Note: This essay originally appeared last January on The Air Vent. Given our current winter, it as just as prescient now as it was then, so I’m reposting it here. Thanks to Verity Jones and Charles the Moderator for bringing it to my attention – Anthony
Guest post by Tony Brown
Charles Dickens. Victorian winters. A Christmas Carol. Ice fairs on the Frozen Thames. Cold Cold Cold Cold Cold. Dickens has irrevocably moulded the climate views of generations of Anglo Saxon peoples as TV, Films and plays all promote his image of icy winters in that era. Is this view of Dickens winters correct? We take a look at his life through the prism of climate.
Charles Dickens was born in Portsmouth England on Feb 7th 1812.
1812 overall was a very cold year in the UK -the early part of the winter was especially bitter over Europe, marked by Napoleons retreat from Moscow, as illustrated in this painting by Adolph Northen.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Napoleon’s_invasion_of_Russia
“The air itself,” wrote a French colonel, “was thick with tiny icicles which sparkled in the sun but cut one’s face drawing blood.” Another Frenchman recalled that “it frequently happened that the ice would seal my eyelids shut.” Prince Wilhelm of Baden, one of Napoleon’s commanders, gave the order to march on the morning of Dec. 7, only to discover that “the last drummer boy had frozen to death.”
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44099-2004Aug5.html )
Napoleons’ Grand Armee of 600,000 was reduced to 200,000 by bitter weather and war, in an event of such significance that it inspired Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture whilst Leo Tolstoy put the 1812 campaign at the heart of his novel War and Peace,
Back in Britain, during 1812 the Dickens Family moved to Hawk Street, Portsmouth. And in 1813 to Southsea (adjacent) 1814: Brother Alfred born and died September.
In 1814 the River Thames froze over and the last ever frost fair was held. This was partly through changing weather conditions, but also because the nature of the river was altered when the old London Bridge was demolished and river flow increased
During that cold February in 1814 London experienced the hardest frost it had known in centuries. Though the fair lasted for only four days it was made memorable by an elephant, which was led across the river below Blackfriars Bridge. The print below shows how raucous some of the festivities became. The winter of 1813/14 was 4th coldest in the Central England Temperature record (which commenced 1660) at 0.43C
http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-last-frost-fair-on-the-thames-river/
The first frost fair was held in 1608. The most famous -lasting several months- was in 1684 (much the coldest year in CET at -1.17C) The link below leads to a promotional poster of that event.
http://www.she-philosopher.com/gallery/frostfair.html
1815: Family move to St Pancras London as John Dickens (father) is posted back by Navy. 1816: Sister Letitia born.
1816 was known as the year without a summer, snow fell very late and the summer never recovered. The winter proceeding it was severe. A volcanic eruption (Tambora: East Indies) disrupted wind patterns and temperatures greatly, affecting depressions, which tracked further south than usual, making the UK very cold and wet for the summer and beyond. In September the Thames had frozen and snow drifts remained on hills until late July.
1817: John Dickens is posted first to Sheerness then Chatham Dockyard in Kent. Family move to Chatham. 1819: Sister Harriet born.
1819-20: Severe winter. -23c was recorded at Tunbridge Wells. This was the 21st coldest winter in CET at 1.43C 1820: Brother Frederick born.
Decadal CET average 1810-1819 8.798C. The coldest decade since 1690-1699. Charles Dickens experienced six white London Christmases in the first nine years of his life. Truly his formative years were especially cold and signified a return to the Little Ice Age conditions which had been somewhat mitigated in previous decades.
1821: Dickens begins school. 1821: Late May saw snow in London, probably the latest snowfall there until 2nd June 1975. 1822: John Dickens recalled to London. Settle at Camden Town.
In his book ‘Climate History and the Modern world’ Hubert Lamb wrote of 1821/2 (and 1845/6) ‘The warm water of the Gulf stream spread itself beyond its usual bounds to the coast of Europe.’ This winter was the 16th warmest in the CET record at 5.80C.
The overall CET for the year was 10.05C the warmest for over 40 years.
1822-23: Severe winter, ice on the Thames by late December. February 8th saw a great snowstorm in Northern England. People had to tunnel through the snow.
