Earth and the solar wind. | Credit: NASA/GSFC
There’s a nuclear fusion reactor in the neighborhood that weighs 300,000 times more than Earth. It’s eight minutes away at the speed of light, has 99.8% of the mass of the solar system, and surrounds us with changing magnetic and electric fields while it rains down charged particles. Some years the Sun throws ten times as much extreme-UV our way as it does in other years. Virtually none of this is included in mainstream climate models.
The constant wind of charged particles blows at a million miles an hour — the flow waves and wiggles, shifting direction. The speed of the solar wind correlates with sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic. The solar magnetic field reaches right to the edge of the solar system, but despite that size, it turns itself completely upside down every 11 years. Reconnecting magnetic field lines cause explosions in space, and we have barely started to collect data on this. During the magnetic cycle the sun changes color, though the changes are invisible to us. The spectrum rolls from more UV to more infra red, and each type of light has different effects. Unlike infra red, UV transforms oxygen into highly reactive ozone which creates warming in certain zones, sometimes high over the poles, sometimes more so over the equator. These warmer blobs expand and it’s possible that they shift the jet stream positions, which affects cloud formation and albedo. UV also reaches further into the oceans where it affects plankton, which in turn produce gases that seed denser clouds. Forests and plants on land also seed clouds and influence rain.
Running through all of this, and from a different direction, are cosmic rays which also appear to seed clouds. Their path through our atmosphere is also affected by the solar magnetic field.
Complicating things even further, the Sun may have a dual core — two dynamos operating in the north and south on cycles that are nearly but not quite in sync.
Years from now, people will gasp that the so called experts of the millennium thought the Sun could have little effect — apart from just shining light upon us.
The extra sunlight coming from a more active Sun appears to have a much larger effect than it should in the long run, but has no effect in the year that it occurs. Something is both neutralizing it in the short run, but amplifying it in the long term. David Evans lists below some different mechanisms, with references, for ways that the Sun could be controlling our cloud cover, or albedo. There are undoubtedly others that could be Force D, N or X. One factor is briefly “notching” out the effect of the small spike in solar light during the peak of a solar cycle (Force N). Paradoxically, some other factor appears to be at work throughout the cycle but is delayed by one solar cycle (Force D) — it works in the opposite direction to Force N.
— Jo
25. Possible Force N,D, or X Mechanisms
Dr David Evans, 2 June 2016, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next.
We don’t know the mechanisms behind forces X, N, or D. In this post we canvas a few of the possibilities, but offer no opinion on which if any it might be.
Possibilities
Among others:
- Solar stimulation of ozone via UV or energetic electron or particle precipitation — which changes the relative proportions of ozone and the relative heights of the tropopause at the poles and equator, which in turn affects the degree of north-south extent in the jet streams, which affects the amount of air mass mixing at boundaries of climate zones, which determines cloudiness and albedo (Wilde 2010 and 2015, Woollings, Lockwood, Masato, Bell, and Gray 2010 [1]).
- Cosmic rays are suspected of encouraging cloud formation and thus affecting albedo, and are influenced by the Sun’s magnetic field, so they may be involved in force D. Cosmic rays decrease during TSI peaks, presumably decreasing clouds and albedo and warming the Earth’s surface, so they are not responsible for force N.
- Solar stimulation of plankton — which produce aerosols that affect clouds (McCoy, et al., 2015 [2])
- Meteoritic dust influences albedo, depositing particles large enough to reflect and scatter light but small enough to persist in the stratosphere for months. Meteor rates vary inversely with sunspot numbers (Ellyet, 1977 [3]), so, like cosmic rays, they might explain force D but not force N. The dust contains minerals that catalyze plankton growth (see previous point). (This possibility suggested by Peter Sinclair, a reader of this blog, and there will be a blog post by Peter on this soon.)
- The interplanetary electric field affects cloud cover (Voiculescu, Usoskin, and Condurache-Bota, 2013 [4]).
- Asymmetries in the motion of the Sun about the center of mass of solar system are correlated with deviations in the Earth’s length of day (LOD). The time rate of change of the LOD correlates with the phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation, while deviations of the LOD from its long term trend correlate with the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Wilson 2011 [8]). These ocean oscillations are correlated with decadal changes in surface temperature, so may be responsible for or related to force D.
- The Jovian planets may influence solar activity (Sharp 2013 [5], Wilson 2013 [6], McCracken, Beer, and Steinhilber 2014 [7]) and might also be responsible for changes in force X/D half of a full solar cycle afterwards.
Or there may be solar influences which are not yet explained, e.g. Stober 2010. Force X/D may involve combinations of the factors above.
Possible Clue to Force X/D?
There is a faint chance that the Nimbus-7/ERB measurements of TSI from 1979 to 1993 may have inadvertently measured (some aspect of) force X/D. These TSI measurements are notable both for being the earliest and for disagreeing with later TSI measurements by being notably higher. Nimbus-7/ERB measured or emphasized different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as higher energy UV.
Figure 1: TSI data from late 1978, when satellite observations started. “Instrument offsets are unresolved calibration differences, much of which are due to internal instrument scatter” Source.
Yoshimura (1996 [9]) found that the ERB-TSI lagged the sunspots by 10.3 years (pp. 606–7). Force X/D lags sunspots by that duration, so perhaps the difference between whatever Nimbus-7/ERB measured and what later TSI instruments measured is related to force X/D.
Yoshimura concluded (p. 601): “We argue that the time lags between the TSI and magnetic field variations demand us to consider the influences of the Sun on the Earth and on the space environment through two channels which are physically linked together but their variations may not necessarily be in phase in time. One channel is through the irradiance variations and the other is through the magnetic field variations. Time evolution of a phenomenon on the Earth that is influenced by the Sun can be in phase as well as out of phase with the solar magnetic cycle if this phenomenon is mainly caused by the irradiance variations of the Sun”.
(The Yoshimura paper was drawn to our attention by SunSword, a reader on this blog.)
References
[1^] Woollings, T., Lockwood, M., Masato, G., Bell, C., & Gray, L. (2010). Enhanced signature of solar variability in Eurasian winter climate. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 37, L20805, doi:10.1029/2010GL044601.
[2^] McCoy, D. T., Burrows, S. M., Wood, R., Grosvenor, D. P., Elliot, S. M., Ma, P.-L., et al. (2015). Natural aerosols explain seasonal and spatial patterns of Southern Ocean cloud albedo. Science Advances, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500157 .
[3^] Ellyet, C. (1977). Solar influence on meteor rates and atmospheric density variations at meteor heights. Geophysical Research, 10.1029/JA082i010p01455.
[4^] Voiculescu, M., Usoskin, I., & Condurache-Bota, S. (2013). Clouds blown by the solar wind. Environmental Research Letters.
[5^] Sharp, G. J. (2013). Are Uranus & Neptune Responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation? International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, pp. 260-273. doi: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33031.
[6^] Wilson, I. R. (2013). The Venus–Earth–Jupiter spin–orbit coupling model. Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 147–158.
[7^] McCracken, K. G., Beer, J., & Steinhilber, F. (2014). Evidence for Planetary Forcing of the Cosmic Ray Intensity and Solar Activity Throughout the Past 9400 Years. Solar Phys, DOI 10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1.
[8^] Wilson, I. R. (2011). Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate? The General Science Journal.
[9^] Yoshimura, H. (1996). Coupling of Total Solar Irradiance and Solar Magnetic Field Variations with Time Lags: Magneto-thermal Pulsation of the Sun. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, ASP Conference Series, Vol 95, pp. 601 – 608.
[SNIP spam comment and all the replies. Not at the top of a science thread. -Jo
32
“Reconnecting magnetic field lines cause explosions in space”
There are no such things as ‘magnetic field lines’.
20
A wonderful roundup. Thank you Jo and David.
CriddleDog,
In as much as magnetic flux density is represented by the closeness of magnetic field lines…..when these lines reconnect, especially in a plasma due to something the scale of the sun, a vast amount of energy is released extremely quickly….an explosion is an apt description.
120
Additionally, the earth has it’s own internal heat and magnetic source to interact with that of the sun, whilst the tides and obit wobbles massage the crust to burp and gas etc.
50
Hi RobK
“In as much as magnetic flux density is represented by the closeness of magnetic field lines…”
I would agree that, as you state above, magnetic flux density is REPRESENTED by the closeness etc etc
Again, there are no “real” lines of force. Fields lines are simply a mathematical construct used for visualization only.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/08/22/solar-electromagnetic-flux-dynamics-2/
“Magnetic field lines are not “things,” they are schematic representations used to plot magnetic fields. They are no more real in space than lines of latitude or longitude are on the surface of the Earth”.
