Solar-Terrestrial Power Update

How about a hint as to what this means.

And there was this one way back in 2007:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/07/california-climate-pdo-lod-and-sunspot-departure/

The interesting point that Isee there is one of timing.
The recovery was under way by the late 90s which predates the shift to a negative PDO and predates the cessation of the rise in ocean heat content. Those factors changed in the early 2000s.
However it does match the cessation of stratospheric cooling, the change from decreasing to increasing cloudiness and as commented by me on many occasions the start of more meridional/equatorward shifting jetstreams/climate zones. All those last 3 items are timed for the period 1995 to 2000.
So I’m sure that there is a link between the level of solar activity and the surface air pressure distribution and it is that which dictates the positions of the permanent climate zones and in turn the rate of energy flow from surface to space.
Subject to modification by internal oceanic cycling, that is.
And I prefer cloudiness changes from more meridional jetstreams rather than from more cosmic rays acting on the rate of cloud seeding.

At least its not a mann made cherry hockey stick.

Daily resolution LOD data start in 1962: ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now
Daily resolution LOD data are needed for this type of analysis.
Why?
Refresher on high-frequency lunisolar components: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/
The solar modulation of terrestrial zonal winds is beyond dispute.
This post is just a quick update.

Hmmm. So, I suppose that this is related to the fact that places like San Angelo, Texas and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico got more cold air and snow a few days ago than they have received in 70 years. I’m tired of the cold weather already. How long will it last?

tallbloke (December 26, 2011 at 12:35 am) asked:
“Paul: The seasonal variation in zonal wind demonstrated by your second plot shows the primary overpowering influence of the equinox-solstice power house. This is a predictable ‘given’ quantity. Would it be possible to remove that to help us see what might be linked to variation caused by secondary factors?”
See graphs on p.4 here … http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf … and then see the generalization outlined in section I.10 on p.9, but also note item#1 here [ http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/23/week-in-review-122311/#comment-152541 ] if you are planning to research solar excitation of specific dominant terrestrial temporal modes.
Anecdote: There’s a super-easy, super-clear way to illustrate Mursula & Zieger’s (2001) long cycle. (Another day…)
The coherence of solar variables with LOD is multiscale (SAO, annual, QBO, multidecadal, etc.)
However: You may have no idea just exactly how involved it gets illustrating this. This is not a journey for the casual.
Most members of the mainstream do not understand why their methods can’t detect these patterns, but you can rest assured that there are a few who understand that the microscope’s focal length has to be pegged to the changing solar cycle length. Those with weak functional numeracy foundations seem to think it’s OK to adjust ONLY the magnification, holding the focal length CONSTANT at either an arbitrarily or “optimized” (comical) setting — a serious blunder. (Dismiss with a hearty laugh anyone trying with plain FFT!)
Also, many completely overlook the lunisolar variance. They’ll COMPLETELY MISS the Schwabe modulation of zonal winds. As I’ve explained patiently before, the modulation is of the MEAN. Yes, there’s also a modulation of the variance, but that doesn’t make the mean & the variance the same thing! Different moments have different properties.
I’ve run into folks who can’t understand why a top-down view works better than a bottom-up view for LOD. This should be a no-brainer since SCL is NONstationary and hence the side-lobe helices aren’t straight phase lines in dominant-temporal-mode stack-plots. It’s an integral across timescale we’re pursuing — and the frequency modulations are MOVING with SCL.
And of course there are still people (1) mistaking spatial phase reversals for temporal evolution and (2) not realizing that solar excitation can be either CONstructive or DEstructive, just like resonant swing pushes — i.e. we’re dealing with COMPLEX correlations, NOT linear ones. Bear in mind that a complex wavelet’s just a pattern resonator that can be set to imitate solar excitation of Earth’s natural frequencies.
That’s about as many hints as I’m free to give at this time.
Watch the wind animations – (the links lowest on the list above).
Cheers.

I suspect this has to do with the conservation of momentum and the total size of the earth’s atmosphere. Nothing to prove it since I do not have the heights of the various isobars over time, but if the upper atmosphere isobars are higher during a portion of the solar cycle due to more UV or cosmic rays or … It would stand to reason that since momentum must be conserved, the rotating earth atmosphere system would change in radians per fortnight accordingly.

