In 2015 the hunt for clues continues…
The central mystery in climate science is the Sun. The direct energy from the 1.4 million-kilometer-wide flaming ball stays remarkably constant. The radiation pours down on us but the relentless sameness of the watts can’t be causing of the swings in temperature on Earth. Something else is going on with the Sun. For one thing, the total light energy coming off the Sun stays almost the same but the type of light changes — the spectrum shifts — with more shorter wavelengths at one point in the cycle and longer wavelengths at the opposite part of the cycle. These have different effects. Shorter wavelengths (UV) generate ozone in the stratosphere and penetrate the ocean. Longer wavelengths don’t. But the Sun is also sending out charged particles and driving a massive fluctuating magnetic field, both of which affect Earth’s atmosphere.
But the tiny changes in total sunlight (TSI) may still be leaving us clues about other things going on with the Sun. David Evans’ notch-delay theory is that TSI is a leading indicator, and after solar TSI peaks, the temperatures on Earth follows with a peak roughly 11 years or so later (or one solar cycle). But what’s the mechanism? Stephen Wilde has a theory. Plug in your brain, and follow this chain of potential influence:
The Sun —-> UV or charged particles —- > ozone —-> polar jet streams —–> clouds —–> surface temperatures.
Stephen Wilde put forward the first version of this hypothesis in 2010. It is long past time to get into those details.
Summary of the Stephen Wilde Hypothesis
In essence: The Sun affects the ozone layer through changes in UV or charged particles. When the Sun is more active there is more ozone above the equator and less over the poles, and vice versa. An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower. There is thus a solar induced see-saw effect on the height of the tropopause, which causes the climate zones to shift towards then away from the equator, moving the jet streams and changing them from “zonal” jet streams to “meridonal” ones. When meridonal, the jet streams wander in loops further north and south, resulting in longer lines of air mass mixing at climate zone boundaries, which creates more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back out to space, determining how much the climate system is heated by the near-constant incoming solar radiation. Thus the Sun’s UV and charged particles modulate the solar heating of the Earth.
Figure 1: When the Sun is less active there is more ozone at the poles but less over the equator. Less ozone above the tropopause causes less stratospheric warming, allowing the tropopause up, which pushes the climate zones towards the equator. This causes the jet streams to be more meridonal, so more clouds are formed. Clouds reflect sunlight, so less solar radiation warms the Earth.
An active Sun increases ozone in the stratosphere:
“Changes in solar ultraviolet spectral irradiance directly modify the production rate of ozone in the upper stratosphere (e.g. Brasseur, 1993), and hence it is reasonable to expect a solar cycle variation in ozone amount. The global satellite ozone records since 1979 show evidence for a decadal oscillation of total ozone with maximum amplitude (~2%) at low latitudes (Hood and McCormack, 1992; Chandra and McPeters, 1994; Hood, 1997).
Figure 2: When the Sun is more active there is less ozone at the poles but more over the equator. More ozone above the tropopause causes more stratospheric warming, forcing the tropopause down, which pushes the climate zones away from the equator. This causes the jet streams to be more zonal, so fewer clouds are formed. Clouds reflect sunlight, so more solar radiation warms the Earth.
New research reports a missing driver — energetic electrons
In October 2014 a paper by Andersson et al suggests another layer of action, again on ozone. Described as the missing driver in the Sun-Earth connection, energetic electron precipitation (EEP) dramatically affects ozone — but above the poles, not the equator. The EEP in the mesosphere is directed preferentially towards the poles along the magnetic field lines because the electrons are charged particles, which explains why the effect is strongest at the poles.When the Sun is active the energetic electron rain decreases ozone preferentially above the poles and in the mesosphere.
At the poles, the rules get strained through a singularity
At the north and south poles the magnetic field lines converge, the Earth drags the atmosphere around a single point, the tropopause is lower, and temperature inversions are common. Polar vortices occur when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain. (Polar vortices should not be confused with the circumpolar jet around the poles, which is often given the same name in the media.)
All this remarkable action means that above the poles even the high mesosphere affects the height of the tropopause. In the polar vortices the descending flow draws air down from the mesosphere, right through the stratosphere to the tropopause.
The presence of a layer of ozone in the stratosphere is the cause of the temperature inversion that forms at the tropopause. That layer of ozone is warmed directly by incoming solar radiation. It is warmer than the rising air coming up from the surface below, so it effectively puts a lid on convection.
Ozone variations affect the temperature of the stratosphere, which in turn affects the height of the tropopause. From page 14 of Zangl and Hoinka:
“Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”
If the tropopause rises or falls, it causes a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles. This in turn causes the jet streams to shift north or south, because it pushes around the climate zones beneath the tropopause. A lower tropopause restricts the available space for free movement of air horizontally beneath it. So a lowering of the tropopause above the poles when the Sun is less active (as implied in the Andersson et al paper) squeezes the air in the tropospheric climate zones towards the equator. We have seen that happen in the form of increased jet stream meridionality since about 2000, as the level of solar activity declined in the transition from active solar cycle 23 to much less active solar cycle 24. That is the reason for the observation of more frequent and intense incursions of polar air across middle latitudes in recent years.
The world is divided up into permanent climate zones, which align along the lines of latitude due to the Earth’s rotation. These zones can move poleward or equatorward, in response to changes in the Earth’s energy budget. Poleward shifting was observed during the late 20th century warming, and it is well know that the zones shifted equatorward during the Little Ice Age.
Figure 3: A Jetstream can be more zonal (left) or meridonal (right).
The jet streams are high-level rivers of fast moving air threading between the climate zones, and are driven by temperature, humidity and density differentials between the different types of air mass:
- An equatorward shift of the climate zones gives the jets more room to loop north and south, and that gives more meridonal jets (the north-south components of the jets).
- A poleward shift of the zones pushes the jets poleward, forcing them to more closely following the lines of latitude, that is, more zonal jets (the east-west components).
- Such shifts are also associated with the Arctic Oscillation, wherein a positive phase results in the climate zones being pulled poleward and the jets adopting a more zonal (straighter) pattern. A negative phase results in the opposite. A more frequent positive phase is associated with a more active Sun due to cooling of the polar stratosphere (less mesospheric ozone descending through the polar vortex) and consequent lifting of the polar tropopause. A more frequent or more pronounced negative phase (as observed to a record extent during the very low solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24) is associated with a less active Sun due to warming of the polar stratosphere (more mesospheric ozone descending through the polar vortex).
Wandering jets means more clouds
Figure 4: Jetstream showing a lot of meridonal flow.
More meridonal jet stream tracks flowing around the world between the climate zones result in longer lines of air mass mixing at climate zone boundaries. Mixing of air from different locations within different climate zones causes convective instability due to differing temperatures and densities, which increases cloud formation.
Finally, clouds reflect solar radiation (that is, modulate the albedo), thus affecting the amount of heat flowing into the climate system. Significantly, the proportion of solar energy entering the oceans is affected and ultimately it is the oceans that determine atmospheric temperatures (see here).
Thus there is a back and forth in global cloudiness as the Sun’s activity level changes over the decades and centuries — such as during the period covering the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the current warm period — through latitudinal shifting of the jet stream tracks and permanent climate zones.
It is also proposed that, over time, the changes at the higher mesospheric level dominate because the higher level effect gradually filters down to lower levels through the descending column of air within the polar vortices as described above. This links observed changes in the size of the ozone holes at the poles to solar causation rather than to human emissions of CFCs. The ozone holes grew when the Sun was active and are now shrinking with the less active Sun.
Further thoughts on the Andersson “energetic electron” paper
The new paper by Andersson et al builds on the hypothesis that ozone is influential and a potential mechanism to amplify solar factors. It adds energetic electron precipitation (EEP) to spectral changes in UV, which is a significant step forward.
Andersson et al describe it as having a short term regional effect, with no implications for global or long term climate change. But if the effect is significant between the peak and trough of a single solar cycle, then surely it is also going to be significant over the millennial cycle of solar variation — such as that observed from the Medieval Warm Period through the Little Ice Age and up to date.
Observations of climate changes across the last thousand years suggest that it must be so. In the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland had agriculture and the Western Isles of Scotland were prosperous with a much larger population than today—which implies more poleward climate zones and zonal jets at that time. In contrast, ships logs from the Little Ice Age show much greater Atlantic storminess and more equatorward mid latitude depression tracks at that time (depressions generally follow the tracks of the jet streams).
Food for speculation
Stephen Wilde’s hypothesis is a possible mechanism for the notch-delay theory, in which the TSI drives surface temperatures after a delay of one sunspot cycle (~11 years) and which potentially explains most of the temperature variations over the last few hundred years. This would occur if the extreme ultraviolet that drives ozone creation and destruction, and the effects of the energetic electron precipitation found by Andersson et al, both lag the trends in bulk TSI (visible light and normal UV) by one sunspot cycle — that is, by half a full solar cycle (~22 years).
(Quick reminder: The delay of one sunspot cycle in the ND theory overcomes the objection that because TSI and so on peaked around 1986 and surface temperatures kept rising to about 1997, the Sun cannot be driving temperature. The delay can explain this: 1986 + 11 = 1997. The delay also means that the fall off in bulk TSI around 2004 presages a fall in surface temperatures around about one sunspot later, around 2017: 2004 + 13 = 2017. The “pause” the believers of the carbon crisis have lately admitted to may turn out to be a “plateau”.)
REFERENCES
M.E. Andersson et al “Missing driver in the Sun–Earth connection from energetic electron precipitation impacts mesospheric ozone” Discussed here.
Zangl and Hoinka (2001) The Tropopause in the Polar Regions, American Meteorological Society, vol 14, page 3117
See also:
Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
The shift since 2000 seems evident in the Northern Hemisphere but where is that effect in the south. The 2000’s in Australia have been dominated by warmer and drier years with multi year rainfall deficits. Why are we not benefiting from a wavering jet stream or is it yet to come?
50
I don’t think we’ll see the same effects here in the Southern Hemisphere considering there’s a lot less land mass to begin with, so the oceans will dominate and buffer conditions. Most of what everyone’s seen regarding polar events concern mostly the Arctic, with the Antarctic almost completely forgotten.
Meridional jet streams also occurred in the 70’s so it’s possible something can be extrapolated from that.
150
you obviously do not live on the QLD or northern NSW coast, Farmer. It would appear that most of our dams are full, and most of Brisbane and the northern rivers have been flooded more than once since 2000. Climatic conditions in Australia have been Variable, rather than dry or hot. And, if you look at the satellite data, rather than the BOMs questionable temperature data, it has not been a warmer than usual scenario
314
My farm dam filled only twice between 1990 & 2006. It was then constantly full until about 7 months ago.
It has been pretty dry for those 7 months, but has started raining again in December.
90
Just check this rainfall graph from the BoM, Farmer G. Despite the screams of drought since 2000, the actual record shows that the 30s and 40s were much drier.
These are the total yearly rainfalls since 1900.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
These are the anomalies for each year.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
1902 still remains the driest year since BoM official records began.
150
Merriwa in NSW’s Hunter Valley suffered terrible drought in the late 1930s/early 1940s. But towards the end of the drought that ended in 2010 the 5 year running average of monthly rainfall dropped below the lowest for that period. 2010 then became the second wettest year on record, after 1950.
A large farm dam which was constructed in the 1950s and had only been empty once since, about 7 or 8 years ago, was recently assessed as having only one month’s supply remaining, but has now caught good water again.
Merriwa’s driest year was from memory 1887.
When you look at those charts you wish you could trust the BOM. It seems that Australia has become wetter since the satellites went up. I would like to check their data sources.
I see Peter Hannam’s headline in the smh this morning predicting that 2015 will be “the year of the extinction of the climate change denier”.
63
The second half of last century was wetter than the first half. It remains to be seen if the theory of a 60 year cycle, as claimed by some, is correct and we start to go back to a drier cycle.
The only part of Aust to experience less rainfall in the past 50 years is SW Aust – all others are average to above. I would trust the BoM’s rainfall record far more than its temperature record which has been adjusted, once in the HQ data set and then again in the ACORN data set.
41
We can trust the records OK, it is the statisticians publishing the records that worry me.
10
Keep in mind that the ‘Hole in the Ozone Layer” was discovered in 1957 by Gordon Dobson. It wasn’t discovered in the 1980s. There was, however, a dramatic increase in data collection when satellites came into use in the late 1970s.
And, as always, follow the money. The warmists accuse the sceptics of being bought. One of the oldest rogue’s tricks in the book is to accuse the other bloke of your own vices.
502
Agreed, and Mt Erubus injected tonnes of chlorine gas into the stratosphere from 1982 onwards. Little wonder they found Cl breaking down O3 but Dupont deemed it to be from their (patent expiring) CFC even though it is 4X the density of air and almost an inert gas.
371
That is not fair to Dupont. They had spent a lot of money on researching second and third generation refrigerants, and if the world wanted to believe that CFC s were destroying the ozone layer, they now had the patents, and could now really reward their shareholders!
122
Curiously, one of the best working fluids is a mixture of pentane and iso-butane and my son regassed his Landrovers A/C with this before Christmas. It’s cheap (from LPG) and you can do it yourself with the right threaded adaptors. Dupont will not tell you this though. They cannot patent the stuff.
It works so well that on a humid day the car blows little bits of snow in your face while you are driving along.
120
“the car blows little bits of snow in your face while you are driving along.”
Reminds me of a Tupolev 134 we flew in in Vietnam many years ago.
KK
50
Air conditioning, we called it.
