The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? (You are here) | V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions
Implacably, the discovery of a notch suggests a delay of anything from 10 to 20 years but most likely 11 years. (Don’t miss the delay post — two very big important concepts out in two posts). The big mystery is what could cause such a long delay in the correlation of solar radiation with temperatures on Earth?
David and I spent months wondering “what on Earth” could drive it. There were many possibilities though none of them seemed to be able to respond with the right timing: A resonant slop in ocean circulation could absorb extra energy, but it was difficult to see how the timing would be so tight with solar peaks. Likewise changes in ice or land cover. Then there are lunar cycles of 9 – 18 years, potentially generating atmospheric standing waves, but they were not synchronous with the sun.
Given that marine life can produce aerosol particles or carbonyl sulphide, we wondered if blue green algae or phytoplankton were the key. I particularly liked the idea that life on Earth would evolve to try to take advantage of the little extra energy arriving at regular intervals. But it’s unlikely, though not impossible, that microbiology would act after an 11 year delay. They could respond in weeks or months — but that type of response would not produce “a notch” in the transfer function. I spent most of 2013 spotting tantalizing 8 – 12 year cycles in papers on everything from arctic tundra to jet streams. All of which were interesting, but none of which would sit quietly for 10 years and then spring to life.
In the end, the answer was so prosaic, so beautiful — of course, the only possibility for a delay so perfectly timed with solar cycles was within the sun itself. Have we been fooled by a language slip? “Peak” solar activity doesn’t mean a “peak” in magnetic activity, actually it’s the other way around.
Think about the timing: At the peak of the sunspot cycle, while the sun is producing its maximum solar irradiation, it turns out that the Sun’s magnetic field is collapsing through its weakest moment. (Marvel at Figure 1 below.) The solar radiation only varies a little through the cycle, but the dynamo of the solar magnetic field is undergoing profound changes — flipping in polarity from North to South or back again. This causes the notch.
We don’t know exactly how this collapsing magnetic field reduces the effect of solar radiation on Earth. One obvious candidate is Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis. He theorized that during the months of the weakest magnetic field the Earth loses its shield against cosmic rays, seeding clouds. But the mystery force might be electrical, or work through UV, or be something else entirely. Nonetheless, it was a leap to finally connect so many studies.
(This was a memorable “aha” moment — We did enjoy!.) — Jo
——————————————————-
Physical Interpretation of the Notch and Delay
Dr David Evans, 17 June 2014, David Evans’ Notch-Delay Solar Theory and Model Home
[Logically this post belongs a little later in the series, but some people seem so interested in the physical interpretation of the notch and the delay that we’ll jump forward in the story a little for a bit. So please excuse me for dragging a couple of things in from left field while I explain this, but I am under editor’s orders.]
The notch was observed in the data, and the delay was inferred from the notch. But what are the physical explanations for the notch and the delay?
The biggest clue lies in the delay, which we’ll take here to be the most likely value of about 11 years, though it could be as low as 10 years or as high as 20 years in the curve fitting.
The delay in the solar model says that today’s temperatures are more influenced by the level of solar radiation 11 years ago than by the level either 5 or 25 years ago. So something to do with climate has a memory of 11 years; the delay is not simply due to a dissipative element, like a store of heat in the ocean that declines at a certain rate.
(The heat store of the oceans is almost certainly the main element in the low pass filter, which is a dissipative element with a time constant, but that is quite separate from the delay. If a dissipative element dominated the response to TSI then today’s temperatures would be more influenced by the TSI of 5 years ago than of 11 years ago, but it’s the other way around.)
As far as we know there is nothing on Earth with a memory spanning multiple years. But there is one climate actor with an 11 year clock—the Sun.
The Sun’s sunspot cycle has an average length of 11 years, although it varies from 8 to 14 years. The Sun’s full cycle is actually 22 years long on average, consisting of two consecutive sunspot cycles, one with the Sun’s magnetic field in each orientation.
Also, the notching suggests that there is a countervailing force that counteracts the TSI peaks in the global surface temperature. This countervailing force would have to synchronized to the TSI peaks. While it might be a force that reacts to the onset of a TSI peak, a simpler explanation is that it originates on the Sun like the TSI and is thus synchronized to the TSI. *
We will soon deduce from the solar model that the notch and the delay work by affecting the albedo of the Earth (the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected straight back out to space by clouds, snow, ice etc. without warming the Earth, about 30%). We will also find by looking at the proportional changes in solar radiation and albedo that over the last few decades that the effect on temperature of albedo modulation has been at least six times greater than the immediate heating effect of variation in solar radiation. So it appears the notch and delay are associated with a powerful indirect solar influence that modulates the Earth’s albedo.
It is important not to prejudge what this influence is, so let us call this influence “force X” for now. Therefore the existence of “force X” is formally proposed:
- If force X is larger, the Earth gets warmer.
- Changes in force X lag behind changes in solar radiation by the delay, which is most likely half of the full solar cycle, or 180°—force X and TSI are in anti-cycle. The delay is the time between peaks in sunspots, which averages 11 years but varies from 8 to 14 years.
- Force X affects the Earth’s temperature by changing its albedo.
- Force X increases when the Sun’s magnetic field is stronger, and is weakest when the Sun’s magnetic field is reversing its polarity.
This last property is because peaks in solar radiation and sunspots coincide with reversals in the Sun’s magnetic field, as shown in Figure 1.
The Sun’s magnetic field reverses polarity every sunspot cycle, about every 11 years, and it occurs just as the TSI and the number of sunspots are peaking. In the reversal, the Sun’s north pole gets swapped with its south pole, so the magnitudes of some aspects of the solar magnetic field go briefly to zero, and presumably all aspects of the various solar magnetic fluxes are at a minimum. For example, the magnitude of the solar polar magnetic shown in Figure 1 field drops to zero before rebounding as the polar field reverses polarity.
This synchronicity of peaks in solar radiation with troughs in force X accounts for the observed notching. Just as the TSI peaks the warming from force X is at a minimum, so the peak in the direct warming effect of TSI is counteracted by the trough in warming from force X. Presumably the combined influence of the peak in TSI and the trough in force X is less than the precision of the temperature record.
(By the way, it was Joanne who noticed the synchronicity of TSI peaks with magnetic field reversals and made the connection to the notch and delay.)
Figure 1: When sunspot activity peaks, solar radiation is at a maximum but the solar magnetic field is at its weakest because it is reversing polarity. (This figure merely illustrates the timing; the solar polar field is but one aspect of the Sun’s magnetic field, and it is not proposed that this is force X.)
Although we can deduce its presence in the datasets, at this stage it is not known what force X is. We cannot measure some signal on an antenna pointed somewhere and say “that is force X”. Conversely, nearly every measured variable has been compared to temperature, so if someone was measuring force X they probably would have noticed by now.
The obvious candidate for force X is some aspect of the solar magnetic field that is responsible for deflecting cosmic rays so that they do not hit the Earth as often as they would otherwise. More cosmic rays hitting the Earth may create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, lowering the unreflected TSI entering the climate system and thus cooling the Earth’s surface. When the appropriate component of the solar magnetic field is stronger, it warms the Earth by protecting it from cooling cosmic rays. Thus, a solar magnetic field could modulate the albedo of Earth. When solar radiation peaks, force X is momentarily weak and the cosmic ray shields are down.
It is possible that force X is not related to cosmic rays. For instance force X might be electric and modulate the ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere, or otherwise affect the Earth’s atmosphere by some electrical connection. Solar magnetic fields are known to directly influence weather near the Earth’s poles, and may influence mid-latitudes via the global atmospheric electric circuit (Lam et al 2013). Or there may be solar influences which are not explainable yet (e.g. Sober 2010). Or it might be that solar UV modulates algae or plankton which in turn modulate albedo (Beckman, 2014). Yoshimura in 1996 found that the TSI leads some index of the solar magnetic field by 10.3 years, and posited that the Sun could affect the Earth’s climate “through two channels”.
Or it might be more than one of the above.
While the effects on temperature of the tiny changes in the immediate heating effects of TSI are too small to explain the recent global warming, those tiny changes are a leading indicator of force X. Tremors in the near-constant level of solar radiation foretell what force X will do in 11 years’ time. Because TSI indicates what force X will do in about 11 years, the TSI record is also a record of future force X.
Figure 2: Symbolic diagram of the Sun’s influence. The Sun influences Earthly temperature by two forces, solar radiation and force X, where changes in the former lead the latter by half a full solar (Hale) cycle. The influence of force X on changes in Earthly temperatures is about 10 to 20 times the influences of changes in the solar radiation.
Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI (a result we will show later). TSI no doubt has vastly more energy than force X, but the changes in TSI are proportionally very small. Indeed, the level of TSI was thought to be constant until satellites were able to measure it more closely and found minor variations, and it used to be called “the solar constant”.
Force X affects the albedo of Earth, affecting how much solar radiation gets reflected straight back out to space. Force X is like a tap, a small force controlling the much larger flow of solar radiation into the Earth’s climate system.
I know that “force X” sounds speculative, but this is where the trail has taken us. We observed the notch, deduced the delay, and the 11 year clock leads us to the Sun. We find some confirmation in the synchronicity of the peaks in TSI with the troughs in the Sun’s magnetic field, so force X has something to do with the solar magnetic field. The story isn’t complete until we know what force X is.
This is logical, but otherwise unsatisfactory because we have not actually found force X. Before “force X” can be named properly, we need a graph of something we can measure and that correlates very well with temperature. Until then we can only speculate with complicated higher-tech tools like transfer functions, delays, signals, and models.
See also the two previous posts explaining the discovery of a notch, and why it suggests a delay. (Just released today too).
Notch-delay solar project home page, including links to all the articles on this blog, with summaries.
* This paragraph added 23 June 2014. ** Watts reference corrected to Beckman. June 2024.
REFERENCES
Lam, M M; Chisham, G; Freeman, M P, “The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure”, Environmental Research Letters, 2013
Stober, Dan, The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements, Stanford News, August 2010, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
Beckmann, M., Václavík,T., Manceur,A.M., Šprtová, L., von Wehrden, H., Welk, E., Cord, A. (2014) glUV: a global UV-B radiation data set for macroecological studies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2014; 5 (4): 372 DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12168. Written up by The Hockey Schtick.
Svensmark, H. (2007). Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48: 1.18-1.24. [Abstract] [PDF]
Svensmark, H. 1998. Influence of cosmic rays on earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters 81: 5027-5030. [Discussion CO2Science] [PDF]
Svensmark, H., Bondo, T. and Svensmark, J. 2009. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038429. [Discussion CO2Science]
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E. (2007) Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing, Danish National Space Center, Scientific Report 3/2007 [PDF]
Yoshimura, H. (1996). Coupling of Total Solar Irradiance and Solar Magnetic Field Variations with Time Lags: Magneto-thermal Pulsation of the Sun. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, ASP Conference Series, Vol 95, pp. 601 – 608. [Article]
there is a basic assumption that can be made..you have no proof that solar activity is the cause, it can be that what causes the variation of the sun cause the variation of the earth climate system.
It can be for instance very tiny modifications but with a right frequency …
i don’t know, but as long you don’t suggest any physical cause as svnesmark do…you just don’t know…only correlations…
651
Did you read the next to last paragraph? It appears you did not.
You are saying essentially what David said but used different words.
563
In fact, lemiere jacques was so keen to be the first commentator on this thread, that he appears to have pulled the trigger, before removing the revolver from the holster.
He is probably hopping mad that you picked him up on it so quickly. Well done Lionell.
333
” it can be that what causes the variation of the sun cause the variation of the earth climate system.”
As I suggested in part II, Jupiter but htis could be via the magnetic cycle of the sun.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007_s10509-013-1558-3.pdf
00
I think you are on the right track here Siliggy. Everybody except you David and Sonney is suffering conceptual error. The same force that causes sunspots is responsible for the earths temperature increase via ElNino. The sunspots are not the cause they are just the correlated symptom.
The only force that works over the Earth, Sun solar system scale in gravity. Physics 101.
So what gravity effect could generate sunspots and impact on the Earth?
Conceptual error No 2.
The Sun is assumed to process through galactic space in a linear fashion. It does not.
It wobbles through space over a distance of + or – it radius.
This wobble is highly correlated to sunspots.
No sunspots mean that the Suns wobble is at a stable minimum.
The Suns wobble must produce a variation in the centripetal force on the Earth in its orbit. This force is at a minimum when sunspots are low. Forces on the Earths crust are at minimum. Then the Earth supply’s a large portion of force X.
00
Hard Rocks,
I think you are on to something with gravity. But don’t forget magnetism and electric charges.
00
I think force X when it is defined will be a complex interaction of several factors. Magnetism and electric charges may turn out to be some of those factors. I am not up on a model for how that would work.
To the extent that the earths magnetism is a product of the mantle, it could be contributing to force X or it may be an effect.
How do you see magnetism being part of force X?
00
Force X = Earth’s magnetic field generator. Earth’s molten core. The Sun is massive, it’s magnetic field must impact the eddies and currents in our core. Which could take a decade to “reach” the surface in terms of delta heat flux
10
I am skeptical about eddies and currents in the earths mantle. They are considered the default driver of plate tectonics, but whenever I have asked how they could possibly generate the forces required the response has always been a shrug “that’s how it works”.
To me that elevates the idea to dogma. It is an idea without any evidence and to this extent plate tectonics is an incomplete theory.
An alternative explanation is Dr James Maxlow’s Expanding Earth Hypothesis.
http://www.ow.ly/y0oaL
It is a much simpler explanation and therefore more likely.
In this theory the earths circumference is expanding at 22cm / year on average and the mid ocean ridges are the crusts expansion joints. No eddies or currents required to drive the system.
00
Note also that the whole experiment hinges on there being an expected roughly linear relationship between insolation and temperature (which we know exists because of diurnal and annual cycles). If our observations on diurnal and annual temperatures are true then there should be an 11 year signal, but there is not. Climate scientists say, alright then it’s not the sun it must be CO2. David says hmm, it must be the Sun, but something is counteracting the insolation, and needing synchonicity it’s logical that this would be the sun too.
I see nothing wrong with this reasoning so far.
David and Jo, I favour an electrostatic / UV influence, how does the fraction of the solar wind intersecting the magnetosphere vary with Solar magnetic field intensity.
Willis, this description favours your ideas, perhaps the time of cloud emergence is not only influenced by temperature but UV and electrostatic effects as well.
90
Interesting you mention the solar wind. It’s my thinking that solar magnetic field and sunspot activity might cause changes in the solar wind (radiative pressure) as well, considering this would influence the Van Allen belts and the Earth’s magnetic field. I’m a little late on this subject so correct me if I’m wrong..
30
I think what can definitely be concluded is that the stats are in; TSI via some mechanism dominates temperature via a delayed effect. Glassman said this some time ago:
Wheels within wheels; and the wheels have fallen off the AGW cart!
80
The flaw in David Evan’s idea is in his failure to appreciate the scale of earth’s environmental forces. The oceans Oceans don’t just store heat, and store it for very long periods, they relocate heat. The thermohaline circulation which collects energy in the Indian Ocean and further tops that up in the Carribean travels at around 950 kilometers per year. So energy from the Indian Ocean can take 2 to 3 solar cycles to reach Europe. That energy transfer is immense at 50 watts per square meter being delivered to the North Atlantic. This on its own dwarfs the 2 to 3 watts of solar variation being delivered to the Earths outer atmosphere. And the rate/timing of the delivery can fluctuate vastly to give a large range of climatic effects, and interpretations.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/glodap_pdfs/Thermohaline.web.pdf
There are so many environmental aspects to this subject that appear to delude JoNovians that it would be futile for me to spend a month logging them all down, but i will draw on the knowledge of one of the great scientists, Sir Ian Axford
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/3/3.37.full
who was absolutely under no delusions about the effects of CO2 on Global Warming and our climate, and spent his last years highlighting the peril that we all face from the thawing of the Artic Tundra and the release of its immense store of Methane gas (a process that is now, sadly, well under way).
114
You natter on almost correctly about the massive scale and range of climatic effects in the Earth system, then point to measly CO2 (0.04% atmospheric) as the sole reason, which has easily been proven a non-driver of anything, besides plant growth. Now who’s deluded?
51
Another thing, you panic about CH4, which although appears to have about 23x the “greenhouse” capability of CO2, the total of it in the atmosphere (about 1800 part per BILLION – 0.00018%) equates to about 42ppm CO2, which is effectively zero. These permafrosts have melted before in the past and there was no runaway greenhouse. CH4 bubbles up from the ocean floor, lake beds and just about everywhere. Why are you here instead of sticking a cork up your own?
52
I keep hearing how warmists say they are never belching fear or catastrophic outcomes (we know to be propaganda). Then here’s Bilb
Bill, if it is well underway we are Fu^#ed right? why then, should we stop burning carbon that will make our last days more comfortable?
51
While you’re at it BilB and the enormous energy in the Thermohaline why don’t you do a comparison between the energy used by condensation compared with the alleged forcing by CO2?
In your answer consider William Gilbert’s paper and his equation 3:
dU = CvdT + Ldq + gdh – PdV
From which it is established that energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV exceed 1000 W/m2 each and every day.
How does the alleged forcing from CO2 of 3.7 W/m2 over the next 100 years or so compare with that?
And when you come back from that we can talk about Makarieva’s work on condensation.
50
The approach here is a black box approach. To the extent that the system as defined (TSI in, temperature out) is sufficiently linear and invariant, then the analysis does not care about the mechanisms inside the box.
30
More from someone who just can’t wait until the whole theory is presented before criticizing it.
BilB, go home, drink a glass of your favorite wine, relax and come back after the last chapter has been published. Then there’s something you can criticize if you want to.
10
“only correlations…”. Maybe like the “800+ year” correlation delay which CO2 maxima follows the Temperature maxima in the ice cores.
40
Unlike AGW; no correlations, only assumptions.
90
Carbonyl sulphide is an interesting idea, but may not be necessary. Dimethyl sulphide, a breakdown product of the cell walls of 8 phytoplanktons, segregates to ice when seawater freezes. It acts next year or next ice age to make cloud condensation nuclei when the ice melts. This mechanism causes the amplification of delta tsi at the end of ice ages, also happening on a 50-70 year cycle in the Arctic.
I wrote a paper about this 2 years ago; Nature ‘Climate Change’ rejected it in 48 hours because the maths was too complex for its (Climate Junkie) readership! In reality, it seems it was because it showed there is no need for any CO2 effect,. which is near zero anyway!
The catastrophists will, in time, be displaced from their control of publication.
110
This is all such fantastic stuff,
This truly a system of “peer review” that actually means something!
No closed doors, no private data or methods, no government grants on the line.
This is open, honest discussion and critique by people genuinely interested with varying degrees iif knowledge all having their say!
I can only see a benefit in that some discussion here will help David take this theory to the next level, or refine how to communicate the message.
The Jo Nova blog IS THE NEW CLIMATE SCIENCE!!!
Big shout out to Jo and David for the fulminations if their hard work, honesty and dedication
90
Now there is a thorough and searching scientific review. Good work,…Sonny.
014
And there is another waste of time and space from Blib.
50
Sort of redefines the term ‘prat’.
20
Seriously, this stuff is just so WAY OVER this poor old Earthmoving Contractor’s head.
I suspect though, that very soon I will be very proud (even more so) to say that I have followed Joanne Nova and team for a long time. Good always triumphs over evil. Thankyou Jo.
653
Earthmoving Contractors deserve a lot of respect, they are very practical folks. I have driven a D-8 – frightened the life out of me, and there was no way I was going anywhere near the D-32.
So I say, “Hang in there. I am sure it will all become clear when they release the movie”.
The interesting point is that all of the counter comments, so far, have been attempts to take the threads off-topic. But few people are actually prepared to debate what David Evans is presenting.
380
Timi,
In essence what David says is simple, If TSI modulates temperature (and we know is does – winter is colder than summer) then there should be an 11 Year cycle in temperature but there is not. Rather than as climate scientists have done, discarding the Sun, David has gone looking for a counteracting force that cancels out the sunspot signal. What the Notch tells him is to look for a force that is delayed 11 years with respect to the sunspots.
The magnetic cycle fits this description. This doesn’t mean that’s true, maybe for example the action of UV at peak sunspot is counteracting the effects of Visible and IR at peak susnspot to give a Nett zero effect. What David is hypothesisizing is only that there is a roughly equal and opposite solar influence working in tandem with TSI.
PS. If the delay were different, say about 3-5 years, that would implicate a different source say a biological source because the response rate of biology is faster than 11 years
270
That faulty argument will confuse newcomers. TSI is measured at the top of the atmosphere, so the orientation of the earth is irrelevant. The earth-sun distance varies during the year, which alters the received TSI slightly, but the tilt of the earth is what makes the seasons, not the distance to the sun. For one thing TSI alters over mainly an 11 year cycle, not much in a 1 year cycle, as seen from most of data sources in David’s previous TSI spectrum. PMOD’s TSI data shows a slight annual cycle but on that logarithmic scale it clearly much weaker than the 11 year cycle. Secondly, experience tells us it’s not summer in both hemispheres simultaneously.
Yes. It’s a hard slog sorting through all the other comments here, but I think what some other people are suggesting is the same kind of objection as yours. I would phrase it differently…
By assuming that the suppression of the TSI peak at 11 years is due to something which is frequency sensitive, this implies the existence of a delay long enough to make a notch filter physically causal. If the suppression of the TSI peak is due to some other mechanism which is unrelated to the frequency of occurrence (eg UV drop), then the need to propose a notch filter with 11 year delay disappears. A 3rd factor could cause suppressed response without delay.
I think David’s pre-emptive counter argument there is that other reasons for proposing a delayed temperature response to the solar activity have been found already in other sources, eg pSCL predicting next cycle temperatures.
30
I’m still trying to get my head around part II.
Thought the parts were going to be released every few days.
Oh well…if I was sitting on something so important, I too would be eager to release it.
Just go for it, guys.
60
I for one am glad that it is coming out in instalments. I have just read through part 4, and I find it helpful to read parts of the argument a second time, after a delay of a day or so.
Very interesting so far.
00
” Or it might by that solar UV modulates algae or plankton which in turn modulate albedo (Watts, 2014).” Typo.
