by Javier Vinós & Andy May
“Once you start doubting, just like you’re supposed to doubt. You ask me if the science is true and we say ‘No, no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong’ … When you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.”
Richard Feynman (1981)
For those that prefer it, Christian Freuer has translated this post into German here.
5.1 Introduction
The 1990s discovery of multidecadal variability (see Part IV) showed that the science of climate change is very immature. The answer to what was causing the observed warming was provided before the proper questions were asked. Once the answer was announced, questions were no longer welcome. Michael Mann said of a skeptical Judith Curry:
“I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility”
(Mann 2008)
But as Peter Medawar stated:
“the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.”
Peter Medawar (1979)
Scientists’ opinions do not constitute science, and a scientific consensus is nothing more than a collective opinion based on group-thinking. When doubting a scientific consensus (“just like you’re supposed to doubt,” as Feynman said) becomes unwelcome, the collective opinion becomes dogma, and dogma is clearly not science.
Lennart Bengtsson, former director of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, winner of the Descartes Prize and a WMO prize for groundbreaking research put it succinctly after agreeing to participate in a skeptical organization headed by Nigel Lawson, a member of the House of Lords and former Chancellor of the Exchequer:
“I had not [been] expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expected anything similar in such an originally peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently, it has been transformed in recent years.”
(von Storch 2014).
This is the effect that dogmas have on scientists, normal scientific research becomes impossible by introducing a strong group-bias against questioning the dogma.
Once dogmas are in place, they tend to evade scientific scrutiny. Stuart Firestein, when reviewing the main mistaken scientific consensuses of the past in his 2012 book, Ignorance: How it Drives Science, wonders if
“… is there any reason, really, to think that our modern science may not suffer from similar blunders? In fact, the more successful the fact, the more worrisome it may be. Really successful facts have a tendency to become impregnable to revision.”
Stuart Firestein (2012)
The main dogma of climate change science is stated in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3)”
(IPCC 2014)
However, there is no evidence supporting this dogma. It is based on computer model results that were programmed with the same assumptions that emerge from them, in a clear case of circular reasoning. An example of such assumptions is that the only accepted effect of solar variability on climate is the change in total solar irradiance (TSI). None of the solar effects described in Part II are included because they are not accepted, and even if they were accepted, we would not know how to program them. We don’t know how they happen or how they affect climate. Such is the hubris of modern climate theory supporters that they believe we understand how climate changes well enough to make reliable projections 75 years into the future.
Figure 5.1 is the main dogma of climate change science as shown in Figure SPM.3 from AR5 (the fifth IPCC report). It claims that observed 1951-2010 warming was due to anthropogenic causes, without contribution from natural forcings, despite low volcanic activity and high solar activity and without any contribution from multidecadal oscillations, despite the 1976-2000 period of warming coinciding with an AMO upswing.
The main dogma of climate change science is wrong. In Part III we showed the importance of meridional transport (MT) and the latitudinal temperature gradient (LTG) in both global and regional climate. They determine the amount of energy directed toward the poles. In Part IV we showed that changes in MT cause climate regime shifts, and that these shifts alter the energy budget of the climate system. This evidence refutes the dogma, revealing that changes in MT constitute a climate forcing not accounted for in Fig. 5.1. In Part II we reviewed the evidence that changes in solar activity affect the polar vortex, ENSO, Earth’s rotation rate, and planetary wave atmospheric propagation properties, resulting in dynamical spatiotemporal changes in atmospheric circulation, temperature, and precipitation that correspond with substantial climate changes of the past as recorded by paleoclimatological evidence. Each and every one of the climatological factors affected by solar activity points to an effect of the variable sun on MT. Changes in solar activity affect MT, and changes in MT are a major cause of climate change, further refuting the climate dogma.
5.2 Meridional transport multiple regulation
MT is the most important modulator of global climate. The great complexity of the ocean-atmosphere coupled global circulation with all its modes of variability, oscillations, teleconnections, and modulations, is just the manifestation of a single underlying cause, the transport of energy from its climate system entry point to its exit point. Mass (including water) is transported, directly or indirectly, because of energy transport. As we saw in Part III, section 3, MT is mainly carried out by the atmosphere (see Fig. 3.4), and it does so through two separate but coupled tracks, one is through the stratosphere (the Brewer–Dobson circulation, BDC), the other is through the troposphere, mainly over ocean basins with both the atmosphere and ocean contributing. The coupling of these two tracks is variable in time and space (Kidston et al. 2015). At the equatorial zone there is coupling through deep-convection and the ascending branch of the BDC (Collimore et al. 2003), and at high latitudes through the polar vortex (PV). The downward coupling in the mid-latitudes is complex and variable by longitude (Elsbury et al. 2021). The downward coupling is mainly performed by changes in stratospheric temperature gradients and the response of the wind thermal balance. The wind thermal balance affects the strength of the mean zonal circulation, and the position and strength of tropospheric jets, eddies, and storm tracks (Kidston et al. 2015). The upward coupling depends on changes in convection and atmospheric wave generation. Consequently, the coupling is stronger in winter when temperature contrasts and atmospheric wave generation in the troposphere are more intense, and temperature gradients in the stratosphere are deeper.
Figure 5.2 is a Meridional Transport flow chart. The light-grey rounded rectangles are the two components (tracks) of meridional transport, with their known modulators in white ovals. Black solid arrows indicate coupling or modulation. Dashed arrows indicate the indirect effects of volcanic eruptions on tropospheric meridional transport and ENSO. Changes in meridional transport affect the energy budget of the Earth’s climatic system by changing the energy transfer intensity from the GHG-rich tropical region to the GHG-poor polar region. The diagram is from Vinós 2022.
Stratospheric MT is modulated by factors that alter the latitudinal temperature gradient (ozone, solar activity, and volcanic aerosols), or the zonal wind strength (QBO), since they determine the level of planetary wave transmission that powers stratospheric transport. ENSO is part of the tropospheric MT and is determined by its conditions, but it is also a modulator of stratospheric transport, affecting the strength of the BDC (Domeisen et al. 2019), and thus participates in the stratosphere-troposphere MT coupling. Whether the QBO influences ENSO is not known, but all other interactions between these three modulators (solar effect, QBO and ENSO) of stratospheric MT have been documented (Labitzke 1987; Calvo & Marsh 2011; Salby & Callaghan 2000; Taguchi 2010). The stadium-wave represents the coordinated sequential change affecting the interconnected parts of tropospheric MT (Wyatt & Curry 2014). It is a strong multidecadal oscillation in MT, and the importance it has on climate variability cannot be overstated.
Most of the climatic effects from volcanic activity that are not due to the direct reflection and scattering of solar radiation by stratospheric sulfate aerosols, or altered stratospheric chemistry, are accomplished by altering MT. That is why strong tropical volcanic eruptions cause NH winter warming by strengthening the PV (GuðlaugsdÓttir et al. 2019), why they induce ENSO states (Swingedouw et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2018), and why they excite the bidecadal MT oscillation (Swingedouw et al. 2015; see Part IV, Sect. 4.2 & Fig. 4.2), accounting for the interdecadal effects of volcanic eruptions.
Other than variations in the GHG content of the atmosphere, climate changes through changes in MT, and this is likely the main mechanism, since important climatic changes have occurred in the past with only modest variations in greenhouse gas radiative forcing. The effect of some MT modulators trends to zero when averaged over a few years. This is the case with QBO and ENSO. Multidecadal variability also balances out over longer time frames. However, solar activity has centennial and millennial cycles that become the most important MT modulator at sub-Milankovitch frequencies (i.e., <10,000 years). The Medieval Warm Period, centered c. 1100, the Little Ice Age, centered c. 1600, and the ongoing Modern Global Warming period, coincide with a millennial solar activity cycle, called the Eddy cycle (Abreu et al. 2010), that displayed high solar activity during the medieval and modern solar maxima (c. 1150 & 1970), and low solar activity at the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder cluster of Solar Minima (c. 1300–1700).
Centennial and millennial changes in solar activity are an important climate forcing because of the persistent effect they have on MT. Solar activity changes alter the global climate system energy budget. Shorter changes in solar activity (decadal) are less important because at these time frames MT becomes more affected by other modulators, like the stadium-wave, ENSO and the QBO, that quite often act in opposition to solar modulation.
5.3 The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis
The current view of climate change, as reflected in the IPCC assessment reports, constitutes a radiative theory of climate. Within this theory, solar variability is only considered in terms of the small radiative changes in TSI (about 0.1 % per solar cycle), despite strong evidence of solar-induced dynamical changes to the global atmospheric circulation presented in Part II. These non-linear, indirect, dynamical effects of solar variability on climate are detectable in climate reanalysis (see Fig. 2.2; Lean 2017), and reproduced by models (Kodera et al. 2016), yet they are not incorporated into the modern climate change theory because no room has been left for them.
The change in solar activity does not have a year-round global effect as expected from a global change in solar radiative forcing. The effect is higher during hemispheric cold seasons, and maximal during the boreal winter, as shown by its modifications to the Earth’s rotation speed (see Fig. 2.5; Le Mouël et al. 2010). The changes in the length of day (ΔLOD) are due to changes in the meridional atmospheric circulation responsible for the increase in the amount of heat transported to the winter pole. This cold-season specific solar effect, tied to the strength of the PV, is seen in climate reanalysis and observations suggesting it affects both atmospheric and oceanic phenomena, including the AO and NAO, blocking events frequency, zonal wind strength, the sub-polar gyre strength, and the North Atlantic winter storm track. The season-specific dynamical effect of solar activity must result in important changes in the amount of heat directed to the dark pole. Most of this heat exits the planet radiated as OLR in the long polar night. Heat flux across sea-ice is always towards the atmosphere, and the increase in non-condensing GHGs favors energy loss through higher radiative cooling from GHG molecules that are warmer than the surface (van Wijngaarden & Happer 2020). Radiative heat loss also increases due to the strong decrease in cloud cover that accompanies the polar winter (Eastman & Warren 2010), and the low absolute humidity of the winter polar atmosphere.