40
Our plane made it from Saigon to Hanoi but a few weeks later a similar air craft crashed in Indonesia or Malaysia killing all on board.
We had a similar “close shave ” on mount Yasur in the pacific – Vanuatu.
We stood on the edge of the crater as the volcano erupted shaking us. Huge blobs of larva went hundreds of metres up and landed somewhere else.
A month later there was a news report of a French tourist killed, where we stood, by a falling blob of molten material.
Spooky!
KK
20
Fine until you get into a collision. The stuff is flammable.
Back during the CFC/ozone scare Gillette switched to a similar mix to pressurize their hair spray and deodorant cans when they yanked CFCs off the market. On third shift one crew managed to blow up a filling line.
41
The collision factor is an issue but the volume of gas is small and would quickly disperse. I carry a small dry powder fire extinguisher.
10
LPG or at least the version cleared for use in Automotive type use works very well indeed
We used it for years in our Truck, tractors and harvester and in a couple of older vehicle’s A/C units.
Our local A/C tech used to change over most of the CFC type refrigerants to LPG based refrigerants in automotive type systems as it meant a lot lower compressor head pressures and head temperatures, longer lasting compressors as a consequence of the lower stresses, and better cooling in those totally enclosed cabins, enclosed to keep heavy dust and chaff out and to enable heating and cooling for the operator, on today’s tractors and harvesting machinery.
As for flammability! I guess the 50 to 400 litres or so of highly flammable and explosive petroleum based products in the gas tank or dense swirls of highly flammable chaff and straw around a hot harvester engine and exhaust and / or tractor compared to a couple of litres of a LPG based refrigerant, don’t count as a flammability danger.
Certainly in our experience the cooler, easier running due to lower head pressures, LPG loaded A/C compressors were far less prone to bearing and compressor failure and consequent lock up with compressor drive belt fires starting in highly flammable straw around a harvester.
That was a bit of blood pressure increasing excitement that I could have done without on a number of occassions over some 25 years of farming prior to LPG refrigerants, with CFC loaded A/C equipped machines.
71
That’s very interesting ROM.
00
Yes I read in a book years ago where in the 50s an Australian radio operator during his stay in Antarctica found he could communicate further using the ozone layer. He did not name it as such. It was named that later. Still, he located it first.
103
The Australian long range weather forecaster Inigo Jones died in 1954
From his book “MY NEPHELO-COCCYGIA Page 29”
“From the general nature of the ozone and the fact that it is built up by the ultra-violet rays of the spectrum but disintegrated by a ray in another part of the spectrum that is specially strong in the sunspots and that the minima occur when the sunspot zones and the earthly hemisphere concerned are more directly turned to each other, it is easily seen that it is the sunspots and the sunspots alone that are responsible. Had it been the general rays of the sun then there should be a general minimum in January or just after when the sun is nearest the earth or at what is called Perihelion
which occurs in the first week in January. However, the effect is opposite in opposite hemispheres and occurs in the autumn in each case. It also explains for the flrst time why the spring and autumn differ so materially and shows that the sunspots are the special vehicle for the conveyance of special and most important characters from the Sun to the Earth.” Bold Mine
283
“From the general nature of the ozone and the fact that it is built up by the ultra-violet rays of the spectrum but disintegrated by a ray in another part of the spectrum that is specially strong in the sunspots ”
Interesting that that was known in 1954.
My proposal goes a few steps further in that such disintegration of ozone when the sun is active dominates above 45km and especially above the poles and that is what changes global cloudiness via the mechanism I set out.
It follows that an active sun was the cause of the ozone hole scare.
133
“disintegration of ozone when the sun is active dominates above 45km”
It is hard to get my head around all this. Have you seen these?
“Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude.” Bold mine.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/abs/nature09426.html
More info here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I&feature=youtu.be&t=25m1s
Detailed chart here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/slides/nature09426-pf1.ppt
Inigo Jones also says “the minima occur when the sunspot zones and the earthly hemisphere concerned are more directly turned to each other, it is easily seen that it is the sunspots and the sunspots alone that are responsible.”
Would this be solar flares being more directly aimed at us causing methane(cH4) to break down and steal the oxygen from ozone to make CO2 and H2O? Thus clouds and rain.
20
https://eng.ucmerced.edu/people/awesterling/SPR2014.ESS141/Assignments/DuPont
30
I have got a lot of time for Stephen Wilde’s thoughts.
When I first started reading the blogosphere about the global-warming thing, his comments and theories immediately struck me as heuristically sensible. Educative. I’m still feeling slightly embarrassed for swallowing the CFC-Ozone hypothesis wholesale.
I sometimes see him being attacked by alleged English graduates such as Steve Mosher for only being a Professional Lawyer with an interest in Meteorology. Possibly both are true.
He may be wrong, of course. And, in the end, it will have to be fleshed out (by somebody else?) before it could ever enter a text book. But Gauss was said to explore his theories by himself with pictures, knowing that something more rigorous would be needed later for his peers.
343
“ . . . it will have to be fleshed out (by somebody else?)”
I note the question mark. He seems not able to pursue the data collection and analyzes this would take. Who could? He has been told he will have to do much more on his own to move this “new climate model” along. The UN has a directive to show climate is damaged by human activities so as to promote the redistribution of wealth controlled through the UN. Many governments and climate researchers are on this train for now. Until there is a major change, other, non-human, alternative theories will be starved for funding.
172
I think lawyers could add value to the debate over CAGW because their profession is strongly evidence based rather than model based.
115
Hmm.. Another group seeking rent? These days evidence only speaks as loudly as the money backing it.
70
“Climate scientists” and now “Climate lawyers”??
Sometime around the end of this decade we want to close this climate catastrophe nonsense off.
Noted I said “end of this decade”, not the “end of this century” which it will be if “climate lawyers” get involved.
And for evidence based lawyer’s playing in the climate science sand pit I would suggest a read of a couple of Steve Mc’s latest Climate Audit analysis posts on the Mann-Steyn court case.
90
Hi ROM
I was referring to lawyers such as Rud Istvan not your usual ambulance chasers.
60
Thank you. Hope you enjoyed my new book on energy and climate, foreward by Prof. Judith Curry. It explores many of the themes Joanne discusses here.
80
There is more than one skeptical lawyer making comments and doing analysis. You do not have to be a climastrologist to look at the data think logically and draw conclusions.
51
For most of this century David Evans, Stephen Wilde & Piers Corbyn have promoted the truth, ie that “Solar Activity” is the main driver of “Warming & Cooling Cycles” on planet Earth. But those in power are not listening to the truth, instead blindly accepting the IPCC driven “AGW/CO2 Charade” and squandering US$ trillions in the process for zero benefit to mankind. But remember Bob Dylan’s late 1960’s hit song “The Times They Are a-Changin”. And 50 years on the times are a changin’ because later this decade SC24 solar activity will plummet down and merge into the next prolonged “Grand Minimum” – by that stage the game will be over for the “Warmists” because no one will be listening anymore to their “warmist rants” as the charge of the “Meridonal Jet Streams” torpedo the “Theory of AGW” once and for all via “prolonged bitter winters” that everyone will be dreading, especially those living in the high latitude northern hemisphere countries.
333
Evans, Wilde and Corbyn’s scenarios present little or no opportunity for vested interest to claim saviour status and demand ransom for their services.
I say “little” because I would not put it past the trough swillers in the UN to attempt to claim they can somehow manipulate solar activity using cash.
273
Would burning the cash , in a solar furnace, take some energy out of the Sun ? As effectively as banning CO2 anyway .
31
Maybe one day the politicians will get a clue that coldness, in Australia, correlates with dryness and vegetation die-back, dust storms and soil destruction.
You’d think they’d be able to work that out pretty quickly given that skin cracking high-pressure dominated dry winters produce far drier conditions in the interior and many more dust storms, than during the humid sweaty “big-wet” hot Summers.
Yet all it takes is an [snip] like Flim Flammery, to claim the exact opposite of observations, “a hotter Australia will be a drier Australia”, and off go politicians, wasting billions on drought mitigation, to end up with the wettest period of continent-wide rainfall on record.
Wettest two year period on record
Unfortunately, inconsolable hand-wringing bullshit factories, like Flim-Flam, kept getting exorbitant and thoroughly unmerited airing on so-called ‘respectable’ and ‘intelligent’, taxpayer-funded mass media forums, and ‘documentaries’, primarily created and put to air by SBS and especially the ABC.
No accountability though, not one scrap! Interesting how the ABC and SBS keeps leading everyone recklessly over a cliff of stupidity into higher debt and taxation, no? But no public accountability for costing us billions! But they still whine, yap and hyperventilate about a mere 5% budget cut, spread over several years!
But never an apology about their absurd anti-scientific alarmism and the wasted desalination plant construction that resulted. No public accountability, whatsoever.
I’d like to see Flim-Flam pinned down and asked to explain, directly, and with actual scientific evidences and references, the origins, and morphological timing and temperature regimes of the Quaternary, which created the vast sand dunes and gibber plains of the majority of Australia.
Hint, dry, cold, no plants growing in the interior, high-pressure driven windstorms, with no appreciably rise in moisture in the Summers, no ‘big-wet’ each year during the glacials.
And then explain to a Parliamentary inquiry why Flim-Flam was payed tax-payer $AUD, to endlessly and with breathtaking hyperbolic alarmism, assert sans any contrary compelling evidence -> at all <- the precise opposite of all that we have scientifically observed and documented regarding consistently identified cold and hot phases coinciding with dry and wet phases (respectively) within all Quaternary studies?
And BOM went along with it!
Hotter is wetter, not drier! The supported a completely ridiculous conclusion, that flew in the face of all our observations, and then pretended they were being ‘scientific’.
Well BOM, look at your own radars over the top end today. Its raining because it is really hot, it’s Summer, it’s the season of ‘the big wet’. Hey BOM, would you also please explain to a parliamentary hearing on why “The Big Wet” never occurs in Winter?
I’d love to hear that reply to direct questioning! Then explain why you have supported the mincers like Flim-Flam and IPCC dopes and their debauched laughable ‘models’, that likewise fly in the face of everything we know from observations about how Australia really responds to heating, i.e. it BLOOMS in the most unimaginable profusion of life and environmental bounty!
Take a look at Lake Eyre when it fills with run-off from the Western QLD channel country after a decent ‘Big Wet’. That all happens due to SUMMER HEAT producing low pressure.
Winter = High pressure and low humidity
Summer = Low pressure and high humidity
Somehow Flim-Flammery and BOM couldn’t even catch-on to such undeniable correlations, and instead both predicted the exact opposite!
And did they recant? Not so much, kinda doubled-down on a completely obvious non-starter.
And while we’re holding public inquiries, I’d like to see Clive Palmer called in and pinned-down to explain exactly why he supports funding the likes of Flim-Flam and the tax-payer funded dog ‘n pony show and quango generation mechanisms? I thought he was all about dah wittle-guy not getting screwed by the Canberra policy maniacs which have cost us tens of billions in lost public money, lost productivity, public debt growth and impeded and impaired economy …thus far?
How about it Clive? To quote from another equally irrational Canberra House of Representatives time-wasting ignorant egomaniac;
“Please Explain?”
@ Stephen Wilde: At least your thesis fits basic observed facts so you’re several light years ahead of BOM, IPCC, and other mass flim-flam artistes, in these respects. Unfortunately being consistent with observation is rather unpopular and non-profitable, at least in public-funded ‘science’ and policy formulation and legislative circles. You may need to polish a bag full of lies and golden turds, and learn to fake sincerity with more proficiency, if you wish to be heard over the din of liars and quango hunters in deepest darkest Canberra, and other western capitals.
PS: happy new year mate have a great 2015.
[Entertaining post Unmentionable, but I still have t snip the unmentionable words – Mod]
323
Most of the towns in the western areas of Q, NSW and Vic show annual maximums had a zero trend for 80 years until 2000, and then a step up of about a degree. Boulia airport (data from the 19th century?)
Its the minimums that show a gradual rise.
I doubt that the step up was natural but it is restricted to only a few months. The summer months for Boulia have no warming trend for the the maximums so saying its getting dryer because its hotter is wrong anyway.
Does Flannery have a science degree?
92
Does Flannery have a science degree?
Well RB he certainly does – he did a PhD on fossil kangaroos (Uni NSW, 1984). That is why he so hopping mad, that is wrt his climate predictions, obsession with AGW and horror of all horrors he was also head of the now defunct Climate Commission – LOL!!!
90
“No accountability though, not one scrap! Interesting how the ABC and SBS keeps leading everyone recklessly over a cliff of stupidity into higher debt and taxation, no? But no public accountability for costing us billions! But they still whine, yap and hyperventilate about a mere 5% budget cut, spread over several years!”
But it goes well beyond our own bureaucracies fighting for survival via increased taxes and reduced freedoms. UN agencies now see countries like Australia as nothing more than a trough to stick their snouts in. They are even going so far as to advocate higher taxation in our country knowing full well that when the next Left/Green government comes in, some of that increased taxation will be given up to them in homage for their extortion.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/lagarde-backs-boosting-gst-revenue/story-fn3dxiwe-1227121299300
Its the classic left/green mentality to see the public as an inexhaustible slush fund for their personal crusades, the ABC is simply the conduit for their nonsense.
