Guest Post By Javier Vinós
1. Introduction
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis, proposed by this author in his book “Climate of the Past, Present and Future” (Vinós 2022), is based on evidence that climate change is primarily the result of changes in poleward energy transport, and that solar variability is an important modulator of this transport. If correct, the hypothesis will provide a new answer to two important questions: How climate changes naturally on the multi-decadal to the millennial time scale, even in the absence of changes in the greenhouse effect, and how changes in solar activity can profoundly affect climate despite their small energy changes. One conclusion of the hypothesis is that the Modern Solar Maximum of 1935-2005 contributed to 20th-century global warming, implying a significant reduction in climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.
The poleward (meridional) transport of energy is a very complex and poorly understood process. Consequently, the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis is not easy to explain, as it requires prior knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic transport mechanisms. The reader is referred to parts III, IV, and V of “The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis” series of articles for additional information on meridional transport mechanisms, and to part VII for a summary of the hypothesis.
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis integrates different components of the transport system in the stratosphere, troposphere, and ocean. A schematic of the energy processes involved is presented in Fig. 8.1, with energy transport represented by white arrows. Solar modulation starting in the stratosphere affects all transport, and Vinós (2022) showed a solar effect on ENSO and the polar vortex. The mechanism by which solar activity modulates ENSO activity is still unknown, but I propose a solar modulation of the Brewer-Dobson tropical upwelling, known as the “tropical route” of the “top-down mechanism” (Maycock & Misios 2016; Vinós 2022).
In Fig. 8.1 the energy gain/loss ratio at the top of the atmosphere determines the maximal energy source in the tropical band and the maximal energy sink in the Arctic in winter. Incoming solar energy is distributed in the stratosphere and troposphere/surface where it is subjected to different transport modulations. 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 modulated by UV heating in the tropical ozone layer, which establishes a temperature gradient affecting zonal wind strength through thermal wind balance, and by the quasi-biennial oscillation (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). In 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 is responsible for the bulk of the transport to the 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 and is exchanged for cold air masses moving out that cool the mid-latitudes. Jet streams (PJS, polar; TJS, tropical; PNJ, polar night) constitute the boundaries and limit transport. Red oval, the part of the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis studied in Veretenenko 2022. The figure is from Vinós 2022.
The effect of solar activity on the polar vortex, first reported by Karin Labitzke in 1987, is better understood. There is now considerable evidence that solar activity affects the state of the polar vortex. The mechanism, which was already proposed in the 1970s, is called “Planetary Wave Feedback” (Gray et al. 2010). The amount of energy and momentum impinging on the polar vortex depends on the state of the stratosphere which is affected by solar activity. During periods of low solar activity, more energy is delivered, perturbing the polar vortex, which is more stable under high solar activity. The stability of the polar vortex is of fundamental importance for the winter climate of the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes and for the amount of energy reaching the Arctic.
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis puts this known solar mechanism into context as part of a more general effect of solar activity on meridional transport through the stratosphere and troposphere from the tropics to the poles. It also shows transport changes affect climate by changing the amount of energy leaving the planet as outgoing longwave radiation in the polar regions.
A recent paper by Svetlana Veretenenko, from the Ioffe Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia (Veretenenko 2022, Ve22 from here), provides important support for the effect of solar activity on the lower atmospheric circulation through its effect on the polar vortex. Veretenenko’s paper focuses only on the troposphere-polar vortex part of the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (Fig. 8.1, red oval). It also lacks an explanation of the energetic changes necessary to change the climate. The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis has provided such an explanation through changes in outgoing radiation (Vinós 2022). Nevertheless, Veretenenko’s paper is an important step in demonstrating the solar effect on global atmospheric circulation, an important part of the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis. It is not uncommon in science for unrelated authors to independently reach similar conclusions at about the same time. The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis was already developed in 2018 and was included in the first edition of “Climate of the Past, Present and Future.” This hypothesis could not have been developed 20 years ago because there was insufficient knowledge and data to support it. The time has come to make a major breakthrough in our understanding of natural climate change and the suns role in it. This author is proud to be a part of it and welcomes Veretenenko’s paper “Stratospheric Polar Vortex as an Important Link between the Lower Atmosphere Circulation and Solar Activity.” The main findings of this article are discussed below.
2. Polar Vortex and Its Role in Atmospheric Processes
Ve22 defines the polar vortex and its role in atmospheric processes very well:
The stratospheric polar vortex is a large-scale cyclonic circulation that forms in the cold air mass over the Polar region during [the] cold half of the year and that extends from the middle troposphere to the stratosphere. A circular eastward motion of air arises, which isolates the polar air from the warmer air of mid-latitudes, contributing to a temperature decrease inside the vortex. The vortex is seen as a belt of strong western winds at latitudes ~50–80° N, with the wind velocity reaching ~50–60 m s–1 at the upper levels. In Figure 2b, the magnitude of the horizontal temperature gradients at the level 20 hPa is presented for January 2005.