The seasonal asymmetric effect of solar activity on climate demonstrates that solar variability is the most important long-term gatekeeper of the large amount of heat that leaves the planet at the poles every cold season. The poles are the main heat sink for the planet (see Fig. 3.2). Thus, the hypothesis of how changes in solar activity regulate MT is named the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis (WGK-h). The WGK-h (Fig. 5.3) states that the level of solar activity is one of several factors that determine the strength of zonal winds and thus the propagation of planetary waves in the winter atmosphere. Poleward and upward wave propagation controls PV strength, which is the main modulator of heat and moisture MT to the winter pole. Winters of high solar activity promote stronger zonal circulation, reducing MT, leading to a colder Arctic winter, warmer mid-latitudes winter, a warmer tropical band due to reduced BDC upwelling, and lower energy loss at the winter pole. Winters of low solar activity promote the opposite. The difference in energy loss at the winter pole is large enough to greatly affect the climate of the entire planet when solar activity is consistently high or low for several consecutive solar cycles (i.e., decades).
Figure 5.3 diagrams the key elements of the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis of how solar variability affects climate. Diagram (a) shows how high solar activity winters promote a strong stratospheric latitudinal temperature gradient through increased ozone and enhanced ozone heating caused by higher UV radiation. High solar activity, through changes in the thermal wind balance, strengthens the zonal winds reducing planetary wave propagation. This allows the polar vortex to remain strong through the winter, reducing meridional transport and heat loss at the winter pole. The effect on the stratospheric temperature gradient from high solar activity can be opposed by easterly QBO and El Niño conditions. Tropospheric meridional transport is strongly affected by the c. 65-year oscillation, here represented over the Atlantic by the AMO, that denotes a weaker transport when it changes to higher values (heat accumulation in the North Atlantic). The climatic effect is enhanced global warming and a cold Arctic/warm continents winter pattern.
The right-hand display (b) shows that low solar activity winters promote a weak stratospheric latitudinal temperature gradient due to lower UV radiation, leading to a weak polar vortex that increases meridional transport and heat loss at the winter pole. The effect on the stratospheric temperature gradient from low solar activity can be opposed by westerly QBO, La Niña conditions, and volcanic aerosol forcing. The tropospheric meridional transport is strong when the c. 65-year oscillation is in a descending phase, and the AMO is changing to lower values (heat reduction in the North Atlantic). Increased meridional transport increases Earth’s speed of rotation as zonal winds decrease and less angular momentum resides in the atmosphere. The climatic effect is reduced global warming and a warm Arctic/cold continents winter pattern. Figure 5.3 is from Vinós 2022.
The WGK-h is based on the evidence that MT is one, if not the most important, agent for climate change. But as stated previously, MT is modulated by climatic conditions that affect the strength of zonal winds, including not only solar activity but also ENSO, the QBO, stratospheric volcanic aerosols, and the stadium-wave (the multidecadal oscillation in tropospheric MT). As MT depends on atmospheric and oceanic transport, it responds not only to the stratospheric signal that involves solar activity, but also to a tropospheric one that involves the ocean (Fig. 5.3). This double dependency leads to an inconsistency in solar effects that has plagued solar-climate studies. The solar signal is part of a complex system that determines the strength of winter MT, but its long turnover rate (decadal to centennial) accumulates over time.
The mechanisms for the solar effect on climate have been described by multiple authors. Differential heating of ozone by UV, creates a temperature gradient in the stratosphere that affects zonal wind strength. The strength of zonal winds determines planetary wave propagation that affects PV strength. Zonal wind and PV conditions in the stratosphere propagate to the troposphere through thermal wind balance and stratosphere-troposphere coupling. At the troposphere, the position and strength of the jets and the conditions of the Arctic Oscillation are affected (Lean, 2017). However, the WGK-h proposes that the long-term climatic effect of solar variability is mediated through its effect on the MT of heat towards the winter pole, and that the stronger global climatic effects are due to cumulative energy loss at the winter pole during prolonged periods of low solar activity. The main role for solar variability in climate is to act as a winter gatekeeper, promoting energy conservation during years of high solar activity and allowing a higher energy loss during years of low solar activity. As MT is geographically variable, the solar energy gatekeeping role has a stronger effect in the North Atlantic winter storm track and a smaller effect at the south polar cap, with the Pacific and Siberian Arctic winter gateways falling in between.
The WGK-h provides an explanation for the strong paleoclimatic effect of periods of prolonged low solar activity, like the Little Ice Age (LIA), and its alternation with warmer periods like the MWP or Modern Global Warming that correspond to the c. 1000-yr Eddy solar cycle as revealed by solar and climate proxies (Marchitto et al. 2010). It can also explain the North Atlantic region behavior as a climate variability hotspot. Paleoclimatologists have long noticed that many prominent climate change manifestations, such as Bond events, Dansgaard–Oeschger events, Heinrich events, the MWP or the LIA are more prominent or even exclusively in the North Atlantic region. This region is a preferred corridor for MT and, thus, it is the area most sensitive to MT changes.
5.4 Evidence for the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis
The WGK-h explains how the known short-term dynamical effects of solar UV variability on atmospheric circulation (i.e., the top-down mechanism; Matthes et al. 2016) are responsible for an outsized longer-term modulation of climate change, through persistent changes in MT that alter the radiative properties of the planet.
The effect of solar variability on climate on a centennial to millennial timescale has long been established by paleoclimatology (Engels & van Geel 2012), but this knowledge could not be incorporated to our understanding of climate change because of the lack of a known mechanism. Solar variability during the Holocene is relatively well known through the cosmogenic isotope record (mainly 14C and 10Be records). The LIA is not the only secular period of the Holocene where an association can be established between persistently reduced solar activity in the form of solar grand minima (SGM) and a significant cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, together with a change in precipitation patterns affecting large regions, including the tropical monsoons (Wang et al. 2005b).
As shown in Figure 2.1, at c. 11.4 kyr BP the Pre-Boreal SGM coincides with the Pre-Boreal Oscillation (Björck et al. 1997). At c. 10.3 kyr BP the Boreal 1 SGM coincides with the Boreal Oscillation 1 (Björck et al. 2001). At c. 9.3 kyr BP the Boreal 2 cluster of SGM coincides with the Boreal Oscillation 2 (Zhang et al. 2018). Between 7.7 and 7.2 kyr BP a LIA-like period coincides with the Jericho cluster of SGM (Berger et al. 2016). At c. 6.3 kyr BP another period of low solar activity coincides with another climate pessimum (Fleitmann et al. 2007). At c. 5.2 kyr BP the large global glacier advance that froze Ötzi the iceman in the Alps coincided with the Sumerian cluster of SGM (Thompson et al. 2006). At c. 2.8 kyr BP, another climate pessimum identified with the Great Winter of the Bronze Age Nordic sagas (Fries 1956) coincided with the Homeric SGM (Chambers et al. 2007). And at c. 0.5 kyr BP the LIA coincided with the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder cluster of SGM (Kokfelt & Muscheler 2012). Twenty-five SGM have been identified during the Holocene (Usoskin 2017), but since 12 of them belong to 4 clusters, there are 17 periods of persistently reduced solar activity in 11,700 years. Despite the difficulties of studying the climate of past millennia, half of them have already been convincingly related to periods of profound climate worsening, in some cases associated with human population struggles (see Fig. 2.1; Bevan et al. 2017). It is not surprising that so many paleoclimatologists are convinced solar variability has a profound effect on climate change (Rohling et al. 2002; Hu et al. 2003; Engels & van Geel 2012; Magny et al. 2013).
The WGK-h requires that solar modulation of climate is accomplished by the top-down dynamical mechanism acting on MT. Colin Hines conceived the bases of the top-down mechanism in 1974, and the first evidence was published by Joanna Haigh in 1996, incorporating the crucial role of ozone as the UV variability sensor and transmitter. Since then, the top-down mechanism has found support in observations, reanalysis, and modeling (Gray et al. 2010; Gruzdev 2017; Kodera et al. 2016). The WGK-h links the top-down mechanism to the detected long-term effects of solar variability on climate through persistent modifications to the most important climate variable, the MT of energy from the tropics to the poles.
The WGK-h is supported by evidence of a solar effect on climate that is otherwise difficult to incorporate into alternate hypotheses. It explains why the semi-annual component of the changes in the Earth’s speed of rotation, manifested as changes in the length of day (∆LOD; see Part II), responds to changes in solar activity (Le Mouël et al. 2010). The LOD changes are a manifestation of the solar modulation of the winter atmospheric circulation. It also explains why the multidecadal trend in ∆LOD changes correlate with climatic changes (Lambeck & Cazenave 1976; Mazzarella, 2013).
Solar modulation of ENSO (see Part II) also supports the WGK-h. Low solar activity promotes a stronger MT, favoring La Niña conditions at the equatorial Pacific, probably in response to a higher BDC upwelling through tropical stratosphere-troposphere coupling. This is the opposite of tropical volcanic eruptions which produce a weaker MT and stronger PV, inducing El Niño conditions in the equatorial Pacific probably through a reduction in tropical upwelling by the opposite mechanism.
The warm Arctic/cold continents (WACC) winter pattern, linked to low solar activity (Kobashi et al. 2015; Porter et al. 2019), also constitutes evidence for the WGK-h. During prolonged periods of low solar activity, the Arctic is characterized by warmer winters, while the mid-latitude continents suffer colder winters due to more frequent incursions of polar air masses. The opposite happens during prolonged periods of high solar activity, explaining why Arctic sea-ice initiated a great reduction at the climatic shift of 1997 (see Part IV) and not during the previous decades of prominent global warming. Arctic amplification since 2000 manifests as a cold season phenomenon, with little summer temperature increase, supporting the underlying seasonal changes in MT that have taken place.
As required by the hypothesis, stratospheric planetary wave amplitude is modulated by solar activity (Powell & Xu 2011; see Fig. 2.8), with low solar activity resulting in increased planetary wave amplitude that should promote a stronger BDC and weaker PV.
