesting to see whether the program identifies any “regime changes” there.
Enneagram says:July 5, 2010 at 10:17 am
magnetism is produced by electrical fields
Yep
There are lots of electric currents over the Arctic Ocean, even got names, and some are very strong
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC.htm
You can find out more here, if so inclined:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/gem/tutorial/2002Zaharia.pdf
Leif Svalgaard
And there has not been a ‘steep’ drop. Just the expected drop from solar max to solar min.
Suffering from a little snow blindness Leif? Most of us are experiencing the ‘expected solar drop’ and it seems quite unexpected for everyone else but you. I have just bought a nice diesel genny in case the ‘expected drop’ continues and we get snowed in again. You seem to be an odd fellow, knowledgeable yet obviously biased and clinging to the hope of a resumption of the warming trend. Can’t see that myself, I think the cooling will see me out and the warming is gone for good, at least in my lifetime.
I would like to see you re-invent yourself as a non-warmist to get a serious opinion on the solar minimum and the realistic cooling effects on the climate. Lets hope that the shackles that you work within will be discarded soon.
Phil M2.
Bob Tisdale (1:30): “the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles”
I believe there are multiple cycles involved in the overall climate change (each likely with a different source). The (approx.) 11/22-year solar/Hale cycle is examined here. There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause. When the even-numbered cycles are on a descending part of the 60-year cycle they cause a temperature decrease. When they are on an ascending part of the 60-year cycle (including the years you mention) they cause an increase. This can be seen in this figure: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SolarCycleHadcrut3.jpg
The 60-year cycle is examined here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
There are obviously longer cycles involved as well.
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:20 am
Your right I was being imprecise saying CO2 model instead of GCM.
Yes but I don’t really classify this as a model, it’s the correlation of two data sets with the implication that they may be related. Try running the program on noise and see if you can get the two to line up. To me this indicates there are serious flaws in the GCMs.
Who says there is no warming? The question is the amount, location, and causation.
I think you’re pushing it a little too hard. Seeing the correlation and being able to PREDICT that an outcome based on that correlation is part and parcel to science (there’s your falsifiability). Whether the underlying mechanism is understood may take a while.
Doug S. said:
“The devil will be in the details i.e. feedbacks.”
____________
Indeed…it always is. And in a chaotic system such as Earth’s climate, those detail will remain unpredictable. Though some seem very confused on this point, as they confuse Chaotic systems with random or stochastic processes. At some point, the smallest of change will break equalibrium, and the system will seak a new point of equalibrium (i.e. a regime or attractor). We’ve added 30% more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since since the industrial revolution. Those who think that CO2 will only produce some logarithmic effect forever, would think that we could add 2,000% more without an effect, but this is not the way a chaotic system works…eventually the climate will seek a new point of equalibrium (or points of equalibrium along the way). We have evidence of a new “regime” or attractor in the Arctic being set up in the Dipole Anomaly.
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:54 am
nice hobby.
numerology.
Maybe somebody will create a physical theory that spits out predictions….
REPLY: Mosh is right. Without the physical mechanism, the cause and effect becomes numeric speculation. – Anthony
Numerology used in this context is a pejorative term. However, not to worry, I can usually find a humorous way to turn insults back to hold the mirror up to their owners.
Here’s what Dynamologist Leif Svalgaard and his cheerleader Anna V say about the requirement for a mechanism for his own pet theory on a different website
Anna V says
Data do not need a physics mechanism to be valid. The physics will come in time.
Nice article of faith there Anna.
Leif Svalgaard says:
There are three reasons I believe L&P (Livingstone and Penn) is important and [as good science] is telling us something about the Sun:
1) The L&P data themselves
2) The increasing discrepancy between the sunspot number and the F10.7 flux since ~1990
3) The existence of significant cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder [and other Grand Minima] even though few spots were seen.
L&P provides an explanation for 2) and 3). If we discount L&P then we have three puzzles rather than one. For this reason, L&P is a good working hypothesis and commands attention. Time will tell if we can turn the hypothesis into a theory backed up with a mechanism, in which case we have learned something important about the Sun. Giving up the possibility of learning something is bad science.
Amen.
Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful. But since they avoid the subject like the plague, I’ll just giggle a bit at their display of rank hypocrisy when they throw other peoples ideas out because of “no mechanism”.
The reason there has been a growing discrepancy between the F10.7 flux and sunspot numbers snce the 90’s is because they are not linearly correlated
There may well have been modulation of the cosmic ray caused 10Be deposition during the Maunder Minimum, but this tells us nothing about their absolute levels.
Now Dynamology is a nice and well paid hobby for some, but it has singulary failed to predict anything useful about the sun’s output in the immediate future, as evidenced by the Dynamologists varying predictions ranging from ~40SSN to 180SSN for solar cycle 24.
That’s
numerdynamology for you. We’ll be seeing how good Leif’s prediction of 70SSN is against my prediction of 40SSN soon. But I won’t be using an ‘adjusted’ sunspot number that include Livingstone and Penns invisible spots or SIDC’s tiny Tims to test them.I personaly like this JPL paper that correlates historic auroral correlations as a sunspot proxy with the Pharaoh’s record of the Nile water level.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
The authors believe there is a link between variations in the ultravilot spectrum of the sun and Phases of the NAO.
Certainly the most striking event associated with the current solar minimum has been the extreme negative AO and NAO which last winter resulted in the jet streams diving greatly to the south. There have recently also been impressive auroral displays.
Phil M2. says on July 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I do not think Leif is a warmist of any sort. Rather, he seems to me to struggle mightily against pseudo-scientific beliefs like the hollow sun stuff, the barycenter stuff and the belief that it is all due to sunspot variation, etc.
Thanks for your replies to my question.
phlogiston says: July 5, 2010 at 8:08 am:
Longwave (IR) radiation within the very narrow window that interacts with CO2 can interact in 2 ways: (1) absorption resulting in heat energy deposition, or (2) scattering (absorption-re-emission) at a (presumably) random angle.
If all interactions are type 1 heat depositing, then CO2 absorbs all photons within about 10 m, and thus the saturation argument, CO2 cannot be a factor in atmosphere heat.
However for longwave IR to penetrate a long distance through the atmosphere, most interactions must be of the scattering (absorption-re-emission) type, resulting in a diffusive movement of IR photons.
Why do you give figure of 10 m for type 1 absorption? Is that the wavelength? Does the same figure apply to type 2 absorption? How near does a photon have to get to a CO2 molecule to be absorbed?
I started out thinking that that what was going on was your type 1 absorption, and the carbon dioxide heated up and radiated this heat away. But all the descriptions I’ve come across describe the process as your type 2 absorption, and I don’t think that this necessarily entails heating. The photon is absorbed, and then shortly afterwards it’s re-emitted in some random direction. This led me towards the football analogy. Otherwise I’d have tried to think about the atmosphere as made up of black body radiators.
I understand your reasoning about the atmosphere being less dense higher up, and so less likely to absorb rising photons. But most of the stuff I’ve read seems to be saying that more photons go downward than go upward.
Doug S says: July 5, 2010 at 10:42 am
idlex, I like the way you’re approaching the problem. The model you describe for the input/output energy for the CO2 molecules is just the way I visualize the situation. The little computer simulation you describe would likely be just the first step in a long model simulation because from what I’ve read here, the feedback or secondary effects from CO2 re-radiation are the real drivers of overall global temperatures.
I’ve already written a very simple simulation of a patch of earth which absorbs solar radiation, conducts it below ground, and re-rediates to space from its surface. But my model had no atmosphere, and I’ve been wondering how to put in a simple atmosphere. And this led me to get puzzled about the fraction of IR emitted by the atmosphere that went upwards and downwards. I somehow doubt I’ll ever get to look at secondary feedbacks (e.g. CO2 release from oceans).
Anyway, I’m glad nobody’s told me that my simulation model was a non-starter.
tallbloke said :
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful.”
I’ve already done that.
When the sun is more active the energy flux from stratosphere to space increases so that the stratosphere cools, the inversion at the tropopause weakens, the polar oscillations turn more positive, the jets move poleward, albedo falls because there is less reflection from the clouds, cloud amounts in the equatorial regions fall as the cloud bands move poleward and more solar energy enters the oceans.
Are there any recent (in the last 50 years) observations (not flawed historical records or proxies) that do not fit that scenario ?
When the sun is less active the process is reversed.
Alan Cheetham says: July 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm
There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause.
Any astronomer will tell you that the every third conjunction of two largest planets with strongest magnetospheres happens every 59.577 years at approximately the same heliocentric longitude (actually back-shifted by 5 degrees).
If you for some reason think that solar activity is caused by an electro-magnetic feedback between the sun and the magnetospheres, than intensity of this feedback will vary due to asymmetry of heliosphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
You are welcome to browse through some of the formulae and graphs :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm (Edit)
tallbloke said :
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful.”
I’ve already done that.
And I’ve responded to your posts. None of the big hitters have though. We’ll have a nip of grog and sing some shanties to while away the loneliness.
Comparison of the current with previous cycles suggests that sunspots are forming at lower latitudes than previously. Has anyone done an analysis of this?
R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Adding another 100-150 ppm C02 to the previous level has no more effect than counting Tiny Tim Sunspots does to the Sunspot Area Measurements. I do not say that either addition has no effect, just that the effects of those additions are not significant.
Stephen Wilde says: July 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
When the sun is more active the energy flux from stratosphere to space increases so that the stratosphere cools, the inversion at the tropopause weakens, the polar oscillations turn more positive…
There is one more literally ‘down to earth’ explanation (with 150 year of data track record and strong correlation) for the polar oscillations:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Thank for the Eschenbach videos! Willis, great lecture.
The next generation of climate models will have spatial resolutions of <10km and this will allow them to simulate thunderstorms:
http://www.physorg.com/news180371126.html
This might render the projections of older climate models invalid. (Hmmmm… science settled, eh, BBC?)
Rich says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:25 am
It makes me happy to see another fan of R here. It always hits me as bad science to see scientific software that depends on the proprietary, expensive, and not very reliable Microsoft Excel.
For your pictures, you can output them to files with “png()” or “pdf()”, and then upload them to a site for image sharing.
KBW says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Comparison of the current with previous cycles suggests that sunspots are forming at lower latitudes than previously. Has anyone done an analysis of this?
_________________________________
Check out the Layman’s sunspot count website towards the bottom of the page: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Gail Combs says: July 5, 2010 at 8:24 am
Despite Willis’s faith in the CO2 data, I do not believe CO2 is homogeneous through the atmosphere, that the rise is linear, or that the measurements in the early days at Mauna Loa (1950′s thru 1970′s) are accurate.
Unless you are calling all data gatherers liars or incompetents then this plot shows a world wide level of CO2 which is more or less homogeneous.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3694/co2manytrends.png
Amino:
“This explanation has a different feel to it then just calling it numerology. I think it was 1:30 am when you posted the numerology comment so at that hour you may not have wanted to expound. But now with this comment I can see I agree with you much more than I did last night.”
ya sorry, I’m assuming that most people are going to get my shorthand for things we have discussed many many times.
tallbloke:
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful. But since they avoid the subject like the plague, I’ll just giggle a bit at their display of rank hypocrisy when they throw other peoples ideas out because of “no mechanism”.”
For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue. “the sun got really active” is not a clear statement. the sun got “quiet” is not a clear statement. When we look at our understanding of how the Sun provides energy to the earth that clear understanding is reflected in TSI data.
The units are kw/sqmeter. Think on that.
WRT throwing other peoples ideas out. Without a mechanism there is no IDEA to throw out. there is only this: a mere observation about numbers. This set of numbers is like that set of numbers. That’s not an explanation. It’s not even an idea.
It’s an observation.
Steven mosher says on July 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Unless the Yellowtail Merlot has gotten the better of me, I think you mean W/m^2, ie watts per square meter.
@Steven Mosher
‘For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue.’
The first prerequisite will always be a proper forum. That’s why the Greek made ’em, and the Roman made use of ’em, and the church banned ’em.
The Internets, only, mass-produced ’em, what ever. :p
We already know that the sun influences global temp as it has been shown that the temp does change in a measurable way as sunspot lows, versus sunspot highs. If this si true, as is shown in this paper:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
THEN, eve larger changes, like those pointed out here, or as occurred in the Maunder Minimum, will lead to even greater changes. You papers stating otherwise are just wrong in my opinion.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard, July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am, wrote: “The past ten years have been the warmest recorded…”
In your opinion.
There is a lot of data that contradicts that assertion.
But hey…keep pitching for those invites to conferences where the organizers want “cover” for the AGW propaganda.
In that sense, you’ve been a good little lap dog.
Maybe, they’ll give you an award for peddling “the Sun doesn’t matter” hogwash.
AGW is a hoax.
And there are many folks who drank the Kool-Aid…or did their part to get other people to drink the Kool-Aid.
Most of us, here, were smart enough to drop the Kool-Aid cup in the waste basket…a long time ago.
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
“If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor. ”
Actually, the moderators of WUWT are for the most part agreed that nonsense like “Iron Sun” theories are phlogiston and don’t belong here. That is distinctly different from discussions about the solar influence on Earth climate. We welcome Leif here and his comments because unlike most AGW scientists, he is generally civil and happy to answer questions about his discipline, for the same reason we welcome Judith Curry here. We can disagree with their opinions about solar influence on climate (and I and others do) without attacking them or resorting to nonsense.
WUWT tries to help educate the layman and the interested professional without attacking or demeaning either. The systemic problems that led to the arrogance and elitism behind the CRUtape Letters email authors, and part of that is the politicization of science on both ends of the spectrum. Modern politics seeks to force change via dialectical conflict of polarization and alienation of the opposition. That isn’t how science is supposed to work, and when it does we all are harmed.
We are as skeptical of claims of AGW as we are of long disproven theories like the geocentric universe, steady state universe, spontaneous generation, phlogiston, Piltdown Man, Lamarckianism, Lysenkoism, and yes, iron sun and electric universe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One obvious problem with the algorithm is that it insists on interpreting everything as regime change. It does not allow for concurrent steady trends. So, suppose we accept that the correlation implies a tendency for higher temperatures when the sun’s field is one way up and lower when it’s the other way. The next step would be to extract the long term average of that relationship and subtract that as appropriate from the temperature graph. This should produce a clearer picture of the long term trend.
The smoking gun. Wow. Do a cross correlation between the datasets and see what that number it – it must be very close to 1.0
BBk wrote: “The implication is that temperature is an indirect effect. He correlated with PDO, implying that the sun drives PDO (changes in upper atmosphere causing shifting weather patterns, etc) which in turn changes temperature.”
Please supply a paper that describes the mechanism(s) by which the PDO changes global temperatures. As far as I’ve found, there are none. The PDO lags ENSO and is dependent of ENSO on all timescales, according to Newman et al. The reason for the periodic difference between ENSO and the PDO appears to be a shift in Sea Level Pressure, in the form of the North Pacific Index (NPI):
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-difference-between-nino34-sst.html
idlex :The photon is absorbed, and then shortly afterwards it’s re-emitted in some random direction.
There’ll also be collisions with other molecules, which will lead to a kinetic redistribution of the absorbed energy – a rise in the gas temperature.
The mean free path of air at sea level is about 0.1 μm, increasing linearly with the inverse of atmospheric pressure. At the same time, air molecules possess speeds of ~100-500 m/s. Therefore on average a collision will take place every half a nano-second or so.
I haven’t found a reference for the IR absorption-to-emission time(s) for CO2 yet – if they’re longer than half a nano-second, and assuming the above calculations are correct, there’ll be a significant number of these collisions.
@ richard sharp.
Thanks for the sharp eyes
This is interesting, but (leaving aside the issue of the accuracy of adjusted/homogenised temperature records):
1) The temperture “regime shifts” appear to happen before the increasing sun spot numbers manifest themselves in general. This implies a very high senstivity of the temperature record to the mechanism which generates sun spots.
2) The sun spot number maxima do not seem to correlate to the tempertature maxima/minima or curve shape. This implies that there is little sensitivity of the temperature record to sun spot number. If we accept that sun spot number is dependent on the sun spot generating mechanism in 1), then 2) contradicts 1).
3) The magnitude and direction (positive or negative) of the “regime shifts” with respect to the last “regime shift” value is not predicted by the sun spot data. Sometimes the shift is greater than the previous shift, sometimes less and sometimes the same.
4) The senstivity of “regime shift” to sun spot cycle alluded to in 1) appears to suggest an almost “instantaneous” effect on temperature in the time-frame of solar cycles which makes the data look too good to be true.
For these reasons Willis et. al. who require some mechanism as well as the observed correlation are correct.
On a final note. The temperature graphs look like absolute temperatures rather than anomalies but I couldn’t tell from the article. Maybe I missed it.
There’ll also be collisions with other molecules, which will lead to a kinetic redistribution of the absorbed energy – a rise in the gas temperature.
Not sure I agree about that. CO2 only captures photons of a particular wavelength/frequency. I think the same is true of the oxygen and nitrogen which make up most of the atmosphere.
The model I’m imagining is one in which there’s effectively only CO2 in the atmosphere, because all other gas molecules are transparent.
Furthermore, I’m not sure whether the absorption of a photon results in a rise in temperature. If the absorption of a photon by a CO2 molecule just kicks an electron into a higher orbit, or ‘stretches’ bonds between atoms, I don’t see that this necessarily entails a temperature rise. Not all gains in energy translate into gains in temperature.
But that’s just my guess.
And I’ve been wondering too how long CO2 holds onto a photon, and haven’t seen a figure for it yet.
If anything, that graph (though it only covers a few years) proves Gail’s point. While all the sites show a similar overall trend, the absolute levels shown at the various sites vary at any give time vary. They are certainly not homogeneous — there’s too much variance between them to say they are.
Anthony:
Many others conclude that they are talking about Rajenda Pachauri. 🙂
@ Steve Mosher
Without a mechanism, there is no IDEA to throw out, there is only this: a mere speculation about numbers.
Are you thus elevating “Argumentum ad ignorantium” to the status of a law of science?
In a chaotic-nonlinear system, rejecting a corellation based hypothesis on the basis of incomplete knowledge of mechanism is even more risky and challenging.
As mentioned above, reductionist fixation on mechanism can lead to the related epistemological disorder, “argumentum ignarus res” or argument in defiancce of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism (and in the simplicity of the mechanism’s opeation in the real world) that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CAGW is a good example of this.
@ idlex
I agree with your point about heating probably not being the predominant interaction (although if it was it would completely negate CAGW :-). I’m discussing this in an arm-waving way, I’m not as well acquainted with the physics of IR photons and CO2 as I am with x-rays and photoelectric absorption / Compton scattering.
One point I wanted to make however was that CAGW theorists cannot “have their cake and eat it”. You cant have both absorption / re-emission and heating, due to energy conservation. If (hypothetically) the (CO2 band) IR interactions were all of the type that deposit heat energy, then it has been shown (sorry no reference!) that this CO2 absorbed IR would not penetrate more than 10 m through air. Due to the IR photon energy not being infinite.
But if the interaction is instead absorption followed by re-emission at the same energy (I haven’t yet checked if this is possible) which we could abbreviate rather loosely as diffusion, then the IR photon keeps its energy after millions of interactions; however it cant heat anything. You cant take heat energy from the IR photon and have your photon continuing to propagate.
The paramecium analogy, together with the atmosphere’s spherical geometry as mentioned by tallbloke and others, means that IR diffusive radiation will be more up than down. (I’m puzzled by how CAGW proponents try o argue the reverse).
Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Leif (12:07): If you think the Wu et al study is invalid, state why.
I think I already did. To state that a single year [1997] in the short interval 1994-2002 is ‘unusual’ is perhaps a misunderstanding of what ‘unusual’ means. You can only claim this on the basis of a much longer time base. Perhaps the real problem is not Wu et al. but you who boldened their statement and thereby made it stronger than what they meant, which was that 1997 was higher than any other of the other nine years 1994-2002. If that had been the past 50 years or so, that would have been ‘unusual’.
James F. Evans says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“The past ten years have been the warmest recorded…”
In your opinion. There is a lot of data that contradicts that assertion.
Like this from Dr. Spencer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/
Most of us, here, were smart enough
Pardon my observation, but you don’t come across like that. Hide it too well.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet
A prerequisite for reasonable discussion is that you get your facts straight, which this plot http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif shows you have not.
The rest of your post is just rambling. Including this gem:
The reason there has been a growing discrepancy between the F10.7 flux and sunspot numbers snce the 90′s is because they are not linearly correlated
They do not need to be linearly correlated [which indeed they are not] as long as they are correlated with a suitable non-linear function. The number 1, 2, 3, 4, etc and their squares 1, 4, 9, 16, etc are not linearly correlated, yet have a perfect correlation [through the function y = x^2].
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue. “the sun got really active” is not a clear statement. the sun got “quiet” is not a clear statement. When we look at our understanding of how the Sun provides energy to the earth that clear understanding is reflected in TSI data.
The units are kw/sqmeter. Think on that.
Hi Steven,
as Jack Eddy knew, and as Anthony posted here a while back, the relationsip between the suns energies (plural) is very very very complex. The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’ is an attempt to provide a simple metric we can use in calculations but it has the unfortunate side effect of limiting the terms of debate when people of a reductionist bent try to impose it as the sole or sufficient metric in framing the debate about the sun-earth relationship. It is a useful tool in the scientists toolbox, but not a complete answer to understanding.
This is why I choose deliberately vague terms like ‘more active’ and ‘quieter’ etc. It is in recognition of the fact that we don’t yet understand the effect of the sun’s various energies (the quantities of which vary semi-independently). But although we don’t yet understand their effects sufficiently to quantify and provide fully explained mechanisms, we do have empirical observations which show that the sun’s energies (plural) affect the climate in various ways not reflected by a simple single metric which only accounts for Watts or Joules of energy per area. There are chemical interactions in the atmosphere. There are biotic effects on photosynthesis which in turn affect the oceans opacity etc etc.
So in summary, I’m grateful to Leif and his colleagues for providing a useful metric which has limited application in understanding the sun-earth relationship, but I will fight tooth and nail against attempts to limit the terms of the debate solely to this single metric. The various solar wavelengths have different effects on different parts of the earth’s climate system. Then there is the solar wind and it’s various particle types to consider too.
There are no simple answers to any questions about climate. Climate is complex, and hypotheses about what might be important cannot be ruled in or out on the basis of simple metrics which don’t tell the whole story about the phenomena they lump together in order to quantify.
The elephants missing from the room:
What is the physical basis for the averaging treatment of temperature?
What is the physical mechanism for the effect of these regime changes on this average?
What are the pitfalls of this analysis? I am sure the author does not claim it is perfect, so what are the weaknesses? If it is perfect, why is it?
Otherwise, this entire conversation is raising the bush by lowering its surroundings.
tallbloke said:
“And I’ve responded to your posts. None of the big hitters have though. We’ll have a nip of grog and sing some shanties to while away the loneliness.”
Yes you have and I’m grateful for that.
Leif has responded elsewhere but cannot accept solar changes having any effect on the upward energy flux although he did refer me to a link which supports a possible mechanism.
Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO and I think you have crossed swords with him on that same point.
All I can do is keep pointing out the validity of my suggestions as more data comes in over time. There is insufficient historical data of the right kind to provide evidence to the required scientific standard at present but it sure as hell fits what we see on an ongoing basis and lots of papers are coming out that are consistent with my ideas.
If ongoing observations suddenly go well adrift of what I would expect without a good reason then and only then would I desist.
I’m currently watching out to see if the polar oscillations are capable of going heavily positive with poleward shifting jets in the absence of either or both of a positive PDO and a more active solar surface. That would be the most obvious falsification of what I say though there are also other possible falsifications such as the stratosphere going back to a cooling mode whilst the solar surface remains quiet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:03 pm
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
engaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet
A prerequisite for reasonable discussion is that you get your facts straight, which this plot http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif shows you have not.
Wash your windows Leif, the corrected version in that blinkometer shows exactly what I said. The OHC has been falling since 2003, the peak of solar cycle 23, just as I told you.
The vertical axis of the graph you present is labelled as “heat content”, but since it starts in 1955 at -3×10^22J I would guess (though I really shouldn’t have to) that the axis really represents “heat content anomaly”. After all, the ocean can’t contain a negative amount of heat can it?
But how is it decided where the zero line of the ‘anomaly’ is? Anomalous relative to what?
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is. Then we could get some idea of how much it has heated up in percentage terms over the period of record. If we make the assumption that heat content is related to sea surface temperature, and take the SST at some arbitrary time to be the ideal climate temperature that fluctuations from are to be regarded as ‘anomalies’, then we can see how much things have warmed up.
Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’
You do not understand [or you ignore or downplay] that just about every solar indicator correlates [or anti-correlates] with TSI [except the temperature of the quiet sun which is constant] so that single metric incorporates all the other things. We use TSI as the benchmark mainly because that is where the energy is [the others are many orders of magnitudes smaller]. The only solar indicator where we have actually found a climate effect is for TSI: The solar variation in TSI causes a ~0.1K variation in temperature [I think everyone in the field agrees with that]. You took Jack Eddy’s name in vain, but even he argued in his seminal papers that a variation of TSI was the likely cause of climate variation. He later [e.g at Dinner Speech at SORCE 2003 http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf ] realized that TSI did not vary enough and that there simply was not enough variation in the incoming energy to account for significant climate change.
Hi Tallbloke
“Hi Steven,
as Jack Eddy knew, and as Anthony posted here a while back, the relationsip between the suns energies (plural) is very very very complex. The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’ is an attempt to provide a simple metric we can use in calculations but it has the unfortunate side effect of limiting the terms of debate when people of a reductionist bent try to impose it as the sole or sufficient metric in framing the debate about the sun-earth relationship. It is a useful tool in the scientists toolbox, but not a complete answer to understanding.”
I’m not convinced it’s as complex as you assume. I don’t see anything I said as limiting debate. I am merely pointing this out. When you have term like TSI expressed in watts on the left hand side the hopes of having a right hand side of the equation with the proper terms is greatly increased. But if you start with something like “number of sun spots” on the left, you can see what a challenge this will be to get the right hand side to work out. What’s missing is the MECHANISM.. that thing which will turn “numbers of spots” ( in reality nothing more than a COUNTING convention) into a measure of temperature. The KEY is being able to put your ideas into a TESTABLE equation. That means numbers. That means units. All else is arm waving. Science is REDUCTIONIST in its very structure as we attempt to REDUCE complex data into a form that is expressable by equations that quantify over physical entities.
“This is why I choose deliberately vague terms like ‘more active’ and ‘quieter’ etc. It is in recognition of the fact that we don’t yet understand the effect of the sun’s various energies (the quantities of which vary semi-independently). But although we don’t yet understand their effects sufficiently to quantify and provide fully explained mechanisms, we do have empirical observations which show that the sun’s energies (plural) affect the climate in various ways not reflected by a simple single metric which only accounts for Watts or Joules of energy per area. There are chemical interactions in the atmosphere. There are biotic effects on photosynthesis which in turn affect the oceans opacity etc etc.”
No empirical OBSERVATION can SHOW how the suns “energies” “affect” the climate. Causation is never OBSERVED. causation is hypothesized to explain the observations. Chemical “intereactions” and “biotic” effects are likewise vague.
Now, I’m not EXCLUDING other effects the radiation from the sun might have.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that those arguments need to be made clearly, precisely, with equations. And yes terms should balance. no magical transformations of meters per second into joules.
“So in summary, I’m grateful to Leif and his colleagues for providing a useful metric which has limited application in understanding the sun-earth relationship, but I will fight tooth and nail against attempts to limit the terms of the debate solely to this single metric. The various solar wavelengths have different effects on different parts of the earth’s climate system. Then there is the solar wind and it’s various particle types to consider too.”
Very simply. If you don’t provide clear exposition there is no “debate” there are just two people talking at cross purposes. One requesting clarity and equations so that science can be done and the other objecting to the scientific method. that’s not a debate. What is the solar wind?
“There are no simple answers to any questions about climate. Climate is complex, and hypotheses about what might be important cannot be ruled in or out on the basis of simple metrics which don’t tell the whole story about the phenomena they lump together in order to quantify.”
I’m not ruling out ANY hypothesis you have offerred. I can’t. you havent offered a hypothesis. You’ve offered up a platitude. Climate is complex. we can’t rule out many things about the sun. Here is the point. You actually have to articulate a position so that we can decide to rule it IN or rule it OUT. Your position amounts to this. We can’t rule out ^%**t%^*G^ about the sun. Well, of course not. We can’t rule it out because you haven’t said anything. You’ve merely said, that something could be said.
Write the equations. Predict some outcomes. That’s sciencing.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Wash your windows Leif, the corrected version in that blinkometer shows exactly what I said. The OHC has been falling since 2003, the peak of solar cycle 23, just as I told you.
The peak was in 2000. And you are just looking at minor wiggles. And the minimum since 1955 was at solar max year 1969. And then there is the tired old fact that OHC increased all the while solar activity was decreasing from 1980 on.
The vertical axis of the graph you present is labelled as “heat content”, but since it starts in 1955 at -3×10^22J I would guess (though I really shouldn’t have to) that the axis really represents “heat content anomaly”. After all, the ocean can’t contain a negative amount of heat can it?
But how is it decided where the zero line of the ‘anomaly’ is? Anomalous relative to what? read more here [where you have posted without worry]:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/more-on-ocean-heat-content-and-recent-revisions-to-the-data/
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is.
This was also discussed and links given for the worriers.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.
And all the sudden, good ole TSI is good enough for your calculation…
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:03 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’
You do not understand [or you ignore or downplay] that just about every solar indicator correlates [or anti-correlates] with TSI [except the temperature of the quiet sun which is constant] so that single metric incorporates all the other things.
No it doesn’t. UV has fluctuated significantly compared to the TSI and UV has important effects on the upper atmosphere chemically, and on the sea surface biota chemically. It’s not a matter of simple wattage. We don’t yet know how important (or not) these factors are, but anything which affects ozone production changes the greenhouse scenario, and anything which affects the opacity of the sea surface changes the OHC scenario.
Also, the solar wind varies anomalously with respect to TSI, and empirical evidence shows that the air temperature is affected by the speed of the solar wind.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:21 am (Edit)
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.
Your refusal to engage with simple maths is duly noted. It’s the usual copout. You know you’re cornered with this simple calculation, and I expect the ducking and weaving to continue indefinitely.
And all the sudden, good ole TSI is good enough for your calculation…
Like I said, although it’s not the whole biscuit, it’s a useful tool in the box and I’m grateful to those who provide the metric.
Stephen Wilde said
“All I can do is keep pointing out the validity of my suggestions as more data comes in over time. There is insufficient historical data of the right kind to provide evidence to the required scientific standard at present but it sure as hell fits what we see on an ongoing basis and lots of papers are coming out that are consistent with my ideas.”
Have you got a succinct definitive post/article on your idea that you can point me towards?
tonyb
Steven mosher says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:09 am
Hi Tallbloke
Now, I’m not EXCLUDING other effects the radiation from the sun might have.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that those arguments need to be made clearly, precisely, with equations. And yes terms should balance. no magical transformations of meters per second into joules.
Write the equations. Predict some outcomes. That’s sciencing.
Sure, I just did that and got stonewalled by Mr quantitative scientist. He could have said, well, the TSI variation over the 1940-2003 period was this, so it will affect your calculation by that. Look at what I got instead:
“Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.”
“Cannot be corrected”. Really???
Here it is again, I even put a question mark by the TSI figure to invite correction from his nibs:
“Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming around 2000. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.”
“Have you got a succinct definitive post/article on your idea that you can point me towards?
tonyb”
Here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comments
tallbloke said:
“TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.”
I like that approach in that it seeks to link the tiny variations in solar output to similarly tiny changes in ocean energy content that then have an apparently disproportionately large effect on observed climate.
I think that the apparent ‘disproportionality’ is simply a function of our smallness in the scheme of things combined with the huge scale of the difference in the energy carrying properties of oceans and air.
A tiny change in the rate of oceanic energy release will put a substantial poleward pressure on the air circulation system thus causing latitudinal climate shifts that result in substantial (from our puny perspective) changes in day to day weather in the regions below that have changed their positions relative to the nearest components of the air circulation system.
However I do have a concern about the lack of correlations over individual solar cycles but that can adequately be dealt with by oceanic lag times and the time it takes for the air circulation to respond to changes in rates of energy release from the oceans.
The pattern is in my opinion very clear on 500 year timescales, reasonably clear on multidecadal timescales over 30 years but obscured by internal system noise and lag times on lesser timescales.
Nor is the pattern solely ocean regulated because the response of the air to an oceanic warming or cooling lacks consistency in terms of scale hence the need to introduce another influence from above that sometimes supplements and sometimes opposes the oceanic effect on the air circulation.
The only way that the pressure distribution in the troposphere can be altered from above is via changes in the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause and that is a consequence of changes in stratospheric temperatures.
Thus what we need is any solar effect that is capable of affecting stratospheric temperatures in the required direction i.e. we need a cooling stratosphere to induce poleward shifts in the jets and a warming stratosphere to induce an equatorward movement.
The trouble is that that is the opposite of what we normally expect. A more active sun should warm the stratosphere but in fact it seems that it does not. To explain stratospheric cooling when the sun is more active as during the late 20th century one has to propose a non natural cause reversing the expected ‘natural’ warming. Thus the concern about CFCs destroying ozone and the idea that CO2 was reducing the energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
Unless that major cyclical feature is explained then no climate hypothesis or any climate model has any validity. I think I am the first to try to work it into a coherent overview
phlogiston
One point I wanted to make however was that CAGW theorists cannot “have their cake and eat it”. You cant have both absorption / re-emission and heating, due to energy conservation.
Not from the same photon, for sure.
I’ve simply been reporting what I’ve read – which always seems to describe the interaction of photons and CO2 as one of absorption and re-emission. It doesn’t seem implausible to me that one photon might be absorbed and re-emitted, and another photon might have a heating effect. It’s just that what I’ve been reading seems to say that there’s just one interaction, not two. Nevertheless other people (perhaps even most people) speak of IR emitted by the earth’s surface being absorbed in the atmosphere and “warming” it.
Maybe I should go ask the guys over at Realclimate. After all, they’re the ones who think something like this is happening. Does Realclimate have a fundamental physics section that explains IR interaction with CO2?
Stephen Wilde
Thanks for the link. I have read the article and it all sounds common sense. Personally I think we know far far less about the climate than we believe we do.
Your suggestion #21 from that thread was of particular interest as I am currently researching an article on the LIA as evidenced by instrumental records backed up by contemporary observations.
There is no doubt that the period 1650 to 1698 was generally cold but even then there were some notably warm periods. In the succeeding years, particularly the 30 year period from 1700, there was notable warmth and a substantial ‘bounce’ of temperatures thereon from warm to cold and back again. The term LIA is misleading after 1698-the cold really became interludes rather than remained an ‘age.’
Does your theory presuppose a continually cold period or can it accommodate an era when the temperatures ‘bounced around’ and showed great variabilty, although in general winters became warmer?
tonyb
Stephen Wilde wrote: “Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO…”
Of course the PDO is influenced by variables other than ENSO. You’re either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I’ve written to you and posted on in the past. I’ve shown that the difference between the PDO and ENSO is likely caused by variations in Sea Level Pressure in the form of the North Pacific Index (NPI):
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-difference-between-nino34-sst.html
And due to gyre spin-up and the multiyear persistence of SST anomalies in the Kuroshio Extension, it is likely aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions also influence the PDO.