60
CD,
Point taken. The explosions are real none the less.
40
Swallowing camels and straining at gnats methinks CriddleDog.
Lines of force is simply a way of verbally explaining and simplifying the explanation of processes involving a magnetic field.
51
Not at all.
Magnetic field ‘lines’ are just like isobars, they are human draw contours. They do not “reconnect”.
Whatever he is trying to describe as a physical event should be described in proper physical terms. Is he talking about the field gradient passing a certain threshold. Unless you make a clear falsifiable claim you can never be proved wrong: hence you are never right either.
30
Greg Goodman June 6, 2016 at 5:07 am
“Not at all. Magnetic field ‘lines’ are just like isobars, they are human draw contours. They do not “reconnect”.”
Just showing off your lack of knowledge/respect for anything not meteorological CRAP!!
The magnetic field lines can be easily demonstrated with permanent magnets and iron filings on a flat paper surface with a horseshoe magnet most of the field lines are closed, linking the N-S poles.
With a bar magnet few ‘lines’ connect the N-S poles, most are open, just symmetrically going outward decreasing as distance^3, but remaining constant as a normalized density! As another bar magnet approaches these lines either diverge (repulsive force), or reconnect with the other magnet (attractive force), depending on orientation!
Between the Earth-Sun magnetic coupling there are also huge electrical current flux(i), always guided by the current shape of these magnetic field lines, transferring huge amounts of POWER one way or the other!! When these fields are time varying, even with cycle intervals of 22 years(on the scale of the whole Solar system), you have a Westinghouse induction motor/generator/watt-meter!
MODS, please delete/moderate if offensive in AU. In the spirit of the Donald, I remain my own “equal opportunity bigot”, no race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or intent to scam; is above intentional insult.
Greg, please stop playing with yourself, and put your diapers back on!
27
“Again, there are no “real” lines of force. Fields lines are simply a mathematical construct used for visualization only.”
All mathematical constructs are REAL! Almost none are physical. Please try to understand the difference!
117
“There’s a nuclear fusion reactor in the neighborhood …”
From your description, it seems that the thing is not properly shielded, and is just running wild. This is incredibly dangerous. Can’t we get it shut down, or at least get it properly controlled and fitted with appropriate safety measure?
150
On the other hand; it would appear it is exquisitely shielded and has the earth humming along at a virtually constant average temperature. It’s just we aren’t quite sure how it’s done.
90
I’m not convinced it’s well shielded. I frequently get radiation burns if I stay outside for long periods.
80
Yes it is definitely an Occupational Safety and Health hazard, and needs investigating. I just happen to be available at the moment …
60
I think it was a commentator called Caleb on WUWT some years ago that put it succinctly:
Pretty much got the vibe IMO.
90
Aren’t all the Greenies against anything nuclear? If we shut it down there will be no more global warming.
120
RoHa says about the neighboring nuclear fusion reactor:
We could ask Hilary to ban it. 🙂
40
A wonderful roundup. Thank you Jo and David.
CriddleDog,
In as much as magnetic flux density is represented by the closeness of magnetic field lines…..when these lines reconnect, especially in a plasma due to something the scale of the sun, a vast amount of energy is released extremely quickly….an explosion is an apt description.
40
Mods please remove my#4 as I reposted at 2.1. Ta.
10
O/Topic – leaked document suggests the Great Barrier Reef needs a $16 billion makeover:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-02/great-barrier-reef-pollution-fight-could-cost-billions/7469740
All aboooaaard! The gravy train is pulling out!
100
Or boaties could stop using inordinate amount of anti-fouling paint, on their hulls, that leeches away, and kills the coral.
And they might also consider not purging their effulent waste over the reef, as well.
51
I am not a climate scientist with a Phd, but doesn’t a slightly stronger sun burn off more low level cloud, fog and mist (common in cool-temperate and arctic zones) and make things warmer?. Once the low level cloud cover is reduced, wouldn’t this enhance the effect of a slightly stronger sun, particularly in temperate and arctic zones?.
Aren’t temperate and arctic zones actually warming faster than equatorial zones? Wasn’t the Little Ice Age generally known for its fogs, clouds and mists within Europe, (a cool temperate zone), especially?
Makes sense to me anyway.
70
Well thank you for coming out, but this is not a support group. You do not need to justify yourself, or your opinions, here.
I agree with you. Most people assume that the sun only outputs visible light, and also ultraviolet and infrared. But that aint true. It emits a wide range of frequencies, of which some are visible to our senses, but most are not. Anything on earth, that will resonate with one or more of these frequencies will be affected by the sun.
The climate scientists with Phd’s tend to ignore that fact. High frequency radio waves are particularly sensitive to the eleven year solar cycle of sunspots, but the cyclic nature of the sun tends to be ignored.
It is ignored, because if the sun is cyclic, then climate change must be cyclic as well. Same phenomina, different frequencies affected, business as usual, not a problem, lets all go home.
60
Very interesting intro Jo that’s accessible to anyone who reads it, well done.
David I don’t know if you’ve seen the research article in Science Advances regarding the samples collected by the Rosetta orbiter on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and the possible discovery of amino acids or building blocks of life.
I only mention it as maybe another piece of this fascinating puzzle of our universe and it’s creation.
60
Jasper Kirkby at CERN states that Clouds have a strong cooling effect on Earth.
http://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought
He then links cosmic rays to low level clouds and says that the preindustrial age had more clouds. Following the logic the reduction in clouds should be responsible for heating since then. He makes no link with CO2 yet still assures us that the Earth will continue to warm, seeming to undermine his own argument.
I tend think that increased cosmic rays might be linked to high level cirrus clouds. I do not know why scientists do not make that connection.
50
.
Peter C @ # 9
Richard Lindzen had a look at the Cirrus clouds back in the 1990’s and came up with his” Iris” theory.
The name is based on the way in which the eye’s iris opens in low light conditions to gather more light and the iris closes in high illumination situations thereby restricting the amount of light entering the eye and preventing damage to the highly light sensitive rods and cones at the back of the eye.
Lindzen has postulated that Cirrus clouds in combination with lower level cumulous clouds in at least the tropics, act some what similarly to an eye’s iris in either enhancing the amount of cirrus to reduce the amount of radiation leaving the planet for space so retaining heat and holding or increasing temperatures .
Or reducing the amount of cirrus to allow more radiation to escape into space so reducing temperatures.
”
NASA’s “Earth Observatory” site has a good explanation of Lindzens “Iris theory” and his research into how such a cirrus cloud “Iris’ might work as at least one factor in the controlled stability that seems to be an inherent characteristic of the current global climate.
Does Earth have an Iris Analog?
Part 1; The Iris Hypothesis
Part 2; A Delicate Balance.
And if you haven’t really got to the bottom of the claims about how CO2 will increase global temperatures and why such an increase in CO2 will have a runaway effect on the global temperatures then a couple of quotes from the NASA article above.
And please take recognition that this NASA site’s explanation is dated June 2002.
The unavoidable and single major flaw with this claim of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures, leading to more evaporation, leading to higher water vapour aka humidity leading to higher temperatures, leading to more evaporation, etc etc around we go again, is so ridiculously obvious.
Atmospheric Water Vapour increases !
Clouds, lots of big clouds form!
It RAINS and down comes all that water in those water vapour created clouds ready to do the same evaporation, cloud forming, rain commencing cycle all over again.
I have never ever quite got my mind around the base ignorance of the alarmists who seem totally oblivious to such a simple fact that negates just about every single thing they believe about catastrophic global warming .
Then maybe nearly all of them are now so utterly ignorant in their self imposed mental isolation and insulation from acknowledging anything resembling natural weather that the realities of real weather and how it behaves and how that filters down through time as climate when seen over many, many decades is beyond their tiny minded comprehension.
221
We often talk glibly about Aerosols!
So a quick look at the aerosol loadings of the atmosphere in various locations..ie; the air you breathe in and out every few seconds,
And the figures below are per Cubic Centimetre which is a darn small volume of anything unless you are a bacteria or a virus.
I ltr = 1000 Cubic Centimetres [ CC’s. ]
The average Male breathes about 10 to 20 ltrs minute of air and up to 50 Ltrs at a strenuous level of activity such as running.
The average Female a little less in breathing volumes.
ref; Californian EPA;
——————-
Quote below from; Aerosols and climate
——————–
Also; Effects of contrails and ship tracks on climate
71
But ROM,
All this extra CO2 should be COOLING the upper atmosphere – say some!
Alternatively that effect may be just the sun’s doings says others.
Or maybe the current cooling is a bit of both?
