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.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:37 am
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.
———–
I do find your pages very interesting. To what would you attribute the disconnect between solar activity and CET since about 1980?
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm
“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…”
They used one of their own models. They admit themselves that their model doesn’t account for variations in UV. If that’s the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the implications of a Grand Minimum, then we can now say: The emperor admits he’s forgotten to get dressed.
DirkH says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:02 am
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
Constructive comments from skeptics welcome on why this paper is crap…
They used one of their own models. They admit themselves that their model doesn’t account for variations in UV. If that’s the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the implications of a Grand Minimum, then we can now say: The emperor admits he’s forgotten to get dressed.
_____
It seems the models have a pretty good match to past solar variations and temperatures, without the need of using the UV variations. Could possibly be even be a tighter fit with that included, not worse. I personally would find it exciting to see a Maunder Minimum, as it would really show the relative strength of CO2 forcing versus the lower TSI, Higher GCR’s, EUV effects etc.
The Rahmstorf paper quite clearly shows brief periods of cooling in the coming century– but those are from volcanoes. Overall, the conclusion is that the increased CO2 will cap any solar effects to about -0.3C maximum. Pretty specific scenario.
Gates,
Hello again.
You said “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…”
Kind of you.
Thanks, when I come to you I don’t 4get the beers.
Now:
RIOT!
easy talking is an ART. in this small window that we are writing nobody knows who is that side what is her/his knowledge. here is not a good place for pre-qualification or qualification of people. I learned lots of things from you and Lucy, in this short time, good job Gates!
Thanks.
ACCKKII says about Gates:
“I learned lots of things from you…”
Unfortunately, most of them were probably wrong. ☺
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:45 am
“It seems the models have a pretty good match to past solar variations and temperatures, without the need of using the UV variations.”
R. Gates, that means NOTHING; you CONSTRUCT your model that way. Maybe by assuming the right aerosol forcings or whatever, or just by tweaking its parameters until it fits best; a process that can even be automated. I just take home that they have NOT modeled any UV variation influence and I am 100% confident that we will hear NOTHING more of this model; it will just vanish off the face of the Earth because it will completely fail to guess the future right (I avoided the word “predict” as warmists never predict anything, as they are always keen to admit). This model is a prime example for tax money waste; 100% useless.
R Gates
I have actually said it already to you: the reason for the divergence between temperature and sun after 1980 is because from that time there were more and more problems with UHI and bad thermometer siting, which raised the temperatures too much, and have been uncorrected by Jones and Wang. The source of your own graph is unidentified, as is that of Smokey, so it’s not clear why the solar lines are different in the two graphs. However, my own primer page talks about solar effects using several graphs (to overcome that kind of problem)
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm#solar
and you can click through to check the Charbonneau graph, and others.
Scientifically even better than my Primer is Ken Gregory’s page; it has several sections directly relevant to your request for evidence of recent correlation, re (a) Sun / cosmic rays (b) UHI
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
Here is an interesting refutation of the Lockwood & Frohlich paper you referenced
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
And here is more on UHI – my collection of others’ work, again.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/UHI.htm
Well, to me the balance of evidence is indisputable. I used to be a warmist until I found stuff like the above.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 15, 2011 at 11:44 am
Here is an interesting refutation of the Lockwood & Frohlich paper you referenced
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
What that ‘refutation’ fails to take into account [‘hide the decline’ perhaps] is that solar activity [their Figure 3] is now back down to what it was around 1900.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“We’ve already seen some of the most obvious of fast feedbacks occurring, such as the long-term decline in year-to-year Arctic sea ice and the increase in global water vapor and the cooling of the statosphere.
Again, your choice of 30 years, is curious, but as we’ve seen some of the early fast feedbacks occurring, perhaps that is not important anyway.”
