Guest post by David Archibald
My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
So when will it cool? As Nir Shaviv and others have noted, the biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans. My work on sea level response to solar activity (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/) found that the breakover between sea level rise and sea level fall is a sunspot amplitude of 40:
As this graph from SIDC shows, the current solar amplitude is about 60 in the run-up to solar maximum, expected in May 2013:
The two remaining variables in our quest are the timing of the sunspot number fall below 40 and the length of Solar Cycle 24. So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum:
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has reached the level at which solar maximum occurs. It usually spends a year at this level before heading back down again:
Similarly, the solar polar field strength (from the Wilcox Solar Observatory) suggest that solar maximum may be up to a year away:
Notwithstanding that solar maximum, as predicted from heliocentric current sheet tilt angle and solar polar field strength, is still a little way off, if Solar Cycle 24 continues to shape up like Solar Cycle 5, sunspot amplitude will fall below 40 from mid-2013. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/) suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026. That leaves twelve and a half years of cooling from mid-2013.
From all that, for Solheim’s predicted temperature decline of 0.9º C over the whole of Solar Cycle 24 to be achieved, the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle. No doubt the cooling will be back-loaded, making the further decline predicted over Solar Cycle 25 relative to Solar Cycle 24 more readily achievable.
Fits the faint sun paradox nicely too. As the sun became gradually more powerful the jets and climate zones shifted poleward and in the process altered the speed of energy throughput so as to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance. Thus the stronger sun had little effect on system energy content.
System energy content (not the same as surface temperature due to the presence of oceans) being determined by atmospheric pressure at the surface.
The effect of the sun being to increase or decrease the volume of the atmosphere and the vigour of the circulation within it as per the Ideal Gas Laws rather than altering system energy content.
No sun and the atmosphere congeals on the surface. Too much sun and the atmosphere boils off to space.
Insolation controls the volume of an atmosphere and atmospheric mass at any given surface pressure (dependent on strength of gravitational field) sets the system energy content.
Climate change is just energy redistribution due to a change in flow rates and any effect of human CO2 emissions is vanishingly small.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 10:01 am
If there were no stratosphere with its temperature inversion there would still be climate zones
Good, so we have admission on that point.
The atmospheric circulation and the volume of the atmosphere will always configure itself to cause energy out to equal energy in at the top of the atmosphere.
The altitude where there is balance is at about 5 or 6 km
I know of no way that can happen unless something blocks the energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
Ignorance is not a good reason.
AGW theory claims that CO2 does that but you say you do not accept that so what is your explanation ?
CO2 does not warm the surface much, but is obviously important for cooling the stratosphere
only way I can see is by reducing global cloudiness and albedo.
So cosmic rays could do this [if you would subscribe to that], without any ozone relevance.
Now, the climate tropics are defined as where the mean temperature in every month is about 18 C. The width of the tropic ‘belt’ changes by 290 km [or 2.6 degrees of latitude] for each degree C change in global temperature, so since the width has increased by 1.6 degrees the last 40 years, that corresponds to a temperature change of 0.62C which is about right. So, the shift of the jets is quantitatively explained simply by a GW of 0.6 degrees. no ozone needed: the tail does not wag the dog.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm
No, you have to add the effect of the Milankovitch cycles for that but even so, ozone changes will occur if the Milankovitch cycles also lead to a change in the solar spectral (or particle) mix.
The M cycles obviously do not change the spectral mix.
Henry,
Leif and many others dismiss the idea of planetary or cosmic effects on the sun as ‘cyclomania’.
I am unconvinced but open minded.
However my position is that the stregth of the solar wind and so forth (and the amount of cosmic rays) are simply proxies for the level of solar activity with no necessary causative influence as far as the energy budget is concerned.I think it is the spectral and particle mix that matters for the ozone destruction / creation balance.
Nevertheless if it could be shown that those factors could alter ozone chemistry and / or stratospheric temperatures from above then my hypothesis could comfortably include them.
For example a stronger solar wind could bring in more charged particles that affect ozone chemistry one way or another and there is also the possibilty that ozone reactions are not the whole story since other solar / atmosphere reactions could also alter the vertical temperature profile and lead to climate zone shifts.
That is the direction the science needs to go rather than simply blaming CO2 and stopping further consideration of the causes of climate changes.
