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.
Facts have not slowed Al one bit.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milken-conference-al-gore-rocks-449247
That’s sea level AIR pressure ?
CodeTech says:
May 1, 2013 at 5:50 am
“Tom in Florida, I agree, but disagree….”
A new career in politics awaits perhaps? 🙂
Seriously, I do agree with what you say, especially about the assumption that warming is a bad thing. Warmer is better!
Cue the solar d–iers. Our climate is a complex system, with a multitude of factors affecting it. However, it is not a random walk by any means. In other words, it is driven by something, and we know that it isn’t C02. There is plenty of evidence for the sun being the major driver, though certainly more study is needed. Those who say that it can’t be the sun have a problem, then. Either they must believe that climate truly is random, or else “something else” (besides the sun or C02) is driving it. So, what is it then? Do they really believe that the earth itself drives its’ own climate?
More anecdotal support :
For those of you that follow Joe Bastardi, you might recall the winter 2001-2002 forecast. It was a bust. Why? Strong zonal flow most of the winter kept the cold air north & a minimal amount of storms , thus winter was much warmer & drier than forecast. It also so happened that ties to the 2nd peak of the past solar cycle – a peak which Joe (among others) didn’t see coming. m A strong solar peak = AO positive = warmer & drier mid lats
Although it was a blown forecast, it ties nicely with the hypothesis presented in this paper
Codetech says
danger from cooling is documented and provable.
Henry says
good point.
I have actually added this to my script
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
but I have not heard any opinion about it yet?
is it generally acceptable here?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/another-amplification-mechanism-discovered-by-which-the-sun-affects-earths-climate/#comment-1293125
Final thought for now:
It would be interesting to look at both the longer wavelength components of the solar cycles & the phase of the AO & see if there is a correlation there as well, which again could manifest itself as a climatic signal ( higher solar activity over last 1000 yrs = more frequent AO positive = warmer mid lats)…… going to have to look into that one
I know that “weather is not climate”; however, in a “warming world” you don’t get Winter Storm Warnings for Minneapolis on May 1st. Solar cycle 24 has been demonstrably much weaker than cycles 22 and 23, and it appears that we MAY be on our way back to the types of winters we had back in the late 1970s, at least based on this winter in the northern hemisphere.
Of course this comes with the big caveat that one winter does not make a pattern, so we need more data before we can draw any conclusions whatsoever.
If these predictions come true, those of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmista* cult will be scurrying around looking for excuses, huffing and puffing in complete frustration. Their contribution to atmospheric CO2 won’t matter one bit. Oh, but the irony.
*The real “CAGW”.
Another case for a “We just don’t know.” badge?
Bruce Cobb:
At May 1, 2013 at 6:13 am you ask
I don’t believe it does drive itself but I know that it may.
It seems I need to post this again.
Observed climate changes in the holocene do not require the existence of any external driver of climate change because an oscillating chaotic system can be expected to vary without any driver.
Chaotic systems vary, and purely harmonic variations may occur independently of any chaotic effects.
Please remember that global temperature rises 3.8 deg.C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8 deg.C during the other 6 months of each year. But global temperature only rose about 0.8 deg.C throughout the last century.
In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.
The trivial 0.8 deg.C rise throughout the last century could be an effect of harmonic oscillation because an oscillating system can be expected to exhibit harmonics over periods much longer than a single oscillation.
Indeed, the observed changes in global temperature with apparent frequencies of ~900 years and ~60 years could be harmonics.
So, both chaos and harmonics could each be expected to provide variations to global climate of the form and magnitude recently observed. Therefore, such variations do not require any external driver and the observed variations may not have had any external driver (although I think they do).
Richard
“Snaking across a bleak landscape, Sweden’s Parvie (wave in the ground) as it is known locally, is a remarkable and somewhat disturbing feature, exactly resembling a three-story high tsunami made of solid rock caught forever in a freeze frame as it rears up just before breaking.”
