Could it be the missing key? The solar wind blasts charged particles, electrons, stuff, towards Earth at 500 km a second — that’s one to two million miles per hour. It speeds up, slows down and shifts in direction as it travels past the Earth and has its own magnetic field. The wind speed varies from 300 km per second up to 800 and the impact on Earth changes with our magnetic field and our seasons. You might think this kind of monster flow might have some effect on our climate. But modern climate models are 95% certain that none of this matters. Only crazy people would think that a electrons flying past at a million miles per hour could “do something” to our stratosphere, or ozone, or cloud cover.
Curiously, a recent study shows that when the solar wind is fastest, the North Atlantic is coldest on the surface. The NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) appears to correlate. The effect is strongest in the northern winter months. Notably the modern expert climate models fail to predict any of the cycles within our major ocean basins. How immature is our understanding of space weather?
Could changes in the solar wind be the driver of the NAO? Will it turn out to be the mechanism for Force N or D?
Fig. 2. Seasonal mean spatial distribution of the correlation between SWS and SST; for MAM (a), JJA (b), SON (c), and DJF (d). The solid dark lines are the boundaries of the regions where the statistical confidence exceeds 99% with the t-test and the dashed dark lines are the boundaries of the regions where the statistical confidence exceeds 95%.
The solar-wind speeds peak about 3 or 4 years after the TSI and sunspots peak in each cycle. That doesn’t suggest the one solar cycle lag we are looking for. Perhaps if we had more data on solar wind speeds we could figure out whether the wind speeds correlated with the TSI in the cycle earlier?
Fig. 1. Time series analysis of monthly average of 10.7 cm solar radiation flux, solar wind electric field and solar wind speed, Fig. 1(a), and the NAO index, Fig. 1(b), as standardized monthly indices from 1963 to 2010. In Fig. 1(a) the dashed line is for 10.7 cm solar flux, the solid line for solar wind electric field, and the dotted line for solar wind speed.
Why the North Atlantic? Researchers don’t know exactly, they speculate:
The North Atlantic region seems to be favored for many of the observed responses, as found in the correlation of atmospheric
geopotential height (GPH) with solar wind geo-effective electric field (GEF) (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2003); of GPH with solar wind speed (SWS) (Zhou et al., 2014); and of surface air temperature (SAT) with energetic electron precipitation (EEP) and the geomagnetic activity that accompanies it (Seppälä et al., 2009; Baumgaertner et al., 2011; Maliniemi et al., 2013).
Every second solar cycle is different
When the sun flips north-south polarity the wind is more likely to hit Earth at a different angle — described as the solar wind clock angle. The Bz component is the north south component. Bz negative phases which are “southward” interplanetary magnetic conditions. That’s also when the geomagnetic storm activity is highest. So every second solar cycle the correlation changes.
Below the Fig 6a is Bz minus, and Fig 6 b is Bz positive.
Fig. 6. As for Fig. 2(d), but dividing winters into those with average negative Bz (a), and those with average positive Bz (b).
Something is going on in the Bz negative cycles in the far northern Atlantic — (that’s the blue blob near Greenland in fig 6a).
In Fig. 6(a) we see a stronger SST response to the SWS when Bz is negative than in 6(b) when Bz is positive, in the high geomagnetic
latitude region near Iceland and southern Greenland.
With negative Bz more solar wind energy enters the magnetosphere–ionosphere system than with positive Bz, increasing energetic particle precipitation and ionospheric electric fields associated with magnetic storms. Increased response with negative Bz is not consistent with UV or total irradiance forcing.
If the correlation is meaningful, the next question is whether this is driven through stratospheric ozone, or though an electrical response of clouds and storm dynamics. It’s all speculation at this stage.
The Australian BOM Solar Wind Speed page
H/t Lance (Siliggy) and thanks to Lance W too.
Abstract
A significant correlation between the solar wind speed (SWS) and sea surface temperature (SST) in the region of the North Atlantic Ocean has been found for the Northern Hemisphere winter from 1963 to 2010, based on 3-month seasonal averages. The correlation is dependent on Bz (the interplanetary magnetic field component parallel to the Earth’s magnetic dipole) as well as the SWS, and somewhat stronger in the stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) west phase than in the east phase. The correlations with the SWS are stronger than those with the F10.7 parameter representing solar UV inputs to the stratosphere. SST responds to changes in tropospheric dynamics via wind stress, and to changes in cloud cover affecting the radiative balance. Suggested mechanisms for the solar influence on SST include changes in atmospheric ionization and cloud microphysics affecting cloud cover, storm invigoration, and tropospheric dynamics. Such changes modify upward wave propagation to the stratosphere, affecting the dynamics of the polar vortex. Also, direct solar inputs, including energetic particles and solar UV, produce stratospheric dynamical changes. Downward propagation of stratospheric dynamical changes eventually further perturbs tropospheric dynamics and SST.
REFERENCE
Zhou, Tinsley, Chu and Xiao (2016) Correlations of global sea surface temperatures with the solar wind speed
Cloud nucleation, I suspect.
A higher intensity of solar winds during weak solar activity may only be a proxy; not the cause.
We need a high-resolution study of ice ages and the pre-history of variations in Earth’s magnetic fields.
We don’t need more climate models!
230
‘If the correlation is meaningful, the next question is whether this is driven through stratospheric ozone, or though an electrical response of clouds and storm dynamics. It’s all speculation at this stage.’
Perhaps a combination, its interesting to note that solar storms cause the earth’s magnetic field to shift.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/nasa-mini-balloon-mission-gets-a-magnetic-surprise/
120
These sort of studies are always frustratingly tantalizing. Eventually we will nut it out. Fascinating.
80
What impressed me about this study was the detail they went into to find meaningful correlations. They split the data many ways — into seasons, into low and high speed solar wind phases, into Bz + and Bz – and also via a stratsopheric oscillation. The potential is tantalizing, but I was struck by how little we know, how immature our knowledge of the mechanisms are.
They also compared solar wind to electric fields, and to the 10.7 flux. The best correlations were with the solar wind. But they must have dug deep to fish that out from the noise of the yearly average, the global average, the Bz average etc etc.
312
Indeed. Then there’s the chemistry of the plasma/atmosphere boundaries and how it plays in earth’s magnetosphere. NASA has quite a bit on that. The vector analysis will be developing for a while I expect, as the system described by the earth’s orbit is large, the sun spins, and wobbles to the tune of the planets and inverts it’s dual dynamo cyclicly. It really is pushing our knowledge boundary.
60
As Bernd says, we don’t need more climate models.
Exactly.
What must be done first is to identify and quantify all factors which should be in climate models and specify the appropriate time scales.
I can look forward to “models” with time scales of 24 hours, one month, one year, 25,000 years and 110,000 years.
Of course, as CO2 is basically irrelevant to the climate cycle, it will be Omitted.
The Dream.
153
Kk. You are saying no new climate models and then stating your criteria for a new climate model, I’m not sure you or Bernd understand what models are and how they are central to all science.
331
ALL science? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/19/climate-science-appears-to-be-obsessively-focused-on-modeling-billions-of-research-dollars-are-being-spent-in-this-single-minded-process/
220
Could UN indoctrinated “climate scientists™” have models that now show that CO2 changes the way the sun acts? Or could it be that they and their unthinking apostles collected egos are overheating the planet?
