Guest essay by David Archibald
The people of Canberra are the richest in Australia so they voted in a provincial government that proved how virtuous they were by increasing the proportion of their power supply that came from wind and solar sources. As a consequence, the cost of power went up and the people of Canberra have responded by seeking out warm public buildings in the current southern winter. Respiratory disease load increases in winter and so no doubt there will be some deaths caused by the government’s virtue signalling.
Hundreds of thousands of people in first-world-country Germany have gone off grid because they can’t afford power any more. Of course heat kills too and the biggest heat-related, first-world die-off in recent years was in Europe in 2003. As Dave Rutledge wrote in 2015, “During the great European Heat Wave of 2003, 70,000 people died, most of them indoors. This is a horrible way to die. The people who were indoors could have been saved by a $140 Frigidaire window unit, but only if they could afford to pay for the electricity.”
All the energy that drives the Earth’s climate system comes from the Sun. So could there have been a solar component to the 2003 event? A number of solar parameters suggest there might have been:
Figure 1: Solar Wind Plasma Temperature 2000 – 2017
Figure 2: Solar Wind Plasma Speed 2000 – 2017
Figures 1 and 2 show a big excursion in 2003, the year of the killer European heatwave. Supporting evidence comes from the F10.7 flux plotted against sunspot area:
Figure 3: Hemispheric Sunspot Area and F10.7 Flux 1985 – 2016
The F10.7 flux closely follows sunspot area except for an excursion in 2003 during which the F10.7 flux peaks much higher. What could have caused Europe to have had its own heat wave and not affect most of the rest of the planet? Climate does respond to higher levels of solar UV as described by this paper by Haigh et.al, in 2005 which states:
The results clearly show a weakening and poleward shift of the jets when the sun is more active, again, as predicted by the model studies. The GCMs also predicted a response to higher levels of solar UV in the tropospheric mean meridional circulation. This consisted of a weakening and expansion of the Hadley cells and a poleward shift of the Ferrel cells. It is interesting to note that precisely these features, which are highly correlated with solar activity, have now been detected in NCEP–NCAR vertical velocity data (Gleisner and Thejll 2003).
Now it seems the opposite is happening with EUV dropping rapidly over the last two years as shown by the Lyman Alpha solar index:
Figure 4: Lyman Alpha Solar Index solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 aligned on minima
The Lyman-alpha line is a spectral line of hydrogn emitted when the electron fall from the n=2 orbital to the n=1 orbital, where n I s the principal quantum number. It is in the vacuum ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum and thus measurement of solar Lyman-alpha emissions are made by orbiting instruments. Sunlight in space at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 50 percent infrared light, 40 percent visible light, and 10 percent ultraviolet light, for a total intensity of about 1,400 W/m2 in vacuum. At ground level sunlight is 44 percent visible light, 3% ultraviolet and the remainder infrared. The atmosphere blocks about 77 percent of the Sun’s UV, almost entirely in the shorter UV wavelengths.
The significance of Figure 4 is that it shows that EUV has fallen to levels of solar minima. Generally, weak solar cycles, such as Solar Cycle 24, are long cycles. If Solar Cycle 24 ends up being 12 years long, which would take it to the edge of the graph, then it has another three years to go. Therefore, it is most likely that the solar minimum is going to be long, deep and relatively spotless. The Hadley cells will contract and strengthen, according to theory. It is also possible, though unlikely, that Solar Cycle 24 will be weak and short, as predicted by Ed Fix’s solar model. Either way, we have the promise of interesting developments.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The subtropical ridge in the southern hemisphere has intensified, according to BoM, does anyone have any idea why this is happening?
The supposed ‘cherry-pick’ of the modern maximum period was determined mathematically, logically, with consistency, and is easy to spot in several analyses, not just the one used to compute and compare the two equal periods of time. The choice of 70 years was determined by the sunspot data average, not arbitrarily.