Tony McGough (December 26, 2011 at 5:20 am)
“WUWT is for popular consumption. Please explain in easy words.”
I can suggest watching the wind animations to which I linked if you don’t know what the SAO (semi-annual oscillation) is. It’s pretty simple.
The calculations, on the other hand, are well beyond most (possibly not all) of the audience here, which is precisely why I volunteer the graphs to the community.
The WUWT community is vulnerable to abstract conception without access to the benefits of data-based conception. I brought a microscope, set the magnification to 6 months & the focal length to 11 years, and let people look. No computer model output. They’re real data, under a specific magnification at a specific focal length.
Whether you trust your eyes is up to you. Everyone is free to believe in the mainstream narrative of solar-terrestrial relations, which is fundamentally incompatible with observation. I guarantee that the narrative will change if enlightenment prevails in our society & civilization.
Regards.

Paul,
you would be surprised what people can understand when an article has an introduction, a body with associated graphs that are discussed in the body and a conclusion that outlines the significance of the information presented. If you just throw graphs on the table then everyone starts guessing why you put them there and what they could really signify. See Bob Tisdale articles for a comparison to this article in terms of structure.

Pamela Gray (December 26, 2011 at 7:32 am)
“All this can of course be modulated by intrinsic drivers.”
That’s exactly what I said on p.9. The point is it’s much simpler demonstrating modulations at the frequencies of known stationary dominant temporal modes (e.g. year, semi-annual, QBO) — i.e. start with the easy stuff, catalog it, and patiently explore how the orbital modulations of solar excitation integrate across dominant temporal modes.

Mornin’ Paul,
All fields of inquiry have their specialized technical jargon, including my own (education). How does an intelligent layman react when confronted with unfamiliar language? Well, California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus was certainly intelligent, but he once remarked in a written decision that many experiences, too sad to relate in detail, had convinced him that large parts of the Education Code “were not meant to be understood.”
Cal State professor Herbert Landar had a different perspective. Commenting on his collateral reading list and making the point that the titles on the list were there because they were important, not because he agreed with them, he gave us the following advice: “If you can’t make sense out of what you’re reading and it seems like so much nonsense, I beg of you, consider the possibility that it may be so much nonsense.”
(Quote from memory is approximate. But hopefully clear.)
Having a clear day in Sierra Vista. : > )

Let me state clearly, regardless of the value or my understanding thereof, WUWT is the place for posting.

Leif has something I’ve experienced with a dear friend, who is a retired Chemical Engineering professor. I call it “professorial arrogance”. It results in proclimations of great “gravity”, centered on things COMPLETELY IN HIS REALM, but the pronounced inability to be flexible to changes and new ideas. 20 years ago, in some PAINFULLY long sessions I introduced said indivual to using MathCAD for technical write ups. He’s now in his ’80’s, and avidly uses MathCAD. But the transition from “Fortran” , calculators and engineering graph paper to the PC/MathCAD realm, was…to put it mildly, painful. I persisted, however, broke through the “professorial arrogance” and the result was a retired professor who published a third again as much in RETIREMENT as while
active.
So be kind to Leif. Give him some time to think things out. In a year he may consider this his “own idea”, and then it will garner great support.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am) wrote:
“2) The semiannual variation is due to internal atmospheric dynamics “
Yes, plainly evident in the animations to which I linked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/25/solar-terrestrial-power-update/#comment-843523

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:40 am) wrote:
“compare with Gross’s graphs [Figures 3 and 4] in http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf “
He’s looking at different features of the time series Leif. I have those & tons of other summaries on file. The time series has TONS of interesting features.
You (or anyone else) should be able to isolate any of the features he illustrates, any of the features I illustrate, or any of the features anyone else illustrates. Patient diligence with the geometry is in order.
For anyone reading here who is just starting out with LOD, I volunteered this to expedite introduction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/ .
Regards.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:38 am)
“No aliasing at all. Your curve shows very heavily smoothing, so daily values are not needed. Show the values without smoothing.”
You don’t appear to be making an effort to interpret correctly. Or somehow along the way maybe you’ve missed some fundamentals.
It’s not a responsibility I enjoy, but the community needs to be aware that (so far) your comprehension is absent on this file. You’ll need to reproduce this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . It’s the way you’ll learn whatever it is you’re missing (which is difficult to diagnose given the info I have so far).

