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.
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/