1823 27th coldest winter in CET at 1.53C
1823: Family moves to 4 Gower Street North. Mrs. Dickens attempts to start a school without success. 1824: Dickens sent to work at Warren’s Blacking Factory. Father arrested for debt and sent to Marshalsea Debtors Prison where he is joined by wife and younger children. Charles lodges with family friends and spends a terrible year working at Warren’s Blacking, a shoe polish factory.
1825: Father retires from Navy, receives an Admiralty pension and Charles is sent to school-previously he had a very limited formal education
1825: Snow fell in October in London. A very windy time, with gales doing damage.
1826: Another warm year at 10.07C mean average
1827: Family evicted for non-payment of rates. Dickens goes to work at Ellis and Blackmore’s Solicitors then Charles Molloy’s Solicitors. Birth of Brother Augustus.
1828: Father works as a reporter for the “Daily Herald” newspaper.
1828 22nd warmest ever winter at 5.73C and also marked the warmest overall year for 45 years at 10.30C
1829: Family move to 12 Norfolk Street, Fitzroy Square. Dickens works as a freelance reporter at Doctor’s Commons.
1829: A cold year at a mean average of 8.16C. Continuous frost throughout January. The summer was wet, and quite cold. Over an inch of snow fell in early October, although where isn’t certain, most likely to be London. 6 inches fell in London and the South in late November. Northerly and Easterly gales damaged ships.
Decadal CET 1820-29 9.35C-in terms of the UK a comfortable decade
1829-30: Severe winter. Continuous frost from the 23rd to 31st December, 12th to 19th January, and 31st January to 6th February. Ice on the Thames from late December to late January. Some places completely blocked. 25th December 1830 was cold, with -12c recorded in Greenwich. 1.13c was 13th coldest winter in CET.
1830: Admitted as a reader at the British Museum.
1831: Begins work as a reporter for “The Mirror of Parliament” edited by his uncle J.M. Barrow. 1832: Reporter at the “True Sun” newspaper. Illness prevents him attending auditions at Covent Garden.
1834: Becomes reporter on the “Morning Chronicle” and meets Catherine Hogarth. Takes rooms at 13 Furnival’s Inn, Holborn.
Second warmest ever winter at 6.53C which marked the start of the warmest year overall for 100 years at 10.47c
1835/6: Snowy winter in Scotland. Snow lasted well into March, with 8 or 9 feet of snow being reported in parts! This trend continued for a number of winters, with a lot of snow in Scotland. From early winter, December, to late winter, March, snow was a problem. There were considerable accumulations, becoming common throughout the winter. Snow fell widely, but mostly in the North of Scotland, where accumulations were very large, right through until April
1835: Becomes engaged to Catherine Hogarth.
1836-37 was another snowy winter in the series, with heavy falls of snow in January. Blizzards began in late February, and lasted into March. Transport was severely disrupted, and harvest damaged by harsh frosts. This series of winters was severe, and notable, especially for Scotland, but very bad elsewhere also.
October 1836, snow reached depths of 5-6 inches, very unusual.
25th December 1836, roads impassable, snow depths reached a staggering 5-15 feet in many places, and most astonishingly, drifts of 20-50 feet!
1837: Birth of first child Charles, on 6th January. Moves to 48 Doughty Street. Visits France and Belgium.
1837-38: Murphy’s winter. Patrick Murphy won fame and a small fortune from the sale of an almanac in which he predicted the severe frost of January 1838 (a 2 month frosty period set in with a light SE wind & fine day with hoar frost on the 7th (or 8th) January). 20th January saw temperatures as low as -16c in London, accepted as the coldest recorded here of the 19th century. -20 recorded at Blackheath, and -26c at Beckenham, Kent. The temperature at Greenwich was -11c at midday! The Thames froze over. 20th coldest at 1.40c
1838: Second child Mary born.
1838: Snow showers on 13th October, possibly in London and the South.
1839: Resigns editorship of “Bentley’s Miscellany”. Third child Kate born. Moves to 1 Devonshire Place, Regent’s Park.
Decadal 1830-39 9.216C.a very mixed decade with some notably cold winters but also the second warmest ever in CET, illustrating the huge variability in British winters.
1841: Fourth child Walter born. Declines an invitation to be Liberal parliamentary candidate for Reading. Granted the Freedom of the City of Edinburgh on 29th June.