And let me clarify my reply since you bounce between uses of the PDO. This response assumes you’re referring to the PDO as the pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N, the widely accepted definition, and not a generic basin-wide phenomenon.
Alan Cheetham you replied, “There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause. When the even-numbered cycles are on a descending part of the 60-year cycle they cause a temperature decrease.”
The assumption you’re making is that the (approx.) 60-year cycle persists back in time beyond the instrument temperature record. Paleoclimatological reconstructions of the AMO suggest it does not:
http://i47.tinypic.com/ekkhuc.png
From this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html
Steve Mosher July 6, 2010 at 12:09 am
When you have term like TSI expressed in watts on the left hand side the hopes of having a right hand side of the equation with the proper terms is greatly increased. But if you start with something like “number of sun spots” on the left, you can see what a challenge this will be to get the right hand side to work out. What’s missing is the MECHANISM.. that thing which will turn “numbers of spots” ( in reality nothing more than a COUNTING convention) into a measure of temperature. The KEY is being able to put your ideas into a TESTABLE equation. That means numbers. That means units. All else is arm waving. Science is REDUCTIONIST in its very structure as we attempt to REDUCE complex data into a form that is expressable by equations that quantify over physical entities
Rather a lot of “science” these days seems to be missing the mechanism. Event A takes place, followed by event B, and next thing you know A is said to cause B, even though the causal mechanism is not understood.
AGW seems to be a bit like this. CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing, and the earth’s temperature has been increasing too, so one “causes” the other. But what’s the mechanism? To their credit they have a candidate mechanism, which is that CO2 absorbs IR emitted from the surface of the earth and re-emits it back (the subject of the side discussion I’ve been having here). But the mechanism is disputed.
A lot of modern epidemiology seems to be the same. e.g. smoking “causes” lung cancer. But the causal mechanism is vague, and disputed. Similarly obesity “causes” premature death. And so on. In many cases no mechanism at all is suggested.
“Science” of this sort might be said to be incomplete. It’s not good, solid science that you can use as the bricks and mortar to build further science. It’s a kind of science that’s still waiting for its mechanism to be added. It’s science which requires a leap of faith that the mechanism will be discovered one day. And the longer this faith is needed, the deeper that faith must be. And this is how you get “true believers” of one sort or other. They are people who have been waiting a very, very long time for the missing mechanism to show up, and most likely it never will.
And since we seem to have more and more of this sort of incomplete “science”, we have more and more true believers in all sorts of things.
idlex: Furthermore, I’m not sure whether the absorption of a photon results in a rise in temperature.
My strictly casual understanding was that a collision following a photon absorption (before the molecule has had time to emit) redistributes the absorbed energy as kinetic energy amongst the colliding molecules. So if this is the case, collision before emission increases the temperature of the gas.
I also seem to remember reading that lab experiments by Neils Bohr determined that the vibrational energy of the molecule doesn’t increase after photon absorption, rather the internal energy is altered by a change in electron levels, which is reset once a photon is absorbed.
I may be mistaken – I don’t have a reference either, so perhaps collisions have no effect in this regard and the absorbed energy is retained across collisions.
If anyone has a link to the standard texts or reference material covering these questions, I’d be very grateful. I’ll have a look in the Britannica this evening.
My last post contained at least one error:
“which is reset once a photon is absorbed”
should be
“which is reset once a photon is emitted”
tallbloke replied, “I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?”
No, I don’t think the factors I wrote and nothing else account for the variability of OHC anomalies of the North Atlantic. As you are aware, the South Atlantic is the only basin where heat transport is from the pole to the tropics, so the North Atlantic OHC is impacted by the South Atlantic OHC. North Atlantic also has exaggerated Cloud Amount anomalies variations.
http://i50.tinypic.com/294ihsk.jpg
But the 2005 peak of North Atlantic OHC appears to coincide with the peak of the North Atlantic SST anomalies, and in turn the peak of the AMO, which is why I would attribute the recent decline in North Atlantic OHC to AMO/AMOC.
And other than the variables I’ve listed so far, what other factors are you suggesting account for the variations in North Atlantic OHC?
Basil replied, “Here the mechanism is straight-forward: the broader amplitudes are governed by variations in TSI, and the frequencies are related to the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle.”
Please explain how the lunar nodal cycle would cause variations in global temperatures.
tony b asked:
“Does your theory presuppose a continually cold period or can it accommodate an era when the temperatures ‘bounced around’ and showed great variabilty, although in general winters became warmer?”
I envisage lots of shorter term bouncing around because of the interplay of two independently varying influences on the air circulation systems sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting one another. One also sees wide regional variations in the short term despite any global trend. That’s why I say that the pattern only becomes really clear on the 500 year timescale with shifts such as those from MWP to LIA to date.
This has been one interesting thread but perhaps it is time to put out a roster of the players and their field of expertise along with a very short statement of their main view on the sun-earth relationship. It would certainly help me keep track of who is coming from what angle during technical discussions.
oneuniverse wrote:
My strictly casual understanding was that a collision following a photon absorption (before the molecule has had time to emit) redistributes the absorbed energy as kinetic energy amongst the colliding molecules. So if this is the case, collision before emission increases the temperature of the gas.
I also seem to remember reading that lab experiments by Neils Bohr determined that the vibrational energy of the molecule doesn’t increase after photon absorption, rather the internal energy is altered by a change in electron levels, which is reset once a photon is absorbed.
Point is, as you said earlier, that there can’t be both. You can’t store the photon energy in the CO2 molecule to be released later as a photon of the same energy AND have the photon energy increase the vibrational kinetic energy of the molecule as well.
We might maybe think of molecules as springs. Sometimes a photon hits a spring and compresses it and its energy gets stored as potential energy in the compressed spring. This potential energy isn’t transferred to adjacent springs. Other times, maybe, a photon hits a spring sideways and doesn’t compress it, but increases the kinetic energy of the spring (which can then be transferred to adjacent springs). Conservation of energy means it can’t do both.
“Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 3:05 am
Stephen Wilde wrote:
“Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO…”
Bob Tisdale replied:
“Of course the PDO is influenced by variables other than ENSO.”
That begs the question as to whether it is ultimately caused by influences other than ENSO. That it may also be influenced by other variables is taken as a given.
I use the term PDO in the general sense that has entered common currency but I am aware of the more restricted definition that you use.
I consider that something other than ENSO creates the PDO via the ENSO process. It does so by gradually altering the relative strengths of El Nino and La Nina over time.
I propose that the main underlying cause is changes in the winds above the equatorial oceans as they respond to latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems as per my hypotheses. Those air circulation shifts being the result of an interplay between oceanic and solar cycles.
So the PDO is caused by underlying oceanic cycles modified by solar cycles which move the air circulation systems to change the winds and induce ENSO.
It would then follow that PDO would be a statistical artifact of ENSO as you aver but that does not derogate from the seperate chain of causation.
#
#
Tom in Florida says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:04 am
This has been one interesting thread but perhaps it is time to put out a roster of the players and their field of expertise along with a very short statement of their main view on the sun-earth relationship. It would certainly help me keep track of who is coming from what angle during technical discussions.
_____________________________________________
Google their names, and you can get a pretty good feel for who they are and where they are coming from. Many have links so you can click on the name and see their website. Otherwise you need to read a lot and have a good memory.
Generally most have a degree in Science, Engineering or Math or a lot of practical experience using math and logic on the job. The site stats show a higher proportion of older males with a graduate degree compared to the norm. (the no degree crowd has increased since Climategate and Monbiot’s call to arms for CAGW trolls) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com
idlex: Point is, as you said earlier, that there can’t be both. You can’t store the photon energy in the CO2 molecule to be released later as a photon of the same energy AND have the photon energy increase the vibrational kinetic energy of the molecule as well.
If the photon’s absorbed energy is redistributed as kinetic energy, if such an event can occur, then there wouldn’t be a corresponding photon emission.
re: rate of emission
From Enc.Britannica : “For many excited states of atoms, the average time before the spontaneous emission of a photon is on the order of 10^−9 to 10^−8 second.”
That’s at about the same order as the collision rate of atmospheric molecules.
We need the emission time for CO2, though – I haven’t found it yet.
The general equation for the probability of a transition to a different energy state in unit time is apparently given by Fermi’s Golden Rule, just in case anyone has all the parameter values at hand..
tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:00 am
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
The reason this cannot be corrected is that you have not made a definitive statement by “maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period”. What does that mean? that TSI in 2000 is 0.1% higher than in 1930? Then you switch to a different period 1980-1998 and make the argument that TSI is amplified by a by a drop in cloud cover. Well, first you’ll have to show that TSI changed the cloud cover. And then quantify by how much. A change in albedo by 0.005 corresponds to a temperature change of 0.5K.
The ISCCP shows the cloud cover, temperatures, and albedo here http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html and the changes do not match any TSI/solar activity related changes. You can, of course, claim that their data isn’t any good, but then you can’t in the same breath use them as long as they fit [which they actually do not] your purpose.
So, as I said, there is not enough meat and precision in your ‘calculation’ to replicate it, let alone correct it.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 am
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
The same criticism of tallbloke’s ‘calculation’ applies to you. You have no numbers, no equations, no quantifications.
” “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed””
Nice tidbit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:54 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 am
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
The same criticism of tallbloke’s ‘calculation’ applies to you. You have no numbers, no equations, no quantifications.
So? He has a theory, and a testable one at that. If (indicative mode) the data to fully assess the theory are not currently available, that is not itself a reason to discredit it. I should think that you, of all people, know how hard it can be to develop the sensors needed to test theories. Now if you think there is some deductive flaw in the theory that justifies rejecting it out of hand, do tell us. Otherwise, it seems as though you are just being glib.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:54 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 am
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
The same criticism of tallbloke’s ‘calculation’ applies to you. You have no numbers, no equations, no quantifications.”
I have something far better. A logical coherence describing and linking varied observations, according with ongoing events and hopefully providing some predictive skill and all without any obvious abuse of the basic laws of physics.
I do not accept your assertion that the laws of physics necessarily prevent changes in the energy flux from Earth to space as a result of solar surface variability. One can only explain observations if such variability does occur.
The history of science is replete with over confident assertions such as yours which were often maintained for decades in the face of observational evidence to the contrary until eventually the diehards were brought to a realisation of their arrogance.
““For many excited states of atoms, the average time before the spontaneous emission of a photon is on the order of 10^−9 to 10^−8 second.” ”
Not the same class of interaction, orbit exitation versus bond-length vibration. Good luck with finding that CO2 absorption does not increase heterogenous gas temperature linearly(or nearly so).
gary gulrud says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:24 am
“Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned […]”
Nice tidbit.
Yes, but hardly relevant as the solar magnetic field’s north-south component [the one that aligns with the Earth’s field] seen at Earth varies at random from hour to hour, see e.g. the red curve here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html
So, it is misleading to talk about the ‘sun’s magnetic field’ in this connection as what we see at Earth is not the large-scale solar field but a very irregular, strongly fluctuating field, varying from hour to hour, minute to minute.
oneuniverse says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:44 am
The general equation for the probability of a transition to a different energy state in unit time is apparently given by Fermi’s Golden Rule, just in case anyone has all the parameter values at hand.
Very interesting oneuniverse, thanks for passing this along. Reading through the material I found the General expectation value formula particularly interesting:
General expectation value = initial wave function x (some operator function) x final wave function integrated over the volume under consideration.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/fermi.html
If I understand the basics of this correctly we would expect the energy transfer from CO2 other systems to decrease with altitude in the atmosphere due to decreasing densities. The more important piece of the puzzle is to define the operator function that couples CO2 to other neighboring systems. Would you agree that if a temperature variable is found in the denominator of the operator function, then we would expect a negative feedback mechanism and conversely if temp variable is found in the numerator then a positive feedback mechanism would occur. It seems to me that to satisfy the CAGW alarmist theories we must have the temp variable in the numerator to get the runaway heating positive feedback shown in the hockey stick.
Typing too fast
s/b
If I understand the basics of this correctly we would expect the energy transfer from CO2 to other systems to decrease with altitude in the atmosphere due to decreasing densities.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:50 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:00 am
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
The reason this cannot be corrected is that you have not made a definitive statement by “maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period”. What does that mean? that TSI in 2000 is 0.1% higher than in 1930? Then you switch to a different period 1980-1998 and make the argument that TSI is amplified by a by a drop in cloud cover. Well, first you’ll have to show that TSI changed the cloud cover. And then quantify by how much. A change in albedo by 0.005 corresponds to a temperature change of 0.5K.
The ISCCP shows the cloud cover, temperatures, and albedo here http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html and the changes do not match any TSI/solar activity related changes. You can, of course, claim that their data isn’t any good, but then you can’t in the same breath use them as long as they fit [which they actually do not] your purpose.
So, as I said, there is not enough meat and precision in your ‘calculation’ to replicate it, let alone correct it.
Thanks for the more thorough criticism Leif. That’s more useful to me. I’ve got a discussion about it going on my blog, and it’s proving fruitful. There has been a great link posted to a thorough examination of ocean heat content measurement.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/help-needed-with-global-warming-maths/
Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 4:32 am (Edit)
tallbloke replied, “I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?”
No, I don’t think the factors I wrote and nothing else account for the variability of OHC anomalies of the North Atlantic. As you are aware, the South Atlantic is the only basin where heat transport is from the pole to the tropics, so the North Atlantic OHC is impacted by the South Atlantic OHC. North Atlantic also has exaggerated Cloud Amount anomalies variations.
http://i50.tinypic.com/294ihsk.jpg
But the 2005 peak of North Atlantic OHC appears to coincide with the peak of the North Atlantic SST anomalies, and in turn the peak of the AMO, which is why I would attribute the recent decline in North Atlantic OHC to AMO/AMOC.
And other than the variables I’ve listed so far, what other factors are you suggesting account for the variations in North Atlantic OHC?
Hi Bob,
Whatever it is that caused increasing cloudiness from 1998 would have to be a contender for an important role I would have thought.
Respect
Rog
Basil says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:33 am
Now if you think there is some deductive flaw in the theory that justifies rejecting it out of hand, do tell us. Otherwise, it seems as though you are just being glib.
We have discussed this ad nauseam on other threads
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:37 am
The history of science is replete with over confident assertions such as yours which were often maintained for decades in the face of observational evidence to the contrary until eventually the diehards were brought to a realisation of their arrogance.
It seems to me that your assertions are far more confident than mine [“I have something far better”, “logical coherence”, etc], so you may fall victim to the above…
tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:38 am
Thanks for the more thorough criticism Leif. That’s more useful to me.
You can always count on fair, unbiased, scientifically correct, and useful criticism from me. It is there for the taking.
Steven (Mosher), I think you are overselling the “nothing to see here meme” based on your observations about evil code. Perhaps this is data-massaging code, and perhaps in general its conclusions are worth little or at least subject to great skepticism. However, unless I seriously misunderstand this particular experiment, any “massaging” that happened in this analysis of temperatures was blind — i.e., without reference to the eventually correlated solar data. So, regardless of how much hanky-panky may lie behind the handling of the code, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the correlation revealed is quite genuine. Had the regime-shift analysis permitted intervention related to this outcome I would have been happy to dismiss it outright, but I don’t think that can be done here. If you are right about this particular algorithm, then we should regard this piece as a good argument for a similar analysis to be done by a more robust method. I’d lay good money on the same outcome resulting.
As far as needing a mechanism, this is just silly. Correlation is correlation; either it’s genuine or not. As for causation, in general it’s dubious to draw that conclusion from mere correlation, but in this case we must argue either that the correlation is an enormous coincidence or that there must be an element of causation, whose direction is pretty certain. No mechanism is required for this. A great deal of scientific knowledge about correlated phenomena does not hinge upon knowledge of mechanisms. Psychology, for example, would be void if we required detailed knowledge of all the processes intermediate between fundamental brain chemistry and cognitive states. Nobody could design planes if we required complete solutions to the differential equations describing the mechanisms of turbulence needed in airfoil design. It suffices to know how to correlate controllable variables with outcomes. Knowledge of mechanisms commonly comes long after knowledge of laws concerning the behavior of related variables.
Popped over realclimate to try to get their take. Response was:
Ray Ladbury says:
6 July 2010 at 8:15 AM
idlex, one thing you are missing is that most CO2 molecules relax not by emitting a photon by by colliding with, say a Nitrogen, molecule and imparting the extra energy to that molecule. You can look at this in terms of equipartition. The IR flux from the warmer surface excites much of the CO2–much more than would be excited at thermal equilibrium at the temperature of the atmospheric layer where the photon is absorbed. To move toward equilibrium, the CO2 then has to impart energy to the surrounding gas. Make sense?
And that in turn brought a response:
Gilles says:
6 July 2010 at 11:03 AM
Ray : “The IR flux from the warmer surface excites much of the CO2–much more than would be excited at thermal equilibrium at the temperature of the atmospheric layer where the photon is absorbed.”
actually if the medium is optically thick , the IR flux has a characteristic radiation temperature from the location where it was emitted, that is around one mean free path away. It may be not “much more” if the optical depth is high enough (the order of magnitude is ∆T = l.grad T = grad T .h/tau ) ; it can be a small difference for high tau , but it insures the gradual transfer of heat from one layer to another one. That’s the essence of diffusion approximation.
The fact that the energy of a photon is most often transferred by collisions to other molecules does not really matter, since it means that collisions can also excite molecules that will sometime emit a photon – both process cancel exactly in LTE. In thermal equilibrium, there is no net “heating” in the sense that the atmosphere would gain temperature, the temperature is steady on average everywhere. This is really a transport process, heat flows throughout the atmosphere but without temperature variation. Locally, absorption and emission do cancel exactly : only the DIRECTION of photons is slightly anisotropic : a little bit more photons come from the lower, hotter layers and a little bit less from the upper, colder ones. They are reemitted isotropically, so the budget is slightly positive outwards and negative inwards , but vanishes when integrated on all directions. The net result is a transport outwards.
Leif,
You shifted the ground.
“no numbers, no equations, no quantifications” is what you referred to.
“A logical coherence describing and linking varied observations, according with ongoing events and hopefully providing some predictive skill and all without any obvious abuse of the basic laws of physics.” is what I contend is far better.
Though both would be nice in an ideal world but in the absence of data beggars cannot be choosers as Basil points out.
Nonetheless I have said several times that there are lots of ways to falsify my propositions. It’s just that the world is refusing to cooperate in the way you would like (so far at least).
And we have discussed it ad nauseam elsewhere but all that that nausea amounts to is a belief on your part that solar variability cannot possibly affect the upward energy flux from Earth to space.
In my opinion that is not good enough because the temperature of the stratosphere clearly changes cyclically and not in a way that correlates well with changes in energy flux only from below.
Introducing the issue of CFCs and anthropogenic CO2 to explain away that observation and at the same time to blame it on humans is looking weaker the longer we see negative polar oscillations with more equatorward jets, a warming stratosphere (since the late 90s), a quiet sun, increasing albedo and a cessation of global warming (if not yet a clear fall) all happening simultaneously and all being the reverse of the late 20th century trends.
Lots to go wrong there for my hypotheses and when it does I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.
I might try to explain it away though but only if there are reasonable alternative explanations for any diversion from my expectations. I won’t be going for arcane explanations to salvage it.
R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am
Correlation is correlation; either it’s genuine or not. As for causation, in general it’s dubious to draw that conclusion from mere correlation, but in this case we must argue either that the correlation is an enormous coincidence or that there must be an element of causation, whose direction is pretty certain.
This hangs on how good the correlation is. If the correlation coefficient [over a sufficiently large number of independent data points – and there are established ways of deciding what is needed] is high enough, e.g. 0.99, then no mechanism is needed a priori [and one has an incentive to go find one]. If the correlation is poor, e.g. 0.5, then you do not have an ‘enormous’ coincidence and without a theory there is not much one can do. With a good theory [e.g. physically viable] a poor correlation can be accepted, just showing that there are other factors at work. But this does not carry over to the case of no mechanism. So, it all depends on the goodness of the correlation and [this is most important] on the number of degrees of freedom.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:07 am
This hangs on how good the correlation is. If the correlation coefficient [over a sufficiently large number of independent data points – and there are established ways of deciding what is needed] is high enough, e.g. 0.99, then no mechanism is needed a priori [and one has an incentive to go find one]. If the correlation is poor, e.g. 0.5, then you do not have an ‘enormous’ coincidence and without a theory there is not much one can do. With a good theory [e.g. physically viable] a poor correlation can be accepted, just showing that there are other factors at work. But this does not carry over to the case of no mechanism. So, it all depends on the goodness of the correlation and [this is most important] on the number of degrees of freedom.
—————-
Leif and R. Craigen ,
Ahhhhh, don’t stop at mentioning “number of degrees of freedom!! This looks like a very useful dialog for my continuing effort to understand. Please go on.
John
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:05 am
Leif, You shifted the ground.
Such mutterings are just sophisticated debating technique [you a lawyer, by chance?] and do not bring anything to the table.
“no numbers, no equations, no quantifications” is what you referred to.
“A logical coherence describing and linking varied observations, according with ongoing events and hopefully providing some predictive skill and all without any obvious abuse of the basic laws of physics.” is what I contend is far better.
If your prediction cannot be [or is not] quantified in some way, it cannot be compared with what happens and a skill score cannot be evaluated.
Though both would be nice in an ideal world but in the absence of data beggars cannot be choosers as Basil points out.
In the absence of data you cannot assert anything at all.
It’s just that the world is refusing to cooperate in the way you would like (so far at least).
The ‘world’ will only pay attention to numbers, not to hand waving, no matter how coherent the waver thinks he is.
Introducing the issue of CFCs and anthropogenic CO2 to explain away that observation
Explain ‘away’ is inappropriate as those issues do explain the observations [per my daughter-in-law Signe who knows more about this than you and I combined, http://www.leif.org/EOS/nature04746.pdf or would want to know]. The ‘away’ bit is only if you don’t like the result.
“The fact that the energy of a photon is most often transferred by collisions to other molecules does not really matter, since it means that collisions can also excite molecules that will sometime emit a photon ”
In a discussion of CO2 I find this a bit of a gloss without mention of the relative emissivities-the warm surface is 1000 times that of CO2, and H2O vapor, twice that of CO2 and, moreover, having a broad spectrum of possible emission frequencies rather than a discrete few.
In sum, CO2 heats the surrounding gas in the presence of IR flux(incoming or outgoing) but at it’s low partial pressure may thereafter be ignored.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746.pdf works better
Stephen Wilde says:
This is for you:
http://www.rexresearch.com/piccardi/piccardi2.pdf
Reinforcing Steven’s earlier comment:
The problem with this analysis is that a statistical model that assumes constant regimes is fitted to the HadCRUT3 data which has a long term linear trend (real or “adjusted”, it doesn’t matter). The residual sum-of-squares will always be improved by splitting a region into two smaller regions that are each flatter than the whole. This process will go on until the cutoff is reached. That cutoff is set at 10 years, which is roughly the length of the solar cycles that Alan is trying to align the temperature data to.
A more careful analysis would allow a linear trend within each region (the cause could be changes in TSI, random walk, feedbacks, etc.). I did that analysis. To avoid overfitting, I picked the set of breakpoint locations that minimized BIC. Ignoring the AR1 component that is undeniably there in the climate data, four breakpoints are identified: 1864, 1907, 1945, 1963. Adding in 1 year lagged data to correct for autocorrelation, a single breakpoint is identified: 1963.
Both of these fits, but especially the simpler one, look more faithful to the data than the one that Alan proposes. ANOVA proves that they are both better fits than Alan’s model (p < 0.001). This shouldn't be much of a surprise, since it's easier to fit a trend with one sloped line than with even a bunch of horizontal lines.
As always, the code for my analysis is available. Feel free to criticize, correct, or extend it.
Enneagram :
I don’t think that is for me. Sounds too much like homeopathy.
Leif :
So you aver that at all times the upward energy flux from Earth to space is wholly unaffected by solar variability ?
and that the only source of variations in upward flux is internal Earth system variability ?
and that therefore any temperature changes in the stratosphere are wholly due to changes occurring below with no room at all for such changes being effected or affected by changes occurring above ?
I find that very hard to believe in a universe where everything is in constant motion. Such assertions are extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence. Please supply it.
@Enneagram,
From the chapter you posted:
Why did you post this? It looks like homeopathy quackery.
Leif,
I like Signe’s paper. It appropriately expresses the levels of uncertainty and recognises the natural components in ozone variability. It avoids the normal alarmist contentions that the observed changes were solely or even primarily anthropogenic so she is excluded from my critical comments.
What her paper is notable for is in acknowledging a failure to clearly demonstrate any measurable distinction between ozone depletion or ozone recovery from anthropogenic as compared to natural causes.
Thus the CFC/ozone depletion issue suffers from the same defects that you find so damning against me namely “no numbers, no equations, no quantifications”.
My observation that the observed changes in ozone quantities could have been overwhelmingly from natural causes remains standing as a potential explanation.
Whoops, I should have said no ‘meaningful’ numbers equations or quantifications. There is a lot of numbers but nothing that actually resolves what we need to know namely the relative contributions of all the influences on ozone quantities.
Stephen Wilde: I have come to believe that you intentionally use terms as you see fit, and not as is generally accepted, to confuse those who read your comments and to make it difficult (impossible) for those who wish to debate a topic with you since your understandings, representations, and uses of terms are constantly shifting.
Example: You replied, “I use the term PDO in the general sense that has entered common currency but I am aware of the more restricted definition that you use.”
What does “PDO in the general sense” mean, Stephen? A basin wide phenomenon? The low frequency, multidecadal component of ENSO? The “restricted definition” I use is the one that is accepted, Stephen. Here’s a link to the JISAO definition:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Here’s a link to the Wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
Here’s one NOAA webpage that defines it that same way:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm
Please define the way in which you use PDO, and then google scholar “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and provide links to studies that use it in the same way that you use “PDO in the general sense that has entered common currency”. You’ve got 67oo plus papers to sort through so you should be able to come up with a few.
You wrote, “I propose that the main underlying cause is changes in the winds above the equatorial oceans as they respond to latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems as per my hypotheses. Those air circulation shifts being the result of an interplay between oceanic and solar cycles.”
And without data to support your proposal, you’re speculating, which is a nice way of saying you’re guessing.
R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am
Steven’s point in his first post is that the choice of algorithm and minimum segment length determine the outcome. A model that thinks segments have constant temperature is going to keep chopping up a temperature record that shows a linear trend, until it is stopped by the cutoff. Alan’s analysis actually stop short of this, but this only happens because 1957–1967 and 1967–1977 happen to have the same means and any other split of 1957–1977 violates the minimum segment length. I don’t (and can’t) deny a solar effect, but I think it mostly fine-tunes where the segment boundaries lie on the scale of one or two years.
The above is just my interpretation, but in an earlier comment I describe the more robust analysis. In summary, the solar correlation disappears. There’s still a lot of room for improvement, using a method that explicitly handles some measure of what the sun is doing.
tallbloke: You replied, “Whatever it is that caused increasing cloudiness from 1998 would have to be a contender for an important role I would have thought.”
Does this mean we’re done arguing? I’m not sure I got my money’s worth.
The ISCCP data is hotly contested, as you’re aware, due to missing data over the Southern Indian Ocean prior to 1998, and due to the influence of volcanic aerosols.
Regards
R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am
Knowledge of mechanisms commonly comes long after knowledge of laws concerning the behavior of related variables.
Ding Ding.
Still true for Newtonian gravity after 400 hundred years. And some of the ‘laws’ around it are pretty much approximate ad hoc mathematical happenstance too.
We have much to learn.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm (Edit)
tallbloke: You replied, “Whatever it is that caused increasing cloudiness from 1998 would have to be a contender for an important role I would have thought.”
Does this mean we’re done arguing? I’m not sure I got my money’s worth.
The ISCCP data is hotly contested, as you’re aware, due to missing data over the Southern Indian Ocean prior to 1998, and due to the influence of volcanic aerosols.
I would argue longer, but I took milady out for her birthday dinner and I’m in no fit state.
Palle et al provide an independent take on cloudiness from the end of ’98, but unfortunately, not before. Clever idea, measuring earthshine onto the moon. Not such a good idea partaking of too much of the moonshine on the Earth though… hic.
Doug S
July 6, 2010 at 9:17 am
Reading through the material I found the General expectation value formula particularly interesting:
[..]
If I understand the basics of this correctly we would expect the energy transfer from CO2 other systems to decrease with altitude in the atmosphere due to decreasing densities. The more important piece of the puzzle is to define the operator function that couples CO2 to other neighboring systems
Doug, it’s not a classical mechanical equation – the operator function is a quantum operator, and the density p refers to density of quantum states.
(This is actually the topic of a historic paper “The Quantum Theory of the Emission and Absorption of Radiation” P. A. M. Dirac 1927)
With respect to CO2, in my understand, as the atmospheric density decreases with altitude, one would expect the number of collisions to decrease, increasing the potential emitting time of excited CO2 molecules before a collision occurs.. Therefore, per photon absorption, the probability of a kinetic transfer, rather than an emissive one, would be expected to decrease.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Nonetheless I have said several times that there are lots of ways to falsify my propositions.”
Please detail the ways in which you believe your conjectures can be falsified.
Heuristic “regime shift” algorithms are a simplistic crutch for those unprepared to do serious physical or phenomenological signal analysis.
Bob Tisdale says (July 6, 3:23 am):
“The assumption you’re making is that the (approx.) 60-year cycle persists back in time beyond the instrument temperature record. Paleoclimatological reconstructions of the AMO suggest it does not”
Thanks for the links Bob. I read the Gray et al 2004 paper you linked to. It states: “We present a tree-ring based reconstruction of the
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which demonstrates that strong, low-frequency (60–100 yr) variability in basin-wide (0–70N) sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been a consistent feature of North Atlantic climate for the past five centuries.”
The paleo reconstruction conducted in that paper uses tree ring proxies from various locations in southeast US, northern and southern Europe and the Middle East, where the temperature data do not match the AMO. Combining these different cycles results in the masking of individual cycles. I don’t think this is a very robust reconstruction of the AMO.
Take a look at pages 52 and 53 here, referencing work by the same authors, where they show the tree ring proxies at several locations in the US (and most of these areas have a strong correlation to the AMO). What you will see is that the 60 year cycle is persistent back to 1600, although it occasionally shifts by 30 years. (And they state: “Strong evidence for multidecadal (30-70 yr) persistence and cross-regional synchrony”)
P.S. Don’t anybody tell anybody that I visited Realclimate today. Cos I might start losing my Scep Cred.
Ta.
And, after all the debate, both here and and on Realclimate, I’ve come to the conclusion that my original Photon Football idea is actually a pretty good model. Because the number of photons re-emitted is equal to the number of photons absorbed, even if there’s a bit of bouncy-bouncy in between photon absorptions and emissions.
I’ll start work on it in the morning, if there isn’t any World Cup football to watch.
Unless Leif tells me that Germany aren’t going to win the World Cup…
gary gulrud
July 6, 2010 at 7:42 am
Gary – some kind of reference or link would be welcome.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a regime shift algorithm does.
Maud Kipz (July 6, 1:49pm) says: “The residual sum-of-squares will always be improved by splitting a region into two smaller regions that are each flatter than the whole. This process will go on until the cutoff is reached.”
And (July 6, 3:33pm) ” A model that thinks segments have constant temperature is going to keep chopping up a temperature record that shows a linear trend, until it is stopped by the cutoff.”
A regime shift algorithm is not a linear trend algorithm. See http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RegimeParams.htm – the last 2 examples show analyses using a cutoff length of 4. The algorithm does not chop it up smaller and smaller as Maud says.
Your (Maud) “more robust” algorithm is a slope-based algorithm (not a regime-based algorithm) – these are two different things. And apparently it missed the slope change at 1878. This figure plots your identified slope change points as well as the 1978 slope change: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SlopeChange.jpg on the HadCrut3 anomaly data.
idlex says: (July 6, 2010 at 3:37 am) And since we seem to have more and more of this sort of incomplete “science”, we have more and more true believers in all sorts of things.
A profound observation, idlex; rather stunning in the simplicity of expression used to highlight a great truth which the world would do well to heed and think on.
Thanks for the guidance on the quantum operator oneuniverse, I guess it is abundantly clear that I am at best a C student of physics. Still, I’m left with one nagging thought after reading through all of the very good posts here. The science of CAGW seems to be far from settled.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Leif : So you aver that at all times the upward energy flux from Earth to space is wholly unaffected by solar variability ?
This is typical of your style. You might as well have said: “turn of the Sun and see what you get”. The flux from the Earth to Space is equal to the flux from space [including the Sun]. If the input varies so does the output.
temperature changes in the stratosphere are wholly due to changes occurring below with no room at all for such changes being effected or affected by changes occurring above ?
Changes in the stratosphere is very much influenced by incoming solar radiation, but not by temperatures above, simply because the amount heat is too low up there as the density falls by a factor of a thousand for each 50 km gain in altitude.
I find that very hard to believe in a universe where everything is in constant motion.
Galileo knew Newton’s first law: “an object in motion tends to stay in motion”
Maud Kipz says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I like Signe’s paper. It appropriately expresses the levels of uncertainty and recognises the natural components in ozone variability.
You take that to far. She does not think that things are so uncertain that one cannot make any conclusions.
Thus the CFC/ozone depletion issue suffers from the same defects
As she explains it to me, the working hypothesis that explains the data is that the CFC have effect and that there is now recovery. How strong that is is muddled a bit by solar cycle effects and we need another cycle to be able to decide for sure.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Stephen Wilde: I have come to believe that you intentionally use terms as you see fit, and not as is generally accepted, to confuse those who read your comments and to make it difficult (impossible) for those who wish to debate a topic with you since your understandings, representations, and uses of terms are constantly shifting.
I’ll second that. My example is ‘turbulence in the sun”
tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm
We have much to learn.
You can start right now.
Bob Tisdale.
Most non professional commentators are now using the term ‘PDO’ to refer to the approximately 30 year phase shift whereby the ENSO phenomenon first causes a period of global warming and then a period of global cooling.
I have told you before that that is the way I use the term and that I am aware that it is not the strictly correct definition.
You may not like me doing that but I have made it clear more than once so your ad hominems are inappropriate.
I also once suggested that we could invent a new term to clarify matters and tongue in cheek I suggested ‘Wildean Ocean Cycles’.
As regards possible falsifications I have already mentioned several in this very thread and also in other threads at other times.
One would be a period of warm global sea surface temperatures and an active sun with the jets shifting equatorward rather than poleward.
Another would be global albedo declining as the jets moved equatorward.
Another would be the ITCZ not moving poleward or equatorward in conjunction with the mid latitude jets.
Another would be a persistent a failure of the jets and ITCZ to move latitudinally at all apart from normal seasonal variation.
Yet another would be a failure of that 30 year phase shift to occur at all.
I think you need to ask yourself how simple Trade Wind changes could cause those phase changes without a more fundamental realignment of the air circulation systems caused by larger phenomena than those involved directly in the ENSO cycle itself.
There lies the way forward for your otherwise fine work in that you could then link your findings to the longer global climate history.
One can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink.
Leif Svalgaard:
“I’ll second that. My example is ‘turbulence in the sun””
I don’t recall ever using that term. As far as I can recall I have referred to turbulence on the solar surface causing turbulence or irregularity in the solar wind which then affects the thermal characteristics of the Earth’s atmosphere.