31
tomomason @ 9.1.2
Remember the couple of figures on climate modelling by Patrick Michaels that appeared in the comments in one of Jo’s recent posts.
ie; Climate research accounts for about 4% of the global research budget.
Climate models account for around 55% of all modelling in ALL of SCIENCE.
An unbelievable corruption of limited scientific resources for if climate models actually worked they would only need ONE single successful model to cover everything asked about the climate and what drives and controls that global climate.
To say the least, Confusion and about what does to what and how it occurs is what you will invariably get when you have 84 IPCC climate models in the AR5 trying to figure out the drivers and controllers of the global climate, all of them deeply subject to the whims, biases , programming cockups and underlying beliefs and ideologies of the climate modellers who create these climate modelling mathematical monstrosities.
Yeh! I counted those 84 climate models that are listed as having inputs into the AR5 ;
Ref; Chapter 9- Evaluation of Climate Models
[ another source I have seen gives the AR5’s model numbers as over 100 models that they drew on for the AR5.]
It is also pertinent to understand that few of those climate modellers have ever had any formal education and training in the science of modelling as nearly every one of the climate modellers have come from another scientific discipline mostly well divorced from climate science.
But hey!, just follow the money particularly when it is OPM and delivered in truck loads with NO accountability demanded for its end use application.
So with the IPCC’s AR5’s 84 listed climate models you will have and do have in spades, some substantial disagreement as to what causes what and how it causes it in the global climate as in predicted directly 180 degree opposite effects from very similar garbage in to garbage out to different climate models according to the biases and beliefs of the climate model’s programmers.
A very relevant point that you have highlighted Tomomason..
———-
David Evans, at least along with a number of other scientists such as the Russians and now an increasing number of skeptical climate scientists who are emerging from the wood work as the whole damn debacle of the modelled climate catastrophe based solely on an increasing atmospheric CO2 level, collapses.
A modelled climate catastrophe which should have, according to the climate challenged climate modellers and other assorted self styled shamans and manipulators of old dinosaur bones, be upon us now after two decades of the preaching and promoting of an imminent and pending climate disaster due solely to increasing CO2 .
These more skeptical scientists as scientists should always be we are regularly told, [ skepticsm is not applicable to or allowed in catastrophic alarmist climate science ] are taking a very different tack, doing real science based on data and observations in trying to understand just what are the underlaying and real drivers of the global climate first before ANY predictions or otherwise can be even be contemplated.
A vastly different course of research than just assuming that CO2 is the sole cause of any still to be seem significant global warming.
An unproven belief which arose from a co-incidental rise in global temperatures and in CO2 levels between the years of the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977-78 to around at the latest, the 1998 super El- Nino, a period of just 20 years upon which the ENTIRE belief in increasing CO2 being the driver of increasing and ultimately catastrophic global temperatures was and is based in its entirety.
Of course, 1998 to 2016 is now 18 years and on running with increasing CO2 levels but NO statistically relevant increases in global temperatures.
And in fact with some limited evidence that global temperatures might no longer be stable or plateaued but are starting to show indications of declining.
Not that you will convince the climate cult believers and most of the climate modellers of this, at least until the money runs out or is diverted to a new scientific ozone hole / climate warming /arctic melting / antarctic melting/ sea levels rising catastrophically / pacific islands disappearing and innumerable etc’s that can be passed off as climate science and can be promoted so as to bring in further truckloads of OPM to a whole range of scam merchants who pass themselves off as climate [ alarmist ] scientists.
112
Yes ROM and the modelers get it stuck to them again. As reported here – http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/jun/a1.php
Paper Reviewed
Zhao, L., Xu, J., Powell, A.M., Jiang, Z. and Wang, D. 2016. Use of SSU/MSU Satellite Observations to Validate Upper Atmospheric Temperature Trends in CMIP5 Simulations. Remote Sensing 8: 10.3390/rs8010013.
In a test of climate-model-based projections, Zhao et al. (2016) conducted an inter-comparison of temperature trends extending from the middle troposphere to the upper stratosphere as derived from real-world satellite observations made by Stratospheric Sounding Units (SSUs), Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU) as well as CMIP5 climate model simulations. And what did this comparison reveal?
Time to rethink the whole modeling paradigm? I doubt it…
40
More catastrophic modeling bites the dust. Interesting to read the wording of the recent UK Met Office summary, which mollifies their previously held position, in the light of new knowledge.
Yet, The Progressive eco-lefties over at The Washington Post peddle the ‘research’ published in Nature Climate Change by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences
Eco-fragmentation grows more visible daily.
40
Slightly O/Topic – there is a refreshing piece at The Drum talking about how unreliable economic models are:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-03/long-the-strange-modelling-used-to-sell-company-tax-cuts/7473480
I was going to raise climate models, but someone beat me to it. Naturally the faithful piled on saying climate models are entirely more sophisticated etc (ignoring the fact that sophistication and accuracy are two different concepts). Talk about cognitive dissonance.
I am the first to admit that the underlying science of some aspects of the climate is better understood than economics of whole economies, where strict relationships don’t necessarily apply, but there are a heck of a lot of unknowns (clouds for example), so any climate model is fatally flawed and biased (in the statistical sense) right from the start.
I have always thought the comparison of climate models to economic models a good one. Both include many endogenous and exogenous variables, the relationships between them often poorly understood and measured, and there are often unknown unknowns. No one in their right mind projects economic models more than a few years and expects them to be realistic… therein lies a big distinction. I guess climate scientists are there to make economists look good, who in turn make astrologers look credible…
31
Bulldust
Might be of interest
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/keynes-james-bartholomew-and-the-bocconi-boys/
10
I’ve often wondered why the solar influence has been ignored to the extent/degree that it has. Just a simple thought comes to mind, turn off that solar influence and what happens to life on earth?
101
It’s because the IPCC was created to prove it was mankind’s evil influence (from burning fossil fuels) which was causing the temperature rise. Check the IPCC Charter, it’s engraved/carved in stone there.
The sun wasn’t included in the charter, therefore ignoring it is required. As far as they are concerned, it’s a benign little heater which sits in the corner and warms the planet day in and day out with no change, at all, ever. And if they, totally accidently, discovered it was the sun, then it would be all over for them. So that’s why the solar influence is ignored or, at best, downplayed.
They only thing they have proven is that they can burn zillions of dollars with nothing to show for it.
60
Follows the well known modelling doctrine
“If in doubt leave it out”
20
Wonderful introduction Jo. It’s a gem.
100
The temperature in the lower stratosphere depends on the magnetic activity (UV) sun.
Lower Stratosphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0beta5.txt
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif
50
Ren, and David –
Also coupled to that is the observation that the sun appears to directly influence the volume of our atmosphere. As noted by NASA the thermosphere appears to ‘breath’ in time with the solar cycle. They have noted a large reduction in the earth’s atmospheric volume. Enough shrinkage to ease the minds of those who look after satellites as there is now less atmosphere slowing satellites orbits.
How far does this effect affect the rest of the planet’s atmosphere and the climate? On what timescale does it operate? Who knows?
NASA, in keeping to the dogma script, blames this effect on CO2 – managing this as they do without any cited measurements or verifiable evidence.
http://www.seeker.com/earths-shrinking-atmosphere-baffles-scientists-discovery-news-1766491731.html
90
That’s interesting. Thanks Tomomason.
50
Distribution of ozone over the polar circle depends on the magnetic activity of the sun and the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t30_sh_f00.png
70
Lunar tides impacting the Madden Julien Oscillation may cause coral bleaching every five years.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/moderate-to-strong-el-nino-events-are.html
40
The increase in the galactic radiation (since 1990). Please be aware that the neutrons are only part of the secondary radiation.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1990&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=06&endyear=2016&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
50
Galactic radiation changes the chemistry of the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere.
http://www.academia.edu/3190232/An_autocatalytic_cycle_for_ozone_production_in_the_lower_stratosphere_initiated_by_galactic_cosmic_rays
50
Such high ionizing radiation occurs in both hemispheres in the lower stratosphere, while declining solar activity.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/index.html
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/southpole.html
40
I understand this post is addressing possibilities as to how solar variability could alter cloud cover/albedo. But again this is simply dancing around the most plausible explanation for the “11 year notch”.
This is nothing to do with TSI.
. It is a metric promoted solely by AGW propagandists to defend their “narrative”. If you are referring to TSI instead of solar spectral variability (SSV), then you are dancing to their tune.