1841 29th coldest winter at 1.60c
1842: Visits America plus Canada. December as a whole was the 7th warmest in CET at 7.2c.
1843 Dickens began A ChristmasCarol in October 1843, and completed the book in six weeks with the final pages written in the beginning of December while suffering from a cold, walking at night in a feverish state through the streets of London and drawing inspiration from all he saw. As the result of a feud with his publisher over the meager earnings on Martin Chuzzlewit, Dickens declined a lump-sum payment for the tale, chose a percentage of the profits in hopes of making more money thereby, and published the work at his own expense. High production costs however brought him a mere £230 rather than the £1,000 he expected – and needed, as his wife was once again pregnant (wikipedia)
Dickens purpose in his characterisation was to bring back the good cheer of traditional Chrismases, a notion which had been fading for decades-in this he was assisted by the enthusiasm for the festivities shown by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert
Dec 1843- the month of publication-exceptionally mild, 5th warmest in the CET record at 7.4C
Dickens would describe Scrooge in the city on a Christmas morning, watching inhabitants “scraping the snow from the pavements in front of their dwellings, and from the tops of their houses: whence it was a mad delight to the boys to see it come plumping down into the road below, and splitting into artificial little snowstorms” Films and Tv adaptations ever since have depicted this bitter weather which ironically didn’t happen during the year of publication!
1844: Fifth child Francis born. Breaks with previous publishers Chapman and Hall and moves to Bradbury and Evans. Lives in Genoa, Italy. 1844/5 26th coldest winter in CET at 1.50c
1845: Visits Rome with Catherine. Sixth child Alfred born. In ‘Climate history and the Modern world’ Lamb wrote of 1845/6 (and 1821/2) ‘the warm water of the Gulf stream spread itself beyond its usual bounds to the coast of Europe’
18th warmest winter in CET at 5.77c
1846: Becomes Editor of the “Daily News”. Resides in Lausanne and then Paris.
1847: Returns to London. Birth of Seventh child Sydney. Travels to Switzerland again
1847 31st coldest winter in CET at 1.70c
1848: Death of Sister Fanny 1849: Eighth child Henry born.
1849: April, great snowstorm hit Southern England. Coaches buried in drifts. Notably late snowfall.
1840-49 Decadal CET 9.03c
1850: Ninth child Dora born. Founds the Guild of Literature and Art with Bulwer-Lytton to help writers and artists who have fallen on hard times.
1851: Catherine ill and is treated at Malvern, Worcestershire where Dickens visits her. Death of Father and baby Dora. Family move to Tavistock House.
1851-53: The first of these winters saw heavy snowfall in Scotland. The North of Scotland saw the first of the heavy snow. The railway from Aberdeen to the South was badly affected, but was kept open. Blizzards caused deaths. The storms stopped near the end of January
1852: Tenth child Edward born.
1852-53 was severe particularly in February. Low temperatures and heavy snowfall lasted well into March.
1853: Holiday in Boulogne. Visits Switzerland with Wilkie Collins.
1855: Joins Administrative Reform Society. Family move to Paris from October
1856: Returns to England to live at Gad Hill Place, Chatham, Kent.
1857: Hans Christian Andersen visits Dickens at Gad’s Hill. The Danish author of fairytales such as The Ugly Duckling first visited England in June 1847. He was a guest of the Countess of Blessington, who attracted the cream of Europe’s intelligentsia to her gatherings. It was at one of these assemblies that Andersen was introduced to Dickens, whom he worshipped, calling him “the greatest writer of our time”. Dickens, who reciprocated the admiration, visited him at his lodgings the following month. Discovering that Andersen was not in, he left him a parcel containing 12 presentation copies of his books. A cordial correspondence developed between the two and Andersen returned to England for a fortnight as Dickens’s guest at Gad’s Hill in the summer of 1857. (one of the warmest in the CET record at 16.53c)
Before his arrival, Andersen had written to Dickens promising: “I shall not inconvenience you too much.” But it was an invitation that Dickens would soon regret. The Danish man of letters, a tall, gaunt and rather ungainly character, extended his visit to five weeks. Dickens dropped polite hints that he should leave, but they were, perhaps, too subtle. After he finally left, Dickens wrote on the mirror in the guestroom: “Hans Andersen slept in this room for five weeks — which seemed to the family AGES!”
