Global air and sea temperatures starting to drop rapidly

The grand old duke of penn, he had 10,000 menn, he marched them up to the top of the hill, and he ….

It is rather curious to see these temperatures falling when the Arctic sea-ice was also falling to a record low extent in 2007. It would appear that these temperatures could be a response to the ocean having been forced to melt a record amount of ice mechanically dislodged from the Arctic region…

I have to laugh, but “starting to drop rapidly” seems as presumptive of the future as all the AGW claims. Wouldn’t “continuing to drop rapidly” be better?

Thankyou Anthony – I’ve just had a profound realisation. I’ve been wondering for a while why there is such a distinction between the Judeo-Christian god which is so predictable and “good”, and the Greek/Roman/Norse style gods who “just play with men as their playthings”.
Looking at the temperature graph, it really could seem that there is some “weather god” who purposefully leads people on … creates a trend that leads people to think they know what is going to happen, and then the “weather god” just dashes their hopes. We saw this in the 1960-70s cooling trend, we then saw it in the 1970-2000 warming trend and on a smaller scale (weather is fractal!!) we see it in the 2008-10 warming trend and now the “weather god” seems to want to play with those who are vain enough to think they can predict him/her and it’s all change again. The point I was thinking is: right now the warmists have had their hopes dashed, but in time we will see another alarming warming spell to dash our hopes after which it’ll be the warmists, then us etc. etc.
Of course there is a perfectly rational explanation for the global temperature: it is 1/f type noise, so that we see little trends on top of even bigger longer term random up/down trends, on top of even bigger even longer term random up/down trends. Waves on waves on waves like the proverbial flees, with flees with even smaller flees.
The result is that the randomness in the weather/climate is orders of magnitude larger than you would expect from a simple casual glance/short term study. The longer you look, the bigger the randomness!!! So that, however long you watch the climate, there will always be a bigger random trend that comes along bigger than you would expect from the period of analysis (unless you take account of the 1/f nature of the noise)
But imagine how this was for the ancients … they think they have worked out when to plant and harvest, and just as they believe they have “understood the mood of the weather god” … hey presto along comes a change. So they readjust, they think they have understood the extent of variety in the weather and then … hey presto, along comes an even greater change that is far outside their perception of “normal variation”. That is just the nature of 1/f noise, but it sure must have look to the ancients as if their were some “hand of god” making the changes.
Now, it may be just coincidental, but the move from “weather god” (1/f) type religion to Christian (white noise) happened during the Roman Warm Period (150BC-270AD), a period when the weather gods would have been much less important because of the absence of bad weather? Instead of an indeterminate moody set of gods, we see a replacement with a benign deterministic god; a god that doesn’t play with humans, but an adult god which works by the bargain — you be “good” and I’ll be “good”.
This is the basis of most modern western thinking: that things have a cause, “god” acts for a purpose likewise warming must be “caused” by something. This would be an alien concept if we lived with the old god religions where a “warm spell” was just part of the inexplicable moods of the gods. Obviously without this concept of “determinism” we’d never have got most of modern scientific thinking, but even in some areas like quantum physics, we are seeing the revival of “you can’t know what’s happening …. it’s up to the gods/chance”.
Likewise the idea that it “must be man-made” is entirely Judeo-Christian. God punishes the bad and rewards the good, that is the basis of Judeo Christian philosophy, so our culture expects a deterministic relationship between mankind and “good and bad” things. Define warming as “bad” and inevitably people will try to link this as being morally determined by “bad behaviour” on the part of mankind. It’s just the way we are brought up: bad things are caused by bad people as a punishment for being bad.
This is unlike the older religions where the gods didn’t care two hoots for men, they just did as they pleased. It was much more a one way concept Gods => cause things to happen to men. Bad things … the gods are being moody. Men seldom caused the gods to do things! So in the older religions, there is not the moral determinism and if something “bad” happens, it is not necessarily a result of men being “bad”.
And the insight? That the type of religion may be rationally determined by the type of technical noise that has most impact in the environment … or perhaps a period of climate uncertainty will see a revival of the old gods!