?dl=0
I see a shift in your position, whether you do or not, right here: “0.1K [in yearly means]”
How many years of 0.1 or even nearly 0.1 solar warming does it take to create for example a ~0.6C SST impact during a solar cycle? My TSI-SST model is based on the annual change in TSI.
There were seven years of increasing annual TSI during SC24, 2008-2016.
As I said, none of this is hard to understand. Maybe you’re catching on now.
Regarding the 12% factor, it would take a few days to go through, something I don’t need to do.
I first saw here how after 2010 monthly TSI floated higher than monthly F10.7:
From there it was a lot of statistical work, regression models, etc. I took to heart your prior outlook of “are we learning something new about solar physics”, thinking the discrepancy was real, not instrumental, and later thought your degradation estimate can be definitely tested during the next solar minimum, where if SORCE monthly TSI levels back down into its previous correlation to monthly F10.7, like during the 2007-2009 period, then possibly the degradation issue was overblown, if not, it’ll give us a very good bead on degradation.
Seven years of increasing annual TSI during SC24, to 2016:
year SORCE TSI
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2008 1360.5382
2009 1360.5565
2010 1360.8027
2011 1361.0752
2012 1361.2413
2013 1361.3587
2014 1361.3966
2015 1361.4321
2016 1361.0073
2017 1360.7932
.
Seven years of increasing annual TSI during SC24, to 2016:
Seven years of TSI SORCE becoming increasingly wrong.
http://www.leif.org/research/SORCE-TSI-Not-Following-F107.png
I think SORCE’s problem started from their version 10 [we are now on V17].
The RMIB TSI seems better related to all the other solar indices and is probably correct:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Indices-Mapped-to-TSI.png
The supposed ‘cherry-pick’ of the modern maximum period was determined mathematically, logically, with consistency
And is a good illustration of how to lie with cycles. Consider this Figure:
http://www.leif.org/research/How-to-Lie-with-Cycles.png
It shows a long cycle [~100 years. Now cherry pick [the blue box] logically the maximum at the later part of the cycle, and then pick [mathematically, logically, consistently] a box of the same size [red box] extending before the blue box. The mean values [blue and red heavy lines are going to be very different. This is what you are doing, without taking into account that there are high values to the left of the red box. This is a standard trick and have no physical significance.
How many years of 0.1 or even nearly 0.1 solar warming does it take to create for example a ~0.6C SST impact during a solar cycle?
You have this wrong. The TSI effect goes up 0.1K during the first half of the cycle, and then goes down 0.1K during the last half of the cycle, with no net effect over the cycle.
Regarding the 12% factor, it would take a few days to go through, something I don’t need to do.
Yes you need to, as that is the whole issue: coming up with a number that confirms one’s wrong ideas.
I first saw here how after 2010 monthly TSI floated higher than monthly F10.7
As I pointed out long ago. Showing that SORCE is overcompensating their degradation. This is an artifact and is not real.
Leif,
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html. Just fyi. Even though you never told me who the “some” were who thought the dark matter was hiding inside the sun.
There are always [as it should be] some who try to prove Einstein wrong. So far Einstein seems to be undefeated on top. The ‘age’ of something is a slippery thing. How old am I? some of my atoms are 13.8 billion years old, some are 9 billion, some are 6 billion, etc…
Age is time dependent and observatios have proven that time varies with velocity and gravity though I have a feeling (no observations to prove it that I know of) that time is the real major player in our universe giving reality to what we observe. Perhaps biocentrism, in sense, collapsing those probability density wave functions which gives us solid matter. No observer nothing but probabilities and time is the key.
You seem fixated on the idea that the ozone response must net out to zero after every solar cycle.
The reality is that a succession of active cycles will cause a progressive fall in ozone and a succession of weak cycles will cause a progressive rise in ozone.
My hypothesis refers to that effect by proposing a solar induced change in the amount of ozone flowing down from higher levels within the descending polar vortices.
Over several solar cycles the effect accumulates.
