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.
Gates & Lucy:
http://acckkii.tumblr.com
suppose you are visiting Disney Land.
thanks
@R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“..if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.”
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html
not forgetting UHI.
Gates says:
“…if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.”
http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clip_image0045.jpg
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:47 am
And what is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif then ?
A combination of two effects:
1) a general increase of 40-50 nT per year [secular increase] due to processes deep in the core.
2) transient increases for each magnetic storm. The horizontal ring current produces at its center [the Earth] a vertical perturbation that decays away in a few days. This has nothing to do with the first effect.
Alexander Feht says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
You did pick just a particular year, sir. It’s not a matter of assumption, it is a matter of fact.
Perhaps it would have been for you to understand if I had said ‘a century ago’ or ‘a little more than a century ago’. I tend to overestimate people, but will try my best to make an exception here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
The Solar Activity is similar to 108 years ago, yes, but we don’t know the great details from then as we do now: we didn’t have any satellites. Also, the Solar and Terrestrial cycles that preceeded were quite different. Therefore, I would not expect today’s climate to match 108 years ago.
The PDO’s would match, and if the predictions of an extremely weak or vacant SC25 do occur, I would fully expect continued cooling.
rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Also, the Solar and Terrestrial cycles that preceeded were quite different
On the contrary, they solar cycles were quite similar as you can see on slides 2 and 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
Smokey says:
October 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm
“…if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.”
http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clip_image0045.jpg
Except that solar activity lately is on par with what it was a century ago.
Explain why this is wrong or incorrect: (TSI versus Global Temps since 1980):
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
And if you include EUV, the two graphs diverge even more. Is this data incorrect? Who’s lying? Seriously…
ACCKKII says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“So, high/low seasonal temp variations are under safety factor of the EARTH and all creatures living on it.”
____
In general, the life support systems of the earth (which include of course biosphere, hydrosphere, and all levels of the atmosphere) are self regulating and adjust to external forcing to keep earth in a range of temperatures that are not too extreme for life. This range can be quite large, as life can be quite adaptable. However, when change strikes rapidly, or too intensely, the self-regulating processes of the planet don’t have time to react or adapt, and we get periods of mass extinctions on the planet, and the planet goes through a period of reorganization until new self-regulating systems can once more balance things out and a new mode is established, with much different biosphere than previously.
The key question arises: How sensitive will the biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere be to the (geologically speaking) rapid rise in CO2 beyond anything seen in at least 800,000 years? As a current “warmist” I think human CO2 emissions are having some effect, though I am still not convinced they will be catastrophic. However, it does appear that some changes going on in the oceans (hydrosphere) and specifically the biological ecosystems of the oceans might be indicating that the oceans are going through some rapid changes. This deserves close and intense study, for as the oceans go, so goes much of the rest of life on earth. The greatest mass extinction on earth was seen first as changes in the oceans.
ACCKKII:
BTW, you are a riot. You’d be a lot of fun to talk to– especially if I’d had a few beers or glasses of wine…
If you’re ever in Denver, let’s go have some beers…
Ulric Lyons says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Severe UK winters are at least as common around solar cycle maxima as they are around minima. Including two of the three coldest on CET, 1684 and 1740.
So you are saying the the Winters of the Solar Max immediately preceeding and following the Maunder Minimum were total beasts? That just about screams of implications. You got any more on those events?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I see on slides 2 & 3 of your link that SSN was much greater with SC22-23 compared to SC 12-13.
When I look at spot area http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/PulkovoWhSp.PNG it looks even worse. Coming out of SC12-13, Solar Activity was on the upswing. Today, coming out of SC22-23, Solar Activity is on the downswing, and your slides show it.
Perhaps we are looking at two very different perspectives of scale here?
Tell you what: If someone manages to invent a workable time machine, let’s send a SOHO or SDO back in time.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Explain why this is wrong or incorrect:
It is not incorrect or wrong. What may be wrong is to assume that the increase after 1980 is due to CO2 as similar increases have been seen in the past, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
Leif Svalgaard,
Perhaps you cannot express your thoughts in English in a way that allows others to understand you correctly. This is to be expected, taking into account the fact that English is not your native language. Being Russian, I always make an extra effort to make myself clear when posting messages. Perhaps, you should do the same.
In any case, your position regarding solar influence on the Earth’s climate is indefensible. In a long run it would be better for your scientific reputation to acknowledge your error, rather than trying to stick to your textbook beliefs by all means, including lying and insulting your opponents.
rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I see on slides 2 & 3 of your link that SSN was much greater with SC22-23 compared to SC 12-13.