“You take that to(o) far. She does not think that things are so uncertain that one cannot make any conclusions.”
She doesn’t come to any conclusions she just speculates that CFCs made a big enough contribution to prevent the ozone levels returning to pre 1980 levels in the forseeable future and treats that speculation as a conclusion but I do not criticise her for that in the light of the inadequate data available. She just does what I do and what every sensible person does when faced with a problem that is currently insoluble. Make the best guess one can on the available evidence and see whether ongoing events match that guess. I have never pretended to be doing anything else but you sure do.
“This is typical of your style. You might as well have said: “turn of(f) the Sun and see what you get”. The flux from the Earth to Space is equal to the flux from space [including the Sun]. If the input varies so does the output.”
Of course it does over time but as you admit there are lots of components in the Earth system that process the energy differentially inside the Earth system. Water, land, air and no doubt different layers in the oceans and air differ in their responses to solar input. Additionally, changes in the balance of radiation wavelengths and changes in the flow (speed, rate, turbulence,whatever) of solar energy via the solar wind will also introduce differential effects from outside the Earth system thus changing the internal system responses. I have put my points in that way before but you ignored it. That is typical of your style.
Alan Cheetham says: July 6, 2010 at 5:45 pm
&
Bob Tisdale says (July 6, 3:23 am):
The AMO is closely correlated to the Arctic temperature.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:16 pm
“I’ll second that. My example is ‘turbulence in the sun””
I don’t recall ever using that term. As far as I can recall I have referred to turbulence on the solar surface
now it is turbulence on the sun. The wrong word is ‘turbulence’, not ‘in’ or ‘on’.
She doesn’t come to any conclusions she just speculates that CFCs made a big enough contribution
I do not see the word ‘speculation’ in her paper.
changes in the flow (speed, rate, turbulence,whatever) of solar energy via the solar wind will also introduce differential effects from outside the Earth system thus changing the internal system responses.
This is your speculation, but with characteristic style you fail to differentiate between different regimes: whatever solar wind interaction changes in the thermosphere and ionosphere does not propagate enough energy to the surface [where we observe climate] to have any noticeable effect.
“The wrong word is ‘turbulence’, not ‘in’ or ‘on’.”
So what is the ‘correct’ word for the composite effect of sunspots and solar flares on the solar surface ?
“whatever solar wind interaction changes in the thermosphere and ionosphere”
I did not restrict my comments to events in those two areas which are only a tiny portion of the overall system. Nor do I regard the solar wind as the only means of transmitting effects to the various components of the Earth system. Changes in the balance of wavelengths is another. Upwardly transmitted gravity waves yet another. It is not necessary for energy to be propogated downward, merely for it to propogate upwards variably and we know such variability exists from a link you provided previously.
You keep raising straw men and ignoring inconvenient issues but that is just your style I suppose
Stephen Wilde replied, “Most non professional commentators are now using the term ‘PDO’ to refer to the approximately 30 year phase shift whereby the ENSO phenomenon first causes a period of global warming and then a period of global cooling.”
They are? Please link where “[m]ost non professional commentators” make this clarification. You are the only blogger I know who does this. When talking about low frequency components of ENSO, other bloggers discuss it that way, so not to confuse it with the correct definition of PDO.
You wrote with respect to ways your conjectures could be falsified, “Yet another would be a failure of that 30 year phase shift to occur at all.”
FYI, paleoclimatological reconstructions of ENSO disagree with your assumed 30-year phase shift. The average CYCLE is approximately 27 years, but they vary from 21 to 39 years, so dividing those cycle lengths by two gives an average phase of less than 14 years, with maximum length at almost 19.5 years and minimum length at about 10.5 years. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-frequency-enso-oscillations.html
“The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997)”
1937 and 1957 are within a gnats whisker of maximum, where the solar dipole reversal occurs, the big `change of regime` at 1976 is around minimum.
oneuniverse says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Gary – some kind of reference or link would be welcome.
“Thermal Physics”, Kittel & Romer, Freeman, ca. 1981?, especially chapter 4;
“QED”, Feynman, Princeton, ca. ditto.
Nasif Nahle [used to be] a frequent commenter here, is into this stuff- thermodynamics-I seem to recall.
Bob Tisdale:
“The average CYCLE is approximately 27 years”
Each successive CYCLE appears to change PHASE from net global warming to net global cooling.
My meaning is clear whether you like the terminology or not.
Alan Cheetham: Thanks for the link to the Betacourt presentation. You replied, “Take a look at pages 52 and 53 here, referencing work by the same authors, where they show the tree ring proxies at several locations in the US (and most of these areas have a strong correlation to the AMO). What you will see is that the 60 year cycle is persistent back to 1600, although it occasionally shifts by 30 years. (And they state: ‘Strong evidence for multidecadal (30-70 yr) persistence and cross-regional synchrony’)”
The Gray et al (2003) study referenced by Betacourt on pages 52 and 53 is here:
http://www.livingrivers.net/pdfs/Gray%20et%20al.pdf
Gray at al use the combined impacts of the AMO and PDO to determine the drought patterns in the central and southern Rocky Mountains. So the periods you’re referring to are not the AMO alone.
Scrolling to page 56 of Betacourt, they use an illustration of the paleo reconstruction of the AMO back to 1550, which is from Gray et al (2004) the study I linked earlier.
Regards
Stephen Wilde replied. “Each successive CYCLE appears to change PHASE from net global warming to net global cooling.”
No. Each cycle consists of a cool phase and a warm phase. I even broke it down for you by dividing by two. So your assumed periods are off by an average factor of approximately two.
vukcevic July 6, 2010 at 11:31 pm: Thanks for the graphs showing the correlation of AMO and Arctic temps. The AMO also correlates well with Western European and Eastern North American land surface temps, and, therefore, has to be considered when looking at record annual global temperatures over the past few decades.
Regards
@Alan Cheetham,
Thank you for your response. The page of sensitivity analysis results was particularly helpful in getting a handle on how the different options affect the fit on this data set.
Reviewing the Rodionov papers, I realize that I mischaracterized how the regime shift algorithm works. Is it correct to say that (after an optional AR1 estimation and prewhitening stage) the algorithm works from the past forward, greedily proposing new segments each time a sudden change in the data indicates a regime shift and moreover the putative segment looks reasonable when extended to the cutoff length?
My description of splitting down to a cutoff size is based on my experience with other segmentation algorithms that work by recursively scanning segments for additional change-points. But the problem of overfitting is still here. Prewhitening will only remove autocorrelation, not genuine trend, which there is a lot of in the HadCRUT3 data and little of in the PDO data that the Rodionov models were based on. Trends that persist for longer than the cutoff length will likely trigger a segmentation. Since this happens if there’s an outlier in the direction of the trend doesn’t happen if the change is gradual, segmentation ends up being sensitive to a handful of influential points.
I’m not sure if the slope-based models I use (it should be treated as a regime shift model, where the regime determines the response to the time predictor) agree well with known climatic shifts, but they are more parsimonious explanations for the data then models with a constant mean within regimes.
I think that the best comment on our situation is:
You showed one way of making a solar regime/climate connection fall out of the data. I showed that there are other reasonable ways of analyzing the data that don’t produce segmentations that support the connection. It’s up to the folks with mechanistic understanding to find a model that will make a more definite case.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:51 pm (Edit)
whatever solar wind interaction changes in the thermosphere and ionosphere does not propagate enough energy to the surface [where we observe climate] to have any noticeable effect.
There has been a heatwave while the solar windspeed has been high over the last couple of weeks. This is not an isolated occurrence of the synchrony of these two phenomena.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “I think you need to ask yourself how simple Trade Wind changes could cause those phase changes without a more fundamental realignment of the air circulation systems caused by larger phenomena than those involved directly in the ENSO cycle itself.”
Since annual to decadal global trade wind variability is a function of ENSO, how do YOU differentiate between variations caused by ENSO and these mysterious “larger phenomenon” you refer to? FYI, aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions are the only natural factor that has a greater impact on year-to-year changes in global climate than ENSO.
Many studies of the ITCZ cite extratropical and polar causes for latitudinal shifts in the ITCZ. Without the use of data, how do YOU account for the these and how do YOU differentiate their impacts from that of ENSO?
Also, you concluded your July 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm reply to me with, “One can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink.”
Please clarify your intent of that sentence.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:34 pm
tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm
We have much to learn.
You can start right now.
It always makes me smile when you adopt the schoolmasterly tone Leif. The way you ‘marked’ the comments of the JGR reviewer who recommended rejection of your critique of McCracken in red ink had me giggling. 🙂
” The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely.”
1937, 1957 and 1976/7 are series Sun/Earth magnetic connection and not parallel, ie. the rising side of an odd cycle is series, and the falling side is parallel, as we have now;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/
I find that any such changes in climate can be explained far better by changes in solar activity caused by the given configurations of ALL the planets in relation to the Sun, rather than Earth/Sun connectivity issues.
Maud Kipz: good idea. So here’s Hadcrut monthly with regime changes: http://fourdjones.webs.com/h3regimes.png. Interesting to compare with the one in the post.
Don’t like Hadcrut? Here’s UAH: http://fourdjones.webs.com/uahregimes.png
Looks a lot different to me.
Bob Tisdale asked:
“how do YOU differentiate between variations caused by ENSO and these mysterious “larger phenomenon” you refer to?”
An interannual event such as the ENSO cycle is unlikely to itself develop a 30 year phase change from cycle to cycle without a seperate influence.
That other influence need not be mysterious. Internal ocean cycles and external solar cycles would be just fine.
“Many studies of the ITCZ cite extratropical and polar causes for latitudinal shifts in the ITCZ. Without the use of data, how do YOU account for the these and how do YOU differentiate their impacts from that of ENSO?”
I don’t differentiate. I say that the latitudinal shifts of all the air circulation systems not just the ITCZ result from an interaction between underlying ocean cycles and the extratropical and polar causes (probably solar induced). I regard the various multidecadal phase shifts in the oceans (not just the Pacific) as being driven by underlying oceanic cycles. They then interact with extratropical and polar influences to shift the air circulation systems. The resulting changes in the winds modify both El Nino and La Nina. That causes ENSO to show a variation in the relative strengths of El Nino and La Nina at about 30 year intervals which variation is driven by those non ENSO events.
“Also, you concluded your July 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm reply to me with, “One can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink.”
Please clarify your intent of that sentence.”
I just meant that I can show you how your work might be even more influential by linking it to long term global climate changes but I cannot force you to take advantage of that. It was an attempt at wry humour that evidently fell on stony ground.
Slightly OT, but when are they going to update their prediction for SC24? It is looking really bad already.
“changes in solar activity caused by the given configurations of ALL the planets ”
Suspecting your accuracy in this regard, from time to time looked for simple configurations to explain secular spikes in activity, e.g., April-without a eureka moment.
“Ulric Lyons says:
July 7, 2010 at 5:19 am
I find that any such changes in climate can be explained far better by changes in solar activity caused by the given configurations of ALL the planets in relation to the Sun.”
At present I don’t need to go into the reasons why the sun varies. I’m just exploring the implications of the fact that it does and the facts that stratospheric temperatures and air circulation patterns and other things all appear to change at the same time as the sun becomes more or less active.
I’m not inclined to accept as simple coincidence the late 90s reversal of polar oscillations from generally positive to generally negative, jetstream positioning from poleward to more equatorward, solar activity levels from very high to very low, ocean phases from positive to negative, stratosphere temperature trends now warming a little instead of cooling and ozone quantity trends now increasing more than the models anticipated from the reduction in CFCs and no significant tropospheric warming for 15 years now.
Putting all that together I am sure that the comments of Leif and Bob are wholly inadequate.
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:48 am
There has been a heatwave while the solar windspeed has been high over the last couple of weeks. This is not an isolated occurrence of the synchrony of these two phenomena.
from another thread:
ecoeng says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:00 am
For a little light relief from the current exchanges and no doubt those which are yet to come, I am very pleased indeed to report that today 7 July 2010 the town of Alice Springs located in almost the exact centre of the Australian continent experienced the (not yet massaged, not yet adjusted, i.e. strictly for real) coldest day on record since recordings commenced in 1878. The previous coldest day was in August 1966.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:26 am
So what is the ‘correct’ word for the composite effect of sunspots and solar flares on the solar surface ?
Solar activity
@_tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:48 am
There has been a heatwave while the solar windspeed has been high over the last couple of weeks. This is not an isolated occurrence of the synchrony of these two phenomena.
Leif……..
from another thread:
ecoeng says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:00 am
For a little light relief from the current exchanges and no doubt those which are yet to come, I am very pleased indeed to report that today 7 July 2010 the town of Alice Springs located in almost the exact centre of the Australian continent experienced the (not yet massaged, not yet adjusted, i.e. strictly for real) coldest day on record since recordings commenced in 1878. The previous coldest day was in August 1966.
___________________________________________
Yes heatwaves all over the place….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/30/record-cold-down-under/#comment-420180
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=minanom&period=daily&area=nat
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=minanom&period=week&area=nat
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=minanom&period=week&area=nat
some incursions of Antarctic air going on by the looks.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:26 am
It is not necessary for energy to be propagated downward, merely for it to propagate upwards variably
But also that that upwards propagation be controlled externally, which is the crux of the matter. BTW, your ‘upwards propagation of energy’ is another one of your self-invented, undefined terms.
“Bob Tisdale says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:54 am
Stephen Wilde replied. “Each successive CYCLE appears to change PHASE from net global warming to net global cooling.”
No. Each cycle consists of a cool phase and a warm phase. I even broke it down for you by dividing by two. So your assumed periods are off by an average factor of approximately two.”
What about this then ?
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
“Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.”
A general average of 30 or so years seems to be widely used in the blogs.
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
“The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.”
If you can’t fault the logic then ‘attack the terminology or the man’ seems to be your approach.
Besides the precise length is irrelevant, the initial point that I made remains valid as long as there is any variation over time in the net effect of combined El Nino and La Nina events.
@Stephen Wilde says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:08 am
“At present I don’t need to go into the reasons why the sun varies.”
Aah, but that is how we tell the difference between a modern winter and a traditional one. Anyway, the distribution and polarity of these `events` are the source of the perceived cycle phase.
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:53 am
The way you ‘marked’ the comments of the JGR reviewer who recommended rejection of your critique of McCracken in red ink had me giggling. 🙂
In our second cut at this http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09-Review-History.pdf we ran into the same reviewer, who this time recommended ‘major revision’ not ‘rejection’, but luckily the two other reviewers and the editor agreed that we had taken the comments into account adequately and that that reviewer was biased [and had broken the review-rule that a paper should be judged on its merit even if the reviewer may disagree with the result]. So he deserved the red ink..
Nylo says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:05 am
Slightly OT, but when are they going to update their prediction for SC24? It is looking really bad already.
The panel [now disbanded] is not going to update anything. David Hathaway updates his monthly. Here is his latest http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif As long as the wiggly line stays between the two dotted curves, he is happy.
Leif: “The panel [now disbanded] is not going to update anything. David Hathaway updates his monthly. Here is his latest http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif ”
Wow, Leif. Hathaway is now predicting a 65 peak sunspot count to SC24? Isn’t that like, definite Dalton Minimum level? Wasn’t he calling people bad names just a few years ago if they made such predictions?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:27 am (Edit)
he deserved the red ink..
Lol. Fair enough.
I want to ask you about 10Be again. You asked if the curve fit produced by my friend Ray Tomes had taken into account the geomagnetic data, and pointed me to a graph which seemed to imply that the geomagnetic proxy was in a fairly tight negative correlation to the 10Be curve. I took this to mean that you believe the changes in Geomagnetism were affecting 10Be depostion, and thus giving us a skewed view of 10Be as a solar proxy.
How are the relative amplitudes calibrated before the addition of the curves to leave a flatter residual, and do you have a graph of the residual? Or have I misunderstood?
Also, Since geomagnetism is affected by heliomagnetism, is there not a danger of falling into a circular argument here?
Thanks
Stephen Wilde replied, “An interannual event such as the ENSO cycle is unlikely to itself develop a 30 year phase change from cycle to cycle without a seperate influence.”
Really? What separate influence dictates the low-frequency component of ENSO?
You replied. “The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.”
Sorry, Stephen. You don’t use that definition of the PDO. You wrote above that you use “the term ‘PDO’ to refer to the approximately 30 year phase shift whereby the ENSO phenomenon first causes a period of global warming and then a period of global cooling.”
Sad, solar wind velocity well down again http://www.spaceweather.com/ and only a minor coronal hole stream to reach us around the 9th July. Well I`m sure many places are in need of the rain coming with this `brief` temperature drop.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:09 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:26 am
It is not necessary for energy to be propagated downward, merely for it to propagate upwards variably
But also that that upwards propagation be controlled externally.”
No it doesn’t need to be ‘controlled’ externally, merely affected to some degree which could be pretty small as long as it is enough to disturb the balance between energy going up from the stratosphere to space and energy entering the stratosphere from below.
“Tides in the thermosphere directly linked to the troposphere
The atmosphere has periodic oscillations that are driven by solar heating of the troposphere, the atmospheric layer closest to Earth’s surface, where weather patterns
form. Scientists have now observed that one of these atmospheric tides, known as
diurnal wave number 3 (DE3), propagates upward to reach the thermosphere.”
from here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041845.pdf
The essence of the article is that the diurnal coming and going of sunlight creates irregularities in the energy flow or flux from troposphere right up into the exosphere.
It follows that similar effects must occur from any solar variability on all timescales.
Last time you tried to counter that by saying that it is just part of the internal climate system variability but that will not do. Those phenomena are a response to the external solar forcing. As solar variability occurs then so will the response to that solar variability and if that is enough to alter the upward energy flux on all time scales (as it clearly does on a diurnal basis) then that is all I require.
mikelorrey says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:04 am
Wow, Leif. Hathaway is now predicting a 65 peak sunspot count to SC24? Isn’t that like, definite Dalton Minimum level? Wasn’t he calling people bad names just a few years ago if they made such predictions?
We don’t really know what the level was during the Dalton Minimum [sunspot number very uncertain]. David H is not into name calling and is a good scientists. That he was wrong earlier is just the way it goes with predictions: sometimes they fail.
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:11 am
I took this to mean that you believe the changes in Geomagnetism were affecting 10Be deposition, and thus giving us a skewed view of 10Be as a solar proxy.
Not the deposition, but the production as the Earth’s magnetic field controls the flux of cosmic rays that reaches the Earth. The geomagnetic effect is much larger than the solar modulated, but can be compensated for in different ways.
How are the relative amplitudes calibrated before the addition of the curves to leave a flatter residual, and do you have a graph of the residual? Or have I misunderstood?
Here is the 10Be curve:
http://www.leif.org/research/10Be%20Flux%20and%20Geomagnetic%20Field%20Strength%2060k%20Years.png
For 14C it looks like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
The tiny wiggles are the solar modulation. Another one is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
The blue curve shows what is thought to be the solar part after subtracting the geomagnetic part [black curve]. Note that the ‘Year’ is counted from the ‘present’, with year 0 being A.D. 1950.
Also, Since geomagnetism is affected by heliomagnetism, is there not a danger of falling into a circular argument here?
Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.
Leif,
Of all components of TSI, do we have a good understanding of the intensity of individual wavelength groups over time? Is there ample study of modulation among wavelengths that would warm oceans more at some times and less at others? Not only IR, but particularly those with microwave effect?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:27 am
The essence of the article is that the diurnal coming and going of sunlight creates irregularities in the energy flow or flux from troposphere right up into the exosphere.
It follows that similar effects must occur from any solar variability on all timescales.
That doesn’t follow at all. The diurnal wave number 3 (DE3) that propagates upward to reach the thermosphere is driven from below [weather and day-night cycle] and not related to solar activity and are not “response to the external solar forcing”.
I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain this again and again… [there is a hint there]
Leif Svalgaard:
“That doesn’t follow at all. The diurnal wave number 3 (DE3) that propagates upward to reach the thermosphere is driven from below [weather and day-night cycle] and not related to solar activity and are not “response to the external solar forcing”.
So a phenomenon that involves the day – night cycle is not related to solar activity ?
Higher or lower solar activity or even simply an albedo change would affect the intensity of the response though.
Still, the difference of opinion is clear. Let’s leave it there as you suggest.
Layne Blanchard says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:58 am
Of all components of TSI, do we have a good understanding of the intensity of individual wavelength groups over time? Is there ample study of modulation among wavelengths that would warm oceans more at some times and less at others? Not only IR, but particularly those with microwave effect?
Yes and No. There has been a lot of guesses and extrapolations. Only with the most modern instruments are we beginning to get a more correct picture, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session7/7.02_Pilewskie_TSIS.pdf
Slide 10 shows an interesting finding: that UV varies inversely with IR, that is more solar activity, more UV, but lower IR. Interesting enough, the IR can penetrate to the surface and warm it directly…
See also slide 4 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session3/3.02_Harder_SSI.pdf
The implications of this modern data are not clear yet. Some are discussed here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
Ulric Lyons says: July 7, 2010 at 8:22 am
Ulric, here’s a bunch of seaweed. Please hind cast your choice of significant weather event that occurred in the latter half of this bunch and this bunch explaining numerically how you established the location and supplying any other data required. It rains somewhere every day.
Bob Tisdale said:
“You replied. “The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.”
Sorry, Stephen. You don’t use that definition of the PDO. You wrote above that you use “the term ‘PDO’ to refer to the approximately 30 year phase shift whereby the ENSO phenomenon first causes a period of global warming and then a period of global cooling.””
And the difference is significant how exactly ? However one puts it my hypothesis is not falsified by an absence of such shifts because such shifts clearly exist.
I am unimpressed with the strength of these small solar ups and downs to change and oscillate our global climate. The following free ebook always serves to remind me of the incredible internal variability encased within our own atmospheric, geologic and hydrologic terra firma and, like Dorothy, to consider my own backyard first before I go looking for an external force greater than that.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/contents.html
Hi all
Hate to intrude on the interesting exchange,
but you may wish to consider an alternative
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
already showing promising results elsewhere
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Thanks.
Rich (July 7, 5:44am): “Hadcrut monthly – Interesting to compare with the one in the post.”
Here is a comparison: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Had_MonAnnual.jpg with your monthly line in dark blue added to the original one based on annual data.
“Pamela Gray says:
July 7, 2010 at 10:55 am
I am unimpressed with the strength of these small solar ups and downs to change and oscillate our global climate.”
Agreed, but I have no problem envisaging small solar ups and downs having a modulating effect on a major internal oscillation from the oceans by adjusting air pressure distribution via an effect on stratospheric temperatures.
So if the climate is a drum skin on a drum on a roller coaster, the sun is a drummer (but not the roller coaster!!)
It’s like splashing the water around with a kayak paddle while running a white-water river maybe. Interesting, but maybe not the main action. Nonetheless all details matter – and there may be more to notice – who can absolutely guarantee there is not?
Interesting article Alan. Thanks.
Vukcevic (July 7, 11:05am)
I had incorporated your NFC1 (AT-GMF) in my older Earth Magnetic Field page. I am taking a closer look at the magnetic connections.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:30 am (Edit)
Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.
Is it affected by the interplanetary magnetic field?
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.”
Is it affected by the interplanetary magnetic field?
Not at all.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:06 pm
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.”
Is it affected by the interplanetary magnetic field?
Not at all.
Now Leif, be crystal clear here. i just read your comment to tallbloke and on one plane of thought you are exactly right. Just had to jump in here. I take it there you are speaking of some type of permanent warp of the field by the solar or planetary fields, htereby “affected”.
But others might read that wrong. If you are measuring the geomagnetic field here on earth it will see, however small, could be under detection level depending on the instruments, the other fields superimposed on earth field, right? In one aspect you could call that “affecting”. Just afraid some other readers might take that statement at point blank without a little deeper clarification.
Stephen Wilde: You asked, “And the difference is significant how exactly ?”
Hmm. Back to basics. One is known to cause changes in global atmospheric circulation patters and global temperatures, while the other is not. The PDO is calculated as the leading principal component of the North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N. It portrays the SST anomaly pattern of the North Pacific, north of 20N, and only that area of the north Pacific. It does not portray the SST anomalies of that area of the North Pacific. The PDO is not known to impact global atmospheric circulation and global temperatures. On the other hand, NINO3.4 SST anomalies (or NINO3 SST anomalies used in the paleoclimatological study I presented for you) represent the SST anomalies for a specific area of the equatorial Pacific. Temperature changes in the equatorial Pacific are known to change global atmospheric circulation patterns and global temperatures.
You wrote, “However one puts it my hypothesis is not falsified by an absence of such shifts because such shifts clearly exist.”
I presented the post for you not to falsify your conjectures, but to illustrate that the warm and cool phase shifts do not necessarily occur on 30-year intervals. If your conjectures did, however, require a 30-year interval between warming and cooling phases, then your conjectures would only work during those epochs of the last 150 years when there were 30-year phases. I didn’t believe that your conjectures specifically required fixed periods, since you do not document your conjectures with data.
Note: You still haven’t answered a number of questions I presented to you above. As soon as you’re done with those, I have some about your hypotheses.
An interesting coincidence (and no mechanism proposed – just an observation):
The temperature regime shifts occur when the decreasing geomagnetic storm rate crosses the increasing sun spot number. The only solar cycle without an identified regime shift at its onset is solar cycle 20, starting in 1966. It is coincidental that the decreasing geomagnetic storm rate occurs earlier than usual and it makes a double dip. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GeomagStorm.htm
No 1.5 Wm-2 increase in TSI in the 20th century – nope none at all – oh wait this NOAA graph hasn’t been adjusted properly by tilting your head to the left
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SolarIrradiance_02Dec20091.gif
Hockey Schtick says:
July 7, 2010 at 9:21 pm
No 1.5 Wm-2 increase in TSI in the 20th century – nope none at all –
Good to see you have seen the light.
wayne says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:47 pm
“Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.
Is it affected by the interplanetary magnetic field?”
Not at all.
Just afraid some other readers might take that statement at point blank without a little deeper clarification.
If the question had been “is it affected by little green men from Mars” and my answer had also been ‘not at all’. Would you have asked for clarification? 🙂
The issue is one of context and one of semantics [and accepted terms]
The context [as I understood it] was centuries to millennea changes of modulation of production of 10Be/14C due to the changing geomagnetic field.
The semantics is what the words mean. The interplanetary magnetic field can cause severe magnetic storms on Earth [lasting a day, not on the time scale of the context]. These storms can melt a transformer. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms can disturb the navigation of Racing Pidgeons. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms create currents in the ionosphere. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms induce currents in pipe lines. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms induce tiny currents in seawater. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms inject particles into the Van Allen Belts. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t.
Now, some of these currents create their own magnetic field [hundreds or thousands times smaller that the Geomagnetic Field] which we can measure. We do not ordinarily consider those magnetic effects part of the geomagnetic field. In fact, when creating global models of the geomagnetic field, the first order of business is to remove all this small, disturbing ‘noise’.
I have seen the the light from multiple sources, but you might want to have your torticollis looked at by a Chiropractor for some additional adjustments
Hockey Schtick says:
July 7, 2010 at 10:42 pm
I have seen the light from multiple sources, but you might want to have your torticollis looked at by a Chiropractor for some additional adjustments
The light might have blinded you. Here are reconstructions of TSI for 1880-2010″
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-1880.png
You were showing the obsolete Lean 2000 reconstruction with its sharp rise from 1880 to 1950 [follow the minima]. This rise did not happen.
Alan Cheetham says:
July 7, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Vukcevic (July 7, 11:05am) I had incorporated your NFC1 (AT-GMF) in my older Earth Magnetic Field page. I am taking a closer look at the magnetic connections.
That’s fine, you are welcome.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 7, 2010 at 10:09 pm
The issue is one of context and one of semantics [and accepted terms]
The context [as I understood it] was centuries to millennea changes of modulation of production of 10Be/14C due to the changing geomagnetic field.
The semantics is what the words mean. The interplanetary magnetic field can cause severe magnetic storms on Earth [lasting a day, not on the time scale of the context]. These storms can melt a transformer. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms can disturb the navigation of Racing Pidgeons. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms create currents in the ionosphere. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms induce currents in pipe lines. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms induce tiny currents in seawater. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t. These storms inject particles into the Van Allen Belts. Do we call that ‘affecting the Geomagnetic Field’? We ordinarily don’t.
Now, some of these currents create their own magnetic field [hundreds or thousands times smaller that the Geomagnetic Field] which we can measure. We do not ordinarily consider those magnetic effects part of the geomagnetic field. In fact, when creating global models of the geomagnetic field, the first order of business is to remove all this small, disturbing ‘noise’.
Fine, and I agree we need to be aware of the scale of effects. I’m concerned though, that in covering everything from transformers to pidgeons, you didn’t get around to mentioning effects on 10Be deposition.
Sometimes Leif, trying to get answers from you is a bit like making an FOIA request. Unless the question is asked in exactly the right terms, a useful answer is not forthcoming, or is sometimes misleading because of what it omits.
tallbloke says:
July 8, 2010 at 12:50 am
Fine, and I agree we need to be aware of the scale of effects. I’m concerned though, that in covering everything from transformers to pidgeons, you didn’t get around to mentioning effects on 10Be deposition.
Not deposition, but production.
And we have covered that many times before, but in case you missed it: a stronger geomagnetic field prevents some [lower energy] GCRs from reaching the atmosphere where 10Be is formed. This is over and above what the Sun does to the GCRs in space.
tallbloke says:
July 8, 2010 at 12:50 am
Sometimes Leif, trying to get answers from you is a bit like making an FOIA request. Unless the question is asked in exactly the right terms, a useful answer is not forthcoming, or is sometimes misleading because of what it omits.
The best way to get a precise answer is to pose a precise question. Often ‘useful’ is defined by what you want to hear, instead of by how it actually is, so you will be disappointed from time to time.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 8, 2010 at 12:56 am (Edit)
a stronger geomagnetic field prevents some [lower energy] GCRs from reaching the atmosphere where 10Be is formed. This is over and above what the Sun does to the GCRs in space.
Ok, thanks. So back to my caibration question. How are the different types of GCR’s (low and high energy) differentiated by looking at the 10Be record? I ask because it seems this would affect the ‘calibration’ you would need to use in order to correctly remove the geomagnetic effect from the 10Be data in order to see how much the sun might have been varying in the pre-instrumental record according to th 10Be proxy.
And forgive me if I’m being dense, I’m struggling at the moemnt with the after effects of my head injuries.
Bob Tisdale said:
“The PDO is not known to impact global atmospheric circulation and global temperatures”
The PDO is derived from ENSO data. ENSO does affect circulation and temperatures and so must PDO provided it represents a shift in the balance between El Nino and La Nina events from net warming to net cooling over the period. I think this may be an issue of semantics.
Please remind me what questions I have not addressed.
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.
With exception of those we can’t explain as yet.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2010 at 2:59 am
tallbloke says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.
With exception of those we can’t explain as yet.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
“Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.”
It was Leif who said that in response to my question, not me.
Stephen Wilde replied, “The PDO is derived from ENSO data.”
Wrong. My discussion in this comment…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-425280
..was a response to your switching back to the proper use of the PDO in this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-425015
With the proper use of the term PDO, it is calculated as the leading principle component of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N. It is not derived from ENSO data.
If you’re now returning to your definition of the PDO (the multidecadal low-frequency component of ENSO), then your continued reply, “ENSO does affect circulation and temperatures and so must PDO provided it represents a shift in the balance between El Nino and La Nina events from net warming to net cooling over the period. I think this may be an issue of semantics,” is correct. But if you’re remaining with the correct definition of the PDO, then it is not a matter of semantics.
You confuse yourself with your incorrect use of PDO; imagine how badly you confuse others with your misuse of the term. Please switch to something like Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV) to describe the multidecadal warming and cooling epochs of ENSO. PDV is used in scientific papers when the authors are describing multidecadal processes in the Pacific other than the PDO. Feel free to use the following graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies that have been smoothed with a 121-month filter to illustrate the PDV.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
And if someone complains about the 121-month smoothing, direct them to the following NOAA webpage. They use a 121-month filter to illustrate the AMO:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/
You wrote, “Please remind me what questions I have not addressed.”
From this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-425047
Stephen Wilde replied, “An interannual event such as the ENSO cycle is unlikely to itself develop a 30 year phase change from cycle to cycle without a seperate influence.”
Really? What separate influence dictates the low-frequency component of ENSO?
And from this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-424958
Also, you concluded your July 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm reply to me with, “One can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink.”
Please clarify your intent of that sentence.
######
The latter wasn’t a question; it was a request.
Thanks, Alan, for a nice piece of work which shows how solar cycle changes and Earth climate cycle regimes have been closely linked for the last 100y, with the reverses to the direction of the suns polar field having a noticeable effect. Perhaps if winter/summer mean temperatures were plotted on the same chart, the differences between the reversals would be better illustrated?
Pamela Gray says:
July 7, 2010 at 10:55 am
e “I am unimpressed with the strength of these small solar ups and downs to change and oscillate our global climate.”
On the macro scale I would agree that the small variations to annual TSI during we have observed during recent solar cycles have only a small effect on global climate. However, I would not write off the effects of other changes, such as strength of solar wind, strength of solar poloidal magnetic field, strength/frequency of UV…etc.
Granted that these are small changes in the total energy budget, but could cause the swings we observe if they turn out to have a controlling roll. One possible control mechanism has be postulated by Henrik Svensmark, who thinks solar activity can alter the rate of cloud formation modulation of highly energetic GCR’s.
Regarding climate, there are things we know. There are also lots of things we know we don’t know. But the things that really bite us in the ass are the things we don’t know we don’t know.
tallbloke says:
“Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.”
It was Leif who said that in response to my question, not me.
Dr. L.S is likely to be correct , but that may not exclude possibility of a common cause to both.
Tenuc on July 8, 2010 at 4:41 am
. . . Granted that these are small changes in the total energy budget, but could cause the swings we observe if they turn out to have a controlling roll. . .
Tenuc,
Therefore, the homework needed for establishing the existence of a physical way that a very small input of energy shifts an enormous (relatively) energy system (total earth) hasn’t yet been completed and perhaps in some cases not began. The knowledge of these small inputs have been known for a while.
John
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2010 at 5:00 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
“Geomagnetism is not affected by heliomagnetism.”
It was Leif who said that in response to my question, not me.
Dr. L.S is likely to be correct , but that may not exclude possibility of a common cause to both.
Seems very possible, given the similarity of the curves.
http://www.leif.org/research/10Be%20Flux%20and%20Geomagnetic%20Field%20Strength%2060k%20Years.png
Looking for a small changes that make a big impact on climate and then also understand the reason behind it is like looking for needle in a haystack. The current focus on radiation balance due to changed CO2 levels in the range of average some W/m2 is a dead end. So are Solar TSI. To small to explain climate change.
Then we are looking for positive feedback in ad absurdum.
Maybe time to focus on the haystack instead of the needle?
What if we focus on the weather first to see what kind of feedback we shall look for.
What if try to explain current and previous weather/local climate fluctuations without just blame global warming.
Why was the jet stream in lower latitudes this winter in NH?
Why is it colder than usual in Australia?
How come that it was flooding in east Europe?
With satellites and strong computer would that not be to difficult. 🙂
The simple answer to this is changed wind and circulation patterns.
That basic and simple answer give us the clue to look for what reason can have the strongest feedback in climate. Wind and wind direction. We call it weather.