171
You confuse cause and effect. You can build the model BECAUSE you have done the science. If you have not done the science, the model is nothing more than a cartoon that has no necessary relationship to reality. It is the doing of the science that establishes that relationship. Then and only then can the predictions based upon the model have any chance of fitting the future.
However, what is real is not the concern of Climate Angst Hive. It is power, control, transfer of wealth, destruction of wealth, the end of technological civilization, and the consequent demise of the majority of the earth’s human population. Actual truth is irrelevant to their purpose so also is actual science. I judge this to be so from the consequences of their activities and policies. Since truth is clearly considered irrelevant by the climate angst hive, their words are without meaning and thus can be ignored. They are what they do and accomplish. It is not good by any rational standard of good.
271
I think you can’t tell the difference between models and simulations. You can simulate what you don’t know, but you can’t model it. You can only model what you actually know. As is said elsewhere, do the science first. Today’s climate “models” are only simulations since they haven’t a clue, really, what drives climate. Try looking at it as they are trying to build a highly accurate Swiss mechanical watch, but they don’t have all the gears and springs. Worse, they don’t care to, either.
171
If you can simulate what you don’t know, you don’t know what you are simulating. There is little difference between that kind of simulation and a cartoon with respect to its connection to reality.
A model can be a description, a diagram, and/or a set of equations that describe an aspect of reality. A simulation is a device or program that can show the reaction of the thing described as a function of one or more time variant parameters. In effect, a simulation is simply a dynamic model.
Still, if you have not done the science to establish the true functional relationship among the simulation’s parameters and/or have not captured adequately the behavior of all relevant time variant parameters, you still have something that is largely indistinguishable from a cartoon. It might be entertaining, as would a Wiley Coyote and Road Runner cartoon, but it would have no more relationship to reality than such a cartoon. It could easily violate the laws of motion without consequence as is done in the Road Runner cartoons. The cartoon’s violation has nothing to say about the possibility of violating the laws of motion in the real world. It is nothing more than an entertaining fantasy.
120
There is already a very good climate model for Earth.
Periodicity, 100 ka to 110 ka.
It is read from the ice core graphs which show half a million years of periodic glaciation and recovery.
As I and many others with real qualifications in modelling know, the current un type climate models are either the result of massive ignorance or [[snip] worse, maybe both].
The half million year graph of CO2 expression and absorption is not even a model.
At the moment it is a model which shows how climate drives CO2.
But Algorithm wouldn’t like that.
KK
It will only be a model when the main driver, orbital mechanics,is linked to the cycle of glaciation.
[Editorial discretion applied. I tried not to change your meaning.] AZ
72
Actually, I rather suspect they have no difficulty understanding that climate models are to reality as settled is to science.
Climate modeling is it seems the entire essence of climate ‘science’ — Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science.
That surely is an intellectual red flag of historic proportion, even to the most demented believer? Clichéd as it maybe, the falsification of what was once claimed to be ‘settled science’ appears little different from the tiny snowball that turned into an avalanche. Climate models are established as statistically reliable failures. The ability to predict or hind cast beyond a few days is dismal.
Political correctness permits the lunatics to run the asylum, and to base their politics on model results, and to simultaneously fashion their models with their politics, an intellectual and financial death spiral.
As we all know, even politics is considerably more predictable than climate science and yet, along came a reality called Trump that did exactly that to the MSM and their cast-iron predictions.
As I said, climate models (and progressive delusion) are to reality as settled is to science.
90
“I’m not sure you or Bernd understand what models are and how they are central to all science.”
I’m not sure you understand the difference between real models, continually validated against reality, … and climate models which miss the side of a barn !
211
Lol
08
Double Lol!
30
A valiant struggle there, Gee Aye, but you must have known at the outset that the scientific method enjoys selective support around here.
52
investigation of historical occurrence of the northern lights at lower latitudes might give some interesting results regarding this paper. for proof all climate models are complete bunkum read the comments of jerry browning on the latest post at climate audit https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy/ . technically so far over my head the detail is in the stratosphere, however the links provided in jerry brownings comments https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-WyFx7Wk5zLR0RHSG5velgtVkk/view do explain the end result of the modeling errors. this looks to be an issue the modeling community will have to face in the very near future. it will be interesting in the extreme to see if they can manage to spin this one away. not quite popcorn time, but it looks to be coming.
i think david will be very interested in this.
20
Lionell makes a key point.
These are the definitions, I am familiar with:
A model is an experimental approximation of something. It is usually a much reduced physical object, like a small model of an aircraft wing, that you put in a wind tunnel. The model is designed to react to known forces, which produces stress points that can be detected and recorded. In short, you need to understand all of the physics involved in, and acting upon, the model.
The value in modelling, is in discovering, and validating the assumptions made in designing and building the model, in the first place. Everything will break eventually, but not always where, or how, you think they will break. Models teach you something that you didn’t know.
A simulation is a theoretical representation of something that can be defined mathematically, using the known laws of physics. You can simulate a suspension bridge by defining all of the stress and compression forces for each part of the bridge, and how they will interact, over time, as other external forces are applied (like variable gusts of wind, for example). The most interesting example I have seen, is the the computer simulation of sails for the Americas Cup Yachts, and how they will react, under various changes in wind speed, angle of attack, etc.
As Lionell points out, neither of these terms applies to weather, or climate, which is essentially a chaotic movement of random forces that cannot be modelled nor simulated.
The modellers don’t actually know what they are simulating. But if they run enough simulations, with enough random factors, they will eventually get the results they are looking for.
All the computer “models” can do, is to extrapolate previous observations into the future, assuming no external influences. The result you get, is entirely dependent upon the set of observations that you choose to extrapolate from.
131
As near as I can figure, climate science models can be modeled (see what I did there? ;P) as
“2+2=5 for a sufficiently large value of 2”
g
112
The only “climate” model that has been confirmed is the Standard Atmosphere. And it has been precisely confirmed. The other models are WEATHER models used as “Frankenstein” (pieced together) local climate models, and they have all failed, because (wait for it)…There is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists (TM and © me, via my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison.)
914
Harry isn’t staying, he’s just passing through again. He has never responded to the refutation of his Venus argument and presumably he won’t respond to this comment either.
150
Hey, Andrew,
Are you saying that Harry Dale is all Huff, man?
120
Ah, someone mentioned it, earths magnetic field. Which seem to move and is weakening right now. But I always see it extrapolated as over the geographic North Pole. As the pole( magnetic) shifts, the influx area should be modulated also. But, they are still relegating the earths as secondary? Making it sound as if there were no sun, there would be no earth shield? Unusual. But usual. I thought a spinning plasma ball created it’s own field of force. As demonstrated in old field work, and tube radios.
On reading the original gallon article they were finally stating a earth sun connection, they must have had to pay for that pub, but, only noted those ion fields and no extrapolation of the other side of the force or the uncharged particles, nature abhors, the incomplete. If a positive, there must be etc…
70
Jim is this meant to be satire, or did the cat just wander over your keyboard.
20
And Jim might I add that tube radios were my thing, especially the military ones that I spent years repairing. Actually I’m not quite that old, most of them were hybrid, semiconductor, but with tubes for the higher power stages.
10
Yes Jim.