Veretenenko 2022
Fig. 8.2 constitutes a nice illustration of the winter gatekeeper concept. The strong winds that circle the poles in winter act as a gatekeeper determining how much energy is going to enter the polar region, creating a steep temperature gradient. The strength of the polar vortex is tied to the Northern Hemisphere winter atmospheric circulation:
The polar vortex is known to be an important element in the large-scale circulation of the atmosphere. The location and state of the vortex affect the development of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). Baldwin and Dunkerton [5] showed that under strong vortex regimes, the NAO and AO indices tend to be positive and that the tracks of extratropical cyclones shift to the north. Gudkovich and colleagues [6] linked the alternations of cold and warm epochs in the Arctic with changes in the vortex state, warm and cold epochs being associated with strong and weak vortex regimes, respectively. Labitzke [7] was the first to reveal that the effects of solar activity on the characteristics of the stratosphere and troposphere depend on the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillations (QBO) in the atmosphere, the findings by Labitzke suggest that the polar vortex strength may also influence the atmosphere response to solar variability.
Veretenenko 2022
3. Spatial and Temporal Variability in Galactic Cosmic Ray Effects on Troposphere Pressure
Ve22 believes that the solar effect is mediated by galactic cosmic rays, but we must remember that solar activity, often assessed by sunspots or the 10.7 cm radio flux, is strongly correlated with the inverse of cosmic rays, as shown in Fig. 8.3. There is a lag of about one year but finding a similar lag in a correlation of climate effects cannot be interpreted as evidence for cosmic ray involvement, since the lags can arise independently.
Ve22 correlates solar activity with atmospheric pressure, as has been done previously by many authors since the Labitzke and Van Loon studies of the 1980s. Ve22 also points out the correlation reversals that have taken place in the solar-climate signal, extensively discussed in Parts I, II, and IV.
[Figure 8.4] presents the spatial distribution of the correlation coefficients between pressure and [galactic cosmic ray] variations, with the linear trends removed, for two different time periods: 1953–1981 [not shown here] and 1982–2000. Tropospheric pressure was characterized by the mean yearly values of geopotential heights at the 700 hPa level … The mean long-term (climatic) positions of Arctic and polar fronts, which are the main atmospheric fronts at extratropical latitudes, are also shown … Arctic fronts separate cold air masses forming in the Arctic region from the warmer air in the middle latitudes, and polar fronts separate mid-latitudinal and tropical air masses. They play an important part in cyclonic activity at middle latitudes, as the formation and evolution of extratropical cyclones are closely associated with these fronts … the distribution of the correlations is closely related to the climatic atmospheric fronts. In the previous period, 1953–1981 [not shown here], the distribution of the correlation coefficients between pressure and [galactic cosmic ray] fluxes was quite similar to that in 1982–2000 … However, the signs of correlations in all these areas were opposite to those in 1982–2000.
Veretenenko 2022
Figure 8.4 corresponds to Figure 3a from Ve22 and has been modified by the addition of land contours and a yellow outline of the area Ve22 calls the North Atlantic cyclogenetic zone (zone of most intensive cyclone formation) along the eastern coasts of North America (20–30° N, 280–300° E, and 30–40° N, 290–310° E).
4. Temporal Variability of Solar Activity Effects on Troposphere Pressure in the Northern Hemisphere and the Epochs of Large-Scale Circulation
For longer temporal analyses, Ve22 uses the sunspot number as a proxy for solar activity and its correlation with sea level pressure in two areas, the North Atlantic cyclogenic zone (yellow box in Fig. 8.4) or the polar region (60-85° N). As we can see in Fig. 8.4 the correlation with solar activity in these two areas is opposite. Fig. 8.5 shows that their opposite correlation with solar activity is maintained over time but undergoes reversals at certain times.
[The data in Fig. 8.5] the suggestion of a close interconnection between dynamic processes developing the North Atlantic cyclogenetic zone and in the Polar region as a response to phenomena related to solar activity. The correlation reversals took place in the end of the 19th century, in the 1920s, near 1950, and in the early 1980s, which indicates a roughly 60-year variation in solar activity effects on troposphere circulation.