Dr Svalgaard, we can resume here…
here is an update
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SeaLevel.gif
lsvalgaard July 9 10:52pm
“If SSTs are raised, say, 1C (and maintained at 1C)”
Except that it never is. The external forcing [the sun] goes up and down on time scales less that a century and the SST just follows suit and the rest of the oceans as well.
You got it!
Well, obviously… We have two trains running here. One of two things will stop the thermal expansion. Either the ocean will equilibriate or SSTs will fall back down to the equilibrium state temperature. (or, yet, a combination of both) i was just giving a hypothetical situation here to demonstrate a point. If our current “pause” in surface temps were maintained, eventually (after hundreds of years) the ocean would equilibriate and thermal expansion would cease. If it warms further, then it will take longer to equilibriate. If it cools, then shorter time. And, of course, if temps drop down to the current equilibrium state temperature, then thermal expansion will also cease. The important thing to realize is that even as SSTs have not been increasing (the pause…) thermal expansion has been continuing. So, your statement that “… the SST just follows suit and the rest of the ocean as well.” is false…
Either the ocean will equilibriate
It seems I can’t get you off that idee fixe, so there is not hope.
“You got it!”
Svalgaard! i was just bringing your last comment down here so we could talk about it. (sheesh)…
Nice of vuk to bring the rahmstorf graph down here because it’s relevent to our little discussion…
Nice of vuk to bring the rahmstorf graph down here
Two things:
1) the figure is marred by the additional Magnetic Change.
2) the sea level rise follows the global temperature with no lag [no ‘hundreds’ of years time scale for ‘equilibrium’].
Svalgaard, it’s a derivative plot. (one shouldn’t expect a lag of hundreds of years here) What we should expect to see over long periods of time is a divergence of the two graphs with the rate of sea level rise falling below that of temperature…
We have yet to discuss “the ocean equilibriating” in depth yet. (i hope to do that) Something that you said a few comments back begins to touch on it: “If you instantaneously changed the SST by 1C, the colder ocean would soon erase that change.” Now imagine what would happen if the 1C change were sustained at the surface so that the colder ocean would constantantly be “erasing” that change. In other words, the cooler ocean would be constantly sinking heat into the ocean all the while that the SST remains unchanged. (in reality, the SST would be rising were it not for the heat sinking capacity of the ocean)…
Running into time restraints again. See you again tomorrow (i hope)…
Svalgaard, it’s a derivative plot.
There is some possible confusion about the difference between the ‘rise’ and the ‘rate of rise’. If the sea level rises 3 mm in the year 2000 [say] what is the ‘rate of the rise’?
It is not a derivative plot as far as the rate of rise is concerned. It shows how much the sea level increases each year. If you want to know how much the sea level has risen over a period of years, add up [‘integrate’] the rises for each year, but you cannot just plot as a function of the year.
Now imagine what would happen if the 1C change were sustained at the surface so that the colder ocean would constantly be “erasing” that change. In other words, the cooler ocean would be constantly sinking heat into the ocean all the while that the SST remains unchanged.
So, the ocean would slowly heat up and the SST would slowly fall unless [and this is the important point] some external forcing [e.g. the Sun] acted to heat up the surface. So again, the oceans respond to the incoming energy flux as it happens. Since that flux changes with time [is cyclic] so will the ocean temperature cycle [albeit with smaller amplitude]. There is no ‘equilibrium state’ the oceans are seeking to maintain and thus the oceans do no ‘equilibriate’.
Lsvalgaard
If, as you contend, solar variability is too small to have a significant effect on climate, how is it that you seem to contend that it does have a significant effect on ocean temperatures?
I don’t, but Afonzarelly does. Our discussion is purely about hypothetical cases to clarify his concepts.
And you are still not out of the woods as far as the ozone response is concerned. The decline [as measured by temperature] did not happen at the end of solar cycle 23 in 2008 [or 2004 or whatever]. but all the way back to ~1995:
http://www.leif.org/research/Stratospheric-Temp-Response.png
You can also see the solar cycle effect with higher temperatures at solar maximum, as the traditional wisdom declares.
