Paul Hudson of the BBC writes:
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
His article is, ahem, illuminating:
For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it’s been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.
Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.
In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog.
Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.
Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.
Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun’s changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures.
The work is based on an 11 year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time.
But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.
If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I had a meteorologist tell me once, ” If you don’t think the SUN has anything to do with the weather just flip the switch and see what happens.” Simplistic and to the point. In several conversations with him it didn’t take me long to discover his total disgust with the whole CAGW thing.
This can’t be right.
Mere days ago, the Holy Father himself issued a Papal “Bull” which said this is
“BULLS**T!!”
I condemn this as heresy until His Holiness pronounces it otherwise.
It would be especially interesting to know exactly WHO has changed the commands so that a journalist like Hudson now feels able to mention a fact for the first time ever.
We know it’s not a change in science, as Hudson implies; the real science of solar influence has been perfectly available and perfectly obvious for 70 years. It has to be a change in official orders.
Perhaps taboo at the BBC and IPCC and other like-minded (i.e. closed) institutions.
Young Spokesperson: “Look, I can’t just keep insisting to them that the sun has no impact on the earth’s temperature. For one thing, it’s completely counterintuitive – when you get hot, you look for shade, right? And now, with all of the new studies being talked around, it’s just not holding water. They’re starting to laugh at me!”
Dr. Grant: “Well, we have to head this new tactic off quickly, or the Deniers are going to develop a public meme with it. If we do talk about it, we can’t just say that we disagree with them. We can’t allow them to take the lead on this topic – we need to make it clear that they’re being deceptive to the public by ignoring the real science, and put them back on the defensive. It can’t just be “their idea versus our idea”. It has to be “science versus ignorant polluters.” But I don’t know how . . . . ”
Young Spokesperson: “How about this: I can start us off by talking about how, well, of COURSE the sun causes things to heat up, everyone has always known that, and we’re certainly not arguing that the sun isn’t hot, it’s just that the Deniers have been making up stories that make it sound that way to the public even though we’ve never said anything like that before at all, and so that way we don’t seem to be stuck on an idea that just sounds goofy and stubborn . . . ”
Dr. Grant: ” . . . hmmm . . . . go on . . . ”
Young Spokesperson: ” . . . and then I could continue on with the OBVIOUS point that we’ve certainly considered the idea and have reviewed the data and tested it all out and modeled it over and over, and we realized LONG ago that the impact of the sun on global warming was just miniscule, and so we’ve moved past the whole distraction, not ignored it like the Deniers have been trumpeting, and we’d rather not have to go and repeat all of those efforts just because these anti-science thugs never read all of the reports and papers on it from our original go-around – we ought to be concentrating our academic brilliance towards solutions, not on re-doing work because they don’t like the results we’ve already found – they have so much money to work with from industry and Big Oil and they know that our funding is finite and so they think they can maybe just trample over us in a spending war, but we’ve kept at it in spite of these attacks . . .
Dr. Grant: “Okay, I like it. Start with a newspaper article or something – make it sound like casual comments – nothing too specific – but something that allows our friends to start a new line about our having already considered all of this – “the long-discredited idea of sunshine causing our planet to overheat” – something catchy . . . Good work, son.”
It’s because new satellites are supplying data that they now cannot hide nor hand wave away.
We need more scientific hardware and less intellectual software….. I’m being polite…;-)
Who made the solar climate connection taboo? Not me!
Overlooked — synonyms [climate science]:
blocked, stifled, hidden, stomped, ridiculed, punished.
“Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.”
The occurrence of the phrase “natural processes” in the context of this article is a watershed event. It seems to me that this occurrence is the first time that the phrase has made it into mainstream commentary on climate science. Warmista have studiously ignored natural processes except for those discovered by Arrhenius. But all of climate science that goes beyond Arrhenius is in those natural processes.
That any scientific conjecture should be considered taboo shows how perverse and politicized climate science has become.
stevo says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”
By who?
One notable solar scientist on this site has repeatedly said that solar activity is too constant to influence climate. However, what solar science has not considered is that while the intensity remains relatively constant, the frequency does not. Interestingly, the energy and momentum of a photon does not depend on its intensity, rather only upon its frequency.
Ya-hootie! I’m happy to see that scientists are looking at the effects of solar variability in wind and solar electromagnetic radiation. Although decreases during solar minima coincide, the effects of either probably are independent. A decrease in solar wind likely results in a “collapse” of the upper atmosphere, causing relatively high pressure at higher latitudes and increased polar jets. Reduced UV and EUV likely results in a reduced heating of the atmosphere and oceans (as I’ve said before, I’m unconvinced that our atmosphere is entirely “opaque” to UV).
Now it would be useful to relate these changes in wind and radiation to the corresponding seasonal positions of the Earth in its orbit to attempt to pinpoint the effects of the variations. I would think that decreased UV during SH Summer might produce a different result than decreased UV during NH Summer.
And it seems to me that the issue of systemic atmospheric pressure has been entirely neglected. If the upper atmosphere is buffeted and heated during times of increased solar wind, wouldn’t the entire atmospheric pressure decline somewhat? The converse would occur during periods of decreased solar wind, resulting in an increase in atmospheric pressure. An increase in pressure would result in a decrease in temperature, yes?
I think it’s wonderful that we’re looking at the many varied mechanisms that influence our climate. Perhaps soon we’ll be able to say with some certainty what the weather will be like next week.
