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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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 Fisher wilde
please let me know if you agree with my findings
/
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/