The biennial oscillation (BO) changes the PV from a strong configuration one winter to a weak configuration the next (Fig. 5.4a). It results from the solar cycle modulation of the QBO bimodality and its interaction with the strong polar annual variation (Baldwin & Dunkerton 1998; Salby & Callaghan 2006; Christiansen 2010). After the 1976–77 climate shift, the bimodality in the QBO and the BO weakened, resulting in a predominantly strong-vortex phase (Fig. 5.4a; Christiansen 2010). At the 1997–98 climate shift, the bimodality in the QBO and the BO changed again to a stronger-bimodality weaker-vortex phase. These climate shifts define the 1977–97 period when the effect of the QBO on the strength of the PV by the Holton–Tan mechanism weakened considerably (Lu et al. 2008; see Part II). In the 1970s, the QBO at 50 hPa, and extratropical winds at 54°N and 10 hPa broke their correlation while becoming more predominantly westerly (positive) as shown by their cumulative value (Fig. 5.4b; Lu et al. 2008), weakening the winter coupling between the QBO and the PV for the period 1977–97, as stronger westerly winds hinder the propagation of lower amplitude planetary waves. The stronger PV that resulted from the high solar activity during solar cycles 21 and 22 produced a slight cooling trend in winter Arctic temperature (Fig. 5.4c, grey area), while the weaker PV that resulted from the lower solar activity of solar cycles 20 and 23 (and 24) resulted in warming trends in the winter Arctic (Fig. 5.4c, white areas). The relationship between the strength of the PV and winter Arctic surface temperature is very clear. Notice that winter Arctic temperature evolution is opposite to NH temperature evolution, underscoring their negative correlation.
Figure 5.4 shows how the polar vortex, zonal wind speed, and Arctic temperature relate to the solar cycle. Vertical dashed lines mark the solar minima, and the gray area corresponds to the climate regime period between the 1976 and 1997 climate shifts. Panel (a) is the October–March mean vortex at 20 hPa, as the leading principal component of the mean geopotential height north of 20°N in the empirical orthogonal function from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis dataset. Higher values denote a strong vortex for that winter. Circa 1976 a regime shift took place from a generally weak vortex displaying bimodality to a stronger vortex with unimodality. The opposite shift took place c. 1997. Dotted lines are average values for the periods separated by 1976 and 1997. The plot is after Christiansen 2010.
The panel (b) black line is the cumulative 3-year averaged November–March zonal-mean wind speed at the equator at 50 hPa. The grey line is the cumulative 3-year averaged November–March zonal-mean wind speed at 54.4°N at 10 hPa. Dotted lines are linear trends for the cumulative 54.4°N data for the periods 1959–65, 1965–76, 1976–97 and 1997–2004. The data for panel (b) is from Lu et al. 2008.
Panel (c) is the winter (December–February) mean temperature anomaly calculated from the operational atmospheric model at the European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecast for the +80 °N region. The dotted lines are linear trends as in panel (b) except the last period ends in 2010. The data are from the Danish Meteorological Institute. The panel (d) black line is the number of sunspot spotless days in a running 6-month window. The grey line is a plot of monthly sunspots. Horizontal dotted lines are the average monthly number of sunspots for each solar cycle (SC). The data are from WDC–SILSO. The illustration is from Vinós (2022).
As required by the WGK-h, seasonal patterns of the 80–90 °N temperature anomaly display very important changes over time. Arctic summer and winter temperature anomalies did not display any significant long-term deviation from the average during the 1970–99 period, indicating a surprising difference from the global warming experienced by most of the planet at the time, and in stark contrast to the polar amplification predicted by theory and the climate models.
Starting in 1997, the Arctic summer temperature anomaly displays a small decrease of about half a degree (see Fig. 4.6a), while the Arctic winter temperature anomaly shows a huge increase reaching +8 °C average during the 2017–18 winter (Fig. 5.5). The heat responsible for this winter temperature increase is transported to the Arctic from lower latitudes (see Part III). It is paradoxical and contrary to the prevalent view, that Arctic warming was less pronounced during the rapid global warming period of the 1980s and 1990s and is more pronounced during the recent period of reduced warming, often called the pause or hiatus in global warming. This apparent contradiction can be resolved if solar activity regulates the amount of heat directed to the poles during the winter. According to the WGK-h, the increase in winter poleward heat transport responsible for the temperature increase in the Arctic in that season is due to the persistent decrease in solar activity since 2004. The negative correlation between long-term solar activity and Arctic winter temperature is clear (Fig. 5.5).
Figure 5.5 shows that Arctic winter temperature is solar modulated. The black curve is the smoothed 10.7 cm solar flux as a proxy for solar activity. The third order fitted polynomial least-squares fit shown was calculated using all the data available after 1947 to reduce the border effect in the graphed period. The data are from the Royal Observatory of Belgium STAFF viewer. The red curve is the winter (December-February) mean temperature anomaly calculated from the operational atmosphere model at the European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecast for the +80 °N region. The smoother red line is a third order polynomial least-squares fit. The data are from the Danish Meteorological Institute. The illustration is from Vinós (2022).
The solar-induced changes in the Arctic have many consequences. The WGK-h requires an increase in cold-season Arctic OLR when decadal solar activity decreases. This increase was observed in the 1997 climate regime shift (see Fig. 4.7). The increased energy loss at the poles since 1997 contributed to the pause in global warming. At the same time the strong wintertime warming in the Arctic has little effect on the regional cryosphere, since Arctic winter temperature is c. 25 °C below freezing on average. Meanwhile, the modest summer temperature decrease has a stabilizing effect on summer sea-ice extent that displays a pause since 2007 (Fig. 5.6).
Paradoxically, the big increase in yearly averaged Arctic temperature is being publicized as evidence of hefty Arctic amplification, yet it coincides with a pause in Arctic summer sea-ice extent loss that might even lead to a modest increase over the present solar cycle (SC25, 2020–c. 2031). Unless the Arctic temperature increase is seasonally analyzed, it is difficult to understand what is happening, but then it becomes clear that Arctic amplification is not an amplification of global warming. Arctic winter warming is a strong indication that the climatic effect of solar variability is being profoundly misunderstood, and the contribution from the MSM in solar activity to modern global warming is much larger than accounted for in the IPCC reports and current climate models. A clear prediction from this hypothesis is that the Arctic winter temperature anomaly will start to decrease when a new more active solar cycle takes place. This could happen with solar cycle 26, which is predicted to increase in activity c. 2032 (Fig. 5.7). That decrease in temperature should be accompanied by an increase in Arctic sea-ice.
Figure 5.6 shows several projections of Arctic sea-ice decline. The model simulations are shown as continuous colored lines for 2006–2090, and observations as a black line for 1935–2021. All show September Arctic sea-ice extent. The colored lines are CMIP5 model averages from various RCP scenarios, after Walsh et al. (2014). The light brown dashed line is a model based on known 60 and 20-year periodicities in Arctic sea-ice. The black continuous line is NSIDC September Arctic sea-ice extent for the satellite window (1979–2021), while 1935–1978 September Arctic sea-ice extent data is from a reconstruction by Cea Pirón & Cano Pasalodos (2016). The dark red dashed line is a sigmoid survival curve fitted to 1979–2012 data assuming ice-free conditions near 2030, following the Arctic sea-ice death spiral proposed by Mark Serreze (2010). The conservative projection, the lighter brown dashed line, explains the pause in Arctic sea-ice melting since 2007 and suggests over 2 million km2 of Arctic sea-ice remaining by summer 2100. The illustration is from Vinós 2022.
Figure 5.7 shows a sunspot forecast based on solar activity cycles. Panel (a) plots the international annual sunspot number for 1700–2020, along with the rising linear trend. The centennial Feynman periodicity is shown as a sinusoidal curve with minima at the times of the lowest sunspot numbers, defining the centennial periods F1 to F3. Their span is dictated by the dates below the sinusoid. The F3 period displays the highest number of sunspots of the three. F2 period was affected by the presence of a de Vries bicentennial cycle low at SC12–13 and displays fewer sunspots than the other two. The source of the data is the WDC–SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels.
Panel (b) is a solar model built on the spectral properties of solar activity from cosmogenic and sunspot records. The model assumes default maximum activity for each cycle that is then lowered by the distance to the lows of the five cycles considered, the 2500-yr, 1000-yr, 210-yr, 100-yr, and 50-yr cycles. Cycle dates and periods deduced from past activity are projected into the future, producing a solar activity forecast for 2022–2130. F4 is projected to coincide with a peak in the millennial Eddy cycle identified from Holocene solar proxy records, and likely to have as many sunspots as F3 despite another de Vries cycle low expected for SC31–32. Solar cycles SC1, SC10, SC20, and SC29 constitute lows in the pentadecadal solar periodicity, which reduces sunspot numbers at the peak of the centennial periodicity. The model is from Vinós 2016 and does not project maximum activity very well as it is more variable but does project the sunspot sum properly over the entire cycle. The 2016 model was correct in forecasting SC25 activity higher than SC24 and lower than SC23. Now it forecasts increased solar activity from SC24 to SC28. The illustration is from Vinós 2022.
5.5 The asymmetric High-solar/Low-effect — Low-solar/High-effect paradox
Since the sun powers the climate system it is logical to assume that a more active sun, by providing more energy, should have a proportional effect on climate, that is opposite to the effect of a decrease in energy by a less active Sun. However, the study of paleoclimatology shows that this is not the case. Solar activity effect on climate is highly asymmetric, with low solar activity having a much more profound effect on climate than high solar activity.
The study of solar paleoclimatology was pioneered by Andrew Douglass (1919) and revived by the landmark study of John Eddy (1976) on the Maunder minimum. SGM throughout the Holocene and their associated climatic effects have been identified by many authors (Vinós 2022). The SGM from the past 1,000 years have received the names of astronomers, while those for the previous 7,000 years received names taken from human history (see above and in Vinós 2022). What is glaringly lacking is the corresponding identification, naming, and climatic studies of solar grand maxima. While they can be mathematically defined on the solar activity record (Usoskin 2017), only the two most recent ones, the medieval solar maximum and the modern solar maximum have been named. Paleoclimatic studies do not produce an obvious high solar activity-climate association. It appears solar grand maxima leave a much smaller footprint on the paleoclimate record than SGM.
What paleoclimatology is telling us is that solar-climate scientists should pay more attention to the effect of low solar activity on climate. The WGK-h helps explain why low solar activity affects climate more than high solar activity.