Veretenenko 2022
Ve22 takes the dates of the correlation reversals rather than the dates on which the trends change, so it misses known climate regime shifts identified in the Pacific, such as the one in 1976 that precedes the correlation reversal of the early 1980s by about six years. This prevents Ve22 from relating the detected changes to a more global phenomenon involving meridional transport by the multidecadal stadium-wave oscillation that shows the same 65-year frequency (Vinós 2022). Moreover, unlike the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis, Ve22 has no explanation for the correlation reversals, something that has puzzled solar climate researchers for a century.
Thus, the obtained results allow us to suggest that the reversal of the correlation links between pressure variations (development of extratropical baric systems) and solar activity phenomena may be associated with changes in the large-scale circulation epochs.
Veretenenko 2022
Ve22 supports the correlation between solar activity and atmospheric pressure with a similar analysis using the atmospheric circulation index (Vangengeim-Girs) that this author also used in Vinós 2022 Fig. 11.10d. Ve22 correctly identifies the relationship between solar activity and meridional circulation, which is one of the bases of the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis.
Thus, the character of solar activity … effects on cyclonic processes (pressure variations) at extratropical latitudes seems to be closely related to large-scale circulation epochs and especially to the evolution of meridional circulation forms. Indeed, the results of the spectral analysis [Figure 8.5, right panel] showed that annual occurrences of the meridional circulation forms … are characterized by dominant harmonics of ~60 years … Thus, the obtained results allow us to suggest that the reversal of the correlation links between pressure variations (development of extratropical baric systems) and solar activity phenomena may be associated with changes in the large-scale circulation epochs.
Veretenenko 2022
5. Evolution of the Polar Vortex as a Possible Reason for Temporal Variability in Solar Activity Effects on the Lower Atmosphere Circulation
Ve22 relates the observed changes in atmospheric circulation and its changing correlation with solar activity to changes in the state of the polar vortex. Using reanalysis, Ve22 shows a period of strong stratospheric vortex from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, characterized by stronger zonal winds at 60-80°N and lower polar temperatures. Weaker vortex phases occurred in the two decades before and after that period.
More controversial are Ve22 findings on surface changes in sea-level pressure and temperature in the Arctic region.
One can see that the period with a strong vortex (~1980–2000), when stratospheric winds were enhanced (Figure 7), was really accompanied by a decrease in pressure and warming in the Arctic. The previous period with a weak vortex (~1950–1980), on the contrary, was accompanied by an increase in pressure and a cold epoch in the studied region.
Veretenenko 2022
This makes little sense, as a strong vortex creates a zone of lower surface pressure and lower temperature. The data bear this out, as the Arctic has experienced intense winter warming since the 1997 shift to a weaker vortex phase, not the cooling shown in Figure 7 of Ve22. This author suspects a problem with the Ve22 Figure 7 or with the polynomial trend removal methodology.
6. Destruction of Cloud-Galactic Cosmic Rays Correlation: Possible Role of the Vortex Weakening
Ve22 next examines the correlation between the low cloud anomalies and cosmic rays that formed the basis of Svensmark’s theory. As Ve22 shows, the correlation disappeared after 2000, and Ve22 attempts to relate the end of the correlation to a change in the polar vortex. In my opinion, the attempt is unsuccessful. Svensmark’s theory requires a direct effect of cosmic rays on cloud condensation nuclei. It is not possible to justify that more cosmic rays go from inducing more clouds to inducing fewer clouds. However, Ve22 attempts to do so by substituting an unspecified effect on cyclogenesis for the physical effect of cosmic rays on condensation nuclei.
One can see that the correlation coefficients for pressure–GCRs [galactic cosmic rays] and cloud–GCRs vary in opposite phases. The highest positive correlation R (LCA, FCR) took place in the period, when the effects of GCRs on cyclone development were the most pronounced. In the late 1990s, this correlation started decreasing and changed the sign simultaneously with the reversal of the pressure–GCR correlation. Thus, the presented data provide evidence that a high positive correlation between cloud amount and galactic cosmic rays revealed on the decadal time scale [16,39] was due mostly to the effects of GCR on the development of dynamic processes in the atmosphere under a strong polar vortex.
Veretenenko 2022
This seems convoluted. Altering Svensmark’s theory to maintain the hypothesis that solar effects on atmospheric circulation are due to cosmic rays doesn’t work. The alternate explanation that the effects are due to dynamical changes initiated by changes in solar UV rays mediated by stratospheric ozone (the “top-down” mechanism; Maycock & Misios 2016), is supported by considerable evidence and is incorporated into the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis. It is simpler and a better-supported alternative.