—Ta! – Jo
50
Farmerbraun
When I looked at all this a few years back Jasper Kirkby from CERN threw me for six with this about the sign being wrong. This may get David and Jo interested too. It would alter the attenuation of the notch!
http://youtu.be/63AbaX1dE7I?t=25m1s
I became interested in how UV can modulate clouds via Plankton.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
Also got interested in the modulation of this by the sun.
http://www.photobiology.info/Hader.html
So there we have a way that clouds are modulated by the sunspot cycle that is neither Cosmic radiation or heat.
Now David and Jo are making me wonder what the UV phase relationship to the TSI and magnetic variation is.
70
Thanks Siliggy! Found that first video on TSI spectral changes at sunspot peaks very interesting. Could be a big clue to force X.
80
I’m thinking (very simplistically and in ignorance) of the Earth and Sun as two magnets, one of course massive when considered next to the other. The smaller Earth whistles along in orbit around the Sun, presumably the benefactor of an induced electrical field (and energy).
As the Sun’s magnetic field switches polarity, the induced electric field on Earth wanes the TSI is observed to rise. If the Sun’s total energetic output remains about the same, are we witnessing the interchange between magnetic and thermal energies from the Sun ? If so, do the Earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere interact differently to the variation of incoming solar energy, dependent on its current (no pun intended) state (magnetic / thermal components) and taking into account the variation of local induction as the Earth moves in orbit through the magnetic field?
140
Does Maxwell get a look in here?
61
What I imply refers to magnetic energy.
00
I still vividly recall seeing a documentary about a South American river some years ago. It was not about climate. But one of the dam operators mentioned he had noticed the river had higher or lower flows in relation to so sunspot activity. That is, every 11 years.
111
That could be explained via steric rise due to thermal expansion of the water. The heat source has its origins in the earths core which fluctuates its thermal output based interaction with 11 year electro magnetic cycles within the solar system.
91
There are papers about this!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/22/solar-to-river-flow-and-lake-level-correlations/
I think it matches very well with the Svensmark theory. In regions of high humidity, cloud condensation nuclei (like cosmic rays) should be expected to be a very potent modulator of cloudiness levels. Similar to how microscopic impurities in your soda create streamers of bubbles (bubble nucleation in this case).
There are many papers showing EXTREMELY strong correlations between cosmic ray flux and climate: https://indico.cern.ch/event/52576/material/slides/0
61
Arun,
Here is another perspective on the CERN Cloud experiments and conclusions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Extremely strong correlation is not what I have read anywhere other than that Jasper Kirby item.
Here is a round up of the thinking
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/cosmic-rays-and-climate-to-be-or-not-to-be/
If Kirby is right then we should be seeing a mini ice age forming as early as next year.
04
Do you have any ideas as to the essential characteristics of X which
might help those who might like to speculate as to it’s nature or residence. From what I have read, you appear to have ruled out any earthbound event, phenomenon or cycle.
As I am not scientifically trained, I may have missed any clues in your posts.
Appologies if I missed them.
50
Just the four points (numbered 1…4) in the article above, plus the level of influence described by the model — basically about 10 to 20 times as much influence on temperature as changes in TSI.
40
David, you’ve seen some of Vukcvic’s work in this area I assume.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
00
Wish I knew what force X was precisely. This might be part of it. There are a lot of clues to work through.
10
Earths magnetic field don’t change polarity that often as the Sun? Hmmmm
30
No. So if you think about it, every other cycle, the Earth is either being attracted towards the Sun slightly, or being repelled by it. I wonder if there is any evidence of a resulting orbital change?
70
I tought more of circulation regimes on Earth? Hmmm
20
The whole planet earth is dynamic. Daily tides, the seasonal ebb and flow from summer through winter, the SOI and PDO are tangible and real to all who care to look. It stands to reason that the sun was always going to be the major driver of climate change and not the petty influences of man through “carbon dioxide pollution”
Well done David and Joanne. You’re bursting the bubble!
322
Peter
For what it’s worth I believe you are correct.
The ‘settled science’ poorly allows for most natural processes. As I’ve asked before (and recieved no relavent replies) if incoming solar energy is supposed to equal outgoing solar energy, how does life keep going? On nought?
I’ve recently asked at another blog, if all you have to account for is the interaction of IR radiation, what causes the wind to blow? If we had no sun would the wind still blow? If so how? And these winds carry many tons of dust and water many thousnds of miles, where does the energy for that come from?
I am glad to see that Mr Evan has inclused natural (living) processes in his explaination. I believe the more we look the more we will see.
I wonder how many poeple have experience life on the edge of a forest or large wood, and seen, as I have, the forest’s ablility to regulate to some degree, heat ahd humidity therein? So many processes we do not fully understand, and do not account for fully in the ‘settled science’.
Maybe the answer as Bob Dylan sang is “Blowing in the wind”?
For on any day a those winds will russel the leaves, converting ill defined air movement to sound, and that sound is absorbed by all the soft celled life, warming it so very slightly.
Or should we think of Dylan other idea
“Yes’ n’ how many times must a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn’t see?”
140
Tom,
Not a great example, a goodly amount of the wind and wave energy is due to the earths rotation, but some unknown fraction undoubtedly is thermally sourced, You can see that in wave energy, every square meter of ocean surface carries about 36 times the energy of incoming insolation (36 KW) for a 2m swell. The Oceans wave energy has to come from other than thermals, but some fraction is thermally sourced and expended into slowing the earths rotation or into the gravitational system. How much energy is extracted this way is completely unknown since the fraction of ocean energy that comes from insolation isn’t known. The Energy in = Energy out model doesn’t allow for these sorts of losses and is undoubtedly wrong.
31
Sorry about the example but it is one I’ve used often and like.
I’ve gone to some very sciency blogs a while ago with this intro, then move on to the (local and finite) anti-entropy that life performs by just being.
All life just picks up small amounts of (radiant) energy, water, trace gases, and some other chemicals, and with ease transforms them into a higher energy store that can be used later, or not used.
As nearly all life gets its energy from the sun (at some point) how can there be an energy balance of TSI in = radiated energy out? Does life itself not require energy? Just does not make sense.
I left all the professors at the sciency blogs arguing over that – it still hasn’t been resolved.
40
And the energy required for erosion, waves at sea etc etc.
30
Bobl
you say of wind and waves “but some unknown fraction undoubtedly is thermally sourced” – you must live becalmed.
Water is thermally(by the sun) active. Therefore the faction is very, very, large. Just the millions of tons of water transported thousands of miles daily says so. Add in few cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, waterspouts, etc.,
Unless you have some evidence otherwise, that is not an IPCC guess.
10
I don’t know, I looked up the energy content in waves once and it said that an averagish 2m swell contains 36KW per square meter of surface. If the insolation coming in at TOA is only 1KW per square meter of surface then the ocean can’t be driven by thermal influences much. (Energy conservation and all that)
I agree that it’s likely that a goodly portion of thermal energy is converted to kinetic wave action, through wind or thermally driven currents and so we really shouldn’t expect radiant energy out = radiant energy in. My point is merely that the effect isn’t quantified, so how can they say their energy balance model is right ?
10
Point is that a lot of energy is dissipated moving stuff backwards and forwards.
If I move 1 tonne of sand from point A to point B (as if), then move it back to point A.
where has that energy gone?
And think just how much sand the ocean waves moves backwards and forwards every day.
How much energy does it take to erode a mountain, to split rocks apart?
I would be amazed if energy in = energy out !
40
I’m obviously not expressing what I mean well enough.
I have pointed out the waves in the sea but that is not the end of it. And for your part, your reciting the obvious. Look beyond that, or have you lived becalmed, have you been on a boat in a storm? While I do not recommend it, it is an education.
I too have looked-up a few items, I was trying to find out how much global water is evaporated daily.
Interesting answers the most conserative was – “the ocean evaporates on a sunny day (24 hours) is: 2,915,304,079 gallons x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours = 251,018,272,425,600 (251 trillion gallons, give or take a few billion gallons”
Not bad, eh? Evaporation cooling the oceans, lofting the heat up to the sky as water vapor, where it radiates it’s heat away to the layers above and below, and on blowing inland on the thermals, rinses our lands with cooling rains.
Good job that this natural thermostat does all the cooling, or we might get run-away global warming.
30
I’m putting out my theory.
Force x is the earth system itself becoming hotter by convertinf electro magnetic potential energy into thermal energy within the earths core.
To confirm this I recommend we monitor some deep see vents at and see if there is such correlation, or see if there is an 11 year volcano cycle.
Scientist Sonny signing out
50
I’d doubt that. The fact that the transfer function is roughly the same as the signal and counter phase to it in my estimate implicates a characteristic of TSI itself that internally counteracts the TSI increase. To me that would implicate elements of solar emission that are not counted as part of TSI or are a small component of TSI. For example a particular sensitivity to a particular band of light that causes cooling. In my View UV or X-Ray emission fits.
That’s not to say I’m right just that there are plenty of candidates to investigate.
31
Induction?
Like in an induction hob?
10
Not enough magnetism for that
01
Bobl
On the scale of the solar system and even beyond, are you sure of that?
20
Seems volcanic activity does correspond with solar cycles…
http://www.agu.org/wps/ChineseJGeo/54/02/qwz.pdf
4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on more than 600 years data of global volcanic activities over VEI 5 and the northern hemispheric ground temperature, the western Pacific high SLP and SSTA of the Northern Atlantic westerly area, the analysis shows that:
(1) The global strong volcanic activities have the obvious 88 year cycle and 100 year century cycle, and also have the 33 year decade cycle and the 11 year cycle, which correlates to the solar activities.
How can this be? Nobody could entertain the notion that volcanic activity is affected by any atmospheric phenomena.
If this studies conclusion is correct, I (could be) correct, factor x is grounded in terra firma!
The conclusion is that climate change is induced by the same electro phenomena that cause 11 year solar cycles, and we too have 11 year “earth cycles”.
Now, where is my nobel prize?
70
What’s the common factor of 88, 33 and 11?
Eleven seems to be the magical number !
40
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2014/EGU2014-5253-6.pdf
Earthquakes as well, 11 year cycle! Force x is the earth itself!
On dependence of seismic activity on 11 year variations in solar activity and/or cosmic rays
Zhumabek Zhantayev (1), Galina Khachikyan (2), and Nikolay Breusov (3)
(1) National Center of Space Research and Technologies, Almaty, Kazakhstan ([email protected]), (2) Institute of Ionosphere of National Center of Space Research and Technologies, Almaty, Kazakhstan ([email protected]), (3) National Center of Space Research and Technologies, Almaty, Kazakhstan ([email protected])
It is found in the last decades that seismic activity of the Earth has a tendency to increase with decreasing so- lar activity (increasing cosmic rays). A good example of this effect may be the growing number of catastrophic earthquakes in the recent rather long solar minimum. Such results support idea on existence a solar-lithosphere relationship which, no doubts, is a part of total pattern of solar-terrestrial relationships. The physical mechanism of solar-terrestrial relationships is not developed yet. It is believed at present that one of the main contenders for such mechanism may be the global electric circuit (GEC) – vertical current loops, piercing and electrodynamically coupling all geospheres.
80
Colder periods seem to correspond to increased volcanic activity. Aerosols. Excellent. The cause of the increased activity? Interesting question.
30
If the “rock” was conductive a changing magnetic field would do it. Water in the rock might assist conductivity.
10
Really interesting speculation, especially since it has been established recently that deep rock acts as a semiconductor, complete with n and p regions, diodes, etc — electronic circuits on a cubic mile scale! LINK
While bizarre electric and magnetic phenomena have been reported to accompany (and precede) earthquakes for millennia, geologists are only now starting to take them seriously due to this possible mechanism being discovered. One of the many phenomena reported is the rapid formation of clouds, perhaps responding to ions emitted from the Earth’s surface.
What I haven’t seen speculated on (until now, HT MSimon) is how the gigantic circuits in and under the crust might interact with extraterrestrial magnetic fields. There is also the possibility that currents induced into the crust by external fields (e.g., the Sun’s changing magnetic field) might actually trigger some earthquakes.
A correlation between the frequency and strength of earthquakes and the sunspot cycle has been observed for some time — see here and here. In particular, large earthquakes seem to be more likely to happen when the Sunspot cycle is at a minimum — which is when the magnetic field is maximum, as shown by Nova and Evans.
Now we have the possibility that the Sun’s changing magnetic field, interacting with the circuits in the Earth’s crust (which we know almost nothing about, so far) may have an effect on the weather — perhaps via cloud seeding by ions?
(I’m finding the conversation in these comments extremely interesting; and I don’t miss the Trolls at all!)
50
It does
Geologists actually measure this conductivity routinely with downhole instruments to arrive at an estimate of water flow location in the strata. Conductivity here is electrical, not magnetic
00
Willis was looking for signs of an 11 year impact on the Earth. Though I think he was looking for temperatures. Maybe you should bring this pdf to his attention.
10
He has been commenting here. He knows.
00
“We don’t know exactly how this collapsing magnetic field reduces the effect of solar radiation on Earth”
I think the collapsing magnetic field correlates but is not causative.
I prefer my suggestion that the changing mix of wavelengths and particles alters the ozone creation / destruction balance differentially between equator and poles by altering the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles. I don’t see how magnetic field changes could do it except maybe by directing ozone destroying charged particles in at the poles.
That alteration in the gradient of tropopause height then allows the jets and climate zones to slide poleward (active sun) or equatorward (inactive sun) beneath the tropopause.
The consequence is a change in global cloudiness (albedo) and as the authors say:
“Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI (a result we will show later). TSI no doubt has vastly more energy than force X, but the changes in TSI are proportionally very small. Indeed, the level of TSI was thought to be constant until satellites were able to measure it more closely and found minor variations, and it used to be called “the solar constant”.
Force X affects the albedo of Earth, affecting how much solar radiation gets reflected straight back out to space. Force X is like a tap, a small force controlling the much larger flow of solar radiation into the Earth’s climate system.”
I prefer the solution of longer lines of air mass mixing leading to more clouds at a time of inactive sun to the Svensmark hypothesis because there is no shortage of condensation nuclei and even if such nuclei change in quantity the system won’t take advantage without temperature changes first.
60
“That alteration in the gradient of tropopause height then allows the jets and climate zones to slide poleward (active sun) or equatorward (inactive sun) beneath the tropopause”.
Piers Corbyn is saying the same, ie that the jet streams are now moving equatorward in response to “lower Solar Activity” – in fact he claims Earth has already just entered a new LIA with the North American “polar vortex” earlier this year a good example. And there is evidence of this in our SW (Australia) e.g. in Perth both May 2013 (138mm) & 2014 (153mm) experienced well above average rainfall owing to a series of intense “winter-type cold fronts” that extended in some cases as far north as Shark Bay. And this not only happened in May – in September 2013 “winter-type cold fronts” resulted in way over average rainfall (144mm) with 20 wet days for the month. And Perth (Cottesloe Tennis Club) is holding a Davis Cup tie on 11-13 September 2014 – good luck.
70
Thinking out loud here, perhaps as a gas in presence of a strong magnetic field could cause a plasma to form, that an impact on the amosphere is indeed possible, with resultant knock on affects?
Beyond my generalist musing here, I’m out of my depth with the technical details of atmospheric behaviour, however altering field strength could alter atmospheric properties etc etc.
Thoughts welcome….
30
Remember too that as NASA found out some years ago (5 or 6 years ago IIRC) that the atmospheric layers (tropo & stratosphere) of our planet rise and fall in step with the solar cycle.
I wish I could find the link, it’s there some where.
10
Have you read any of Erl Happ and Carl Wolk ideas?
Have a look at his ideas on ozone there’s a lot to merit it but there is a lot there…
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
30
Yes, I’ve seen their work and there are similarities but there is a significant difference which I won’t go into here.
20
That’s interesting thanks.
I’m coming to the conclusion that “Arctic amplification” is not amplification at all, it’s because the changes _start_ there.
Like changes in stratosphere cause warming in lower climate system
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=750
00
I suggest that it takes 10 years or more for the effect of cloudiness changes to filter through the ocean system and start to become apparent against the ‘normal’ background annual movements of the jets and climate zones.
80
“Force x” is the core of the earth becoming hotter based on a the 11 year solar system cycle.
It’s not in the air it’s in the ground!
30
I like your perspective that the Earth is the source of force X.
But I notice that the Mid Ocean Ridges are never considered as a heat source for force X or as source of volatile gases like CO2.
Is it a case of out of site out of mind?
The mantle is regarded as the primary source of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans over geological time. There is no reason to think that this does not remain the case simply because there is a lot of fossil fuel being burnt.
00
Have you lookt into electric universe theory and the magnetic beltway connection to the planet.
think you can have some in common there..
30
another interesting fellow to look in to is Kongpop U-Yen… for some x factor..
30
Interesting reading. Since I have an electrical/electronics background I have at least a clue what Fourier analysis and filters are, so following hasn’t been too hard.
What did occur to me was that when you saw a repetitive “spike” going into the black box, and nothing coming out, did you consider some internal negative feedback look being responsible?
I was thinking of something along the lines of the emergent phenomena beloved of Willis Eschenbach. That sort of feedback loop works pretty fast (within hours) and could account for a large attenuation of the input spike, even over longer periods.
Admittedly, that doesn’t explain the lags noted by multiple researchers … well, it may, I would have to think more about that.
It certainly doesn’t account for the step function response. I think that is what is currently persuading me that you may be on the right track.
[Fixed the auto-correct spelling error -Fly]
70
Phillip, when you type “look” do you mean “loop” ?
50
Yes … Stupid auto correct on my iPad.
20
Once is a typo.. 2 or more is that dastardly auto-correct 🙂
10
The stupidity is allowing an electronic device think for you.
Don’t blame the stupid hammer for bending the nails.
Turn off “auto”.
00
A-ha! My looking for love in all the wrong places wasn’t as far off as I thought. My extremely amateurish curve fitting enterprise proposed an 11 year delay in effects of ENSO events, (scaled 120 month running mean of SOI lagged 11 years, plus 12 month running mean lagged 6 months) to predict global UAH temperatures, but I soon discarded it (it didn’t work) when I realised that SOI switch from El Nino to La Nina actually lags 3 months behind the weather SOI is supposed to predict. Something else drives SOI and temperature. Is this it?
Good stuff David and Jo!
Ken
130
Good stuff so far. My background is in electrical engineering. Mainly in power circuits (switching supplies, power factor correction, etc.) and servo systems. While I no longer work in that field, I am familiar with the concepts discussed here at a practical level.
One thing to note, and this isn’t from anything presented here so far as much as something I noted in the 50:1 interview with Dr. Evans. The lag between temperature change and CO2 change is very close to the average ocean ventilation cycle.
There is another issue that has occurred to me before. Imagine the troposphere as a balloon. The outer edge is the tropopause, the convective boundary where temperature no longer declines with altitude and, instead, begins to rise. If you add more heat by way of additional solar radiation to the surface, the “balloon” should expand (the height of the tropopause should increase). This does two things. First, it increases the effective surface area of the tropopause resulting in more heat radiation into space and it acts to keep the temperature of the tropopause in equilibrium. In other words, it acts as sort of a capacitor on changes to heat input to keep a steady temperature. So while there is additional heat in the system, the temperature is moderated. There is more heat energy in a 3 foot balloon filled with 100F air than in a 1 foot balloon filled with 100F air. A given amount of heat added to a container of air that is rigid (a flask) will result in more temperature change than the same amount of heat added a container of air in a flexible container (a balloon) because the balloon will expand somewhat and reduce the temperature inside while at the same time increasing its effective radiative area to dissipate more heat. In this case, Earth would be a “transparent” balloon with a black body at the center of it. Sunlight would strike the black body, radiate heat, expand the balloon, which then radiates more heat from its convective boundary, causing the overall temperature of the system to be moderated while the heat content has actually increased. Maybe.
150
crosspatch said:
“So while there is additional heat in the system, the temperature is moderated”
If you expand the atmosphere against gravity then work is done and more kinetic energy (heat) is converted to gravitational potential energy which is not heat. So,there is additional energy in the system but no additional heat.
I think that adequately deals with the effect of radiative characteristics of constituent molecules because they do not cause any rise in input from outside the system.
David is discussing a scenario whereby more energy does come in from the sun at the peak of the solar cycle and furthermore that (tiny) additional input is greatly amplified by global albedo changes yet still nothing shows up in the temperature records until some 11 years or so later. That is another issue.
The way I see it is that a more active sun reduces global cloudiness by intensifying the polar vortices vertically, contracting them horizontally and thereby pulling the jets and climate zones poleward for a more zonal jet stream pattern at higher latitudes.
That allows a greater proportion of the available solar energy into the oceans and greatly amplifies the thermal effect of a more active sun.
But why no response for so long ?
The thing is that nearly all of that additional solar energy reaching the oceans is energetic shortwave and goes deeper than the evaporating layer, up to 200 metres. It gets locked into the internal ocean cycles for a period of time.
It then circulates within the oceans, travelling around all the ocean basins and the timing of release can be very variable because the ocean cycles are not 11 years long (60 years or so for both a warm and cold phase of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation) and the ocean cycles in each basin interact with each other.
The main form of release is from El Nino events and it appears that during a period of active sun with reduced global clloudiness El Nino gradually strengthens relative to La Nina events so the energy is released in pulses. Such pulses occur especially during a period of Positive Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation when El Nino routinely dominates over La Nina for up to 30 years at a time.
It then appears to take about 10 years or so for El Nino warmth in the oceans to circulate around to the Arctic Ocean via the North Atlantic. That is why the record Arctic sea ice melt of 2007 was about ten years after the 1997/98 record El Nino.
So I think the effect of the oceans in absorbing the additional solar shortwave input and playing around with it for over 10 years without it being dissipated to space is what creates the notch.
In due course, if the sun remains active across multiple cycles it does come out in the form of a changed balance in favour of El Ninos relative to La Ninas over the entire 60 year cycle and then we see periods such as the MWP and recent warmth.
Since the main effect occurs at the commencement of each 30 year warm phase of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation we see upward ‘stepping’ in the form of climate shifts such as the one that occurred in the late 70s and caused the global warming panic.
A quiet sun does just the opposte, hence the Dark Ages and the LIA.
I would expect to see downward stepping at the commencement of each cold phase during a prolonged period of quiet sun.
Interestingly we did see a marked change of trend within a single cycle (number 20). I suspect that was because cycle 20 coincided with the cold phase of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation. Normally one would not notice such a strong effect from a single cycle.