That is what change climate. In small scale but also in large scale.
As the polar vortex do in small scale. The large scale is the global circulation pattern.
And what drives the global circulation pattern?
Wind generated by condensing vapor. Or more specific; where the vapor is forming clouds.
Priority one in climate research would be to find what do change wind direction.
We do know that ENSO change global weather. But we do not know what trigger ENSO. We must understand the reason behind the wind of change.
Cold Lynx says:
July 8, 2010 at 6:28 am (Edit)
Priority one in climate research would be to find what do change wind direction.
We do know that ENSO change global weather. But we do not know what trigger ENSO. We must understand the reason behind the wind of change.
We may be able to begin to get a handle on this by looking at the changes in global atmospheric angular momentum. GLAAM. Particularly ‘Zonal ACI’ (Atmopheric circulation index). That correlates quite well with the multidecadal shifts in ocean phases and changes in length of day, (LOD). In turn, that correlates with the changing distribution of solar system mass.
There is something going on we need to find out about, instead of choosing to ignore because we don’t have a ready explanation for it.
John Whitman says: July 8, 2010 at 5:11 am
Therefore, the homework needed for establishing the existence of a physical way that a very small input of energy shifts an enormous (relatively) energy system (total earth) hasn’t yet been completed and perhaps in some cases not began. The knowledge of these small inputs have been known for a while.
There is plenty of energy absorbed in the oceans, it is mater how its transit from one form to another is regulated by ‘terrestrial valves’ or ‘transistors’(names of Lee De Forest and William Shockley come to mind), where tiny amount of energy controls flow of orders of magnitude greater. The oceans’ currents encounter number of such ‘grids’ (‘bases’) around the globe, it is just a matter of understanding how they operate .
My candidates are Fram, Denmark & Davis straits in the Arctic, Drake passage in Antarctica etc.
cold lynx and tallbloke
“There is something going on we need to find out about, instead of choosing to ignore because we don’t have a ready explanation for it.”
Absolutely true. But while the politicians currently hold the purse strings on the science and so ensure that the right gatekeepers are kept on the right funding/grant assessment committees, do you really think this is ever going to happen i.e are we ever going to have a situation where we stop blaming GHGs (primarily CO2) and stop inventing positive feedbacks that result in dangerous projected future climate change (to justify the call to ‘act now’ and for us all to accept carbon taxation)?
Some how I don’t think so as ‘turkeys’ (those who seek to benefit very handsomely from scaring us with ever more hyped up dangerous future climate change projections) will never vote for Christmas/Thanksgiving (i.e. practice the scientific method correctly and attempt to falsify the CO2 to dangerous future climate change hypothesis) as far as I’m concerned.
KevinUK says:
July 8, 2010 at 7:17 am (Edit)
cold lynx and tallbloke
Not going there on this thread Kevin. Trying to stay focused on the phenomena rather than getting into the politics.
tallbloke,
Why I can undertand your decision, personally think we are all wasting our time at the moment discussing the science when it fact its clear that it doesn’t matter to those who are in the gatekeeper positions.
The real challenge IMO now is not arguing the science and the warmists IMO lost that battle some time ago, rather it is to expose those who are continuing to push and keep in place the gatekeepers of this dangerous future projected climate change scam. When I refer to gatekeepers I have in mind (as gatekeepers) people like Martin Rees and Brian Hoskins (both members of the UK Climate Change Committee) and Ralph Cicerone and Gerry North (US NAS) who are happy to take their orders from their political masters.
Having said that I’m very much enjoying (and learning from) the different discussions going on in this thread (between yourself and LS and Bob T and Stephen W so please keep it up.
tallbloke says:
July 8, 2010 at 1:21 am
How are the different types of GCR’s (low and high energy) differentiated by looking at the 10Be record? I ask because it seems this would affect the ‘calibration’ you would need to use in order to correctly remove the geomagnetic effect from the 10Be data in order to see how much the sun might have been varying in the pre-instrumental record according to the 10Be proxy.
We use the energy spectrum of the GCRs to calculate how large the correction is, see slide 12 of http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Beer.pdf that shows how the production varies as a function of the Earth’s magnetic field.
By vukcevic on July 8, 2010 at 7:03 am
There is plenty of energy absorbed in the oceans, it is mater how its transit from one form to another is regulated by ‘terrestrial valves’ or ‘transistors’(names of Lee De Forest and William Shockley come to mind), where tiny amount of energy controls flow of orders of magnitude greater. The oceans’ currents encounter number of such ‘grids’ (‘bases’) around the globe, it is just a matter of understanding how they operate .
My candidates are Fram, Denmark & Davis straits in the Arctic, Drake passage in Antarctica etc.
vukcevic,
The very small inputs I was attempting to reference (poorly apparently) are the energies received at earth, the discussion of which was initiated by Alan’s post on the possible correlation between solar magnetic field reversal periods & earth atmosphere temperature shifts.
The following Tenuc & Pamela Gray comments led to my comment:
NOTE: can you imagine I just did this comment on my Blackberry while sitting in an Adirondack chair at a lakehouse in the Adirondack Mtns! And I don’t see any heat wave, I see beautiful summer weather, finally.
John
Leif,
A pleasure to see you so active here. 🙂
Does Aquavit have a shrelf life?
John
? shrelf ?
Ahhhh, pitfalls of commenting on the Blackberry.
John
John Whitman says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:24 am
Leif, A pleasure to see you so active here. 🙂
Does Aquavit have a shrelf life?
Not on my shrelf.
John Whitman says:
July 8, 2010 at 8:58 am
“…NOTE: can you imagine I just did this comment on my Blackberry while sitting in an Adirondack chair at a lakehouse in the Adirondack Mtns! And I don’t see any heat wave, I see beautiful summer weather, finally.
Glad your enjoying the sun, John. Here in the UK, sunny Sussex is finally living up to its name and we are having a real summer at last, following the three previous wet and cloudy affairs – I’m having a beer or three at the moment sitting out on the patio and writing this reply, life is great!
I find it a paradox that mainstream science has made so little progress wiyh the science of climate prediction, whilst technology has developed apace!?!??? We seem to have hardly reached first base in the understanding of short and long term weather. Go figure…
Alan Cheetham @ 11:22
I find it interesting that the same results emerge from different algorithms. The one behind the R package strucchange uses a least squares fit to decide which shifts to choose.
For interest here’s the PDO regime shift done the same way: http://fourdjones.webs.com/pdoregimes.png Also monthly values. Not exactly the same but see the 95% confidence intervals plotted at the bottom of the graph.
John Whitman says: July 8, 2010 at 8:58 am
————–
Adirondack Mtns, memories!
In my students Greyhound bus days, on a trip in mid September, from Albany to Montreal I stopped in Burlington and spent day or two wandering around, admiring the surroundings. It was one of the most beautiful places in US. Some years later, when I was looking to by a property in UK, I came across one called ‘Burlington Lodge’, could not resist memories bough it and spent there 7-8 years of my bachelor days.
Do not take much notice of my ‘ramblings’. I wish you good vacation.
There is a strong correlation between cosmic rays and temperature of the stratosphere as discussed earlier here at WUWT
Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/correlation-demonstrated-bewteen-cosmic-rays-and-temperature-of-the-stratosphere/
Some argue that the cosmic ray just measure the temperature and not the other way around. It is far to little energy in the CR to heat the atmosphere.
But how is the atmosphere heated? Mostly by convection and releasing of latent heat. Especially in NH winter as the article describe. Convection is mainly driven of cloud forming/latent heat releasing.
In fact does the correlation mentioned in the link prove larger cloud forming because that is how the atmosphere is heated. And it is measured by a increased temperature that show a much higher energy flux than in CR.
A heat flux easily explained by releasing of latent heat.
Forgot to mention that sudden stratospheric warmings do change the wind direction.
http://ncas-climate.nerc.ac.uk/ncas-research/69/147-continuum-warming
Bob Tisdale:
I’m happy to start using Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV) instead of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
Any confusion on my part has been derived from other sources and I can see how your suggestion makes things more specific but many will fail to see much distinction between the terms Oscillation and Variability. Hopefully this exchange and my future use of PDV will be helpful to others.
I’m sure everyone knows by now that I’m not a professional scientist so my terminology is likely to sometimes be corrupted by reading from various other sources. Nevertheless the concepts I am expresssing are clear enough and are not falsified by less than perfect terminology.
Mind you I think it was pretty difficult to discern that PDO/PDV point from your earlier postings. You may correct me on such matters whenever necessary but please make the point as clearly as you can at the outset.
As for the two questions you say I haven’t yet answered I’m pretty sure I have dealt with them above but this thread is now so large I not inclined to trawl through it.
As best I can recall I said that solar and ocean cycles would be enough to dictate the low frequency response of ENSO.
As regards the horse and water metaphor I said above that it was an attempt at wry humour but it obviously wasn’t successful.
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2010 at 10:22 am
——
vukcevic,
Some personal ramblings amongst the science discussion is good to take the edge off. Yeah, it is nice here from May 1 to ~Oct 30. Then on to warmer climates, so am living here only partime. I am too old for cold.
Now you got me curious where you went to school around here. I was living in the Adirondack mtns until ~1976.
John
Tenuc says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:50 am
Glad your enjoying the sun, John. Here in the UK, sunny Sussex is finally living up to its name and we are having a real summer at last, following the three previous wet and cloudy affairs – I’m having a beer or three at the moment sitting out on the patio and writing this reply, life is great!
I find it a paradox that mainstream science has made so little progress wiyh the science of climate prediction, whilst technology has developed apace!?!??? We seem to have hardly reached first base in the understanding of short and long term weather. Go figure…
——-
Tenuc,
I spent a few days at the university in the Sussex area about 7 years ago in the summertime . . . the weather was nice. And I loved british brews and the pub ambiance.
Anthony provides us with a tremendous venue to get edgy with the science. I, in particular, love these solar related discussions. I think these are at the heart of getting to earthly things.
John
Towards a possible mechanism: http://www.agci.org/dB/PPTs/10S1_0613_LHood.pdf
“Alan Cheetham says:
July 8, 2010 at 11:31 am
Towards a possible mechanism:
http://www.agci.org/dB/PPTs/10S1_0613_LHood.pdf”
Well, well, that’s pretty damned close to my top down (solar) and bottom up (oceanic) approach is it not ? I’ve been pursuing that line for two and a half years now.
The trouble is that the stratosphere cooled when solar activity was at it’s highest during the late 20th century and is now warming a bit with the quieter sun so the possibilty remains that they still have the sign wrong and that ozone warming from a more active sun may not be the primary process in dictating stratospheric temperatures. The conventional explanation is that our CFCs interfered with and offset the normal process but I’m currently doubtful.
They also seem to ignore the latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems at the surface but they might work that in at a later date and I’ll reserve my position until more data comes available.
Leif, what say you to the top down portion ?
Bob, what say you to the bottom up portion ?
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Well, well, that’s pretty damned close to my top down (solar) and bottom up (oceanic) approach is it not ? I’ve been pursuing that line for two and a half years now.”
It is? Maybe you should read the Hood (2010) presentation again. Run through all 26 points of your NCM…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
…and determine which of those points are confirmed by Hood (2010) presentation.
Slide 23 presents two possible mechanisms for stratospheric response, but does not consider the combined effects. And Slide 36 indicates his research into the subject is far from complete. Seems to have more questions than answers.
Now, if you would, please confirm something about your model, Stephen. From what I can tell, you propose that, as the solar cycle runs from min to max, the ITCZ moves poleward, and this is caused by changes in atmospheric circulation at the poles. Is that a reasonable summation of your points 1 through 6?
Bob Tisdale:
It’s not a perfect match but why should it be. I think there are still aspects they ( and possibly I) haven’t worked out yet but the basic concepts are there.
As for your question:
“Now, if you would, please confirm something about your model, Stephen. From what I can tell, you propose that, as the solar cycle runs from min to max, the ITCZ moves poleward, and this is caused by changes in atmospheric circulation at the poles. Is that a reasonable summation of your points 1 through 6?”
No. You forget that I say it is an interplay between oceanic effects and solar effects with the oceanic effects being far more powerful. I have also said that depending on timing the two influences can either offset or supplement one another.
So it is unlikely that one will see much of a solar effect at all except when it is enhanced by the oceanic effect supplementing it. In particular a single solar cycle is not enough to separate the solar and oceanic effects. One seems to need nearer 500 years to see the underlying patterns most clearly and even then there are spells when the oceanic effects overwhelm the solar effect such as warmer periods during the LIA and cooler periods during the MWP.
The ITCZ does not move because of changes in atmospheric circulation at the poles. Instead ALL the air circulation systems move latitudinally according to the interplay between the oceanic effects on the surface air temperature near the equator (which widens or narrows the equatorial air masses) and the solar effects on the temperature inversion at the stratosphere (which modulates the polar oscillations).
Thus as per that article the Brewer Dobson circulation (probably controlling the positions and/or intensities of the tropospheric air circulation systems) is affected both from above and below simultaneously. That is the essence of my propositions too but I go further than them in joining all the dots so far as the data currently available allows.
I am reasonably confident that in due course most if not all of the 26 stages of my NCM will be found to match real world observations.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “As best I can recall I said that solar and ocean cycles would be enough to dictate the low frequency response of ENSO.”
And what do you have to support that opinion? Links to studies? Links to graphs?
Addition to post of July 8th at 1.42 pm
On reading points 1 to 6 of my NCM I see that your question is reasonable. I really need to put bit more explanation about the oceanic contribution in that section. I’ll amend it in due course.
“Bob Tisdale says:
July 8, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Stephen Wilde wrote, “As best I can recall I said that solar and ocean cycles would be enough to dictate the low frequency response of ENSO.”
And what do you have to support that opinion? Links to studies? Links to graphs?”
Interpretation of observations and application of the basic laws of physics. Look at that article again. The air circulation systems are affected by the interplay of forces from bottom up and from top down which would give the resulting Trade Wind changes the opportunity to enhance or even initiate the ENSO cycle. Admittedly the ENSO cycle would probably occur anyway just from seasonal Trade Wind changes but if there are changes beyond normal seasonal variability then that would impose a lower frequency ENSO response would it not ?
John Whitman says: July 8, 2010 at 11:21 am
Now you got me curious where you went to school around here. I was living in the Adirondack mtns until ~1976.
I was in Boston in the autumn of 1970 on a short 3 months student exchange.
vukcevic:
I spent 8 weeks of 1970 working in a Bank in Waterbury Connecticut but never got to Boston. Instead I then spent $100 dollars on a 1 month unlimited Greyhound ticket, slept on the ‘bus one night in 3 and travelled right round the Continent to many of the main cities and tourist sites. I’ve still got the maps and photos 🙂
Stephen Wilde replied, “No. You forget that I say it is an interplay between oceanic effects and solar effects with the oceanic effects being far more powerful. I have also said that depending on timing the two influences can either offset or supplement one another.”
Maybe you should update the initial dozen or so points of your NCM…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
…to state that and not save it for a couple of catch-all clauses toward the end.
Consider opening your own blog. Costs nothing. That way you could write up a detailed description of each of the points of your NCM, linking graphs, maps, illustrations, and papers you’ve found to confirm it. Also, when you find a stumbling block, you can then keep the entire model up to date.
You wrote, “Thus as per that article the Brewer Dobson circulation (probably controlling the positions and/or intensities of the tropospheric air circulation systems) is affected both from above and below simultaneously.”
Actually, if memory serves me well, Brewer-Dobson circulation is a very simple model used to explain the slow moving circulation of stratospheric ozone from the tropics to the poles during winter months. Nothing more. I wouldn’t think it would have much impact on your NCM.
You wrote, “That is the essence of my propositions too but I go further than them in joining all the dots so far as the data currently available allows.”
But you present no data to confirm your proposals, Stephen, so you join no dots. There’s an upside to your data-free postulations. Your proposals can’t be refuted. The downside: they can’t be confirmed. Therefore, since others cannot confirm or refute your proposals, they’re basically meaningless. Time to start presenting data, Stephen. The following post should at least help you to transfer data from a webpage to a spreadsheet.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/converting-txt-data-into-columns-in.html
And the KNMI Climate Explorer can provide much of the data you need:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
You replied earlier, “I’m happy to start using Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV) instead of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).”
Thanks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 8, 2010 at 8:29 am (Edit)
We use the energy spectrum of the GCRs to calculate how large the correction is, see slide 12 of http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Beer.pdf that shows how the production varies as a function of the Earth’s magnetic field.
Thanks Leif. I noticed slide 13 showed the 10Be ‘archive’ in the ice would have been affected by precipitation rates, which may have in turn been affected by cloud amounts, affected in turn by the Svensmark effect (putatively). Lots of uncertainty there for me.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 8, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Leif, what say you to the top down portion ?
None of the graphs are convincingly different from traditional wisdom, and new data is clouding the picture: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
I don’t know what to make of it.
tallbloke says:
July 8, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Thanks Leif. I noticed slide 13 showed the 10Be ‘archive’ in the ice would have been affected by precipitation rates, which may have in turn been affected by cloud amounts, affected in turn by the Svensmark effect (putatively). Lots of uncertainty there for me.
There is good [new] evidence that climate effects on both 10Be and 14C are as large or larger than solar activity, so correlating 10Be with temperature, may just be correlating climate with climate.
Bob Tisdale:
Cost isn’t an issue for a blog of my own. Time is, whilst I still have the day job. Anyway I’ll get more out of the comments made on established blogs that attract more and bigger hitters as tallbloke describes them.
That article seems to suggest that the Brewer Dobson circulation is implicated in unexpected vertical energy transport which is what I need so I’ll look into it in more detail.
Observations provide data. The right observations have never been made but I can extrapolate from what we do know.
For example if I am right I would expect to see the strength of El Nino events increase relative to La Nina events the more poleward the air circulation systems go and the strength of La Nina events increase relative to El Nino events the more equatorward the air circulation systems go but I don’t expect to see much on short timescales like a single solar cycle. I think we are stuck with at least the length of the PDV cycle to get any sort of indication.
In the late 70s we had poleward jets and stronger El Ninos than La Ninas. Some expect that we now about to see a period of stronger La Ninas and as it happens the jets are currently more equatorward than they were then.
So when the data is available I can present it and along the way anyone can check it out for themselves.
I’m still waiting for an observation that falsifies my scenario. However I will only accept current or recent evidence. The historical data is far too coarse.
Thank you for suggesting the term Pacific Decadal Variability. Long ago I did say that a new term would be best. If we had thought of it then perhaps that would have been helpful to me and would have made my posts less irritating for you.
That’s as far as we can take the issue here until I’ve checked out the Brewer Dobson aspect and other possible mechanisms for a variable upward energy flux.
I’m sure another relevant thread will come along soon.
Mods, in my previous post please replace ‘late 70s’ with ‘late 20th century’, thanks.
Leif,
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
Thanks for that further link.
With regard to the chart titled ‘A Contrast In Spectral Variability’ is it correctly labelled on the left ?
Should it read ‘Brightening with INcreasing solar activity’ rather than with DEcreasing solar activity ?
Thanks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 8, 2010 at 3:55 pm (Edit)
There is good [new] evidence that climate effects on both 10Be and 14C are as large or larger than solar activity, so correlating 10Be with temperature, may just be correlating climate with climate.
Hmm, maybe. But precipitation rates have been remarkably stable on the centennial scales (as far as we know), though colder generally means drier. I don’t know enough about the chemistry, would 10Be levels in the ice record be affected by the length of time it floated in the atmosphere before being washed down by precip? And since the precip on Antarctica is very low anyway, how much difference would a small change in precip make? I agree that different looking records from different parts of the world speak of terrestrial variation swamping the celestial signal though. Has anyone studied it across a latitudal segment at regular intervals to see if there are other factors causing variation?
I like that one:
Correlating 10Be with temperature, may just be correlating climate with climate.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 8, 2010 at 6:23 pm
With regard to the chart titled ‘A Contrast In Spectral Variability’ is it correctly labelled on the left ?\
Should it read ‘Brightening with INcreasing solar activity’ rather than with DEcreasing solar activity ?
No, it is labelled correctly. That is the big news.
tallbloke says:
July 8, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Hmm, maybe.
No, not maybe.
But precipitation rates have been remarkably stable on the centennial scales (as far as we know)
How do we know?
And we can directly measure the rate for every year simply by how thick the annual layers are.
Has anyone studied it across a latitudal segment at regular intervals to see if there are other factors causing variation?
Ain’t much ice elsewhere except at polar latitudes. And not much need for such a study because the precip is known from the thickness of the layers. Anyway, it is being recognized more and more that climate plays a large role in the 10Be deposition. You see, most of the 10Be is produced at low latitudes [simply because there is much more area down there] and is the transported to the poles, so not only precip is important, also winds and circulation.
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I like that one:
Correlating 10Be with temperature, may just be correlating climate with climate.Correlating 10Be with temperature, may just be correlating climate with climate.
Webber et al. [2010] note in
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D.and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases! ”
It is rare to see an exclamation mark [!] in a scientific paper.
A very important paper. Thanks for the link.
Perhaps most troubling of all is the cross correlation of the yearly 10Be concentration and
flux measurements themselves from two sites on the polar plateau which should be observing the same 10Be production. These cross correlation coefficients are the lowest of all, less than 0.25 for both concentration and flux measurements and the slopes of the regression lines are less than 0.3.
That is not a good news, lot of papers are based on 10B records. Looks like back to square one. Talking about squares, is their correl coeff R^2 or R; if R then situation is even worse.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 8, 2010 at 3:55 pm (Edit)
None of the graphs are convincingly different from traditional wisdom, and new data is clouding the picture: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
I don’t know what to make of it.
The plan at the end looks sensible to me:
Next Steps
Include stratospheric chemistry & circulation (see Haigh, also Stolarski)
Reconsider stratosphere-troposphere coupling mechanisms with alternative forcing
Consider alternative cloud-aerosol feedbacks
Consider alternative forcing scenarios for centennial timescales
Requires coupling to deep ocean
Search for proxies with sensitivity to UV, VIS and NIR multi-decadal trends.
“Stephen Wilde says:
July 8, 2010 at 6:23 pm
With regard to the chart titled ‘A Contrast In Spectral Variability’ is it correctly labelled on the left ?\
Should it read ‘Brightening with INcreasing solar activity’ rather than with DEcreasing solar activity ?
No, it is labelled correctly. That is the big news.”
Well that suits me very well because my observation is that decreasing solar activity sends the polar oscillation negative pushing the clouds equatorward and increasing brightness (albedo) due to the higher angle of incidence of solar energy on to the clouds.
But then what about the other bit below that says “dimming with decreasing solar activity” as against the top part which says “brightening with decreasing solar activity”. The jets go poleward with increased solar activity so brightness should decrease. Thus the lower part should say ‘dimming with increasing solar activity’. One of them must be wrongly labelled unless I’ve misunderstood the chart ?
I’ve seen elsewhere that albedo was dropping during the period of high solar activity but is now rising with the reduced solar activity so my proposition fits that evidence.
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2010 at 1:15 am
is their correl coeff R^2 or R; if R then situation is even worse.
It is R.
Ah, I think I see it. Brightening or dimming depends on the wavelength distribution in the solar spectrum.
More uv leads to brightening and less uv leads to dimming. Thus warming from uv on ozone is offset by increased brightness reflecting visible energy to space and cooling from less uv on ozone is offset by decreased brightness letting more visible energy in.
Please advise whether that is right before I take the next logical step. If I’m wrong please clarify the situation for me and any other confused readers.
Thanks.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 9, 2010 at 6:22 am
More uv leads to brightening and less uv leads to dimming.
No, the UV is not driving this.
The solar cycle is. It is like this: at high solar activity, UV is high, IR is low. At low solar activity UV is low, but IR is high. Visible changes a lot less.
Thus warming from uv on ozone is offset by increased brightness reflecting visible energy to space and cooling from less uv on ozone is offset by decreased brightness letting more visible energy in.
No. That statement is muddled in extreme.
Here is what happens:
High solar activity: more UV [stopped in the stratosphere]. Less IR [which reaches the ground], thus cooling of the surface.
Low solar activity: less UV, but more IR [which reaches the ground], thus heating of the surface.
Leif,
OK, got it now. I’ll work on it and see how it affects my NCM.
My mistake was thinking that brightness was referring to the Earth not the sun. I should have spent more time on it before commenting.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 9, 2010 at 8:06 am
I should have spent more time on it before commenting.
Always a good thing to do… Sage advice.
@AJB says:
July 7, 2010 at 10:16 am
“It rains somewhere every day.”
Some days it rains a great deal in many places, you are welcome to purchase a Weather Action forecast on these highly predictable events.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Well that suits me very well because my observation is that decreasing solar activity sends the polar oscillation negative pushing the clouds equatorward and increasing brightness (albedo) due to the higher angle of incidence of solar energy on to the clouds.”
A question: Based on your observations, how many degrees latitude are the variations in polar cycles (AO & SAM) pushing the clouds equatorward in response to decreasing solar activity? Say, for example, at No Hem mid-latitudes over the Atlantic and Pacific and the ITCZ over the Atlantic and Pacific. In your NCM post, you use an example of 1000 miles, but how many degrees latitude are you seeing in the aforementioned areas?
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2010 at 7:20 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 9, 2010 at 6:22 am
More uv leads to brightening and less uv leads to dimming.
No, the UV is not driving this.
The solar cycle is. It is like this: at high solar activity, UV is high, IR is low. At low solar activity UV is low, but IR is high. Visible changes a lot less.
Thus warming from uv on ozone is offset by increased brightness reflecting visible energy to space and cooling from less uv on ozone is offset by decreased brightness letting more visible energy in.
No. That statement is muddled in extreme.
Here is what happens:
High solar activity: more UV [stopped in the stratosphere]. Less IR [which reaches the ground], thus cooling of the surface.
Low solar activity: less UV, but more IR [which reaches the ground], thus heating of the surface.
_____________________________________________________
Re. Stephen Wilde; this agrees with the examples I gave you of details of individual spikes in SSN through the solar cycle often being cooler months, and the hot months were at the notches, or lower SSN. So why does the IR vary inverse to UV, and is IR level related to solar wind velocity in particular?
Bob Tisdale asked:
“A question: Based on your observations, how many degrees latitude are the variations in polar cycles (AO & SAM) pushing the clouds equatorward in response to decreasing solar activity? Say, for example, at No Hem mid-latitudes over the Atlantic and Pacific and the ITCZ over the Atlantic and Pacific. In your NCM post, you use an example of 1000 miles, but how many degrees latitude are you seeing in the aforementioned areas?”
Exactly what I would like to know. Where can I find the data ?
There is little doubt that shifts occur over decades and centuries beyond seasonal variation and the movement has been equatorward then poleward then equatorward again during my lifetime (60 years) so who has been keeping an eye on it ?
Just asking those questions puts us both ahead of the pack it seems.
Some AGW proponents attributed the late 20th century poleward shift to human CO2 and suggested it was permanent. Dead silence now.
By the way, have you noticed that Roy Spencer on his website seems to be using the term PDO in the way that you so objected to when I did it ?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 10, 2010 at 3:57 am
So why does the IR vary inverse to UV
That we don’t know, although one can speculate that the high IR is the ‘normal’ situation and if areas that emit UV develop, there will be less area emitting the normal IR.
and is IR level related to solar wind velocity in particular?
No, not likely as the IR level changes are progressing steadily while solar wind speed varies intermittently [in bursts], but we don’t know yet. This data is very new, not even covering a full cycle yet.
I find it interesting [a bit disturbing, actually] that when a new, unexpected [and not yet generally established] result like the in anti-phase varying UV and IR is presented, everybody and his brother immediately claim that this just further confirms and supports their theories…
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 10, 2010 at 8:27 am
“I find it interesting [a bit disturbing, actually] that when a new, unexpected [and not yet generally established] result like the in anti-phase varying UV and IR is presented, everybody and his brother immediately claim that this just further confirms and supports their theories…”
I had noticed some time back that weekly/monthly SSN change can often be the inverse of temperature changes at this scale, and was suspecting increased IR surface heating at essentially times of higher solar wind velocity, when sunspots are not reducing the coronal holes.
Ulric Lyons says:July 10, 2010 at 3:57 am
So why does the IR vary inverse to UV
In a discharge tube high voltage V is applied to hydrogen, by using Rydberg equation you can calculate emission frequency at different energy levels ( Energy level = Planck’s constant x frequency of light emitted).
At lower V (as far as I remember) electron is still attached to nucleus and will radiate IR, as V increases electron moves up the range of levels, radiation moves from IR towards UV, eventually electron is removed from nucleus.
If the sun has not V available it has other sources of energy.
Vuk etc. says:
July 10, 2010 at 10:39 am
At lower V (as far as I remember) electron is still attached to nucleus and will radiate IR, as V increases electron moves up the range of levels, radiation moves from IR towards UV, eventually electron is removed from nucleus.
If the sun has not V available it has other sources of energy.
There is no voltage V doing anything. The process is completely different from a discharge tube. The radiation from the photosphere is controlled by the negative Hydrogen ion [H-], which varies with wave length. The process in involved and a full explanation cannot easily be given here, but can be found in any good textbook about the Sun. I recommend ISBN 978-1-4200-8307-1 by Dermott J. Mullan.
Hydride (H anion, H-) was all the rage with water purifying people. There are two ways H- can be produced; 2H splits into H+ and H- when electron escapes from the first one to the second, or H acquires a free floating electron to become H-.
What you plasma people do with all those Hs I have no idea, but laws of physics must be obeyed.
Vuk etc. says:
July 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm
What you plasma people do with all those Hs I have no idea, but laws of physics must be obeyed.
And they are in this particular case.
Stephen Wilde: My question, “Based on your observations, how many degrees latitude are the variations in polar cycles (AO & SAM) pushing the clouds equatorward in response to decreasing solar activity?”
Your reply, “Exactly what I would like to know. Where can I find the data ?”
I find your question rather remarkable since a major part of your hypothesis is based on the non-seasonal latitudinal variation in the ITCZ. You could use CAMSOPI precipitation data or ISCCP cloud amount data. The CAMSOPI precipitation data does a much better job if representing the latitude of the ITCZ. Both are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer. For months, I have repeatedly suggested to you that you verify your claims with data. We know that the AO is not correlated with the solar cycle over any time period when data is available. Refer to AO and Sunspot Number data starting in 1950:
http://i40.tinypic.com/fkr5n6.png
And refer to data starting in 1900:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2mc7eki.png
Would you be concerned if you were to discover that there is no correlation between the latitude of the ITCZ and Sunspot Number or the latitude of the ITCZ and the AO? You need to verify your claims with data, Stephen.
You replied, “By the way, have you noticed that Roy Spencer on his website seems to be using the term PDO in the way that you so objected to when I did it ?”
That’s an assumption on your part. His use of the PDO also reflects the proper definition of it, which is why I always question his use of it.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 10, 2010 at 8:02 am
“No, not likely as the IR level changes are progressing steadily while solar wind speed varies intermittently [in bursts], but we don’t know yet. This data is very new, not even covering a full cycle yet.”
Who has this data, and is it available?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 10, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Who has this data, and is it available?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/ssi_data.htm
“Would you be concerned if you were to discover that there is no correlation between the latitude of the ITCZ and Sunspot Number or the latitude of the ITCZ and the AO? ”
Not concerned but my hypothesis would be rather shaky.
However we do know that the ITCZ was nearer the equator in the depths of the LIA and that it has a moved poleward since. Likewise the mid latitude jets.
Also that in the MWP the jets must have been more poleward than now to allow Viking agriculture in Greenland.
We also know that when the AO is positive the jets drift poleward and vice versa.
The trouble is that we don’t have enough data on all three components until far too recently for the situation to be clear. After all we are considering a 500 to 1000 year cycle which is pretty much drowned out for periods less than 30 years.
The information we do have fits my hypothesis and all we need to prove or refute it is some continuing observation with our modern methods. For the past 10 years the fit has held good. As the sun has become quieter so has the AO in general become more negative and the jets have sunk equatorward.
Bob Tisdale said:
“We know that the AO is not correlated with the solar cycle over any time period when data is available. Refer to AO and Sunspot Number data starting in 1950:
http://i40.tinypic.com/fkr5n6.png
And refer to data starting in 1900:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2mc7eki.png”
Quite so. ‘When data is available’ is the key point.
And I have said we also need to key in the ocean cycles i.e. the net state of all the global oceans combined at any given time. Not just ENSO. All will have an effect on the jet stream positioning. No one knows the net global situation at any given time.
And I told you the oceanic effect is greater than the solar effect. We do not know by how much.
The data we have is not helpful. We need to watch and learn instead of extrapolating from inadequate data. Hopefully someone will note what I say and start recording something useful but as I said I’ve made the position very clear. Anyone will be able to see as we go along whether events broadly support me or definitively falsify what I say.
Patience.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm
And I told you the oceanic effect is greater than the solar effect. We do not know by how much.
If you do not know by how much, how can you say it is ‘greater’?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Stephen Wilde: My question, “Based on your observations, how many degrees latitude are the variations in polar cycles (AO & SAM) pushing the clouds equatorward in response to decreasing solar activity?”
Ill posed problems,ie multiple time series.
Firstly would it not be more correct to examine when say radiative forcing ( insolation ) is greatest, which would be the inter annual solar cycle.Here the annual excursions of the extratropical storm tracks with their latitudinal effects are well described in the literature eg Ramanathan
The enormous cooling effect of extratropical storm track cloud systems
Extra-tropical storm track cloud systems provide about 60% of the total cooling effect of clouds [2]. The annual mean forcing from these cloud systems is in the range of –45 to –55 W m–2 and effectively these cloud systems are shielding both the northern and
the southern polar regions from intense radiative heating. Their spatial extent towards the tropics moves with the jet stream, extending farthest towards the tropics
(about 35 deg latitude) during winter and retreating polewards (polewards of 50 deg
latitude) during summer. This phenomenon raises an important question related to past climate dynamics. During the ice age, due to the large polar cooling, the northern hemisphere jet stream extended more southwards. But have the extra tropical cloud systems also moved southward? The increase in the negative forcing would have exerted a major positive feedback on the ice age cooling. There is a curious puzzle about the existence of these cooling clouds. The basic function of the extra tropical dynamics is to export heat polewards.
While the baroclinic systems are efficient in transporting heat, the enormous negative
radiative forcing (Fig. 2) associated with these cloud systems seems to undo the
poleward transport of heat by the dynamics. The radiative effect of these systems is working against the dynamical effect. Evidently,we need better understanding of the dynamic-thermodynamic coupling between these enormous cooling clouds and the
equator-pole temperature gradient, and greenhouse forcing.
This now introduces a number of binary problems (yes/no), in the 11 yr solar cycle (where we are told that an arbitary temperature signal occurs ) is this an increase in forcing or a decrease in dissipation ? ( atmospheric polar heat transport) . Why do significant temperature excursions occur around minima eg 1997 , and now?
The next step is to examine the stream function (jets) and what occurs say in a meteorological series . This is also well described in the literature eg Bals-Elsholz et al.
A distinct characteristic of the climatological time mean flow during winter in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) is the presence of a split jet at the longitudes of
Australia and New Zealand. The equatorward branch of the time-mean split jet is anchored by a strong subtropical jet (STJ) that extends eastward between 25s and
30S from the central South Indian Ocean across Australia to the east-central South Pacific Ocean near 130W. A zone of weak westerlies lies poleward of theSTJ from southeastern Australia eastward across the South Island of New Zealand to east of the date line.
