possible terrestrial amplification of celestial climate driver found

Posted: March 31, 2012 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, atmosphere, climate, cosmic rays, Energy, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations
N.A. Kilifarska
  • National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography, BAS, 3 Acad. G. Bonchev, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
  • Received 19 August 2011. Revised 5 March 2012. Accepted 8 March 2012. Available online 21 March 2012.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.03.002

Abstract

The strong sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.

Fig. 3. Measured Arosa TOZ (dashed line with filled dots) and modelled TOZ by two non-linear models: (i) Equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine—EESC (thick curve); (ii) Galactic cosmic rays—GCR (thin continuous line with filled diamonds). On the right of the vertical bar are shown TOZ predictions till the end of the current decade calculated by TOZ autoregressive model (opened dots), by EESC model (dotted curve) and by GCR model (filled triangles).

.Fig. 4. Measured northern hemisphere land air temperature record (dashed line with filled dots) compared with modelled one’s by two non-linear models: EESC model (thick continuous line) and GCR model (thin continuous line with filed diamonds). On the right of the vertical bar are given land T predictions till the end of the current solar cycle calculated by: autoregressive model (dashed line with opened dots), EESC model (thick dotted line), GCR model (filled triangles).

.

.

I need to read some blurb on copyright before I add any further text from the paper or full size plots.

[update by co-mod, as far as I can tell the author is Dr. Nataliya Andreeva Kilifarska who has a page at Geophysical Institute,  Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She has an interesting looking history starting out as a meteorologist. The whole department might be worthy of a good look to see what they have been doing.

Click image for page there.

–Tim]

Comments
  1. Hans says:

    ” Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011.”

    Every time I see that a correlation “explains” something it is a clear warning signal that something is severely wrong.
    A correlation between two variables A and B never shows that A is causing B or B is causing A when dealing with complex systems.
    I will wait with further judgement until the “futher info” is supplied and hopte it will be good.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Hi Hans. yes. Still, it adds another possibility, and I do think the upper atmosphere holds most of the secrets.

  3. Stephen Wilde says:

    The ozone response to solar variability has interested me for some time because in order to get the observed shifting of the jets and climate zones we need to reverse the sign of the solar effect on temperatures in the stratosphere and mesosphere so as to produce cooling of those layers when the sun is active and warming when it is inactive.

    In contrast the established view is that a more active sun warms the entire atmospheric column.

    Full details here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”

    Recent findings have been suggesting that there is a reverse sign effect at least above 45 km where ozone amounts seem to increase when the sun is less active for a warming effect.

    I need to see full details of the Kilifarska paper to see whether it supports or rebuts my contentions.

  4. David Springer says:

    The cool thing about solar cycles is there’s nothing on or about the earth that can possibly influence them. It was thought they didn’t influence the earth either but that’s not writ in granite. Or even soapstone. That’s etch-a-sketch territory subject to change at any moment.

    So shouldn’t those who don’t think trace gases can do anything at all significant wrt to climate change be literally shouting from rooftops that an even tracer trace gas like ozone is even more irrelevant?

  5. Certainly bears out my hunch that in the stratosphere (1/10 sea level pressure atmosphere – 1/1000 atm.) and mesosphere (1/1000 atm. – 1/100,000 atm.) we do see the greenhouse gas effect actually coming into play, forming that strange “W” in the earth’s temperature profile, as at these rarefied levels the energetic-ionic ghg effect can outweigh the primary pressure-led earth-warming effect that exists up to the tropopause, that Nikolov and Zeller are nailing.

  6. David Springer says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    March 31, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Full details here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”

    —————————————————————————–

    Is that a joke? First tell me how the sun cannot control the earth’s temperature. It’s a shorter reading assignement.

    [Reply] Perhaps the title would be clearer as “the way in which the Sun may be controlling Earth’s temperature”.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Once again we must remember Ned’s warning that ‘temperature’ is measured differently in the rarified sections of the atmosphere. Up there we are talking about the temperature of individual molecules. In the troposphere we measure the bulk air – including the gaps between molecules.

    So the top end of the on-its-side ‘W’ is exaggerated in terms of its ability to heat anything.