What will that do with “the warmest year ever”?

Keep in mind that Roy Spencer does not include SST data north of 60N or south of 60S in his global SST anomaly graphs, avoiding the need to adjust for sea ice. But for most of us the difference is insignificant:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2yknzue.jpg
And for those interested, here’s a link to the mid-month SST anomaly update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/mid-october-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html

Very interesting!
It correlates very nicely to the variance of the rate of sea level rise that is happening in the last years! But what amazes me is that the rate of rise goes up before the AMSR-E temperatures go up…
This might also explain the recent trend in the decline of the rate of sea level rise, as measured by the University of Colorado:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/10/going-down.html
Ecotretas

I used the above graphs for this short article, “UN FCCC meeting in Cancun: where’s global warming?”, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/10/un-fccc-meeting-in-cancun-wheres-global.html

Why haven’t these figures been homogenised to show a warming trend?
This is a clear case of negligence by the Hockey Team, not an indication of falling temperatures.
These figures cannot be correct, because I have yet to hear them repeated on a BBC news bulletin, where the news is always hot hot hot.

Channel 5 is also dropping like a rock. October is going to be much closer to “normal” than previous months. The 1998 record is all but safe…

The BBC are still wailing and gnashing their teeth about warming, barely a day goes by without some mumbo jumbo SEJ inspired nonsense about melting ice/rising temperatures/sea levels etc.
Nail meet coffin, coffin meet nail? I can see the BBC being the very last body to give up the global warming charade, mind you the BBC has bet the farm on AGW allied eco/ethical investments for their pension plan…oooops.

I’m not claiming that animals predict the weather, but you should see our raccoons this year. “Scruffy”, a scrawny female, looks absolutely huge with about 2-1/2″ of winter fur. Most of our other little friends that visit us are also very thick with fur. It’s comical how fluffy they are. Hmm, there’s a good name for one of the others.

Those galeforce winds that went ripping by are heading northeast.
I wonder what those winds return trip will bring from the north?

We are now experiencing AGC. Like some of the proxies, they´ve turned the data upsidedown. CO2 is actually cooling. We have to change our lifestyle now!

I just wanted to say that watching the ENSO/SST reference page on a near daily basis has been a tremendous learning experience. You try to predict magnitude, correlation, and lag times which really forces you to respect these processes.
I’ve been watching all this long enough to watch the SST and temperature drop of 2007-08, what a travesty, then Joe Rohm predict that the temperature would go back up and global warming would resume in 09 and he was right until this pesky subsequent La Nina takes away all his global warming again.
The truth has always been that there is has been no significant global warming or cooling of the ocean or land outside of the natural flux for the past dozen years and we’ve been able to watch most of that quite well.
I hope someone would put a timeline of all this together so we could watch the oceans lead the temperature and superimpose all the cooling/warming proclamations on top of that.
It would be impossible to refute the case that man might have added a couple of tenths of degrees to the temperature but very difficult to make the case that man is now the dominate forcing.

William says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:15 am
“The back peddling begins. How long will it take before the “New Ice Age headlines?”
The following is a 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ…605L..81B
“We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology, the Schove series for the last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle.”
Spot on William! Our climate is driven by deterministic chaos, and is starting to swing towards the ‘cool Earth’ attractor as the energy from the sun starts to decline…
1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
Of course other quasi-cycles will cause periods of warming within the cool halve of the cycle, and vice versa for the warm half of the cycle, but overall I think the next 90 years will be colder than the last.

Global average temperature varies about the average on a month by month basis by 0.6C?
That’s as much as all the purported anthropogenic warming since teh beginning of the industrial revolution!