The Artic sea ice is not a fast feedback occurring any different to the build up pre 1970’s. Arctic ice likely build up for 30 years since the 1940’s and recently have had a decline for 30 years. The warming temperatures have slightly increased gradually and why ice has slightly fallen since the 1970’s. Hence, not a fast feedback and also there is no evidence to suggest it was down to CO2. Unless you think retention of energy from LWDR in a extra CO2 molecule takes over 30 years, hence my choice of 30 years (plus with being half cycle of either warming or cooling). Cloud albedo had declined for ~20 of the these 30 years too. You also fail to take into account reduced cloud albedo having an affect on Arctic ice. (nothing to do with CO2)
Water vapour has not increased according to satellite data and older data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The cooling of the stratosphere ended during the mid 1990’s and since then have remained stable.
To add to my last post and try and make it clear about the Arctic ice feedback.
Naturally the build up of ice is around the same rate of the melting ice since the late 1970’s. Therefore for CO2 to cause a fast feedback it would have to melt much faster than the build up naturally in the first place. With this not happening that’s why this can’t be a fast feedback caused by CO2. It is melting at the rate that would naturally be expected.
To R. Gates,
I am working on special study regarding Environment Economics and Policy.
I need some reasonable acceptable simple information.
I got many from you during your friends send/receive here.
To summarize above subjects:
1- Climate Changes are a.regular b. irregular;
2- Irregularities are because: a. irregularities in solar activities b.atmosphere reaction to solar impacts c. man-made CO2;
3- Solar irregularities are “AS-IS”, according to you specialist we find a.what is now happening b. what can be foretasted c.what can we do to be safe;
4- You say: you don’t think man-made CO2 is the main reason for climate changes, as I understand. Then, why we had KYOTO conference for climate changes. That was basically due to global warming and CO2 threats.
5- Comparing CO2 caused by solar activities and man-made reasons, you and your friends as I see, believe that man-made CO2 is NOTHING! I am interested to see what should WE do as our part and share to make better life…reducing CO2. At least we can do so and it is a must. Should we neglect it? Do you accept the responsibilities? Suppose there are two men living on this planet, YOU and ME! What is your direct recommendation and order? We have Disasters, what can we do? But we can do many things to make this planet CLEANER, I want to find out DO YOU RECOMMEND PEOPLE TO FOLLOW MAN-MADE CO2 IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE? Please do not compare the effective rates of solar and man-made CO2, just SAY GO AHEAD AND DO IT!
You are studying your cases that’s okay. But give a job to do my best parallel to what you are doing. I know that in the mean time, you have just figures and tables and curves and many ANDS. But I as all the people on the EARTH must do something to help my blue EARTH be well.
I am sorry that I am not only interested in specific discussions here among specialists, it’s very interesting, but I want to tell you my job is something else that I like it more, I need your ideas. that’s it.
Your views is important to me, that would help me to reach and access the required results to define environmental economics faster.
Many thanks,
ACCKKII
Hi Smokey,
You said:”Unfortunately, most of them were probably wrong. ☺”
I am okay with Gates.
Thanks for your attention.
I wrote something to Gates and explained all I want.
You as specialist, can join us that would be very much appreciated.
You know what I need to get.
BUT!
Discussions brings you what is right or wrong, don’t worry you all with your knowledge would help me.
Warm Regards,
ACCKKII
@Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“.. is that solar activity [their Figure 3] is now back down to what it was around 1900.”
especially in the last four or so years:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?RALData/osf+open_solar_flux+i+someone@somewhere+1
in fact 2010 has the same yearly CET as 1902.
Ulric Lyons says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm
@Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“.. is that solar activity [their Figure 3] is now back down to what it was around 1900.”
Plus December 2010 was the coldest since the 1890’s.