The 11-yr solar cycle maximum is a lot more variable than the solar minimum. Although sunspots are perhaps not the best way to gauge solar activity during solar minima, the sunspot record (13-month smoothed; SILSO 2022) shows that solar maxima have varied between 81 sunspots in 1816 and 285 in 1958, a 204-sunspot difference. By contrast solar minima have varied only between 0 sunspots in 1810, and 18 sunspots at the highest minimum in 1976, an 18-sunspot difference. During a solar grand maximum, like the modern one (1935-2005; see Fig. 1.6), 6 years of high or very high solar activity are followed by 5 years of low or very low solar activity. During a SGM all years, decade after decade, have low or very low solar activity.
When solar activity is low the effect of the equatorial stratosphere on the PV (Holton–Tan effect) is stronger and the PV becomes anomalously weaker. Thus, at solar minimum the solar effect is maximum. The biggest positive deviations from trend in winter Arctic temperature usually take place during solar minima (Fig. 5.5). The climatic shifts of 1976 and 1997 took place at the solar minimum, which is evidence of the WGK-h. The 1925 shift also took place right after the SC15–16 minimum, and the 1946 shift after the SC17–18 minimum (see Fig. 4.8c & f; Mantua et al. 1997). Solar activity level between minima determines the level of equatorial-polar atmospheric coupling and the Arctic climate over that cycle (Fig. 5.4d). Since regime shifts in atmospheric circulation and climate appear to take place at solar minima, over the following years the activity of the solar maximum determines if a shift takes place. If the activity is similar to the prior cycle there is no shift, if it is markedly different the shift starting at the solar minimum is confirmed. A predictable result is a high frequency of climate phases that span two solar cycles, like the 1976–1997 period. This explains the repeated reports of 22-year solar signals in climate proxies, like the bidecadal drought rhythm in the western US (Cook et al. 1997), or tree-ring width in the Arctic (Ogurtsov et al. 2020) and Southern Chile (Rigozo et al. 2007).
Thus, the WGK-h provides an explanation for the asymmetric solar effect paradox. According to the hypothesis, years of high solar activity result in less energy loss at the winter pole due to a stronger PV and reduced MT (Fig. 5.3a), while years of low solar activity result in more energy lost from the opposite effect (Fig. 5.3b). During high activity solar cycles, 5-6 years of above average solar activity promote lower energy loss at the poles, followed by 4-5 years of below average solar activity that promote higher energy loss at the poles, resulting in moderate warming. During low activity solar cycles, all or nearly all years display below average solar activity resulting in intensified cooling.
The asymmetry in the 11-year cycle variability and in the solar effect on climate by the WGK-h explain why paleoclimatologists only detect the outsized climatic effect of SGM on climate. It is expected from theoretical considerations that long uninterrupted periods of low solar activity should have a bigger climate effect that long periods of intermittent activity. Paleoclimatological observations confirm this expectation, supporting that the climatic effect of solar activity is real.
5.6 The Cycle-length/Climate-effect paradox
One of the main objections to a more substantive role on climate change by the sun is that the 11-year solar cycle does not appear to have a great effect on climate. Modern climate analysis using satellite data since 1979 have covered almost four full solar cycles, and it is clear that the changes observed, although significant, are modest (Lean 2017; see Fig. 2.2). And no change is clear between cycles, much less a trend in any climate variable that would correlate to the trend in solar activity.
But solar activity also displays longer cycles. Solar cycles receive the name of important solar researchers. The 11-yr Schwabe cycle, the 22-yr Hale cycle, the 100-yr Feynman cycle, the 200-yr de Vries cycle, the 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the 2500-yr Bray cycle have all been described in the scientific literature as having a climatic effect (see Vinós 2022, and references within). The 100-yr Feynman cycle is responsible for two 11-yr cycles with low activity in the early 1800s (cycles 5 & 6, 1798–1823), the early 1900s (cycles 14 & 15, 1902-1923) and the early 2000s (cycles 24 & 25, since 2008 and until c. 2030). The 200-yr de Vries cycle is responsible for the spacing of the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder grand minima during the LIA. The 1000-yr Eddy cycle is responsible for the main climatic periods for the past 2000 years, the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages cold period (also known as the Late Antiquity Little Ice Age), the Medieval Warm Period, the LIA, and the Modern warm period that started c. 1850, with some anthropogenic contribution during the past seven decades.
From paleoclimatic studies the longer the solar cycle, the more profound its climatic effect. The biggest effect comes from the 2500-yr Bray cycle, the longest clearly discernible cycle in solar and climatic studies. This cycle, presented in Part II (Sect. 2.2), and Fig. 2.1, not only established the biological subdivisions of the Holocene (the Boreal, Atlantic, Sub-Boreal, and Sub-Atlantic periods), but also caused great periodic fluctuations in human populations of the past. As Bevan et al. (2017) say:
“We demonstrate multiple instances of human population downturn over the Holocene that coincide with periodic episodes of reduced solar activity and climate reorganization. … This evidence collectively suggests quasi-periodic solar forcing of atmospheric and oceanic circulation with wider climatic consequences.”
Bevan et al. (2017)
Those periodic episodes of human population downturn correspond in great part to the 2500-yr Bray cycle, as can be appreciated in Fig. 2.1 or in their figure 3. One can only imagine the kind of climatic effect of the 2500-yr Bray cycle to cause such downturns in human population.
It appears paradoxical that solar variability has almost no effect on the short term (the 11-year cycle), but a huge effect on the long term (the 2500-yr cycle). The WGK-h also provides an explanation for this cycle-length/climate-effect paradox. As shown in Fig. 5.3, solar activity is not the only modulator of MT. At least the QBO, ENSO, the stadium-wave oscillation, and volcanic eruptions act as modulators of MT, and therefore the effect on a particular year can be the opposite of what solar activity alone would dictate. On top of that during an average activity 11-yr solar cycle close to half of the years act in one direction and close to the other half in the opposite direction. The result is a moderate effect where causality is unclear.
The effect of the QBO and ENSO tends toward an average of nearly zero in a few years, and the multidecadal oscillation in a few decades. The longer the solar cycle the longer the period with low solar activity at its troughs. As we have seen, the biggest climatic effect is produced by continuous periods of decades when most of the years display low solar activity. The small increment in the large amount of energy that the planet loses at each winter pole during low solar years is cumulative, as with the increased energy retained by the rise in CO2. Progressively the planet loses more energy that it gains, and cools down. The longer the cycle, the longer the downturn, and the more profound the cooling. The areas in the MT main paths, particularly the North Atlantic region (including Europe and North America) cool first, longer, and more profoundly, but the energy drain affects the entire planet. And although the Arctic region initially warms due to a larger influx of energy from the enhanced MT, it eventually cools too, as the entire planet gets colder.
Climate is therefore not very sensitive to solar activity until several consecutive 11-yr cycles of consistently low or high solar activity cause the effect to raise above background noise. And then only if the multidecadal stadium-wave oscillation is not acting on MT in the opposite direction. Solar activity and the stadium-wave cooperated during the 1976–1997 climate phase to produce accelerated warming through a strong reduction in MT, that resulted in a long period of global wind stilling (McVicar & Roderik 2010; Zeng et al. 2019) for which no explanation has been provided until now. Since 1998 MT has increased, producing Arctic warming and a pause in global warming. The concatenation of two consecutive low solar activity cycles since 2008 and the approaching shift in the stadium-wave towards an AMO cooling phase, signaled by the recent cooling of the North Atlantic warming hole (46°N–62°N & 46°W–20°W; Latif et al. 2022), spells trouble for the CO2-hypothesis of climate change. The CO2 hypothesis projects accelerating warming for as long as atmospheric CO2 keeps rising. But natural climate change is cyclical, and the modern theory of climate change does not understand that.
In this part of the series, we have seen how changes in solar activity produce changes in climate by modulating the MT of energy towards the poles in a seasonally dependent manner. The result is that the Modern Solar Maximum has significantly contributed to modern global warming, and the current extended solar minimum is at least partially responsible for an ongoing reduced rate of global warming. But the sun’s role as a modulator of poleward energy transport cannot be deduced from first principles. The stratospheric ozone response to UV changes affects MT via the Charney-Drazin criterion, the Holton-Tan effect, and stratospheric-tropospheric coupling. All these atmospheric phenomena derive from observations, not theory. The IPCC considers that solar variability slightly affects climate through small changes in total incoming energy. The top-down mechanism acts through small UV changes that involve even less energy. The change in UV energy, transferred to stratospheric ozone, is partly converted to changes in wind speed. The energy to alter stratospheric circulation dynamics and, through coupling, tropospheric circulation is provided by atmospheric waves generated in the troposphere, not by incoming radiation from the sun. The WGK-h proposes that the energy that alters the climate as a response to solar changes is energy already in the climate system. Under low solar activity this energy is directed to the poles and radiated to space, cooling the planet, and under high activity it remains within the climate system longer, warming the planet. This unexpected energy bypass, that cannot be deduced from theory, is what made the solar-climate question unsolvable for so long. In the last part we will review the evidence that MT is the true climate control knob, and how it can explain the climate changes that have taken place on the planet from the early Eocene hothouse, 52 million years ago, to the present severe icehouse.
The earlier parts of this series on Meridional transport and the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis:
Part 1: The Search for a solar signal.
Part 2: Solar activity and climate, unexplained and ignored.
Part 3: Meridional transport of energy, the most fundamental climate variable.
Part 4: The unexplained climate shift of 1997.
This post originally appeared on Judy Curry’s website, Climate, Etc.
The fundamental point is your claim that
“Figure 5.5 shows that Arctic winter temperature is solar modulated”
but that is just a [poor] correlation and does not establish causation.
I am sure that you can find eminent scientist reminding you that “Correlation is not Causation”.
I think you need to re-read Part II where 5 fundamental phenomena were shown to depend on solar activity, including ENSO and the speed of rotation of the planet.
The causation is established by the top-down mechanism and the mechanism in figure 5.3.
The evidence that the energetics of the planet is affected is in figures 4.5h, and 4.7.
Do not try to reduce the hypothesis to a simple figure to attack it. This is called straw man fallacy.
Figure 5.5 shows that instead of looking for a positive correlation between surface temperature and solar activity, there is an inverse correlation between Arctic winter temperature and solar activity. Something that Takuro Kobashi noticed in his 2015 article:
Kobashi, T., Box, J.E., Vinther, B.M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J.W.C., Nakaegawa, T. and Andresen, C.S., 2015. Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), pp.5992-5999.