Next, Ve22 goes into a highly speculative and rather lengthy discussion of the possible effects on the polar vortex of solar proton events, auroral phenomena related to geomagnetic activity, magnetic storms, and solar wind. She even argues for a 60-year periodicity in total solar irradiance that is not observed in sunspots. She also raises the possibility that changes in the chemistry of the middle atmosphere are involved in variations in the strength of the polar vortex. This author finds it surprising that the main factor known to affect polar vortex stability, the planetary wave feedback mechanism (Gray et al. 2010), is not considered in this paper.
7. Conclusions
Ve22 ends with 3 conclusions:
1. Temporal variability of solar activity phenomena on the circulation of the lower atmosphere reveals a roughly 60-year periodicity that seems to be associated with changes in the epochs of large-scale circulation…
2. In turn, changes in the circulation epochs seem to be related to the transitions between the different states of the stratospheric polar vortex…
3. The state of the polar vortex may be affected by different solar activity phenomena contributing to a roughly 60-year oscillation of its intensity…
The first two are clear and well supported in the evidence. As advocated by the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis, meridional transport features epochs separated by climatic shifts and characterized by distinct states of the winter atmospheric circulation and polar vortex strength. The periodicity of this multi-decadal transport oscillation, which also involves the oceans, is c. 65 years. Solar activity is one of the main modulators of meridional transport changes through its action on three control centers: the tropical ozone layer, the polar vortex (also identified by Ve22), and ENSO (Vinós 2022).
For the first time in a hundred years, a mechanism has been proposed to explain the solar effect on climate that is consistent with all the evidence and includes the ability to alter the planet’s energy budget through coincident changes in outgoing energy. It explains how a very small change in UV energy in the stratosphere is able to alter the meridional transport of energy making it easier or harder for the planet to conserve energy. Ve22 provides evidence for the solar activity → polar vortex → atmospheric circulation connection and identifies the polar vortex control center as one of the links between solar activity and atmospheric circulation.
This post originally appeared on Judith Curry’s website: Climate Etc.
8. References
Gray LJ, Beer J, Geller M, et al (2010) Solar influences on climate. Reviews of Geophysics 48 (4)
Maycock A & Misios S (2016) Top-down” versus “Bottom-up” mechanisms for solar-climate coupling. In: Matthes K, De Wit TD & Lilensten J (eds.) Earth’s climate response to a changing Sun. EDP Sciences, France, 237-246. Free book download
Veretenenko S (2022) Stratospheric polar vortex as an important link between the lower atmosphere circulation and solar activity. Atmosphere 13 (7), 1132
Vinós J (2022) Climate of the past, present and future. A scientific debate, 2nd ed. Critical Science Press. Free book download
The only honest thing to come out from the IPCC was that the Climate/ weather of the Earth is chaotic.
This article is very interesting, but to my aged brains, in my 96 th year it’s hard to understand.
It is this complexity that the Greens who obviously have a very different agenda to climatic matters , use to confuse & scare us.
Michael VK5ELL
This article is very interesting, but to my aged brains, in my 96 th year it’s hard to understand.
_________________________________________
Me too, and I’m only 78
A mere 75 here.
I’m nearly a millennial at 74.
Simple.
It’s a Mine of Minutia and he’s got Cause & Effect reversed.
Javier has completely confused himself. the rest of us haven’t a hope in hell.
Poleward Transport IS the weather & climate – it does not cause the climate.
(A lot like how clouds are so incredibly misunderstood)
You are absolutely right Peta; and those down votes don’t matter.
Javier’s ‘story’ is already falsified.
“The poleward (meridional) transport of energy is a very complex and poorly understood process.” (my emphasis)
Michael
You are right in speaking of the complexity of climate/weather. This article only focusses on one of a number of aspects. However, I think we should not rush to call this chaotic. Chaos like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If we gain more insight and can get a better view of the big picture over time, future generations may marvel at the complexity of climate/weather and how something totally beyond our control is not to be feared but appreciated. Our efforts should be to better understand climate/weather rather than the foolish attempts to engineer ideal climate(s).
Michael,
Sorry but Earth’s climate system is complex, so is climate change. Since the 1979 Charney Report, where they guessed that climate change was mostly due to CO2 and that climate sensitivity was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2, the IPCC has published 47 major reports and spent billions of dollars redoing and redoing the same work and reaching the same conclusions.
Yet, in that 43-year period, we’ve discovered all the major ocean oscillations, discoveries that have been mostly ignored, or called “white noise.” Details matter, even if understanding them is difficult. Don’t accept the IPCC’s very dated hypothesis just because it is simple or reject Javier’s new one just because it is difficult to understand.
When the simple explanation is convenient to one’s ideology and objectives, and the complex explanation is not (even if it is more correct than the simple one), the simple one obviously becomes the “consensus” explanation. Humanity has witnessed that proclivity over and over and over again.