As the STJ moves northward in perturbed SH spring a regime of blocking highs appear above the South Pacific convergence zone (35s) and blocking mid southern latitudes from transport, this is evident in Chatham Islands station in 2009 (44s)
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/chathamhadcrugiss2009.png
Hence interesting questions arise.
Stephen Wilde replied, “The data we have is not helpful. ”
The only reason data is not helpful to you is because it contradicts and disproves your ramblings. It is helpful to anyone who is interested in actually determining how climate might work.
maksimovich: Thanks for the write-up. But Stephen Wilde’s conjectures are based on non-seasonal variability. Do you have a link to that full paper or is it part of a book? I’d like to see how the author accounts for the impacts of ENSO on seasonal variability.
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “Quite so. ‘When data is available’ is the key point.”
If the data doesn’t agree with your NCM over three solar cycles and it doesn’t agree with your NCM over 9 solar cycles, extending the data back in time won’t help because you’ve still got those two periods when the data disagrees with your NCM.
You wrote, “Hopefully someone will note what I say and start recording something useful but as I said I’ve made the position very clear. Anyone will be able to see as we go along whether events broadly support me or definitively falsify what I say.”
The data is there, Stephen. I’ve pointed you to it a number of times. It is very useful to those who take the time to download it, interpret it and understand it. You don’t bother, and that is telling, especially in an area of science that is data dependent. As I’ve writen before, since you fail to present data, your conjectures cannot be verified or disproved, and your hypotheses are, therefore, meaningless.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 10, 2010 at 10:57 am (Edit)
I recommend ISBN 978-1-4200-8307-1 by Dermott J. Mullan.
You solar physicists come up with catchy titles for books don’t you?
“Physics of the Sun: A First Course”
tallbloke says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:48 pm
“Physics of the Sun: A First Course”
But it is good.
@Stephen Wilde says:
July 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Bob Tisdale said:
“We know that the AO is not correlated with the solar cycle over any time period when data is available. Refer to AO and Sunspot Number data starting in 1950:
http://i40.tinypic.com/fkr5n6.”
The 17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle) in the AO data in the above graph link?
“And I have said we also need to key in the ocean cycles i.e. the net state of all the global oceans combined at any given time. Not just ENSO. All will have an effect on the jet stream positioning. No one knows the net global situation at any given time.
And I told you the oceanic effect is greater than the solar effect. We do not know by how much.”
Year to year, or season by season, definitely not, at this scale the Sun dominates jet steam position, and weather effects.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 10, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm
And I told you the oceanic effect is greater than the solar effect. We do not know by how much.
If you do not know by how much, how can you say it is ‘greater’?”
Well that’s easy. The oceanic effect appears to be clear on much shorter timescales. The jets are currently a bit more poleward from the recent El Nino than they were from the previous La Nina despite the quiet sun. I don’t agree with Ulric on that point.
Against that the jets didn’t go so far poleward as they did in the late 20th century from similar El Nino events.
So the oceanic effect is the primary one in the short term but the solar effect plays a role in modulating it especially over longer time periods
When one gets to a 500 year time scale then the solar effect dominates hence the cycle MWP to LIA to recent warming spell.
“Bob Tisdale says:
July 10, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “Quite so. ‘When data is available’ is the key point.”
If the data doesn’t agree with your NCM over three solar cycles and it doesn’t agree with your NCM over 9 solar cycles, extending the data back in time won’t help because you’ve still got those two periods when the data disagrees with your NCM.”
That data does not deal with all the variables namely the level of solar activity, the stato of the AO, the net global contribution of ALL the oceans combined and an accurate assessment of the jet stream response. The data is inadequate.
Ulric Lyons:
I can’t agree with you that the sun has the dominant effect on any time scale because the oceans are so much more powerful in moving the jets latitudinally. However it may be that individual solar surface events could affect weather by affecting the wiggling of the jets once the current latitudinal position has been set by the combined solar and oceanic balance.
Even so I don’t see how one could distinguish any such solar effects (if they do occur) from weather events arising from normal chaotic variability.
Still, I support your right to try.
Ulric Lyons: You wrote in reply to Stephen Wilde, “The 17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle) in the AO data in the above graph link?”
You’d have to supply the coronal hole cycle data and compare it to the AO data since I’ve never heard of the “17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle)”. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Leif discuss it or seen it discussed on a thread in which he is commenting.
You wrote, “Year to year, or season by season, definitely not, at this scale the Sun dominates jet steam position, and weather effects.”
How do you account for the impacts of ENSO on jet stream position, since ENSO does not correlate with solar cycles and since ENSO is a major factor in year-to-year jet stream postition? Or are you discussing the seasonal positions of the jet streams? Stephen’s discussions of climate generally do not include seasonal variability.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 5:23 am
Well that’s easy. The oceanic effect appears to be clear on much shorter timescales.
Still no numbers, so how can you tell?
When one gets to a 500 year time scale then the solar effect dominates hence the cycle MWP to LIA to recent warming spell.
Except that the sun didn’t vary in concert with the temperature the past couple thousand years. See Figure 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Against that the jets didn’t go so far poleward as they did in the late 20th century from similar El Nino events.” And you wrote, “When one gets to a 500 year time scale then the solar effect dominates hence the cycle MWP to LIA to recent warming spell.”
And on what reconstruction data of the jet stream location are you basing this?
And you wrote, “That data does not deal with all the variables namely the level of solar activity, the stato [sic] of the AO, the net global contribution of ALL the oceans combined and an accurate assessment of the jet stream response. The data is inadequate.”
That paragraph is remarkable, Stephen. If there is no “accurate assessment of the jet stream response”, on what are you basing your assumptions? Guesswork on your part? And that paragraph included in effect your opinions that sunspot numbers don’t reflect the level of solar activity and that the AO data does not represent the AO. Last, “the net global contribution of ALL the oceans combined” to what?
Stephen Wilde wrote, “That data does not deal with all the variables namely the level of solar activity, the stato of the AO, the net global contribution of ALL the oceans combined and an accurate assessment of the jet stream response. The data is inadequate.”
Your NCM states:
“Solar surface turbulence increases causing an expansion of the Earth’s atmosphere,” which through a few other processes (that Leif disputed) results in “…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.”
And your NCM states, “Solar surface turbulence passes its peak and the Earth’s atmosphere starts to contract, ” and again through the disputed processes causes an “…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.”
Based on that description of your NCM, sunspot numbers (or TSI) should correlate with the Arctic Oscillation, and the two are not correlated.
And as I asked before, would it concern you to discover that the non-seasonal latitudinal position of the ITCZ is not correlated with the solar cycle?
Well gentlemen, this might help. I made month by month analysis of the CETs.
In UK in summer and autumn temperatures mainly respond to the sun, while in the winter and spring to the Gulf Stream. But it does not appear to be so clear cut. I have taken 300 year rising trend (mainly out of the winters, since there was very little or none in the summers), for easier comparison.
Here is the result
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
I hope you can see something in it since to me it appears that the summer months are slightly more in tune with the solar cycle.
@Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 5:29 am
Ulric Lyons:
“I can’t agree with you that the sun has the dominant effect on any time scale because the oceans are so much more powerful in moving the jets latitudinally. However it may be that individual solar surface events could affect weather by affecting the wiggling of the jets once the current latitudinal position has been set by the combined solar and oceanic balance.”
I get the feeling you are postulating this rather than basing it on observations, and anyway, your `oceanic balance` is driven by the solar changes, but if you are not concentrating on the relevent solar output, you would not notice this in the first place.
“Even so I don’t see how one could distinguish any such solar effects (if they do occur) from weather events arising from normal chaotic variability.”
There is no `normal chaotic variability` in weather events, they are all predictable and driven by the Sun.
@Bob Tisdale says:
July 11, 2010 at 6:17 am
Ulric Lyons: You wrote in reply to Stephen Wilde, “The 17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle) in the AO data in the above graph link?”
You’d have to supply the coronal hole cycle data and compare it to the AO data since I’ve never heard of the “17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle)”. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Leif discuss it or seen it discussed on a thread in which he is commenting.
You wrote, “Year to year, or season by season, definitely not, at this scale the Sun dominates jet steam position, and weather effects.”
How do you account for the impacts of ENSO on jet stream position, since ENSO does not correlate with solar cycles and since ENSO is a major factor in year-to-year jet stream postition? Or are you discussing the seasonal positions of the jet streams? Stephen’s discussions of climate generally do not include seasonal variability.
___________________________________________________________
Yes it is very curious that so many learned folk presume the wrong things about the solar cycle and SSN, and overlook the dominant forcing factor, the solar wind and coronal holes.
I used a solar based forecast for the last El Nino and got it bang on, I did not refer to the solar cycle though.
If Stephens model does not include `seasonal variability` then it cannot be a climate model by definition, and would be useless for temperatures and jet stream position, and hydrology outlooks would be impossible.
Bob and Leif,
I have said several times that the response of the polar oscillations to the changes in solar activity is also affected by the oceanic oscillations. What matters is the balance between the two. The NCM should perhaps make that clearer earlier on but it is mentioned at various points and implicit in the steps I listed especially when one gets to the returning energy from the oceans on that 500/1000 year cycle.
The ITCZ moved latitudinally as the solar activity increased from LIA to date. That is the long term signal. It also seems to have moved MWP to LIA. You are looking at too short a period.
However much Leif feels ‘able’ to minimise solar variability in his reconstructions the fact is that the sun was less active during certain cold periods and has been more active during the recent warm period. At the same time the jets moved latitudinally and the globe warmed and cooled apparently with a high degree of correlation. Furthermore the ocean surfaces warmed and cooled to contribute to the overall interplay.
There is a logical scenario that fits all that and I have formulated it. You are entitled to hold a different view and/or to disbelieve it. Whether I am right or not remains to be seen and I am entitled to put it out there so that it can be compared with future real world events. They will be the arbiter not you and Bob who both keep reiterating the same flawed objections however often I counter them.
If you don’t like the evidence such as it is then that’s your problem.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 9:56 am
The ITCZ moved latitudinally as the solar activity increased from LIA to date.
To make that statement you need numbers. Plot the latitude of the ITCZ for each year [or whatever time resolution your data has) against time and [another plot] against solar activity. Show us the plots and then we can discuss.
that the sun was less active during certain cold periods
If I correlate random data with other random data, they will match during ‘certain’ periods [namely the ones where they match].
“If Stephens model does not include `seasonal variability` then it cannot be a climate model by definition, and would be useless for temperatures and jet stream position, and hydrology outlooks would be impossible.”
It is movement of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability that indicates changing global climates. On the basis of the limited data we have it appears that there is a 500/1000 year cycle of latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems but of course are others. However that one has been the most important one for human civilisations for quite some time.
The shorter term cycles of sun and ocean obscure the pattern during the short period that we have had suitable monitoring equipment but the pattern is clear to anyone who watches weather and climate through a couple of PDO (or PDV) phases and then considers the fact of the far more substantial shifts from MWP to LIA to date.
It is not an insight that needs huge volumes of data to see the general significance but of course data is needed to supprt or refute the idea. We must wait and see.
No model or hypothesis that fails to account for the cyclical latitudinal shift of the air circulation systems over that specific time scale can have any validity.
Mine is the first that does so as far as I am aware. Any replacement must also encompass those latitudinal shifts in order for it to be taken seriously.
vukcevic:
Thanks for that. In the case of the UK it would make sense for the primary influence to shift from solar in summer to oceanic in winter because of our geographical situation.
We are in the mid latitudes on the edge of a continent and we tend to have the jets move poleward and equatorward above us on a seasonal basis. The sun controls the poles and the ocean controls the equatorial regions with the UK in the battleground.
Quite clearly the jets were much further south of the UK in the LIA and much further north of the UK in the late 20th century. It does not need reams of data to note that simple fact.
The difficult bit is fitting such changes into a logical scenario and then the data can follow because we now know what we are looking for. It should have been obvious some 20 years ago but something distracted the climate professionals.
@Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 9:56 am
“The ITCZ moved latitudinally as the solar activity increased from LIA to date. That is the long term signal. It also seems to have moved MWP to LIA. You are looking at too short a period.@
What about from the depth of Maunder to the very warm 1730/40`s, or even the huge changes in jet stream lattitude year to year. Seasonal differences are larger than the range of any percieved cycle. MWP and LIA are event clusters, there is no long cycle as such.
Leif:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072010/pdf/ees9_6_072010.pdf
“Specifically, our data indicate
that the ITCZ was 500 km closer to the equator during the LIA than it is today and that it was south of its
present position (7 degN) for the last 1,000 years.”
As I say, it moves equatorward with all the other air circulation systems when the globe is cooling and poleward when the globe is warming.
And it’s dated 11th July 2010 so it’s obviously been put up by a higher power just for you 🙂
@Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 10:40 am
“It is movement of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability that indicates changing global climates.”
Easier described as warmer N.H. winters at higher lattitues due to higher solar wind speed in those months, ie. the Modern winter = global warming, this determines air circulation changes. It changes dramatically from year to year, and is not a slow creeping cycle.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:00 am
“Specifically, our data indicate that the ITCZ was 500 km closer to the equator during the LIA than it is today and that it was south of its present position (7 degN) for the last 1,000 years.”
They say that it has moved steadily north during the past 1000 years, so no cyclic variation [that would make MWP like today]. Get the data, plot them up, then it becomes easier to see.
Ulric asked:
“What about from the depth of Maunder to the very warm 1730/40`s, or even the huge changes in jet stream lattitude year to year. Seasonal differences are larger than the range of any percieved cycle. MWP and LIA are event clusters, there is no long cycle as such.”
That’s why one needs to propose an interplay between two forces that sometimes oppose and sometimes supplement one another.
A warm period during the LIA would be a period when a pulse of warmth from the oceans overcame the effect of the quiet sun pushing the air circulation systems equatorward. The same in reverse for cold periods during the MWP.
All imposed on top of normal seasonal variability and any chaotic variability.
The routes of the jets do move greatly during each year and from year to year but the background cycle dictates how much room for manouvre the jets have. At the top of a warm cycle the jets are pushed towards the poles and cannot loop about so much. At the bottom of a cool cycle they loop about a lot more. We are currently either juststarting to come down from the top of a warm cycle or possibly experiencing a cooler phase just before the top of the next warm peak.
In the light of that Marshall Island evidence we should take another step.
There is a circulation in the stratosphere (the Brewer Dobson Circulation). It has been noted primarily in connection with ozone transport from tropics to poles but the underlying feature is a slow movement of air from above the convective cloud tops of the ITCZ to above the poles.
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/MAM/jones_Brewer_Dobson.pdf
Thus it involves both the low pressure systems above the ITCZ and the generally high pressure systems above the poles.
Clearly that circulation must vary since nothing in nature is static. Interestingly it is a very slow process so any changes associated with it will also be very slow.
I propose that the rates of energy release from the oceans affect that circulation from below and the energy flux from stratosphere to space affects it from above so that it slowly changes speed over time. Both the solar and oceanic influences are capable of either speeding it up or slowing it down such that there is a constant interplay.
The slowness of the circulation smooths out most of the high frequency solar and oceanic oscillations to give a slow 500 year cycle of movement of the ITCZ and other air circulation systems. First 500 years poleward and then 500 years equatorward. No doubt that too can change over enough time.
Although that slow change over time gradually changes regional climates by shifting the air circulation systems latitudinally the higher frequency solar and oceanic variations busily affect day to day weather within the existing climate zones at any given moment and often hide the underlying trend for long periods at a time.
As to how solar effects speed up or slow down the Brewer Dobson Circulation is another matter and I have suggested some possibilities elsewhere.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:08 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:00 am
“Specifically, our data indicate that the ITCZ was 500 km closer to the equator during the LIA than it is today and that it was south of its present position (7 degN) for the last 1,000 years.”
They say that it has moved steadily north during the past 1000 years, so no cyclic variation [that would make MWP like today]. Get the data, plot them up, then it becomes easier to see.”
No Leif. They say it is now 500km further north than it was during the LIA about 500 years ago.
They also say it has been south of the current position since 1000 years ago. That means that 1000 years ago it was about where it is now and in the meantime it first moved 500km south and has since moved 500km back north.
Thus the MWP was like today and there is the cycle I require.
As for analysing their data there is no need. The logical implications are clear as day.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm
That means that 1000 years ago it was about where it is now
They don’t say that. You may interpret it that way. The only way to be sure is to plot the actual data, so please do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The only way to be sure is to plot the actual data, so please do.
It seems that only the abstract is available and that there is no data to plot.
Sorry, Leif but it’s time for you to spend more time on something before commenting:
“The establishment of defensively-oriented settlements
throughout much of the tropical Indo-Pacific region after 1000 A.D. supports the notion of a widespread climatic change that we suggest may have been the equatorward movement and southerly positioning of the ITCZ from 1000-1650 A.D.”
Thus from 1000 AD to 1650 AD the ITCZ was moving south resulting in societal problems and warfare. In 1000 it was clearly about where it is now.
“Since that time the ITCZ has moved north by 500 km, an average rate of 1.4
km/yr.”
From 1650 to date it has moved to it’s present position.
My interpretation is correct. They do say what I said they say.
In any event I have no access to their data nor the skills to process it. Nevertheless the implications are crystal clear.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“The establishment of defensively-oriented settlements
throughout much of the tropical Indo-Pacific region after 1000 A.D. supports the notion of a widespread climatic change that we suggest may have been the equatorward movement and southerly positioning of the ITCZ from 1000-1650 A.D.”
Suppose the ITCZ was in the southern hemisphere in 1000, and have moved north 1000-1650 until it reached the equator about the time of the LIA, and have since moved a further 500 km [~5 degrees] north. That would be consistent with their statement.
@Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:09 am
“A warm period during the LIA would be a period when a pulse of warmth from the oceans overcame the effect of the quiet sun pushing the air circulation systems equatorward. The same in reverse for cold periods during the MWP.”
Totaly ridiculous. I`ll give you some more extreme examples; the coldest winter on CET, 1684, two years later is a Junuary of 6.0C and a yearly average of 10.13. 1708 January is 6.0C and the years average is 9.67, this is followed by another of the hardest LIA winters in 1709. These, and nearly all the coldest winters on CET, show above normal temp`s within 3 to 4 months after the cold episode, this is the true and very typical nature of temp` change through the LIA, it`s completely composed of short term changes, which can be mapped absolutely by short term solar changes at a monthly and less definition. The oceans follow the same solar signal, but with a small lag, eg. extra warmth Mar/Apr 2009 gave a peak in SST`s in July, the SST response to the cold N.H. winter also showed a delay, see how long it takes for SST`s to recover with the recent strong warming episodes.
“All imposed on top of normal seasonal variability and any chaotic variability.
The routes of the jets do move greatly during each year and from year to year but the background cycle dictates how much room for manouvre the jets have.”
The variability is not chaotic.
Seasonal extremes dictate the limits, variations in seasonal behavior could be seen to have quasi cyclic nature, (no background cycle) but it would be very folly to predict on this basis as exceptions in any given year are often very contrary to accepted cycle(s) phase.
All imposed on top of normal seasonal variability and any chaotic variability.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“The establishment of defensively-oriented settlements
_______________________________________
It would be handy to see some precipitation records/proxies for the Marshall Islands going back some centuries rather than rely on this sort of evidence.
The full text is exactly the same article;
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072010/pdf/1755-1315_6_7_072010.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
July 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm
The full text is exactly the same article
The lead author [Sachs] has more on his website:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Sachs-TropPac_ITCZ_0-1ka-NaGeo09.pdf
He speculates that the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere controls where the ITCZ is.
Here is the usual explanation:
http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos&wr_id=1054&goto_url=&sca=sos_3&url=link1_0
due to AGW.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“Here is the usual explanation:
due to AGW.”
The study period suggests TSI changes over the last millenium.
What I don`t get is if the Galapagos were wetter during the LIA, then why wasn`t Christmas Island too?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The study period suggests TSI changes over the last millenium.
Yeah, they used Bard’s reconstruction which is not in tune with more modern work.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 11, 2010 at 6:17 am
How do you account for the impacts of ENSO on jet stream position, since ENSO does not correlate with solar cycles
Hi Bob,
I think you’ve said before that el nino is closely linked with ENSO.
Using this list of 24 el nino years since 1900 http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter10/elnino.html I plotted them against the solar cycles. I found that:
12 occurred within a year of minimum
8 occurred on the declining part of the cycle
4 occurred near the peak of the cycle. 2 of these were low cycles following high ones.
I think this shows that ENSO is linked with solar cycles, though I always welcome your well informed opinion.
Cheers
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“The establishment of defensively-oriented settlements
throughout much of the tropical Indo-Pacific region after 1000 A.D. supports the notion of a widespread climatic change that we suggest may have been the equatorward movement and southerly positioning of the ITCZ from 1000-1650 A.D.”
Suppose the ITCZ was in the southern hemisphere in 1000, and have moved north 1000-1650 until it reached the equator about the time of the LIA, and have since moved a further 500 km [~5 degrees] north. That would be consistent with their statement.”
Has the ITCZ ever been south of the equator ?
My impression is that it is always to the north because most of the oceans are to the south and their effect pushes it north of the equator.
tallbloke: You replied, “I think this shows that ENSO is linked with solar cycles, though I always welcome your well informed opinion.”
But your stats could also be interpreted as random behavior of a chaotic oscillation (ENSO) versus a periodic one (solar), could it not?
@Bob Tisdale says:
July 11, 2010 at 6:17 am
Bob Tisdale says:
July 11, 2010 at 6:17 am
“I’ve never heard of the “17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle)”. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Leif discuss it or seen it discussed on a thread in which he is commenting.”
Here are two; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/new-scafetta-paper-his-celestial-model-outperforms-giss/#comment-405845
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/hey-dude-where%e2%80%99s-my-solar-ramp-up/#comment-391923
Bob Tisdale says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:32 am
tallbloke: You replied, “I think this shows that ENSO is linked with solar cycles, though I always welcome your well informed opinion.”
But your stats could also be interpreted as random behavior of a chaotic oscillation (ENSO) versus a periodic one (solar), could it not?
Personally, I think chaos is mostly jumbled up things we haven’t untangled yet. Have you got a reliable longer list of El ninos I can test against more solar cycles? The more samples we test, on a longer timescale the more certain the outcome.
For example, the 14c curve could be a combination of a 6600 year and a 2245 year cycle, with short term variation due to lots of other short term cycles or ‘random’ events such as volccanos. (On the long term, volcanicity it cyclic too however.)
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ssnrec-2-cycles-fit.png
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:52 am (Edit)
Here are two; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/new-scafetta-paper-his-celestial-model-outperforms-giss/#comment-405845
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/hey-dude-where%e2%80%99s-my-solar-ramp-up/#comment-391923
Hi Ulric, I asked on one of those threads where you got the 17 year cycle from.
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:06 am
“12 occurred within a year of minimum
8 occurred on the declining part of the cycle
4 occurred near the peak of the cycle. 2 of these were low cycles following high ones.”
I make it 8 within a year of minimum
9 on the declining part of the cycle
7 near the peak of the cycle (within 1 year)
That leaves 2 on the rising portion that are not within a year of max or min (both within 2 years of min and max)
Not may El Nino`s on the rising side of solar cycles then tallbloke!
In 2007, I forecasted an El Nino from July 2009, and the next El Nino from late 2013.
Stephen Wilde replied to Leif and me, “I have said several times that the response of the polar oscillations to the changes in solar activity is also affected by the oceanic oscillations.”
Then the way your NCM is presented in your post…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
…needs to be rewritten. And you should exclude all of the details you can’t document.
You wrote, “Whether I am right or not remains to be seen and I am entitled to put it out there so that it can be compared with future real world events.”
The real world events are documented via satellite-based data and that data disagrees with your proposals, so even if by luck your proposals agree with the weather for a few years, you’ve still got the periods beforehand when they don’t agree and those periods falsify your proposals.
You wrote, “My impression is that it is always to the north because most of the oceans are to the south and their effect pushes it north of the equator.”
The ITCZ accompanies the warmest waters. The Northern Hemisphere location of the warmest waters and ITCZ is a function of the geometries of the continents. Refer to Philander et al (1996) “Why The ITCZ Is Mostly North Of The Equator”. They write in their abstract, “The explanation for asymmetries that favor the Northern rather than Southern Hemisphere with the warmest waters and the ITCZ- involves the details of the local coastal geometries: the bulge of western Africa to the north of the Gulf of Guinea and the slope of the western coast of the Americas relative to meridians. ”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281996%29009%3C2958%3AWTIIMN%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Note the greatest flaw in the Sachs et al (2009) summation (last paragraph before methods) is the assumption that the change in radiative forcing from Downward Shortwave Radiation (which Leif has noted is based on an outdated reconstruction) is the same as a change in radiative forcing from Downward Longwave Radiation.
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:06 am
Looking at the proportions of El Nino`s on rising and falling sides of the solar cycle, but not less than 1 year from min or max (2.5yr rising and 4.5yr falling), I make it 6 on the rising side and 13 on the falling side since 1902.
Around 1.25 more events on the rising side would give equal distribution when looked at from this point of view.
You’ll have to explain that more clearly to me so I can comment Ulric. I don’t see how 7.25=11.75 or how you can have a quarter of an El Nino. 🙂
Where does your 17 year coronal hole cycle come from? I’m still looking on the net but everyone else seems to think it’s 11 years but out of phase with the solar cycle.
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 6:13 am
“Where does your 17 year coronal hole cycle come from? I’m still looking on the net but everyone else seems to think it’s 11 years but out of phase with the solar cycle.”
I mailed these to you last August:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.517..275G
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p00955r885255112/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SoPh..183..201J
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/03/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-3/#comment-383898
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/03/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-3/#comment-383058
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 6:11 am
You’ll have to explain that more clearly to me so I can comment Ulric. I don’t see how 7.25=11.75 or how you can have a quarter of an El Nino. 🙂
______________________________________________
So if average cycle rise time is 4.5yrs, that gives 6.5yrs fall time (4.5+6.5=11).
Ignore 1yr BOTH sides of max and min, leaves 2.5yr and 4.5yr. 2.5/4.5=0.5555.
With my quick tally (which I will check) there were 6 on the rise side (but not less than a year from min/max) and 13 on the decay (but not less than a year from min/max).
6/13=0.46, so if there were 7 on the rise side in this sample, 7/13=0.538, almost even stevens year for year.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:52 am
“I’ve never heard of the “17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle)”. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Leif discuss it or seen it discussed on a thread in which he is commenting.”
Here are two …
Those two are just you claiming there is such a cycle.
There is no 17yr cycle in anything solar.
Tallbloke,
have you considered seasonal factors with El Nino? such that a cooler Jan/Feb helps to calm the trade winds (look at CET for Jan/Feb temp`s as an indicator of the solar signal).
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:20 am (Edit)
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 6:11 am
You’ll have to explain that more clearly to me so I can comment Ulric. I don’t see how 7.25=11.75 or how you can have a quarter of an El Nino. 🙂
______________________________________________
So if average cycle rise time is 4.5yrs, that gives 6.5yrs fall time (4.5+6.5=11).
Ignore 1yr BOTH sides of max and min, leaves 2.5yr and 4.5yr. 2.5/4.5=0.5555.
With my quick tally (which I will check) there were 6 on the rise side (but not less than a year from min/max) and 13 on the decay (but not less than a year from min/max).
6/13=0.46, so if there were 7 on the rise side in this sample, 7/13=0.538, almost even stevens year for year.
Your sum needs to be 6/19 compared to 13/19. not 7/13.
Therefore El nino is around twice as frequent on the downslope of the solar cycle. But the downslope is longer so that has to be considered.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 4:01 am (Edit)
I make it 8 within a year of minimum
9 on the declining part of the cycle
7 near the peak of the cycle (within 1 year)
I’ll post my graphic soon so we can argue the toss some more. 😉
Ulric is correct. One of the major periods of the solar system is 16.946 years.
Here is calculation:
Jupiter period = 11.862 years; or its frequency Fj = 1/11.862yr = 0.084303/yr
Saturn period = 29.657 years; or its frequency Fs = 1/29.657yr = 0.033719/yr
If these two frequencies resonate, as these do, then one of 2 sidebands is
F1=(Fj +Fs)/2 = (0.084303+0.033719)/2 = 0.118021668/2 = 0.059010834
Or corresponding period P1 = 1/F1 = 1/0.059010834 = 16.9460408 =~17 years
The other sideband is twice the J/S conjunction period.
In maths it is one of the basic trigonometric identities:
cos A + cos B = 2 cos ½ (A + B) cos ½ (A − B)
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 8:14 am
“Your sum needs to be 6/19 compared to 13/19. not 7/13.”
No it does not, it is 7.2222/13 to achieve the same number of events per year for 2.5yr/4.5yr. The result since 1902 is 6/13, very slightly less on the rising side.
Vuk etc. says:
July 12, 2010 at 9:13 am
Ulric is correct.
No, he isn’t and you are not either. He cites Juckett who used the direction of the IMF [its polarity] to assert a 17yr cycle. Here is the power spectrum of the IMF direction since 1926: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT%20of%20IMF%20Direction.png
There are three periods: the rotation at 27 days [and at 14, 9, 7 days, corresponding to 2, 3, and 4 sectors]. The annual peak, which is split into two because the dominant polarity changes at every solar maximum [the amount of splitting is just what a solar cycle change of phase would give]. and a broad, fuzzy peak around the solar cycle period. This last ‘peak’ is poorly resolved [only 15 data points out of the 30850 total] and its various sub-peaks are not statistically significantly different from each other.
But perhaps you can find planetary combinations for the other 5 sub-peaks.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:24 am
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:52 am
“I’ve never heard of the “17yr coronal hole cycle (and half cycle)”. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Leif discuss it or seen it discussed on a thread in which he is commenting.”
Here are two …
Those two are just you claiming there is such a cycle.
There is no 17yr cycle in anything solar.
_________________________________________
Yes there is, do see my comments on the WUWT thread links regarding tree rings, Cicada ad the strongest monthly strings on CET ;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.517..275G
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p00955r885255112/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SoPh..183..201J
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/03/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-3/#comment-383898
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/03/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-3/#comment-383058
This leaves me in a postion where I cannot trust your word when you say something does not exist in solar activity, you should have known about this.
Hi Ulric, sorry, with you now. I was confused by your whole number of events and your comparison of the lengths of upswing and downswing. I’m still seeing a lot more near the minimum than maximum though.
Vuk, nice thanks, but does this J/S period correlate with coronal holes? Where’s the evidence? Ulric?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 10:25 am
“There is no 17yr cycle in anything solar.”
Yes there is, do see my comments on the WUWT thread links regarding tree rings, Cicada ad the strongest monthly strings on CET
tree rings, Cicada and monthly strings have nothing to do with the Sun, coronal holes, or the IMF.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.517..275G etc
This leaves me in a postion where I cannot trust your word when you say something does not exist in solar activity, you should have known about this.
These claims are not substantiated by the data, so the period is not accepted as valid by the solar community. There are always lots of claims about cycles of every conceivable periods, but the data just isn’t there. See my reply upthread: Leif Svalgaard says: July 12, 2010 at 10:19 am
Tallbloke (A.2)
Coronal holes? I know nothing , I’m from Barcelona !
Dr Svalgaard (A.2)
Doc do yourself a favour and reed the content, beyond the first sentence. It is the secondary school maths, and one of the basics of harmonic oscillations!
Vuk etc. says:
July 12, 2010 at 10:43 am
Doc do yourself a favour and read the content, beyond the first sentence. It is the secondary school maths, and one of the basics of harmonic oscillations!
So what? It has nothing to do with the sun and is not present in the data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 10:52 am (Edit)
It has nothing to do with the sun and is not present in the data.
Where is the data on coronal holes?
I wouldn’t bet on that one. Take a look at its 3rd sub-harmonic, 51 years exactly.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:04 am
Where is the data on coronal holes?
Let those who claim a period supply the data 🙂
There is some here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/corona.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/716/1/693
Vuk etc. says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:09 am
I wouldn’t bet on that one. Take a look at its 3rd sub-harmonic, 51 years exactly.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png
But no significant one at 17 years or 34 years. You can hardly have a 3rd sub-harmonic without the other ones.
Thanks Leif,
I notice the abstact on the second link starts thusly:
“Butterfly diagrams (latitude-time plots) of coronal emission show a zone of enhanced brightness that appears near the poles just after solar maximum and migrates toward lower latitudes; a bifurcation seems to occur at sunspot minimum, with one branch continuing to migrate equatorward with the sunspots of the new cycle and the other branch heading back to the poles. The resulting patterns have been likened to those seen in torsional oscillations and have been taken as evidence for an extended solar cycle lasting over ~17 yr.”
Vuk I like your power spectrun graph. Tell us more about the individual lines and what they represent.
It ain’t mine, its doc Svalgaard’s. I added two orange lines which signify period and half–period now infamous anomaly equation:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
Dr S. I accept in advance as valid your comment as ‘Nothing to do with anything solar!’
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:22 am
Thanks Leif,
I notice the abstact on the second link starts thusly:
“[…]have been taken as evidence for an extended solar cycle lasting over ~17 yr.”
But note that the paper discounts that claim.
Here is a picture of the ‘extended cycle’: http://www.leif.org/research/Extended-Cycle.png
What is referred to is the fact that solar cycles overlap so that signs of the new cycle can be sign about a year before the ‘minimum’ and that old-cycle spots can be seen for about a year after minimum, making the cycles more like 13-14 year long. But the ‘overhang’ is not a particularly phenomenon in itself, and the ’17-year cycle’ as such is simply not in the data. True ‘cyclists’ might even claim that the 51-yr peak is the 17th sub-harmonic of a non-existent 3-yr peak as it being the 3rd subharmonic of a non-existent 17-yr peak. In cyclomania-world, everything is possible.
The pebbles Universe (Prof. Fred Flinstone) vs. the EU:
Twinkle, twinkle electric star
Astronomers don’t know what you are!
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf&keywords=white%20dwarf
Dr.Svalgaard (A.2)
If you look at your spectrum dip at 17 and 34 and peaks at 51 and 102.
Also dip at 24 ( 2 x J ), dip at 60 = 3 x 19, and so on.
Just look up resonant circuits, they absorb and give off power.
Enneagram says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:35 am
Astronomers don’t know what you are!
Astrologers do! or so they say.
Obviously the electric currents from the Universe are modulated by the planets, even the tiny ones [e.g. Ceres]…
Vuk etc. says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:40 am
If you look at your spectrum dip at 17 and 34 and peaks at 51 and 102.
Also dip at 24 ( 2 x J ), dip at 60 = 3 x 19, and so on.
Just look up resonant circuits, they absorb and give off power.
There are enough dips and peaks to satisfy any cyclist.
Circuits can only resonate if they are coupled.
I don’t mind if the sun runs on electricity, steam, burning obsolete textbooks or helium fusion. I just want to know how, and how much it affects Earth’s climate, how it relates to planetary motion, and what the likely variability is over various timescales.
Leif, I like your extended cycle. A correspondent recently showed me a very interesting graph which had a nice logical breakdown showing 5 overlapping 55 year cycles within the VEJ alignments producing peaks and troughs every 11 years. So I can see how one cycle ‘submerges’ over a couple of years as another ’emerges’. He also produced a graph which shows how these relate to the graph Ching Cheh Hung produced, and it shows the relationship between the planetary alignments and the solar cycles much more clearly, and to my eye irrefutably. There is a missing variable which I’m going to play with before I post it up though.
