Here are some highlights of these two new papers published in Physics Letters A by :
- Central Pacific region temperature dataset SST3.4 from 1990 to 2014 is studied.
- SST3.4 contains a sustained signal at 1.0 cycle/yr implying solar forcing.
- SST3.4 also contains a signal (<1 cycle/yr) showing El Niño/La Niña effects.
- This signal contains segments of period 2 or 3 years, phase locked to the annual.
- A 12-month moving average improves on a “climatology” filter in removing annual effects.
- Global ocean temperatures at depths 0–700 m and 0–2000 m from 1990 to 2014 are studied.
- The same phase-locked phenomena reported in Paper I are observed.
- El Niño/La Niña effects diffuse to the global oceans with a two month delay.
- Ocean heat content trends during phase-locked time segments are consistent with zero.
The papers, the link downloads the full PDF:
Paper 1 Abstract
Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper). The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data. This is found to be significant for understanding the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon.
The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.057
Conclusions and summary
Phase-locked sequences are found in Pacific Ocean SST3.4tem-perature data during the periods 1991–1999, 2002–2008 and in 2009–2013. These three sequences apparently being separated by climate shifts. It is asserted that the associated climate system is driven by a forcing of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1)A direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2)A phase-locked response at either the second or third sub-harmonic of the putative solar forcing between 1991 and 1999; 2001–02 and 2008; and again between 2008 and 2013.
This study confirms the results of [1]that some of the largest maxima/minima in the oscillations of the phase-locked state corre-spond to well-known El Niños/La Niñas. For example, the sequence 1996 La Niña – 1997/98 El Niño – 1999 La Niña corresponds to a minimum–maximum–minimum portion of phase-locked segment #9. The climate system is presently (June 2014) in a phase-locked state of periodicity 3 years. This state, which began in 2008, con-tains a maximum (El Niño) at about 2010 followed by a minimum (La Niña) followed by a maximum (weak El Niño at about 2013). If the climate system remains in this phase-locked state, the next maximum will not occur until about 2016 – i.e., no El Niño before that date. On the other hand, if a maximum occurs before then, it will signal the end of the phase-locked segment (and therefore a climate shift).
On its web site [15]the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration asks: “How often does La Niña occur?” Answer: “El Niño and La Niña occur on average every 3 to 5 years. However, the histori-cal record the interval between events has varied from 2 to 7 years. …” Our findings show that duringphase-locked time segments the period is either 2 or 3 years. If a longer interval is observed, this is notrepresentative of a variable ‘period,’ but indicates the occur-rence of a climate shift between phase-locked segments.
It is pointed out that the 12-month moving average filter is demonstrably superior to the climatology method of removing sea-sonal effects in data. This is seen to be the case for interpretation of El Niño/La Niña data, which contains spurious annual effects when treated under the climatology scheme.
An extension of these results to global data will be presented in a second Letter [16]. It will be shown that patterns of sub-harmonics identical to those described here occur throughout the oceans.
Paper 2 Abstract
In part I, equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature index SST3.4 was found to have segments during 1990–2014 showing a phase-locked annual signal and phase-locked signals of 2- or 3-year periods. Phase locking is to an inferred solar forcing of 1.0 cycle/yr. Here the study extends to the global ocean, from surface to 700 and 2000 m. The same phase-locking phenomena are found. The El Niño/La Niña effect diffuses into the world oceans with a delay of about two months.
The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.058
Conclusions and summary
Global ocean temperature time series from the surface to depths of 2000m since the year 2000 are found to agree in detail with those of other diverse climate indices. It is asserted that these systems are driven by a forcing unquestionably of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1) a direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2) a second phase-locked response at a period of two years or three years.
With these findings it is becoming clear that the entire cli-mate system is responding to the varying incident solar radiation, and is subject to interactions, most likely nonlinear, thatproduce the subharmonics of two or three year period, and is moreover evolving non-continuously, as evidenced by breaks in the pattern whose timing can be identified with known climate shifts. The most prominent manifestations of the pattern are found in the El Niño/La Niña phenomena. As emphasized in [2], the “natural” pe-riodicity of El Niño/La Niña is two or three years, and observations of longer intervals should be considered probable evidence for an intervening climate shift.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A hot 6000 C core is always going to radiate into cold space. On the sunny side this creates a resistance called the bow shock and lies some 90,000 km or 50,000 miles from earth’s surface .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock
In reply to:
William:
Issue 1: Condensation Nuclei
There is a shortage of condensation nuclei in the region of the atmosphere above the ocean. Note precipitation removes cloud forming particles. There are multiple peer reviewed papers that support that assertion.
