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.
Henry@Paul
I think Richard’s remarks were correct. Your last remark against Richard was rude.
\ nevertheless, concerning your last question to which you were hoping to get some reaction,
I believe that the net effect of some more or less clouds, due to whatever reason, cancels each other out, largely, due to more or less deflection (of sunlight) during the day and more or less GH effect (of earthshine) during the night. Since nobody can show me any (real, average) figures on that I will stay with that opinion.
I did find a correlation that shows increasing maxima against decreasing ozone and decreasing maxima against increasing ozone; it checked out that way on both hemispheres.
I think the reason for this is the change in chemical reaction (top of the atmosphere) of UV with NOx, HOx and Ox to a small change in the distribution of energy, mainly in the UV region coming from the sun.
In turn this changes the shield of earth: if there is more ozone & others, there is more back radiation of high energy light by the ozone & others, so the oceans (mainly) get less energy.
This is why I said that the belief stated in this paper that a decrease in ozone will have a cooling effect is nonsense.
Hope this helps a few people here.
Stephen Wilde says:
“One just needs to time shift the El Ninos by 5 years or so which is approximately half a solar cycle.
It is reasonable to accept some delay between solar energy entering the ocean and accumulating during solar max and then being released at or around solar minimum.
Obviously it isn’t quite that simple since other factors affect the ENSO process but in broad terms that is entirely plausible and seem to be largely borne out by tallbloke’s link.”
We often get Nino episodes around solar cycle maxima too, as there is usually an Ap index drop there as well. There are no large delays, just a strong seasonal bias, ENSO likes to change at particular times of the year, but it’s still generally following the solar wind speed variations. If the solar wind speed is high around cycle minimum, you’ll see a La Nina there instead, as in the 3yrs from 1973-76.
Picking up on your earlier comment, you said at 8:32 pm;
“The return to the surface at other places and other times affects the winds as Ulric points out.”
I said nothing of the sort, I said the solar signal affects the trade winds, which then affect ENSO.
What I describe corroborates with the evidence that my last link provided, that much warmer periods in the past had very little Nino conditions, while cold periods saw an increase in Nino episodes. Can we get on the same page on this most important point Stephan?
HenryP (September 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm)
“I think Richard’s remarks were correct.”
Again: A gradient is not an average.
Take the time to understand AAM & LOD features.
I don’t have time for silly arguments.
Ulric Lyons says: ”@stefanthedenier The trade winds force upwelling of colder water by Ekman pumping”
Ulric, I wasn’t arguing with you; but pointing that: trade-winds do many things, but don’t cause El Nino. ,Same as: you don’t use umbrella, to bring rain, but rain makes you to use umbrella.
2] people avoid the ”self adjusting mechanisms”; because are in details, in my book. People that hate me for bringing the truth and real proofs.
a] yes, seawater serves as shock absorber, and takes few months to readjust, but not ”many years”! If you want to ignore that evaporation is cooling process – if you want to ignore that extra clouds = extra sun-umbrella for the sea and land… you are maybe suffering from ”truth phobia” same as tallblocke.
b] but the biggest precursor of all misleading comes from; avoiding my proofs that: temperature in the troposphere OVERALL, adjust itself in less than 10 minutes / in ice age and in all the phony GLOBAL warmings; overall – warmth in the troposphere is and was ALWAYS the same!!! Laws of physics don’t change and don’t tell lies / they are the most reliable – if they don’t approve of some theory = that theory is a misleading crap. Avoiding those laws has created all the confusion – confusion doesn’t bring solutions to real problems
P.s. heat in the sea is ”STORED HEAT” sometimes more, others less – some places more / other places less. 2] ”stored heat”; as in the sea, in new trees, in fossil fuel, in plutonium, in the magma are not part of the official GLOBAL temperature, before that heat is released into the atmosphere. Therefore, sea-temperature can tell if is going to be more or less rain for the next few months – but incorporating the sea-temperature into the official global temp is for creating more confusion for the already confused. Same as if you incorporate Bill Gates’ money into your bank account, will not make you richer or poorer, but would be accused of dishonesty.
P.s. extra heat in the sea doesn’t come from the sun; but from activated submarine volcanoes / hot vents. b] 99% of the faulty line is on the bottom of the sea. Movements of the tectonic plates activates El Nino than la Nina – sometime neutral. c] when the sun intensity increase – so does the glare / reflection (sea-surface has mirror effect) ALL, 100% of the heat from submarine volcanoes / vents is absorbed by the water and spread by currents. d] the ocean is 2-4-6km closer to the earth’s center than land. e] 1km deep in the mine-shaft is 40C – average dept of the sea is more than 1km – all the dots are connected on my blog. Most people are for creating / increasing confusion; I’m for simplifying and bringing the truth – truth always wins on the end. Cheers!
