Decadal lag of temperature response to solar input: A qualitative summary

Posted: June 20, 2014 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, atmosphere, climate, Clouds, Cycles, Energy, general circulation, Ice ages, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, paleo, sea ice, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides, waves, weather, wind

I’m of the opinion that before getting into the complexity of numerical modelling, it’s wise to put considerable effort into trying to understand the physical processes at work in the climate system, and the origins of the energy flows that drive them. David Evans’ recent series of posts over at Jo Nova’s site have generated a lot of interesting discussion (despite being roundly ignored by Anthony Watts at WUWT), and I think we can shed some light on the ‘mysterious 11yr lag’ between solar input and climate response.

The Big Picture

Any lag between input and response in a thermodynamic system is due to thermal inertia – the heat capacity of the elements making up the system. For Earth, this is the Land, ocean and atmosphere. The top 2m of the ocean has as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. Land surfaces lose heat rapidly at night, the ocean surface does too, but doesn’t drop in temperature due to upwelling of energy from below. For any engineers reading, I don’t really need say anything else to convince them that the global ocean is responsible for any long term lags between input and response in the climate system, except to point out there is nothing else comes remotely close to it in energy absorbing, retaining and releasing terms. The global ocean is the big dog on the terrestrial climate block.

But conventional wisdom has it that the ocean’s heat cycle affecting the climate system is annual, and can’t explain longer term changes. This is incorrect,  it’s a conclusion drawn from analysis of the output of overly simplistic modelling of ‘slabs’ of amorphous ocean which don’t exist in reality.

Because water is near incompressible, it carries waves and internal tides very long distances and over extended periods. The Moon has an 18.6yr nodal cycle throughout which the angle it reaches at zenith rises and falls due to gravitational and tidal interaction with (predominantly) the Earth and Sun. In effect, it’ a 9.3yr cycle, because max declination south and north are the same thing relative to the spinning Earth. Here, immediately, we have found a decadal cycle which may be affecting the circulation of absorbed energy and its modes of energy retention and release.

Cyclic change

The Sun’s Swchwabe cycle – the rising and falling of sunspot numbers indicative of solar magnetic activity levels operates over an average of ~11.1yrs, another big decadal cycle of similar length to the lag found in David Evan’s analysis. Successive Schwabe cycles exhibit alternate magnetic polarity in the Sun’s hemispheres, giving the longer Hale cycle of ~22.2yrs.

The solar cycles and their amplitudes are observationally linked with changes in cloud amount on decadal timescales, and this affects the amount of solar energy reaching the energy absorbent ocean surface. Ice core proxies and the instrumental record show that the combination of solar and lunar activity and orbital cycles produce quasi-periodic oscillations in the surface temperatures of the oceans and their regional levels. Of these, the most prominent are ~45yr changes in storm surge levels evidenced in beach ridges in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, the ~60yr cycle in the surface temperature of the midlatitude Atlantic and Pacific basins, and the ~75yr cycles in higher Atlantic sea surface temperature. There is also evidence of an interhemispheric ‘see-saw’ of ocean surface temperatures operating on several timescales from annual to interglacial. We should also mention the ~60yr cycle in changes to Earth’s Length of Day, which also stir the oceans around.

Modelling the changes in oceanic flows in three dimensions arising from these driving factors is well beyond current capabilities, so we need to consider some other observations about the qualities of the system to make some inferential deductions concerning the physical environment cause and effect takes place in.

More cycles to consider

There are three more cycles worth a mention.

The Chandler wobble is a quasi periodic shift in the Earth line of axial rotation. It’s proximate cause is most likely the changing distribution of oceanic and glacial mass. Its period is ~1.186yrs.

The Quasi-Biennial Ocillation (QBO) is a periodically reversing wind-stream in the lower stratosphere near the equator. The cause of this reversal is uncertain, though several ‘planetary wave’ explanations are advanced. Its (variable) period is exactly twice that of the Chandler wobble ~2.372yrs. This period is 1/5 of one of the common solar cycle lengths at around the same periodicity as the orbit of Jupiter ~11.9yrs. Also of interest is that the period is 1/8 of the lunar ‘Metonic’ eclipse cycle of ~19yrs. This is an indication of the effect of the largest planet in the solar system on Earth Orientation Parameters, Lunar orbital elements and Solar activity levels, possibly via solar inertial motion (charvatova), tidal effects in concert with Earth and Venus (Desmoulins), or a combination of the two (Wilson).

The third cycle of interest is ENSO – the cycle of El Nino and La Nina which occurs on a quasi-periodic basis averaging a period  (depending on the areas measured and the arbitrary definitional constraints imposed) of ~3.7yrs. Clusters of El Nino and La Nina dominated periods appear to coincide with the warm and cool halves of the ~60yr oceanic cycles and global surface temperature. It is the biggest identified fluctuation in the climate system and its cause is the object of much study and argument. We need to step back and consider cause and effect itself before proceeding.

Cause and effect in simple and complex systems

In simple sequential systems, cause and effect is easily identified. A simple narrative illustrates this:

“The snooker player used his arm muscles to hit the ball with the cue, causing it to travel along the table, where it hits another ball, causing it to travel along the table until it hits the cushion, where the rubber cushion’s elasticity absorbs the impact and then returns the energy in to the ball, causing it to ricochet off at an angle equal to its incident angle”.

However in systems where feedbacks are present, things get a lot more complicated, and cause and effect is much more difficult to disentangle. For this reason, the ’cause’of ENSO is variously attributed to changing winds, changing cloud cover, changing ocean currents and various admixtures of the results of all three. Discussion above of the timing ratios of the Chandler wobble and QBO in relation to the solar cycle length and planetary orbits indicate that through the mechanism of resonance, these various oscillations may actually be the result of changes in solar, lunar and planetary motion and spin.

Some supporting evidence for a solar effect on ENSO

With an average quasi-periodicity of ~3.7yrs, the ENSO cycle is 1/3 the length of the ~11.1yr solar cycle. There are usually 3 El Nino’s per solar cycle. The graphic below illustrates this. Note that the blue lines are El Nino’s occurring at solar minimum, not cold La Nina events. I switched colour to make it easier to count the triplets:

Graphic showing occurrence of El Nino in relation to the solar cycle: There are nearly always three per cycle.

 

It is also noticeable that the El Nino side of the ENSO oscillation tends to occur on the trailing side of the solar cycle, as it diminishes from solar maximum to solar minimum. here’s a (scruffy) graphic to illustrate:

Graphic illustrating the occurrence of El Nino on the trailing side of the solar cycle.

Discussion

This happens because as the solar cycle weakens and cloudiness returns, the ocean starts to release the solar energy it stored when the cycle was strong and cloud was diminished. In a nutshell, when the Sun stops warming the climate from above, the ocean keeps it warm from below. This is why the solar cycle doesn’t show up very strongly in temperature data. The previously Sun warmed ocean warms the surface when solar activity falls. This is one of the lags in the system, of around five years. The full 11 year lag noted by David Evans can be accounted for as follows:

When we get a strong solar cycle followed by a weaker one (eg cycle 22 followed by cycle 23) The excess heat in the ocean driven in by the strong cycle continues to escape during the weaker one after the big El Nino at solar min and the resultant La Nina near solar max because the ocean can stay in heat release mode. This is what produces the full 11 year delay.

Conversely, a weaker cycle followed by a strong one will work in the opposite way. The lack of solar energy absorbed by the ocean during the weak cycle and the energy released by the ocean during that weak cycle will mean that when the strong cycle follows, the ocean gobbles the energy to replenish it’s upper ocean heat content. This results in a poor correlation between temperature and the amplitude of the solar cycle.

I think this is clear evidence that the ENSO cycle is linked to the Solar cycle. But why three per cycle? The seemingly fatuous answer is because the average length of the ENSO cycle is 1/3 that of the average length of the Solar cycle. But it might seem a bit less fatuous if I also point out that the average length of the ENSO cycle is also 1/5 that of the Lunar declination cycle. Perhaps ENSO is trying to dance to the beat of two different drums and  the average length of the ENSO cycle is what it is because that length divides into both the solar cycle length and the lunar declination cycle length by simple whole numbers. Multibody resonance in action.

In support of this resonance hypothesis, we can also recall that the ~45yr beach ridge evidenced storm-surges are in a 3:4 ratio with the ~60yr mid-latitude oceanic cycle  and a 3:5 ratio with the high latitude ~75yr tidal cycle. The ~60yr cycle is at around the period of another self enfolding resonant phenomenon – 3 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions and 5 Jupiter orbital periods both take place in just under 60yrs. There are several other resonant beats produced by the two major planets around this 60yr period and their interactions with the inner planets around the 45yr period too (Wilson).

Concluding remarks

given the kinetic and thermal inertia of the oceans, and the multitude of feedback loops entailed in the climate system, it’s no surprise that there is a lag in the system between solar input, and the manifestation of that energy in aggregated global surface temperature. The fact that as David Evans shows, the lag is exactly one solar cycle in length is a strong hint that we are observing a phenomenon in which solar system resonances play a key role. As our previous research has shown, those resonances are aligned with timings in solar variation, terrestrial rotation rate, axial wobble, atmospheric current reversals, oceanic oscillations, storminess and many other indices and proxies exemplified in many scientific papers, and neatly summarised in Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry’s ‘stadium wave’ paper. What our research adds, is the evidence and theory which extends their findings in order to point up the root cause beyond the proximate causes found here on Earth. The whole solar system is an interacting network of ‘stadium waves’, and it’s no surprise the Earth’ systems resonate with them at a number of timescales, considering 3/4 of it’s surface is covered in an incompressible, mobile, transmissive fluid with a huge heat capacity and a large scale thermohaline overturning rate measured in hundreds of years.

 

 

Comments
  1. Keep in mind that the larger absorbers of solar insolation are in the southern hemisphere (oceans), but most of the thermometers in the northern.

    Never forget how things are measured; or indieed, if they are being measured or some “proxy”. It’s usually a ‘proxy”.

    Keep asking “what is temperature”, because not enough people do. Most accept that it is “something”, but it’s nothing real. It’s a field-strength at best, but in air and other mixed substances, it doesn’t directly tell you about the strength of what ought to be interesting; which is heat (energy quantifiable in Joules or specific heat e.g. kJ/kg of dry air).

  2. Exactly, and now that the sun has entered a prolonged minimum state(post 2005 in earnest) rather then it’s familiar 11 year regular cycle state the change in solar parameters is going to have the necessary duration of time and degree of magnitude change to really manifest itself in the climate system of the earth, and perhaps bring about some thresholds.

  3. This is what is needed in my opinion to see a clear cut solar impact on the climate. The 11 year regular sunspot cycle is to short and cancels itself out in combination with noise in the climate system to show clear cut solar/climate connections.

    This modern prolonged solar minimum if it lives up to it’s potential can resolve this problem once and for all.

    THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.

  4. A nice summary.

    I’d like to find out why the time taken for warmed El Nino waters to circulate to the Arctic Ocean takes roughly one solar cycle of 10 to 11 years or so and a lunar/planetary influence could be in there somewhere.

    I think that 10 to 11 year delay between additional solar energy being injected into the oceans by reduced cloudiness and subsequent general release by the oceans generally is the cause of the absence of any obvious thermal efect from an individual solar cycle.

    In effect, any thermal effects from solar variations on an 11 year cycle simply disappear into the oceans for a similar length of time.

    It then takes multiple solar cycles for any thermal effect to start showing up against other system variations.

  5. . The whole solar system is an interacting network of ‘stadium waves’, and it’s no surprise the Earth’ systems resonate with them at a number of timescales, considering 3/4 of it’s surface is covered in an incompressible, mobile, transmissive fluid with a huge heat capacity and an large scale overturning rate measured in hundreds of years.

    My reply, the problem is the climate system of the earth through ice cores has been shown to change in dramatic fashion often times in less then a decade! In addition to swing back and forth many times on time scales which are much less.

    What is needed to be taken into consideration is the ice dynamic or initial state of the climate when given solar variability is present along with continental drift which is going to give completely different climatic outcomes for that given solar variability.

    Other players needed for consideration are the strength of the earth’s magnetic field and where the earth is at in relation to Milankovitch Cycles.

    There is also evidence of an interhemispheric ‘see-saw’ of ocean surface temperatures operating on several timescales from annual to interglacial.

    I also take exception to this statement in that it has been shown that events such as the Younger Dryas have been global in nature . Synchronous.

  6. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
    The above shows one of the strongest el nino’s(1998) took place as solar activity was on the rise . show.
    1987- 1988 El Nino is another strong one which came on as solar activity was on the rise. Minimum in solar activity being in 1986..

  7. tallbloke says:

    salvatore: “I also take exception to this statement in that it has been shown that events such as the Younger Dryas have been global in nature . Synchronous.”

    My statement doesn’t exclude such synchronous events. They are superimposed on the ‘see-saw’ events and more visible when the see-saw swings are small in comparison.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: The above shows one of the strongest el nino’s(1998) took place as solar activity was on the rise

    The El nino BEGAN at or near solar minimum. My point is that the event was INITIATED by low activity, whether or not the event continued on into the rise in the solar cycle.

