From NASA’s website (h/t to David Archibald)
By Adam Voiland
NASA’s Earth Science News Team
Two satellite instruments aboard NASA’s Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission — the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) — have made daily measurements of the sun’s brightness since 2003.
The two instruments are part of an ongoing effort to monitor variations in solar output that could affect Earth’s climate. Both instruments measure aspects of the sun’s irradiance, the intensity of the radiation striking the top of the atmosphere.
Instruments similar to TIM have made daily irradiance measurements of the entire solar spectrum for more than three decades, but the SIM instrument is the first to monitor the daily activity of certain parts of the spectrum, a measurement scientists call solar spectral irradiance.
In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.
“We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
Cahalan, as well as groups of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Johns Hopkins University, presented research at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December that explored the climate implications of the recent SIM measurements.
Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.
Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,” Cahalan said.
Measuring Variation
As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun’s irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the “solar constant.” However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field.
Indeed, TIM and its predecessor instruments, whose records of irradiance began in 1978, show that the sun’s output varies by about 0.1 percent as the sun cycles through periods of high and low electromagnetic activity every eleven years or so. In practice, this cycling means the sun’s brightness, as measured by TIM, goes up a bit when large numbers of sunspots and accompanying bright spots called faculae are present on the sun, yet goes down slightly when sunspots and faculae are sparse, like they have been in the last few years as the sun has gone through an unusually quiet period.
However, there is a critical difference between the SIM and TIM, explains Jerry Harder, the lead SIM instrument scientist and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths — including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light — into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum.
Notably, this makes SIM the first space-based instrument capable of continuously monitoring the visible and near-infrared portion, parts of the spectrum that are particularly important for the climate. SIM also offers the most comprehensive view of the individual components that make up the sun’s total solar irradiance to date.
Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.
However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.
The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.
Climate Consequences?
Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. “I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar,” said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.
“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.
However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution.
Researchers will surely continue puzzling over the surprising SIM results for some time, but there is already considerable agreement on one point: that the need for continuous SIM and TIM measurements going forward has grown more urgent.
Modeling studies are showing that our climate depends critically on the true solar spectral variations. “If we don’t have the instruments up there to watch this closely, we could be arguing about spectral irradiance and climate for decades,” said Cahalan.
A new TIM instrument is slated to launch on the Glory satellite this February, but a replacement for the SORCE SIM instrument — called the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) — likely won’t fly until 2014 or 2015. This could create a gap between the current SIM and its replacement, a situation that would present a significant obstacle to identifying any possible longer-term trend in solar spectral irradiances, and thus to nailing down the sun’s role in long-term climate change.
“Both instruments — TIM and SIM — are absolutely critical for understanding how climate works. We neglect either of them at our peril,” said Cahalan.
Solar activity – including sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae – vary over the course of a solar cycle and affect solar irradiance. Credit: NASA
Related Links:
SORCE Website
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm
AGU Session: Solar Variability and Climate
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm10∂=GC13E&maxhits=400
=====================================================================
Additional information:
Leif Svalgaard writes in email:
This is legit.
It is a confusing graph. It shows how much the spectral emission has
changed between 2004 and 2007. Since solar activity was decreasing one
expected UV to decrease. Instead it increased. The increase was offset
by a decrease in IR, leaving TSI almost constant. That the near UV
goes up when solar activity goes down I pointed out some time ago
[before the LASP people noticed it], see the lower two panels of
http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png (provided below)
There are all kinds of ramifications, see the talks in Session 4 at:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html#speakers
la Gray says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
..What gets to the top of our heads is a whole nother set of maths with so many variables you would run out of letters in the expression.
~
This whole light thing is easy in an oversimplistic view. Increase the density of the “parabolic exclusion boudary” at 1AU the the Earth orbits through in it yearly. If the density of, dust, H, He, O, (Ne Arg C ) increases in this region, the amount of light reaching earths surface will be more diffuse.
Letters of expression..
Vuks you may be interested in these..
•Report
Identifying the Driver of Pulsating Aurora
Received for publication 3 June 2010.
Accepted for publication 19 August 2010.