Jeff C (December 26, 2011 at 8:39 am) wrote:
“I have to agree with the bulk of the comments, this has to be one of the worst posts in WUWT history. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. Assuming it actually does mean something, how about explaining it for those of us that can’t read the author’s mind?
Anthony must not be back from his Christmas break. Better to post nothing than something like this.”
With serious financial backing I could do a lot more. I don’t have a lot of free time. Consider dropping the snark and being thankful for observation-based insights into nature that are volunteered. Who else here would (or even could) do the calculations and share them? Let’s see if Leif can reproduce the calculations.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:42 am)
“On the plot at the right is the time series and 91-day and 365-year means. At the left is the FFT power spectrum with daily resolution. There are clear 1 year and 0.5 year lines, as well as the various tidal lines around 27-30 days [and their harmonics at half, one-third, etc of that], but no evidence of power near 10 years.”
Now that you’ve done your quick introductory look, it’s time to get more serious about exploring the details of the geometry. Plain FFT can’t handle this job. I’ve warned of it’s limitations repeatedly in past WUWT discussions (and again above). The analysis NEEDS to be windowed at a TUNED window width.
The power’s not at 11 years. It’s at 6 months (but you can find 11 year power in the temporal evolution of the 6 month power).
Isolate the semi-annual variation. Then let a grain = 0.5 year Morlet extent = 7pi (~11 year) complex wavelet resonate with it. Should take 10min to reproduce my results EXACTLY. If you don’t isolate the semi-annual variation first, you’ll get different results. I actually suggest doing the analysis both ways and thinking carefully about why the results come out different.
I need to go now. I work today and the next 4 days.

Once again, if ANY intrinsic driver is capable of over-riding a solar modulation, the solar theory is DOA. As it does with CO2 theories. It completely boggles the mind that the truly powerful drivers are summarily ignored. The search for the single speck of liquid water on Mars is but child’s play compared to your search for a solar connection.

@Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:49 am)
Gross is studying a DIFFERENT statistic. After more than a full year you still do not realize the importance of tuning the window width. A complex wavelet can pick signals out of very messy data IF THE PROPERTIES ARE THERE ON AVERAGE. I’m trying to teach you something here.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm)
“the 0.1K temperature variation caused by the solar cycle”
And how exactly is that distributed spatially over the globe in your abstraction?

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:02 am)
“It is impossible to reproduce what you did as you do not describe it clearly.”
NOT TRUE.
ALL of the info needed is given.
Morlet complex wavelet
grain = 6 months
extent = 7pi ~= 11 years
LOD’ = rate of change of length of day
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now
If you were a student writing one of my exams your score would be 0. As I suspected you don’t understand the stats and you can’t do the calculations.
You have all the info you need. Roll up your sleeves and learn how to escape the cross-scale exploratory limitations that have held you back. I’m trying to help you.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 2:08 pm)
“I’m clarifying your obscure verbiage. And if you use a fixed window size [extent] also assume a clean cycle.”
Do the calculations for a variety of extents and you’ll learn something about FOCUS. The way my software works, I have dial, so I can tune manually. Doing this for some familiar datasets that one knows well is a helpful way to gain intuition – and soon enough with a bit of experience one can pre-tune. Just vary the extent. I know you know to vary the grain. There are academics sending out the same message: vary the extent. They realize features are being overlooked. Do the calculations and you’ll realize they are sound. I’m not here to BS.

I love these Solar posts. Leif is a star I haven’t seen him caught out yet!
Let’s raise our glasses to a true scientist: Leif Svalgaard.