You once told me you know Tokuro Kobashi. Just write him and tell him “but that is just a [poor] correlation and does not establish causation.” Then you can tell him I have a hypothesis to establish causation through changing the amount of energy directed to the Arctic. I am sure he will be most interested.
“Figure 5.5 shows that instead of looking for a positive correlation between surface temperature and solar activity, there is an inverse correlation between Arctic winter temperature and solar activity.”
Again: correlation does not establish causation. This is just one more example of your reliance on correlations throughout. None of those establish causation. Re-reading the same nonsense is not helpful.
The lack of significant trend in solar activity [and hence UV] the past 300 years is a good indication of what to expect with regard to climate over the same period even if [and especially so] one believed the solar activity to be a significant driver of climate.
Repeated correlation over a long period of time and linked to multiple phenomena is a good indicator of causation.
And at the same time, absence of correlation excludes causation.
The mechanism is quite simple and has been identified. It is the reason the Southern Ocean has a long cooling trend that will continue. It is the reason the Mediterranean has a long warming trend that will continue.
The solar intensity in the Northern Hemisphere has been increasing for 500 years. It has been reducing in the Southern Hemisphere for the same period. However the seasonal changes are even more significant.
The average increase in solar intensity over northern land mass in April from the minimum 500 years ago is 2.1W/m^2. September is down by 2W/m^2. These are significant climatic changes in just 500 years. The NH oceans have experience a spring to autumn swing of 4.5W/m^2. The average ToA insolation over the northern land masses in December is only 151W/m^2. These regions are reliant on ocean thermal inertia to avoid freezing.
The Northern Hemisphere is trending toward warmer summers and cooler winters. These trends are observable and not caused by solar activity but rather how Earth is exposed to sunlight. There is clear evidence of cycles related to solar activity but the long-term trends are the result of the precession cycle.
What your theory needs to be able to explain is – Why is the Southern Ocean cooling?
And another observation that needs explanation – Why is global rub-off reducing?
If you cannot answer these questions based on your theory then it is not very useful.
It is obviously not very useful to you, since you have a different hypothesis to defend.
“The average increase in solar intensity over northern land mass in April from the minimum 500 years ago is 2.1W/m^2. September is down by 2W/m^2. These are significant climatic changes in just 500 years.”
Thi is a personal opinion unsupported by accurate measurements.
Even if true, which could never be verified, it would be insignificant.
Averaged over the entire planet, the amount of sunlight arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is only one-fourth of the total solar irradiance, or approximately 340 watts per square meter.
2W per square meter would be a six tenths of one percent change in 500 years — insignificant even if true.
I can easily demonstrate the connection between sunlight and surface temperature between the OST limits of -1.8C and 30C.
I am making the point that you have contributed little to understanding if your climate hypothesis does not explain key observations.
Another observation is the steady increase in sea level that is unlinked to any solar cycles.
‘I can easily demonstrate the connection between sunlight and surface temperature between the OST limits of -1.8C and 30C.’
I have agree with the idea that the Milankovich cycles have been a driver of glaciation during the Pleistocene / Holocene, and with your findings re. the OST limits, above. However, climate does exhibit significant variability over much shorter intervals, so assuming that these limits are strictly a function of atmospheric mass, does the areal extent of water subject to these limits vary with climate and, if so, what causes these extents to change?
The trends are since 1995, which is when the solar wind weakened from.
How does this differ from the hypothesis that I have been promulgating for the past several years?
The main difference seems to be that the WGK-h proposes a change in the rate of energy transport to the poles from wavier jet stream tracks whereas I supplement the effect of that process by proposing that wavier tracks involve more clouds which reduce the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans.
However, if one looks at the articles previously provided by me and Philip Mulholland in relation to our Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport mechanism one can readily see that variable meridional transport is at the heart of the climate stabilisation process. Changes in the rate of MT work to prevent surface temperature changes whereas the authors think it works to create them.
I think that what the WGK- h misses is that in order to change the surface temperature set by atmospheric mass convecting up and down within a gravity field at a given level of solar input it is necessary to mimic the effect of changing the distance between Earth and Sun by changing the amount of that input that can be absorbed by the climate system. Changes in global cloudiness will do that but mere changes in MT will not.
In fact the thermal effect from changes in MT alone will be swiftly neutralised by convective adjustments so as to keep surface temperature stable overall just as happens with radiative imbalances from GHGs.
So , a very good overall analysis but as yet it is not complete.
I think you answered your question: “How does this differ from the hypothesis that I have been promulgating?” You’ll be able to find more differences.
The basic analysis as to what is going on seems to be much the same but there are differences of detail as to how it works out in practice.
At the heart of it is the ozone response to solar variability in the stratosphere which is something I drew to Leif’s attention many years ago.
That ozone response appears to change the pattern of MT as you say and the visible manifestation is a change in the meridionality of jet stream tracks.
However, the thermal effect of a more direct MT from equator to poles on its own would simply be a reduction in wind speeds within the more meridional tracks because the warmer poles would reduce the thermal gradient from equator to poles.
Thus there would be no change in average global surface temperature because the system would be delivering energy to the poles at the same speed as before despite a more efficient and direct MT.
To get the change in global surface temperature that you seek to explain it is necessary to alter global albedo which is where cloudiness comes into it.
No. As figure 4.7 showed, the changes in OLR take place at high latitudes during the cold season, when albedo plays no role.
Changes in transport must imply changes in cloudiness due to differences in moisture transport, but so far nobody has shown that changes in the albedo of the planet are a cause for recent climate change. This is because the inter-annual albedo of the planet has been very constant since we have been able to measure it with sufficient precission, presenting changes of only 0.2%.
If your hypothesis depends on changes in albedo, then no wonder it has little impact. They have not been observed. Changes in cloudiness do take place, but they have the effect of keeping albedo almost constant.
In Part IV you said:
“Earth’s albedo anomaly reached its lowest point in 1997 and started increasing (Goode & Pallé 2007).”
It was at the time of that change that jet stream tracks became more meridional (more clouds) and the warming paused.
Your position seems to be that the sun changes the MT pattern so as to cause warming or cooling regardless of cloudiness but I would say that the change in MT pattern would simply be accompanied by convective changes that redistribute surface energy to negate any net surface warming if there were no clouds.
It is the change in cloud amounts that prevent that negation by altering albedo because it changes the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans. In the absence of clouds the MT pattern would make no difference to that.
The small size of the albedo change does not concern me because we are considering very tiny changes in planetary terms. If it turns out that 1.4%/ 0.2% is sufficient then I would not be surprised.
Yes, that is what Goode & Pallé say:
http://research.iac.es/preprints/files/PP07037.pdf
Their observations based on Earthshine must be reconciled with satellite measurements of albedo, as they are two completely different technologies.
As I said, that albedo changes with transport changes is to be expected, as moisture transport also changes. However, what is unexpected is the big change in OLR.
In fact the thermal effect from changes in MT alone will be swiftly neutralised by convective adjustments so as to keep surface temperature stable overall…
That looks a lot like emergent temperature homeostasis of a complex thermal system with multiple dissipative parts.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/07/08/emergent-thermal-homeostasis-a-new-paradigm-for-ex-pluribus-unum-climate-stability/
This diagram from the IPCC AR5 shows virtually no naturally occurring climate forcing since 1750.
A link to the relevant IPCC page says ‘no longer found’.
The same horrendous figure is in AR6 WG1 SPM page 8 or 9 iirc. Here rotated.
The modulation in the narrative for AR6 can (partly) be seen in Figure 2.10 (WG-I report, page 311), especially in the “dot plot” inset.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
There is a strong influence of an 11 year cycle in the Nino34 region.
The frequency analysis of the solar variation due to orbit does not have any peak at an 11 year period. So orbital changes can be ruled out a cause for the 11 year cycle in the Nino34 region.
Over an annual cycle, the temperature of the Nino34 region is inversely correlated with temperature and best correlation is achieved by advancing the temperature 1 month ahead of the sunlight. (This is actually due to the lag in response of the atmosphere to surface warming and the strong negative feedback above 26C OST)
The phase of the temperature swing lags sunspot activity by 31 months. There should be an upswing in Nino34 temperature by the end of this year or first half of next corresponding to the current cycle beginning in 2020.
The ENSO swing works independently of the 11 year cycle but the 2015/16 El Nino occurred right at the peak of the 11 year upswing so reached the highest temperature recorded in the satellite era.
Rick Will:
The 2015-2016 El Nin0 was caused by a massive 29 Megaton decrease in Chinese industrial SO2 aerosol emissions because of an edict to reduce air pollution.
This temporary warming spike was not indicative of any climate shift, or due to any alleged ENSO temperature swing!
Matches the ENSO region perfectly. (El Nino 2015-16)
Matt G.
Yes, it is a perfect match, caused by decreased SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere, as are ALL El Ninos.
World human SO2 emissions have increased consistantly since 2000 according to this from 91MT to 106MT in 2021. Human emisions have had no affect on El Nino’s.
(approx values)
2012 99.5 MT
2013 100.5 MT
2014 101 MT
2015 102 MT
2016 103 MT
2017 103.5 MT
2018 104 MT
Matt G
A very interesting presentation of annual global INDUSTRIAL SO2 aerosol levels, although .CEDS data shows lower levels after 2014 (88 Megatons in in 2015 and 2016, and 72 in 2019)
However, this data is completely unrelated to La Ninas and El Ninos, which are temporary short term events, and whose changing SO2 levels are not included in the industrial data.
Therefore, you cannot use it to say that human emissions have no effect on El Ninos, although, for the most part, they don’t, the only ones being those during American business recessions, due to their idled factories, etc., and the ,1997-98 and 2015-16 El Ninos. .
.
The data is no different being completely unrelated to ENSO as the CEDS data.
The upper ocean 300m warms only a few months before reaching the El Nino3.4 surface. There is no scientific evidence that SO2 emissons are related to this timescale from the event.
Matt G.
What do you think causes the upper ocean 300m to warm up??
According to NASA, SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface. When they settle out, temperatures return to pre-existing levels, and normally enough higher to form an El Nino
Look up “volcanic-induced El Ninos”, others have made the same observation.