From “Underworld” by Gramham Hancock, who continues….”this feature stands on a Stable Geologic Region of the tectonic plate….studies…show that it formed suddenly by earthquake faulting in the late glacial to early post glacial time of the great Fennoscandian ice sheet (approximately 8000 to 8500 years ago)….as a result of crustal unloading as the ice-sheets of the last ice Age melted.”
Continuing…”another episode of abrupt warming about 10,0000 YP….approximately 27 degrees Fahrenheit occurred after 11,700 year ago…remarkable, the ice-core data suggests that half of the temperature change, in the neighborhood of 14 degrees Farenheit, occurred in less than 15 years centering around 9645 BC”
We have scant data on variations in solar particle bombardments and their relationship to tectonic activity. We do have massive evidence that our ancestors lived in costal cities world-wide that are now under 440 ft of ocean….and that our ancestors are the remaining survivors of those very REAL EARTH CHANGES. All warmongering about human CO2 emissions is Chicken Little dung….created by Wall Street commodity racketeers, their Congressional puppets and a cabal of self interested Clima-clowns.
GROW UP….we live in a Universe that is profoundly indifferent to our existence with forces FAR beyond our imagination, or our control. Again, I strongly recommend that all those with the slightest scientific curiosity should read “Underworld”.
“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.”
Many solar cycles have a spectacular negative AO around maximum, exactly where the AP index typically falls, major exceptions are solar cycles 22 and 23:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
NAO further back:
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/cas_data_files/asphilli/nao_station_monthly_2.txt
Another issue is to explain what happens in the short term, like why this March the AO went so negative rather than say in January. I would be paying attention to weakening coronal hole behaviour: http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
justsomeguy31167 says:
May 1, 2013 at 12:39 am
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.
An orchid for recognising that the cosmic microwave background is responsible for over 2 degrees of warming. None of the energy budgets I’ve ever seen acknowledges this but it’s so elementary that it’s like tripping over a fallen redwood tree.
A raspberry for not explaining where you got your 99.97% from. You didn’t poll 74 cherry-picked climate scientists did you? 😉
The conclusion would seem to be that we just don’t yet know. However, research is continuing and there is no need whatever to rush to judgment as industrial development and population growth is manifestly not, in the round, making the world a more dangerous place for humans – or one in which, given the development, it is more difficult for mankind to flourish and reproduce itself and its culture.
joseph says
with forces FAR beyond our imagination,
henry says
“the heavens declare how great God really is”..
is that what you mean?
In that case we are probably on the same page
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
To help put things in perspective ->
An electron volt is the unit of energy for radiation. When one measures radiation, there are two components: intensity and frequency. When frequency increases, wave length shortens and then amount of energy increases. That means that the “electron volts” rise.
The intensity of radiation at a specific frequency can rise or fall depending on the source, but the “electron volts” are fixed at that frequency.
Energy per frequency:
1) Infrared 700 nm – 1 mm 430 THz – 300 GHz 1.24 meV [milli eV] – 1.7 eV
2) Ultraviolet 10 nm – 380 nm 30 PHz – 790 THz 3.3 eV to 124 eV
This chart is not affected by intensity! Intensity gives us more electron volts to work with.
Example:
1) Sun at peak, say 20 times the UV output, results in, say, 20 times 100 eV = 2000 eV at that frequency.
2) Sun at peak, Infrared doesn’t hardly change [“constant TSI”]. At that frequency, 1 times output, results in 1 times 1 eV = 1 eV.
All energy becomes less energetic [Thermodynamics]. This means that the UV is transformed by chemical and physical processes to have less eV available. This happens by the absorption and readmission at a lower frequency.
Summary: Higher frequencies consist of 1000s to 100,000s times the energy of lower frequencies.
Realize that Solar scientists didn’t know that the Solar UV intensity was changing at these tremendous rates until special satellites were places in orbit [after 1970].
I would guess that 40 years is enough time to propose new theories.