Ions created by high speed cosmic particles increase the efficiency of cloud formation, increases the lifetime of the cloud, and changes the size of cloud droplets.
Issue 2: Change in Solar Heliosphere Density which reduces the impact of solar wind bursts
Due to the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle, the solar heliosphere density has reduced 40%. The reduction in density of the solar heliosphere has reduced the space charge rise created by solar wind bursts. This is the reason why even though there are persistent coronal holes on the sun, that the El Niño ocean warming is being inhibited. The reduction in the solar heliosphere density and its impact on solar wind burst was discussed at the 2013 AGU meeting.
Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which changes the amount of cloud cover in high latitude regions and changes the cloud properties and lifetime of clouds in the tropics.
As solar magnetic cycle 24 continues to weaken we are now starting to see cooling over large region of the ocean. The blue regions in this diagram.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.1.8.2015.gif
Coronal holes in a low latitude position on the sun continue to create solar wind bursts which mitigates the cooling which would occur due to the increase high speed cosmic particles that are now striking the earth. It will be interesting to see if the coronal holes dissipate or move to high latitude regions of the sun where the winds that they create no longer affect the earth.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=17&startmonth=07&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=08&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Issue 3: Interruption to the solar magnetic cycle
The solar large scale northern magnetic field is flat lining. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly one year behind the solar northern hemisphere. The sun will be spotless and the solar large scale magnetic field will be flat lining by this time next year.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
Issue 3: Interruption to the solar magnetic cycle
The solar large scale northern magnetic field is flat lining. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly one year behind the solar northern hemisphere. The sun will be spotless and the solar large scale magnetic field will be flat lining by this time next year.
There is no ‘interruption’. It is quite normal that the hemispheres are a year or more out of sync
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
It is also quite normal that the polar fields have a plateau during reversal as even your own link so clearly shows.
William,
You said:
“There is a shortage of condensation nuclei in the region of the atmosphere above the ocean.”
I read that organic material in the oceans provides plenty of condensation nuclei in the air above.
The recent ocean cooling could just as well be a result of more meridional jets increasing total cloud cover.
I suppose we will just have to wait and see how the science develops over the next few years.
Stephen Wilde . these links may help you see how the oceans and land produce plenty of ions.
A ion is a molecule that has lost or gained a electron .
About air ions http://www.trifield.com/content/about-air-ions/
Conducting saltwater https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2295
How to make hydrogen and oxygen from salt water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwGx7qqQe-Y
The Sun also appears involved with daylight…………………..
Most of this thread could have been written by Umberto Eco. Foucault’s Pendulum comes to mind, but a few others fit.
Indeed the authors are confirming what has been known and published in the literature for decades, that ENSO is a nonlinear oscillator. The disagreement is only over whether it is unforced, stochastically or astrophysically forced. This study agrees with Tsipean Cane and Zebiak 1995, that the main driver is the annual cycle. The end of year peak phase locking is a pretty damn big hint.
Of course the yearly cycle is “astrophysically forced” . What would be hard to explain is if the 3.4% eccentricity in our orbit which , given the inverse square-root law of temperature versus orbital distance , causes a 1.7% oscillation in our equilibrium temperature did NOT produce an observable annual temperature cycle .
To me , the fact that there is any debate whether that is the cause is an example of how removed from the most essential non-optional physics the whole AGW debate has strayed . Whatever the observation this 1.7% variation in equilibrium temperature , close to 6 time as large as the total 0.3% variation over the century+ MUST be accounted for in anything that purports to model the planet’s temperature .
By computing temperature anomalies [i.e. the deviation from average for each station], the yearly variation with eccentricity is taken out of the data, so will not show up in plots of temperatures as a function of time.
That explains a lot of the disconnect between “climate science” and the simple physics which allows such a quantitative howler as James Hansen’s claim that Venus’s surface temperature , 225% the gray ball temperature in its orbit ( as opposed to our 3% ) is due to a “greenhouse” effect to not have been universally discredited years ago .
The paper I was referring to – which should be read together with the new Douglass paper, is Tziperman, Cane and Zebiak 1995:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/reprints/Tziperman-Cane-Zebiak-1995.pdf
In reply to:
William:
Your above comment is incorrect. We appear to be looking at different graphs or for some reason you do not understand the difference between flat lining and a plateau.