SSV in the UV is dramatic over and between solar cycles. (Admittedly only a recent satellite era discovery). Why is this so important? Because when it comes to solar heating of the oceans, all watts are not equal. The shorter the wavelength of a photon entering the ocean, the deeper it penetrates. The deeper it penetrates the more energy is accumulated over the diurnal cycle. The reason is simple. Energy absorbed at depth can only be lost by radiation, conduction and evaporation at the surface of the oceans as the oceans are LWIR opaque. The process of convective circulation returning energy to the ocean surface is physical and slow. The deeper energy is absorbed, the longer it takes to leave. Lower UV, lower ocean energy accumulation. Higher UV, higher energy accumulation. Simple, basic physics. Easily demonstrated by the simplest of empirical experiments. Physics clearly missing from the “basic physics” of the “settled science”.
So why does David dance and weave? Because the scientific truth is so politically unpalatable. AGW is a physical impossibility, yet David thinks “warming but less than we thought” could still be a winner. Nope. Dead end in the age of the Internet. Leaving a permanent record of supporting a scientifically incorrect position is not a winning move.
When you understand the importance of SSV for ocean temperatures, then you understand how the sun heats the oceans and the atmosphere cools them. Climastologists and David’s maths claim the atmosphere slows the cooling rate of the oceans (most strange).
Current surface average temperature –
All agreed – 288K
Surface without radiatively cooled atmosphere and 0.3 albedo –
David and climythologists – 255K
Konrad – 312K
Is our radiatively cooled atmosphere warming the surface or cooling it? Politics or science?
1528
Just two red thumbs so far? No. No! This just won’t do!
I have previously achieved over 100 red thumbs defending the empirical science of radiative physics and fluid dynamics on this blog. This current display of pseudo science pales in comparison. More effort people!
56
I will have a go at your experiment Konrad. I have plenty of styrofoam boxes.
What to use to make the water black? A bottle of black ink I suppose. I might still have one of those.
The GHGE proponents keep telling us that green house gases are like a blanket around the earth, helping to keep the heat in. Empirical observations show that locations that are wetter are cooler than similar latitudes with a dry climate. Is that due to more clouds or more water vapour?
You have told us before but can you remind me how you derive your 312K in a world without greenhouse gases?
30
Peter,
312K is a cheat. It’s a conservative under estimate. Average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere would be higher than that.
My empirical experiments and CFD computer runs are only for water, 71% of the earth’s surface. I find 335K for average ocean surface without radiative atmosphere. 335K for ocean and the old 255K for land gives you the 312K underestimate for average surface without radiative atmosphere.
Will of course demands that I do trees next. But I have a day job, and trees are hard. 255K for 29% of the surface will just have to do. Besides, Will is evil and submits to rule by cat.
014
Konrad,
The biggest hole in the theory is the atmospheric (only) water cycle! This atmosphere supports 9 times the amount of daily surface precipitation. Most of that is in the form of airborne water condensate that is continuously evaporating sunside from morning through mid afternoon greatly increasing atmospheric volume, with little increase in temperature, but 2,400 Watt-seconds/gm evaporated! In all places not that much insolated it is returning that 2400J/gm maintaining atmospheric temperature for most efficacy in the dispatch of unwanted energy (entropy) to space via atmospheric EMR.
This is so effective that no EMR actually need originate at the surface whatsoever! Conduction, convection, and surface evaporation, mainly by plants complete all that in needed!
All the best! -will-
,
721
Konrad, – I already mentioned the ten fold change in EUV — because I agree that SSV may be the key. That’s one of the main points of the post. Shame a potentially good point gets diluted with pointless emotional content. Please post with more discipline. David is not “dancing and weaving” he’s doing research, unpaid, it’s damn hard, and the aggressive, condescension and patronizing statements are a bore. Skip em OK? We want your scientific criticism, not your psychoanalysis.
More accurate statements are more useful.
1. This is not true — “The shorter the wavelength of a photon entering the ocean, the deeper it penetrates.” The shortest wavelengths don’t even get to the ocean eg x-rays, UV-c. It’s only the longer UV that makes it there, and the wavelengths that penetrate the furthest are actually the visible blue ones.
2. “AGW is a physical impossibility,”. This is just another grand and undefendable statement: Maybe it is, but you havent shown that and this thread is not about that. We’ll be grateful for on-topic posts. Please. This thread is not going to degenerate into a rehash of the done-to-death “AGW is impossible” endless well.
331
Joanne,
I agree that we all should be more supportive of Davids work! I for one can no longer understand what it is that David is trying to do. He started by pointing out some fundamental flaws in the basic assumptions used in all the climate models, that was great but he missed most of them. Now he seems to be using those same mistakes but come up with some alternate for the somewhat cyclic nature of this planets weather! Can you give us some clue so we may contribute in a positive manner? You yourself contribute to the confusion with the inclusion of the Stephen Wilde claims of Ozone that have not the slightest check as to physical possibility. Meteorology: simple, straightforward, and wrong every time!! See #26
All the best! -will-
321
Meteorology is the key to understanding the climate system. Very few know much about that field of study.
My article about solar effects on stratospheric ozone contains a lot of references and links to actual observations.
The only quibble I have with David’s work is that he plays safe by accepting the possibility of some small surface warming effect from radiative gases despite the re-routing process that he describes.
Personally, I think that the re-routing process completely negates any surface warming effect from any radiative capability within an atmosphere so that the surface temperature for any given planet is determined solely by insolation acting on mass suspended (and therefore inevitably convecting up and down) within a gravity field.
If there were no other re-routing ‘pipes’ within an atmosphere then the outgoing radiation blocked by radiative gases at lower levels would simply be offset by more outgoing radiation facilitated by those same radiative gases at higher levels and convection within the atmosphere simply changes so as to ensure that outcome as explained here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
619
Stephen, I am playing safe but the data goes where it goes.
Correcting the architecture in the model and feeding in the data gives a highly probable range for the ECS of 0.0 to 0.5 deg C.
So, the rerouting feedback, on the data, could almost entirely negate any surface warming effect of increasing CO2.
Regards meteorology, you are quite right that it is very important in figuring this out. You have been very interested in meteorology for decades; I’m much more recent — as you know, my knowledge of meteorology is not that great. You have helped me on a couple of occasions with vital meteorological explanations of what the modeling and data was indicating. Thank you.
71
Thanks David
Since your range of possibilities includes 0.0 for the ECS we could both be right.
70
Stephen Wilde June 3, 2016 at 4:12 pm ·
“Meteorology is the key to understanding the climate system. Very few know much about that field of study.”
The key to understanding meteorology, a branch of the social sciences, like political science is the intentional and abject carelessness used in the fantasy storytelling! This carelessness is directed at any scientific accuracy or acuity! Any attempt to be precise is a mark of poor storytelling, as exemplified by the 97% agreement among meteorologists that CO2 is the best story! Simple, straightforward, and wrong every time!!
“My article about solar effects on stratospheric ozone contains a lot of references and links to actual observations.”
There are many observations of magnitude similarity between unrelated observation. You promote the fantasy that the stratospheric ozone is somehow the cause of other observations, especially at the poles.
The maximum 70ppbv stratospheric ozone, if by solar UV were created 2000 kelvins above the temperature of the other 999,999,930 stratospheric molecules, the resultant temperature increase of the aggregate would be less than one one thousandth °C. Sometimes you might attempt a simple sanity check of the veracity of what some PHD candidate may write, in a plagiarized (with citation) thesis!
All the best! -will-
019
You don’t seem to know what Meteorology is if you think that the so called 97% in favour of AGW are Meteorologists.
Meteorology is a precise, observationally based analysis of the many (often counterintuitive) ways that the laws of physics play out in a real, mobile atmosphere.
It results in the ‘Standard Atmosphere’ which is sufficiently accurate to enable aeronautics and rocketry.
Very few on either side of the climate dispute have any significant knowledge of Meteorology.
Most professional Meteorologists doubt AGW theory but would lose their jobs if they publicised those doubts. Some have already done so.
418
“Meteorology is a precise, observationally based analysis of the many (often counterintuitive) ways that the laws of physics play out in a real, mobile atmosphere.”
What nonsense! There are a few weather forecasters skilled at distinguishing the deterministic from the apparent chaos. Meteorology as taught by institutional academicians is but political storytelling. There is no regard for the physical sciences. The reward comes when the majority of the sheeple/voters accept the story as told.
117
Readers can look here and make up their own minds:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Meteorology+and+the+Standard+Atmosphere&form=PRGBEN&pc=EUPP_&refig=6600e643ebdf407996047465103d426e&pq=meteorology+and+the+standard+atmosphere&sc=0-17&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=
21
Stephen Wilde June 4, 2016 at 2:36 am
“Readers can look here and make up their own minds:”
I did not comment on this falsehood for a reason. I am still waiting for you to admit that you did absolutely no fact checking in your fantasy spouting of atmospheric ozone!