As I understand it, as the earth’s field is weakening in preparation for inverting in some thousands of years, it is doing so in sectors unevenly. Apparently there’s a particularly weak field off Brazil iirc. Some speculate the tidal pull of the sun and moon flexes earth crust and plays on the mantle. There’s a lot going on. Who knows how it affects the weather/climate.
30
Why is it that we push this idea of cycles?
Oh yes, these pretty graphs that are shoved in our faces…
There are always different factors happening that are NEVER true cycles of repeating???
And yet science and economics swear by it no matter the technological or environmental changes…
61
“Why is it that we push this idea of cycles?”
I’m not sure anyone is pushing anything, it’s simply what shows up in the data. Are you suggesting that data should be ignored?
30
Good answer.The Earth spins. This is one source of hot and cold cycles, on a 24 hour scale. On a higher scale, the Earth’s tilt produces weather cycles on a monthly scale.
Sometimes the scientist’s need to search for complexity drowns out the sheer simplicity of things…….cycles!
100
Perhaps they are pushing cycles, because they are pedaling you a line?
Sorry – couldn’t resist.
81
Yeah, cycles are dangerous in heavy traffic
51
Especially motor cycles. They pop up in places where you never expect to see them.
51
This is O/T but that statement from an “eyes wide shut” driver just has to be answered 🙂
No we don’t just pop up anywhere. You can’t be properly observant if that’s your perception. If you don’t look, you don’t see what’s there. Even things as large as cars aren’t seen, which is why cars keep colliding with each other.
One of the most common statements is “Sorry, I didn’t see you.”
I’m lucky my motorcycle has very loud horns. I have to use them far more often than I should. I can tell the targeted driver was asleep at the wheel because they jump so hard when I do use them.
How many accidents are motorcycle colliding with motorcycle?
In my forty years of riding, I’ve neither seen nor heard of any. A motorcyclist doesn’t survive very long if they are not aware of everything that is around them. I’ve long advocated every able-bodied individual should have to spend two years on a motorcycle. The survivors can then graduate to cars, if they wish.
41
Joe,
We observe cycles influencing our weather and climate. As the IPCC says: there’s a mix of non linear chaotic systems in play. So it’s really like putting all our knowledge in a galactic size blender to determine if CO2 impacts the temperature of the earth’s surface, 2m or so above the ground…whilst being fairly sure you haven’t got all the data. Even what is signal and what is noise is tricky in a blender, depending on the resolution you are after.
50
The 60-65 year cycle (found in ice cores and elsewhere) cannot be ignored.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/koelle1.gif
The cause is obviously astronomical.
30
‘There is a 60+year cycle in climate which is very clear, but no clear 60+cycle in solar activity. The dominant cycle is ~100 years. That is the one that counts.’
Leif Isvalgaard (WUWT)
20
But the 60+ year cycle appears to be an overtone (multiple) (66 years) of the 22 year solar cycle.
10
If you compare the polar vortex 10 hPa and 70 hPa it is seen that this circulation in the upper layers of the stratosphere affects the circulation in the lower layers, and not vice versa.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-232.87,-52.57,455
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-232.87,-52.57,455
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/23-the-dearly-beloved-antarctic-ozone-hole-a-function-of-atmospheric-dynamics/#comments
81
NOCTILUCENT CLOUDS, BEHAVING STRANGELY: The southern season for noctilucent clouds (NLCs) has come to an end. NASA’s AIM spacecraft observed the last wisps of electric-blue over Antarctica on Feb. 20, 2015. The end of the season was no surprise: The polar clouds always subside in late summer. Looking back over the entire season, however, reveals something unexpected. In an 8-year plot of Antarctic noctilucent cloud frequencies, the 2014-2015 season is clearly different from the rest:
These data come from the AIM spacecraft, which was launched in 2007 to monitor NLCs from Earth orbit. The curves show the abundance (“frequency”) of the clouds vs. time for 120 days around every southern summer solstice for the past 8 years.
“This past season was not like the others,” notes Cora Randall, a member of the AIM science team and the chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. “The clouds were much more variable, and there was an enormous decrease in cloud frequency 15 to 25 days after the summer solstice. That’s when the clouds are usually most abundant.”
What does this mean? Previous research shows that NLCs are a sensitive indicator of long-range teleconnections in Earth’s atmosphere, which link weather and climate across hemispheres. The strange behavior of noctilucent clouds in 2014-2015 could be a sign of previously unknown linkages. “Preliminary indications are that it is indeed due to inter-hemispheric teleconnections,” says Randall. “We’re still analyzing the data, so stay tuned.”
Now attention turns to the northern hemisphere, where the season for NLCs typically begins in May. Will the northern season ahead be as strangely variable as the southern season, just concluded? Says Randall, “I can’t wait to find out.”
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=01&month=03&year=2015
111
When the decreases value of the electric field of the solar wind pressure rises above the Arctic Circle.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/astronomy/solar/solar-wind/solar-wind-north-atlantic-sea-curfacesolar-cycles.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2016.png
Here you can see a decline of the solar wind (an increase of galactic radiation).
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=12&startyear=2015&starttime=00%3A00&endday=20&endmonth=05&endyear=2016&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
61
Abstract
We compare here the effect of geomagnetic activity (using the aa index) and sunspot activity on surface climate using sea level pressure dataset from Hadley centre during northern winter. Previous studies using the multiple linear regression method have been limited to using sunspots as a solar activity predictor. Sunspots and total solar irradiance indicate a robust positive influence around the Aleutian Low. This is valid up to a lag of one year. However, geomagnetic activity yields a positive NAM pattern at high to polar latitudes and a positive signal around Azores High pressure region. Interestingly, while there is a positive signal around Azores High for a 2-year lag in sunspots, the strongest signal in this region is found for aa index at 1-year lag. There is also a weak but significant negative signature present around central Pacific for both sunspots and aa index. The combined influence of geomagnetic activity and Quasi Biannual Oscillation (QBO 30 hPa) produces a particularly strong response at mid to polar latitudes, much stronger than the combined influence of sunspots and QBO, which was mostly studied in previous studies so far. This signal is robust and insensitive to the selected time period during the last century. Our results provide a useful way for improving the prediction of winter weather at middle to high latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616301092
81
Abstract
A link between solar wind magnetic sector boundary (heliospheric current sheet) crossings by the Earth and the upper-level tropospheric vorticity was discovered in the 1970s. These results have been later confirmed but the proposed mechanisms remain controversial. Extratropical-cyclone tracks obtained from two meteorological reanalysis datasets are used in superposed epoch analysis of time series of solar wind plasma parameters and green coronal emission line intensity. The time series are keyed to times of maximum growth of explosively developing extratropical cyclones in the winter season. The new statistical evidence corroborates the previously published results (Prikryl et al., 2009). This evidence shows that explosive extratropical cyclones tend to occur after arrivals of solar wind disturbances such as high-speed solar wind streams from coronal holes when large amplitude magneto-hydrodynamic waves couple to the magnetosphere-ionosphere system. These MHD waves modulate Joule heating and/or Lorentz forcing of the high-latitude thermosphere generating medium-scale atmospheric gravity waves that propagate energy upward and downward from auroral zone through the atmosphere. At the tropospheric level, in spite of significantly reduced amplitudes, these gravity waves can provide a lift of unstable air to release the moist symmetric instability thus initiating slantwise convection and forming cloud/precipitation bands. The release of latent heat is known to provide energy for rapid development and intensification of extratropical cyclones.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300967
71
The span of the solar effect,
On Earth’s climate is hard to detect,
Due to delayed reactions,
And magnetic attractions,
Whereas sunshine is quick and direct.
