The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VI). Meridional transport is the main climate change driver

by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“No philosopher has been able with his own strength to lift this veil stretched by nature over all the first principles of things. Men argue, nature acts.”

Voltaire (1764)

6.1 Introduction

Climate is a thermodynamic process determined by the energy flux from its entry point, mostly at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) of the tropics on the day side of the planet, to its exit point distributed across the TOA of the entire planet. The Earth’s infrared emission depends on the absolute temperature scale, and on this scale the planet’s surface temperatures occupy a narrow range. The average outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) emission of the planet is c. 240 W/m2 and the all-sky average for most of the surface is in a relatively narrow 200–280 W/m2 range (Dewitte & Clerbaux 2018). OLR is determined more by the irregular distribution of atmospheric water (cloud and humidity) than by surface temperature. The cloud effect on OLR can reach –80 W/m2 (negative values mean cooling) in some equatorial areas. Thus, while 62 % of the energy enters the climate system over 25 % of the Earth’s TOA area (the 30°N-S daytime side), its exit is much more evenly distributed over the entire TOA area.

From a thermodynamic point of view the main feature of Earth’s climate is the transport of energy. Energy transport is the cause of all weather. Most of the solar energy that is not reflected is stored in the oceans, where most of the climate system energy resides. But the oceans are not good at transporting energy (see Fig. 3.4). Differences in water temperature tend to cause vertical movements through altered buoyancy, not lateral movements, and the oceans are temperature stratified, seriously limiting vertical energy transport. Most of the energy in the climate system is transported by the atmosphere, and even a great part of the energy transported by surface ocean currents is wind driven, as ocean circulation is not thermally, but mechanically driven (Huang 2004). The flux of non-solar energy at the atmospheric-ocean boundary (including across sea-ice) is almost always, almost everywhere, from the ocean to the atmosphere (Yu & Weller 2007; Schmitt 2018).

In a simplified form the climate can be understood as solar energy being received and stored by the ocean, and then transferred to the atmosphere for transport and ultimately discharged to space. This energy transfer powers the water cycle creating clouds, rain, snow, storms, and all-weather phenomena. The system is never in equilibrium, nor can it be expected to be. Over the course of a year, the Earth’s surface warms by c. 3.8 °C and cools by c. 3.8 °C (see Fig. 3.1), varying from year-to-year about 0.1–0.2 °C. The Earth is constantly warming or cooling at all timescales.

Thermodynamically, climate change involves changes in energy gain, energy loss, or both. A rapid change in energy distribution within the climate system can also be a cause for climate change, and it has been known to happen in the past under special circumstances, like the abrupt release of meltwater from the Lake Agassiz outburst 8,200 years ago (Lewis et al. 2012), or the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, when ocean-stored energy was abruptly released to the atmosphere in the Nordic Seas basin during the last glacial period (Dokken et al. 2013). These changes were temporary because climate can only change long-term through a change in the energy budget of the system.

The modern theory of climate change understands climate thermodynamics but fails to understand the role of energy redistribution. When studying climate variables, scientists normally work with what are called “anomalies;” they are the residual of subtracting the “climatology,” or the average changes over 24-hour days and seasons in the variables studied. This point of view magnifies small interannual variabilities but conceals the much larger seasonal changes. The result is that important seasonal changes in atmospheric and oceanic energy redistribution are usually ignored. The error is compounded because net energy transport within the climate system, if integrated for the entire planet, is zero (energy lost at one place is gained in another). Redistribution of energy by transport processes doesn’t matter to most scientists in terms of changing the global climate. To them, the TOA over the dark pole in winter is no different than the daylight tropical TOA, except in the absolute magnitude of the annually averaged energy flux. This narrow view obstructs a proper understanding of climate change.

Changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) alter TOA energy fluxes and constitute one cause of climate change. Conceptually, climate change is assumed to be due either to an external cause (forcing), or to internal variability. Fig. 6.1 shows a schematic representation of the climate system with many important subsystems and processes. Anything that is not affected by Earth’s climate system is considered external, although the distinction is not absolute. For example, volcanoes are often external to the climate system, however it is known that their frequency responds to changes in sea level and icesheet unloading during deglaciations (Huybers & Langmuir 2009). Forcings cause climate change, and feedbacks can cause the amplitude of the changes to increase or decrease. If the feedback amplifies the forcing effect it is positive, if it dampens the climate change, it is negative. It becomes confusing because the same factor can be both a feedback, if produced naturally in response to climate change, and simultaneously a forcing if produced by humans. Several GHGs are like that.

Fig. 6.1. Simplified schematic representation of Earth’s climate system. Different subsystems are shown with different background colors. Climatic phenomena and processes affecting climate are in white boxes. Subsystems and phenomena within the central pearl-colored box are generally considered internal to the climate system.

In Figure 6.1, everything outside the “Internal” pearl colored box is normally not affected by climate (with some exceptions) and is considered external. Some important properties or phenomena at the interface between subsystems are placed in the outside boxes. The Latitudinal (Equator-to-Pole) Temperature Gradient is a central property of the climate system that changes continuously and defines the thermal state of the planet (Scotese 2016). For simplification, lines joining related boxes have been omitted. Bold names in red are variables affecting the radiative budget and are almost exclusively responsible for Modern Global Warming according to the IPCC. The figure is from Vinós 2022.

The most important GHG due to its abundance is water vapor. Unlike CO2 or methane, water vapor is a condensing GHG and it is not well mixed. Water vapor is very unevenly distributed around the planet, and its distribution changes with time. The lowest concentration of water vapor occurs in the polar regions during winter. The radiative properties of different regions of the planet cannot be the same if their GHG content is different. It follows that transporting energy from a higher GHG-content region to a lower one increases outgoing radiation efficiency, and therefore, changes in transport must alter the global energy flux budget at the TOA and, as a result, cause climate change. At present that cause is not being considered. Evidence suggests it is the main cause for climate change at all timescales from decades to millions of years. Planetary thermodynamics requires that energy transport is mostly from the equatorial region toward both poles in the direction of the meridians, so the flow is termed meridional transport (MT).

6.2 Meridional transport is geographically determined and gradient powered

The energy that the atmosphere gains from the oceans is mainly in the form of latent heat. Longwave radiation transfer is roughly half as large, and sensible heat flux is an order of magnitude less (Schmitt 2018). Atmospheric transport of that energy is greatly diminished by the presence of continents and mountain ranges through precipitation and wind speed reduction. As a result, MT takes place mainly over the ocean basins and is, therefore, geographically determined. This has huge implications for weather, climate, and climate change.

In the physical universe processes tend to happen spontaneously along gradients, whether they are gradients in mass, energy, or any manifestation of them, like gravity, pressure, or temperature. The gradient that powers MT is the latitudinal temperature gradient (LTG), its primary cause. The LTG is a product of the latitudinal insolation gradient (LIG, the unequal distribution of incident solar radiation by latitude), modulated by the effect of geographic and climate determinants. The LTG is steeper towards the South Pole (see Fig. 3.3b), despite an annually symmetrical LIG with respect to the equator. Antarctica’s unique geographic and climatic conditions, and the large area covered by the Southern Hemisphere oceans, make the southern LTG steeper than the northern. Cionco et al. (2020a; 2020b) discuss neglected changes to the LIG at different latitudes during the Holocene, and high frequency variations in LIG due to the 18.63-yr lunal nodal cycle that are likely to affect climate.

Milanković’s 1920 proposal that the climate of the Earth is altered by orbital changes has its basis in differences in the amount of energy received by the planet (eccentricity), but more importantly on differences in the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of the energy (obliquity and precession). These changes in the distribution of the energy alter the LIG, which changes the LTG, which changes the MT of energy. It has long been debated how the obliquity signal that paces interglacials (Huybers & Wunsch 2005), affects the tropics (Rossignol-Strick 1985; Liu et al. 2015) where the energy changes due to obliquity are very small. The answer appears to be that obliquity-induced changes in the LIG (Bosmans et al. 2015) affect MT.

Summer LIG is affected by changes to Earth’s axial tilt caused by the 41 kyr obliquity cycle and by the 18.6 yr lunar cycle. The winter LIG varies with the level of insolation falling on low latitudes, since high latitude insolation, near the winter pole, is minimal (Davis & Brewer 2011). The changes in the level of insolation at low latitudes are due to Earth’s wobble (21 kyr precession cycle), the distance to the sun (95 and 125 kyr eccentricity cycles) and by changes in solar activity (11 yr and longer solar cycles). Davis and Brewer (2011) have shown that the LTG is very sensitive to changes in the LIG. It is unknown why this hypersensitivity exists. The authors discuss the Kleidon and Lorenz (2005) proposal that MT adjusts itself to produce maximum entropy (Fig. 6.2).

Fig. 6.2. The proposition that meridional transport adjusts itself to produce maximum entropy. The latitudinal temperature gradient, resulting from the difference between tropical (continuous line) and polar (dashed line) temperatures is represented by the gray area. Entropy production (dotted line) is minimal when there is no transport of energy (left side of abscissa), or when transport is so efficient that there is no temperature difference (right side of abscissa), and maximal at some point in between. After Kleidon and Lorenz (2005).

Kleidon and Lorenz (2005) claim that MT dependence on maximum entropy production has been confirmed by simulations with general circulation models. They are obviously wrong, as computer models only constitute scientific evidence of human programming skills. That MT adjusts automatically to maximum entropy production requires a very large number of degrees of freedom (possible outcomes), and as reviewed in part V (Sec. 5.2) MT is modulated by multiple factors that are not well represented in computer models, which reduces the degrees of freedom. It is very likely that the adjustment of the LTG to the LIG is driven in part by entropy, but the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis (WGK-h; see part V) explains how the LIG can affect the LTG by directly acting on MT. It is important to keep in mind that if the LTG can change MT, the opposite must also happen, so the causality of the changes might be difficult to determine.

The WGK-h provides an explanation for the hypersensitivity of the LTG to changes in the LIG due to changes in solar activity, but not by other causes such as lunar or orbital changes. Within the evidence that the LIG responds to the lunar 18-yr cycle and the solar 11-yr cycle (Davis & Brewer 2011), it is interesting to see that the stadium-wave multidecadal oscillation in MT could be pulsating at the rhythm marked by the interference between the lunar 9-yr half-cycle and the solar 11-yr cycle (Vinós 2022; see Fig. 4.8f). If real, changes in the LIG resulting from this interference provide a mechanism by which the stadium-wave period and strength are determined, i.e., the changes in the LIG result in changes in MT that ultimately shape the stadium-wave.

While the LIG determines the distribution of the energy input to the climate system at the TOA, 29 % of that energy is returned to space by atmospheric and surface albedo. Reflected solar energy is highest during Jan-Mar due to SH cloud albedo, while OLR is highest Jun-Aug due to higher emission during NH summer (Fig. 6.3). The result of these differences is that the planet is colder during the boreal winter, when it is closest to the sun and receiving 6.9 % more energy (see Sect. 3.1 & Fig. 3.1).

There are very important differences between the hemispheres regarding climate energy and transport. As figure 6.3a shows, outside the tropics OLR essentially follows temperature. Within the tropics OLR and temperature show inverse correlation, as higher temperature leads to increased cloud cover and less emission. According to the modern theory of climate change the increase in GHGs results in the same IR emission to space taking place from a higher, colder altitude, requiring surface warming to maintain the energy balance. The Earth must emit the same energy it receives, not more, unless it is cooling. Under this model inter-annual OLR from the TOA should not change unless there is a change in incoming solar energy or in albedo.

Albedo has been very constant since we have been able to measure it with sufficient precision, with an inter-annual variability of 0.2 Wm–2 (0.2 %; Stephens et al. 2015), and solar energy, termed the solar constant, varies by only 0.1 % (Lean 2017). Yet, OLR inter-annual changes are ten times higher than GHG radiative forcing changes. What is worse, the inter-annual changes in OLR are neither global, nor follow temperature changes (Fig. 6.3b). While extratropical SH OLR shows no trend over the last four decades, and tropical OLR shows a small and insignificant trend, the extratropical NH OLR displays a very strong increase. Is this increase due to the higher warming experienced by the NH? According to the data it is not, because during the 1980s and 90s when accelerated warming took place OLR did not increase significantly, while between 1997-2007, when the Pause was taking place, extratropical NH OLR underwent most of the increase of the past four decades (Fig. 6.3b grey area). It logically follows that the negative anomaly in extratropical NH OLR before 2000 contributed to the warming, while the positive anomaly afterwards contributed to the Pause. Obviously, the increase in GHGs cannot explain any of this, but the changes in MT that took place at the 1997-98 climate shift have no problem explaining the coincident changes in OLR at the extratropical NH (see Part IV).

Fig. 6.3. Outgoing longwave radiation yearly and inter-annual changes.

In Figure 6.3, (a) shows monthly changes in TSI (dotted orange curve without scale); the data are from Carlson et al. 2019. The monthly changes in average temperature are shown using red curves (left scale); global average temperature is the thick continuous red curve, the NH is the thin continuous red curve, and the SH is the thin dashed red curve. The data are from Jones et al. 1999. The monthly changes in OLR are shown as black curves and use the right scale; the global outgoing radiation is the thick continuous black curve, 30–90°N is the thin continuous black curve, 30–90°S is the thin dashed black curve, 30°S–30°N is the thin dotted black curve. The data are from KNMI explorer. The grey area is the NH winter period.

Figure 6.3 (b) shows the 1979–2021 changes in the OLR anomaly for the 30–90°N (thick continuous black curve), 30–90°S (thick dashed black curve), and 30°S–30°N (thick dotted black curve) regions. Corresponding thin lines are their least-squares trends. The grey area corresponds to the 1997–2006 period that displayed accelerated Arctic climate change as described in section 4.5. The data are from the KNMI explorer section for NOAA OLR.

One of the most puzzling aspects of climate is that, despite very different land, ocean, and snow/ice surface extensions, both hemispheres have essentially the same albedo. This phenomenon is known as hemispheric albedo symmetry (Datseris & Stevens 2021). Models fail to reproduce such a crucial aspect of the climate, because nobody knows how it is produced and maintained (Stephens et al. 2015). Datseris & Stevens (2021) have identified cloud asymmetries over extratropical storm tracks as the compensating factor of the surface albedo asymmetries. Storm tracks are MT highways over already MT-favored oceanic basins. Storms are the product of baroclinic instability along the LTG and transport a great amount of energy as latent heat. They are also responsible for a significant part of global cloudiness, linking MT to cloud cover. Changes in MT must necessarily result in changes in cloudiness, altering the climate. If the albedo of the Earth is kept symmetrical by changes in storm track cloudiness, albedo is probably another fundamental climate property linked to the strength of MT.

