From The Hockey Schtick
A paper published Tuesday in the Journal of Climate finds tiny variations in solar activity over 11-year solar cycles have greatly amplified effects upon climate via changes in the Arctic Oscillation, North Pacific sea surface temperatures & sea level pressure, and via changes in stratospheric ozone from solar UV. The authors find the Arctic Oscillation evolves from a negative mode a few years before solar maximums to a positive mode at and following solar maximums. The IPCC claims the tiny variations in solar activity during solar cycles cannot affect climate, but this paper and many others demonstrate solar activity has greatly amplified effects upon climate via ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations such as the Madden-Julian oscillation and Quasi-biennial oscillation, stratospheric ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds.
Here is the paper:
Journal of Climate 2013 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00843.1
Abstract
The surface climate response to 11-yr solar forcing during northern winter is first re-estimated by applying a multiple linear regression (MLR) statistical model to Hadley Centre sea level pressure (SLP) and sea surface temperature (SST) data over the 1880-2009 period. In addition to a significant positive SLP response in the North Pacific found in previous studies, a positive SST response is obtained across the midlatitude North Pacific. Negative but insignificant SLP responses are obtained in the Arctic. The derived SLP response at zero lag therefore resembles a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). Evaluation of the SLP and SST responses as a function of phase lag indicates that the response evolves from a negative AO-like mode a few years before solar maximum to a positive AO-like mode at and following solar maximum. For comparison, a similar MLR analysis is applied to model SLP and SST data from a series of simulations using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. The simulations differed only in the assumed solar cycle variation of stratospheric ozone. It is found that the simulation that assumed an ozone variation estimated from satellite data produces solar SLP and SST responses that are most consistent with the observational results, especially during a selected centennial period. In particular, a positive SLP response anomaly is obtained in the northeastern Pacific and a corresponding positive SST response anomaly extends across the midlatitude North Pacific. The model response versus phase lag also evolves from a mainly negative AO-like response before solar maximum to a mainly positive AO response at and following solar maximum.
for follow-up
Quick: Where’s Bob Tisdale and Leif!
Copy of paper with no figures available here:
The Surface Climate Response to 11-Yr Solar Forcing During Northern Winter: Observational Analyses and Comparisons With GCM Simulations
ftp://ftp.lpl.arizona.edu/pub/lpl/lon/EGMAM/jcli1_nofigs.pdf
It’s been known for while that the AO goes negative at solar minimum. The mainstream contrives to ignore the obvious linkage. No doubt this paper finally got accepted just after the IPCC deadline.
Arctic Oscillation is directly affected by several W/m2 of heat release from warm currents down-welling in the far north Atlantic, which is followed by the SST change.
The UV has miniscule amount of energy compared with either of the down-welling heat release or the tectonic activity in the area (sadly for now ignored by the climate science). There is good correlation between both tectonic activity and SST and solar activity, but the correlation with SST is higher than one with the SSN
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FTE.htm
major unknown here is why there is a correlation of tectonic and volcanic events in high latitudes of the N. Hemisphere with the solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
Its the sun, and it’s about to take a siesta !!
Here’s the figures
ftp://ftp.lpl.arizona.edu/pub/lpl/lon/EGMAM/figures_all.ppt
There is a cumulative lag time effect both forward and aft of the high and low points of the solar cycle. Is that to difficult to understand?
BTW, there is a an up-tick in the monthly sunspot number for April (SSN up to 77 from 58)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
When there is a simple answer it needs to be disproven before a more complex answer is accepted. The sun provides 99.97% of the earth’s energy budget. Very small solar changes would be expected to have large effects. Our understanding of solar variation is minimal, and our time frame for study is a drop in the bucket in the billion year lifespan of our nearest star.
It’s the sun stupid.
Essentially that is what I have been saying. There is variation within one solar cycle! We also move backwards and forwards every 4 successive solar cycles, forming the 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, when viewing at the energy coming through the atmosphere.