Note that it is better to refer to the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation (PMO) rather than the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) since the latter is just a pattern of pressure distribution rather than an internal ocean cycle.
110
“If you expand the atmosphere against gravity then work is done and more kinetic energy (heat) is converted to gravitational potential energy which is not heat. So,there is additional energy in the system but no additional heat.”
I am aware of that but no actual work is being done in this case to expand it. The tropopause comes where the temperature gradient reverses with altitude. If I increase the temperature of the top of the troposphere slightly, the convection barrier rises to the point in the stratosphere of equal temperature. It isn’t a physical thing with mass being moved against gravity. It is a invisible weightless line where the temperature gradient begins to increase with height. An increase in temperature below that line causes the line to move upward. When that line moves upward, the top of the convection from the troposphere rises. When viewed from space, the earth appears to radiate LWIR from the tropopause. Warm air from lower altitude rises to the top of the troposphere. For example, this cloud has convected to the tropopause and begins to spread out except for some overshoot in the center where momentum from the rising air causes it to drive a short ways into the stratosphere but convenction stops at that point.
http://epod.usra.edu/library/072910.jpg
The cloud is radiating heat from its top. If that line rises upward, then the apparent surface area of the troposphere has also gotten bigger. The air above the tropopause is also extremely dry while the air below has so much water vapor that it is nearly opaque to most of the LWIR spectrum. Earth would appear to radiate mostly from the tropopause.
60
Another way of looking at it. Earth has a natural refrigeration system that uses water as a working fluid. One of the neat aspects of it is that whenever the radiator gets warm, it expands. That tends to naturally equalize the system. It isn’t so subject to local changes, but broad overall changes like an increase in solar energy reaching the surface would result in a response. Imagine a car radiator that expanded when it warms. Even if the average troposphere height rises one inch, that is a large amount of additional surface area over the entire Earth. Where it WON’T have much impact is in winter at the poles. In those cases the tropopause can come all the way down to the ground level, the air is VERY dry and CO2 does become a major factor in radiative cooling from the surface. Annual temperatures at the South Pole station had been declining for the past 30 years, last time I looked. That would tend to argue against any significant global response to CO2 as that is exactly where any CO2 response would be expected to be greatest.
80
If GHGs absorb more energy from the ground than they radiate to space as proposed by AGW theory then they become too warm for their height relative to the lapse rate slope and must rise. That does do work and the ‘excess’ absorbed energy goes to gravitational potentialenergy.
The opposite occurs for GHGs that radiate more to space than the absorb from the ground.
CO2 being a so called ‘well mixed’ gas there would be about half too high and half too low at any given time so the net effect should be zero.
But that isn’t the subject at issue.
David is actually referring to a real increase in energy entering the system, amplified by albedo changes and then having no thermal effect for 10 or more years.
For that aspect I think the thermal inertia of the upper layers of the ocean when penetrated by energetic solar shortwave is the answer.
40
Check out Stefan Mittich
https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
A robust declaration of the laws of physics especially in relation to the Troposphere.
Quite a funny read too.
00
Stephen and Crosspatch: thank you for some excellent and plausible suggestions. Whether in the oceans or troposphere (or both) H2O has to be involved one would think. I can’t wait for the next post, this is getting very interesting.
110
The oceans have more influence, I would think, but with more CO2 providing a probable 25% increase in plant growth, which in turn uses more incoming solar energy, must have some effect, even if it’s small. But then I am only a CO2 loving horticulturalist. Warm is good.
40
And CO2 is also good !!
Why do alarmistas HATE plant life. 🙁
81
Griss, my guess is that your question may be rhetorical? The absence of a question mark suggests rhetoric rather than question, despite the use of ‘why’. To those literals then:
‘
Alarmists’ form a generally large heterogeneous group.
Green catastrophists (a particularly bile ridden subset of the general grouping ‘alarmist’) spurn humanity (aka, spawn of the devil) and all off-spring be it population, progress or CO2 that must by their presence marr the pristine face of Gaia.
Humans are ‘hard wired’ to respond to threat, to focus on threat, and to be motivated by threat. The use of ‘threat’ as a political tool to manipulate the unthinking has become in this Caffé Latte age of instant media, the undisputed means by which to gain control. ‘Climate’ and ‘environment’ are the beverage du jour.
As real science catches up with realpolitik, the alarmist meme of the moment characteristically slides seamlessly (and shamelessly) onto the next threat.
Recognising and naming the drama for what it is, is one potential way to diminish its power.
40
Q. Why do alarmistas HATE plant life ?
A. Because vegetarians enjoy killing and eating plants !
ps – This is why I eat meat 😉
30
And of course ALL that plant matter that the vegetarians eat, comes from….. guess what…… CO2 !!
20
Q. Why do alarmistas HATE plant life ?
A. intellectual rivals
50
“I would expect to see downward stepping at the commencement of each cold phase during a prolonged period of quiet sun.”
Steven, notice that the 2010 mild ElNino DO NOT cause a step up in temperature like the 1998 ElNino did.
There was also a pronounced dip just before that 2010 ElNino.
30
“DO NOT ” => “DID NOT
10
Griss,
We are just on the turn.
So far rhe decline in solar activity has just put a stop to the warming trend. If it continues through cycle 25 I would expect to see a step down in due course.
41
I have notice that we tend to follow pretty close ideas.
You should be very worried Stephen, your mind seems to think like mine does. ! 🙂
10
Yes, sun does not seem quite ‘normal’ at this time.
See SC24 Summary: just a short way down this page;
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
10
Hey David, slow down…
Some of us have work to do. 🙂
50
Delay is perfectly explained under the “earth cycle” theory,
Ie there is a delay in the thermal transfer of energy from the earth core to the oceans and air.
20
I wonder if force X is to do with the periodic (roughly 8 minutes) flux tubes between the sun and earth as these channel plasma from the solar wind into the ionosphere (and to the poles). A second and even more interesting contender is the occasional connections of the magnetic field lines of the sun and earth after an earth directed CME is followed by a temporary weakening in the sun’s magnetic field strength roughly at the time when the CME arrives at Earth’s near space environment. A classic example of this occurred in March 17 last year after the SPE from Sunspot 1692 on March 15. So much plasma was channeled to the North Pole on that occasion that the temperature of the stratosphere above the north pole increased by around 60 deg C. This stopped the polar vortex and caused the mini ice-age conditions of parts of Europe and the Balkans through to mid-April 2013. This also created a high pressure system over Greenland of up to 1074 millibars – the highest recorded there ever and the second highest ever recorded on the planet (the highest was 1083.3 millibars over Siberia on December 31, 1968).
I hope this helps.
I am an actuary but am interested in the many ways the sun various emissions affect the weather.
70
Brent Walker said:
“A classic example of this occurred in March 17 last year after the SPE from Sunspot 1692 on March 15. So much plasma was channeled to the North Pole on that occasion that the temperature of the stratosphere above the north pole increased by around 60 deg C. This stopped the polar vortex and caused the mini ice-age conditions of parts of Europe and the Balkans through to mid-April 2013.”
The strat warmed around 40° in Jan 2013, but not much in March:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/archive/10mb9065_2013.gif
There was a proton event from the 16th March, that can increase ozone over the polar region:
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20130318_2319/index.html
The cold shot in March started around the 9th anyway.
I had made a long range solar based forecast for at least 3 weeks bitter cold from the second week of March 2013. Normally the solar wind is slower during negative AO/NAO episodes and cold Arctic outbreaks.
00
Jo and David
Please have a look at the work of Pier Luigi Ighina who worked with Tesla and Marconi. He wrote a book in the 1950’s called “l’atomo magnetico” which I have just about finished translating into English. He passed away quite recently aged over 90 years old.
He has an understanding and theory of the magnetic relationship between the sun and the earth and a slightly different perspective on the type and behaviour of atoms.
He built several devices and carried out many experiments. He did this generally on his own without government or mainstream funding!
You may find some of his ideas interesting?
160
Jo and David
To clarify the above post. Please consider the possibility that the “magnetic light energy” from the sun not only reaches the earths surface but also penetrates to the earths core which in itself is like a “little sun”. Magnetic light energy from the “little sun” earths core not only radiates back out to the earths surface but also back to the sun.
We may not just be dealing with the interaction between the sun and the earths surface but also the interaction between the sun and the earths core!
20
Tanner, are the devices still available and has anyone independently tested any of them or reproduced them?
I must admit the translation makes him come across as complete looney rather than a top scientist, so without some corroboration it is hard to believe what is reported.
00
A C Osborn
You can make the Helios or ERIM device yourself. I have a friend who has made the Erim device which apparently works. I intend making one soon to test it myself. The main point is that Pier Luigi Ighina studied atoms in a different manner from “main stream” scientists. Main stream scientists tend to excite atoms and then study the result. How wise is it to build a Hadron Collider and smash atomic particles together when you don’t understand what you are doing or the possible effects?
Ighina instead found a way to slow down and isolate atoms and study them. He found that there were different types of atoms including the “magnetic atom”. He produced four fundamental laws and also a scale for different materials based on different vibrations.
I was suggesting that it may be possible that “force X” could have something to do with the atoms reflected from or produced in the earths core which act in conjunction with but also as an opposing force to the suns energy.
Ighina may well be a top scientist still 30 years ahead of “main stream” science or a complete looney ;). We tend to study the theory that is most accepted which is then taught and becomes a “fact”. Some of the theories dealing with atoms, magnetism etc. are not quite there. Hence we are trying to find the “God particle”.
There are many things that we do not understand regarding energy and forces. For example, where do your thoughts come from and do they have energy? 😉
I have studied sciences and read a lot. I look at different theories and go with what “resonates” with me. If further information comes along I will change my mind if necessary.
All the best
Tanner
40
It would be nice if Figure 1 went back further. I thought that I would look up Earth’s magnetic pole to see if it might be useful as a proxy. Two things popped up. Firstly, the graph says it all.
Secondly, the global average drift has been westward since about 1400 and eastward from 1000 AD to 1400 AD.
80
From the linked article: “Since the discovery of the 1969 jerk , scientists have found five additional jerks of global extent during the twentieth century: in 1901,1913,1925,1978 and 1992.”
Is there any evidence of jerks in 1936, 1947, 1958, and 2004 ?
If so, the pattern could be related to solar cycles,
i.e. jerks occur on the upward swing of the sunspot cycle, 2-3 years after the minimum.
[NASA graph]
30
I was hoping an indication of the field strength as well as an 11 year period to see if there was a pattern in the maximum or, more importantly, the ratio between TSI and the maximum values. As hinted in Figure 1, it would be nice to see a 60-65 year period for this.
The two different sites in the link show a plateau around 1900 and 1960, but not both at each site so it looks like it might be asking too much.
10
I can only defer analysis to the folks who understand, but, it is a good read attempting to comprehend the mechanism/concept being put forward here, after following this debate for some time.
With references to cosmic cycles, and a attempts to quantify them so we understand them with the latest technology, this reader is often reminded how others attempted the quest of humanity’s ‘eternal’ question, and what they knew.
40
On the initial thread I wrote –
“I am hoping you have an empirically provable mechanism for your hypothesis.”
Sadly the answer is –
“We have not actually found force X.”
The problem here is that without a solid mechanism, a model built on this hypothesis carries little weight. Its future predictive power will take many years to verify. Its hind casting ability will also be disputed due to the poor quality of records before the satellite era.
What this hypothesis desperately needs more than a model is an empirically testable mechanism.
You mention solar UV having a modulating effect as a possible mechanism.
At WUWT, Pamela Gray linked to a paper that looked at modelling turbidity and depth of absorption due to ocean chlorophyll variation. While it was a modelling based paper that was only looking a short term effects, it was notable as the authors understood the pitfalls of modelling the oceans as a “near blackbody” instead of a UV/SW “selective surface”.
I have found by empirical experiment that the depth of absorption in semi transparent materials has a significant effect on equilibrium temperature, especially when illuminated intermittently –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
The experiment is simple, both acrylic blocks have equal IR emissivity and equal ability to absorb UV & SW. The only difference between the blocks is the depth of UV/SW absorption. For dramatic results expose the blocks to full sun for 3 hours. The average temperature of block A will be around 20C higher than block B. The base temperature of block A will be around 40C higher than block B.
If exposed to intermittent SW even the surface temp of block A will exceed that of block B. The depth of SW/UV absorption in a transparent material with a slow rate of internal non-radiative transport and an IR emissivity <1 is critical to determining the resultant temperature of such a “selective surface” exposed to intermittent UV/SW radiation.
Because of convective circulation, turbidity and surface roughness, the oceans are far more complex than this. However, below the diurnal over turning layer, the oceans will act in a manner analogous to the simple selective surface experiment. Here the effects from variation in UV/SW radiation can be cumulative.
At 10 w/m2 at 50m depth it is plausible that UV variation between solar cycles could cause a tiny accumulation of 0.8C in 150 years.
In conclusion, an empirically testable mechanism for “Force X” is required. Modelling is not enough.
60
An empirical test will be proposed in a few blog posts, and we will know the answer in a few years, yeah or nay. Knowing the properties of force X is enough.
80
I would opine that David’s hypothesis is no less robust than the current CO2 based hypothesis.
In fact it is probably more robust, because of the mathematical approach.
60
And because of a very real lack of empirical evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere actually can do what it’s being blamed for.
00
Konrad,
Good to see you have joined in.
As to your point – I agree that a mechanism needs to be found. So many to choose from. And for some there may be no data. And with governments biased against this sort of thing it may take a while.
10
Jo
5th paragraph, last sentence “This is the notch.” should read “THIS IS THE NOTCH”
40
I’ve just dropped by to let you know I’ve been reading these posts with huge interest, I require more reading tho, because I’ve had very little time lately.
There are some issues I’ve noticed, that I’d like to get stuck into and discuss very soon.
All the Best for now. 🙂
60
It is just too pat (i.e., characterized by a highly improbable “coincidence”): You find the temperature doesn’t follow the 11-year solar cycle of TSI; now you find that something (apparently, the Sun’s magnetic field) is cancelling that “expected” following–with an improbable, 11-year delay, just the same period as the solar cycle–so there is no 11-year cycle in the (global mean surface) temperature (GMST). Considered logically, without regard for any existing theories or common assumptions, by far the simplest, and therefore most probable reason for this “dog that doesn’t bark” is that the expectation of a GMST dependence upon TSI is wrong (the dog doesn’t bark because there is no dog, or nothing for the dog to bark at, after all).
Everybody wants to ignore the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison I performed in late 2010, and what it indicates for the correction of climate science. Above all, in the present context, it indicates that the troposphere is fundamentally warmed–globally(!)–to the Standard Atmosphere profile (which represents the real, equilibrium vertical profile of the atmosphere, as the Venus/Earth comparison quantitatively and precisely demonstrates), by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the separately warmed surface. But of course that does not mean the TSI, which includes the major portion that warms the surface; it means just that incident portion (obviously in the infrared) which is directly absorbed by the troposphere! Climate and other atmospheric scientists need to identify that portion; I expect it will be found that it simply does not vary according to the 11-year solar cycle.
112
Harry, I think your basic observation is correct but since albedo changes allow a greater proportion of solar energy to reach and penetrate the oceans one needs to find the reason why there are observed changes in global temperature such as the MWP, LIA and other climate variations despite the dominance and validity of the Standard Atmosphere.
I think the answer is that albedo changes do amplify TSI variations if they change the proportion of incoming solar energy penetrating the oceans.
On that basis the effect of a lower albedo (less clouds) would be similar to moving the Earth a fraction closer to the sun.
I don’t share your point about direct absorption. The Standard Atmosphere is anchored to the surface by conduction and the cooling with height follows conversion of surface KE to gravitational potential energy as work is done to lift molecules against gravity during the ascent phase of convection.
I think we are here considering small solar induced variations in the global air circulation as it seeks to maintain the Standard Atmosphere despite both TSI variability and amplification thereof. Those variations in the global air circulation amount to a redistribution of the available energy rather than any change in the total energy content of the system but we see that redistribution as climate change because the permanent climate zones and the jet stream tracks threading between them affect those living in locations on or near the climate zone boundaries especially in the middle latitudes.
The concept of a stable self correcting system varying about the mean to a small degree as a result of solar variability is consistent with the Venus/Earth observation.
90
Its not improbable at all, it could in fact be that two components of TSI itself have equal and opposite effects on the climate and as the wavelength distribution of light changes over the solar cycle the cooling effects balance with the warming effects. Thats not unlikely at all.
40
Good point.
Is the Earth-Sun relationship stable? Presumably it is, because I am typing this.
What this debate is concerned with is the “noise” in that “stable” relationship.
I am interested in David’s approach because it seems to be better at explaining or reducing the amount of “noise”, compared to the CO2 based hypothesis, which is highly dependent on modelling extrinsic events accurately.
60
Harry ignores that there is significance in there being no dog barking where there *should* be, according to physics on paper, unless there is indeed something counteracting it, exactly how the Sherlock Holmes case was proven. Harry’s main “scientific” output is itself the ultimate example of mere pattern matching, that being infinitely varied fractal coastlines matched to arbitrarily visible star constellations, for which he invokes ancient gods, especially proven by the mostly upright animal figures that decorate coastlines:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/#comment-1657320
I wish I was joking. Similarly, electric universe ideas are not appropriate footnotes to a simple and elegant new theory of solar influence on climate. A sad lack of awareness seems to exist that the world is already plenty cosmic mysterious and awe inspiring as embodied in mainstream physics without any need for cult forming embellishment. Miscretes and tag along crackpots represent noise instead of signal in any debate.
40
It isn’t a simple and elegant theory until it make predictions. Unfortunately, David’s theory just tells us not to bother basing our predictions on an 11 year cycle, because the data does not support it.
01
Simple and falsifiable prediction based on force X and the delay coming in a few blog posts Tel. Stay tuned.
120
Force X is proposed to cool the system when the sun is active and presumably warm the system when the sun is inactive.
Albedo changes are suggested and the Svensmark hypothesis is mentioned.
Svensmark proposes less clouds when the sun is active for a warming effect and more clouds when the sun is inactive for a cooling effect.
I concur with that part of the Svensmark hypothesis since cloudiness did decrease when the sun was active and is now increasing with the less active sun according to the Earthshine project.
A problem is as to how Force X could be a cooling effect when the sun is more active when we have seen that there are LESS clouds when the sun is active. Less clouds is inevitably a warming effect.
Therefore,I don’t think albedo changes are Force X but they are the amplifying factor as regards the small changes in TSI when the sun is active.
I think Force X is the ability of the oceans to soak up the extra energy penetrating the ocean surface for ten years or more before the rate of release of energy back to the atmosphere reflects the earlier level of solar activity.
50
“I think Force X is the ability of the oceans to soak up the extra energy penetrating the ocean surface for ten years or more before the rate of release of energy back to the atmosphere reflects the earlier level of solar activity.”
Stephen,
I am inclined to agree. It is the shorter wavelengths that vary most between solar cycles. It is these frequencies that penetrate deepest into the oceans. Variation in absorption below the thermocline / diurnal ocean over turning layer can have a cumulative effect rather than an amplifying effect.
Variation in solar heating below the thermocline would not result in a instantaneous signal in sea surface temperatures.
30
The thing is, whilst UV penetrates the deepest, it also carries less energy and there isn’t much of it in comparison to the rest of the solar wavelengths. However, strong UV kills plankton, which reduces cloud over the ocean, allowing more solar energy to get mixed into the upper ocean layer. I suspect that’s a much bigger effect.
40
TB, this is an interesting paper in that regard.
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
00
Thanks, I’ll have a read later.
00
Note that when cloudiness decreases there is more energy entering the oceans from ALL wavelengths.
The UV changes only cause the cloudiness variations by affecting the ozone creation/destruction process above the tropopause.
Many people do not realise that more ozone warms the stratosphere and pushes the tropopaue down whereas less ozone cools the stratosphere and allows the tropopause to rise.
If one gets more ozone in the polar stratosphere when the sun is quiet then tropopause height in the higher latitudes falls and pushes air masses outward across the middle latitudes which also increases global cloudiness by extending the length of the lines of air mass mixing.
It has been found that, contrary to expectations, ozone increased above 45km when the sun was quiet.
The polar vortex is a descending column of air above each pole and would transport that more ozone rich air from above 45km down into the stratosphere above the poles thereby warming the stratosphere, pushing the tropopause lower and causing cold outbreaks at the surface just as observed.
The opposite happens when the sun is more active.
10
Roger,
UV may be weak at depth, but remember it is still solar radiation (especially shorter frequencies) at depth that is doing the bulk of the heating. While TSI may only vary 01 – 0.2% between solar cycles, the variation in radiation penetrating below the thermocline where cumulative effects can occur varies far more than that.
My first comment on this thread including the empirical experiment may shed some light on why variation in radiation absorbed below the thermocline is so important –
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iv-a-huge-leap-understanding-the-mysterious-11-year-solar-delay/#comment-1487951
I can design an empirical experiment to demonstrate the UV physics, but as it would involve a 100m water column, it would be some what expensive. The sad thing is we already had one but some climastrologists went and smashed it. Apparently some ARGO floats were inconveniently reading too cold at greater depths during the lull between SC23 and SC24 and were expunged from the record….
30
Konrad, Read that link I gave TB. above.
00
A good link. There have been other papers studying ocean chlorophyll and biological turbidity of the oceans. The issue here is depth of absorption in semi transparent materials. This is critical in the oceans as two distinct circulation and accumulation regimes exist above and below the thermocline.
Just as biological responses to UV can effect the depth of UV/SW absorption, so too can solar spectral variance.
There is one important message here – never ever treat our deep transparent oceans as a “near blackbody”. They are a selective surface, and depth of absorption, no matter how it is moderated, effect the rate of energy accumulation or discharge.
30
Interesting UV info Roger,
Is it possible the mechanism works like this…
At solar minimum there is less UV and plankton numbers increase and create a cooling effect which peaks around 5 years later at solar max (Jo’s notch). When we have a low solar maximum (eg: now), less plankton are killed coursesy of lower UV and their numbers increase even further by the time we hit the next solar minimum, creating even more cloud-induced cooling ?
This could also explain the dip in temperature that preceeds the warm spike in David’s fourier transforms ?