6.3 ENSO: The tropical ocean control center

The climate system is composed of the oceans, land surface, biosphere, cryosphere, and atmosphere (Fig. 6.1). These different components exchange mass and energy, but for the climate system as a whole, energy gains and loses take place at the TOA. Parts of the TOA where the energy gain/loss ratio is positive, mainly above the tropics, constitute an energy source for the climate system, while the rest of the TOA acts as an energy sink. The biggest energy sink is the TOA above the winter pole. On average, energy enters the system at the source and is passed from climate component to climate component as it is transported towards the sink. The flux of energy through the climate system is characterized by both temporal and spatial variability. As a result, the amount of energy in transit through any element of the transport system changes over time, altering the enthalpy (total “heat” content) of the element, often observed as a change in temperature. We infer the regulation of MT by certain control centers that constitute energy gateways into and out of the climate system. These MT control centers are the polar vortex (PV), ENSO system, and the ozone layer. Their conditions change in response to changes in the main modulators of MT, resulting in changes in global energy transport.

The absorption of solar energy in the tropics is spectrally differentiated. The 200–315 nm part of the spectrum is absorbed in the stratospheric ozone layer, while the 320–700 nm part is mainly absorbed in the photic layer of the tropical oceans. The energy absorbed by the ocean is transported poleward in three different ways (Fig. 6.4). Part of it reaches the stratosphere through convection and constitutes the ascending branch of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, another part is transported in the troposphere by the Hadley circulation, and the last part is transported by the ocean. The ENSO state dictates the relative distribution of the energy to be transported. La Niña favors oceanic transport, while ENSO Neutral increases atmospheric transport. At certain times the amount of energy to be transported exceeds capacity and an El Niño is triggered.

El Niño directs a great amount of energy towards the stratosphere and troposphere, extracting it from the ocean and warming the surface of the planet in the process. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum (9–5.5 ka) the planet was warmer, MT was reduced as a consequence, and it resulted in a very reduced frequency of Los Niños (Moy et al. 2002). During the Neoglacial Period (since 5.2 ka) the frequency and intensity of Los Niños increased. In periods of planetary cooling, more energy must be transported poleward as part of the cooling process, which explains the increase in Los Niños from 1000–1400 AD as the world descended into the Little Ice Age (LIA; Moy et al. 2002). Over the past two centuries El Niño frequency has been low and trending lower because the planet is warming, and this is accomplished by reduced MT. At present El Niño conditions are produced by accumulation of subsurface warm water (the main El Niño predictor, see Fig. 2.4c) or by a decrease in the Brewer Dobson circulation in response to a stronger PV during the first boreal winter after tropical or NH stratospheric-reaching volcanic eruptions (Kodera 1995; Stenchikov et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2018).

Fig. 6.4. Northern Hemisphere winter meridional transport outline.

A shown in Figure 6.4, the energy gain/loss ratio at the TOA determines the maximal energy source at the tropical band and the maximal energy sink at the Arctic in winter. Incoming solar energy is distributed in the stratosphere and troposphere/surface where it is subjected to different transport modulation. Energy (white arrows) ascends from the surface to the stratosphere at the tropical pipe (left dashed line) and is transported towards the polar vortex (right dashed line) by the Brewer–Dobson circulation. Stratospheric transport is determined by UV heating at the tropical ozone layer, that establishes a temperature gradient affecting zonal wind strength through thermal wind balance, and by the QBO. This double control determines the behavior of planetary waves (black arrows) and determines if the polar vortex undergoes a biennial coupling with the QBO (BO).

At the tropical ocean mixed-layer ENSO is the main energy distribution modulator. While the Hadley cell participates in energy transport and responds to its intensity by expanding or contracting, most energy transport in the tropics is done by the ocean. Changes in transport intensity result in the main modes of variability, the AMO, and PDO. Outside the tropics most of the energy is transferred to the troposphere, where synoptic transport by eddies along storm tracks are responsible for the bulk of the transport to high latitudes. The strength of the polar vortex determines the high latitudes winter climate regime. A weak vortex promotes a warm Arctic/ cold continents winter regime, where more energy enters the Arctic exchanged by cold air masses moving out. Jet streams (PJS, polar; TJS, tropical; PNJ, polar night) constitute the boundaries and limit transport. Figure 6.4 is from Vinós 2022.

It is clear that ENSO strongly affects the MT of energy. It is therefore surprising that it is considered a climate fluctuation (Timmermann et al. 2018). Its location at the entry point of most of the energy into the climate system makes it a control center for MT that is modulated by solar activity (see Fig. 2.4). It is well known that ENSO responds to stratospheric conditions (e.g., volcanic eruptions) and subsurface conditions (warm water volume), thus linking MT at different levels. Paleoclimatology shows it responds to planetary thermodynamics, i.e., it is related to how the planet warms and cools. As Moy et al. (2002) say:

“We observe that Bond events tend to occur during periods of low ENSO activity immediately following a period of high ENSO activity, which suggests that some link may exist between the two systems.”

Moy et al. (2002)

Bond events are century-long cold periods, like the LIA, that are brought about in part by strongly increasing ENSO activity (frequent, strong Niños). After the planet stops cooling ENSO activity decreases.

6.4 Ozone: The tropical stratosphere control center

The 200–315 nm part of the solar energy spectrum is absorbed in the stratospheric ozone layer, where it has a large effect on temperature and circulation. Although the energy at that wavelength range only amounts to slightly over 1 % of the total (Lean 2017), it varies with solar activity ten times more than the >320 nm range and is responsible for the radiative and dynamic changes that take place in the stratosphere during the solar cycle. UV energy absorption in the stratosphere is on average 3.85 W/m2 (Eddy et al. 2003; one fourth of 15.4 W/m2). This is not a small amount. It constitutes 5 % of the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere (Wild et al. 2019). The ozone control center handles a significant part of the energy received by the climate, despite being just the UV energy portion.

The stratosphere is c. 5 times larger than the troposphere and contains c. 5 times less mass. With a density over an order of magnitude lower, the effect of the absorbed solar energy on stratospheric temperature is huge. Without ozone the stratosphere would be 50 K colder and the tropopause would not exist (Reck 1976). The ozone layer is a peculiarity of the Earth, as a result of atmospheric oxygenation, that probably developed during the Ediacaran or Cambrian, some 600–480 Ma.

Ozone absorption of solar energy in the stratosphere allows the formation of a stratospheric LTG that depends on UV energy, ozone amount, and ozone distribution. The gradient forms through shortwave heating of ozone and radiative longwave transfer involving mainly CO2 and ozone. Along this gradient the zonal wind circulation is established by the balance between the pressure gradient and the Coriolis factor (geostrophic balance). As a result, stratospheric circulation is opposite in both hemispheres, with the winter hemispheric circulation characterized by westerly winds and the formation of a polar vortex (see Fig. 3.7).

Planetary waves generated at the troposphere can only propagate upwards when stratospheric winds are westerly and of a certain velocity range (Charney-Drazin criterion). These conditions are present in winter, and as a result winter stratospheric circulation is more perturbed (Haynes 2005), resulting in higher MT. Planetary waves are generated more efficiently by orography (the location mountains) and land/ocean contrasts, they are more frequent in the boreal winter. Planetary waves deposit energy and momentum in the stratosphere when they break, and occasionally are deflected downward towards the troposphere affecting circulation there. Their effect in the stratosphere is to drive meridional circulation, reduce westerly circulation, and weaken the polar vortex. As a result, stratospheric MT, known as the Brewer Dobson circulation, depends on the wave flux.

In extreme cases planetary waves reduce winter westerly circulation so much as to make the zonal circulation easterly, causing sudden stratospheric warming as air is forced down and warms adiabatically, while the vortex splits or is displaced away from the pole. This happens about every other year in the NH, but rarely in the SH, and has great repercussions for tropospheric weather. Changes that take place in the winter stratosphere affect weather on the surface on a longer timescale due to stratospheric-tropospheric downward coupling. Unambiguous observations of stratospheric variability affecting the surface show up in the Arctic Oscillation (Northern Annular Mode), North Atlantic sea-level pressures, extreme weather events, the frequency of winter cold spells, the position of the tropospheric mid-latitude jet, and low frequency variations in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Baldwin et al. 2019). Stratospheric variability partly controls the tropospheric heat flux into the Arctic (Baldwin et al. 2019), showing that ozone response to solar radiation in the stratosphere acts as a major control center for MT.

Stratospheric circulation and variability are the result of ozone and its response to solar energy. Furthermore, the stratosphere, itself, is the result of ozone. Solar UV energy has two separate roles in the stratosphere. Through photolysis of oxygen and ozone it regulates the amount of ozone, and through radiative heating it regulates the stratospheric LTG which sets up stratospheric circulation and its response to planetary wave flux. The effect of wave flux on the Brewer Dobson circulation (i.e., stratospheric MT) has been termed the “extratropical pump” (Haynes 2005). As a result, the ozone control center participates in the modulation of MT of energy and is sensitive to changes in solar activity through photolysis and shortwave radiative heating rates (Bednarz et al. 2019). The body of evidence on the impact of solar variability on tropospheric climate through changes in the state of the stratosphere has significantly grown in the last few decades (Haigh 2010).

6.5 The polar vortex control center

Together with sea-ice, the PV constitutes a negative feedback to planetary cooling. It forms due to strong cooling in the polar autumn because of very low insolation and sea-ice formation. Atmospheric cooling increases air density, and as the cold air sinks it creates a low-pressure center with cyclonic (counterclockwise in the NH) circulation around the pole. As the westerly winds become stronger, they isolate the interior of the vortex where radiative cooling continues. The strong winter temperature contrast drives the zonal wind circulation that stabilizes the vortex until the sun returns. Without a PV (and sea-ice) the planet would lose a lot more energy every winter. It is thus trivially evident that a strong PV favors planetary warming, and a weak PV favors planetary cooling. The PV is a product of winter zonal circulation. Since MT is driven by meridional circulation that takes place at the expense of zonal circulation, the PV constitutes one of the main MT control centers. It regulates energy access to the biggest energy sink in the planet, the winter polar TOA (see Fig. 3.2).

The discovery of the PV response to the equatorial Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO; Holton & Tan 1980) shows that the PV is not solely the result of high latitude atmospheric conditions. It was later found that PV conditions also responded to the solar cycle (Labitzke 1987), even though the sun doesn’t shine above the pole in winter. After the Pinatubo eruption it became clear that the PV was also affected by stratosphere-reaching volcanic eruptions (Stenchikov et al. 2002; Azoulay et al. 2021), resulting in volcanic winter warming at mid-high latitudes instead of the expected cooling due to solar energy reduction from stratospheric aerosols. It is clear now that the PV responds to changes in the stratospheric LTG and to changes in the propagation of planetary waves in the stratosphere. Planetary waves deposit energy and momentum close to the vortex in the winter stratosphere which weakens the strong potential vorticity gradient of the vortex. Vortex dynamics cause wave perturbations to travel downwards making the vortex more susceptible to successive lower altitude waves and propagating the effect to the troposphere (Scott & Dritschel 2005). This provides an explanation for the stratosphere-troposphere downward coupling at high latitudes.

Thus, PV strength is the result of equatorial-polar gradients in temperature, zonal wind speed and potential vorticity that determine planetary wave effect on the zonal flow (Monier & Weare 2011). PV strength also depends on upward wave activity (Lawrence et al. 2020). As we have seen (Sects. 4.7 & 5.4; Christiansen 2010), PV strength experiences inter-annual and multidecadal oscillations that affect the Arctic Oscillation and surface weather events, like the frequency of severe winter cold air outbreaks (Huang et al. 2021).

Multidecadal changes in PV strength have confused atmospheric scientists for a long time (Wallace 2000). Multidecadal periods when the polar vortex is stronger than average result in the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific sectors behaving as a true Northern Annular Mode (NAM; Fig. 6.5a & c), with a seesaw relationship between the Aleutian and Icelandic Lows (Shi & Nakamura 2014), restricting heat and moisture transport into the Arctic. In contrast, multidecadal periods when the polar vortex is weaker than average result in a situation best described by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO; Fig. 6.5b), with weak Aleutian Low interannual variability and less restricted Arctic transport. The scientific literature discussions about whether the NAO or the NAM paradigms better describe the main NH extra-tropical atmospheric mode of variability (Wallace 2000), appear to ignore that its changing nature is linked to climate regime shifts (see Part IV) that characterize climate change.

Fig. 6.5. The shifting nature of the Northern Annular Mode/North Atlantic Oscillation.

The three maps in Figure 6.5 are the first empirical orthogonal function of winter-mean SLP anomalies over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (poleward of 20°N) for three 25-yr periods, whose central years are noted above the maps. Color interval is for 1.5 hPa (positive in red), and zero lines are omitted. The polarity corresponds to the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation. A true northern annular mode requires the coordination of the three centers of action, otherwise it can be better described as a North Atlantic Oscillation. Figure 6.5 is after Shi and Nakamura 2014.

The PV regulates the exchange of air masses, moisture, and energy between the mid-latitudes and the polar latitudes. It responds to tropospheric climate shifts, stratospheric conditions, and is affected by the propagation and reflection/absorption of planetary waves. It is modulated by solar activity, ENSO, the QBO, and volcanic eruptions, constituting a control center for MT.

6.6 Multidecadal modes: The state of meridional transport

Nearly all the energy and all the moisture transported poleward takes place in the troposphere and upper ocean. As the intensity of this transport varies geographically over time it gives rise to what has been termed modes of climate variability. These modes of variability have fluctuated in the 20th century with a c. 65-yr multidecadal oscillation that produces observed shifts in climate regimes. This oscillation, termed here the stadium-wave (Wyatt & Curry 2014), was detected in global sea-surface temperature (SST), and has been observed in North Atlantic sea level pressure and winds (Kushnir 1994), North Pacific and North American temperature (Minobe 1997), length of day and core angular momentum (Hide et al. 2000), fish populations (Mantua et al. 1997; Klyashtorin 2001), Arctic temperature and sea ice extent (Polyakov et al. 2004), the relative frequency of ENSO events (Verdon & Franks 2006), and global mean sea level (Jevrejeva et al. 2008).