290
If you keep this up, Jo will have to order-in more green thumbs.
70
“The Solar Wind may be changing the surface temperature of the North Atlantic”
~ ~ ~
– “This is only the global average surface temperature and it’s only one measure of the climate system – and it’s a very fickle measure.
There’s an over-emphasis on the surface air temperature. – Prof Matt England, of the University of New South Wales climate change research centre.
– @NASA: “There is far too much focus on surface temperatures”
“NASA Climate Change then directed commenters to multiple independent analyses of temperature data which show global warming while reminding readers: ” There is far too much focus on surface temperatures. They are but one measure of warming. All other measures . . . continue unabated.”
>(In other words, the pause, or hiatus in surface air temperatures, is confirmed)<
. . .
Gavin Schmidt, NASA
That’s not to say the satellite measurements don’t provide some value, but it is an indication why the surface temperature data analyzed and reported by NASA, NOAA and others is viewed as the gold standard.
60
Ummm.. Sorry Gavin, but the NOAA/GISS surface data is viewed as a MONUMENTAL FARCE !!
102
I would interpret those “too much emphasis on surface temp” quotes as meaning: while we are trying to work this out, don’t question me about specific details we cannot answer.
50
I wouldn’t expect people who are bored by clouds to take an interest in space weather. Give them some crude min/max readings (born distorted) and a computer to do further distortions and they’ll be happy to ignore a whole world outside the office or cubicle.
It’s well known that raw exposure to ocean, sky, bush, paddock etc can turn fine, pious students of climate into turbulent rebels and skeptics.
120
OT, on WUWT, an Eric Steig (from RealClimate propaganda site) shows that we are very much at a COLD PERIOD in the Holocene.
I did some bit-map stuff and realigned the two sections of the temperature graph
http://s19.postimg.org/6w464j2cz/temperatures.jpg
72
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a major player and appears to get its orders from the sun.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150915/ncomms9268/full/ncomms9268.html
50
The North Atlantic is a turbulent area, which is why the Pacific was named pacific by Magellan. The North Atlantic is almost closed, with a relatively small 2575km between Africa and South America and amazingly the cauldron of the Caribbean controls the weather in Northern Europe on the other side of the ocean. For most it is a surprise that South America is actually East of New York, mid Atlantic. The discovery of a fast round trip route was celebrated by Ponce De Leon’s navigator took advantage of the Trade winds East and the Gulf Stream and Westerlies. It is a system in some sort of giant equilibrium across great distances.
The extraordinary gulf stream is a major and unusual phenomenon, but how stable is it and what forces keep it stable? In fact, why does it exist? Oscillations around this average pattern will exist, perturbed by various effects like hurricanes, cloud cover and perhaps solar winds. The Gulf Stream would be very dependent on the weather in the Carribbean and you would look for correlation there, but there is none. In fact in the graph the Carribbean and Gulf stream areas are anticorrelated while the areas above and below are strongly correlated. Perhaps that indicates a relatively minor variation of the critical Gulf Stream has a much larger proportional impact on adjacent areas?
50
TdeF, you appear to have omitted The Sargasso Sea? – an utterly fascinating environment derived primarily from Ocean currents.
10
–because of two simple facts:
1. Water flows downhil 🙂
2. The Caribbean’s water is significantly warmer than the Atlantic’s.
10
The Pacific is a turbulent area as well. Magellan just happened to have discovered it, on a good day.
10
‘In fact, why does it exist?’
After the Central American Seaway closed and became an isthmus the conveyor intensified, primarily because the Atlantic had become saltier.
00
A shameless plug for a seemingly little known Australian!
I have been following the story of how the climate is affected by the sun’s cycles ever since I found this paper:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/MackeyonFairbridge.pdf
Little is heard of Rhodes Fairbridge which is a travesty especially with his connection to University of Western Australia. He in my opinion of far more deserving of accolades than a certain over hyped palaeontologist.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/RichardMackeyForum2008.pdf
Fairbridge noted the correlation between sunspot cycles and climate but did not have the advantages of current scientists with the availability of satellite data.
From the paper:
“Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic force and output and their interaction)”
Sometime in the future the demonization of CO2 will be generally accepted as a monumental fraud and I hope I live long enough to see the day.
81
“Nevertheless, they
can be classified into eight distinctive patterns, each of about 179
years’ duration, which is also the time taken for the planets to
occupy approximately the same positions again relative to each
other and the sun. In this time the sun completes about nine
orbits, or one planetary cycle.”
30
From the paper above:
“In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis. According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will create a brief ice age.
During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought then on record.”
Pity the BoM seems to have jumped on the CO2 gravy train.
However Cycle 14 was about the time of the Federation drought and a repeat of that will not be good.
20
Just for starters as I mull over a couple of ideas on the disparity of the current solar magnetic fields where the Southern Solar Hemisphere magnetic fields are quite strong but the Northern Solar Hemisphere magnetic fields are very weak, something never seen or measured previously.
And how this disparity of the Solar magnetic fields might be giving the Solar Wind a specific polarization which in turn will have a high energy effect when the polarised solar wind impacts on Earth’s outer atmosphere molecules with the same chirality.
[ molecules can be either of a right hand or left hand construction, ie; chirality [ ky’-rality ] which leads to completely different chemical reactions from the same apparent molecule. Some LH chiral molecules are toxic to life. ]
So if polarised solar wind particles interact with outer atmosphere molecules of either a LH or RH chirality, the end product might be of a significant nature that will have a magnitudes of order higher effect on our atmosphere and climate than the currently non existent and non accepted levels of effects, cosmic ray and solar effects which are still being vehemently denied by the CO2 pimping climate science charlatans whose funding now rests entirely on the maintaining of the CO2 fictional effects on the global climate in the public’s and politicals minds.
All of the above may just be pure baloney and a big thought bubble on my part, the by far most likely outcome and not be at all relevant or just maybe some remote day, will be seen as of a major importance to the understanding of the solar effects on the global climate.
———————-
For those interested in Henrik Svensmarks’ theory on cosmic rays having a significant effect on global cloud formation and therefore on the Earth’s albedo and therefore on global temperatures due to the amounts of solar energy being both absorbed and reflected and reradiated back into space, these long period comparisons of the Oulu Neutron Monitor cosmic ray counts and the Solar Cycles will be of interest.
As can be seen when comparing the two graphs, the Oulu cosmic ray neutron counter [ the neutrons being the nuclear debris that rains down onto the planet from the impacting of the very high energy cosmic rays onto the atoms and molecules of the Earth’s outer atmosphere. ] and the solar activity are closely related with the level of cosmic rays being the inverse of solar activity as per Svensmark’s hypothesis.
Further reading ; the now deceased and former New Scientist editor of the early 1970’s [ ? ] Niger Calder’s site.