The US STD atmosphere is nowhere correct! That STD is a committee agreement between the US department of transportation and industry aeronautical engineers on how best to calibrate the barometric altimeter to allow controlled vertical spacing between aircraft on possible intersecting courses!
All such aircraft altimeters must be calibrated and re-calibrated to this STD so that at any geographical co-location vertical spacing is maintained independent of actual height AGL or above sea level! Even military aircraft must use barometric altitude rather than radar altitude when operating near commercial aircraft lanes.
Meteorology had no part in this US STD atmosphere. Academic meteorology only stole the concept to make the stories sound more ‘scientific’ thus more believable, to the sheeple/voters! Still waiting for some response to my attack on your ozone fantasy!
117
Nother post to keep from sliding through the bottom of ‘recent’! See the effort above! -will-
13
Stephen,
I agree that Meteorology is based on observations. The whole idea is to use them to make predictions. Predictions are quite good out to 3 days and I will even take some note of the 7 day forecast.
We know that there is a political element affecting the British, Australian and New Zealand Met Offices about climate change. I talked to some Bureau of Meteorology staff at a recent air show. They were reluctant to discuss issues involving climate change but were none the less very helpful on everything else.
I think that the Standard Atmosphere is pretty good at describing average conditions. As far as I know it has not been modified since the 1950’s.
Konrad, are you there? What about the 312K?
Will has gone over the top here.
10
Peter C June 4, 2016 at 7:12 pm
The observations and the local history of the weather patterns. Sometimes some of these recorders and forecasters do have a degree in meteorology! Those folk strictly avoid making claims about “global weather or climate and the WHY of such”. It is the learned academics with a PHD that stick to climate research!! It is their pronouncements as to the ‘WHY’ of weather and climate, like CAGW, by CO2 that has no science behind it.
The US-STD atmosphere used for calibration was last revised in 1976. It is a good approximation of average temperature and pressure over most of continental United States. The problem with it is that it is representative of no location anywhere for more than 5 minutes, yet such is used in all Global Circulation Models as a reference!
The whole idea of some single global temperature makes a complete mockery of ever learning of or beginning to understand this Earth’s atmosphere. It is just those academic meteorologists that make the claim of knowing “WHY”! No one else is that dishonest!!
113
Jo,
as you should know, I appreciate and support the effort you and David have put into fighting this pseudo scientific hoax.
But this is about science not side. The reason I write what I do is because I want David to win. My world is fire and blood. No, wait, it’s science and engineering. Maybe for show biz. Busy on “Aliens Covenant”. Busy on “Thor”. If you’ve worked film, you know that a set is like a medieval court. I know science, engineering, politics and the horror when they collide. I know David is on a hiding to nothing with “warming but far less than we thought”.
Jo, you speak of emotion as if it were a dirty word. Sure I would not be typing this if I had allowed emotion to dominate that time a dive regulator blew out 30m below the surface or that time my engine failed on approach to Mallacoota strip. But without emotion, without passion, there would not be footprints on the moon.
Jo, AGW due to CO2 is truly a physical impossibility. You cannot win this one with half measures.
017
OK.. I am reviewing a paper… The 6th or so since this series began and the previous 5 or so are online prior to publication. In my dotage I’ve even had one go through to publication myself which is becoming rare but it helps me appraise if timing to publication has changed…
Why is this not published?
20
Konrad made a similar point I’ve made, that heat accumulates in the ocean directly from higher energy solar wavelengths – but while UV is very important, such as the UV index computed for the US, a daily NOAA forecast product that shows where insolation will be highest (often where it’s warmest too), UV simply can’t overcome and dominate the entire TSI influence. The claim that TSI isn’t the main heat driver ignores too much energy from the rest of the solar spectrum versus just UV wavelengths.
The whole idea that clouds are the smoking gun negative feedback that controls temperatures is misguided and upside down. Clouds are made from water vapor generated from ocean evaporation. The cosmic ray seeding of clouds cannot heat the ocean to drive the evaporation needed to generate water vapor. CRs can only seed water vapor already present in the atmosphere, water vapor generated by sunlight, by insolation, by TSI.
What came first, the clouds or the heat? For those who like to think TSI doesn’t vary enough or isn’t high enough –
If solar energy, UV/TSI, does not generate our atmospheric water vapor, then the obvious question is do CR’s directly drive ocean evaporation (duh – no!), and if not, what does? There’s plenty of evidence for TSI.
IMO the only issue with the N/D theory interpretation is the lack of recognition and incorporation of the principle reality of heat accumulation in the ocean from “high enough – long enough” TSI, or the corollary, as we are presently experiencing, OHC depletion from insufficient TSI.
622
If the more GCR generates precipitation (with increased volcanic activity) reduces the amount of water vapor in the upper troposphere.
20
I am always faintly amused that so called experts say the sun has little effect. Apart from the “Sun big, earth small” comment earlier, the Sun is the driver of ALL weather on the planet. As a yachtsman I take more than a keen interest in the weather and as a Yachtmaster we are required to demonstrate ability to read weather data and have a basic understanding of how weather is produced. At the risk of telling granny how to suck eggs all you need is the Sun and the spinning of the Earth. The sun heats up land faster than water, and hot air rises, and cooler, low pressure air replaces it (which is why you get a breeze blowing onshore in the afternoon in summer months). The spin of the Earth does the rest. Every kind of weather is dependent on the pressure (temperature) difference between two air masses and the earth’s rotation. This is why lows are counter-clockwise in the NH and clockwise in the SH.
I may not be as well informed and up to speed with this subject as you guys, but it seems to me that if there were no sun, there would be no weather, and frankly nothing else either.
81
A very good set of papers. Like all good papers, not drawing a conclusion, but leads to more questions. Logical questions. This presenter is doing something the models of the UN could not do, actually understand what happens, and why. Not blaming. But understanding the physical thru modeling. And thru the modeling, prediction.
I did appreciate the Sat output graphs showing the waveforms and energy outputs, they show a non static star, one that is varying in outputs and energies. Now, if we could relate this to our orbit, say, as, if we are closer, more sunspots, increased magnetic attraction, and therefore more energy transfered, at a higher temperatures, or the planetaryalignments have offset the barycenter,that increases the transfer, or that the interrupted ion flows, magnetic “lines” funnel, bottle, the
70
David,
You might want to read the following 2015 paper by N.S. Sidorenkov
http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=1&Image_file_name=PDF/oap_2015_28_2_61.pdf
SYNCHRONIZATION OF TERRESTRIAL PROCESSES WITH FREQUENCIES OF THE EARTH-MOON-SUN SYSTEM
Here are the first few paragraphs of my most recent paper that comments on this paper by Sidorenkov:
Mul’tanovskii (1933) observed that synoptic processes do not vary continuously with time but occur in semi-periodic jumps. He noted that the pattern in the location and movement of atmospheric pressure fields in a synoptic region remained roughly the same for several days before rapidly transforming over a period of 12-36 hours. After each transformation, a new pattern emerged in the pressure centre locations and their subsequent trajectories which persisted for several more days before the next rapid transformation (Sidorenkov 2009). Mul’tanovskii called the period over which these patterns persisted in the synoptic processes, over a given natural synoptic region, the natural synoptic period – NSP (Sidorenkov 2009).
Sidorenkov (2009) examined historical data over an eight year period between October 1, 1987 and September 30, 1995 and found that lunar-induced extrema in the rotational velocity of the Earth (ν) coincided with observed changes in elementary synoptic processes to within ± 1 day in 76 % of the cases (Sidorenkov 2000). This lead Sidorenkov to propose that semi-periodic weather patterns, similar to those of Mul’tanovskii’s NSP’s, are synchronized with these lunar-induced extrema in ν (Sidorenkov 2009).
A more detailed investigation of the rotational velocity of the Earth shows that ν passes through a local minimum once every half a tropical month (= 13.66 days) when the Moon crosses the equator (i.e. a lunar equinox). These periodic slowdowns in ν are a direct result of the lunar tidal bulge in the Earth’s oceans (and atmosphere) passing across the Earth’s Equator. When this happens, the Earth’s rotation slows down for much the same reason that a twirling ice-skater slows down their rate of spin by extending their arms i.e. by the conservation of angular momentum. Similarly, ν passes through a local maximum once every 13.66 days when the Moon reaches it furthest point from the equator (i.e. a lunar solstice).
Sidorenkov (2009) points out that if the transitioning between NSP’s are, in fact, synchronized with these lunar-induced extrema in ν, then this would explain why the average length of an NSP is roughly seven days (since 13.66 / 2 ≈ 6.83 days). It could also help explain why the patterns that are observed in the synoptic processes persist for several days before rapidly transforming into different synoptic pattern that persist for another several days. This would be that case because the first synoptic pattern would occur as the Earth increased its rotation speed, while the second would occur as the Earth decreased its rotation speed.
