By Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle. Here’s a concise visual update based on the latest data:
LOD’ = rate of change of length of day
Data
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/STATION_DATA/Monthly_data/moscow.tab
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@Geoff Sharp says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“It does that over the entire cycle ie no real discernible change. You need to be looking elsewhere, speed is of little consequence.”
It does not do that year by year and don`t limit your perspective to “the solar cycle”. And no I don`t need to look elsewhere thanks, I have found a very pleasing relationship between monthly solar wind speed trends and changes of the ENSO index.
Carla says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:44 pm
With the availability of a new generation of magnetic field models based on high-accuracy satellite magnetic measurements, it becomes increasingly important to account for these smaller current systems.
You are missing the important point: that these currents are so small that it is only now with super-sensitive satellite measurements that we can even measure them. They have no significant effect on anything.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Ulric Lyons, You need to be looking elsewhere, speed is of little consequence.
Geoff, let the man have his innocent fun. It doesn’t hurt, and you are not going to sway him anyway.
“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.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 27, 2011 at 5:40 pm
You were wrong.
That I was wrong does not mean that you are right.
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].
“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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Geoff, let the man have his innocent fun. It doesn’t hurt, and you are not going to sway him anyway.
Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? 🙂
Stephen Wilde says:
December 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Once one introduces a chemical process capable of slowing down or speeding up the flow of energy through the system
The only energy that flows through the system is radiation.
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.
I still don’t see the solar wind particles doing anything, and certainly not with the ozone.
no other current climate description incorporates the obvious thermal consequences of her observations.
I don’t think it was her observations. Try Jeff Harder of LASP.
I can’t see what the obvious thermal consequences are. Tell me. This is my main problem: when asked about what your ‘theory’ is, I find myself at a loss for words. I realize that I cannot explain to somebody what it is, in a way that makes sense. That the world is not beating a path to your door may be a sign that I’m not alone. One would think that having THE correct climate theory would be of interest to a lot of people, scientists, politicians, lay people, tax payers, the IPCC, and such like. Perhaps you should try to submit it the Geophysical Research Letters. That would help you organize the argument.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 27, 2011 at 6:41 pm
“you are not going to sway him anyway.”
Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? 🙂
You mean that you have given up on him too?
Stephen, can you tell me if your work correlates with Erl Happ’s ozone hypotheses?
=========
lgl says,
Or speeding up? LOD decreased after 1975. They are showing -LOD in the graphs.
Good point. I based my interpretation of the -LOD axis on Leif’s awful and incorrect “ice skater” explanation instead of taking time to read the relevant material first. Bad form from me, and I appreciate your correction.
Given that causes typically precede their effects, I am amazed to find Pamela Gray describing Leif’s explanation as “elegant” rather than, say, “slightly backwards” or just plain wrong. 😉
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.
Khwarizmi says:
December 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Given that causes typically precede their effects, I am amazed to find Pamela Gray describing Leif’s explanation as “elegant” rather than, say, “slightly backwards” or just plain wrong. 😉
My bad. I was trying to explain one of the causes of variations in LOD, e.g. of the seasonal variation. The longer period are probably partly due to core-mantle interactions, although a general warming may also be involved [although taken out by the detrending], see http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf “ABSTRACT. Global warming, by definition, changes the atmospheric temperature field. Since this temperature change is not expected to occur uniformly, either geographically, or with height in the atmosphere, changes can be expected in the pole-to-equator temperature gradient which, by the thermal wind equation, will cause changes in the atmospheric zonal wind field. Conservation of angular momentum dictates that as the wind-driven axial atmospheric angular momentum changes, so will the length-of-day (LOD) […] Furthermore, this study demonstrates that observed changes in the amplitudes of the seasonal LOD signals can be used to study the effects of climate change on the seasonal atmospheric zonal winds on interannual to decadal and longer time scales.”
Alexander Feht says:
December 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm
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 far, up to your post, we have been spared the real nastiness.
Bumped into this over at Tallbloke’s place:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/iron-line-to-the-pole/
Wonder what that would look like updated to current. Has nothing to do with length of day but might have some bearing on what is to come with cycle 25.
crosspatch says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Wonder what that would look like updated to current.
Updated a little back [and extended onto the past\]: slides 40-44 of
http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard!
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.”
kim says:
December 27, 2011 at 7:01 pm
It has similarities wth Erl’s work but he doesn’t yet accept the implicatins of the reverse sign ozone response above 45km and that makes quite a difference in simplifying the necessary description substantially.
“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.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 28, 2011 at 12:50 am
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.
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.
“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.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:29 am
The tropopause will rise either from a warming below OR a cooling above.
Warming from below is the standard explanation, and the rise of the the tropopause has been steady and not related to solar activity.
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.