The stadium-wave reflects global MT system variability. The oscillation mostly affects the two ocean basins that communicate directly with both poles, particularly from the equator (ENSO) to the NH high latitudes, and it affects the rotation of the Earth through changes in the angular momentum of the atmosphere (Hide et al. 2000; Klyashtorin & Lyubushin 2007), showing the coupled response of the ocean and the atmosphere. The multidecadal oscillations in SST (Atlantic multidecadal and Pacific decadal oscillations, AMO and PDO) are simply a reflection of the MT energy flux through these elements. Since the amount of energy entering the climate system on an annual basis is nearly constant, the warm phases of the AMO and PDO simply reflect a slowdown in MT causing an energy flux traffic jam. More energy resides at that time in those elements, perhaps due to a reduced ocean-atmosphere flux caused by a predominantly zonal wind pattern in the mid-latitudes. The AMO spatial pattern, obtained by regression of North Atlantic SST anomalies after subtracting the global SST anomalies, reveals that the AMO is the Atlantic portion of a global MT system that moves heat poleward. The global system includes the Pacific and Indian basins, as shown in Fig. 6.6. It shows that the NH SST oscillation of the AMO is phase-locked with other global SST oscillations, reflecting coordinated changes in the global MT system.

Fig. 6.6. Atlantic multidecadal oscillation spatial pattern. Unitless (°C/°C) regression pattern of monthly SST anomalies (HadISST 1870–2008), after subtracting the global mean anomaly from the North Atlantic SST anomaly.

Fig. 6.6 displays the °C of SST change per °C of AMO index. Besides displaying the AMO pattern, it shows that AMO is linked to the global surface MT system that extracts heat from the tropics in the main ocean basins. Figure 6.6 is after Deser et al. 2010.

This global MT system is the complex result of the geographically determined coupled atmosphere-ocean circulation in a rotating planet with its axis tilted in relation to the ecliptic, that receives most of its energy in the tropics. Since the transport intensity varies through time and space, authors typically focus on describing its regional variability, and talk about teleconnections and atmospheric bridges to try and explain what are, in essence, elements of a single very complex process (Fig. 6.7). The importance of MT for the planet’s climate cannot be overstated and multidecadal changes in MT are an important and overlooked factor in climate change. It is a common assumption that the sum of multidecadal variability effects over time trends to zero. Studies on the change in the AMO amplitude over the past six centuries (Moore et al. 2017) show this assumption is ill-conceived.

Fig. 6.7. Meridional transport is the overlooked climate factor.

Meridional transport is both the elephant in the room that everybody ignores as an explanation for climate change, and the elephant from the Indian tale that blind people describe as a different animal when touching different parts of it.

The stadium-wave has a period long enough to have made an important contribution to Modern Global Warming. According to Chylek et al. (2014) one third of the post-1975 global warming is due to the positive phase of the AMO, and models overestimate GHG warming but compensate for it by overestimating aerosol cooling. Regardless of the evidence, the IPCC does not consider that internal variability has contributed significantly to climate change between 1951– 2010 (see Fig. 5.1). An alternative view is that a combination of solar activity and a 65-yr oscillation, if allowed an unconstrained contribution, can explain a great part of the increase in the global warming rate over the 20th century, with residual changes attributable to the CO2 increase and volcanic activity. That view requires the admission that our current estimate of climate sensitivity, to the different known forcings, is erroneous. This is a possibility supported by dynamical systems identification (de Larminat 2016).

As shown in the Fig. 5.2 flow diagram, solar activity affects stratospheric transport directly, and tropospheric transport indirectly, mainly through ENSO. The stadium-wave governs tropospheric transport as an emergent resonant phenomenon. When both act in the same direction the effect is maximal, as happened during the 1976–1997 period when both worked to reduce MT and warm the globe. During the 1890–1924 period both worked to enhance MT, which caused global cooling. But at times they are out of step and in these periods the stadium-wave has a bigger effect because tropospheric transport is much stronger. During the 1924–1935 period, solar activity was low, but the stadium-wave was in the warming portion of its cycle, resulting in early 20th century warming. During the 1945–1976 period, solar activity was high, but the stadium-wave was set on cooling, and cooling resulted due to high MT. In those periods where solar activity and the stadium-wave have an opposite effect, the stadium-wave effect predominates because it is larger, but the effect isn’t as strong as when they cooperate in increasing or decreasing MT. MT is the real “control knob” of climate change.

During the 20th century, the stadium wave 65-year oscillation had two warming periods, for a total of about 65 years in the warm mode. Solar activity displayed the c. 70-year long Modern Solar Maximum (1935–2005). This means that both natural forcing and internal variability spent most of the century contributing to the observed warming. The unusual coincidence of such long periods of natural contribution helps explain why the early 20th century warmed in the absence of significant GHG emissions, and why so much warming was observed in that century as to raise alarm. The natural contribution to observed warming comes at the expense of reducing the anthropogenic contribution.

6.7 Meridional transport as the main climate change driver

The search for the solar effect on climate leads us to an unexpected conclusion about how the climate changes. For solar variations to influence climate change, it is necessary that the climate control knob be MT. The two gigantic polar cooling radiators of the Earth are fed energy through MT. As a result, MT is responsible for most climate change at all timescales. The drivers of MT change depending upon the time frame being considered.

  • At the inter-annual scale, the noise is high, but change is governed by ENSO and short-term phenomena like volcanic eruptions through their effect on PV strength and MT.
  • At the multidecadal scale climate change is governed by the stadium-wave and all its parts, causing climate regime shifts in MT.
  • The centennial to millennial scale is the solar realm. The sun reigns in climate change through its secular cycles in solar activity, acting through long-term changes in MT, particularly during solar grand minima, but also during extended maxima like the modern solar maximum.
  • In the multi-millennial scale Milankovitch rules. The orbitally induced changes in the LIG cause changes in MT. As obliquity decreases, it increases insolation in the tropics and decreases it at the poles. This steepens the LIG during the summers, increasing MT, which drives the required heightened moisture to the high latitudes. The moisture will remain locked there, as ice and snow, until the process reverses. This is how the necessary moisture reaches the high latitudes during glaciations (Masson-Delmotte et al. 2005). Later, when obliquity increases, MT becomes more restricted, contributing to the mid-latitudes warming during deglaciations. Obliquity’s strong climatic signature in the tropics has been linked to meridional transport (Bosmans et al. 2015).
  • At the largest time scale, it is plate tectonics that governs climate change by facilitating or restricting tropical heat access to the two polar radiators. Multi-million-year Earth cooling results when ocean-atmosphere meridional circulation is favored, and zonal circulation is restricted. Zonal wind restrictions are caused by the position of continents, ocean gateways, and mountain ranges, that increase poleward (meridional) heat transport. Multi-million-year Earth warming results when the opposite happens.

It is generally accepted that MT keeps the poles warmer than they should be otherwise. Without MT the poles would be 100 °C colder than the equator on average, instead of 40 °C (Lindzen 1994). But in part III (Sec. 3.2) we reviewed the “low gradient paradox,” and said a possible solution would be offered in this part. This paradox arises from the climate of the early Eocene, the Cretaceous, and early Paleogene, characterized by a warm world with a reduced LTG and low seasonality (Huber & Caballero 2011). Such equable climates cannot be explained by modern climate theory without resorting to extreme CO2 levels and implausibly high tropical temperatures. At the root of the equable climate problem lies the low gradient paradox (Huber & Caballero 2011). For the poles to be warm all year around more energy from the tropics is required. Yet since the poles are warm all year, the LTG must be very flat, which results in less energy transport.

The paradox is only apparent because, as we have seen in parts III to V, the more energy directed toward the poles the colder the planet gets, so it was actually the low gradient that kept the planet and the poles warm during equable climate eras. The planet has been in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age for the past 34 Ma because it is hemorrhaging heat at the winter pole from two gigantic cooling radiators. In the early Eocene, heat loss at the winter pole was limited by an intense cloud-, fog-, and water vapor-GHE during the polar night. Warm polar conditions were not the result of more heat transported from the tropical band. The transition from the early Eocene equable climate to the Pleistocene icehouse climate can be explained by changes in MT that resulted in an increase in the amount of energy directed to the poles.

In the early Eocene (52 Ma) the world geography was very favorable to zonal circulation. There was a well-developed circumglobal seaway formed by the Tethys Sea, the Panama Gateway, and the Indonesian Passage (Fig. 6.8a). Connections to the Arctic were through shallow water seaways and across continents which severely restricted MT toward a warm Arctic above freezing all year around. MT toward Antarctica was unimpeded, but it was free of ice and covered by vegetation, with a stronger GHE due to abundant water vapor and clouds, due to global warm conditions.

The Arctic Gateway, between the North Atlantic and the Arctic Oceans, began opening about 55 Ma allowing increased MT toward the North Pole (Fig. 6.8c red box; Lyle et al. 2008). This opening has been proposed as the cause of the long Eocene cooling (Vahlenkamp et al. 2018). As the planet cooled the LTG deepened, driving more energy toward both poles, and was a positive feedback to global cooling. The Tasman Gateway opened between 36 and 30 Ma. At 34 Ma several low amplitude obliquity oscillations coincided in a very unusual configuration (Fig. 6.8d, box) promoting cool summers for 200 kyr. Antarctica had already developed several ice sheets at higher elevations. A tipping point was reached when low eccentricity promoted ice growth at a time when low obliquity amplitude facilitated summer ice survival, triggering Antarctic glaciation in just 80 kyr (Coxall et al. 2005). The glaciation was completed 400 kyr later during another period of low eccentricity. See the Fig. 6.8d grey bands.

Antarctica had an extensive ice sheet for most of the Oligocene, but after the Mid-Oligocene Glacial Interval c. 26 Ma, and until the end of the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum at c. 14 Ma (a 12 Myr interval) the planet entered a warm period that apparently nobody can explain. At the same time CO2 levels collapsed, according to proxies (Beerling and Royer 2011), from 450 to 200 ppm. See the Fig. 6.8c blue triangle. This very low CO2 level remained for the entire period except during the time of the Columbia River Flood Basalt flows, which occurred at the CO2 peak at 16–15 Ma. So, during the Late Oligocene to the Mid-Miocene warm period, CO2 changes do not explain temperature changes. Recent research suggests most of this period was characterized by a strongly reduced LTG (Guitián et al. 2019), indicative of reduced MT.

The Drake passage opened around the beginning of that warm period, between 30 and 20 Ma (Lyle et al. 2008), allowing the development of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the Southern Annular Mode. The climatic isolation of Antarctica must have hindered MT of heat from the tropics causing regional cooling, yet globally the planet was warming due to reduced MT, and although the Antarctica ice sheet continued to exist, it entered a long period when it waxed and waned following orbital changes (Liebrand et al. 2017). So as the planet warmed, isolated Antarctica developed a warmer and more variable state than during the Middle Oligocene. MT changes can explain the multimillion‐year Late Oligocene to Mid-Miocene warming within the long‐term Cenozoic cooling.

Fig. 6.8. Meridional transport as the main determinant for climate evolution.

Panel (a) in Fig. 6.8 shows how mountain ranges and ocean gateways affect meridional transport in the Cenozoic. Black boxes show the active, well-developed geological features affecting meridional transport. Red boxes show features undergoing development. Vertical arrows indicate meridional transport (global cooling) is favored, and horizontal arrows zonal transport (global warming) is favored.

In Fig 6.8 (b) we see that the Pleistocene world has developed significant geological features that favor meridional transport. The Himalayas reached modern elevation by about 15 Ma. The Indonesian Passage is still open, but significant restrictions developed about 11 Ma. The Bering Strait began its existence about 5.3 Ma, while the Panama Gateway completely closed around 3 Ma. The figure is after Lyle et al. 2008. Red boxes indicate geological changes affecting meridional transport.

In Fig. 6.8 panel (c) the black curve shows global deep-sea δ18O data as a temperature and continental ice proxy. When the upper bar is full it represents ice volume >50% of present, and when dashed, ice volume is ≤50%. The figure is after Zachos et al. 2001. The red curve shows average CO2 data after Beerling & Royer 2011. The blue triangle shows 14 Myr of warming, while CO2 levels are decreasing.

In panel (d) high resolution δ18O changes in benthic foraminiferal calcite, in black, show that Antarctic glaciation took place faster than previously thought and in two steps. The box marks a period of low obliquity amplitude oscillations. The grey bars are periods of low eccentricity during Antarctica glaciation. This panel is after Coxall et al. 2005.

Changes to the global MT state easily explain the climate changes that took place from the Early Eocene to the late Pliocene that CO2 changes cannot. The isolation of Antarctica with the opening of the Tasman and Drake passages was bad for Antarctica but good for the planet, as it limited energy loss at the South Pole by creating a strongly zonal circulation around Antarctica. As a result, the planet warmed. Even today less energy is lost at the South Polar region, despite much colder temperatures and a steeper LTG, than in the Arctic (Peixoto & Oort 1992). From the Early Miocene a series of events took place driving the planet towards its present severe icehouse climate. The Arctic Gateway continued opening and in c. 17.5 Ma the Fram Strait deepened enough to allow deep-water circulation (Jakobsson et al. 2007). The Himalayas reached modern elevation by about 15 Ma, the Indonesian Passage underwent significant restrictions 11 Ma, the Bering Strait appeared about 5.3 Ma, and the Panama Gateway closed around 3 Ma (Lyle et al. 2008). The result was a transformation from a planet characterized by zonal circulation (Fig. 6.8a) into one characterized by meridional circulation (Fig. 6.8b), where more energy is lost from the poles.

6.8 Epilogue

Climate is one of the most complex phenomena to become a subject of popular scientific debate. Feynman (1981) once said of science that:

“we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong.”

Feynman (1981)

This is especially true for climate science, a very long-term phenomenon, and where a great deal of the critical data is only available for a few decades. The immaturity of climate data is demonstrated by the periodic changes to temperature datasets, that invariably increase the registered warming over time, despite being based on the same original data.