Great news!
For I have just completed the addition of 10″ R30 insulation to my attic, 1″ R5 foam to all attic knee walls, foam sealing of all ceiling penetrations and air ducts, and foam sealing of all outlets on exterior walls.
I’m ready.

“Mike Haseler says:
October 29, 2010 at 1:23 am
Thankyou Anthony – I’ve just had a profound realisation. I’ve been wondering for a while why there is such a distinction between the Judeo-Christian god which is so predictable and “good”, and the Greek/Roman/Norse style gods who “just play with men as their playthings”.”
Quite close actually, the night sky up North gives you clouds, thunder, lightening and the violence of the Northern Lights.
Deserts give you clockwork like movements of the heavens.
The pagans had small violent gods who vied for power. The Abramic religions have a really big god who runs a tight ship.

Stephen Wilde says: “Now with stronger La Ninas the ocean heat content is declining which again is opposite to Bob’s proposition.”
It is? Please show me. You make statements with no basis in fact.
The North Atlantic is driving the recent drop/flattening of Global OHC, Stephen. Without the North Atlantic, global OHC would still be rising:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-and-changes-to-nodc-ocean-heat.html

For a population used to the last 30 years being very warm, or to those who grew up in warm times, it does not take a whole lot of cooling to have a profound effect. Summer is shorter/cooler/later and Winter is long in the tooth, blustery and distinctly punishing.
For those who remember the 50’s – 70’s period, you’ll have to get used to telling the uninitiated that this is how it’s going to be for a long time.
If this is indeed the onset of a cold period, ya ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

Ed_B says:
October 29, 2010 at 11:54 am
If I see any more religious discussion on this BB will write this site off as gone to the dogs.
One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]

rbateman says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am
Somewhere in that analysis, something got away from you. It did get much colder in the Little Ice Age, otherwise nobody would have bothered wasting precious time, paper & ink describing the conditions if they were indeed unremarkable.
I disagree.
If you were living in a cold period (of several hundred years) why would you bother to note that it was cold? A lot has been written about the very cold 1962/63 winter in the UK – because of the very fact it was so unusual.

I wonder if DailyTech will cover this drop of global temperatures like they did in January of 2008…when I first started getting interest in climate blogs such as these…because of cooling which seemingly contradicted the warming! From then on I would frequently learn more about this fussy topic and become an official member of TEAM SKEPTIC. Boo yah! Let the cooling begin.

It kinda resembles a hockey stick on an angle.

An even more devastating time preceeded the fall out of the Medieval Warm Period, known as the Wolfe Minimum, and it did not get as cold as the following Sporer. It didn’t have to, as unseasonable rains ruined harvests year upon year, and the rest is history. It was climate disruption at it’s finest….700 years ago.
I think you my be making some rather general conclusions about some regional events. Not sure where you’re getting your information from but it seems to be a somewhat patchy interpretation of Hubert Lamb’s work. You’ll be telling us next that evidence of vineyards in medieval England means the MWP was warmer than to-day- while ignoring the fact that there are around 10 times as many english vineyards to-day than there were in the 11th century.

Furthermore Bob, the data you have kindly provided also shows that OHC declined during the earlier period of negative (dominant La Nina) PDO in the 50s and 60s which again is contrary to your recharge / discharge idea over the 30/60 year cycling period.
So I think you should be embracing my work as a useful supplement to and extension of your work so as to place your work more securely into the longer term climate scenario.