Dickens subsequently based Uriah Heep on Andersen-The character is notable for his cloying humility, obsequiousness, and general insincerity.
1858: Separates from his wife. Embarks on a provincial reading tour.
Decadal 1850-59 9.162c
1860: Katey Dickens marries Charles Collins. 1863: Charity readings at the British Embassy in Paris. Death of Walter Dickens in India.
1863 21st warmest winter at 5.73c
1865: 9th June, involved in a serious railway accident at Staplehurst, Kent with Ellen Ternan. 1867: Begins a reading tour of the U.S.A. 1868: Leaves New York for England. 1869: Reading tour broken off because of illness.
1869 /70 saw Britain’s warmest ever winter at 6.77c.
1860-69 9.30C Decadal; the second warmest decade in Dickens life
1870: January, twelve farewell readings in London. 9th March, received by Queen Victoria.
Charles Dickens dies June 9th 1870
Conclusions and Ruminations;
Dickens life demonstrates the extraordinary variability of the British winters during that era, when the coldest and warmest winters in the CET records can be juxtaposed. Generally there are few examples of constant cold winters year after year-the LIA was becoming much more sporadic than it had been several centuries earlier, when bitter cold weather appears to have been the norm. To put this era into perspective mature English people might be surprised to learn they lived through a much colder winter than Dickens ever experienced. 1962/3 at -0.33C was the third coldest in the entire CET record compared to Dickens coldest year 1814 at 0.43c, the fourth coldest in the record. (1962/3 was a bit of a one off-Dickens experienced a greater number of relatively cold winters)
HH Lamb, (in ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’), says: “Indeed, the descriptions of ‘old-fashioned’ winters for which Charles Dickens became famous in his books may owe something to the fact – exceptional for London – that of the first nine Christmases of his life, between 1812 and 1820, six were white with either frost or snow.”
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/metinfo/snowxmas.htm#G
(As can be seen, a White Christmas in London is a very rare event)
Lamb also points out that the decade from 1810 to 1819 was the coldest in England since the 1690s. The following table was originally published in ‘London Weather’, and updated by booty.org
![]()
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/metinfo/snowxmas.htm#G
Natural cycles can be clearly seen in operation as the first very cold decade of Dickens’ life was replaced by several decades of relative warmth before the climate deteriorated again after his death in 1870. There was an extraordinarily low point of 7.42C CET overall in 1879 (the third coldest year in the entire record) with the 7th coldest winter at 0.70c, followed by a cold 1880’s decade at 8.87c –the coldest since Dickens birth, signifying a return to LIA conditions.
Curiously this climatic trough in 1880 is the exact point from when GISS commenced their temperature records, a fact which has been commented on in additional articles by Tony Brown (shown in the references at the end of this article)
1870-79 CET 9.08C 1880-89 CET 8.87C
To the surprise of no one -except it appears the IPCC and National Governments- temperatures have subsequently risen from this considerable climatic trough and the 1880/89 decade of cold has not been matched since.
Additional articles on Giss records from 1880.
Three long temperature records in USA. Author: Tony Brown
This article links three long temperature records along the Hudson River in the USA. They illustrate that a start date of 1880 (Giss) misses out on the preceding warm climatic cycles and that UHI is a big factor in the increasingly urbanised temperature data sets from both Giss and Hadley/Cru
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/triplets-on-the-hudson-river/#comment-13064
Three long temperature records from Europe. Author: Tony Brown
In examining these records from Europe the climatic variability prior to the Giss records of 1880 are again shown, demonstrating that no one should be surprised when temperature readings commencing from a trough of the Little Ice Age subsequently rise again in our own era.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/invisible-elephants/
References used in the Dickens article;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article5391955.ece
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/metinfo/snowxmas.htm#G
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/metinfo/snowxmas.htm
This very readable version of his life
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charlesdickens.html
http://www.mantex.co.uk/ou/aa810/dickens-02.htm
(Time line with places he visited)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

![frost-fair-1814[1]](http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/frost-fair-18141.jpg?w=507&h=382&fit=507%2C382&resize=507%2C382)

![snxmas_6[1]](http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/snxmas_61.gif?w=521&h=218&fit=521%2C218&resize=521%2C218)

“The mesosphere does not have a memory of several cycles, only a few months at best”
A period of net increase or decrease in ozone quantities could extend for as long as the sun was active or inactive enough to drive the changes. That means multiple cycles just as during the late 20th century tropospheric warming trend which was spread across cycles 18 to 23 with a likely pause during cycle 20.