“The M cycles obviously do not change the spectral mix.”
Fine, they don’t need to from my point of view. Just adding TSI changes from the M cycles to such changes in the spectral mix as do occur will be sufficient to trigger glaciations or interglacials at any particular moment.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm
The effect of the sun being to increase or decrease the volume of the atmosphere and the vigour of the circulation within it as per the Ideal Gas Laws rather than altering system energy content.
No sun and the atmosphere congeals on the surface. Too much sun and the atmosphere boils off to space.
Those two statements are obviously contradictory.
“So, the shift of the jets is quantitatively explained simply by a GW of 0.6 degrees. no ozone needed: the tail does not wag the dog.”
Quite right but the jets are the tail and the temperature of the stratosphere relative to the temperature of the troposphere is the dog.
You cannot warm the troposphere without moving the jets poleward first because only then does cloudiness decrease to let more energy into the oceans.
It cannot be anything to do with CO2 because CO2 continues to increase but the jets are moving back equatorward whilst the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may be warming a little.
The observed ozone changes correlate with the shifting jets. Falling ozone whilst the jets moved poleward, recovering ozone with the jets apparently now moving back again.
Therefore ozone essential.
Your position seems to be that warming of the surface from CO2 is minimal but that the CO2 caused the cooling stratosphere.
Then you say that a warming troposphere caused the jets to move poleward which caused the cooling stratosphere.
There are two problems with your account:
i) You say that the CO2 caused the cooling stratosphere AND the shifting jets cooled the stratosphere. Which is it to be ?
ii) You say that CO2 doesn’t warm the tropospere much but then you say the troposphere warmed enough to widen the tropical belts. How did the troposphere get enough energy to do that in the absence of more TSI and in the absence of lower albedo from a PRIOR shift in the jets
Do you not see the logical problems inherent in your position ?
“The altitude where there is balance is at about 5 or 6 km”
I’ll reconsider that bit. I don’t see that it matters as to the precise height as long as the whole system is in balance. Whatever happens, the atmospheric circulation reconfigures as necessary to maintain overall balance at whatever height and that height is variable whether it be at top of atmosphere or 5 or 6km.
HenryP says:
August 19, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I am looking for a complete 100 year cycle. The cycle I was looking for.
strange that Leif did not know about this?
Sure, there is an approximately 100-yr ‘cycle’, as I remark here: Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Other than that, the paper you refer to is just junk.
“Those two statements are obviously contradictory”
Not so.
It is the speed of throughput that changes rather than the system energy content.
Obviously, zero energy input to an atmosphere will cause it to get cold enough to congeal on the surface.
A sudden blast of energy if strong enough will throw the atmosphere into space instantly.
Anything in between will allow an atmosphere to be retained in gaseous form as long as there is sufficient gravitational field to hold the molecules close enough to the planet.
If the solar input then varies, the speed of energy throughput increases or falls giving a larger or smaller volume for the atmosphere but the system energy content (the amount of the solar energy retained within the atmosphere) will depend on atmospheric pressure at the surface.
Expansion of the atmosphere cools every molecule within the atmosphere so as to keep system energy content stable whilst the speed of throughput increases. Atmospheric pressure at the surface stays the same despite the expansion so the system can hold on to no more and no less of the solar input than it could before the expansion.
It is a simple application of the Ideal Gas Law where volume can vary freely.
It is like adding water to a full receptacle although the analogy is not perfect. The overflow will match the input once the receptacle is full. All that will then change is the volume of the overflow.
.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Quite right but the jets are the tail and the temperature of the stratosphere relative to the temperature of the troposphere is the dog.
Both in terms of mass and in terms of energy the troposphere is the mightly dog and the stratosphere the almost invisible tail
You cannot warm the troposphere without moving the jets poleward first because only then does cloudiness decrease to let more energy into the oceans.
Of course, you can. The tropic belt is determined by the temperature, not the other way around. You can warm the troposphere in many ways: changed ocean circulation, cosmic rays and clouds [some would say], lack of volcanoes, changes in aerosols, even CO2 [some would say]
i) You say that the CO2 caused the cooling stratosphere AND the shifting jets cooled the stratosphere. Which is it to be ?