Let’s start with what causes climate change., and it Ain’t CO2, pardon my language.
HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE
1. SOLAR ACTIVITY
2. PDO AND AMO TEMP. PHASE
3. SOI OSCILLATION PHASE- EL NINO/LA NINA
4.VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
5. ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATIONS SUCH AS AAO,NAO ,AO
Now if one goes back to 1977 or so ,all of the main causes of climate shown above , were mostly in a warm mode up to about 2005, hence the warmer temperatures. Now we have the above phasing toward a colder mode. Solar Activity has been low since late 2005, and remains so , and should remain so at least till the end of solar cycle 25.
El Ninos, were much more common then La Nina’s during that time period. Volcanic Activity for the most part was quiet during that time period overall, other then some activity in 1980, early 1980’s and early 1990’s.
NAO ,AO oscillations were mostly positive, and the PDO was in it’s warm phase that has since changed,and the AMO ,will be changing to it’s cold phase by 2015.
All the above factors changing to a colder mode, are going to result in colder temperatures going forward. I expect the 500 mb absolute heights will be coming down in time, and the polar vortex will be expanding southward in time,as a consequence of the items I mentioned above phasing toward a colder mode.
CO2 has nothing to do with it, and that can be easily proven by going back in time and looking at the various temp. swings both up and down and seeing if they correlate to CO2 concentrations. The answer is NO. CO2 follows temp. does not lead it.
CO2 WARMING SCAM
That is what it is, and how this hoax could ever get this far is beyond me. Just think what they are trying to say. They are trying to say a measly 100 ppm increase in CO2, can change the whole climate system of earth because the climate is so senisitive to CO2, AND ALL IT’S PHONY POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. The models they use in a word SUCK, and the data they put into the models SUCKS.
I was expecting a sharp temperature decrease ,and it looks like Oct 2010, is going to show this. I have been saying this for many months prior , and I have many emails that I did way back in the spring and summer to verify my thoughts.
I will make another prediction, and that is I expect that most of the factors ,most of the time, going forward will be in a cold or colder mode then previous. Therefore I predict temperatures going forward will be in a general downtrend ,with most months averaging below the recent norms they tabulated, going back to 1979 or so.
That is also silly to use a period only going back to 1979, then again the world of climate science is a joke for the most part , that will change I think as the global man made warming CO2 hoax meets it’s ending. Amen.

HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY INDICATING
1.SOLAR ACTIVITY- this remains low and will remain low at least to the end of solar cycle 25, that means colder.
2. VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – This should be increasing going forward with SO2 ,high latitude eruptions not uncommon, this means colder.
3.PDO is now in it’s cold phase with AMO to follow by 2015, this means colder.
4.SOI OSCILLATION – will be more in a positve phase going forward(la nina) that means colder.
5. AO,AAO,NAO atmospheric circulations will be more negative going forward, in response to low solar activity this will mean colder and the polar vortex might also expand southward as a consequence.
6. Last but not least CO2 concentrations ,have no correlation to temp. swings both up or down. CO2 follows temp. does not lead it, that means colder if you were to believe increased CO2 causes temp. to increase.
Stephen Wilde, has it backwards when it comes to the sun and how it effect earth’s climate. Peirs Corbyn on the other hand has it correct.

James Barker says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:57 pm

If I see any more religious discussion on this BB will write this site off as gone to the dogs.

I think that should be “gone to the gods”. Dyslexic much? LOL

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am
“No, we do not KNOW that it does to any significant degree.”
Yeah, but we don’t KNOW that variation in solar magnetic field doesn’t effect climate to any significant degree either. There are compelling correlations between solar magnetic field changes and surface temperature changes suggesting a significant effect. We KNOW that solar magnetic field strength variation serves to deflect more or fewer high energy extra-solar particles from impacting the atmosphere. We don’t know how much variation is possible or routine. Some suspect that these high energy particle impacts produce nucleation points that form into high altitude clouds and that such clouds can have a large effect on planetary albedo. I’m sure you knew all that I’m just wondering why you didn’t say it.