Jimmy Haigh (December 26, 2011 at 3:07 pm)
“I love these Solar posts. Leif is a star I haven’t seen him caught out yet!”
We’ll see if he reproduces the calculations.
There are several different ways to isolate the semi-annual wave and the results are robust across them. I did the update using a different method from the original post [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ ]. Same results. And the same results show up for a wide band around ~11 years (with the best focus in the middle). The results are stable. And there’s nothing wrong with the methods. They find widespread application, but they’re new enough (only decades old) that they’re not yet core in curricula. Everyone here could use them. There just isn’t a good introductory webpage yet that overviews them simply. I built online stats education modules for years. It would take a LOT of careful work to do a really good job.
Season’s Best.

Leif, it’s temperature GRADIENTS that drive the thermal wind. The data crush the silly notion of uniformity (e.g. polar night vs. polar day vs. equator – & the atmosphere doesn’t sit still – Earth’s a natural spatiotemporal filter). You’re going to have to drop that element of your narrative in order to continue being taken seriously on this particular point by sensible people. And again, Gross was looking at different statistics. You need to reproduce the graph. It’s the only way you’ll gain understanding. I encourage others to do the calculations too.

Tallbloke said, “It’s a good puzzle.”
Indeed! TSI variation on its own is nowhere near enough and geomagnetic change appears to be a stretch. LOD may be connected to core fluctuations which may be internal or in some way connected to orbital cycles. The shift in the tropical belt to me indicates that geomagnetic fluctuations may have some impact on cloud formation and distribution. The ratio of atmospheric absorption to surface absorption can easily double the impact of TSI changes if the duration is long enough allow OHC to reduce during a solar minimum.
There are a lot of small impacts with varying time constants. The over estimation of 2XCO2 impact is muddying the likelihood that sensitivity is non-linear and regional. What this job needs is a new project manager!

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm)
“Tune manually to what you wish for.”
You’re not reading what I wrote. There’s a WIDE band centered around ~11 years that points at ~11 years. (That means you can be off by quite a bit and STILL hit the target …BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE THE RESONANCE IS.) If you would do the calculations you would be empowered to OBSERVE this instead of falsely speculating and falsely ascribing imaginary motives that do not exist.
–
Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm)
“As I said, If there were a strong signal simple FFT [or even just eyeballing] would pick it up.”
And once again: You’re wrong if you’re referring to plain FFT. Some windowed versions could do the job. Remember that IT’S A PROPERTY OF THE WINDOW, so if you don’t window, you don’t see it.
Instead of shooting the breeze, take 10min to do the calculations. You have all the info you need.

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 26, 2011 at 10:49 am
[lot-o-stuff clipped for brevity]
“…
Juraj V. says:
December 26, 2011 at 10:22 am
AFAIK, LOD is well correlated with Pacific trade winds, which dictate the ENSO conditions, which.. the rest is history.
Indeed it is and Gross finds precisely that. Furthermore he shows that the dedacal signal in LOD is caused primarily by core-mantle boundary processes.”
Wasn’t that in this paper?
http://geodesy.eng.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Gross_Geodesy_LpER07.pdf

“The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle”
1. You still haven’t said what the implication of this are. Why do you think it is so important?
2. Even though you have found seemingly nice correlations, that does not imply causality (which you imply in the statement above).
Both could be being forced by something else.

@Ulric Lyons (December 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm)
Spatiotemporal pattern.

One hundred ten comments to a “blob-gram” is a pretty good day’s work. I have some ink-blots that may excite you folks to orgasm.

Well, I read the whole thread. I am not going to comment on who is right and who is wrong — I did not “do the math” and probably don’t have time…. But, I can verify one thing (and it’s worth $0.02 I realize). FFT does not seem to work well at all with long period phenomena, noisy phenomena and random aperiodic phenomena of low frequency. I have recently done a lot of work with low frequency noise — I used other techniques and am looking at wavelets to tease out ode of the patterns and frequencies.
I suggest that some of the doubters who are familiar with various forms of FFT analysis and Wavelets to consider the idea — if they have time to do a bit of number crunching.

However, if LOD changes, say, 0.3 milliseconds, I think I would study something else?