Of course I might be talking garbage as I’m only your average electrical engineer & not a climate science guru, 🙂
00
“…whilst UV penetrates the deepest, it also carries less energy”
UV and X-ray are more energetic than Infrared, When UV hits a rock for example; the rock will emit Infrared longer than if it was hit by just Infrared, in the electromagnetic spectrum the energy from the interaction between UV and a rock far exceeds the energy from sources of Infrared bouncing directly from the rock, also from the sun. NOTE: UV produces Infrared.
00
One place that could be fruitful to look is at the growth rings of corals. In particular some in the family of ‘black-coral’. As /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_coral says –
And USGS has some interesting photos to look at – http://gallery.usgs.gov/photos/03_28_2011_fja4Dpo0CW_03_28_2011_2#.U6BeZWs1gxU
If there is a solar cycle signiture shown there it would indeed be very interesting.
10
Steven,
If force X is simply an ocean heat sink effect, then why does this not delay or smooth out the rapid temperature dips caused by volcanic forcings ?. For example, Mt Pinatubo occured in June ’91 and the dip in temperature occured only 18 months later, followed by a rapid rebound. Volcanic forcings tend to support the case for a responsive climate.
So, perhaps force X is triggered during solar max as Jo and David suggest, but has its own delay mechanism ?. A responsive climate would explain the sudden temperature drops at grand solar minimum, followed by rapid recovery once the SSN normalises.
10
Just adding to my own comment on force X, and not sure if this has been mentioned before ?
But, perhaps force X is triggered during solar minimum and has a delayed response of 5.5 years ?
00
“A problem is as to how Force X could be a cooling effect when the sun is more active when we have seen that there are LESS clouds when the sun is active. Less clouds is inevitably a warming effect.”
I was originally thinking of Force X as being something that blocked and delayed the solar peaks.
But then I read point 1 on David’s list where he says that if Force X get bigger the world gets warmer… That puzzled me.
Under that wording, Force X can only be something that FILLS UP THE TROUGH in solar activity.
10
ie.. its a secondary warming source.
10
So! The Force is with us after all.
sorry, again I just couldn’t resist. 😉
70
And now it’s time for probably a dumb question:
For as long as I’ve been around RF systems I’ve believed that any filter, notch or otherwise, introduces a delay all by itself. Is this wrong? If so, why? I still don’t get the need to build in a delay that was discussed in the prior part of this Solar Model development. Can you give me an analogy from something simple, like a radio receiver?
30
Good job explaining all of this and my understanding may be my misunderstanding.
And as yet I can’t make anything of it, one way or another. So I await the rest of it with great anticipation.
20
Roy,
Yes. Real filters made of physical stuff do delay. The need for a delay in what David is doing is because it is not a real filter. It is a mathematical filter. Non-physical.
00
MSimon,
Thanks, that confirms what I thought but brings up another question. And keep in mind that I’m much less familiar with digital filtering. But I know it’s used in many audio applications and the filter algorithms I’ve seen do not (at least not obviously) include anything that would introduce a delay other than what the algorithm does. Yet it seems that David is talking about something that can be represented mathematically by some form of algorithm.
Am I simply getting ahead of the explanation or do mathematical filters — something done in the digital domain or at least represented by an algorithm — need a delay mechanism intentionally built in?
Sorry to be so dense but I quit my EE major to go into computer science back in 1966.
00
For the kind of filter you are thinking of the delay is inherent in the sampling. So the non-physicality is not an issue from a play back perspective.
I didn’t go into computer science until ’75 when the Altair hit the cover of PopSci. Although I did work for Raytheon Computer in ’67 characterizing TTL for wire wrap.
BTW I’m totally self taught and worked my way up to aerospace engineer from bench technician.
00
“I did work for Raytheon Computer in ’67 characterizing TTL for wire wrap.”
We used Tek scopes that could sample at GHz or better rates. Aliasing was something we constantly had to watch out for.
00
That does seem to be the way you get the most useful skill/data/information, whatever it is — the hard way.
Classrooms never were in the world of real problems, at least not for me. Before I had to start integrating the FFT into my first program I knew only what it did and how to spell it. It was the same when I started to put in some OpenGL graphic display — I hadn’t the slightest idea how any of it worked or how to do it. But if it’s useful, someone will have written a book. Read the book and you soon know what that person knows about the subject. By the time I actually went back to school to get my BS in computer science I could have taught much of the material.
I have to suspect that more than a few contributors here would say something similar.
00
You might want to look up how the Hilbert Transform is handled digitally. To make it work you offset the output of one of the sample sets by 1/2 the filter length. Hilbert is very handy if you want to make SSB signals.
00
But it’s not May the 4th 🙂
30
So far, so good Jo and David. Intrigued and half-anticipating the dénouement. And I’m a picky bugger.
Pointy
60
Sort of like the tale of the Arabian Nights.
00
I suspect Force X from Outer Space will be a bigger hit than Plan IX from Outer Space ever was 🙂
I really respect your work and I hope that it opens many previously closed doors. I have often suspected that the basic assumption was quite likely to be in error. The very first estimated of ECS are the same as the AR5 estimates. How much time and effort has been spent trying to refine that number…. I also think the top down approach is far more likely to give decent results than a bottom up approach.
You have my deepest appreciations.
50
“Watts 2014” is this paper:
Beckmann, M., Václavík, T., Manceur, A. M., Šprtová, L., von Wehrden, H., Welk, E., Cord, A. F. (2014), glUV: a global UV-B radiation data set for macroecological studies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5: 372–383. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12168
Thanks for an interesting read David and Jo.
I’ll sleep on it (1.45am here) and say something less sleepy tomorrow.
80
While not ruling anything in or out at this stage, you should know that to the extent Svensmark’s (and Shaviv’s) cosmic ray cloud nucleation phenomenon has been previously validated at all, it is strongest in the polar regions where it matters least, and weakest in the tropical latitudes where it matters most. A simple consequence of the shape of Earths surrounding magnetic fields, generated by its rotating ‘liquid’ iron core and angular momentum preserved spin (granted, with some precession). I remember writing about it in the last book, and dismissing it as a principal explanation for cyclic climate variation. That could of course be wrong.
But the main point illustrated is that the Earth does not experience these things equilaterally. “polar amplification’ where it matters least is a bit of an issue. The Aurora Borealis (the northern lights) is a simple, vivid electromagnetic example. Complicated by the fact that it is produced mainly by the Earths magnetosphere, influenced by solar wind (charged particle ejecta) and the solar magnetosphere.
So I hope your upcoming model can account for that demonstrated latitudinal eccentricity. Also by the laws of physics, even though the sun is much bigger, it is also a lot farther away, so has less of a net effect (those darn inverse square laws) on the earthly magnetosphere unless we get hit by a solar flare’s directed ejecta (which produce most southernly visible aurora). You can take this thought from there. Looking forward to the rest of the story, and responses to these initial loose imprecise critiques.
50
Rud, the upcoming model achieve simplicity by treating the Earth as a black box. Having been reading about the climate and its complexities for years, I admit to being a bit stunned that it is possible, but it makes sense physically as we will explain, and it hindcasts fairly well. More surprises ahead :).
90
David, your Black Box idea falls over as inside that box local forces create everything from snowball earth to hell on earth, all within a global average temperature variation of just 16 degrees, which Jo says “seems pretty stable to me”, driven by and depending upon the prevailing atmospheric chemistry/geophysical dynamics/life forces at play. Can Life on earth change the climate? Absolutely, it was anaerobic bacteria that gave the atmosphere Oxygen from Carbon Dioxide in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Life also created indirectly more than half of the minerals found on earth today.
So to argue that life cannot alter the course of earth’s evolution is a fools errand as it is well proven that it does. I’m prepared to predict that your “X” factor will ultimately be proven to be life itself.
06
Bilb, David talks of linearity and analysis over only the very recent past. All your talk of 16 degrees and snowball Earth is irrelevant.
I very much agree that life on Earth is a powerful force (my hons subjects were genetics and microbiology), but in this case there are resonant cycles of 11 years in sych with the sun, and generally microbes react in minutes, or days not 11 years later. The timing of the delay — the memory of conditions 11 years ago — just doesn’t lend itself to a microbial or plant solution.
50
“While not ruling anything in or out at this stage, you should know that to the extent Svensmark’s (and Shaviv’s) cosmic ray cloud nucleation phenomenon has been previously validated at all, it is strongest in the polar regions where it matters least, and weakest in the tropical latitudes where it matters most”
1. the increased ionization does have a latitudenal bias, stronger at the poles.
2. the supposed effect, modulation of cloud cover, is absent at
a) all time scales ( daily, monthly, yearly)
b) all time lags
c) all vertical levels ( 1018hPA to TOA)
d) all spatial scales global, hemispherical, over land, over water, at all latitude bands and at the grid cell level.
In short, the GCR hypothesis is busted before one even starts. The effect its suppose to explain doesnt exist in the data.
16
As definitive as you sound, Mr. Mosher, you are wrong. Please read AR4 WGI 2.7.1.3. Particularly intriguing is Udelhofen and Cess (2001) which found over the US for the period from 1900 to 1987 an anti phased cloud anomaly signal with a period of 11 years. Which is empiracal support for a climate coupling from ‘Force X’ and makes your blanket denial false. The stated mechanism was comic ray flux modulated by the heliosphere.
AR4 also explicitly concluded this section by saying the level of understanding was low for aggregate solar forcing, and very low for cosmic ray influences . He we have some advance in empirical if not yet theoretical understanding.
20
You stated previously that you used the GHCN cloud cover data for this analysis, correct? If you used this same historical data that is obtained from the aviation weather data that has been used for decades by pilots for planning flights, I’m afraid that your analysis is worthless. I have personal experience with comparing the cloud cover data contained in these reports, and it is worthless for determining cloud cover to anything less that 15-20% accuracy. Many times I have seen data stating that there is 40-50% cloud cover when there was not a cloud in the sky(and vice versa}. Furthermore, even when the percentage of cloud coverage might be accurate, it does not contain variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground(specifically, some clouds are darker than others). As prior to ARGO, there was almost no accurate date on ocean temperatures (and even that is suspect given that over 10% of the buoy data is not used as it is deemed to be inaccurate, i.e. too cold), the past historical data necessary to determine if the TSI warming the atmosphere varies according to Svensmark’s theory does not exist. Again, your analysis is worthless.
00
David, Jo, this is great, insightful thinking.
We tend to look in the obvious, habitual areas we left (lost) the car keys, particularly when in a hurry. But there was a reason, at the time, why we left the keys in a different spot. But what boundaries do we limit our search to (for the lost keys)? So it often is with science, which is systematic investigation, where we look for the “hidden keys”. In this case, the “force X” factor.
In ecological practice it’s important to consider both the macro and the micro simply because they share the same space. The only variable is where we place the boundary of the space of the macro in relationship to the micro (complexity increases the square of the distance away from the micro) and in several dimensions.
What occurs to me as a potential constraint in finding “the keys”, is the boundary placed on the “system”. I make an assumption your solar model is the sun and earth: one as a heat source, one as a sink, and that is the boundary of the macro. Is this correct? If so, if the boundary is shifted to include influence of the solar system, i.e. all of the planets that might affect our “earthly” climate system, what factors does that then include? Other celestial bodies are in the (larger) macro, our moon being the most obvious.
What contribution, if any, might those other elements in the solar system, have on the “force X” factor, if any? There are patterns of cycles in the total system. Is the contribution from that wider “macro” important? As you have discovered within the complexity of the sun, the micro is important.
If we digress into biodynamics, which has been around for longer than the CAGW model, the cosmic (planetary) dynamics, i.e, timing, frequency and modulation are accurately calculated in advance, because it’s cyclical. The effects are subtle, but real.
I suggest this simply as a guidepost to extend the boundary to where more “micros” may be found in a larger macro, which may turn out to play a subtle, but influential role. I wonder what other “cycles of infuence” are derived from the solar (planetary) system as a whole that affects our climate system? Is it possible they also make a contribution to “force X”?
40
“But what boundaries do we limit our search to (for the lost keys)? ”
Pre-conceived ideas can greatly hinder a search.
I once misplaced my credit card and spent hours “looking” for it.
I have written the word ‘looking’ in quotes because I was expecting to see the colourful pattern on the front of the card (which was what I was used to seeing). However, I had placed the card upside down and the reverse (mainly white) side just didn’t register in my visual cortex.
You have to wonder how many great discoveries are “hiding in plain sight”.
100
I think I know where you can find force X!
I would like Dr Evans to do a similar analysis, this time based not on TSI but based on ENSO.
The reason I say this is because I have found the cause and mechanism for what is causing changes in ENSO using an Artificial Neural Network I built.
I know this is a bold statement to make but I’m very confident on that.
Right now I preparing a Power Point presentation which shows in detail what I have found which I’m going to present to people I know.
I can’t here disclose that exact mechanism for the ENSO forcing, but I can disclose where the forcing comes from. ENSO forcing comes from a combination of tidal forcing and solar electromagnetic forcing.
Because ENSO is partly driven by solar electromagnetic forces, my thinking is that the circa 60 year cycle of PDO, AMO and global temperature is driven in part by changes in the frequency and intensity of El Niños, which in turn is affected by the Sun.
I use tidal forcing data, Ap, Kp and various solar wind data in my network to make good ENSO predictions.
My idea is that force X is solar electromagnetic forcing which drives changes in the intensity of El Niños over time which in turn drives changes in global sea surface temperatures. So it is not so much changes in heat from the Sun which drives global temperature changes, but rather changes in water circulations which is the real culprit.
101
Does it address just the contemporary 60 year cycle or also the overall trend too? The 60 year cycle fits well with the idea of oceans trapping then later releasing heat, but what about multiple century long trends that then suddenly reverse at an abrupt peak? Is there even evidence of a 60 year cycle in the full 350 year Central England record that nearly perfectly matches the mere 150 year long global average that only covers a mere two cycles?
11
No, my analysis using ANN is based only on data during the satellite era. So it starts at 1979 and I can’t say anything for the cause of longer solar cycles and if they are connected with changes in ENSO behavior.
00
Per, I agree with you that ENSO should be factored into the analysis. In my own analysis of solar-terrestrial relations I have found that throughout the C20th, there is an average of 3 ENSO cycles per solar cycle. The largest El Ninos occur at solar minimum (notwithstanding the effect of large volcanic eruptions which reach the stratosphere which tend to cause El Nino and diminish the store of heat in the ocean built up near solar maximum such as El Chichon).
El Nino causes a bounce in the system which means the big ones at minimum tend to be followed by a La Nina around solar maximum (probably exacerbated by the magnetic effect noted by Jo and David). This antiphase relationship between the thermal effects of ENSO and the solar cycle has three principle effects:
1) It flattens the solar signal in smoothed temperature series. (leading cli-scis to dismiss the Sun as an important climate variable).
2) It produces a ‘lead’ of temperature vs the solar cycle in smoothed temperature series – this is the El nino occurring at solar minimum.
3) It produces a ‘delay’ in the broader climatic response to solar activity – Heat is built up in the Pacific warm pool for a number of years until the solar cycle diminishes and the ocean goes into heat release mode. The effect of the resulting El Nino near solar minimum lives on in the atmosphere for a number of years afterwards (notwithstanding the intermediate La Nina ‘bounce’).
This accounts for an approx 6 yr delay. Where the rest of David’s (and Friis-Lassen’s) 11 yr delay comes from I’m not sure, but I suspect it may be an artifact of the way we smooth and bin the data.
90
Thinking about it a little more, 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.
80
I haven’t myself looked closely at the relationship between El Niño frequency and strength and global temperature. Because of the high heat capacity of the oceans and because the electromagnetic influence of ENSO is modulated by tidal forcing, both SST and the global temperature must be smoothed out and delayed over time.
Because if ENSO’s influence can be coupled to the global temperature anomaly then the claim of 95% certainty by the IPCC that humans influence has dominated the warming since 1950 becomes even more absurd than what this claim already is today.
I like others to look into that.
Here my ENSO forecast for the coming years. Despite all the talks of a super El Niño this year, nothing of the sort is going to happen. Instead at the end of this year I expect a short La Niña or possible neutral condition to exist.
At the end of next year I expect a weak or medium sized El Niño.
At the end of 2017 I expect a medium or strong El Niño to form which is going to continue during 2018. ENSO is then going to rebound into a La Niña during 2019.
So the big El Nino year in the near future I expect to be in 2018.
00
>”Despite all the talks of a super El Niño this year, nothing of the sort is going to happen. Instead at the end of this year I expect a short La Niña or possible neutral condition to exist”
Might be on track too. Latest update:
‘Doubts Surface Over 2014 El Nino’
“Furthermore, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) – a measure of the atmospheric pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin in Australia and a lead indicator of El Nino conditions – has risen over the past two weeks and has generally remained around +8 to +10. The latest approximate 30-day SOI value to 15 June is +10.3. Sustained positive values of the SOI above +8 may indicate a La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event rather than a warming event.”
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/doubts-surface-over-2014-el-nino-development-as-warming-stalls.html
00
Thanks Per. Again I agree with you. I also predicted that this year’s El-Nino would peter-out, with a mild positive event over winter 2014-15, and a stronger event in late 2017-18. I will be very interested to learn more about your methods. Mine is not based on a mathematical model at this stage. I’m going on my hypothesis concerning the relationship between ENSO and the solar cycle. I think both our predictions could be changed by the occurrence of a big volcanic eruption during the solar maximum.
This is because the dust veil in the stratosphere from a big volcano increases albedo and gives the ocean an opportunity to go into ‘heat release mode’ – El Nino. This is what happened in 1982 with the El Chichon eruption. That precipititated an El Nino and removed sufficient energy from the Pacific Warm Pool such that the 1988 El Nino at solar minimum was a reduced event, partly due also to the low previous solar cycle in the 1970’s.
The reason the 97-98 solar minimum El Nino was strong despite the Pinotubo eruption of 1991 was that the eruption did not precipitate a big El Nino and the ocean had a longer time after the eruption to build up a lot of excess energy under the high amplitude solar cycles 21-22.
After the eruption of El Chichon (Yucatan, Mexico) on 28 March 1982, the planetary albedo showed an increase of the order of 10% (Halpert et al., 1993).
00
The model we are building in these blog posts uses force X (mainly) to predict (global surface) temperature reasonably well. But ENSO leads temperature by 6 months (for high frequency sinusoids, periods less than a few years, only) — it’s quite a strong correlation. So, the model also predicts ENSO.
So if you know what causes ENSO, you probably know what force X is. We’d be delighted to know! It would sure help the world to figure all this stuff out pronto. Please let us know as soon as you are prepared to.
The idea that force X is a “solar electromagnetic forcing which drives changes in the intensity of El Niños over time which in turn drives changes in global sea surface temperatures” seems quite plausible to me.
Neural nets! Brilliant! It should work wonderfully. Mainstream CO2 climate scientists are looking pretty lo-tech to me right at this instant.
140
“So if you know what causes ENSO, you probably know what force X is”
Well, since you asked 🙂
The basic ENSO oscillation may well be a consequence of the land mass distribution causing the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) to be north of the equator for most of the time. There is normally more cloud just north of the equator than just south of it.
That results in an imbalance of solar energy entering the oceans either side of the equator.
An ‘excess’ of energy builds up to the south of the equator and periodically discharges to the north of the equator via ocean currents.
If, then, there is an increase/decrease in TSI (plus amplification) at a time of active/inactive sun the imbalance will build up faster/slower because the ITCZ will shift northward/southward (as has been observed)and expose more/less equatorial waters to more/less incoming solar energy at ALL wavelengths.
El Ninos will become more/less dominant relative to La Ninas and over a period of about 10 years or so the warm El Nino and cool La Nina pulses travel throughout the ocean basins causing regional changes in the temperature of the atmosphere.
Meanwhile the annual shifting of the climate zones as the Earth travels around the sun obscures the underlying warming or cooling trend caused by the increased/decreased and amplified TSI such that it takes 10 years or so for the trend become apparent over and above the annual variations.
The thermal inertia of the oceans suppresses any thermal effect in the atmosphere from solar changes for the first ten years or so.
Then extend the same process across centuries such as from MWP to LIA and LIA to date.
Basically what we have is a top down influence on the global air circulation caused by solar effects on the temperatures above the tropopause with a lagging and highly variable oceanic response which then exerts a bottom up influence that sometimes supplements and sometimes offsets the top down solar effect.
Climate change is simply the interplay between the two opposing forces.
Meanwhile convection varies as necessary to ensure that radiative balance with space is held stable in the long term despite variations in average global temperature about the mean.
One needs multiple solar cycles to reveal any trends arising from solar variability.
40
You will know you have a model when you can predict
A) the air temperature over land, both min and max– in absolute numbers
B) the marine air temperature, both min and max in absolute
C) SST in absolute
D) the amplification ratios
E) the air temperature at stratospheric levels
Until then you have a curve fit to an INDEX, the global temperature index is a combination
of SST and land air temps at 2m.
The acid test of a model, one that we apply to GCM output for example, is testing the model on variables that are not used for tuning or development. So, we use the global temperature index ( in some cases only 30 years of the data ) to baseline the model.
It is no great feat to hindcast well measured by this metric. That’s why for example one tests the model by looking at stratopsheric temps ( the real signature of whether or not its the sun–its not) That’s why one looks at diurnal range as a metric. getting a model to match Tave is easy. Taking that same model and predicting Tmin and Tmax when those variables where not used in the tuning.. That tells you whether you have a model or a curve fit. Take a composite index ( SST + SAT) and fitting to that is easy.. Asking your model to predict each separately– that separates curve fits from physics.
Fitting the global index ( a non physical thing ) is easy. Taking that same model and asking it to produce the temperature by latitude band– Thats the question that separates a curve fit from physics. A curve fit understand only what it is fit to. A physical approach may use a curve fit or parameterization in one low dimension ( fit the global ) but the acid test is this “can it get the correct answer at higher dimensions?” if you fit the global can you get the hemispheric correct, the continental correct, etc.
It goes without saying that GCM are not A students at these tests. But to replace them in the scientific discourse ( which aims at improving what we know and making things “less wrong”) you have to be able to answer the same questions.
Until your model which fits a non physical global temperature index can output metrics with the proper units at multiple spatial and temporal scales.. its not even worth looking at.
213
“A) the air temperature over land, both min and max– in absolute numbers
B) the marine air temperature, both min and max in absolute
C) SST in absolute
D) the amplification ratios
E) the air temperature at stratospheric levels”
No need for any of that if the aim is merely to predict the direction of trend. Approximations are good enough for that.