As an example, Fig. 6.9 shows three different releases of the Met Office Hadley Centre global surface temperature datasets over the past 10 years (HadCRUT 3, 4 & 5) for the period 1997-2014 (13-month averaged). While HadCRUT 3 showed no increasing trend, each iteration displayed a bigger trend, and the changes have resulted in almost 0.2 °C of additional warming in just 17 years from the same raw data. It gives a new meaning to anthropogenic warming. At the end of that period the older datasets are outside the confidence limits of the newest and, therefore, no confidence can be placed on those limits. We don’t know how much the planet has warmed even over such a short modern period, much less over the past century.

Scientific studies done with that data expire the moment the old data is periodically superseded and deprecated. This is a situation without precedent in science, a systematic enterprise that builds on solid, not fluid, data. The reliance of climate science on computer models produces a similar effect, as they also expire and are replaced every time a new “improved” model is released. Once the new models come out, the old projections and the “findings” they once supported become invalid.

Fig. 6.9. Three temperature reconstructions from the same temperature data. They are all 13-month centered averages of monthly global average surface temperature anomalies from three datasets for the July 1996–May 2014 period. HadCRUT 3 data is shown as a thick continuous curve with a least-squares trend (thin continuous line). The HadCRUT 4.6 data is shown as a thick dashed curve, with a least-squares trend as a thin dashed line. The HadCRUT 5.0 data is shown as a thick dotted curve, with a least-squares trend as a thin dotted line. The data are all from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

No doubt the situation keeps climate scientists employed as the studies need to be done over and over again with new data and computer models. The constantly evolving models and ever-increasing temperature trends do nothing to improve the standing of climate studies among the more serious sciences, where repeating past experiments produce the same result.

Modern climate science has allowed itself to be contaminated by activism without protest. Activist climate scientists are doing a great disservice to science by abandoning Karl Popper’s goal of objective knowledge and allowing themselves to get emotionally involved with their subject and married to a chosen result. The history of science is not kind to scientists that allow themselves to become misguided servants of social or political goals. Lysenkoism and eugenics come to mind as dark examples. As Joel Hildebrand (1957) said of the scientific method:

“there are no rules, only the principles of integrity and objectivity, with a complete rejection of all authority except that of fact.”

Joel Hildebrand (1957)

The question is: Does research in climate science meet the standards of scientific objectivity? This is increasingly important in framing public debates about science and science policy (Tsou et al. 2015).

Over this series, we have presented some of the evidence that solar activity has an outsized effect on climate change, together with a proposed explanation for the observed effect. The scientific literature is full of additional evidence for a solar effect on climate. To deny that evidence can only delay progress in climate science. The search for a solar-climate effect has had the unexpected result of showing that modern climate theory is missing a crucial component. Changes in the poleward transport of energy cause the planet to change its climate state. It appears to be the main climate change driver.

Opposite to what is generally believed, when less energy is transported poleward the planet gets warmer. The planet warmed after 1850 due to a reduction in MT, followed by the increase in GHGs since the mid-20th century. While global warming is likely to continue over most of the 21st century, the rate is unlikely to increase, and might even decrease, disproving nearly every climate projection. Recent warming appears to be multicausal, caused by changes in solar activity and MT, besides GHGs. It is thus very unlikely that the decarbonization of the economy will have any significant effect on climate, although it could have a great effect on the transfer of wealth from some agents in the global economy to others, even if its total effect on wealth creation is negative.

Note:

The bookClimate of the Past, Present and Future: A scientific debate, 2nd ed. by Javier Vinós will be published on September 20th, and it is now available for pre-orders. Kobo has a preview inside the eBook. At the time of this writing, both Barnes & Noble and Amazon offer the eBook at the discounted price of $2.99.

References

Glossary/abbreviations

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.

Part 5: A role for the Sun in climate change.

This post originally appeared on Judy Curry’s website, Climate, Etc.

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
162 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 4, 2022 6:20 pm

you said [correctly]:
Climate is a thermodynamic process determined by the energy flux from its entry point, mostly at the top “
hence by TSI.
But TSI has not had any long-term trend the past 300+ years, so climate should not any either due to solar activity.
https://climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/00remotesensing-14-01072-v2.pdf

Editor
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 4, 2022 6:44 pm

“TSI has not had any long-term trend the past 300+ years”
You cannot possibly know that, since we have no decent data on TSI prior to the late 1970s.
TSI is only one of many measures of solar variability in any case.
The modern solar maximum is evident in the sunspot record. How this solar maximum manifests itself in climate changes may or may not relate to TSI changes. Assuming TSI is the only measurement that matters has no foundation in observations.

Reply to  Andy May
September 4, 2022 7:02 pm

Leif refuses to accept that variability in the mix of particles and wavelengths emanating from the sun might have an effect on chemical processes within the atmosphere that could have an effect on the climate.

Reply to  Andy May
September 4, 2022 7:53 pm

“You cannot possibly know that, since we have no decent data on TSI prior to the late 1970s.” -Andy

Andy, models are all there is ever going to be for TSI in lieu of measurements prior to the late 1970s. Leif has a decent TSI model, although I think it’s too linear at high sunspot number, but for now that is just a technicality. Leif’s TSI model is grounded in his empirical solar floor work that you should know about by now, if not check out his research page. Others have different models, including me.

comment image

“TSI has not had any long-term trend the past 300+ years” -Leif

There is no practical applicability to this statement since the cumulative SN (integrated detrended SN) changed trends three times since 1610, from negative to positive going, going negative again since 2004.

comment image

The historical TSI from Greg Kopp’s website is in need of revision imo because it doesn’t track sunspot number very well when both are integrated and detrended (black vs red lines in above image top panel).

Since climate change is significantly related to the last 120 years of solar activity, the operative solar trend period to use should be 120 years, not 300 years.

comment image

Reply to  Andy May
September 4, 2022 10:22 pm

From modern measurement we know that variation of TSI on the timescale of centuries and shorter depends only on the solar magnetic flux, which we can reasonably well determine back the 1740s, e.g.:
file:///C:/Users/leifs/Downloads/Application_of_historic_datasets_to_understanding_.pdf
so we do have a good handle on that.

rbabcock
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 5, 2022 4:15 am

It isn’t just TSI. Particles coming from the Sun and outside the solar system contribute quite a lot of energy into the system.  Plus the electromagnetic effects on the atmosphere matter a lot.  And even the wavelengths of light coming from the Sun changes during it’s cycle.
If TSI is essentially constant, something else is causing warming and cooling cycles (and it isn’t CO2).  At least Figure 6.1 has a box called Particles,Fields. Thank you for including it.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 5, 2022 8:17 am

Leif, your link does not work.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 5, 2022 10:49 am

comment image

Fig 4 The NRLTSI2 Solar Activity – CET Relationship 1600- Present (25,26,27)
In Figure 4 the Roth & Joos Cosmogenic Index (CI) is used as the emergent proxy for the solar activity driver of the resulting emergent global and NH temperature data.
The CI designation here integrates changes in solar magnetic field strength, TSI, EUV, IMF, Solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, the BZ sign and changes in the GCR neutron count which modulates cloud cover and thus albedo. 
 The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends, of the combined effect of these solar and GCR drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Figure 4 shows an increase in CI of about 2 W/m 2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak. This increase, together with the other solar “activity” variations modulate the earth’s temperature and albedo via the GR flux and varying cloud cover.
The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.
The temperature increase since the1680s is due to the up- leg in the natural solar ” activity” Millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” (ibid). Figure 4 also shows the correlation between the CI driver and the Central England Seasonal Temperatures. (27). The 1650 – 1700 (Maunder), 1810 – 20 (de Vries/Dalton), and the 1890-1900 (Gleissberg) minima are obvious. The Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point (MSATP) at 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Turning Point (MTTP) at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. 
The CET in Figure 4 shows that this up-leg in the CET has an annual absolute temperature Millennial cycle amplitude of at least 16.5 +/- degrees C. Using the Millennial cycle lengths of Figure 3 at least that same amount of future cooling from the 2004 high is probable by the winters of 2,680-2700 +/-. These temperature changes correlate very well with the changes in energy flow from the sun shown in Figure 4 without any measurable effect of C02 levels.”
From https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/820570527003668244/984753721032097436

Gyan1
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 12:47 pm

Several papers concluded the grand solar maximum was the highest output in thousands of years. At least a dozen papers have documented the reduction in clouds during the modern warm period which allowed much more of that high output to reach the surface.

Simplistic TOA and TSI energy flux’s that ignore internal dynamics don’t tell the whole story.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 5, 2022 2:56 am

But TSI has not had any long-term trend the past 300+ years

You always sing the same old tune, despite having been showed to you that it is not correct.

The average annual number of sunspots for the first half of the SILSO record (1700-1865) is 74.8 sunspots, while the average for the last half (1866-2021) is 82.1. That is a significant increase in solar activity.

And if you have been paying attention to the articles (I guess you haven’t), you should know that what matters for the hypothesis is the length and intensity of the periods with above average solar activity, versus the length and intensity of the periods with below average solar activity.

comment image

Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 12:04 pm

The average annual number of sunspots for the first half of the SILSO record (1700-1865) is 74.8 sunspots, while the average for the last half (1866-2021) is 82.1. That is a significant increase in solar activity.”
No, that is not significant. Try to calculate the standard error on the two averages (it is about 5) and you will find that the error bands (mean+-error) around the means overlap and hence that their difference is not important..

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 5, 2022 1:30 pm

If a 10% increase is not significant, then you cannot say that we know that there has been no increase in TSI, can you?

If we don’t know if TSI has increased or not, we don’t know if your hypothesis is better than mine, except that mine explains climate change and yours doesn’t.

Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 6:29 pm

If a 10% increase is not significant, then you cannot say that we know that there has been no increase in TSI, can you?”
There has not been a 10% increase in TSI, of course.
The TSI varies very little even over the cycle. Typically 0.1% from minimum to maximum. So a change of 80 in sunspot number gives you 0.1%. So your difference of 7 sunspots gives you a change of 7/80*0.1% = 0.009% which is totally insignificant as it corresponds to a temperature change of 1/4 of that or 0.002% of 288K = 0.006 K which we cannot even measure.
So we can say that within the error bars there has been no measurable change over the past 399+years.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 6, 2022 8:26 am

Hold on a second.
I do not think it is necessarily the case that overlapping error bars mean there is no change, measurable or otherwise.
It just means the methodology employed is unable to discern clearly what if any change there has been.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 6, 2022 8:49 am

You keep reducing the change in activity to the effect of TSI on the surface, when as the articles clearly explain, it is the change in UV at the stratosphere than matters. You go back to the straw man fallacy.

Reply to  Javier
September 6, 2022 9:08 am

As change in UV follows changes in TSI [and the sun’s magnetic field] it means that UV also has not changed significantly. So any hypothesis that relies on changes in UV is also not substantiated. As simple as that. That UV follows the sunspot numbers is clearly shown here:
https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
A simpler version[for the TL;DR folks] is here:
https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux-1781-2014.pdf

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 6, 2022 9:48 am

for the learning-challenged here is just the abstract:
Abstract Solar EUV creates the conducting E-layer of the ionosphere, mainly by photo ionization of molecular Oxygen. Solar heating of the ionosphere creates thermal winds which by dynamo action induce an electric field driving an electric current having a magnetic effect observable on the ground, as was discovered by G. Graham in 1722. The current rises and sets with the Sun and thus causes a readily observable diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field, allowing us the deduce the conductivity and thus the EUV flux as far back as reliable magnetic data reach. High quality data go back to the invention of the magnetometers by Gauss and Weber in 1834 and less reliable, but still usable, data are available sporadically for the hundred years before that. J. R. Wolf and, independently, J-A. Gautier discovered the dependence of the diurnal variation on solar activity, and today we understand and can invert that relationship to construct a reliable record of the EUV flux from the geomagnetic record. We compare that to the F10.7 flux and the sunspot number, and find that the reconstructed EUV flux reproduces the F10.7 flux with great accuracy and that the EUV flux clearly shows the discontinuities of the sunspot record identified by Clette et al, 2014.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 6, 2022 10:51 am

 it means that UV also has not changed significantly.

You go back to the same mistake. As UV also follows sunspots, and you cannot discard a 10% increase in sunspots, you cannot discard a change in UV that would be 10 times more pronounced that a change in TSI.

Since you ignore the dynamical effects of the changes in UV in the stratosphere you cannot affirm that the said changes have not caused significant changes in meridional transport of energy.

You are reduced to your old tune, ignoring the advances made to the solar effects on climate. Now we know how solar activity is able to change the speed of rotation of the Earth. The entire winter circulation of the Earth is affected by solar activity, and your friend Takuro Kobashi showed the effect that the solar maximum had on Greenland temperature.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL064764

Reply to  Javier
September 7, 2022 8:52 am

You go back to the same mistake. As UV also follows sunspots, and you cannot discard a 10% increase in sunspots, you cannot discard a change in UV that would be 10 times more pronounced that a change in TSI.”
We measure directly the change in UV by the change of the ionization of the ionosphere which in turn means a change of the electric currents in the higher atmosphere. These currents have a magnetic effect which we can measure at the surface [as was discovered by George Graham in 1723]. Keeping track of those effects show that they have not had any upward trend the 300 year since they were discovered in 1723. Hence, any climate effects caused by UV would also not have any trend, and so does not explain climate change since then. The physics of this is well known and not controversial, contrary to your musings. So the reiterate: direct measurements of the effects of UV extend 300 years into the past and show no trend over that timespan.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 7, 2022 10:56 am

No 10% uncertainty there? Then we don’t need sunspots. You waste your time.

Reply to  Javier
September 7, 2022 2:13 pm

The sunspots agree with the UV and cosmic rays within their respective error bars.
None of them support a statistically valid increase in solar activity the past 300+ years.
About wasting my time: Having brought four children up to adulthood has taught me a lot about dealing with childish attitudes. Now, you may be correct that it is a waste of time talking to you, but there are other people that may benefit from the discussion. You claim to be an ‘expert’ on the subject, so you might benefit from a quote of Feynman’s: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 8, 2022 10:16 am

As Willis reminds us: “From the CERES website: Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space”.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 1:31 pm

Now I may be all wet, but when I see graphs like this that always return to a baseline, I ask myself is there truly a trend! The more logical conclusion to me is some cyclical behavior made up from various factors.