@ HenryP
The forces beyond our imagination are the solar system, Milky Way system and Universe system of gravity waves and particle bombardments that provoke changes in the fission rates of the 200,000 cubic miles of Uranium and Thorium in the Earth’s mantle. This is the only possible cause for the massive geologic changes in the past. The forces that ARE within human control are the demonic feudalists who control our government-media-education “control” system. It is incumbent on all honest, thinking Earthlings that we work on dismantling this most destructive element of civilization, before they finish their autopilot to Armageddon goals.
[I, and many others, consider any science discussion focused on biblical supremacy to be counter-productive. I will discuss those issues with you on a different forum]
I commented on the proportionately large effect of small changes in insolation at the earth’s surface a few weeks ago (I wish I could search out my many comments at this site) as evidenced less than 10 degree (part of the total) “swings” of the sun over northern Tanzania and southern Kenya (equatorial) causing two rainy seasons with attendant heavy rains and clouds that increase albedo and cool the surface. I’ve been considering preparing an article for WUWT but just can’t seem to find the time right now. Insolation changes at the earth’s surface to cause this are <1.5%.
[snip – policy violation – we don’t discuss “electric sun” here – mod]
Joseph A Olson says: May 1, 2013 at 6:33 am
We have scant data on variations in solar particle bombardments and their relationship to tectonic activity.
It appears there is a positive correlation of tectonic and volcanic events at the high latitudes of the N. Hemisphere with solar activity:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STA.htm
Dr. Svalgaard asserts ‘coincidence’, that is maybe so, or may not; either way it certainly has enough power to affect ocean currents or the atmospheric oscillations, the main drivers of observed (not AGW imaginary) climate change.
Stephen Wilde has been suggesting this for a while now. He’s well worth a read for anyone looking for an overview on this. I may as well thank him here for his clear explanations that have added to my understanding (what little I may lay claim to!)
Thanks, davidtron.
For a mechanism see here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”
Monday, November 15th 2010, 8:26 AM EST
Hi Pamela! It’s been a while, let me try – sunspots represent areas on the sun’s surface where the magnetic field has distorted, carrying cooler solar material to the surface. My astronomy prof, Dr. Kaler of the University of Illinois, taught us that the sun’s magnetic field gets distorted and wound around its axis, much like winding a long rubber band around a baseball. Eventually, breaks and distortions occur, producing these cooler areas. His website is http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/
henry@stephen wilde
please let me know if you agree with my findings
/
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
CRS, Dr.P.H. says
producing these cooler areas.
henry (scratching his head) says
so less spots more energy (more E-UV),
right?
Dr. Lurtz says: “…
1) Sun at peak, say 20 times the UV output, results in, say, 20 times 100 eV = 2000 eV at that frequency.
2) Sun at peak, Infrared doesn’t hardly change [“constant TSI”]. At that frequency, 1 times output, results in 1 times 1 eV = 1 eV….”
My own pet theory is that higher UV at solar max raises the effective blackbody temperature of the sky, which, if true, would obviously alter the Earth’s radiation. Leif assures me that the thermosphere is far too tenuous to have any effect on climate. However, I calculate that few photons pass through the thermosphere without striking at least one particle. The thermosphere is THICK and gets thicker at solar max, as well as hotter.
justsomeguy31167 says: “The sun provides 99.97% of the earth’s energy budget. Very small solar changes would be expected to have large effects.”
Actually, no, that wouldn’t be expected, at all. But that may be the case, particularly in the UV.
Jorgekafkazar says
My own pet theory is that higher UV at solar max raises the…
henry says
how does it correlate with times of warming (from 1950/1951) to cooling (frm 1995)
jorgekafkazar says: May 1, 2013 at 9:23 am
………
Solar flux F10.7 (closely related to the solar output) is used as an input to determine atmospheric density for the purpose of calculating satellite drag. Occasionally (for a week or two) there is a positive correlation of the CET daily max to the F10.7, but then equally often it goes negative.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/F10,7-CET.htm
Since the ‘editorial commentary’ given with this post may lead some people to incorrect conclusions about the actual contents of the paper being referenced, a few points should be clarified:
1. Nowhere does this paper suggest that the long term warming trend is explained by a solar mechanism. It is not discussed. The paper is examining the effect of the 11-year solar cycle only. They have a separate long term trend term in their regression that takes on a positive slope in 1910 and is “increasing roughly linearly thereafter”. The 11-year cycle investigated is superimposed on the long term trend.