Sorry folks, cosmic rays really are in charge
This 2012 article below could be very relevant as to what now appears to starting to occur in the North Atlantic;
Cosmic rays sank the Titanic
There are a number of other posts on Nigel Calder’s site Calder’s Updates if you scan down through the site that are highly relevant to Svensmark’s hypothesis as well as being of considerable interest to anybody whose science interests lay in Cosmic rays and the global climate, the Cosmos and how the Solar system and Life fits into it all.
————————-
And from somewhere that refuses to toe the western climate scientists and the hard left western greens and bigoted western media’s “consensus” line.
LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS RELEASE
Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030
80
“Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles, which is about 30 years, it is possible, that the lowering of the temperature will not be as deep as during the Maunder minimum. But we will have to examine it in detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to work in this direction”, Dr Helen Popova said.
40
I know this is off topic
Please move to next unthreaded w/e
Mirrors blamed for torching of Ivanpah Solar Plant
It nearly burnt itself down?
350,000 computer controlled mirrors – what could possibly go wrong?
30
Here is another paper on the connection between solar cycles and climate
To misquote an infamous politician
“It the sun, stupid!”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/Archibald.pdf
10
The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility was officially opened in February 2014.
Considering the problem of mirror alignment and the consequent fire through mirror misalignment that has already occurred after only 15 months of operation, don’t even try to imagine the consequences as the heliostat system and its control wiring looms and its power looms to each heliostat begins to age.
Each of the 175,300 two mirror, multi motor driven heliostats are linked into a computer system that individually orientates each mirror into the optimum angle at each point of time so as to reflect the maximum of the Suns rays onto the boilers in each of the three solar power towers.
The wiring, both the control loom and the power loom for this must be quite horrendous as are the chances of major glitches as the wiring and drive systems suffer the usual wiring fatigue and wear problems and / or get damaged [ ask Tasmania’s Hydro about that! ] and / or age or the controlling computer programs do likewise or strike a previously undetected software glitch.
Airliners and light aircraft would be well advised to give Ivanpah a very wide berth as if a major or even minor computer glitch directs concentrated solar rays to a point somewhere much higher at some thousands of feet altitude it is likely to bring some serious grief to any aircraft that might inadvertently fly through the zone of the solar ray concentration
Plus there are already reports of mirror glare affecting the sight of airline pilots.
50
“The wiring, both the control loom and the power loom for this must be quite horrendous as are the chances of major glitches as the wiring and drive systems suffer the usual wiring fatigue and wear problems and / or get damaged [ ask Tasmania’s Hydro about that! ] and / or age or the controlling computer programs do likewise or strike a previously undetected software glitch. ”
Look at the Heliostats size. About the size of a garage door. These 175,300 Heliostats have to be rotated on two axes. A 1/4 HP motor consumes about 200 watts when under load. There will be two motors thus 400 watts of power needed. But not all of the time. Lets use 10% so that is 40 watts for the motors alone. Then you have all of the computers and controllers calculating the exact azimuth and elevation for aiming each of these garage door size mirrors. They easily use more than 50 watts.
So they are burning up 50 times 175,300 or 8,765,000 megawatts just on moving the mirrors per hour. Doesn’t sound to bad for a plant that generates 392 MW. However 392 is Gross, actual capacity factor is about 120 and that reduces the power down to about 111 MW / hr. Then there are all of the rest of the pumps need to pump the liquid salt and water to make steam etc, leaching off another 10% so now they are down to 100Mw. Not what they are advertised as.
I would advise the Australians to take these solar furnaces plants with a few grains of salt. They are massive money pits, but very beneficial for the contractor.
10
‘After ENSO, the NAO is one of the most dominant modes of global climate variability. Like El Niño, La Niña, and the Southern Oscillation, it is considered a free internal oscillation of the climate system not subjected to external forcing.
‘It is shown, however, that it is closely linked to energetic solar eruptions. Surprisingly, it turns out that features of solar activity that have been shown to be related to El Niños and La Niñas (Landscheidt, 1999 a, 2000 a), also have an impact on the NAO.’
Theodor Landscheidt
30
Solar cycles do not mean the same solar activity. Sun evolves.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number V2.0 maximum of about 101 in late 2013. The smoothed sunspot number V2.0 reached a peak of 116.4 in April 2014. This will probably become the official maximum. This second peak surpassed the level of the first peak (98.3 in March 2012). Many cycles are double peaked but this is the first in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first. We are currently over seven years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14, which had a maximum smoothed sunspot number V2.0 of 107.2 in February of 1906.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
40
‘Many cycles are double peaked but this is the first in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first.’
What do you make of that?
30
ABSTRACTA comprehensive spectral analysis of both the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) in cycles 21–23 and thesunspot magnetic field in cycle 23 reported in our recent paper showed the presence of two principal components(PCs) of SBMF having opposite polarity, e.g., originating in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively.Over a duration of one solar cycle, both waves are found to travel with an increasing phase shift toward the northernhemisphere in odd cycles 21 and 23 and to the southern hemisphere in even cycle 22. These waves were linked tosolar dynamo waves assumed to form in different layers of the solar interior. In this paper, for the first time, thePCs of SBMF in cycles 21–23 are analyzed with the symbolic regression technique using Hamiltonian principles,allowing us to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing these complex waves in the SBMF presentedby PCs and to extrapolate these PCs to cycles 24–26. The PCs predicted for cycle 24 very closely fit (with anaccuracy better than 98%) the PCs derived from the SBMF observations in this cycle. This approach also predicts astrong reduction of the SBMF in cycles 25 and 26 and, thus, a reduction of the resulting solar activity. This decreaseis accompanied by an increasing phase shift between the two predicted PCs (magnetic waves) in cycle 25 leadingto their full separation into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26. The variations of the modulus summary of thetwo PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21–24 and topredictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina_Zharkova/publication/258681236/viewer/AS:250428550021120@1436718227771/background/5.png
2. Top plot: the accuracy of the fit with distilled laws from Eureqa (solid curves) to the two principal components (PCs) of SBMF (dotted curves) from Figure 1for cycles 21–23 and their further expansion to cycles 24–26. Bottom plot: the fit of the Eureqa-distilled law (the solid curve) to the summary component in cycles21–23 (dotted curve) and its expansion to cycles 24–26. Dashed curves in both plots show the predicted principal components (top plot) and the summary curve(bottom plot) compared to the real PCs derived from the SBMF in the cycle 24 with an accuracy better than 98%. A letter “A” denotes summer 2014.(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
31
Sorry.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258681236_Principal_component_analysis_of_background_and_sunspot_magnetic_field_variations_during_solar_cycles_21-23
31
Chief Investigator, Dr Andrew Constable, said the preliminary results indicate an ecosystem that is much more productive than previously estimated.
”We observed whales including humpbacks and fin whales in many locations where Antarctic krill were in abundance, and also saw Adelie, emperor and king penguins, crabeater and Antarctic fur seals and several species of flying birds, including albatross, petrels and terns,” Dr Constable said.
“On Valentine’s Day (14 February) we encountered a rare super-swarm of Antarctic krill with more than 100 humpback whales feeding in the area.
“This is the first time a super-swarm has been properly observed and measured in the Indian Ocean since initial observations in the early 1970s by a fishing vessel. We were able to use the latest technology to map the swarm to learn about the behaviour and abundance of krill in the region.”
http://acecrc.org.au/news/rare-krill-super-swarm-a-voyage-highlight/
40
From that link:
‘Dr Constable said that productive swarms of krill were found much further north than scientists expected and were not restricted to areas to the south of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.’
