| Title: | Solar modulation of transport processes in the winter middle atmosphere | |
| Authors: | Arnold, N.; Robinson, T. | |
| Publication: | 34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, The Second World Space Congress, held 10-19 October, 2002 in Houston, TX, USA., meeting abstract | |
| Publication Date: | 00/2002 | |
| Origin: | AUTHOR | |
| Bibliographic Code: | 2002cosp…34E1844A |
Abstract
Changes in atmospheric heating due to variations in solar insolation alone appear to be insufficient to account for reports of significant perturbations in the Northern Hemisphere winter stratosphere temperature. Non -linear, transient planetary wave activity provides an important contribution to the heat budget of this region. These waves in turn are sensitive to the underlying conditions related to the global scale circulation. Recent observational evidence suggests that there exist relatively small, but sustained solar-induced changes to the flux of atmospheric gravity waves that will modify the circulation. Three-dimensional model simulations indicate that under these conditions, dynamical coupling is able to amplify the solar forcing by a factor of three or more.
==========================================
#1041.txt
date: Wed Feb 13 10:20:00 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: A warning for Feb 7-8
to: Robert Marsh
Phil –
The meeting was rather bizarre in scope, with positions ranging from
“IPCC too cautious” (Hansen, Siddall) to “IPCC wrong” (see below). …
The other talk was more scientifically searching, drawing attention to
influence of coronal mass ejections on the mesosphere, residual
atmospheric circulation & teleconnections between high/low atmosphere &
high/low latitudes that support the extent & pattern of surface
warming. Arnold also claimed that CO2 doesn’t really matter. I did pose
a question to him, asking how he can ignore all the AR4 model evidence
for attribution of 20th century warming to CO2, but he dismisses all
OAGCMs as flawed in under-representing the high atmosphere/solar
influence. I have abstracts for both talks that I can send on – are you
interested to see them?
Regards,
Bob.
Bob,
Thanks for the summary – more than I was expecting.
If you can send me the two offending abstracts when you have
some time.
Cheers
Phil
===================================
I am currently trying to obtain a full copy of the paper, which unfortunately no longer seems to be available online, from the authors.
Watch this space.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Internal memos of the Thought Police.
How dare they OFFEND “the team” pg
When the convinced are told that CO2 doesn’t really matter, they’re offended. It shows that they’re not about science. Offending abstracts? Laughable. Model evidence? What kind of evidence is that?
good ideas…..
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ESASP.535..371P
The bulk of highly variable solar wind energy is channeled to the auroral ovals and deposited in the upper atmosphere, much of it in the form of Joule heating. On time scales from tens of minutes to a few hours the auroral electrojets generate atmospheric gravity waves that interact with neutral winds and deposit their momentum in the neutral atmosphere. It is suggested that downward transmitted gravity waves, when amplified by wind shears or seeding instabilities that generate gravity waves in the mid-latitude troposphere, contribute to cloud formation. The results of a superposed epoch analysis of high-level cloud cover point to a link between the solar wind, the auroral ionosphere and tropospheric weather.
“atmospheric gravity waves”
Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave
I am not sure I care for “gravity waves” as the latest buzzword, unless they accept that they are talking of EMF and physical waves in the Aether. 😎 pg
One step at a time PG. 😉
Anyway, the authors say: “Non -linear, transient planetary wave activity” which could be EMF waves caused by buffeting of the magnetosphere and ‘bounceback’ from the core magnetic field yes?
Rog say:
One step ….
“O you whose mind is clear:/Understand well the lesson that underlies/The veil of these strange verses I have written”
dante IX,61-63
🙂
“significant perturbations in the Northern Hemisphere winter stratosphere temperature”
That is the important bit because one has to warm the stratosphere over the pole to push the polar air masses equatorward as we see in so called sudden stratospheric warming events.
I think my current explanation involving a solar induced differential effect on the ozone creation/destruction process at different levels is the neatest solution so far.
Gravity waves could well be involved as a means of translating thermal differentials higher up into movements of air at the surface.
Extending the principle over the 1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date would serve nicely as a solar induced mechanism for shifting all the permanent climate zones latitudinally.
It certainly seems to be circulation changes altering cloudiness and global albedo which change the solar energy input to the oceans to skew ENSO between El Nino dominance and La Nina dominance.
Stephen: Yes. Now all we have to do is prove it. 🙂
I think that watching and measuring for a while will do that for us.
There are a number of combinations of real world events that could invalidate it such as more zonal jets with a weak sun and negative PDO or a return to decreasing cloudiness whilst the jets stay meridional or rising global temperatures/ocean heat content whilst cloudiness keeps increasing or trhe stratosphere reverts to cooling with no increase in solar activity.
But if such things fail to happen then that will be enough to prove the hypothesis.
Each component is an indicator for other components in my hypothesis so lets see how long it hangs together 🙂
If all the changes in multiple variables that are bound to occur over the next few years remain consistent with my hypothesis then that will be an increasingly strong indication as time goes by.
There is still room for the theories of others as regards forcing of individual components by other mechanisms but the system responses should always be consistent with that which I propose.
A little OT, but a very interesting set of observations from Voyager I:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/08/voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/
Whether an Electric sun is ever confirmed or not, this is still a biggie!!
Thanks KK.
Stephen: An admirable approach. Economical, patient, sensible, practical. Everything the IPCC is not!
No mention of space weather affecting surface temperatures in this blurb on NCAR’s website…
https://ncar.ucar.edu/press/the-storms-between-sun-and-earth-looking-for-more-lead-time-on-damaging-space-weather
WUWT today has more information on sunspot activity – on a day when there are apparently no spots. One particular post is interesting pointing out that the correlation is stronger around 21 years (every second cycle) due to the Sun’s magnetism switching poles. See this plot http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
Also recently WUWT wrote about a study showing relative humidity has been declining long term which means water vapour has a negative feedback. Briefly, my post on that thread explains why.
Firstly, as Prof Claes Johnson proves in “Computational Blackbody Radiation” there can be no conversion to thermal energy from radiation which was emitted spontaneously from a significantly cooler source – that is, any radiation from the atmosphere cannot slow the rate of cooling. The only thing which transfers thermal energy from the atmosphere to the surface is the physical falling of warmer or cooler precipitation – more or less snow, warmer or cooler rain.
Lower relative humidity means higher adiabatic lapse rate and that means radiation in the atmosphere takes place at lower temperatures (thus lower intensity) and this leads to positive net radiative balance at TOA, thus warming. Albedo may also play a part if cloud cover varies.
But there is no radiative feedback mechanism from WV or carbon dioxide etc.
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com