Y. Nishimura1,2,*, J. Bortnik1, W. Li1, R. M. Thorne1, L. R. Lyons1, V. Angelopoulos3,4,5, S. B. Mende4, J. W. Bonnell4, O. Le Contel6, C. Cully7, R. Ergun8 and U. Auster9
Abstract
Pulsating aurora, a spectacular emission that appears as blinking of the upper atmosphere in the polar regions, is known to be excited by modulated, downward-streaming electrons. Despite its distinctive feature, identifying the driver of the electron precipitation has been a long-standing problem. Using coordinated satellite and ground-based all-sky imager observations from the THEMIS mission, we provide direct evidence that a naturally occurring electromagnetic wave, lower-band chorus, can drive pulsating aurora. Because the waves at a given equatorial location in space correlate with a single pulsating auroral patch in the upper atmosphere, our findings can also be used to constrain magnetic field models with much higher accuracy than has previously been possible
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6000/81.abstract
Maybe someone can comment on the different types of magnetic reconnection that is occurring on the dayside magnetosphere? Magnetic reconnection occurring all along the wavy magnetopause is what my oversimplistic view keeps finding. Must be similar at the heliospheric boundary too, except the added (I mean more events of) SWCX. (solar wind charge exchange) which also occurs at the dayside of earth.
Dayside auroral activity as a possible precursor of substorm
onsets: A survey using Polar ultraviolet imagery
K. Liou, P. T. Newell, C.-I. Meng, and A. T. Y. Lui
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland
M. Brittnacher and G. Parks
Geophysics Program, University of Washington, Seattle
Abstract. We have analyzed the dayside auroral oval, with particular emphasis on
the postnoon aurorally active region, prior to the onset of isolated substorms using
images acquired from the ultraviolet imager (UVI) on board the Polar spacecraft.
The UVI data set used for this investigation covers a time of approximately 3
months, from March 30 to July 13 in 1996. It is found that dayside auroral ”hot
spots” were active in 70 out of 95 surveyed substorm events at least 15 min before
the onset, while 25 cases did not involve the dayside bright spots at all. Of the 70
cases with dayside activity during substorms, 51 cases of the dayside events were
found to be spatially confined and showed little discernible changes prior to an
active substorm onset, while only six cases were found to be in association with
apparent eastward propagation through the dusk sector to the nightside prior to a
substorm onset. This statistical result indicates that most of the postnoon bright
spots are spatially confined in longitude and that only a few candidate cases are
possibly associated with substorms triggering. It also suggests that dayside auroral
bright spots are distinct features from the nightside auroral substorms. These
results suggest that the physical processes responsible for the dayside auroral
bright spots are different from those responsible for the nightside substorm activity.
http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/Aurora/polar_MDI_team/FUV_papers/liou97a.pdf
They are suggestion two separate reconnection processes occurring here and there may be more.
[Final paragraph trimmed. 8<) Robt]
Wondering aloud..
If the intensity of a solar storm can drive aurora towards the equator, do we know when and if they have ever crossed pole to pole? North aurora to the south pole, South aurora to the North pole? In 1957 aurora seen from the Mediterrean region and other southern latitude reports. Carrington event 100 years earlier and very low low latitude aurora reported. And the temp effect on earths magnetic field. .
@Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 3:41 am
“Slides off down the tail. Does not heat the Earth.”
Hot stuff radiates.
Carla says:
December 23, 2010 at 6:35 am
do we know when and if they have ever crossed pole to pole?
Never did, never will.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 23, 2010 at 8:39 am
Hot stuff radiates.
The solar wind plasma cannot radiate due to being hot [even though it has a temperature of 100,000 degrees]. Radiation occurs when electrons transition from one quantum level to another, and in a fully ionized plasma like the solar wind, there are no bound electrons sitting at quantum levels. The electrons are all free, hence do not radiate no matter how hot they are.
Thanks Carla
Saved abstract and the paper, new year’s read.
Happy holiday season.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 9:42 am
Still, it can cause warming where it can enter..
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JA014585.shtml
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/328/1598/139.abstract
Ulric Lyons says:
December 23, 2010 at 11:18 am
Still, it can cause warming where it can enter..
The ‘hot’ plasma does not heat anything. The auroral heating is caused by electric currents coming from the night-side due to particles accelerated by the electric fields induced by magnetic field lines returning to Earth after having been stretched to their breaking point by the solar wind flowing down outside of the tail. All these images and words are descriptive only, but the format of WUWT does not itself to the mathematical treatment necessary for a more ‘correct’ or deeper explanation. Sometimes images are good enough if they capture the essence of a process.