No, the shifting jets do not cool the stratosphere. And the stratosphere may be recovering due to the Montreal Protocol, e.g. see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
ii) You say that CO2 doesn’t warm the tropospere much but then you say the troposphere warmed enough to widen the tropical belts. How did the troposphere get enough energy to do that in the absence of more TSI and in the absence of lower albedo from a PRIOR shift in the jets
There is a lot of energy in the climate system [e.g. in the oceans]. Much more than in the stratosphere.
I’ll reconsider that bit. I don’t see that it matters as to the precise height as long as the whole system is in balance.
Of course the system [including the oceans and even the sun] is in balance on time scales that matter.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Expansion of the atmosphere cools every molecule within the atmosphere so as to keep system energy content stable whilst the speed of throughput increases. Atmospheric pressure at the surface stays the same despite the expansion so the system can hold on to no more and no less of the solar input than it could before the expansion.
The atmosphere does not behave like that. You have cause and effect reversed [again]. It is the temperature of the air that expands it: the hotter the air, the more does the atmosphere expand and the more energy does the air contain. The volume is not allowed to vary freely. Gravity sees to that.
i) “The volume is not allowed to vary freely. Gravity sees to that.”
Any extra energy added to the atmosphere causes expansion. Once the atmosphere is in balance between energy content and gravity any extra energy will cause expansion proportionate to the amount of extra energy.
ii) “It is the temperature of the air that expands it: the hotter the air, the more does the atmosphere expand and the more energy does the air contain.
Expansion results in cooling of each molecue as per the Ideal Gas Law and that cooling offsets the additional energy coming in at the expense of a faster throughput. A particular combination of gravity and mass can only hold on to a specific amount of energy.Any surplus passes straight through for a change in volume and circulation.
iii) “No, the shifting jets do not cool the stratosphere”
Well the paper you linked to says they did and you seemed to agree when you said I had cause and effect reversed as against the content of that paper.I am glad you have clarified that. Obviously you agree that the paper’s speculation is wrong.
iii) “There is a lot of energy in the climate system [e.g. in the oceans]. Much more than in the stratosphere.”
The ocean cycles are about 60 years long with the thermohaline cycle about 1000 years long but we see climate cycling up for 500 years or so and down for 500 years or so (some say 750 years each way as per the Bond cycles). The 500 year cycling fits solar changes but not ocean cycles.None of the other factors you mention create the observed climate cycling.
iv) The energy content of the stratosphere as compared to the energy content of the troposphere or oceans is not the relevant factor. Anything that changes the relative temperatures between troposphere and stratosphere will require a climate zone shift in order to maintain energy balance for the system as a whole. The temperature inversion at the tropopause physically prevents further convection despite the much lower density and energy content of the stratosphere. The density and energy content comparisons are straw men.
Tell me this:
Why do you think the stratosphere cooled when the tropsphere warmed ?
And is no longer cooling and may be warming whilst the tropsphere cools ?
You suggested it might be CO2 but that is already falsified by recent changes because CO2 continues to rise but the stratosphere is no longer cooling.
You have now accepted that it does not cool as a result of shifting jets but you implied and the paper you linked to said that it did.
So why did it cool and why is it now not cooling and why did the change in trend occur when the sun became less active ?
The change in stratosphere temperatures precedes climate zone shifts and for that to be possible requires a top down solar effect.
“It is the temperature of the air that expands it: the hotter the air, the more does the atmosphere expand and the more energy does the air contain.”
I see your problem there.You are conflating ‘the air’ with ‘the atmosphere’.
You understood the concept when you told me about the thermosphere. You said that individual molecules in the thermosphere were very hot but due to the low density the energy content of the thermosphere is actually low as compared to lower levels.
Now apply that principle to the entire atmosphere.
Additional energy coming in from the sun will raise the temperature of individual molecules but, because the density reduces, a given volume of space occupied by a smaller number of hotter molecules contains no more energy than before.
So you get a bigger atmosphere but the same energy content for each unit of volume which should leave the temperature of the air at the surface unchanged should it not ?
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Any extra energy added to the atmosphere causes expansion.
Any extra energy causes the atmosphere to heat up.
iii) “No, the shifting jets do not cool the stratosphere”
Well the paper you linked to says they did
No, the paper [co-authored by my daughter-in-law Signe] said that temperatures and atmospheric dynamics [waves] influence ozone.