  9. The article made it seem like it was on the decline.

    Your clarification makes it much clearer. I would say I agree that the El Nino’s could very well have been initiated by low solar activity. The data does show that to be the case since solar minimums were 1986 and 1996 respectively.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: Thanks. I think there are multiple lags in operation. One is the approximate antiphase of solar activity and ENSO. Swings in ENSO get bigger as solar activity gets lower, with the biggest positive El Nino event often beginning near solar minimum. Due to the rise time of the solar cycle being around 1/3 of the total cycle length, this often means a sizeable La-nina occurring near solar maximum.

    The net effect of that antiphase relationship is that the effect of the Solar cycle isn’t visible in smoothed temperature data. This leads climate scientists to the erroneous conclusion that solar variation doesn’t have much effect.

    The decadal lag can be accounted for as follows:
    When we get a strong solar cycle followed by a weaker one (eg cycle 22 followed by cycle 23) The excess heat in the ocean driven in by the strong cycle continues to escape during the weaker one after the big El Nino at solar min and the resultant La Nina near solar max because the ocean can stay in heat release mode. This is what produces the full 11 year delay.

    Conversely, a weaker cycle followed by a strong one will work in the opposite way. The lack of solar energy absorbed by the ocean during the weak cycle and the energy released by the ocean during that weak cycle will mean that when the strong cycle follows, the ocean gobbles the energy to replenish it’s upper ocean heat content.

    Thus the conditions created during the previous solar cycle mean the surface temperature seen in the present solar cycle reflect that previous cycle due to the way the ocean releases or stores energy.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: The cycles were still very near minimum in 1987 and 1997. Once again there is a short lag, between solar minimum arriving, and the El Nino making itself known in the aggregated global surface air temperature.

  12. My statement doesn’t exclude such synchronous events. They are superimposed on the ‘see-saw’ events and more visible when the see-saw swings are small in comparison.

    My reply

    .

    Thanks for the clarifications . This subject is so complicated.

  13. : The cycles were still very near minimum in 1987 and 1997. Once again there is a short lag, between solar minimum arriving, and the El Nino making itself known in the aggregated global surface air temperature

    My reply,

    I did not realize it until you said it this way. I see it now. Lag times must be appreciated.

  14. Rog, your reply to Stephen really clears it up.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: Great! Misunderstandings easily resolved. 🙂

  16. u.k.(us) says:

    “(despite being roundly ignored by Anthony Watts at WUWT)”
    ==========
    Appeal to an authority ?
    Let it play out, you know the skeptics are in a feeding frenzy.

  17. tallbloke says:

    UK(us): Appeal to an authority ?

    Absolutely not. I didn’t mean anything apart from observing that WUWT hasn’t flagged it up for debate by the WUWT massive, with or without snarky intro. 😉
    It’s hardly likely they are unaware of it, hence the ’roundly ignored’ comment. You may be right that they are ‘biding their time’ though.

  18. edwardt says:

    The enso theory fits on longer time scales too, may be why the co2 stays elevated for 1000years while temps drop on glacial entrance. The ocean stores heat and burps out its warmth and co2 fighting going cold. The system prefers the warm rail and resists the cold rail with differing rates of entrance and exit of glacials/interglacials the ocean buffering both.

  19. tallbloke says:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL012117/full
    Free access!

    Provider: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
    Content:text/plain; charset=”UTF-8″

    TY – JOUR
    AU – Cerveny, Randall S.
    AU – Shaffer, John A.
    TI – The Moon and El Niño
    JO – Geophysical Research Letters
    JA – Geophys. Res. Lett.
    VL – 28
    IS – 1
    SN – 1944-8007
    UR – http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012117
    DO – 10.1029/2000GL012117
    SP – 25
    EP – 28
    KW – 4522 Oceanography: Physical: El Nino
    PY – 2001
    AB – Regional climates around the world display cycles corresponding to the 18.61-year maximum lunar declination (MLD) periodicity. We suggest that these cycles are created by a relationship between MLD and El Niño / Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Both equatorial Pacific sea-surface temperature and South Pacific atmospheric pressure significantly correlate with maximum lunar declination. Low MLDs are associated with warmer equatorial Pacific sea-surface temperatures and negative values of the Southern Oscillation Index. A lunar-influenced change in the Pacific gyre circulation presents a viable physical mechanism for explaining these relationships. We suggest that the gyre is enhanced by tidal forces under high MLDs, inducing cold-water advection into the equatorial region but is restricted by the weak tidal forcing of low MLDs thereby favoring El Niño episodes. An astronomical model utilizing this relationship produces a forecast of increased non-El Niño (either La Niña or neutral) activity for the early part of this decade.

  20. tallbloke says:

    EdT: Good suggestion.

  21. Richard111 says:

    TB, a small point (maybe not so small), you state “Land surfaces lose heat rapidly at night, the ocean surface doesn’t.” I have observed, well heard, it was dark, rock surfaces splitting off at night as the top few millimetres cool rapidly via radiation (no cool breeze that I could feel). This was in the Namib Desert of South West Africa. So I agree the land surface loses heat rapidly but only for the top few millimetres. There will still be a lot of heat deeper under the surface.
    I have noticed this temperature lag here in the UK where after a clear warm sunny day there is a rapid drop in temperature at sunset but that temperature can INCREASE if a bank of cloud arrives overhead. I have made a point of checking my observation at this site: http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/atmospheric.php and have observed these night time temperature increases and noted there was no wind. The site is about 400 yards from my home.

    Quite what this implies I am not sure. Just my layman logic tells me the land can store more heat energy than is lost by radiation over a single night period.

  22. tallbloke says:

    Hi Richard; I’ve rewritten that section to say: Land surfaces lose heat rapidly at night, the ocean surface does too, but doesn’t drop in temperature due to upwelling of energy from below.

    You’re right about heat being stored in rock. The thing is, it doesn’t conduct heat nearly so well a water can advect it. Which is why your rocks split.

    Heat capacity of sandstone is under a 1/4 that of water too.

  23. Andrew says:

    Jo and Co’s model is featured at American thinker, with some interesting graphs. http://americanthinker.com/2014/06/a_cold_dawn_coming.html

  24. Doug Proctor says:

    The 11 year lag adds complexity OR an opening to say there is curve matching that means nothing. WUWT likes its skepticism controlled, except for the excesses of W.E.

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Any lag between input and response in a thermodynamic system is due to thermal inertia – the heat capacity of the elements making up the system. For Earth, this is the Land, ocean and atmosphere.”

    + cryosphere

  26. tallbloke says:

    Paul: good reminder. A huge heat sink capacity

  27. tchannon says:

    I am interested in evidence of what ocean actually does.

    Anyway here is some stuff.

    Powerpoint. I think this is associated with Gulev Sergey Konstantinovich
    This falls for the pyrgeometer hogwash and several others hogwashes so beware.

    The clear point about surface film temperature is critical but is never made explict with data. This is I think a dicey thing to assume for various reasons. No mention of competent instrumentation is made, such as assumptions about air temperature… which is a comment *instrument* factor which has nothing to do with the problem.

    One of the only clear items is slide 34, LW, which is dramatic. Water vapour dominated even though satellite data is suspect.
    http://www.sail.msk.ru/lectures/part_3.ppt

  28. Alan Poirier says:

    Excellent piece. It makes me wish Landscheidt were alive today.

  29. Geoff Sharp says:

    WUWT maybe ignoring the Jo Nova articles, will they also ignore the New Lockwood Papers that Challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn and WUWT?

    It seems it “is the Sun Stupid”…..

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328

  30. Felix Jury says:

    Hi Rog , what a great article and you are sure right about that things are complicated but with the right tools can unlock the mysteries of this planet .
    David & Jo are doing a great job down under , I live across the Tasman ditch in N.Z. I have only been reading your site over the last month .
    Great stuff .

  31. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Geoff, informative post. The new recon in the figure at the top of the post appears to bear more relation to Lean 2005 or later, than Lean 2000 though, have you compared them?

    I just spotted this WUWT post from feb which seems to go against Svalgaards grain
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/historical-and-present-total-solar-irradiance-has-been-tinkered-with-again/

  32. Phill says:

    FYI. Here is an old article published by the NSW Government astronomer and meteorologist H.C. Russell in 1896. He claims that the record of Good and Bad Seasons from colonization to the then present times followed a 19 year repeating cycle of floods and droughts. Each cycle contained 5 drought/flood/normal subcycles which then repeated after 19 years. If the link doesn’t work the article is from the “The Queenslander “newspaper of Saturday 27 June 1896 as digitized by the Australian National Library. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/20449336?searchTerm=periodicity%20good%20bad%20seasons%20Russell&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||dateTo=1899-12-31|||notWords|||anyWords|||dateFrom=1890-01-01|||requestHandler=%2FheadingSearch|||sortby=dateAsc

    [Reply] This one will work: http://bit.ly/1m6BysN – thanks for the article. – TB

  33. ren says:

    Tallbloke see a sudden change in the stratosphere in 2001.

    I’m surprised that scientists have not noticed such important changes in the stratosphere, especially that at the same time the temperature dropped significantly in the central parts of the ozone layer.

    Last graphic shows you how the temperature of the stratosphere influences the temperature of the troposphere. In a consequence, the rapid growth of sea ice around Antarctica.

  34. I would like to see the global temperature graph ( un smoothed / smoothed) that has been used to observe this so called lag..

    Any chance of posting . Because l can’t find it on JoNova or on this post?

    It is difficult to assess without a graph .

    Looking at Roger Andrews graph posted yesterday on another post ,l am initially finding some broad generalisations are being made with notable exceptions
    https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/ENSO#6026962020388603554

    ————-

    It is worthwhile noting that ENSO has regime shifts and there was one around ~1973/75and another at 2005

    The enso data you have sampled is mostly in the post 70’s regime shift

    by that l mean. You have sampled from a dominant El Nino period
    —————-

  35. Are we talking about Nino3.4 SST lag or mean Global surface temp lag?

  36. ren says:

    Tallbloke my opinion Carla on WUWT shall send significant information about the heliosphere. It would be good to invite her to discuss.
    Sorry.

  37. tallbloke says:

    WC: Here’s a plot of SSN vs T

    Discussion later – busy now.

  38. Wayne Job says:

    Hi Rog, WUWT are fully aware of Jo and Davids new theories Willis has been rampaging through the blog today and been asked to be polite. Not one of his outstanding features. The WUWT it is not the sun crowd are not having a good week.

  39. tallbloke says:

    Ren: Carla calls in at the talkshop occasionally, when we run heliomagnetism and galactic threads.

    Wayne: Aha. 🙂

  40. markstoval says:

    “Willis has been rampaging through the blog today and been asked to be polite. Not one of his outstanding features.”

    Willis shows himself as a first class jerk in that thread. I already knew that from the positive glee he showed when the physics journal was shut down. He made some horrendous character assassinations at that time and when pointed out he just whined like a child with things like “what did I say?”.

    The WUWT crowd will protect Willis there, but his full lack of character is on display at JoNova’s place. Worth reading the comments just to see it.

  41. M Simon says:

    This leads climate scientists to the erroneous conclusion that solar variation doesn’t have much effect.

    I agree with that. I am not sure that the things that make it work that way that you list are entirely correct. But that will get sorted once the essential point has been accepted.

    Wayne Job says:
    June 21, 2014 at 11:36 am

    I stopped discussing this with Willis some days ago. When he can’t see the “notch” in David’s Bode plot and yet says the plot is likely correct there is no immediate hope.

    It is amusing that this everyday stuff which is so familiar to EEs and those who model other things with RLC circuits so confounds the mass of investigators and laymen. Willis accused me of being “one of those” i.e. an EE. Too funny. I never expected that EE would turn into an epithet.

  42. M Simon says:

    I was astounded at Willis’ dismissal of 1sky1’s entirely reasonable critique of his methods at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/06/sunspots-and-sea-surface-temperature

    Surprisingly it was Willis’ work there that got me excited about David’s and Jo’s work. Human’s is such strange creatures.

  43. M Simon says:

    Hi Rog, WUWT are fully aware of Jo and Davids new theories

    I alerted Willis by comment in the “Sun and Sea Surface Temperature” post and by e-mail. He responded that he was already aware.

    But really – from people who are supposed to be evidence bound and open to different understandings of the evidence the whole (well quite a lot of it) climate community seems rather hidebound. Alarmists, sceptics – don’t matter.

    What is going on is the very last thing I would have imagined.

    I guess that there are people uncomfortable with “it is cycles all the way down”. Maybe that should be our new watchword.

  44. M Simon says:

    This may be of some interest from about 3 years back: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/berkeley-and-the-long-term-trend/

    They don’t like cycles.

  45. tallbloke says:

    MS: I guess that there are people uncomfortable with “it is cycles all the way down”. Maybe that should be our new watchword.

    OK, thanks for the reports, but I really don’t have the inclination to read or engage with WE’s style of ‘argumentation’. WUWT has made the fatal error of nailing their colours to the mast and censoring debate on cyclic phenomena. They can’t back down without loss of face, and team WUWT would rather crawl across hot coals to stick red hot needles in their eyes than admit they were wrong.

    We’ll just carry on improving and demonstrating our theory.

    Here’s another plot of SSN vs Temperature. This time I’ve extended it as far back as Hadley allows – 1850, and added some useful info.

    The average sunspot number from 1934 to 2003 was well above the long term average of around 40. This number coincides with the SSN at which the ocean neither gains nor loses energy content. So this is why the oceans carried on gaining energy despite the fact the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles were falling off from 1960. The Overcount has to be allowed for too. This reduces the ‘drop in solar activity’ the co2 theorists cite as their reason for ignoring the Sun’s role in late C20th warming.

