possible terrestrial amplification of celestial climate driver found

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.

Daniel M. Sweger: Response to Nikolov and Zeller’s Unified Theory of Climate

Response to “Unified Theory of Climate”

Updated PDF is here

Dr. Daniel M. Sweger National College

Introduction

During the last two years that I have been teaching Environmental Science and attempting to explain global warming to my students, I have been frustrated at the lack of solid theoretical understanding of the primary processes coupled with actual data. Speaking as a research physicist, I have been saying to others, “Wait until the physicists get into action. They have an entirely different approach to solving physical problems”.

Sure enough, two such physicists have published their analysis of their fundamental understanding of the climate. In October 2011 Nikolov and Zeller presented their analysis in a poster entitled “Unified Theory of Climate” at the World Climate Research Program in Denver. Their analysis was indeed from fundamental physical and mathematical principles. A month or so later their poster was converted into a document and appeared on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. From there it spread to WUWT and many other blogs, and it has generated a tremendous amount of discussion.

I would like to add my two-cents to that discussion.

Calculating the Average Temperature of the Earth

It can be something of a difficult problem to define what is meant by the average temperature of the earth. Some have argued that there is no such thing as the “average” temperature; that temperature is a localized measure. However, temperature is a measure of the energy in a system, and energy can be averaged.

Michele Casati: The Gulf Stream today

UPDATE 24-10-13: Michele links a post which confirms his observations and predictions: Looks like Europe might be in for another very cold winter.

This article is a copy in English from the Italian blog of Dr Michele Casati, http://daltonsminima.altervista.org by kind permission. I’ve paraphrased some of the auto-translation but left most of it as giving a better taste of the original writing – Tim.

Map of North Atlantic conditions, click for current version

The original La corrente del golfo oggi from 26th March 2012

---

The Gulf Stream today

Reply to Willis: The Earth is a Sultry Sea Queen

Back in January, hot on the heels of revelations regarding the Moon’s temperature made by Ned Nikolov on the WUWT thread discussing their ‘Unified Theory of Climate’, Willis Eschenbach published an article at WUWT entitled “The Moon is a Cold Mistress”.

He used as his primary data source this NASA publication, in which the authors had developed a model using the old Apollo in situ data collected by thermocouples set in the regolith – the pulverised rock the Moon’s surface is covered in. The author’s did a pretty good job, their average surface T for the  measurement location as stated by Willis is -77C, or 196K, which matches the latest DIVINER data very well for the Moon’s global average, a nice coincidence, partly caused by the choice of a temperate location for the Apollo mission to land in.

The first section of the article Willis raises some issues around understanding the relationship between incident solar irradiance and average surface temperature. Willis stated that various factors come into play which affect this relationship, including day/night swings, albedo, heat retention in the surface regolith, and speed of rotation.

Empirical results from DIVINER confirm S-B Law was misapplied to Moon

UPDATE: 21.10 GMT
Well, at least I was right about one thing; the empirical data is the most important. I’ve just had an update via email to say the latest empirical estimate of mean temperature for the Moon is 192-197K. This figure pretty much splits the difference between the old 255K and Ned and Karls theoretical figure of 155-157K. Karl says they will be working a regolith heat retention term into their equations.

So this makes it easier to understand the falloff in temperature of around 20K through the lunar night, and the curves at dawn and dusk. It also means the Earth’s ‘greenhouse effect’ is around 91-97K. Which more or less matches a dry adiabatic lapse rate of 9.8K/km in a 10km high troposphere, so at least the numbers are starting to make good sense. I’ll do the necessary corrections to the figures in the article as everyone digests the new information. TB

=========================================================================

Ned Nikolov has kindly sent me a plot of the diurnal lunar equatorial temperature profile as determined by MSU observations carried out by the DIVINER instrument carried on board the NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Miles Mathis: What Causes the Earth’s Heat?

UPDATE: A huge thanks to ‘Wayne’ who has fixed the formatting for this article.

Here’s the latest paper from Miles Mathis, which is a great read. Whether or not you are prepared to entertain his theory, this piece will entertain you. I have myself been wondering about the heat of Earth’s core and mantle, and how it can stay hot for 4.5 billion years...

