Holistic Climate Theory – Part 1

Posted: June 29, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Climate is complicated. There are so many feedbacks affecting each other that it’s hard to sort out the muddle of cause and effect. To try to get a better handle on the problem of understanding which variations are more fundamental and important, we need to start from some simple observations and work outwards into the problem of understanding the interaction of all the myriad phenomena vying for our attention.

Nutshell: Energy comes from the Sun to the Earth, most of which is covered in oceans. The oceans absorb short wave solar energy and emit long wave radiation which heats the atmosphere and the  ‘greenhouse gases’ it contains. The atmosphere bounces the radiation down and up then loses the heat to space. A change in global temperature could have four basic causes, or a mixture of them.

1) A change in external forcing such as an increase or decrease in solar activity, or variation in cloud seeding cosmic rays due to the motion of the solar system through the local interstellar clouds, a nearby supernova or possibly the changing orbital configurations of the outer planets affecting the shape of the heliospheric current sheet.
2) An increase or decrease in greenhouse gases such as water vapour or carbon dioxide. (However, Miscolczi thinks an increase in co2 will cause a decrease in water vapour  to re-equilibriate the system)
3) An increase or decrease in albedo, principally cloud cover, wind patterns raising dust, and volcanic activity emitting particulates (aerosols), ozone destroying gases and ‘greenhouse’ gases.
4) Changes in Earth’s orientation parameters, orbital parameters, length of day, frequencies of anomalous motions (Chandler wobble) etc.

More detail: The amount of energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun, the  Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) is modulated by the Earth’s albedo (amount of reflectivity) which varies with changing cloud cover, ice area, flora colouration etc. This changes the amount of solar energy that actually makes it into the oceans, the Insolation at the surface.

The oceans are the biggest thing acting as a heat-energy battery on the Earth, or as Anthony Watts puts it, they are “One big assed heat flux capacitor” 🙂
There is as much heat capacity in the top two fathoms of the ocean as there is in the entire atmosphere above it. The tail does not wag the dog, because the long wave radiation bouncing back down from the atmosphere can’t penetrate the ocean beyond it’s own wavelength. The global ocean is the big dog on the climate block. However, the atmosphere does play a big role in redistributing the heat the ocean emits into it. Along with the ocean currents, the atmospheric currents move heat away from the equator towards the poles, and carry cold water and air from the poles down to lower latitudes. The Earth is a big heat engine, and much of the ‘internal’ climate action is due to the way the Earth (and more importanly ocean-atmosphere) is constantly trying to equilibriate the energy it is recieving from the Sun.

There are various ways of looking at the way heat-energy gets around the Earth climate system. Some new and fresh insights have been provided by people like Ferenc Miscolczi,  Erl Happ, Stephen Wilde and Willis Eschenbach, describing various ways the Earth’s climate system checks and balances itself in response to changing conditions. Miscolczi for example, demonstrates mathematically why the Earth climate system is in dynamic equilibrium, with a ‘saturated grenhouse effect’. Eschenbach describes how thunderstorms transport heat to the upper atmosphere, bypassing the ‘greenhouse layer’ and shading Earth from the Sun’s irradiance.

So if the Earth tends towards  equilibrium, why does the temperature fluctuate and precipitation vary so much over centuries? Well the first thing to observe here is that the temperature hasn’t actually varied all that much, maybe a degree or two over the last thousand years. And precipitation, although there decade long droughts in places, has been pretty stable globally too. Let’s look at some of the things which are affecting the sytem from the outside, before we consider internal variation.

Because it is subject to outside influences in the interplanetary space weather, the earth reacts to try to equilibriate with it’s surroundings as well as balance it’s internal energy budget. The Sun varies it’s output of  radiations and particle emissions over it’s various cycles, the ~11 year Schwabe cycle of rising and falling sunspot numbers. It’s ~22.1 year Hale cycle of reversing magnetic polarity. It’s ~205 year de Vries Cycles, and other longer periods we can see from looking at proxy records such as the C14 tree ring series and the Be10 deposits modulated by galactic cosmic rays, which are more or less repelled by the Sun’s varying activity. These longer cycles coincide with long term resonances in the orbits of the gas giant planets, an example is the 2245 year cycle of the changing synodic period of Uranus and Neptune, which is caused by the cycle of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. UV from the sun has altered by 15% recently, and the speed of the solar wind varies considerably with the waxing and waning of solar cycles and the coronal holes which emit the particles. We are still learning about the effects these variations have on our planet and it’s climate system.