It was simple when the Judeo-Christian explanation was that God created the earth out of nothing 6 thousand years ago. It took a lot more effort to discover the truth of our universe over the last three centuries or so than to write a couple of paragraphs in an ancient text.
I see little difference between “Let there be light.” And the Big Bang.
Ok, so one guy got the date of creation wrong. Lord Kelvin got the earth’s age wrong. Both were working with the information they had at the time.
As I wrote – one example just involved writing a couple of paragraphs … the other involved roughly 3 centuries of thought and research and data gathering and analysis by generations of researchers. The latter is not simple, but it is correct, as opposed to the former example that is simple and wrong. If you think that is “little difference” between them, then you have came to the wrong website. WUWT is all about science and policy, not religious faith.
Lord Kelvin who has a temperature scale named for him was a scientist and was wrong. They guy who tried to figure out the start of creation was wrong. Lord Kelvin’s effort was complicated and took much effort. But he was wrong
And unless you have more information there is no difference in the Big Bang theory which is something from nothing. And the biblical “Let there be light”.
You use knowledge in many scientific disciplines that was gained by the efforts of men of religious faith. Sir Isaac Newton being one.
If you don’t mind I will continue my belief in God and enjoy coming to this site.
The bible doesn’t say the earth or universe were created 6,000 years ago. People do.
And since the bible is a synopsis of all of creation and history up to that point, necessarily vast epochs are covered in a couple of paragraphs.
You may or may not know a lot about science and you may or may not be possessed of excellent reasoning faculties but you seem to know next to nothing about the bible other than misinterpretations of it and you don’t seem to have a very reasonable or well considered opinion regarding the matter, despite, or more likely because of, that ignorance.
The Bible does say the earth is 6,000 years old – it gives the exact genealogy and chronology of humans going back to Adam and Eve who were created immediately after the creation of the earth. Just add the numbers Obviously you don’t know jack shit about the Bible. Or science.
I rely heavily on summaries and conclusions a lot. With very long theses like this very busy one, it would be helpful to pause, and put the information to this point in bullet points and then move on. I’m in my 85th year, but I think I would have found the topic pretty heavy duty 30-40yrs ago.
That it resolves down to a 60-65yr climate oscillation gives confidence that Javier is on the right track (consensus climate science doesn’t even acknowledge this natural oscillation or any significant natural variation at all).
I remember here on WUWT the rejoicing over the 14yr drought in land falling Atlantic hurricanes. I cautioned that this was the wrong reception for the fact, pointing out the early 1950s had a devastating flurry of big destructive hurricanes (one, Diana, even devastated Toronto even though it made landfall in the Carolinas).
I said it would be better to predict a return of big hurricanes in the next couple of years, 60yrs after the early fifties, to take the reins away from alarmists, beef up sceptic reputation in climate science and put natural variation firmly into the picture. No one even bothered to comment and my prediction of the return of hurricanes wreaking havoc began a year later with Harvey the head of a chain storms across the Atlantic. I was happy to have predicted them, happy to validate this natural climate oscillation, but unhappy we didn’t take advantage of it. Alarmists simply buried the unprecedented hurricane drought in new hysteria.
Now where have I heard this before?
Scientists in furious row over ‘lab-made Covid’ claims (msn.com)
Clearly we’ll have to get all the scientists together for a vote to settle it.
LOL!
Government money will get the vote needed to keep the narrative going.
Both galactic radiation and ozone (which is diamagnetic) respond to changes in the strength of the magnetic field. This determines the distribution of ozone in high latitudes and the pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex. Depending on the strength of the solar wind’s magnetic field (of which the circular pattern of the aurora borealis is a visible image), solar activity affects more or less the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere and the wind speed of the polar vortex. During periods of weak solar wind, the distribution of ozone in high latitudes is decisively influenced by the geomagnetic field. Currently, there is a weakening of the magnetic field over North and South America, which is clearly observed in winter weather in North America (strong stratospheric intrusions, reaching the Gulf of Mexico).
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
To understand what I am writing about, just follow the circulation over the Bering Sea.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
The weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. If the field continues to weaken by 5% per decade, look out.
Especially since the strength of the geomagnetic field in the north is distributed unevenly, and the northern magnetic pole is moving to Siberia and the strength of the magnetic field is increasing there.
“The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.”
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
The other issue tied to the magnetic field is the effect the “global electric circuit” has on the intensity of high and low pressure systems, which certainly impact weather and less so climate. A weaker Earth’s magnetic field means increased effect by solar flares and CME’s. It also effects earthquakes and volcanism. We are slowly going through a major change and it seems to be totally ignored by most people.
