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.
|
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.
@ur momisugly 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.