Anyway, what GCM gets anywhere near that list of demands ?
90
okay steve,
now, using the metric you just articulated, of what value are the current GCM models?
60
What models do that now?
40
None that are worth looking at. 🙂
40
“It goes without saying that GCM are not A students at these tests”
Nope….they are pretty much a bunch of “F” students
Welcome back Mr Cotter.
31
Mosh Mosh Mosh
“the real signature of whether or not its the sun–its not”
Once you have ruled out the sun you are in a heap of difficulty.
“There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in you philosophy” – Shakespere
Lighten up Mosh. It is more likely to be the sun combined with natural effects than a “trace gas”. Yet Trillions of dollars is wasted on studying and dealing with the non-effects of a “trace gas” – go figure!
Also your last line “Until your model which fits a non physical global temperature index can output metrics with the proper units at multiple spatial and temporal scales.. its not even worth looking at.” rules out all the GCMs 😉
Have some patience and wait for the rest of the information from Jo and David – you may just learn something. 🙂
100
“You will know you have a model when you can predict” ABD VALIDATE !!!!!!!!!!
Prediction is NOTHING if the prediction never comes true.
The GCM are an ABJECT FAILURE !!
Poor Mosh, how does it feel to know you have bet on a horse that is going backwards !!
Maybe you should have stuck to salesmanship.. the only thing you know.
10
ABD ????? B is next to N. !!!
10
I’m fully aware of the magnitude of what I have found. Rest assure that I’m going to publish my result ASAP when I have complied material and I have conducted some consulting with others how to do this while mocking the warmist and the ENSO and climate model builders.
00
Per Strandberg #37
>”So it is not so much changes in heat from the Sun which drives global temperature changes, but rather changes in water circulations which is the real culprit.”
Isn’t it thermodynamically axiomatic that if energy input to a system (David’s system say) with heat storage is raised or lowered, that the temperature output will increase or decrease after some time lag?
This is irrespective of what the heat storage medium actually is.
Take a look at Abdussamatov’s solar prediction spanning SCs 21 – 26 (Figure 3):
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia/cienci349.jpg
Some action that repeats every solar cycle (e.g. Factor X) in a similar way will not produce relative temperature differences SC to SC (or SCs to SCs) of any significance so the significant action is elsewhere.
Figure 3 has an energy difference (reduction) of 6 W/m2 input to the planetary system from SC 21 – SC 26. OK not necessarily going to be 6 W/m2 just because Shapiro et al and Abdussamatov predict but the point is that this is where the temperature driver is ultimately because that energy reduction, whatever it turns out to be, must translate to temperature reduction eventually.
From memory (could be wrong), David disclosed earlier that his model predicts cooling. I bet that arises not from Factor X but simply from a reduction in energy input to the system over the coming SCs.
00
I’m skeptical that changes in TSI is that big and that changes in TSI are the cause of global temperature changes as suggested by Abdussamatov. I’m also skeptical of David Evans use of TSI estimations as input in his model.
The truth is that nobody knows the true value for TSI changes before the satellite era.
To try to estimate historical TSI based on sunspot numbers, solar electromagnetic activity based on Carbon and Beryllium isotopes and the estimated global temperature seems to me to be nothing more that guesswork. What we know for sure is that TSI changes during the satellite era have been very small.
I can very well imagine that the value of TSI during the Maunder Minimum was not much lower than today. We know that the jet stream do make big swing during weak solar activity with more blocking events. This leads to colder high pressure periods during winters in tempered regions and colder rainier summer. This causes cooling with higher levels of outgoing radiations. This cools lands and more importantly ocean waters. This effect can in itself be enough to cause the cooling for periods such as the Maunder Minimum.
00
Per #37.4.1
>”I’m skeptical that changes in TSI is that big”
OK, that’s understandable re historical TSI. So I’ll illustrate instead with the difference between SC 23 peak vs SC 24 peak (average measured solar flux on earth, W/m2)
SC 23, 2001.12, 235.1
SC 24, 2014.02, 170.3
From
http://www.solen.info/solar/. (Latest)
http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/ (Archive index)
http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/2003/january/20030102.html (2003 Jan 1 archive)
Difference: 64.8 W/m2
Still sceptical?
00
Per #37.4.1
My first reply with 3 reference links is in moderation so I’ll make a quickie while Mods dig it out.
>”I’m skeptical that changes in TSI is that big”
SC 23 peak vs SC 24 peak (average measured solar flux on earth, W/m2)
SC 23, 2001.12, 235.1
SC 24, 2014.02, 170.3
Difference: 64.8 W/m2
Still sceptical?
00
> SC 23 peak vs SC 24 peak (average measured solar flux on earth, W/m2)
Your variation looks way too large; but you give no source. Certainly, the TOA variation is much smaller: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#mediaviewer/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
01
>”Your variation looks way too large; but you give no source.”
I certainly have the source and I’ve tried to post the links a second time in different layout but still caught in the spam trap.
I’ll try this link to the latest update and follow your nose to the Archive index and 2003 Jan 1 archive):
http://www.solen.info/solar/.
00
Source http://www.solen.info/solar/.
00
William
>”Certainly, the TOA variation is much smaller”
Yes it will be but your graph doesn’t show SC 24 peak. It only shows SCs 23, 22, 21 which are basically the period of highest level since and including Grand Maximum in 1986.
Since 2009 however and into SC 24 peak the level is considerably lower in any respect which is why I made an SC 23 to SC 24 comparison,
But again no, TOA difference is nothing like surface difference. Except, 64.8 W/m2 difference at surface is what makes a difference to surface temperature, not TOA difference.
00
Here’s the reference links to the SC 23 and 24 data (hopefully wont trip the spam trap):
http://www.solen.info/solar/. (Latest)
http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/ (Archive index)
http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/2003/january/20030102.html (2003 Jan 1 archive)
00
The Y-Axis is in dBµV NOT W/m^2
00
Which graph? Solar flux is in a table.
00
http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/2003/january/20030102.html
00
MSimon #37.4.1.2.1
>”Which graph? Solar flux is in a table.”
Refer the latest update:
http://www.solen.info/solar/.
The graph at top of page is all datapoints where the solar flux is measured by the F10.7 index as I’ve corrected with Rog below (not W/m2 – my apologies).
The table at bottom of page is monthly averages of solar flux by F10.7.
Still an indicative proxy I think of how energy from the sun is “seen” at the surface e.g. the monthly peak by average was February but there is what looks to be a higher flux spike in November 2013.
And the SC 24 peak was 27% weaker than the SC23 peak by F10.7 as I’ve reasoned in the reply to Rog below too.
I’m sure energy in W/m2 at the surface (when we can actually get some data) will be similar.
00
Rog #37.4.1.2.3
>”The Y-Axis is in dBµV NOT W/m^2″
dBμV (or dBμV/m) is electrical field intensity, not energy flux
GLOSSARY OF SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL TERMS
flux: The rate of flow of a physical quantity through a reference surface.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/glossary.html
I take this (solar flux) to mean Joules per second (Watts) i.e. rate of flow of energy.
It would have been helpful for Jan Alvestad to state the units explicitlly
00
Re #37.4.1.2.2
My mistake, not W/m2. Refer the latest update graph:
http://www.solen.info/solar/
Solar flux is measured by the 10.7cm Solar Radio Flux index in this case, defined as:
The F10.7 index is a measure of the noise level generated by the sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm at the earth’s orbit. The global daily value of this index is measured at local noon at the Pentictin Radio Observatory in Canada. Historically, this index has been used as an input to ionospheric models as a surrogate for the solar output in wavelengths that produce photoionization in the earth’s ionosphere (in the ultraviolet bands).
http://www.nwra.com/spawx/f10.html
A proxy for solar-at-surface too (measured at surface) so the difference of SC 23 peak to SC 24 by F10.7 is still an indication of the relative activity.
SC 24 peak 27% weaker than SC 23 peak on monthly average of F10.7.
00
I can very well imagine
I can very well imagine something else.
BTW – generally – poor data is better than imagination.
10
“We don’t know exactly how this collapsing magnetic field reduces the effect of solar radiation on Earth.”
Who was it on here that was always on about the electic/plasma universe? Was it Brian Valentine? I have a feeling he’d suggest that it is not reducing the effect of solar radiation, and that you are letting your search be bound by how you think the universe works, not how it actually works?
213
I don’t think so, David, has not Identified Force X, but he has shown it’s dynamics, it has a period of 11 years, and operates opposite to TSI. Magnetic intensity is one explanation, but something integral to the Solar Cycle but not evident in diurnal/annual forcing are also implicated. Could be UV which increases more than 10 x TSI, maybe the increased UV, and associated increases in Ozone and Electrostatic charging of the atmosphere is the stimulating force rather than magnetism directly. Maybe it’s the solar wind interacting with the magnetic forces connecting the Sun and Earth. Could be anything like that.
I think David has left that barn door wide open though my guess is the model will be based on magnetic intensity. (The Actual link may merely be “Associated with magnetic intensity”)
70
Mattb I believe in saying “how you think the universe works, not how it actually works?” your projecting the very arguments from authority that have been advocating the CAGW hypotheses that you have been so eager to follow.
David Evans is proceeding with something called “The Scientific Method” with a broad explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method it’s even from Wikipedia to satisfy your confirmation bias, now I must warn you the scientific method will actually challenge what your Gaia authoritarians have told you, so I recommend to get professional psychiatric assistance before attempting the transition.
151
Sorry Yonnie you’re missing my point. Brian K Valentine is as sceptical of AGW as it comes, and I was simply suggesting there may be something in his ideas. I’m not telling David et al that they don’t know how the universe works… they already know that.
In fact I now see that Jo says “But the mystery force might be electrical” -which is kinda Brian’s line of thinking. You can claim I’m down with gaia authoritarianism all you want, but actually I’m suggesting the answer may lie in some of the most loony toons of all loons here.
73
Maybe it was Brian G Valentine… oh yes here he is: http://www.desmogblog.com/brian-g-valentine
17
I thought that the magnetic fields could solve all our energy problems huy was this one http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/
20
guy not huy and further investigation is that his thing is “geoplasma”… http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/introduction/
20
you’re right it’s LOUIS!!! I think Brian was keen too. but you are right sorry for getting them mixed up.
20
with such limited memory resources, I can’t believe that I dedicated some of them to him! Looking at his blog, I think he has lost his edge compared with this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/15/hissink/
sorry no more off topic from now
20
I don’t recall Brian Valentine having said much about Electric Universe. Louis Hissink, yes and I think a few others have mentioned it.
00
You are correct, it was Louis Hissink. I think he finally gave up talking about it because it wasn’t favorably received by anyone even as a subject for debate, much less acceptable as something supported by evidence of any kind and therefore worthy of attention.
We may end up owing him an apology.
00
Roy, It was not a theory Louis came up with on his own. In fact there are a significant number of scientists that are finding more and more things that fit better than with EU than with “standard” explanations.
More https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
Here is the list of speakers and presenters at their next conference. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/09/10/eu2014-speakers/
I’m sure it would be interesting to go to that conference!
Any way, I enjoyed the comments Louis Hissink made here and I wish he’d come back regularly.
00
I had no direct statement from Louis that he was or wasn’t the originator of the theory. But it’s not hard to tell by the references he made and the way he talked about it that it wasn’t his but he thought it the best explanation of the way things work.
I miss Louis Hissink too.
00
Mattb if indeed you are sincere about keeping an open mind then I apologize and retract my deriding comment and assumptions of your intentions, over the years both sides of this debate(climate war?) have developed an automatic defense reflex and after the first thread on this hypotheses of Dr Evans I actually felt saddened to see the excitement of a potential new discovery tainted by the usual slanging match (myself guilty) between the divisions.
I feel now is not the time for abuse and egos to hinder or corrupt the information David is trying to convey and especially the way he’s going about it, my previous comment on scientific enlightenment was not just made on a creative whim and in this spirit I make my apologies.
130
I am trying to behave 🙂
50
Don’t strain anything …
30
🙂
10
no worries.
one thing also to note is that to me there is much mainstream acknowledgement that there are a whole range of cyclical whot nots going on. This one (possibly… seriously fourier analyis was where my once astounding maths brain somehow became wrecked upon the rocks in 2nd year uni) well to be honest I don’t see that it is contrary to any IPCC type findings anyway. Just interesting.
Exchange noted with interest. Thumbs up from me. Thanks Matt. J
50
I realise that many of the alarmista ain’t too bright,
….. but I’m guessing that some of them know a bit, at least..
I suspect that is why there is currently so much political push to get their money-grabbing totalitarian taxes etc in place..
They KNOW or strong suspect, that there is an extended cold period coming.
50
Winter is coming?
11
Well as least you know that much. !
We are talking a colder period at least a couple of decades long if the current solar cycle is any indication.
When one line , models goes up and the other line, reality , goes down.. that is called DIVERGENCE. and is very bad for models.
30
Oh, and Mattb, it good for you to finally display your total knowledge of climate.
21
That may account for the recent efforts to discount sea surface temperatures and go with sea level.
The advantage of sea level is that it takes longer for discernible change so that the scam can run for a few more years.
40
I was under the impression that according to current orthodoxy it was bad for reality. The models are sacred.
60
Matt B Winter is coming
You know nothing Jon Snow.
00
Actually Yon, I read this as Matt being rather sceptical, what he points to is not CO2 orthodoxy. This is a new side to Matty.
Matt, keep it up, an open mind is a cool thing!
110
It was Oliver K Manuel. He is a former professor of nuclear chemistry. He has published dozens of papers on the ‘electric’ sun in major scientific journals including Nature.
41
> He has published dozens of papers on the ‘electric’ sun in major scientific journals including Nature.
No. His pub list is http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html He has published in Nature in 1979 on “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”. But not on the mad “Iron Sun” stuff (http://www.thesunisiron.com/); Nature wouldn’t touch that with a barge pole.
314
William Connolley? Mr. Wikipedia?
I heard you were corroborating on a new project with Peter Gleick? If true, how’s that going? If you need a good attorney just let me know!
121
” Nature wouldn’t touch that with a barge pole.” Given Nature’s significant reputation demise in recent years , Oliver’s work must be OK.
30
Wrong
30
I am actually greatly intrigued by the notion of an LTI transfer function between TSI and T, as a low-pass with an included notch. It would have been very nice to have some better idea about a physical mechanism and ballpark results for the necessary complex conjugate zeros as derived from measured parameters. Perhaps this is in the pipeline.
One problem I see with this supposed filter is that it, unlike most filters, is multi-input (the “Total” of TSI: summing visible, UV, and IR, etc.?), which is not a problem per se as you specify linearity. But are you sure you can assume that the TSI as measured (or inferred) and recorded is what the earth “agrees” is the input to its filter? What if the TSI sensors in the satellites (the ones we trust most) nicely sum in the UV band (wire connected there) but that particular band is not connected to the summer for the earth input to its filter. No wire feeding in a 11-year cycle – no need for a notch. This is just a wild “what if” on my part.
This just a comment from someone who has seen probably a thousand students construct experimental filters perhaps half of whom were sure their good work subsequently violated every law or Nature because they couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong – they checked. Faulty input was not particularly unusual at all. Plenty of times students were sure there was an input because it was on the scope channel 1, not supposing that it was never really getting to the input resistor.
Your notch is an inference. Too bad you can’t get the filter on the bench and sweep it!
61
Using the mainstream TSI datasets. Seemed like a good place to start, and found the notch, etc. What else can one do?
Those datasets are put together with a fair bit of care, but before 1979 are mainly reconstructions from sunspot numbers so they are probably a bit rough before 1979.
60
Thanks David. I’m just trying to be devil’s advocate from a friendly DSP engineer’s perspective. It strikes me that a one-thing (open switch) explanation is prima facie better than a two-thing (peak and remote compensating notch). I understand “Total” but I was unsure if the individual spectral bands (EM spectrum) are available individually – certainly not until very recently one would suppose if at all.
I do look forward to all you are presenting here.
And you worked with Ron Bracewell! That’s as good as it gets.
20
This is great work.
I think the detailed, step-by-step exposition is an excellent method of publishing important results
(so different from the usual, highly condensed and overly polished scientific articles).
The final theory may not be perfect, but the step-by-step approach allows _traceable_ modifications:
e.g. – you have gone wrong in step 7a, or – we can merge this other factor in at step 8c.
30
I think climate science has been reduced to a one horse race.
The other horses have piled up at the starting gate and out
of mercy need to be shot.
Eugene WR Gallun
50
The Judith Curry website Climate Etc currently has a thread on publishing in science and how to measure success at this
Ive posted the following comment there. Perhaps some of the more inquisitive readers will follow here
>An experiment in open publishing is currently occurring on the Jo Nova website
It is being published in instalments and is really very interesting, both in content and design.
It is an interesting experiment, well worth following, and breaks the “Journal” mode of peer review and paywalling into itty-bitty pieces. Naturally this leaves the door open for nutty comments as well as constructive ones, but it is a very interesting venture
NOTE: open publication of the new hypothesis is not completed yet; I make no comment on the validity of the hypothesis at this point. For myself, I am content to follow the process through and then ask critical questions<
—-
Thanks Ian. That’s helpful. — Jo
160
This paragraph:
Reads a lot like parts of Abdussamatov 2013 (basically a synopsis of his 2012 paper) e.g. page 3:
Coincidence?
Abdussamatov 2012 was this paper:
‘Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to
Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age’
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
60
Solar physicist Abdussamatov is adamant that the Grand Minimum is almost upon us and will result in the next LIA. Fellow high profile solar physicist Piers Corbyn claims the LIA has just started. Once the LIA kicks in “with full force’ it will be game over for the “Warmists” – and they will get a very cold reception in more ways than one.
170
noting of course that a grand minimum would not actually change whether or not there was AGW.
112
When it gets cold, food supply drops and then the armies are rolled out.
The fertilisation of the Atmosphere with CO2 will assist with mitigating the drop in food supply and save lives from starvation and war.
70
YES YES YES – when the LIA is in full force then smart nations will be talking about “carbonization” not “de-carbonization”. I believe during an LIA scenario less CO2 will enter the atmosphere naturally, ie from non-anthropogenic sources. So to promote plant growth more CO2 will be needed. So therefore the EU for example will have to do a complete U-turn, ie abandon Renewables and return to “Fossil Fuels” on a big scale. Even Charlie will have to agree but being a WINDsor that will be tough for him to toss aside his beloved UK giant wind turbines.
50
To let CO2 levels drop to the biosphere survival base-level of 280ppm would mean total devastation for the human species.
Food supply would drastically diminish, deserts would expand. The world-wide famine would be truly awful for developing countries.
But the alarmistas DO NOT CARE.
72
Remember, ALL this kerfuffle and irresponsible waste of money on ineffective, inefficient, irregular wind and solar is based on CO2 causing an catastrophic 2C warming. And it all comes from the models.
Its going to look pretty sad for the climate models if the temperature starts to drop. 🙂
There is already a pretty big divergence showing up, so if David is correct, pretty soon the models and reality are going to be heading in totally opposite directions.
And the divergence will be so obvious even the climate modellers and their apostles will sure have to admit.. THEY GOOFED !!!
52
Or it was that the Earth Gaia systems permitted the evolution of humans as the tool to release billions of tons of carbon at precisely the right time to save the rest of Her creatures from a next ice age.
60
Excepting that the CO2 protagonists have discarded TSI as a significant factor in climate change and nominated atmospheric CO2 as the major factor.
10
Yep, they discarded TSI, so they now don’t get to use a quieter sun as an excuse for a cooling trend..
Funny isn’t it…….. But you can bet they will try.
22
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume 41, Issue 8, pages 2892–2898, 28 April 2014
Response of the Bering Sea to 11-year solar irradiance cycles during the Bølling-Allerød
Kota Katsuki1,
Takuya Itaki2,
Boo-Keun Khim3,*,
Masao Uchida4 and
Ryuji Tada5
Article first published online: 23 APR 2014
Previous studies find decadal climate variability possibly related to solar activity, although the details regarding the feedback with the ocean environment and ecosystem remain unknown. Here, we explore the feedback system of solar irradiance change during the Bølling‐Allerød period, based on laminated sediments in the northern Bering Sea. During this period, well‐ventilated water was restricted to the upper intermediate layer, and oxygen‐poor lower intermediate water preserved the laminated sediment. An 11‐year cycle of diatom and radiolarian flux peaks was identified from the laminated interval. Increased fresh meltwater input and early sea‐ice retreat in spring under the solar irradiance maximum follow the positive phase of Arctic Oscillation which impacted the primary production and volume of upper intermediate water production in the following winter. Strength of this 11 year solar irradiance effect might be further regulated by the pressure patterns of Pacific decadal oscillation and/or El Niño‐Southern Oscillation variability.
Or of course……vice versa.
20
Call me cynical but this doesn’t seem like a historical breakthrough. In fact a five minute web search showed that the 11 year lag is a well known phenomenon and that numerous papers have been written on the topic.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020062/pdf
http://www.spaceweather.eu/en/repository/download?id=02_0711_Misio-1353495374.&file=02_0711_Misios.ppt
46
The detail from David and Jo is not finished yet, bananabender. I think the “breakthrough’ is more to do with producing a workable, verifiable model based on this phenomenon.
70
bananabender #45
Not in terms of thermal lag no, but I don’t think David is claiming it to be. His is a systems approach that hasn’t been applied before.
Yes. planetary thermal inertia and lag certainly is. Not necessarily 11 yr but add to your list Abdussamatov linked upthread (14 +/-6) and Trenberth (6, 10 – 100) along with those David itemizes.
But again, different approaches e.g. Evans – systems, Scafetta – statistics, Adussamatov – thermodynamic principles. But David is exploring something the others don’t from a different direction.
My analogy would be trend analysis by extrinsic method (linear regression, polynomials etc) vs empirical mode decomposition (EMD). The latter extracts signals from the data rather than imposing them. When applied to HadCRUT4 (or SST3) the residual (underlying trend) was similar a while ago to Scafetta’s steadily rising quadratic that is the basis of his model. But with recent additional data is almost exactly opposite because EMD is that much more sensitive. In addition, EMD intermediate mode frequencies (IMFs) identify the various decadal and multi-decadal oscillations i.e. lower IMFs 1,2,3 are noise but 4,5,6 are meaningful. From what I recall from doing this myself the old residual corresponding to Scafetta’s quadratic is retained as IMF7 and recent additional data produces the new residual signal. Point being that EMD is a very much different approach returning a much different view of the data to consider (I think Scafetta should employ EMD).