You mean to say the computer models might be based on wrong assumptions? In the words of Captain Renault in Casablanca: “I’m shocked!”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 11:34 am
“The auroral heating is caused by electric currents..”
I got that a while back, it`s just that immediate surface warming at times of higher solar wind velocity is found at so many locations, so I am exploring explanations.
From the NASA website:
“However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.
The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.”
Looks like the post was garbled. This says UV is down and visible and infrared is up with little net change in TSI!!!
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html
Adam, Leif, or anyone,
any speculation or educated guesses as to what is causing the variations? This would not appear to follow black body emissions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
E.M.Smith says:
“At the 308.5 you used, UV rises. BUT, at 300 it is darned near flat. And, at 250, it’s dropping like a rock.
1) You are right, lousy job of presentation of findings.
2) Don’t use 308.5 to test his words 😉 It’s 250 that drops… ”
You need to pay attention to the amount of UV at each frequency. For 308.5 nm it is 0.650 W/m2/nm, but for 250 nm the energy is 11 times less, only 0.056 W/m2/nm. So it doesn’t matter much that that tiny bit is dropping.
Leif, you are a hard man to agree with!
I’ll just note: I said “you are right”. Note the SMILEY after the 308.5 comment, it’s ment to indicate that there was an “issue” with the words such that they need some kind of a ‘cherry pick’ to be valid, and you had gone elsewhere to sample the orchard…
OK, I’ve gone back to the SORCE data page as I’ve now got just a bit of time (before I start making Christmas Dinner preparations / prework)
In looking at a variety of ranges I’ve found very complex changes in output. Such that the words in the report become a simplification of way to much. I’ll not mention all the frequencies I put in to the request (partly as the site changes them to “something else it likes” anyway and partly because some were “uninteresting”. If I get a chance, I’ll download a set of images and put them up in a page, as this really needs a visual treatement. (What it really really needs is a 3 D graph of Power, Year, Frequency… )
Instead, for each point of frequency I’m going to give a simple 1 or 2 word description:
Above UVC – 0-100:
0.5 Dramatic Drop, but from 4 e-6 down to “near zero” e-6
39.5 Dramatic Drop, 6 e-6 to 5 e-6 (Spikes to zero. Instrument error?)
UVC – 100-290
115.5 Drops. 2.4 e-5 to 1.8 e-5 in 2009, then slight rise to 2 e-5
150.5 Drops. 9 e-5 to 7.75 e-5 in 2009, then slight rise to 8 e-5
190.5 Drops. 0.00415 to 0.00390 in 2009 then rise to 0.0040
250.5 Large Drop. 0.0580 to 0.0555 in 2008 then rise to 0.0565
UVB – 290 – 320
290.5 Drops. “near” 0.60 to 0.58. Graph looks steeper than data, scale stretched?
300.5 “Flat Hump”. 0.352 in 2003 to 0.356 in 2004, then 0.352-0.354 oscillator from 2005-2010. About Oct 2010 takes abrief ‘plunge’ to 0.346 and back to 0354.
305.5 Rise to flat. 0.600 – 0.610 in 2007-2010 with spikes to 0.615, then DROP to 0.605 with spikes down to 0.595.
308.5 Rise (the one you hit) 0.635 – 0.655 in 2010-Feb then drop to 0.645
310.02 Drops. 0.535 to 0.52 in 2010-about June, recent gap / jump up to 0.530
(really look at the graph on that one, the lead in and exit look more nearly the same with just some “spikes” different and I’m weighting the numbers to sort of average the spikes. It’s mostly a drop and recent return to “normal”)
320.06 Drops. 0.752 to 0.738 in 2007-2009, then slight rise to 0.745. Recent “gap up” to “near normal” of 0.748 in about November 2010
I included that last one in UVB even though the xxx.06 put it over the line. Since folks sunburn based on UVB, it kind of matters to me…
UVA 320-400
320.06 (as above)
329.90 Drops. 1.035 to 1.020 in 2007. Oscillates 1.020-1.025 to 2010, rise to 1.030 in November. (This one, too, looks like some kind of glitch / step function higher in about October / November…)
350.01 “Sag”. 0.987 to 0.980 (with ‘spikes’ down of 0.977) to 2008, slow rise back to 0.986 with oscillations until November 2010 “gap up” 0.988 – 0.990.