Drake
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 5, 2022 10:37 am

People talk of TSI, but I have never seen anyone quantify the energy transmitted from the sun to the Earth through the magnetic interaction of their magnetic fields.

Considering electrical induction motors, transformers, etc. I would think there is some energy transfer. That , using a specific “Climate Science” term, COULD also effect the energy balance of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Is there?

Since you know much about the variability of the solar magnetic field:

https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-2014-and-the-Sun.pdf

I thought you would be one to ask.

Reply to  Drake
September 5, 2022 11:48 am

That magnetic interaction is many orders of magnitude less than the effect of direct radiation [TSI].

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
September 6, 2022 8:46 am

The Oulu cosmic ray count is here used as the most useful proxy measure of solar “activity” see

comment image

Fig 4 The NRLTSI2 Solar Activity – CET Relationship 1600- Present (25,26,27)
In Figure 4 the Roth & Joos Cosmogenic Index (CI) is used as the emergent proxy for the solar activity driver of the resulting emergent global and NH temperature data.
The CI designation here integrates changes in solar magnetic field strength, TSI, EUV, IMF, Solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, the BZ sign and changes in the GCR neutron count which modulates cloud cover and thus albedo. 
 The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends, of the combined effect of these solar and GCR drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Figure 4 shows an increase in CI of about 2 W/m 2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak. This increase, together with the other solar “activity” variations modulate the earth’s temperature and albedo via the GR flux and varying cloud cover.
The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.
The temperature increase since the1680s is due to the up- leg in the natural solar ” activity” Millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” (ibid). Figure 4 also shows the correlation between the CI driver and the Central England Seasonal Temperatures. (27). The 1650 – 1700 (Maunder), 1810 – 20 (de Vries/Dalton), and the 1890-1900 (Gleissberg) minima are obvious. The Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point (MSATP) at 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Turning Point (MTTP) at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. 
The CET in Figure 4 shows that this up-leg in the CET has an annual absolute temperature Millennial cycle amplitude of at least 16.5 +/- degrees C. Using the Millennial cycle lengths of Figure 3 at least that same amount of future cooling from the 2004 high is probable by the winters of 2,680-2700 +/-. These temperature changes correlate very well with the changes in energy flow from the sun shown in Figure 4 without any measurable effect of C02 levels.
comment image
“Fig 2 The correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. (28,29)
The Oulu Cosmic Ray count shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant secular drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/- and a new solar activity minimum late in 2009.The MSATP at 1991/2 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. In Figure 2 short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos. The hadsst3gl temperature anomaly at 2037 is forecast to be + 0.05. ”

Reply to  Norman J Page
September 7, 2022 10:18 am

The cosmic ray data is at best just another [poorly understood and model dependent] proxy for solar activity and stations disagree with respect to the trends, so not much attention should be focused on the details.

jimmywalter
September 4, 2022 6:36 pm

The Solar Grand Minimums and Grand Maximums have a definite climate effect. Moreover, the Milankovitch cycles have a definite climate effect. GHG’s have no effect. Other than those three points, great article

RickWill
Reply to  jimmywalter
September 4, 2022 10:56 pm

GHG’s have no effect.

And yet the post references GHG 13 times so it must be important. It is like acknowledging there is a GOD without any physical definition.

GHE and GHGs are a deeply rooted belief system. In that regard they are important. Through the ages, there have been holy wars defending or imposing various religious beliefs. Europe is entering one this year as the hoi polloi fight to stay warm against the CO2 demonisers.

Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 12:50 am

GHG are proven to disrupt Earth’s ability to cool itself in lab spectroscopy since the late 1800s. You have some catching up to do. The effect of CO2 is not very strong above 400ppm — harmless in my opinion — but it still exists. As greenhouse gases increase their efficiency in increasing the greenhouse effect should decrease, making more GHG nothing to worry about. Even with an alleged imaginary tripling effect of a water vapor positive feedback, which is reality seems to be small.

Last edited 29 days ago by Richard Greene
RickWill
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 3:52 am

What CO2 can do in a laboratory environment bears no relevance to the atmosphere.

In the past week, both WE and JV has shown that GHG does zip.

The are two powerful temperature controlled processes that regulate the energy in and out of Earth’s climate system. That is why Earth still maintains a habitable environment after billions of years.

mkelly
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 6:23 am

You say proven. Can you direct us to some proof?

I say CO2 is innocent.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 7:28 am

In the 1800s they found that gases can be incident with certain frequencies of light and effectively scatter those frequencies, but they also found that the those gases emit the very same frequencies of light. It is basically a zero sum in a relatively dense gas (like Earth’s atmosphere) where other forms of energy transfer cause the “GHG” to increase emissivity and thus cooling ability of the atmosphere. That’s why those 1800s contemporaries such as Max Plank disregarded the hypothesis of carbonic acid controlled Earth’s temperature.

Reply to  jimmywalter
September 5, 2022 12:45 am

Baloney
Planetary cycles have no effect on a 47 year period – 1975 to 2022
There is no known and observed solar energy effect on the climate since the Maunder Minimum’s coldest decade in the 1690s. Since then, the sunspot counts have not correlated with estimates and measurements of the global average temperature.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 3:15 am

Richard,
As for planetary cycles, it is possible, perhaps likely, that the lunar 18.6 yr cycle has an effect on climate through tides, as discussed in this post.
As for sunspots, they certainly seem to have an effect, as discussed in many of our posts. the best illustration is attached from post #1.

Fig 1.6.png
Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 8:12 am

I guess you’ve not looked at Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021. CERES measured a 1.48% increase in solar energy reaching the surface of the planet over the period 2000-2020. The biggest part of that change occurred during a PDO transition in 2014.

Willis also showed the warming this caused in his latest series of posts. He also showed no change in the GHE over this period.

I think this two decade period with some really good observations by satellites is a real eye opener. No evidence of any GHE. Warming tied closely to solar energy changes which were due to albedo reduction. Increase in outgoing LW radiation. All closely tied to a natural ocean cycle.

If you look at what happened during the 1995-97 AMO cycle change we also get a hint that the temperature change was driven by an albedo change.

One can argue that the AMO and PDO are responsible for most of the warming seen from 1975 – 2020. The CERES data precludes any GHE warming.

Reply to  jimmywalter
September 5, 2022 12:59 am

I think the reality is that the GHGs do have some action – indeed what does not? – but the magnitude of that effect is minimal in modern climate warming: What has happened is that the effect of CO2 has been seized upon and made the sole arbiter of modern climate change for purely political and commercial reasons.

This post ios superb in that it shows so many other massively important effects and interplays between climate elements, none of which are well modelled by current computer models.

It may not solve the global warming mystery, but it certainly proves the science is anything but settled.

Editor
Reply to  jimmywalter
September 5, 2022 3:00 am

Jimmy,
Changing CO2 from its current level of 400 ppm to 500 or 600 may only have a miniscule effect on climate, at least that seems likely. It is well mixed, so its affect, positive or negative is spread out and likely minimal. Remember water vapor is a GHG though and it is very important, especially with regard to meridional transport. It is abundant in the tropics and nearly absent at the poles in winter. More CO2 at the poles in winter just makes them colder.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  jimmywalter
September 5, 2022 6:52 am

Changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) alter TOA energy fluxes and constitute one cause of climate change.”

This factoid here is what takes a bad hypothesis and turns it into a paradigm. There is no empirical based study to cite to support the basis of the hypothesis, rather, there are countless papers to cite that refute this factoid.

Streetcred
September 4, 2022 6:40 pm

Absolutely fascinating but it took me a while to wrap my head around all of the acronyms and get through the reading. May I suggest that a list of acronyms is included in future parts, I’d really appreciate that 🙂

Editor
Reply to  Streetcred
September 4, 2022 6:45 pm

The list is linked at the end of the post. See here:
Vinos&May-AbbrevGlossary (andymaypetrophysicist.com)

Streetcred
Reply to  Andy May
September 4, 2022 6:51 pm

So embarrassing … I see it, thanks Andy.

KcTaz
Reply to  Streetcred
September 4, 2022 7:53 pm

Don’t be embarrassed. I was thinking the same thing as you and was going to say something until I read your post. 
Also, maybe I’m dense tonight but can someone tell me which color is “pearl?” I happen to have some pearls that are white and some others that that are gray, so I’m confused. As I said, maybe I’m exceptionally dense tonight, or, maybe it’s that I’m female and take the color of pearls very seriously?

Last edited 1 month ago by KcTaz
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  KcTaz
September 4, 2022 8:35 pm

Women see colors differently than men and have a color vocabulary that most men have difficulty understanding. When I hear words like puce or teal it is like hearing a foreign language.

There is a higher frequency of tetrachromats among women than among men, who are mostly trichromats with a significant proportion of dichromats (color blindness).

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 5, 2022 2:13 am

Women see colors differently than men and have a color vocabulary that most men have difficulty understanding. When I hear words like puce or teal it is like hearing a foreign language.

Clyde,
You have just described in spades the confusion I experience when my wife talks about colours.

Doonman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 5, 2022 10:30 am

I solved the woman color opinion problem years ago by claiming to have color blindness when in fact I did not. Now, I need to solve the “Does this dress make me look fat” problem. Claiming total blindness or deafness is not an option.

Drake
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 5, 2022 10:55 am

See what you did, Clyde, you made me look up the different chromats, something I realized I learned way back in 8th grade biology now that I “relearned” it today.

Haven’t been in any field where that knowledge was required, so I “forgot” it.

Just another example of why I really like this site.

AndyHce
Reply to  KcTaz
September 5, 2022 1:38 am

I interpreted that as the light gray (largest box background) with “Latitude Temperature Gradient” as its over-ridding title.

Javier
Reply to  KcTaz
September 5, 2022 4:29 pm

The original figure was compressed to reduce file size for web posting. The process altered the light grey color of the central box into a darker shade of grey. The compression algorithm uses indexed colors instead of the original ones. I didn’t noticed that this could cause confusion. The color in the printed version of the book is as it should.

Chris Hanley
September 4, 2022 6:43 pm

Call that a “simplified schematic representation of Earth’s climate system”? This is a simplified schematic representation of Earth’s climate system 😂 .

KcTaz
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 4, 2022 7:54 pm

Yep, that it is. It’s a very simplified representation and I bet the IPCC and CAGWers everywhere love it!

September 4, 2022 6:59 pm

Meridional transport is not the driver.
Instead it is the mechanism that keeps the system stable by altering speed and configuration to neutralise all destabilising influences including radiation from GHGs and any other radiative material in an atmosphere.
To get a surface temperature change at a given distance from the sun you also need an albedo change and that is where cloudiness comes in.
The surface temperature enhancement is actually set by the lapse rate slope which is a result of the rate of decline in density with height produced by the gravitational field.
That density determines the amount of conduction possible at the surface and that is what lifts the surface temperature above the prediction produced by the S-B equation.
Solar variability does alter meridional transport but in the absence of an albedo change it would not alter average global surface temperature because changes in meridional transport also serve to adjust the rate at which energy is ejected to space.
If the sun were ever allowed to alter meridional transport in such a way as to produce a long term imbalance then the atmosphere would not be retained.
It is implicit in the authors’ hypothesis that the sun could potentially settle down into a state that would produce a permanent imbalance and that is a problem they need to address.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 4, 2022 7:12 pm

“Meridional transport is not the driver.”

I agree with you on this Stephen. Poleward heat transport is a consequence not the primary cause. The tropical ocean response to solar activity is primary, the driver of all other effects.

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 4, 2022 7:59 pm

If the authors were to describe meridional transport as the climate governor rather than the climate driver I would agree with that.
Since they do allocate a causative effect from solar variability I wonder whether that is actually what they mean.

Editor
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 5, 2022 4:04 am

We have called MT a “control knob.” That is similar to calling it a governor.

Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 7:23 am

MT isn’t a governor either as they are passive responses to tropical OHC.

All ocean indices and clouds lag the equatorial ocean heat content.

comment image

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 5, 2022 9:25 am

Thank you for posting those three comments.

As an analogy, think of your energy transport mechanisms as wires in a house. Do wires that convey the electrical energy also govern it? What happens to the energy in the wires and the loads when the power source changes levels?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bob Weber
September 5, 2022 4:12 pm

Wires can certainly throttle energy flow if they are too small to carry the needed amperage. Anyone trying to use a Lincoln welder on 14ga wiring has experienced this. Crank the welding amperage up (i.e. changing levels) and you get diminishing returns from wiring losses.

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 4, 2022 8:06 pm

Equatorial ocean heat content is the foundation of poleward heat transport.

comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by coolclimateinfo
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 4, 2022 7:18 pm

At its simplest, variations in solar activity alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Meridional transport then responds to the changes in the height of the tropopause in order to neutralise any potential thermal effect at the surface thereby preserving hydrostatic equilibrium for the atmosphere as a whole.
You cannot change the pattern of meridional transport without altering tropopause heights first.

RickWill
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 4, 2022 8:37 pm

Meridional transport is not the driver.

I agree with this as well. But the most important factor is the ability of the atmosphere to create a level of free convection to create convective instability. That is the primary engine that drives the entire circulation.

If the oceans had the ability to create convective instability away from the poles then they would more effectively distribute the heat. Most of the oceans are layered with negligible vertical transport of heat below 500m..

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 1:34 am

During La Niña, heat transport toward the poles is seen at a depth of 150 meters. It impedes the expansion of sea ice in the southeast Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202209.gif
 
comment image

Last edited 29 days ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
RickWill
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 5, 2022 3:55 am

Yes – Exactly, it is driven by the wind, which is driven by convective instability and the tropical heat engine driving that convection.

The only significant convective instability in the oceans driving heat deep is the thermohaline transport.