“And what should we look for, precisely?”
The trend in ozone quantities above 45 km
“However we should get a good indication of ozone sensitivity above 45km if we can compare ozone quantities in that region between the recent cycle minimum and the forthcoming cycle 24 peak.”
“And what should we look for, precisely?”
I would expect to see a slight decrease in ozone amounts above 45km between the solar minimum and the solar maximum. That would follow the observed increase which occurred during the decline to solar minimum that appears to have been caught in the data highlighted by Joanna Haigh. If cycle 25 were to be another weak cycle I would expect to see a small increase in ozone above 45km from the minimum of cycle 24 to the minimum of cycle 25.
Mind you one need not wait until then to falsify my hypothesis. I’ve previously given you a whole range of phenomena that could falsify it such as a poleward shift of the jets whilst the sun remained relatively quiet and the PDO remains negative.
Can you find evidence of jets up around Greenland for any length of time in the LIA or jets persistently down around Gibraltar in the MWP ?
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 11:52 am
“The mesosphere does not have a memory of several cycles, only a few months at best”
A period of net increase or decrease in ozone quantities could extend for as long as the sun was active or inactive enough to drive the changes.
What does that mean? As long as the sun is active, the ‘ozone quantities’ [whatever that is] will keep going up and up? This requires a memory. And what determines ‘active’ and ‘inactive’? Say, the SSN goes to 150 and stays there for 100 years, will O3 keep increasing all 100 years, then SSN goes to 130 and stays there for the next 100 years. Will O3 then keep decreasing for the next 100 years?
The only thing that makes sense is that the O3 concentration varies directly with the SSN [with only a very short lag – weeks].
“And what should we look for, precisely?”
The trend in ozone quantities above 45 km
Should it follow the solar cycle up and down?
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I would expect to see a slight decrease in ozone amounts above 45km between the solar minimum and the solar maximum. That would follow the observed increase which occurred during the decline to solar minimum that appears to have been caught in the data highlighted by Joanna Haigh. If cycle 25 were to be another weak cycle I would expect to see a small increase in ozone above 45km from the minimum of cycle 24 to the minimum of cycle 25.
And if this does not happen, your hypothesis is falsified? The opposite is not true: if it does happen, there could be other explanations: a tribe in darkest Africa has the idea that beating tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse restores the sun, so far it has never failed.
Mr Wilde & Dr Svalgaard
Does size of the ozone hole matter to your discussion?
If it does this may clear the air:
SSN in 2000 and 2002 was very similar http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Now compare the Antarctica’s ozone hole in 2000 and 2002.
http://www.knmi.nl/~eskes/papers/srt2005/png/fd-o3area-gome-scia.png
vukcevic says:
December 6, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Mr Wilde & Dr Svalgaard
Does size of the ozone hole matter to your discussion?
The standard enthusiast reply is that something else must have intervened, it is after all a complex system with oceans, magnetic passengers, etc.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm
……………..
Just testing. You are right. It is only intervention since records began in 1950. I suspect someone pulling repeadetly emergency cord.
http://ees.nmt.edu/alumni/papers/2003t_ruiz-romero_m.pdf page 26
as reflected in
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/archive/10mb6590_2002.gif
vukcevic says:
December 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Just testing. You are right. It is only intervention since records began in 1950. I suspect someone pulling repeadetly emergency cord.
Or pulling your leg. As Feynman used to say “the easiest one to fool is oneself”.
“And if this does not happen, your hypothesis is falsified? The opposite is not true: if it does happen, there could be other explanations.”
Of course, but it would not be falsified. Anyone is free to search for alternative explanations.
However the more often and/or longer the ozone trends behave as I would expect then the more solid my hypothesis would become in the absence of alternative explanations.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 3:02 pm
“And if this does not happen, your hypothesis is falsified? The opposite is not true: if it does happen, there could be other explanations.”
Of course, but it would not be falsified.
It cannot be falsified?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 11:52 am
A period of net increase or decrease in ozone quantities could extend for as long as the sun was active or inactive enough to drive the changes.