2. An atmosphere-ocean GCM was used to investigate how the 11-year forcing influences climate. From this, they conclude that “these results suggest that it is important for a model to simulate a realistic ozone variation to produce a realistic surface climate response” because of a “top down” mechanism:
“These previous GCM experiments for generalized stratospheric forcing as well as the EGMAM Simulation 2 results reported here for a realistic solar and ozone forcing experiment therefore support the hypothesis that top-down forcing is mainly responsible for the observationally estimated surface climate response to 11-yr solar forcing during northern winter”
This implies things like exotic cosmic ray cloud-inducing mechanisms for solar climate forcing are not needed since changes in solar UV can explain the observed 11 year cycle climate response through this mechanism.
3. The influence of the 11-year solar cycle on climate isn’t new.
“A similar conclusion was drawn by Haigh (1999) in a study of GCM simulations…”
“The results of the present analyses…are consistent with expectations based on previous studies of stratospheric forcing of surface climate change”
4. The IPCC does not claim tiny variations in solar activity during solar cycles cannot affect climate (see point 3 above). Suggesting this, as was done at the top of this post, is a misrepresentation. They say it can’t by itself explain the long term trend. This paper is in no way inconsistent with that position.
HenryP says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:32 am
The Sunspot correlation between times of warming/cooling is as follows:
1) Determine the area under the Sunspot or 10.7 cm Flux curves.
2) Approximately two years after the Solar Peak, compare to the Earth’s temp.
3) 1968 – Cycle 20 small area, cooling.
4) 1958 – Cycle 19 large area, warming.
5) Note: the Peak amount of Solar activity has increased almost linearly since 1650 until 2000. The area under the curve has doubled or tripled during this time.
6) Now the area under the curve for Cycle 24 is slightly above the area minimums. The only counts that are less are during the 1600 – 1650 no Sunspot cycles.
7) Check out -> http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl1.html for a low area. Their Cycle 1 – 1755.
A very interesting study. It could certainly be correct. We will likely find out during the next ten or more years, since the sun is now in an uncharacteristically quiet period.
Need to point out that the results are partly dependent on simulation:
“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”
In other words, modelled results.
Some commenters may think all models, all simulations, are foolish, because the IPCC and Michael Mann and his cohorts have manipulated models results. Models, in the hands of capable and unbiased practitioners, are necessary to understand complex phenomena, however. The key, today, is to have people like Steve McIntrye and Nic Lewis and Pat Michaels and hopefully many more checking up on results, and PUBLISHING REBUTTALS, as Steve and Nic and Pat have done.
Don’t let the policitians — and scientists who for whatever reason (ego, job, money, career path, group think, implicit requirements of their federal funders) stray away from strict unbiased science — run the roost. But if we simply condemn all models, all simulations, because they have been prominently misused, history won’t be kind to us.
john says
stray away from strict unbiased science — run the roost. But if we simply condemn all models, all simulations, because they have been prominently misused, history won’t be kind to us
so what do you say
.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/another-amplification-mechanism-discovered-by-which-the-sun-affects-earths-climate/#comment-1293125
Pamela Gray says:
May 1, 2013 at 6:08 am
Can anyone here on this thread describe what a sun spot is without referring to its dark color?
Pamela,
Sunspots are an effect caused by areas of locally more intense magnetic fields projecting from the visible sun ‘surface’. These locally more intense magnetic fields suppress photon migration to the visible surface, creating a locally less intense ‘cooler’ appearing sunspot area called the umbra. As the magnetic field intensity drops with orthogonal distance, the photon migration to the surface increases. The suppressed photons flow around the local magnetically suppressed area, creating a more intense ‘hotter’ appearing area around the sunspot, enhancing the contrast betwixt the two. The estimated delta T between the sunspot center and the unaffected area around it it is 1600C.