What Causes the Earth’s Heat?
Answer: CHARGE
how to calculate the Earth’s heat
 straight from the fundamental charge
by Miles Mathis

Abstract: I will briefly critique the current theory of Earth’s heat, including core theory and nebular theory. Then I will show you that the Earth’s heat is actually caused by charge, proving it by calculating the total heat content of the Earth straight from the fundamental charge—in about four lines of math. In a recent paper I confirmed for the third time that the charge field should peak in the infrared. Using a new round of equations, I showed that we must look for charge at energies beneath the visible. So I will open this paper by expanding on that a bit.

Some news, not a lot, from the thin blue line…

Some news, not a lot, from the thin blue line…

View original post

The key signatures in the music of the spheres

Trying to find the key configurations and cycles which have the strong effects is a bit like doing a cryptic crossword. The clues don’t at first seem to help obtain the answers. They help confirm you got the answer right once you’ve got it. Analogies can be pushed too far, and there is of course no ultimate certainty. Nature doesn’t print the solution to the crossword in the heavens the following Saturday morning.

However, those of us who have been getting on with the job instead of throwing up our hands in despair at the myriad numbers of cycles or loudly proclaiming the impossibility of the planetary effect on the strength of spuriously extrapolated ‘first principles’ have been making some good progress. This article looks at some of the principle harmonics in the solar system. The Jupiter-Saturn-Earth direct relationship to the Solar cycle of around 11 years and solar rotation has been recently dealt with so is left out of this discussion.

Clouds of uncertainty over oceans of data doubt

Given the uncertainty around datasets, Roger Andrews thinks that Ned Nikolov’s statement that:

The recent warming has been entirely a result of declining cloud cover and related cloud albedo.

Is not well supported by the data. Roger A’s recent investigation leads him to believe that the late C20th warming was more likely caused by oceanic heat release, challenging us to:

show why my competing theory that the recent warming was entirely a result of stored ocean heat releases is wrong, or otherwise show how the heat releases were triggered by cloud albedo changes.

 

Never a blog to shirk a challenge, here’s a fresh new thread to battle it out on. Will all protagonists please step forward. 🙂

The Sun dances the Jupiter-Venus two-step

NEWS RELEASE from Stanford University

Strange ‘spin cycle’ inside the sun may explain sunspots, solar flares and other mysteries
Few things in the universe seem as constant as the sun.

But now scientists have discovered that two parallel layers of gas deep beneath the solar surface are actually speeding up and slowing down in a strange, synchronous pattern.

It turns out that, as the sun rotates on its axis, one gas layer gradually spins faster while the other reduces speed.

Scientists are at a loss to explain the phenomenon, which occurs in regular 12-to-16-month cycles.

“It’s not what we expected at all,” says Stanford research physicist Jesper Schou. “It comes totally out of the blue.”

Schou is part of an international team of researchers using satellite and ground-based observatories to monitor the sun.

Writing in the March 31 issue of the journal Science, Schou and postdoctoral fellow Rasmus Larsen point out that these unusual but predictable changes in rotational speed only occur above and below a section of the sun known as the interface layer or tachocline.

Located about 135,000 miles below the solar surface, the tachocline separates the sun’s two major regions of gas: the radiative zone, which includes the energy-generating core, and the convective zone near the surface.

Solar experts believe that the tachocline may be the source of powerful magnetic fields that produce strong solar flares and solar winds, and create sunspots that mysteriously appear and disappear during an 11-year cycle.

No one knows how the sun’s enormous magnetic fields are generated, or why they reverse polarity from positive to negative every 11 years.

How can Jupiter and Saturn affect the timing of solar cycles?: Brief review

According to what we know so far, if the motion of planets is affecting solar variability as the myriad correlations which have been discovered suggest they are, then it must be via  one or a combination of the known forces: Gravitation, Tides, Electromagnetism.

Because our knowledge is so incomplete, the safe way to proceed is to not rule out any of these possibilities, but to investigate, compare observations, make some logical deductions and inferences, and draw up some tentative hypotheses.

Since it is topical, I’ll concentrate on Jupiter and Saturn in this post. In an earlier post, and in Nicola Scafetta’s paper currently under discussion, it has been shown that the periods around the solar cycle length apparent in spectral analysis of the sunspot record closely match periods related to these gas giants. This makes immediate sense, they are the two biggest planets in the solar system. But although they have the biggest and second biggest effect on the Sun gravitationally, in terms of tidal strength, Jupiter is way more powerful than Saturn, and Saturn’s tidal force on the Sun is much smaller than Venus Earth, and even tiny Mercury, as Ian Wilson showed recently.

