A paper recently published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that “a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to the Carrington Event of 1859”. Based on the results of the study it would be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone, resulting in a “significant [global] cooling of more than 3C”.
From the paper: Solar energetic particle events, frequently referred to solar proton events (SPEs), occur when protons and other particles emitted by the active Sun are accelerated to very high energies (for protons up to 500 MeV) either close to the
Sun’s surface during a solar flare or in interplanetary space by magnetic shock waves associated with coronal mass ejections (Reames, 1999). They typically last for a few days. The high energy protons are deflected, when they enter the Earth’s magnetic field, and upon penetrating the atmosphere can cause massive ionization including significant production of HOx and NOx (Sepp¨al¨a et al., 2004; Jackman et al., 2009).
Based on the modeling done here, and while the Carrington Event of 1859 lasted only 2 days, the proton event caused persistent changes in atmospheric ozone lasting up to several months, the authors predict such an event could cause a “cooling of up to 5 K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3 K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina.” as shown in figure 9 below:
Influence of a Carrington-like event on the atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics
M. Calisto, P. T. Verronen, E. Rozanov, and T. Peter
Abstract:
We have modeled the atmospheric impact of a major solar energetic particle event similar in intensity to what is thought of the Carrington Event of 1–2 September 1859. Ionization rates for the August 1972 solar proton event, which had an energy spectrum comparable to the Carrington Event, were scaled up in proportion to the fluence estimated for both events. We have assumed such an event to take place in the year 2020 in order to investigate the impact on the modern, near future atmosphere. Effects on atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics were investigated using the 3-D Chemistry Climate Model SOCOL v2.0. We find significant responses of NOx, HOx, ozone, temperature and zonal wind. Ozone and NOx have in common an unusually strong and long-lived response to this solar proton event.
The model suggests a 3-fold increase of NOx generated in the upper stratosphere lasting until the end of November, and an up to 10-fold increase in upper mesospheric HOx. Due to the NOx and HOx enhancements, ozone reduces by up to 60–80% in the mesosphere during the days after the event, and by up to 20–40% in the middle stratosphere lasting for several months after the event. Total ozone is reduced by up to 20 DU in the Northern Hemisphere and up to 10 DU in the Southern Hemisphere.
Free tropospheric and surface air temperatures show a significant cooling of more than 3 K and zonal winds change significantly by 3–5 m s−1 in the UTLS region. In conclusion, a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to of the Carrington Event of 1859, must be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone.
…
From the concluding remarks:
Comparing the outcome for temperature and dynamics modeled with SOCOL with results of Jackman et al. (2007), who investigated the SPE of October/November 2003 using
their 3-D TIME-GCM, we see that these results are in good qualitative agreement. They show that shortly after the event happened, the southern hemispheric polar region has a decrease in temperature throughout the entire mesosphere, similar to our results for the northern hemispheric polar region.
The difference between their results and ours is in the intensity of the changes. For the temperature a decrease of more than 3K is shown in this work while Jackman et al. (2007)
depict a decrease of up to 2 K. The fact that our results show a larger effect can be due to the intensity of the solar proton event. The Carrington-like event presented in this paper
represents an event that is more intense than the SPE of October/ November 2003.
The qualitative agreement of our results, modeled with the 3-D CCM SOCOL, for the changes in NOx, ozone, temperature and dynamics, with those obtained by Thomas et
al. (2007) and Jackman et al. (2007), corroborates the finding that solar proton events of this strength have intense atmospheric interactions in a broad altitude range starting from
80 km down to 30 km, with repercussions for surface air temperature.
The latter range from a cooling of up to 5K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina. Therefore
it is important to analyze the impact of energetic particles with a 3-D CCM to ensure that the dynamical and transport aspects are properly taken into account. In this paper,
the solar proton event was placed during equinox. We think that the impact could even be larger if it would happen during earlier winter because the polar vortex prevents the exchange of fresh air from the mid-latitudes with the polar region.
Final Revised Paper (PDF, 1740 KB) Discussion Paper (ACPD)
H/t to The Hockey Schtick
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
stefanthedenier says:
September 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm
The TRUTH: the planet wasn’t getting warmer – it’s not going to get colder. ”Self-adjusting mechanism” and my formulas are fanatically ignored. the truth will win, time is against the Bulshine producers and their addicts.
I have just decided what I want written on my headstone. “I told you it wasn’t warming!”
and you can have “My formulas were fanatically ignored!.”
davidmhoffer says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Hold on.
A Carrington even WOULD cause a drop in temperatures of 3 degrees?
Well if that is true, by extension, the Carrington event in 1859 DID reduce temperatures by 3 degrees.
And if THAT is true, then the next question would be:
How long would it take for temps to recover? 10 years? 100 years? How much of the “warming” during the instrumental record is just a recovery from the Carrington event in 1859?
On the other hand, I question the results of this study for the simple reason that we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period.
