H/T to ‘Catweazle’ for mentioning this report: nasa-sun-earth – on solar-terrestrial relations. A web summary is available here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Taster from the text:
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Look at the distribution of ozone. Jet stream will be strongly inhibited over Canada, therefore the cold air will be run down over the America.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-101.82,75.47,365
“In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.”
Ah, well. One step at a time.
Hi Bart: You sometimes get the feeling that NASA publish reports like this so they can cover their arses when the trace gas theory goes titsup. “Well we knew all the factors, just not the magnitudes”
Bart, the word “global” does not fit into climate. For example, in America’s harsh winter and mild in Siberia. Last year it was the other way round.
“… The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.”
How can the sun’s effects upon the earth be only regional? I just don’t get what they are trying to say.
tallbloke says: February 28, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Don’t think so TB. The report leads to a paper that’s ‘pay walled’;
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
This is a ‘cash cow’!
However, I’m flattered to realise that NASA is ‘taken’ with my suggestion, several years ago, on the (now closed) C4 ‘Eve Website’ that a relationship exists for ‘biasing’ between Sol’s EM emissions and Earth’s atmospheric reactance. 😉
Yup! This really takes me back!
Best regards, Ray.
Nullschool affords flexible circulation mapping options. Changing map projections sometimes makes it much easier to spot different types of aggregate symmetry. Here are 3 layers in broader (global) brewer-dobson context to assist with visualization of ren’s ozone & jet stream commentary:
10hPa / 70hPa / 250hPa
It will be tremendously valuable if Cameron Beccario adds vertical velocity to the available overlay fields.
markstoval says: February 28, 2014 at 11:32 pm
Hi Mark. I can’t read the paper that lead to this report because it’s ‘pay walled’, but I ‘assume’ that the paper alludes to a more ‘complex’ scenario for Earth’s atmospheric reaction to the ‘changing wave lengths’ that ‘Sol’ (our sun) emits during Sol’s ‘pulsar cycle’ (~11 years for the ‘half cycle’) and how these ‘changing wave lengths’ are seen to impinge upon Earth’s systems.
If you Google “Brewer-Dobson circulation” you’ll begin to understand the ‘tele-connections’ that exist in Earth’s atmosphere.
If you’re above this ‘level of understanding’, I apologise. However, I’m only here to help others to understand ‘what’s happening’ from my ‘POV’ (point of view). 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
While NASA say that no one person has all of the attributes mentioned it will be noted that no so-called climate scientist has any of the attributes. Many engineers (such as this one), who can be classified as sceptical of claims of settled science, at least have knowledge and experience with fluid dynamics. Further, most chemical engineers have the capacity & background knowledge to understand atmospheric chemistry and of course they understand thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer amongst many other disciplines such as process control, energy conversion, mathematics, statistics and costs. Some chemical engineers associated with mining and mineral processing may also have studied geology (as I did)
It is a pity NASA does not get back to having real professional engineers (such as those who signed a letter to NASA management) and gets rid of the incompetent and money wasting GISS and its associates & fellow travelers.
Paul Vaughan says: March 1, 2014 at 3:19 am
I concur 100 % Paul. The rate that mass is ‘devoured’ by a ‘vortex’ is determined by the ‘PD’ (potential difference) and the ‘inertial mass’ vector’ of the ‘mass’ being absorbed.
However, I can’t help thinking that there’s something more to this. I just can’t put my ‘finger’ on it.
Best regards, Ray.
Jet streams at polar vortex restrict cold air in the region of the vortex.
You can see how shifted vortex does not protect the U.S. against air from the north.
U.S. waiting for now powerful heavy snows in the Northeast.
I scanned the report for appearances of LOD (Length of Day), as I need that for integration, but they seem more interested in divine equilibrium (elysium?) and (mathematically, fictitious, not naturally) fabricated ‘mean’.
Did I miss something?
Advisory: Beware spatiotemporal confounding.
Circulation Overlay = Total Precipitable Water
10hPa / 250hPa
“Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” — Nikolay Sidorenkov
SST = 82% ☼Sun☼ + 18% interannual (includes lunisolar) + nothing else (CO2 signal undetectable in SST record)
The ren-Sidorenkov connection — another perspective:
The cold, dry eyes of the beholder:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/equirectangular=-85,90,160
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/equirectangular=-85,90,160
law-constrained aggregate proof
@ suricat March 1, 2014 at 4:07 am
Thanks Ray. I sorta got the stuff you were saying as I have read here and other places for a while now and I am a big believer that that sun drives the earth’s climate.