CO2 HOAX
Imagine trying to convince the public that a measley 100 ppm increase in CO2 with it’s phony positive feedbacks is going to throw the whole earth/climate system out of whack. This is the worst theory I have ever ever come across in my entire life.
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT
Steve Wilde, is trying to use the Joanna Haigh study ,a flawed ridiculous study to help promote his theory. The truth is when the sun exhibits low solar activity it cools the earth ,and when it has high solar activity it warms the earth. All one has to do is just look at past data, every solar minimum without EXCEPTION has corresponded to reduced temperatures on earth. Two recent ones being the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.
For some reason people cannot seem to accept what the data shows when it comes to CO2 , and in the case of Mr. Wilde the sun. Whatever, I know what the data shows and that is the only info. one can base future expectations on.
If the sun stays quiet earth’s temperatures will be going down, if the sun should become more active like it was last century then temperatures will go up.
How active the sun is or isn’t ties in with the other items I mentioned, which determine climatic change on earth.

Salvatore:
You say that the sun is quiet and the polar vortexes might expand equatorward due to the low solar activity.
That accords with my proposition so how have I got it backwards ? I think it also accords with Piers’s position too.
Do you realise that to achieve the expansion of the polar vortex the stratosphere has to warm and the tropopause descend despite the quiet sun ? That is why Haigh’s data suggesting a reversal of the normally expected sign for the solar effect is so important.
The difference between me and Piers is that I am looking at multidecadal trends in solar and climate variability in order to discern the background climate trend at any given time whereas he is trying to make short term predictions from short term solar events.

Salvatore said:
“Steve Wilde, is trying to use the Joanna Haigh study ,a flawed ridiculous study to help promote his theory. The truth is when the sun exhibits low solar activity it cools the earth ,and when it has high solar activity it warms the earth.”
You need to read my hypothesis more thoroughly. I agree that the quiet sun cools the Earth system but it achieves it in the way I say and not simply by reducing TSI.
The quiet sun warms the mesosphere and stratosphere to slow the upward energy flux which reduces the height of the tropopause and forces the jets equatorward.
That equatorward shift increases cloud quantities and total reflectance for an increase in albedo and less energy into the oceans.
Thus a quiet sun closes the blinds so to speak and the Earth system loses energy overall despite the reduction in the rate of upward energy flux.
The Haigh data is just what I need to confirm that. I needed only the data, not her opinions. The data is that above 45Km ozone increased because the reduced level of solar activity was destroying less of it above that level (presumably resulting in warming). That is the opposite of previous assumptions which assumed that all the layers of the atmosphere all warmed or cooled in tandem as the sun became more or less active.
I am sure that many are still misreading what I say so I thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

Steve, here is where I think you have it backwards.
I think a quiet sun causes the stratosphere to cool,not warm and that cooling of the stratosphere causes the polar vortex to expand. I think the stratosphere will cool in response to a quiet sun due to less UV light ,which means less ozone which means less heat /energy to be brought down from the upper reaches of the atm. to the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere thus cooling those areas and causing the polar vortex to expand southward. (Solar protons aside with a more active sun= less ozone. Not enough to offset the less UV light =less ozone with quiet sun, my opinion )
Steve, you are thinking the opposite in this area. Most agree with what I am saying. Then you are trying to use Haig’s latest study to say the conventional wisdom is wrong, and what you think is correct.
Nevertheless I know you are putting much effort into what you are doing, and at least we agree the CO2 theory is a HOAX.

ALBEDO
Let’s not forget how important this is ,and how low clouds, snow ,ice cover have a big influence,on increasing earth’s albedo as they increase. I am of the belief ,that more clouds are associated with a quiet sun and it may be due to an increase in cosmic rays, due to a weakening solar wind, or some other factors.
I think each 1.5% increase/decrease in earth’s albedo from avg. of .30 causes the temp. to change by plus or minus .5C. That is a big change in my opinion due to albedo changes.