    Dave: A cunningly trollish comment. Good try. :)

  8. David Springer says:

    “I need to read some blurb on copyright before I add any further text from the paper or full size plots.”

    Oops. I hesitated. I was just about to bitch about not being able to read the years on the plots when I happened to see the line quoted above.

    Any reason to believe this isn’t just a cascade effect (a symptom) rather than something causative in its own right? Never forget that shoe size correlates extremely well with literacy.

  9. davidmhoffer says:

    There are papers out there saying that:

    ozone explains 75% or so of the variability
    cosmic rays explain 75% or so of the variability
    cloud cover causes 75% or so of the varaibility
    sun spots explain 75% or so of the variability
    TSI explains 75% or so of the variability
    spontaneous human combustion explains 75% or so of the variability
    instrumentation errors explain 75% or so of the variability

    How about ALL of these factors are inextricably intertwined in a manner that we clearly don’t have a clue about, and trying to pin down ONE effect based on ONE factor is ludicrous.

    (I will allow that spontaneous human combustion may account for less that 75%, but this is off set by alarmists running in circles screaming that if one more single molecule of CO2 gets into the atmosphere, their hair will catch on fire.)

    (which I will volunteer to extinguish with a CO2 fire extinguisher)

  10. David Springer says:

    I have be very very sneaky to troll here. The reward is just too good not to try. Maybe I’m odd but to me there’s nothing quite as entertaining as getting a science crank to rant. The only way to improve on it is to mix some religion in with it. Some really good specious arguments can be found in scientific creationism. But I wore that one out in years past.

    Actually temperature in the 21st century is pretty much the same in the high atmosphere as the low. You measure with non-contact (infrared) thermometers which are almost to the point where you get a free one with any $10 purchase in Walmart’s gardening department. These instruments will read the temperature of warm rarefied gases just fine.

    [Reply] I have no use for trolling comments.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hoff: I try to look on it kindly. Of course a scientist will want their idea to be the big one. But the more viable effects we find, the less we have to ‘overwork’ any of them .

  12. David Springer says:

    tallbloke:

    [Snip]

    So don’t scold me for not hiding my contempt well enough. You should have praised me for making you need to read between the lines to find it.

    [Reply] I have no time for people who treat others with contempt either.

  13. David Springer says:

    [Reply] Perhaps the title would be clearer as “the way in which the Sun may be controlling Earth’s temperature”.

    This seems to imply its possible the sun isn’t controlling the earth’s temperature. We already know the earth would be as cold as the object formerly known as the ninth planet without the sun. This is just one of possibly any number of more subtle influences than just brute force delivery of approximately 1366W/m2 of energy in a continuous 5000K blackbody spectrum. This is what controls the earth’s temperature. The rest is minor details.

    [Reply] Ok, lets get more specific:“the way in which variability of the Sun may be controlling Earth’s surface temperature variability”

  14. Brian H says:

    Hans;
    Since there is no way O3 can control the sun or GCRs, nor is any plausible 4th variable which affects them in parallel on offer, it’s a not-unreasonable first presumption that the sun is interfering with GCR incidence and the latter with O3. The next step, to T, is not quite as clear-cut. But it would be fascinating to read about any postulated mechanism whereby surface T drove stratospheric O3.

    To quote WE quoting Homer Simpson: “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!

    Ain’t we got fun? ;)

  15. adolfogiurfa says:

    CME´s , SF´s and Coronal Holes not considered in TSI yet are considered in Piers Corbyn forecasts.

  16. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well I pretty much took it as read that everyone would accept that the energy in the climate system is supplied by the sun in the first instance.

    The proposition I was dealing with in my article was that solar variability allegedly had too small an effect on climate to produce the observed late 20th century warming.

    So, I proposed a way that solar variations could control the system temperature whilst still producing climate changes despite very small changes in TSI.

    Maybe the title could be different to make that clearer but I don’t see how that justifies Dave Springer’s attitude.

    Why the hostility expressed by the terms ‘science crank’ and ‘hiding contempt’ ?

    I have had many previous exchanges with DS that were perfectly civilised and many of our views are the same as I recall.