Years ago I read an Asimov book and he mentioned the weakening of the field and said it maybe gone in about 3,000 years. Look out is correct.
The weakening field might also cause climatic shifts, but just wait. They’ll say CO2 caused it.
The Average Magnetic field and Polar current System model (AMPS) is a climatological model of polar ionospheric currents, based on magnetic field measurements from the CHAMP and Swarm satellites. The model is a representation of the global disturbance magnetic field associated with ionospheric currents, as a function of solar wind speed, the interplanetary magnetic field, the tilt angle of the Earth’s magnetic dipole, and the F10.7 solar flux index.
https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/tools/amps-model
“… solar activity affects more or less the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere …”. Gosh, I thought it was CFCs whot done it.
The broad thesis is correct and there is lots of evidence to support the linkages described. However, in the end it appears to come down to solar variations altering the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles as proposed by me many years ago. Those variations disturb the underlying stability provided by the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport model built by myself and Philip Mulholland and the consequence of changes in cloudiness mimic the thermal effect of a change in the distance of Earth from the sun to cause warming or cooling.
The tropopause height does respond to the changes in ozone and atmosphere column temperature profile, and it also changes in response to stratospheric circulation changes. Therefore it responds to solar activity changes, as the rest of the atmospheric circulation, particularly during winter. It doesn’t mean that it comes down to those changes.
As the atmospheric circulation and ozone change in response to solar activity changes, you will find changes almost everywhere you look, including ENSO, AMO, planetary waves, clouds, and so on. Even the rotation of the planet responds to solar activity.
What it all comes down to is that to change the climate a change in the energy budget is required. According to you, this is due to cloud changes. According to me, this is due to changes in outgoing longwave radiation at the polar regions. The advantage is that I can show those changes supporting my hypothesis, while clouds are so complex that nobody really knows their contribution. Even the changes in albedo are controversial. A lot of people have proposed that the climate is changing due to cloud changes, but nobody has been able to produce convincing evidence.
“A lot of people have proposed that the climate is changing due to cloud changes, but nobody has been able to produce convincing evidence.”
If you don`t see any evidence you have to be blind. Martin Wild and the global brightening since about 1983 and Satellite data from 1979, including CERES data. Decreasing clouds have much stronger radiation effect than GHGs (in global budget). Surface warming comes from increased SW down, and decreased LW at TOA. The most interesting thing is how cloud cover and atmospheric circulation interacts.
Can it be time to cooperate over our understanding of climate change?
I prefer skeptic. As Dr. Roy Spencer says:
Nobody understands clouds, and therefore they cannot be used to support or dismiss a hypothesis.
Ditto. This change in concept will take some time for folks to absorb. Thanks for your efforts on this subject.
Hello Javier and thanks for your response.
If there is to be a change in the energy budget then the long term stability of the atmosphere is compromised. The amount of energy required to keep the weight of the atmosphere suspended off the surface has to be maintained as a constant otherwise atmospheres cannot remain in place indefinitely but clearly they are.
So if your proposition were correct the solar variability could potentially lead to the loss of atmospheres but that has never been observed.
The only viable scenario is that climate changes successfully neutralise solar variations in order to maintain stability.
That leads us to my hypothesis rather than yours.
I don’t believe that for a moment. Or do you think you can get a glaciation without changing the energy budget?
You have been referring to a solar induced change to the energy budget without a change in global albedo. That is what cannot happen because one needs the change in albedo to mimic a change in the distance from the sun and thereby induce cooling or warming that cannot be neutralised by adjustments to the climate zones.All other changes in the energy budget are neutralised by adjustments to the climate zones and those adjustments can include periods of glaciation.
If one does get a change to the energy budget without a change in global albedo then the long term stability of the atmosphere is compromised.
The importance of albedo is that changes in albedo alter the proportion of incoming solar energy that the system absorbs and that can result in a temperature change. Your hypothesis ignores albedo variations whilst keeping energy from the sun constant despite changes in the effect of solar variations on atmospheric chemistry which we agree do alter circulation patterns.
If incoming solar is unchanged and albedo is unchanged then you can’t get a net change to the overall long term energy budget, only a redistribution of energy in the form of altered climate zones.
That redistribution neutralises any potential warming or cooling effect from other causes to keep energy in balanced with energy out so as to retain the atmosphere.
So, the gatekeeper hypothesis describes the means by which warming or cooling is prevented and not the means by which warming or cooling is caused.
To cause warming or cooling you have to change albedo if energy from the sun stays constant. Unless the changes in meridional transport change global albedo there will be no net global warming or cooling.