What does that mean? As long as the sun is active, the ‘ozone quantities’ [whatever that is] will keep going up and up? This requires a memory. And what determines ‘active’ and ‘inactive’? Say, the SSN goes to 150 and stays there for 100 years, will O3 keep increasing all 100 years, then SSN goes to 130 and stays there for the next 100 years. Will O3 then keep decreasing for the next 100 years?
The only thing that makes sense is that the O3 concentration varies directly with the SSN [with only a very short lag – weeks].
“And what should we look for, precisely?”
The trend in ozone quantities above 45 km
Should it follow the solar cycle up and down?
================
I never got answers to these…
“Mr Wilde & Dr Svalgaard
Does size of the ozone hole matter to your discussion?”
On mulltidecadal timescales I would expect the size of the ozone hole to be broadly linked to solar activity but on short timescales there are many other phenomena that could interfere.
Leif asserts that just because solar activity is similar to that near the beginning of the 20th century then global temperatures should be the same. That proposal is similarly flawed because there is more energy in the system now after a long period of poleward jets and more solar input to the oceans. It will take some time for ocean heat content to decline to that earlier level so as to produce a similar tropospheric temperature from the same level of solar activity.
Similarly a difference in any number of other variables could alter the short term ozone response to a given level of solar activity.
Leif suggests that short term variability disproves the existence of longer term cause and effect and says that all observed (admittedly imperfect) correlations between solar activity and climate are wholly coincidental.
To me, that is flawed logic.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Leif asserts that just because solar activity is similar to that near the beginning of the 20th century then global temperatures should be the same. That proposal is similarly flawed because there is more energy in the system now after a long period of poleward jets and more solar input to the oceans. It will take some time for ocean heat content to decline to that earlier level so as to produce a similar tropospheric temperature from the same level of solar activity.
Various estimates puts the time constant at 5-10 years.
Back in the 1830-1870s solar activity was as high as in the 1970-2010s, yet temps are very different.
Leif Svalgaard asked
“As long as the sun is active, the ‘ozone quantities’ [whatever that is] will keep going up and up?”
Hardly. You do understand the concept of balance ?
There will always be a point where ozone is generated as fast as it is destroyed and vice versa. Just as the Earth’s temperature settles at a point of equilibrium between energy received and energy lost so will there be a point of equilibrium between ozone created and ozone destroyed. That point of equilibrium will change over time and the level of solar activity will be a factor in the equation. Thus a more or less active sun will only have an effect until a new equilibrium is achieved.
“And what should we look for, precisely?”
The trend in ozone quantities above 45 km
Should it follow the solar cycle up and down?
Well the data highlighted by Haigh suggests that the ozone trend above 45km rises when the sun is quiet and falls when the sun is active thus giving the reverse sign solar effect within the system that is required for the jets to go poleward when the sun is more active and equatorward when the sun is less active.
Poleward jetstream shifting of the scale observed requires a net cooling stratosphere globally and equatorward shifting requires a net warming stratosphere globally. Furthermore that effect has to supplement (and not offset) the UV effects on ozone below 45km so as to achieve the scale of jet stream shifting actually observed. The models cannot accommodate the observed scale of jet stream shifting without a supplemental mechanism. When the sun is more active there needs to be a top down mechanism pulling the jets poleward at the same time as the UV warming below 45km pushes the jets poleward. The models cannot reproduce reality from just the conventional explanation which is simply the UV warming effect below45km pushing the jets poleward.
Such measurements above 45km have never previously been made. That is why Haigh and many others are surprised at the discovery of a possible reverse sign effect. However my hypothesis requires it and anticipated it. If it is shown not to exist then that would be a falsification but something else would be required to achieve a similar effect.
I await discovering whether changes in ozone trends above 45km can be discerned at the level of individual solar cycles. I suspect that it will require multiple cycles for a clear signal to emerge above the effects of other shorter term variables.
“Various estimates puts the time constant at 5-10 years.
Back in the 1830-1870s solar activity was as high as in the 1970-2010s, yet temps are very different”
I don’t see that such short estimates reflect observations. At the level of single ENSO events I would go along with 5 to 10 years, for example the maximum Arctic ice melt in 2007 was 9 years after the 1998 El Nino.