As I mentioned earlier, there are actually four different ways that SO2 aerosol emissions fall enough to form an El Nino, and all El Ninos since 1850 .fall into one of the categories.
.
.
Quote:“everything is possibly wrong’ … I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.”
Richard Feynman (1981)
There’s a funny thing, I’ve been saying that for some little time now.
Even funnier is the 7,800+ words of minutia & irrelevance that follow – plenty words about *what* happens and none about *why*
No I didn’t read it all, hardly any in fact.
Life’s too short – let’s try to make it interesting.
Nutshell:”Earth’s Climate System is, as many highly regarded contributors here have said plenty of times, Earth’s Climate System is amazingly robust.
IOW: It is very simple in its operation.
Hence why this essay hits the bin.
I guess you would have had the same reaction to the over 300 pages of minutia & irrelevance that filled the book “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or,: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” A book that changed our view of the world.
Science is clearly not for you. But that’s OK.
I persevered and read the whole thing and the earlier posts leading up to it.
As far as I can discern the underlying proposition is simply that an active sun causes slower transfer of equatorial energy to the poles for a slower loss to space and a warming world whereas it is the opposite for a less active sun.
My problem with that is that the poles lose energy to space at much the same rate regardless due to convective adjustments within the system.
If the poles become warmer or colder than they ‘should’ be then the equator to pole surface temperature gradient changes which alters the speed of the winds delivering energy to the poles for a zero net effect.
There is also the issue of warmer moisture laden air at the poles creating more convection which leads to clouds that prevent surface energy from being lost to space.
Thus the basic proposition of cause and effect seems to fail unless I have missed something.
However, if one adds cloudiness variations for the globe as a whole being linked to the length of jet stream tracks then the effect on global albedo does enable it to work because an albedo change alters the proportion of incoming solar energy able to enter the climate system.
Yes, you have missed figures 4.5h and 4.7. The second one demonstrates that the Arctic changed the rate of energy loss to space at the 1997 climate shift, while the first one demonstrates that the change had an impact in the energy budget of the planet.
I’m considering both poles combined which means that more OLR out from the north in winter would be matched by less OLR out from the south pole in winter.
Whilst OLR from the north pole has indeed increased due to a stronger MT we are seeing exceptionally cold Antarctic winters which means less going out from there.
This is not what has happened. The increase in OLR has not been matched by a decrease anywhere.
According to IPCC theory, without a change in solar energy and/or a change in albedo, a change in OLR could not happen, because energy out must match energy in. Yet without a (significant) change in solar energy, and without a (significant) change in albedo, a (significant) change in OLR has taken place.
Depends on your definition of ‘significant’.
Your Part IV clearly refers to albedo reaching a low point in 1997 and then increasing just at the time that the jets became more meridional so that cloudiness began to increase again and the warming pause began.
IPCC theory refers to a reduction in OLR caused by back radiation with a consequent rise in surface temperature to a new equilibrium so no change in solar energy or albedo required. Thus that is a red herring.
I agree that more effective MT injects more energy towards the poles for greater OLR from the poles. However on our water planet that scenario requires longer jet stream tracks which cause more clouds which inevitably affects albedo so that less energy gets into the oceans.
There is no reason why the two effects cannot run in parallel.
The primary cause for both phenomena being solar variability which we agree on.
If there were no clouds so that albedo remained constant then your gatekeeper hypothesis might still operate but it would not be powerful enough to account for observations.
Since the amount of energy entering the oceans would not change, the system energy content would stay the same and modest changes in wind speeds would simply balance excess OLR out in one place with less OLR elsewhere.
Most likely there would be much less variability in MT in the first place.There might even be none.
It is the water cycle that energises the system and amplifies any gatekeeper effect by changing albedo.
The same would apply to any planet with gases that involve phase changes between solids liquids and gases.
Stephen,
I agree with Javier, but would add that additional moisture transported to the winter pole has no effect other than to add ice, and increase energy emissions to space.
The freezing water emits radiation to space and any clouds that do form, due to the additional moisture, are warmer than the surface and simply emit more radiation than if they were not there. Then the moisture in the clouds freezes, emitting more radiation. The additional transport of moisture is a cooling thing in winter, not a warming thing. Think about how a refrigerator works.
Note that clouds will only radiate at the temperature of their height along the lapse rate slope which usually colder than the surface unless an inversion is present. Clouds will reduce surface radiation to space in the absence of an inversion.
More Clouds also reflect more incoming solar SW back into outer space, which is a far higher W/m^2 than is the IR radiated from cloud tops, admittedly only during daytime as opposed to cloud IR which can be “all day”. However Clausius Clapeyron dictates how many clouds will form to maintain the energy balance…..
DMacKenzie,
There is no Sun in the Arctic winter, north of about 70 degrees. This is why MT has such influence. In the Arctic winter clouds don’t last long, but while they exist, due to enhanced MT, they are major emitters as the moisture in them freezes.
Stephen, Over the Arctic, in winter, the air is mostly warmer than the surface, especially when MT is enhanced, and the polar vortex is weak. Besides during periods of strong MT (weak PV), the Arctic is warmer anyway – more emissions to space.
Andy, I have agreed that the advected air will be warmer than the surface and that a stronger MT will therefore warm the polar surface and increase OLR to space but there are countervailing mechanisms such as the rate at which advected air is transported when the equator to pole temperature gradient is thereby reduced and the insulating effect of more clouds in the absence of an inversion.
I don’t actually disagree with Javier that if top down solar activity increases MT then OLR from the poles would increase.
However, any surge of warm air towards the poles is offset by a surge of cold air towards the equator so any effect on OLR from warmer air at the poles must necessarily be offset by less OLR from cooler air above lower latitudes.
The question then is as to whether any increase of MT from solar variations alone would be enough to explain observations if there were no clouds or oceans.
In the absence of clouds and oceans it would require very little by way of wind speed or pressure distribution changes to offset the proposed thermal effect of the gatekeeper effect described.
Indeed, in the absence of clouds restricting oceanic energy absorption or the oceans inducing a thermal lag the gatekeeper effect proposed by Javier might be so limited as to involve very little if any change in MT.
I look forward to Part VI to see if anything therein changes my view.
In Figure 5.1, is the Combined Anthropogenic bar a combination of ‘Greenhouse gases’ and ‘Other Anthropogenic forcings’? If so, how is it possible that the uncertainty of the combination is so much smaller than either of the 2 effects? Shouldn’t it be larger than either of the individual effects?
It is not for me to defend IPCC meaningless lucubrations, but this is possible if you are capable of measuring the combined effect with more precission than the individual contributions.
“small radiative changes in TSI (about 0.1 % per solar cycle)” What’s the actual amount of energy? Write it out with all the digits, not scientific notation. 0.1% of a very large amount of energy is also a very large amount of energy.
Something to consider about heat flow during the dark pole each winter is that the North pole gets heat influx from both atmospheric and oceanic transport. The South pole depends almost entirely on atmospheric transport due to there being very little ocean south of the Antarctic Circle while the Arctic Circle contains mostly ocean.
At high northern latitudes atmospheric transport completely overwhelms oceanic transport, that becomes irrelevant. See figure 3.4.
The biggest changes by far in Greenland have occurred when the warmer oceanic transport fails to reach its destination in high northern latitudes. (b famous Younger Dryas for example) I would hardly call that irrelevant when using a longer timescale.
?
If this was to occur in the near future (not saying it will) with warm ocean currents going no further North than Spain. Humanity wouldn’t know what hit it and many people in the NH away from the Tropics would be literally thinking it is the end of the world.
The difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic in temperature is huge.
The Antarctic’s annual average temperature is about -49 ° Celsius at the South pole. The Winter mean annual temperature of the interior is about −50 °C. The Summer mean annual temperature of the interior is about −23 °C.
The average Arctic temperature during the winter months is – 34° Celsius but it gets much warmer in the Summer with an average 1-2 ° Celsius.
Dansgaard-Oeschger events require glacial conditions and cannot happen until the sea level has descended at least 35 meters. Chapter 3 in my book (available in September) is a thorough study of the causes, conditions, consequences, and trigger of the D-O events.
I have become an expert in paleoclimate (natural) change. It is from where my hypothesis emerges. It is obviously not a problem for my hypothesis as Part 6 will show.
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was present around the time with significant warming prior to this change. Sea levels around the Younger Dryas were estimated to be about 60m below current levels, so did fit into what you have suggested.
It still shows how huge a contribution the ocean heat transported from the South has been towards the Arctic and the difference in temperature nowadays between the poles. One been ocean surrounded by land and the other land surrounded by ocean.
The problem is that during the glacial period sea ice extended to 55ºN, and at times to 45ºN, so the AMOC got below the ice before it could ventilate quite a lot of the heat it transported. All that heat had nowhere to go and accumulated over millennia waiting until conditions allowed an explosive release to the atmosphere.
That is not what the Younger Dryas showed regarding the AMOC.
Marine fossils in the sea bed showed only Arctic based nowadays, North of Spain back then. It mean’t the AMOC didn’t even get below the ice because it if did warmer marine fossils would had been found in the sea bed. The AMOC during this time never moved further North then the top of Spain. Instead it moved across the North Atlantic ocean about 45N to 40N west to east and veered South back down towards Africa.
There’s quite a lot of bibliography on this. You could start at:
Dokken, T.M., Nisancioglu, K.H., Li, C., Battisti, D.S. and Kissel, C., 2013. Dansgaard‐Oeschger cycles: Interactions between ocean and sea ice intrinsic to the Nordic seas. Paleoceanography, 28(3), pp.491-502.
Thanks for link.
My summary was from observations where marine fossil data could be verified in various different locations of the North Atlantic ocean, not using a model. The sediment obseverd data is not included here to view, so there is no way of knowing what the model did with it. It just becomes speculation when a model can’t be verified. How do they separate any different sub-surface layers in the model? Probably to do with the ratio of marine fossils types found. I will have to check the references for the marine isotopes.
This is just an example below of it actuallly being nice to see sediment data with the locations indicated.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2012GL051800
Sorry, ignore the part about location and sediment data, I had been looking at several papers and thought it was this one you linked. The one you have linked only has one location though.
Matt G
The most likely reason the AMOC had been pushed to the south was because the Atlantic storm track has been pushed to the south during this time. Most likely due to the persistence of northern blocking highs between Greenland and western Russia.