  46. Gail Combs says:

    “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” ~ Vladimir Lenin

  47. Gail Combs says:

    tallbloke says: @ June 20, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Salvatore: The above shows one of the strongest el nino’s(1998) took place as solar activity was on the rise

    The El nino BEGAN at or near solar minimum. My point is that the event was INITIATED by low activity, whether or not the event continued on into the rise in the solar cycle.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I just posted about the albedo change (inflection point) in 1997/1998
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/david-evans-jo-nova-analysing-the-11-year-lag-in-climate-response-to-solar-input/comment-page-1/#comment-80851

    The 97/98 Super El Nino and change in albedo came at the tail end of Cycle 22. Cycle 22 was the last of the “super sunspot” cycles.
    GRAPH of cycles 21 – start of 24.
    …..

    Stephen Wilde, I know you have been following the shift from zonal to meridional wind patterns and I know that has occurred since storms no longer come straight out of the west on my farm. Can you give us a date for the shift in pattern?

    The Russian drought and wildfires caused by a blocking high (meridional ) was in 2010.

    An interesting paper on the Russian Blocking Highs instigated by that 2010 summer drought.

    Studying Summer Season Drought in Western Russia
    Anthony R. Lupo,1 Igor I. Mokhov,2 Yury G. Chendev,3 Maria G. Lebedeva,3 Mirseid Akperov,2 and Jason A. Hubbart1,4
    Abstract

    During the 2010 summer, a severe drought impacted Western Russia, including regions surrounding Moscow and Belgorod (about 700 km south of Moscow). The drought was accompanied by high temperatures. Moscow recorded 37.8°C (100°F) for the first time in over 130 years of record keeping….

    1. Introduction
    …Several studies have examined various aspects of the summer 2010 blocking events that led to this drought. For example, [1, 3] linked the occurrence of these blocking events to the record high temperatures and examined these events within the context of climate variability and change.

    Then, [6] also found that the atmospheric dynamics were more similar to that of winter season blocking events. The resulting high humidity that accompanied these blocking events and the source of this humidity was examined in [6–8]. These studies determined that the Atlantic and Mediterranean were the primary source regions of humidity. Finally, these blocking events inspired [9] to study the likelihood of future occurrences of northern hemisphere blocking episodes in a warmer climate using and atmospheric general circulation model. They found no tendency for more or stronger summer blocking events in two climate change scenarios. [snicker]

    ENSO is also understood to have an impact on European weather and climate including Western Russia. Western Russia, however, is known to be regularly impacted by drought and is a region where blocking is also prevalent, even during the warm season (e.g., [17, 18]). The goals of this work were to determine whether or not blocking can be used as an indicator of drought potential and determine whether ENSO or the transition of ENSO phase may be influential in determining drought-producing flow regimes. Such a study has not been published using data within this region. In addition, synoptic flow regimes will be examined and demonstrate a distinct difference between anomalously dry and wet years in the study region.
    2. Data and Methods
    2.1. Data

    The observed blocking information was obtained from the blocking archive housed in the University of Missouri Weather Analysis and Visualization (WAV) laboratory by the Global Climate Change Group (GCC) (weather(DOT)missouri.edu/gcc/). Precipitation and temperature data for the Moscow and Belgorod were obtained from the All Russia Research Institute of Hydrometeorological Information-World Data Centre (RIHMI-WDC) (meteo(DOT)ru/). The blocking information used was duration (days) and intensity (BI) and is available from 1968 to 2014. Precipitation data was provided in millimeters. The temperature and precipitation data were obtained for the period from 1970 to 2012….. [So there are some sources of data for you guys]

    6. Summary and Conclusions
    … blocking events were also more persistent and stronger than events preceding normal or wetter summers. During dry summers strong blocking persisted through the season. Thus indicated that blocking is a variable that can be used to indicate the upcoming summer precipitation regime but was not itself a sufficient variable.

    Much drier summers were not necessarily correlated with the phase of ENSO. Nonetheless, as was found for the Missouri region in the USA, drier summers were favored for the Moscow and Belgorod regions during steady-state La Niña conditions overall and the Moscow region during transitions toward La Niña. For Belgorod, the transition toward El Niño was more important and associated with drier conditions. Thus, an ENSO phase transition (“”) during the summer could be used in conjunction with blocking as an important drought indicator. This result is new in the literature, especially in applying the concept to eastern European and Western Russia summer flow regimes…..

    For both dry and wet summers in Moscow and Belgorod, a very different 500 hPa flow regime was suggested in each case. Strong tropospheric ridging dominated for dry summers, and more zonal flow or troughing over the region during moist summers. Dry summers in the Moscow region were associated with anticyclonic 500 hPa height anomalies centered over the poleward portion of the study region, while the randomly chosen wetter summers were associated with weaker troughing. A similar result was obtained using some of the driest and wettest summers for the Belgorod region, but the 500 hPa height anomalies were located further equator ward.

  48. M Simon says:

    OK, thanks for the reports, but I really don’t have the inclination to read or engage with WE’s style of ‘argumentation’.

    Didn’t expect it. I mostly just wanted to coroborate other reports and provide links for the interested. Put it in the record so to speak.

  49. Gail Combs says:

    Of special interest from that Russian 2010 Drought paper are these two tables:

    and

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2014/942027/tab3/

    Note the switch from spring to summer for the blocking events.

    Another interesting bar chart – Seasonal precipitation vs ENSO:
    (wwwDOT)hindawi.com/journals/amete/2014/942027/fig2/

  50. I am convinced that Rog has discovered a solar/enso relationship. I am going to add this to my list of solar/climate connections. I had not had this as a connection prior to this time.

  51. tchannon says:

    weathercycles says:
    June 21, 2014 at 10:53 am

    I would like to see the global temperature graph ( un smoothed / smoothed) that has been used to observe this so called lag..

    Any chance of posting . Because l can’t find it on JoNova or on this post?”

    So far there is missing information, why some people are waiting, including me.

    I’d ignore the distinction between filter and delay since he might really include the delay in the filter group delay, ie. are not distinct. I’m assuming a lot has been technically garbled in trying to split the matter into “simple” blog articles.

    There is a backstory.

    Back in January 2013 I published a quickie which could be viewed as related to the Jo/David idea.

    A few days later David Evans contacted me to find out what I was doing with software, was told, firmly refused to accept the source code, seemed to then develop his own thing which does roughly the same thing on the same data. Last I heard from him.

    So I am head scratching on what gives.

    There is a vast amount of expertise in signal processing much of which is unpublished and in commerce so it is uncommon to find anything new. I have in the past. History, I’ve forgotten most of it.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/met-office-hadcrut-4-solar-linkage/

    There is no intent of deriving a function, merely reporting what I noticed. Quite likely I do things fairly slowly, need time and space for ideas to gel. Why we play around with notions.

    That article goes so far but is not satisfactory. Whether this is because old data is wrong or whole thing is wrong, I have no idea but quite a lot has gone on here since. It does miss the whole story of magnetic amplitude variation, is no good data.

    TSI data is too poor to be of much use. If TSI is doing magical things show me the lunar evidence, same sun. If there is none that leaves the atmosphere.

    Lets hope he has spotted something.

  52. WUWT maybe ignoring the Jo Nova articles, will they also ignore the New Lockwood Papers that Challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn and WUWT?

    It seems it “is the Sun Stupid”…..

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328

    Yes it is the sun and all those on WUWT will have egg on there face before this decade is out.

    Geoff thanks for posting all the falsehoods Svalgaard keeps promoting.

    He is making his own reality not the real reality and they on WUWT go along with him. lol

  53. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: I’ve been banging on about this relationship for years but keep getting rebutted by Roger Andrews
    The readers can decide if he was successful or not. 🙂

    To me it makes sense. It’s another Earth homeostasis example. When the sky gets cloudy (after the solar minimum el Nino has run it’s course and the higher altitudes cool), the sun can’t heat the ocean so much. So the ocean is able to switch out of ‘heat absorption mode’ into ‘heat release mode’. That’s why the small el ninos start on the downward side of the solar cycle, and keep the surface air temperature up. This culminates in ‘the big one’ at solar minimum.

  54. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: the falsehoods Svalgaard keeps promoting. He is making his own reality not the real reality

    Leif is a complex individual. He is generous with data (although he fails to mention opposing papers quite often). I think he may have been involved in helping Stephen Schneider program the early climate models in the late 70’s. Maybe he just can’t handle being proved wrong, and is trying to change the historical data to put himself in the right.

  55. The average sunspot number from 1934 to 2003 was well above the long term average of around 40.

    Is 40 based on the Layman sunspot count ?

  56. Every time I would post a study supporting solar/climate connections Leif would say it was out dated and no longer valid . Even if they were as recent as a year or two ago.

  57. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: Is 40 based on the Layman sunspot count ?

    No, it’s the simple average of SIDC sunspot numbers from 1750. If Leif is right that the early numbers are too low and the late numbers are too high, it won’t change much.

  58. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: @ June 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    I am convinced that Rog has discovered a solar/enso relationship….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    I have always thought there was a solar/enso relationship. However it may be a bit more complicated than people think.

    Change in Solar ==> change in ozone ==> change in Quasi-Biennial Ocillation (QBO) ==> Change in ozone at the poles ==> change in wind strength/patterns in the Antarctic ==> Change in the West Wind Drift (the wind driven Antarctic Circumpolar Current) ==>restriction at Drake Passage causes more or less Antarctic cold water to run up the side of the coast of South America as the Humboldt Current ===> ENSO

    Cold water also runs up the side of the coast of South Africa into the Atlantic and the amount would be controlled by the same wind pattern/strength. (The ENSO tele-connection to the Atlantic anyone?)

    Ozone intensification of the westerly winds connection. (You will need to hold your nose while reading it.) http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehgood.htm

    In 2009, the ozone hole reached its 10th largest measured size since careful measurements began in 1979….

    The Hole in ozone layer has shielded most of Antarctica from global warming The ozone hole has delayed the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent. Consequently south polar winds (the polar vortex), have intensified and affected Antarctic weather patterns. Westerly winds over the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica have increased by around 15%…

    measurements of ozone at the same site are given @ (wwwDOT)theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

    I think this paper has the tail wagging the dog. If they didn’t they would be saying the sun via ozone changes drives ENSO. However it is still the best paper I have come across so far.

    Eddy response to Southern Ocean climate modes

    1. Introduction

    Eddy processes play an important role in the dynamics and thermodynamics of the Southern Ocean. Strong air‐sea heat and freshwater fluxes in the Southern Ocean, along with strong westerly winds, drive the deep‐reaching eastward flowing Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) as well as a vigorous meridional overturning circulation (MOC). Eddy fluxes, created by baroclinic and barotropic instabilities of this flow, act to maintain the balance of the ACC system. The eddy interfacial form stress helps transfer wind‐driven momentum from the surface to the deep ocean layers where it is balanced by topographic form drag [Munk and Palmén, 1951; Johnson and Bryden, 1989]. In the absence of strong meridional currents in the upper ocean at these latitudes, eddies are also the principal mechanism for transferring heat, salt, and carbon poleward across the zonal ACC and contribute to the mixing of water masses through the diffusion of these tracers [Sallée et al., 2008b]. Recent modeling studies have also shown how eddy fluxes act to maintain the strong meridional gradients of the ACC and contribute to the
    net transport of the MOC [Treguier et al., 2007]

    Most of these eddy budget studies concentrate on mean statistics, but the Southern Ocean eddy field also evolves over time. Recently, Hogg and Blundell [2006], hereafter HB06, used a three‐layer high‐resolution quasi‐geostrophic channel model with realistic topography to simulate the Southern Ocean’s response to wind forcing. Their simple model produced intrinsic interannual variability under constant wind forcing, characterized by a large‐scale increase in potential energy, followed by an increase in eddy kinetic energy (EKE) that peaked 2–3 years later. The model is in a “saturated” state, i.e., the model transport remains relatively stable, and the increased potential energy is transferred to the eddy field. The delay in EKE was caused by a positive feedback in the model; the increased potential energy creates favorable conditions for baroclinic instability, which increases eddy activity and the eddy momentum transfer to deeper layers. There interaction with the bottom topography induces a stronger meridional deep circulation which is intrinsically more unstable, increasing in turn the EKE. This feedback continues until the excess of large‐scale potential energy is consumed.

    A corollary to the intrinsic variability of HB06 is that increases in wind stress have the potential to amplify the natural modes of variability. Such an increase in westerly wind forcing occurs during positive phases of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The Southern Annular Mode is the dominant climate mode in the Southern Hemisphere [Thompson and Wallace, 2000]. During its positive phase, there is an intensification of the midlatitude high‐pressure band and the polar lows, leading to a near‐annular meridional pressure difference (Figure 1a), which drives strong westerly wind anomalies, which are also shifted southward. Although there is a trend toward more positive SAM events over the last few decades, SAM also has high‐frequency variations and strong interannual variations. During the 1990s, strong positive
    SAM events occurred in 1993 and in 1998–1999
    (Figure 1c).

    [5] A second mode of climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere is associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Although this mode has tropical origins, it generates atmospheric Rossby waves, which propagate its signal to higher latitudes [Karoly, 1989], creating a dipole response in the South Pacific (Figure 1b), which induces local changes in the winds, sea surface temperature, and sea ice extent [Stammerjohn et al., 2008]. Positive ENSO patterns are associated with El Niño events, strongest in 1997/1998, whereas negative ENSO is associated with La Niña events, strongest in 1999/2000 (Figure 1c).

    Meredith and Hogg [2006] (hereafter, MH06) have validated the 2–3 year delay found by the HB06 model by comparing the annual SAM index with basin‐scale annual averages of EKE derived from satellite altimetry in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean. They indeed find an increase in observed EKE 2–3 years after the large peak in SAM in 1998/1999. In this paper, we extend their analysis to consider whether this large‐scale EKE response occurs at the same time in all regions or whether there is a local response in relation to the two main climate modes, SAM and ENSO….

    7. Conclusions
    [35] A circumpolar analysis of altimetric data has been used to investigate the evolving EKE field in the Southern Ocean. When large‐scale averaging is performed along the circumpolar belt, we indeed find a peak in EKE from 2000 to 2002, 2–3 years after the peak in the SAM index, as reported by MH06. However, this EKE signal is dominated by specific regions with high EKE near major bathymetric features. A regional analysis of these high EKE zones reveals a more complex structure, with no clear peak in the southern Indian Ocean, but a strong EKE signal in the Pacific, occurring progressively later toward the east. Despite the fact that SAM is an annular mode, and its forcing is in phase around the circumpolar band, we find the oceanic EKE response varies from one region to another.

    [36] We suggest that the stronger EKE response in the Pacific sector is due to the presence of two climate modes, SAM and ENSO. When strong positive SAM events coincide with La Niña (negative ENSO) events, as happened in 1999, anomalous meridional wind forcing is enhanced in the South Pacific Ocean, inducing the observed increase in EKE 2–3 years later. However, when positive SAM events coincide with El Niño events, as in 1993, the climate modes are in opposition in the South Pacific, which could explain the weak EKE response during the mid 1990s….

    It is a long paper (12 pages)

  59. Gail Combs says:

    Major bathymetric features in the ocean basin around the Antarctic:
    Drake Passage

    Cape of Good Hope

  60. Gail Combs says:

    More nose holding: Winds Seen As Key Driver Of Antarctica’s Growing Sea Ice

    Disentangling the actual data from the CAGW hype is a royal pain in the neck sometimes.

    And saving the best for last:

    Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North
    Polar Region – 20 Years later
    Oct. 2005

    Abstract
    We have shown in earlier studies the size of the changes in the lower stratosphere which can be attributed to the 11-year sunspot cycle (SSC). We showed further that in order to detect the solar signal it is necessary to group the data according to the phase of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Although this is valid throughout the year it was always obvious that the effect of the SSC and the QBO on the stratosphere was largest during the northern winters (January/February).

    Here we extend our first study (Labitzke 1987) by using additional data. Instead of 30 years of data, we now have 65 years. Results for the entire data set fully confirm the early findings and suggest a significant effect of the SSC on the strenght of the stratospheric polar vortex and the mean meridional circulation.

    Introduction
    Effects of solar variability related to the 11-year sunspot cycle are most obvious in the stratosphere, though still not fully understood (Crooks and Gray, 2005; Matthes et al., 2006).
    Labitzke suggested in 1982 that the Sun influences the intensity of the north polar vortex (i.e., the Arctic Oscillation (AO)) in the stratosphere in winter, and that the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is needed to identify the solar signal. Based on these results, Labitzke found in 1987 that a signal of the 11-year Sunspot Cycle (SSC) emerged when the arctic stratospheric temperatures and geopotential heights were grouped into two categories determined by the direction of the equatorial wind in the stratosphere (QBO). This first study was based on 30 years of data (1957-1986), that is barely three solar cycles.

    Several publications criticized the short data record and suggested that the correlations are due to aliasing caused by dividing the data according to the phase of the QBO (e.g., Teitelbaum and Bauer, 1990; Salby and Shea, 1991). But even when 20 more years of data became available, the correlations remained stable, see Table 1 (Labitzke, 2006)….

  61. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: June 21, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Every time I would post a study supporting solar/climate connections Leif would say it was out dated and no longer valid . Even if they were as recent as a year or two ago.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes that is why I finally gave up.

    I also noticed when he took a potshot at me and I told him to go fight it out with Dr. Nir Shaviv
    …CRICKETS…

    Someone mentioned LS criticism to Dr. Nir Shaviv and he rebutted BTW.
    See comments @
    http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

  62. Roger Andrews says:

    Hi TB:

    I went through all the Niños and Niñas since 1870, identified when they occurred relative to the phase of the solar cycle and plotted the results on a histogram (I’ve plotted two solar cycles to make it easier to see what’s going on):

    The results show most Niños and Ninas beginning quite abruptly just after solar maximum, continuing through solar minimum and dying out about half way up the leading edge of the next solar cycle. According to binomial stats the chances that this pattern is a random event are on the order of 10:1 against.

    To me this is good evidence for an ENSO/solar connection. I’ll leave you to figure out the details. 😉

  63. tallbloke says:

    Hi Roger A: Thanks for this. We do have to account for the rise time being shorter than the decline time on the solar cycle though. The sine wave needs skewing a bit, unless you’ve treated the data is some clever way I haven’t spotted? Landscheidt reckoned the split was on the golden section. So in a random distribution, there would be a 1.618 times greater chance of an event being on the declining side of the cycle.

  64. ren says:

    Carla says:
    June 20, 2014 at 7:45 pm
    Helio current sheet is also, also, taking longer to complete its contribution to the solar cycle. nooo

    Please note for the year 2001.

  65. ren says:

    Such was, by comparison, the temperature of the ozone zone in 2000.

  66. ren says:

    In contrast, as in 2002 and similarly in subsequent years.

  67. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    I calculated phase angles by setting solar minimum to 0 (360) degrees and solar maximum to 180 degrees for each individual solar cycle, so the plot allows for solar cycle asymmetry.

    I don’t think Landscheidt’s 1.618 ratio applies here because the “split” between frequent/infrequent Niños & Niñas doesn’t occur at solar maximum and minimum.

  68. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Hmmm, need to think about that a bit. Maybe you’re right, but visually is does misrepresent a bit. As I said to Salvatore, the important thing is to see which pahse of the solar cycle the ENSO events are initialised in rather than the phase when they are at their peak.

  69. tallbloke says:

    Ren: You are comparing a deep La Nina year (2000) with sustained El Nino years

  70. Roger Andrews says:

    TB: I already did that. 🙂 Here are the results. I’ve plotted the earlier “peak amplitude” graph at the top for comparison purposes:

  71. ren says:

    You can see a sharp drop in temperature over the equator in 2001, in the lower stratosphere.



  72. ren says:

    Such was the temperature from 1997 to 1998.

  73. ren says:

    At the turn of 2013 and 2014 the temperature has increased significantly, but again decreases. There were chances for El Niño, but the situation is changing.

  74. ren says:

    You can see a clear effect of solar activity on the temperature of the equator. At the turn of 2013 and 2014 activity was high. Activity fell and the temperature dropped.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    Roger Andrews, thanks for sharing those graphs. They remind me that way back whenever I looked into this quickly (years ago) I knew a lot less about climate (especially circulatory topology) & multiparameter wavelet customization than I know now, so maybe I’ll revisit this sometime. The first thing I’ll be checking (which almost no one in the climate discussion ever bothers to check, thus quickly undercutting the trust I’m naturally inclined to extend in good will) is whether the implicit temporally-global binning assumption holds. Again: Thanks for sharing stimulating summaries.

    Also an update for everyone: I’m delaying the release of my latest solar-terrestrial-climate explorations. I found another variable that dovetails in, so it takes time to include it. For those of you who don’t yet know, I’m working on SAM. SAM is the ruthless murderer of AGW.

  76. FROM LAYMAN SUNSPOT SITE the article below.

    This is what I have been saying which is the sun has more solar variability then what mainstream leads you to believe in.

    opening Figure on this article shows a graph from Lockwood showing solar output over the last 400 years. The blue line is his new suggested solar output that takes into consideration the “Waldemeir Discontinuity” along with the “Wolfer Discontinuity” and the “Wolf Discontinuity”, he also suggests the red line (based on the GSN) is just as likely to be correct. The Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction is very close to the Lockwood solar reconstruction (Rc) and the GSN record (Rg) which will have huge ramifications if correct, it will reveal that the Sun has had a bigger variance in TSI over the sunspot record that is far greater than the 0.1% that Svalgaard and the IPCC subscribe to.

  77. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Excellent! The iinitialisation graph pretty much vindicates my long held position (take note Paul 😉 ) on ENSO magnitudes being in antiphase to the solar cycle, and so flattening the solar signal in the temperature record. It also shows why 2014 was never going to be a big el Nino year; we’re at solar max, even if it’s a small cycle.

  78. Gail Combs says:

    Paul Vaughan says: @ June 21, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    “… For those of you who don’t yet know, I’m working on SAM. SAM is the ruthless murderer of AGW.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I take it that SAM = the Southern Annular Mode.

    As in the paper I just referenced: Eddy response to Southern Ocean climate modes

    I am not at all surprised that SAM murders AGW.

  79. tallbloke says:

    Gail, I doubt it. If you think you know what one of Paul’s acronym’s stands for, you don’t. 😉

    I’ll go for Solar Asymmetric Modulation

  80. Gail Combs says:

    Thanks T.B. That is the trouble with abbreviations. (I bet they are connected via changes in ozone.)

  81. oldbrew says:

    ‘Also of interest is that the period is 1/8 of the lunar ‘Saros’ eclipse cycle of ~19yrs.’

    19 years is the Metonic cycle. Saros is 18.02933 years.

  82. tallbloke says:

    Thank OB: I’m always mixing those two names up

  83. Roger Andrews says:

    TB: Pleased to hear that you and PV liked the last graphs. You should find the next one even more interesting.

    I decided I didn’t like the “event initiation” plot because I’d picked “initiation” at the point where the Niño3.4 index crosses the +/-0.5 thresholds commonly used to define Niños and Niñas. As well as being arbitrary these thresholds also ignore the fact that in many cases the Niños and Niños had been building for months before they crossed them (the 1997 Niño started to build four months before it crossed the +0.5 threshold and the 1998 Niña effectively started to build up (down?) as soon as Niño3.4 turned over after the peak of the 1997 Niño, six months before crossing the -0.5 threshold).

    So I went back and picked “lift off” points where breaks in Niño3.4 define when the Niños and Niñas really began, plotted them against solar cycle phase, and here’s what I got:

    Looking better all the time 🙂

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Thanks for the update Roger Andrews. I was already convinced to look — now even more so.


    I managed to finish the Sun & SAM article, crushing my previous records for being concise (1 pulverizing page).

    I’ve sent it off to Bill Howell, who has been generously hosting some of my work since I left SFU (and the perks I used to take for granted there, like access to 1/2 million dollar annual software site site licenses, computing accounts, etc.)

  85. edwardt says:

    I think that since the temp ramp rate is higher entering the interglacial than when entering the glacial, this would cause a slow temp increase when the climate is driven with a 50% duty cycle. Its ALL about the time constants, from enso to amo…maybe even the 1200 yr cycle. Great discussion…still can’t believe its labeled settled science without an understanding of the ocean response, considering our planet is 70+% water..

  86. Chaeremon says:

    @Roger Andrews: impressive, hats off 😎 does your ‘decalibration’ also mean you dropped the Running 3-Month Mean ONI values and plotted just the data?
    http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

  87. ren says:

    Such a circulation in the lower stratosphere over the equator cools. What’s more will fall possibility of formation of hurricanes.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-108.32,4.76,635

  88. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Thanks for the further analysis. I think as well as your study of numbers of ENSO events it would be worth doing a separate analysis for their amplitudes in terms of released/absorbed energy too. But this is tricky, given the underlying PDO. I believe that will reveal that the energy relationship between solar energy in and ENSO energy out is nearer to antiphase than your event numbers graph reveals, because the ENSO swings get bigger as the cycle declines to minimum, and because the big El Nino occurs near solar minimum, the following La nina occurs near solar maximum. I’ll have a think about designing the analysis. Firts thought is to exclude or somehow filter big volcanic eruptions which confound the analysis by precipitating El nino.

    Roger A’s plot of ENSO event frequency against solar cycle phase at the time of the event’s origin:

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    For sure the volcanoes are coupled in, as I’ve shown before:

    But for the same reason I lost interest in the IPO forecasting that I determined was feasible, I’ve already lost interest in pursuing this solar-ENSO stuff overnight: ENSO (including interdecadal IPO which is yet another order of magnitude smaller) — regardless of whether mostly solar or mostly lunisolar — only accounts for 18% of the variance and I’ve already proven geometrically that it isn’t necessary to solve the ENSO puzzle to know for sure what’s going on with the other 82%.

    I operate on the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule for using time & resources efficiently). I’ve already overshot my target at 82/18.

    So I’m leaving it on the backburner. I’m not sure what can cause me to make it a priority — perhaps only secure longterm pay & pension at the local university.

    But I’ll watch with interest as others attempt a far more inefficient equivalent to the aggregate proof I’ve already given. (There’s a lot I could say about David Evans’ interpretation of notch & lag. I’m just not saying it.)

    We each have a different role to play. Sincere thanks to everyone for contributing. The Talkshop is for sure the best place currently available to discuss the sun & climate.

    Thanks to Roger Andrews for providing the highlight of this thread. I look forward to watching Roger Andrews’ explorations evolve.

  90. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: In the current political context the demands of formality suck inordinate amounts of time & energy and the payback is biased rejection, harassment, & hatred, so it’s a fool’s errand IMO.

    The result of the harassment we got for our PRP special issue from the IPCC authors and team WUWT resulted in our papers being downloaded thousands of times more than they would have been otherwise. Monthly counts are still high. 🙂

  91. Roger Andrews says:

    Chaeremon, you ask: “does your ‘decalibration’ also mean you dropped the Running 3-Month Mean ONI values and plotted just the data?”

    I used Kaplan and Reynolds Niño3.4, not ONI (although all the Niño indices are very similar) and I applied the five months duration, +/- 0.5 threshold, 3-month smoothed criteria in all cases to keep the playing field level. (Note, incidentally, that applying these criteria makes a number of the smaller Niños TB identified in his “plot showing positive ENSO events in relation to the solar cycle” go away and increases the Niño “quasi periodicity” from 3.7 to 4.1 years.)

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: Our definitions of what’s desirable certainly differ on that one. I assure you that I respect your perspective. I’m curious: Do you get paid royalties? (If I was and they were substantial, I’m practical enough that I’d look at this differently.)

  93. tallbloke says:

    Hi Paul: No, not a penny. I’m doing what I do to defend science. That is all.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    _
    Another solar-terrestrial-climate mystery solved:

    Sun & SAM
    Sunspot Integral & Southern Annular Mode (SAM)

  95. tallbloke says:

    Gail wins the PV acronym competition! 🙂

    Thanks Paul.
    If happy to share, what did you find the ‘SST neutral’ sunspot number to be for the SAM?

    In my original study, I found it was around 40 for the globally homogenized SST.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

  96. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB:

    SAM Reconstruction: ~50 (r^2 = 90%)
    ERSSTv3b2 90°S-8°S: ~46 (r^2 = 86%)
    ERSSTv3b2 90°S-8°N(thermal equator): ~45 (r^2 = 83%)

    You see the problem here:
    ERSSTv3b2 90°S-90°N: ~43 (r^2 = 77%)
    ERSSTv3b2 8°N(thermal equator)-90°N: ~37 (r^2 = 52%)

    As I have proven geometrically:
    There’s no proper accounting for the northern hemisphere without SCD = solar cycle deceleration.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    Via Milankovitch, Sidorenkov’s section 8.7 can be extended to include the solar cycle and correct the error in this paper:

    Thomson, D.J. (1995). The seasons, global temperature, and precession. Science 268, 59-68. doi:10.1126/science.268.5207.59.
    http://www.inventus.org/posterous/file/2009/04/228341-2886492.pdf

    Jean Dickey is the only American I would trust to supervise such work, but she works for the US government, so unfortunately I suspect that her flexibility & freedom is fatally compromised.

  98. Konrad says:

    With regard to ocean heat content and solar variance, this 2004 paper has some relevance –

    “Impacts of Shortwave Penetration Depth on Large-Scale Ocean Circulation and Heat Transport”
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO2740.1

    While the paper is modelling based and is largely concerned with biological turbidity, the physical mechanisms proposed would have similar effects to solar variance in strength of UV penetrating to depth.

    It is notable that the authors understood the difference between “near blackbody” and “selective surface” and thereby why the depth of absorption was critical to heat content and circulation patterns.

    The basics of such “selective surface” effects on temperature can be demonstrated with very simple empirical experiments –


  99. Bob Weber says:

    PV – re Sun & SAM – “it’s a beautiful thing”.

    The admirable thing about the Talkshop is that people here actually figure things out. You’d think after all these years, the others would have made some actual headway….

    Today 10.7 flux is 101, just about the threshold in question, plus or minus a few photons, and US temps are following suit here just past the solstice (until solar farside active regions roll back into view and flux goes up again short-term a bit followed by temps).

    The true nature of reality will be glaringly obvious as SC24 really starts to wind down.

    The world will soon be freed from the death grip of the willfully ignorant, thanks in part to Tallbloke’s Talkshop.

  100. Thanks TC. Glad l am not the only one who I feeling a bit uneasy about the conclusions
    .

    Nice work RogerA.
    The’ lift off point’ graph is the neatest and most interesting for sure.!!
    It appears Defining ENSO from ‘lift off point’ sounds good practice for cycle analysis.
    opens up a whole new field of ENSO research really
    Cycle research uses the peaks/troughs ..but we measure ENSO by human determined thresholds. ( +/- 5 ..a cross section of the cycle. No wonder your graph shows symmetry. It is drawn to pursue cyclical behaviour rather than percentiles

    curiously…
    The solar cycle histogram shape is the same shape as the ENSO frequency distribution and that bedazzled me.
    It looks like the ENSO histogram ‘copies’ the solar cycle ‘histogram’ with a 90 deg lag.
    It sort of looks intuitively like an echo l thought…
    Just another way at looking at your graph.

  101. tallbloke says:

    Bob, thanks for your kind words. It make the (unpaid) effort that much more worthwhile.

    Konrad: Thanks for that paper. I didn’t realise so much of the downwelling shortwave energy (40%!) absorbed in the ocean was in the shorter wavelengths. I was taken in by Svalgaard again.

  102. Have you ever seen a graph of global temp’ with a 13 yr trend

    graph by bob Tisdale
    https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6026214543743014114

    There’s those saw tooth wave ‘cliff edges’ again . Step like changes./inflection points

    How does this 13 yr trend data line up with solar cycles? 13 yr trend is closer to the 11 yr solar cycle .

  103. Am l reading right Roger A.
    From your graph. ENSO never occurs at 70-100 deg ?

    What does this mean ?

  104. tallbloke says:

    WC: Not sure what Bob has done with the data there. Have you a link to the OP?

  105. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Thanks for the breakdown. I agree that another factor needs to be included for the Northern Hemisphere. I wonder if the AMO and North Pacific cycles might help account for the swings.These oscillations are in phase with heliomagnetic changes anyway.

  106. tallbloke says:

    WC: The data Roger A has used shows ENSO events don’t occur once the upswing of the solar cycle is under way, until it’s at around max. I’m not sure why, for e.g., the big La Nina following the 97/98 El Nino doesn’t count.

  107. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: SCD = geometrically proven

  108. Gail Combs says:

    tallbloke says: @ June 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    ….I didn’t realise so much of the downwelling shortwave energy (40%!) absorbed in the ocean was in the shorter wavelengths. I was taken in by Svalgaard again.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Over at WUWT I kept posting these graphs which I think shoot dead L.S. constant sun, nothing to see here move along crap:


    (Colorado Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics killed my original link to that graph BTW, and sent you to one of their CAGW be VERY AFRAID sites instead.)

    This graph is the real killer:

  109. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Sure, but we eventually need to trace the line from ultimate cause to proximate cause. Magnetism, ocean currents, ozone, clouds, etc.

  110. tchannon says:

    Gail, adding, there is a UV window through the atmosphere.

    The sun like so many other things is looked at simplistically. The mean of radiation varies little but there is a spectral shift.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/solar-cycle-antiphase-irradiance/

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/new-paper-finds-solar-uv-varies-up-to-100-percent-during-solar-cycles-confirms-solar-amplification-mechanism/

    There is more.
    In addition there is interaction with the high atmosphere too and indirect effect (spectrally shifted there)

  111. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: insolation gradients = proven (via laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum)

    I realize people haven’t digested this. I am at peace with this.

  112. Gail Combs says:

    Check out the graphs in my last post and then add in NASA’s info. and file under the sun is constant and the science is settled label. {:>D

    UV Exposure Has Increased Over the Last 30 Years, but Stabilized Since the Mid-1990s

    NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical region….

    The primary culprit: decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone, a colorless gas that acts as Earth’s natural sunscreen by shielding the surface from damaging UV radiation….

    In the tropics, the increase has been minimal, but in the mid-latitudes it has been more obvious. During the summer, for example, UV has increased by more than 20 percent in Patagonia and the southern portions of South America. It has risen by nearly 10 percent in Buenos Aires, a city that’s about the same distance from the equator as Little Rock, Ark. At Washington, D.C.’s latitude — about 35 degrees north — UV has increased by about 9 percent since 1979.

    The southern hemisphere tends to have more UV exposure because of the ozone hole, a seasonal depletion of the ozone layer centered on the South Pole. There are also fewer particles of air pollution — which help block UV — due to the comparatively small numbers of people who live in the southern hemisphere…

    In addition to analyzing ozone and ultraviolet trends, Herman also used satellite data to study whether changes in cloudiness have affected UV trends. To his surprise, he found that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere produced a dimming effect that increased the shielding from UV compared to previous years.

    In the higher latitudes especially, he detected a slight reduction — typically of 2 to 4 percent — in the amount of UV passing through the atmosphere and reaching the surface due to clouds. “It’s not a large amount, but it’s intriguing,” Herman said. “We aren’t sure what’s behind it yet.”…

    In this article Mankind of course is to blame for the increased UV and not the sun. Typical CAGW fantasyland.

    That interpretation is contradicted by these articles from NASA

    OZONE
    …Ozone is extremely valuable since it absorbs a range of ultraviolet energy. When an ozone molecule absorbs even low-energy ultraviolet radiation, it splits into an ordinary oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom. Usually this free oxygen atom quickly re-joins with an oxygen molecule to form another ozone molecule. Because of this “ozone-oxygen cycle,” harmful ultraviolet radiation is continuously converted into heat.

    Natural reactions other than the “ozone-oxygen cycle” described above also affect the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are highly unstable, they react very easily with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth’s atmosphere (released from both land and ocean sources). For example, single chlorine atoms can convert ozone into oxygen molecules and this ozone loss balances the production of ozone by high-energy ultraviolet rays striking oxygen molecules.

    In addition to the natural ozone balance, scientists have found that ozone levels change periodically as part of regular natural cycles such as the changing seasons, winds, and long time scale sun variations. Moreover, volcanic eruptions may inject materials into the stratosphere that can lead to increased destruction of ozone….
    earthobservatory(DOT)nasa.gov/Features/Ozone/ozone_2.php

    SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise [December 17, 2010]

    …In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,”

    …As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun’s irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the “solar constant.” However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field….

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

    However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate….
    (wwwDOT)nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

    EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability [September 22 2009]

    … Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary. EVE will improve confidence in the trend by pinning down the EUV spectrum with unprecedented accuracy.

    The sun’s variability and its potential for future changes are not fully understood—hence the need for EVE. “The EUV portion of the sun’s spectrum is what changes most during a solar cycle,” says Woods, “and that is the part of the spectrum we will be observing.”…
    (wwwDOT)nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/sdo_eve.html

    Yet despite this information, five years later they find their estimates are off by “a factor of four to six larger than expected”

    NASA’s SORCE Satellite Marks a Decade in the Sun [March 29, 2013]

    …Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line). In the visible part of the spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers), SIM showed a slight increase in comparison to what was expected….
    (wwwDOT)nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/sorce-10yrs.html

  113. Gail Combs says:

    tchannon you were saying: “… The mean of radiation varies little but there is a spectral shift.” While I was scrounging up the NASA articles supporting your statement.

    To me L.S. denial of the sun’s affect on current short term climate is completely mind boggling in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

  114. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Insolation *at the surface* varies with cloud more than with solar variation. I strongly suspect there’s a link, and that it is the amplification mechanism needed to get from TSI (or it’s components) to observed change, but I think ‘proven’ is a claim too far at the moment. If you feel your work has proved it, then fair enough. The rest of us will plod along with our study until such time as someone pays you enough to explain it to us so we can agree or ctiticise.

  115. Gail Combs says:

    tallbloke, If you read those NASA articles, you will see the UV cycle is a half cycle off from the Sunspot cycle just like the ENSO cycle is a half cycle off from the Sunspot cycle…. HMMMmmm

    That can be followed back to the fact that most of the world’s oceans are in the southern hemisphere and that ozone affects the Antarctic polar winds per one of my other recent comments.

    If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before Drake Passage, headed up the coast of South America to Galapagos.

    fhhaynie (former EPA scientist) says: @ January 18, 2014 at 8:24 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/18/comments-on-the-nature-article-climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat/#comment-1540259

    If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humboldt current meet. These flows are not constant and each has different cycles and those cycles are not constant. Cycles on cycles create extremes in weather and climate. These extremes have an effect globally. I suspect these cycles are also controlling our observed atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is very likely a lagging indicator and not a cause of climate change.

    The same happens along the coast of Africa and effects the gulf stream.

    Another interesting WUWT comment

    richcar1225 says:

    Maheshwari et al, 2013, concluded that “However, in general, the Southern Ocean as a whole is showing a weak interannual cooling trend in SST. (wwwDOT)hindawi.com/isrn/oceanography/2013/392632/

    Likewise RSS also shows a weak troposheric cooling at the rate of -0.13 kelvin/decade : joannenova(DOT)com.au/2013/10/antarctic-sea-ice-still-at-record-high-where-is-springtime-melt/

    Bob Tisdale plots a very strong drop in Southern Ocean SST around 2007: bobtisdale(DOT)files.wordpress.com/2013/12/14-southern.png
    The drop in Southern Ocean SST is associated with record westerly winds and current along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the by far the worlds strongest and the only one that connects all ocean basins… The increase in current speed is also causing record upwelling of cold water. The record sea ice is causing record deep water formation rates due to salt rejection and dense water creation . The AMOC or the giant ocean conveyor belt begins in the southern ocean. Look for the cold to come to us in the near future.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/30/the-antarctic-research-fiasco-would-you-could-you-in-a-boat/#comment-1519011

    I think all the emphasis on the Arctic is massive misdirection.