Anyway, can I ask you all here a big favor? Could you please have a look at my log here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
I want to use this as a communication to all (specifically) religious (e.g Christian & Judaic) media
(which is why I added some biblical references – never mind those, I just added that is as an aside)
but I would prefer to hear all WUWT opinions about it.
It would be much appreciated if I could have your (honest) opinion about it.
andy says
Its the sun, and it’s about to take a siesta !!
henry says
what if it is the other way around?
I think it is waking up, causing more ozone and HxOX and NxOx
tallbloke says: ftp://ftp.lpl.arizona.edu/pub/lpl/lon/EGMAM/jcli1_nofigs.pdf
see also
ftp://ftp.lpl.arizona.edu/pub/lpl/lon/EGMAM/figures_all.ppt
😉
Good to see this kind of stuff getting published finally. AO is a key player (or at least key indicator) of N. hemisphere climate:
Length of melting/freezong season and AO
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=210
Phase shifts between surface temperature and AO
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=211
Inter annual changes in arctic ice area show strong periodic behaviour:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=216
And one key frequency of the that periodicity is also found N. Atlantic SST
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=217
The fact that the main 9 year period in SST is not obvious in arctic suggests common cause rather than direct causational link IMHO.
Just as a speculative observation the 12.85 year periodicity is almost exactly the period that Jupiter and Neptune come into alignment in their orbits around the sun.
Neptune is too far out to have any significant gravitational influence on the sun or the earth but it is third in rank after Jupiter and Saturn in terms of its inertial influence in the motion of the Sun.
Tallbloke has been on to what he calls solar inertial motion for a while. This looks like clear terrestrail evidence for it.
[previous post had too many links and got held in moderation queue. Should get passed later…]
And one key frequency of the that periodicity is also found N. Atlantic SST
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=217
The fact that the main 9 year period in SST is not obvious in arctic suggests common cause rather than direct causational link IMHO.
Just as a speculative observation the 12.85 year periodicity is almost exactly the period that Jupiter and Neptune come into alignment in their orbits around the sun.
Neptune is too far out to have any significant gravitational influence on the sun or the earth but it is third in rank after Jupiter and Saturn in terms of its inertial influence in the motion of the Sun.
Tallbloke has been on to what he calls solar inertial motion for a while. This looks like clear terrestrail evidence for it.
One of the graphs I linked that is most relevant to this paper:
Phase shifts between surface temperature and AO
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=211
HenryP– I’m sure you’re aware of the paper, but Penn & Livingston et.al. postulate that the falling Umbral Magnetic Field (UMF) will greatly inhibit the formation of sunspots, especially when (or should I say if) the UMF falls below 1,500 gauss.
The UMF is currently at 2,000 gauss with a falling trend line of about 500 guass/decade.
Penn & Livingston believe this is the same process that occurred during the Maunder Minimum (1645~1715) and the Sun could very well be facing this same phenomenon again from around 2022 (SC #25 is projected to start around 2020).
As it now seems our current SC #24 may have already hit its peak in December 2012 (about 1 year earlier than projected) this would tend support Penn & Livingston’s UMF theory.
We shall see, what we shall see, but the probability of Grand Solar Minimum starting from the next SC seems to be increasing.
The PDO entered its 30-yr cooling phase in 2008, the AMO looks to enter its cooling phase around 2020, sunspots may disappear around 2022, Antarctic Ice Extent is setting records, the current solar cycle has already peaked, Pacific SSTs are falling, Northern Pacific Arctic Ice Extent is setting records, bitter long and cold Winters seem to be increasing, no statistically significant HADCRUT4 warming trend into its 17th year, slightly falling HADRUT4 temperature trend from 2001, etc. all seem to indicate a cooling trend from 1997 rather than a warming one.
This new paper also suggests that decreased solar activity leads to lead to global cooling.
It certainly isn’t looking good for CAGW theory.
“henry says
what if it is the other way around?