Also, the motion of the Earth itself as it approaches nearer to and retreats from the sun during it’s yearly orbit causes a big change in the proportion of TSI recieved at the surface. At this point in it’s ~25,000 year precessionary cycle, the Earth gats around 80W/m^2 more incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere above the southern hemisphere’s vast oceans in it’s summer than the northern hemisphere gets. These seasonal variations drive a huge energy difference between different parts of Earth. As well as all this, our nearest celestial neighbour, the Moon, which has the largest variance in gravitational effect on our planet, follows a complex cycle of  Lunisolar conjunction and opposition, changing maximum declination, nodal procession and other longer cycles which at times in the history of the solar system have been in strong resonance with the motions of other planets, vastly amplifying their effects on the motion of Earth’s molten core and it’s associated magnetic field, as well as shifting ocean currents and tidal actions.

There are many more aspects to climate not even touched on yet, volcanos and earthquakes, thunderstorms and atmospheric waves, el Nino and la Nina, geomagnetism and the global electrical circuit, ocean salinity and overturning. I’ll start weaving them into part 2, along with extra details provided by people who visit and leave snippets of info in comments. Please join in so that we can create a fully inclusive “holistic theory of climate”.

Comments
  1. All this is absolutely logical, the only problem is that it contradicts the Holy Creed of the Church of Global Warming and Climate Change.
    The new paradigm of an electric universe is also logical an universal. Pitagoras didn´t need a synchrotron of billions of dollars to discover the laws that rule the universe.
    There is not a conspiracy against knowledge, it is simply rejected and unconsciously by the majority and feared by the fool. Knowledge could be simply stated in a few words, in a few universal laws.
    It is in times of change that it resurfaces the need to approach it.

  2. tallbloke says:

    We just need to admit that there is a lot we don’t know about climate and take stock of the state of knowledge in a calm and rational way. Then we can start forming new hypotheses and testing them.

    As long as we make it clear we are simply testing ideas, we can’t be accused of trying to mislead anyone with “pseudo-science”.

    Pythagoras was on the right track in studying harmonics and proportion. This can be applied to the study of cyclic resonances in the solar system which have, as we have discovered, coincidences across a wide range of phenomena from geomagnetism, to planetary motion, to temperature and changes in Earth’s length of day.

    Electric universe ideas are an interesting addition to the mix, and may help inform the development of new hypotheses. There is much to discover about the interaction of electromagnetic resonances and our local corner of the cosmos, as well as the bigger cosmic picture.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    I have always found it curious how Dr Svalgaard spends so much time on WUWT trying to convince people the sun, a variable star, is constant and makes very very little contribution to climate change. One wonders how much of the “corporate culture” of Standford University rubs off on Dr Svalgaard.

    Leif Svalgaard says: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-beauty-of-a-near-spotless-sun/#comment-418136

    “Judith Lean is a good friend of mine and a good scientist. That the IPCC didn’t involve more scientists on the solar issue is not a negative reflection on Judith. Perhaps it is more a reflection of how much [or how little] the IPCC believe the Sun is important. Lean’s analysis of this subject looks good to me: there is an influence, but it is small [barely detectable – otherwise we would not be discussing it]. The IPCC also did not compose a large team to evaluate the influence of Ceres or Pluto on the Earth…”

    Svalgaard works for Stanford University, California. This University certainly looks like it has bought into the whole UN policies for changing western life styles. It is in the top fifteen Universities in the annual College Sustainability Report Card for the US and Canada.

    “Sustainability at Stanford

    Stanford offers a free shuttle bus service named Marguerite and offers monetary incentives to its employees for carpooling. The university also has several sustainability initiatives underway. The 21,000 square feet (2,000 m2) Green Dorm currently under consideration under the design supervision of Professor Gil Masters will house between forty and fifty students, have a net carbon emission of zero, and produce more electricity than the building itself uses.[38] A new environmentally friendly Environment and Energy building is also planned. The Woods Institute also serves to undergird the university’s environmental movement, as a “hub for multidisciplinary environmental research, teaching, and outreach.”[39] Stanford is a member of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education.[40] The Aspen Institute has ranked the Stanford Graduate School of Business as the number one MBA program for incorporating social and environmental issues into the training of future business leaders, out of 590 schools worldwide.[41] And in 2009, the Sustainable Endowments Institute awarded Stanford University a grade of A- in its annual College Sustainability Report Card, making it one of the top fifteen of the 300 colleges and universities in the U.S. and Canada reviewed. (Climate, energy, and transportation were weak points.)[42][43]

