“AZleader” writes at “Inform the pundits”.
Austin, August 16, 2014 – A rare spotless day on the sun on July 17-18, 2014 triggered public speculation that an already stunted Cycle 24 was nearly over. Such is not the case. Defying the odds for so late in a sunspot cycle, another solar sunspot maximum was set last month. Another one is coming this month.
In other major news, a long needed revision to the 400-year sunspot record was proposed. It’ll be the first change made to the sunspot record since it was first established by Rudolf Wolf back in 1849. The changes will affect long-term climate and other dependent scientific studies.
One effect of the proposal will be to reduce modern sunspot totals. That will wipe out the so-called “Modern Maximum” and make the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, the weakest in 200 years.
Cycle 24 solar sunspot progression
After four straight months of steep declines in monthly sunspot counts, July reversed the trend and increased slightly.
The Royal Observatory of Belgium released July’s average monthly sunspot count on August 1, 2014. Despite the mid-month spotless day, the sunspot number increased and it grew solar maximum again for the sixth straight month.
…
Extended periods of inactivity – like the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minimums – were all accompanied by cooler earth temperatures. Conditions today mimic Cycles 3, 4 and 5 which marked the beginning of the Dalton Minimum.
Revising the 400-year sunspot record
The 400-year sunspot record is the longest continuously recorded daily measurement made in science. It’s used in many scientific disciplines, including climate science studies. It hasn’t been adjusted since Rudolf Wolf created it over 160 years ago.
Over the centuries errors have crept into the record, degrading its value for long-term studies. New data and discoveries now allow scientists to detect and correct errors. The first serious look back at the long-term record since Wolf in 1849 came without even a press release last month. It’s a modestly titled new paper called “Revising the Sunspot Number” by Frédéric Clette, et al., submitted for publication to the journal Solar and Stellar Astrophysics on July 11, 2014.
Some outcomes of the new paper include:
- The so-called “Modern Maximum” disappears
- Sunspot activity is steady over the last 250 years
- Three detected “inhomogeneities” since 1880 are corrected
- Cycle 24 will become the weakest in 200 years
The new paper describes the current state of understanding of the long term record. It isn’t a complete revision of the entire record, but a first level recalibration going back to 1749. The Royal Observatory of Belgium plans to release this and other revisions incrementally over time.
Solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University, organized a series of four workshops beginning in 2011 designed to review and revise the long term record. This new paper is the first fruit of that labor. Primarily, it removes “inhomogeneities” and brings the International Sunspot Number and newer Group Count record and solar magnetic history in sync.
Full story here: http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/sunspots-2014-two-big-surprises/
Russ in TX says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
But why is this a thing, and can I get it in layman’s terms?
Before ~1960 the warmists would invoke the Sun as the prime mover of climate [helped by volcanoes, ocean circulation, internal changes, etc]. Now, they don’t do that anymore as the climate lately is believed to have change too much or too rapidly, or whatever]. But if the Sun the past 70 years had been extraordinarily active [Grand Maximum] perhaps it is the Sun after all. If the Sun has just behaved as in previous three centuries, that explanation runs into problems. This is why this is important. Paradoxically, both camps subscribe to “it’s the Sun, Stupid [except when it ain’t]”. The arguments on both sides [e.g. as seen on the blog] have gone far beyond reason and science and are now almost religious. Just read upthread to see some of the nonsense being peddled.
Thanks Anthony.
Sure enough, Pamela, but the fundamental problem with climate science is that all assertions of climate causality on a geological timescale require the same sort of handwaving and pixie dust, because we simply do not understand yet what caused things like the LIA and subsequent warming. This is an enormously difficult nonlinear multivariate problem that everyone wants to reduce to a single badly estimated partial derivative because, I suppose, that’s all our brains are really able to handle. All people do is say “it’s that THAT term that is important, it is THIS one”, because of some vague and not terribly compelling correlation. What do we do when it isn’t either one, it is both and ten more besides, and where for some sets of values and initial state they carry the Earth straight into glaciation, and for others straight into a nice, warm, persistent interglacial? How can you make political mileage or get funding by saying “It’s an unsolvable problem”?
rgb
bones says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm
The cosmic ray connection may be in doubt, but lower tropospheric cloud cover varying by a few percent over solar cycles is shown clearly in the plot that you linked.
But you cannot conclude that they are SOLAR cycles, just that there is variation and doesn’t it go the wrong way: less clouds = pause in rising temperatures?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Thanks for sending the graph which confirms my argument.
Any graph [no matter how weird, wrong, or strange] will always confirm ANY arguments you advance, E.g. when Lockwood declares that there was no LIA you proudly pronounce that you subscribe to his view, etc.
Leif, a question what do you think is causing the climate to change if not solar or CO2?
Do you think it is just random internal changes going on within the earth itself which when they phase in a certain way give a random climate outcome? I do to an extent by the way..
If not that what. Because the climate changes and something or things are causing it to change. Sometimes in a very abrupt manner. I will bite, do you have an explanation you wish to share.
I think it is solar when it acts extreme as we all know. But what do you think?
RGBATDUKE – you make much sense in your postings. Especially the last one.
For my part -I think it is many items that control the climate with solar leading the way or being a creator for that change and that the climate will always respond different to given solar variability due to the given state of the climate, Milankovich Cycles, earth’s magnetic field strength, and the extent in duration and degree of magnitude change of that solar variability..
Leif Svalgaard said “First: there are not many that argue against. ”
It was not my intention to imply that you were the odd man out when I said
“What are some of the reasons your colleagues argue against your proposal?”
I just wondered if the few with objections had more than ….this is how it was and will always be and my check depends on it…..
but thank you for the response
Leif Svalgaard: And already, it has failed: http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
Thanks for the link. And as always, thanks for the many comments on this thread.
Climate change factors
MY FOUR FACTORS
1. The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
.
2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.
a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.
b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.
c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.
d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.
e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.
f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.
g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.
.
3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.
a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.
4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.
a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer — favor cooling.
I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.
Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.
Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
Excerpt from page 71, http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf:
“Still, although the levels of activity were not exceptional except maybe for cycle 19, the particularly long sequence of strong cycles in the late 20th remains a noteworthy episode. Indeed, the 400-year sunspot record and one of its by products, the number of spotless days, show that such a tight sequence of 5 strong cycles over 6 successive cycles (from 17 to 22, except 20), which we can call the “Modern Maximum”, is still unique over at least the last four centuries.”
To get the 5 “strong cycles” out of 6 successive cycles, count cycles #18, #19, #21, #22, and #23. See http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Temperature-Anomalies.png for the graph.
Including solar cycle #20 SSN in my SSN count for SC18-23, during the 65 years from 1944-2008, the Sun produced 42% of the cumulative SSN over the entire 200 years preceding solar cycle #24, from 1809 to 2008.
I counted 6 strong cycles, including SC17, out of 7 successive cycles. SC17 had a higher amplitude than any of the five cycles preceding it so I counted it into the modern maximum, and….
During the 76 years from 1933-2008, SC17-23, the Sun produced 47% of the cumulative SSN over the entire 200 years preceding solar cycle #24, from 1809 to 2008, – pretty awesome – if not ‘grand’.
The SSN sum for SC17-23 is 5,182 – and is 47% of the 200 year total SSN of 10,928 (excl #24)!!!!
See http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls, {sum of SSN for SC17-23 =sum(F181:F266)=5,182; and the sum of SSN for last 200 years =sum(F67:F266)=10,928}
My apologies: my previously qouted calculations were for 101 year periods. Oops – off by one cell twice… The corrected 100 yr comparison: the most recent 100 years had a 28% increase over the previous 100 years, starting with the end of SC23..
In the first full year of this 200-year period, centered on 1810.5, the SSN was uniquely 0.
Excerpt from page 71-72, http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf:
“Given the inertia of natural systems exposed to the solar influences, like the Earth atmosphere-ocean system, this cycle clustering could still induce a peak in the external responses to solar activity, like the Earth climate. However, we conclude that the imprint of this Modern Maximum (e.g. Earth climate forcing) would essentially result from time-integration effects (system inertia), since exceptionally high amplitudes of the solar magnetic cycle cannot be invoked anymore. In this suggested revision, the estimated or modeled amplitude of the effects, including the response of the Earth environment, can be quite different, necessarily smaller, and should thus be re-assessed.
The recalibrated series may thus indicate that a Grand Maximum needs to be redefined as a tight repetition/clustering of strong cycles over several decades, without requiring exceptionally high amplitudes for those cycles compared to other periods.”
For emphasis: “…the “Modern Maximum”, is still unique over at least the last four centuries.” -pg71.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm
I think it is solar when it acts extreme as we all know. But what do you think?
The sun doesn’t act ‘extreme’. Solar activity does cause variations of the order of 0.1C.
Bob Weber says:
August 19, 2014 at 4:14 pm
“exceptionally high amplitudes of the solar magnetic cycle cannot be invoked anymore. In this suggested revision, the estimated or modeled amplitude of the effects, including the response of the Earth environment, can be quite different, necessarily smaller, and should thus be re-assessed.”
Is the operative phrase.