At the level of PDO events the complete cycle is around 60 years and that would take a lot longer to add to or subtract from the ocean heat content.
At the level of changes from MWP to LIA to date there is yet another even longer cycling. I suspect that to implicate the thermohaline circulation which takes 1000 years or so and which nearly fits that periodicity.
So there are at least three timescales to consider and the idea that 5 to 10 years is sufficient is laughable.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“As long as the sun is active, the ‘ozone quantities’ [whatever that is] will keep going up and up?”
Hardly. You do understand the concept of balance ?
I just took you at your statement:
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 11:52 am
A period of net increase or decrease in ozone quantities could extend for as long as the sun was active or inactive enough to drive the changes.
There will always be a point where ozone is generated as fast as it is destroyed and vice versa.
Yes, and the reaction time for that is less than a year.
The models cannot reproduce reality from just the conventional explanation which is simply the UV warming effect below45km pushing the jets poleward.
Conventional explanation has nothing to do with UV, but relies on upwards-traveling planetary waves. Get your facts straight.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm
So there are at least three timescales to consider and the idea that 5 to 10 years is sufficient is laughable.
You confuse time scale with cycle length. E.g. it does not take 1000 years to warm the oceans. As a rough guide, the more tenuous something is, the shorter is the time scale. In the upper atmosphere it is short.
“There will always be a point where ozone is generated as fast as it is destroyed and vice versa.
Yes, and the reaction time for that is less than a year.”
All that means is that it takes less than a year for a new equilibrium to be reached. It says nothing about the causes of a continually developing disequilibrium over time. If the sun is constantly creating a disequilibrium then your point is worthless.
“The models cannot reproduce reality from just the conventional explanation which is simply the UV warming effect below45km pushing the jets poleward.
Conventional explanation has nothing to do with UV, but relies on upwards-traveling planetary waves. Get your facts straight”
The conventional explanation is that when the sun is active the extra UV warms the stratosphere most at the equator so that the tropopause falls at the equator relative to the height of the tropopause at the poles and the jets are pushed poleward via a reduction in height of the equatorial troposphere but an expansion at the surface.
I received this from Joanna Haigh and suggest you read her material.
“I published an article (Science 1996) which showed poleward shifts of the jets in response to higher solar activity, but that was in a model in response to UV increases. We subsequently found a similar pattern of response to solar activity in observational data (J.Clim 2005).”
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm
So there are at least three timescales to consider and the idea that 5 to 10 years is sufficient is laughable.
Study Swartz’s analysis: http://folk.uio.no/clausn/APPC/Stephen_Schwartz.pdf
From the Summary: “the time constant of Earth’s climate system is 5 ± 1 years OR 16 ± 3 years”. There is some debate as to which one it is.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Back in the 1830-1870s solar activity was as high as in the 1970-2010s, yet temps are very different.
We don’t seem to be getting the point through. Solar cycle strength is one factor with ocean oscillations being another. You say there is a big difference in temperature over the two periods but the CET winter record only shows around 0.5 deg C. The 1970-2010 period includes a super El Nino along with a positive PDO, the 1830-1870 period is likely to be a positive PDO but is strength along with El Nino strengths is unknown. Bob Tisdale’s graph of the AMO data is showing the oscillation is much weaker during the earlier period.
On the whole the two periods are showing similar temperature trends, this is encouraging.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 6, 2010 at 4:21 pm
If the sun is constantly creating a disequilibrium then your point is worthless.
The solar cycle operates slower than on a one year scale.
The conventional explanation is that when the sun is active the extra UV warms the stratosphere most at the equator so that the tropopause falls at the equator relative to the height of the tropopause at the poles and the jets are pushed poleward via a reduction in height of the equatorial troposphere but an expansion at the surface.
So now, the jets are controlled from the equator and not from the poles…
Geoff Sharp says:
December 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm
You say there is a big difference in temperature over the two periods but the CET winter record only shows around 0.5 deg C.
Half of the AGW claimed change.
As Geoff says, the point is just not getting through to Leif. I have a similar problem with Bob Tisdale.
Both are focused on short term phenomena ( say, apples) whereas I am focused on long term phenomena (pears).
Both exist and are supplementary to each other but Leif and Bob just concentrate on the apples and deny that the pears exist at all.
Fortunately the point is getting across to lots of others.
