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.
Anthony – Now that it is allowed to discuss the blindingly obvious (except to the IPCC gang) notion that the sun is the main climate driver you and interested readers might like to see where the Solar Physics scientists are with regard to the possible arrival of a Grand Minima, and the sun -earth climate connection via the solar wind, CMEs ,GCRs EUV etc. It is very thought provoking to scan thru the abstracts of a recent conference in Argentina:
http://iaus286.iafe.uba.ar/abstracts-IAUS286.pdf
Also since Taboos are falling you might reconsider your taboo on barycenter discussions
see pages 96 and 97 of the link.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:31 pm
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?
============================
Who is “you”? Your “AGW” models?
Also: “…you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate…”
Uh huh.
With paleo records to refute your assent of your false paradigm, are you sure you want to hijack this thread, too, for the umpteenth zillionth time?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Norman Page says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm
It is very thought provoking to scan thru the abstracts of a recent conference in Argentina:
I attended three consecutive conferences:
http://shinecon.org/Current%20Meeting.htm
http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
http://iaus286.iafe.uba.ar/
It would be O/T to comment in detail, but my take aways were
1) The PMOD TSI team has now admitted [as I have told them years ago] that their instrument has uncompensated degradation and that there now is no evidence that TSI this past minimum was any lower than at previous minima
2) There is growing acceptance of the observation that the sunspot number underwent artificial inflation around 1945, basically scuttling the notion of a Modern Grand Maximum
3) That there is a distinct possibility of significantly lower solar activity in the coming years, but probably not a new Grand Minimum [unless Livingston & Penn are correct].
4) A rich lode of stellar cycles are being discovered with as yet unrealized potential for application to the sun.
drbob says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm
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…
____
Don’t know what you’re a doctor of, but giving a percentage of the overall atmosphere that CO2 represents is misleading, and you should know that. Really most important is the part of the LW spectrum that CO2 absorbs (around 15 microns), and as it is right at the peak where the majority of LW is coming from the ground, it turns out that CO2 has a disproportionate greenhouse activity. But your notion of giving the percentage of the total atmosphere that CO2 represents as some measurement of its effectiveness and overall activity as a greenhouse gas is nonsense. For those who really want the real scientific details on this, i highly recommend you start here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
And read all 8 parts (it will take you a while). Otherwise, just keep spouting nonsense and giving the percentage of the overall atmosphere that CO2 represents as a way to justify you incorrect perceptions of the effectiveness of this critical greenhouse gas.
“R. Gates: As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate.”
You are not simply wrong but totally delusional. As you increase greenhouse gas, the effects are diminishing returns. In the case of CO2, a trace green house gas, whose effect is totally dwarfed by H2O, after about 200 PPM then the majority of the effect is gone. Incremental CO2 then simply changes the height within the atmosphere that all CO2 infra red band absorption has occurred (optical depth if you will)
ich99cat says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:10 pm
“R. Gates: As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate.”
You are not simply wrong but totally delusional. As you increase greenhouse gas, the effects are diminishing returns. In the case of CO2, a trace green house gas, whose effect is totally dwarfed by H2O, after about 200 PPM then the majority of the effect is gone. Incremental CO2 then simply changes the height within the atmosphere that all CO2 infra red band absorption has occurred (optical depth if you will)
______
Rather than spout the traditional talking points of skeptics, you might do well to learn a bit of the science. Suggest you start here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
Read all 8 or so parts, and then we can have a discussion.
Before you all get excited about a possible general acceptance of the sun’s role in climate change – how are they going to tax the sun?
“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.”
Dwarfed by a DWARF?!?!! Too funny!!!
savethesharks says (to R. Gates):
October 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm
With paleo records to refute your assent of your false paradigm, are you sure you want to hijack this thread, too, for the umpteenth zillionth time?
_____
There is no hijack here Chris. The essential issue is this: which effect NOW is greater on earth’s climate: solar fluctuations or the 40% increase in CO2 beyond the levels the Earth has seen in at least 800,000 years. In terms of the paleo-records…well, we probably now need to go back to somewhere in the mid-pliocene a few million years ago to see where we’re likely headed. With a doubling of CO2…guess what…about a 3C increase in temps or so. All because of CO2…that insignificant greenhouse gas.
Pat said:
“What we do not know is whether the activity of man is causing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to rise…”
_____
Really Pat? Don’t we? C’mon.
As usual this thread is a one-man show on the part of Mr. R. Gates?
I think we must be prepared for the massaging of this ’11 year cycle’ business now that it is going to be de rigeur to discuss the sun. I expect it can be shown that (remember that can be very large values of 11) the cycle length can be extended by reinterpretation and averaging of multiple values of 11 to the point that CO2 overwhelms all natural variation. Bob’s your uncle! It’s worse that we thought.