  116. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: I must reiterate to ensure clear reception:

    insolation gradients (not simply insolation)
    (It’s the gradients that drive flow & mixing.)

    The proof applies to a unit.
    You express interest in subdivisions of the unit.

    That’s all I have time for today. (The paid-work week is underway.)

  117. tallbloke says:

    Paul: I too am interested in how rates of change (gradients) of insolation affect weather and climate. See for example the latest post on El Nino and Luni-solar connections. – When The solar cycle starts to fall steeply – El Nino is precipitated. When the solar cycle stops falling, El Nino is precipitated again.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/are-the-sun-and-moon-both-acting-on-el-nino-events/

    My approach is more qualitative than your statistical appraoch, but I think both approaches are needed to unearth the hidden climate connections.

  118. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Re your comment of June 22, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Defining the amplitudes of Niños and Niñas is tricky not because of the PDO but because of two problems with the Niño indices themselves – 1) the use of arbitrary thresholds and 2) the fact that the indices are suspect before ~1950 because of the way the SSTs used to define them have been spindled, folded and mutilated by “corrections” before then (which is why Multivariate ENSO goes back only to 1950). We can get around problem 1) by calculating “released energy” during an ENSO cycle without using a threshold, as you suggest, but problem 2) is less tractable. One possible solution might be to use the SOI index, which having suffered fewer “corrections” should be more robust than the Niño indices before 1950 and which marches pretty much in lockstep with ENSO. (Which comes first? I say ENSO, by about a week) 😉

    Another important point to remember is that Niñas contribute just as much to the heat release process as Niños. Bob Tisdale has discussed this in a number of posts:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/more-detail-on-the-multiyear-aftereffects-of-enso-part-2-%E2%80%93-la-nina-events-recharge-the-heat-released-by-el-nino-events-and/

    And I added my ten cents’ worth in a post a couple of years ago. First how the upswing in temperatures is delayed until the end of the Niña:

    Second, how the Chichón eruption failed to stop the 1983 Niño, which lifted off several months before the eruption, plus another delay in the temperature increase until the end of the last Niña in the sequence:

    And third, how the Pinatubo eruption made only a minor dent in the 1991 Niño, which also lifted off before the eruption, plus how the 2002 Niño, which didn’t transition into a Niña, had no visible impact on temperature.

    The conclusions I draw from these and other plots are:

    * We get heat release only when a Niño transitions into a Niña – Niños by themselves don’t release heat.

    * So we can’t concentrate solely on Niños. Niñas are just as important.

    * ENSO events don’t much care about volcanic eruptions, so there’s no need to “filter them out”.

  119. Bob Weber says:

    Gail, TB, PV etal – it is so much much fun watching here. There are a few more cards to be played and it’s game over. If I wasn’t constructing my electricweatherdotcom website right now, I’d happily pass you those cards (I’d like to save *something* new for it!). – hopefully before you find and play those cards yourselves! …LOL – what a joy it is knowing you’re (all) here. This is not really a competition, ’cause we’re all in this together!

    Svalgaard etal – jeez – how does that happen? By design? By accident? Density? Who knows – who cares. Soon he and AW should completely understand the true nature of solar influence. It’s not as though they haven’t had every opportunity. Unless they choose to DENY objective reality….

  120. Climate Factors Colder Overall When Viewed Objectively

    Milankovitch Cycles- favorable for glaciation presently and for the next 4000 years.

    Solar Activity – favorable for colder temperatures post 2005 and continuing until at least 2030.
    Solar activity will be high favorable for cooling once the weak maximum of solar
    cycle 24 ends, Will be in the very near future.

    Ocean/Land Arrangements- highly favorable for glaciation and colder temperatures presently
    and well into the future.

    Solar Secondary Effects- neutral for cooling during the weak maximum of solar cycle 24 will
    become highly favorable going forward when solar cycle 24 maximum
    ends.

    Lunar – neutral. I don’t see a strong connection with this factor hence neutral.
    Commentary welcomed.

    CO2 – unknown. Higher then when past glaciations were initiated through
    Milankovitch Cycles but unknown if glaciation would have occurred
    back then if CO2 concentrations would have been higher.

    Ice Dynamic – unfavorable ,since most of the large ice sheets form the last N.H.
    ice age are gone. Still Greenland is a source.

    Earth Magnetic Field- neutral but will be heading toward favorable as this keeps weakening
    gong forward into the future.

    When one looks at this picture presented in the above I think it is safe to say the climate is not heading for warmer times but rather toward colder times and the possibility of a return to glacial conditions sometime in the not very distant future is possible.(0- next 4000 years )

  121. oldbrew says:

    ‘the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field’

    Remember that one, it won’t be promoted by ‘official climate science’ any time soon.

  122. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Thanks for the extensive comment. First, let’s clear up a misconception about volcanos. I think they need not so much filtering, which implies an automated process, but scrutinizing. If anything, I’d expect them to augment, not diminish and El Nino. here’s why:

    My hypothesis rests on the idea that El Nino is precipitated by a drop in solar activity (probably accompanied by an increase in cloud). When the Sun turns down the heat from above, the ocean starts releasing the excess energy it absorbed during the high part of the solar cycle. This results in an increasing amplitude train of ENSO events as the energy burps out, ending with the big El Nino at solar minimum and its consequent following La Nina heading towards solar max.

    So if – and it’s an if – a volcano causes a significant dust veil, reducing insolation, it should also help precipitate or augment an El nino event.
    Since both big volcanos of the satellite age went pop just as the solar cycle started to fall steeply, we won’t be able to quantify effects for some time to come. I just hope Katla doesn’t blow in the next few years. Good for science, bad for crops.

  123. tallbloke says:

    Bob: Being an ol’ time engineer I try to explain as much as I can with simple thermodynamics. Doubtless there are some important electrical effects at the solar energy terrestrial interface that quickly gets into upper atmospheric chemistry I don’t pretend to know much about. I look forward to your website going up so we can see what you’ve got.

  124. Rog, if I remember correctly it depends at what latitude the volcanic eruption occurs.

    Low latitude volcanic eruptions promoting El Nino. I don’t know about high latitude volcanic eruptions in this regard.

    However many studies have shown that major geological activity equates to prolonged solar minimum activity .

    In addition high latitude volcanic eruptions will promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation because they warm the stratosphere more in the higher latitudes relative to lower latitudes.

  125. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: Yes, that’s why Katla is a danger to North Hemisphere. Meridional loopiness in the jetstream means extreme cold events. Frost kills crops.

  126. tallbloke says:

    Right. I have to attend a UKIP committee meeting. Back later after we’ve planned the revolution. 🙂

  127. This is the only site that is tackling why and how the climate changes in a comprehensive very scientific objective way.

    The questions as to why the climate does what it does are only really being addressed here with no agendas to be found just scientific paper after paper.

  128. Bob Weber says:

    TB: lt all starts with the Sun’s electric and magnetic fields. From there it’s fluxes of photons, protons, and electrons. At the Earth it’s the magnetosphere, the ionosphere, and the global electric circuit. Straight heat transfer, thermodynamics, and circulation covers the response to variable photon heating. There’s mountains of evidence to support your works and mine, including sensible testable mechanisms that you and the “crew” have diligently discussed for years. Lotsa credit to go around.

    Let’s face it, there is only one reality, objective reality, and we just want to know what it is, don’t we?

  129. Roger Andrews says:

    TB: See if you can match Niños up with eruptions 🙂

  130. Rog, this came out today on WUWT. Maybe this could be run on your site so we can trash it. What utter nonsense. Then again maybe it is not worth the time of day.

    .

    Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima

    Posted on June 23, 2014 by Willis Eschenbach

    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

  131. tallbloke says:

    Bob W: there is only one reality, objective reality, and we just want to know what it is, don’t we?

    Yep.

    Salvatore: This is the only site that is tackling why and how the climate changes in a comprehensive very scientific objective way.

    We try not to get distracted on these analysis posts. Due to blog policy, the competent pro co2 theory people tend to keep a low profile when they know they are not going to be able to disrupt discussion of natural forcings. Those that get to comment here that is. The trolls have been shown the door.

    Maybe this could be run on your site so we can trash it. Then again maybe it is not worth the time of day.

    Willis is one of the trolls who got shown the door. Thankfully he launched himself through it without me having to apply the boot. We do occasionally rip one of his posts apart, but that one is such a pile of trash I won’t waste time with it .

  132. I think that is the correct policy. Why acknowledge something as absurd as what he says in that article..

  133. Konrad. says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 23, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    ————————————
    Gail,
    very interesting finds.

    UV variance casing ozone changes thereby effecting surface UV could be amplifying surface UV variance further than simple solar spectral variance may indicate.

    Surface UV changes of 10% is huge given that UV-A still has the power of 10 w/m2 at 50 m depth in some waters.

    While it is possible to empirically demonstrate the changes in heat content of a water column due to such changes, because of the +100m depth required, this would be expensive.

    However there maybe sufficient real world data available from the ARGO buoys. Their deployment covers the end of SC23 and the start of SC24. It may be possible to identify the solar signature in data from below 100m. (SSTs are too noisy for short term signals). The question would be just how badly Josh “cold enough for ya” Willis and Co. have corrupted the ARGO data….

  134. Konrad. says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    June 23, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    ———————————-
    “Then again maybe it is not worth the time of day.”

    I’d leave it at WUWT where it belongs.

    The storm of “red thumbs” at Jo Nova seem to have sent the JCB into a digging frenzy. Next post could be a postcard from China. Something good may come of it. He might unearth Maurice Strong 😉

    Of course there could be method to the madness. He started that hole back in 2011. If it gets deep enough he may no longer have to see the annoying light of our variable sun…

  135. tchannon says:

    Konrad, the important Argo data will not be the obvious. Of far greater importance is discovering the circulation patterns (includes z-axis) and layering. This is an extremely fierce 4D+ problem.

    I do have a suggestion to do with the sea patterns, a subject I rarely consider. Where to put this and how to try and describe it is open, not decided.

  136. Konrad. says:

    tchannon says:
    June 24, 2014 at 12:32 am
    ———————————–
    “This is an extremely fierce 4D+ problem”

    Agreed. The Z-axis issue would likely confound identification of a global signature for such a short time series as ARGO. However a regional signature demonstrating the mechanism may still be identifiable.

    What would be needed –
    Uncorrupted ARGO data with outliers re-included.
    A region with little upwelling or downwelling in the 100 to 700m layer.
    A region with little variance in biological or mineral turbidity.
    A region removed from the cloud confusion of the ITCZ.

    Given that ARGO is global this would be difficult but not impossible. I suspect what would be necessary is to “track” a water mass across the selected region. ARGO floats spend more time at depth than at the surface, however while at the surface they are subject to faster wind driven surface currents. To track a water mass below 100m, gridded data would be needed, with below 100m temp data selected to match below 100m flow as determined by resurfacing positions of individual floats.

  137. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: I need to concisely clarify further:
    spatial gradients (not temporal derivatives)
    specifically equator-pole & consequent mid-latitude westerlies, particularly in the winter hemisphere (e.g. Dickey, Sidorenkov — accessible via link trail I give from Sun & SAM article above for anyone ready for dead serious study of the proof)

    apologies — during the paid-work week I necessarily drift out of the conversation, so I suggest we leave it there since my availability is too low to avoid serious misunderstandings

    Again: Thanks for hosting the best solar-terrestrial blog. I look forward to more in depth discussion as/when time permits.


    Bob: Thanks for your comments.
    Gail: I quoted you at JoNova’s (about controlled opposition).

  138. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: @ June 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    “…Lunar – neutral. I don’t see a strong connection with this factor hence neutral.
    Commentary welcomed…”

    This is a subject I have only a glancing knowledge of but I do not think it should be dismissed.

    LUNAR
    There is some indication that the north/south vector of the moons position related to the earth could be the cause of D-O/Bond events:
    On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events This warmist paper says the lunar cycle is 1800 years and therefore can not be the culprit. However The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change by Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf say lunar tides are a possible cause.

    “…. It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth’s surface from north to south (or vice-versa)….” ~ (wwwDOT)absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Saros_cycle

    A blog essay on the subject: Are the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) Warm Events driven by Lunar Tides? astroclimateconnection.blogspot(DOT)com.au/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html

    and another by E.M. Smith: The Moon’s Orbit is Wrong, It Can Change a Lot, And Tides Will Too (with links to several of his other lunar essays -all worth reading)
    chiefio.wordpress(DOT)com/2014/01/24/the-moons-orbit-is-wrong-it-can-change-a-lot-and-tides-will-too/

    Also on that 18.6 year cycle:

    The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate
    ABSTRACT
    …The paper presents an analysis of the time-series for the polar position, the extent of Arctic ice, sea level at Hammerfest, Kola section sea temperature, Røst winter air temperature, and the NAO winter index as a way to identify a source of dominant cycles. The investigation uses wavelet transformation to identify the period and the phase in these Arctic time-series. System dynamics are identified by studying the phase relationship between the dominant cycles in all time-series. A harmonic spectrum from the 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle in the Arctic time-series has been identified. The cycles in this harmonic spectrum have a stationary period, but not stationary amplitude and phase. A sub-harmonic cycle of about 74 years may introduce a phase reversal of the 18.6-year cycle. The signal-to-noise ratio between the lunar nodal spectrum and other sources changes from 1.6 to 3.2. A lunar nodal cycle in all time-series indicates that there is a forced Arctic oscillating system controlled by the pull of gravity from the moon, a system that influences long-term fluctuations in the extent of Arctic ice. …

    E. M . Smith last essay on the moon/s affects on the climate A Remarkable Lunar Paper and Numbers on Major Standstill
    chiefio(DOT)wordpress.com/2014/01/25/a-remarkable-lunar-paper-and-numbers-on-major-standstill/

  139. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: @ June 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    “….CO2 – unknown. Higher then when past glaciations were initiated through
    Milankovitch Cycles but unknown if glaciation would have occurred
    back then if CO2 concentrations would have been higher….”