Editor
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 5, 2022 4:03 am

“Meridional transport is not the driver.”
It is hard to put your finger on a single driving factor due to so many interdependencies. Solar changes and orbital dynamics coupled with geographic considerations, climate dynamics, and inertia affect the LTG, which is constantly changing. Then, as you say, meridional transport adjusts itself to try and bring things into equilibrium, but never quite gets there. It is a “control knob,” since climate, in both hemispheres, is controlled by meridional transport changes, but MT itself is a reaction to other forces and processes. It works both ways, MT changes the LTG, just as LTG (both in the stratosphere and the troposphere) changes MT.
The whole point we are making is that solar variability and orbital mechanics have a much large influence on MT, and thus our climate on all time scales, than recognized by the “consensus.” Increasing CO2 has some influence, positive in the tropics and negative at the winter pole, but it seems likely that solar and orbital effects are larger. I am including lunar orbital effects, like the 18.6-year orbital cycle.
Personally, I have no problem with calling MT a mechanism for delivering climate change. Not sure what Javier thinks about that.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 5:28 am

To me, the sun is no different than the wood-fired boiler in an old steam engine. It’s the *fire* that is the ultimate driver. Without it the earth would become, sooner or later, a frozen ball. Everything else just modulates the effects of the “fire”, be it a governor, a water control valve, a water return line, a steam line, a pressure valve, a pop-off valve, etc. When it’s all well-regulated the engine can do all kinds of work and remain stable. You just need to keep adding “fire”.

Anyway, that’s how I view the engine we know as the Earth. It helps me make sense of it all.

RickWill
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 5, 2022 6:47 am

To me, the sun is no different than the wood-fired boiler in an old steam engine. 

This describes the operation very well and the Carnot cycle of that heat engine is demonstrated here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/
Sun is the heat source and convective instability, that drives deep convection, is the heat engine process. The atmosphere above the level of free convection is the cool end; radiating heat to space.

Wide open throttle results in ocean surface temperature reaching the sustainable limit of 30C. The is the point where the governor kicks in. It takes about 1 month from hitting that temperature to wind back the surface sunlight to limit further temperature rise. So there is some overshoot.

The ability for the atmosphere to form a level of free convection is the key process. That is related to the buoyancy of water vapour in air and its rapid reduction in vapour pressure with reducing temperature.

Observe how clouds change appearance when the surface temperature of water reaches 15C and above. They go from dull and lifeless to fluffy and lively. That is the minimum surface temperature that can create a level of free convection. Without the partitioning of the atmosphere there would never be clear sky and Earth would be a snowball. The idea of a GHE is contributing to Earth’s energy balance is bunkum.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 6:26 am

I am not about to enter into semantic discussions.

The IPCC divides natural climate forcings into volcanic, solar, and internal variability. Meridional transport can be considered internal variability, but it also responds to volcanic and solar changes.

Meridional transport is a climate forcing that constitutes the first order climate change factor.

September 4, 2022 7:07 pm

“Solar activity displayed the c. 70-year long Modern Solar Maximum (1935–2005)”

Your 1935-2005 period is 71 years. The 70y Solar Modern Maximum is from 1935-2004.

comment image

As well, the v2 SN (sunspot number) average for 1935-2004 was 108.5 vs 107.6 for 1935-2005. The year 2005 should not be included in the Solar Modern Maximum for the reason that the 2005 SN average was just 45.8, ~20 fewer SN than in 2004.

RickWill
September 4, 2022 7:51 pm

I agree with most of this. Your lack of acknowledgement for the precession cycle indicates you do not understand the true influence of orbital mechanics..

 Later, when obliquity increases, MT becomes more restricted, contributing to the mid-latitudes warming during deglaciations. Obliquity’s strong climatic signature in the tropics has been linked to meridional transport (Bosmans et al. 2015).

Obliquity is barely visibly in the historic records. Precession dominates and works over a shorter time frame than obliquity or eccentricity.

The observed heat retention in the oceans is following the precession cycle as the solar peak intensity gradually shifts from the SH to the NH.

Outside the tropics, the thermal response of land to solar EMR occurs at twice the rate with half the thermal inertia of the oceans. So as perihelion moves away from the austral summer solstice and closer to the boreal summer solstice, the average surface temperature will increase due to the greater proportion of land to water in the NH compared with that in the SH.

As the NH land warms up so do the northern oceans because the water cycle slows down causing more heat to be retained. More of the ocean surface goes into temperature regulation at the 30C limit. This is particularly evident at the present time in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal where the entire northern portion of the Indian Ocean hits 30C ahead of the Indian Ocean monsoon.

The consequence of precession cycle at is that the NH summers will become hotter and drier. The flip side is that the NH winters will become colder and wetter, with an increasing portion of the precipitation occurring as snow. The current cycle of glaciation is 500 years down the track.

RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
September 4, 2022 8:25 pm

For your further education on cycles, this is the frequency analysis of the sea level over the last 250kyr.

Sea_Level_Cycles.png
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
September 4, 2022 11:04 pm

Even NASA gets orbital precession:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Axial precession makes seasonal contrasts more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Currently perihelion occurs during winter in the Northern Hemisphere and in summer in the Southern Hemisphere. This makes Southern Hemisphere summers hotter and moderates Northern Hemisphere seasonal variations. But in about 13,000 years, axial precession will cause these conditions to flip, with the Northern Hemisphere seeing more extremes in solar radiation and the Southern Hemisphere experiencing more moderate seasonal variations.

The statement is not accurate though because the swing into the current cycle of glaciation started 500 years. It will have peak ice accumulation in 9,500 years. The so-called “flip” is not good terminology because the change is gradual but accelerating for the 9,500 years when it will reach a peak before starting the swing back.

Editor
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 3:39 am

Both obliquity and precession are important. Precession changes insolation in the low latitudes.

RickWill
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 4:05 am

Precession dominates as the frequency analysis shows and it works across all latitudes. Obliquity does not appear in the frequency analysis.

Dismissing precession simply shows Javier has no idea of the orbital mechanics.

The table shows how precession has changed and is changing solar EMR in April at 30N from 1kyr before J2000 to 1kyr into the future.:
 -1.000   373.489453
   -0.900   373.872773
   -0.800   374.258234
   -0.700   374.645437
   -0.600   375.034002
   -0.500   375.423566
   -0.400   375.813785
   -0.300   376.204330
   -0.200   376.594883
   -0.100   376.985132
    0.000   377.374769
    0.100   377.765110
    0.200   378.154160
    0.300   378.541432
    0.400   378.926421
    0.500   379.308615
    0.600   379.687501
    0.700   380.062572
    0.800   380.433341
    0.900   380.799342
    1.000   381.160145

When you see debates on ECS discussing EMR flux to decimal places then 7W/m^2 over 2000 years is quite something. And I have not checked if 30N is the most significant change.

Javier
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 6:10 am

RickWill, your precession hypothesis has a problem. It is clear that the climate of the Earth responds to orbital changes in eccentricity, precession, and obliquity, but their cycles have such long periodicity that they do not explain centennial changes in temperature that can very well go in the opposite direction.

Then there is the problem that the record of the past half million years in Antarctica ice cores shows that long-term temperature changes respond primarily in the 100 kyr frequency, then in the 41 kyr frequency and very little in the 23 kyr frequency. Figure 2.4 in my book very clearly shows this problem.

RickWill
Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 7:00 am

I have shown you the variation in sea level is strongly linked to the precession cycle of 23kyr. You have no explanation for that. I consider sea level changes of 120m being a bit more significant than ice core data.

Your theory does not explain the long term cooling trend in the Southern Ocean. Precession does. That is why I looked for that trend.

You theory does not explain the long term increase in ocean surface level, precession does. It is slowing down the water cycle as the NH summer gradually warm up. In due course the winter precipitation of NH land will increase and ice will again accumulate.

You theory does not explain the zero trend in the Nino34 region – deep convection explains that.

You have a long way to go before you have something useful for climate prediction.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  RickWill
September 6, 2022 12:42 pm

Rick,
You’ll get no argument from me against Milankovic cycles as a long-term climate driver, nor any argument against ‘deep convection’, ’emergent phenomena’ or whatever smarter people than me believe regulates climate in the short term.  But I would like to know what you think causes climate movements within centennial to millennial time frames, e.g., the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age if it isn’t ‘solar’.

Bob
September 4, 2022 8:44 pm

As hard as this is to understand it makes sense to me, a hell of a lot more sense than claiming CO2 is the control knob for global climate.

pochas94
Reply to  Bob
September 4, 2022 11:20 pm

Money talks. You can’t make money from something you can’t change, like orbital mechanics or solar activity. But the CO2 narrative has created endless opportunities for rent seekers, by making anthropogenic emissions of CO2 into a threat to the survival of mankind, hence its absolute cessation a categorical imperative. Power seeking politicians have rallied to the task, unable to accomplish anything except societal oppression and ruinous inflation.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  pochas94
September 5, 2022 5:53 am

Excellent!

Doonman
Reply to  pochas94
September 5, 2022 10:48 am

10% for all the big guys!

Follow the money, always the key to human behavior.

george1st:)
September 4, 2022 9:38 pm

Climate ‘ Scientists ‘ can’t understand the climate so much easier to just blame CO2 plus it pays more for them .

RickWill
September 4, 2022 10:45 pm

I count 13 references to GHG but there is no reference to GHG in any of the climate drivers listed.

I suggest it is time to simply kill any notion that GHGs are involved in Earth’s energy balance.

You can believe that there is a GHE but that is it – a belief. It has no physical significance to Earth’s energy balance and has diverted attention from the climate drivers for half a century.

The fact that it gets 13 references in the story above gives the GHE undue credibility.

Javier
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 6:21 am

No. The effect of changing GHG composition at the TOA is real. It is just not properly quantified and a second order factor.

RickWill
Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 7:11 am

No. The effect of changing GHG composition at the TOA is real.

In what way is it “real”. I agree it is a deeply rooted belief system. Other than that it is misplaced in any discussion on Earth’s energy balance and climate.

Earth’s energy balance is controlled by two temperature regulating processes. The bottom limit is -1.8C where sea ice forms and dramatically reduces heat loss. The other is deep convection that prevents open ocean surface sustaining a temperature above 30C. Energy in and out of the atmosphere over ocean warm pools is balanced at surface temperature of 30C.

Screen Shot 2022-08-31 at 6.02.21 pm.png
Richard M
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 7:40 am

I would put it differently. The GHE is real. However, it is saturated and has always been saturated since long before life evolved. This view acknowledges the experiments which clearly show the physics of the GHE. It also accepts the premise that additional well mixed GHGs have no affect on the climate.

September 5, 2022 12:37 am

Something caused the global average temperature to rise over +0.5 degrees C. from 1979 to 2022, per UAH data. That’s about from +15 degrees C. to about +15.5 degrees C. No big deal to me, but a climate emergency to some people.

If the +0.5 degrees C. increase was caused by more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface, we would expect to have a rising TMAX trend

If the +0.5 degrees C. increase was caused by increased greenhouse gases.,we would expect to have a rising TMIN trend

Observations since the 1970s have mainly been a rising TMIN trend
Therefore, observations mainly support the rising greenhouse gases explanation rather than the increasing sunlight explanation.

As a result of observations, I declare this series of article to be WRONG.
Observations do not support all warming from solar energy and none from greenhouse gases.

The correct answer remains –IMHO — no one knows the exact effect of each climate change variable and that remains true after this series of articles.
attempting to prove the causes of global warming are known, and are not
related to greenhouse gases.

RickWill
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 4:09 am

Therefore, observations mainly support the rising greenhouse gases explanation rather than the increasing sunlight explanation.

How does rising CO2 and the claimed GHE cause the Southern Ocean to cool and the Nino34 region to have zero trend.

CO2 does zip and it is easily verified by long term regional cooling trends.

NCEP_Three_Trends-3.png
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 4:27 am

People who use short-term local weather trends to declare CO2 does nothing are one reason for the term science deniers. And one reason why Climat Realists are not taken seriously. There are many causes of global climate change and additional causes of regional and local climate changes. They do not prove CO2 has no effect globally.

My comment refers to 1979 through 2022, 43 years of global climate data that I believe to be accurate enough for the conclusions I reached. You attempted to dismiss my comment with a flick of the wrist — a deflection. You failed to refute anything I wrote,

RickWill
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 7:31 am

43 years of global climate data that I believe to be accurate enough for the conclusions I reached. 

If you had taken the time to actually look at the charts you would see they are over 40 years. So the same “short term” you used to make your ill informed opinion.

The time period for the SO cooling is the entire satellite era 40 years. The only period when any “global” measurements have had reasonable coverage of the part of the globe.

The measurement is over 360 degrees of longitude and 10 degrees of latitude – hardly “local weather”

The downward trend is for the entire period.

The Nino34 region is also for 40 years – a slight cooling trend primarily due to the current La Nina. So the correlation with CO2 is currently negative as it is in the SO.

The Nino34 region is credited with influencing observed global weather patterns. It is only 50 degrees of longitude and 10 degrees of latitude but it has been long identified as a primary indicator of global weather patterns. So this important region shows ZERO to NEGATIVE correlation with CO2.

No climate model shows zero or negative trends anywhere on the globe. Any location with a multi-decade cooling trend destroys the theory of a GHE having any impact on Earth’s energy balance.

Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 8:51 am

Local climate is not global climate
Local climate can have local variables
that overwhelm the global trend. So what?
The GHE effect theory is not destroyed.
Except in your mind.
Nowhere else.

RickWill
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 9:07 pm

Any long-term regional cooling destroys the silly idea that CO2 causes GLOBAL warming and that some unphysical concept of GHE is warming the planet. I am guessing you believe the back-radiation BS.

There are not many human activities occurring in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. A significant portion of the entire globe that has been cooling since satellites were able to give reliable coverage of the region.

CO2 has not made any impact on the entire equatorial oceans from 10S to the Equator. All that ocean and not a jot of difference due to CO2.

isstoi_v2_0-360E_-10-0N_n.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  RickWill
September 6, 2022 1:38 pm

A significant portion of the entire globe that has been cooling since satellites were able to give reliable coverage of the region.”

If not cooling, at least not warming either. Meaning the rest of the globe would have had to be warming significantly to create the warming predicted by the climate models – and that isn’t happening either.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 5:16 am

Richard,
So many logical fallacies crammed into such a short comment!
“If the +0.5 degrees C. increase was caused by more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface, we would expect to have a rising TMAX trend”
Why? The Earth is not a pot on a stove. Most of the sunlight hits only the day side of the tropics and most of that is absorbed in the ocean. Don’t oversimplify.