We clearly see some sort of solar variability on a 1000 year timescale peak to peak from MWP to LIA to date.
The thermohaline circulation takes around 1000 to 1500 years.
Ships logs and regional climate histories show that the jets were substantially nearer the equator in the depths of the LIA as compared to the MWP or today So there is a 1000 year cycling there too.
To achieve such jetstream shifting it is unavoidable that one also needs to see a change in the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere so that has to have a 1000 year periodicity too to match the jetstream shifting.
So the logic is inescapable. The solar variability over 1000 years peak to peak changes the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in order to shift the jets. The jet shifting then alters regional climates especially in the middle latitudes and also alters energy input to the oceans by changing total cloudiness and albedo.
The oceans add their own modulating effect and are sometimes in phase with the solar effect and sometimes out of phase with it.
All that is consistent with observations and exists over and above the shorter term solar and oceanic cycling noted by Bob and Leif.
There is no contradiction. All they need to do is make the imaginative leap and realise that there is more going on than is comprised in their relatively narrow specialities.
It happens. We just need to identify the mechanism. It has to be a matter of ozone reactions above 45km in response to solar variability. That does not mean that I am blind to alternative explanations but such alternatives have to fit the observations better.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 2:04 am
You are on the right track, but forget about a 1000 year solar cycle. Nature refuses to work within rigid frameworks. The solar cycle is complex, which most can’t comprehend, but can I suggest you read my paper which may be of help.
If you have any questions feel free to ask. (here or private)
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 2:04 am
We clearly see some sort of solar variability on a 1000 year timescale peak to peak from MWP to LIA to date.
Specifically I objected to your mechanism: solar protons creating NOx destroying ozone in the polar night thereby modifying the polar vortex controlling the polar jets. This is a short-term process [that, as we have seen, does not work].
About the 1000 years scale: it is amazing that people who deny that Earth can have internal cycles on that time scale, happily accept that the Sun has them. Our reconstructions of solar activity do not support such long-term cycling [and there is also there no mechanism].
Statements like ” It has to be a matter of ozone reactions” are not science, but preconceived beliefs.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 2:04 am
Fortunately the point is getting across to lots of others.
Here is a very recent paper on waves and the polar vortex:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D00N06, 17 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010JD014125
Abstract:
Gravity wave activity in the Arctic stratosphere and mesosphere during the 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 stratospheric sudden warming events
Brentha Thurairajah et al.
We report Rayleigh lidar measurements of nightly temperature profiles in the 40–80 km altitude region and 30 min relative density profiles in the 40–50 km altitude region at Chatanika, Alaska (65°N, 147°W) in December, January, February, and March over two winters (2007–2008, 2008–2009). We characterize the gravity wave activity in terms of the measurements of buoyancy period and relative density fluctuations and estimate the gravity wave potential energy density. We compare these measurements with measurements at Kangerlussuaq, Greenland (67°N, 51°W) and Kühlungsborn, Germany (54°N, 12°E). We use satellite and global meteorological data to analyze the synoptic structure of the stratospheric vortex and the Aleutian anticyclone, the planetary wave activity, and the mean winds. Major stratospheric warmings with displacement of the vortex and splitting of the vortex occurred in 2007–2008 and 2008–2009, respectively. We find a positive correlation between the gravity wave activity in the upper stratosphere and the winds in the stratosphere at all three sites. During January and February 2008, we attribute the lower average potential energy density (1.6 J/kg) at Chatanika (relative to 4.7 J/kg at Kangerlussuaq and 2.6 J/kg at Kühlungsborn) to the blocking of gravity waves by the lower winds in the Aleutian anticyclone, while the higher value at Kangerlussuaq (where the winds are similar in strength to those at Kühlungsborn) may reflect stronger sources of gravity waves. During February and March 2009, we attribute the lower average potential energy density (1.1 J/kg) at both Chatanika and Kühlungsborn to the seasonal decrease of the middle atmosphere winds. In general the gravity wave activity is lowest when the wind is weak at the lowest altitudes. We compare the gravity wave activity and winds in these winters at Chatanika with the winter of 2003–2004, when an extreme warming event occurred resulting in an elevated stratopause and major reduction of gravity wave activity. We find that the 2004 warming had a stronger influence on the gravity wave activity.