100
Could well be, Ian.
Some aspects of the TSI might be coupled to perturbations in the terrestrial rotational velocity (as you show, if I recall), so perhaps either might serve as a signal that predicts synoptic changes. I don’t know.
I see Sidorenkov finishes his paper with some meteorological variations on decadal time scales, and notes a major change around 2004. It might be supportive of force D.
80
David Evans June 3, 2016 at 1:43 am
“Could well be, Ian. Some aspects of the TSI might be coupled to perturbations in the terrestrial rotational velocity (as you show, if I recall), so perhaps either might serve as a signal that predicts synoptic changes. I don’t know.”
David,
I like Konrad would appreciate your toning down on the CAGW term TSI. I know your thing is to use only the AlGoresta terms! That’s fine, and perhaps necessary for those that believe in those AlGoresta terms! The very best source for the magnitude of the term TSI are the continually generating solar panels on the international space station, Those panels do not lie, but the front surface coatings of those panels come at an obscene price The front surface coatings nearly reflect all solar irradiance less than 0.45 micron or more than 1.5 micron. The UV would damage the panels and the longer wavelengths only increase the temperature and entropy of the panels without producing any electrical power. All entropy produced must be dispatched to space via EMR by the huge rear facing ‘radiators’, now tripling that already obscene price. No one knows the actual variance in day to day all wavelength mesopause solar irradiance! To measure such would be easy! To publish such data would likely destroy the climate change mime, and must not be done!
All the best! -will-
014
Due to the variability of tidal forces, the amplitude of oscillations in weather elements
and marine hydrological characteristics also varies with time with the same period.
However, the larger the amplitude of oscillations in hydrometeorological characteristics,
the more frequent the extreme events (heat or cold waves, droughts or floods,
hurricane-force winds, strong thunderstorms, hailstorms) and the greater the
economic damage they cause. In other words, the rate of extreme natural processes
varies according to the various oscillations of tidal forces. Industrial and social
processes are also affected by varying tidal forces.
To statistically prove the existence of variability in hydrometeorological characteristics
with a period of 18.6 years, one needs the time series of high-frequency
hydrometeorological observations covering several dozens of 18.6-year cycles (longer
than 300 years). Unfortunately, meteorologists use (monthly and annual) mean data,
which do not contain any information on tidal oscillations. For example, the
averaging of h1 and h2 even on a daily basis yields nearly constant values with no
amplitude or frequency modulation of the daily carrier frequency. The spectra of such
series contain only noise components (see Section 7.5).
Starting in 1966, weather observations are made every 3 hours. However, these
series cover only two 18.6-year cycles and are not suited for a rigorous statistical
analysis of the problem in question. Meteorological observations over earlier years
are difficult to find. However, the author has managed to obtain the first preliminary
evidence of the 18.6-year variability by analyzing time series of atmospheric angular
momentum components. Specifically, the series of h1 and h2 from 1948 to 2006
derived by Salstein (2000) were used to calculate the variance over a three-year sliding
window. Both components gave similar results. For this reason, Figure 12.8 shows
only the variance of h1. It can be seen that the maxima of the variance are consistent
with those of tidal-force variability in 1951, 1969, 1987, and 2007. Only in the 1980s is
the maximum of h1 slightly ahead of the tidal-force maximum. Thus, the long-time
variability of the atmospheric angular momentum is caused, to a certain degree, by
the 18.6-year variations in tidal forces.
The statistics of hydrometeorological hazards (recorded by a) the Hydrometeorological
Center of Russia and b) the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and
Environmental Monitoring oEnvironmental Monitoring of Russia) clearly indicate an increased rate of hazards in
1998–2007 (Figure 12.9).
Increased (decreased) tidal amplitude leads to a higher (lower) rate of extreme
natural processes. A maximum of the 18.6-year variability of tidal forces was observed
in 2007 (Figure 12.7). Therefore, an increased rate of extreme natural processes
observed over recent years is caused not only by global warming but also by the
currently observed maximum of tidal force variability. Since this variability will
decrease in 2008–2016, we can expect a reduction in the rate of extreme natural
processes in this period due to the influence of tidal forces.
ftp://lne-syrte.obspm.fr/pub/bizouard/sidorenkov_2009_book.pdf
20
It is clearly the warmist intention,
That the sun does not get a mention,
As the facts would expose,
What common sense knows,
Is a CO2 ‘warming’ pretension.
110
Thanks for trhe prominent citation.
I think that solar related ozone variations best explain the largest number of discrete observations. The other suggestions fail to draw all the available observations together into a coherent scenario.
30
00
It looks clear enough to me.
For the blog post you require just click on my name in the first part of the ‘Possibilities’ section or click here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
03
Yoshimura’s paper must have been a pleasing confirmation for David.
and as Yoshimura summed up:
If only …
The quote from a WUWT commenter by Bulldust (at #3.2) is apt, but I would modify it slightly:
Sun huge, earth small.
70
Thanks Sophocles. I hadn’t known about Yoshimura’s comment on Lake Victoria.
40
Can you please explain how the maximum ozone concentration at 70 parts per billion, may create whatever you may mean by the word “warming”? True nonsense!
UV insolation and its absorption by O2 and minute WV in the stratosphere creating the rare O3, raise the temperature of the stratosphere. Only stratospheric CO2 exit flux to space can reduce that temperature. Can you please explain how your UV that is nearly all absorbed by the oxygen in the stratosphere can possibly affect ocean plankton?
120
Almost all insolation UV l.t. 0.3 microns is absorbed by stratospheric O2 and along with stratospheric WV create the up to 70 parts per billion toxic and reactive O3 This is the principal way the temperature of the stratosphere is elevated. Only the EMR exitance of stratospheric CO2 can reduce that temperature and maintain the stratopause at near 0°C.
Have you any possible mechanism where the up to 70ppbv Ozone may possibly “create warming in certain zones”, whatever you might mean by your word ‘warming’?
Since almost all insolation UV is absorbed in the stratosphere, how can solar “UV also reach further into the oceans where it affects plankton”?
215
It’s refreshing to see some discussion about possible influences on earth’s climate. I always thought Svensmark’s theory on cloud formation was a far better hypothesis than the CO2 dogma.
We are coming to the end of the El nino phase which strongly influences our weather. I have yet to see any explanation as to why this phenomenon occurs? What causes the up swelling of the cold waters off the S. American coast? I guess it’s tied-up with solar input, but how?
20
Robert O
I have previously proposed that the ENSO cycle is a consequence of uneven landmass distribution between the north and south hemispheres.
Since there is more water in the southern hemisphere more solar energy gets into the southern oceans so a thermal imbalance builds up and periodically discharges via ocean currents into the northern hemisphere.
Long term changes in global cloudiness then skew the balance between El Nino and La Nina.
As cloudiness declines El Nino gains dominance and the system warms.
As cloudiness increases La Nina gains dominance and the system cools.
The sun changes global cloudiness as described here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
That hypothesis has been in the public domain for some time and thus far remains unchallenged.
1018
Thanks for that comment. Perhaps the beginning and end of the El nino has something to do Summer/Winter cycle and solar input; they seem to start around October and finish in June, but once established take a while to breakdown.
21
The ENSO cycle is described as ‘interannual’ which seems to suggest about 18 months for an El Nino event and 18 months for a La Nina event.
Thus an El Nino event involves two summers and one winter whereas La Nina involves two winters and one summer.
On that basis your speculation appears to be correct 🙂
40
Inter-annual means longer than a year but less than decadal. It does not “suggest” 18mo. Totally making stuff up there.
It is variously described as between 2 and 5 years or between 2 and 7 years and would better be described as ‘variation’ than ‘oscillation’. The latter is used throughout climatology for any natural variation and is pure slight of hand.
By calling natural variations ‘oscillations’ they imply that they are long term neutral without ever stating so explicitly and thus avoiding any chance of being challenged.
120
“El Niño and La Niña episodes typically last nine to 12 months, but some prolonged events may last for years”
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
A rule of thumb average of 18 months is reasonable.
00
ENSO is essentially a phenomena based in the Pacfic ocean. There is no north / south imbalance in the Pacific. Consider it your hypothesis challenged.
120
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
“El Niño and La Niña are complex weather patterns resulting from variations in ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.”
The north/south imbalance of radiation into the oceans is converted into an east/west thermal imbalance by the rotation of the Earth.
More ocean in the southern hemisphere inevitably results in more radiation into the oceans of the southern hemisphere as compared to the oceans of the northern hemisphere.