Steve says, the quiet sun WARMS the stratosphere and mesophere , which SLOWS the UPWARD energy flux., which reduces the height of the troposphere.
I say ,with many others, it is the exact opposite, the quiet sun COOLS the stratosphere ,which REDUCES the enegy flux brought DOWN from the upper stratosphere to the upper troposphere thus reducing the heights of the troposphere. lol . I have to laugh because it is so opposite.
That is what I was trying to say earlier,rather poorly on my part, in how you have it backwards from what I think.
Still I think the work you are doing in this field is wonderful. You are sincere. Unlike the frauds of man made global warming.
It is just par for the course for climate, how opposite conclusions always seem to be reached.
Another example is Svensmark ,claims cosmic rays increasing causes more clouds, Piers Corbyn says that is NOT the case.
I have to be leaving for work soon. Have a good day Steve, and everyone else on the site.
Steve, I would like to correspond with you in the future ,perhaps we could arrange something.
take care

Steve ,it is possible you are right, I don’t know. Time will tell.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/temperature.html#4600Myr
Here is a site that may add to your information . . . . it a little longer term . . .
I don’t have as much problem with variations is global temperatures. . . It’s the gyrations that make me nervous. . . the Earth expands as it heats up . . and contracts as it cools. . . water on the other hand is kinda backwards. . . it expands when it cold . . . contracts . . when liquid. . . and expands as a gas . .
PS. you guys are sure busy today.

I see their is a delay sometimes, now I know for the future.

“Steve, I would like to correspond with you in the future ,perhaps we could arrange something”
Salvatore, you can contact me direct via the climaterealists.com site. Messages to the site owner are passed on to me.

Tenuc said:
“there are many more quasi-cyclical over-lapping mechanisms at work. As climate is ultimately driven by the rules of deterministic chaos, when these cyclical mechanisms coincide they can push Earth’s weather-regimen/climate from the warm attractor to the cooler attractor. These events include sea-ice melt/freeze changes, ocean salinity, elecro-scavenging from solar wind, changes to ozone level/chemistry and importantly, changes to the rate of the hydrological cycle (heat engine).”
Yes Tenuc I agree entirely as regards short term climate change. However my judgement is that the longer the timescale involved the more likely that those other effects will cancel out leaving sun and oceans in ultimate control.
Changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle are the key response to every other forcing and those changes in speed work to maintain the balance between sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures.
The evidence of a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle globally is the net latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems combined and they work their effect by shifting the cloud bands latitudinally to alter cloud amounts and reflectance so as to alter global albedo and thereby amplify solar variability substantially.
Leif Svalgaards objections to the proposed top down solar forcing cannot be sustained unless the recent data from Joanna Haigh fails to be verified.
Bob Tisdale’s objections to the proposed bottom up forcing fail because during the recent warming spell in the late 20th century with a long run of powerful El Ninos the ocean heat content actually increased whereas his hypothesis would have predicted a decline in ocean heat content.
Someone else posted a comment that if I could dispose of the objections of Leif and Bob then my hypothesis would get plain sailing.
Form your own conclusion.

@ Mike Haseler
Hey, I have been thinking about that too. In the beginning there was weather chaos. then came god.
Seems to me that some readers can not accept your reasoning because of personal belief… sad.
If you are o believer, it is your thng. You can not force the world to act according to your beliefs.

Ulric asked:
Surely the “background climate trend at any given time” is the actual weather events/periods, that ensure there is a trend, if at all.
I should more accurately have said ‘background temperature trend at any given time’
The temperature trend affects jet stream positioning and individual regional climates change with changes in jet stream positioning.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘global climate’. Perhaps one could refer to a temperature dependant global set of regional climates.