213
[Entertaining post Unmentionable, but I still have t snip the unmentionable words – Mod]
Actually it looks and reads better with your snip in there, ta! 😀
170
I did a degree in Botany and Zoology in the early 80’s before (thank God) all that CAGW nonsense started. I attended some lectures by Tim Flannery. I was also taught by NSW Uni that Ice Ages are drier, interglacials warmer and wetter. Also I have seen evidence by my own eyes. Just out of Tamworth on Mt Duri there are relict spinifex populations and relict desert eucalypt populations. I have also collected specimens of a relict spinifex population from near where Packers property Ellerston is, which is way way east and in the ranges. So I can even prove what I saw by providing the plants.
So I have been taught what you are now saying, that colder climate has been a drier climate, by the same individuals who are now spouting the opposite. So I have good reason to agree with you.
So these academics KNOW what they are spouting is BS, or they have a really dreadful case of cognitive dissonance or their brains are so clever and flexible that they really can believe three impossible things before breakfast. They also have got their own kids uni fees to pay and their mortgage to pay and their super funds to top up.
30
Piers tries to link solar variations to weather but I don’t think that is possible on a reliable short term basis because the inherent chaotic variability of the climate system and the delayed ocean response swamps the solar signal.
One needs a couple of solar cycles to be able to see the solar effect more clearly as per David’s notch-delay theory.
The best one can do in the shorter term is to try and discern whether the jets are changing their behaviour between zonality and meridionality over time. At present we have problems in reliably measuring that. All I have done is note such changes after the event and seek to explain the significance.
232
Wilde writes:
“Piers tries to link solar variations to weather but I don’t think that is possible on a reliable short term basis because the inherent chaotic variability of the climate system and the delayed ocean response swamps the solar signal.
One needs a couple of solar cycles to be able to see the solar effect more clearly as per David’s notch-delay theory.
The best one can do in the shorter term is to try and discern whether the jets are changing their behaviour between zonality and meridionality over time. At present we have problems in reliably measuring that. All I have done is note such changes after the event and seek to explain the significance.”
Having forecast UK temperature deviations from normals at down to daily scales from the planetary ordering of solar activity at very long range since 2008, I can tel you that you are conflating “inherent chaotic variability” with the short term solar signal. That same signal can tell you what the delayed ocean response will be, nothing else can.
63
I cannot believe that something as insignificant as the sun can have any dramatic effect on earth’s climate; it is utterly clear that the superior and mighty human being presides over all, nothing stands in its way.
283
Personally I believe this has occurred because the Volcano Gods are angry. Clearly we have not thrown enough leaders into the Volcanos lately to satisfy them.
/sarc (did I really need this?)
220
But of course, climate could improve or worsen if the volcano god is unhappy, just as CO2 is capable of causing either heating or cooling. Either is equally falsifiable, hence equally valid as a hypothesis.
101
Leaders..?
Oh, you mean Hollywood people of course!
They’re so smart 🙂
100
You may have a point, the volcanos are possibly yearning for their greens.
100
Actually you have it wrong. We need to resurrect the good old Celtic traditions.
It was certainly a way to make sure the King was looking out for the best interest of his people instead of seeing them as nothing but a source of endless wealth. The American Revolution and the French Revolution are also warning to the political class about abusing the people who support them.
Instead of taking these lessons to heart the political class has been trying to figure out ways to manipulate people such that they can reduce the common people to severe poverty and serfdom without suffering the lethal consequences.
80
One possible reason may be the lack of terrain in the Southern Ocean to help influence wind patterns. Lot of landforms and geological variation in the NH may help lock jetstream ‘waveforms’ into an oft seen phasal structures – such as the big downwards loop that has appeared anchored in roughly the same place over Canada and the US in recent winters. On the open ocean in the south there is not much to get in the way and peturb the normal roaring 40’s from their course.
71
Most of the [ animated ] southern 300 mb [ 30,000 Ft / 9200 mtrs height ] Antarctic sub polar jet system is very continuous at the moment, winding it’s way around the Antarctic continent in a 230 plus degree arc with the remaining sector being filled with a highly broken and distorted and rapidly evolving jet stream flow structure.
The continuity of the jet stream structure for such a distance around Antarctica is a bit unusual.
However the meanderings of the system are presently very pronounced and large in amplitude in it’s flow lines compared to most times when I have looked at this site over the last decade or so.
80
Excellent. Thanks for that!
30
One of the key assumptions in the whole climate change debate, and one in which I have always had trouble with, is the idea that climate sensitivity must be the same regardless of the forcing.
As stated on wiki:
“Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide (CO2), it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so[citation needed].”
In other words, and this is explicitly accepted and stated by alarmists, overall climate sensitivity to c02 is assumed to be the same as climate sensitivity to the sun.
It doesn’t take much thought to realise that this might not be the case, as in the above article. Solar effects such as described above could have a differential effect on climate sensitivity because they have differential effects on things like clouds and latitudinal zones. In other words, the climate could be sensitive to the sun and not c02, or vice versa, I don’t see why it has to be same regardless of the nature of the forcing.
Just as with the assumption of an increase in water vapour significantly enhancing the effect of c02, the assumption of climate sensitivity being the same between the sun and c02 is just that-an assumption-taken without sufficient grounds or evidence.
In an honest assessment of the facts, climate science should begin by taking a position with as few assumptions as possible; all possibilities should be examined before coming to a tentative position. But this is not what has historically occurred.
The idea that climate sensitivity is the same regardless of the forcing, is a significant and largely unchallenged and unexamined assumption that is typical of immature academic disciplines. It is also typical of an unexamined political position, and moreover is also common within many government-based research programs. (Another typical government ‘assumption’ I have come across, is the one that various types of natural resources are typically evenly distributed across the landscape; the trouble is, this often conflicts with what actually occurs in nature. And so you often get armies of bureaucrats trying to ‘smooth out’ natural data to be more in line with their unexamined assumptions. It isn’t just climate science and the BOM where this sort of thing occurs, it is rampant within many government research fields; anomalies and variations are often treated as ‘errors’ rather than true and significant variations.)
I have talked about this issue with several academics, who state that the idea of a different climate sensitivity to different forcings ‘simply doesn’t make sense’. I suspect this shows both a lack of imagination, as well as conformity to a series of unexamined and largely institutionally -based assumptions.
152
With the variable WV content, reason unknown, how can there be “any” climate sensitivity. C/(W/m^2)? Exit flux is completely under the control of the amount of atmospheric WV, and whatever controls that!
55
“In other words, and this is explicitly accepted and stated by alarmists, overall climate sensitivity to c02 is assumed to be the same as climate sensitivity to the sun.”
Precisely why I have always had my doubts. Its like saying (at the risk of using an analogy) that it may wel be the contents of your car’s glovebox producing the energy which drives it, but reluctantly, we cant rule out the engine.
Basically AGW theory denies common sense, balance of probability and most importantly, observable reality as demonstrated by the satellite data pause.
If AGW theory was tried in a court of law in Australia, I suspect it would be dismissed. No judge or jury would be able to conclude that there is no reasonable doubt associated with the idea. Which makes the strident certainty of those promoting the scare campaign for their purposes, that much more criminal and unforgiveable. Going into the media and scaring ordinary citizens with threats of Armageddon unless they pay up is at best a low quality form of extortion, the likes of which The Mafia would be embarrassed to engage in and at worst its basically terrorism. Many of the most shrill members of the IPCC and people like Flannery, Gore, Milne etc should in all reality, be in “Gitmo” awaiting trial.
122
I think that what they are saying is that an imbalance between energy gained and energy lost causes the Earth to heat or cool so as to restore the balance. An in increase in solar output increases the energy gained while an increase in CO2 reduces the energy lost. In both cases the result is more energy gained than lost causing the earth to warm. Its the excess energy that causes the Earth to warm and if that is the same in both cases why would the effect not be similar. To use your car analogy, imagine you had one foot on the brake and one on the accelerator, the claim is equivalent to saying; whether you put your foot down further on the accelerator or lighten up on the brake the effect is the same – the car will accelerate. Looked at in that light the claim is reasonable. What this article correctly highlights is that its not just the total magnitude of the energy that matters. The form in which it is delivered is also important. Specifically energy in the UV portion of the spectrum is absorbed in a different region of the atmosphere with quite different implications. Even just heating the upper stratosphere has different effects from heating the surface.
More specifically, the fraction of solar energy in the far UV is a small fraction of the total solar energy but from what I have read it is very much more variable than is the total solar output. It is extremely significant because it has very high energy per photon and is thus capable of breaking chemical bonds and thereby causing chemical reactions in the atmosphere such as the formation of ozone (and smog lower down) which have strong further repercussions. Its significance lies not in the energy contribution but rather in the impact of the chemical changes it causes. That is what the author of this paper is saying and it is a very credible argument worthy of careful consideration.
20
Quite the contrast to have a well presented, informative, scientific explanation in the above article as opposed to this SkyNews blurb featuring the all knowing Sir David Attenborough giving a dire warning on ‘Climate change’ , besides the complete lack of scientific evidence to back his claims there is this gem of a comment ‘Never in the history of humanity in the last 10 million years have all human beings got together to face one danger that threatens us – never.’ really Sir David, so the massive orange fireball in the sky that covers the earth in ‘measurable’ energy pales in comparison to the highly volatile atmospheric trace gas of CO2?
Oh if you think me a bit rude it’s just a natural reaction to the intended unscientific insult of ‘deny/denier’, you are held up on a pedestal by the general public without them realizing how much of a sycophantic sham you really are, if you were to openly debate your counterparts without your ‘handlers’ I think the term ‘lamb to the slaughter’ would best describe the outcome.
The title of Attenborough’s biography should be fittingly plagiarized from someone who actually left a beneficial impact on humanity and should read ‘Much Ado About Nothing’.
403
As Yonniestone @ # 7 has posted Attenborough is quoted as
‘Never in the history of humanity in the last 10 million years have all human beings got together to face one danger that threatens us – never.
Two decades ago Attenborough would have never been questioned or doubted on that statement but thanks to the Internet and the WWW and maybe Google search;
Oh how the mighty have fallen and continue crashing to earth as their reputations ares shredded through outright hubris and lack of candour and honesty with the increasingly knowledgeable public!
Or maybe it is just a case of Ignorance is bliss which might say quite a lot or is it just another plain deliberate hood winking of the public that Attenborough is again indulging himself in here.
“Never in the history of humanity in the last 10 million years—”
___________________
The Smithsonian;
What does it mean to be human?
Ardipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus ramidus was first reported in 1994; in 2009, scientists announced a partial skeleton, nicknamed ‘Ardi’. The foot bones in this skeleton indicate a divergent large toe combined with a rigid foot – it’s still unclear what this means concerning bipedal behavior. The pelvis, reconstructed from a crushed specimen, is said to show adaptations that combine tree-climbing and bipedal activity. The discoverers argue that the ‘Ardi’ skeleton reflects a human-African ape common ancestor that was not chimpanzee-like. A good sample of canine teeth of this species indicates very little difference in size between males and females in this species.
Ardi’s fossils were found alongside faunal remains indicating she lived in a wooded environment. This contradicts the open savanna theory for the origin of bipedalism, which states that humans learned to walk upright as climates became drier and environments became more open and grassy.
Nickname: Ardi
Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Middle Awash and Gona, Ethiopia)
When Lived: About 4.4 million years ago
“White’s team have uncovered over 100 fossil specimens of Ar. ramidus . White and his colleagues gave their discovery the name Ardipithecus ramidus (‘ramid’ means ‘root’ in the Afar language of Ethiopia and refers to the closeness of this new species to the roots of humanity, while ‘Ardi’ means ‘ground’ or ‘floor’).
_________________________
So Attenborough either through straight out ignorance or deliberate misinformation [ I’m being politically correct ] to push his own ideological brand of climate catastrophe alarmism upon the public has now taken it upon himself, without any evidence of any sort to support his claims, to inform the public that the ancestors of modern humanity were existent some 10 million years ago.
Or over twice the 4.4 million year age of the earliest and most primitive species that paleontologists who actually study this sort of thing, and don’t just thrown dates and numbers around, believe are the earliest ancestors of the human species.
–
153
ROM,
When you are a celebrity infotainment guru, you don’t need any pesky details like facts or data, just make it up as you go along, and glossy photography and a colossal ego will take care of the rest.
That this pillock has attained the icon status he has while David Bellamy flounders in obscurity is the failure of our civilisation in microcosm.
251
The treatment of David Bellamy has been one of the most disgusting aspects of this farce. A great man, easily DA’s equal as a science commentator and naturalist yet he is publically flogged for speaking his mind. Its really been tough to watch.
We live in an age when holding a contra view on a science topic is no longer met with evidence based debate, its simply used as a tool for public ridicule. Its reasonable to assume science would have advanced at a snails pace in the past if anyone with a new/original idea was so poorly treated in public for expressing it.
200
I just want to add I wouldn’t disrespect someone’s valid academic achievements in any way, it’s what that person contributes to their society that makes the real difference, how many people here know someone with impressive higher education qualifications that work in a superfluous government job that bureaucratically hamstrings the public?, compare them to a basically educated person in a low income job that volunteers at a local charity (without fanfare) and you can easily measure the public positive contribution factor.
130
I’m not disrespecting DA any more than he has disrespected himself.
If he valued public opinion more, he would be scrupulously meticulous in making sure any assertions he made were at least suitably qualified, or that he had sufficient evidentiary support to make the statement as fact, rather than that statement being in contrast to current actual observations, as opposed to speculated predictions of catastrophe that are materially failing to eventuate as postulated.
111
“I’m not disrespecting DA any more than he has disrespected himself.”
Precisely… 100% spot on.
He has an enviable legacy and one that is too valuable to waste on chasing unicorns in the magic forest.