Hence my proposition that changes in meridional transport change global cloudiness by altering the length of the lines of air mass mixing. Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis performs the same function but there is little evidence for it.
Essentially, your hypothesis can be switched from a preventative mechanism to a causative mechanism by allowing it to change albedo in the way I suggest.
Here is where you go wrong. Half of the planet has no incoming solar and no albedo. Altering emissions from that half alters the energy budget without changing solar or albedo.
This is what happens in polar regions during half of the year, and the evidence shows outgoing longwave radiation from the Arctic greatly increased during the cold season in a step change after 1997 (25 years and going). The energy budget was altered as a consequence, without changing solar or albedo.
Albedo may or may not change and this theory is not falsified.
I agree that faster meridional transport will allow more outgoing longwave from unilluminated regions.
However, increased meridional transport also reduces the escape of outgoing longwave from the areas of strongest illumination by removing surface energy faster so there is no net effect overall, just a redistribution.
Have you dealt with the effect of of increased meridionality on outgoing longwave from the tropics ?
In order to get a net warming or cooling effect for the whole planet you have to change albedo as well.
This is a very common belief, but it is wrong. The Greenhouse Effect is considerably weaker over polar regions during the cold season than elsewhere on the planet. Moving more energy there means the planet loses energy. Moving less means the planet conserves energy. This makes the CO2 global effect puny by comparison.
I agree that any CO2 global effect is puny compared to the effect of changes in meridional transport.
Where do you get the idea that moving more energy from the tropics to the poles does not reduce outgoing longwave from the tropics ?
Such an effect might be hard to observe since the area of the tropics is vastly greater than the area around the poles.
Add to this the net effect of the polarity flip of the solar magnetic flux every 11 years. Zharkova may yet be vindicated.
https://solargsm.com/eigen-vectors-of-solar-magnetic-field-in-cycles-21-24-and-their-links-to-solar-activity-indices/
Fig 8.3 Sunspots versus cosmic rays is interesting data. Gonna pin it on my office wall. Fig 8.4 showing correlation coefficients from -0.6 to +0.6 on a random world map is going to line my birdcage.
Every time I read one of these articles the word “epicycle” comes to mind.
Epicycles were a way of adjusting reality to mathematics (geometry), so adjusting evidence to the hypothesis. This is the exact opposite, as I adjust the hypothesis to the evidence. So you can tell the IPCC that they are doing epicycles with their CO2 sensitivity and fingerprinting.
Epicycles, on the contrary, were a convoluted way the explain the evidence of long-observed planetary motion. They were not to adjust the evidence as you said. The hypothesis was internally consistent without the need for any adjustment of observations (à la IPCC). The hypothesis essentially existed because of a cherished false premise (geocentrism), shades of CO2 control knob dogma. It could have been an accurate model of reality but is now known to be incorrect.
Whether your theory is an ultimately inaccurate convoluted exercise in correlation without providing a physical mechanism, or it is a brilliant insight that will prove to be an accurate description of reality is I’ll humbly state, impossible for me to guess.
The need for epicycles arouse from the Aristotelian concept of heavenly perfection where the orbits had to be circular. It is actually quite an astute solution, as any curve can be approximated by using epicycles.
It constituted a way of adjusting the reality of elliptic orbits to the theory of circular orbits. The ellipse was known to the ancient Greeks and using it would have removed the need for epicycles. Looking for a different orbital solution was the way for adjusting the theory to the evidence of retrograde motion. As it still happens prejudices are an obstacle to letting nature tell us what is happening.
IPCC followers are now using “epicycles” to explain why climate does not adjust to models instead of letting climate tell them what makes it change because they are prejudiced by their current “circular orbit” requirement, which is CO2.
Time will tell, but my theory does provide a physical mechanism.
Javier,
You said:
And earlier you said:
(My emphasis)
That is why I said correlation without describing a physical mechanism.
Has your hypothesis described a physical, observable (and thus falsifiable) process by which upwelling is modulated by changes in sunlight, or is that just a description of the observed correlation without providing a physical mechanism?
You may reasonably say that I should read your book or the earlier posts, but I offer an opportunity to counter a criticism of your work.
My theory is not based on the mechanism by which solar activity modulates ENSO. That is a very peripheral issue.
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis states that the climate changes due to changes in the strength of meridional transport that alter the amount of energy delivered to the Arctic region during the cold season. When more energy is transported more energy is lost through outgoing longwave radiation, and as a result, the planet warms less or cools.
The strength of meridional transport changes at certain times producing climate shifts like in 1976 or 1997. These climate shifts define climate regime periods, like the 1976-1997 period of low transport-high warming, followed by the period of high transport-low warming since 1997.