I suppose waking up could mean you can get rid of your zits.
Maybe the sun is using Proactive.
Confirmation of my New Climate Model ?
” The simulations differed only in the assumed solar cycle variation of stratospheric ozone. It is found that the simulation that assumed an ozone variation estimated from satellite data produces solar SLP and SST responses that are most consistent with the observational results, especially during a selected centennial period. ”
Isn’t this the same type of exercise that produced the “it can only be CO2” argument?
The last few words imply cherry picking to me.
Tom in Florida, I agree, but disagree, for the simple reason that the Sun is a far more likely source of temperature changes than CO2, since it’s the only practical source of light and energy to the planet.
I think it’s premature to point fingers at any single thing at this point, but I also think that tracking solar changes will be a far more productive task for climate science than tracking trace gas levels ever will be.
Of course, my biggest personal complaint is the assumption that warming is a bad thing. We’ve just had our second night in a row at -8C. The lake I live on has been thawed for 4 days. The steam rolling off of it is memorable. Dangers from warming are speculative, danger from cooling is documented and provable.
Vukcevic wrote that “there is a an up-tick in the monthly sunspot number for April”.
This is correct, but the SIDC (Brussels, Belgium) gives a provisional monthly mean of
72.4. This is the highest monthly mean since December 2011.
I am not a prophet, but I think there will be a second maximum of the sunspot activity later
this year.
More papers on solar cycle effects on climate/temp/weather:
1) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0214.1 Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms
2) http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-29172-2_155#page-1 Stratospheric Responses to the 11-year Solar Cycle in MAECHAM5 with and without Ocean Coupling
3) http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4348-9_31#page-1 The Atmospheric Response to Solar Variability: Simulations with a General Circulation and Chemistry Model for the Entire Atmosphere
4) https://dlib.lib.washington.edu/dspace/handle/1773/21870 Climate Response to Solar Variation: Cyclic and Secular
It’s the sun, stupid.
This result isn’t surprising to me at all based on other work I have done.
For those who aren’t following the implications , a quick AO primer , tied to this paper :
~Solar max / high solar activity = AO positive (per this paper) = stronger zonal flow = Arctic cold stays north = warmer mid latitudes (warmer/less stormy mid lats)
~ Solar min / low solar activity = AO negative (per this paper) = weaker zonal flow / more blocking = Arctic cold regularly delivered to the mid latitudes (colder / stormier mid lats).
Now the authors discuss the 11 year cycle, but what about longer solar cycles which create grand mimima ? An extended period of low solar activity = an extended period of negative AO = an extended period of blocking = an extended period of mid-latitude cold …… this sounds an awful lot like “the little ice age” to me.
With an extended period of delivery of arctic air to the mid latitudes, you do impact the global average temperature profile. You also change snowfall patterns & thus planetary albedo (increasing), which should be a positive feedback further cooling the planet. So, for an 11 yr solar cycle, it maybe true that the effects are oscillatory but for longer solar cycles, the effects may be truly climatological.
There are a lot of solar forecasts suggesting we are heading for a Dalton type solar minima (or potentially deeper). Sounds like we will see some global cooling (focused in the mid latitudes) if that is the case
FWIW, I have looked at time series of snowfall data here in Colorado compared to solar cycle data & have seen the same relationship ( with low solar activity correlating with higher snowfall , due to a stormier / blockier pattern).
The mechanism that causes sun spots is still there. The mechanism that makes them dark is disappearing for a while. It is amazing to me that people in this thread jumped to the conclusion that sun spots will no longer form at maximum simpley because we can’t see them. They will form. All other indices of solar output continues at a relatively steady pace. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can anyone here on this thread describe what a sun spot is without referring to its dark color?
This is a correlation not a mechanism. To be taken seriously the authors must state the physical mechanisms through which the effects are achieved. Otherwise it’s the same as worshiping the sun because it rises and sets reliably every day, without an underlying theory of the earth’s rotation and orbit around the sun.