The persistence of these highs (likely to be on a par with the Azores high today) was driving at least one branch of the jet stream further to the south across the Atlantic and europe. Taking the Atlantic storm track and westlies winds with it.
I can’t see the atmosphere controlling something like a huge thermohaline circulation ocean current. (100’s of metres deep) The current will do what it likes dependent on the salinity and temperature conditions with the atmosphere responding to it.
Its the effect it has on the North Atlantic Drift what makes a difference. As its the Atlantic storm track and the west blowing winds which move this current across the Atlantic. So a Atlantic storm track moving to the south will take the North Atlantic Drift with it and so allowing the northern Atlantic to cool.
A huge polar gyre will form in the North Atlantic ocean and this will cause the North Atlantic Drift to push much further South. Atmospheric winds from the west with storms will track this new NAD position to the east. It is most likely due to this gyre and NAD pushed South that northern blocking highs between Greenland and western Russia could become persistant. I thought the ideas you generally had were correct.
With the current climate, Lows can be many around Northern parts of the Arctic especially with a polar vortex, so they could also move South and affect western Russia and Southern Greenland more.
The arctic freezes over during the winter essentially capping the heat in the water from being given up to radiation out, so no heat influx from it. Water south of the ice will give up heat to the atmosphere, but it is up to the atmosphere to get it north to radiate into space.
Just from a common sense look at this, getting heat from the tropics to the polar areas has to happen to have what we see now. Sending more heat should overall cool the planet, sending less should allow it to warm. History shows we have global warming and cooling cycles so there has to be a mechanism or mechanisms in place to cause this.
Aside from Willis telling us TSI doesn’t change much from an active to quiet Sun (although the light spectrum might), the Sun isn’t just sending us photons. During active periods like now we get all kinds of particles blasted at us along with flaring that cause quite a change here on Earth. When you tie in the fact that changes in atmospheric electrical fields cause weather systems to change, which drives the jet streams, things can change. Zonal flow reduces transport, meridional flow increases transport. I don’t know the real answer, but what is in this essay is a pretty good start to find it.
“However, there is no evidence confirming this dogma. It is based on computer model results that were programmed with the same assumptions that emerge from them, in a clear case of circular reasoning.”
Exactly. And this is also the reason why both Pat Frank and Willis Eschenbach were able to convincingly emulate the output of the GCMs from the applied “forcings.” From this insight, the unreliability of all the large-grid, discrete-layer, step-iterated, parameter-tuned GCMs becomes clear, as Pat Frank demonstrated formally here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
The computed simulations have no diagnostic or predictive authority in respect to slowly increasing concentrations of GHGs such as CO2 and CH4. None.
From the article: “The main dogma of climate change science is stated in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as:
However, there is no evidence supporting this dogma.”
There it is! The bottom line. That’s where we are right now.
Javier / Andy,
Thank you for pursuing the connection between solar activity and the Earth’s climate. It’s a pretty heavy lift for me, so I’ll need to digest it over several days to better comprehend your WGK-h hypothesis.
I’ve been interested in climate change since I was a kid, reading and wondering about the rise and fall of ancient, agrarian-based civilizations, and later to the discovery of D-O events with their apparent tie to solar activity. So it makes sense to me that there is at least one exogenous force at work here, and the logical candidate is the sun.
I’m also heartened by the number and quality of the citations in your articles, as this means there is good work being done by other scientists on the solar – climate front. Not because we have to wait until we fully understand climate change in order to refute CO2-centric CAGW alarmism, but for the sake of science itself.
“Not because we have to wait until we fully understand climate change in order to refute CO2-centric CAGW alarmism..”
Excellent point. Non-condensing GHGs are simply not capable of driving the climate to a bad outcome. This can be readily understood by observing the heat-engine-driven motion of the atmosphere, in my view.
How does the increase in energy movement due to atmospheric radiation relate to your hypothesis? Shouldn’t there be an increased LT of energy via CO2 molecules due to the tropics being warmer and the poles colder. More CO2 molecules should increase the emissivity of the atmosphere as would increased evaporation. Is it too small to matter?
Since LW radiation is able to cool the earth and maintain livable conditions, it doesn’t appear to be all that small. An increase in LT would appear to help cool the earth according to your hypothesis. Since the tropics cover a much larger volume than the poles, the energy is directed to a smaller volume and this should enhance the polar warming effect.
The one caveat I could think of was the poles being colder would also be more dense. That means more overall CO2 molecules per meter^3.
Richard,
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, both vertically and areally. The greenhouse effect differences between the poles–especially in the winter–and in the tropics is mostly due to the difference in water vapor concentration, since it condenses out at the poles. In the tropics, the high humidity prevents enough energy transmission to space to balance the incoming. This sets up the meridional transport of energy, which is sometimes enhanced by an El Niño.
When the polar vortex is weak and meridional transport is high, lots of water vapor is transported both in the stratosphere and in the troposphere. When it reaches the polar region and freezes it warms the air around it. Under these conditions more CO2 simply sends more radiation space. If the surface is colder than the air (normal in winter), the CO2 greenhouse effect reverses and more CO2 enhances cooling.
Yes, CO2 is well mixed, but that doesn’t take into account the effect of temperature. The tropics being warmer will radiate more energy per a given concentration of CO2 than will the poles. That is true today.
What changes is that increased CO2 should increase the emissivity of the air as well. The current level of transport should increase. This is not the greenhouse effect itself. This is latitudinal transport (reemissions and reabsorptions) parallel to the surface.
We usually focus on upward and downward transport, but the radiation goes in all directions. Energy also moves sideways from warmer to colder.
I get it that your work has focused more on the historic changes. Just wondering if you had considered the effect of increased CO2.
Richard,
Javier may want to step in here, but my answer is we have not described it at that level. I think van Wijngaarden and Happer’s treatment of the effect of increased CO2 is definitive. I’m certainly not as good at radiation/atmosphere physics as they are, but I think I would recognize a serious mistake and I see none in their papers.
I refer you to them in that regard.
Javier and I just want to make the point that GHGs keep the tropics from radiating away all the energy they receive from the Sun. Thus, the energy is transported poleward for emission. Solar output variations, atmospheric and oceanic oscillations, and the QBO make a difference in how efficient that transfer is. But either way water vapor is the king of the GHGs, the tropics have a lot of it and winter pole has essentially zero. That sets up the transport, I leave it to you or van Wijngaarden and Happer to model it, it is way above my paygrade to do so.
A long article series of long articles deserves a long response.
1. The WGK-h is based on the evidence that MT is one, if not the most important, agent for climate change. -and- MT is the most important modulator of global climate.
The most important modulator of solar activity is the equatorial ocean absorption, which then drives poleward heat transport to the Arctic, which is the secondary response.
That conclusion is mine as well as others such as David Douglass and Robert Knox:
The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures
The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures
2. Solar modulation of ENSO (see Part II) also supports the WGK-h. Low solar activity promotes a stronger MT, favoring La Niña conditions at the equatorial Pacific [my bold]
This is wrong for the same reason as 2a is wrong, see below 2a.
2a. When the system accumulates excess energy, Los Niños occur to efficiently spread the excess through the rest of the climate system. – quote from Part II text [my bold]
2a is a gross error, as it is trivial to find there is no overall warming without El Niños, and no overall warming with La Niña. The heat gets distributed during El Niño not La Niña.
Clear evidence of no heat distribution during La Niña is presented in the next image below, top panel HadSST3: no net warming during La Niña, only from El Niño.
La Niña predictably occur after solar minima due to a cyclic accumulated TSI deficit. The next image snippet is from my 2018 AGU poster about the effect of solar irradiance extremes, which shows a repeating pattern of alternating equatorial OHC cooling under low cycle TSI and then warming from high cycle TSI.
3. The difference in energy loss at the winter pole is large enough to greatly affect the climate of the entire planet when solar activity is consistently high or low for several consecutive solar cycles (i.e., decades).
This is misleading. It’s Sun>Tropics>SST poleward heat transport>Arctic response.
Energy loss at the poles was initialized by high solar activity induced global warming of the ocean, the actual thing that ‘greatly affected the climate of the entire planet’. The author infers the Arctic tail wags the climate dog.
Global warming ensued from El Niños, which then affected the Arctic.
The next set of images shows the strong influence NH SST has on Arctic Sea Ice and 80N temperature, which makes the oceanic component of poleward heat transport from the tropics the most important fact underlying the upward trend in 80N T and downward trend in Sea Ice Extent, ie the Arctic climate.
NH Sea Ice Extent is highly significantly anti-correlated with NH SST (r=-.74), and 80N T is highly anti-correlated with NH SI Extent (r=-.86) at zero lag for both, while 80N T lags NH SST significantly (r=45) by 5 months.
There was no discussion here of the geomagnetic activity effect on the Arctic climate.
Here are two of at least dozens of papers on significant solar influences on the Arctic that were neglected in Javier’s articles.
Causes of non-stationary relationships between geomagnetic activity and the North Atlantic Oscillation
Impact of solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity on polar NOx, ozone and temperature in WACCM simulations
Lastly, where is the statistical support for Javier’s many claims?
Bob,
I struggle to find where we disagree. When energy builds up in the tropical Pacific, an El Niño is triggered that moves the excess heat into the atmosphere, both the troposphere and the stratosphere. During the El Niño itself, the surface warms in the mid-latitudes and often in the polar regions. But the long-term effect is to cool Earth’s surface. There were lots of Los Niños between 1000AD and around 1600 AD as the world cooled into the Little Ice Age, then the number of them declined as we warmed out of the LIA. So, over the short term (3-4 years), weather warms, but climatically, Los Niños are a cooling thing.
Wouldn’t Ninos only be cooling things if the subsequent recharge during the following Nina failed to fully restore oceanic energy ?
Thus you need to alter the energy entering the system during a Nina in order for Ninos to be cooling things
Thus the need for greater global cloudiness.
We need to look at the balance between Ninas and Ninos and not just the number of each.
Stephen,
You lost me, I don’t understand a single thing you wrote. Ninas alternate with neutral, Ninos are the exception. They only occur when needed to rid the oceans of excess energy.
If you refer to Bob Tisdale’s fine work you will see that La Nina is a time of system recharge and El Nino is a time of system discharge.
