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.
|
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.