09
Greg Goodman June 6, 2016 at 3:03 pm
“ENSO is essentially a phenomena based in the Pacfic ocean. There is no north / south imbalance in the Pacific. Consider it your hypothesis challenged.”
Another insane claim, with the intent to quash any public question of CO2 CAGW orthodoxy! Consider your hypothesis challenge, challenged!!.
09
Jo
O/T but peripheral IMO
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/hurst-dependence-persistence-and-a-fatal-flaw-in-climate-science/#comments
10
OT,
UAH anomaly data for Australia is in for May.
May 2016 at 1.22ºC is second to May 1998 at 1.55ºC
On a “Year to date” basis, I get… (ºC anomalies)
1998… 0.814
2005… 0.494
2016… 0.484
2007… 0.428
1980… 0.328
10
Still a ZERO trend in Australia for 20 years.
http://s19.postimg.org/bxtzcefub/Australia_20_years.png
31
OT but I’m furious 😡
The recent Engie CEO statement about aiming to close Victoria’s Hazelwood power station had a contribution from Victorian Green politicians, Adam Bandt and Ellen Sandell.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/video-of-the-day-postcards-from-hazelwood-34716
Who gives these numerically challenged, scientifically illiterate, economically infantile urban incompetents and their less than 15,000 flock of unthinking followers the right to endanger the livelihood of more than 5.5 million people?
http://www.replacehazelwood.com.au/
http://www.adambandt.com/hazelwoodrally
http://www.ellensandell.com/tags/featured_petition_top
This is getting well beyond a joke
70
Last night at 6 pm. a shade over 28,000 MW was being consumed: 24,000 MW of thermal generation, 4,000 MW of hydro, 400 MW of wind and 00 MW of solar.
OK let’s have 50% renewable by 2030, the platform of one political party. So its 12,000 MW of thermal, 4,000 of hydro and 400 MW of wind and 00 MW from solar. Where is the 11,600 MW going to come from?
The choice is 116,000 MW of more wind capacity (at 10%), or a dozen or so 1000 MW gas turbine stations. The first option needs from 50,000 sq. km. to 80,000 sq. km. of suitable land and 387,000 odd 3 MW turbines. The second option still means use of fossil fuel generation.
It does not add up, just political hyperbole.
40
10% is not enough without massive increase in interconnector capacity
Victoria’s wind farm capacity was under 10% for 18 hours straight, yesterday and under 5% for 13 hours straight
South Australia’s wind farm capacity has been under 5% since 4:30am (NEM Time [12:30pm as I post]) so 8 hours
Absolutely no hope of installing enough capacity for 50% renewables when things get hot.
60
Since midday on May 31st. production from the windfarms has been minimal. I did see it got down to 150 MW. Whether it’s 250, 300 or 400 MW is immaterial as it’s not enough to power anything much, but that’s reality I am afraid. Unfortunately, most of the population believe in climate change, 71% according to the ABC this morning, and that carbon abatement, that is renewable energy, will overcome this problem.
The cheapest and most reliable solution for energy production is a couple of dozen of modern coal stations which will run for 50 years or so. For fossil free generation nuclear is the answer, good enough for France. As for renewable energy OK on King Is. where it allows the diesels to be switched off one or two days a week, but for 24/7 electricity it is an expensive joke as the figures demonstrate and our august politicians do not understand.
20
I’m punting on geomagnetism, a switch was flicked-on around the turn of the century producing a very positive Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The carbon sink became invigorated and the Subtropical Ridge intensified.
http://booksite.academicpress.com/DPO/gallery/chs15/s15_15d_full.jpg
11
A question (or two) for David.
Is there a relationship between the amplitude of the magnetic cycle and that of the previous TSI cycle?
Depending on the answer to that, is there then any value in investigation of relationships between temperature effects and the current or preceding magnetic cycle amplitudes?
Probably uninformed questions but I don’t have the maths to even begin to look at these analyses.
30
LightningCamel,
Wish I knew the answer to the first question, because it could narrow the search field considerably. Sorry, don’t know.
Second question: I expect so, but do not know.
30
David,
Sorry for the delay in following this up, life and all that.
Given the time you have spent on analysing solar cycles is the “don’t know” because of lack of data over time? Is there no (known) useful proxy of solar magnetic cycles?
00
Yes, there just isn’t enough data. It might take centuries to collect enough data on how the Sun affects the Earth to be reasonably sure — there have only been 3 or 4 solar cycles since satellite observations of the Earth, and, for example, it is far from clear that TSI and all its components are measured well enough even now.
10
Thank you David. I’m trying to work into this from a biological science / genetics background and I have great respect for what you are doing and for your patience.
00
OT: Greenland struggling to melt this year..
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png
50
Silence on the sun.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
00
Yep ren, looks a bit bland today. Maybe a sunspot or two about to rotate into view.
10
This is good stuff Jo. Hope David keeps it coming.
30
I should ask others more learned than I whether this was considered?
At the risk of stating the obvious, and stepping far beyond the basic quantum mechanics I was fortunate to receive in my UE physics education, it appears to me that there may have been no consideration of gavitational time dilation.
Sol’s gravitational field captures the solar system. It sits therefore in a very deep gavitational well and by definition exerts a gavitational time dilation effect on those things that it emits.
I ran Einstein’s equation of time dilation found here. I’d be interested to learn what value others derive once the solved for Sol.
10
Oh well. It was an enjoyable thought.
00
We are now entering a new paradigm perhaps not experienced for 200 years. This is the first time we can measure the results of a solar grand minimum other than looking at sunspots. There has been a big shift in the weather patterns during SC24, and it continues to build. For me the biggest observation is the increase in low pressure systems and low pressure troughs which have huge impacts.
This weekend in Oz will just be a start of what we can expect going forward, with La Nina building and the past six months of sub 100 F10.7 flux we can expect Antarctic blasts on the jet stream a plenty, all contributing to a freezing winter. Low solar EUV of course is highly linked and is most probably the cause, although we still have nothing really concrete in the literature to point to for a solid driver.
The delay factor is intriguing, perhaps just a function of the oceans, and if it stands up during a solar grand minimum will be interesting. SC25 will probably follow SC24 which is surely dead in the water right now. My thoughts are the perturbed SC24 has not recharged the solar magnetic pole strength, so we could expect a disruption to the solar dynamo for SC25? If so the EUV levels will be very low for decades.
50
I agree Geoff. If you and I (and most skeptics) are correct, the next decade is really going to be a grand hypothesis test.
For the last 100 years solar has predicted warming and CO2 has also increased, so we couldn’t really figure whether it was solar or CO2 causing the warming.
But in the next decade, solar predicts colder and CO2 predicts warmer. We shall see.
30
No warmist will ever admit being wrong. They’ll all be hypothermic and dead from wearing light summer clothes.
05
David, what is this ‘predicting’ thing?
If solar is a major factor it could explain the early 20th c. warming. However, SSN cycles have been reducing generally since mid century and drastically since the 1990s peak. So IF solar is the major player that leaves room for a significant other. Some would suggest AGW.
Since you are relying on the delay idea rather than low-pass filtering effect of thermal inertia, we will see within a year of two whether you are correct about N-D.
I still don’t see how you can claim solar ‘predicts’ the last 100y, could you elaborate ( with data or graphs, for example ).
00
Greg Goodman June 6, 2016 at 6:24 am
“David, what is this ‘predicting’ thing?”
That is the whole mime of CO2 CAGW CRAP!! Increasing atmospheric CO2 MUST produce some temperature “tipping point”, with no recovery possible! Yet Greg cannot explain to anyone just what the term ‘temperature’ might actually mean!! 🙂
Greg, Have your mother change your change your diapers. Then ask her to please buy you a clue. PLEASE!
010
David,
I wanted to be sure that you saw this: http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241105
10
Thanks Clyde, hadn’t know about that possibility. We know so little about space weather.
00
David have you seen this link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/well-color-me-gobsmacked/
Do you have an opinion on the validity of the approach? Feel free to get back to me offline if you would like. I have to provide my email address, so I presume that JoAnne can provide you with it.
00
Geoff according to warmist mantra East Coast Lows will become fewer and less intense, they will also be more common during the summer months (Fei Ji et al).
This is not happening and won’t happen in the coming decades as cooling begins to bite.
10
That sounds just as convincing as “in a warming world”.
I wonder which belief system will prove correct.
50
Yes, another failed warmest prediction…
20
On your earlier comment: ‘We are now entering a new paradigm perhaps not experienced for 200 years.’
Do you give any credence to the suggestion that its a Bicentennial Gleissberg?