    Apart from all that, more recent data is supporting just what I put forward in my article and the relevance to this thread is that Kilifarska and others including Joanna Haigh are looking into the same factors as those which I synthesised into an overview which is consistent with observations.

  17. Stephen Wilde says:

    BrianH said:

    “Since there is no way O3 can control the sun or GCRs, nor is any plausible 4th variable which affects them in parallel on offer”

    There is a plausible 4th variable that can affect them in parallel namely changes in the mix of particles and/or wavelengths reaching us from the sun when the sun varies its activity level.

    It doesn’t have to be GCRs affecting O3. It is more likely to be UV variations perhaps supplemented by various charged particles capable of destroying O3.

    GCRs are more likely just a separate side effect of changes in solar behaviour the quantities of which happen to correlate with solar changes and O3 changes but not necessarily causing either.

  18. Harriet Harridan says:

    I had a flick through the paper. On the one hand they do seem to have found excellent correlations both between GCR’s and Ozone, and O3 and land temperatures, but as I see it the paper is weaker on the all important causation part.

    Use of exclamation marks (which may be valid in Bulgarian papers – who am I to know), seem out of place here and statements like the below, don’t fill me with confidence:
    “The IPCC states that the global warming of the planet is initiated by the increased concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane CH4, nitrous oxide N2O, halocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride SF6, etc.). Actually, the water vapour inserts the highest greenhouse warming of the earth surface!

    (Note exclamation !!!!!!)

    But having said that, the correlations look good, so it’s worth the experts here looking into it further.

  19. Tenuk says:

    How does this fit in with Erl Happ’s ideas about ozone…

    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/

    As someone who used to tinker with Tesla coils in his youth, I know that high voltage electrical discharges generate lots of ozone – just thinking about that dry-acrid smell takes me back to my youth… :-)

    Perhaps high strength solar wind, CME’s and other solar energy bursts produce extra ozone, which in turn alters position of the related NH polar vortex , polar night jet, and jet stream.

    Introduction of short bursts of high energy can have big effects on turbulent air flows.

    How this translates to changes in the troposphere, I don’t know???

  20. OT solar

    Now … Flare Cat.X20 Ar1429
    Look:

  21. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tenuk: That “dry-acrid smell..” which takes you back to your youth, you will feel it again, when reading the following from Tallbloke´s regular M.Vukcevic:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

    [Reply] Also supported by an early article at he talkshop http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/

  22. davidmhoffer says:

    Stephen Wilde;
    It doesn’t have to be GCRs affecting O3. It is more likely to be UV variations perhaps supplemented by various charged particles capable of destroying O3.>>>

    I’d have to go hunting for references but my recollection is that sun spots are cooler than the average temperature of the sun, but that the edges of the sunspots are much hotter, and emitt considerably more UV than the rest of the surface. Since UV is the predominant factor in both generation and depletion of ozone (depending on exact frequency and other factors) sunspot fluctuations should logically drive ozone fluctuations. Ozone in turn is an absorber at various frequencies, and so logically should drive changes in temperature beyond the change in total TSI directly associated with sun spot fluctuations.

    So, my recollection may well be faulty, but for sake of argument, let’s suppose the above is correct. A researcher looking at ozone levels could very well find a correlation between ozone and temperature. A different researcher might find a correlation between sun spots and temperature. Which one is correct?

    They both would be. The sun spots drive the ozone which drives the temperature. I doubt though that it is that simple, my expectation is that there are additional factors all tangled up in one another. Which is why I resist the notion that any given single factor is “the” factor which drives temperature.

    On the other hand….

    I think it worth noting that there is very little fluctuation in ozone levels above the tropics, while fluctuations in high latitudes are massive by comparison. If fluctuations in ozone levels are more pronounced at higher latitudes (never mind the cause) and are a significant GHG, this would also correlate to movement of the temperate zones either poleward or toward the equator as you so frequently point out seems to be a major factor.

    So, do sun spots drive the temperature? Or ozone? or fluctuations in the latitude of the temperate zones? Or, do sun spots drive ozone which drives latitude of the temperate zones which drives temperature?

  23. haha Michele. So the Sun is in the constellation of Pisces. Very fishy.