——————– And, looking at Central England’s temperature over the period implies …
AJB says:
September 27, 2012 at 1:55 am
Cat: http://postimage.org/image/4adfejjij/full
Pigeons: http://postimage.org/image/jx4orwxaj/full
———————
Good find!
So this implies that the temperatures measured in rural England’s with an (analog) thermometer “implies” a 2 year drop in daily temperature of about 2 degrees. After two years, no change from the the year before the previous event.
BUT, if my experience with a massive electronic arc/surge/”EMP” when the power lead to my house breaker panel was pulled out suddenly under load (ground settlement yanked the input power cable out from the breaker panel) means anything, ANY electronic device plugged in will be destroyed. Microwave, digital TV, dishwasher, Playstation, VCR, DVD players, radios, thermostats, coffee pot, garage door opener controller, blood pressure monitor, rechargeable battery controllers, ….. ANYTHING plugged in that had electronics was destroyed. computers and printers were isolated by a UPS power supply – They were fine. Everything else? Gone.
Counterintuitive:Higher energy input from the sun would lower temperature on earth?
davidmhoffer:
At September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm you say
I think the most important issue your raise is,
“How long would it take for temps to recover?”
because I think it would be months.
Each year global temperature rises by 3.8 K from June to January and falls by 3.8 K from June to January. This variation in global temperature results from the varying distance of the Earth from the Sun in its travel around its elliptical orbit and the greater coverage of the Southern Hemisphere by oceans.
Clearly, the Earth responds to difference in heating from the Sun within months (probably much less than three months). The above article says;
Assuming that is true, then the event lasts a few days and its direct effects would last “several months after the event”. Assume the total duration of those direct effects is 6 months and the recovery is 3 months then the effect of the event would last for a total of 9 months.
So, the cooling would be at most 5 K for less than a year. In 1859 people would have noticed cold weather that year but nothing more than that. And it would be similar if such an event were to again occur.
This would explain why “we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period” if it did occur: such “massive cooling” is only significant when sustained for more than a single year.
In other words, either
(a) the study is wrong because “we DON’T have evidence (historical or otherwise) for such a massive amount of cooling in that time period”
or
(b) if the study is right then the lack of evidence for sustained “massive cooling” following the 1859 event indicates its effects are so transient that they are not dissimilar to other weather events of similar magnitude.
Richard
Faraday cages can be ineffective John, unless you are only looking to shield the electrostatic (E-field) part of things; the magnetic (or H-field) proceeds on unimpeded … look it up, or alternatively, click my name …
(A common misconception that continually gets repeated and re-repeated because it looks so good in print and sounds so authoritativein tone.)
This EMP thing is overblown regardless; today’s electronics aren’t your Dad’s electronics (early solid-state devices) of the 1960’s fabricated w/o intrinsic static discharge protection, and the actual transmission ‘grid’ operators are primed to look out for geomagnetic events in order to invoke protection protocols and procedures.
.
There is a good chance that everything saw 240V too, when that accident happened. That is more than likely what happened … loose the Neutral connection and Katy bar the door (you should know this!) and this doesn’t take into consideration other ‘shorts’ or shorting that may have occurred in the fuse panel or meter base as the service drop wiring was yanked out … twice line voltage supplied to most all appliances is highly detrimental exc those with ‘universal’ 110 – 240 VAC input …
.
The CET (or indeed the temperature trend in any single region) is only loosely related to global temperature changes often being out of phase with them.
If the Carrington event altered ozone quantities it would likely take time for the thermal effects to build up to a maximum and then more time for the effects to dissipate. 10 to 20 years does not seem unreasonable.
That said I think such a short event is unlikely to have the large consequences that they suggest. In contrast a multicentennial drift in the upper atmosphere ozone balance in response to long term solar variations would be a very different matter.
60+ comments and no one has actually noticed that the paper doesn’t anywhere discuss “global” cooling. This appears to have been invented by the headline writer of this post – as is the insertion of the “[global]” in the quote from the paper. It is obvious from their fig 9 (shown above) that the cooling is regional and associated with a shift in the arctic oscillation with cooling of *up to* 3K.
Way to go with the skepticism people…
Hopefully, if we have enough sensors watching, we’d have some warning (maybe 12-24 hrs?) and could take precautions. However, given the politico’s inability to make fast decisions, they’d be arguing about it as the plasma blasted into the the earth’s magnetosphere.
Anthony,
In theory…a large meteor passing close to our atmosphere could disrupt our atmosphere and take some particles in it’s trailings.
The velocity of objects has very different effects depending on the speed of velocity.
If hitting the sun, a slow moving object would melt but an extremely fast object would disintegrate by friction and impact depending on size. Rotation helps greatly in deflection but our poles have the smallest velocity and vastly less atmosphere…
Gary said:
“no one has actually noticed that the paper doesn’t anywhere discuss “global” cooling”
They say:
“cooling of up to 5 K in eastern Europe and Russia to a somewhat smaller decrease of about 3 K for the Southern Hemisphere in Argentina.”