“If the +0.5 degrees C. increase was caused by increased greenhouse gases.,we would expect to have a rising TMIN trend”
Again, why? Water vapor is the biggest GHG, the tropics have a lot, there is virtually zero at the winter pole. At the winter pole more CO2 just makes it colder. Rising TMIN can be due to a lower LTG. You oversimplify.

“Observations since the 1970s have mainly been a rising TMIN trend
Therefore, observations mainly support the rising greenhouse gases explanation rather than the increasing sunlight explanation.”
Why? AMO and other ocean oscillations have been positive since the 1970s, see attached and figure 4.8.

“As a result of observations, I declare this series of article to be WRONG.
Observations do not support all warming from solar energy and none from greenhouse gases.”
I disagree, and we certainly never said GHGs play no role. The uneven distribution of water vapor, the main GHG, is critical to our hypothesis. CO2 variations likely play a very small role however.
“The correct answer remains –IMHO — no one knows the exact effect of each climate change variable and that remains true after this series of articles.”
 
Agreed.

“attempting to prove the causes of global warming are known, and are not
related to greenhouse gases.”
 
We did not attempt to prove anything like this.

NOAA_smoothed_AMO.png
Last edited 29 days ago by Andy May
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 9:01 am

More solar energy should result in more TMAX records
Where are they?

Example 1:
Where are the US state TMAX records in the past 20 years:
Not many, as one would expect with higher solar energy.
U.S. state and territory temperature extremes – Wikipedia

Example 2:
Where are the other nation and comtinent TMAX records in the past 20 years?
Not as many as one would expect with higher solar energy
List of weather records – Wikipedia

A larger greenhouse effect should result in more TMIN records
We have them
The evidence supports GHE not increased solar energy.

You are implying no evidence of an increasing GHE in the 2000 to 2020 period. I completely disagree.

Increased water vapor in the troposphere is a result of global warming.
AMO and PMO redistribute heat but do not have any significant effect on temperature records.

Sometimes “keeping it simple” wins the argument.

Javier
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 10:18 am

More solar energy should result in more TMAX records

You are unaware of the assumptions implicit in your statements that make them invalid if the assumptions are not correct. As we have showed the increase in solar activity matters in the stratosphere, not at the surface. And the changes it produces are dynamical. So no, more solar energy does not have to result in more TMAX records. It could perfectly result in more TMIN records.

I think you should re-read all six articles in order. I know they are complex and difficult to follow. Yet a better understanding of climate change is the reward.

Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 4:12 pm

The article all desperately need an abstract

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 5:32 am

Richard,
So many logical fallacies crammed into such a short comment!
“If the +0.5 degrees C. increase was caused by more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface, we would expect to have a rising TMAX trend”
Why? The Earth is not a pot on a stove. Most of the sunlight hits only the day side of the tropics and most of that is absorbed in the ocean. Don’t oversimplify.

“If the +0.5 degrees C. increase was caused by increased greenhouse gases.,we would expect to have a rising TMIN trend”
Again, why? Water vapor is the biggest GHG, the tropics have a lot, there is virtually zero at the winter pole. At the winter pole more CO2 just makes it colder. Rising TMIN can be due to a lower LTG. You oversimplify.

“Observations since the 1970s have mainly been a rising TMIN trend. Therefore, observations mainly support the rising greenhouse gases explanation rather than the increasing sunlight explanation.”
Why? AMO and other ocean oscillations have been positive since the 1970s, see attached and figure 4.8.

“As a result of observations, I declare this series of article to be WRONG. Observations do not support all warming from solar energy and none from greenhouse gases.”
I disagree, and we certainly never said GHGs play no role. The uneven distribution of water vapor, the main GHG is critical to our hypothesis. CO2 variations likely play a very small role however.

“The correct answer remains –IMHO — no one knows the exact effect of each climate change variable and that remains true after this series of articles.”
 Agreed.

“attempting to prove the causes of global warming are known, and are not
related to greenhouse gases.”
 
We did not attempt to prove anything like this.

NOAA_smoothed_AMO.png
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 9:03 am

I’m only replying once !

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 9:59 am

Me too. I think there was system glitch that duplicated our replies.

Drake
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 11:21 am

From 288.15K to 288.65K

For the “global average temperature”.

Measured with ever more “heat island” located and effected thermometers.

How can we even know if ANY change in the “temperature” of the “climate” has happened.

BTW: 330 to 418 over the 40 years from 79 to 2022? A 33% increase?

Give me a break.

September 5, 2022 12:53 am

One of the best articles ever. Thank you.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 5, 2022 5:23 pm

Yes, lots of good stuff to think about.

The Earth’s weather and climate are a complicated business.

AndyHce
September 5, 2022 1:31 am

It seems to me you have made a good case for the importance of Meridional transport but have mischaracterized it. Meridional transport is the mechanism but other elements drive it. Meridional transport is not the “control Knob”, it is dependent upon a host of factors external to itself.

Rod Evans
September 5, 2022 1:46 am

Thank you for this detailed article. I have read it and will need to read it again after breakfast to absorb as much of the detail as I am able to take in these days.
The cross connected influence of each of the players involved in climate variation is indeed complex and clearly impossibly difficult to accurately model.
The modelers try, but are all cursed with a preconceived idea forced into their efforts by social pressures to confirm the direction of travel is ever upward.
I am constantly puzzled by the scale of disconnect between the models and the observed reality. The over hot models are used by the IPCC and media in general, in preference to the more stable and less apocalyptic (unadjusted) observed.
I am also puzzled, by why having a slightly warmer world is considered such a bad option by the Climate Alarmists?
When we became hairless (well some of us) apes, I would have imagined a few more degrees would be good. Living in a world where the ‘average’ temp is only 15 deg. C didn’t quite fit with the direction of our evolution??

Last edited 29 days ago by Rod Evans
AndyHce
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 5, 2022 12:21 pm

“It doesn’t matter whether or not the science of CO2 is correct or not. It is the best, last chance to achieve a world socialist government and we have to push it as hard as we can.”
That may not be the exact wording but it is the essence of a quote I read years ago, attributed, I believe, to a publication of the Club of Rome. Another quote I’ve seen went much like this
“It doesn’t matter whether or not the science of CO2 is correct or not, by following it we will be doing the right thing for the world.”
Either of those explains the motivation behind all the propaganda. Of course, since I don’t know how to find the sources, I could just be repeating propaganda again the concept.

September 5, 2022 1:56 am

Meridional transport is the main climate change driver

Isn’t meridional transport synonymous with climate? There was a time when people considered the oceans to play a role in this – AMOC etc. – but we needn’t go there again.

Editor
Reply to  Phil Salmon
September 5, 2022 4:15 am

Zonal winds also play a role in climate and the tradeoff in the relative strength of zonal versus meridional winds causes climate changes. The oceans are important in climate change and energy transport in the tropics, but not north/south of 20 degrees latitude or so. If we define climate change as a change in global temperature, something I do not like to do, but the “consensus” likes to do, then the LTG drives it, and MT drives the LTG. MT and all its influences, are probably driven mostly by the Sun and orbital mechanics, but this is hard to prove.

Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 11:53 am

Thanks Andy. This is a hugely impressive work by Javier and yourself. This comment is a follow-on from a small disagreement Javier and I had about whether the ocean has “memory”. Indeed winds drive the ocean – and vice versa also, a coupled system. Maybe I’m too attached to an ocean based interpretation of climate. My working hypothesis is ocean as an excitable medium subject to internal oscillations which however are periodically forced by solar and other astrophysical drivers. I feel that this is a balance between the solar role and internal dynamics. I could be wrong of course. And the WGK-h is testable. When you have weak periodic forcing of a nonlinear oscillatory system then the emergent frequencies can be complex and hard to link to the forcing frequency. But causally linked they still are.

September 5, 2022 1:58 am

“Meridian” is a beautiful word – like coriolis and cellar-door. Part of why I like oceanography.

Ireneusz Palmowski
September 5, 2022 2:15 am

How does solar activity (the strength of the solar wind that reaches Earth) affect the ENSO cycle?
The first question to ask is, why is the current La Niña resurgent again?
It is clear that surface temperature changes are caused by easterly winds at the equator. When the easterly winds are strong over a period of several months, a lot of warm water accumulates in the western equatorial Pacific, leading to a subsurface Walker wave from west to east.
The Walker wave is still too weak to reach the Humboldt Current.
Now let’s see how the solar cycle develops. We can see that solar activity has decreased after the first weak peak. It may turn out that this solar cycle, instead of a strong peak in activity, will have several weaker peaks, which means strong fluctuations in the strength of the solar wind. Therefore, the heat in the western Pacific will accumulate more slowly and La Niña may last.
comment image
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 5, 2022 2:38 am

It can be seen that SOI is quite volatile.
comment image

observa
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 5, 2022 4:00 am

The first question to ask is, why is the current La Niña resurgent again?

They’re calling it a triple La Nina in Oz but it is what is and how you see it depends on your outlook-
Dartmouth locals rejoice at visitor boom as hundreds prepare to watch local dam spill (msn.com)
Murray River business owners worry flood warning could dry up summer trading – ABC News

Ode to Nick and griff et al-
Said Hanrahan by John O Brien – Famous poems, famous poets. – All Poetry

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  observa
September 5, 2022 4:40 am

And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If this rain doesn’t stop.”

Reply to  observa
September 5, 2022 9:04 am

Said Hanrahan is a great poem!
Here’s my own attempt at an Ode to Griff:

Global warning (Ode to Griff)

His name is Griffin. Folks though call him “Griff”
He hails from universities of stone
Debate with him is as a smoken spliff
It leaves one’s mental faculties undone

For high o’er land and sea and distant isles
The eye of Griff doth wander wide and free
All he beholds, his intellect defiles
Dreaming disaster from the rings of trees

The seas do rise – we’re told – to drown our coasts
Though photos of past bays show nary a change
Griff terrifies the kids with tales of ghosts
That steal the frost from every mountain range

Beholding life, he see-eth only death
In forms of beauty, veiled catastrophe
And morbid gas in every human breath
Damns sinners to a lost eternity

But that dread gas – O Griff! How see-est thou not
Bringeth not death but life, that springeth green
The photosynthesis thou hast forgot
Is nourished by the thing thou call’st unclean

And so adieu, my ode to Griff is done
To that sly master of the shifting files
Of numbers spelling our Armeggedon
And yet behind that mask of doom – he smiles!

Last edited 29 days ago by Phil Salmon
Reply to  Phil Salmon
September 5, 2022 4:09 pm

10 yard penalty for mentioning The Grifter

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 5, 2022 2:59 pm

It is clear that surface temperature changes are caused by easterly winds at the equator.

Yes and the opposite is also true – the sea surface temperature gradient between cool off Peru and warmer further east drives the trade winds (cooled air is denser). Wind drives upwelling, upwelling drives wind. It’s the Bjerknes feedback that is at the heart of ENSO.

jono1066
September 5, 2022 5:06 am

It takes me a couple of attempts to read it without interruption, with a large notepad and good access to the web just to be able to get the basics.
Could you do a gate keeper hypothesis for dummies version ?
I have a copy of Newtons Principia as well and never get paste section 1 book 1 before I give up and retire with a sore head for another year.

Editor
Reply to  jono1066
September 5, 2022 5:55 am

We are working on a more easily digestible version of Javier’s book and these posts. It will take some time though.

September 5, 2022 5:11 am

the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, when ocean-stored energy was abruptly released to the atmosphere in the Nordic Seas basin during the last glacial period (Dokken et al. 2013). These changes were temporary because climate can only change long-term through a change in the energy budget of the system.

Sauermilch et al published in 2021 a rebuttal of the “carbonisation” of palaeo climate science. In the case of Antarctica they show convincingly that it really was the isolation of Antarctica and resultant tectonic rearrangement of ocean heat transport that cooled the planet over the Cenozoic. CO2 – not so much.

If this rearranged ocean circulation cooled the planet, how did it do so via TOA balance? I don’t see a role for TOA. (TOA balance is trivial.)

Nelson
September 5, 2022 5:12 am

Wow. Lots to digest this holiday morning in the US. ,Something that caught my eye is the dating of Lake Agassiz outburst at 8200 years ago. I thought it was earlier and caused the YD.

Michael in Dublin
September 5, 2022 5:45 am

This long article is way beyond the level of the average person.

However, some paragraphs and sentences should be clear to anyone of average intelligence. I would pick out the third paragaph of the introduction:
“In a simplified form the climate can be understood as solar energy being received and stored by the ocean, and then transferred to the atmosphere for transport and ultimately discharged to space. . . . . “

and the first sentence of the epilogue:
“Climate is one of the most complex phenomena to become a subject of popular scientific debate.”

How can one communicate this all in the simplest of ways for both adults and children?

I remember the regular library outings with my children in the eighties and nineties when I discovered the wonderful Dorling Kindersley Eyewitness series and made sure they were some of the books they took home. These beautifully illustrated books with limited textual explanations and descriptions opened up science and much more. There is a new one on the Periodic Table due in December.

I see there was one on Climate Change (by John Woodward) last year. I have only been able to see a few pages on the Amazon preview but it appears to have bought into the alarmist narrative. I would love to see a good review on WUWT pointing out both strenghths and errors. But we need more. Simple children’s books can often be a great help to parents and grandparents – more than an adult book. We need children’s books on enjoying, appreciating and adapting to climate with no alarmism.

Last edited 29 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 5, 2022 6:20 am

Sometimes what is left out is telling. The DK book Climate Change has the whole Glossary in the preview but strangely there is no explanation of the word “climate” but it briefly states in the first chapter: “The long-term pattern of weather in a particular place is its climate. Climates vary slowly over time, forcing life to adapt to new conditions, but recently the rate of climate change has speeded up.” This last statement is misleading. There is also no Koppen climate classification in the index. Has the author not discussed the various climate zones and how climate change could affect them very differently?

Editor
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 5, 2022 10:09 am

Michael are you talking about the DK book, or Javier’s book? Javier’s book covers the Koppen classification in detail in Chapter 10. He also defines climate in the glossary.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 3:47 pm

I was referring to the DK book. Sorry if I did not make this explicit.

Editor
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 5, 2022 10:03 am
Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 3:48 pm

Thanks

Jim Gorman
September 5, 2022 7:06 am

Andy, Javier –>

Thanks for the article. Very detailed and complicated. I will need time to assimilate. However, I have become a believer that using averages of both radiation and temperature just can not explain the climate let alone that CO2 is a major control knob.