Mark says:
December 27, 2011 at 2:21 am
So, here’s the question that noone has answered yet. What exactly is this graph showing? There’s alot of intellectual Jibber Jabber going on that is over the heads of the majority of us, but please do tell, what does this show?
The graph shows a relationship between the rotational speed of the Earth and the amount of cosmic energy received at Earth. There is a large solar component involved in the cosmic ray modulation that we experience over time, which maybe coincides with the rotation speed of of Earth. Our rotational speed maybe governed by physical forces that must be balanced when there are changes in the size/height of our atmosphere. Perhaps the reason for the atmospheric changes come from the same source as the cosmic ray flux modulation, which firmly places pressure on those who subscribe to a null climate effect from Sol.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm)
“you need to show your curve […] and compare it with his to gain some credibility,”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm
“compare it with his to gain some credibility,.” […] here is the Potsdam curve: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png There is no ‘efficient’ solar cycle variation [and of course not in the derivative either]”
See the articles to which I linked. This article is just an update. As indicated, one can isolate the semiannual variation any number of ways. The results are ROBUST ACROSS METHODS.
Important: The summary in the image to which you linked has the focal length set SUPER-NARROW. As I have now told you countless times over the past year, if you change the window extent to something somewhat NEAR the solar cycle length (it doesn’t even have to be exact since the resonance is so strong), you’ll get this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . (In interpreting the plot it’s important to remember that each dot on the curve is a property OF THE WINDOW.)
The Lesson: Use the focal length adjustment on your microscope to bring things into focus. This will enable you to develop awareness of CROSS-SCALE morphology.
You’re commenting about statistics you do NOT understand. You’re repeatedly commenting from a position of ignorance. I again advise you to do the calculations. You need to first develop awareness of fundamentals before you can constructively think critically about those fundamentals.
Regards.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm)
“The last 0.1% of solar variation acts no different from the other 99.9%.”
You keep shifting the focus away from orbital modulations (& Earth’s spatiotemporal filter more generally). You understand orbital modulations relatively well for the geomagnetic field, but you repeatedly deflect attention away from the solar input vector response of other fields. This is a rather curious double-standard.

Geoff Sharp (December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am)
“[…] which firmly places pressure on those who subscribe to a null climate effect from Sol.”
It does more than that. It empirically crushes their narrative.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 27, 2011 at 8:52 am
@Carla says:
December 27, 2011 at 6:44 am
“And now the solar wind speed is below my floor..”
See the impact of that on the ENSO, AO and NAO indexes, and less zonal jet stream.
~
You know Ulric every where I look there seems to be less current available too. Less ionization, more negative junk hanging around.
Pamela, you do know that there is a coupling effect between the ionosphere and the upper atmosphere? A top down coupling to bottoms up effect? Both are windy and have their own currents and charges? They might even charge exchange.

“There are currents in the ionosphere of the order of a million amps. Then there is a ‘leakage current’ down to the lower atmosphere of the order of a 1000 amps”
So there is a ‘gradient’ that could vary over time ?
“The leakage current is maintained by the approx. 2000 thunderstorms that are going on at any given time, so is basically maintained from below.”
I seem to recall recent evidence of downward electrical transmission but cannot link to it at the moment.
Then there is the matter of atmospheric chemistry involving the changing particle and wavelength products of solar variability having differential effects at different heights as a result of interactions with ozone so as to change the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere with a consequent redistribution of surface air pressure patterns (the permanent climate zones).
Lots to be going on with and not wise to discount any of it in light of the observed behaviour of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and Joanna Haigh’s unexpected finding that ozone above 45 Km INCREASED at a time of lower solar activity.

“The correct way of stating it is that there is “a reduction in mesospheric ozone at higher solar activity””
I can live with that because all I need is differential variations in ozone quantities at different levels.
A reduction in mesospheric ozone when the sun is more active results in a cooling mesosphere.
A cooling mesosphere increases upward energy flux and appears to cool the stratosphere along with the mesosphere when the sun is more active DESPITE an increase in ozone below 45Km.
The cooling stratosphere when the sun is more active increases the upward energy flux from the troposphere. The height of the tropopause rises especially towards the poles.
A cooler stratosphere having increased the height of the tropopause especially above the poles intensifies the polar vortex and focuses it on the pole so that the jetstreams become more poleward and zonal. In contrast a warmer stratosphere during a period of quiet sun reduces the height of the tropopause at the poles causing the polar vortex to become weak and split into several components around the pole which forces the surface air pressure distribution equatorward for more meridional jetstreams.
When the sun is more active global cloud cover reduces as a result of broader equatorial air masses, more solar energy gets into the oceans to skew ENSO in favour of El Nino but the warming effect is offset by the faster water cycle for little or no change in system energy content whilst mid latitudes at the surface become warmer due to more warm air flowing those regions as it flows faster on the way out to space.
The opposite when the sun is less active.
That is climate change with no significant change in total system energy content.
And all because the ozone quantities in the mesosphere vary oppositely to the ozone quantities in the stratosphere when the level of solar activity changes.
That is what has been confusing everyone.