40
Sadly, David Attenborough is now well past his sell by date. One can only assume he has been browbeaten into official alarmist thinking by the rabid greens who pervade the bloated BBC bureaucracy.
Earth has its own in built thermostat controls which we are a long way from understanding.
If CAGW theory was correct you would see it in the geological record, where it is conspicuous by its absence.
When you read articles like this post, it becomes self- evident that those trying to model our climate are not only fooling themselves, but also their financial backers. The subject of climate is far too complex and chaotic, which I suppose is one of the reasons most of these models are routinely programmed to guarantee the politically required result of imminent Thermageddon.
80
Interesting comment Peter “Earth has its own in built thermostat controls” I completely agree but I must point out thermostat = negative (stabilising) feedback. Warmists claim dominant positive feedback which means they deny Earth ha a thermostat at all, in fact they claim Earth has the exact opposite of a thermostat (so unusual we don’t even have a word for it, at least one I can think of). This is the entire crux of the CAGW debate – well it would be if a debate was allowed by political correctness.
30
Sadly (as I used to deeply respect DA) he burned his credibility with the unsubstantiated claims, later removed from the BBC Africa documentary.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/warming-continent-what-the-bbc-might-have-said-about-climate-change-in-africa/
Like many well meaning people today, DA feels its his duty to save the planet and concern for minor details like facts and evidence must take a back seat to playing the messiah.
142
BBC to David Attenborough: “..OR ELSE!!”
30
DA is an educated person and has no excuse to believe climaradtchiks. He knows geology and should know better. A complete sellout and traitor. Will never watch his movies again.
102
Hear Hear! Yonnie.
30
“Never in the history of humanity in the last 10 million years have all human beings got together to face one danger that threatens us – never.”
That clanger is as bad as Al Gore’s “ The interior of the earth is several millions of degrees.”
How can anyone listen to these clowns after they deliver clangers like those?
62
William McClenney who wrote the above is another geologist. David Attenborough, especially in the age of the internet, has zero excuse for that clanger. He doesn’t even have Al Gore’s dumb as a brick excuse.
92
Yeah I mentioned that on my Facebook page. Typical of alarmist arguing style to throw in a few million completely un-related years for good measure.
40
I have been telling Wilde for a number of years that the key metric is the effect of the solar wind on polar air pressure, 2% UV variation isn’t enough at all to account for the extent of the AO/NAO variability.
I also introduced the idea to Piers Corbyn while I was working with him.
There’s no physical reason for a Notch-Delay, and no need either, as the solar plasma trend fits the signature of global temperature perfectly. It rises from the mid 1960’s to the mid 1990’s, the following decline in plasma density/pressure then increases negative NAO/AO states and triggers the shift to the warm AMO mode. Which is the larger proportion of the warming from 1995 to 2005, i.e. the warm AMO is a negative feedback to weaker solar plasma forcing:
http://snag.gy/dXp1s.jpg
65
“…2% UV variation isn’t enough at all to account for the extent of the AO/NAO variability…”
I agree. But it’s clear to me that (1) TSI is a minor player in all this, at its current variability. (2) UV through Xray insolation, however, varies by a factor of 10X, more than any other part of the spectrum. This radiation band is believed to account for the major atmospheric variation, the thickness of the ionosphere, which ranges over almost a full order of magnitude during a solar cycle.
Despite the fact that the ionosphere very tenuous, it’s thick enough (1000+ kms) that photons can’t pass straight through it without several collisions. I’m more prepared to believe this would alter the blackbody temperature of the sky than to believe a small increase in ozone would change the polar flow pattern. I can’t rule out the latter, of course; it’s just a more complicated mechanism.
32
There’s no such linear correlation, but there is a clear complex (as in complex numbers, not as in complicated) coherence. So the coupling is there, but it doesn’t facilitate linear prediction everywhere at all times. It tells you the processes are coupled, but for a given location it can give you an anti-phased forecast. So it’s an absolute guarantee that in the politically-overcharged atmosphere of climate discussion, malicious distortion artists will always have a truly easy time confusing naive readers about this. There will always be a few people who understand and a lot will get angry that they don’t (or that a dumbed-down administratively defensible narrative isn’t feasible) and therefore strategically side with the distortion artists darkly appealing to natural inclinations towards evasive ignorance &/or deception. The coupling is real, but it’s geometrically & mathematically impossible that it be linear for every point on the surface of earth.
01
Paul Vaughn writes:
“There’s no such linear correlation,”
No linear correlation was claimed, in fact the negative feedback of the warm AMO mode is the regional anti-phase response. Maybe you have played the “malicious distortion artist” by attempting to confuse naive readers about this.
20
Actually I’m trying to help. I’ve seen you point this out countless times to people who just don’t get it. There are a lot of people who falsely expect a linear correlation from coupling. I’m backing you up by pointing out that their conceptualization of coupling statistics is fundamentally wrong. You’re rejecting the support. So further exchange isn’t needed.
00
Such a vilifying and paranoid outlook is entirely unhelpful. You have added nothing, and have employed inappropriate nomenclature that detract from the physical processes involved, and have distracted from my initial and prime point, which is about the trend in global mean surface temperature versus trends in solar metrics. I reject your interjection entirely.
20
Ulric said:
“There’s no physical reason for a Notch-Delay, and no need either, as the solar plasma trend fits the signature of global temperature perfectly. It rises from the mid 1960′s to the mid 1990′s, the following decline in plasma density/pressure then increases negative NAO/AO states and triggers the shift to the warm AMO mode. Which is the larger proportion of the warming from 1995 to 2005, i.e. the warm AMO is a negative feedback to weaker solar plasma forcing:”
There is no necessity for a notch delay in my hypothesis but my hypothesis is nevertheless consistent with the notch delay proposal.
My question about the solar plasma density/pressure is as to how you know that it is anything more than a proxy for the observed wavelength and particle variations in much the same way as is the level of cosmic rays reaching the Earth?
You don’t provide any mechanism to link the changes in solar behaviour to any particular state of the AO/NAO.
The whole point of my article is that it pins down an observable mechanism which has not previously been proposed and it is supported by recent findings namely:
i) An observed increase in stratospheric ozone (below 45km) especially above the equator when the sun is active.
ii) An observed decrease in mesospheric ozone (above 45km) especially above the poles when the sun is active.Eventually this process becomes dominant as witness the overall decline of stratosphere temperatures (now ceased and maybe recovering a little) during the recent period of active sun.
iii) An observed poleward shift in climate zones and increased jet stream zonality when the sun is active.
iv) Observed changes in the relative balance between El Nino and La Nina events with the other ocean basins trhen following over a period of years.The recent failure of El Nino to become as pronounced as was preducted is entirely consistent with my climate diagnosis.
I then follow through by inserting those observations into a coherent climate overview which accounts for a plethora of other observations as well and renders any need for a CO2 based explanation redundant.
I don’t see how anything you have told me over the years bears directly on any of those issues.
53
Wilde said
“My question about the solar plasma density/pressure is as to how you know that it is anything more than a proxy for the observed wavelength and particle variations in much the same way as is the level of cosmic rays reaching the Earth?”
It IS the particle variation, and here are some supporting papers:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1677787
The effects of the solar wind variability on polar air pressure has been the main thrust of all my discussions of solar forcing on WUWT posts for several years, I don’t believe that you missed them all.
“The whole point of my article is that it pins down an observable mechanism which has not previously been proposed and it is supported by recent findings namely:
ii) An observed decrease in mesospheric ozone (above 45km) especially above the poles when the sun is active.”
Yes it has been previously proposed, and it operates at much shorter scales than you acknowledge, e.g.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/#comment-1656074
Not that Piers actually knows how to forecast it, if he did he wouldn’t been predicting the hottest August in 300 years.
As for ENSO, you continue to get it completely backwards, despite numerous pieces of evidence presented to you on several occasions. Basic meteorology will tell you that negative NAO is directly associated with El Nino episodes. So a weak Sun increases El Nino, and does NOT increase La Nina.
12
Yet the long run of pwerful El Ninos in the late 20th century occurred during the run of high solar cycles and the recent El Nino has proved to be very weak at a time of less active sun.
As far as I know you have never suggested how plasma/particle changes affect polar air pressure.
Nor have you mentioned how any changes in polar air pressure result in other changes that could affect global temperature.
31
What strikes me is the powerful multi-year La Nina episodes in the 1970’s, 1980’s, the very strong one in the 1990’s, and another multi-year episode around 2000, they obviously are behind the recent warming as they recharge the ocean heat content.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/s/l/600×400-ENSO-noshadow.jpg
Wilde says:
“Nor have you mentioned how any changes in polar air pressure result in other changes that could affect global temperature.”
I have extensively on WUWT.
12
It is the long term changes in the relative balance between El Nino and La Nina across decades and centuries in response to slow changes in solar activity across multiple cycles that my hypothesis deals with. In particulat the apparent millennial solar cycle.I have no interest in the timing of individual ENSO events and if you can derive predictive skill in the short term then good luck to you.
To my mind there is too much short term interaction between sun and oceans for me to make short term predictions. I leave that field to you.
As far as I recall all your comments at WUWT and elsewhere refer to those shorter term relationships and I do not involve myself with them.
How do you say that changes in polar air pressure result in other changes that affect global temperature?
43
It makes no difference what scale, weaker solar activity through centuries causes an increase in EL Nino, as I have shown you several times in the past.
12
Wilde:
“In particulat the apparent millennial solar cycle”
There is no such cycle, or any regular periodic return of the planetary ordering of solar activity at such an interval.
12
Ulric,
There is an approximate solar cycle of 1000 years as evidenced by the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and current warm period.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/msccsi.php
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/chapconf/shopov2_abs.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379104003063
In the past you have suggested that La Nina is the recharge process that fuels the subsequent El Nino so you imply that the greater the recharge the greater the El Nino will be and I have no problem with that.
However, to maximise recharge during a La Nina one needs lower global cloudiness to allow more solar energy into the ocean.
The problem with your proposition that such a strong recharge occurs when the sun is weak is that in the longer term we see more meridional jets and more clouds and so LESS recharging going on when the sun is weak which is contrary to your proposition.
The process must be that the recharge is strongest when there are less clouds and there are less clouds when we see zonal, poleward jets at a time of active sun.
You have pointed to certain examples of individual ENSO events when that appears not to apply but I say that such aberrations are short term features which are not indicative of the longer term underlying trend. I suggest that such aberrations occur when the ocean cycles are out of phase with solar cycles which is the case about 50% of the time.
So, I hear you but I don’t agree with you.
53
Wilde:
“Nor have you mentioned how any changes in polar air pressure result in other changes that could affect global temperature.”
Key aspects of that I in fact described above. That increased negative NAO/AO forces a warm AMO mode. The effect of increased low cloud cover in the mid latitudes would depend very much on the season. And also I reminded you above that; “Basic meteorology will tell you that negative NAO is directly associated with El Nino episodes.”
12
Wilde:
“There is an approximate solar cycle of 1000 years as evidenced by the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and current warm period.”
It’s an event series with all sorts of noise along the way and does not constitute a cycle in any way. The intervals between cold periods like the Dark Ages and LIA vary hugely through a ~4630 yr cycle, that particular interval is by far the longest. The following 200 years will in fact be seeing a full LIA type sequence again, with deep protracted solar minima from the 2090’s and from around 2200.
13
Wilde said
“.. so you imply that the greater the recharge the greater the El Nino will be..”
You like to read that I implied that, but there’s no way that I would imply that after having thoroughly looked at enough past evidence.
Wilde said:
“The problem with your proposition that such a strong recharge occurs when the sun is weak..”
Complete nonsense, are you not even reading my comments?
E.g. “So a weak Sun increases El Nino, and does NOT increase La Nina.”
I give up on you.
43
If a weak sun doesn’t increase the recharge that occurs during a La Nina then where does the energy come from for the strong El Nino discharges that you say occur when the sun is weak?
A weak sun fails to affect the recharge but permits an increased discharge nonetheless?
How does that work?
As far as I can tell from the available evidence strong El Ninos occur when there are less clouds due to more zonal jets so that the additional energy to support those discharges comes from the sun.
54
Ulric said:
“That increased negative NAO/AO forces a warm AMO mode. The effect of increased low cloud cover in the mid latitudes would depend very much on the season. And also I reminded you above that; “Basic meteorology will tell you that negative NAO is directly associated with El Nino episodes.””
I see the AMO as more likely a lagging consequence of ENSO events filtering poleward through all the ocean basins over several years rather than a direct result of NAO/AO though certainly the latter would modify the former.
But we shouldn’t go so far off topic. I think I have the more complete overview at this point.
44
Wilde:
“.. where does the energy come from for the strong El Nino discharges that you say occur when the sun is weak?”
A terribly phrased question. The cause is a weakening of the trade winds, that’s less energy.
“How does that work?”
Probably just the trade winds getting inhibited by equatorward shifts in the jet stream track during negative NAO states.
“As far as I can tell from the available evidence strong El Ninos occur when there are less clouds due to more zonal jets so that the additional energy to support those discharges comes from the sun.”
You’re making it up, there is an accepted association between negative NAO and weaker trade winds.
32
Wilde:
“I think I have the more complete overview at this point.”
You have ENSO and solar forcing relationship back to front, and appear to be irredeemable on the issue.
22
Ulric said:
“Probably just the trade winds getting inhibited by equatorward shifts in the jet stream track during negative NAO states.”
So you suggest weaker trade winds with less clouds and more sunlight into the oceans REGIONALLY when NAO is NEGATIVE whereas I say that there are less clouds and more sunlight into the oceans GLOBALLY when NAO is POSITIVE ?