Sounds like a global effect to me.
richardscourtney says: September 27, 2012 at 4:48 am
In 1859 people would have noticed cold weather that year but nothing more than that.
Daily CETemperature following the Carrington Event of September 1859 is shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CarringtonEvent.htm
compared to 1858 and 1860 for the same Sep-Dec period.
None of these ‘oldest’ thermometer records show anything around 1859 that was unusual.
http://i55.tinypic.com/15hcnm.jpg
Commenters referring to global average temperatures (& CET) haven’t listened carefully before reacting. The paper speculates about terrestrial circulatory morphology changes due to solar modulation of temperature gradients (not averages) in the polar (not global) regions. Discussion: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/14747/2012/acpd-12-14747-2012-discussion.html
The way I see it is that it is just a model so take the results as an improbable occurance. The chemical reactions modeled are well understood but SPEs not so much. The angle of impact on the atmosphere, the energy of the photons, and the total area of contact all equate into the final answer which would be different for every simulation resulting in a different temperature outcome. Remember we have no recent documentation to base these simulations on so the complete atmosphereic cycle is not understood.
vukcevic:
re your post addressed to me at September 27, 2012 at 6:36 am, you quote part of what I said at September 27, 2012 at 4:48 am and dispute it by showing the CET for 1859 was similar to its adjacent years.
Firstly, as Stephen Wilde says at September 27, 2012 at 5:32 am
so, of itself, that regional data is not conclusive.
Much more importantly, my point was that the event had so trivial a climatological effect that it was not recorded and, therefore, a similar future event could be expected to also have trivial climatological effect and any effect it did have would only be seen as weather.
I remind that I explained my reasoning and concluded by writing:
Richard
@Stephen Fisher Wilde – I agree with Gary here. It isn’t ‘global’ cooling just because it affects the two geomagnetic poles. The effects shown are regional and temporary wrt to the atmosphere. Not cool to add words into the text.
Paul Vaughan:
You are plain wrong in your post at September 27, 2012 at 7:18 am where you assert
No!
You and the discussants at your link have not read the paper.
Its ‘abstract’ says
and its ‘concluding remarks’ say
A “major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere” with sited temperature reductions near both poles is a global effect.
Richard
We have plenty of paper in the computer printer, but I think I’ll have more important things to do than record temps. Perhaps I’ll add a mechanical clock, perpetual paper calender and a thermometer to the stockpiles in the Panic Room?
Since the entire global air circulation is a single entity I fail to see how one can have regional changes that do not have global implications.
Simply, any regional changes are a reflection of a changes in the global energy balance.
I think the effect of the Carrington event may have been spread over the subsequent couple of decades producing the global warming that occurred from 1859 to about 1880 though it is clear that regional effects were much less straightforward and clearly varied within that two decade period.
The important thing is that warming followed it in global terms and not cooling.
Even if that single event was too short lived to account for observations it remains my view that solar variations on a multicentennial timescale nonetheless produce the proposed or similar ozone effects but with a reverse sign system response.
An active sun cools the stratosphere for more zonal jets and a warming troposphere.
An inactive sun does the opposite.
The changes being implemented by global cloudiness and albedo variations.
Global temperature chart here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
All showing a rise from 1859 to about 1880
Tallbloke says
Given that HADsst2 shows a warming over the 1859-69 decade,
Henry says
I see some of you guys are picking up on this: a reduction in ozone causes warming, not cooling.
Clever. You figured it out. Thanks.
I would imagine that the upper atmosphere acts like a sponge taking solar effects and converting it into chemical reactions (NOx, HOx + Ox) and distributing it. A massive ozone loss, if this is what the C-effect causes, would ultimately lead to a warming effect, but probably spread over 5-10 years.
Can you show me that graph, Tallbloke?
Stephen Wilde,
That chart apparently shows accelerating temperatures. But when using a trend line chart, we see that the warming since the LIA has been steady, with no acceleration:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
richardscourtney says: September 27, 2012 at 7:48 am
vukcevic:
re your post addressed to me at September 27, 2012 at 6:36 am, you quote part of what I said at September 27, 2012 at 4:48 am and dispute it by showing the CET for 1859 was similar to its adjacent years.
Mr. Courtney
Well, that has to be some kind of misunderstanding, I thought the graph was clearly confirming the point you made (with no further comment was required), as I also stated in my earlier previous comment of September 27, 2012 at 3:29 am, where I said:
I had a quick look at the CET temperatures for the time http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm (pannel3)
Nothing exceptional there either in the autumn 1859 or winter 1860 temperatures, that was not present in the previous or the subsequent decade.
I hope that clears the matter.
vukcevic:
re your post to me at September 27, 2012 at 9:17 am, if I misunderstood anything then I apologise. I hope there is now mutual understanding.
Richard