369.69 Big Rise Sags from 2004-2007 at 1.220-1.215, then rapid rise to 1.222+/- 2 then November “gap up” to 1.226
380 Near Flat 2004-2008 at 1.875 -1.190 oscillator. Rounds into a rolling rise to 1.194 then November ‘glitch’ and a spike to 1.202 drop to 1.192.
389.75 Drops. 0.177 to 0.168 in 2010. November “glitch” spike to 1.180 back to 1.175
399.79 Drops. 1.675 to 1.597. November “glitch” spike at 1.615 back to 1.610
That’s the end of the UVA, B, C set.
It’s pretty clear that something “complex” is going on and a 3 D graph is what is really needed. (Gee, I think I heard that somewhere before 😉
Also of note, the set starts and ends with a drop. The middle has a bit of a rise. I have no idea what the “average power change” might be, but would guess from the number of “drop” vs “rise” and that some are on the “higher power side” of the rise points, it’s probably a drop (in keeping with the written words) but I’d not stand by that statement without “doing the math’ on the data download.
I note in passing that while the dermatology site said UV went to 400 nm the Wiki on visible light says “Violet” starts at 380 and goes to 450 so “YMMV” …
FWIW, the 420 Graph is a ‘rocket ride’ up. From 1.750 1.756, then the November ‘glitch’ and were at 1.760 now. So those violets in the flower garden ought to look particularly pleasing 😉 though the 450 range is ‘nearly flat hump’ until November when it “glitches” and jumps from 2.065 to 2.070.
I wonder what happened in November… (and note: That is an “eyeball” November so could easily be October… or…)
In Conclusion: Leif, I’m agreeing with you. The write up / press release is a lousy way to present a 3 D power graph. I’m just also adding some more data points and saying “needs a 3 D power graph”…
Though, having done the extra graphs above, I’d now add “and it looks like, depending on where you call ‘uv’, it could actually be dropping overall” and my skin agrees.
Parting Note: 500 nm (green) rises nicely 1.953 – 1.959 and 700 nm (red) does a “hump” with 1.4124 to 1.4135 in 2005 back to 1.4117 in 2010 then “glitch” and back at 1.4125. That walk in the garden could be an interesting thing. More greens and violets, a briefly higher reds… 😉
What’s very clear from all of this is that the various colors each respond differently. There is undoubtedly a lot that can be learned from that, but it’s going to take a lot of effort by some very clever folks. It would be interesting to look at individual color lines for individual atomic species and see if anything interesting is visible there and it would also be interesting to see if this varies by depth in the sun. Corona vs surface vs… But ‘Ol Sol is not just sitting still. There’s stuff changing in there…
E.M.Smith said:
“Parting Note: 500 nm (green) rises nicely 1.953 – 1.959 and 700 nm (red) does a “hump” with 1.4124 to 1.4135 in 2005 back to 1.4117 in 2010 then “glitch” and back at 1.4125. That walk in the garden could be an interesting thing. More greens and violets, a briefly higher reds… 😉 ”
Like I said:
the sky becomes a little less bright when the sun is more active
because less energy is coming in at visible wavelengths (but more at higher
energies such as invisible UV). Similarly when the sun is less active the sky
becomes a little brighter because more energy is coming in at visible
wavelengths (but less at higher energies such as invisible UV).
I have seen some anecdotal reports that some sensitive individuals (including me) see the light at times of an active sun to be ‘harsher’ or more ‘contrasty’ with a more deeply blue sky and the light at times of a less active sun to be more diffuse with a less
deeply blue sky.
from here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6482
“New Climate Model – First Review”
Leif, do you still see everything that supports my contentions as mere ‘confirmation bias’ ?
Such stuff seems to be coming thick and fast nowadays.
E.M.Smith says:
December 24, 2010 at 5:45 am
Leif, you are a hard man to agree with!
Good that you took a hard look. One thing to remember is that what the Earth sees is the integrated effect of all this complexity, so at least some simplification is possible.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:07 am
Leif, do you still see everything that supports my contentions as mere ‘confirmation bias’ ?
Show me some stuff that does not support your contention for some balance. My biggest problem with your model is the notion that the polar vortex is controlled from above, as it isn’t. But since that is non-support, you’ll tend to ignore that: the other side of the confirmation bias coin.
Such stuff seems to be coming thick and fast nowadays.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:07 am
Leif, do you still see everything that supports my contentions as mere ‘confirmation bias’ ?