Is that the difference betweern our viewpoints ?
I’m still not sure if I understsnd you right because you seem to think that wind strength is the main factor whereas I propose it is the amount of sunshine entering the oceans from cloudiness changes that is the main factor.
In any eventI would still propose that the amount of global sunshine into the oceans trumps regional wind effects in the longer term because winds are a consequence of the level of solar input globally.
53
Wilde:
“So you suggest weaker trade winds with less clouds and more sunlight into the oceans REGIONALLY when NAO is NEGATIVE..”
I said nothing about less clouds with weaker trade winds, so do not suggest that I did. In fact what I did mention was increased low cloud in the mid latitudes with -ve NAO.
Wilde:
“In any eventI would still propose that the amount of global sunshine into the oceans trumps regional wind effects in the longer term because winds are a consequence of the level of solar input globally.”
If winds (which are all regional)are a consequence of the level of solar input, then that would be driving the Ekman transport of the cold Humboldt current to the surface of the east tropical Pacific. There’s no La Nina without stronger trade winds.
The “longer term” is dictated by the shorter term.
03
Have you yet realised that your over simplistic global model has a massive positive feedback? E.g.
Weaker Sun = increased cloud = increased albedo.
And you even propose increased La Nina with a weaker Sun, despite it contradicting your own premise of increased cloud cover with a weaker Sun.
32
Who the heck is Ulric Lyons? Never seen him here before.
00
He’s the youngest Son of the late Dennis Lyons. He doesn’t frequent this site often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Lyons
10
I suggest that you read this comment again too..
joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/#comment-1656210
00
Fig 4s meandering jet-stream allows more heat transfer from the warm wet southern air to the Polar air mass and the Poles are where we lose a lot of heat to space. The norm of a decade ago saw much less wavy jets and generally resided N of Britain with only occasional excursions S. To-day we see the jet-stream over Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Greece, Turkey, N India, Japan, Texas. All these places have seen greater than normal winter snows but it receives little attention in the press.
The late Sir George Simpson (UK Met) would have been so excited to see this as he couldn’t work out how an ice-age could form with the Polar Jets being so far N.
It’s good to see an article that is attempting to explain these fundaments.
110
A long ago geology book I read mentioned that the temperature difference isn’t the real cause of glaciation but the massive accumulation of snow over the winter that doesn’t get a chance to melt in summer. You do not get a lot of snow when it is very cold but you do get it when cold polar air clashes with the warm humid air from the equator thanks to meridional jets.
We saw that happen in Buffalo New York around November 20th last year with a storm that dumped more than 7 feet (2.13 m) of snow on the area in only three days. Buffalo normally gets around 8 feet of snow during an entire winter season.
We also saw it happening in Scotland where the snow from the 2013-2014 winter didn’t all melt. Instead around 300 “snow patches” remained forming a compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve, the first stage in the formation of glaciers.
Buffalo NY was not the only place to get a major dumping of snow this winter. On December 20th Vegar Sårheim of Norway said “During the last two days we’ve got more snow than we had in the last two years together,” They recieved so much snow the ski resort had to remove snow from under the chairlifts.
Although you will not see any reports except in the local news these types of major storms have hit several different places so far this winter.
It should be noted that Buffalo NY, Scotland and Norway are in the areas glaciated during the Wisconsin Ice Age While Alaska and much of Siberia were not. The shape of the glaciers follows the weather patterns we are now seeing.
100
I can’t see how the sun could affect the climate. It’s thermonuclear, so It doesn’t produce any carbon dioxide.
162
Obviously, you’ve never heard of back-radiation.
Heat radiated from the Earth strikes the sun and changes its thermodynamics and the flow of gases into the fusion reactions.
Damnit Jo. Still no /sarc button! 😉
140
Just add CO2 to this mix and we are in danger of runaway global warming!… no, wait…..
61
John Relf of BOM’s Perth office released a typical “Warmist MSM article” in today’s West Australian – “2014 was the 4th hottest year on record and … and …”. His article very clearly exposes BOM’s obsession with AGW – the tone of his article implied that we here in Perth are living in a furnace, no mention that November & December experienced maximum temps below the LTA for Perth Metro (Mt Lawley). No mention of “the Global Temperature Flat-lining” of the past 18.3 years. He also stressed that no rain was recorded in December – well what do you expect John? – it rarely rains in December in Perth unless there is a thunderstorm passing over the Perth Metro BOM site.
John’s comments today remind me of that classic mid 1950’s comedy “The Honeymooners” where Art Carney (playing Ed) incessantly shouts out of his window to his immediate neighbour and best mate Ralph (played by Jackie Gleason) “Hey Relf, ie mean Hey Ralph!!!”. Clearly both gents didn’t have telephones.
92
Just some more info on that brilliant mid 1950’s comedy TV show “The Honeymooners”. The TV Series (filmed in 1955 & 1956) was set in a Brooklyn apartment complex or more likely in a “film studio set” in Hollywood. The only vision was either in Ralph Kramden’s or Alf Norton’s apartments, the former being a bus driver and the latter a sewer worker in NY. Ralph was also adept at vociferous behaviour often shouting out “Nortonnnnn!!!!” from his window at such high decibels that no doubt you could him clearly from the Brooklyn Bridge. With “Nortonnnnn!!!!” in mind that word ironically perfectly portrays the amount of Global Warming experienced on planet Earth in the past 18.3 years. If a future COP meeting was held in Brooklyn, would the “IPCC & Warmist” delegates hear “Nortonnnnn!!!!” from a neighbouring apartment complex, assuming of course that Ralph has time travelled forwards by ~ 50 years – you could argue that to be as plausible as the “Theory of AGW”.
43
Still wearing winter clothes in Perth. Thank god BOM tells me that we live in the 4th hottest year on record otherwise would not believe that temp now is below 25 deg with no sign of sunshine today. Ah yeh, local influences, now I understand.
Lived in Perth for the 30 years and it never was that cold in Perth during this time of the year. My rheumatic bones tell me that with the platinum thermometer accuracy.
73
Clouds certainly have a huge influence on local climate on a daily basis.However they affect night time temps also but in the opposite direction.A cloudy or cloudless night can be 5-10c cooler or warmer as a result and i dont think co2 up or down could do anything like that.Obviously cloud formation is an important part of weather forecasting,being affected by air temp,winds etc influenced by air,sea and land mass temps with the resultant movement by various currents.You would think worldwide meteorology organisations might put more resources into this area.
83
I saw in a recent science magazine that an active sun causes more magnetic activity around the earth so reducing the number of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere. This is said to reduce any likelihood of causing rain as some suggest. OTOH, an inactive sun enables more cosmic rays to enter so causing more rain.
62
Interesting comments but where is this effect evident in the Southern Hemisphere? A polar vortex in Nth America last year but I don’t recall big cold outbreaks for Australia of any note.
30
You forgot the record high Antarctic sea ice. The SH weather patterns are completely different than those in the NH
Also South America got hit with some major cold weather during the last couple of winters but you will never see it in the MSM
Intense snowfall isolates 10,000 people in Araucanía, Chile. The Snow is more than five feet (1½ m) deep in some areas.
http://www.biobiochile.cl/2014/06/10/cerca-de-10-mil-personas-han-sido-afectadas-por-intensas-nevazones-en-la-araucania.shtml
Argentina, cars and trucks stranded due to heavy snow
http://m24digital.com/en/2013/07/21/cars-and-trucks-stranded-in-route-3-due-to-heavy-snow/
Harsh cold weather expected in Peru
http://www.peruthisweek.com/news-temperatures-as-low-as-20-centigrade-could-be-seen-in-arequipa-this-winter-102905
More than 25 000 animals killed in southern Peru
http://www.boliviatv.bo/noticias/internacional/01-09-2013/mueren_mas_de_25_mil_animales_po r_nevada_en_la_sierra_sur_de_peru_8f5c90e45ceeba56845861a65217c9bc.htm
250,000 alpacas had been killed in Peru. (Alpacas have heavy winter coats and are not exactly small.)
http://www.peruviantimes.com/28/peru-declares-state-of-emergency-in-puno-as-temperatures-drop/20080/
Snowstorms kill 70,000 animals in Bolivia
http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/bolivia-cuatro-muertos-y-3-500-familias-afectadas-589630.html#cxrecs_s
Brazil, Snow in over 80 cities, Roads and schools closed
http://g1.globo.com/natureza/noticia/2013/07/neve-atinge-mais-de-80-cidades-do-sul-do-pais-fecha-rodovias-e-escolas.html
That is just a sampling.
40
Please take a look at the snow season in Australia last year….
You can easily not notice a couple of degrees difference in temps.
Please also remember that the dangerous global warming we had between 1978 and 1998 was a whopping 0.3 degrees…..
20
No amount of twisting the data can hide the truth – the AGW alarmist chatter is based on the biggest financial scam in the history of mankind, both public and private. Even if it were true, it’s still a scam since no one is willing to do what is really necessary to make any real impact. The carbon tax and all other similar schemes, such as that of the current Abbot government are just token gestures to appease the masses and make them feel good but couldn’t even figure out that a huge ball of fire in the sky is what really drives the climate. With all the other recent exhibition of the lack of intelligence and common sense from the government (eg, letting back into the country self proclaimed terrorists and letting them run free) is proof enough to show this country is full of fools who couldn’t care less about how our affairs are managed. The end result will be obvious.
112
PeterS writes this: (my bolding)
Ant there’s the truth of the whole matter, and I know I always rabbit on about it, but just compare it to the smoking problem.
I started smoking when I joined the Air Force at the age of (almost) 16, and with a course of 72 young men all the same age, at the end of the first 8 or so weeks, more than half of those 72 smoked, in fact well more than half of them, when probably only two or three smoked when we first stood there on that first day. Everyone started to smoke, some stopped, but most continued.
Cigarettes were 34 cents for a packet of 20.
Half way through that first year, 1967, the rumblings started in the wider community that smoking caused, well, virtually everything really, so Governments needed to do something about it.
Excuses for the patently obvious really, a way for governments to raise revenue saying that a price signal was what was needed to make people give up. So, the price was raised to 37 cents a packet, and half the (now) smokers on our course said that there was no way they would pay that much for a pack of 20, and swore to give up. Perhaps one or two of them stuck at it, and within a week or so, everyone was still smoking.
The price has just kept rising and rising and now it’s almost $30 for a pack of 20 smokes, nearly all of it going on taxes of one form or another.
So much for the price signal working.
All that happened was Governments found a way to make money out of it.
A serious government would have stopped the health impacts cold by banning smoking outright, but no, there was money to be made here, and vested interests to appease.
Now, roll forward to the current day.
CO2 emissions are supposedly going to lead to the death of the WORLD, and everything in and on it.
Does a responsible government immediately ban those CO2 emissions and close down the power plants, and impose draconian measures on any Country which builds new ones.
Well no, because, you see, there’s money to be made from this, money from many sources as well.
They tell us that a price signal is what is needed here.
Hey, look how well that worked with cigarettes.
Tony.
272
Same with speed cameras Tony. Grabbermints and police chiefs all spout that they work and slow people down, which isn’t true because every year more money is made from them, without any evidence they’ve saved a single life. They also cost every scamera installation to ensure it’s financially viable.
Then they tell us more lies, by saying that if we don’t speed, we won’t be fined. The vast majority of those scameras are erroneous and, the fact that you receive the fine in the mail some 7 to 14 days later, makes it difficult to remember the incident at all.
In that case, send the fine back saying the driver’s deceased because their slogan “speed kills” is infallible.
Ultimately, the Imperial Acts Application Act S8(12): “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void” ensures that the fine is unlawful ab initio.
If speeding were such a danger, they would have made it physically impossible by now. But we all know why that hasn’t been implemented.
Same as the Gorebull Warbling scam. It’s easy to point a guilty finger at us and demand restitution without evidence.
/rant.
93
You were actually speeding, were you not?
52
Most occasions, no. Impossible since the idiot in front was some 10k’s below the limit already, eyes glued to his speedo rather than the road and banging on his brakes for every parked car and the one opposite him duplicating every move. Other occasions – definitely, well over 240k’s, with no loss of life or danger to another, ever.
If what I do poses no harm to another’s life, liberty, property or rights, then I have the right to continue to do so with impunity.
[We will leave it there, since it is moving away from the topic -Fly]
00
In the year 2014 alone, there were 83 papers published in peer-reviewed science journals linking the Sun and subsequent hydrological/oceanic cycling to climate change. Below are just a small fraction of them. If anyone would like to see more listed, let me know.
———
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html
Rapid Arctic warming and sea-ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean are widely attributed to anthropogenic climate change. The Arctic warming exceeds the global average warming because of feedbacks that include sea-ice reduction and other dynamical and radiative feedbacks. We find that the most prominent annual mean surface and tropospheric warming in the Arctic since 1979 has occurred in northeastern Canada and Greenland. In this region, much of the year-to-year temperature variability is associated with the leading mode of large-scale circulation variability in the North Atlantic, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation. Here we show that the recent warming in this region is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous [natural] Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. Atmospheric model experiments forced by prescribed tropical sea surface temperatures simulate the observed circulation changes and associated tropospheric and surface warming over northeastern Canada and Greenland. Experiments from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (ref. 16) models with prescribed anthropogenic forcing show no similar circulation changes related to the North Atlantic Oscillation or associated tropospheric warming. This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.