Nicola Scafetta: Major new paper on Solar-Planetary theory published

Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation
throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the
11-year solar dynamo cycle
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

• Nicola Scafetta
• ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab) & Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

• Received 29 October 2011. Revised 17 February 2012. Accepted 22 February 2012. Available online 8 March 2012.

Abstract

The Schwabe frequency band of the Zurich sunspot record from 1749 to 2011 is found to be made of three major cycles with periods of about 9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 years. The side frequencies appear to be closely related to the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn (range between 9.5-10.5 years, and median 9.93 years) and to the tidal sidereal period of Jupiter (about 11.86 years). The central cycle may be associated to a quasi 11-year solar dynamo cycle that appears to be approximately synchronized to the average of the two planetary frequencies. A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-periodic interference/beat patterns. The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records during the entire Holocene (last 12,000 years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium such as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima as well as the seventeen ∼115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900–1920 and 1960–1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1940–1950 and 1995–2005, which agrees with some solar proxy model and with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite. The model forecasts a new prolonged solar minimum during 2020–2040, which is stressed by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. Finally, the model predicts that during low solar activity periods, the solar cycle length tends to be longer, as observed in solar and climate proxy records. These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion and, furthermore, their timing can be reasonably hindcast and forecast. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity.

Roy Clark: Where it all went wrong with climate science

visit http://cartoonsbyjosh.com - and buy a mug or something.

Roy Clark left this as a comment on Bishop Hill:

Most people, including many scientists, have been fooled by the pseudoscience that is hidden in the climate models. Every single result produced by the use of radiative forcing is invalid. The results from all of the models that use the empirical radiative forcing constants given by the IPCC are fraudulent.

The full explanation is little involved, but here goes:

In order to understand the issues it is necessary to go back to the beginning and look at the original 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald [J. Atmos. Sci. 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’. This can be found at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
The assumptions made in the derivations are clearly stated on the second page.

The Earth’s climate is stable, which means that there is an approximate energy balance between the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing LWIR flux somewhere ‘at the top of the atmosphere’. This is simply a statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy is conserved – more or less. However, this does not justify the assumption that an ‘average climate equilibrium state’ exists in which the solar flux is exactly balanced by the LWIR flux.

Michele Casati: Oaxaca Earthquake successfully predicted

Two days ago on March 18th, Talkshop correspondent and science blogger Michele Casati posted this graphic, along with a stark warning:

Planetary configuration dangerous

Click image for animation

Today a magnitude 7.6 earthquake struck Acapulco the Oaxaca region around a hundred miles east of Acapulco; our hearts go out to all those affected by this Earth shaking event.

Map of locations of quake and aftershocks: Click image for full size

[ Link to earthquakereport web site which has extensive coverage ]

Forecast….
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/magnitude-7-2-van-turkey-depth-45km-fatal-and-damaging-over-a-wide-area/#comment-20285

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0008m6h.php
Magnitude 7.6 – OAXACA, MEXICO
2012 March 20 18:02:48 UTC

USGS
Initial quake:
7.4: 16.66°N -98.19°W 20Km Deep
2012-03-20 18:02:48 UTC

Aftershock:
5.1: 16.53°N -98.01°W 10Km Deep
2012-03-20 20:14:39 UTC

http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdaltonsminima.altervista.org%2F%3Fp%3D19788

Michele has been working on developing the methods originated by Rafaele Bendandi in the early half of the C20th.

Ian Wilson: A Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model for Solar Activity

A Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model for Solar Activity

Guest post by Ian Wilson

Reposted from http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au

A free download of the published paper this article extends is available in the General 

Science Journal where it was published in 2010 

http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3812

The General Science Journal paper (above) was written in
order to further investigate the main conclusion of the Wilson
et al. (2008) paper that the Sun’s level of solar activity is
driven by a spin-orbit coupling mechanism between the Sun
and the Jovian planets:

Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008,
25, 85–93.
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and
the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

The spin-orbit coupling mechanism investigated in the
General Science Journal paper is based on the idea that the
planet that applies the most dominant gravitational force upon
the Sun is Jupiter, and that after Jupiter, the planets that apply
the most dominant tidal forces upon the Sun are Venus and
the Earth.

Peter Morcombe: Comment on the ‘Unified Theory of Climate’

My thanks to Verity Jones for permission to repost this article by Peter ‘gallopingcamel’ Morcombe from her blog ‘Digging in the Clay’ which always carries well researched and written posts. Peter extends Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller’s work to include a look at the gas giant outer planets in this piece, as well as commenting on other matters arising from their work. Peter refers to them with an abbreviation of their first names (N&K) throughout.