Every part of that theory can be checked. And a lot of it is already known.
Meridional transport integrates different signals, from volcanic aerosols, and gravitational pulls, to Milankovitch orbital changes. The two most important forcings affecting meridional transport in the multi-decadal timescale that is important to us are solar activity and oceanic multi-decadal oscillation.
The mechanism by which solar activity affects meridional transport was proposed in 1974 and it is very well known with dozens of scientific articles about it. It is called “the top-down mechanism,” and acts through the “planetary wave feedback.” My contribution is to link this explanation to meridional transport, so when solar activity is low the polar vortex weakens, the Arctic warms, and outgoing longwave radiation increases. This is what is happening now. When solar activity goes back to having an active cycle the opposite process should take place.
Veretenenko’s paper confirms that she independently sees the same evidence I see in the data. The link between solar activity and atmospheric circulation involves the strength of the polar vortex. She uses different data than me to show it.
Every time I read one of these articles the words “INSIGNIFICANCE OF HUMANS” comes to mind.
Ptolemy will eventually be vindicated!
It will be a real energy meltdown in Europe when the frost catches in late October.
https://i.ibb.co/MCbVsdr/hgt300.webp
Interesting times for sure.
The rest of the world will follow China out of the climate alarm quagmire.
I’m no academic but Javier’s theory makes much more sense than co2 warming.
Meridional heat transfer, yes I like it.
If poleward heat transport is mostly by atmosphere, not ocean, then why do scientists believe that the climate cooling during the Tertiary (last 66 million years) was largely caused by the oceanic isolation of Antarctica? That the coincidence of the formation of the circumpolar current all round Antarctica and that continent’s glaciation 16-32 million years ago, was not a coincidence but causally related? That cutting off Antarctica from warm water flows from Africa for example, made the place cool down.
This must surely be wrong? It’s quite a well established view, but if in reality, the warming of a south polar continent is mostly by Hadley cell air circulation, and atmospheric winds in general, then oceanic and continental rearrangement surely are of no importance at all.
If climate heat movement is about atmosphere, not ocean, then does the oceanic isolation of Antarctica have any climate significance? In the Paleocene when Antarctica was forested, what was different in the atmosphere to allow that?
Scientists entertain as many beliefs as everybody else, but scientists’ opinions do not constitute science.
Antarctica’s glaciation was triggered by orbital changes within the context of a 16 Myr global cooling most likely caused by the opening of the Arctic Gateway.
When Antarctica glaciated CO2 levels greatly increased due to the huge die-off of an entire continent. The planet obviously cooled from entering an ice age, but from the Mid-Oligocene Glacial Period to the Mid-Miocene Climate Optimum it underwent a 13 Myr period of warming at the time CO2 levels collapsed to 300 ppm (except for the Columbia River Basalt Province mega eruption 16 Ma).
This unexplained until now total disconnect between temperature and CO2 for 13 Myr is shown by the blue triangle in the figure. Antarctica isolation was bad for Antarctica but good for the planet, as it reduced the energy loss from meridional transport.
The raising of the Himalayas and the restriction of the Indonesian Gateway first, and the opening of the Bering Strait and the Panama closure later caused the end of the Mid-Miocene and the deepening of the ice age.
Figure 11.17 from my book.
When Antarctica glaciated CO2 levels greatly increased due to the huge die-off of an entire continent.
Die-off due to glaciation could explain other observations of CO2 increase at glacial inception, such as at the end-Ordovician glaciation, as shown in this study by Seth Young et al.:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/the-ordovician-glaciation-glaciers-spread-while-co2-increased-in-the-atmosphere-a-problem-for-carbon-alarmism/
The oceanic isolation of Antarctica is accompanied by its atmospheric circulation isolation. Winds are stronger over the ocean and strong winds circle Antarctica. That is what makes the SH polar vortex so strong and stable.
“This hypothesis could not have been developed 20 years ago because there was insufficient knowledge and data to support it.”
Maybe it couldn’t be developed by someone so blind as to be constrained by the scientific method. You would never have come up with most of the ‘advances’ in the fields of psychology, political science, and AGW.
“The mechanism by which solar activity modulates ENSO activity is still unknown”
Weaker solar wind states causing negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions which then slow the trade winds would do it.
“The periodicity of this multi-decadal transport oscillation, which also involves the oceans, is c. 65 years.”
Since the Gleissberg Minimum there has been a 60 year AMO envelope and a 70 year AMO envelope (12 sunspot cycles), but between the Dalton Minimum and the Gleissberg Minimum (7 sunspot cycles), the AMO envelopes would have been shorter than the average of 54-55 years.