———
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714007340
A comparison of the secular variation in the Northern Hemisphere temperature proxies with the corresponding variations in sunspot numbers and the fluxes of cosmogenic 10Be in Greenland ice shows that a probable cause of this variability is the modulation of temperature by the century-scale solar cycle of Gleissberg. This is consistent with the results obtained previously for Northern Fennoscandia (67-70 N, 19-33 E). Thus, evidence for a connection between century-long variations in solar activity and climate was obtained for the entire boreal zone of the Northern Hemisphere.
——–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021343/abstract
Using 13 solar cycles (1869-2009) we study winter surface temperatures and North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) during four different phases of the sunspot cycle: minimum, ascending, maximum and declining phase. We find significant differences in the temperature patterns between the four cycle phases, which indicates a solar cycle modulation of winter surface temperatures.
——–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059509/abstract
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.
——–
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2014.980575#.VIvX9zEjKSo
[W]e can conclude that there has been an emergence of causality running from sunspot numbers to global temperatures only recently at cycle length of 10.3 months and above.
——–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714005286
We demonstrate that the detrended annual means of global surface air temperature in 1965–2012 show the maxima during CRs [Cosmic Rays] and Dst index [of the solar wind] minima. It proves that CRs [Cosmic Rays] play essential role in climate change and main part of climate variations can be explained by Pudovkin and Raspopov’s (1992) mechanism of action CRs [Cosmic Rays] modulated by the solar activity on the state of lower atmosphere and meteorological parameters.
—–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614002697
[D]ecreasing/increasing GCR [galactic cosmic ray] flux can influence the rainfall and the temperature. We speculate that the proposed hypothesis, based on the Indian climate data can be extended to whole tropical and sub-tropical belt, and that it may contribute to global temperature in a significant way. If correct, our hypothesis has important implication for the sun – climate link.
—–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001357
Increased Earth surface heating during solar maxima regulates integrated water vapor, cloud liquid water content, and rainfall.
Highlights
•Solar control on [Indian Summer Monsoon] ISM rainfall, [cloud liquid water content] LWC and [integrated water vapor] IWV is observed over India during 1977–2012.
•Sun influences the formation clouds and rainfall activity through GCR [Galactic Cosmic Ray] mediation.
•Increased Earth surface heating during solar maxima regulates IWV, LWC and rainfall.
•SSN [Sunspot Number] shows both positive and negative correlation with LWC and ISM rainfall.
•Wavelet analyses also indicate a solar control on ISM rainfall, LWC & IWV over India.
——
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12251/2014/acp-14-12251-2014.html
Concerning the global solar radiation, many publications agree on the existence of a solar dimming period between 1970 and 1985 and a subsequent solar brightening period (Norris and Wild, 2007; Solomon et al., 2007; Makowski et al., 2009; Stjern et al., 2009; Wild et al., 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo and Wild, 2012). Different studies have calculated the trend in Sg after 1985. The trend in Sg [global solar radiation] from GEBA (Global Energy Balance Archive; between 1987 and 2002 is equal to +1.4 ( 3.4)Wm-2 per decade according to Norris and Wild (2007). Stjern et al. (2009) found a total change in the mean surface solar radiation trend over 11 stations in northern Europe of +4.4% between 1983 and 2003. In the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007), 421 sites were analyzed; between 1992 and 2002, the change of all-sky surface solar radiation was equal to 0.66 Wm-2 per year. Wild et al. (2009) investigated the global solar radiation from 133 stations from GEBA/World Radiation Data Centre belonging to different regions in Europe. All series showed an increase over the entire period, with a pronounced upward tendency since 2000. For the Benelux region, the linear change between 1985 and 2005 is equal to +0.42Wm-2 per year, compared to the pan-European average trend of +0.33Wm-2 per year (or +0.24Wm-2 if the anomaly of the 2003 heat wave is excluded) (Wild et al. 2009). Our trend at Uccle of +0.5 ( 0.2)Wm-2 per year [5 W/m-2 per decade] (or +4% per decade) agrees within the error bars with the results from Wild et al. (2009).
—–
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00069.1?af=R
We conclude that the extreme warmth over the central and eastern United States in March 2012 resulted primarily from natural climate and weather variability…
——–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021065/abstract
It is found that both the QBO [Quasi-biennial oscillation] and solar forcings in low latitudes can perturb the late winter polar vortex, likely via planetary wave divergence, causing an early breakdown of the vortex in the form of sudden stratospheric warming.
——–
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n4/full/ngeo2094.html
Solar forcing of North Atlantic surface temperature and salinity over the past millennium
There were several centennial-scale fluctuations in the climate and oceanography of the North Atlantic region over the past 1,000 years, including a period of relative cooling from about AD 1450 to 1850 known as the Little Ice Age. These variations may be linked to changes in solar irradiance, amplified through feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Changes in the return limb of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation are reflected in water properties at the base of the mixed layer south of Iceland. Here we reconstruct thermocline temperature and salinity in this region from AD 818 to 1780 using paired δ18O and Mg/Ca ratio measurements of foraminifer shells from a subdecadally resolved marine sediment core. The reconstructed centennial-scale variations in hydrography correlate with variability in total solar irradiance. We find a similar correlation in a simulation of climate over the past 1,000 years. We infer that the hydrographic changes probably reflect variability in the strength of the subpolar gyre associated with changes in atmospheric circulation. Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds. We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
191
Thank you Kenneth, this is very useful. Would love to see your full list!
20
Probably would not be allowed to do the full list on natural climate forcing—83 from 2014 is a lot. There are also several dozen more papers on such subjects as glacier advances, a warmer MWP, a cooling Antarctica, a decelerating sea level rise, low climate sensitivity (CO2), etc., from 2014. In all, over 150 “skeptical” peer-reviewed papers. But here are a few more from the natural-climate-forcing list.
—–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020062/abstract
The surface response to 11 year solar cycle variations is investigated by analyzing the long-term mean sea level pressure and sea surface temperature observations for the period 1870–2010. The analysis reveals a statistically significant 11 year solar signal over Europe, and the North Atlantic provided that the data are lagged by a few years. The delayed signal resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) following a solar maximum. The corresponding sea surface temperature response is consistent with this. A similar analysis is performed on long-term climate simulations from a coupled ocean-atmosphere version of the Hadley Centre model that has an extended upper lid so that influences of solar variability via the stratosphere are well resolved.
——
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114005226
Appropriate solar proxy models demonstrate the existence of a significant sun-climate relation.
[T]he solar signature in the surface temperature record can be recognized only using specific techniques of analysis that take into account non-linearity and filtering of the multiple climate change contributions; the post 1880-year temperature warming trend cannot be compared or studied against the sunspot record and its 11-year cycle, but requires solar proxy models showing short and long scale oscillations plus the contribution of anthropogenic forcings, as done in the literature. Multiple evidences suggest that global temperatures and sunspot numbers are quite related to each other at multiple time scales. Thus, they are characterized by cyclical fractional models. However, solar and climatic indexes are related to each other through complex and non-linear processes.
——–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y
The present study points at a potentially large impact of the increased SW [short wave solar radiation] forcing during EHIM [Early Holocene, 9,000 to 6,000 years ago] through the surface albedo feedback, leading to a breakdown of the perennial sea ice cover into a state dominated by ice free summers [Arctic]. Above we have discussed some mechanisms and feedback processes that are not included in the present model study. Although some of the in this model omitted mechanisms are believed to be important (e.g. the surface albedo feedback associated with vegetation) the current understanding of the climate system as a whole is far from complete. Evidence of problems with the coupled GCMs [models] can be found in the PMIP [models of paleoclimate] literature. For instance Jiang et al. (2012) show that 35 out of 36 PMIP models produce colder than present day climate in China during mid-Holocene which is in stark contrast to available multiproxy data for the same time and region indicating 1–5 °C warmer than present day conditions. Suffice to say that further research on the coupled global climate system is needed before any conclusive results regarding the evolution of the Arctic sea ice cover during Holocene can be reached through climate modelling.
Several studies suggest that the GHG concentrations were lower during the [Early Holocene Insolation Maximum, ∼ 9,000 years ago] (Indermuhle, 1999, Brook et al., 2000 and Sowers et al., 2003). However, when running the model with GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations estimated from paleo-proxy data (LeGrande and Schmidt, 2009) for 9000 years BP [before present] yields only a moderate effect on the ice cover thickness of typically ∼0.1 m. This is consistent with the results of CAPE Project members (2001) showing also only marginal effects of the GHG [greenhouse gas] concentration variations on the Arctic climate.
——–
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-013-1775-9
Our analysis provides a first order validation of the ACRIM TSI composite approach and its 0.037 %/decade upward trend during solar cycles 21–22 [1980-1996]. The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing of climate change may be a significantly larger factor than represented in the CMIP5 general circulation climate models.
——–
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2014/02/aa23391-14.pdf
[T]he modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950–2009) was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia. Except for these extreme cases, our reconstruction otherwise reveals that solar activity is well confined within a relatively narrow range.
——–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004307
Late Holocene ecohydrological and carbon dynamics of a UK raised bog: impact of human activity and climate change
[S]olar forcing was a significant driver of climate change over the last ∼1000 years. Following the intensification of agriculture and industry over the last two centuries, the combined climatic and anthropogenic forcing effects become increasingly difficult to separate
——–
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0107222
Since the start of the 21st century, the surface global mean temperature has not risen at the same rate as the top-of-atmosphere radiative energy input or greenhouse gas emissions, provoking scientific and social interest in determining the causes of this apparent discrepancy. Multidecadal natural variability is the most commonly proposed cause for the present hiatus period. Here, we analyze the HadCRUT4 surface temperature database with spectral techniques to separate a multidecadal oscillation (MDV) from a secular trend (ST). Both signals combined account for nearly 88% of the total variability of the temperature series showing the main acceleration/deceleration periods already described elsewhere. Three stalling periods with very little warming could be found within the series, from 1878 to 1907, from 1945 to 1969 and from 2001 to the end of the series, all of them coincided with a cooling phase of the MDV. Henceforth, MDV seems to be the main cause of the different hiatus periods shown by the global surface temperature records.
——–
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-013-0935-8
We have recently suggested that the warming in the sea surface temperature (SST) since 1900, did not occur smoothly and slowly, but with two rapid shifts in 1925/1926 and 1987/1988, which are more obvious over the tropics and the northern midlatitudes. Apart from these shifts, most of the remaining SST variability can be explained by the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Here, we provide evidence that the timing of these two SST shifts (around 60 years) corresponds well to the quasi-periodicity of many natural cycles, like that of the PDO, the global and Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature, the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, the Southwest US Drought data, the length of day, the air surface temperature, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the change in the location of the centre of mass of the solar system. In addition, we show that there exists a strong seasonal link between SST and ENSO over the tropics and the NH midlatitudes, which becomes stronger in autumn of the Northern Hemisphere. Finally, we found that before and after each SST shift, the intrinsic properties of the SST time series obey stochastic dynamics, which is unaffected by the modulation of these two shifts.
——–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714003810
We use Indian temperature data of more than 100 years [1901–2007] to study the influence of solar activity on climate. We study the Sun–climate relationship by averaging solar and climate data at various time scales; decadal, solar activity and solar magnetic cycles. We also consider the minimum and maximum values of sunspot number (SSN) during each solar cycle. This parameter SSN is correlated better with Indian temperature when these data are averaged over solar magnetic polarity epochs (SSN maximum to maximum). Our results indicate that the solar variability may still be contributing to ongoing climate change and suggest for more investigations.
—–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018214001540
Relatively warm conditions with a strong influence of the Irminger Current (IC) were indicated for the early part of the record (~ 5000–3860 cal. yr BP), corresponding in time to the latest part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Between 3860 and 1510 cal. yr BP, April SIC oscillated around the mean value (55%) and during the time interval 1510–1120 cal. yr BP and after 650 cal. yr BP was above the mean, indicating more extensive sea-ice cover in Disko Bugt. Agreement between reconstructed April SIC and changes in the diatom species suggests that the sea-ice condition in Disko Bugt was strongly influenced by variations in the relative strength of two components of the West Greenland Current, i.e. the cold East Greenland Current and the relatively warm IC. Further analysis of the reconstructed SIC [sea ice change] record suggests that solar radiation may be an important forcing mechanism behind the historic sea-ice changes.
30
“This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”
It’s a negative feedback to reduced solar plasma forcing.
10
In all models, the Northern Hemisphere is shown as identical to the Southern. Rubbish. One half is very different. At the Latitude of Hobart, Australia, you are still in Spain, closer to the equator than all of whole countries in Europe and almost all of Canada. In Melbourne, it is Libya, Athens and Ankara. However from Hobart there is nothing but water all the way to Antarctica at 60 or all the way around, except the South Island of NZ and the tips of Chile and Argentina. The population at these latitudes is close to zero where in the Northern Hemisphere, you are talking perhaps a billion people with lovely summers.
As part of the 2% who live south of the Tropic of Capricorn, why is there a huge Ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and not in the North? Why is it so much colder? Why is Antartica still -25C in summer with ice up to 4km thick where nearly all the Arctic ice melts at up to +25C? How can cities even exist below the Arctic circle near 60 North with often hot summers in Oslo, Stockholm, Talin, Helsinki, St. Petersburg with 4.5Million to Moscow with 11 million? In the South, you are on land too, in Antarctica.