It may have something to do with the ‘intensification’ of the Subtropical Ridge.
10
The STR has been intensifying in both hemispheres and it appears this began around three decades ago, its generally believed that this has come about because of global warming.
Assuming its happening, then we need to discover its true cause because it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with AGW.
There is a general agreement that too little is known and more research needs to be done.
10
It just ocurred to me that the reason our “modern climate models” don’t take the solar wind with its rain of charged particles and magnetic field into account is because they can’t see it.
It’s that old familiar saying,
at work. Now if that wind just had a few leaves or maybe even better, Dorothy and Toto or a witch on a broomstick, something recognizable with the
unwillingoops, unaided eye that it could throw at us, maybe things could change. 😉And pigs will fly first I suspect.
20
In fairness, the solar wind has only been known since 1958. so maybe we owe these models a little slack. After all, when you’re busy trying to shove an untenable theory down everyone’s throat there’s not much time left for consideration of details. 58 years may not be enough for the solar wind to be recognized by the climate scare industry. Al Gore et al have been so busy since the first alarm bell was sounded that they can hardly even catch their breath, much less look for factors other than CO2.
20
I noticed the name of the prizes mentioned in the linked article. Talk about your basic irony — Kyoto Prizes. Umph! Bad karma, that. 🙁
20
There is lots of unusual things happening to the sun and Earth so far this century. For example sunspots are far more active on the side of the sum away from Earth than on the Earth facing side. This may have something to do with the recently discovered ongoing magnetic portal(s) between the sun and Earth, where magnetic field lines of both are connecting and channeling huge amounts of plasma (not just electrons) into our atmosphere and hence through Earth’s magnetic field into the north pole region. This may help to explain the North Atlantic phenomena. Also the sun’s polar magnetic fields are weird. http://spaceweathernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-03-17-at-12.10.43-PM-1024×475.png
As Ren pointed out the solar wind is also affected by Earth facing coronal holes particularly on the sun’s southern hemisphere because of the relative magnetic strength of the south pole compared to the north pole. Further solar filament eruptions can have an impact particularly if the filament is several hundred thousand kilometers long.
What is particularly interesting is the effect of some aspects of intense space weather on Earth’s extreme weather. A big increase in density and speed of the solar wind coupled with a magnetic shock wave seems to cause cyclones or hurricanes. Bob Tidale has pointed out that El Nino events are triggered by simultaneous Pacific cyclones and hurricanes on each side of the equator so perhaps space weather could be playing a trigger role here also.
There is a also short term change in the frequency and size of larger earthquakes and volcanic events with changes in the interplanetary magnetic field coupled with solar wind changes. This is something the insurance industry is going to have to come to grips with.
There is one other issue with the Sun-Earth connection. Since the 17th C Earth’s magnetic field was weakening at around 5% per hundred years so if this continued yes there could be a magnetic reversal in a several hundred years or a thousand years or so. But so far this century it seems to have been weakening much faster – perhaps 5% a decade. Hopefully this is just an anomaly and the weakening Earth’s magnetic field will revert to its previous progression or even stop weakening all together. But if it doesn’t then Earth’s magnetic reversal might happen much sooner and space weather will become the predominant factor determining Earth’s weather, climate and seismic activity.
10
‘A big increase in density and speed of the solar wind coupled with a magnetic shock wave seems to cause cyclones or hurricanes.’
This is a game changer.
Solar storms cause the earth’s magnetic field to shift.
00
The people behind the website “Suspicious Observers” are developing an app using sun events, space weather and outward long-wave radiation anomalies on Earth to predict in real time cyclonic and hurricane activity as well as major earthquakes and volcanic events. The app was crowd funded a few months ago and should be ready for use later this year. Yes it is a game changer. Go to http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/ and scroll down to the various videos about this or cross to their website on Space Weather news.
I first became aware of these websites from reading the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journals http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php. There are several recent papers in these journals on space weather conditions that precipitate significant earthquakes. These conditions are also much more prevalent during grand minimums, which is one of the reasons why mankind apparently became more miserable during these periods, which lead, of course, to the higher incidence of wars during these times!
00
I am glad someone is actually looking at this. For literally years, more than 8 or ten anyway, I have been posting comments on blog that there has to be something happing, some effect from whatever is happing with the ” The solar wind blasts charged particles, electrons, stuff, towards Earth.” As an amateur Radio Operator I hear the effects by the complete lack of activity on broad spectrums of the amateur radio frequencies and at other times I receive signals from areas that are normally impossible at that time of the day. This happens because of the changes in the ionization of the atmosphere and must be effecting the way IR and visible energy interacts with the atmosphere. The visible, ultraviolet and IR energy hitting the Earth is only a portion of the energy hitting the Earth. Some of that other energy must have some effect on the IR energy.
10
[…] Jo Nova covers the solar wind and ocean surface temperatures […]
00
The large increase in the speed of the solar wind (down neutrons) and an increase in the index AAO.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2mr71ps.jpg
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
00
Wind speed is high because of the coronal hole opposite the the Earth in the equatorial zone.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20160521_hres.png
Spot 12546 is a class of beta and does not give flares.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?
00
The answer is no of course. The solar wind does not significantly affect the earth’s climate.
They may well have found a correlation, but a correlation is never conclusive evidence for causation. You need to back it up with other evidence for the causation.
“You might think this kind of monster flow might have some effect…”
Seriously? Monster flow? The number of solar wind ions per cubic centimeter can be counted on one hand. Hardly a “monster” flow.
24
Your entire argument against a solar wind potential effect consists of your “incredulity”.
Correlation is not causation, sure, except when it’s the weak 20 year correlation of rising CO2 and rising temperatures from 1979-1999, right? Then it’s 95% certain.
43
“Incredulity” based on knowledge. The solar wind ions do not even make it do the atmosphere, they get deflected by the magnetosphere.
Let’s see how honest you are JoNova – produce the “causation” for the solar wind theory affecting climate. I cannot see any in the abstract of the paper.
It is amusing – you accuse me of the “personal incredulity fallacy”, then use one yourself!
21
Go back to high school. Electrons flowing at that speed generate their own magnetic fields. They wouldn’t be deflected by our magnetosphere without having some “equal and opposite” effect on it, and the whole interaction is apparently shifting in strength and direction constantly and in complicated ways that are hard to predict. The full paper discusses several mechanisms debating top down or bottom up mechanism. (It’s peer reviewed, doesn’t that mean you have to 100% accept it and their expertise according to your own fallacious rules-for-thinking? How many papers have you published, and let me know when you can predict NAO cycles OK? )
Just last week I did a post on how little we know about magnetic explosions in space.
Magnetic Reconnection – Major space weather effect measured for the first time
Then there are electrical effects, effects on ozone, effects on clouds, cloud density, cloud seeding, storms. Harry-the-great finds the whole magnetic-electrical thing impossible to imagine, so the effect must be “zero”.
33
Jo Nova.
Trying to “lecture” me about electron precipitation and magnetic reconnections. I guess it has been a while since you studied any real science. I said ions, not electrons. Go ahead and “debate” about where you think the electrons in the electron current originate from. Electrons are slippery little devils, they all look alike.