Exciting times for the planetologists. Hows the dynamology going?
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:55 am
Exciting times for the planetologists.
It has been exciting ever since Wolf [and others] proposed the idea 150 years ago, but nothing has come of all that excitement since.
Hows the dynamology going?
The sun is doing what it was predicted to do, so I think we are doing fine. At least we doing physics.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 10:33 am
“These claims are not substantiated by the data, so the period is not accepted as valid by the solar community. There are always lots of claims about cycles of every conceivable periods, but the data just isn’t there.”
There you go again, this is one claim about one cycle, and I would not take your word as to whether “these claims are substantiated by the data” or not. It would not be unconcievable for the whole orthodox solar community to have failed to analize the data correctly.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:58 am
It has been exciting ever since Wolf [and others] proposed the idea 150 years ago, but nothing has come of all that excitement since.
The sun is doing what it was predicted to do, so I think we are doing fine. At least we doing physics.
I’m glad you are. I expect we’ll be meeting further down the road when the obvious planetary connection eventually forces physicists with fine abilities such as yours to come up with the details of the viable mechanism I’ve intuited.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm
this is one claim about one cycle
And in particular, the data is not there to support that one claim, either
It would not be unconcievable for the whole orthodox solar community to have failed to analize the data correctly.
OK, Einstein, we are awaiting your correct analysis.
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:18 pm
physicists with fine abilities such as yours to come up with the details of the viable mechanism I’ve intuited.
Another Einstein here?
meeting further down the road when the obvious planetary connection…
It has been ‘obvious’ for 150 years. I may not live long enough.
Lol, I hope you do Leif. Better watch the waistline though, there will be much humble pie to be eaten. 😉
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:58 pm
there will be much humble pie to be eaten. 😉
I’ll be glad to serve up your portion.
Dr. Svalgaard (A.2)
Of course they are coupled; 5J = 59.31, 2S = 59.31. Any astronomer it will tell you that every time J ( 19.6 yrs) passes Sn-St line it gives a tiny nudge to St.
4.5 billion/19.6 is a lot of nudges, and they were much stronger in the early aeons, long before von Helmholtz ‘hit the bottle’ (with a hummer I mean).
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:19 pm (Edit)
I’ll be glad to serve up your portion.
I’ll bring the cream.
Just had a hit from your esteemed colleagues:
Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
IP Address: Harvard-smithsonian Center For Astrophysics (131.142.188.56) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NATA.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Referring URL: No referring link
Watch out Vuk, next they’ll either be stealing your ideas, or your trash bag.
Vuk etc. says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Of course they are coupled
But not to where it matters for the topic at hand: the Sun.
tallbloke: You asked, “Have you got a reliable longer list of El ninos I can test against more solar cycles? The more samples we test, on a longer timescale the more certain the outcome.”
Depends on your definition of reliable. There are a number of ENSO-related reconstructions on the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program webpage, under the heading of Circulation, (subheading Pacific):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html#circulation
This is wrong, and a perfect example of lack of scrutiny:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT%20of%20IMF%20Direction.png
the peak just before 200 days is not semi annual, that would be nearer 182 days.
As all solar/climate/weather periods can be mapped out precisely by planetary harmonies, this period should be c.194.6 days, 1/12 of the 6.395yr harmony of Earth, Mars, Venus and Ceres, a half J/N synod, and two bashful ballerina`s.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:53 am (Edit)
Circuits can only resonate if they are coupled.
Yep, like Earth and Venus are with Jupiter, and Jupiter is with Saturn, and Saturn is with Neptune. The lower integers in the fibonacci series keep popping out all over the place. Five conjunctions of Earth and Venus over an eight year cycle etc.
The whole solar system resonates, and many of the frequencies are evident in the sun as discovered by magnetohydrodynamics studies.the outer planets lie at the nodes of a 168 minute lightspeed wave centred on the sun. This number crops up all over the galaxy.
I wish I understood why Leif and so many of his colleagues are so resistant to the study of waves and cycles. Maybe it’s just too analogue for them in the high speed digitally quantised age.
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I wish I understood why Leif and so many of his colleagues are so resistant to the study of waves and cycles.
We are not. In fact, we are great experts on this. Just think of the modern field of helioseismology. And on the Kirkwood gaps between asteroids and in the rings of Saturn. And on Alfven wave interactions. And on cosmic ray scattering.
The issue has several aspects:
1) the time scale [must match]
2) the energy [must match]
3) the coupling mechanism [must be viable – e.g. the ‘angular momentum theory’ is not]
But we have gone over that so many times to no avail, that it is hardly worth the trouble to re-hash any of that here.
Your other stuff is [“magnetohydrodynamics studies”,”168 minute lightspeed wave”, “all over the galaxy”] is just nonsense.
I make it 6216 days for an average coronal hole cycle, Vuk reckons 6189 days, either way, it is the last BIG spike in the graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT%20of%20IMF%20Direction.png
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm
“I wish I understood why Leif and so many of his colleagues are so resistant to the study of waves and cycles.”
1) astrology is the biggest heresy.
2) they cannot find them in the data !
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:13 pm
either way, it is the last BIG spike in the graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT%20of%20IMF%20Direction.png
Those spikes out there are not statistically significantly different. All they show is that there is power around the solar cycle.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm
2) they cannot find them in the data !
You cannot gather roses where no roses grow…
maksimovich says:
July 10, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Bob Tisdale says:
July 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Stephen Wilde: My question, “Based on your observations, how many degrees latitude are the variations in polar cycles (AO & SAM) pushing the clouds equatorward in response to decreasing solar activity?”
Ill posed problems,ie multiple time series.
Firstly would it not be more correct to examine when say radiative forcing ( insolation ) is greatest, which would be the inter annual solar cycle.Here the annual excursions of the extratropical storm tracks with their latitudinal effects are well described in the literature eg Ramanathan
The enormous cooling effect of extratropical storm track cloud systems
Extra-tropical storm track cloud systems provide about 60% of the total cooling effect of clouds [2]. The annual mean forcing from these cloud systems is in the range of –45 to –55 W m–2 and effectively these cloud systems are shielding both the northern and
the southern polar regions from intense radiative heating. Their spatial extent towards the tropics moves with the jet stream, extending farthest towards the tropics
(about 35 deg latitude) during winter and retreating polewards (polewards of 50 deg
latitude) during summer. This phenomenon raises an important question related to past climate dynamics. During the ice age, due to the large polar cooling, the northern hemisphere jet stream extended more southwards. But have the extra tropical cloud systems also moved southward? The increase in the negative forcing would have exerted a major positive feedback on the ice age cooling. There is a curious puzzle about the existence of these cooling clouds. The basic function of the extra tropical dynamics is to export heat polewards.
While the baroclinic systems are efficient in transporting heat, the enormous negative
radiative forcing (Fig. 2) associated with these cloud systems seems to undo the
poleward transport of heat by the dynamics. The radiative effect of these systems is working against the dynamical effect. Evidently,we need better understanding of the dynamic-thermodynamic coupling between these enormous cooling clouds and the
equator-pole temperature gradient, and greenhouse forcing.
__________________________________Reply;
All of this and nobody looks at the Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere?
I think you will find a much better signal in the patterns of jet stream positions and lunar declination periods.
The composite is built around the Lunar declinational variation and the Earth’s Heliocentric conjunctions with the other planets, modulated together with the solar output, to form the driving forces of all of the periodic features of the recognized global circulation patterns.
Data found soon to be processed, just need high speed connection to the internet, and a little software yet.
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:18 pm
physicists with fine abilities such as yours to come up with the details of the viable mechanism I’ve intuited.
Scientific debate is not about intuition, leaving it to others to explain it, it is about winning the argument on its own scientific merit. Your above comment gives the set and match to Leif.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“OK, Einstein, we are awaiting your correct analysis.”
I thought a stein was a mug! I`ll trawl through;
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/corona.html
and see what is apparent, shame it does not do the early 1930`s, our distant decendants will be spoilt for data !
Ulric Lyons says:
July 12, 2010 at 3:12 pm
and see what is apparent, shame it does not do the early 1930`s, our distant decendants will be spoilt for data !
We didn’t know about coronal holes [in the modern meaning] before ~1970.
Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2010 at 3:09 pm (Edit)
Scientific debate is not about intuition, leaving it to others to explain it, it is about winning the argument on its own scientific merit. Your above comment gives the set and match to Leif.
You’re late. Anyway, I’m not playing tennis. And I’m not arguing or debating, I’m just stating it as it is. We’ll use our brains to discover the relationships, then they’ll rustle up some whizzo technology to confirm it.
It was ever thus. Look what happened to poor bloody Tesla. A man strong on intuition and short on business acumen.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 3:16 pm
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/corona.html
I just glanced at it earlier and saw `1939`, yes the hole records start 1970, and no solar wind speed is given so that`s no use to me then.
Yes, thats what I need too. A good record of solar wind speed. From the space age only if it’s accurate, directly measured rather than inferred, and up to date.
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Yes, thats what I need too. A good record of solar wind speed. From the space age only if it’s accurate, directly measured rather than inferred, and up to date.
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html
Many thanks Leif, useful. Is there any longer term graph or downloadable data I can refer to for context which is accurate in your view? If so what is the proxy?
Just come across an interesting paper about the ‘extended’ solar cycle which details some anomalous SC24 behaviour as compared with the two previous cycles…
The Progress of Solar Cycle 24 at High Latitudes
Authors: Richard C. Altrock (Air Force Research Laboratory, NSO/SP, Sunspot, NM, USA) – Submitted on 11 Feb 2010
Abstract: The “extended” solar cycle 24 began in 1999 near 70 degrees latitude, similarly to cycle 23 in 1989 and cycle 22 in 1979. The extended cycle is manifested by persistent Fe XIV coronal emission appearing near 70 degrees latitude and slowly migrating towards the equator, merging with the latitudes of sunspots and active regions (the “butterfly diagram”) after several years. Cycle 24 began its migration at a rate 40% slower than the previous two solar cycles, thus indicating the possibility of a peculiar cycle. However, the onset of the “Rush to the Poles” of polar crown prominences and their associated coronal emission, which has been a precursor to solar maximum in recent cycles (cf. Altrock 2003), has just been identified in the northern hemisphere. Peculiarly, this “Rush” is leisurely, at only 50% of the rate in the previous two cycles. The properties of the current “Rush to the Poles” yields an estimate of 2013 or 2014 for solar maximum.
Full paper is available free here:-
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2401v1
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 12:51 am
Many thanks Leif, useful. Is there any longer term graph or downloadable data I can refer to for context which is accurate in your view? If so what is the proxy?
Well, you did say that you wanted direct spacecraft data, not inferred data [from proxies?]. There is also a time resolution issue. The spacecraft data has good time resolution [hour to seconds], proxies will be months to a year. What do you really want ?
Tenuc says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:01 am
Just come across an interesting paper about the ‘extended’ solar cycle which details some anomalous SC24 behaviour as compared with the two previous cycles…
There is very likely is no ‘extended’ cycle, as the activity interpreted as part of the extended cycle seems to be just remnants of the current cycle, rather than stuff from the next cycle: http://www.leif.org/EOS/ApJ_716_1_693.pdf
This subject is controversial at this time.
tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Yes, thats what I need too. A good record of solar wind speed. From the space age only if it’s accurate, directly measured rather than inferred, and up to date.
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html
___________________________________________________
This site is the bees knees for studying every plasma and magnetic parameter in relation to short term surface temperature change.
With my Planetary Ordered Solar Theory, I can predict weekly or less temperature changes highly accurately a great distance ahead, and hindcast at this definition back through centuries, so I know what is doing it, the only missing piece of the puzzle is the exact mechanisms. Solar wind velocity shows a very good correlation to short term changes, but other parameters need to be checked too. Then we need to discover the nature of the short term heat increases, are we dealing with higher IR levels with higher solar wind speed/density/pressure, as well as short bursts of surface warming from higher UV when sunspot regions are more active?
When the solar cycle is seen from a solar wind point of view, we can get a better picture of the nature of temperature events at different parts of the solar cycle, such that solar wind can be very turbulent around solar max, but less constant, giving typically, the greater short term extremes in temperatures around max, from heat waves, to the higher occurence of cold winters at solar max. It is all down to timing of these short term changes as to which hemisphere gets the cold winter, if at all. A quick scan though any long monthly temperature series at the coldest winters in the last 2-3 hudred years reveals +ve temperature anomalies usually within 2-4 months of the very coldest months. P.O.S.T. can demonstate why.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:05 am (Edit)
Well, you did say that you wanted direct spacecraft data, not inferred data [from proxies?]. There is also a time resolution issue. The spacecraft data has good time resolution [hour to seconds], proxies will be months to a year. What do you really want ?
I want it all, I want it now! (Tm Freddie Mercury)
Seriously, I’m very grateful and happy with the accurate satellite data, because I can use that for a case study in the short term. It would be useful also to have a proxy reconstruction of solar wind speed going back as far as possible towards the beginning of the sunspot record, if such a thing exists.
Do you know if the magnetic flux lines involved in reconnection events between the Sun and Earth (or Sun and any other planets) get curved by the solar wind variation? I understand what you say about solar wind going in straight lines out from the sun, but if there is a big coronal hole emanating faster solar wind from a solar region, this will leave a spiral trace in the IMF as the sun turns. I’m wondering if this will affect the flux lines or magnetic ‘ropes’ forming between the Sun and the magnetospheres of planets.
Thanks
@richard Holle says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Richard, if I may ask you a question, as a long range forecaster, I am highly interested in Lunar effects on weather events and types, I have looked at USA tornado events in respect to Lunar declination, and could not find anything conclusive, do you have a tabulated list of these?
With the sea tides, spring tides occur just after every full and new moon, with the highest at the full moons around the vernal equinox, and the new moons around the autumn equinox. Obviously highs and lows of delination around the solstices will be at full and new moon, but at the equinoxes, extremes of declination occur at the quarter moons, one low, and one high, and there is very little difference in tide hight between them, how does this declination issue make a difference to atmospheric circulation, but not to the sea tides?
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:00 am
It would be useful also to have a proxy reconstruction of solar wind speed going back as far as possible towards the beginning of the sunspot record, if such a thing exists.
Geomagnetic activity A depends on the solar wind speed V and the magnetic field strength B [and a few other things to second order. Generally A ~ B*V^2. Now, A is known with three-hours resolution back to the 1840s. On that short time scale, we do not [yet] know how the separate B and V. On time scales of a month to a year, we [I, actually] have figured out how to separate B and V and can reconstruct both. Here is how: http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
if there is a big coronal hole emanating faster solar wind from a solar region, this will leave a spiral trace in the IMF as the sun turns. I’m wondering if this will affect the flux lines or magnetic ‘ropes’ forming between the Sun and the magnetospheres of planets.
The filed lines are always curved into a spiral. For high solar wind speed the spiral is less strongly would, and for low speed the spiral is more tightly wound. At the outer planets, the spiral is wound around the Sun several times. The notion of ropes ‘forming’ between the Sun and the planets, is misguided. The ropes or field lines are there all the time, planets or no planets. The solar wind [ropes and all] sweeps past the planets at supersonic speed [11 times as fast as the magnetic field can propagate], in the process reconnecting with the planets magnetic field [about half the time, depending on the angle between the two fields – which varies randomly from hour to hour] and dragging the planetary field with it downstream for a short while [three hours for the Earth, a day for the larger planets]. Eventually the dragging comes to an end [think stretching a rubber band until it snaps] and the connection is broken. The solar wind and the Sun have no knowledge of the planet before hitting it [because moving faster than Alfven waves can propagate], just like you cannot hear a supersonic jet aircraft [or bullet] approaching you.
The effect of the solar wind speed on this process is to increase the number of field lines brought up to the planet: faster speed, more field lines per unit time, just like the speed of a flowing river determines how much water is flowing. But this, again, has no influence on anything upstream. If anything, the faster the wind, the more supersonic it gets and the less is any influence.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:37 am
“(Tenuc says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:01 am
Just come across an interesting paper about the ‘extended’ solar cycle which details some anomalous SC24 behaviour as compared with the two previous cycles…)
There is very likely is no ‘extended’ cycle, as the activity interpreted as part of the extended cycle seems to be just remnants of the current cycle, rather than stuff from the next cycle: http://www.leif.org/EOS/ApJ_716_1_693.pdf
This subject is controversial at this time.”
Thanks for the above link, Leif, another interesting paper. Surprisingly some of the diagrams of the Coronal field-line configurations modelled in Fig 8 are very similar to those produced by a Tesla coil when over-driven and the primary and secondary coils are out of phase.
If, as you say, the Run to the Poles is a remnant of the current cycle, does this mean that the weaker than normal poloidal field is direct result of the weaker than normal toroidal field, or are cause and effect the other way round?
Leif, very helpful, thanks again. Time to revisit the solar physics 101 page you linked for me somewhere ^upthere and do some sums and sketches.
Tenuc says:
July 13, 2010 at 7:42 am
very similar to those produced by a Tesla coil when over-driven and the primary and secondary coils are out of phase.
The Sun has some of that as the toroidal and poloidal fields are out off phase. One should not take the similarity too far, though. There is no big single coil driving everything, but millions of little ones interacting and producing the sun’s magnetic field as an ’emergent’ property.
If, as you say, the Run to the Poles is a remnant of the current cycle, does this mean that the weaker than normal poloidal field is direct result of the weaker than normal toroidal field, or are cause and effect the other way round?
Both ! If there is less toroidal filed you get less polar fields, and with less polar fields , the next cycle will have less toroidal field. Taken literally, this would mean that cycles would get ever smaller [or bigger for the case of more field]. However, there is enough randomness in the system that such a streak of ever-smaller [or bigger] cycles is quickly broken. The poloidal field is only 1/1000 of the toroidal field and corresponds to the field from only a handful of sunspots, compared to the thousands generated in each cycle.
Tenuc says:
July 13, 2010 at 7:42 am
If, as you say, the Run to the Poles is a remnant of the current cycle…
More precisely, the Rush occurs during the first third or so of a given cycle. There is a filament [bright green corona] separating the old polar fields [from the minimum] and the new flux [with opposite polarity] moving towards the pole. You can see this filament as the dark horizontal line crossing the disk near the north pole here:
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/07/13/l_211_193_171.jpg
To see the magnetic field: http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/07/13/f_HMImag_171.jpg
Then click on the image to make it larger.
The magnetic field is the small orange [polarity into the Sun] and blue [out of the Sun] specks covering the surface. Note the preponderance of blue specks near the north pole above [at higher latitude] the filament and the orange specs below the filament. The orange field slowly eats away the blue as the cycle moves towards maximum, and the dividing line moves polewards [rush to the poles] until all the blue is gone, replaced by orange.
Thanks for the explanation, Leif, I’ve often wondered how the the two fields relate.
Presumably the same thing will happen in the southern hemisphere as SC24 develops and we approach the cycle maximum, whatever that may bring.
BTW, the SDO images are amazing, link now bookmarked, thanks.
Tenuc says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:07 am
Presumably the same thing will happen in the southern hemisphere as SC24 develops and we approach the cycle maximum, whatever that may bring.
Yes, we just have not much activity in the south yet.
BTW, the SDO images are amazing, link now bookmarked, thanks.
You can change the date to see other images, or just http://sdowww.lmsal.com/suntoday.html for the latest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 8:19 am
Tenuc:
If, as you say, the Run to the Poles is a remnant of the current cycle, does this mean that the weaker than normal poloidal field is direct result of the weaker than normal toroidal field, or are cause and effect the other way round?
Both ! If there is less toroidal filed you get less polar fields, and with less polar fields , the next cycle will have less toroidal field. Taken literally, this would mean that cycles would get ever smaller [or bigger for the case of more field]. However, there is enough randomness in the system that such a streak of ever-smaller [or bigger] cycles is quickly broken. The poloidal field is only 1/1000 of the toroidal field and corresponds to the field from only a handful of sunspots, compared to the thousands generated in each cycle.
The whole shebang must be in a finely poised condition near it’s boundary conditions. Plenty of room for small externally induced solar disturbances to make a difference to this ‘randomness’ (clearly not random at all) then. I foresee there will be a complementary co-existence between dynamology and planetology. One needs the perturbances and the other needs the energy.
A bit like us really. 😉
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The whole shebang must be in a finely poised condition near it’s boundary conditions.
We don’t think so. On the contrary [just like Earth’s climate] the Sun has lots of negative feedbacks that maintain its balance. Here is an abstract of a talk to be given in two weeks:
Nathan Schwadron Email: nschwadron@Mac.com
Principal Author Affiliation : Boston University
Magnetic Flux Balance In the Unusual Extended Solar Minimum Between Solar Cycle 23 and 24
Abstract: The source of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere remains an unresolved issue. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are a source of magnetic flux, but it is unclear why the levels of open magnetic flux return to a similar floor in subsequent solar minima. The current solar minimum, which is anomalously long, gives a rare insight into the long-term evolution of open magnetic flux when the CME rate is relatively steady and low. We show that the precipitous drop of open magnetic flux to levels lower than have ever been observed directly shows that there is a persistent loss of open magnetic flux through disconnection, the reconnection between open magnetic field lines relatively near the Sun (beneath the Alfven point). Here we argue that the levels of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere represent a balance between new flux created by CMEs, magnetic flux interchange and flux lost through reconnection near the Sun. This magnetic flux balance is a fundamental property that regulates the plasma and radiation environment of our solar system.
Plenty of room for small externally induced solar disturbances to make a difference to this ‘randomness’
Except that there are no such external disturbances, except inconsequential tides. Other stars have giant planets [or companions] close by and there we know that the tides regulate stellar activity. It just doesn’t work for the Sun [masses too small, distances cubed too large]. None of the other ‘explanations’ I have seen here [magnetic effects, electric currents, angular momentum transfer, orbital resonances, astrological emanations, lightspeed waves all over the Galaxy, variations of size of the heliosphere, little green men] are physically viable. It is not that we just don’t know how these operate, it is that they cannot operate.
But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that the solar dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s], including the polarity changes that we observe and all the rest. And that you are just looking for minor perturbations of the system to nudge it this way or that. This, if true, may represent progress. And if so, it boils down to a signal-to-noise problem. And as far as I can see, whatever signal one might postulate or believe in has drowned in the noise, otherwise we would not even be discussing this.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm
But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that the solar dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s],
Just so that you don’t get any wrong ideas [or some of usual suspects do], the above should read:
“But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that a dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s,”
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:55 am
“A correspondent recently showed me a very interesting graph which had a nice logical breakdown showing 5 overlapping 55 year cycles within the VEJ alignments producing peaks and troughs every 11 years. ”
Three times that period (c.60728 days) is a usefull analogue for a solar cycle, despite it being an odd number of cycles (7.5 Hale), it is a good synodic return of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune, and is close to 14 Jupiter orbits. This makes SC9 the most recent analogue;
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl9.html
Ulric Lyons says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm
This makes SC9 the most recent analogue
analogue to what?
@Leif Svalgaard says:
“This makes SC9 the most recent analogue
analogue to what?”
9+15?
Ulric:
SC 9 has a very long upswing, which does fit with the very slow start to the current cycle. Two times the 55 years fits the low cycles at the start of the C19th, C20th, and now the early C21st?
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm
SC 9 has a very long upswing, which does fit with the very slow start to the current cycle. Two times the 55 years fits the low cycles at the start of the C19th, C20th, and now the early C21st?
And is a very large cycle, on par with what Hathaway used to predict. Now, the way science works is that if you make a prediction and it turns out wrong, your theory is wrong. so, Ulrich predicts a very large SC24. If SC24 stays low, his theory is falsified, right?
Since you predict a very small cycle, you cannot go along with SC9 being what SC24 will end up being, right?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
the Sun has lots of negative feedbacks that maintain its balance.
Including the disalignment of the planets according to my way of seeing it.
Nathan Schwadron Email: nschwadron@Mac.com:
Abstract: The source of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere remains an unresolved issue. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are a source of magnetic flux, but it is unclear why the levels of open magnetic flux return to a similar floor in subsequent solar minima.
Is he saying “despite the number x the power of CME’s being different” or what?
The current solar minimum, which is anomalously long, gives a rare insight into the long-term evolution of open magnetic flux when the CME rate is relatively steady and low. We show that the precipitous drop of open magnetic flux to levels lower than have ever been observed directly shows that there is a persistent loss of open magnetic flux through disconnection, the reconnection between open magnetic field lines relatively near the Sun (beneath the Alfven point).
I’m uncertain of the terminology here. Is this equivalent to the Alfven radius around 0.3Au? If so, Mercury is within it, and has a reconnection rate around 10 times that of Earth to it’s relatively strong magnetosphere. Maybe Mercury could be a grounding point for some of the Sun’s open flux, beaming it away from it’s pointy magnetotail, Tesla death ray stylee. 😉
Here we argue that the levels of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere represent a balance between new flux created by CMEs, magnetic flux interchange and flux lost through reconnection near the Sun. This magnetic flux balance is a fundamental property that regulates the plasma and radiation environment of our solar system.
Connected thinking, I like it. I’d just add, “And is maybe modulated by the alignments of the attractors circulating around in it”.
tallbloke:
Plenty of room for small externally induced solar disturbances to make a difference to this ‘randomness’ (which is obviously not random, as we can see it’s cyclicities).
Leif:
Except that there are no such external disturbances, except inconsequential tides.
As I’ve been saying, the disturbance could be caused by planetary alignments simply by them happening, creating a more conducive pathway for energy to leave the sun more easily. No power needed on the planets part. Plus I don’t think we yet know enough about the sun to dismiss the planetary tides as inconsequential. Both the tides and the electromagnetic effect could be involved. We might as well agree to disagree about tides for now. You say “No”, I say “we just don’t know”.
But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that [a] dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s], including the polarity changes that we observe and all the rest. And that you are just looking for minor perturbations of the system to nudge it this way or that. This, if true, may represent progress. And if so, it boils down to a signal-to-noise problem. And as far as I can see, whatever signal one might postulate or believe in has drowned in the noise, otherwise we would not even be discussing this.
Well since the Earth’s ‘dynamo’ reverses polarity on a semi chaotic cyclic basis on much longer timescales than the sun, I don’t see why the Sun’s dynamo effect should have fried us through a magnetic connection so strong as to overcome the Earth’s magnetospheric protection. The energy leaving the sun falls off with the cube of the distance, and interacts with the rest of the interplanetary electromagnetic soup on it’s way to us. I’m not sure what you are driving at here, but it’s a great discussion anyway, so thanks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:06 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm
SC 9 has a very long upswing, which does fit with the very slow start to the current cycle. Two times the 55 years fits the low cycles at the start of the C19th, C20th, and now the early C21st?
And is a very large cycle, on par with what Hathaway used to predict. Now, the way science works is that if you make a prediction and it turns out wrong, your theory is wrong. so, Ulrich predicts a very large SC24. If SC24 stays low, his theory is falsified, right?
Since you predict a very small cycle, you cannot go along with SC9 being what SC24 will end up being, right?
Wrong. There could be similarities and dissimilarities too. So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes. I have some ideas to pursue which might make some progress there though. It’s early days, so stop trying to strangle the baby in it’s cot, you mean old man. 🙂
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Is he saying “despite the number x the power of CME’s being different” or what?
CMEs are closed flux and is associated with solar activity. What is not clear is why the sun has a constant, and non-zero open flux when all activity has gone away.
I’m uncertain of the terminology here. Is this equivalent to the Alfven radius around 0.3Au?
I don’t know what the Alfven radius is. The Alfven point is at 10 solar radii, so 0.05 AU.
Maybe Mercury could be a grounding point for some of the Sun’s open flux, beaming it away from it’s pointy magnetotail, Tesla death ray stylee. 😉
Mercury is tiny and intercepts only 1 billionth of the Sun’s energy [radiation, solar, wind, magnetic, whatever], so has no effect on th mighty Sun/.
Connected thinking, I like it. I’d just add, “And is maybe modulated by the alignments of the attractors circulating around in it”.
The ‘attractors’ do not modulate upstream, no matter what their alignments are,
As I’ve been saying, the disturbance could be caused by planetary alignments simply by them happening, creating a more conducive pathway for energy to leave the sun more easily.
This is astrology where the mere location of a planet is important.
No power needed on the planets part
1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something for nothing.
Plus I don’t think we yet know enough about the sun to dismiss the planetary tides as inconsequential.
You may not know enough, but tidal theory does not depend on knowledge about the Sun as long as the Sun is deformable which as a gas it is.
You say “No”, I say “we just don’t know”.
You say “I don’t know”. Which very likely is the case [so I’ll not dispute that], but ignorance is not a valid argument.
I don’t see why the Sun’s dynamo effect should have fried us through a magnetic connection so strong as to overcome the Earth’s magnetospheric protection.
Again, just because you don’t see or know, does not mean that the rest of world is the same state of ignorance. The answer here is one of energy, there is not enough.
The energy leaving the sun falls off with the cube of the distance
The square, not the cube. Tidal forces go with the cube. What I’m driving at is that you accept that a dynamo is driving solar magnetism, and also the Earth’s magnetic field, plus the headlight on my old bicycle.
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm
So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
Go explain that to nobrainer and his flock.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:45 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Is he saying “despite the number x the power of CME’s being different” or what?
CMEs are closed flux and is associated with solar activity. What is not clear is why the sun has a constant, and non-zero open flux when all activity has gone away.
Logic would dictate there is power coming from somewhere. The fact that we don’t know where yet means there is room for other possibilities. Which is good from my point of view.
No power needed on the planets part
1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something for nothing.
Irrelevant to the argument. If the planets alignments modulate solar activity through providing a bigger grounding point for the sun to hit, the amount of energy released by the sun from it’s store of fuel material is what is at issue. All that is required in energy terms from the planets is their motion, which according to Newton and Einstein, is a given. Does my finger have to supply energy to a Van der Graph generator to get a spark to jump to it?
What I’m driving at is that you accept that a dynamo is driving solar magnetism, and also the Earth’s magnetic field, plus the headlight on my old bicycle.
And I add that the planetary positions and alignments modulate the activity levels in the ‘field coils’ of those dynamos, as evidenced by the correlations between them.
Dynamologists play with as many inexact analogies as Planetologists do. So stop giving yourself airs an graces.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:46 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm
So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
Go explain that to nobrainer and his flock.
Let me rephrase. “So far, my take on planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
If Geoff Sharp turns out to be right, great. If he turns out to be wrong, no problem, there are other avenues of planetary correlations and potential explanations for them to explore. It’s early days, and late at night CA time. Get a nightcap and chill out. I’m off to work.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 am
Logic would dictate there is power coming from somewhere. The fact that we don’t know where yet means there is room for other possibilities.
Ignorance is not an argument for presence.
“1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something for nothing.”
Irrelevant to the argument. If the planets alignments modulate solar activity through providing a bigger grounding point for the sun to hit
The planets make extremely small targets [billionths of the the surface]. This ‘grounding point’ nonsense is just that. A bullet hitting a target does not react back on the shooter.
And I add that the planetary positions and alignments modulate the activity levels in the ‘field coils’ of those dynamos, as evidenced by the correlations between them.
So, activity is dynamo driven. But you get no modulation upstream. The correlations are make-believe.
Dynamologists play with as many inexact analogies as Planetologists do. So stop giving yourself airs an graces.
You are yourself a dynamologist [sic] but not a good one. And there are no analogies in the dynamo. Only physics and numbers. There are reasonable assumptions as well because we do not know all the numbers yet, but we will soon [SDO].
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:31 am
If Geoff Sharp turns out to be right, great. If he turns out to be wrong, no problem,
It is called falsification.
Does my finger need to supply power to a van der graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?
Yes or no is fine.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:25 am
Does my finger need to supply power to a van der graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?
You need to move your finger close enough. Wagging it half mile away isn’t going to do anything.
Trying to get a straight answer from 5000 miles away isn’t working too well either.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 3:08 am
Trying to get a straight answer from 5000 miles away isn’t working too well either.
What nonsense is that? I gave you the correct answer.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:38 am
The planets make extremely small targets [billionths of the the surface]. This ‘grounding point’ nonsense is just that.
The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the biggest object in the solar system. Including the Sun. I’m surprised a world famous solar physicist wasn’t already aware of that.
I’ll be glad when that mean Mr Hyde has gone to bed. Hopefully I’ll find myself talking to that nice Dr Jeckyll later on.
The magnetic permeability and conductivity is the key to the amount of magnetic coupling available from the sun out to the boundaries of the heliopause, in basic electrodynamics the total magnetic conductance is dependent upon the amount of coupling felt in the line with the path relevant to the strength of the fields.
If you add more inductive objects in line they will increase the total magnetic conductance along that line, and they will all effect a focus mechanism, as the magnetosphere tails line up.
“”Does my finger need to supply power to a van der graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?
You need to move your finger close enough. Wagging it half mile away isn’t going to do anything.”” It will if your finger is much closer than any other object, it could ground to. Lightning has been recorded to strike miles from where it is generated in the cloud.
All I have been saying is that synod conjunctions allows the magnetic conductivity out from the sun in the direction of the conjunction to decrease in proportion to the magnetic permeability of the bodies lining up, that should by standard electromagnetic theory, allow increased magnetic conduction to flex in strength in response to the decreased resistance at there passing.
The increase in homopolar generator effects drives the global circulation in pulses at every passing. Ask the magneto in your lawn mower if the spark plug pulls the current out of the rotor, or is it H fields converted to E fields in the coil, that charges the capacitor, that then discharges as the points open as the magnet is centered in the coil, and the only way for the collapsing H fields driving the E fields back to ground is through the spark plug?
In the earth’s homopolar generator circuit varying LOD is the buffering of the inductive effect, the ions driven from the seas into the atmosphere is the capacitive effect, and precipitation is the discharge path back to earth ground.
Correction: MOD assist?
All I have been saying is that synod conjunctions allows the magnetic [resistance to] conductivity out from the sun in the direction of the conjunction to decrease in proportion to the magnetic permeability of the bodies lining up, that should by standard electromagnetic theory, allow increased magnetic conduction to flex in strength in response to the decreased resistance at their passing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:24 am
Those two are just you claiming there is such a cycle.
There is no 17yr cycle in anything solar.
Surely you must wonder why the torsional oscillation flows look to be 17 years long. There must be some kind of driver in the background, the overlap is inconsequential. All solar activity is linked to these flows.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/comb2.gif
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:31 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:46 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
Let me rephrase. “So far, my take on planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
Rog, the amplitude is the strength of my argument, the alignments can be measured easily which shows us how strong each result will be. Using this information the upcoming grand minimum cannot be Maunder like.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
And that you are just looking for minor perturbations of the system to nudge it this way or that. This, if true, may represent progress. And if so, it boils down to a signal-to-noise problem. And as far as I can see, whatever signal one might postulate or believe in has drowned in the noise, otherwise we would not even be discussing this.
I think this statement is on the money, the dynamo is an observed reality. But what drives it and upsets it, is what counts.
Uranus, Neptune & Jupiter are together with Saturn opposite for every solar slowdown (there is one other lineup before the MWP that also works), the lineup and timing distinguishes the degree of slowdown. I am still waiting for Ulrich or anyone else to disprove this. Sure there are times of weak solar activity when Angular Momentum is weak, but they don’t compare with the real deal, like the slowdown we are entering now.
On the climate front I am not sold on the solar wind argument yet, it does not seem to vary in speed all that much over a cycle. Whats in that wind might be a different story. At present the solar wind is low but not all that different to the up slope of SC23, after Sc23 max the solar wind took off, while the Earth cooled?