Why does Hobart have the climate of Scotland instead of the climate of Madrid? How can the ozone hole be due to created chloroflourocarbons when no one lives there and why is there no such hole where 60% of all people live, north of the Tropic of Cancer? How can meteorologists talk so confidently about climate models and hothouses and CO2 when they cannot predict the simplest gross effects like the Ozone hole, El Nino and La Nina? Of course the sun drives everything, but why the huge North/South differences from a source 93 million miles away? When will climate models predict anything more than tomorrow’s weather and that with a total disclaimer? Where is the Global Warming? So it’s hiding? The dog ate my model? It’s complicated but an ETS will fix it, a Carbon Tax by any other name?
272
Antarctica is the Southern Hemisphere climate controller and weather factory. The ice sheet covering Antarctica is 2800 metres thick at the South Pole. Temperatures are low and the mean annual temperature is -50 C, not -25 C. (See here) The extreme cold is because the albedo of the ice sheet is so high and reflects anything and everything which could possibly warm the place back where it came from. The exception is the Western Antarctic Peninsular which due to the confluence of three tectonic plates: the Scotia, Antarctic and South America Plates just to its north, has an active volcanic region under the Thwaites Glacier, which warms its bottom. (Jo published some good maps of this last year.) The Antarctic ice is stacked on top of the Antarctic continent. There’s no access for warm water to melt it, so you can ignore the wails of the Klimate Scientists crying about a melting Antarctica. It ain’t gonna happen while the current Pleistocene Ice Age lasts and it’s got about 30MY left in it.
The Arctic ice is frozen out of the Arctic sea/ocean. The warm Gulf Stream current flows out of the Carribean Sea, up the Eastern Coast of CONUS, across the Atlantic ocean, round the west coast of Ireland, across the north coast of Scotland, and up past Norway, shedding its heat to the air all the way. (It goes other places too, but you can find that out.) That heat transport keeps those northern European countries liveable. Even Scotland would be much less habitable than it is now if the Gulf Stream should ever stop. As the current loses its heat, it turns and heads back towards Greenland, past Iceland, also rendering it liveable, then sinks to the depths, joining the Thermohaline Transport Current. That warm water going into the Arctic melts the ice. The Atlantic sea floor spreading ridge also passes up through Iceland and into the Arctic. It helps keep things warm, especially when it’s active. So Arctic ice doesn’t stand a chance when the thermostats go up a notch.
There is a well-known arctic/antarctic see-saw. When the NH and arctic warm, the Antarctic cools and vice versa. It’s not limited to just decreasing and increasing sea-ice extents. It shows in the GISS (Greenland) and Vostock (Antarctica) ice cores, too. At present the Arctic is warmer as it was at the height of the Medieval Warming and the Antarctic freezes. It was the other way around during the Little Ice Age.
The cold air flows downhill to the sea, creating a regular series of cold fronts which form deep depressions and move around the Antarctic coast, as they move out to sea. You can see them on the weather maps and satellite images. The resulting vicious storms (check the pressure differences on the weather maps! The really close isobars indicate strong winds) and bad weather beat up the Southern Ocean and give rise to the strong winds so beloved by sailing craft from the Roaring Forties (-40 to -50 degrees latitude) south. It all combines to create the vicious weather of the Southern Ocean. The Roaring Forties were used to advantage by sailing ships in the 19th century to speed the outward journey from England. Daring Captains would dip down to the southern edge (-50 degrees) to tap the higher winds to further shorten their journeys … and lose their ships and passengers against the little known small rocky islands such as The Snares, Campbell Island, and the Auckland Islands (lat -50.7 degrees). The American ship General Grant is one of the more famous casualties. These fronts bring the cold air north to NZ, Tasmania and the Southern coast of Oz. For Oz, the cold air tempers the hot air from the central deserts, creating the southern temperate zone. NZ lies more or less North-South and is long and narrow. The prevailing wind is from the south west, which keeps NZ cool. Similar effects apply to South Africa and South America, with differences according to land elevation and continental extremes.
That cooling keeps the land areas in the SH cool. A reanalysis of NZ’s temperature series ( De Freitas et al 2014 ) showed a trend of 0.28 °C per century.” Hobart(Tas, OZ) and Invercargill (South Island NZ) are within a few degrees of latitude of each other. From Bluff, a few kilometers further south of Invercargill, there is nothing but sea to Antarctica. As the Scots settled this area in the 19th Century, I guess climate-wise it was similar to “home.”
Ozone holes form when temperatures drop below a threshold. The extreme cold in 2011 saw a hole form over the arctic. They are an annual feature of the Antarctic winter where temperatures are much more extreme than the Arctic’s. I think we can expect to see more in the Arctic in the near future.
This see-saw seems to be ignored by the Klimate Scientists. But, because of the open sea between Antarctica and New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and South America, the overall SH temperature changes are smaller than in the NH, and are of an order of around 0.4 deg C since 1850.
Hope all this helps.
90
Thanks, but -25C was the summer maximum, not the mean annual temperature. My point was the incredible contrast with the Northern Hemisphere Arctic summer above 60C which can be +25C and attracts huge migration of all species. There is absolutely no chance of an Antarctic melt down if the mean temperature does rise as few degrees, one of the common disaster scenarios presented. I have been across Siberia at 60 North in summer and there is no snow, no ice except on the mountains. At the same latitude, I would be mixing with penguins on land covered with snow and ice. Another point is that if all the ice melts across Siberia, Canada and up to the North Pole, with the exception of Greenland, why doesn’t the sea rise?
Generally things like currents in the air and water are observational, rather than explanations or model predictions. The balance between the Arctic and Antarctic weather and particularly sea ice are well known. This is another major meteorological connection, as Prof Turkey proved correct. What is missing is an explanation. My real point is that if climate modelers cannot explain the major mechanisms and predict the major climate events of the past and the present, they have no hope of predicting the future.
The other unexplained meteorological event was the formation in 1988 by the World Meteorological Society of a United Nations department to look specifically at mans’ effect on climate, the IPCC. They had to have this focus just to be a UN department like the WHO. Almost immediately the IPPC found manking was seriously damaging the weather and were all going to have to run for the hills unless we sent money. What a coincidence. Close the IPCC. Climate has no place in the UN. The world Meteorology Organization can pay their own airfares.
61
At present we in Australia are paying $600 a kg for refrigerant because of the two theories. Firstly refrigerants are responsible for the Ozone hole, not the cold in the Southern Hemisphere as is so obvious. Secondly the green house gas effect where all gases are scaled from the IPCC announced 80 year lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, a transparently wrong figure. So the massive taxes.
Of course 98% of this is tax plus the GST, so governments love it, but is there any truth to either proposition? Incredibly it is cheaper in Australia to buy a new $1000 airconditioner than to replace the lost gas in the old one, not counting labour. That is extraordinarily wasteful. The costs of faux IPCC science do not stop with a Carbon Tax but extend to all the little taxes introduced at the same time, with the same explanation.
72
For interest,
Invercargill, New Zealand. Latitude 46 South
Invercargill, Scotland. Latitude 56 South.
and Invercargill Scotland is still 4 degrees short of Stockholm/St.Petersburg!
00
Sorry North.
10
There is no longer a need to be puzzled about CO2 causing global warming – it doesn’t. My study, in progress, of CO2 data from the Web site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases and satellite lower tropospheric temperature shows a distinct correlation between the temperature and the rate of change of the CO2 concentration. A possible explanation is that increased temperature causes an increase in the population of micro-organisms which produce CO2 – the mould grows faster in my shower recess in summer than in winter.
This is supported by the result that the correlation is not evident in data from the Antarctic. It is too cold there for any significant microbial activity.
It also explains why ice core data shows CO2 peaking after temperature peaks. The temperature has to fall until it is too cold for microbial activity to generate additional CO2.
For those interested, download data files from http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi
and compare Satellite temperatures with the rate of change of CO2 concentration. There are currently 367 locations listed so there is plenty of data to go round.
Help show the IPCC that in spite of their b/s, mushrooms do rule the world.
112
Another simpler explanation of the CO2 overshoot is the huge ocean mass where the top 10 metres equals the entire atmosphere in weight. Temperature usually means air temperature and this can drop much faster along with land surface temperature, but sea temperatures have to drop to start reductions in CO2 by reabsorption and that takes a lot longer than reducing land temperatures. You see this every night at the beach with onshore winds. As the biggest sink for gaseous CO2 by far is physical, not organic, this is the key change, sea temperature. It is also the slowest.
122
Right.
The oceans are about 104 times the mass of the atmosphere. Two orders of magnitude!
They hold over 98% of the world’s free CO2 in solution.
80
Sophocles, close. I have read that the average depth of the oceans is 3.4km. Some trenches are as deep as 11km and a lot are 6km, but some are shallow. Anyway, at 10 metres per atmosphere, this is 340x the weight of the atmosphere. As heat capacity is directly related to mass, that is a lot to heat and unlike the earth’s surface, it is mobile.
Also in all this heating, the planet itself is not cold at all. In the US the plumbing is 4 metres down where it never freezes. The surface can be frozen, but the earth has a huge molten core and the atmosphere, even the oceans are the thickness of a rubber balloon on a bowling ball, almost irrelevant. The temperature rises 25C per 1km of depth, reaching 7,000C in the centre! The miners trapped in Tasmania were enduring 56C, sauna conditions.
Unlike the earth though, the oceans have currents and heat can rise by convection. Dissolved CO2 can rise without convection. This needs to be understood and modeled, but how can you simulate a water column 6 km deep open at the top? It would be fun to bring up water from 6km just to see the CO2 gas explode from compression to 600 atmospheres of pressure, 4 tons per square inch! Handgrenade stuff.
Our poorly understood oceans, the source of all life on earth which cover 66% of the surface are the key to understanding the thin layer of air above and the phenomenon we call weather and more generally, climate. Our former Chief Climate Commissioner, paleoentologist Tim Flannery has started mumbling about the oceans being 400x heavier and stealing his missing heat.
42
The deepest trench is the Mariana Trench to the east of the Philippines, at so close to 11km deep, it doesn’t matter.
The oceans cover roughly 71% of the planet’s surface. You’re so right about them being poorly understood. We know more about the other planets than we do about our own back yard—the sea floor. We are all familiar with aerial volanoes. Those are the ones whose craters are above the sea surface. We have no idea how many submarine volcanoes there are. If we count all the aerial ones and apply the land/ocean ratio, (29/71) we can arrive at an approximate answer of around a million. Many of the active ones are physically huge, some rising five or six kilometers above the sea floor yet still 2km or more below the surface. Because of their depth (too much water pressure), we often have no visible signs of the eruptions other than the recorded tremors on the global seismometers. They pump out something like 75% , according to some estimates, of the annual magma output. The heat from a submarine volcano creates a hot water plume which rises, hot water being less dense than cold water. That will mix with the surface currents and be carried away. Some researchers consider El Ninos may be fuelled by hot water from submarine volcanic activity. Maybe.
There were 48 active volcanoes across Indonesia in 2014. That means there could have been over 110 submarine ones in the area. The heat from that is just a little mind boggling. The north pacific gyre (surface currents) flow north from there, past Japan, Kamchatka (which had something like 9 going) past the Aleutians, down the west coast of Canada and Califiorna, over the active Axial sea mount (200 miles west of Vancouver on the Juan Fuca plate) down to the west coast of Mexico. There is a significant amount of activity down there with a sea floor spreading ridge on the north edge of the Nazca Plate. More hot water. I won’t mention the Galapagos hot spor for even more hot water. Maybe El Ninos happen as often as they do because they might not need the Sun. But we don’t know.
Given the huge amount of naval activity in the western pacific through out the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Viet Nam War, one could be forgiven for thinking the western pacific had been well surveyed. Our ignorance about what is down there, where, how it’s behaving and why is abysmal. An american Submarine, the USS San Francisco discovered its own uncharted undersea mountain in 2005. It was traveling (‘sailing’ just doesn’t seem right for a submarine) from Guam to Brisbane and was about 350 kms out from Gum when it made its discovery. They almost lost it.
We need to do a lot more research about the subsurface ocean. A lot. If half the money wasted on CO2 models had been spent on this reaearch, we might have had some real answers.
I would be interested to find out where the former Klimate Komissar got that figure of 400x from. All my reading has it at 104x.
20
Have you noticed the close correlation between CO2 levels and sea surface temperatures?
20
No, Backslider. Because of the changes that so-called “scientists” make to temperature records these days, I tend to rely on satellite lower tropospheric temperatures from the Dr Roy Spencer Web site. Also the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases listings often have time gaps in the data string and, while listing gaseous concentrations, only occasionally list accompanying temperatures. But then why would they as they already know that the temperature will follow the CO2 concentration so actual temperature data would be redundant ????
31
Try this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
It has this graph:
10
Graph: https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/humlum-et-al-temp-vs-co2jpg.jpg
10
Thank you Backslider for the reference. While it reports a lag of 9 to 12 months for changes in CO2 concentration following changes in temperature, there is no lag for the clear correlation between satellite global lower tropospheric temperature and annual change in CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory for monthly average data listings, correlation coefficient 0.58, negligible probability of zero coefficient.
This is supported by the CSIRO data from the Macquarie Island station showing a correlation coefficient of 0.66 between satellite global lower tropospheric temperature and annual change in CO2 concentration, again for negligible probability of zero coefficient, for the period Feb.’91 to Dec.’13.
The essential point is that neither of these findings support the IPCC conjecture that changes in CO2 concentration cause changes in temperature.
00
Bevan
January 2, 2015 at 12:40 pm
“micro-organisms which produce CO2 – the mould grows faster in my shower recess in summer than in winter.
This is supported by the result that the correlation is not evident in data from the Antarctic. It is too cold there for any significant microbial activity.”