    Stanford raised $832.2 million in private donations from 69,350 donors in 2006–2007, the most of all U.S. universities.[44]

    http://www.answers.com/topic/stanford-university#Endowment_and_fundraising

  4. Gail Combs says:

    SIGHHH the website changed my – Sustainability is the code word for UN Agenda 21 initiative. to something else because I used parentheses

  5. tallbloke says:

    Stanford is also home to Prof Stephen Schneider, arch warmist in chief. And Chris Fields, bio-alarmist in chief, and a coterie of bright young climatological things. I have managed to get Dr Svalgaard to say AGW is nonsense a couple of times, under duress, when I threatened him with the pliers. 😉

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob Tisdale points out the following:

    Pavlakis, K.G.; Hatzianastassiou, N.; Matsoukas, C.; Fotiadi, A.; & Vardavas, I. (2008). ENSO surface shortwave radiation forcing over the tropical Pacific. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 8, 6697–6728.

    Click to access acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf

    Insolation is at least 10 times more interesting than irradiance.

  7. I conducted a regime shift analysis of global temperatures using the algorithm published by NOAA. The results show that the temperature shifts during the last century are all tied to the onset of solar cycles. This is likely a result of the interaction of the Sun and Earth magnetic fields.
    See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateRegimeShift.htm

  8. tallbloke says:

    Alan, an excellent and clearly presented analysis, thank you. I’ve observed several times that the bigger el nino’s have tended to occur not long after solar minimum over the last several cycles. I believe this is due to the ocean taking the opportunity to push out some of the excess heat-energy it has accumulated during the high amplitude solar cycles of the late C20th. When the sunspot number is over 40 (the long term avaerage), heat is absorbed and mixed downwards. When the sunspot number is below 40, heat-energy moves upwards.

    My simple solar-planetary energy model

    To what extent magnetism is involved I don’t know, but our friend Vukcevic has been doing some very interesting work in looking at the relationship of geomagnetism to the temperature record lately.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm

    Paul, great to see you taking an interest in other peoples solar work after your lunar excursion. 🙂

  9. Thanks for those links. I had been starting to look at Vukcevic’s pages as I come across them but had not seen that list. (Vukcevic – the NFC4 graph is missing).
    I had previously added one of his graphs into my original study of the magnetic field: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

    Paul: Do you have a main web page documenting your research?

  10. Steve Fox says:

    Tallbloke,
    Thanks for that clear overview.
    I’m following with great interest. I’m no climatologist, but my bullshit detectors are off the scale whenever AGW comes up…
    Loved Richard Lindzen on Youtube.

  11. Geoff Sharp says:

    Recent studies on the UV impact on our climate are pointing towards a link that is worth following up I think. As we know the variance in UV is much larger than TSI and is reported to be responsible for varying cloud patterns, shifts in jet streams and influence on pressure cells that control weather systems right up to ENSO. UV is basically the same measurement as F10.7 Flux and is not hard coded to sunspot activity. Both UV and F10.7 Flux have been very low for the past 2 years, with only a slight rise noted in the first 3 months of this year.

    As UV does its thing mainly in the upper portions of the atmosphere there is no vagueness in relation to shifting cloud cover that in the lower levels seems to be hard to measure. The total amount of the incoming UV is utilized which may in turn result in more/less lower level cloud cover which then varies TSI ocean uptake. TSI could be dead flat and we would still witness big climate changes.

    I have a list of references that I add to on my EUV article. I will update the EUV graph soon, it might be interesting.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Steve, welcome.

    Geoff, I keep trying to get Leif to see that UV has effects on atmospheric chemistry that can’t be summarized by calculating the number of watts transferred in UV energy. Have you got a link to your UV article?

  13. Geoff Sharp says:

    I noticed your attempts….keep up the good work, and I think its more than just a chemical process.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/128

    I did an update on the 1st graph, the current trend is definitely not looking strong. The EUV graph since 1996 putting things in perspective.

  14. Tenuc says:

    Thanks for providing more food for thought both to TB, and to the rest who have posted comments on this thread.

    Perhaps more would be revealed about the impact of solar activity on our climate if we took a closer look at regional impacts of each solar element that changes and used shorter time periods (daily), using actual data (not averaged or smoothed).

    For example, the sun delivers its radiation at differing frequencies at different times. The energy delivery is spiky, no smooth and strong bursts of energetic UV are lost in the averages. Using better granularity could give us a better idea of how our climate works. Climate is simply the weather seen at locations across the globe averaged over long time periods, so perhaps we are missing the detail to see what’s really going on.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Alan, links to some of the work I’ve made public can be (temporarily) found here: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ – (see links ending in .htm).