A plateau at zero is flat lining, different than a plateau at 50% or 75% (a plateau at 50% or 75% is a pause in the rise or fall of the large scale magnetic field which is different than a ‘pause’ at zero). A flat lining large scale magnetic field is anomalous. The solar large scale magnetic field has not in the past, flat lined.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
You appear to be obvious to the observational changes to the sun. Yes the solar hemisphere have for some reason shown been out of sync in time. The fact that they are currently out of sync in time is not anomalous.
The fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly is anomalous. The solar southern hemisphere is following the same pattern as was observed in the solar northern hemisphere.
It appears the sun will be spotless with an extraordinarily low large scale magnetic field by this time next year. An extraordinarily low intensity large scale solar magnetic (insufficient field strength to drive the standard dynamo) is the key change, the observation to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. What we are currently observing (warming followed by cooling) has happened before.
P.S. The solar cycle 24 interruption will move to front page news when the planet starts to significantly cool. The public and the media will demand an explanation (a physical cause, answers to the question how much cooling will occur, answers to what happened to global warming, and so on) for unequivocal cooling.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
William, your naivete is in a sense almost touching. Here is the figure you linked to with the near-zero polar fields [ovals] at reversals [this is nothing special]
http://www.leif.org/research/No-Flatlining.png
You forget that I was the first to measure the polar fields accurately [back in 1976].
The fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly is anomalous.
There has been no linear decline in the magnetic field of sunspots of late
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
There is no indications that the Sun will be spotless in a year. You keep saying that [always in a year] like people predicting the end of the world, and the time is always a year out. Keep this up and eventually you will be correct [at the next solar minimum].
The trend behavior of the magnetic field of the sun is visible on the graph.
The graph shows the solar polar fields [not the small, new sunspots William is raving about] and the decrease of the polar fields is what we use to predict the solar cycle with [see slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf ]. The decline is not unusual [happens every 100 years or so].
Thank you and best regards. In California will again heat and high temperature of the ocean.
Jumping the gun here and we need to say how this plays out going into the future. Thus far solar cycle 24 has been very different from previous cycles and it appears this could be one of the longest solar cycles ever.
correction we need to see
Leif, we had a conversion concerning why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is no longer declining. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has stopped declining as the lowest field strength magnetic flux tubes that rise up to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are now being torn apart.
There are now only short lived pores on the surface of the sun where previously there was a mixture of short lived pores and high field strength, larger, longer life sunspots. The sun is at the end of a road in a process.
I hope you are not saying this picture is the same as solar cycle 22 or solar cycle 23. There is no logical reason to contradict observations.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
The northern solar large scale magnetic field is flat lining. A flat lining profile is different, there is not a mixture of two different polarities, there is no or almost no magnetic flux in the solar northern hemisphere.
I see you have no comments about the peer reviewed paper that notes solar cycle 24 is anomalous.
You keep singing the same tune, nothing unusual is happening to the sun and regardless of what happens to the sun, solar magnetic cycle changes do not modulate the amount of cloud cover on the earth, solar magnetic cycle changes.
The public and media will demand an explanation for significant global cooling. I am truly curious how the politicians will react to observations that support the assertion that roughly 90% of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
Clearly, observations will determine which set of assertions are correct, Leif’s or William’s.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
I see you have no comments about the peer reviewed paper that notes solar cycle 24 is anomalous.
Here is my peer-reviewed paper saying that the Sun is not doing anything special. just business as usual:
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
The public and media will demand an explanation for significant global cooling
There has been no significant global cooling.
Actually if the passionate people at the IPCC and others that claim that the math is correct for the relationship between the amount of co2 and temperature, then absolutely temperatures have fallen. They haven’t risen to the level that they are suppose to be. Additionally, and it seems to be the case, the temperatures are actually below the lowest levels predicted, and to further complicate matters, even if, the temperatures have remained flat over the last 18 yrs + then it represents a significant cooling as per the math. There is simply no way for AGW to get around it. Unless the AGW can point to a cause for the LIA (which had fairly stable co2 levels before and during) then the theory of AGW is in extreme doubt. Solar cycles, while maybe not conclusive, are a much better indicator than co2 levels.
