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.
How has the level of the tropopause changed in the last decade?
=========
“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.
Well, if you’re right the tropopause height should have stabilized, because there doesn’t seem to be a lot of (missing) heat boiling out of the oceans. But, I’ll bet we don’t have enough information to settle the question.
=============
@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.”
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.
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 have not seen this relationship. Do you have something to back up your claim?
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.
Leif Svalgaard (December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am)
“more nonsense mumbo-jumbo”
[commenting on Paul Vaughan (December 27, 2011 at 6:29 am) “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.)”]
If you do the calculations, you might develop the conceptual understanding needed to both interpret the stats and see that the statement stands on fundamentals (akin to 1 + 1 = 2 — i.e. defensible via absolute logic).
–
Leif Svalgaard (December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am) repeating earlier request:
“So, show us yours.”
You’re not reading carefully. This is the second time you’ve asked for something I’ve already provided.
–
I’m not at all impressed with your behavior Leif Svalgaard. Your comments in this thread document the lowest integrity commentary I’ve ever seen from you. I’ve called your bluff in defense of the credibility of the WUWT community.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:39 am
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.
In fact there are no solar cycle changes visible in the record at all. The changes you advocate take place on time scales less than seconds [chemistry, radiation]
Alexander Feht says:
December 29, 2011 at 5:09 am
The world’s self-appointed foremost Solar scientist at his best.
As I said, the nastiness begins with you.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
Leif Svalgaard (December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am)
You’re not reading carefully. This is the second time you’ve asked for something I’ve already provided.
Then you should have no problem doing it again.
I’ve called your bluff in defense of the credibility of the WUWT community.
I’m sure they can make up their own opinion.
“The changes you advocate take place on time scales less than seconds [chemistry, radiation”
The changes I advocate take place over millennia as per Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Current Warm Period.
Therefore there is a visible solar signal because we know that solar activity varies on those timescales.
Individual chemical and radiative events occur in fractions of a second but the quantities of such events vary over much longer periods of time.
You already know that from my previous comments so your raising the issue yet again is very puzzling.
It is as though you wish to fool readers who do not have time to trawl back through the thread or through our exchanges on other threads.Why would you wish to do that ?
Stephen Wilde says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:39 am
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.
The cooling continues until the present…
http://igaco-o3.fmi.fi/VDO/presentations_2011/datasets/WS_2011_Tourpali.pdf
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2011 at 9:52 am
The changes I advocate take place over millennia as per Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Current Warm Period.
Therefore there is a visible solar signal because we know that solar activity varies on those timescales.
Not really [and the time scale is not important, the phases are], see slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
You already know that from my previous comments so your raising the issue yet again is very puzzling.
I’m trying to get a coherent position out of the comments. It is hard.
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.”
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2011 at 9:52 am
Individual chemical and radiative events occur in fractions of a second but the quantities of such events vary over much longer periods of time.
In particular on a time scale about 1,000,000,000 times longer, i.e. the solar cycle, so that should be visible.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:16 am
Not according to everyone: “This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”
Makes a difference where in the stratosphere you measure. And there are no error bars on their imaginative lines. Perhaps you want to claim that we really don’t know what the temperature is doing.
Anyway, here http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/ann_data.html you can get various data sets. This is a plot of the temperature at 30 hPa averaged over three year periods: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png
You may either see the recent [and continuing cooling] or say that the data [everybody’s] is so noisy that we don’t know.
Your data looks flat or a slight rise if one just looks at the period late 90s to date.
You linked to a paper that showed a measurable reverse sign ozone reaction to solar variability above 40km. Ozone amounts affect temperature. Temperature affects the rate of energy flux from below and that affects surface pressure distribution for climate changes.
Yet you say solar variability has no effect.
Which is it ?
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Yet you say solar variability has no effect. Which is it ?
Nonsense. Solar variability has a large effect in the upper atmosphere, but a tiny one [0.1K] at the surface.
Your data looks flat or a slight rise if one just looks at the period late 90s to date.
You can cheery pick periods to get any trend you want. Since 2004 the trend is down. But since you say “The changes I advocate take place over millennia” what difference does a few years make…
The point is that you make sweeping general statements on cherry picked periods which you even claim are not relevant [not being millennia].
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Yet you say solar variability has no effect. Which is it ?
Nonsense. Solar variability has a large effect in the upper atmosphere, but a tiny one [0.1K] at the surface.
Your data looks flat or a slight rise if one just looks at the period late 90s to date.
You can cheery pick periods to get any trend you want. Since 2004 the trend is down. But since you say “The changes I advocate take place over millennia” what difference does a few years make…
The point is that you make sweeping general statements on cherry picked periods which you even claim are not relevant [not being millennia].
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.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm
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 ?
No, it relies of the lack of a convincing correlation + mechanism.
The stratosphere is far far ‘thinner’ that the troposphere but still the ozone generated warmth puts an effective block on convection.
1000 times thinner.
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 have added the trend for 50 hPa as well. There was no significant secular change in solar activity is the 90s. The trend was up from the 1970s and back down in the 2000s.
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png
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 says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“This is a plot of the temperature at 30 hPa averaged over three year periods: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png ”
and the de-trended profile follows this: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_4088.gif
@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.
I don’t P, and don’t mind telling you. Sun thing is happening and we don’t know what it is, do we, Mr. Vaughn?
================
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
Thank you, and I’ll go check out v-ecw, and happy new year to you and everyone.
==============