In fact, exactly as I suggested here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Eath’s Temperature”
I thank you for that link to the update of Joanna’s work which fits my hypothesis perfectly.
It now seems to be accepted that the sign of the ozone response above and below 40/45 Km is different.
That has implications as regards the ozone hole too.
I am not aware of anyone else with a hypothesis that accounts for those findings.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Monthly values from 330 to >750Km/s is a considerable range.
It does that over the entire cycle ie no real discernible change. You need to be looking elsewhere, speed is of little consequence.

“The link I gave you does a good job “The model and satellite data suggest that the ozone response is due to enhanced photochemical activity associated with larger UV variability”
That link says nothing about the system response to less ozone in the mesosphere. That is what I was referring to. Not long ago you averred that such a finding was impossible when I suggested it. You were wrong.
Therefore it does no such job.
It is well established empirically that more ozone gives a higher temperature and less ozone a lower temperature.
It is well established empirically as to what happens to the tropopause and the surface pressure distribution below it as a result of changes in the temperature of the stratosphere and/or the height of the tropopause. My so called ‘hand waving’ is a simple application of that which is well known.
Remember that not so long ago you rejected my New Climate Model on the basis that you did not believe that solar variability could have a top down effect on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. You were wrong.
You maintained the established cpnvention that the sign of the temperature response as a consequence of solar changes was the same throughout the vertical atmospheric column. You were wrong.
You would not accept my contention that chemical processes rather than radiative process were key to what happens in the atmosphere. You were wrong.
In light of the confirmation that there is indeed a reverse sign solar effect in the mesosphere and in light of the empirical observation that the stratospheric temperature trend follows the mesospheric trend my hypothesis is correct even if minor flaws remain.
On the basis of that simple change virtually everything else about climate variability falls into place on the basis of established knowledge which I should not need to repeat at length here.

“Am I also wrong that chemical processes work through changes in the radiation? Just changing the chemistry doesn’t do anything unless it changes the radiative processes. What I objected to were your silly notions of solar wind pressure [and other things too many to mention].”
You were wrong to suggest that radiative physics alone was what we needed to consider.
Once one introduces a chemical process capable of slowing down or speeding up the flow of energy through the system such as increases or decreases in ozone quantities at different levels then your emphasis on radiative physics becomes inadequate. You would not accept that when I told you.
I’ve never been emphatic about solar wind pressure. In fact I don’t recall using that phrase. Anyway it was under your kind direction long ago that I switched from whatever I was then proposing to variations in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun and that link now confirms me to have been right about that too even though you derided the suggestion at the time.
As for being right I think you will find that so many observed and hitherto puzzling climate observations now fall into place that it is highly unlikely that I am fundamentally wrong but I may still be wrong or incomplete on certain aspects.
I always told you it was a work in progress and Joanna Haigh’s findings which you now seem to accept constitute a large step forward because no other current climate description incorporates the obvious thermal consequences of her observations.

Stephen, can you tell me if your work correlates with Erl Happ’s ozone hypotheses?
=========

This was, probably, the most disgraceful thread on this site, ever.
No wonder “a scientist” is becoming something ringing an inner alarm, and a Ph.D — a certificate of conformism, nastiness, and immoral greed.

So … looks like nothing changed much has changed … still looking to me like 2013.
I got that from a link on Tallbloke’s site to this
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/
I was particularly noticing “Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism.”