Adjusting temp records, reordering numbers and other mathematical gee whiz stunts only convinces the uneducated, gullible, and ignorant. Running a media campaign that ostracizes, hamstrings, and marginalizes legitimate science or anyone that has legitimate questions hardly helps your case in the long run. Nearly every winter snowstorm, headlines were running “Winters last Hurrah” only to be followed by additional storms. What now? Going to claim it’s warming up this year if the Great Lakes don’t freeze over again? If we have 2 or more hurricanes next year? Going to claim I don’t know the difference between climate and weather, when most of the AGW people purport that when it’s warm, that’s climate change, while cold and snow isn’t?
The really bad thing about this is, if the solar cycles are the cause of global cooling, there has been no planning or effort put in to how to handle a multi decadal long cooling. From my perspective, it seems that AGW wants people to be unprepared so that a lot of people will die before or during which they figure out they’ve been hood winked.
There are now only short lived pores on the surface of the sun where previously there was a mixture of short lived pores and high field strength, larger, longer life sunspots.
Like here? http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2014/loc-d20141218.JPG
There are now only short lived pores on the surface of the sun where previously there was a mixture of short lived pores and high field strength, larger, longer life sunspots.
You mean like this one
http://spaceweather.com/images2014/23oct14/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=ectmp5a5cdvne2o6p6k0qhq874
If global warming was caused by CO2 (which it isn’t), warming rate (rate-of-change of average global temperature) instead of (as usually presented) the temperature itself would vary with the CO2 level. To be valid, the comparison should be between the temperature and the time-integral of CO2 level and/or the time-integral of any other factor(s) proportional to energy rate (such as TSI).
Thus any co-plot of CO2 level and temperature or any other implication that average global temperature depends directly on CO2 level is misleading and physically and mathematically wrong. But ignorance can be fixed.
An analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com derives a physics-based equation which, using the time-integral of forcings, accurately calculates the uptrends and down trends of average global temperatures irrespective of whether CO2 change is included or not. The paper at this link discloses:
1. A reference which provides historical evidence that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
2. The two factors that do explain climate change. The correlation is 95% with measured average global temperatures since before 1900; including the current plateau. The analysis also predicts the ongoing down trend of average global temperature.
3. An explanation of why any credible CO2 change does not cause significant climate change.
The two factors are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
In reply to:
William:
Yes there has as yet been no significant global cooling. We are waiting for the next step in the process. If one understood the mechanisms and what is currently happening to the sun a prediction could be made.
Ops, highest extent of Southern sea ice in recorded history. An unprecedented change, requires a physical change, something to cause what is observed.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The trend is your friend. When unequivocal global cooling arrives, it will be unequivocal, unprecedented in written human experience. What will happen is however recorded in the paleo climatic record. If the climate wars were not at full intensity, the paleo climatic researchers might point out that fact.
I am less enthusiastic about being correct, as I (believe I)understand what is happening and what to expect next. On a brighter note, the physics of how the solar magnetic cycle restarts will lead to a significant breakthrough in fundamental/applied physics.
To use your device: you didn’t comment on my peer-reviewed [a[er, but just trotted out yet another straw man
The solar cycle will not ‘restart’ as it ain’t dead yet. And you show no signs of understanding of what is going on.
And here the rest of the story:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
You are a master of cherry-picking what you like and disregard what you don’t.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
so the solar interruption both cools and warms…
so the solar interruption both cools and warms…
——————–
That’s ok, you don’t need a sarc tag (but it’s still funny.)
As Al Gore once said: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
Cherry Pickers to the left of me, more to the right……http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/antarctic-sea-ice-same-as-40-years-ago/
lsvalgaard
January 9, 2015 at 11:02 pm
“””The tail of the heliosphere is attached to the Sun and moves with it so we don;t pass through that one either. “””
____________________________________________________________________________________
Think IBEX, IBEX, IBEX. Yes Earth does pass through, green dot with associated black line showing orbit.in image below.
http://inspirehep.net/record/879488/files/fig4a.png
This next depiction shows C, O, Ne and He in the Upwind crescent and downwind focusing cone ( note the Carbon to Oxygen ratio)
nooooooo, yes. You mean there is more O than C like 2 to 1 or something?