I find much similarity between Abdussamatov’s work and Part IV of David Evan’s work above as I’ve pointed out upthread (“coincidence?” comment #43).
What I find particularly curious is this: for the bicentennial component of TSI Abdussamatov uses minimums (or minima) of the 11 yr cycle, not an average or integral. This effectively negates the peaks (maximums, or maxima) over multiple 11 yr cycles.
Now here we are looking for some mechanism (“Force X”, Part IV above) that may actually negate peak 11 yr solar intensity as an energy input to climate. I don’t recall why exactly the bicentennial component traces minima specifically, nor whether Abdussamatov addressed a mechanism that negates the maxima as an energy input to the planetary system thereby explaining the use of a line tracing minima to represent the bicentennial component of TSI.
I’m re-reading Abdussamatov 2012 to see if he does either or both but haven’t found anything yet. The 2012 paper is here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
50
Should be:
“My analogy would be trend analysis by extrinsic method (linear regression, polynomials etc) vs empirical mode decomposition (EMD) [which is intrinsic methodology]”
30
The breakthrough is not that, the breakthrough is the understanding that we need to sum all the components impacting the temperature from the Sun in order to derive the effect of the Sun on the Earth. The idea that since temperature doesn’t correlate with temperature the sun can be discarded as a candidate for global warming ( based on the absence of an 11 year temperature signal) has been cast aside by this work. If there is a counteracting effect over 11 years that doesn’t operate over longer periods then Solar induced global warming is very much back on the agenda. If the delta between the cooling signal and warming one is altered warming could result even .
At the very least climate science must show that the mechanisms that cancel 11 year warming also cancel longer term warming.
30
The whole idea of an 11 year lag of an 11 year cycle stinks of pure semantics, since it can just be turned back into another 11 year cycle with no lag except of course if the varying peak and valley heights represent a major influence, which isn’t yet clear to me, nor is it yet clear how fine a time scale a correlation can be demonstrated, or how arbitrarily parameterized that correlation is. Can the virtual knobs also correlate with the stock market?
19
> an 11 year lag of an 11 year cycle stinks of pure semantics
Indeed.
221
Again. you appear very ignorant. Is it done on purpose ??
There is a big difference between a lag and a cycle.
Maybe you can find out more about it on Wikipedia?
100
suggest you look at ,,,,,http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
I think it is worth looking at by others also ,a correlation on a 12 year scale ,but close!
10
Not at all, Nik. That would be true only if the amplitude of all cycles were the same…which we already know is false.
50
And if all cycles were exactly 11 years, which they are not.
And it is that discrepancy that leads to the eleven and a bit (plus or minus) year lag on a nominal eleven year cycle.
David explained this earlier. You guys should really try to keep up with what is going on.
70
A good point; I should have included that in my reply to Nik.
00
Not exactly. What is posited is a TSI cycle modulated by a magnetic (or other) cycle. Both affect temperature. Different causes affect the output – temperature.
An anthropogenic example – pot on the burner. Burner modulated by the human while the human drops ice cubes into the pot. Two different causes affecting the temperature of the contents of the pot.
Really. This isn’t that difficult. So far.
Good to see WC making his usual dump. (I’m an American Anglophile – heh)
32
You quite rightly point out that the 11 year lag has been known for years, but that hasn’t helped scientists build a climate model that successfully fit global temperatures in hindcast and in the future because they were missing what David is describing.
20
Jo You don’t have to understand the physical mechanisms involved in order to make perfectly useful forecasts. For forecasts of the likely coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count- 10 Be data as the best proxy for solar “activity” see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
The main uncertainty in the temperature forecasts is the exact timing of the 1000 year temperature peak. In order to tune models correctly you would need to run them backwards about 3000 years.The neutron count over cycle 24 suggests that we are just past the peak. The 11 or twelve year lag between solar activity and temperature was pointed out years ago by Usoskin. Looks like you are inventing the wheel.For convenience Here are the conclusions of the link
“It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate
100
Footnote: A forecasted correlation cannot be a real forecast unless you can forecast the detailed variation of solar activity, no matter how correct the theory is, and if those solar variations involve chaos then no forecast is even theoretically possible.
12
DR Norman Page #46
And several others but fundamentally different approaches as pointed out in #45.2 above. Each coming up with their own form of wheel, David’s more derived/exposed/extracted than invented in your analogy perhaps
However, David has already mentioned Usoskin in Part III:
In a word, corroboration.
110
Nik You are misunderstanding what I am doing – I’m not forecasting solar activity – I’m forecasting temperature.
In that same limk I say
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
Because the cosmic ray time series is most closely related to temperature the most conservative working hypothesis would be that the cosmic ray flux itself is the main controlling factor a la some version of Svensmarks ideas and albedo.
50
Dr. Page,
There are already attempts afoot to discount SST. You may be on to something and there may be some in the opposing camp who agree with your estimate. That IMO is confirmation of the highest order.
40
“There are already attempts afoot to discount SST”
They deploy ARGO.. then discount SST’s
As soon as they start to get a decent measurement system in place for anything, they find that they have to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their hoax..
It really is a farce , isn’t it.
40
A little obscure for some maybe but consider this: Approx. 3.5 billion years ago, in an atmosphere of nitrogen, methane and CO2, photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved, absorbing dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate from the oceans and ‘shitting out’ waste O2. Now you tell me why those cyanobacteria wouldn’t had plenty of time to ‘notch up’ an achievement or two or more in terms of quickly manipulating their environment in various ways to regulate their environment and suit themselves e.g. responding rapidly to UV-vis irradiance changes, emitting biogenic nuclei to regulate cloud cover and hence albedo, emitting surfactants to change wave-borne aerosol generation, conducting signal molecule ‘quorum sensing’ to separate the buddies from the enemies, regulating the global sinking flux of organic carbon etc., etc., etc. Hey, they even ultimately produced atmosphere of 21% O2 even allowing a bunch of obscure smart-ass apes to evolve who live on their (O2)shit one way or another and burn the fossil products of their left over tiny bodies. Somehow I suspect these little fellers are a damn sight smarter than yer average blogger here.
015
Steve are you suggesting certain micro organisms believed to be the origin of life on this planet, possessed some form of ability for abstract thought and evolved in a self conscious manner to create a perfect planet only to have their utopian world threatened by a lower life form (humans) and are so outraged they refuse to blog on Joannenova.com?
151
How do you get survival of the fittest with only one population competing with itself on a single planet though? Who dies out and how do they not also enjoy climate stability instead of suffer it?
50
There is an almost infinite number of potential ecological niches on the planet.
10
Steve, Douglas Adams got there well before you.
60
Steve Short, everything but the last sentence was interesting. Why couldn’t you resist adding the last sentence?
50
Mark I agree, I wasn’t even sure if the last sentence wasn’t some “lost in translation” humour so my reply was done in the same vein.
Steve I would be interested to know why the last line was included, the rest was quite good. cheers.
00
Jo, David,
You might want to ask this fellow for his opinion.
http://youtu.be/6R26PXRrgds
20
MSimon
Reckon you may enjoy this one and the ones after.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UPORMPgqw
10
Could “Force X” be the changes that occur in atmospheric circulation over the duration of the solar cycle?
10
May I say Jo and David, This is really exciting stuff – even though I am struggling to follow it all. I have long had my suspicions about this whole AGW – global warming claptrap if only because I have been around for over 6 decades and rely am concerned about the data manipulation and so-called rigorous scientific analysis bought to bear on this area. When you worked in my field of major construction works where the Commonwealth Government was the Client with its various departments and observed where the BOM placed its measurement gear – I retained a healthy suspicion about most of the data.
So am keenly looking forward to updates and titbits floating along from you both. It is really great to observe the beginnings of breakthrough research and who knows where it may all lead.
By the way off topic – it is amazing how many times I pass by the Tarago-Bungendore wind farms and see all the wind generators completely stopped even in breezes. Rarely see them all in action.
cheers
Uncle Bill
90
This IS all very exciting but yes well over my head. All I can say is
where’s John? He will be so excited that it’s not due to CO2 and that we can all relax and be friends again. We don’t need re-eduction camps for deniers anymore. . . ….. or do we?
Very proud of you both David & Jo. West Aussies and all.
I’ve been stirring up warmists on youtube and thanks to this site have a decent grasp on the story (at least until a couple of days ago). Enough to get some thinking. Maybe Jo can follow up and put it all into laymen’s language so I can continue to stir them up.
Brilliant.
90
David and Jo I take it you have a copy of the book ‘The Neglected Sun’ by Vahrenholt and Luning (translated from German) Publisher ‘Stacey International’ 2013 ISBN 978-1-909022-24-9. If not, of particular interest would be Chapter 6 ‘The misunderstood climate amplifiers’ relevant to your current post. I got my copy from US Amazon. There are good references not only for that Chapter but throughout the whole book.
I am following your research with great interest. Best Regards.
—-
Got it. Thanks. Will read that chapter. – Jo
50
Hmm… I have the book and started to read Chapter 6 again when I hit my usual mind block! I am a total layman but I am familiar with the IR characteristics of CO2 and H2O. These are entirely different from the IR characteristics of a water droplet in a cloud. I have many times observed how cloud cover appearing after sunset can limit the rate of cooling of the surface. I have even observed small increases of surface temperature under 10/10ths cloud. This is NOT warming! It is energy stored in the surface which would have been radiated away under a clear sky but now wideband ‘back radiation’ from the cloud limited the rate of cooling. The sun put the energy into the surface during the previous cloudless day.
How does this blasted ‘forcing’ by H2O and CO2 work? What is the physics for this effect?
If the atmosphere had no ‘greenhouse gases’ it would be unable to cool!!! That is what TRANSPARENT means!!! The atmosphere would be too hot to allow life to develop. /rant
30
One of the features of the data illustrated in Chapter 6 I found remarkable (for which at least one “expert” in another well known blog has said in the past there is no correlation) is the very close correspondence between Figure 6.7 (cosmic rays % and low cloud cover) and top of Figure 3.5, earlier in the book, showing relative sunspot number and TSI (as well other corresponding components including temperature). The peaks in Fig 6.7 correspond almost exactly with the troughs in Fig 3.5 in the time domain (i.e. higher TSI/sunspots mean less cosmic rays and less low cloud cover and vice versa.). Perhaps a little distraction from your focus at present I know but I thought it worthwhile referring to as this feature is often mentioned but rarely illustrated so convincingly.
10
Sorry to be so negative, but is it not very unlikely for 2 different physical effects (solar heating and “Force X”) to nearly cancel each other?
Such cancellations can occur when there is feedback, or when a system changes to reach an equilibrium,
but surely the Earth has a constant (and probably negligible) effect on the Sun.
There is a similar cancellation being invoked by The Consensus to explain the pause,
a much more likely explanation for which is that the main hypothesis is wrong.
30
“s it not very unlikely for 2 different physical effects (solar heating and “Force X”) to nearly cancel each other”
NOT if they are generated from the same source.. Watch these posts. ! 😉
60
Maybe not the greatest analogy but if have you a train with all the cars having motors that do not respond to an input the same, you will get pushing and pulling from other cars so that there is no large change in speed of your car with power input to your motor. You are still going to see a periodic signal from the bumping and pulling. You don’t get that if the power input is connected to the brakes as well as the motor.
00
Mikky, both TSI and force X are generated by the Sun, so they are synchronized. When TSI peaks, force X troughs.
The cancellation couldn’t be exact, but presumably it is good enough that the resulting temperature “wobbles” from both influences combine at the TSI peaks are below the noise threshold and are hard or impossible to detect by the methods of post II (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-ii-for-the-first-time-a-mysterious-notch-filter-found-in-the-climate/).
20
Someone from the Electric Universe side that maybe interesting to contact is Wal Thornhill
He will be talking at the nexus conference on August 2nd “Climate Change is Natural … the electrical Sun and its effects on climate.”
00
David and Jo, I’ve made a more substantive response in reply to Per Strandberg at comment #37
Cheers – TB.
50
Trolls are back:
Bananabender – “Call me cynical but this doesn’t seem like a historical breakthrough.”
Must be desperate times because their posts seem to be attempting to mitigate anything remotely connected with this work.
That’s what happens when you don’t see what your looking at, too busy focussing on grants agenda and fixated on demonizing an inert gas for fun and profit instead of asking more questions about:
Bananabender – “In fact a five minute web search showed that the 11 year lag is a well known phenomenon and that numerous papers have been written on the topic.”
Can’t see the chlorophyll for the carbon sink.
81
“An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”
Marcello Truzzi, On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978
I’m not a troll. I’m interested in good science. Good scientists are always sceptical.
So far we have little more than ‘science by press release’. First Jo tells us how brilliant her husband is followed by a paper posted on a blog. I prefer to wait and see until the paper has been thoroughly dissected and criticised by a bunch of experts before getting too excited.
26
Yes, but try not to be negative in the mean time, is all. 🙂
Try to understand the science in the mean time.
70
BB,
Fair criticism and point taken.
Pity others were not as circumspect as you when they swallowed Mann’s ‘hook’ and Cook’s ‘consensus’.
110
Don’t expect a quick response from the ‘climate establishment’ other than perhaps ad hominems because a lot of this is beyond their skill set. Remember Phil Jones can’t even work out how to use EXCEL. I loved this commentary by Steve McKintyre:
Phil Jones spends much of his time looking down his nose at the heathen, but then confesses to Bob Ward that he is unable to calculate a trend on his own, as in this hilarious exchange at Bishop Hill:
“I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.”
Nor it seems in Matlab, R, ODL, Fortran or any other language. No wonder that he regarded someone who could calculate principal components (like Mann) as a sort of computational prodigy.
Last year, Phil was ranked one of England’s top 100 scientists. Just imagine the ranking that he could have achieved if he knew how to calculate a trend by himself.
Imagine where David Evans would fit in that ranking! 🙂
90
Are you able to to get onto the Bolt Report with a few science people and talk this through ? Big Welcome to Tallbloke …
90
What, this coming Sunday? I don’t think David and Jo are that suicidal. Why else do you think they sat on this Notch hypothesis for nearly a year and said basically nothing about it until they found more evidential support for the cause?
Going on the talk show circuit before all the usual suspects of the mainstream have had their say would be a victory of vapid PR over scientific method. If anything, all the mainstream critics will just provide even more fuel for David to show how the criticisms fail but the Delayed Notch Solar device succeeds. Modifying the hypothesis in response to such criticism makes for a stronger case that might even get published in the mainstream.
You go on the talk shows when you have answers for every criticism. You can’t do that until you have collected a museum of criticisms from critics. More successful battles makes for a greater story on TV.
Give RC, Deltoid, and SkS some time to catch up, if they dare. It’s all part of the process.
70
Yes. (And I should add it took months to write up decently. I wince when I look back at some of the early attempts.)
30
With writing it’s not where you start or even where you are at some point that counts. It’s where you end up. And so far the explanations are very good. If I can understand what you’re talking about that’s a real complement.
And I know the problem from long experience. Good writing is very hard for me and I have to write, revise, restart and maybe repeat that cycle half a dozen or a dozen times. So don’t wince. You got it right.
00
This is a real thriller. I can not hold out. Help me! When do You release the last chapter?
40
Reminds me of a lecture I watched with Piers Corban explaining the magnetic link from the Earth to the Sun, or vice versa, I think he was also mentioning electron v proton flows and changes in the jet streams caused thereby.
40
Are there any best books for such signal analysis that are short enough for an average technically savvy reader to start to understand the topic?
20
I learned “signal analysis” by studying my wife.
I have to admit after 30 years I don’t yet completely understand it.
150
Trying to understand it is understandable. Understanding it is not.:)
10
Ken, as I get older I think trying to understand might have been a waste of time.
Just sayin
00
But you have understood.. perfectly. 🙂
00
That some things are just unfathomable?
10
Very interesting indeed. In relation to the solar polar fields there is a paper that makes a series back to 1900 with a solar proxy (Munoz-Jaramillo et al. (2012). Some time ago I got the yearly data, if you need them for a hindcast back to 1900 feel free to ask…
gl Frank
20
The link to the data-file for the historic polar fields is: http://kauls.selfhost.bz:9001/uploads/Pflux_Consolidated_2.0.dat.txt
best
Frank
20
Environmental Research Letters Volume 4 Number 1
A D Erlykin et al 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 014006 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014006
The variation with time from 1956 to 2002 of the globally averaged rate of ionization produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere is deduced and shown to have a cyclic component of period roughly twice the 11 year solar cycle period. Long term variations in the global average surface temperature as a function of time since 1956 are found to have a similar cyclic component. The cyclic variations are also observed in the solar irradiance and in the mean daily sun spot number. The cyclic variation in the cosmic ray rate is observed to be delayed by 2–4 years relative to the temperature, the solar irradiance and daily sun spot variations suggesting that the origin of the correlation is more likely to be direct solar activity than cosmic rays. Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity, we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is {\lesssim }14\% of the observed global warming.
30
Environmental Research Letters Volume 7 Number 4
M Voiculescu and I Usoskin 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044004 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044004
Persistent solar signatures in cloud cover: spatial and temporal analysis
A consensus regarding the impact of solar variability on cloud cover is far from being reached. Moreover, the impact of cloud cover on climate is among the least understood of all climate components. This motivated us to analyze the persistence of solar signals in cloud cover for the time interval 1984–2009, covering two full solar cycles. A spatial and temporal investigation of the response of low, middle and high cloud data to cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) and UV irradiance (UVI) is performed in terms of coherence analysis of the two signals. For some key geographical regions the response of clouds to UVI and CRII is persistent over the entire time interval indicating a real link. In other regions, however, the relation is not consistent, being intermittent or out of phase, suggesting that some correlations are spurious. The constant in phase or anti-phase relationship between clouds and solar proxies over some regions, especially for low clouds with UVI and CRII, middle clouds with UVI and high clouds with CRII, definitely requires more study. Our results show that solar signatures in cloud cover persist in some key climate-defining regions for the entire time period and supports the idea that, if existing, solar effects are not visible at the global level and any analysis of solar effects on cloud cover (and, consequently, on climate) should be done at the regional level.
20
Steve,
Vahrenholt and Luning refer to data in their book that indicates good correspondence in the mid latitudes but less so in the polar and tropic latitudes.
10
This is fascinating stuff. I’ve always thought that the solar output must affect our climate in more ways than most climate scientists are prepared to contemplate.
The solar wind contains the nuclei of many elements such as metals and non-metals, not just hydrogen and helium. That must involve a real cocktail of charged ions since the wind is supposed to be overall neutral. I would imagine that the composition of the solar wind might be linked to the magnetic field strength and polarity. This, in turn, might affect the chemistry of our atmosphere in a number of ways, including the nucleation necessary for the seeding of cloud formation. This could be a more direct mechanism alongside the modulation of cosmic rays suggested by Svensmark.
Another thought is that the earth, with its iron core rotates within an alternating solar magnetic field. That must do something for the electron community….
100
Good morning David (well, it is here)
Looking at figure 1, I can clearly see a downward trend after you said the magnetic line was a future indication..are we talking ice fairs on the Thames again?
Are we approaching a Maunder minimum?
Best,
RWG
60
This sounds very elegant I suspect it will continue to be a great path to follow. So here’s my dumb question: Do we have satellites which observe ingoing/outgoing radiation and calculate the resultant earth’s albedo on an ongoing basis over time, and does that data show an albedo change occuring at the same frequency you have discovered (11 years)? Or is it too complicated to verify so easilly (and if so can you explain why)?
30
Sort of. Will cover that in a later post.
40
Hmmm
The Earthshine experiment is worth a look.
Scroll down to page 16 of this PDF and you will see 6WM^2 compared to 2.4 for GHG at the time but the 2.4 was revised down to 0.8. I think the Eartshine effort was rewarded by a rapid funding cut.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_4/4_12_Palle.pdf
Also note from here that there is a strong absorbtion dip line at 5800 Angstrom in the dark side reflection. They say this is absorbtion by our 78 percent Nitrogen.
https://www.nshss.org/media/19572/Johnson.pdf
This is yellow light.
Notice from here that a significant amount comes from the sun at that wavelength.
“Yellow light of 5800 Angstroms, for example, generally emanates from material of about 10,000 degrees F (5700 degrees C), which represents the surface of the sun”
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasas-sdo-shows-the-suns-rainbow-of-wavelengths/
So when people say the sun cannot heat the atmosphere, I wonder where they got that odd idea?
20
Jupiter’s orbital period is 11.86 years.
Jupiter and Saturn come together (in conjunction) in the night sky every 20 years. They are 180 degrees apart every 20 years 10 years after conjunction.
50
Congratulations, JoNova and David Evans!
Your studies confirm that Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun’s deep-seated magnetic fields (and the X Force) from the Sun’s compact innards (Fe-mantle and/or pulsar core) [“Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)]. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/ http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf
60
Colour me confused – in the post you say
Changes in force X lag behind changes in solar radiation by the delay, which is most likely half of the full solar cycle, or 180°—force X and TSI are in anti-cycle. The delay is the time between peaks in sunspots, which averages 11 years but varies from 8 to 14 years.
If force X is in anti-cycle with the TSI, and the TSI has a period of 11 years, then delay has to be 5.5yr not 11 years. After all, this is what we see for the relationship between TSI and solar magnetic field strength.
10
The Sun’s full cycle is 22 years on average (called the “Hale” cycle). First 11 years with one magnetic orientation, then 11 years with the other. Sunspots peak every 11 years, on the sunspot cycle.
Our best guess is that force X lags TSI by 11 years on average, or half a full (Hale) cycle.
70
OK…. but, if force-X lags TSI by 11 years, which is the period of the TSI cycle (ie half the Hale cycle) then it will be in phase, not anti-phase with the TSI cycle. It will be simply shifted back one cycle.
What periodicity are you attributing to force-X? Maybe this is the bit I’m missing?
20
The only real cycle at work here is the full Sun cycle of 22 years (on average). The TSI peaks occur every half of this cycle, but unfortunately well call this a “sunspot cycle” or even “solar cycle”. Unfortunately the terminology in use is ambiguous, and you have to nail down in each context which “cycle” is meant. Hopefully Figure 2 sorts it out for you?