The pause in stratospheric cooling from 1995 is not a critical issue because one needs to consider multiple cycles to see the long term underlying solar induced effects initiated in the upper stratosphere. The sun began to become less active at the end of strong cycle 21 but the change in trend only became apparent after the maximum of 23.
It is certainly the case that cycle 23 was the last active cycle of the recent sequence.
Noting the rise in ozone at maximum during a single cycle is not significant because it takes time for the upper atmospheric reverse sign effect on the ozone production rate to filter down through the descending air in the polar vortices to offset the solar induced changes in the lower stratosphere.
The pause in stratospheric cooling from 1995 is not a critical issue
It is the cornerstone of your whole edifice. When that falls, everything falls with it. It shows that the Sun is not the reason for the stratospheric ‘pause’ and that therefore other solar-related cycles are not in play.
As Stolarsky pointed out:
“[29] We have shown that the available data from the Nimbus 7, UARS, and Aura satellites confirms the predicted dependence of the ozone-temperature correlation slope on chlorine amount. This predicted dependence is a result of the temperature dependence of the ozone loss due to chlorine oxides being less than that due to either pure oxygen reactions or hydrogen oxide catalysis. We have shown that the ozone-temperature relationship in the upper stratosphere from our simulations changes with the addition of chlorine oxides that catalyze ozone destruction in a manner consistent with observed changes in the relationship.”
There is thus no basis for your ideas.That closes the discussion.
The timing is only critical if the ozone response is immediate.
My hypothesis refers to the changes in ozone amounts in the upper atmosphere flowing downwards through the polar vortices.
Convection in the stratosphere is very slow and the atmosphere up there is very thin.
It is no strech of the imagination to see that the change in the ozone trend in the upper stratosphere would take a long time to have an impact on the global ozone amounts sufficient to override the usual fluctuations that follow the single solar cycle.
Short term single cycle changes following the traditional wisdom occur rapidly in the low to middle stratosphere.
Long term multi cycle changes with the opposite sign to the traditional wisdom impose a sceondary underlying cycle that takes a long time to become apparent at lower levels.
In this case the change in trend in the upper stratosphere became apparent during cycle 23.
In this case the change in trend in the upper stratosphere became apparent during cycle 23
The change became apparent following the Pinatubo volcano [a similar one after the earlier Agung volcano]. Nothing to do with the sun. You still are pushing the low solar activity angle. You need to cut out the ‘mix of particles and wavelengths’ as the primary driver. You are making slow progress in that direction by invoking all kinds of other cycles and counteracting circumstances, building a rat’s nest of hand waved overrides. Now is the time to forego the untenable solar connection and perhaps simply accept that the stratosphere is changing and go from there. That may be more profitable. Clinging to the solar thing is a showstopper right up front.
The eruptions temporarily disrupted the underlying background trend.
It is very simple.
The solar induced reverse sign ozone effect in the upper atmosphere induces a change in the net balance of ozone creation/destruction for the atmosphere as a whole but takes a while to become apparent in the lower to middle stratosphere.
That is much simpler and clearer than assuming no solar influence and instead trying to impose a convoluted guess involving the effects of human emissions.
If it is not low solar then one cannot explain the changed jet stream tracks between MWP and LIA.
That cannot have been volcanic or human induced.
The termination of the decline…
“There is no ‘equilibrium state’ the oceans are seeking to maintain and thus the oceans do not ‘equilibriate’.”
Svalgaard, this is absurd… Does our thermometer seek an equilibrium state? Of course it does. And while it’s seeking an equilibrium state, it is equilibriating. The ocean is the exact same way. The ipcc tells us that the oceans are and have been undergoing thermal expansion. Just like a thermometer! And once that equilibrium state has been achieved (again, like our thermometer) the ocean will stop expanding. Why is it that you don’t think the vast ocean will take a long time to heat up given a change in temperature at the surface? (or do you?)