But the part that I fail to understand out of them is how variations in the sun’s output could be “more regional than global“. I can’t seem to imagine changes in the sun’s output being just a regional effect like deforestation or something like that. Perhaps I am missing something.
NH has it’s hat on crooked.
Note that the PNW back-eddy forms where opposing streams diverge from parallel:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/0900Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/equirectangular=70,-20,160
Sun vs. CO2: Notice; warning colors theme
@ markstoval
Sun’s effect is global.
SIDC Sunspot Number count for February 2014 is 102.8 (non-smoothed) , which is the highest of the SC24 cycle. Graphs show that the SC24 max is some months ahead.
There is a strong likelihood that the SSN for the SC24 max may exceed 80 as it was indicated by my projection of more than 10 years ago. This would also mean that the Dr. Svalgaards’s prediction (made around the same time) of about 70 may be left well behind, and the ‘consensus’ of the Sunspot Prediction Board for SSN around 90 may prove to be the nearest.
If so, the Sun – Global Warming pause question may keep climate bloggers busy for some time to come.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Note the 20° projection tilt needed to center the 10hPa vortex:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/1200Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/azimuthal_equidistant=-110,-70,105
with water overlay:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/1200Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/azimuthal_equidistant=-110,-70,105
average annual water cycle, for context:
Graph of cosmic radiation precisely shows the effect of solar activity on the atmosphere. You can see that in September and October activity was so low that caused the anomaly in the polar vortex, which remains to this day.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=09&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=03&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Sorry.
Please see the September 29, 2013. A height of 30 km.
I love the regional. You have to remember the scientist wants to be warm in the winter, and col in the summer. But generally they , unlike the poor slobs that live in an area, can travel for educational purposes. And get paid for it. Therefore they don’t know seasons. And forgotten warm summer, cool/cold winter. And they see the sun, from a certain perspective every day of their lives. Durn late night binges. Thru bloodshot eyes. And therefore they assume this is normal for earth. But then you would have to think that there would have been a beach somewhere they landed. Just to see the sharks in the water, and feel the sun go behind a cloud, or to notice there is a sun there, but that large spot is making it feel warm or cooler?
cementafriend says:
March 1, 2014 at 4:25 am “It is a pity NASA does not get back to having real professional engineers”
Armchair savants can paint wonderful pictures of the world they envision and call themselves scientists. Engineers have to work in the dirt of reality and create things that really function as planned.
markstoval says:
March 1, 2014 at 8:44 am “I can’t seem to imagine changes in the sun’s output being just a regional effect”
A rather obvious statement of fact. Even Mars has been in a global warming situation over the last 50 years! Maybe they are talking about the “Goldilocks” region of the solar system! 😎 pg
Aligned meridionally with the northern PNW 10hPa vortex back-eddy is a cross-equatorial interhemispheric sideways figure-8 westerly 250hPa angular momentum exchange centered precisely where ITCZ total precipitable water is roughly half its magnitude elsewhere. A topological transformation of the center of the interhemispheric figure-8 emphasizes the cross-equatorial angular momentum loop by stretching it around the rim of a circle.
See dead-center:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/1200Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular=-122.55,0,160
See top-center:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/1200Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/equirectangular=-122.5,-90,160
See lower 3/4 of rim:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/1200Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/azimuthal_equidistant=57.5,0,105
Stephen Wilde might want to check out and follow the evolution of coherence of total cloud water overlays with underlying wind fields (including jet-stream level).
Just click on the “earth” button to toggle the menu. From there, select fields, projections, & overlays.
Also, adjust the numbers at the tails of the nullschool links given by ren & I. The first is longitude center, the second is latitude center, and the third is zoom level.
Note also the difference between #current & #date in the URL (the latter of which locks time & the former of which drifts with time, meaning #current links won’t show the same picture at a later date).
Something to think about: Amount of cloud, ocean surface freshening from precipitation, etc. at more equatorial latitudes where insolation in a 24-hour period can be much higher versus much lower at more polar latitudes near winter solstices.
Not all clouds are equal. Total cloud is the wrong quantity. A short ring of clouds in the darkness of the polar night isn’t physically equal to a long ring of contemporaries in the ITCZ.
But beware confounding. Everything’s coupled and there’s only one driver & pace-setter.