Absorption of the sun’s energy MUST be higher at the tropics than at the poles. A cosine function exists because the earth is a sphere along with reflection, refraction and scattering. Consequently, there will be a gradient from the equator to the poles. Averages of temperature will never explain any of the phenomena included in what we call climate. Is MT the major factor, maybe not, but it is a large one. Likewise there are many other oscillatory phenomena that play a part, not the least is the Coriolis forces generated from the earth’s rotation.

My only admonition is to beware trending oscillatory phenomena that don’t have sufficient time and phase data. Our measurement capabilities along with fairly recent recognition of some ocean currents just don’t provide the ability to see long term, i.e., century or millennial type variations.

David Dibbell
September 5, 2022 7:52 am

Javier and Andy: This was a very interesting and informative series. I read all six all the way through. Not that I needed convincing that the model-centric attribution of recent warming to slowly increasing concentrations of CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs is unsound on its own.

Well done.

Richard M
September 5, 2022 7:56 am

Albedo has been very constant since we have been able to measure it with sufficient precision, with an inter-annual variability of 0.2 Wm–2

This claim is a direct contradiction to the CERES data as documented in Figure 3. of Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297

comment image

Making obvious false claims pretty much destroys any credibility your views have.

Javier
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 8:47 am

So you say.

Stephens, G.L., O’Brien, D., Webster, P.J., Pilewski, P., Kato, S. and Li, J.L., 2015. The albedo of Earth. Reviews of geophysics53(1), pp.141-163.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449

The albedo of Earth appears to be highly buffered on hemispheric and global scales as highlighted by both the hemispheric symmetry and a remarkably small interannual variability of reflected solar flux (~0.2% of the annual mean flux).

I guess it is not as clear as you present it.

Richard M
Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 9:33 am

I simply showed the CERES data. Your reference is old enough to have missed the 2014 change. They quote the CERES measured value of the first year.

“According to these CERES EBAF data, the global, annual mean all-sky reflected flux is 99.7 W m−2 (equivalent to a global albedo of 0.293)”

Do you have something that refutes the CERES data? If not, then the constant albedo claim discredits your entire paper. You will either need to factor in the changing albedo or change your hypothesis.

Keep in mind the CERES results were more due to cloud thinning than a reduction in cloud coverage.

This is how scientific review works.

Last edited 29 days ago by Richard M
Javier
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 10:01 am

You will either need to factor in the changing albedo or change your hypothesis.

That is incorrect. I have showed important changes in Arctic OLR during winter due to changes in meridional transport. Albedo changes play no role when the sun doesn’t shine.

It doesn’t bother me the least that changes in albedo take place as a result of changes in transport. To a certain point it is to be expected as the transport of energy is linked to the transport of moisture. I am just going with the published literature on albedo changes.

Richard M
Reply to  Javier
September 5, 2022 10:35 am

Then simply remove the constant albedo claim. In fact, if it turns out the albedo change supports your hypothesis then show how and why.

Editor
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 11:38 am

We will not remove it until you make your case with better data. The drop is within the margin of error of both the Earthshine data and the CERES data, sorry.

Editor
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 10:27 am

Richard,
You show a reduction of about 1 W/m2 in the energy balanced and filled CERES data. The raw SW data is not very accurate. The attached plot compares the CERES data to Earthshine data. CERES in blue, Earthshine in black. Notice the big difference, which combined with the error (gray region) suggests that, within the margin of error, albedo is pretty flat. CERES data is just not very good.
Source: Earth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine – Goode – 2021 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

Goode_2021_albedo_plot.jpg
Last edited 29 days ago by Andy May
Richard M
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 10:44 am

This argument has been used by the climate alarmist community to deny the clear conclusion that the CERES data represents. Why would you believe the Earthshine data is better?

Did you notice how well CERES data matches up to the global temperature data as Willis recently highlighted? The OLR data also matches up. Multiple types of data all matching up if the CERES solar reflection data is correct.

Editor
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 11:36 am

“if the CERES solar reflection data is correct.”
That is the key point I’m making. According to Loeb, 2018, the actual uncertainty in the SW data, from calibration alone, 1%, which is about the drop you show. The total uncertainty is larger. And let’s not forget that the EBAF product is highly massaged.
I’m not saying you are wrong, just that the record is too short, and the data are too weak to draw that conclusion. In reality, I do think the Earthshine data is more accurate, frankly. And Earthshine has a longer record. However, both methods of estimating albedo have problems.
Here is Loeb’s recent paper: 

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 1:42 pm

I agree, Andy. Not that I wouldn’t mind to draw conclusions from albedo change, but the data is not good enough, and when that happens the chances of being wrong are just too high for my taste.

Richard M
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 2:16 pm

A bit of a cherry pick there. My point was that 3 separate types of data line up together. One of them is the reflected solar energy. Admittedly they all could suffer similarly from satellite orbital problems. But, I think the likelihood of that is slim.

A second issue is the way the biggest part of the change in reflected solar energy lines up almost perfectly with the PDO phase change in 2014. This occurred over a single year. What kind of error would produce that result?

PS. I don’t trust Loeb after his 2021 paper made all kinds of silly excuses for this data.

Editor
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 5:29 pm

Richard, Loeb is the expert.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 1:46 pm

Glad to see so one take uncertainty in measurements seriously.

Per Bak
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2022 9:03 am

Thank you for posting this graph which is also one of my favourites – because I thought it showed that the albedo was not constant and that the cloud cover does vary. I also believe that Svensmark refers to the same dataseries and correlates it with high energy Galactic Cosmic Rays. He has even shown how cosmic ray ‘bursts’ correlate with increased cloud cover shortly thereafter and that the effect was equivalent to some 1.5 W/m2.

A cosmic ‘link’ makes good sense to me in explaining the numerous significant climatic changes over geological/astronomical time scales. My question is, why is this link not discussed in the article? What is wrong with that theory?

September 5, 2022 8:14 am

Javier many thanks for your great compilation ,however ,in section 5 of your post you say
” The negative correlation between long-term solar activity and Arctic winter temperature is clear (Fig. 5.5).
The correlation as shown in your Fig 5.5 is simply wrong a – Figment of your imagination . Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a 12/13 year delay between the solar activity driver changes and the correlative temperature change- see Fig.2 and the quotations from my Blog

http://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/820570527003668244/3260744859689736991
“Short term deviations from the Millennial trends are driven by ENSO events and volcanic activity.

comment image

“Fig 2 The correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. (28,29)
The Oulu Cosmic Ray count shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant secular drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/- and a new solar activity minimum late in 2009.The MSATP at 1991/2 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. In Figure 2 short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos. The hadsst3gl temperature anomaly at 2037 is forecast to be + 0.05. ”
Your are right in identifying the MTTP at 2003/4 as important but the main driver is the variation in solar activity as shown by the cosmic ray count in Fig 2 above
Best Regards Norman Page
norpag1@gmail.com

Editor
Reply to  Norman J Page
September 5, 2022 11:20 am

Norman, Your link doesn’t work.
In any case, your delay is about one solar cycle and might simply reflect solar minima to solar minima. Arctic warming occurs after (or is coincident with) significant periods of reduced solar activity, as Figure 5.5 shows. Attached.

Fig 5.5.png
Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 12:23 pm

Andy try https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/820570527003668244/326074485968973699or http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Andy your Fig 5.5 clearly shows that as solar activity declines temperatures rise. This is not merely counter intuitive but basically bonkers a bit like Leif and his refusal to recognize the suns effect on temperature. See also my ig4response to Leif above – September 5, 2022 10:49 am. As I said above
“The Oulu Cosmic Ray count shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant secular drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/- and a new solar activity minimum late in 2009.The MSATP at 1991/2 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. In Figure 2 short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos.” Thanks for your reply . Best Regards Norman

Per
Reply to  Norman J Page
September 5, 2022 12:45 pm

Low solar activity -> more clouds -> shade/cooling over the tropical oceans and insulation/warming at the poles. No?

Reply to  Per
September 5, 2022 2:35 pm

Per See reply to Andy below.

Editor
Reply to  Norman J Page
September 5, 2022 1:02 pm

“solar activity declines temperatures rise.”
Arctic temperatures rise. And it is very logical. Lower solar activity weakens the polar vortex, this increases MT and the extra transported energy from the tropics warms the Arctic, it also allows cold Arctic air out and cools the rest of the planet. Long term cooling is a function of the enhanced OLR from the winter pole.

Reply to  Andy May
September 5, 2022 2:13 pm

Andy you have everything backwards Energy flow is from sun- ocean interface at the inter- tropical convergence zone. That is by far the main temperature driver. If solar energy – activity decreases there is much less energy transported to the poles. Any changes in the solar vortex etc are very secondary effects compared to this main driver see quotes from
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html

CO2 and Temperature
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.15 x 1018 tonnes. (1) The mass of atmospheric CO2 in 2018 was approximately 3 x 1012 tonnes. (2). Jelbring 2003 (3) in The “Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass “ says
“…the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density..”
Stallinga 2020 (4) concludes: ” The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we……… find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. ……Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.” CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing (RF) arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures.
Miskolczi 2014 (5) in “The greenhouse effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere “says “The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water.” Seidel and Da Yang 2020 (6) in “The lightness of water vapor helps to stabilize tropical climate” say ” These higher temperatures increase tropical OLR. This radiative effect increases with warming, leading to a negative climate feedback” The Seidel paper is based on model simulations.
Dinh et al 2004 (7) in “Rayleigh-Benard Natural Convection Heat Transfer: Pattern Formation, Complexity and Predictability” made large scale experiments and numerical simulations based on the Navier- Stokes and energy equations to capture and predict the onset of, and pattern formation in Rayleigh-Benard thermal convection systems heated from below.
Eschenbach 2010 (8) introduced “The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis – how Clouds and Thunderstorms Control the Earth’s Temperature”. Eschenbach 2020 (9) in https://whatsupwiththat.com/2020/01/07/drying-the-sky  uses empirical data from the inter- tropical buoy system to provide a description of this system of self-organized criticality in which the energy flow from the sun into and then out of the ocean- water interface in the Intertropical Convergence Zone  results in a convective water vapor buoyancy effect and a large increase in OLR This begins when ocean temperatures surpass the locally critical sea surface temperature to produce Rayleigh – Bernard convective heat transfer.”

Editor
Reply to  Norman J Page
September 5, 2022 5:26 pm

Norman, I appreciate all that, but none of what you’ve written contradicts what Javier and I have written as far as I can tell. Read our posts more carefully.

Peter Ibach
Reply to  Andy May
September 9, 2022 2:43 am

Andy+Norman,

I think there is a straight forward solution to this.
The more mass is transferred meridionally, the less heat is transferred meridionally (i.e., towards the poles).

See my comment here:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/04/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-vi-meridional-transport-as-the-main-climate-change-driver/#comment-979853

Philip Mulholland
September 5, 2022 10:02 pm
  1. The rotation of the solid globe of the Earth is a zonal process by definition (the equator never rotates to the poles).
  2. The only way that solar heat captured by the tropics can ever reach the poles is via the advection (horizontal motion) of surface fluids (the oceans and the atmosphere).
  3. In order to deliver tropical heat to the polar regions this planetary surface fluid motion must be meridional.
Ireneusz Palmowski
September 6, 2022 2:17 am

The solar activity cycle 25 is approaching its maximum, so the solar radiation yet is not reduced very much. But the observations show the change of leading magnetic polarities of sunspots that appears much earlier in cycle 25 (normally it should appear at the descending phase of a cycle, not at its ascending phase as happens now in cycle 25.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

JBP
September 6, 2022 6:31 am

Thanks gentlemen for that article. In figure 6.8 it would seem that the closing of the Mediterranean Sea would be a contributing factor in the reinforcement of the MT system, yet I missed any mention of that. Is it because it was too shallow or some such reason?

R,
JBP

Javier
Reply to  JBP
September 6, 2022 8:59 am

You are correct. The closure of the Tethys Ocean has not been paid due attention. It took place between 20 and 14 Ma, and definetely should have contributed to making the circulation more meridional towards the Midle to Late Miocene.

JBP
Reply to  Javier
September 7, 2022 12:17 pm

I read another article here recently that was discussing the middle miocene. Maybe it provides a link or mechanism. I can not remember the topic though. Thanks again.

Frank from NoVA
September 6, 2022 4:27 pm

Javier / Andy.

A belated ‘thank you’ for this work on meridional transport and its impact on climate.  I don’t normally copy / paste long passages, but the following bullets from you post ‘sums up’ what I think is really important for everyone to know about climate change:

  • At the inter-annual scale, the noise is high, but change is governed by ENSO and short-term phenomena like volcanic eruptions through their effect on PV strength and MT. 
  • At the multidecadal scale climate change is governed by the stadium-wave and all its parts, causing climate regime shifts in MT. 
  • The centennial to millennial scale is the solar realm. The sun reigns in climate change through its secular cycles in solar activity, acting through long-term changes in MT, particularly during solar grand minima, but also during extended maxima like the modern solar maximum. 
  • In the multi-millennial scale Milankovitch rules. The orbitally induced changes in the LIG cause changes in MT. As obliquity decreases, it increases insolation in the tropics and decreases it at the poles. This steepens the LIG during the summers, increasing MT, which drives the required heightened moisture to the high latitudes. The moisture will remain locked there, as ice and snow, until the process reverses. This is how the necessary moisture reaches the high latitudes during glaciations (Masson-Delmotte et al. 2005). Later, when obliquity increases, MT becomes more restricted, contributing to the mid-latitudes warming during deglaciations. Obliquity’s strong climatic signature in the tropics has been linked to meridional transport (Bosmans et al. 2015). 
  • At the largest time scale, it is plate tectonics that governs climate change by facilitating or restricting tropical heat access to the two polar radiators. Multi-million-year Earth cooling results when ocean-atmosphere meridional circulation is favored, and zonal circulation is restricted. Zonal wind restrictions are caused by the position of continents, ocean gateways, and mountain ranges, that increase poleward (meridional) heat transport. Multi-million-year Earth warming results when the opposite happens.
%d bloggers like this: