Climate Dialogue about the sun

Guest blog by Marcel Crok

Header Climate DialogueOver at Climate Dialogue we have started a new discussion about the influence of the sun on the climate. People familiar with climate discussions know that the sun has been and still is a popular argument to explain at least part of the warming since 1750. This has to do with solar proxies correlating well with climate proxies (in the distant past), although Willis Eschenbach in a series of posts here at WUWT has shown that the solar signal is often not easily detected in climate records.

Also the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a period with few visible sunspots. So if the sun played a role in the past, why shouldn’t it in the present?

But figuring out how the sun has varied in e.g. the past millennium isn’t easy. And in fact, the science seems to be developing in the other direction, i.e. showing an even smaller solar influence than scientists thought let’s say a decade ago. AR5 said that in terms of radiative forcing since 1750 the influence of the sun is almost negligible.

Meanwhile solar activity has dropped to levels last seen a century ago. Some scientists suggest the sun might go into a new Maunder Minimum in the coming decades. What influence will that have on our climate?

So the timing of this dialogue is apt. We have a record number of participants, namely five. Two of them – Nicola Scafetta (USA) and Jan-Erik Solheim (NOR) – believe in a large role of the sun. Mike Lockwood (GBR) – in line with AR5 – thinks the sun is only a minor player. The two other participants – Ilya Usoskin (FIN) and José Vaquero (ESP) – seem somewhere in between.

In our Introduction we asked the participants the following questions:

1) What is according to you the “best” solar reconstruction since 1600 (or even 1000) in terms of Total Solar Irradiance?

2) Was there a Grand Solar Maximum in the 20th century?

3) What is your preferred temperature reconstruction for the same period? How much colder was the Little Ice Age than the current warm period?

4) What is the evidence for a correlation between global temperature and solar activity?

5) How much of the warming since pre-industrial would you attribute to the sun?

6) Is the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) of the sun all that matters for the Earth’s climate? If not, what amplification processes are important and what is the evidence these play a role?

7) what is the sun likely going to do in the next few decades and what influence will it have on the climate? Is there consensus on the predictability of solar variability?

There will be a lot of area to cover. Please head over to the dialogue and feel free to leave a public comment. Keep in mind that the goal of Climate Dialogues is to find out on what participants agree, on what they disagree and why they disagree.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

310 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ren
October 18, 2014 9:23 am

Let’s see what happens at an altitude of about 30 km above the Arctic Circle. Solar activity decreases, ozone anomaly increase.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_nh_f00.gif

ren
Reply to  ren
October 18, 2014 10:34 am

How is the impact of the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere the temperature? Us see it at a height of about 3500 m.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=25.21,88.12,366

Reply to  ren
October 18, 2014 6:03 pm

Sorry, Ren, but that is NOT “what happens at an altitude of about 30 km above the Arctic Circle “. It is merely what is happening in Modelworld. It’s not actual observations. Instead, it is the output of a computer model. If you believe computer models, I suppose it might mean something … me, I don’t believe in them without extensive V&V testing, testing which the NCEP models have never undergone.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 18, 2014 7:11 pm

Sorry, Willis, but that *IS* what is happening. It in *NOT* merely what is happening in ‘Modelworld’ as you say. It is the result of a conglomeration of actual Polar & Geostationary orbiting, passive & active Atmospheric Sounding instrument observations and a few RAOBS (RAdiosonde OBServations) that make it up that high.
This picture is not about ‘believing a model’ because it is not a forecast. The numbers in the lower right corner (00z + f00) show this is the Initialization or Analysis phase – the ‘kickoff’ of the forecast process.
If you do not believe the information in that image, please *prove* it is incorrect.
Jeff

ren
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 18, 2014 9:45 pm
ren
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 18, 2014 9:58 pm

Willis, see the temperature of the Great Lakes. This is happening?
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/

ren
Reply to  ren
October 18, 2014 10:22 pm
ren
Reply to  ren
October 18, 2014 11:24 pm
Reply to  ren
October 19, 2014 9:38 am

Who knows, ren? You’ve given us a graphic without a scrap of provenance. Where did you get it? Because if it is from NCAR or NCEP, it’s an odds-on bet that it’s computer model output and not data in any sense of the word.
w.

ren
Reply to  ren
October 19, 2014 10:40 am
highflight56433
October 18, 2014 9:31 am

Given the sun is constant, then there would be other factors to consider in global climate change. However, the sun is not constant. Just ask Mars. If the ice on the poles on Mars have receded in sync with warming on Earth, then we might legitimately assume the changes in the sun is a common factor combined with the earth orbit changes and tilt changes.
Maybe Habibullo I. Abdussamatov is more correct than his critics claim:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

Reply to  highflight56433
October 19, 2014 12:49 pm

Considering that changes on earth are basically non existent since the last iceage, on a planetary scale. How would comparing UHI on earth with mars prove a point?

highflight56433
October 18, 2014 9:56 am

If total cloud cover influences global temperatures, and cloud cover is influenced by the sun, then the sun influences global climate.
…helps to type the correct words. 🙂

Pamela Gray
Reply to  highflight56433
October 18, 2014 2:32 pm

So cloud cover metrics/observations should track solar metrics. So far, it does not.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  highflight56433
October 18, 2014 2:47 pm

Here is one particularly long cloud cover record. Sorry no graphs. But it is likely easily converted to Excel and graphed.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp021.html

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 2:53 pm

Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 at 2:47 pm
Here is one particularly long cloud cover record.

I saw nothing for an equivalent “Arctic” (Alaskan North slope ?) cloud cover on that site:Do you know of one?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 2:59 pm

Did you check the location of all the stations? I would imagine at least one above the 45th parallel.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 3:56 pm

milo, interesting powerpoint. Has the paper come out yet? I would hope the researchers compare the ice and cloud data to the major atmospheric pressure system at work in the Arctic. During their study period the seasonal JFM indices was heading up and I remember several alarmists stating that rise was due to global warming. Those alarmists spoke too soon because it then headed back down and may slide even further.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:11 pm

I think it’s a Master’s Thesis.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:43 pm

There are several by these authors. Not a Master’s. These are refereed scientists. Haven’t read the submitted paper yet or determined whether or not it has been published in a journal.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rmeast/Full_Text_D1.pdf

highflight56433
October 18, 2014 11:25 am

From: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
“Global measurements of solar wind pressure by Ulysses. Green curves trace the solar wind in 1992-1998, while blue curves denote lower pressure winds in 2004-2008. [click on link]”
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/09/23/23sep_solarwind_resources/276531main_McComas-2ndImage-full.jpg
“Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn’t decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense.”
“The temperature and density of electrons in the solar wind have dropped since the mid-1990s, according to measurements made by the Ulysses spacecraft. [clink on link]”
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/09/23/23sep_solarwind_resources/electrons.jpg
The point is that the sun has significant multiple mechanisms that can directly influence our climate and influence what the universe and Milky Way can influence on our planet.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  highflight56433
October 18, 2014 3:44 pm

Fortunately we can measure solar parameters quite accurately and can even calculate energy available from those various parameters. We can also measure the strength of temperature changing pressure systems here on Earth and whether or not the next one that comes along can move it out of the way. It takes quite a bit of energy to do that. Meteorologists are working on that metric. How much energy does it take to heat us up? Or cool us down? And how much energy does it take to sustain a trend for days, months, or decades? While the exact number is not yet known, it is thought to be a lot.
In fact, the energy available from the presence of human-sourced CO2 is not enough to explain the previous rise in temperature. One has to involve an amplification mechanism which then has to be cooled down a bit by aerosols else it runs way too hot. It gets pretty convoluted and thus seriously dilutes the CO2 theory. The same is true for solar parameters. All sides agree that some kind of amplification must be employed because solar energy variability alone in what ever frequency flavor you want to address, is not enough. Many times the solar discussion on this blog is like watching someone throw the contents of a trash can on the wall hoping some of it will stick. In the end, all we end up with is a mess.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 3:52 pm

The same is not true for “solar parameters”. Yet again you commit the fallacy of begging the question. Please present a shred of evidence in support of this baseless assertion.
The only garbage here is being slung by you. Solar modulation of climate, in combination with other mechanisms such as Milankovitch Cycles, has not only been repeatedly observed, but plausible mechanisms have been proposed, with strong experimental support, as posted here over & over again. What do you have to the contrary?
Nada, zip, zilch.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:03 pm

Maybe, but it is our own mess, and there isn’t any lack of volunteers looking to clean up the mess.
I don’t think anyone is still suffering under the delusion of a quick and clean exorcism.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:05 pm

So far the mechanisms proposed here have not been plausible because they are often just one person’s pet and rather convoluted theory. Read up thread for several examples of the eclectic mix of parameters deemed necessary for a quiet Sun or a busy Sun to possibly show up on our sensors.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 19, 2014 6:43 am

Milo, you might be interested in the data base related to TSI and all its wavelengths. The data base is composed of actual top of the atmosphere measurements via satellite and archival measurements at the surface.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html
And if you don’t trust these sources, you can measure it for yourself at the surface. Just remember to consider that when measuring at the surface, you may not be aware of aerosol veils (or lack thereof) that you cannot see with the naked eye causing an intrinsic sourced decrease (or increase) in TSI or any one particular bandwidth within the total spectrum.
http://www.azom.com/equipment-details.aspx?EquipID=2518

RJ
October 18, 2014 11:58 am

Reading thru the comments here and on this website in general, I conclude that there are so many, many variables that may or may not contribute to the state of the climate, that I find it hard to believe that any scientist worth a damn would try and pin the cause of warming on one single minor constituent gas.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  RJ
October 18, 2014 2:48 pm

It was a politician what did it.

1saveenergy
Reply to  RJ
October 18, 2014 4:03 pm

I disagree (you knew I would) –
Because there are so many, many variables that may or may not contribute to the state of the climate, it’s got to be a lot easier to pin the cause of warming on one single minor constituent gas….& they almost got away with it.
Shame on all us skeptics.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  1saveenergy
October 18, 2014 4:49 pm

Where you been all these years , shame on who ?

Editor
October 18, 2014 4:00 pm

Mario Lento October 18, 2014 at 9:01 am

richard verney October 18, 2014 at 12:14 am distilled the subject matter correctly.

All Richard did was to connect your vague handwaving to John Snow’s vague handwaving. Not impressed.

The “it” is TSI.

Dear heavens, you just claimed you were NOT talking about TSI, but when I asked, you now say you WERE talking about TSI.
Please make up your mind.

The frequencies change substantially (on at least an order of magnitude)

I asked for NUMBERS and FREQUENCIES, first by asking:

As a result, some actual facts to back up your claims would be most welcome.

and then when you replied with more handwaving, I made it very clear, viz:

Thanks for the suggestion, Mario, but I was asking for facts, not suggestions. You know, numbers showing how much and how the frequencies change, and which ones change, that kind of thing.

To date, it appears that neither you, nor Richard Verney, nor John West have any actual facts to back up your handwaving … not uncommon in claims about solar energy.
So please, I invite you to come back with actual data. You know, observational evidence for your claims, showing which frequencies increase and which ones decrease, and by how much. Airily waving your hands and claiming blithely that “the frequencies change substantially” is meaningless. Which frequencies change, and how much do they change?
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 18, 2014 4:21 pm

Willis: Nowhere did I suggest or write that TSI was not relatively constant. So please correct yourself when you write argumentative statements like “Please make up your mind.” It is not constructive Willis; and I don’t knew where I got such a notion.
I also assume you know something about radiation frequencies that change dramatically more than total solar irradiance. Leif and I spent time discussing this on threads. He agrees with this notion. However, he does not see the evidence that it causes change in climate. This is the area of science I think is up for debate.
Here’s a few links I found with 10 seconds of research to show you what you seem to deny.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-paper-finds-large-changes-in-solar.html
The point I made was clear, that there should be more studies in that area of effects caused by changing frequencies of solar output.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 18, 2014 4:52 pm

Thanks for the links, Mario. According to the first link, the largest change is in the EUV (extreme ultraviolet) … which according to the link makes up about 1% of the TSI.

Approximately 1% of the Sun’s radiant energy is in the UV portion of the spectrum at wavelengths below about 300 nm, which the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs. Although of considerably smaller absolute energy than the total irradiance, solar UV radiation is fractionally more variable by at least an order of magnitude. It contributes significantly to changes in total solar irradiance (15% of the total irradiance cycle; Lean et al., 1997) and creates and modifies the ozone layer, but is not considered as a direct RF because it does not reach the troposphere.

Again according to your citation, in W/m2,15% of change in the TSI is from the EUV. Since the TSI change is on the order of 0.25 W/m2 (24/7 global average), this means that the change in EUV is on the order of 0.037 W/m2, that is to say, four hundredths of a watt per square meter, peak to peak.
If you believe such a microscopic signal will affect the earth in any meaningful way, you’ll have to tell me how. Yes, PERCENTAGEWISE it varies a lot … but that is only because it is so damn small.
Finally, even the percentagewise change is small. It sounds big and impressive when they say “solar UV radiation is fractionally more variable by at least an order of magnitude” … but again, that is because we start with such small numbers. TSI varies by about one watt out of 1,360, which is about seven hundredths of a percent peak-to-peak.
So if the variation in EUV is ten times that, it is still only seven-tenths of a percent change in 1% of the TSI over an eleven year period… color me unimpressed.
This is why when you try to diss my research abilities by saying:

Here’s a few links I found with 10 seconds of research to show you what you seem to deny.

you miss the point entirely. I deny nothing. Nor did I want to just give you my numbers to show how trivial an effect you are talking about.
I wanted YOU to back up your claims with citations, so that I could use YOUR numbers to show how trivial an effect you are talking about. That way, you can’t bust me for using the “wrong” numbers.
I don’t deny that the EUV changes more than the TSI in percentage terms, and I know many people who have been fooled by that claim. I wanted your numbers to show you what that means in real world terms, which is a few hundredths of a watt per square metre change.
And if you think a few hundredths of a watt is changing the climate, well, more power to you … but you’ll have to explain and demonstrate how that works, how a few hundredths of a W/m2 is having some big effect, in order for it to get any traction.
w.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 18, 2014 5:43 pm

Willis:
You are arguing with someone else not me.
I trust I can clear up teh confusion here, and respond to your most statement where you wrote: “If you believe such a microscopic signal will affect the earth in any meaningful way, you’ll have to tell me how. Yes, PERCENTAGEWISE it varies a lot … but that is only because it is so damn small.”
My answer is as follows:
Willis, I NEVER EVER said or suggested that the amount of energy of UV had a direct affect in terms of total energy flux to earth. You seem to want to argue in terms of total energy in our system or TSI. This is NOT my argument. If TSI does not change, (then in your argument), it rightly does not matter what spectrum we’re talking about. I have always agreed with this notion. If only TSI mattered, and TSI does not change then case closed. I stated as much in my first post about the subject. I am a process control engineer and under this stuff.
I am saying, AND LISTEN CLOSELY, because you continue to argue with me as if I am saying something else. Here it is:
There are changes in the sun’s frequency output far greater than 0.1%. I gave you some evidence. Can we get past this? We’ve always agreed on this and I never changed my mind or what I said! YOU AND I AGREE RIGHT?
This is a YES or NO answer I am looking for here.
I submit that different frequencies of energy affect different things on planet earth in different ways. This is a broad statement, and I don’t have proof of any such affects. But I believe these effects should be studied because there is ample evidence that UV changes things. For instance what affect does a long term continued reduction of UV energy have on (fill in the blank). How does this affect albedo directly or indirectly or creation of other compounds in our atmosphere or oceans?

beng
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 19, 2014 7:29 am

FINALLY, Mario supplies some numbers which Willis E condenses to this:

So if the variation in EUV is ten times that, it is still only seven-tenths of a percent change in 1% of the TSI over an eleven year period… color me unimpressed.

Willis, you’re a master of understatement. That simple fact should blow away all the litter.

Editor
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 19, 2014 3:03 pm

beng – The point being made, and which w has missed, is that Certain factors, which vary more in % terms than TSI, may have an effect in their own right and not just as a component of TSI.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 20, 2014 5:04 pm

Willis Eschenbach October 18, 2014 at 4:52 pm: wrote: “So if the variation in EUV is ten times that, it is still only seven-tenths of a percent change in 1% of the TSI over an eleven year period… color me unimpressed.”
+++++++
This may be a learning moment for me. But you conclude that that UV varies .7% of 1% of the TSI in an eleven year period. Not sure how you concluded that. The top of the atmosphere receives approximately about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light, for a total ultraviolet power of about 140 W/m2 in vacuum just before it hits earth. So if the UV varies by close to 1% (call it 0.7% if you want) wouldn’t that be about 1.4 W/m2 variation of UV at TOA? Again – I am not concerned with the heating effect of that significant change in energy at that frequency because TSI in total only changes by 0.2% from really weak cycles to really strong cycles. But a 1% change in that enormous amount of UV is not so small if I understand it right.

Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:14 pm

For those who look at variation of a sub-wavelength span within the Total Solar Irradiance spectrum, remember that a % change in the total spectrum output will have a vastly different “potential” compared to a sub-wavelength’s energy output. The energy needed to penetrate and heat Earth’s oceans or air is the metric that needs an equal partner. So if you think you have found such a partner in a sub-wavelength’s variability, what makes you think it is equal to the task of driving a temperature trend up or down over a 20 year period? If the calculations do not balance you must acquit.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:40 pm

I must admit I find this comment baffling.
The effect of UV on atmosphere & ocean is well known.
This is why you need systematically to study climatology and keep up on it, if you want to comment usefully on outstanding issues. And I might add physics.
Here is a summary of some of the correlations of solar activity with climatic phenomena which are well supported by field observation and lab experiment: These proposed and demonstrated mechanisms are not the “garbage” which you allege above, but genuine science.
1) Ozone. UV and solar magnetic flux vary together over the solar cycle. The effect of more or less UV on ozone is well established, and the effect of ozone on climatic phenomena has strong support.
2) Clouds. Modulation by solar magnetic flux of GCRs leading to increases or decreases in CCNs has been shown experimentally and the predicted effect in nature on cloud formation observed as well.
3) Ocean circulation. While ENSO is a sub-climatic time frame oscillation, the average over decades of La Ninas v El Ninos v La Nadas is a climatic phenomenon. It has been shown to reflect the solar cycle. Solar activity influence on the PDO and AMO, which are climatic phenomena, has similarly been demonstrated, along possibly with other external forcings. Among other causes, the fluctuation in UV, shown to affect ocean heating, is demonstrably responsible.
4) Sea ice. Just one of the many parameters found in longer-term studies of the effects of solar activity on climate. The signal shows up throughout the Holocene and in previous interglacials, as well as glacials.
5) Wind, air pressure and precipitation. As often noted on this blog, one of the earliest and still best-established connections between solar cycles and climatic phenomena were the Asian monsoons.
6) Centennial scale warm and cold periods in interglacials. Many have commented at length here on the close connection between temperature fluctuations in the Medieval Warm Perod and Little Ice Age and solar minima and maxima. This connection holds as far back into the Pleistocene as the proxy record of 14C & 10 Be works.
Many have posted links here supporting all these connections, so it’s frustrating that you continue to ignore this overwhelming evidence of the influence of solar variations on earth’s climate (and on that of other planets) and blithely assert without any basis whatsoever that any such influence is so minor as to be lost in the whatever it is you imagine it to be lost.
If you are really interested in studying climatology, I’d urge you to search for the many papers supporting each of these connections. Posting yet more links here for your benefit would only get this comment moderated.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  sturgishooper
October 18, 2014 4:48 pm

Sturgis, all of those assertions have been made many times here in this blog over the years. All have proven to be less than paradigm shifters in terms of the source of the recent, now stalled, temperature rise. And you know that. I have posted many links to peer reviewed papers too. And read them critically. It’s a good skill to have in the face of biased proponents of either theory.

Reply to  sturgishooper
October 19, 2014 9:46 am

You posted the garbage of Mann, et al, re volcanoes, designed to show that the LIA wasn’t caused by naturally recurring cycles, despite all evidence to the contrary. You appear incapable of reading papers critically. You read them to reinforce your preconceived notions, accepting blatant nonsense if it supports your view.
The evidence in support of each connection I mentioned is overwhelming. Only a true believer could d*ny their validity.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  sturgishooper
October 19, 2014 10:21 am

I posted this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract
Mann is not one of the authors. When this article was first viewed here (way back when) I initially discounted it, along with many others. The likely volcano has since been identified. To be sure, several well-respected bloggers that post here still discount it (Willis being one). His argument against it was and still is persuasive but I have since changed my mind after looking more closely at Bob Tisdale’s work on how El Nino surface waters echo themselves through the years and into other locations around the globe.
It is reasonable to propose that a significant disruption in the normal discharge/recharge action of ocean heating would trigger climate affecting feedback loops and be echoed through several years, possibly decades or longer following a catastrophic volcanic event marked by sulfuric acid veiling in the Stratosphere around the equatorial belt large enough to eventually migrate to the poles and dump a VERY large amount of volcanic evidence onto the snow and ice. That is a significant amount of sunshine hours NOT happening to recharge a heat depleted ocean (The Medieval Warm Period just before the slide into the Little Ice Age is thought to have occurred because of decades of oceanic evaporation of stored heat thus creating a cozy warm Earth).
As for Mann, I do not discount work simply because of a name, nor do I discount others who have sited his work simply because of a name. I read his work as critically as I read anybody else’s, including your words Sturgis. I even critically read the work of those whose speculations, hypotheses, or theories track with my thinking and have been known to severely criticize the work of highly respected kingpin researchers whose work many depend on for their current endeavors. Even the best will produce poor work now and then.

October 18, 2014 4:36 pm

Amplification of TSI at the surface snuck into peer-reviewed literature:
Stott, P. A., G. S. Jones, & J. F. B. Mitchell, Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, J.Clim., v. 16, 4079-4093, 12/15/03
and
Tung, K. K., J. Zhou, & C. D. Camp, Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response, Geoph.Res.Lett., v. 35, L17707, 5 pp., 9/12/08.
Stott, et al. was published before AR4, but IPCC understating its message on various grounds. AR4, Ch. 2, §2.7.1, p. 188 (detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability); Ch. 9, §9.4.1.5, p. 690 (not able to completely rule out the possibility that solar forcing might have caused more warming) & 691 (more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming). Tung et al. was not published in time for AR4, and in time for AR5. These authorities postulate two different mechanisms.
However, a simple, intuitive candidate for the positive feedback to TSI is the cloud burn-off effect, occurring perpetually on the morning side of Earth. Cloud albedo feedback is the most powerful feedback in all climate because it gates the Sun on and off. It is rapid and positive with respect to TSI, and slow and negative with respect to Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST). Cloud albedo mitigates warming from all causes. IPCC can’t simulate these effects in GCMs because their cloud cover model is not dynamic.
For a model of how cloud feedback works, see SGW at
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
Figure 1 shows the simple 4 or 5 parameter transfer function on solar radiation that reproduces the entire 140 year surface temperature history at that time with an accuracy comparable to IPCC’s unrealizable smoothed estimator. For that accuracy, GAST lags the Sun with a pair of time constants of 134 years and 46 years. Eq. (1), id.
The next of two of many stumbling blocks to the radiative forcing paradigm and the GCMs are (1) that the response of the climate system is neither instantaneous nor ever in equilibrium, and (2) that the GCMs have no flow variables to drive any transfer function. Instead, they advance through a sequence of phantom equilibrium calculations.

Girma
October 18, 2014 8:11 pm

Willis Eschenbach

Girma, that study did NOT use actual temperature data. Instead, it used a NCEP computer model reconstruction of past temperatures. As such, while it is revealing as to the existence of solar cycles IN COMPUTER MODEL OUPUTS, it says nothing about solar cycles here on the real earth.

Willis, how about this solar cycle-climate link:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:60/detrend:0.45/offset:0.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/scale:0.001/plot/rss/mean:60/detrend:0.45/offset:0.201
Does not the above data clearly shows the global mean surface temperature moving approximately in PHASE with the 11 year solar cycle?
Are not RSS and Sunspot counts “real earth” data?

Girma
Reply to  Girma
October 18, 2014 8:25 pm

Note that during an ENSO and volcanic years, the solar-climate link gets disturbed.

Girma
Reply to  Girma
October 18, 2014 10:09 pm

The Tung and Camp study is a farce, it has nothing to do with the real world,

How can you make such a statment before you attempt to reproduce their results with other global mean temperature data set as I have done in the link above?

Delurked Lurker
October 18, 2014 9:26 pm

The Sun has a little effect on climate ….really ?
What would the climate be like without the Sun !
The Sun and only the Sun is responsible for all of our weather and therefore is critical to the climate. To argue otherwise is simply ridiculous

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Delurked Lurker
October 19, 2014 6:10 am

Why can’t people understand it is about the CHANGES in solar radiation. The question is are they enough to influence significant CHANGES in climate. Remember we are not talking about insolation changes that are the result of what the Earth does but only the small differences in solar radiation coming from the Sun itself. You measure TSI at 1 AU to find out what the Sun is doing and you measure TSI at TOA to find out how obliquity and eccentricity change the TSI received by the Earth.

October 18, 2014 11:17 pm

here is a climate model that works based on the classic water cycle, the three phases of water, and recent research on the Sun’s indirect control of cloud cover. Solar irradiance variation is so small as to be insignificant and irrelevant.

October 18, 2014 11:23 pm

http://Paullitely.com describes a global climate model that works, driven by the sun’s surface activity as measured by sunspots. Solar irradiance varies so little that it is insignificant and irrelevant. We are observing the Sun’s magnetic poles flip right on schedule.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  paullitely
October 19, 2014 7:04 am

Except that Svensmark’s recent paper on observed Forbush events and cloud observations (done to add observations to cloud chamber experiments) was examined prior to acceptance into publication and found wanting. So far, it has been denied publication by one on-line journal. I am not aware of it being published by another journal. It was denied publication because of his selective use of 6 extreme Forbush events out of his sample of 13, skewing his research towards a biased sample, not a random sample, to determine if indeed cosmic rays have an affect on cloud nucleation to the degree that would be necessary to explain temperature trends here on Earth.

Dr. Strangelove
October 19, 2014 3:20 am

IMO relative radiative forcing is more relevant than absolute radiative forcing. Analogy, a little boy can move a cart when no other forces are at work. When a sumo wrestler is also pushing and pulling the cart, the little boy becomes insignificant.
CO2 forcing is much greater than solar forcing. But in the past 2,000 years until 1850, CO2 was below 300 ppm. The small solar forcing might had been enough to affect the climate. The solar physicists saying the sun had insignificant effect in 20th century climate and those saying it had significant effect in past 2,000 years may be both correct.
BTW I’m not impressed with curve fitting exercises. With enough free parameters, any model can fit empirical data. It’s von Neumann’s flying elephant. More important is understanding the physical mechanisms behind the empirical data.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
October 19, 2014 4:02 am

Which curve fitting are you discussing?

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Sparks
October 19, 2014 8:04 pm

All sorts of curve fitting of proxy data to ‘prove’ a hypothesis. Example, cosmic rays proxy data. If we don’t know how they can form clouds then we don’t know how they affect the climate. Without valid physical explanations, we’re just looking for familiar images in the night sky.

richard verney
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
October 19, 2014 5:30 am

If CO2 forcing above 300 ppm is so strong, how do you explain the post 1940s cooling, and the 18 year (plus) period of the ‘pause’?
Why is there no correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the satellite data?
These data sets show a one off and isolated warming event, in and around the super El Nino of 1998. They are essentially flat before the lead up to and the Super El Nino, and are again essentially flat following the Super El Nino. This is a natural event and nothing to do with CO2.
The recent data coming in suggests that the forcing (if any) associated with CO2 is weak, and if the satellite data is good (and all the data sets in climate science have issues), it is so weak that we cannot measure it with our best and most sophisticated temperature measuring devices.
We can already do the exercise. Judith Curry recently published a paper based on IPCC data suggesting a rather modest sensitivity figure, but what if the ‘pause’ continues through to 2030, or even 2035?
Many Climate Scientists are suggesting that there will be no return to warming for at least a decade. Even one of the loudest warmist at the UK Met Office, Julia Slingo is suggesting that there will be no return to warming for perhaps two decades. We know that CO2 will not be curbed, and will continue to rise exponentially so we have a good idea what atmospheric levels will be in 2030 and 2035.
So if the ‘pause’ continues through to then, all the papers on climate sensitivity between now and then will be suggesting ever lower figures for climate sensitivity and by 2025/2030, they will be suggesting a figure below 1.
Now i do not know whether the ‘pause’ will continue, nor if when it comes to an end there will be cooling, or a resumption to a warming trend. But I do know that if the ‘pause’ continues, it will not be long before papers are suggesting that climate sensitivity is close to 1.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  richard verney
October 19, 2014 7:51 pm

“If CO2 forcing above 300 ppm is so strong, how do you explain the post 1940s cooling, and the 18 year (plus) period of the ‘pause’?”
PDO is apparently stronger. Maybe it influences the clouds as Spencer suggested.
“Why is there no correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the satellite data?”
Natural cycles are messing it up. You can’t see any clear signal unless you turn off natural influences which is wishful thinking.
“But I do know that if the ‘pause’ continues, it will not be long before papers are suggesting that climate sensitivity is close to 1.”
Lindzen and Spencer had papers suggesting climate sensitivity is less than 1 C.
The forcings are non-linear that’s why it’s counter intuitive. We expect small forcing to have small effect, and big forcing to have big effect. That’s linear thinking. Non-linearity can have diminishing effect. Example, the bigger the forcing, the bigger the resistance to change. Hence, the effect may remain small.

richard verney
October 19, 2014 5:44 am

For those who are arguing about TSI, that it is not the complete story and variations in wavelength may be important, this could explain teh so called ‘weak sun’ paradox. In the early years, it is thought that solar TSI was a lot less, and that might be so, but at the same time, the wavelength characteristics were also very different. So one explanation as to why temperatures on planet Earth were warmer than TSI alone would suggest, is that the wavelength characteristics of solar at that time had a material impact upon warming response.
I am not suggesting that this does explain the weak sun paradox, but just throwing something into the mix. .

Pamela Gray
Reply to  richard verney
October 19, 2014 6:06 am

To see if it sticks, right? So what exactly is it that makes a weak sun in the far distant past a paradox? And exactly what about that, compared to today and various % changes in various wavelenghs, have you thrown onto the walls of this blog? If your throwing something onto the wall to see if it sticks, at least identify it a bit more.

ren
October 19, 2014 6:08 am

If we compare the current temperatures in America, Europe and Asia with the pressure distribution in the stratosphere, will understand the importance of the distribution of ozone in the polar vortex during the winter.
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/

ren
October 19, 2014 8:08 am

Let’s look at the pressure at an altitude of about 45 km. Clearly visible inhibiting polar vortex over eastern Siberia.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z01_nh_f00.gif

ren
Reply to  ren
October 19, 2014 10:15 am

Cosmic radiation is still high. Where slows polar vortex jet stream descends far to the south.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

October 19, 2014 9:08 am

Solar Impulse is the only airplane of perpetual endurance, able to fly day and night on solar power, without a drop of fuel.
The chances of succeeding at the first attempt to build a solar airplane capable of flying around the world were judged to be slim, so a more rudimentary prototype, HB-SIA (Solar Impulse 1), was first constructed. Lessons learned from this prototype are incorporated in Solar Impulse 2, the Round-The-World Solar Airplane.
If you would like to read more about Solar Impulse 2, you can access to my blog on: worldofinnovations.net/2014/10/19/solar-impulse-2-on-the-way-round-the-world/

October 19, 2014 9:13 am

From Ilya Usoskin’s post entitled ‘The Grand Maximum was not a unique event’ at Marcel Crok’s blog.
Ilya Usoskin wrote:
The correlation between global temperature and solar activity
There are many indirect results suggesting such a relation on long-term scale (centuries to millennia). Just a few examples can be the correlation between solar activity and the extent of icebergs in the North Atlantic (Bond et al., 2001) or a coincidence between solar activity minima and cold/wet spells in Europe (Usoskin & Kovaltsov, 2008), both at millennial time scales. Each of those is weak and not very convincing along, since it is based on a statistical correlation which can be disputed. However, in the aggregate they imply that there is a link between paleoclimatic and solar activity reconstructions.
Attribution of warming to the sun
Although the present knowledge remains poor, in particular since most of the climate models consider only the direct TSI effect which is indeed quite small, I would intuitively and subjectively say that the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but presently other factors play the dominant role. However, such time-delaying processes as e.g. ocean heating, are not straightforwardly considered.

Usoskin appears to say there was a solar grand maximum in the 20th century but reserves against supporting assessments that it was a significant factor in the observed climate.
My take away from Usoskin is much more research is needed in the area of solar change versus EAS change. I suggest significant funds be diverted from the unproductive area of GCMs (and the like) to the area of solar change versus EAS change.
John

Editor
October 19, 2014 9:33 am

Mario Lento October 18, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Willis:
You are arguing with someone else not me.
I trust I can clear up teh confusion here, and respond to your most statement where you wrote: “If you believe such a microscopic signal will affect the earth in any meaningful way, you’ll have to tell me how. Yes, PERCENTAGEWISE it varies a lot … but that is only because it is so damn small.”
My answer is as follows:
Willis, I NEVER EVER said or suggested that the amount of energy of UV had a direct affect in terms of total energy flux to earth.

Yes, Mario, I understand that. And that is exactly why I asked you HOW such a tiny change can have a discernible effect, viz;

And if you think a few hundredths of a watt is changing the climate, well, more power to you … but you’ll have to explain and demonstrate how that works, how a few hundredths of a W/m2 is having some big effect, in order for it to get any traction.

Yes, I know you don’t think it has a big effect via the watts per square metre, and that it still has a big effect through some mystery mechanism … but I also note that you have not answered my question about how that might happen.

You seem to want to argue in terms of total energy in our system or TSI. This is NOT my argument.

mario, I understand that that is NOT your argument … so how about answering my question as to what IS your argument? How does such a tiny change in solar forcing (whether in absolute or percentage terms) translate to your claimed large change in temperature?

If TSI does not change, (then in your argument), it rightly does not matter what spectrum we’re talking about. I have always agreed with this notion. If only TSI mattered, and TSI does not change then case closed. I stated as much in my first post about the subject. I am a process control engineer and under this stuff.
I am saying, AND LISTEN CLOSELY, because you continue to argue with me as if I am saying something else. Here it is:
There are changes in the sun’s frequency output far greater than 0.1%. I gave you some evidence. Can we get past this? We’ve always agreed on this and I never changed my mind or what I said! YOU AND I AGREE RIGHT?
This is a YES or NO answer I am looking for here.

Yes. Extreme ultraviolet changes on the order of 0.7% … so what?

I submit that different frequencies of energy affect different things on planet earth in different ways. This is a broad statement, and I don’t have proof of any such affects. But I believe these effects should be studied because there is ample evidence that UV changes things. For instance what affect does a long term continued reduction of UV energy have on (fill in the blank). How does this affect albedo directly or indirectly or creation of other compounds in our atmosphere or oceans?

Good questions. When you get answers, then you might have a theory worth listening to. Until then, all you have is handwaving and empty claims.
I’m sorry, mario, but I’m not impressed by a 0.7% change in 1% of the energy. If you think that variation is doing something, well, that’s your right. But if you want to convince others that a 0.7% change in 1% of the solar energy is significant, I’m afraid you’ll have to explain how.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 19, 2014 10:23 am

Willis: Our back and forth was completely unnecessary.
Your attempting to distill statements into binary arguments completely changed what I said. There’s a difference between proving a theory and stating interest in a subject.
You did not to know that there were significant changes in the spectrum, so you sent me on a hunt and YOU learned something here. Either that, or you did it to be distracting. And what did you do with that new information you learned? You said you were not impressed. It’s as if you want to win the argument at all costs.
It could have been far more constructive a conversation.
Am I still a Fan boy? Yes I am… I’m very impressed with the way you slice through data and pull information from it.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 19, 2014 1:20 pm

I think I can speak to whether or not Willis knows about UV variation. He does.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 19, 2014 5:28 pm

Hi, Mario — since you and I discussed the UV issue a few months ago, and since I know you are VERY busy, too busy to write in detail, here, I am writing the following to support your well-reasoned, logical, insightful, speculation about fluctuations in UV v. a v. the climate of the Earth:
I. Model Simulations re: Solar Radiation and UV Are Largely Inconclusive
Comment: {thus, anyone asserting that he knows that UV does NOT affect climate significantly is not in line with current science}

*** SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment)
satellite [data] suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth’s atmosphere. ***
We show that, [however], the SORCE measurements are difficult to reconcile with earlier observations and with SSI models. … only one shows a behaviour of the UV and visible irradiance qualitatively resembling that of the recent SORCE measurements. However, [Moreover,?] the integral of the SSI computed with this model over the entire spectral range does not reproduce the measured cyclical changes of the total solar irradiance, which is an essential requisite for realistic evaluations of solar effects on the Earth’s climate in CCMs. ***
… the direct solar response in the stratosphere is larger for the
SORCE than for the NRLSSI data. Correspondingly, larger UV forcing also leads to a larger surface response.

[Source: Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3945–3977, p. 1 (Abstract) (2013) –
emphasis mine
Link: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf CITED IN: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/solar-spectral-irradiance-uv-and-declining-solar-activity/%5D
*******************************************************************************
II. UV Photochemistry – Atmospheric Chemistry – Climate Implications
A. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD009391/abstract;jsessionid=F260393BA633AC61CE096310650A8316.f04t03

Abstract
Keywords:
• solar cycle;
• stratospheric ozone;
• stratospheric temperature
[1] The 11-year solar cycles in ozone and temperature are examined using new simulations of coupled chemistry climate models. The results show a secondary maximum in stratospheric tropical ozone, in agreement with satellite observations and in contrast with most previously published simulations. The mean model response varies by up to about 2.5% in ozone and 0.8 K in temperature during a typical solar cycle, at the lower end of the observed ranges of peak responses. Neither the upper atmospheric effects of energetic particles nor the presence of the quasi biennial oscillation is necessary to simulate the lower stratospheric response in the observed low latitude ozone concentration. Comparisons are also made between model simulations and observed total column ozone. As in previous studies, the model simulations agree well with observations. For those models which cover the full temporal range 1960–2005, the ozone solar signal below 50 hPa changes substantially from the first two solar cycles to the last two solar cycles. Further investigation suggests that this difference is due to an aliasing between the sea surface temperatures and the solar cycle during the first part of the period. The relationship between these results and the overall structure in the tropical solar ozone response is discussed. Further understanding of solar processes requires improvement in the observations of the vertically varying and column integrated ozone.

Comment:
I could not locate the above paper where it was offered for free (only made a quick attempt to search online). TO DO: See if Gray (or other co-author) posted it on a personal research site such as Leif S. does on his. – Note: Apparently (as of paper’s date of 2008), NO one has evidence, i.e., data/experiments, that proves UV-ozone – climate mechanism. That is: at this point, there are ONLY MODELS, programmed with accurate but inadequate variables (too little known to establish cause-effect).
*************************************************
B. Source: Gray et al. 2010
Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes, U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G.A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, and W. White, 2010: Solar influence on climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_etal_1.pdf
1. Abstract – with my edits — (this paper IS available – I summarize it below, with emphases, the abstract)

Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of 1) solar variability, 2) solar-terrestrial interactions and the 3) mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas.
1) Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability are described, including solar irradiance variations on both decadal and centennial timescales and their relation to galactic cosmic rays.
2) Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated timescales are described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation. A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided.
3) Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles.
4) Finally, the contribution of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.

2. Paper (via the above-linked .pdf) Summarized (with my comments)
Introduction
UV – Ozone
1) … UV … has a relatively large 11 year SC variation, as shown in Figure 3 (bottom). Variations of up to 6% are present near 200 nm where oxygen dissociation and ozone production occur and up to 4% in the region 240–320 nm where absorption by stratospheric ozone is prevalent. [Gray, et. al., at 4]
************************************
2)At stratospheric heights Figure 3 shows a variation of ∼6% at UV wavelengths over the SC. This region of the atmosphere has the potential to affect the troposphere immediately below it and hence the surface climate. … The direct effect of irradiance variations is amplified by an important feedback mechanism involving ozone production, which is an additional source of heating… [Haigh, 1994; see also Gray et al., 2009].’ [Id. at 5]
Comment: Questions: 1. What is the evidence that establishes: (1) the nature of; and (2) the significance to climate of the UV-ozone mechanism? 2. What EVIDENCE refutes the hypothesis that UV significantly affects climate?
****************************************
3) … we acknowledge the possibility that short‐term processes which occur repeatedly may lead to an integrated longer‐term effect. [Id. at 6]
Comment: Q’s: Any evidence of long-term effect? Any evidence DIS-proving long-term effect?
4) UV — Measurement
Work at present is aimed at improving our knowledge of the short UV wavelengths, which is required for accurate modeling of irradiance absorption in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere (see Figure 3). Improvements made to date suggest that UV irradiance during the Maunder Minimum was lower by as much as a factor of 2 … . However, this work is still in its infancy. The model estimates match observed spectra between 400 and 1300 nm very well but begin to fail below 220 nm… . [Id. at 9]
Comment: Thus, Mario, your measured “perhaps” and I believe there is likely to be – type language above is far more in line with the current state of the science than over-confident assertions that changes in UV almost certainly do NOT affect climate. We just don’t know. Your being curious and open is good and shows scientific integrity.
*******************************************
5) Ozone – Upper Stratosphere
Ozone is the main gas involved in radiative heating of the stratosphere. Solar‐induced
variations in ozone can therefore directly affect the radiative balance of the stratosphere with indirect effects on circulation. Solar‐induced ozone variations are possible through[:]
(1) … UV spectral solar irradiance, … modifies the ozone
[Id. at 12] production rate through photolysis of molecular oxygen, primarily in the middle to upper stratosphere at low latitudes [Haigh, 1994][;]
(2) changes in the precipitation rate of energetic charged particles, which can indirectly modify ozone concentrations through changes in the abundance of trace species that catalytically destroy ozone, primarily at polar latitudes [e.g., Randall et al., 2007][; and
(3)]… transport‐induced changes in ozone … [from] indirect effects on circulation caused by the above two processes. … On the 11 year time scale, the mean irradiance near 200 nm has varied by ∼6%, over the past two solar cycles …
[Id. at 13]
In the upper stratosphere where solar UV variations directly affect ozone production rates, a statistically significant response of 2% – 4% is evident. … The density‐weighted height integral of ozone at each latitude gives the “total column” ozone, and a clear decadal oscillation in phase with the 11 year solar cycle is evident in both satellite data … The ozone response in the lower stratosphere is believed to be the main cause of the total column ozone signal because of the high number densities at those levels.
[Id.]
Comment: So far, only lower stratosphere shows evidence of significant ozone signal. Q: What evidence is there that this is ultimately propagated to Earth’s climate? And, again, what evidence is there that this is impossible or insignificant v. a v. climate?
***********************************************************
6) General Comment Re: Attributing Causation of Climate
… correlation coefficients, which suggest a link but are not sufficient to indicate any causal mechanism. In addition, there is substantial internal variability in the climate
system,… . [However s]ince the climate system may react in a nonlinear way the response function can be quite different from the forcing function…
[Id. at 24]
*******************************************
7) Re: Models and UV – Ozone Mechanism (hypothesis)
(1) Atmospheric models that include a good representation of the stratosphere, including interactive ozone chemistry, are available, but they do not generally include a fully coupled ocean at present. The prime solar mechanism for influence in these models is therefore the change in stratospheric temperatures and winds due to changes in UV irradiance and ozone production, and the influence on the underlying troposphere and surface climate involves stratosphere‐ troposphere coupling processes. This mechanism is often referred to as the top‐down mechanism … .” [Id. at 24-25]
(2) … latent heat flux anomaly across the air‐sea interface of ∼0.5 W m−2, which was larger than the direct solar radiative forcing by a factor of ∼3 and also explained the correct phase of the response. This therefore represents a different kind of amplification of the 11 year solar cycle and is not associated with changes in trade wind strength or cloud cover since these did not have the correct magnitude or phase. This result implies a role for the top‐down influence of UV irradiance via the stratosphere. White et al. [2003] also noted [however] that time sequences of tropical tropospheric temperatures lead those in the lower stratosphere, which appears to argue against the top‐down influence. They suggest, however, that this should not be interpreted as a tropospheric signal forcing a stratospheric response because the stratospheric temperature response appears to be in radiative balance and hence is in phase with the 11 year solar cycle, while the troposphere responds to anomalous heating and advection which peaks during the period leading up to solar maximum and not at the maximum itself. This is a good example of the difficulties and dangers of interpreting observed signals from different parts of the atmosphere and especially in using their time response to try to infer cause and effect.
[Id. at 26]
******************************************************************
8) Stratospheric — Tropospheric UV – Ozone Feedback Mechanism
… by imposing idealized ozone changes taken from simple 2‐D chemistry models … demonstrated that the SC signal extended down into the troposphere, primarily at subtropical latitudes… [Id. at 27] However, they did not reproduce other features, such as the observed poleward and downward propagation of the signal at polar latitudes [Matthes et al., 2003] or the secondary maximum in the equatorial lower stratosphere (20–30 km). There is general consensus that this latter feature results from transport processes [Ed. i.e., horizontal, such as tradewinds, I believe. J.M.] … . More recent improved models … simulat[e] an improved vertical structure of the annual mean ozone signal in the tropics, … However, it is still not clear to which factor (SSTs, time‐varying solar cycle, or inclusion of a QBO) the improvements can be ascribed. … despite these general improvements, there are many details that are not reproduced by models. Further studies, including fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere models with interactive chemistry, will be required to improve the simulated ozone signal and distinguish between
the various influences.
[Id. at 27-28]
******************************************************
9) Stratosphere – Troposphere Coupling Mechanisms
… at equatorial latitudes Salby [HURRAH FOR SALBY — yes, he DESERVES a cheer! :)] and Callaghan [2005] identified an interaction between the stratospheric B‐D circulation and the tropospheric Hadley circulation … but again, this does not provide a chain of causality. [Id. at 29] There are many proposed mechanisms for a downward influence from the lower stratosphere into the troposphere … response in tropical vertical velocity was not uniformly distributed in longitude but was largest over the Indian and West Pacific oceans, … despite having imposed SSTs, suggesting that their tropospheric signal was a response to changes in the stratosphere and not to the bottom-up mechanism of TSI heating of the ocean surface … .
This would be consistent with the results of Salby and Callaghan [2005] (see Figure 25), whose analysis suggested that the stratosphere and troposphere are linked by a large‐scale transfer of mass across the tropopause resulting in a coupling of the B‐D circulation in the stratosphere and the tropical Hadley circulation in the troposphere.

However, as discussed in section 4.2.2, this does not preclude the possibility that there is an additional positive feedback from the oceans so that both top‐down and bottom‐up mechanisms are acting in the real world.

[Id at 30]
Much work is still required to fully characterize the nature of these complicated interactions and hence to verify these mechanisms. …

Although details of the mechanisms involved are still not fully established, it is becoming increasingly clear that the top‐down mechanism whereby UV heating of the stratosphere indirectly influences the troposphere through dynamical coupling is viable and may help to explain observed regional signals in the troposphere. [Id. at 32] Much work is still required to fully characterize the nature of these complicated interactions and hence to verify these mechanisms. [Id. at 32]

Comment:
In a way… this is all just a BIG WASTE OF TIME – EXCEPT…it must be done to refute (even though they have not come even close to meeting the burden of proof which IS theirs) the AGWers. Unless humans are likely (LAUGH-OUT-LOUD) to produce even 10% of the net CO2 or aerosols or what-EVER hypothesis the Envirostalinists would seize upon to control the economies of the world, WHO CARES? We cannot do a THING to alter the course of the climate of the EARTH. Now, of course, to the extent that such research would help us plan aviation or aerospace or outer space ventures or would aid in planning shipping on the oceans or other practical applications, then, more power to all the hardworking, genuine, scientists. And no matter what, of course basic science is always good – but, when public (what is done with private funds is only the business of the owner of those funds) funding is involved, how about focusing on a few more important areas of study? E.g., nuclear power efficiencies or a cure for diabetes or cancer treatment…
10) UV –Ozone Mechanism v. ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation)
UV‐ozone feedback mechanism appears to cause enough heating near the tropical tropopause to significantly affect the tropical hydrologic cycle, with regional impacts on precipitation that are also broadly similar to those related to ENSO changes… . [Id. at 33]
Comment: It may be entirely ENSO which is the controlling forcing. Q: Is the relative strength of ENSO v. UV-solar precipitation forcing known?
*********************************************************************
End of Janice’s Summary of Gray, et. al. (and others above)
Well, Mario, if you had the time, you would have done a much more thorough and precise and, likely, more accurate, too, job of presenting the above research into the effect UV fluctuation might have on the climate of the earth.
Disclaimer: This is not Mario’s work — just an unemployed non-tech trying to help out a bit.
Hope that was helpful! #(:))
YOUR fan, Mario (it takes an engineer (smile)),
Janice
P.S. I’m still praying for you and your family, Mr. Eschenbach (AAAAAAA, don’t throw that at me!!!!! lol)
*SPLAT* {he did it anyway… sigh}