Through a prism darkly,
MtK
Pamela Gray says:May 1, 2013 at 6:08 am
Can anyone here on this thread describe what a sun spot is without referring to its dark color?
Here is another version:
Sunspots are usually generated in pairs and are associated with rise and fall of toroidal magnetic field. Sunspot magnetic field lines emerge from the solar interior through one of a sunspot pair, loop through the solar atmosphere, then re-enter the photosphere through the other member of the pair.
Any 22 yr solar magnetic cycle consists of two 11 yr sunspot cycles, manifesting itself in reversal of the magnetic polarity of sunspots from one 11 yr cycle to the next, known as the Hale’s law. In accordance with the Zürich sunspot numbering convention the 22 yr magnetic cycles start on even numbered sunspot cycles
Sunspot magnetic reversals correspond to the changing polarity of the toroidal magnetic field (usually denoted as the B component). Direction of the magnetic vector in the northern hemisphere coincides with the direction of solar rotation during even-numbered cycles i.e. B>0, while in the southern hemisphere B<0.
Relationship between direction of rotation and direction of the magnetic vector B is reversed during odd-numbered cycles.
Plasma is equivalent to an electric current flowing without a wire to contain the protons. Yes, you can have proton currents and electron currents. The temperatures in the Sun are high enough to dissociate the electrons from the protons in the Hydrogen atom. As these massive “currents” flow [move around], they create magnetic fields. Note: this is the duality relationship between electric currents and magnetic fields, Maxwell’s Field Equations describes this relationship.
As the currents [dynamo] flow near to the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field occasionally gets close enough to “peak” through and pull the surface plasma into the field leaving a hole. This creates the dark spot [one is looking slightly into the Solar surface]. When the Sun has a Solar flare [usually on the rim], one can see the naked proton current. I would suspect that this is what the inside of an electrical conductor looks like!
This is my simple explanation.
For a bigger picture of how the sun operates, check out the Primer Field theory starting here:
It explains so much…
Solar TSI under the SORCE TIM instrument has fallen below normal now which I think is unprecedented for this part of the solar cycle.
Normal TSI under this instrument (and is slowly being recognized as the true number) is 1,361.27 W/m2.
We have been in the 1,361.19 W/m2 range lately while it would be expected to be about 1,361.75 W/m2 at this point in a solar cycle.
Sometimes these drop-outs can be caused by large sunspot groups but there hasn’t been a big enough sunspot region to cause this.
The Sun, is indeed, entering a new regime which hasn’t been seen since the early 1900s or the early 1800s.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_6hour_3month_640x480.png
Greg Goodman (May 1, 2013 at 2:20 am) wrote:
“Inter annual changes in arctic ice area show strong periodic behaviour:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=216 “
I’ll follow up on this. It looks important and related to cross-ENSO decadal patterns in annual LOD that have the attention of NASA JPL. (There’s much more to say when the time is right.)
Pamela Gray says:May 1, 2013 at 6:08 am
Can anyone here on this thread describe what a sun spot is without referring to its dark color?
A sunspot is purely a magnetic effect wherein the magnetism is large enough to stop the outward movement of photons and energy.
Go to the solar page here and look at how the spots themselves are changing over time, referred to as the Livingston and Penn effect.
Pamela Gray says:May 1, 2013 at 6:08 am
Can anyone here on this thread describe what a sun spot is without referring to its dark color?
Lines of magnetic force get stretched by differential rotation between the solar surface and the tachocline. Eventually, they reach the breaking point and then they reconnect with adjacent lines of force to get to a lower energy state. This causes them to form “flux tubes”, the remnant fields wind themselves up in to tubes which expel some of the interior plasma, become buoyant and rise to the surface. What we are seeing is the view downward inside a flux tube which is cooler because the plasma density is lower.
@richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 6:27 am
Bruce Cobb:…
Your post reminded me of something I have wondered about for a little while. I have read many comments in many posts regarding the chaotic nature of climate. Since you seem a little more dialed in on this, is there some way to test a system for “chaosity”, to determine whether it’s truly chaotic or merely appears that way because of “unknown unknowns”. If yes, how, and does earth’s climate qualify as a truly chaotic system?