The evidence for a solar cycle influence over ENSO is very weak. SC19 being the highest with no apparent corresponding high or low ENSO pattern. The PDO is clearly the main influence over ENSO with the PDO in correlation with the Aleutian Low. The Aleutian Low follows the same 60 year cycle as the geomagnetic and Aurora records, finding this driver will be the key perhaps.
Ulric said:
“What I describe corroborates with the evidence that my last link provided, that much warmer periods in the past had very little Nino conditions, while cold periods saw an increase in Nino episodes. Can we get on the same page on this most important point Stephan?”
I think we will need to respectfully disagree until more up to date data becomes available.
There is no doubt on the basis of recent observations that El Nino warms the troposphere and La Nina cools it or at the very least there is a redistribution of warmth and cold between regions.
Stephen Wilde says:
“I think we will need to respectfully disagree until more up to date data becomes available.”
On what basis do you disagree with all these findings?
http://www.co2science.org/subject/e/summaries/ensogw.php
stefanthedenier says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:17 pm
“.. trade-winds do many things, but don’t cause El Nino.”
http://bit.ly/PMKMZD
Paul Vaughan:
At September 28, 2012 at 8:49 pm you say
Then stop making them: they waste the time of everybody.
Richard
“On what basis do you disagree with all these findings?
http://www.co2science.org/subject/e/summaries/ensogw.php”
I don’t disagree with any findings of fact, merely your interpretations of them or of their significance.
It is quite possible for all those findings to be accurate yet, on time scales that are relevant for us today, El Nino and LA Nina events and their varying dominance over time still to be the primary causes of tropospheric temperature changes and solar variations to be the primary causes of the changes in the relative dominance of El Nino and La Nina.
Quite simply, there are many factors that could be more influential on paleological time scales but that does not detract from the power of El Nino and La Nina on shorter time scales.
Stephen Wilde says:
“I don’t disagree with any findings of fact, merely your interpretations of them or of their significance.”
That’s a bit ripe Stephen, I’m taking the findings at face value, there is no need to interpret them. And the verdict of the observations are that El Nino frequency reduces in warmer periods at a multi-decadal scale, which is plainly the opposite of your postulate that you have held for some time. Mind you you’re not alone in making that assumption.
At the annual & seasonal scale, ENSO displays the same behaviour of favouring La Nina during periods of high solar activity. Which is the opposite of your suggestion earlier, quote:
“I hadn’t seen evidence on the timescale of single solar cycles before but it fits in well with my proposition that a more active sun alters the air circulation to allow more energy into the oceans to skew the ENSO balance in favour of El Nino.”
The cooling resulting from stratospheric volcanic eruptions also promotes El Nino periods, so plainly El Nino is a feedback response to cooling. The tropospheric temperature effects of an El Nino are an overshoot in the response to a cooling condition. That’s why global temperatures peak at such events in the short term, but that does not stop cold winters occurring simultaneously during the episode, as El Nino usually happens when the AO/NAO are negative, as they are driven by the same solar signal.
“El Nino usually happens when the AO/NAO are negative, as they are driven by the same solar signal.”
During the late 20th century we had run of powerful El Ninos at a time of generally active sun with positive AO.
Since 2000 we have seen less El Ninos, a quieter sun and more negative AO.
The recent record low solar minimum was accompanied by a record negative AO and we now have weaker El Ninos as compared to La Ninas.
It isn’t El Nino frequency or timing that matters. What matters is the thermal effect of El Ninos as compared to the thermal effect of La Ninas so the data you linked to does need interpretation.
richardscourtney (September 29, 2012 at 9:06 am) & also HenryP
Apologies for the ambiguity. I’ll rephrase:
It’s not the lines of reasoning I’m calling silly. It’s the process of trying to condense argument resolution into the short lifetime of a single thread that’s silly.
Stephen Wilde says:
“What matters is the thermal effect of El Ninos as compared to the thermal effect of La Ninas so the data you linked to does need interpretation.”
What matters is that the coldest Holocene periods have seen an increase in El Nino.
“The recent record low solar minimum was accompanied by a record negative AO and we now have weaker El Ninos as compared to La Ninas.”
That negative AO was accompanied by a fairly strong El Nino.
“Since 2000 we have seen less El Ninos, a quieter sun and more negative AO.”
Several months back you asked me why there have been more El Nino’s since 2000, though apart from 2009/10 they have been fairly weak. The negative AO has only dominated since 2009.
“During the late 20th century we had run of powerful El Ninos at a time of generally active sun with positive AO.”