We should be able to do a hindcast, observing the weather conditions and what the oscillations were doing in the early nineteenth century. All we have to do is come up with a plausible explanation of the principle drivers of climate change, it would be a paradigm shift.
In a social sense it should have the same impact as Darwin’s hypothesis in the late nineteenth century, that humans are glorified apes, but in the midst of this communications revolution the word will spread to every part of the world in no time.
00
The Gleissberg cycles in my view is just the roughly 80-90 year fluctuation of background solar modulation. Layered on top are the grand minimum cycles that occur at different depths centered roughly on 172 year centres. Grand minima override the Gleissberg cycles and are not connected as I see it. The shape of the Holocene solar proxy record is really just a record of solar grand minima depths interrupting the background Gleissberg minor modulation.
10
Thanks.
One thing is certain, a string of cool wet summers in Europe is a global cooling signal.
11
If you look carefully there is a 4627 year repeating pattern of solar grand minima across the Holocene.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/11000c14.png
We get two LIA type events per 4627 year cycle. This ties in with the outer four planets that also repeat their full grand cycle repetition every 4627 years. So yes we can hindcast and also project forward solar grand minima which tells us we have no LIA type event due for at least the next 1000 years. Finding the link between solar output and climate is the challenge that remains.
20
Okay, all good news for the long run, but can we still expect a sharp drop in temperatures over the coming decade?
00
I wouldn’t say a sharp drop, this grand minimum is pretty weak.
10
Nothing less than a Dalton Minimum (without volcanic aerosols) will convince the average person in the street that our star is the main driver.
10
Important is the convergence or divergence of certain cycles (waves). For example, cycle AMO expressly coincided with a great maximum since 1980.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/2016-TIM-TSI-Reconstruction.jpg
10
It is evident, that cycles ocean were suitable for a the temperature rise. Also, cycle of El Niño. Was enough that in 2015 increased magnetic activity of the sun, which coincided with the cycle of El Niño and the temperature increased significantly.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif
10
Well I don’t think a continuing plateau, including the just past El Nino records, is a very convincing argument that the sun is the main driver do you?
If you are convinced that the sun is the ‘main driver’ you are going to need another ‘main driver’ which is opposing it. Tricky one.
20
If temperatures fall a short distance back to plateau territory and the hiatus continues for another couple of decades, then I’ll concede CO2 causes global warming.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCs0.gif
It does appear that our star is the main driver.
00
What are you doing with the massive divergence at the end of that graph, just ignoring it?
The correlation in Vuk’ graph is interesting historically but falls apart since 1900. It’s sad when sceptics stop being sceptical and start being as blinkered as warmists, ready to see any squiggle as ‘proof’ of their favoured hypothesis.
10
The Dalton Minimum was muddied by Tambora, so I accept Tim Ball’s view.
‘It is clear that the cooling caused by the volcanic dust also exacerbated a cooling trend already occurring because of the Dalton Minimum.’
00
http://s33.postimg.org/4i8jdz25b/regions_jun3.jpg
10
Can we say with any confidence that a blank sun is responsible for the very negative AO and NAO effecting western Europe?
This from Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER): ‘the models predict that the most widespread and persistent below normal temperatures will continue across western Eurasia including Europe over the next two weeks.’
00
This is. See how weak winds over Europe.
http://pl.sat24.com/pl/eu/km
00
Simultaneously cosmic rays is now very high.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
00
“Having a way of remotely measuring the electric fields on the ground … would be very useful,” says lightning physicist Joseph Dwyer of the University of New Hampshire in Durham, who was not involved with the research. To improve our predictions of where lightning will strike, Dwyer says, scientists first need to understand the basics of how it happens. With this method, he says, “eventually we may be able to … catch lightning initiation in action,” which could help unravel the mystery behind its formation.
Scientists have come up with a few possible explanations for how lightning gets going, and the new technique could eventually discern between the options. One is that chunks of ice and water in a storm concentrate the fields, creating small regions that are strong enough to spark. Another controversial idea is that cosmic rays themselves might initiate lightning, thanks to the charged particles they leave in their wake. But there’s no convincing evidence for either option. The new method could finally settle the question, Schellart says.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/cosmic-rays-could-reveal-secrets-lightning-earth
10
Can’t we point a bunch of 14u lasers at a satellite and thus see where wafts of CO2 are coming from in industrialized areas…and then start measuring OLR and surface temperatures over those areas? You could also measure WVELs and some of the H2O emission lines over these areas.
00
Very rapid drop in temperature in the lower stratosphere.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
00
troposphere
10
Greg Goodman thank you.
00
In the indicated areas of focused radiation galactic in the period low magnetic activity of the Sun (graph Vukcevic).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TIF.gif
00
That Yoshimura paper is a crock.
Firstly, not ONE of his references is not a paper where H. Yoshimura is not the leading author:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1996ASPC…95..601Y/0000608.000.html
Secondly, the method is not described clearly enough to be reproduceable.
Thirdly, as far as it is described, it’s data mangling garbage.
First step is using running average ( of unspecified length ) as a low-pass filter.
Running averages are notorious for inverting peaks and troughs: this paper is trying to link peaks and troughs in different data.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
Second step is using running average ( of unspecified length ) as a low-pass filter.
It is unspecified how many “multiple” times this is done.
Then he does a time differential : which has high-pass filter characteristics
Then he does a second time differential.
If he actually said what he did clearly enough to reproduce it, it may be able to test what actually happens. As it stands it is unverifiable garbage.
The best that can be guessed at this stage is that the data has been totally mangled and contains spurious peaks and troughs that are a result of lengths of filter chosen.
Then comes the coup de grace: ” we then introduce a new technique of multiple correlation index”.
He describes how he creates the correlation function but, apparently unaware that this fn. already exists and has know properties, describes this as a “time series” of the correlation coefficient”. It’s not a time series. He has no idea what he is doing.
He then ‘multiplies’ the various ‘time series’ by each other ( presumably point by point ).
WTF ??? This is Mickey Mann on steroids !
Totally arbitrary, home-spun data mangling with no known properties, testing or validation.
He then claims that there is a “sharp peak” at 10.3 years but there is no graph provided for visual confirmation, nor any statistics or figures to justify what he calls “sharp”.
This is utter junk. Mann’s hockey-stick has more credibility.
Sorry David, if you want to site someone as a ref. you need to read the paper and see whether it has any merit. Please don’t think that this in anyway provides you with the curious delay which you want. It’s junk.
11
I think the cooling medium latitudes due to the weakening of the polar vortices, a result of strong galactic radiation. Of course, in the winter. The result is an air polar extension. At the same time temperature rises above the polar circles. In the long term it will decrease the temperature of the oceans.
00
In the summer it will increase pressure over the polar circle and grow cloudy at lower latitudes.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.gif
00
Greg Goodman June 6, 2016 at 6:01 am
“That Yoshimura paper is a crock.”
Did you even try to read the given reference about lake Victoria at the end of the article? That paper was only meant to be a possible answer to the asinine CAGW question of CO2 “What else can it be?” An excellent answer that you call a crock. Your CAGW bias is evident!
“Firstly, not ONE of his references is not a paper where H. Yoshimura is not the leading author:”
When one is so far in front of the CAGW plodders in attempting to conceptualize what the Sun may be doing, why reference anything of the plodders papers that truly are a CROCK?
“Secondly, the method is not described clearly enough to be reproducible.”
Is there any indication that concept/conjecture was intended to be reproducible?
“Thirdly, as far as it is described, it’s data mangling garbage.”
{sarc} We all hold your esteemed opinion in reverence!! 🙁 {/sarc}
“Sorry David, if you want to site someone as a ref. you need to read the paper and see whether it has any merit. Please don’t think that this in anyway provides you with the curious delay which you want. It’s junk.”
{sarc} We all hold your esteemed opinion in reverence!! 🙁 {/sarc}
“What else can it be?”
09
‘What have you learned from Tibetan ice cores?
‘They have given us a glimpse of Tibet’s climate history going back to more than half a million years. We learned that the extent of glaciation is related to how far monsoonal rains penetrate the Tibetan Plateau. This is in step with the slow wobbling of Earth’s rotational axis, which drives tropical rainfall in 21,000-year cycles. We also identified periods when average temperatures in Tibet went up and down by several degrees Celsius in roughly 200-year cycles. It’s still a mystery why that was the case, but we suspect this may be related to the 205-year cycle of solar activity.’
By Jane Qiu June 2, 2016
Scientific America
10
You probably mean something more like double layers cause explosions in space. Magnetic reconnection is as bogus as climate change. You’re approaching this using equations from electrical engineering. Why don’t you look at the whole thing as more electric?
00