“The only energy that flows through the system is radiation.”
Of course it is but the upward speed of the outward flow can be slowed down. Ozone holds more solar energy and slows the loss of that energy to space. That is why there is an inversion at rhe tropopause above which the temperature rises until one gets to the stratopause. It is a variant of the greenhouse effect. Ozone reverses the adiabatic lapse rate in the stratosphere.
“I still don’t see the solar wind particles doing anything, and certainly not with the ozone.”
When I first refferred to both solar particles and wavelengths I was covering both options because I know that solar protons destroy ozone above 45km. However, you made it clear to me that there aren’t enough of them to achieve the required effect. That left wavelength variations and the link you kindly provided pins it down to that which is good enough for me.
“I can’t see what the obvious thermal consequences are. Tell me.”
Basic meteorology. If one changes the temperature of the stratosphere as the solar variations now seem to do albeit via processes going on in the mesosphere then the height of the tropopause changes too.
Those solar changes affect the poles most via an effect on the polar vortices so the whole gradient of the tropopause height from equator to pole changes.
That shifts ALL the surface pressure components poleward for an active sun and equatorward for a less active sun thus shifting the permanent climate zones for a perceived climate change for specific locations on the ground.
There are then consequential effects on cloudiness, albedo and the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate system.
So the solar changes alter the amount of enregy getting into the system. The shift of the surface pressure distribution operates negatively to offset that effect and parts of the surface enter or approach closer to different climate zones for a perceived change of regional climate.
Since the system response to the solar forcing is always negative the total system energy content need not change much at all which is why the satellite record contains much smaller temperature variations than the surface record.
Furthermore it deals with the early faint sun paradox. As the sun brew stronger over billions of years the climate zones just shifted a bit more poleward to maintain the basic system energy content caused prinmarily by the combination of solar input, atmospheric pressure and the strength of the bonds between water molecules.

“Explain how in your New Model you explain that the height of the tropopause has increased [as observed] by 500 meter the last 4 decades.”
The stratosphere cooled until the late 90s. The cause was the high level of solar activity cooling the mesosphere and the stratosphere following the mesospheric temperature trend. The cooling of the stratosphere was greatest at the poles which skewed the tropopause height gradient between equator and pole so as to pull the climate zones poleward.
The tropopause will rise either from a warming below OR a cooling above.
“Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric
temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere
varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low
tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low
tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”
from here page 14:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-
0442(2001)014%3C3117%3ATTITPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Have you actually read any of my stuff ?
If so, you haven’t understood it.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3117%3ATTITPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The earlier link didn’t work so here is one that should. Clearly a cooling from above has the same effect as a warming from below.
The relative steadiness of the rise in the tropopause doesn’t mean it is NOT solar related because the changes are slow across multiple cycles and do not seem to respond much to the peaks and troughs of individual cycles.
Furthermore it is telling that the cooling of the stratosphere ceased in the late 90s as the level of solar activity started to fall from the peak of cycle 23.

“How has the level of the tropopause changed in the last decade?”
Does anyone have that because I can’t find it ?
At a guess I think it will have stopped or nearly stopped rising as the stratosphere has now stopped cooling.
However residual energy in the oceans from past high levels of solar activity in the past could still be pushing it up a bit.
I’ve always contended that we are dealing with a combined solar/oceanic interaction with each modifying the effects of the other.

In the very beginning of this thread there was this welcome to Dr. Svalgaard’s world of pleasantries:
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am
Even if an explanation could be construed, the ‘finding’ is just junk, dressed up to be incomprehensible to mainstream morons.
The world’s self-appointed foremost Solar scientist at his best.

Not according to everyone:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”

So your entire position rests on the assumption that a cooler mesosphere at a time of active sun will have a zero effect on the upward energy flux from below ?
The stratosphere is far far ‘thinner’ that the troposphere but still the ozone generated warmth puts an effective block on convection.
I think you will find that a temperature change anywhere in the atmospheric column will have consequential effects right down to the surface by altering the environmental lapse rate and tropopause height for an air pressure shift at the surface, a shift in the permanent climate zones and a change in the speed or size of the water cycle.
And I think we will eventually find that the change in trend in stratospheric temperatures in the late 90s was indeed a consequence of the change or pending change in the level of solar activity around that time.
I know you will not accept that today and you will not be able to convince me otherwise either.
Let history tell us in due course.

and then there is this:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext/
“Top-down solar modulation of climate: evidence for centennial-scale change”.