The ocean cycles are …
There are no agreement on what the cycles are.
Anything that changes the relative temperatures between troposphere and stratosphere will require a climate zone shift
Not at all, that is where you go off the rail.
Why do you think the stratosphere cooled when the tropsphere warmed ?
asked and answered.
And is no longer cooling and may be warming whilst the tropsphere cools ?
ditto
You have now accepted that it does not cool as a result of shifting jets but you implied and the paper you linked to said that it did.
Not at all. The Fu and Lin paper said:
“Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of the poleward shift of subtropical jets and its relation to TLS. The tropopause on the equatorial and poleward side of the jet is at 100-and 250-hPa levels, respectively (Fig. 1a), corresponding to a low and a high tropopause temperature and thus a low and a high temperature in the lower stratosphere (Fig. 1b). Therefore, when the jet moves poleward (Fig. 1a), the latitudinal dependence of the lower-stratospheric temperature would shift poleward (Fig. 1b), which leads to a drop of the lower-stratospheric temperature near the jet latitudes”
So why did it cool and why is it now not cooling and why did the change in trend occur when the sun became less active ?
Asked and answered.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm
You understood the concept when you told me about the thermosphere….
given volume of space occupied by a smaller number of hotter molecules
But you have apparently lost it when you said:
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Expansion results in cooling of each molecule
i)”No, the paper [co-authored by my daughter-in-law Signe] said that temperatures and atmospheric dynamics [waves] influence ozone.”
The conventional view is that ozone is primarily created and destroyed by competing and varying reactions in the upper atmosphere involving solar irradiation of atmospheric molecules.
Obviously,temperature changes and circulation changes including atmospheriic waves have an effect but I remain to be convinced that it is primarily a bottom up process.There are many papers supportive of a top down effect and in the light of the known solar induced ozone reactions I remain doubtful that you have the full story in that paper especially since the paper concedes that it does not address upper atmosphere chemistry.
I note that you refer to this comment in the paper:
“which leads to a drop of the lower-stratospheric temperature near the jet latitudes”
which rather begs the question as to why there was a general cooling of the stratosphere rather than simply a cooling in the region of the jet latitudes.
It would seem that you have not answered my question.
ii) “Expansion results in cooling of each molecule”
I concede that point. The individual molecules warm up but the amount of energy per unit of volume remains the same. I think I should abandon the assertion that system energy content remains the same when the atmosphere expands since it is only the energy per unit of volume that stays the same. However when one considers the oceans as a driver of air temperatures and the dependence of the ocean energy content on atmospheric pressure at the surface the change in energy content of the atmosphere may not be significant.
iii) “Anything that changes the relative temperatures between troposphere and stratosphere will require a climate zone shift”
“Not at all, that is where you go off the rail.”
We will have to continue to disagree on that point .If solar variations were to change ozone quantities in the stratosphere especially above the poles then that would lead to a climate zone shift. The issue between us seems to be whether the sun can do that or whether the observed changes are solely generated from bottom up.
You have given me a few pointers as to how to improve my narrative but have not yet convinced me that the fundamentals are wrong.
We should leave it there until I see whether future data confirms or rebuts either of our positions.
Thank you for engaging with me.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm
So you get a bigger atmosphere but the same energy content for each unit of volume which should leave the temperature of the air at the surface unchanged should it not ?
Does not make any sense. The air at the surface is heated from below and what is in the thermosphere has nothing to do with the surface. And temperature is not ‘energy per unit of volume’ but the average speed of the molecules no matter what the density is. Time to end the physics lesson.
Leif said:
“But you have apparently lost it when you said:
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Expansion results in cooling of each molecule”
Not so. My 2.43 post corrects that 2.20 post.You give the impression that the timing was the other way around.
Anyway, there is enough to think about.
“The air at the surface is heated from below ”
Of course it is but the temperature it achieves will be affected by the rate at which energy is transported upwards.
“And temperature is not ‘energy per unit of volume’ but the average speed of the molecules no matter what the density is.”
Lower density results in faster upward energy transfer and will therefore affect the temperature that can be achieved.
“Time to end the physics lesson.”
Noted. Good day.
Thank you , Mr Archibald.