    The CO2 record is more mucked-up, b@$tardized and generally mangled than the temperature record and that is saying a lot!

    For example CO2 measured up to 640 ppm in 1939/1940
    (wwwDOT)biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/kreutz/kreutzwspapprox.gif

    Probably the worst problem is the ASSumption that CO2 is well mixed. It is not.
    In the paper by Tom Quirk “ Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide” The isotopic balance in the atmosphere is far more complex and there are many more variables than most think. Consider 94% of all anthropogenic CO2 is released into the northern hemisphere. Next the CO2 is not as well mixed as the IPCC state. From the nuclear tests in the 60’s the mixing north to south is very slow, like several years ( another rhetorical question) so why is the average northern hemisphere CO2 not higher than the south?

    As Dr. J. A. Glassman so aptly put it in one of his replies,

    “So why are the graphs so unscientifically pat? One reason is provided by the IPCC:
    The longitudinal variations in CO2 concentration reflecting net surface sources and sinks are on annual average typically calibration procedures within and between monitoring networks (Keeling et al., 1989; Conway et al., 1994). Bold added, TAR, p. 211.
    So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement. And there can be no other meaning for “calibration procedures … between monitoring networks”. It accounts for coincidence in simultaneous records and it accounts for continuity between adjacent records. The most interesting information in this procedure would be the exact amount of calibration necessary to achieve the objective of nearly flawless measuring with the modern record dominating. The IPCC’s method is unacceptable in science. It is akin to the IPCC practice of making “flux adjustments” to make its various models agree. See TAR for 87 references to “flux adjustment”, and see 4AR for its excuse, condemnation, and abandonment. 4AR p. 117.

    The AIRS satellite shows it is not well mixed and the CO2 is similar in the Norther and Southern Hemispheres:

    The key is that “AIRS reports the daytime and nighttime global distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere at a nadir resolution of 90 km x 90 km” and they STILL do not have uniform CO2. The Japanese Satellite (JAXA) Data shows even more variation.

    Some links on the subject:
    CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
    (click on the various pdfs)

    Dr. Glassman’s rebuttal of the ‘science’ of CCo2
    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

    (wwwDOT)rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

    This comment at Steven Goddard’s Includes my experience with IR spectrophotometer in the 1970s, the instrument used by Keeling- There is no way you can get an accuracy of parts per million with that instrument!
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/coldest-october-march-in-the-us-in-102-years/comment-page-2/#comment-333230

  140. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: @ June 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    “….Ice Dynamic – unfavorable ,since most of the large ice sheets form the last N.H.
    ice age are gone. Still Greenland is a source….”

    It is not the amount of ice but the rate of growth in the ice/ snow cover that matters. As RACookPE1978 said on December 31, 2013 @ WUWT:

    … Arctic sea ice lately (last 12 years) is only 3.5 – 4.0 million sq km AT ITS MINIMUM in September. We can lose AT MOST only another 3.5 million sq km2. That is it.

    How much larger can Antarctic sea ice get? There is no limit. At today’s rate of Antarctic sea ice increase, Cape Horn itself could be closed to ship traffic due to sea ice within 8-10 years for months at a time every September and October. It probably won’t happen, but the trend is there: we have been seeing just under 1.0 Mkm^2 more sea ice each year for several years now….

    Long term glaciers that had melted away during the Holocene Optimum have reestablished.
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic 2010

    A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012

    Perhaps more important is the dynamics of energy loss. Again RACookPE1978 does a great job of explaining that.

    Well, let us see.

    October, 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers.

    The Antarctic sea ice extents ANOMALY in October 2013 was also very high – over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. ALL of this “excess” southern sea ice extents covered an area LARGER than the entire area of Hudson Bay (also centered at latitude 60), and this EXCESS southern sea covered an area about HALF the size of Greenland (a region centered between 60 north and 80 north latitude).

    The CAGW deists ignored it. Totally. Absolutely ZERO coverage in the world’s press. And, to be honest, very little coverage in even the “friendly” web environment also. Some notice, but no press releases nor TV appearances, right?

    Now, imagine the hysteria worldwide if 1/4 of the Hudson Bay “lost” sea ice coverage! Imagine the hysteria if 1/10 of Greenland “lost” sea ice? (Actually, we read every year the hysteria when a “Manhattan-size” iceberg breaks off any glacier anywhere, so the world’s press would run out of ink printing Washington’s worry about even a 1/10 Greenland loss.)

    But, when the southern hemisphere “gains” 1/2 Greenland sea ice extents?
    Nothing.

    Just remember, at today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right? Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!

    Now, at the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic.
    Instead, we see near even sea ice changes. So, since at today’s levels of sea ice extents, “more Arctic sea ice loss” up north means a net loss of energy from the planet; and “more sea ice extents gain” down south means a net loss of energy from the planet, we are facing a future big problem. If today’s trends continue.

    And, as we can always predict, if today’s rates of Antarctic sea ice extents gain continue, the sea route around Cape Horn will be blocked to shipping within 8-10 years!
    wattsupwiththat(dot)com/2014/03/01/southern-sea-ice-area-minimum-2nd-highest-on-record/#comment-1580076

    A more detailed comment @ wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2014/02/18/how-much-sunlight-actually-enters-the-system/#comment-1571201
    and Cook’s table on “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface”.
    The radiation received on the equinox for solar radiation at each latitude at noon.

    http://wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/#comment-1571641

    And do not forget The Earthshine Project at Bigbear Observatory showing a change in albedo – graph

  141. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: @ June 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    “….Earth Magnetic Field- neutral but will be heading toward favorable as this keeps weakening
    gong forward into the future…..”

    Ice Age Now site has:
    Confirmed – Earth’s protective magnetic shield is weakening:

    The most dramatic declines are occurring over the Western Hemisphere, says European Space Agency.

    Just three days ago, on 19 June 2014, the European Space Agency (ESA) revealed that the strength of the earth’s magnetic field is indeed weakening

    There is also quite a bit of snowy weather reported not only in South Africa, South America, New Zealand, Australia but also in Turkey, Russia, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the Rockies. Also reported is record cold in Oregon, Romania, Seattle and Finland and “Snow is still persisting in the low north eastern Italian Alps”

    Not to mention five Aleutian volcanoes now simultaneously active – the most activity in 26 years.

    Amazing how we only see reports of the Warmest Spring Evah…

    It is so nice that Ice Age Now collects all the information we would never see otherwise.

  142. Gail Combs says:

    tallbloke says: @ June 23, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    “…..My hypothesis rests on the idea that El Nino is precipitated by a drop in solar activity (probably accompanied by an increase in cloud). When the Sun turns down the heat from above, the ocean starts releasing the excess energy it absorbed during the high part of the solar cycle….”

    Remember Tallbloke, NASA found

    … SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,”…

    SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

    An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

    … The thermal structure and composition of the atmosphere is determined fundamentally by the incoming solar irradiance. Radiation at ultraviolet wavelengths dissociates atmospheric molecules, initiating chains of chemical reactions—specifically those producing stratospheric ozone—and providing the major source of heating for the middle atmosphere, while radiation at visible and near-infrared wavelengths mainly reaches and warms the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface1. Thus the spectral composition of solar radiation is crucial in determining atmospheric structure, as well as surface temperature, and it follows that the response of the atmosphere to variations in solar irradiance depends on the spectrum2.

    Daily measurements of the solar spectrum between 0.2 µm and 2.4 µm, made by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) instrument on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite3 since April 2004, have revealed4 that over this declining phase of the solar cycle there was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our previous understanding. This reduction was partially compensated in the total solar output by an increase in radiation at visible wavelengths.

    Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude. Our results, simulated with a radiative-photochemical model, are consistent with contemporaneous measurements of ozone from the Aura-MLS satellite, although the short time period makes precise attribution to solar effects difficult. We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity.
    (wwwDOT)nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html

    And a companion paper: Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations

    SAM and ozone: Decadal Changes of Wind Stress over the Southern Ocean Associated with Antarctic Ozone Depletion.

    So throughout the solar cycle there is a shift in the wavelengths from deep ocean penetrating UV to shallow penetrating visible, near infrared. This would shift the part of the ocean that is receiving energy and heating up. On top of that is a change in the wind that drives the Antarctic Circumpolar Current because of changes in ozone.

    I would think that the changes in those two factors, ozone and the ocean depth the solar energy is heating, could drive ENSO. (I haven’t put in a lot of time disentangling the info on these two factors.)

  143. Gail Combs says:

    Drat, sorry Tallbloke, I am half asleep and messed-up the blockquotes.

    [mod: I’ve added a couple of unquotes but quite what is wrong is err… maybe it will do –Tim]

  144. Tanner says:

    Bob Weber

    “TB: lt all starts with the Sun’s electric and magnetic fields. From there it’s fluxes of photons, protons, and electrons. At the Earth it’s the magnetosphere, the ionosphere, and the global electric circuit.”

    Hear, hear 🙂

    I look forward to seeing what you have got – though I would consider it as light atoms (photons), positively charged atoms (protons) and negatively charged atoms (electrons) 😉

  145. TB said
    WC: The data Roger A has used shows ENSO events don’t occur once the upswing of the solar cycle is under way, until it’s at around max. I’m not sure why?

    [Mod note] This isn’t what I said. What I said was: “WC: The data Roger A has used shows ENSO events don’t occur once the upswing of the solar cycle is under way, until it’s at around max. I’m not sure why, for e.g., the big La Nina following the 97/98 El Nino doesn’t count.”

    —-
    The first thing that comes to mind is the period in time when the atmosphere is not in phase with the ocean and does not ‘couple’ Just like our current ENSO state now . We have had neutral years as the up phase of solar is in progress.
    We could predict that we will have La Nina or El Nino after solar maximum according to Andrews frequency distribution histagram
    But this cycle 24 is unique. It is likely to have a double max solar peak as is the case at the start of every 3rd schwabe triplet when the ~66yr cycle reaches max and min
    Also a long solar cycle predicted l believe. So maybe some more neutral years to come before we hit the downslope of solar cycle.

    Link to OP? what is that? ( I always place links on pictures not my own) read the bottom of pic’

    [Mode note] OP= Original post. In this case, the post by Bob Tisdale.

  146. From the bottom of that picture of the13 yr trend of global temps’ l posted from B Tisdale
    link to OP

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/may-2014-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/

  147. tallbloke says:

    WC: Thanks.

    “An explanation of what’s being presented in Figure 6: The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to May 2014. It is basically zero (about 0.02 deg C/Decade). That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed to any great extent during the most recent 160-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 161-month period of December 2000 to April 2014, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to March 2014, and so on.”

  148. Gail, thanks for al the great info. again.

  149. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore, no problem. I hope you can use it to beef-up you theory.

  150. Gail part of a paper you sent. It shows much doubt about the 1470 year climate cycle and has no concrete reason for it ,if it does exist. Interesting however…

    [18] If the 1470-year pacing cycle would originate from astronomical fording, the long-term stability of the orbital elements within the solar system make them a prime candidate for generating the 1470-year pacing cycle. So far, a periodicity of ∼1800 years has been identified [De Rop, 1971; Keeling and Whorf, 2000], which arises from the periodic motions of Earth and Moon and may modulate large-scale oceanic mixing by variations in the strength of oceanic tides. Keeling and Whorf [2000] proposed a mechanism by which these tidal variations induce changes in climate and suggest that they might be responsible for the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. However, given that the uncertainty of the GISP2 timescale is <5% during the last 50 kyr or so, the observed 1470-year pacing is incompatible with the 1800-year tidal cycle. Nevertheless, other orbital elements may hold the key to explain the 1470-year cycle. Independent of the astronomical pacemaker that might be suggested in the future, it will be challenging to conceive a physical link between the external forcing and climate variations. Given the great many orbital periods associated with the largest bodies of the solar system [e.g., Fairbridge and Sanders, 1987], it is likely to find a “combination tone” of these periods that comes close to 1470 years. However, one then has to ask why other combination tones, with possibly larger amplitudes, have not been recorded by the climate system.

    [19] Finally, the “quantum” nature of the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events calls for an explanation. If one accepts the existence of the fundamental 1470-year pacing period, a mechanism is required which allows the climate system to skip up to five pacing cycles before a new Dansgaard-Oeschger event is triggered (Figure 5). Stochastic resonance [Alley et al., 2001, and references therein] is an appealing concept to account for this observation. In its simplest form a system consisting only of a threshold and a subthreshold pacing cycle with added white noise can generate the observed quantum spacing. The general course of the spacing during a glacial-interglacial cycle (Figure 5) may then be due to a change in the noise amplitude or the threshold value, which may be linked to continental ice mass. Although attractive, this conceptual model does not solve the problem of identifying the origin of the pacing cycle as well as the physics underlying the threshold behavior.