  24. gallopingcamel says:

    Thank God for physicists and other “hard” scientists!

    They have sensed that something is rotten in the state of CAGW orthodoxy. As more and more of them weigh in, the CO2 drives climate argument is being ground into finer and finer dust.

  25. Richard111 says:

    UV from the sun and ONLY UV from the sun creates ozone in the stratosphere. I read diminishing quantities are created in the troposphere. Wikipedia tells me that the half life of ozone is 30 minutes. This means that when the sun is shining on the North Pole the South Pole is dark and you get a hole in the ozone UNLESS WINDS MAKE UP THE SHORT FALL. And vice versa when the sun is over the South Pole ozone levels will drop at the North Pole as the panic reports recently noted.
    It follows that levels of ozone will follow levels of UV output from the sun very rapidly. There are reports that UV from the sun was reduced during the 23/24 minimum. Ozone holes/reductions are natural cyclical events controlled exclusively by the sun.
    Let’s hear about actual repeatable measurements. Not waffle about ‘model’ predictions.

  26. tchannon says:

    I apologise to
    “Michele Casati:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    OT solar

    Now … Flare Cat.X20 Ar1429″

    I forgot to work in a h/t. It was a very fast article write.

  27. Hans says:

    davidmhoffer says: March 31, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    “There are papers out there saying that:
    ozone explains 75% or so of the variability
    cosmic rays explain 75% or so of the variability
    cloud cover causes 75% or so of the varaibility
    sun spots explain 75% or so of the variability
    TSI explains 75% or so of the variability
    spontaneous human combustion explains 75% or so of the variability
    instrumentation errors explain 75% or so of the variability

    How about ALL of these factors are inextricably intertwined in a manner that we clearly don’t have a clue about, and trying to pin down ONE effect based on ONE factor is ludicrous.”

    I tend to agree with you. Probably the precautionary principle requires that you sum up a combined effect of more than 100% to feel sure that the “explanations” are correct?

  28. Hans says:

    adolfogiurfa says: March 31, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Lunar dynamics is a prime factor in climate variation according to Piers Corbyn and I agree with him. It would be cheap for UK and the rest of the world the replace IPCC with Corbyn´s Weather Action and the result would be useful for planners, too.

  29. Roger Andrews says:

    I would like to read this paper, but as so often happens it’s behind a paywall. Is there a free version out there anywhere?

  30. @ Tim
    :twisted: :smile:

  31. Vuk says:

    OT
    Looks like as the latest Forbush decrease has confirmed the Svensmark’s hypothesis.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm

  32. Stephen Wilde says:

    Vuk,

    I find that I don’t really follow your material as closely as perhaps I should because the comments attached to your graphs are rather cryptic and tend to assume that the reader knows how to interpret the data in your graphs.

    Could you consider a more ‘lay person friendly’ narrative to accompany your charts ?

  33. tchannon says:

    I have updated the post with a little more information about the author, assuming I have correctly guessed who exactly.

  34. Vuk says:

    [[Duplicate post, first one pulled]
    Hi Steven
    If you read from the Svensmark’s abstract (bottom of the web page) written few years ago, about the previous Forbush decrease and then look at the bottom right smaller graph with the neutron count, you can see that the values in the graph from the last month are very close to what Svensmark found before.
    Effect from Forbush lasts only few days and wouldn’t have much effect. I still have strong doubts about the temperature side of it, since clouds during day reduce insulation but at the night time also reduce cooling the net result on ‘24h day’ temperature I suspect could be minimal. Also it is worth noting that cloudiness is 5-10% higher at night than during the day time.

  35. Vuk says:

    Hi Steven
    If you read from the Svensmark’s abstract written few years ago, about the previous Forbush decrease and then look at the bottom right smaller graph with the neutron count, you can see that the values in the graph from last month are very close to what Svensmark found before.
    Effect from Forbush lasts only few days and wouldn’t have much effect. I still have strong doubts about the temperature side of it, since clouds during day reduce insulation and at the night time reduce cooling, I suspect the net result on ‘24h day’ temperature could be minimal. Also it is worth noting that cloudiness is 5-10% higher at night than during the day time.

  36. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks Vuk, that gives me a few pointers :)