Yep lots of speculations on the “anything but carbon” hypotheses, but no credible scientific evidence. I am sure there are lots of minor effects all over the place, but anything that explains the several Watts per square metre forcing required – no.
20
“The solar wind is a stream of energized, charged particles, primarily electrons and protons”
And if only you had some evidence that carbon caused the warming…
13
Ions are electrons and protons. Together they make up a neutral particle. The solar wind contains a “frozen” magnetic field that appears to originate on the sun – just a fancy way of saying the solar wind is magnetized.
Personally, I do not have any evidence of carbon. But the scientists do. Greenhouse gases and their warming effects are well-understood – if it isn’t the case, then it is impossible to explain why the average temperature of the earth’s surface is around 33C higher than from solar radiation alone. Plenty of evidence.
[“Personally, I do not have any evidence of carbon. But the scientists do.”
Are you arguing from authority again, Harry? Maybe you should argue about carbon dioxide, not carbon? And maybe show some understanding of why it is a problem while you’re at it.] AZ
21
AZ.
If you keep badgering me with pointless and harassing moderator comments, I will keep responding. You really cannot be that ignorant of the evidence linking CO2 to global warming.
“Are you arguing from authority again, Harry? Maybe you should argue about carbon dioxide, not carbon? And maybe show some understanding of why it is a problem while you’re at it.] AZ”
I laugh when people try an “argument from authority” routine in an attempt to discredit me. So you are saying JoNova’s “authorities” are better than my “authorities”. I do not have to explain why this is hypocritical. If you lot have so much distrust in scientific authorities, then why post an article about a scientific study in support of non-CO2 climate influence?
21
Ha-de-ha… “Personally, I do not have any evidence of carbon.”
Harry, seriously, there’s no point having a science debate with someone who can’t construct a coherent sentence. Thanks for being target practice when we can’t find a serious critic to publish. But this is timewasting… pathetic — even for you. If you want to finally get stopped from commenting that’s the best way.
Criticize me, yes. Waste my time? No. Off you go.
Lift your game.
03
” in an attempt to discredit me”
Your every comment discredits you.
No help needed from anyone.
You are irrelevant to any sane discussion.
02
“Plenty of evidence.”
Then when are you going to actually produce some?
You have an EMPTY slate so far.
02
“then it is impossible to explain why the average temperature of the earth’s surface is around 33C higher than from solar radiation alone”
The explanation is very simple.
But I will leave you to find it for yourself.
You will, however, actually need to grow a brain first.
See you in 30-40 years.
02
JoNova.
When shooting, it is important not to aim at one’s own foot. “Carbon” was the term you used.
Go ahead and block me, I really don’t care. I won’t even attempt to come back.
My one and only goal in debunking climate change anti-science is to hear the arguments with the remote chance I hear something new and learn something. But so far it has been a complete failure.
10
We’ve published 569 comments from you Twinotter – usually uninformed, condescending remarks, and those were your best ones.
None of them have any observational evidence that CO2 is a dominant climate controller.
If you want to debunk “anti-science” all you have to do be polite and talk science and evidence, and you know we’ll publish it. Life on Earth depends on you, an apocalypse is coming, yet you waste 569 chances and post illogical fallacies instead? Ask yourself what’s stopping you…
21
“My one and only goal in debunking climate change anti-science”
As you continually show, there is absolutely NOTHING you can produce to actually support the anti-science that you refer to as “climate science”
You are doing a magnificent job of debunking “climate science™”
We know you CANNOT attempt a come-back.. (whatever you mean by that).. because you have continually shown that you have NOTHING that you can present.
And yes, it is a very remote chance that you will ever learn anything….
.. glad to see you admitting your pre-kindy type limitation.
And YES.. so far… you have been a COMPLETE FAILURE.
You do have the rest of your life to do something worthwhile…
Take heart… its not too late.. even for you.
12
JoNova.
“We’ve published 569 comments from you Twinotter”
I will probably have to work harder to keep up with AndyG55 then.
“None of them have any observational evidence that CO2 is a dominant climate controller.”
Would someone seriously ask me to give references to thousands of studies, some going back to the 19th century? I get the feeling some do not understand the term “preponderance of evidence”. All I can say is go read the IPCC AR5 reports, it is the most comprehensive review of the science around.
“Life on Earth depends on you, an apocalypse is coming”
Sounds like catastrophism. I do not recall ever claiming catastrophe, so I think you made this up.
As for a request to provide references, I will do my best if I am asked a specific, sensible question. But I have not been asked much.
10
Harry “Would someone seriously ask me to give references to thousands “
No just one would be a start…
… but clearly climate change is not important enough for you to bother to find it.
01
Really Twitter?
.
Scores of scientists have been putting the same argument to the climate alarm fraternity for 15 years about CO2 driving temperature but the response has been: “Silence”
13
Peter.
“twitter”? Out for a bit of trolling, hey. It is usually a good indication your comment will be silly.
And indeed it is silly. The scientists worked out the details of the causation a long time ago. I won’t even bother to reference it, because I think you already know the details.
23
“I won’t even bother to reference it”
You never have.
There is zero proof that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.
You know that, but you still keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.
02
A lot of research is conducted. The decrease in solar activity will increase research. Unfortunately they were neglected.
00
Analogous to the AAO, AO index increased in the north. This is proof of the simultaneous action of the solar wind at both poles.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
00
Comparison of the magnetic field of the solar wind in May and the index AAO.
http://wind.nasa.gov/plot_output/2016-May-23T03_58_40.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
00
The wave in the atmosphere is visible in the highest zone of the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2016.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z01_sh_f00.png
00
BTW has anyone noticed that the sun spot count for cycle 24 had taken a dive well below all projections? In fact it seems this cycle is on track to be the most depressed since accurate counts began in the 1750s.
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/dayssnplot
20
Yes.
10
I came across this and though you might be interested regarding Solar Wind. This was published a few days ago.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Are_mystery_Mars_plumes_caused_by_space_weather
00
“The extreme altitude poses something of a problem in explaining the features: it is far higher than where typical clouds of frozen carbon dioxide and water are thought to be able to form in the atmosphere.
Indeed, the high altitude corresponds to the ionosphere, where the atmosphere directly interacts with the incoming solar wind of electrically charged atomic particles.”
“For example, the Hubble Space Telescope observed a similar high plume in May 1997, and a CME was registered hitting Earth at the same time.”
10
Solar wind and sea level pressure
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117711004625
00
Cho and co then used records from 76 meteorological stations around South Korea to study how the atmospheric pressure at sea level changed during these events.
Sure enough, they found, on average, a small increase in pressure just after each high speed solar wind event. They reckon a fast solar wind increases the pressure by 2.5 hectoPascals. To put this in context, atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 1000 hPa. So that’s a tiny increase
Despite the small number of events and the small change in pressure , these guys say their results are statistically significant.
So what on Earth could be going on? How can the solar wind influence the atmospheric pressure at sea level?
Let’s get some background info out of the way first. Atmospheric physicists have long known that the solar wind injects charged particles into the outer regions of the Earth’s atmosphere, the thermosphere, that stretches out to about 600km.
This has a heating effect which causes the thermosphere to expand and contract. Since many satellites orbit at this height, including the International Space Station, these kinds of effects are important for determining how orbits degrade.