Inflow direction of interstellar neutrals deduced from pickup ion measurements at 1 AU
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JA017746/full
Christian Drews Lars Berger Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber
Peter Bochsler Antoinette B. Galvin Berndt Klecker and Eberhard Möbius
Article first published online: 22 SEP 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2012JA017746/asset/image_n/jgra22063-fig-0007.png
Figure A2. The w-spectra of C+ (top left), O+ (top right), Ne+ (bottom left), and He+ (bottom right) sorted into the respective ecliptic longitude with respect to the vernal equinox. The w-information is given by the radial distance from the plot center, whereas the innermost and outermost magenta circles correspond to a w of 1.0 and 2.25, respectively. The angle at which the data is plotted corresponds to the ecliptic longitude at which the measurement was conducted. The color represents the average number of counts that have been observed in a period of 28 days around the respective ecliptic longitude. To give an impression of the global velocity distribution of pickup ions and their dependence on the ecliptic longitude, 1450 days of STEREO A pickup ion data have been accumulated. Two prominent features are clearly resolved. The focusing cone, which is visible for Ne+ and He+, forms around an ecliptic longitude of 75° with a sharp cutoff at w ≈ 2, as expected for interstellar pickup ions. The interstellar crescent, which is prominent in the upwind region, spans over almost 180° and also shows a cutoff at w ≈ 2. Both structures are believed to be symmetrically aligned around the inflow direction of interstellar neutrals.
Carla, neutrals do not shield us from cosmic rays, so your comment is misplaced.
and the pickup ions are so few compared to the protons that they have almost no screening effect either.
He said, “Also, are there variations of incoming particle density as our heliosphere traverses the galaxy?”
But … anyway… If the Interstellar Magnetic Field direction changes, doesn’t also the direction of trapped GCR? How many locally operated field directions have we found thus far?
The cosmic ray sky is completely uniform, no variation across the sky. The direction of the interstellar magnetic field changes if we look in different directions in the sky, but no variation of cosmic rays has been observed so the answer must be ‘no’.
Did you see the rain coming from the Radiation belts in this article
Observations of nitric oxide in the Antarctic middle atmosphere during recurrent geomagnetic storms
Schematic view of the Ne+ pickup ion flux in the upwind region of the heliosphere. The strong anisotropy is formed by the interplay of the interstellar neutral inflow, the radially varying ionization efficiency, and the radial expansion of pickup ions after their ionization. The structure at 1 AU strongly resembles the form of a crescent (shown here as a black shaded area). The crescent’s intensity, which is normalized to 1 and drawn along Earth’s orbit in polar coordinates (thick red line), shows a maximum that is aligned along the axis of the inflowing interstellar wind. Consequently, observations of the related pickup ion count rate at 1 AU allow us to determine the inflow direction of interstellar matter in two separate regions of space using the interstellar focusing cone on the downwind side (not shown) and the interstellar crescent on the upwind side of the sun. Contrary to the formation of the focusing cone, the crescent is most pronounced for species that have a high ionization probability, such as oxygen or hydrogen.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2012JA017746/asset/image_n/jgra22063-fig-0001.png?v=1&t=i4s8801n&s=11d434bff902a46bdb4289a79974f84027a2e0cd
Stephen Wilde
January 10, 2015 at 6:27 pm
__________________________________________________________________________________
Wondering aloud if you have seen this study yet?
Observations of nitric oxide in the Antarctic middle atmosphere during recurrent geomagnetic storms
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.5445N
Authors:
Newnham, D. A.; Espy, P. J.; Clilverd, M. A.; Rodger, C. J.; Seppälä, A.; Maxfield, D. J.; Hartogh, P.; Holmén, K.; Horne, R. B.
04/2012
Abstract
The odd nitrogen (NOx) species nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are produced in the middle atmosphere by precipitating energetic electrons and protons. In the thermosphere and upper mesosphere NOx exists mainly as NO but below 70 km conversion to NO2 occurs. In darkness NOx has a sufficiently long lifetime to be transported downward by the polar vortex at high latitudes during winter and impact on ozone abundances. NOx may be produced more frequently and persistently by energetic electron precipitation from the Earth’s magnetosphere than by solar protons. However, it is unclear which electron energies are most important for stratospheric chemistry. Electrons in the range 10 keV to several MeV precipitate from the radiation belts in the subauroral zone at geomagnetic latitudes <= 75° , and particularly in the southern hemisphere and pole-ward of the South-Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SMA). Although in general the precipitating flux decreases rapidly with increasing electron energy this mechanism can produce NOx directly in the stratosphere and mesosphere. To establish high-latitude NOx production throughout the polar night, follow its transport, and determine its effects on the composition and chemistry of the mesosphere and stratosphere we have developed and deployed a 230-250 GHz passive microwave radiometer in Antarctica to observe NO, ozone (O3), and carbon monoxide (CO). Here we report ground-based measurements made from Troll station (72° 01'S 02° 32'E, geomagnetic latitude 65° ), a location equator-ward of the auroral zone, pole-ward of the area of radiation belt precipitation and the SMA, and deep within the polar vortex during the Austral winter. Our observations show enhanced mesospheric NO volume mixing ratio (VMR) reaching 1.2 ppmv at 65-80 km during a series of small recurrent geomagnetic storms in the 2008 polar autumn and winter. The Lomb normalized periodogram of the NO VMR time series averaged over 65-80 km for days 80 to 220 of 2008 (20 March to 7 August) shows a peak exceeding the 95% confidence limit at 27 days, matching the solar rotation period.