Svempa,
I’ve mentioned on another thread as to what I think is going on so I’ll repeat it here in case it is of interest to you:
“Various analyses show upward temperature steps during the 20th century from one 60 year PDO cycle to the next. That pattern is well recognised but the cause is unknown though it does suggest a forcing mechanism in the background which is independent of but which does influence the ENSO cycle.
The most obvious and simplest solution would be that such stepping occurs throughout the 500/1000 year climate cycle from MWP to LIA to date with downward steps for 500 years or so then upward steps for the next 500 years.
I have now proposed that the cause of that background trend is in fact the observed variation in solar activity over those periods. The level of TSI is largely irrelevant because it is too small. What does seem to happen is that variable solar proton quantities entering the mesosphere alter the ozone chemistry above 45Km so as to send the temperature of the mesosphere and stratosphere in the opposite direction to that which is usually assumed i.e. a more active sun actually cools the mesosphere and stratosphere thereby increasing the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere which causes the tropopause to rise and the jets are drawn poleward.
That leads to an opening of the blinds so to speak because the cloud bands shift away from the equator where insolation is strongest and so global albedo declines and more energy enters the oceans to skew ENSO in favour of stronger El Ninos with consequent upward stepping every 60 years or so.
The reverse process when the sun is getting less active.
I have been canvassing that proposition more forcefully since the Haigh data became available a few weeks ago because that data confirmed my previously published opinion that in reality a more active sun must cool and not warm the stratosphere and the solar proton causation looks like a very persuasive mechanism.
I’m waiting to see if someone can falsify that proposal but no sign of that so far.”
Svempa, I think that explanation would sit rather well with the charts that you have now referred us to.

All good points Salvatore but I have thought them through already, thus:
i) The highest solar peak was cycle 19. Cycle 20 was down a bit and cycles 22 and 23 were both high. However throughout the entire period the level of solar activity was anomalously high in historical terms (going back to around 1600) despite the small downward trend from 19 to 23 so I would say that all the time the incoming solar protons were sufficient to arrange a net depletion of ozone above 45Km to cause the observed cooling of the mesosphere (which starts around 50Km).
ii) You have noted that the change of sign in the effect of solar activity on ozone occurs at or near 45Km. That suggests to me that below that height the ‘normal’ effects occur and more uv does warm the stratosphere when the sun is more active. However above that height the dominant effect is solar protons destroying ozone for a reversed sign cooling effect between 45Km and the mesopause. So which effect is dominant ? Well overall we are dealing with the net rate of upward energy flux and we saw both mesosphere and stratosphere cool when the sun was more active so observations suggest that the net effect on the upward energy flux is dominated by the solar proton effect in the mesosphere and not the uv effect in the stratosphere. That is the case despite the fact that there is indeed much less ozone in the mesosphere.
iii) Lag times do apply but it is now some ten years since the jets began to move equatorward and Haigh’s data is right in the middle of the relevant period.
Furthermore jets can only move poleward if the tropopause rises and the tropopause will only rise if the troposphere gets warmer OR if the stratosphere gets colder (i.e. the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere increases). In this instance the stratosphere did get colder the tropopause did rise and the jets did move poleward.
The clincher is that it also happened that way in the MWP and no doubt all the earlier warm periods so this is a wholly natural phenomenon.
As long ago as November 2009 I published my opinion that for the jets to move poleward when the sun is more active there must be a cooling of the stratosphere as a result of a more active sun. At that time I was short of a mechanism and only came to that conclusion with some reluctance because I knew it would put me out on a limb. Since then I have become aware of the ozone destructive effects of solar protons in the mesosphere and Haigh’s data fits perfectly so I am doubtful that her findings will turn out to be mistaken.
I don’t think we need to involve water vapour in this scenario but of course it may turn out to have a separate modulating effect on the primary mechanism.
I await developments with interest.

Not quite.
More energy departing the stratosphere upwards than was entering the stratosphere from below or being generated within the stratosphere by the extra uv acting on ozone there whilst the sun was more active.
After all, both the mesosphere and the stratosphere did cool when the sun was more active and the reverse is now occurring with a less active sun.
How else would you explain it ?

This article is bullsh … instead of changing your wasteful lifestyle you USA-folks keep on finding a proof that back is white. It’s a shame when journalists, who are expected to be more clever than the mass, try to amplify the believe that we have no global warming.