If there is an imbalance between the two one sees incremental warming or cooling from one PDO cycle to the next.
That is the wrong way of looking at it. As I explained in part II, an individual frequency analysis on Niñas, Niños, and Neutral years shows very clearly that Las Niñas and Neutrals are the two parts of the oscillator, while Los Niños are triggered when excessive heat accumulates in the system.
I don’t think either are you are fully correct on ENSO.
1) El Niño is triggered that moves the excess heat into the atmosphere, both the troposphere and the stratosphere. (this is an energy loss to the system)
2) The long term effect for the El Niño is to cool Earth’s ocean sub-surface. (top 300m)
3) The short term effect for the El Niño is to warm the atmopshere.
4) La Nina involves significant mixing of upwelling water with strong solar energy in the top 300m. (much clearer skies in the Tropics in this situations being the heat source)
5) The long term effect for the La Nina is to warm Earth’s ocean sub-surface. (top 300m)
6) The short term effect for the La Nina is to cool the atmosphere.
7) This mechanism is opposite to the sun cycle activity and because people look at the surface not below, that is why finding the sun influence on climate has been even more difficult for some.
8) Papers on proxies for El Nino’s 1000’s of years ago have shown Ice ages to have had often Strong El Nino’s and during peak warm periods often La Nina’s.
9) El Nino’s should be compared with the climate of that time, so it means if ENSO varied between -4c and -2c anomaly compared with today. The -2c would represent an strong El Nino because it would be a significant peak for that cool period of climate. This is where papers on the subject can claim the opposite view, but not anaylse the data properly.
The link below shows how the ocean top 300m in the ENSO region warms and cools the atmopshere a few months or so ahead.
Additonal information including the current Central and Eastern Pacific Upper-Ocean (0-300 m)
Weekly Average Temperature Anomalies
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Matt,
I agree with everything you wrote, and in fact I stated your points 1-3 myself, so I’m unclear where we disagree. The only point I would add is that La Nina alternates with Neutral and El Nino is the odd duck. El Nino long-term is a cooling mechanism for the climate system, which you also say. I think we agree.
Andy May:
You and Matt are both wrong. All La Ninas are triggered by VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions, although an eruption during an El Nino will not result in a La Nina.
Most, but not all, El Ninos form after the cooling SO2 aerosols from a volcanic eruption settle out of the atmosphere.
For example, if there are no eruptions for 4-5 years, an El Nino will form. This is because it takes time for ALL of the cooling aerosols from an eruption to settle out of the atmosphere, and the Earth’s surface has also been warming in the interim.because of the cleaner air.
For example, warming due to the absence of volcanic eruptions occurred during the LIA, between Fuego (1727) and Shikotsu (1739).
In NO way is an El Nino a long-term cooling system.
Show a plot of SO2 emissions and volcanic eruptions with ocean upper 300m and Nino3.4 like I have demonstrated.
Matt G.
Why would you want such a useless graph as the one you have shown? In only shows temperatures, not the CAUSE of the temperature changes.They can be
Matt G
.They can be determined from an analysis of an ERSST temperature plot.
That is global not just the ENSO upper 300m or surface region.
The graph uses ERSSTv3b with Longitudes shown.
It shows the timescale of how long it takes the upper 300m to warm the surface for the El Nino3.4. If you think that is useless than you literally nothing about the ENSO.
Matt G.
I said that it was worthless in the sense that it showed only temperatures and not the cause of the temperature changes. If you only want to track temperatures at various levels, then it is fine.
It looks like we do agree, the only difference I got was when you mentioned surface rather than sub-surface.
Andy and Javier, as hard as it is to wrap my head around what you have written I keep coming back to the same thought. This whole weather/climate conversation comes down to one thing, it is all working to maintain an environment here on earth for living things. The wonder isn’t that climate changes or weather changes or seasons change. The wonder is that it is as stable as it is. That is not an accident. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is all bunk in my view. I don’t know how these monsters have gotten away with this diabolical scheme as long as they have.
Our cold ocean makes it stable.
And we are in an ice house global climate.
Has anyone ever modeled earth without ocean.
Say our ocean was a big swamp.
Obviously Europe would be very cold.
And seems to me, Earth absorb less than 240 watts on average.
And what else?
No hurricanes.
Arctic ocean or Arctic swamp, would be frozen.
No, tropical ocean global heat engine.
The tropical ocean which is suppose to be swamp, would dry up, but
assume it doesn’t. The simplest way is say ocean is still there, but just
nearly completely covered with vegetation- so it appear to be a vast swamp.
–Such is the hubris of modern climate theory supporters that they believe we understand how climate changes well enough to make reliable projections 75 years into the future.–
It seems if using models, you trying to predict weather. A problem is people imagine weather is climate.
Global climate has not changed much in last 5000 years, other than it appears earth is cooling and we heading towards a glaciation period. When Earth forms ice sheets, it’s climate, and when ice sheet disappear it’s climate.
To think the Little Ice Age would lead to forming ice sheets was not completely foolish, but it didn’t happen. So a climate predict for next 75 years is, that it’s unlikely we will begin to form ice sheets within the 75 years. Though it might happen
within centuries of time.
It seems we suffering from a delusion that warming effects from higher levels of CO2
prevented or will prevent ice sheets from forming.
And I don’t think the beginning of ice sheets forming is particularly important.
They could begin and then recede at some point, but prediction of starting and stopping of Ice sheets, would be related to global climate.
Or Little Ice Age is not climate, it might have been a sign of climate, but was not.
It seems climate is are going to continue the 5000 year cooling.
But what important is predicting weather.
And it does seems that solar activity does effect weather.
It seems one could ask is the Greenland ice sheet going to disappear?
That would be a climate thing. But I see no reason the Greenland ice sheet
will disappear. If Greenland ice sheet increased, that could/should to related to creating a ice sheet on North American- and as said I don’t think it going to happen in next 75 years. Maybe in hundreds of years.
So we might be in Grand Solar Minimum, and this could cause severe cold weather,
but does mean we going increase Greenland’s ice sheet?
What going to happen after the Grand Solar Minimum is over.
It doesn’t seems Greenland ice sheet will grow much in couple of decades.
Javier,
Could you direct me to any evidence that an increase in OLR from the Arctic is not offset elsewhere by a corresponding decrease?
And vice versa.
The thing is that a surge of warm air to the poles is matched by a surge of cold air into lower latitudes so there must then be a decrease of OLR from there.
Isolating the poles with less MT would reduce OLR from the poles but increase OLR from equatorial regions.
The implication is that increasing
MT might result in a redistribution of the pattern of OLR but not a change in total global OLR.
It would then follow that changes in MT can only alter average global surface temperature and thus total global OLR if there is also an albedo change assuming incoming solar remains the same.
As for the size of any albedo variation I note that you accept that it takes as much as two solar cycles for a solar effect to become apparent.
Thus one has to consider the cumulative effect over many years and not just take the size of the change at one moment.
I would say that it could be even longer if internal ocean cycles offset it for a while.
Now you are making stuff up and asking us to respond. We do not respond to assertions that are not backed up, sorry.
I’m asking you to demonstrate that a change in MT will result in a change in average global temperature in the absence of an albedo change.
My so called assertions simply explain why that is necessary.
That is the fundamental requirement implied in your hypothesis.
Maybe Javier can cover it in the next part.
Yes, in the next article, next week. If you don’t want to wait you can look it up yourself at KNMI climate explorer.
I’ll wait for your interpretation of the data.
If you can show that a change in MT can cool the Earth in the absence of an albedo variation I would be interested to see how the atmosphere could be retained if ever the sun behaved in such a way as to permanently settle into a state that either sent more OLR energy from Earth than everything that was coming in from the sun or less OLR enerrgy from Earth than everything that was coming in from the sun.
Your gatekeeper hypothesis implies that the sun oscillates between the two states but what if it suddenly changed with either scenario becoming a permanent feature ?
It would only need a tiny long term imbalance either way to cause a loss of the atmosphere.
There is no planet where that has ever happened.
Lots of assumptions there on your part. Check them. The planet has thermal homeostasis and can adapt. However it doesn’t adapt so well since we entered an ice age.
For the energy lost at the winter pole albedo is irrelevant, as the sun doesn’t shine. If that energy changes, albedo cannot do anything about it. It doesn’t notice it.
For energy lost at the winter pole, convection is relevant.
It is convective adjustments that provide that homeostasis at whatever equilibrium temperature is set by solar input.
If convection fails to fully negate any excess energy gain or energy loss from any specific location then the atmosphere would be lost.
Your hypothesis implies that the sun can upset that homeostasis depending on the amount of MT.
More MT for system cooling and less MT for system warming.
The thing is that if the sun settles down to a specific level of MT then you will have either permanent cooling or permanent warming, either of which would cause the loss of the atmosphere.
In reality it cannot happen because convection is the gatekeeper, not solar activity.
If one has a planet with clouds then they can mimic the effect of a change in solar input by altering albedo but if that happens then convection will adjust to a new equilibrium temperature related to the change in albedo. Convection will then maintain homeostasis at the new equilibrium temperature.
Either way, convection is the gatekeeper and not solar activity.
That interpretation of events fits all the observational material that you have exhaustively set out.
Javier – Cepheid variable stars discovered in 1908 by Henrietta Swan Leavitt oscillate monotonously with a stationary frequency. Thus they’re useful for mapping distances. This brightness oscillation is caused by a recurring feedback involving helium 1+ and 2+ ions.
Our sun is not a Cepheid variable. But is there any oscillatory feedback involving He 1+ and 2+ that contributes to some solar variability? Or is this mechanism not involved?
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/cepheid-variable-stars-what-light-do-they-shed-on-back-radiation-feedbacks-and-climate-oscillations/
Solar cycles receive the name of important solar researchers. The 11-yr Schwabe cycle, the 22-yr Hale cycle, the 100-yr Feynman cycle, the 200-yr de Vries cycle, the 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the 2500-yr Bray cycle have all been described in the scientific literature as having a climatic effect (see Vinós 2022, and references within).
Are we sure these are all real stationary oscillations – or is it chaotic oscillation disguising itself as a large set of different frequencies? Are some of these frequencies and named cycles just Fourier artefacts?