  151. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore, I included that paper because it shows the controversy.

    Remember both E.M. Smith and this article point out:

    ….The saros -13 is the first saros to appear in these data. For solar eclipses the statistics for the complete saros series within the era between 2000 BCE and 3000 CE are given in this article’s references. It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth’s surface from north to south (or vice-versa). These extremes allow from 69 to 87 eclipses in each series (most series have 71 or 72 eclipses). From 39 to 59 (mostly about 43) eclipses in a given series will be central (that is, total, annular, or hybrid annular-total). At any given time, approximately 40 different saros series will be in progress….

    E.M. Smith also points out the cycle can go from 1200 to 1800 years.

    The Moon’s Orbit is Wrong, It Can Change a Lot, And Tides Will Too
    The basic “issue” here is simple: We don’t really know what the moon has done in the past, because we don’t know what it is doing now; but we do know it could have made much stronger tides in the past, so could do that again. We also know that present tides are about 1/2 the total overturning force bringing cold deep water to the surface, so we also know that changes in tide forces could and would have major impacts on how cold it gets, and / or when ice sheets break up. So much for “settled science”…

    Before anyone gets up in arms over my saying the moon’s orbit is wrong: It wasn’t me!

    Cornell University – Moons Orbit is Wrong |
    “collected” The Moons orbit Wrong according to Cornell University associate Lorenzo Lorio. He has researched the mystery….

    His next essay is also of interest:

    A Remarkable Lunar Paper and Numbers on Major Standstill
    Yesterday we had a sort of a review of the lunar postings so far and a look at how the orbital changes are not quite as expected. That the lunar orbit is “wrong” – per some folks….

    At this point, a minor digression on lunar orbit…

    The moon orbits the sun. Unlike most moons, it does not orbit in the plane of the equator of the planet (i.e. Earth) but instead orbits near the ecliptic. This matters since the Earth axis is tilted to the ecliptic. That means the moon seems to ‘bob’ up and down relative to the Earth. This matters since it is a bit different from most moons and planets. The Sun influences the lunar orbit more than does the Earth, and the complexities of the lunar orbit come from it being disconnected from the Earth equator. Much of our tides, and through them, climate and weather come from that fact. More on that later….

    Now think about that for just a minute. Because the Moon does not orbit the Earth at the equator, but orbits the Sun along with the Earth as a binary planet, it wanders up to 57° relative to the oceans. Or as little as 37° at other times. 20° of variation. Think 20° more or less tidal pull toward the poles or away from them just might make a little bit of difference to how big the tides are? To how high “average sea level” might be in an area? To how much tidal mixing of cold water into surface waters happens? To how much water moves into the northern oceans or into the southern oceans? To ENSO? To how much ice shelves at the poles break up? To, basically, long term average weather? (Mistakenly called climate by most “climate scientists”. Climate changes on million year scales. Weather changes on decade, century, and millennium scales.) In short, there is a very large periodic perturbation of the Earth systems and oceans, with periods of roughly 9, 18, 56, 179 and even 1800 years (and others we’ve not talked about). This drives much of the natural variation of our weather and 30 year average of weather called ‘climate’ by some….

    I have not studied the issue in depth as Ian Wilson and E.M. Smith have, but I think, from what I have read, the moon is more of an influence than the Warmists want to acknowledge.

    THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FIND!

    “Cornell Study” (t is not a Cornell study but a paper published by an Italian scientist and available through Cornell’s on-line Library. )

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212

    On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon
    Lorenzo Iorio

    ABSTRACT
    A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr revealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity of the lunar orbit amounting to de/dt_meas = (9 +/- 3) 10^-12 yr^-1. The present-day models of the dissipative phenomena occurring in the interiors of both the Earth and the Moon are not able to explain it. We examine several dynamical effects, not modeled in the data analysis, in the framework of long-range modified models of gravity and of the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm. It turns out that none of them can accommodate de/dt_meas. Many of them do not even induce long-term changes in e; other models do, instead, yield such an effect, but the resulting magnitudes are in disagreement with de/dt_meas. In particular, the general relativistic gravitomagnetic acceleration of the Moon due to the Earth’s angular momentum has the right order of magnitude, but the resulting Lense-Thirring secular effect for the eccentricity vanishes. A potentially viable Newtonian candidate would be a trans-Plutonian massive object (Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche) since it, actually, would affect e with a non-vanishing long-term variation. On the other hand, the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain the right order of magnitude for de/dt are completely unrealistic. Moreover, they are in neat disagreement with both the most recent theoretical scenarios envisaging the existence of a distant, planetary-sized body and with the model-independent constraints on them dynamically inferred from planetary motions. Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon’s eccentricity remains open.

    So that 1800 years is not really a hard and fast number.

  152. ren says:

    Gail Combs
    This is what I wrote above.
    Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude. Our results, simulated with a radiative-photochemical model, are consistent with contemporaneous measurements of ozone from the Aura-MLS satellite, although the short time period makes precise attribution to solar effects difficult. We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity.

  153. Gail Combs says:

    thanks ren

  154. Gail, I have a question. What implications does the article below have for the strength or lack of strength of the AMOC?

    Does what is said below weaken the AMOC due to the fact the deep water formation around Greenland, (in response to record deep water formation in the Southern Ocean) flows southward more slowly hence weakening the AMOC?

    Bob Tisdale plots a very strong drop in Southern Ocean SST around 2007: bobtisdale(DOT)files.wordpress.com/2013/12/14-southern.png
    The drop in Southern Ocean SST is associated with record westerly winds and current along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the by far the worlds strongest and the only one that connects all ocean basins… The increase in current speed is also causing record upwelling of cold water. The record sea ice is causing record deep water formation rates due to salt rejection and dense water creation . The AMOC or the giant ocean conveyor belt begins in the southern ocean. Look for the cold to come to us in the near future.

  155. So, since at today’s levels of sea ice extents, “more Arctic sea ice loss” up north means a net loss of energy from the planet; and “more sea ice extents gain” down south means a net loss of energy from the planet, we are facing a future big problem. If today’s trends continue.

    Gail another question. I was thinking they wanted to say more Arctic sea ice loss means a net gain of energy for the planet but the overall net energy for the planet is a loss due to Antarctica Sea Ice Gain more then compensating for Arctic Sea Ice loss?

  156. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore,
    On your first question I could not say without doing a bit more reading. Obviously this is NOT a subject the Warmists want to get into too deeply.

    On the second question –
    What Cook was pointing out was:

    1. Antarctic is LAND at the pole therefore Sea Ice is much closer to the equator.
    Because it is much closer to the equator it is going to reflect more sunlight.

    2. the Arctic is a land locked OCEAN.
    The critical point is that when the Arctic sea Ice has melted and the sea Ice is at minimum it is in September just as we are hitting the fall equinox.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    So what is happening to the sun?

    September Equinox (approximately September 22-23)

    This day begins fall in the Northern Hemisphere and spring in the Southern Hemisphere. There are twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness at all points on the earth’s surface on the two equinoxes. Sunrise is at 6 a.m. and sunset is at 6 p.m. local (solar) time for most points on the earth’s surface.

    North Pole: The sun is on the horizon at the North Pole on the September Equinox in the morning. The sun sets at the North Pole at noon on the September Equinox and the North Pole remains dark until the March Equinox.

    Arctic Circle: Experiences 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. The sun is 66.5 degrees off of the zenith or 23.5 degrees above the horizon.
    http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/fourseasons.htm

    Cook gives you the solar insolation values for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 … for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….”
    The column “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” is the radiation received on the equinox for solar radiation at each latitude at noon.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/#comment-1571641

    The “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September.

    In October of 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers.
    . ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south.

    So reading from Cook’s table:
    RADIATION ……LAT 80N…EQUATOR..Lat 60S
    Direct perp. surf …..540……….1150……….980
    direct horiz. surf……92………..1150………..492

    Direct ocean albedo..0.343…0.025……..0.077
    direct ocean Absorb…….61….1121………..454
    Direct ocean reflect……..32……..29………….38

    direct Ice Absorb………19…….231……………99
    Direct Ice reflect……….74……..920………….393
    ………..
    You can see that when the Arctic sea has the least amount of ice, the ocean is barely absorbing any energy from the sun or the ice reflecting any energy. Instead it is actually radiating away energy. Yet at the same time the Antarctic sea ice extent because it is much closer to the equator is reflecting FIVE times as much energy as Arctic sea ice or if there is no ice, absorbing SEVEN times as much energy.

    Remember at the equinoxes, both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, so you can see how much more important the Antarctic is.

  157. Gail Combs says:

    I am going to reproduce R. A. Cook’s comment because it is so very very important. It is the reason I started looking closely at the Antarctic instead of the Arctic. (Look a Squirrel!)

    RACookPE1978 says: @ February 18, 2014 at 8:40 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/18/how-much-sunlight-actually-enters-the-system/#comment-1571201

    Albedo of Arctic sea ice changes only based on day-of-year. Albedo starts high at 0.82, stays steady at 0.82 until May, decreases through the summer to a low of 0.46, then rises again to 0.82 until about September, then remains at 0.82 until the end of December. This is from Dr Curry’s measured data.

    1. Albedo of sea ice does NOT change with latitude.

    2. Albedo of open ocean changes with every HOUR of every day as the solar elevation angle changes each minute. Specifically, open ocean albedo does NOT change explicitly with latitude, but latitude affects the overall SEA change over day-of-year AND latitude and hour-of-day (HRA), These changes are based on the earth’s declination and geometry and is strictly and specifically defined. But, Hour-of-day and day-of-year CANNOT be separated from latitude.

    3. Opposite the above, the yearly maximum solar radiation occurs in early January at 1410 watts.m^2. The minimum solar top-of-atmosphere radiation occurs July 3, when the Arctic sea ice is decreasing strongly day-by-day, BUT while Arctic sea ice is between min and max. Roughly, the edge of Arctic sea ice is between 74 and 76 north.

    At the point of maximum solar radiation at TOA, the ANTARCTIC sea ice is is a wide “ring” slowly varying from 59.2 south (last October under 1370 watts/m^2) to about 64 south latitude (in January under 1410 watts/m^2) to a minimum sea ice extent at 3 Mkm^2 (in March at 70 south latitude back down to 1360 watts/m^2). So, when the TOA solar radiation is at its maximum, ARCTIC sea ice is dark. When the top-of-atmosphere radiation is at its max, Antarctic sea ice is not at its minimum.

    Net effect: As a whole, Antarctic sea ice is MUCH, MUCH closer to the equator every day of the year.

    Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

    The opposite happens in the Antarctic: More sea ice around Antarctica means more heat reflected from the planet and a net cooler planet.

    So with Arctic Sea Ice decreasing and Antarctic Sea Ice increasing you have a double whammy of COOLING.

    I hope that helped.

  158. Paul Vaughan says:

    Southern Ocean = Cool

  159. ren says:

    The drop in temperature in the stratosphere most visible over the South Pole, and he causes an increase in wind (increasing gradients).

  160. ren says:

    See the sudden change of temperature in the stratosphere in 2001.



    At the beginning of 2001 suns magnetic activity strongly decreased.
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html

  161. Speaking of lags
    Solstice : shortest day of the year here in Australia the other day
    The sun has only just started to return toward our tropic of Capricorn and the day commences to lengthen . Yet the maximum cooling of our continent does not peak until August ( ~ observation.)

    That is an ~ 2 month lag for the mid latitudes ( latitude :Victoria).
    The westerly belt expands around the Antartic in winter and throws some nice cold fronts on to the southern Australian mainland

    No lag for the tropics generally
    as the temp’ in Darwin tropics often hovers at 30-32 deg C just about all year.

    BTW
    Perisher snow resort in NSW had a record 48 hr snow event the other day after a controversial record warm autumn
    and another whopping cold front to arrive this weekend. They have became less post 1975 during warming phase
    . Hopefully some more cold..

  162. So reading from Cook’s table:
    RADIATION ……LAT 80N…EQUATOR..Lat 60S
    Direct perp. surf …..540……….1150……….980
    direct horiz. surf……92………..1150………..492

    Direct ocean albedo..0.343…0.025……..0.077
    direct ocean Absorb…….61….1121………..454
    Direct ocean reflect……..32……..29………….38

    direct Ice Absorb………19…….231……………99
    Direct Ice reflect……….74……..920………….393

    GAIL ,questions with this. I was told no question is stupid so here they are . Thanks..

    1. What does Direct perp. surf 540 1150 980 mean??

    2. All values are in watts?

  163. I figured it out ,had a mental block.

    direct perpendicular surface and watts

  164. Gail Combs says:

    Thanks REN, “The drop in temperature in the stratosphere most visible over the South Pole, and he causes an increase in wind”

    And the wind drives the currents around the Antarctic. The higher the wind velocity, the higher the current velocity and when it hits the restrictions at Drake Passage (South America) and Cape of Good Hope (Africa) it sends more cold water up the coast.

    Ice Age Now has been reporting the unusually cold weather in South Africa and South America in recent years. (A double check on the theory.)