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Sc23wind_rz_medium.png
Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am (Edit)
Rog, the amplitude is the strength of my argument, the alignments can be measured easily which shows us how strong each result will be. Using this information the upcoming grand minimum cannot be Maunder like.
Hi Geoff. Have you got a graph of how well your method hindcasts solar cycle amplitudes?
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 6:06 am
Hi Geoff. Have you got a graph of how well your method hindcasts solar cycle amplitudes?
Hi rog, I have several. This one looks at the overall trend. It shows both isotopes involved along with the amplitude strength. Modern solar cycles via sunspot records also agree with this modulation amplitude.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/solanki_sharp.png
@tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm
“So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.”
I am fine on timing, intensity and duration, for temp`s and precipitation, forecasts are currently running at 49/52 weeks correct per year, and improving.
With the comparison between SC9 and SC24, there should be a similar profile, though Rmax could be lower in C24.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 14, 2010 at 6:26 am (Edit)
@tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm
“So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.”
I am fine on timing, intensity and duration, for temp`s and precipitation, forecasts are currently running at 49/52 weeks correct per year, and improving.
Hi Ulric. I’m impressed. What is your forecast for Northern UK for the coming week?
I was referring specifically to solar cycle SSN amplitudes rather than Earth temp variation. I corrected the statement to refer to my progress with planetary theory rather than others too. I wouldn’t presume to speak for you or Geoff.
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
“Uranus, Neptune & Jupiter are together with Saturn opposite for every solar slowdown (there is one other lineup before the MWP that also works), the lineup and timing distinguishes the degree of slowdown. I am still waiting for Ulric or anyone else to disprove this.”
I did. You said sometimes it happens at the alignment but not always, and if not, then it would happen in the following cycle, or maybe the one after that. I am a precision forecaster, I have no time for such flakey business.
1. Jupiter’s magnetosphere is the largest structure in the solar system with its magnetic tail extending over 5AU or 650 million km (past the orbit of Saturn!).
2. CME’s , magnetic clouds form closed magnetic and electric circuit encompassing the sun’s surface and planetary magnetosphere.
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/REU/2008/ewolf/presentation/images/magnetic_cloud.jpg
Note: the arrows indicating direction of magnetic field and field aligned current (more about the mutual relationship can be seen here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
An encountered magnetosphere (trough process of ‘reconnection’ ) takes energy out of such ( self-feeding ) circuit, resulting in its collapse, hence a feedback.
The helical curve illustrates a characteristic magnetic field line. Magnetic clouds may indeed be structurally simple as depicted here. Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
Ulric Lyons says:
July 14, 2010 at 6:40 am
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
“Uranus, Neptune & Jupiter are together with Saturn opposite for every solar slowdown (there is one other lineup before the MWP that also works), the lineup and timing distinguishes the degree of slowdown. I am still waiting for Ulric or anyone else to disprove this.”
————————–
I did. You said sometimes it happens at the alignment but not always, and if not, then it would happen in the following cycle, or maybe the one after that. I am a precision forecaster, I have no time for such flakey busines
I did?
Not even close. You seem to talk and predict a lot without much substance. Show me the precision where you proved me wrong?
What you don’t understand is the planetary disturbance occurs on a different time frame to what ever controls the 11 year cycle.
Your precision on a high solar cycle 24 forecast is already busted.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 14, 2010 at 6:40 am
I did. You said sometimes it happens at the alignment but not always, and if not, then it would happen in the following cycle, or maybe the one after that. I am a precision forecaster, I have no time for such flakey business.
You are misrepresenting me. Show me where I have said the alignment affects 2 cycles after the event?
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 3:52 am
The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the biggest object in the solar system. Including the Sun. I’m surprised a world famous solar physicist wasn’t already aware of that.
I might say that the Heliospheric Current Sheet is the biggest, or perhaps the IBEX Ribbon, but lets see ho big Jupiter’s magnetosphere is seen from the Sun. It turns out to occupy something like 1/50,000 of the sky [comparable to what the Moon covers seen from Earth]. But the magnetosphere is hardly a ‘grounding point’ because it is so tenuous. The planet itself [which might serve] occupies 1/250,000,000 of the sky.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
Surely you must wonder why the torsional oscillation flows look to be 17 years long.
No, I don’t wonder, because the period is not 17 but 20-22 years. The only one we have a full cycle for started in 1987 and ended in 2009. The current one started in 1997. The poleward branch of the TO starts at minimum [or one year after] and the equatorial branch starts shortly after maximum and lasts until the second minimum thereafter. SO, the TO is tied to the 21-yr Hale cycle and maintains its phase. If the TO cycle was 17 years then we would have 6 cycles in a century, and only 5 Hale cycles, so the two cycles would drift relative to each other. Howard discovered the TO back in 1980 based on data from 1966 on, so we have enough data to pin down the period. “starting at the poles and taking a full 22-year Hale cycle to drift to the equator” [Howe, 2009]
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:04 am
Jupiter’s magnetosphere is the largest structure in the solar system with its magnetic tail extending over 5AU
By that argument, the biggest object is the shadow of Mercury…
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:04 am
An encountered magnetosphere (trough process of ‘reconnection’ ) takes energy out of such ( self-feeding ) circuit, resulting in its collapse, hence a feedback.
Thanks Vuk, Leif tried to steer me away from reconnections to the solar wind instead and the alternating polarities sweeping past the planets. My question is, Could such a cloud link several planets at once, and would it likely curve along the spirals in the solar wind. And for side orders, could a sudden collapse of the field actually be the cause of several new sunspots appearing in your view?
Richard Holle, excellent input. Thank you!
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:09 am
could a sudden collapse of the field actually be the cause of several new sunspots appearing in your view?
The field does not collapse at all. A magnetosphere extracts about 2% of the energy of the part of the cloud [or the solar wind], and the cloud is laterally thousands of time bigger than the magnetosphere, so the 2% must be divided by many thousands. You shouldn’t take Vuk’s nonsense seriously. [you have your own to tend to 🙂 ]. And again, magnetic changes cannot travel upstream in the supersonic wind.
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:10 am
“You are misrepresenting me.” ” You seem to talk and predict a lot without much substance.”
Oh dear! maybe you should have a chat with Gabe from climaterealists.com about my temperature forecasts, no one else even gets close.
“Show me where I have said the alignment affects 2 cycles after the event?”
SC24.com probably, I can`t be bothered to hindcast that just now, the point is any delay, be it 1 or 2 cycles is just an excuse for not finding the cause of a downturn, and blaming it on something that happened earlier. I can prove configurational correlation at a monthly definition through any year of Dalton or Maunder quite happily following temperature deviations that are all very much real time in driving our weather and hence climate, and so find any notions of delays in solar response to planetary configurations and the climatic results, quite bizarre. More importantly, I have made seminal and unique discoveries in the relationships of the Superior and Inferior Planets which makes it possible to fully define natural variation, the LIA, and tell which of the next 10 winters are cold or not, and whether we get a flood or a heat wave the last week in October.
I knew it was a good idea to take my brolly to work this morning. It was boshing down as I walked back to the station at 6.15pm.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:18 am
You shouldn’t take Vuk’s nonsense seriously. [you have your own to tend to 🙂 ].
It must be like herding cats from your point of view Leif. 😉
However, I got another insight today which changes the game. I’ll be posting about it on my blog soon. It goes back to my mention that Newton and Einstein had planetary motion as a given. Now, Leif, if this solar wind of yours is strong enough to blow away anything trying to head upstream, how much does it drag does it create on planets moving at right angles to it? Over 4 billion years?
L.S (a.2)
By that argument, the biggest object is the shadow of Mercury…
Nonsense; the Earth or Venues are never eclipsed by Mercury.
http://www.practicalphysics.org/imageLibrary/jpeg500/2158.jpg
Tallbloke (a.2)
Magnetospheric reconnection is kind of ‘short circuit’ releasing huge amount of energy, still not completely understood (I look at it as electric currents short circuit).
J & S each have permanent polar aurora, meaning that they are constant load on the solar magnetic circuit.
L.S.
And again, magnetic changes cannot travel upstream in the supersonic wind.
But electromagnetic have no problem.
Q: And what is an electromagnetic wave ?
A: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/images/emwv.gif
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:56 am (Edit)
J & S each have permanent polar aurora, meaning that they are constant load on the solar magnetic circuit.
It means more than that Vuk, as I just realised. Follow the Right Hand rule and consider the back EMF.
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm
L.S.
And again, magnetic changes cannot travel upstream in the supersonic wind.
But electromagnetic have no problem.
Q: And what is an electromagnetic wave ?
A: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/images/emwv.gif
Ding Dong!
Do we get called electric universe-9/11 truthers and banished from the site now?
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:56 am (Edit)
L.S (a.2)
By that argument, the biggest object is the shadow of Mercury…
Nonsense; the Earth or Venues are never eclipsed by Mercury.
http://www.practicalphysics.org/imageLibrary/jpeg500/2158.jpg
Not only that, but Mercury moves in an orbitl plane more highly inclined to the plane of invariance than other planets. Which makes a transit of mercury pretty rare, notwithstanding it’s brief orbital period. I wonder what the alignment map taking into account the sectors near it’s nodes looks like…
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:40 am (Edit)
Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
Surely you must wonder why the torsional oscillation flows look to be 17 years long.
No, I don’t wonder, because the period is not 17 but 20-22 years. The only one we have a full cycle for started in 1987 and ended in 2009. The current one started in 1997. The poleward branch of the TO starts at minimum [or one year after] and the equatorial branch starts shortly after maximum and lasts until the second minimum thereafter. SO, the TO is tied to the 21-yr Hale cycle and maintains its phase. If the TO cycle was 17 years then we would have 6 cycles in a century, and only 5 Hale cycles, so the two cycles would drift relative to each other. Howard discovered the TO back in 1980 based on data from 1966 on, so we have enough data to pin down the period. “starting at the poles and taking a full 22-year Hale cycle to drift to the equator” [Howe, 2009]
Ian Wilson’s paper on the JEV alignments works on a Hale cycle. I wonder what Ulric makes of the aligments Ian says are predominant in the alternate solar cycles taking into consideration his own observations of the positive and negative effects on Earth temperature.
http://www.climatestop.com/Ian_Wilson_Syzygy.pdf
Here something for Dr. S. to tackle:
In order to continuously accumulate dark matter par-
ticles in the Sun we need the annihilation cross section
of our dark matter particles to be suppressed compared
to the size required by successful dark matter genesis
via thermal freeze-out.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.5102v1.pdf
Vuk, why would Leif be interested in a Star Trek script?
@tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:48 pm
” I wonder what Ulric makes of the aligments Ian says are predominant in the alternate solar cycles taking into consideration his own observations of the positive and negative effects on Earth temperature”
I made it on my own to see the J/E/V relationship to the solar cycle before finding Desmoulins work. Ian`s news paper reports this fairly well, but does not explore the solar dipole reversal enough to realise the effect is not tidal. As for temperature forecasts, he has no idea.
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:56 am
J & S each have permanent polar aurora, meaning that they are constant load on the solar magnetic circuit.
And they are big planets with low densities.
Hmmmmm
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune , all emit energy as infrared radiation, more than they receive from the sun . It is thought that the energy is due to compression of the planets by high gravity, but scientists are not certain. Not convinced by the gravity theory.
I wonder what happens to the energy generated by the magnetic short circuiting, called ‘reconnection’, which btw is heath; that would contradict the experts.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:40 am
Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
Surely you must wonder why the torsional oscillation flows look to be 17 years long.
————————————————————————————-
No, I don’t wonder, because the period is not 17 but 20-22 years. The only one we have a full cycle for started in 1987 and ended in 2009. The current one started in 1997. The poleward branch of the TO starts at minimum [or one year after] and the equatorial branch starts shortly after maximum and lasts until the second minimum thereafter. SO, the TO is tied to the 21-yr Hale cycle and maintains its phase. If the TO cycle was 17 years then we would have 6 cycles in a century, and only 5 Hale cycles, so the two cycles would drift relative to each other. Howard discovered the TO back in 1980 based on data from 1966 on, so we have enough data to pin down the period. “starting at the poles and taking a full 22-year Hale cycle to drift to the equator” [Howe, 2009]
I think we are talking about two different flows. My discussion is aimed at the slower moving (green/blue) belts that Howe mentions in her 2009 paper as around 18 years in flow length. Howard initially suggested 22 years but recent data confirms a shorter flow. Her full statement reads “They initially interpreted the high-latitude variations as consisting of bands of faster rotation starting at the poles and taking a full 22-year Hale cycle to drift to the equator.”
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/doppler.jpg
The slower zones go all the way to the Tachocline and are now seen as the important area where sunspots are formed. I may have had something to do with this discovery as I sent my butterfly/zone overlay to Howe Feb 2009 who later reconstructed her own version with Hill and released it during a press conference. Her earlier 2009 paper states:
“Although the equatorward-migrating bands of faster rotation are clearly
associated with the migrating activity belts of the magnetic butterfly
diagram,”
Showing how she has changed her thinking.
My original article here: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/
These slower moving zones that probably vary in timing length due to solar angular momentum look to be generated at the Tachocline, there appears to be a regular pattern that controls the 11 year cycle as the whole flow is not utilized. Discovering what is the underlying cause of these slower flowing zones should give us the answers that so far science has not been able to resolve.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:06 am
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:10 am
“Show me where I have said the alignment affects 2 cycles after the event?”
————————————————————-
SC24.com probably, I can`t be bothered to hindcast that just now, the point is any delay, be it 1 or 2 cycles is just an excuse for not finding the cause of a downturn, and blaming it on something that happened earlier.
So you misrepresent me and then cant be bothered to back up your statements?
If you took the time to familiarize yourself with my work it becomes obvious how important timing of the AMP event is. There has only been 3 of these perturbation events that can be compared with reliable sunspot data. If the event occurs on the downslope after cycle max as in SC4 & SC23 obviously its too late to impact greatly on that cycle.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:56 am
J & S each have permanent polar aurora, meaning that they are constant load on the solar magnetic circuit.
And they are big planets with low densities.
Hmmmmm
______________________________ Reply;
The total external magnetic fields of the sun extend to the boundaries of the heliopause, closer in than this ~2 light years, the effects of the constant coupling of the slow rate near DC magnetic fields, maintains the angular momentum, measured both by orbital velocity, and LOD for each of the planets. The total power invested in these fields are a result of the total mass of the magnetically susceptible material in each body, balanced back to the sun’s ratio of internal to external fields.
At synod conjunctions the resistance to electromagnetic conduction of external fields from the sun decreases and coronal holes open to send out lines of magnetic force to maintain the balance. The homopolar generator effects regulate the sum total of the solar systems angular momentum, by accommodating the shifts in magnetic current flux with the short term variances in LOD and / or angular momentum in orbital velocity.
At 8 light minutes out from the sun the Earth is quite susceptible to these shifts in magnetic fields strength that is continuous, nearly instantaneous, and on going in cyclic patterns that can and have been measured. The composite of the variable component is small compared to the continuous near DC that regulated and is regulated by the back ground Constancy of the composite orbital velocities, and the angular momentum of the whole solar system, sun included.
What we see as the flux variations is but the noise on top of the elevated voltage of a very clean power supply, run on homopolar generator effects that have come to a harmonic synchronization over the past 4+ billion years, because this back ground level of connection is near DC and steady it is not measurable, as other than the background magnetic flux, seeking a balance with the background fields of the galaxy.
To see the solar cycle as anything other than the turbulence felt by the solar internal fields to these flexes in the external fields, is not going to very productive. To see the driving effects on the earth’s climate as anything less than the sum of these influences on the energy budget, and ion flux in the atmosphere, transferred through the lunar declinational tidal effects, to the global circulation patterns that result, as a compounding of these cyclic forces, is the way out of the current lack of understanding on how the weather works and turns into climate with time.
Richard Holle says:
July 14, 2010 at 10:35 pm (Edit)
The total external magnetic fields of the sun extend to the boundaries of the heliopause, closer in than this ~2 light years, the effects of the constant coupling of the slow rate near DC magnetic fields, maintains the angular momentum, measured both by orbital velocity, and LOD for each of the planets.
Yes, this is the thought that struck me yesterday. The heliosphere’s rotating interplanetary magnetic field helps maintain and regulate the planetary motion, and this is the reson why we see all the interesting almost whole small number relationships between planetary orbital periods and rotations that link to simple series like the fibonacci series. Then the planets, being in harmonic resonant relationships with each other and the Sun, participate in feedback loops which affect levels of solar activity, which in turn affect the strength of the assistance the IMF gives to maintaining the planetary orbits.
In this way we can see that the solar system truly is a system, with internal negative feedbacks which regulate the output of the Sun at a steady level. Because all such systems, both natural and manmade, oscillate about a mean, this is why the Sun’s visible sunspot cycles sometimes ‘run ahead’ of the planetary alignments, and sometimes lag behind.
Thank you Richard for the clarity of your insight and explanation. The final sentence in your response is complex. Did you mean to say “nothing less than” rather than “anything les than”?
We are straying into territory which will raise static, I’m going to put up the exchange between Myself, Vuk, and you as a new post on my blog. Please come over and discuss this further there.
Thanks.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:22 am
if this solar wind of yours is strong enough to blow away anything trying to head upstream, how much does it drag does it create on planets moving at right angles to it? Over 4 billion years?
There is no significant drag. Quite the contrary: the solar wind’s magnetic field is transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets, moving them to larger orbits, slowing down the Sun in the process. Today this effect is extremely slow and has effectively stopped, but when the sun was young and the solar wind was thousands of time stronger this was a very efficient process.
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:56 am
Nonsense; the Earth or Venues are never eclipsed by Mercury.
Last time that happened was Nov.8 2006 for Mercury, and Jun 8, 2004 for Venus [next one June 5, 2012]
Vuk etc. says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm
But electromagnetic have no problem.
We can see Jupiter, so, yes, light has no problem, but Jupiter shine [or radio waves] is very feeble and hardly cases sunspots.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
You don’t need to invoke Rachel changing her mind. The TO is synchronized with the sunspot cycle: the polar branch always starts at minimum, and the equatorial branch peters out two minima later. That the start and end can be weak and hard to observe does not change that fact. If the TO-cycle were 17 years, the each poleward branch would start 17 years after the previous. This does not happen.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:22 am
if this solar wind of yours is strong enough to blow away anything trying to head upstream, how much does it drag does it create on planets moving at right angles to it? Over 4 billion years?
There is no significant drag. Quite the contrary: the solar wind’s magnetic field is transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets, moving them to larger orbits, slowing down the Sun in the process. Today this effect is extremely slow and has effectively stopped, but when the sun was young and the solar wind was thousands of time stronger this was a very efficient process.
I carefully used the word drag to create ambiguity. 😉
Th rotation of the sun is faster than any of the planetary orbits. Therefore the solar wind sweeping past the planets effectively ‘drags’ them round with it, helping to maintain their orbits against the ‘drag’ of the effects that are trying to slow them down.
I agree that the strong part of the effect moving the planets to higher orbits has slowed down and effectively stopped, but I contend that this is a dynamic equilibrium, a balance against the forces tending to drag the planets to lower orbits (spin orbit couplings, mutual perturbances etc that end up as heat in planetary cores),
I disagree that the forces no longer operate, are not significant, and most of all I disagree that they are unimportant.
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:31 am
Th rotation of the sun is faster than any of the planetary orbits. Therefore the solar wind sweeping past the planets effectively ‘drags’ them round with it, helping to maintain their orbits against the ‘drag’ of the effects that are trying to slow them down.
No, that is not how it works. The ‘drags’ are also too weak at present to have any effect.
(spin orbit couplings, mutual perturbances etc that end up as heat in planetary cores),
There are no spin orbit couplings, as we have shown so many times.
I disagree that the forces no longer operate, are negligible, and most of all I disagree that they are unimportant.
This should not a issue of contention, as these forces can be, and have been, calculated precisely, showing them to be negligible on relevant time scales. If you look carefully at JPL’s Horizon site, you will see that these forces are not included [too small].
L.S. Re: Vuk etc.
You do talk nonsense.
1.Those are dates of astronomical alignments not eclipses (which according to your ‘shadow’ statement should have been total) ! Planets shadows diminish with distance since the sun happen to be much larger body.
http://www.practicalphysics.org/imageLibrary/jpeg500/2158.jpg
2. Electromagnetic wave is a magnetic change too!
It was never implied that light causes sunspots.
Twisting other’s words was perfected by J.McC, but I prefer Chubby Checker’s version:
Vuk, come on over to my place where we can discuss it without having the waters muddied by misdirection, obfuscation and general misbehaviour.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/understanding-the-solar-system-as-a-true-system/
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:29 pm
”Thank you Richard for the clarity of your insight and explanation. The final sentence in your response is complex. Did you mean to say “nothing less than” rather than “anything les than”?
________________________Reply;
The comment window is too small to edit better before submitting,
“”To see the driving effects on the earth’s climate as nothing less than consideration of the sum total of these influences on the energy budget, and ion flux in the atmosphere, transferred through the lunar declinational tidal effects, to the global circulation patterns that result, due to interactive compounding of these cyclic forces, is the only way out of the current lack of understanding on how the weather works and turns into climate with time.””
Better?
Richard Holle
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:03 am
You don’t need to invoke Rachel changing her mind. The TO is synchronized with the sunspot cycle: the polar branch always starts at minimum, and the equatorial branch peters out two minima later. That the start and end can be weak and hard to observe does not change that fact. If the TO-cycle were 17 years, the each poleward branch would start 17 years after the previous. This does not happen.
Rachel obviously thinks different to you, and your statements do not follow her graphs.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:03 am
the solar wind’s magnetic field is transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets, moving them to larger orbits, slowing down the Sun in the process.
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:31 am
The rotation of the sun is faster than any of the planetary orbits. Therefore the solar wind sweeping past the planets effectively ‘drags’ them round with it, helping to maintain their orbits against the ‘drag’ of the effects that are trying to slow them down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:46 am
No, that is not how it works.
I’m always ready to learn from you. So how does it work then, in your understanding?
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“If you took the time to familiarize yourself with my work it becomes obvious how important timing of the AMP event is. There has only been 3 of these perturbation events that can be compared with reliable sunspot data. If the event occurs on the downslope after cycle max as in SC4 & SC23 obviously its too late to impact greatly on that cycle.”
Well if you knew about the importance of the relationship between the Superior and Inferior planets, you could map monthly temperature deviations from normals with great certainty through all of SC24 and get some good clues to spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/ in real time, every month!
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:46 am
There are no spin orbit couplings, as we have shown so many times.
We?
I would not be so sure. There is ample evidence the door is not closed on this issue.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79
“We” are working in the background with more results to come.
@@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“There has only been 3 of these perturbation events that can be compared with reliable sunspot data.”
You are not really thinking that Saturn opposite Jupiter/Uranus/Neptune in 1970 made it colder in 1979-81 and 1985-87 are you?
The PDO regime shifts in this discussion are very similar to what can be seen in the 90yr AO, with slightly different seasonal sensitivity; http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 1:15 am
1.Those are dates of astronomical alignments not eclipses (which according to your ‘shadow’ statement should have been total) !
They are annular eclipses. The Moon has those too.
2. Electromagnetic wave is a magnetic change too!
It was never implied that light causes sunspots.
There is more energy in the reflected sunlight than in the magnetic field from Jupiter. What makes light is the Displacement Current term in Ampere’s law [1st Maxwell Eq.]. No displacement current, no electromagnetic waves. The displacement current is the time derivative of the electric field, and in a plasma can be ignored [the MHD approach] because any variation of the electric field is immediately countered by plasma oscillations that obliterate the electric field. Another way of putting this is to note that typical plasma velocities are much less than the speed of light. The displacement current can be approximated by D = B/L * (V/c)^2, where L is a characteristic length, B the magnetic field and V the plasma velocity.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:24 am
Rachel obviously thinks different to you, and your statements do not follow her graphs.
I know Rachel very well [colleagues] and she does not think differently: the polar branch begins at solar minimum. The equatorial branch starts later, but is still in synch with the cycle. If you look at http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2009-1/fig_24.html you can see the two ‘halves’ of the TO, each lasting 11 years. At the top [and bottom] you can see the polar branch starting in 1997. Follow it along until is disappears in 2005, at which time the equatorial branch forms [dips down towards lower latitudes. You can then follow the eq. branch [albeit from the previous cycle] all the way across the plot for 11 years, making the whole cycle 21 years long. The polar branch starts at solar minimum.
If the cycle were 17 years, then the polar branch should restart every 17 years, and the TO would quickly get out of synch [phase] with the solar cycle.
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 7:07 am
<"No, that is not how it works.
I’m always ready to learn from you.
Except that you don’t. If you did we would not have this exchange.
So how does it work then, in your understanding?
First: the is no ‘drag’ as the density is MUCH too small and the planets are too large.
2nd: the solar wind transfers angular momentum from the Sun to the planets via the magnetic field, thus causing the planets to recede from the Sun. This effect is at present negligible [but was not in the distant past].
Ulric Lyons says:
July 15, 2010 at 7:30 am
You are not really thinking that Saturn opposite Jupiter/Uranus/Neptune in 1970 made it colder in 1979-81 and 1985-87 are you?
Your question seems confused, the Sun obviously slowed down dramatically during SC20 as a result of the the weak AMP event of the era. It was also a cooling time in conjunction with a weak PDO. The latter years you suggest have no consequence.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 15, 2010 at 7:20 am
Well if you knew about the importance of the relationship between the Superior and Inferior planets, you could map monthly temperature deviations from normals with great certainty through all of SC24 and get some good clues to spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/ in real time, every month!
Your knowledge is paramount, predicting SC24 will be higher than SC23?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:10 am
I know Rachel very well [colleagues] and she does not think differently: the polar branch begins at solar minimum. The equatorial branch starts later, but is still in synch with the cycle. If you look at http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2009-1/fig_24.html you can see the two ‘halves’ of the TO, each lasting 11 years. At the top [and bottom] you can see the polar branch starting in 1997. Follow it along until is disappears in 2005, at which time the equatorial branch forms [dips down towards lower latitudes. You can then follow the eq. branch [albeit from the previous cycle] all the way across the plot for 11 years, making the whole cycle 21 years long. The polar branch starts at solar minimum.
If the cycle were 17 years, then the polar branch should restart every 17 years, and the TO would quickly get out of synch [phase] with the solar cycle.
You push this line often, but I have never seen one of your “colleagues” back you up on this site…not once.
Instead I see you arguing with venom any scientist that appears on WUWT?
Anyone can see the flows do not last 22 years as Rachel says….It would be enlightening to have a reasonable exchange, but perhaps that is not possible?
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:04 am
You push this line often, but I have never seen one of your “colleagues” back you up on this site…not once.
No need to, as my arguments speak for themselves. But perhaps you forget Rypdal…
Instead I see you arguing with venom any scientist that appears on WUWT?
Apart from Scafetta [who has debunked by the Rypdals] who might that be?
Anyone can see the flows do not last 22 years as Rachel says….
We can try: who cannot see this: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2009-1/fig_24.html you can see the two ‘halves’ of the TO, each lasting 11 years. At the top [and bottom] you can see the polar branch starting in 1997. Follow it along until is disappears in 2005, at which time the equatorial branch forms [dips down towards lower latitudes. You can then follow the eq. branch [albeit from the previous cycle] all the way across the plot for 11 years, making the whole cycle 21 years long. The polar branch starts at solar minimum.
It would be enlightening to have a reasonable exchange, but perhaps that is not possible?
Looks like it is not.
A 2 L.S.
You are off with your nonsense rather then concentrate on the science. US navy knows what they are talking:
Study this and keep up with developments:
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud.gif
and here is what interior contains
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/REU/2008/ewolf/presentation/images/magnetic_cloud.jpg
more details on the structure here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
and here is what US navy teaches their scientists:
The helical curve illustrates a characteristic magnetic field line. Magnetic clouds may indeed be structurally simple as depicted here. Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun and that the field lines toward the outer edge of a flux rope are more twisted [Larson et al., 1997]. This property is implied by the model structure and the magnetic field described below.
Clearly electric current and magnetic field form a close circuit solar surface – magnetosphere – solar surface.
Electric current can flow only if the circuit is closed, in this case it originates at the sun and returns back to it. That may not be what you know or believe but it is what other scientists think.
Any interference on that path, like it or not, it will be reflected directly to the source and that is known as feedback.
Do yourself a favour and don’t waste your valuable time and extensive knowledge on your pet trivia, the ‘Jupiter shine’.
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:22 am
and here is what US navy teaches their scientists:
The helical curve illustrates a characteristic magnetic field line. Magnetic clouds may indeed be structurally simple as depicted here. Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun and that the field lines toward the outer edge of a flux rope are more twisted [Larson et al., 1997]. This property is implied by the model structure and the magnetic field described below.
And here is what you say:
Clearly electric current and magnetic field form a close circuit solar surface – magnetosphere – solar surface.
I don’t see any similarity between these two statements.
Leif Svalgaard said :
“the solar wind transfers angular momentum from the Sun to the planets via the magnetic field, thus causing the planets to recede from the Sun. This effect is at present negligible [but was not in the distant past].”
It might well be negligible in terms of moving planets outward but is it negligible in terms of interfering with the pressure distribution in the thin atmospheres around planets ?
Richard Holle said:
“To see the solar cycle as anything other than the turbulence felt by the solar internal fields to these flexes in the external fields, is not going to very productive. To see the driving effects on the earth’s climate as anything less than the sum of these influences on the energy budget, and ion flux in the atmosphere, transferred through the lunar declinational tidal effects, to the global circulation patterns that result, as a compounding of these cyclic forces, is the way out of the current lack of understanding on how the weather works and turns into climate with time.”
That sounds reasonable to me save that I’m not convinced of any lunar effect on 500 / 1000 year timescales which is what we need to account for the MWP, the LIA and the current warming.
Bear in mind that the only effect required from any external influence is to cause the pressure distributions in the atmosphere below the tropopause to vary a little. It wouldn’t take a lot to do that.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:33 am
It might well be negligible in terms of moving planets outward but is it negligible in terms of interfering with the pressure distribution in the thin atmospheres around planets ?
Absolutely. And even it were not, changing the thin upper atmosphere that contributes less than a billionth of the total pressure, would not have any noticeable effect.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:04 am
Anyone can see the flows do not last 22 years as Rachel says….
Here is Rachel’s data. From past data we see that the next cycle smoothly attaches to the current one, so let’s attach the graph of cycle 24 from 1998 onwards to the end of 2008 to give us a full cycle. the slanting cyan arrow highlights the TO. Tell us when that line begins and ends. To make it easy I have put a matching but horizontal line along the time axis.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
Here is Rachel’s data.
http://www.leif.org/research/Torsional-Oscillation.png
Interesting question Stephen. Are you asking in relation to tradewind/pressure changes connected to the equatorial/polar system? And then does the solar wind have anything to do with this fluctuating system?
Thanks Leif. You beat me to it. I was hoping to allow Stephen to discover this for himself, but as always, you never beat around the bush. In terms of a dear teacher of mine (who was an Army sergeant before becoming a teacher), she always got down to the “brass tacks” and “where the rubber meets the road”, and encouraged her pupils to “get on the stick”.
A 2 L.S.
Because you ‘conveniently’ sidestepped first bit :
Ilustration http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud.gif
from Navy’s article
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
more details on the structure here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
but I asumed you knew that electric current can flow only in a close circuit.
Lets try again:
A magnetic cloud event observed August 12, 2000 the total axial magnetic flux and the total axial current bounded by the highlighted white contour line are 7.6 × 10to power 12 T-m2, and 1.1 × 10 to power 9 A, respectively (1,100,000,000 Amps or 1.1 billion Amps), and that is some current!
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews66.html
lets make it clear, they are talking about A Double Flux-Rope Magnetic Cloud and axial (along the axis) electric current !
Eelectric current can flow only in a close circuit!
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:42 am
electric current can flow only in a close circuit!
If you have a clump of charges at point A and another clump, but with opposite charge] at point B, a one-way current would flow from A to B. No closed circuit here.
Magnetic field structure create electric currents where they change direction, e.g. the Heliospheric Current sheet. A billion amps is not ‘some current’ as the current density is extremely low. Only by integrating over a huge volume do you get the large number.
Stephen Wilde said;
“That sounds reasonable to me save that I’m not convinced of any lunar effect on 500 / 1000 year timescales which is what we need to account for the MWP, the LIA and the current warming.”
Can you contact me by clicking on my name as I would like to send you something for your comment.
tonyb
Pamela Gray asked:
“Are you asking in relation to tradewind/pressure changes connected to the equatorial/polar system? And then does the solar wind have anything to do with this fluctuating system?”
Not quite. The bit that needs to fluctuate is from tropopause upwards. The effect would be to alter the temperature of the stratosphere and thereby alter the strength of the temperature inversion at the tropopause which would then affect the pressure distribution below and especially at the poles.
All that is needed is to slightly alter the upward energy flux from the stratopause to space so as to affect the energy budget of the stratosphere from above.
Although Leif’s input is always helpful I have found him a little frustrating on this issue because he seems to me to keep missing the point.
He concedes that the solar wind can move planets and has done so in the distant past but then jumps to an assertion that it is impossible for it to affect the upward energy flux at all. I find such a jump from a planet moving force to a zero effect on anything somewhat hard to accept.
He correctly points out that the thermosphere is too thin to have any effect below but that begs the question as to whether solar variability can affect the upward energy flux from the stratopause upward. He has previously provided me with a link that indicates that solar effects can produce a radiative response extending from troposphere to exosphere. Admittedly that was a diurnal response to the night and day cycle but nonetheless it is a radiative response to a solar forcing and therefore logically should apply to all levels of solar variability on all timescales.
The thing is I need only a very tiny variability in the energy flux from stratopause upward to drive small slow changes in stratospheric temperatures. I have difficulty accepting that there is an absolutely zero effect from solar variability which appears to be Leif’s basic position.
Oftentimes in the past tiny phenomena considered to be of little import have been found to have disproportionate consequences. Thus I take what Leif says on board but because of what I see the climate system actually doing I cannot quite take his viewpoint as definitive.
There is a flaw in someone’s theories somewhere or we would have the climate system properly figured out. That flaw is as likely to be in Leif’s understanding as in the understanding of anyone else.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:33 am
He concedes
What nonsense is that? I ‘state’ that the solar wind can move planets and has done so in the distant past but then jumps to an assertion that it is impossible for it to affect the upward energy flux at all. I find such a jump from a planet moving force to a zero effect on anything somewhat hard to accept.
This is a question of scale. The planet moving force does not operate any longer [too small].
Admittedly that was a diurnal response to the night and day cycle but nonetheless it is a radiative response to a solar forcing and therefore logically should apply to all levels of solar variability on all timescales.
A response to something from below. And you are confusing scales again. There is a difference between an effect at a given level and the same effect but at a level a trillionth o the former. The latter can be ignored.
I have difficulty accepting that there is an absolutely zero effect from solar variability which appears to be Leif’s basic position.
My basic position is that, of course, solar variability has effects, they are just so tiny not to be of any significance in the climate debate.
Oftentimes in the past tiny phenomena considered to be of little import have been found to have disproportionate consequences.
Is an invalid argument for particular cases.
There is a flaw in someone’s theories somewhere or we would have the climate system properly figured out.