Many of your numbers result from careful cherry picking [e.g. ‘over the entire 200 years’ – why that number? it is such, rather desperate sounding, numerology and manipulation that give the sun-climate field a bad name] . A much better comparison is simply the first half of the data [133 years] with an average of 55.3 and the second half of the data with an average of 57.1. I see no significant difference. So integrated over the first 133 years should give the same result as integrating over the last 133 years.
Pamela Gray says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:00 am
Nonetheless Stephen, solar warming proponents will continue to “twirk” with the data in order to squeeze out their mechanism-less tomes. You know full well that a comparison between the cumulative energy between the two time spans you refer to results in a tiny, tiny fraction change in W/m2 here on Earth (regardless of which piece of the solar spectrum frequency you focus on) that you must then spread through the modern warming period. Knowing that there is not enough energy change to make a measurable difference, you and others resort to some unknown pixie dust to complete your presentation. That’s not even hand waving. That’s a tall tale.
++++++++++
Come on Pamela: You completely twist and or miss what Stephen Wilde wrote several times and in several ways –and then you reverted back to an argument he was NOT making. One example is where Stephen wrote “The amplitude of the effects will be determined by the nature of those effects and not by TSI or the simple amplitude of the magnetic cycle”
I can understand that there is no consensus on how major changes in the sun “other than (TSI which is moderate to minor) can affect the climate system. However, there are theories that are being (and should be) explored to find out how the complex climate system can change due to these significant changes in the sun. It’s one thing to deny there are many indicators that point to the theory that the sun affects climate beyond SIMPLE TSI. It’s another thing altogether to CONCLUDE that it is not possible.
As skeptics, we should be interested in exploring things we DO NOT know.
Here’s a clue for you. If I expend 10 calories of energy to open all the shades in my house (on a sunny day) and the house warms to a point equal to 10,000 more calories than it did on a similar day with the shades drawn, you would not be making the argument that you need data. You would see that my 10 calories had little to do with the delta energy accumulation in my house because there were other affects greater than the affect I exerted. Just sayin’
Dbstealy.
Projection?
How many times have you seen me here and elsewhere defend leifs work.. And it’s always skeptics who attack him..none of them take the time to go through his brilliant
Diligent work.
Now I think leifs work may cause more problems for gcm work. That’s good for science.
Does this seek to adjust for the so-called “sunspecks” which were not visible to earlier astronomers?
Steele says:
August 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Does this seek to adjust for the so-called “sunspecks” which were not visible to earlier astronomers?
The original Wolf scale was made with a superb refractor made by Fraunhofer in 1822 and which is still in use. There are no ‘sunspecks’: if a spot is visible, it is counted, small or large. At the SIDC reference station [Locarno] spots are counted with a weight depending on size. More than half of all spots are tiny and are counted with weight 1. The inflation caused by counting large spots [since 1947] is corrected for, but has, obviously, no effect on eventual ‘specks’. Now, there is some discussion about what constitute a ‘spot’. The general path taken is that to qualify as a ‘spot’ the feature has to live for half an hour or more and not be in the limit of visibility, but clearly ‘there’.
Steele says:
August 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Dr. S. can correct me if wrong, but IMO, modern solar scientists already corrected for the specks even before his & his colleagues’ program, by among other means, using smaller telescopes than now available, in order to match the capabilities of 17th to 19th century optics.
Mario Lento says:
August 19, 2014 at 5:33 pm
As skeptics, we should be interested in exploring things we DO NOT know.
I disagree. We should concentrate on things we KNOW and can demonstrate, rather than shoot our of mouths off about things we don’t know anything about.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Mario Lento says:
August 19, 2014 at 5:33 pm
As skeptics, we should be interested in exploring things we DO NOT know.
I disagree. We should concentrate on things we KNOW and can demonstrate, rather than shoot our of mouths off about things we don’t know anything about.
++++++++++
Ouch Leif… that hurts. I am not sure you’re aiming that comment at me. It’s unlike you to make such a statement or aim harshness in my direction. Prior to you response, my mouth was not shot at or shot off or shooting off about things I don’t know.
Pamela Gray says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:49 am
Even more important in this discussion is how much change in ocean heat would there be. We are talking a small amount of energy available even at full force to an extremely large volume of water. Would changes in this small amount of energy be detectable in an extremely large volume of water?
====================================
Does it not depend on the residence time of the insolation entering the oceans? If the energy accumulates for years, perhaps decades, within the oceans then a little daily can be a lot over time.
A steady inflow and outflow of water of = GPM will neither raise or lower a pool. However just a very small increase of inflow, over decades, will become perceptible.