I would compare 23-24 with 13-14. Granted that SC12 was small, SC11 was large. Various people claim as 5-10 yr time scale for solar related changes. The point is as I say on slide 3:
Summary of How the Sun is Similar Now to a Century ago
• Sunspot Number at Minimum was as low
• Minimum lasted as long
• Solar Wind Speed was Similarly Small
• Heliospheric Magnetic Field was as small
• Mid-century Solar Activity was Similarly High
• Ca II Network was Similar to Today’s
• Cycle 24 is now Predicted to be Low [‘lowest in a hundred years…]
Coming out of SC12-13, Solar Activity was on the upswing.
No, cycle 14 was smaller than 13.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Explain why this is wrong or incorrect:
It is not incorrect or wrong. What may be wrong is to assume that the increase after 1980 is due to CO2 as similar increases have been seen in the past, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
_____
Thanks for the link. I shall study it closely. And what do you make of this Lockwood paper:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.full
I am admittedly relatively weak on my knowledge of solar influences. but as GCM’s accurately reflect solar influences in climate when back-tested and even show the divergence in the early-1980’s, when CO2 increases and fast feedbacks are included (and even more so when the new EUV data is included!) it seems hard to need to look for other explanations. (we need more refinement, but the trend is clear from the models. These past 10 years, as global temps have leveled, when the drop off in TSI + increased aerosols + increased volcanlc activity are included, the leveling shows up in the GCM’s. This is hard to ignore, IMO.
And, probably the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the potential solar connection and a potential new Maunder-type Minimum and the effects it might have on global temps in the coming century can be found here:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
Constructive comments from skeptics welcome on why this paper is crap…
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:47 am
And what is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif
then ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 8:56 pm
horizontal ring current produces at its center [the Earth] a vertical perturbation that decays away in a few days.
……………………..
And what is this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
then?
rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:53 pm
So you are saying the the Winters of the Solar Max immediately preceeding and following the Maunder Minimum were total beasts? That just about screams of implications. You got any more on those events?
they are all here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
…………………
Hi Gates
Not many solar scientists understand the CET, and I studied contribution from numerous authors.
The CET is under ‘immediate’ control, with no delay, from the NAO (and even fewer people understand that one) and the ‘indirect’ influence (with delay of some years) of the N. Atlantic SST (better known as its de-trended version called AMO, and almost nobody either in the solar or climate science or combined understands the AMO).
As the Gulf Stream moves warm waters to the north, from the west to the east coast of N. Atlantic, the CET responds. You could look at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
Relationship between the solar cycle, the NAO and AMO along the time scale is shown in the last graph of the above link.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Leif: SC12 and SC13 are less/lower than SC22 and SC23, even by your graphs. Solar Wind speed never seems to vary much despite other changes between SC23 and SC24. Your statement is about the current state of SC24 being much the same as the corresponding period of SC14, so why is the climate not the same. Ok. I say that SC14 arrived on the scene from a lesser preceeding 2 cycles than did SC24.
All I am doing is pointing out the obvious.
We don’t have direct EUV measurements from space for SC14, and who knows what else was different that we do not have direct observations for.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm
And what do you make of this Lockwood paper
Basically correct, although some of the details are debatable. E.g. there is no evidence for TSI being lower this past minimum than at previous minima.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm
And what is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
Coincidence
rbateman says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:35 am
We don’t have direct EUV measurements from space for SC14, and who knows what else was different that we do not have direct observations for.
We don’t need direct EUV measurements from space as EUV leaves a very clear imprint on the ionosphere which can be measured vis the magnetic effects of the currents generated there.
@rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Severe UK winters are at least as common around solar cycle maxima as they are around minima. Including two of the three coldest on CET, 1684 and 1740.
“So you are saying the the Winters of the Solar Max immediately preceeding and following the Maunder Minimum were total beasts? That just about screams of implications. You got any more on those events?”
Many of the coldest CET winters last century; 1979, 1947, 1940, 1929, 1917:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
btw 1684 was in the middle of the harshest part of Maunder (1670`s through 1690`s).
Slightly related : I wonder how many people think the heat from the Sun is the difference between night and day temperatures? Do they realise that without the Sun Earth would be -270C, and that the Sun actually heats the Earth by nearly 300C! Just a thought.
They should have a chat with Piers Corbyn. I like the fact he has been banned from making bets on the weather by a leading UK bookies. I haven’t heard of any similar ban on the UK met office!