R.Gates: “…solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2…”
The 40 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, is an increase in CO2 of 0.011 percent as a proportion of the entire atmosphere … that’s one hundredth of one percent … in my books that’s nearly nothing, at most insignificant, and readily negatable …
When global temperatures were rising, the “consensus” ruled that it had absolutely nothing to do with the sun – and everything to do with CO2. Some silly glib argument was offered about the sun cooling since the 1970 while global temps were still rising. (When I heard that I soon became a sceptic.)
Now global temperatures are showing signs of a fall, the sun’s effect is real again. The “consensus” picks and chooses when to include/exclude solar effects to suit their preconceptions. Very funny
Neil says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Who knew the solar variability played a part in the climate? Next, they’ll be saying that the moon has a part to play as well!
(http://www.predictweather.com/)
The 17 year drought cycle found in much of the world, which coincides with the 17 year locust cycle, also coincides with the 17 year lunar orbital cycle, as well as the 17 year stock market cycle. Who would have thought that locusts could affect both droughts and the orbit of the moon through shrewd investing in the market. I know it is true because I have a computer model.
“it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.”
It was taboo because the Sun had nothing to do with climate – it was solely caused by Anthropogenic CO2. But as climate is not quite sticking to the models… maybe the Sun has something to do with it.
Latitude says:
There you go again……
“…a 40% increase in nothing, is still nothing
The question is, why did CO2 levels drop so low?”
The question is, did it really get that low?
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels
give thanx mr. hudson…you do what u can to bring light to the CAGW narrative.
13 Oct: Daily Mail Charleston Blog: Don Surber: Europe gives up on global warming
My nomination for quote of the day comes from Eurocrat Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner of the environment. Europe generates only 11% of the world’s carbon emissions (the slackers) and the rest of the world doesn’t seem to want to rein in its carbon emissions, so Europe may throw in the towel on this whole global warming thing…
From Connie Hedegaard: “What’s the point of keeping something alive if you’re alone there? There must be more from the 89%.”
The lady has a point. If all your friends are not jumping off a bridge, why should you?
Once upon a time 16 years ago, when the world was young and gullible, Global Warming was the hottest thing in politics…
There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. What we do not know is whether the activity of man is causing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to rise — and to what extent such a man-caused change increases the temperature of the world — and finally, we have yet to determine if a warmer Earth is such a bad thing. Would not a de-iced Greenland and Antarctica help mankind and increase biodiversity? One can dream.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/44325
Latitude says:
October 13, 2011 at 5:14 pm
drbob says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm
==================================
More importantly, you forgot to remind him, ‘cos he easily forgets, that the effect is logarithmic too.
A 40% increase followed by no statistically significant measurable effects.
Some people are just incapable of interpreting data correctly.
Cue some more garbage from R. Gates explaining how he’s not one of them.
I suspect (without evidence) that there is a very good reason that solar influence on weather was a taboo subject.
That is, people would study the sun, and the weather, and find patterns. They would then use these patterns to make predictions – which were usually abysmal. This happened enough times that everyone gave up on it – hence it became “taboo”.
With our greater ability to measure things, it is maybe time to revisit solar influences, particularly as they relate to regional weather.
ferd berple says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Interestingly, the energy and momentum of a photon does not depend on its intensity, rather only upon its frequency.
Not interesting at all. The effect of solar radiation depends on the number of photons, i.e. the intensity of the radiative flux.
I’m sorry but the season demands it:
“No pen can describe the turning of the leaves–the insurrection of the
tree-people against the waning year. A little maple began it, flaming
blood-red of a sudden where he stood against the dark green of a
pine-belt. Next morning there was an answering signal from the swamp
where the sumacs grow. Three days later, the hill-sides as far as the
eye could range were afire, and the roads paved, with crimson and gold.
Then a wet wind blew, and ruined all the uniforms of that gorgeous army;
and the oaks, who had held themselves in reserve, buckled on their dull
and bronzed cuirasses and stood it out stiffly to the last blown leaf,
till nothing remained but pencil-shading of bare boughs, and one could
see into the most private heart of the woods.”
(Kipling)
Jeremy says: (to R. Gates)
October 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm
You Sir are bring totally disingenuous.
It is well known that the IPCC has consistently refused to consider the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. There is also plenty of evidence that scientists who have proposed alternate theories have all had difficulty getting their papers published…
____
I have repeatedly posted links to published research by the much beloved Michael Mann and Phil Jones that spoke directly to the issue of the LIA, where the conclusion of the paper was that the LIA was most likely caused by solar influences. To state that the IPCC has “consistently refused to consider the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate”, is quite nonsensical. However, the issue of the whether or not the sun influences the climate isn’t the key issue. Solar activity and temperatures begin to diverge around 1980, as temperatures went up, while overall solar activity
has declined. As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate. The question is:has that point been crossed, and how sensitive will the climate be to these increasing greenhouse gases?
Meanwhile Piers Corbyn grins like the proverbial Cheshire Cat as the Beeboids frantically respin their AGW creed…
😀
But, of course, IF the Sun is “doing it,” the CO2 is not (or not as much?). Surely the CO2 is not causing the present COOLING, if all the “experts” on both sides of the debate are correct about the ability of CO2 to warm the Earth via some “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” That would be impossible heresy!
So, I ask all the resident experts out there: just how can you support the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” these days, eh?