Meridional insolation gradients necessarily vary with the solar cycle near solstices. (Modelers: Do the trivial math.)
Observing detailed wind & water field spatiotemporal fluctuations, it’s easy to see how mainstream academics overlooked the law-constrained aggregate proof of the sun’s dominance in terrestrial spatiotemporal climate pattern. They couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
My thanks to ren & tallbloke for keeping nullschool on my radar until I found time to explore its capabilities more thoroughly.
Paul: You’re welcome.
Your return is timely, and your analysis cogent.
Cosmic rays corresponds to the magnetic activity of the Sun. It can be seen that it is low compared to 23 of the cycle.
Heh. A “factor of 10 or more” is 10,000% +.
@ NASA JPL
SCD is a measure that generalizes across modulations at all time scales. That’s why we see the same multidecadal temporal pattern in terrestrial climate (after focusing equator-poleward through interannual east-west, ocean-atmosphere, etc.) as in large scale solar fields (ratio of meridional to zonal). It doesn’t matter if the modulated cycles are 1 year long, 27 days long, or 27 days long at the equator with differential rotation moving poleward. Do the math. It’s trivial. There’s no logical excuse for controversy as everything can be proven rigorously.
Regards
Update on the 24 day of March 1, 2014.
Table monthly number of sunspots.
Tallbloke important research.
Click to access 10.5923.j.ajee.20120204.02.pdf
Thanks ren, I have seen this interesting paper before. Our friend Vukevic might have something more to say about it.
tallbloke says: March 2, 2014 at 10:06 am
Oh no, another paper to read? I’ll get to this when I’ve an open slot. 🙂
===============================================
Paul Vaughan says: March 1, 2014 at 9:03 am
“@ markstoval
Sun’s effect is global.”
Only on the ‘visible disc’ Paul. East/West Equatorial insolation averages to unity above the atmosphere, but ‘the clouds’ and ‘atmospherics’ get in the way to make this ~unity.
The ‘Poles’ are something else! They never receive the same unit area of ‘global insolation’ as Equatorial sites due to the ‘angle if incidence’ that it’s received at (Equator = high insolation, Pole = low insolation).
The ‘seasonal change’ is also greatest at the Poles, whilst almost negligible at the Equator.
What was that ‘warning’ you gave about taking an ‘average’? 😉
Best regards, Ray.
The anomaly in the the zone of the ozone began in September. Just running solar activity.
@ren: your ‘angle of incidence’, did you forget the sunbeam spread?
B.t.w. the polar area and the equatorial area are matter of definition, just scribbled lines on paper, nothing much real.
@suricat: I think my previous comment was for you 😉
In the southern hemisphere is already blockade creates a vortex over the South America.
Chaeremon says: March 3, 2014 at 6:42 am
“@ren: your ‘angle of incidence’, did you forget the sunbeam spread?” (Misdirected message to suricat).
Would that be ‘margarine’, or ‘Rayleigh scattering’? 😉
No, in more ways than one. Let me elucidate.
If we take ‘the angle of incidence’ (the angle that a line, or beam of radiation, makes with a line ‘perpendicular to the surface at the point of incidence’ [i.e. local Earth ‘TOA’ (Top Of Atmosphere) ‘zenith’ (the point in the sky that’s directly overhead from where you’re standing)]) to be emanating from the centre of ‘Sol’s’ (the Sun’s) ‘visible disc’ (the circular object seen when observing planetary/~stellar bodies [Sol is the only ‘stellar body’ we are able to observe as a circular object exhibiting the characteristic of an area]), we also have radiation being received by Earth from the ‘rim’ of Sol’s ‘visible disc’, thus, the ‘angle of incidence’ is an ‘approximation’ to the nearest angle which receives the ‘greatest brightness’ of radiation at TOA.
Following this ‘angle of incidence at TOA’ principle. Earth’s equator receives insolation ‘at its zenith’ twice a year, but Earth’s poles NEVER receive insolation at their ‘zenith’. Thus, the formation of ‘climate regions’ (excluding rotational influences) and the first stage of ‘regional influence of Sol’s insolation’. Surely this is ‘climate 101’ (an introductory level to climate physics)? It’s always colder at Earth’s poles than it is at Earth’s equator. 😦
“B.t.w. the polar area and the equatorial area are matter of definition, just scribbled lines on paper, nothing much real.”
They are ‘very’ real, but I’ll not be drawn into a discussion of atmospheric properties while you ‘take the piss’!