The 1997/98 Nino had -AO (neg) and very -NAO. The 1991/92 Nino would have driven by Pinatubo. The 1982/83 Nino had El Chichon. The 1987 Nino was largely -AO. And the stronger La Nina’s were during positive AO/NAO.
Ulric, I think the difference is one of time scales.
On shorter time scales such as those you refer to regarding recent events there is lots of scope for out of phase events and distortions due to volcanic outbreaks but over multiple decades and centuries the pattern seems clear enough to me.
As for the coldest periods of the Holocene having seen an increase in El Nino that may or may not be so but supposing it is so then all that is necessary is for the recharge process during La Nina to be weaker than the discharge process during El Nino whereupon there will be a net system cooling even though there may be more El Ninos.
Thus it is not the frequency of El Ninos that matters, nor the strength of the El Ninos that do occur but rather the cumulative net thermal effect over time between the discharge (El Nino) and recharge (La Nina) processes.
Stephen Wilde says:
“Thus it is not the frequency of El Ninos that matters, nor the strength of the El Ninos that do occur but rather the cumulative net thermal effect over time between the discharge (El Nino) and recharge (La Nina) processes.”
More frequent Nino’s would mean less time for recharge. With a colder base temperature, both recharge and discharge would be less effective.
“More frequent Nino’s would mean less time for recharge. With a colder base temperature, both recharge and discharge would be less effective.”
Not if the El Ninos become shorter or less intense relative to La Ninas they won’t.
With a colder base temperature, recharge would tend to dominate over discharge and with a warmer base temperature discharge would tend to dominate over recharge and the base temperature would be set by the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans which in turn depends on cloudiness changes forced by solar variations.
Stephen Wilde said
“Not if the El Ninos become shorter or less intense relative to La Ninas they won’t.”
Well that would characterise a warming period, like the multi-year La Nina’s at 1973-75, 1983-85 and 1998-2001, which had major El Nino’s following them.
A colder base temperature could only exist due to increased discharge, and would remain so while El Nino dominates.
Ulric Lyons says: ”Well that would characterize a warming period, like the multi-year La Nina’s at 1973-75, 1983-85 and 1998-2001, which had major El Nino’s following them.”
Ulric, El Nino / La Nina doesn’t mean warmer, or colder years. It means: in El Nino some parts of the oceans are warmer / others colder – then changes places in La Nina years. Where is warmer ocean – evaporation increases and makes nights warmer / days milder. Where is less evaporation, days become hotter / nights colder. Because only one minute in 1440 minutes in 24h is taken into account = creates confusion. All the other 1439 minutes have same value – because they don’t go up, or down, as the hottest minute in 24h. None of those variations suggest warmer the WHOLE planet. Don’t waste your life on outdated / pagan beliefs.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde
To correct my last comment, the El Nino episodes following the multi-year La Nina’s are where the up steps in Global/SST temperatures occurred that Erl Happ and Bob Tisdale have written about. The El Nino’s immediately before the multi-year La Nina’s are actually the stronger El Nino’s (’72, ’82 and ’97), but possibly did not produce comparable up steps in climate as they were not preceded by such long and strong La Nina episodes.
Henry@Stephen Fisher Wilde
Hi Stephen, while you are still available on this line,
I wonder what are your thoughts on this idea from Ferdberple:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/29/according-to-noaa-data-all-time-antarctic-sea-ice-rxtent-record-was-set-on-sept-22nd-2012/#comment-1095835
Hi Henry.
Like you, I would be inclined to await better evidence of any link between the position of the magnetic pole and the shape of the atmospheric circulation or the size of the polar ice caps.
Overall I’m doubtful unless the magnetic changes serve as a proxy for the solar induced ozone changes which do appear to alter the air circulation from above.
Henry@Stephen Fisher Wilde
I shall be publishing that sine wave (wave length 88 years) that seems to correlate with my curve showing the deceleration of maximum temperatures shortly. Remember: the evaluation of maxima is like looking at energy-in which is not the same as energy out.
Looking at that curve, it looks like the deceleration in degrees C or K/ annum2 started around 40 years ago. It changed sign around 1995 to negative (cooling). I am not yet sure which of the two dates is the most significant.
I am just picking your brains here before I speak to the solar experts…
Don’t you think it is quite possible that it is the change in earth’s magnetic field that could cause a change in the amount of FUV and EUV coming in?
(I must admit that I haven’t yet had the time to investigate what the E and the F here stands for)
I think FUV is Far Ultra violet and EUV is Extreme Ultra Violet.
The magnetic field only affects charged particles so I have proposed that the quantities of them could contribute to the ozone changes higher up especially since some of them affect NOx production which is highly reactive with ozone.
What if FUV and EUV are sort of like charged photons?