I see R Gates popped up again with his ‘40% increase in CO2’. Hey RG, did you see the post showing the logarithmic effect of increasing the CO2 by 180 ppm at a time? What a hoot! Your 40% will become 300% and the effect on temperature will negligible to the point that it will not be possible to measure any effect at all. Did you see my post on the bare fact that it is not possible to get the CO2 up to 550 ppm at all because there is not enough carbon-based fuel on the planet to get that high? Thanks for stopping by to beat your drum. We always want to hear it…again, dribbled neatly with CAGW lite. Next time show is your skeptical side.
@drbob
You are wasting your time debating RGates on the % v.s. ppm(v) issue. The really important gases are water vapour followed by ozone both of which are really effective at absorbing radiation. What matters with respect to CO2 is its logarithmic drop-off in temperature effect with increasing concentration. RG never admits to this physical reality because the math involved would show that it rapidly becomes irrelevant above 700 ppm. Even at 500 you can hardly measure it with current weather thermometers. It has a really big effect from 0 to 50 ppm – sort of the numbers that are incorrectly cited for a doubling from the present concentration.
R. Gates says:
There is no hijack here Chris. With a doubling of CO2…guess what…about a 3C increase in temps or so. All because of CO2…that insignificant greenhouse gas.
==============================================
Prove the cause and effect. You can’t do it. Hijack or not
Prove the cause and effect with peer reviewed honest attempts.
You can not do it.
A waste of time.
You are conflating and confusing the idea of “CO2 pollution” with the more plausible and realistic observation of man-made pollution.
Do you not see the difference and if you do can you begin to recognize the source of the real problem??
It is not as your Lisa Jackson and her czars “regulate.”
They are mistaken.
Do you get it yet….or do you need more flash cards??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Quick question please!
What data sets for temperature, CO2, and Total Solar Radiation are considered reliable? And possibly a site that I could access the data?
Thanks
“Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm
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.”
Perhaps we need to be very specific as to what effects we are talking about. The energy of a photon is given by E = hf. The momentum is given by p = h/wavelength. So I have to agree with ferd here. The photoelectric effect for example needs a high enough frequency photon to knock an electron loose. A single photon just above the threshold frequency will knock an electron loose. However a million photons just below the threshold frequency will NOT knock an electron loose, even though the total energy of the million lower frequency photons could be much higher than the single higher frequency photon.
We may not have the photoelectric effect working in the atmosphere, but oxygen reacts with UV photons in ways that lower energy photons do not, regardless of the number of photons.
From http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/applychem/ozone.html
this sentence appears: “The visible region range from 300 nm to 700 nm, and radiation with a wavelength of 240 nm is in the ultraviolet region. Visible light cannot break the O=O bond, and UV light has enough energy to break the O=O bond.”
Werner Brozek (retired physics teacher)
It was noted in 1997 “The Role of the Sun In Climate Change” that William Herschel in 1801 found a relationship between climate and the level of solar activity. He found that when sunspots were few the price of wheat went up, thus the sun emitted less light and heat which reduced the amount of wheat harvested and drove the price up. It is nice that they are now noticing this sort of thing.
philincalifornia says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Cue some more garbage from R. Gates explaining how he’s not one of them.
===================
I rest my case
Leif, with great respect for your acclaimed expertise: Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations. Indeed, the more I hear about this approach, the more re-interpretation and adjustments it seems to involve over multiple centuries.
Am I missing something?
Werner Brozek says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Perhaps we need to be very specific as to what effects we are talking about.
Presumably the effect of solar radiation on the climate. Here the total number of photons of all wave lengths is the determining factor for all the energy impinging on the Earth.
The fact that so many people subscribe to catastrophic climate global change warming is that stupid people need to feel like they are cool. It is kind of like the ignorant souls demonstrating against the devils on Wall Street. They don’t have a clue, but they feel like they are cool because they are doing something, even though it is something they don’t understand.
Same thing with the CAGW folks. They don’t have a clue, but they want to belong to a popular group and feel like they are cool, too. It is not about the science. It is a social thing.
RGates:
If, as you say, temperatures kept rising even as solar activity decreased supports the CO2 caused the warming hypothesis; (besides that is ignoring lags in the system) then why does the lack of warming NOW and the lack of increase in ocean heat content NOW while CO2 is increasing not support the notion that CO2 is not driving the temperatures? Has solar activity (or lack thereof) overwhelmed the effect of CO2? Or perhaps it’s dust, or clouds, or thermostats, or China that’s overwhelming the MOST IMPORTANT GHG, the regulator of Earth’s temperature for millions if not billions of years?
If the CO2 driven “extra” heat is being somehow transferred into the deep ocean (as being discussed on RC) then exactly what could be the detrimental effects? Basically, what is the heat capacity of the deep ocean? How many centuries of “extra” heat could the deep ocean absorb without an appreciable change in temperature?
Maybe the moon also influence on the climate?
You may take a look at this – on naturat climate variability
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001457
philincalifornia says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:31 pm
“Cue some more garbage from R. Gates explaining how he’s not one of them.”
____
One of who, phil? This “us” versus “them” mentality is so tiresome.
David Corcoran says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations.
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.