Ray.
@suricat, you wrote: … radiation being received by Earth from the ‘rim’ of Sol’s ‘visible disc’, thus, the ‘angle of incidence’ is an ‘approximation’ to the nearest angle which receives the ‘greatest brightness’ of radiation at TOA.
Ray, according to your line of thought the greatest impact occurs at the equator at around the time of equinox, but this is not experienced on Earth: the area of sunbeam spread is smallest at around that time.
Instead: the area of sunbeam spread is greatest during summer in the respective hemisphere on Earth, and this is in line with experience of impact.
This can be readily seen with spherical geometry; there’s a nice animated picture from NAAP Astronomy Labs, it allows to set the angles and runs through the year; let me know if that is interesting to you.
B.t.w. contrary to your other claim above, the sun is Not the only object we are able to observe as a circular object exhibiting the characteristic of an area.
Chaeremon says: March 4, 2014 at 3:03 am
“Ray, according to your line of thought the greatest impact occurs at the equator at around the time of equinox, but this is not experienced on Earth: the area of sunbeam spread is smallest at around that time.”
Do you imply angular energetic inclusion/exclusion due to proximity differentials between Sol and Earth during flight between aphelion and perihelion as ‘sunbeam spread’ (at least ‘throw me a bone’ here)?
If so, this does vary, but the ‘general rule’ still applies by way of ‘geometric configuration’. My ‘assumptions’ were/are for TOA and not for ‘Earth’s surface’!
“Instead: the area of sunbeam spread is greatest during summer in the respective hemisphere on Earth, and this is in line with experience of impact.”
“experience of impact”? “sunbeam spread”? What are these definitions??? Please clarify!
The ‘angle of incidence’ for any ‘energetic EM event’ is defined by its ‘source’ and ‘target’. The event is categorised by the angle it’s received against the ‘azimuth’ (perpendicular angle to the ‘target’) of the ‘target’. See the wiki definition for help (I don’t like this type of link, but I’m currently stumped for anything with better ‘explication’);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_(optics)
“This can be readily seen with spherical geometry; there’s a nice animated picture from NAAP Astronomy Labs, it allows to set the angles and runs through the year; let me know if that is interesting to you.”
If you want me to see this see this, you’ll need to provide a ‘URL’ (Unique Relative Link). There’s NO WAY I’ll ‘google’ for something that ‘may/may not’ be pertinent!
“B.t.w. contrary to your other claim above, the sun is Not the only object we are able to observe as a circular object exhibiting the characteristic of an area.”
You MISQUOTE me Chaeremon! I said “[Sol is the only ‘stellar body’ we are able to observe as a circular object exhibiting the characteristic of an area]”. Pray tell of another ‘stellar body’ (star) that we can observe which possesses an ‘area’? AFAIK they’re all ‘points of light’ (observation ‘only’ please). I’m really interested in this subject.
Ray.
@suricat: http://www.google.com/search?q=sunbeam+spread+geometry+NAAP+Astronomy+Labs
This simple google search, with nothing but the keywords from above, brings up the following URL as first on the list:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.html
For the rest: this was my last conversation with you. We apparently do not speak the same language (I’m an outlander) and we apparently also do not think along similar lines of progress of discussion; sorry, we cannot misuse the blog for 99% talking about divergences.
Good luck Ray.
Chaeremon says: March 5, 2014 at 6:25 am
Thanks for the first link Chaeremon, but linking to a ‘volatile page’ means that others can’t use this link at a later date. Your second link is a bit ‘naive’ in that it bases its assumptions on the ‘line of sight’ from Sol’s perspective, whereas my dialogue is/was directed from an Earth perspective. However, I may be able to elucidate on this if you want me to. 🙂
It seems obvious to me that we are subjected to ‘cross talk’ communication, but I’m sure that Rog realises that our discussion is within the ‘ethos’ of his “Talk Shop”. Thus, your statement that “we cannot misuse the blog for 99% talking about divergences.” seems a bit out of place. TB is ‘looking’ for anomalies.
BTW, what’s an “outlander”???
Regards, Ray.
Meanwhile, solar activity drops significantly.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=15&startmonth=02&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=06&endmonth=03&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
You see, as a decline of solar protons is parallel to the increase in the GCR.
Mainstream has no clue and not enough good data going back far enough to establish how variable the sun may or may not be.
The claims they make presently are in a word meaningless and based on flimsy very recent data.
Another words they have no real clue.