Mario Lento says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:13 pm
I am not sure you’re aiming that comment at me. It’s unlike you to make such a statement or aim harshness in my direction. Prior to you response, my mouth was not shot at or shot off or shooting off about things I don’t know.
It was aimed at those who think it is better to concentrate on things they don’t know anything about, rather than on things they do have some knowledge about. Judge for yourself where you are on the scale between those two views. Al Gore puts it best: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”. What we do becomes closer to science when we apply things we know to the subject. Wouldn’t you agree?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Mario Lento says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:13 pm
“What we do becomes closer to science when we apply things we know to the subject. Wouldn’t you agree?”
+++++++++++++++
Of course mostly yes – even though Al Gore said it first 🙂 One caveat, we cannot learn much if we limit our imaginations to ONLY what we know by dismissing what others might know.
Please bare with me. I am setting up the shortcoming in the following statement “”What we do becomes closer to science when we apply things we know to the subject.” I do not imply that we should apply things we do not know.
Relative to many people, I have a good understanding of how ‘things’ work. I’m talking about highly successful motion and machine process control such as:
–automated remote welding systems for spent fuel canister lid closure that out perform remote welding system of every welding company in the industry.
–design and manufacture of machines that manufacture optical fiber for Lucent. (from making the preform glass in plasma lathes to the draw towers where the preform is precisely melted and drawn down 7 stories and then caught and precisely wound with proof testing tension control.
–motion control in Siemens Linac X-Ray treatment machines. Siemens’ team were 2 years late trying to bring a new design to market until they did what I told them. Let us design the controls.
Just by applying different understanding of complex motion and complex process control the impossible becomes possible over and over again. I think I am good at seeing whether something is plausible or not in complex systems. That’s what I do.
So here’s my example of a brilliant engineer “APPLYING THINGS HE KNEW TO THE SUBJECT”
I’m fortunate enough, Leif, to have been able to prove things undeniably to brilliant people (perhaps not as brilliant as you). A person who earned a masters degree in EE from UC Berkeley is the guy who directed the engineering department of Berkeley Process Control (the company where these machines I mentioned above were re-automated or designed and automated). This guy had been racing for over 10 years and came up with a “model” of how fast his car could go (best lap time) at the given weight, tire grip, braking system, suspension and engine dyno results.
I argued with this brilliant designer of world class machines that he did not really understand what made a car go fast. I was a certain as you are about solar science that my statement was precise. I told him that he did not understand how tires worked so he was applying the coefficient of friction incorrectly. I told him he did not understand optimum slip angles and and weight transfer worked to provide more traction when needed and in a way that maximized overall speed. [To this day, I do not believe there is any computer that can beat a good race car driver operating a good racing simulator.]
We argued fiercely. The metric? I told him his race car was 8 seconds faster than the fastest lap he claimed. I never drove his car at this point, yet I argued he was wrong and placed my bet. He eventually agreed to let me take him for a drive on track in his race car. I drove 6 seconds faster than his model predicted was possible with him in his own car, within 3 laps. In 3 laps I demonstrated the otherwise impossible. 6 second more than two football fields of distance on the 3 mile track.
My argument to him was based on a feeling that I could achieve something. This is airy fairy to most engineers. He argued the physics and stuck to what he knew. But what he knew was limited to a master degree from UC Berkeley and 15 years lead design teams of world class machinery and 10 years racing cars. Evidently that was not enough for him to even conceive
I’m babbling. But I remain highly curious about complex subjects and hypotheses that make sense to me. If we only stick to what we know, there are often limits. I don’t like to accept limits. It makes me hard to deal with I know 🙂
David A says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Does it not depend on the residence time of the insolation entering the oceans? If the energy accumulates for years, perhaps decades, within the oceans then a little daily can be a lot over time.
A steady inflow and outflow of water of = GPM will neither raise or lower a pool. However just a very small increase of inflow, over decades, will become perceptible.
The climate system is not like a pool. It also radiates heat back into space at close to the same rate as heat flows into the system. So if solar activity was the same in the first 133 years of our data as in the last 133 years, I would think there would be very little difference. The small inflow to your pool is balanced by evaporation from the pool, unless you have a way of preventing that. At least, nobody has identified with any confidence where any extra heat might be hiding. Perhaps you would know?
Leif said:
“So if solar activity was the same in the first 133 years of our data as in the last 133 years”
Bob Weber pointed out:
“from 1808-1908: 4,735 sunspots; and from 1908-2008: 6,197 sunspots – a 31% increase in solar activity in the last 100 years compared to the previous 100 year period”
which was based on Leif’s own data.
Leif said:
“nobody has identified with any confidence where any extra heat might be hiding. Perhaps you would know?”