It is a pleasure to see testable predictions on a climate change related topic from a sceptic source. So many of the people on WUWT take a purely negative approach.
I look forward to an unusual luxury in a climate debate plagued by arguments about the quality of data; clear measurements of solar output demonstrating or falsifying a cooling trend, something we stand a chance of agreeing on.
Roll on 2015 and a chance to see how it turns out.
Readers might be interested in NASA’s measurements of solar output and the 0.05% per decade warming trend from 1979 to 2003. If their satellite sensors are sensitive enough to detect this, a downward trend in output this cycle should show up clearly.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
Whoops.
The temperature of the air must rise to cause expansion because it is the vibrational energy from the higher temperature that forces the molecules apart.
I don’t know how I went off on the wrong tangent there because I’ve previously always included a rise in insolation (either from increased TSI or reduced albedo) as one of the factors that is capable of warming the system.
In the case of other influences such as more CO2 it is necessary for the circulation changes to prevent an expansion of the atmosphere by speeding up the throughput of energy instead.
Sorry on that point Leif.
I’d still like to know how you think the whole stratosphere (and apparently the mesosphere) could cool whilst the troposphere warms when the shift of the jets apparently only involves a cooling of the lower stratosphere temperature near the jet latitudes.
It can’t be CO2 because CO2 is still rising whilst the stratosphere is no longer cooling.
Simply saying that temperatures and atmospheric dynamics influence ozone doesn’t appear to be sufficient given that we know that ozone quantities do respond to solar spectrum variations.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 7:22 pm
It can’t be CO2 because CO2 is still rising whilst the stratosphere is no longer cooling.
Read Signe’s article. Consider that CO2 is cooling, but the Stratosphere is recovering from CLFs and warming faster than the CO2 is cooling it. None of this can be discussed with hand waving or ‘it stands to reason’, etc. Only numbers, error bars, more observations, and real science can bring some clarity to this.
I’m tired of this. It is like building a sand castle on the beach when the tide is coming in.
I know that that is one possibility but the timing is wrong.The change in trend started in the late 90s when the sun became less active and the change in temperature trend in the stratosphere also correlates with a change in jet behaviour, a change in the cloudiness trend and a cessation of tropospheric warming.
If you are going to say all that is a result of CLF recovery then we have a remarkable substance that can control climate pretty much all on its own.
In fact we should produce more CLFs to counter the long term effects of CO2.
What is the evidence (numbers, error bars, observations and real science) that it is the recovery from CLFs and not changes in the solar effects on ozone in the upper atmosphere ?
Sorry if you are getting tired, so am I but that is theinevitable given the nature of the problem.
You said this previously:
“temperature is not ‘energy per unit of volume’ but the average speed of the molecules no matter what the density is.”
What is the temperature of 1 cubic metre of empty space containing a single molecule vibrating at 100C ?
Does it change if you have 10 such molecules ?
What happens to that temperature if you have 9 such molecules instead of 10 such molecules ?
At what density of molecules does such a concept of temperature cease to be useful ?
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2012 at 9:25 pm
I know that that is one possibility but the timing is wrong.The change in trend started in the late 90s
See Figure 1 of Signe’s Nature article.
If you are going to say all that is a result of CLF recovery then we have a remarkable substance that can control climate pretty much all on its own.
Isn’t that what you claim of O3?
What is the evidence (numbers, error bars, observations and real science) that it is the recovery from CLFs and not changes in the solar effects on ozone in the upper atmosphere ?
Lots of papers on that. Go google yourself.
Sorry if you are getting tired, so am I but that is theinevitable given the nature of the problem.
Not of the problem, but of the tiresome people.
At what density of molecules does such a concept of temperature cease to be useful ?
most of those questions were rather meaningless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature has what you need. Temperature is a measure of the mean energy of motion, called kinetic energy, of the particles. So is a statistical measure. The mean energy per particle over an ensemble [either spatially or temporally] of particles is E = 3/2 k T where k is Boltzmann’s constant. This does not depend on the density. For the temperature to be well-defined there must be enough particles that the mean is well-defined. You can define a temperature of only one particle if you take a mean over time, but now we are getting into esoterics.
Signe’s 2006 article is suitably cautious.
The unknowns concerning solar effects are fairly expressed.
We shall have to wait and see.