Show me some stuff that does not support your contention for some balance. My biggest problem with your model is the notion that the polar vortex is controlled from above, as it isn’t. But since that is non-support, you’ll tend to ignore that: the other side of the confirmation bias coin.
” My biggest problem with your model is the notion that the polar vortex is controlled from above, as it isn’t.”
It doesn’t need to be ‘controlled’ from above. Merely modulated from above as well as from below with the interaction determining the size or intensity that the vortex can attain at any given time.
There can be variations in flow capacity at both ends of a system.
“Show me some stuff that does not support your contention for some balance.”
No need because you have been doing that job for me.
The trouble is that you ignore the fact that all the stuff that goes against my proposition is relatively short term stuff which is to be expected from a complex system involving chaotic variability and substantial internal variability.
On centennial timescales or more or when the sun produces a dramatic short term change such as that currently being observed then what we see is support for my approach.
If you can come up with a century or longer example of my proposition failing then I would be interested.
Such as , say, 100 years of poleward (or highly zonal) jets whilst the sun is as inactive as it was during the Maunder Minimum.
Or 100 years of equatorward (or highly meridional) jets whilst the sun is as active as it was during the late 20th century.
Or a 100 years of relatively warm stratosphere coinciding with poleward jets AND an active sun.
Go to it.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 10:38 am
It doesn’t need to be ‘controlled’ from above. Merely modulated from above
To modulate you must control at least part of the process. No control, no modulation.
Your problem with controlling at both ends is like this: imagine you have a whip which is thick at one one and tapes off to a very thin tip. Now crack the whip holding the thick end [the handle]. That works fine. Now, try to crack the whip holding the tip, that doesn’t work.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 10:50 am
Or a 100 years of relatively warm stratosphere coinciding with poleward jets AND an active sun.
So you should show 100 years of just the opposite. I’m waiting…
Leis Svalgaard said:
“Now, try to crack the whip holding the tip, that doesn’t work.”
False analogy. Try cracking a whip with a tip at both ends.
“So you should show 100 years of just the opposite. I’m waiting…”
It’s staring you in the face.
MWP = poleward zonal jets and an active sun.
LIA = equatorward meridional jets and a quiet sun
Similar setups for all significant cool spells such as the Dalton, the Sporer, even mid 20th century cooler spell with a less active cycle 20 showed more meridional jets.
Late 20th Century warming spell with more zonal jets.
And now a sudden unexpectedly deep and extended solar minimum with, hey presto, a more negative AO than any of us has seen in our lifetimes.
And I’d bet a small sum that every time the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled (netted out globally) especially at the poles due to enhanced ozone destruction at higher levels so as to make AO more positive and pull the jets poleward but of course we cannot resolve that because we had no means of measuring stratospheric temperature trends until recently.
You may not see anything more than coincidence but for me there are just too many.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 11:48 am
“Now, try to crack the whip holding the tip, that doesn’t work.”
False analogy. Try cracking a whip with a tip at both ends.
The analogy is apt, because it mirrors the density of the atmosphere and the density determines the radiative processes, because those are proportional to the number of molecules radiating.
MWP = poleward zonal jets and an active sun.
LIA = equatorward meridional jets and a quiet sun
Who said that jets were like that?
You may not see anything more than coincidence but for me there are just too many.
That is what confirmation bias is.
“Whatever one does, the effect of the solar variations are so small that they hardly show up in the modeled output,”
Well, if the model says so, it must be true!
One of the earlier comments raised an interesting question. Can the “Gore Effect” be reasonably accounted for strictly by chance? Nature is the biggest practical joker in the Universe and we don’t include this in our models.
“The analogy is apt, because it mirrors the density of the atmosphere and the density determines the radiative processes, because those are proportional to the number of molecules radiating.”
It is not apt because it is not all about radiative processes. The issue is about chemical reactions affecting ozone quantities differentially at different levels of the atmosphere.
“MWP = poleward zonal jets and an active sun.
LIA = equatorward meridional jets and a quiet sun
Who said that jets were like that?”
I’ve previously shown you lots of anecdotal evidence. History is replete with it. Even in my lifetime that is the way it has gone with slightly equatorward jets during cycle 20, much more poleward jets through cycles 21,22 and 23 and now more equatorward in cycle 24.
Furthermore I believe it has been confirmed elsewhere that the polar vortex shrank when the sun was more active.