D.J. Hawkins says:
May 2, 2013 at 4:28 pm
@richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 6:27 am
Bruce Cobb:…
… If yes, how, and does earth’s climate qualify as a truly chaotic system?
By looking for a log-log power law relationship i.e. fractality in things like atmosphere and ocean temperature records. Some posts here on Hulst-Kolmogorov type analyses have taken this approach. There are mathematical signatures of chaotic nonlinear / nonequilibrium pattern systems.
For instance just looking at Vostok or Greenland ice core reconstructions its quite easy to derive a fractal dimension (gradient of log of size of change (dTemp/dt) with log of frequency).
Is UV the culprit?
Lean, Dr. Judith. “Solar Spectrum, Variability, and Atmospheric Absorption.” Scientific. NASA – Science@NASA. Accessed February 4, 2009. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
“At wavelengths shorter than about 300 nm, there is a relatively large variation in the Sun’s extreme UV and x-ray output (greater than 1%), but the Earth’s atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths. For Earth-dwelling beach-goers there is no significant difference between Solar Max and solar minimum.”
– Note definition as integral over entire spectrum.
– Note concession that extreme UV and x-ray variation > 1%.
– If these are absorbed by atmosphere, what happens to their energy? (Ozone??)
– Note step-wise spectral irradiance below 10^2 nm. Sparse data?
Sosnowski, Alex. “Evolution of the Arctic Outbreak.” Scientific. AccuWeather, January 25, 2013. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/evolution-of-an-arctic-outbrea/4721288
“Around the start of 2013, meteorologists at AccuWeather.com noticed that a change in temperature high the atmosphere over the North Pole was occurring and projected an arctic outbreak in North America during the middle of January.
“The phenomenon is known as sudden stratospheric warming.
“The explanation is a little complex, but we will try to bring it to layman’s terms. Just keep in mind there are also other players on the field, which we do not mention.
“While all of the causes of the event are still not known, the chain reaction that occurs following the sudden warming in the stratosphere typically leads to one or more arctic outbreaks at the mid-latitudes around the Northern Hemisphere roughly two to three weeks later,” Paquette said.
“One theory as to the cause of the warming is the destruction of ozone during the late fall and early winter.
“Ozone needs sunlight to form and a lack of sunlight leads to its demise. When the ozone is depleted, it may contribute to stratospheric warming,” according to Paquette.
“The problem with the theory is that it explains the gradual warming of the stratosphere from fall into winter, but not the sudden warmups that can occur a couple of times during the cold weather season.
“Something holds back the warming and then it breaks, like a rubber band snapping.” Paquette added.”
Dixie asks:Is UV the culprit?
Henry says
That was my conclusion
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Observation of harmonic, rather than chaotic?
Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis. “Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics.” Surveys in Geophysics (November 13, 2012). doi:10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9.
Peristykh, Alexei N., and Paul E. Damon. “Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year Solar Cycle over the Last ~12,000years: Evidence from Cosmogenic Isotopes.” Journal of Geophysical Research 108, no. A1 (2003). doi:10.1029/2002JA009390.
Pratt, Vaughan. “Multidecadal Climate to Within a Millikelvin.” Scientific. Climate Etc., December 4, 2012. http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/
Scafetta, N. “Multi-scale Harmonic Model for Solar and Climate Cyclical Variation Throughout the Holocene Based on Jupiter–Saturn Tidal Frequencies Plus the 11-year Solar Dynamo Cycle.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, no. 0 (2012): 296–311. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.016
Staff. Solar Influence on Global Temperature, April 24, 2013. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/solar_influence_on_global_temperature.html
Watts, Anthony, Y. Markonis, and Demetris Koutsoyiannis. “New Paper from Markonis and Koutsoyiannis Shows Orbital Forcings Signal in Proxy and Instrumental Records.” Scientific. Watts Up With That?, November 4, 2012. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/04/new-paper-from-markonis-and-koutsoyiannis-shows-orbital-forcings-signal-in-proxy-and-instrumental-records/