(Image: NASA)

Guest Post by Peter Morcombe

In October 2011, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller (N&K) published a poster called the ‘Unified Theory of Climate’ (Direct link to Poster) claiming that planetary surface temperatures can be calculated accurately if pressure and TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) are known. If their claim is correct, so-called ‘Greenhouse Gasses’ such as carbon dioxide are not responsible for the observed ‘Global Warming’ since 1850. This has major implications with respect to energy policies worldwide.

These ideas are hardly new as PaAnnoyed, Steven Goddard, Harry Dale Huffman, Leonard Weinstein, gallopingcamel and others have made similar assertions. N&K boiled it all down to a few equations. Their claims are being hotly debated with critics dismissing it as sophisticated curve fitting. While that makes me wonder whether those critics bothered to read the N&K poster, I have some criticisms of my own.

Beware: Trees are on the move!

This event taking place in half an hour from now at Cambridge University’s science festival sounds a bit alarming. Are the Ents going to get us??

However, it turns out things are not as alarming as they seem:

Hans Jelbring: Back Radiation and Observational Meteorologial Evidence

IR Back Radiation and

Observational Meteorologial Evidence from Karesuando,

Sweden at Latitude 68 N, 326 m asl

Hans Jelbring

BSc, meteorologist, Stockholm University, Civil engineer, electronics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, PhD, institution of Paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University

Background

There is a wealth of Swedish meteorological data since about 300 years ago which has been read 3 times a day at 7 AM, 1 PM and 7 PM. Added to that minimum and maximum temperatures are collected. The variables are pressure, air temperature, water vapor pressure, relative humidity, wind speed , wind direction , cloudiness (a scale 1-8 parts of sky covered by clouds), precipitation, snow cover depth and general weather (raining, snowing mist etc.).

For a long time such data could be bought in a yearly book “Meteorological Observations in Sweden” covering data from 14 of the biggest Swedish stations until they stopped producing them and I think that 1977 was the last year of publication. The accumulated amount of meteorological data that exists in Sweden is just staggering.

The preoccupation with one single meteorological variable such as global temperature is misleading in several ways. The physics in the atmosphere only works in real time at a specific place. Any averaging destroys or limits the possibility to identify and check the processes at hand in the real atmosphere. It is also necessary to observe several variables at the same time to develop well found ideas about how the physical processes interact with each other and which ones are dominating at specific times and places. To do this prime data times series are of profound importance. Such series are found in abundance in the excellent publication “Meteorological Observations in Sweden”. I personally own this publication from 1922-1977.

By chance I found an old chart I made at least 30 years ago which you can see below. It shows wind, cloud and temperature time series from Karesuando during four months, January, March, July and November. Karesuando is situated quite far above the polar circle so during January there is no solar irradiation at all reaching the station.

Roger Andrews: How the Sun Caused All The Recent Global Warming

My thanks to Roger Andrews who has patiently waited to get this work published for the last fortnight while I have been swanning around in Spain and dealing with the backlog on my return. This paper explores more rigorously the ideas I voiced here and previously at WUWT over the last few years that the timing of ENSO and the solar cycle masks the true magnitude of the effect of the solar cycle on Earth’s energy flows.

How the Sun Caused All The Recent Global Warming

Before proceeding, credit where credit is due. The concept of a relationship between the sun and ENSO events isn’t new. It’s been discussed at least twice on this blog (here and here) and in detail by Theodor Landscheidt (here). The connection between ENSO events and warming isn’t new either. Three years ago Bob Tisdale (here) showed how ENSO events caused periodic upward shifts in the SST record that explained all of the recent global warming. Also not new, thanks to our host, is the theory that the oceans periodically release stored heat to the air (here). So a h/t to these gentlemen and to any others I may have omitted.

What follows is my attempt to condense these hypotheses into a narrative that uses observational data to illustrate how the solar cycle, ENSO events and the release of stored ocean heat, and not man-made greenhouse gases, combined to cause the recent global warming, which began, incidentally, in 1976.

What is this in SST2 and UAH TLT?

Rog asked about the results of my peeking at the SST2 leading UAH TLT data where I replied it is unsafe but of interest. Well he did ask a leading question.

Figure 1

This needs some explanation.