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 19, 2014 9:11 pm

Janice: Wow – that’s quite a bit of research there! I do wish I had the time to drill down and follow the data where it leads! I recall seeing this from you before – thank you for chiming in!
The science work is for others to do, and for me to occasionally read and follow up on. I thought most of us here just knew that UV and other spectral energy flux from the sun changes quite a bit over time, and cyclically. Just considering TSI considered only the total energy balance portion of the equation. This is nice for a laboratory or simple experiments. But it will not give you a complete picture of what happens on earth. As I said to Leif: If the sun’s various wavelengths each effect the earth in different ways – then changing these will change the earth. If the earth changes, it could affect albedo. If it does that – we ought to want to know.
I cannot imagine how anyone would say that it’s not worthy of research. I spent a long time with Leif who was patient with me. I learned a lot. But I am not convinced that delta wavelength has no affect on earth.
My bearded dragon responds to various frequencies of UV. I have both a UVA and a UVB lamp along with an IR lamp for virtually all of the heat. Without both UV lamps, he eats less REGARDLESS of the visible light and temperature in the terrarium. Slight changes in UV make a huge difference in his life and health.

Editor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 19, 2014 3:17 pm

Yes, we want answers, and no we don’t have any yet, but we aren’t talking about 0.7% of 1% of the energy, we’re talking about 0.7% of UV in its own right.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 19, 2014 3:32 pm

As Beng says, and as Willis forced me to show him what Pamela says Willis already knows, my original statement is in fact reinforced by data. I did not make the statement Willis tried to force me to make. I was clear that I was not speaking in terms of TSI, but rather the possible effects of huge changes in energy frequency spectrum.
Willis surely either knew that I was correct and wasted time having me show him such or Willis did not know. If he did not know, then he learned something and should be grateful. I learn much when I am wrong and learn nothing when I am right.
Saying “I am not impressed” does not progress the discussion of science, and seems ungrateful that something new was learned. This should not have been such a waste of time since we are back to my original statement.
However, any chance I get to play with Willis, I am grateful for. He’s certainly brilliant, and I admire his work.

Editor
October 19, 2014 9:43 am

VikingExplorer October 19, 2014 at 8:13 am

Pamela, I’ve done the calculations for the additional energy added to earth between solar minimum and maximum. There is sufficient energy to explain a 2 degree C variation in temperatures.

Yes, and I have a wonderful proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, but the margins of this email are too small to contain it …
Viking, empty boasting about what you claim to have done means nothing on a scientific website. Either provide us with your calculations, or stop talking about your brilliant work.
Sincerely, and sadly,
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 19, 2014 10:07 am

at least fermat had the CV to lend his claim some veracity…..

Pamela Gray
October 19, 2014 9:53 am

We keep chasing this chicken out of the garden but she still finds a way back in.
Changes in UV change polar ozone levels. Significantly. Known fact. Observed and modeled relatively accurately. Thus this change also follows the solar cycle. Happens each and every solar cycle without fail, whether they are long or short, or strong, weak, or average cycles. There is also evidence of a local and regional weather related affect down at the surface of the Earth where these ozone holes come and go with the solar cycle.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141014/ncomms6197/full/ncomms6197.html
What is central to global trend discussion is whether or not the slight change that occurred in UV over the recent past back to back full bore (but not unique) solar cycles compared to previous sets of solar cycles can explain the temperature increase noted in AGW literature (which has now paused for nearly the same number of years).
Good luck teasing such a tiny change (less than 1% change in an already tiny portion of TSI) out of the noisy temperature data. Why? You must first tame the two twin monsters. Our temperature data series is tromped on beyond all recognition by the monster water and ethereal ponds surrounding us top, bottom, and sides, complete with their own intrinsic set of unpredictable temper tantrums and sleepy periods.

mrmethane
October 19, 2014 10:06 am

Pamela – off topic pedantic whisper – one CITES sources, and SITES a new building. One can effect a change, affect an outcome, or feel an EFFECT. Otherwise, right on!

Reply to  mrmethane
October 19, 2014 10:08 am

another OT pedantic whisper…”one can affect a change, or one can feel an effect”
cheers.

Editor
Reply to  david eisenstadt
October 19, 2014 5:17 pm

“one can affect a change”. True, but it’s more normal to effect a change [make a change] than to affect a change [change a change]. Well, outside politics, anyway.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  mrmethane
October 19, 2014 10:31 am

Your “name” always makes me chuckle.

October 19, 2014 10:21 am

As this decade goes by the solar/climate connection will become much clearer. As I have said many factors can obscure this connection when the sun is not in either an extreme active state or an extreme inactive state.
This is why so many get confused when it comes to the solar/climate connection and convince themselves that it does not exist. They are looking for climate silver bullets and not understanding the complexity of the climatic system.
Let me try again here is my previous post with some additions explaining what I mean.
I want to add this, thresholds, lag times, the initial state of the climate(how close to glacial/interglacial conditions climate is( ice dynamic/state of thermohaline circulation phase or AMOC), land/ocean arrangements(altitude of land), earth magnetic field strength , phase of Milankovitch Cycles ,random terrestrial events ,concentrations of galactic cosmic rays within 5 to 10 light years of earth due to super nova or lack of for example, the fact that the climate is non linear is why many times the solar/climate correlation becomes obscured, and why GIVEN solar variability(with associated primary and secondary effects) will not result in the same GIVEN climate response.
What is needed is for the sun to enter extreme quiet conditions or active conditions to give a more clear cut solar/climate connection which I outlined in my previous post.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
October 19, 2014 10:30 am

Salvatore, with that many variables, your experiment will not be significant. In fact you would not get a single grant from any scientific granting body. I assume you do know why.

Pamela Gray
October 19, 2014 10:25 am

Understood. Mea Culpa. But it’s Sunday. I am off the clock. And Irish Coffee coarses threw my veins ;>).

October 19, 2014 10:42 am

But the experiment will be significant because I have specific solar parameters which I expect will give a general climatic outcome which I have laid out in very clear concise fashion.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
October 19, 2014 10:50 am

I agree with your assertions that the experiment will be significant. Climate is complex, and changes in solar conditions are significant, I think. Sticking to the simplistic idea that the earth cannot be changed by changing solar conditions is short sited. The best argument other can assert is “I don’t know” what the effects are, but going from “because I don’t know” to “It’s just hand waving” is simply a non persuasive argument. Just leave it as “I don’t know”.
That said, I don’t know, but I am very curious!

Verified by MonsterInsights