A couple of misconceptions there, Salvatore.
From about 45Km upwards (usually said to be 50Km but I suspect it rises and falls with levels of solar activity) it is the mesosphere rather than the stratosphere and the temperature profile of that layer is different because it cools with height whereas the stratosphere warms with height.
I accept the conventional view that the warming with height in the stratosphere is indeed induced by uv hitting ozone molecules.
However on the basis of the reversed sign effect observed by Haigh in the levels above 45Km I suggest that above that level the primary cause of cooling up to the mesopause is solar protons destroying ozone above that height.
When the sun is quiet the stratosphere should cool from less ozone reactions and Haigh did see reduced ozone as expected. However above 45Km in the mesosphere she saw increased ozone (the reversed sign) which implies warming there contrary to expectations.
So the next question is why is the stratosphere no longer cooling as it did when the sun was more active ? It should be cooling because of the reducing ozone below 45Km but it is no longer cooling.
The only explanation I can think of is that the temperature trend of the mesosphere controls the temperature trend of the stratosphere regardless of the ozone trend in the stratosphere and thereby reverses the sign from that expected by standard climatology.
That then affects the height of the tropopause and that affects the pressure distribution in the troposphere.
A cooling stratosphere at a time of active sun raises the height of the tropopause and pulls the jets poleward.
A warming stratosphere at a time of quiet sun lowers the height of the tropopause and pushes the jets equatorward.
Thus is the reversed sign solar effect made consistent with observations whereas under standard assumptions the observations seem to be an anomaly that needs human intervention for its resolution via the proposed energy budget effects of human CO2 and CFCs.
If Haigh’s data is confirmed the CO2 and CFC effects are no longer required to explain observations.

Steve, I can’t post on the climate realist site, and I like corresponding with you, because you have this thought out as well as anyone,even though we have a SLIGHTLY different take maybe on the stratosphere,but largely we agree.
I want to be able to convey to you any new ideas I might come up with, by the same token I want to know your latest thinking, and what you see going forward.
I am going to give you my email. Here it is. salmbswx@aol.com
Take Care, and keep doing what you are doing ,because it is quite good work.

I think you may be correct with the mesosphere. I think infact the higher one goes up in the atm. the more influence the solar protons have in comparisome to UV light ,while the opposite might hold true the lower one goes in the atmosphere.
That I think makes sense.
I want to see what the temperatures show for the stratosphere and mesophere from 2007 on providing the sun remains quiet.

That is a very good point, you just made. Very good point. That point being if the polar vortex has less depth it will tend to spread out which is associated with a negative AO,NAO. Conversely if the polar vortex has greater depth it will intensify tending to make the AO,NAO more positive.
Good points. This is why I like this.
Let’s look at this . In the end it is the overall heights that matter. Anotherwords if you have a more positive AO,NAO but all the relative heights are lower then prior, cooling of the globe would still take place, although I agree that it seems to be the polar vortex spreading out ,not necessarily stronger that is associated with the low sun activity,cooling, and the jet being pushed equatorward.
That was a great point you made.

Salvatore,
I’ve emailed you for future communications. As regards your final questions:
i) I’m expecting post 2007 patterns in the atmosphere to continue the 2004 / 2007 trends noted by Haigh provided the sun stays quiet enough.
ii) It is said that solar activity is in some way linked to solar system (even galactic) gravitational effects. I’ve no idea either way but if so thenn it would follow that the same influences could affect the Earth’s interior at the same time. So, plausible but not proven.
iii) Agreed. Ozone reactions govern the temperature profile directly or indirectly right up to the mesopause at least. The surprise is that it is two competing ozone processes which cause the switch in temperature gradient between stratosphere and mesosphere. Previously it was thought that the uv effect just faded away at the stratopause but it turns out that that is just half the story if Haigh’s data is confirmed.

As I was driving through Wallowa Canyon, the river was losing heat all over the place and slush was starting to build. Water (and my morning coffee) often lose heat when the conditions are right. They also mix their layers occasionally, which results in colder water temperatures as well.