There are flaws on either side. Desperately invoking the Sun, or desperately invoking AGW.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:33 am
He concedes …
What nonsense is that, concedes? I ‘state’ that the solar wind can move planets and has done so in the distant past. This is a question of scale. The planet moving force does not operate any longer [too small].
Nonsense again:
1. Illustration
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud.gif
from Navy’s article
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun and that the field lines toward the outer edge of a flux rope are more twisted [Larson et al., 1997]. This property is implied by the model structure and the magnetic field described below.
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
There in the illustration you can see your clamps A & B, in the sun and charges are propelled by magnetic field, you are confusing battery ( or trying to wriggle out) with a charge particle moving in magnetic field .
2. Integrating over a huge volume, I am sure you meant huge surface.
And what do you think the surface (volume?) of the Earth’s magnetosphere is, not to mention Jupiter’s.
So let’s make it clear:
It is the axial electric current of billion of Amps originating in the solar surface propagating along a magnetic cloud (rope) into space, possibly interacting with a magnetosphere and returning back to the sun, along the loop of the same magnetic rope and closing the electric circuit in the sun.
Hence any interaction with a magnetosphere will be reflected back to the source, we call that feedback in this case electro-magnetic feedback.
I shall not respond any longer to your ‘Jupiter shine’ nonsense, and let’s forget about ‘no magnetic or electric change cann’t travel back to the sun.’, you can see it here precisely doing that; travelling back to the sun. http://solar.physics.montana.edu/REU/2008/ewolf/presentation/images/magnetic_cloud.jpg
Subject closed.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“My basic position is that, of course, solar variability has effects, they are just so tiny not to be of any significance in the climate debate.”
And that is a perfectly respectable position to take.
However in my lifetime I have seen the stratosphere cool when the sun was more active yet stop cooling and start to warm slightly when the sun became less active so I have doubts about your proposition despite the theory about the effects of CFCs and until my doubts are assuaged I will keep an open mind.
I intend to await real world events to resolve the issue because I have little faith in the historical data and that is a respectable position to take as well.
If the stratosphere continues to warm throughout a period of relative solar quiescence then you will be in difficulty. There is a limit to how long you could link such stratospheric temperature changes to the reduction in human CFCs.
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:51 am
So let’s make it clear:
It is the axial electric current of billion of Amps originating in the solar surface propagating along a magnetic cloud (rope) into space, possibly interacting with a magnetosphere and returning back to the sun, along the loop of the same magnetic rope and closing the electric circuit in the sun.
The clear picture is that there is no such current. The current is generated locally [like the HCS].
Hence any interaction with a magnetosphere will be reflected back to the source, we call that feedback in this case electro-magnetic feedback.
Not at all, that interaction is purely local to the site of the interaction.
But if you consider your case closed, at least we’ll be spared any more.
Leif:
In English the term ‘concedes’ is often used to mean ‘accepts’ or ‘agrees’ or even ‘states’.
I used it simply to stress that the potential planet moving power of the solar wind is not in dispute.
However, even if it can no longer move planets that fact on it’s own does not exclude all possibility of any effect on the atmospheres around planets.
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:51 am
It is the axial electric current of billion of Amps originating in the solar surface propagating
If you would care to read Wolf’s presentation that you referred to: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/REU/2008/ewolf/presentation/
You might notice that nowhere does he talk about any huge electrical currents leaving the Sun. What happens is that energy is fed into the magnetic field which then is expelled as the cloud. Isn’t it a bit curious that he does not even once refer to any electrical current? In view of that, I can understand that you do not want to dig your hole any deeper. So, let the case be closed.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm
In English the term ‘concedes’ is often used to mean ‘accepts’ or ‘agrees’ or even ‘states’.
Its usual meaning implies grudging defeat or surrender…
However, even if it can no longer move planets that fact on it’s own does not exclude all possibility of any effect on the atmospheres around planets.
That is decided by precise calculation of the size of the effect and on that basis excludes all possibilities.
This is becoming tedious, Doc you are cornered and you know it: perhaps you should read it again:
A DOUBLE FLUX-ROPE MAGNETIC CLOUD
A magnetic cloud event observed August 12, 2000….
For this event, the total axial magnetic flux and the total axial current bounded by the highlighted white contour line are 7.6 × 10^12 T-m2, and 1.1 × 10^9 A.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews66.html
From ACE; remember ACE, Deep Space Network, NASA people like that:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/
Leif Svalgaard:
“However, even if it can no longer move planets that fact on it’s own does not exclude all possibility of any effect on the atmospheres around planets.
That is decided by precise calculation of the size of the effect and on that basis excludes all possibilities.”
The size of the effect is only half the equation.
The other half is the sensitivity of the system to which it is applied and that opens up a whole can of worms because sensitivity is affected by multiple other factors and that is where we lack the data we need.
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm
A DOUBLE FLUX-ROPE MAGNETIC CLOUD
The current is generated locally by the magnetic field just like the HCS. No huge current is leaving the Sun and returning after a detour to Jupiter. Once you understand that, it might [?] be clearer to you.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The other half is the sensitivity of the system to which it is applied
The sensitivity can also be estimated, at least, by order of magnitude, and does not help as the stimulus is just too small. Systems with extreme sensitivity tend to end in run-aways. This has not [yet] happened to the Earth.
Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm
This is becoming tedious
Indeed
The reference you gave to explain your view:
from Navy’s article http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
does not mention electric currents at all.
REPLY: I agree, it is becoming tedious. And, you are all wrong, The sun is driven by vitamin enriched E. Coli with super powered mitochondrial elements that fuse hydrogen, all riding on a giant turtle. – A
First no current, now it is only local; radial current could be local, but here it is the AXIAL CURRENT; axial means along the axis. Axis is not local it is along the length of the magnetic rope!
I hope none of your colleagues are reading this, it could be rather embarrassing, digging yourself into ever deeper hole.
Go have some coffee, and see a bit of daylight.
It’s very simple really. Dynamic balance between power supply and planetary feedback governing the power supply.
The Sun is prevented from going into runaway conditions and possibly going supernova by the planets which control it’s activity levels. The Sun contains 99.85% of all the mass in the system. The planets have 98% of the angular momentum.
When the sun follows it’s tendency towards runaway conditions with shorter, higher amplitude cycles, it gets out of phase with the planetary alignments. This causes the solar activity level to drop to below average levels. Then it slowly builds up a head of steam again.
Maunder minimum followed by 110 years of increasing activity. Dalton Minimum, followed by 100 years of increasing activity, the low cycles at the start of the C20th, followed by 110 years of increasing activity. Then the long minimum after solar cycle 23 followed by, you guessed it…
James Watt came up with the invention of the planetary Governor to control the speed of steam engines in 1724. The sliding collar is connected to the valve which controls the amount of steam allowed into the cylinder barrel.
I predict it will be discovered that more stars which have no planetary system will go supernova prematurely than those that do.
Luckily for us.
REPLY: I agree, it is becoming tedious. And, you are all wrong, The sun is driven by vitamin enriched E. Coli with super powered mitochondrial elements that fuse hydrogen, all riding on a giant turtle. – A
My apologies, I am taking a brake from the matters solar.
Thanks for your generous hospitality, and I do mean it; it gave me unprecedented audience, particularly for some of my climate comments. Graphs and charts I produced are frequently downloaded by all sort of interested and curious, ranging from many of major world-famous universities and research institutions to rather odd ones like USIAC, US Supreme Court or CIA.
WUWT thanks again.
M. Vukcevic
correction that should be USAISC
tallbloke said:
“It’s very simple really. Dynamic balance between power supply and planetary feedback governing the power supply.”
Exactly right but we don’t need to go interplanetary.
Just propose a variable speed for the hydrological cycle and you’ve got the answer right here.
And the evidence for such a variable speed ?
Just shift all the air circulation systems 1000 miles or so poleward or equatorward as observed MWP to LIA to date.
It really is that simple even if the mechanism is still the subject of conjectures (mainly mine).
Cheers.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The other half is the sensitivity of the system to which it is applied
The sensitivity can also be estimated, at least, by order of magnitude, and does not help as the stimulus is just too small. Systems with extreme sensitivity tend to end in run-aways. This has not [yet] happened to the Earth.”
Now Leif, I’m getting the impression that winning debating points is more important to you than seeking truth.
The absence of a runaway effect is not evidence of any lack of high sensitivity. The high sensitivity I propose is one which efficiently returns the system to a background stability set by the properties of water and the density and pressure differentials between oceans air and space despite attempted external (solar) or internal (oceanic or volcanic or changes in atmospheric composition) system disruptions.
In my humble opinion your extremely detailed solar knowledge is blocking your ability to interpret real world climate observations.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Just shift all the air circulation systems 1000 miles or so poleward or equatorward
Yes, the changing positions of the jets streams are the Earth analogue (and indeed linked) to the speeding and slowing sunspot production oscillations on the sun.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/solar-system-simplified/
It’s been a good debate, my thanks to everyone.
Rog Tallbloke
SBC today !
http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/ecimf.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
Here is Rachel’s data. From past data we see that the next cycle smoothly attaches to the current one, so let’s attach the graph of cycle 24 from 1998 onwards to the end of 2008 to give us a full cycle. the slanting cyan arrow highlights the TO. Tell us when that line begins and ends. To make it easy I have put a matching but horizontal line along the time axis.
Your not listening Leif, I am talking about the slower flows. I have drawn a line on your graphic to make it easy.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/flow.png
Here is Howe & Hills version of my original graphic showing the sunspot overlay.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/hill.png
And my original overlay.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/comb2.gif
The Doppler images are taken some depth into the convective zone, there needs to be a slight allowance made for the residual drift of each flow as it rises to the surface which makes an even better agreement between the slow (green/blue) flow and the magnetic butterfly data.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Just shift all the air circulation systems 1000 miles or so poleward or equatorward as observed MWP to LIA to date.”
1000 miles? Weren’t you discussing a paper above that showed the ITCZ moved 500km? 500km is 310 miles the last time I checked.
Also, the reason the ITCZ traveled 500km is because SST varied, changing the latitude with the strongest convection. Keep in mind, the strongest convection follows the warm water. And that means for the ITCZ to travel northward, either the SST north of the ITCZ rose or the SST south of it dropped.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Now Leif, I’m getting the impression that winning debating points is more important to you than seeking truth.
My truth is based on numbers, equations, models, and physics, not on ‘would could be’, ‘might not not be excluded, and other hand waving.
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Your not listening Leif, I am talking about the slower flows. I have drawn a line on your graphic to make it easy.
Your line does not represent the actual TO [and Rachel would consider the red/yellow to be the TO, not the green], and does not form any cycle [which was the starting point]. You are confusing ‘duration’ with ‘cycle. You can talk about the solar minimum lasting two or three years, but that does make it a 3 year ‘cycle’.
Geoff Sharp says:
I am talking about the slower flows.
You are confusing ‘duration’ with ‘cycle. You can talk about the solar minimum lasting two or three years, but that does not make it a 3 year ‘cycle’.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Your not listening Leif, I am talking about the slower flows. I have drawn a line on your graphic to make it easy.
Your line does not represent the actual TO [and Rachel would consider the red/yellow to be the TO, not the green], and does not form any cycle [which was the starting point]. You are confusing ‘duration’ with ‘cycle. You can talk about the solar minimum lasting two or three years, but that does not make it a 3 year ‘cycle’.
Here is a plot with my green line through the red/orange, a blue line without the polar branch, and your orange line through the green. All of these last in excess of 22 years [the minimum was a bit longer than normal].
Rachel says about her plot: “The torsional oscillation pattern for cycles 23 and 24 can be seen as red/orange strips running from the poles to the equator.” From her slide at http://www.leif.org/research/TO_slide_gong.ppt
This should settle the matter, provided one could “have a reasonable exchange, but perhaps that is not possible?”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Here is the plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Torsional-Oscillation.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Here is the plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Torsional-Oscillation.png
Nice try Leif, your attempt to construct the future is stretching things just a little? Not exactly a solid scientific method.
I will go with what Rachel says “around eighteen years”
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Nice try Leif, your attempt to construct the future is stretching things just a little? Not exactly a solid scientific method.
Yes it is, because we know from past cycles that the TO repeats itself tied to the sunspot cycle. And my plot shows the next solar max in 2014. Which is not going to be much wrong.
I will go with what Rachel says “around eighteen years”
First, Rachel is talking about the red/orange flow, not your green flow: “I am talking about the slower flows”
Second, “each equatorward-migrating flow band exists for about eighteen years” is not the whole TO, as there is also a poleward branch lasting several years to be added to the 18.
But, the whole thing is moot, as there is no 18-year cycle either, since the TO is tied to the sunspot cycle, and therefore repeats every 22 years. You confuse ‘duration’ with ‘cycle’.
If there were a 17-year cycle then there would be 6 cycles in a century, but here are only 5 solar cycles, so y=if you maintain there is a 17-yr cycle, you are postulating that the TO does not follow the solar cycle, does not correlate with the magnetic flux, etc.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:15 pm (Edit)
SBC today !
http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/ecimf.html
I wish those plots went out as far as Jupiters orbit! (currently SSE relative to the reference frame used).
It looks a bit ‘bunched up’ Ulric. What is your interpretation?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 15, 2010 at 6:10 pm (Edit)
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Just shift all the air circulation systems 1000 miles or so poleward or equatorward as observed MWP to LIA to date.”
1000 miles? Weren’t you discussing a paper above that showed the ITCZ moved 500km? 500km is 310 miles the last time I checked.
Could Stephen be referring to the combined shift of the northern and southern jet streams?
Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I will go with what Rachel says “around eighteen years”
She did not say that. She said: “each equatorward-migrating flow band exists for about eighteen years” This is only one part of the TO. In her slide at http://www.leif.org/research/TO_slide_gong.ppt
She is very specific about what is meant by the TO:
“The torsional oscillation pattern for cycles 23 and 24 can be seen as red/orange strips running from the poles to the equator”
Thus including the polar branch.
So, do not misrepresent her for your own purposes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:20 am
the solar wind transfers angular momentum from the Sun to the planets via the magnetic field, thus causing the planets to recede from the Sun. This effect is at present negligible [but was not in the distant past].
It appears to be negligible, because the planetary orbits are not getting higher as they were in the past. However, this does not mean that the force is negligible now, rather that the force pushing the planets outwards is in a dynamic equilibrium with the forces tending to take the planets inwards.
If you look carefully at JPL’s Horizon site, you will see that these forces are not included [too small].
The net motions are too small for JPL to bother including them, but this does not mean the forces are not there, just that they are in a dynamic equilibrium with opposing forces.
Everything in the universe oscillates. Why should our corner of the cosmos be any different, you would need some special pleading to claim that. The Sun has 99.87% of the solar system’s mass, the planets have 98% of the solar system’s angular momentum. If the sun was giving up a fraction of it’s energy to opposing the tendency for the orbits of the planets to decay (as they must, see the law of entropy), then the effect on it’s overall spin rate would be infinitesimal, and unmeasurable by JPL or anyone else over a short (space age) timeframe.
In any case, if the Sun gives energy via magnetic fields to the planets, it seems likely the galactic core is giving some energy to the Sun via magnetic fields too. Once again, you would need to make a special pleading to argue that the Sun isn’t affected by the same forces that affect everything else in the universe.
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:36 pm
However, this does not mean that the force is negligible now, rather that the force pushing the planets outwards is in a dynamic equilibrium with the forces tending to take the planets inwards.
We can calculate the forces and they are found to be negligible now, so my statement is not based on some vague notion that something must balance. You are postulating that there is some other negligible force balancing the first negligible force. In any event, the effects are negligible.
Everything in the universe oscillates.
No. An oscillation requires a restoring force and there are no such forces out there trying to restore everything.
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:36 pm
the orbits of the planets to decay (as they must, see the law of entropy),
You are misunderstanding that law. It does not say that everything decays [entropy increase], just that the entropy never decreases [it stay constant for instance]
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:57 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:36 pm
the orbits of the planets to decay (as they must, see the law of entropy),
You are misunderstanding that law. It does not say that everything decays [entropy increase], just that the entropy never decreases [it stay constant for instance]
You may continue to play Newtonian mind games with perfect billiard balls in perfect empty space if you so wish.
I’m more interested in the reality of the situation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I finally found their reference to seventeen years. This taken from their press conference and can be found here.
http://spd.boulder.swri.edu/solar_mystery/
“Drs. Rachel Howe and Frank Hill, both of the NSO, used long-term
observations from the NSO’s Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG)
facility to detect and track an east-to-west jet stream, known as the
“torsional oscillation”, at depths of ~1,000 to 7,000 km below the
surface of the Sun. The Sun generates new jet streams near its poles
every 11 years; the streams migrate slowly, over a period of 17 years,
to the equator, and are associated with the production of sunspots
once they reach a critical latitude of 22 degrees.”
This should settle the matter. The 17 year pattern/duration/cycle is waiting for us resolve.
“We still don’t understand exactly how jet streams trigger sunspot production,” says Pesnell. “Nor do we fully understand how the jet streams themselves are generated.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:51 pm (Edit)
We can calculate the forces and they are found to be negligible now, so my statement is not based on some vague notion
Genuinely, I’d be extremely interested to see that. Please do back up your claims with your maths. For those of us less gifted in the numerical arts, please annotate the calculations with notes on what each of the numbers represent in physical reality.
Thank you.
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:21 am
Genuinely, I’d be extremely interested to see that.
The calculations are complicated and are mostly done for interplanetary dust grains of a typical diameter of a millionth of a meter (here are two references: http://www.leif.org/research/50060545.pdf and Encyclopedia of the solar system page634 ff). The drag forces [there are several] for particles of 1 micron are around 10^-18 N[ewton] at 1 aU. For the precise calculation of this number see the references [we can go through those line by line, if you wish – but I doubt that you do, once you see which way it is going]. The drag forces depends on the size of the particle. A typical planet is 10,000 km or 10^13 times larger than a dust particle. The force scales [page 634] somewhere between linearly and quadratically with the size, so we get 10^-18 * 10^13 = 10^-5 N for the linear case, and 10^-18 * (10^13)^2 = 10^8 N for the quadratic case. Now, the gravitational force that holds the Earth in its orbit is 4*10^21 N, against which both 10^8 and 10^-5 are negligible over time scales of interest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 1:28 am
Now, the gravitational force that holds the Earth in its orbit is 4*10^21 N
Haste is waste. It is 4*10^22 N, ten times larger.
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:15 am
the orbits of the planets to decay (as they must, see the law of entropy),
Well, that law is about billiard balls, etc.
In reality, the planets will recede from the Sun with time, as the Sun is losing mass by nuclear fusion [4 million ton/second]. But this is completely different process from ‘drag’.
tallbloke asked, “Could Stephen be referring to the combined shift of the northern and southern jet streams?”
He did not state a “combined shift of the northern and southern jet streams”. And what documentation is there that there was a “combined shift of the northern and southern jet streams” from the MWP to the LIA of 1000 km?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 1:36 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:15 am
the orbits of the planets to decay (as they must, see the law of entropy),
Well, that law is about billiard balls, etc.
That law is about billiard balls and the universe as a whole. Of course there can be local pockets of negentropy. These are usually found where there are living things busy organising their local environment to suit their lifestyle.
Thanks for the calcs and the link, I’ll do some studying and report back.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 1:28 am (Edit)
Now, the gravitational force that holds the Earth in its orbit is 4*10^21 N, against which both 10^8 and 10^-5 are negligible over time scales of interest.
True but irrelevant. How much power does the sliding collar on a James Watt planetary governer need to control the output of a 100 horsepower steam engine?
“Bob Tisdale says:
July 15, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Just shift all the air circulation systems 1000 miles or so poleward or equatorward as observed MWP to LIA to date.”
1000 miles? Weren’t you discussing a paper above that showed the ITCZ moved 500km? 500km is 310 miles the last time I checked.”
The shift in the ITCZ does not match the average shift of all the air circulation systems. I clearly referred to the latter.
For example in the depths of the LIA the northern mid latitude jets ran more often into the Mediterranean whilst in the late 20th Century they ran most commonly north of Scotland.
On average globally the shift would appear to have been 1000 miles or more.
May I recommend that you think a little more before firing off ?
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:54 am
“Your knowledge is paramount,”
why thanks !
“predicting SC24 will be higher than SC23?”
At the end of 2007 I left my pitch at 120-140. As sunspots are not the dominant solar regime that drives Earth`s climate, it is not a vital issue as regards this discussion.
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:39 am
True but irrelevant. How much power does the sliding collar on a James Watt planetary governer need to control the output of a 100 horsepower steam engine?
Your comment shows your science illiteracy. To determine the change of the movement of a particle, planet, steam engine [from point A to point B], you add up all the forces [as vectors] acting upon the particle, then divide by its mass. The change of orbit of a dust particle will be large, because you divide by its small mass. The change for a planet is negligible because you diviede by the huge mass of the planet.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:17 am
the streams migrate slowly, over a period of 17 years, to the equator, and are associated with the production of sunspots once they reach a critical latitude of 22 degrees.”
This should settle the matter. The 17 year pattern/duration/cycle is waiting for us resolve.
You are misrepresenting their work. The equator-ward movement is 17 years, but the whole TO including the polar branch is 22. There has been progress though, as you are beginning to say ‘duration’. To repeat, there is no cycle of 17 years, as was the original point. Remember I said “there is no 17-yr cycle in anything solar”. This you finally concede. It is just a bit sad [perhaps telling], that you cling to the false notion for so long.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 6:53 am (Edit)
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the gain on cybernetic control loops. But apart from that, we haven’t accounted for all the vectors yet. I’ll have some time to look at the link and your numbers in more depth this weekend. Bye for now.
Van de Graaf spins as to fly off the handle.
==============
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “For example in the depths of the LIA the northern mid latitude jets ran more often into the Mediterranean whilst in the late 20th Century they ran most commonly north of Scotland.”
Please provide documentation of this. Thanks. Also, you’re assuming the jets over the Mediterranean and Scotland are represntative of global changes.
You commented, “May I recommend that you think a little more before firing off ?”
Nope. Can you document a variability of “all the air circulation systems 1000 miles or so poleward or equatorward as observed MWP to LIA to date”? Observed is the key word in your sentence.
Leif, maybe the link to the doc is broken?
http://www.leif.org/research/50060545.pdf
404 Not Found.
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:05 am
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the gain on cybernetic control loops. …
http://www.leif.org/research/50060545.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/50060545.pdf
You have not shown that there are any cybernetic control loops at play here. BTW, I do understand those, in my other life I was constructing real-time control systems, e.g. for automatic telescopes [e.g. The Wilcox Solar Observatory], controllers for drafting machines http://www.scanners4cad.com/news_views/ProCaptura-wide-scanner.htm etc. How many such systems have you designed lately?
Hi Leif,
thanks for the link. I’m not sure how well the dust grains will scale up into planets but we can try if I can’t find anything more apposite to the problem. One of the issues is that dust particles don’t have magnetospheres, so although dust particles are good enougfh model planets in the pebbles universe you prefer to inhabit, they are not much use to me.
Like you I haven’t designed any control circuits recently, but I used to play with home made robotics and learned cybernetic control design at technical college on my HNC course all that time ago. It’s a bit like riding an extended cycle really, you don’t forget once you’ve learned. 😉
Cheers
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:55 am
thanks for the link. I’m not sure how well the dust grains will scale up into planets but we can try if I can’t find anything more apposite to the problem. One of the issues is that dust particles don’t have magnetospheres
They scale well enough. Magnetospheres are but a minor effect. Dryer and Fay-Petersen [see reference in http://www.leif.org/EOS/1969SoPh-9-205.pdf ] calculate a drag of 4*10^6 N on the Earth’s magnetosphere, which is nicely between my two outer limits of 10^8 and 10^-5 N, and still negligible compared to the 4*10^22 N of solar gravity. These is a lesson here: when I say something, you can count on it being accurate as far as we know [and I’m not into unknown effects from unknown causes, as so many here].
Bob Tisdale:
I’ve posted such stuff before. Here is some more.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/paclim/pdf/li_talk_PACLIM2007.pdf
The climate changes in the C.R. drainage basin between 1,300 and 20,500 yr BP has been strongly influenced by N. American monsoon, whose strength was strong in early Holocene and decreased toward to late Holocene, corresponding to variations of solar insolation and shifts in ITCZ and Westerlies. We have found climatic shifts such as Heinrich-1 event and “Trans US wet period”, and mega droughts around 8.2, 6.2, 4.2 and 2.5 kyr.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w507537657n5gk77/
A pronounced shift to generally wetter conditions with less severe droughts of shorter duration occured at A.D. 1200. This abrupt change coincided with the end of the ”Medieval Warm Period” (A.D. 1000–1200) and the onset of the ”Little Ice Age” (A.D. 1300–1850).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4YCGKYV-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=33381962d9f0151502d1fb38e196d6fd
The high- and low-resolution data all show that, over the past millennium, ACA has been characterized by a relatively dry Medieval Warm Period (MWP; the period from 1000 to 1350 AD), a wet Little Ice Age (LIA; from 1500 to 1850 AD) and increasing moisture during recent decades. As a whole, the LIA in the ACA was not only relatively humid but also had high precipitation. Over the past millennium, the multi-centennial moisture changes in ACA show a generally inverse relationship with the temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere, China, and western central Asia. The effective moisture history in ACA also shows an out-of-phase relationship with that in monsoon Asia (especially during the LIA). We propose that the humid LIA in ACA, possibly extending to Mediterranean Sea and Western Europe, may have resulted from increased precipitation due to more frequent mid-latitude cyclone activities as a result of the strengthening and equator-ward shift of the westerly jet stream, and the predominantly negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, coupled with a decrease in evapotranspiration caused by the cooling at that time.
And you want to quibble about the precise distances invoved ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:03 am
You are misrepresenting their work. The equator-ward movement is 17 years, but the whole TO including the polar branch is 22. There has been progress though, as you are beginning to say ‘duration’. To repeat, there is no cycle of 17 years, as was the original point. Remember I said “there is no 17-yr cycle in anything solar”. This you finally concede. It is just a bit sad [perhaps telling], that you cling to the false notion for so long.
Quite comical really…do you ever give up?
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “And you want to quibble about the precise distances invoved ?”
Of course. If you list a specific number, you should be able to document it. This is a science blog. Of the links you provided me, not one quantifies a 1000-mile latitudinal shift of the jet streams. Also, there is no mention of latitudinal shifts in the jets or ITCZ in the abstract of Laird et al (2004), just an agreement of the timing of climate shifts with changes from the MWP to the LIA. And the links you provided are only discussions of the Northern Hemisphere. Is your NCM limited to the Northern Hemisphere?
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
“On the climate front I am not sold on the solar wind argument yet, it does not seem to vary in speed all that much over a cycle. Whats in that wind might be a different story. At present the solar wind is low but not all that different to the up slope of SC23, after Sc23 max the solar wind took off, while the Earth cooled?”
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Sc23wind_rz.png
Nice graph, if you look at the detail, it is easy to see warmer and cooler months.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:31 pm
@Geoff Sharp says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:45 am
Nice graph, if you look at the detail, it is easy to see warmer and cooler months.
Thanks, it took me ages. We have a perfect opportunity to test your theory, we can pick a reliable temperature record and match it with the wind speed data. If you want the spreadsheet just ask.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:20 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:55 am
thanks for the link. I’m not sure how well the dust grains will scale up into planets but we can try if I can’t find anything more apposite to the problem. One of the issues is that dust particles don’t have magnetospheres
They scale well enough. Magnetospheres are but a minor effect. Dryer and Fay-Petersen [see reference in http://www.leif.org/EOS/1969SoPh-9-205.pdf ] calculate a drag of 4*10^6 N on the Earth’s magnetosphere, which is nicely between my two outer limits of 10^8 and 10^-5 N, and still negligible compared to the 4*10^22 N of solar gravity. These is a lesson here: when I say something, you can count on it being accurate as far as we know [and I’m not into unknown effects from unknown causes, as so many here].
Hi Leif, thanks for that interesting paper. I find the older stuff more accessible and easier to read. Do Dryer and Faye-Petersen’s estimates for the effective magnetic diameter of Earth’s magnetosphere and their particle density for the solar wind still hold good with space age measurements?
If we did the same calculation for Jupiter, what would that force be? And Venus?
I know you think I’m wasting our time on this stuff, but I still think it’s worth investigating the proportions of the forces between the important planets, to see if that might help with allotting strengths to the alignment values. Signals, no matter how tiny, are of interest to me. They might not be directly causal, but could be a proxy for something else.
I’ve been asked not to show the whole record yet, but my correspondent won’t mind if I show you the relationship of the planetary alignments as he has calculated them to sunspot activity over a few cycles from the earlier historical record. Here it is:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/partial-planet-ssn.jpg
Interesting?
tallbloke says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:29 am
Do Dryer and Faye-Petersen’s estimates for the effective magnetic diameter of Earth’s magnetosphere and their particle density for the solar wind still hold good with space age measurements?
1966 was in the ‘space age’. Their values V=400 km/s and n=6.3 protons/cm^3 are still right on. For 2010 [so far] we have V=398 km/s and n=5.4.
If we did the same calculation for Jupiter, what would that force be? And Venus?
Venus doesn’t have a real magnetosphere, so even smaller effect, and Jupiter is 5 times further out, where the solar wind is 25 times weaker [plus Jupiter is heavy], so if anything the relative effect would be smaller.
he has calculated them to sunspot activity over a few cycles from the earlier historical record. Interesting?
I can’t [and won’t] comment on hidden stuff like this.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:01 am
I can’t [and won’t] comment on hidden stuff like this.
Fair enough Leif, I’ll keep working at it alone for now.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:01 am
tallbloke says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:29 am
If we did the same calculation for Jupiter, what would that force be? And Venus?
Venus doesn’t have a real magnetosphere, so even smaller effect, and Jupiter is 5 times further out, where the solar wind is 25 times weaker [plus Jupiter is heavy], so if anything the relative effect would be smaller.
Hi Leif. When you say “the relative effect would be smaller”, do you mean per unit of mass? Jupiter is a lot bigger than Earth as you know, and has a huge magnetosphere, so what I’m after is the total size of the drag on Jupiter. Thanks for the info on the strength of the solar wind at the distance of Jupiters orbit. Venus is a lot closer to the sun than Earth is, what would the strength of the solar wind be there relative to Earth? How do the qualitative qantities ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ pan out in terms of solar wind speed and proton density at each of the three orbits?
tallbloke says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:00 am
Hi Leif. When you say “the relative effect would be smaller”, do you mean per unit of mass? Jupiter is a lot bigger than Earth as you know, and has a huge magnetosphere, so what I’m after is the total size of the drag on Jupiter.
The total drag is not important as it has to be compared to the gravitational force. The drag per unit mass and unit area is, but see below.
Venus is a lot closer to the sun than Earth is
Not a lot, 70%.
what would the strength of the solar wind be there relative to Earth? How do the qualitative qantities ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ pan out in terms of solar wind speed and proton density at each of the three orbits?
The speed does not vary much, so can be taken as constant. Te density goes inversely with the square of the density. So at Venus the density is twice that at the Earth, and at Jupiter 27 times smaller than at Earth. The magnetosphere of Jupiter is bigger, but is much ‘flatter’ than that of the Earth [because of Jupiter’s faster rotation], such as to be more like a disk than a blunt ‘sphere’ [as seen from the Sun]. The disk is 200 Rj wide and 20 Rj thick, so the thicker part of the magnetosphere cross-section is 4000 Rj^2, compared to the 100 Re^2 for the Earth. For both there is a larger ‘flaring’ out of the cross-section as you move away from the planet, but out there the solar wind pressure becomes glancing, so has much less effect. All in all, the Jovian magnetosphere cross-section is about 4000/100 = 40 is relatively larger than the terrestrial [and is rather variable depending on solar wind conditions], but the mass of Jupiter goes with the cube of the Jovian radius, Rj, and is 318 times larger. The density falls off with the inverse square of the distance, but so does the gravitational force. Now, all of this hardly matters much [and is hand waving, anyway], as the drag is so small compared to gravity that even if we are off by one or two orders of magnitude, the effect is still too small. We have observed Jupiter for centuries and not found any changes in the orbit [even a tiny change would be cumulative]. As a change of Jupiter’s orbit would influence those of the other planets [e.g. the Earth.s] we can extend the ‘centuries’ to hundred of thousands of years, because the Milankovitch cycle would be altered too.
I think the bottom line still is that it seems a waste of time to investigate ‘planet orbit’ changing forces on time scales of interest. Now, billions of years ago, this was a different story.
tallbloke says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:00 am
When you say “the relative effect would be smaller”, do you mean per unit of mass?
Another perspective is this:
Solar wind pressure at Earth is 4*10^(-9) Newton/square meter, and the pressure of plain sunshine is 5*10^(-6) N/m2, or a thousand times larger. Since both decrease the same way with distance, that ratio [~1000] stays constant. Now, the cross-section of a magnetosphere is 100-1000 times that of the planet, so the total forces of sunlight and solar wind become comparable. Since those forces increase with the square of the linear dimension, but the mass increases with the cube of the linear dimension, for small masses [dust grains] the pressure overwhelms the gravitational forces and will alter the orbits, but for large masses this does not hold, and less the larger the mass is.
We have observed Jupiter for centuries and not found any changes in the orbit [even a tiny change would be cumulative].
Nor would I expect there to be. But that’s not the point. You say the drag of the solar wind transferred angular momemtum to the planetary orbits, pushing the planets out to higher orbits aeons ago, but that this efect has now stopped. I’m saying it hasn’t stopped, but reached a point of balance whereby the outward force is matching the inward force created by the decay of the planetary orbits.
What I’m trying to get a handle on is the magnitude of these cancelling forces for each of the three planets. You said entropy for a given system can be balanced. I agree, but the energy to balance it must be coming from the Sun.
Anyway, not to worry, I think I’ve just found a much bigger force which would be sending an electric field sunwards. More soon.
tallbloke says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:31 am
the decay of the planetary orbits.
They are not decaying, if anything they are moving away from the sun, because the sun is losing mass.
What is the magnitude of the reduction in gravity due to mass loss?
tallbloke says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:19 am
What is the magnitude of the reduction in gravity due to mass loss?
one part in 5*10^20 per second due to radiation and about the same due to the solar wind. 10^19 seconds is 70 times the lifetime of the sun, so the planets will have other things to worry about.
The Oxfordshire’s monthly 150 year long rain record is compared to the sunspot number.
It is clear, that if there is any correlation, it is at best sporadic and inconclusive.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Oxf-rain.htm
The Tropopause Ice-Locker Effect
I have noted that the temperatures at the tropopause are much colder than one might expect from the nominal temperature based on the average solar energy flow at that level. This may be nothing new for those who know, but I now believe that this is simply due to the fact that most solar energy flows through this region without interacting with the atmosphere. Only that small residual trickle of solar energy that is in the Earth’s greenhouse-gas absorption-bands, I believe, can heat this level of the atmosphere. Thus this region can be quite cold.
As the tropopause is the nominal level where convection stops, this must be the level at which photons emitted from the Earth’s trace greenhouse gases finally have a good chance of escaping to outer space.
In a video presented above, [Amino Acids in Meteorites: July 5, 2010 at 1:52 pm], Willis Eschenbach presented his theory that thunderstorms acted as governors to control our climate. I think he is right. I also believe that what I have called the tropopause ice-locker effect allows this system to exhaust heat at very cold temperatures in the upper atmosphere so that surface conditions are livable.