But what of lower, denser parts of the atmosphere? The thinking is that during a Forbush decrease, these charged particles can penetrate further into the atmosphere. Here, the heating effect causes the atmosphere to expand. It is this that influences atmospheric pressure.
Clearly the most extreme events will occur when a Forbush decrease occurs at the same time that the solar wind is at its most powerful. Which is exactly what the Korean team seem to have observed.
To be sure, the effect is small at sea level but that won’t stop people speculating about the effect it could have over much broader areas than the Korean Peninsula. Charged particles are also thought to have a big impact on the rate of cloud formation, since their ionising effect can trigger water droplet formation
Cho and co say they are already looking for bigger datasets concerning Forbush decreases and their effects over wider areas of the planet. The evidence that space weather can affect our is growing. It’ll be interesting to see what they find.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424665/solar-wind-changes-atmospheric-pressure-over-south-korea/
01
“This has a heating effect which causes the thermosphere to expand and contract.”
10
ren.
Yes, the thermosphere. My understanding is the thermosphere responds mostly to ultraviolet radiation flux which does vary a lot due to solar activity.
00
“. My understanding”
roflmao !!!
you aren’t seriously going down that route , are you ????
Hint, …. your understanding is indistinguishable from ZERO !!!
(Please stop this kind of replies to Harry,stick with the arguments based on the topic instead) CTS
00
A cosmic ray destined to be detected by the Inuvik neutron monitor starts out heading for a point over the Pacific Ocean, west of Mexico. About 60,000 km away from Earth, the particle begins to experience effects of the Earth’s magnetic field, which deflects the particle towards Inuvik. The first interaction with an air molecule happens about 20 km above Inuvik.
It has been proposed that cosmic ray monitors be equally spaced around the poles to achieve the best view into outer space. Inuvik is geographically well located to record cosmic rays and has the support services needed for a monitor.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/listen/main.html
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/Dcolourful.jpg
00
“The first interaction with an air molecule happens about 20 km above Inuvik.”
GCR creates a the showers of secondary particles in the zone ozone.
00
Excellent. Thanks. I am following your deliberations with interest.
00
Is El Niño occurs in the middle of the lunar cycle?
“With the culmination of the 18.6-year cycle of the Moon in 2006 and again in 2024-25, also called the Major Lunar Standstill, we are afforded the unique opportunity to observe the monthly, annual, and 18.6-year wanderings of the Moon. The 18.6-year cycle is caused by the precession of the plane of the lunar orbit, while this orbit maintains a 5° tilt relative to the ecliptic. At the peak of this cycle, the Moon’s declination swings from -28.8° to +28.8° each month. What this means is that each month for the years 2005-2007 and also 2023-2026, the Moon can be seen rising and setting more northerly and also more southerly than the solar extremes, and will transit monthly with altitudes which are higher in the sky than the summer Sun and lower in the sky than the winter Sun.”
http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html
00
2006-9=1997
2006+9=2015
00
The highest ionization at an altitude of 15 km in accordance with the magnetic field.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00789/jsipdp0bo117.png
Radiation galactic high.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
00
I happened to notice this article today and thought it might be of interest to followers of this thread.
Flurry of New Studies, CERN, Show Sun’s Massive Impact On Global Climate
00
“Abstract. To understand solar cycle signals on the Earth’s surface and identify the physical mechanisms responsible, surface
10 temperature variations from observations as well as climate model data are analyzed to characterize their spatial structure.
The solar signal in the annual mean surface temperature is characterized by i) mid-latitude warming and ii) no warming in
the tropics. The mid-latitude warming during solar maxima in both hemispheres is associated with a downward penetration
of zonal mean zonal wind anomalies from the upper stratosphere during late winter. During Northern Hemisphere winter this
is manifested in a modulation of the polar-night jet whereas in the Southern Hemisphere the subtropical jet plays the major
15 role. Warming signals are particularly apparent over the Eurasian continent and ocean frontal zones, including a previously
reported lagged response over the North Atlantic. In the tropics, local warming occurs over the Indian and central Pacific
oceans during high solar activity. However, this warming is counter balanced by cooling over the cold tongue sectors in the
southeastern Pacific and the South Atlantic, and results in a very weak zonally averaged tropical mean signal. The cooling in
the ocean basins is associated with stronger cross-equatorial winds resulting from a northward shift of the ascending branch
20 of the Hadley circulation during solar maxima. To understand the complex processes involved in the solar signal transfer,
results of an idealized middle atmosphere–ocean coupled model experiment on the impact of stratospheric zonal wind
changes are compared with solar signals in observations. The model results suggest that both tropical and extra-tropical solar
surface signals can result from circulation changes in the upper stratosphere through i) a downward migration of wave–zonal
mean flow interactions and ii) changes in the stratospheric mean meridional circulation. These experiments support earlier
25 evidence of an indirect solar influence from the stratosphere.”
“Enhanced vertical wave propagation along the polar-night jet results in an increased
convergence of waves in the upper stratosphere, on the one hand, while on the other hand it induces divergence in the lower
stratosphere, by which westerly anomalies descend into the polar region (Kuroda and Kodera, 1999). This results in a
warming in the polar region of the upper stratosphere, but a cooling (or a reduction of the warming) in the tropical
stratosphere due to an enhanced mean meridional circulation, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 12c.
Thus, the differences in the solar signal characteristics between the SH and the NH can be understood by the different
durations of the radiatively and dynamically controlled stages related to different planetary wave activity. The solar signal in
the NH is transmitted from the stratosphere to the surface through a poleward–downward shift of anomalous zonal mean
5 wind, which creates a NAM-like structure in the troposphere. In the SH the planetary wave forcing is smaller, meaning the
radiatively controlled stage lasts longer. As a consequence, the stratopause subtropical jet develops and extends to lower
levels without a large poleward shift, meaning in turn that tropospheric solar signals in the SH do not resemble the SAM,
which is related to variability in the polar-night jet.
10 This dynamical solar influence from the stratosphere can be reproduced by forcing stratospheric zonal mean winds in a
coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model as shown in Figs. 10 and 11. A realistic numerical experiment with
solar UV forcing in a general circulation model without an interactive ocean successfully reproduced the downward
propagation of solar signals during NH winter (e.g., Matthes et al., 2006). More recent advanced middle atmosphere climate
models, capable of reproducing upper stratospheric ozone variability as well as including the feedback to the ocean, can now
15 simulate zonal mean wind variations with the solar cycle and their extension to the troposphere in both hemispheres as well
as the observed differences in the NH and the SH (see figs. 10 and 11 of Hood et al., 2015).
Van Loon et al. (2007) and Meehl et al. (2008, 2009) suggested that the tropospheric solar influence originates from
amplification by atmosphere–ocean interaction in the tropical Pacific; i.e., a modulation of the ENSO cycle.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2016-138/acp-2016-138.pdf
01
It follows from this that the southern hemisphere reacts to the solar wind with some delay compared to the northern hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
Click.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=29&startmonth=04&startyear=2016&starttime=00%3A00&endday=29&endmonth=05&endyear=2016&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
00
The increase in the speed of the solar wind caused a stronger jet stream in the polar vortex and enlargement of the ozone hole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2016.png
http://wind.nasa.gov/plot_output/2016-May-31T01_09_55.png
00