10
Since the solar magnetic field changes direction every eleven years (N => S and S => N), would you say Force X is associated with the N or S solar magnetic field?
00
A local minima in the Ap index at sunspot cycle maximum, runs counter to the higher TSI at that maximum, there is no need to invoke an 11yr delay.
Though not every cycle has such a drop, cycles 22 and 23 didn’t, which is why there were La Nina episodes at those maximums instead of El Nino.
The larger and more regular drop in Ap index is usually just after the sunspot minimum, like during the 1997-98 and 2009-10 El Nino episodes.
Force X: http://snag.gy/hSqT4.jpg
With global mean surface temperature, higher solar forcing means short term cooling through La Nina, but longer term warming with increased ocean heat content. While reduced solar forcing gives short term global mean surface warming from the oceanic feedbacks (including the AMO), but longer term cooling through loss of OHC. Short term land temp’s in the mid latitudes largely follow the solar signal as atmospheric circulation moves northwards with increased solar forcing.
20
“The larger and more regular drop in Ap index is usually just after the sunspot minimum,”
Is that what we see here. Yellow bits on the left side of each cycle but red bits on the right.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/image/apstar07.jpg
Surely this is a phase delay difference between two synchronous cycles.
20
So, the Sun’s magnetic field reverses polarity with every sunspot cycle, or every 11 years on average. These events, by Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis, are associated with changes in the cosmic ray flux reaching Earth’s atmosphere. This in turn affects the formation of clouds, and consequently climate patterns on Earth.
Right so far?
Now, consider the Earth’s own magnetic field. It also weakens and reverses polarity, but on an irregular cycle of tens of thousands of years.During a reversal event, the magnetic field weakens almost to zero, the magnetic poles reverse, and the field gradually strengthens again. What impact would that have on the flux of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, and consequently affecting Earth’s climate? Are there any studies that show a correlation (not necessarily causation) between reversals of Earth’s magnetic field and significant shifts in climate?
Apart from reversing over long term cycles, Earth’s magnetic poles are independent of the axis of rotation, and “wander” irregularly but significantly over distances that can me measured in kilometres per year. Could such changes in the shape (as opposed to the strength) of the magnetic field affect the distribution of the effects of cosmic rays on cloud cover, if not the amount? Cloud cover over the ocean has a different effect than over a continental land mass…
Just speculating
50
I will readily admit that I have been lost in a sea of fog on these posts – until this one. As Sherlock Holmes would say “Now the games afoot!”. I am starting to see the pattern in the tapestry. And it truly is amazing!
80
In the context of your theory, wondering how relevant, Palle et al
Earthshine study of decadal variations in albido?
30
Very relevant. Comes up in a later post.
20
Of what point is the discussion of prospective mechanisms in the earth-sun climate system until you have its behavior adequately characterized?
The talk is of partial disconnected mechanisms that are speculated to cause the partially understood behavior. The compound probability of proposing the right mechanisms and their correct connections is close to nil. It is close enough that it amounts to chasing your tail based upon nothing but mental noise: faith, hope, and wishes.
The notch filter behavior seems to be well supported. The methods of extracting the notch filter behavior are brain crackingly complex. I for one cannot do it in my head and I can do multiple three dimensional visual transformations of compound objects mentally. The process is software driven and must be.
Now, any non-trivial software has bugs. Could it be that the observed behavior is the behavior of software bugs? If not a bug, could it be the result of the complex process rather than the test data? Could the result be a consequence of a systematic error in the test data used to find the signal? I do not know the answer to these questions. These questions need convincing experimental answers not requiring dependence upon being intimately familiar with the complex computational methods. David has provided partial answers to these questions. Hopefully, with the passage of time, more complete answers can be provided.
One thing I do know. A top down system analysis process has the best chance of finding reliable solutions to complex problems not yet solved. This is the process that David appears to be following. The widely distributed temptation, by nearly everyone, to reduce the high level provisional observation to specific low level physical mechanisms much too prematurely is slowing things down. This tendency is to be expected but it has its costs: blind alleys, dead ends, false starts, time and effort wasted, frustration, feelings of doom and gloom, wedge points for the opposition ….
The idea then is to measure and analyze the BEHAVIOR. Make sure you have measured and analyzed the behavior signals with the correct tools in the correct way. Verify and validate every step along the way. If enough functional decomposition is done, correctly enough, the mechanisms should become painfully obvious rather than being a succession of failed WAGs. This process actually produces reliable results faster, with less effort, and lower cost. This process has both sound theory and real world practice to support its use. However, it cannot produce final answers instantly and without effort.
It is all too human to want a SOLUTION NOW! We can’t wait for the RIGHT solution. We have to try SOMETHING – ANYTHING in hopes it will work. Good luck with that. This is exactly what the climastrologists have been doing for decades. Where has that gotten us? Trillions of wealth squandered. Vastly increased oppression by uncontrolled over growth of government at all levels. Large areas of other wise useful land despoiled by useless and outrageously expensive contrivances that don’t work as advertized…. It is way past time to do a restart from the top down.
Dave’s restart of the science is the best I have seen since the climate catastrophe industry started its buildup. I am willing to go with it as far as I can.
111
“It is all too human to want a SOLUTION NOW! …”
I think rather that it is all too typical of the prevailing social and “scientific” ethos to see human activity, especially that of the prosperous West as the root cause of all the planet’s evils. Not only do we want a SOLUTION NOW, but the solution must be a collective one, defined by an enlightened elite, imposed by force if necessary and involving severe restrictions on personal freedom and private enterprise.
20
Amen, Lionell.
10
The resonance of a linear resonant circuit can give the effect of a notch filter.
For example a series tuned LC circuit, in the lower leg of a potential divider, results in minimum output voltage at the frequency of its series resonance.
What mechanical effects could result in a resonance with an 11 year period? The oceans sloshing around?
20
Martin – here is just a tiny step. Your R-L-C tuned circuit is indeed a lead – but the road is very long still – or so it seems to me. We might start by considering a 2nd-order mechanical system that corresponds to a notch – just to get an example. Related electrical/mechanical “analogs” are standard in EE systems theory courses.
Human beings have a poor intuitive feel for electronic circuits, but excellent feeling for the corresponding 2nd-order mechanical systems. Consider a weight attached by a rubber band hanging from your finger. This is 2nd-order mechanical, and you can observe a low-pass, high-pass, and band-pass mode.
Move your hand up and down very slowly. The weight moves below the hand, up and down slowly, essentially just hanging from the stretched band. The position relative to the floor is low-pass.
Now move your hand as rapidly up and down as you can. The weight stands essentially still due to inertia. More evidence of LP. But the band’s elongation changes with the hand position. With a slow-hand, the elongation did not change. The elongation is the high-pass.
Band-pass? That’s harder, but if you think about the LP and HP, the weight was not moving FAST in either case. But you know that for mid frequencies you can get that weight bouncing with a vigor that will endanger your flower vases. The band-pass is the weight’s velocity (momentum).
Everyone reading this likely did these experiments in his/her imagination – so strong is our mechanical experience.
The notch? That’s the sum of the HP and the LP. A notch occurs at the frequency where the amplitudes are equal. It’s the opposition of phases at this frequency that causes the cancellation to the zero. Mechanically – OUCH! You need a bunch of strings and pulleys to “decouple” the HP elongation and add the LP. Drawing it is tough enough – it can be done. Envisioning it in motion may be too much to expect. A working model – that would be lovely – never seen it.
10
Isint a band pass filter the opposite to a notch filter, if you use a tank circuit (L and C) cavity tuned to a frequency then only that frequency will pass everything high and low of that will be blocked.
Remember Davids theory does not use filters, this is the way he is explaining it, essentially when the sun is at its solar min it triggers a reaction on earth which manifests itself at solar max therefore we dont see the increase in temps caused by solar max.
This leads me to my original question if my understanding of Davids theory is correct then should the delay be only 5.5 years and not 11?
Regards
Crakar24
00
Awesome stuff! Can’t wait for the next installment.
20
> The heat store of the oceans is almost certainly the main element in the low pass filter
Congratulations. You’ve just re-invented the Hasselman model: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1976.tb00696.x/abstract etc etc.
> the notch and the delay work by affecting the albedo of the Earth… the effect on temperature of albedo modulation has been at least six times greater than the immediate heating effect of variation in solar radiation
This is where it starts to get wacky. Detecting a solar signal in the atmos is possible (http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/vanloon_solar.pdf etc; you need to do your due diligence more carefully) though difficult; if you’re going to postulate something 6* as strong, then it becomes easily visible. But it isn’t.
> Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI
6, 10, 20? What’s a factor of 3 matter anyway?
But all this starts from something broken, which is your deduction of a notch, by negating the solar forcing. I don’t think that works; you haven’t been careful enough with your data to show that, and its not clear that more careful use would help.
221
William
As I read it, isnt the main point that the lag (whether you find it by use of a notch filter or not) appears to be associated with the magnetic flux rather than TSI, and that this is consistent with the observed lag. How they get to that conclusion seems to me to be a relatively minor issue. For my money, the discussion on the proposed mechanisms when they are posted will be more interesting.
60
As I read it, isnt the main point that the lag (whether you find it by use of a notch filter or not) appears to be associated with the magnetic flux rather than TSI, and that this is consistent with the observed lag.
Give that man a seegar.
00
The Van Loon paper didn’t detect the 11 year cycle in global temperature. No one has supplied a good reason why not. At 1W/M2, it’s 1/3 of some estimates of forcing for a doubling of CO2. It seems that with such a long temperature record, we could find the 11 year signal in global temps, but we can’t. This argues for an offsetting force.
00
jim2,
Suggest you get ‘The Neglected Sun’ book (see my post earlier) and look at Figure 3.5 it is discernable but the amplitude is small.
00
I gave the reason why it’s small at comment #37
00
The Van Loon paper didn’t detect the 11 year cycle in global temperature. No one has supplied a good reason why not.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif
00
This was just too classic not to post!
The IPCC briefly discussed the seriousness of the model-observation discrepancy in Chapter 9 of the 2013 report. It reports that over the 1998-2012 interval 111 out of 114 climate model runs over-predicted warming, achieving thereby, as it were, a 97% consensus.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/
I bet David and Jo will not mind being in the 3% again!
30
Perhaps I am missing a point. It seems to me that by postulating a ForceX, additive to the output, which cancels the temperature variation, we get something like this: TSI(t) * f + forceX(t) = 0. This cannot be true if transfer function f has a notch at 11 years. It hast be unity, but not a notch, so that forceX can cancel the TSI. There cannot be a notch. Otherwise you would ‘see’ forceX in the data.
THis doesn’t mean that there isn’t a force X (Svensmark’s Hypotheses for instance) that is canceling out the TSI, but there cannot be a notch, and thus no delay due to that anyway. If forceX and and TSI are not 180 degrees out of phase, you could infer a delay from that. But if the period is 11 years, the an 11 year deal= a 0 year delay.
10
See: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif
00
(same Joe again from Part I comments despite the pic changes, I just use the wrong email address often)
This modelling is very interesting but I am not sure where it is taking us. The observed tiny ‘cyclic’ component of the solar radiation is quite apparent and does correlate with our understanding of solar activity but I am not sure what is the relevance of this ‘transfer function’. If instead of this complex ball we call planet earth we had a nice simple black body sphere (ie with a simple dominant low pass pole), what might this model show? If again we consider solar radiation as an ‘input’ and body temperature as the ‘output’ and we input a large steady state value plus a tiny cyclic value we would expect the temperature to show very little variation at the frequency of the cyclic component of radiation basically because the mass of the body gives rise to a large time constant or a dominant low pass pole as David notes. So now if we consider the temperature as an ‘output’ and derive a ‘transfer function’ based on their ratio, then obviously that ‘transfer function’ will not reflect the simple low pass nature of the system but will have a strong ‘notch’ at the cyclic frequency. That is no indication of some complex filter phenomenon, it is merely the spectrum of the input cyclic frequency (approx. an impulse or narrowish pulse) convolved (multiply in time = convolve in freq.) with the ‘low pass’ effects of the thermal mass of the body. So what then is the relevance of that ‘transfer function’? In the absence of other strong peaks which don’t have corresponding ‘notches’ the ‘transfer function’ would not suggest any unusual phenomenon other than the simple low pass filter effect. If you were to plug in totally random data for the temperature in the model (possibly suggestive of no correlation to solar radiation), would you also not get the same ‘notch’ in the ‘transfer function’ or ratio of temp. to radiation?
David, you mention that your data is ‘not filtered in any way’ but I am not certain how that can be. Obviously there is the low pass 1 cycle per year roll off filter applied to derive the de-seasonalised data but that is not what concerns me as that is trivial in nature and correctly your frequency domain graphs don’t show beyond this 1 cycle per year frequency. What concerns me is that the raw data is essentially filtered in the time domain by virtue of the time window that the data is valid for and those time windows are different for the different data sets. You effectively remove the ‘steady-state’ component for that time window, ie just consider the changes around that average windowed value. That is in effect a high pass filtering if you consider what differentiating in the time domain does in the frequency domain. If you consider the Laplace transform of the rectangular pulse which represents this time window you see it is a low pass looking function. This then needs to be convolved with the spectrum of the continuous time domain data. So the result of this is that if the frequency of interest or more easily stated, the period of interest, is a lot smaller than the ‘time window’ of data (ie you get lots of cycles occurring in your window), then that frequency or period is less affected or filtered by the convolution. If however the frequency, or rather, the period of interest, is comparable or indeed longer than the time frame of the valid data window, then that frequency response is markedly determined by the convolution. That is why I question why you show the spectral data at the low frequencies well beyond the effect of this convolution for the different time windows. The frequency corresponding to the time window width should give an approximate value of the 3dB point for this convolution and I reckon you should not show spectral data below this point let alone make observations that it is ‘fairly flat’ when this is really the expected product of the convolution and the limited time window.
In a non-mathematical view it means that if your data set say has a 400 year window, you would not reasonably be able to estimate what the low frequency cycles (below 1/400 cpy) would be. In reality, while we are trying to establish whether there is a change in the steady-state temperature we are probably really concerned about the steady-state and quasi steady-state, ie very long cycle changes. I do think you are acknowledging this. We could for example, be on the rise or fall of a particularly long cycle, well beyond our longest data set of 9,000 years based on movement within our galaxy or other factors and these limited data could not predict that.
I think that what is needed in a model is to look at the ‘transfer function’ between the measured TSI and the earth measured insolation figures (I know that sounds like considering an atmospheric function, but that too, could also be solar driven and could well be something like the solar modulated albedo that you postulate). Ideally a measure of total energy radiated from the earth/atmosphere would also be a valuable thing to answer our questions. Apart from the fact that the radiation might vary wildly, spatially, as well as spectrally we might expect to see that 11 year component either reflected as broadband energy or perhaps radiated as infra red which might give us clues about how far it gets and the mechanism for its apparent demise. The sun facing TSI equipment essentially estimates the broad band radiation based on the heating of small black bodies and I would assume that the satellites measuring earth surface temperatures are just measuring the IR radiated from the earth at particular points rather than broad band radiation? These satellites are also well inside the ‘active field’ regions that surround our planet (van Allen belts) and these regions may have some effect on radiated energy both ways? Can that Mars toy make any useful measures from its supposed vantage point? Do we see the 11 year cycles when we measure the radiation of any of our neighbouring planets, ie are they losing the energy right away or delayed in another form or frequency?
10
The alternative hypothesis is that any signal due to solar variation, which is in the order of 0.1% over a sunspot cycle, is insufficiently large to be detected above natural variation.
This eliminates the need for a notch filter and mysterious forces. Speculation that Force X is due to the polarity of the sun’s magnetic field is reminiscent of a Doctor Who episode from the 1970s.
13
If you agree that the signal processing is correct how do you explain a signal at 3 years and 22 years but none at 11 years?
20
ENSO dominates at 3 years.
Solar variations dominate 22 years or more.
The 11 year signal is swamped by ENSO plus the annual climate zone shifting caused as the Earth travels around the sun creating our seasons.
00
Look at: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif
and get back to me.
00
If you added those two curves, you would get pretty close to a slightly wommbly straight line.
00
Yes. And that explains the notch at 11 years.
00
I’d like to enlarge my vocabulary (American)explain “wommbly”.
10
Then id ENSO swamps the 11 year signal explain why it doesn’t swamp the 3 year signal.
10
Ulric Lyons (comment 22) suggested a lower influence on the stratosphere at the North Pole than I suggested. But his graphs show means. The information I quoted cam straight from NASA a few days after the CME hit.
Another way of looking at this event is the effect on the Arctic Oscillation Index. On March 20th the daily Arctic Oscillation index was the 16th lowest recorded since 1950. There have been only 4 other occasions when the arctic oscillation has been below -5 for 3 or more days. These were in Feb 1969, March 1970, Dec 2009 and Feb 2010. This means there have been 3 of these occasions in the first half of cycle 24 and the 2 other occasions occurred in the first half of the only other weak cycle since 1950. That was cycle 20.
The reason why I mentioned this is that events of this type cause excessive snowfall in places that don’t normally get as much and then for a time this increases the albedo. Also it is interesting that these events occurred before solar max of an even numbered, weak cycle.
10
It is likely then that you have confused this with the article that NASA did on the March 7th 2012 flare and following CME which heated the thermosphere considerably.
In any event, a higher solar wind speed typically results in lower Arctic surface pressure, i.e a positive Arctic Oscillation, a stronger vortex, and less cold incursions into the mid latitudes. Though Proton Events seem to have the opposite effect, by increasing polar ozone levels.
00
‘Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms’
JIANSONG ZHOU AND KA-KIT TUNG
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
(Manuscript received 27 July 2012, in final form 10 October 2012)
ABSTRACT
Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a ‘‘bottom up’’ mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an
alternative to the currently favored ‘‘top down’’ mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf
[Also posted in Part II]
20
Bottom up mechanisms can also involve:
inhibition of evaporation from the surface by biogenic monolayers
changes in reflectivity of the ocean surface due to biogenic monolayers and increased surficial turbidity (the latter usually also biogenic)
changes in low cloud cover and hence albedo due to increased production of biogenic cloud nuclei
such increases in low cloud cover reducing latent heating of the upper troposphere and poleward heat transport
It is interesting to observe the effects of these phenomena on the Southeast Pacific Gyre by flying across the Pacific from Australia/NZ to Peru/Chile. This is why the southeast Pacific has become a region of intense study in recent years….
It is also useful to note in this connection (regarding bottom up forcing) that the difference (negative offset) in atmospheric CO2 concentrations between the NH, or remainder of the globe or even the global average CO2 and the Southern Ocean below 40 S has steadily increased since 1982 when the global CO2 measuring network got well underway. The difference is maximal around the centre of the South East Pacific Gyre (Easter Island) This effect is easily demonstrated from the NOAA data but no one has provided a causative mechanism. The offset itself exhibits a smoothed 11 years periodicity.
10
David (if you have the strength to read down this far!), have you considered that force x may have something to do with the fact that water is a Polar molecule, so is attracted / repelled by electric charges? There is a lot of water and a lot of electric charges up there! Not much research on this topic I believe. Keep up the great work both of you!
30
Top down solar (via stratospheric ozone) modulated by bottom up oceanic (multiple ocean cycles interacting with each other) is the solution I have been pushing for over the past several years.
In terms of the range and scale of climate effects nothing else comes close and can effectively be ignored.
The water cycle is ‘oil in the machine’ which makes the process so highly efficient as a thermostatic mechanism.
Convective changes hold the balance between radiation and conduction so that, regardless of any internal system elements that seek to destabilise the system, the system will always over time move back towards radiative equilibrium with space.
Even without GHGs the convective cycle would be present and the process would work well.
There is no way to suppress convection on a rough surfaced rotating sphere illuminated from a point source because surface heating will always be uneven which causes density variations in the horizontal plane and thus adiabatic uplift and descent. GHGs not needed.
Convection serves to reapportion energy loss to space etween radiation from the surface and radiation from within the atmosphere so that the total of both is always in sync with incoming radiation from space.
I am hoping that David and Jo’s work will come up with a set of statistical findings that are consistent with such a proposition.
As for the notch, if substantiated, it simply shows that the thermal effect of a single solar cycle is easily swamped by natural variability in the form of the annual latitudinal shift of the climate zones as the Earth travels around the sun and the time it takes for the oceans to allow a response to a change in solar input.
For short periodicities the ENSO cycle dominates, for longer periodicities the effect of changes through multiple solar cycles on the ocean cycles starts to dominate.
At the timescale of a single solar cycle the solar effect is swamped and indiscernible.
The thermal effect of multiple solar cycles becomes apparent only when it causes the balance between El Nino and La Nina to vary beyond the degree of variation observed during the basic ENSO cycle combined with annual climate zone shifting.
Hence David’s assertion that explaining ENSO should explain force x.
Force x which eliminates the 11 year solar cycle is the basic ENSO cycle combined with annual climate zone shifting.
Force x fails to eliminate longer term solar effects when the effect of those solar effects rebalances El Nino and La Nina sufficiently to make a difference to climate zone positioning beyond the degree of variation derived from the basic ENSO cycle and annual cliumate zone shifting.
30
“Force x which eliminates the 11 year solar cycle”
Not by filtering the peak, but by filling the trough.
Wait and see.
00
‘Filling the trough’ is a useful concept.
The trough being the ocean heat sink into which the energy from a single solar cycle disappears for a period of time which depends on the speed of the ocean circulation.
00
As for the notch, if substantiated, it simply shows that the thermal effect of a single solar cycle is easily swamped by natural variability in the form of the annual latitudinal shift of the climate zones as the Earth travels around the sun and the time it takes for the oceans to allow a response to a change in solar input.
This is incorrect. See: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif for a clue.
00
Hi fellow skeptics, I wonder if Jo, David or any of you boffins can clear up some confusion I seem to have.
I am referring to fig. 1 above. My reading of books such ‘The Neglected Sun’ (Vahrenholt et al) and ‘Heaven and Earth’ (Plimer). suggest that maximum solar activity and maximum magnetic field happen at the same time (see ‘The Neglected Sun’ page 69 fig. 3.5) and therefore maximum cosmic ray occurs at the solar minimum (and hence at the lowest magnetic field). Figure 1 above says that high sunspot activity and max. magnetic fields are 180 deg. out of phase.