@Leif Svalgaard December 29, 2011 at 9:44 am)
It’s not about “opinions” (quoting you). The calculations I’ve presented will be judged sound by any CAPABLE party on the basic of absolute logic.
You owe me a public apology.
Since you appear to be feigning that you can’t find the links I provided earlier, here they are again:
1. Semi-Annual Solar-Terrestrial Power. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
2. Solar, Terrestrial, & Lunisolar Components of Rate of Change of Length of Day. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/
The comments you’re directing my way indicate ignorance of anything other than global & windowed narrow-extent power summary methods. If you don’t know how to do variable-extent wavelet calculations, indicate so.

kim, I have results I have not publicized. I can tell you this: Piers Corbyn is not BSing. The comment I dropped at Curry’s is no bluff. I won’t be sharing my new results at WUWT until we either get Svalgaard understanding variable-extent wavelets or get the WUWT community realizing the limits of Svalgaard’s expertise (which presently patently doesn’t extrapolate into the area of variable-extent complex wavelets, and more generally doesn’t even reach intermediate level data exploration). Regards, Paul Vaughan

Ulric Lyons says:
December 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Given the consistency of the relationship between solar wind speed trends and changes in the ENSO index that I have identified, I see no reason to be swayed by opinion.
I am not sure if you saw my comment, so repeating just in case.
“I have not seen this relationship. Do you have something to back up your claim?”

From above post, ..axial
force is enhanced by the azimuthal current of the electron
diamagnetic drift and the radial magnetic field..
And from an earlier post..
..While the stronger daytime wind-driven currents have been extensively studied, gravity and diamagnetic currents in the ionosphere have received very little attention but can have substantial effects even during the night. .
And in the cusps during CEPs (cusp energetic particle) events we find CDCs (cusp diamagnetic cavities) enhanced, weak or sometimes absent.
From the next article which is my new find of the New Year.
This article will forever change the view on how we perceive solar energetic particle events and the reconnection process..
I call it Dayside Reconnection..
Cusp energetic ions as tracers for particle transport into the
magnetosphere
Trattner, K.J.1, S.M. Petrinec1, S.A. Fuselier1, W.K. Peterson2 and R. Friedel3
Short Title: Cusp Energetic Ions
Abstract
The magnetospheric cusps are focal points in studies of both magnetic reconnection at the magnetopause
and plasma entry into the magnetosphere. Contrary to a well-understood precipitating thermal
magnetosheath ion population, the origins of energetic ions in the cusp regions are still a matter of
controversy. It has been suggested that these Cusp Energetic Particles (CEP) with significant fluxes from
magnetosheath energies up to several hundred keV/e are accelerated locally in the cusp. A recent paper has
suggested local plasma conditions conducive to CEP acceleration in the Cusp Diamagnetic Cavity (CDC).
An alternative source region for CEP events is the quasi-parallel bow shock, which is a well known particle
accelerator. Energetic ions accelerated at the bow shock can be transported downstream and enter the cusp
along newly reconnected field lines. Composition and energy spectra of these CEP events resemble those
of bow shock energetic diffuse ions.
We use recently developed techniques to determine the location of the reconnection site at the
magnetopause, draping interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) lines over the magnetopause and mapping those
field lines back into the solar wind to show the magnetic connection between the cusp regions, the Earth
bow shock, and the upstream region. Several cusp crossings by the Polar satellite during variable IMF
conditions are analyzed for patterns between the cusp, their connection to the upstream region and the
appearance of energetic ions in the cusp. Local plasma conditions in the cusp are also documented. This
analysis reveals that the occurrence of CEP events is not uniquely determined by local plasma conditions.
The flux of CEP ions depends on the location of the quasi-parallel bow shock and the magnetic topology in
the magnetosheath. Our analysis allows us to use CEP ions as tracers for plasma transport into the cusp and
to better understand the magnetic topology between the solar wind and the ionosphere
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/timas/files/2011/03/Trattner_2008_JGR.pdf