Gates, Smokey and Lucy:
“Helping People Help the Planet”
To liaise with good initiatives whose aims are to
redirect humanity’s energies toward true sustainability,
awareness of our present state, and what we can do
To build up a neutral source of key information, for beginners as well as experts,
including information on basic Climate Science and the real climate issues
To provide a Forum for discussion, for key issues
in Climate Science, Renewable Energy, and Sustainability
To put forward scientifically, ecologically and socially sustainable
“solutions”, visions, pipedreams and projects,
including new energy-harvesting proposals
and ways of grading / taxing / rationing consumer products
according to how planet-friendly they are “from cradle to grave”
GWT
Matt G says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Plus December 2010 was the coldest since the 1890′s.
You cannot draw any conclusions based on a single month. In fact, 22 December at 4 am was the coldest since the 1890 \sarc
Matt G says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Plus December 2010 was the coldest since the 1890′s.
I don’t this is even true. Global temperature, anomalies, temperature in Timbuktu, or what?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm +2:38 pm
Yes, likely doesn’t mean anything, but funny the UK had it’s coldest December recorded (records began in early 20th century) and the coldest CET December in 2010 since the 1890’s. (much colder than post 1890’s records too) Was just an addition to 2010 being a very cold recent CET year, comparable to similar around that time (1902). Plus first time a month in nearly a century (except February 1947) has been in the top 3 ever coldest since CET records began.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 4:22 am
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.
So how good are these EUV proxys? Do they show the big reduction in base EUV measurements observed by the SEM satellite data that show the SC23/24 min data is much lower than the previous minimum.
The current level of EUV is barely above that recorded during the SC22/23 min.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/EUV.png
rbateman says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:35 am
Solar Wind speed never seems to vary much despite other changes between SC23 and SC24.
A graph to back up Robert’s statement.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/Sc23wind_rz_medium.png
Lucy Skywalker:
The increase in temperatures globally aftger 1980 is not uncorrected UHI effects from Jones & Wang. Don’t know where you’re getting this information, but it simply is not true. Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980, with each successive solar cycle a bit weaker than the previous since that time. I don’t really care whether your a warmist or skeptic or a bit of both (as in my case), but you might want to dig bit deeper to at least get your science correct. Many people don’t know about it, but a really great resource to cut through a lot of the fluff on the internet is to go right to Google Scholar:
http://www.scholar.google.com
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Lucy Skywalker:
Don’t know where you’re getting this information, but it simply is not true. Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980, with each successive solar cycle a bit weaker than the previous since that time.
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years. The key point of course is to factor in the positive PDO which needs to be added to other effects such as UHI and high EUV readings (the UHI providing a false rise).
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Many people don’t know about it, but a really great resource to cut through a lot of the fluff on the internet is to go right to Google Scholar:
http://www.scholar.google.com
=====================================
I couldn’t find you on there ……. ????
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Lucy Skywalker:
Don’t know where you’re getting this information, but it simply is not true. Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980, with each successive solar cycle a bit weaker than the previous since that time.
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years. The key point of course is to factor in the positive PDO which needs to be added to other effects such as UHI and high EUV readings (the UHI providing a false rise).
Geoff Sharp says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm
So how good are these EUV proxys? Do they show the big reduction in base EUV measurements observed by the SEM satellite data that show the SC23/24 min data is much lower than the previous minimum.
They are very good as the physics is straightforward. The EUV data has calibration uncertainties. At the SORCE meeting in Sedona one of the conclusions was
“SUSIM and SORCE solar UV irradiance measurements are inconsistent with one another.
– Accordingly, at least one of SUSIM and SORCE must have significant unresolved calibration problems”
The TSI has now been reassessed and it is now established that the 23/24 minimum was not any lower than the 22/23 minimum.
Here is a good discussion of the issues:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1j_Lean_Irradiance.pdf
The bottom line is that there is no good evidence for any difference between minima. The instrumental uncertainties are just too great.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years.
It is now established [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Workshop1-Weighting.pdf ] that the sunspot number since 1945 is 20% too high, so your statement may be a bit misleading.
Wasn’t there something of a to do about Jones & Wang? Something about station data?
DaveE.