“…the oceans respond to the incoming energy flux as it happens.”
No they don’t… The oceans on the whole only respond to temperatures at that surface relative to the current equilibrium state temperature.* (the incoming energy flux affects the temps at the surface)…
*and of course, there’s geo thermal from below
Here’s a quote from dr spencer from piece he did called “what causes el nino warmth?”. (a concise explanation of the heat sinking capacities of the ocean)…
RWS 1/1/2016
“In a sense, the deep ocean provides an air conditioner for the climate system, and during an el nino the air conditioner isn’t working as hard to cool the atmosphere. During la nina, it’s working harder than normal, leading to global average coolness.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/
Fits nicely in with my explanation that the deep ocean will begin to erase a sudden warming of the surface…
Not sure what you’re getting at here… When the deep ocean ‘erases’ warming at the surface, the deep ocean warms. If surface temps are maintained at that temperature, the deep ocean will continue to ‘erase’ warming at the surface and continue to warm. (eventually, the deep ocean will reach equilibrium and it will no longer warm)…
When the deep ocean ‘erases’ warming at the surface, the deep ocean warms
Since the surface cyclically warms and cools, the deep ocean will also cyclically warm and cool. There is no equilibrium to be reached.
“Since the surface cyclically warms and cools, the deep ocean will also cyclically warm and cool.”
NO IT WILL NOT…
The bottom line is that there is a surface temperature at which the ocean does not undergo thermal expansion. If the surface temp is raised above that temperature, then the ocean does undergo thermal expansion until at long last it equilibriates. (just like a thermometer, it’s that simple) If there is cyclical warming and cooling at the surface, then the deep ocean will continue to warm, though at cyclical RATES, so long as the surface remains above the equilibrium state temp. So we could actually see cooling at the surface, or even our pause, and the deep ocean would continue to warm. (and this is exactly what the ipcc tells us has happened) Why it is that a so called “climate scientist” doesn’t understand this basic fact of the matter is beyond belief…
Dr. Svalgaard, i’m going to be “awol” this weekend, so it’s pretty much time to let this baby go. Been interesting…
The bottom line is that there is a surface temperature at which the ocean does not undergo thermal expansion.
Nonsense. At no temperature does the ocean undergo thermal expansion. Any change in temperature, positive or negative, will entail a corresponding thermal expansion or contraction. Just like any change of temperature will either expand or contract the mercury in a thermometer.
(comment in moderation)…
One last analogy: If you have a large pot of water on the stove and turn the flame on low, the water will begin to warm. If you turn the flame up, the water will heat at a faster rate. If you cyclically turn the flame down low and again up high, the water will continue to warm, but the warming rate will change cyclically with the flame. The ocean is no different…
(BTW, i didn’t bother reading your last comment, so i have the “de facto” last word here… ☺)
If you cyclically turn the flame down low and again up high, the water will continue to warm
Of course it will not, otherwise you’ll have a perpetuum mobile when a bounded amount of energy [between low and high flame] will result in an unbounded amount of energy [water continues to warm].
“Nice of vuk to bring the rahmstorf graph down here”

&
Dr. Svalgaard’s response
“1) the figure is marred by the additional Magnetic Change.”
There is some ‘logic’ to it though. Most of the north American continent is subject to postglacial uplift. The uplift extends to the northern portion of the North American tectonic plate, which btw. Covers about 50% of the Arctic Ocean.
If the Arctic Oceans floor is rising (Hudson Bay area has risen about 2m yes two meters in the last hundred years) then all that water has to go somewhere else.
About 30% of the long term magnetic change in the N. Canada is a directly associated with uplift.
Therefore the magnetic change is a good metric for the uplift variability, and consequently the sea level rise.
About 30% of the long term magnetic change in the N. Canada is a directly associated with uplift.
The magnetic field originated deep below the surface and has nothing to do with the puny uplift. So, the ‘directly associated’ is misplaced as there is no causal connection.