What am I missing? Am I comparing Apples and Pears or is there something I’m not understanding or misinterpreting?
Look forward to any replies.
As background:- I’m an industrial chemist (analytical) but have a keen interest in electronics particularly Amateur (Ham) Radio so I understand 11 year cycles, notch filters, delays etc. Oh yes! I’m approaching 3 score and 10 years.
10
It’s a surprisingly common misconception that peak magnetic field occurs when peak TSI occurs. Just check the solar magnetic field and TSI for yourself — the sources are mentioned in Figure 1. Linguistic confusion over the various “maxima” and “minima” may have held us all back…
20
David
Cheers, thanks David. This is going to take a bit thought to get my head around. I’m finding this extremely interesting tho’.
00
You probably should have shown the magnetic as a +/- sinusoid.
But I’m pretty sure you have your reasons for showing the absolute value of the magnetic against TSI
00
The minima is when they at zero,, the maxima is at the greatist absolute value, an 11 year cycle. What is out of phase is the 22 year cycle, not the 11 year magnitude!
00
Interesting exercise, but I’m afraid you’re looking in the wrong place.
You need only examine the global temperature data since the 70s (or the 50s) to see what’s really going on. ENSO is what’s going on. All the way. Regime shifts in the Pacific basin. The sun clearly in some mysterious way affects (controls?) the ENSO sequence. But it does not affect global temperatures directly, only indirectly, through this influence.
This is not about TSI from the sun. It’s about how much the coupled ocean/atmosphere system lets through (clouds), and how much it lets back out (winds). What’s going on in the tropical oceans determines that. And the tropical Pacific pulls those strings. The ENSO process.
10
Kristian.
A good summation.
Multiple solar cycles alter global cloudiness over time to affect the amount of solar energy that gets into the oceans to drive the climate system.
They alter the balance between El Nino and La Nina events with consequent temperature changes in the air above after a delay of about 10 years due to the internal ocean cycles hiding the energy away whilst it circulates through the ocean basins.
Since changes in the proportion of solar energy reaching the ocean surface mimic the effect of more TSI arriving at the top of the atmosphere the system temperature will change but not until those changes have circulated. In the meantime ENSO dominates in the short term (3-5 years)and the small thermal effect from the 11 year solar cycle is smoothed out by ENSO and the annual climate shifts that occur whilst the Earth travels around the sun.
GHGs do not have the effect of mimicking an increase in TOA TSI because their unique feature is to allow radiation out direct to space from within an atmosphere thereby circumventing part of the adiabatic convective cycle which would otherwise need to return energy to the surface for radiation out to space.
Since GHGs do not mimic the effect of more TSI arriving at the top of the atmosphere they cannot cause a rise in equilibrium temperature.
11
ENSO leads temperature temperature by 6 months, basically. The solar model being developed here predicts one, and is therefore good for the other.
20
The ENSO lead on global temperatures is much more complex than that. Half the time, like these days, there is no lead at all. It’s only during the major events that the ENSO lead stands out. Because that is when the ENSO process overrides all other regional influences on and contributions to the global climate.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SSTaglvsNINO_zps6f6b9aa7.png
00
Sorry, the caption reads: “Weekly SSTa, global (blue) vs. NINO3.4 (red), downscaled /8 and lagged 2 months (1998 – 1st week of June 2014).”
00
Yes, but then the solar influence is very indirect, simply by affecting the ENSO sequence. It doesn’t influence temperatures directly. And there’s no delay.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/NINO34vsSSN-syklus5_zpsf4e195ec.png
10
What goes up when sunspots drop?? 🙂
00
The percent surface area of the sun that is not dark(er).
10
A good question is as to why the time taken for the effect of solar variations to start emerging from the oceans takes 11 years which is much the same as the solar cycle.
I suggest that over time the thermal flow through the system causes the speed of the ocean circulation to come to match the solar cycle. Stronger sun with shorter cycles, faster ocean circulation, weaker sun with longer cycles, slower ocean circulation.
Until the additional energy from the solar peak every 11 years starts coming out of the oceans again it effectively disappears from view, hence the notch.
It goes straight into the oceans past the evaporating layer and is negated until the next cycle.
The next cycle will either supplement or offset the effect depending on whether the sun is getting progressively more active or less active.
And, in the end, it is all down to the modulation of global cloudiness by a changing mixture of particles and wavelengths from the sun as its activity level varies.
10
Stephan #87
>”A good question is as to why the time taken for the effect of solar variations to start emerging from the oceans takes 11 years which is much the same as the solar cycle.”
Why the ocean only? Planetary thermal inertia is land+ocean. Land is the faster response, ocean slower. Abdussamatov reckons oceanic lag at 20 yrs +/- but planetary lag at 14 +/-6. Trenberth reckons the ocean has discernible lags ranging from months to 6 yrs to 10 – 100 yrs.
The major heat sink, the ocean, is what draws out the lag i.e. the system is still basically sun => ocean => atmosphere in terms of lag.
Point being that it is calculations of planetary thermal lag by whatever method, not oceanic, that come up with values around 11 yrs but that’s just coincidence because, for example, Adussamatov’s planetary lag range is between 8 and 20 yrs. OK that includes 11 yrs but so what?
10
It took 10 years for the 1997/8 El Nino to cause the record 2007 Arctic sea ice melt.
There are other lags, as you correctly point out, but that is by far the most influential one in the short term and closely matches the solar cycle.
In the long term the 1000 to 1500 year thermohaline circulation is the biggie.
10
Stephen Wilde @ #83
>”Top down solar (via stratospheric ozone) modulated by bottom up oceanic (multiple ocean cycles interacting with each other)”
On bottom up 11 year cycle response, please read Zhou and Tung (2012) linked above (see Abstract) at #80 here:
‘Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms’
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iv-a-huge-leap-understanding-the-mysterious-11-year-solar-delay/#comment-1489075
>”At the timescale of a single solar cycle the solar effect is swamped and indiscernible”
Right and wrong. It depends on analysis tools, technique, and datasets. See Zhou and Tung above who certainly do discern temperature response to a single solar cycle.
>”As for the notch”
David’s analysis tools applied to his selection of datasets doesn’t reveal a temperature response to the 11 yr cycle, returns a notch, and leads to a search for a notch mechanism.
Zhou and Tung above with a different set of tools and datasets, show the temperature response to the 11 yr cycle as clear as crystal i.e. no notch and no notch mechanism (Force X) required.
Having said that, I still want to see the rest of David’s model development and I certainly don’t discount a role of solar magnetic field strength in climate.
I’ll have to wait and see further posts but I’m inclined to think that once the model covers multiple 11 yr cycles the notch configuration becomes insignificant. I could be horribly wrong and the model may have to be reconfigured in view of Zhou and Tung (i.e. notch implementation redundant).
I say “insignificant” because what we’re really looking at over say the last 400 years is the differences of temperature responses to different solar output regimes e.g. the difference between the Modern Grand Maximum (SCs 18 – 23) and the Maunder Grand Minimum (SCs were not tracked and numbered).
According to Shapiro et al (2011), the difference between solar output Maunder Min – Modern Max could be as much as 6 W/m2 vs 11 yr cycle variation of around 0.8 W/m2. The significant figure is the driver of temperature trend, the insignificant figure, isn’t.
What is not widely appreciated I don’t think, is that the solar regime we have just lived through (Modern Grand Maximum) has been at the highest level for about 11,000 years. See:
‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’, Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/
In that post we see Figure 17: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image_thumb6.png?w=902&h=720
Clearly, in terms of solar activity over the Holocene, the mid 20th C to 1st decade 21st C has been exceptional and a commensurate temperature response should be expected from it.
00
Richard C,
Stephen Wilde says: ”At the timescale of a single solar cycle the solar effect is swamped and indiscernible”
You respond by stating: “Right and wrong. It depends on analysis tools, technique, and datasets. See Zhou and Tung above who certainly do discern temperature response to a single solar cycle.”
You don’t need any ‘analysis tools’ or ‘techniques’. You only need the global temperature data. And there is no hint of a direct solar cycle effect on global temperatures in the data. Only ENSO, volcanoes and noise.
00
Kristian #88.1
>”You only need the global temperature data.”
Well yes. Zhou and Tung use NCEP:
“Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa…….”
>”You don’t need any ‘analysis tools’ or ‘techniques’”….”And there is no hint of a direct solar cycle effect on global temperatures in the data”
You don’t? There isn’t? Zhou and Tung say otherwise:
“Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.”
And,
“…this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere”
Why not read the paper in it’s entirety Kristian?
‘Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms’
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf
10
Because they find whatever they want to find, Richard C. With statistics (data torturing) you can find whatever you want to find. That doesn’t mean it’s real.
I don’t care what Zhou and Tung say or think. I care only what’s in the data. And there is no hint of a direct solar cycle influence on global temperatures. In the data. Only ENSO, volcanoes and noise.
00
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Total_zps6eb56868.png
Where on earth is that direct solar cycle effect on global temperatures, Richard C?
There is only ENSO, volcanoes and noise.
00
Look, I’m not saying that the sun doesn’t matter or doesn’t have an effect on global temperature evolution. It’s quite obvious that it does. But looking for direct temperature signals across the solar cycle in the global record is not the way to go. You have to go via the ENSO sequence. Because that’s what you see. The effects from the globally operating ENSO process. That’s all I’m saying …
10
The solar magnetic field – through some mechanism – cancels out the 11 year response.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif
00
Possibly it fills in the gap between solar peak responses. ?
No cancelling, or very little , required.
00
>”The solar magnetic field – through some mechanism – cancels out the 11 year response.”
Only if you ignore the body of literature that identifies the response.
00
Richard C (NZ),
I should have said temperature data to make it more explicit. And the response is not canceled – just attenuated compared to other frequencies.
00
MSimon
>”I should have said temperature data to make it more explicit.”
Yes I’m referring to literature studying tropospheric, stratospheric, and sea surface temperature data too.
But in those papers the 11 yr signal in temperature is exposed using different tools, techniques and datasets than what David has used and is expressed in different terms (e.g. not frequency spectra).
I’m not convinced that David’s methodology necessarily requires the offsetting mechanism his system development leads to in his scope in view of that body of literature mentioned.
It does when David’s analysis is considered in isolation but I can’t say I’m convinced overall. That doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it all at this stage though, I still want to see where it goes.
David’s system may not be entirely correct first off but that’s no reason to throw it all out.
I’m just quizzical over how Factor X which may (I don’t say does) act as posited in one solar cycle has any significance when the system spans 100, 200, 300, or however many solar cycles.
00
Kristian #88.1.1.1.1
>”Where on earth is that direct solar cycle effect on global temperatures, Richard C?”
I can lead you to water Kristian, but i can’t make you drink.
00
Stop embarrassing yourself, Richard C.
I ask you again, where do you see it in the global temperature data? Please point it out to me.
00
Kristian,
Where? The Maunder Minimum, The Dalton Minimum, and other minimums.
There also is a great reduction of the 11 year signal. That confounds the whole question and has led the discussion astray. “No 11 year signal? No effect.” But from 22 years on the system is an integrator – for a number of reasons. One big one being the mass of the earth’s surface (oceans are esp significant).
00
>”I don’t care what Zhou and Tung say or think.”
Do you care what Roy and Haigh think?
‘Solar cycle signals in sea level pressure and sea surface temperature’
I. Roy and J. D. Haigh (2010)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/3147/2010/acp-10-3147-2010.pdf
Even if you don’t care what Zhou and Tung think:
‘Solar Cycles in 150 Years of Global Sea Surface Temperature Data’
Jiansong Zhou and Ka-Kit Tung (2010)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3232.1
There’s numerous papers like this including in regard to the stratosphere, identifying the 11 yr cycle in temperature.
But these have no bearing whatsoever on trend and oscillation in temperature. I’ve described in #88 and now #88.1.2 how it is the difference between regimes of consecutive 11 yr cycles at different solar activity levels that drives the trend in temperature (see #88).
If you want the oscillations just add in the PDO and AMO (see #88.1.2)
00
No. I care what’s in the global temperature data from the real world. There is only ENSO, volcanoes and noise:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Total_zps6eb56868.png
But please, do continue with your arguments from authority. If these people say that they found direct effects on global temperatures from the solar cycle, then you take their word for it. Message taken.
Please try to be only a little bit of a sceptic.
The sun clearly affects the climate system. But it does so INDIRECTLY. You can’t see any direct temperature signals simply because of the 11 years variation in TSI or other cycle indicators.
The ocean is what executes the solar influence on the global climate.
00
Kristian
>”The sun clearly affects the climate system. But it does so INDIRECTLY.”
>”The ocean is what executes the solar influence on the global climate.”
Via thermal lag in the sun => ocean(+land) => atmosphere system with central estimates for planetary lag around a dozen years. This is a slow response.
There are however much faster responses that don’t go via the ocean (there is also a component of direct atmospheric heating and literature documenting observations that imply this), the most obvious being diurnal which is effectively direct in this context.
You will probably say that one day is not climate but it is when the day occurs at the peak of highest solar activity in 11,000 years (1986, and to 2009 not much different) and it is compared to a corresponding day occurring at a long-term minimum level of solar activity (Little Ice Age say).
The difference of the temperatures of each respective day is the temperature trend over 400 years (in clear sky and windless conditions for both days).
Depending on the proximity of the location to the ocean, the temperature will be a combination of fast and slow responses. An inland desert away from the ocean can experience a diurnal response varying between freezing and 50 C due to the absence of evaporation and water vapour.
That is a fast and direct response with little oceanic influence but what happened on that day (actually 2 days 400 years apart) when solar input was either at long-term maximum or long-term minimum?
00
Kristian #88.1
>”And there is no hint of a direct solar cycle effect on global temperatures in the data”
It’s impossible for the 11 yr cycle variation (about 0.8 W/m2) to drive temperature trend but if you’re referring to trend, consider this correlation with temperature from The Hockey Schtick:
PDO + AMO + Sunspot Integral = R^2 .96
“Contrast the R² of .96 from this simple model (near a perfect correlation coefficient (R²) of 1) vs. the poor correlation (R²=.44) of CO2 levels vs. temperature.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
The Sunspot Integral provides the trend in temperature data, the PDO and AMO provide the oscillations in temperature data
00
I have no problem with this. The long term trend across ocean cycles is clearly solar.
00
Should be:
“The Sunspot Integral [as a proxy for solar activity] provides the trend in temperature data”
00
Ok, The troposphere shows the variation in solar flux but the surface (Davids data) do not. Why?
00
Will Janoschka #88.2
>”The troposphere shows the variation in solar flux but the surface (Davids data) do not.”
Zhou and Tung includes near surface (1000 hPa) too:
“Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa…….”
>”Why?”
Different tools, techniques, and datasets. Also signal identification (or not) is in a different set of terms (for want of better word) e.g. temperature frequency spectra is central to David’s non-identification of the signal. I think that is valid in isolation but is it valid in view of other methodologies?
00
Was thinking it has to come from the same source…
and think i have one hunch.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/modplot.gif
00
And the neutron only shows the magnetic effect…
00
NikFromNYC
June 17, 2014 at 6:58 pm · Reply
Are there any best books for such signal analysis that are short enough for an average technically savvy reader to start to understand the topic?
I would recommend “The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing” By Steven W. Smith, Ph.D.
Free from http://www.dspguide.com/ if you like it you can purchase it online….
A readable introduction to DSP and it explains many of the problems with FFT, DTF and you will see how Dr David Evans new approach of using his new “The Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT)” helped to overcome many FFT issues (bin size etc).
His OFT, I find, is as significant in the world of signal processing as it is in climate research!
20
These articles desperately need some discussion by the author of Friis-Christensen/Lassen theory which anticipates it. Exactly what is new?
00
Jupiter ?
Jupiter has an 11.86 yr solar cycle and
“The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet’s magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun’s direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter’s magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth’s magnetosphere, Jupiter’s is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter’s magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of the 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter
Maybe Earth passes through that shadow every now and then ?
00
Over at the Bishop Hill blog someone gave an estimate of the temperature change expected from a 1 W/m2 change in TSI:
**** Only 0.05C ****
If it is deemed that such a small change should be detectable, then if the temperature is effectively an 11-year average of TSI,
that alone would explain the absence of an 11-year signal (always averaging a complete cycle).
Other (more realistic) low-pass filters could achieve similar suppression,
for example a 20-year tapered average, most weight for latest data, least weight for oldest data.
00
Mikky,
That is contradicted by the response at 3 years and 22 years. So the question is: why the large (about 12 to 14 dB attenuation) at 11 years?
If it was a low pass filter there should be no 3 year response.
10
Force X clearly is driven by changes in the Magnetic field. If they were direct changes (no delay) then we would see it in the atmosphere and the Earth’s Magnetic field. But the 11 year delay is the key.
The only system on Earth that could react to Magnetic field changes is the Earth’s core. And it would make sense the change in Solar magnetic field is reflected in a slow change to the Earth’s core flow. I am not sure whey Albedo was identified as the source of increasing surface heat. Just as the jet stream moves over the land on cycle, the molten core could shift slightly and it could take 11 years or so for that change to make its way to the surface and be felt. And since we don’t have anything close to global measures of crustal temperatures to detect a change in the core’s heating, and the change is so small, it seems reasonable this is the climate driver
00
This is all very interesting. Have you looked at Landscheidt’s work:
http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm
00
David – have you published a paper or book chapter detailing your ‘Optimal Fourier Transform’? I can’t find one via a literature search. I am more or less familiar with the short time and modal work of people like Johann Rudi and Lisa Poyneer from my own humbler area of application (catchment hydrology).
00
No, just the pdf given in the post footnote earlier.
00
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. – Richard Feynman
10
negative solar feedback (force X) would have to exist for life on earth to have survived and flourished as long as it has.
We have been studying the sun for much too short a time conclude that its output is stable, because we can plainly see that it does vary in the short term (11 years), but what about on time frames of thousands or millions of years?
one of the great fallacies of modern science is to try and identify a mechanism before cause and effect is even confirmed. how can you identify a mechanism if the mechanism is not yet known to science?
Rather, the first step in confirmation of any theory is successful prediction. Any failed predictions, the theory is garbage. Once you can predict, then search for the mechanism. That is how science worked in the past, before we got to answering “why” before we had the answer to “what” and “when”.
Kepler didn’t need gravity to propose his 3 laws. Why the planets circle the sun doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the 3 laws can be used to predict the orbits of the planets with greater accuracy than previously possible.
Instead, these days, someone dreams up a plausible mechanism, and everyone jumps on board saying it must be true because it sound plausible, even though it has no predictive ability. If a theory cannot predict successfully it has no value as science.
This is the situation we have with CO2. As a predictive theory it has failed, but because it sounds possible large numbers of people consider it valid, because modern science has disregarded hundreds of years of experience in how to judge if a theory is correct or not.
00
the one thing that stuck in my mind reading this is the proposed 11 year delay. I don’t see the need.
the magnetic cycle is out of phase 180 degrees out of phase with the radiative cycle. this implies the magnetic cycle could moderate the radiative cycle without any need to a delay.
10
David and Jo,
I’ve added a new post at my blog which I hope might help with understanding why here is a lag between solar input and climate output, where it originates, and why it is at the same period as the solar cycle.
Thanks again for the stimulating posts.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/decadal-lag-of-temperature-response-to-solar-input-a-qualitative-summary/
Cheers – TB
10
By the way, it’s a pity comments are closed on Lubos’s missing post, because I couold put him straight on a couple of things. The reason the solar cycle doesn’t show up in the temperature data is because the immediate solar effect (Less cloud, more heat in) is in antiphase with the delayed solar effect (ENSO).
Simples
00
Good evening, David.
(Well, it is here…)
I’ve just been looking at figure one again in part 4, and I think I’ve noticed something.
If you look at the crossover points between the magnetic line and the the TSI line after 1990, you can draw a straight line downwards through the combined crossover points at appx. 40 degrees, is that right?
I’m going to ask again, Maunder minimum??
Best
RWG
00
The model will be tested very very soon. We will then see what the model predicts in the near term.
00
I’m quite interested in the magnetic influence but it does not seem to add up.
You start looking for an 11y lag.
You find magnetic peaks that fall half way between SSN peaks. That is a 5.5 y lag, not 11.
Then you seem to try and get around this by talking about the “full” solar cycle, to recover your 11y lag.
But that is not what you get. In that case it’s a 5.5y lag with +ve correlation and a 0.75*22y lag with negative correlation.
You really seem to be going through all sorts of contortions to make this hang together. That’s generally a sign that something is fundamentally wrong.
00
I think Goodman has a good question. I too am trying to figure this 5.5 years delay out. Force X is strongest at roughly 5.5 years post TSI maximum on average. It could be that Force X is itself delayed for another 5.5 years. How could this be?
A non-instantaneous response to force X. Time needed for the feedbacks to wind up. A temporary storage in the oceans.
00
You suggested in one of the previous articles that phase of FFT was “unreliable”.
could that be because some of the proxies are responding to a different aspect of the solar variations?
Like I said, you should document what results cause you to say “unreliable”, not try to side step it. It may be relevant information.
Each FT frequency is a complex number, I can’t see how you can reject its phase but decide magnitude is useful.
In adding a fixed delay you are inserting a different phase shift into each component, having decided to ignore the phase information in the FT.
00
The earth’s magnetic field strength continues to slowly weaken. This must be additive to a weak solar magnetic field, allowing for ever more cosmic radiation, thought to nucleate water vapour, increasing cloud cover and earth’s albedo.
Most cosmic radiation is from super nova events and remnants. I wonder if glacial advances lag arrival from increased super nova cosmic radiation?
10
X-ray and gamma ray bursts may also have a roll in nucleating water vapour.
10
[…] tänker göra ett försök att kort sammanfatta några av inslagen i denna model (allm länk: och spec: ). Detta utan att ta ställning för densamma. David E. och Jo N presenterar den som en väsentlig […]
00
It looks that “force X” is an accumulation of small effects; a minor reduction of solar irradiance and UV followed by a lower concentration of H2O(GHG) in the equatorial atmosphere
subsequential very small temperature drop. The dissipation of the lower energy thru Hadley cells to the higher latitudes causes a more pronounced drop in temperature, especially in the NH. This process extends to more snowfall and ice extension changing the albedo and a further drop in temperature. The entire process might effect changes in the atmosphere as well as cloud cover, jet stream etc.
00