Our observations show enhanced mesospheric NO volume mixing ratio (VMR) reaching 1.2 ppmv at 65-80 km during a series of small recurrent geomagnetic storms in the 2008 polar autumn and winter.
Is hardlynot where the stratospheric ozone layer is.
Why do some people trot out such irrelevant stuff?
The effect appears to drop down through the polar vortices ahich are columns of descending air above the poles.
The ozone response to solar variations is reversed above 45km and towards the poles contrary to established climatology. The polar vortices then bring that reverse sign response down to lower levels to affect tropopause heights.
The consequence is jet stream and climate zone shifting.
Good find, Carla.
I haven’t seen that one before but was aware of NO as one of the possible culprits.
There is a lot of evidence accumulating with regard to a reverse sign ozone response to solar variations above 45km and towards the poles as first proposed by me in 2010 or thereabouts.
“In the thermosphere and upper mesosphere NOx exists mainly as NO but below 70 km conversion to NO2 occurs.”
Only surprising thing is that currently sun is surprisingly normal.
Temporary increase in activity at the end of the cycle is normal.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2003&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=01&endyear=2005&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
In reply to:
Yes. The solar northern hemisphere is roughly a year advanced in the process. What we are now observing in the solar southern hemisphere, an occasional single large complex sunspot, in addition to the pores is what was observed in the solar northern hemisphere at the end of the process. There are no large sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere, only pores. There are very few sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere which explains why the solar northern large scale magnetic field is flat lining. The solar southern hemisphere is following the solar northern hemisphere.
There is a sudden net increase in sea ice both poles.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
As I noted you appear to be oblivious to observations and analysis in peer reviewed papers that do not support your beliefs. You have told as again and again that nothing unusual is happening to the sun and you have told us again and again regardless of what happens to the sun that the solar changes will not have a significant effect on the earth’s climate.
You have told us that the sun was not unusually active in the later half of the 20th century. In every case the warm periods in this diagram occurred during very high solar magnetic cycle activity which was followed by significant cooling when the sun when into a Maunder minimum. There is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record (high latitude regions, same as warmed in the last 50 years).
The sun is heading very quickly into a special Maunder minimum. If the past is guide to the future the planet will cool.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
You have told us that the sun was not unusually active in the later half of the 20th century.
That is the considered conclusion of most solar observers, e.g. in this contribution to be presented at the EGU in Vienna in April:
The recalibrated Sunspot Number series and a trend-less solar climate forcing (CL2.2)
Clette, Lefèvre, Cliver, Svalgaard, Vaquero:
Our understanding of solar activity and in particular its influence on the Earth environment is based on multi-secular reconstructions that rely only on a single direct record: the sunspot number based on visual observations of sunspots since the invention of the astronomical telescope. Currently, two main sunspot series are available; the Sunspot Number created by R. Wolf and currently produced by the WDC-SILSO in Brussels and the Group Number constructed by Hoyt and Schatten (1998). The large discrepancies between those two series demonstrate the need to revisit both data sets and to look for inhomogeneities in their calibration.
After retracing the main steps in the construction of those key series, we present here all corrections that have been established for both series following a 3-year joint investigation by the authors and a community of experts in the framework of Sunspot Number Workshops (Clette et al. 2014). We find that that both series suffer from inhomogeneities, over different periods and are due to several distinct causes for each series. The resulting corrections are based either on the use of newly recovered observations (mainly for the 17th and 18th centuries), on the construction of new and improved long-term references (“backbone” observers) or on the full statistical re-calculation from large sets of observers for the recent modern period. Other indirect indicators, like the daily modulation of the geomagnetic field or solar indices (e.g. sunspot areas, F10.7cm radio flux) are used only to provide a validation. Corrections can reach up to 40%. Involving the whole 1610-2014 interval, they lead to a full reconciliation between the sunspot and group number series, within the uncertainties. They also result in a global decrease in the overall upward trend of solar activity since the Maunder Minimum that characterized the original uncorrected series. After corrections, the high solar activity of the late 20th century does not exceed the levels of past centuries anymore, thus questioning the notion of a recent Grand Maximum and calling for redoing many long-term studies and reconstructions published over past years.
We conclude on the forthcoming release of the new re-calibrated sunspot numbers via the new WDC-SILSO Web site. This major milestone will also include other fundamental changes tracing the way for the future: a new method for the derivation of future sunspot numbers, a change of scaling convention, the determination of uncertainties and the implementation of a versioning scheme. The latter will open the way to future well-documented upgrades of this fully-modernized reference series as new knowledge is acquired.
you have told us again and again regardless of what happens to the sun that the solar changes will not have a significant effect on the earth’s climate
But you seem to be a slow learner…
Are you sure there is no impact on the climatewhen the second year in a row pattern repeats itself polar vortex? Does climate change in the US?
The area of the strongest radiation shows the lowest pressure area above the Arctic Circle. You can see that the polar vortex is shifted. Consequently, the air can flow over America straight from Siberia over Alaska. Air flows over Europe from the Atlantic.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/1zml01v.jpg
If this graph shows a typical cycle is me probably I’m blind.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/27ywc9f.jpg
You can also see that peaks the graph of neutrons every other cycle are flatter. Thus, the GCR stream is modulated in a different way.
This is a well-known and well-understood effect having to do with the sign of the solar polar fields.
See slide 35 of http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
Different stations show slightly different variations.
Here are some more:
http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-nm/SRU%20Neutron%20Monitors%20Monthly%20Graphs.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png
Maybe the South Pole?
http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/TheSpnPlot2.gif
The cosmic ray intensity at the South Pole has been decreasing the past 50 years
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50655-South-Pole.pdf
You stopped in 2006.
You can’t read? The graphs show data through 2010 at least and some are up-to-date.
lsvalgaard
January 11, 2015 at 9:55 am
The cosmic ray intensity at the South Pole has been decreasing the past 50 years
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50655-South-Pole.pdf
________________________________________________
Changes in cut off rigidity and the last sentence of the document is hinting that something is amiss down there.
“””At this time therefore we believe that there is a solid justification for a program to investigate
in detail geomagnetic cutoff change at South Pole and its influence
on the radiation environment.”””
No didn’t read the entire article..
Earth’s S.Pole is positive and Earth’s N.Pole is negative. (note to me)
Currently the N. Pole of the Sun is… and the S. Pole is negative?
And currently the Interstellar Magnetic field lines draping over the heliosphere is..?
And has been Postive or Negative for how long?
And Dr. S., the sea ice graph for the N. Pole looks like it is in a pause …. not a decline any longer.
One more thingy Dr. S.,
The recalibrated Sunspot Number series and a trend-less solar climate forcing (CL2.2)
Clette, Lefèvre, Cliver, Svalgaard, Vaquero:
Fixing the sunspot count is one thingy but going out on that limb about a “trend-less solar climate forcing” is another thingy that is just asking for trouble, unless oh never mind. Get ready then..
Good job, Ren, Vuks, Wilde, Astley.
Keep on truckin’
Eddie Kendricks 1973
Changes in cut off rigidity and the last sentence of the document is hinting that something is amiss down there.
Nothing is amiss down there. What is amiss is our understanding of the cutoff, which is based on oversimple theory anyway.
And currently the Interstellar Magnetic field lines draping over the heliosphere is..?
And has been Postive or Negative for how long?
Doesn’t matter as the solar wind is supersonic and the interstellar field is stable for thousands of year anyway.
Fixing the sunspot count is one thingy but going out on that limb about a “trend-less solar climate forcing”
If there has been no trend in solar activity for 300 years, one would presume that there is no trend in the forcing to the trend-less activity, so ‘no limb’.
Good job, Ren, Vuks, Wilde, Astley.
Most of these people are just our resident pseudo-scientists, and they can be quite entertaining in [as I said] their naivety.
Activity decreases.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/animations/enlil/latest.jpg
The area of ice in the Antarctic record high. This will have an impact on the thermohaline circulation.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Antarctica ice is back to 1973/5 levels when it was feared the next Ice Age was on its way.
Bears can wander from Canada to Greenland.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/data/201501/AM2SI20150110IC0.png
It will be a long winter, especially in North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2015.gif
Good you can see the delayed response of the troposphere (surface temperature increase, inhibition of ice).
A direct correlation in temperature response (using an adequate sample of temperature sensors here at the surface or up in a satellite) to cyclic solar parameters cannot be demonstrated. Unless you filter, strain, and reduce the broth. However, a statistician worth the payscale will tell you that all you are doing is making some kind of potion that hopefully will make an elephant’s trunk wriggle.
Not impressed.
In response to Lief Grand Solar Maximum
In response to Lief Grand Solar Maximum
William:
Leif, it appears it has been your lifetime goal to eliminate the Maunder minimum, to hide the fact that the sun was at its highest activity in 8000 years during the most recent 30 year warming period, and to hide the fact that past cyclic planetary warming correlates with high solar magnetic activity. In every case the past warming periods were followed by significant cooling periods when the sun went into a Maunder like minimum for 100 to 150 years. You are now trying to hide the fact that the sun is moving rapidly to a Maunder like minimum. You are fighting a losing battle with current observations of the solar magnetic cycle vs sudden unexplained cooling of high latitude regions.
We had this discussion before: Was there a recent grand solar magnetic cycle maximum? Was there a Maunder minimum? Does planetary warming and cooling correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes? Your paper attempts to eliminate the Maunder minimum based on Wolf not have access to a larger telescope. You infer that if Wolf did not have access to a larger telescope that the Maunder minimum did not occur.
Cosmogenic isotope analysis, in multiple peer reviewed papers, however supports the assertion that the Maunder minimum occurred and that the warming period in the last 30 years correlates with the most active solar magnetic cycle in 8000 years.
I specifically provided peer reviewed papers (1999, 2004, and 2013) written by multiple authors to support the assertion that:
1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum (Note past tense as the solar magnetic cycle is declining. The decline in solar activity is the greatest decline in 8000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.)
2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.
In addition to the peer reviewed papers I provide a link to a 2013 BBC interview of the senior scientist Lockwood. Lockwood’s comment in that interview also supports the three above assertions.
The peer reviewed paper you provided a link to disputes Lockwood’s 1999 paper. Lockwood’s 1999 paper is being vindicated as the solar magnetic cycle declines. It is odd that you do not note that fact and in 2015 ignore peer reviewed analysis and current observations that supports the assertion that the sun is rapidly moving to a Maunder minimum.
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/1999/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
This also is an interesting paper see figure 1.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0385v1.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
it appears it has been your lifetime goal to eliminate the Maunder minimum, to hide the fact that the sun was at its highest activity in 8000 years during the most recent 30 year warming period
No, the Maunder Minimum is very real, but the solar output back then was not much smaller than it is now at recent minima, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.”
TSI and all other solar activity measures varies the same way as all activity is due to the magnetic field.
The cosmic ray proxies do not support the idea that solar activity has been unusually high lately, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf
“The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/musceler05nat_nature04045.pdf
” as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun”
And this important peer-reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
“Similarly, observations of the spicule forest (the ‘‘red flash’’) during the total solar eclipses in 1706 and 1715 seem to require the presence of bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric and chromospheric magnetism during at least the last decades of the Maunder Minimum (Foukal & Eddy 2007).”
Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf shows that the Steinhilber 10Be data does not indicate unusually high recent solar activity, and so on and on.
Slide 5 of same shows that Lockwood and company have finally reached agreement with our reconstructions of a decade ago, so trotting out their old papers is misplaced.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
Below is my response to all of those that claim correlations between the climate and various items which exert an influence on the climate do not exist.
I think climate sensitivity to various forcing is EXPONENTIALLY dependent upon the mean state of the climate/earth dynamics at the time the forcing is taken place which is why correlations are hard to come by and so many different climate outcomes (although a similar trend in a general sense) is always the result.
Just hand waving without any ‘meat’ on it. Where are the the numbers, the analysis, the error bars, the science? Nowhere in what you persistently comment.
In fact, if the sensitivity EXPONENTIALLY dependent on anything, the response should be EXPONENTIALLY larger and easy to see, perhaps even a run-away disaster