    SFU has informed me that my account will be closed before the end of July 2010.

    I no longer work in climate research.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Note on the covariance of geomagnetic & terrestrial temperature variables:

    Based on countless analyses, I suspect a lurking (i.e. third) variable. [See the Russian literature.]

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    Vershovskii, M.G.; & Kondratovich, K.V. (2007). South Pacific subtropical anticyclone – intensity and localization. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 32(12), 738–742.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Paul, I would like your permission to download material from your institutional account, so I can re-upload material related to the links you posted here to the wordpress server. I will update the links in your posts as and when I have time so people can still refer to your work.

    Thanks as always for your significant contribution to this blog.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke, I am not in a position to grant such permission.

    I would like to direct your attention to the following:

    Centennial Earthquake Catalog
    http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/research/data/centennial.php

    One further note:
    I believe you (& some others) may be misunderstanding my views on the role of the sun in terrestrial climate. The sun is peripheral to my main interests.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Paul, thanks for the link.

    Feel free to be explicit about what your main interests are. 🙂

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Main interest, as has always been the case: the terrestrial hydrologic cycle.

    A further note on the “centennial” earthquake catalog: I am told that it is the best on offer at present.

    I believe we can benefit from using the following map to condition terrestrial climate investigations:

    Click to access plate15.pdf

  22. tallbloke says:

    Hi Paul,
    Stunning map. Thanks for that.

    earthquake map

    I came across an interesting paper the other day on the link between river flow in South America and the solar cycle.

    Long-term solar activity influences on South
    American rivers
    Pablo J.D. Mauas a Andrea P. Buccino a
    aInstituto de Astronom´ıa y F´ısica del Espacio (CONICET-UBA), C.C. 67
    Sucursal 28, 1428,Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Eduardo Flamenco b
    bInstituto Nacional de Tecnolog´ıa Agropecuaria, Rivadavia 1439, 1033, Buenos
    Aires, Argentina

    I saved a copy but lost the URL. Let me know if you’d like it emailing.

  23. Found!:
    Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River

    Click to access reprint_parana.pdf

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    Rotate Australia 90 degrees clockwise, shift it east, & enlarge it. Note the near-match?
    If one reads the Parana paper carefully, it’s not what it appears to be superficially.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Are you implying the Australasian plate is a fractal of the Pacific basin to the oceanic ridge running from central America to Antarctica? Or what?

    What do you thnk the PArana paper is saying then?

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Maybe we can convince KNMI Climate Explorer to allow more appropriate shapes. (That would facilitate a whole new series of fruitful posts for Bob Tisdale.) Certainly fractal geometry is what is missing in the climate discussion.

    The most interesting thing about the Parana paper is the pattern they *remove* from the analysis. The paper is well-worth a very careful read — it is a stimulating paper, but I wouldn’t pay any attention to the impressions of casual readers in this case.

    If it doesn’t fit in a box…

  27. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Tenuc says:
    July 8, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    Thanks for providing more food for thought both to TB, and to the rest who have posted comments on this thread.

    Perhaps more would be revealed about the impact of solar activity on our climate if we took a closer look at regional impacts of each solar element that changes and used shorter time periods (daily), using actual data (not averaged or smoothed).

    For example, the sun delivers its radiation at differing frequencies at different times. The energy delivery is spiky, no smooth and strong bursts of energetic UV are lost in the averages. Using better granularity could give us a better idea of how our climate works. Climate is simply the weather seen at locations across the globe averaged over long time periods, so perhaps we are missing the detail to see what’s really going on.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Exactly, then one would notice the occurrance at times, of extended warming spurts when the solar wind speed was up, and with no significant UV bursts taking place.

  28. Ulric Lyons says:

    Jovian returns are best at 2224yrs and 2403yrs, exactly 179yrs apart. Together this comes to 4627yrs, which then also harmonises with E&V, and is the correct astronomical figure for the time between Heinrich events.

  29. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Ulric. Are you aware of any cyclic returns at 6600 years which would coincide with the 3x ~2200 year returns?

  30. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    July 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    Thanks Ulric. Are you aware of any cyclic returns at 6600 years which would coincide with the 3x ~2200 year returns?

    183.99 S/N, 145.47 S/U, 38.51 U/N, no good harmony with J. Why ?

  31. tallbloke says:

    This graph was prepared by Ray Tomes.
    c14 graph

  32. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    July 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    2293 is too late for the next maximum, and the period from there to 4900 is again too long.
    If you look at the 2 lowest points on the graph, they are 4627+2403yrs apart.