Solar input gets past the evaporative layer and into the thermohaline circulation which takes around 1000 to 1500 years. That is well enough established.
Leif, is there an official list of solar cycle minimums, that is the start/end dates finer than a year?
Wikipedia has a list down to the month, but their references are a paywalled Kane 2002 paper on the Group Sunspot Number, and a list that popped up in an unreferenced Space Today Online article.
There is an ftp “Official list of solar cycles” in the “External links” section, which doesn’t work. Working the URL did find:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/cycle-data/
“table_cycle-dates_maximum-minimum.txt” appears to be a definitive list, last modified 6/30/2013.
Is this the one to use? It does not go to the month, but to the tenth of the year, which is good enough.
Also, I am wondering how people process the sunspot numbers for use. In this file it says:
At WDC-SILSO (aka SIDC) the “Info” for the monthly mean total sunspot number explains how the familiar SSN (Smoothed Sunspot Number) is made using a 13-month “tapered boxcar” running mean. It actually sounds like what happens with a 12-month centered running mean using monthly data, use six months on each side but use only half of the end values, divide by 12.
Meanwhile back at the ftp directory, in the “documentations” directory there is “SunspotCorrections.pdf” from 9/5/2013, which appears to be the repackaged PowerPoint version found in the “miscellaneous” subdirectory at nine times larger. Three slides, SC 12-14, looks like dating changes. The lines are “Monthly SSN” and “Smoothed Calculated 13-month”.
Since SSN is already smoothed 12 or 13 months, is a subsequent smoothing using same/similar method of same/similar duration justifiable and sensible?
Knowing SSN is already smoothed, should I go back to daily for other smoothings (like 25 or 61 months) or do them to SSN?
I see that Leif dealt with Bob’s point thus:
“A much better comparison is simply the first half of the data [133 years] with an average of 55.3 and the second half of the data with an average of 57.1”.
That is just another variety of cherry picking which brings in the rapid (but temporary) rise in solar activity in the 1700s so as to equalise the two 133 year periods and so obscure the increase between the last 100 years and the 100 years before it.
To remove all such cherry picking one really needs to compare a period of 100 years centred on the trough of the Maunder Minimum with a period of 100 years centred on the peak of the current warm period or on the peak of the MWP.
That would show a substantial change in solar activity which correlates well with temperature variations.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:37 pm
“solar activity was the same in the first 133 years of our data as in the last 133 years”
Good to see that you acknowledge that.
Solar input gets past the evaporative layer and into the thermohaline circulation which takes 1000 to 1500 years. That is well enough established.
What is established is that the circulation takes that long, not that the heat is stored there. But, again, it is good to see that you realize that a couple of low solar cycles won’t have much effect. You are well on your way to enlightenment.
Regarding mechanisms, I was discussing “energy needed versus energy available” to change temperature trends with a retired meteorology friend the other day. Let’s just consider air and water. Moving a jet stream from here to there, or forcing errant jet loops back into a straighter path takes a TREMENDOUS amount of energy. Moving water from here to there takes a tremendous amount of energy. Yet wind does it easily. You would not ordinarily think so of wind which is essentially pressurized air wanting to fill a void. It’s just air. Can’t be that strong. Yes it can. The wind in the jet stream is so powerful (200-300 miles per hour) that when it has ripples (slower meandering ribbons mixed with fast moving ribbons and usually found at the edges but sometimes in the middle) it can bounce and shake a very large plane. And flying against such a strong wind saps fuel while flying with it can push a large jet.
So what’s so great about water? Breaking the skin layer of water isn’t easy either. The surface tension of water is 72 dynes/cm at 25°C, meaning it would take a force of 72 dynes to break a surface film of water 1 cm long. That’s a tough surface! A face plant high dive into the pool can leave you bruised and bloodied. Insects find it exceedingly hard to break that surface and some have even taken advantage of surface tension. And water jets can cut metal. So much for rock paper scissors. It appears that air and water wins.
What many theorists on either side fail to do in their conjecture is to quantify energy needed versus energy available from their proposed mechanism to change even the very first thing in the usual string of connections that lead to ocean and air temperature change. CO2 theorists are the prime example with anthropogenic longwave radiation being said to heat the ocean below the first millimeters to such a degree that when expelled will result in noticeable heat increase in global land temperatures. This on its face is laughable due to a failure to calculate energy needed versus energy available. Solar theorists make the same mistake. Meandering jets being sent this way and that with nothing more than a tiny piece of solar variance, when in reality it can actually tear a plane apart instead of move out of the way to let the plane fly effortlessly in its arms.
Wind and water are big ticket giants so you had better come to the table with equivalent calculations.