The Backslider
January 2, 2015 at 10:42 pm
“Have you noticed the close correlation between CO2 levels and sea surface temperatures?”
Have either of you noticed that photosynthesis and water temperature effects on CO2 in the Antarctic are near 180 degrees out of phase? Plankton is fertilised by melt water.Fungi would be in phase with Henry’s law but out of phase with photosynthesis. Plankton photosythesis is endothermic so also reduces the amplitude of Henry’s law by cooling warm water.
00
After a quick ponder of the above hypothesis I have questions that may have already been asked, so apologies in advance.
– Does this idea fit in with the Electric Universe theory even if partly, I know the EU theory is trashed by gravitational universe proponents but are they forgetting electricity produces heat?
– The idea of earths 4 major spheres working in a fluid manner makes sense, is the complete answer to earths atmosphere partly contained in most sciences?
– Is there a measurable gravitational effect on hot and cold air including the tilt of earths axis?
71
Good questions Yonniestone.
30
Yonniestone,
If you can link my hypothesis to the electric universe hypothesis then that is fine by me but I don’t see it as necessary for my hypothesis.
The only gravitational effect that I subscribe to is that arising from work done with or against gravity in adiabatic uplift and descent but that is another (very contentious) issue.
51
I don’t see it necessary either Stephen, just thinking out loud and goodness knows just how much trouble the ‘experts’ have with your rational hypothesis let alone the EU theory encroaching on their self anointed genius. 🙂
I’ll add a thank you to Yourself, Jo and David for an very interesting, well presented read.
20
“is the complete answer to earths atmosphere partly contained in most sciences?”
Sometimes good questions are contain a lot of wisdom.
The warmers left out a lot of input from their drama; maybe even deliberately although that would assume they had some scientific skills to start with.
They ignored a few areas of science:
Geology
Mathematics
Engineering
Astrophysics
Astronomy
Chemistry
Physics
Mass, heat and momentum transfer.
Oceanography, Chlorophyll based reactions, and especially the interaction of all of the above.
So easy to just dispense with the hard stuff and plot CO2 levels against “Global Temperature” whatever that might mean.
Just what is a Global Temperature when it’s at home?? Anybody??
Time periods over which models might be tested have never been provided but as everyone knows there are many thermodynamic inputs and outgoings which have identifiable cyclical featurs that demand ech model have time limits.
Some cycles are 100,000 years and others 24 hours.
The very important aspect of this post is that it clearly identifies many aspects of the control of Global Atmospheric Temperatures which do exist.
The other aspect of this post is that the content has been left out of models used by warmers along with every other important variable known .
KK
31
The problem with that is that the plot does not at all fit.
10
“The problem with that is that the plot does not at all fit.”
No.
But they sure tried hard to keep the truth from everybody and then tried even harder to get the data to “self adjust” to the show the required reality .
KK
10
Indeed the plot wasn’t lost as they never had it in the first place, very much a 2 dimensional answer to a 3 dimensional equation or an incomplete Quadratic equation.
10
Your argument is so old that it is a dinosaur. It has has been disproven very shortly after being positted. Start using NASA, NOAA and verious other resources which have kept up to date. This is sinfully unacceptable….preying on those that don’t know any better.
[Rick do you have an actual point to make? Perhaps indicate precisely what you think is wrong? – Mod]
328
“preying on those that don’t know any better.”
You have just described the base philosophy and the stock and trade of alarmism.
“Ranney and his team say that a “wisdom deficit” is driving the wedge. Specifically, it’s a lack of understanding of the mechanism of global warming that’s been retarding progress on the issue. “For many Americans, they’re caught between a radio talk show host—of the sort that Rush Limbaugh is—and maybe a professor who just gave them a lecture on global warming. And if you don’t understand the mechanism, then you just have competing authorities, kind of like the Pope and Galileo,” he says. “Mechanism turns out to be a tie-breaker when there’s a contentious issue.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/climate-change-acceptance/
Climate alarmism absolutely relies, more than almost any other factor, on public ignorance of all aspects of climate science, both evidence in favour of and against AGW theory. Without the massive lack of general public education on the wide array of possible climate affectations, AGW theory would have never got off the ground. Your point is not only ironic, its insulting.
This site (Jo’s site), like many sceptical sites is devoted to asking questions, testing evidence and discussing possibilities. Many of the most heated debates on this site have been between sceptics on matters of minute detail. They occur because the participants are willing to read a proposition, think about it and respond.
Conversely alarmists are neither willing to entertain the likelihood of alternative explanations nor discuss them when they are put forward. Your post is classic AGW religious doctrine. “Your opinion is wrong because I say so and I don’t need to present evidence to support my claim”. Its pure unscientific, unintelligent, alarmist, ignorant dogma. Instead of coming to this place with some new information, or even old information (as you claim this model is), you choose to just make a 10 second sound bite and leave. You missed your calling, the ABC is always looking for people to get in front of a camera and make unsubstantiated claims, Im sure you would get a gig.
So thanks for the reminder of why I choose to read widely (I regularly visit pro AGW sites such as sceptical science) rather than narrow my view to the point yours obviously is.
Finally there is more data from organisations like NASA and the NOAA presented on this site than on almost any alarmist site you would like to name. The difference is on this site, the information is scrutinised with an open mind, not treated like a Papal dictate to a faithful mass. But while we are on NASA, explain this….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDFH0Hs4Q8s
Im guessing you have some glib, 10 word Ad Hom. to dismiss this particular NASA employee…. Lets hear it. Oh and try to add some evidence of some sort this time, at least make it interesting.
152
Rick,
Alarmists have only one argument that has continually disproved itself for over 30 years yet still try to fit the evidence around the theory.
All the CO2 based models failed, proving only that CO2 can not be a factor.
172
Rick,
I do agree with one statement, alarmists obviously don’t know any better.
142
Great, then provide the data and evidence that supports your claim that it was proven incorrect.
The problem there is that quite often we find ourselves arguing against someone like you who is using data from those agencies that is not up to date.
Years ago the theory for ozone depletion was developed, it involved a photochemical process blaming CFC’s for causing the hole. More recent information such as this:
UW prof says cyclic ozone hole proves cosmic ray theory
and this:
New Scientific Evidence Proves Ozone Depletion Theory False
develops but NASA, NOAA, and others don’t always keep “up to date” with it. That last link is dealing with the Cristas-Spas project which did involved NASA, yet even with a project that they were involved in NASA doesn’t appear to be aware of what it means. Maybe because they were just the taxi service to get the satellite into orbit but they didn’t actually “keep up to date” on the data it gathered?
However, unlike climate “science” the other sciences do actually move forward and are capable of discarding hypotheses as observations dictate.
That being said I can make an equally valid argument that your comment and the claims it contains is an example of “preying on those that don’t know any better.” Though I really suspect that with regards to science and the validation of hypotheses it is you that doesn’t know any better.
141
Rick — troll number 7,321.5; not even a full troll on the toll scale.
Where do they come from?
101
Where do the new trolls come from? – Al Gore’s climate leadership program.
That is why they are so completely clueless.
Also they have to sign a contract
CLIMATE LEADER TRAINING AGREEMENT
To counter the bad taste that left in your mouth.
Ray Stevens — The Global Warming Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXcPruHGv9o
40
I’m overjoyed that no one can be allowed to make money from the activities of these “climate leaders”. But this guy certainly can’t be one of that select group since he made no presentation of anything…
Oh! I guess it means an ad hominem attack, even a bad one, is a presentation. I get it now.
40
Of course these “climate leaders” are not allowed to make money. Al Gore does not want any competition grabbing a part of the take.
Since the disciples have zero thinking ability as shown by their falling for the snake oil salesmen, the discussions on these boards will be way over their heads. Therefore all they have left is Ad. Homs.
As I said they use the seagull leadership technique
30
This could be said of those who posit that CO2, a minor trace gas, is responsible for pulling the planet out of The Little Ice Age and who now insist that we must drastically change our way of life at immense cost to supposedly alleviate “the problem”.
This all based on climate models which do not take into account the myriad of factors, booth know and unknown which affect climate. These models have been shown to be ridiculously wrong by empirical evidence over the past 30 years.
1/4 of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since The Industrial Revolution have occurred since 1998, yet the rate of warming has remained flat since that time, thus thoroughly falsifying AGW/CO2 theory.
Due to a lack of warming it has now been posited that “the missing heat” is hiding in the deep oceans, yet 3000 Argo buoys have not been able to measure it, thus also falsifying this nonsense theory.
20
Hi Rick
Always look up.
look at the post just above you at 21.3
KK
10
Excellent post and a good and interesting comment thread as per usual, I don’t get down here often enough. I have to say, imho it has always been about the solar influence and CO2 has such a negligible input as to be almost – um negligible.
For me, King Geo nails it:
A belated HNY to all down under, realism always to the fore and kill the green narrative!
112
Re Ozone Holes; various?
Some years ago I came across an article where a French researcher / chemist in the mid 2000’s had done a lot of laboratory research on the CFC/ Ozone molecule break down which is supposedly the claimed reason for the Antarctic Ozone hole.
The French researcher claimed and there may be a paper around on this but I can’t locate it, that the claimed chemical reactions between the CFC molecules and Ozone just can’t happen as not only are the extreme cold temperatures a factor but also the pressures under which the reaction supposedly occurs are too low for such CFC / Ozone reactions.
There has been a shift recently as the droplets in the very high, very cold, very diffuse Noctilucent clouds are now postulated by NASA and etc to be the reaction surface upon which this Ozone breakdown chemical reaction between Ozone and CFC ‘s are supposed to occur.
As the French researcher’s findings were quite counter to the heavily funded “Consensus” that CFC’s were solely to blame for the ozone breakdown his work was savagely denigrated and made to disappear.
Perhaps not at all realised that ALL of the claims of CFC/ Ozone breakdown interactions were from models until the now disappeared french laboratory based research, which tells us a great deal about the levels of science being used in Ozone Hole research.
Or as Proff. James Lovelock on being interviewed after Climategate said;
‘[ Ozone hole’ shenanigans were the warm-up act for ‘Global Warming’]
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
What is generally unrealised by the public is that not only is there an Antarctic Ozone Hole but now an Arctic Ozone hole has appeared over the Arctic during winter/ spring.
And that Folks is now some 22 years AFTER the Montreal Protocol supposedly stopped CFC production and the Ozone hole was going to “heal up”.
____________________
From would you believe, the BBC;[ 2011 ] Arctic ozone levels in never-before-seen plunge
[ selected quotes ;]
The ozone layer has seen unprecedented damage in the Arctic this winter due to cold weather in the upper atmosphere.
By the end of March, 40% of the ozone in the stratosphere had been destroyed, against a previous record of 30%.
&
“In the meantime, we have some winters that get much colder than before and also the cold periods last longer, into the spring,” he told BBC News.
“So it’s really a combination of the gases still there and low temperatures and then sunshine, and then you get ozone loss.”
&
Ozone depletion is often viewed as an environmental problem that has been solved.
The Montreal Protocol, established in 1987, and its successor agreements have phased out many ozone-depleting chemicals such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that used to be in widespread use as refrigerants.
Ozone data were captured using satellites and weather balloons
Use of some continues at a much lower level, with poorer developing countries allowed more time in which to switch away from substances essential to some of their industries.
[ edit ; the cop out! ] But even though concentrations of these chemicals in the atmosphere are falling, they can endure for decades.
In polar regions, the concentration of ozone-depleting substances has only fallen by about 10% from the peak years before the Montreal Protocol took effect.
In addition, research by Markus Rex from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany suggests that winters that stand out as being cold in the Arctic stratosphere are getting colder.
“For the next few decades, the [Arctic ozone] story is driven by temperatures, and we don’t understand what’s driving this [downward] trend,” he said.
“It’s a big challenge to understand it and how it will drive ozone loss over coming decades.”
________________
In short the scientists involved in the Ozone hole affair and many of them are now deep into climate alarmism science haven’t much of a clue as to what is driving all of these entirely natural phenomena. The more they think they know and like to tell us, the public how smart they are, the less they really know as completely new natural phenomena continue to appear thereby messing up all their most hard held theories and reinforcing the stupidity of all those so loudly and vehemently pronounced, “the science is settled” claims.
True science is never settled and never will be except in the eyes of those who are pushing some ideological barrow that will enhance their own status and position and wealth.
83
Way OT,but can anyone here give me info on Jennifer Marohasy’s site plz? I cannot find anything recent. Love this site,come here every morning. All the best to you all from NZ.
52
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jennifer+Marohasy
30
An interesting Theory and it helps to explain some things.
I have managed to absorb some of the essentials;
1. Sunspot activity (active Sun), heats the Mesopshere and Stratosphere over the tropics due to increased high energy UV and particles.
2. All this absobtion in the upper atmosphere creates more ozone over the tropics and less over the poles.
3. As a result, the tropopause (upper boundary of the troposphere) is lower over the tropics and higher over the poles.
4. Consequently the jet streams stay generally in a defined zone of lattitude.
5. Jet streams create clouds, hence global cloud cover is less
6. Earth heats up.
Conversely when sun spot activirty is low the jet streams make larger north south loops which results in increased cloud cover and the earth cools.
I am not sure how the 11 year delay is occurs.
Some things challenge my previous understanding of weather systems, such as;
I thought that the polar cell created a more of less permanent high pressure over the poles.
Also high pressures cause air to descend. and low pressures cause air to go up.
63
The polar vortices are in the stratosphere and not the troposphere.
The difference between the lower pressure polar vortices in the stratosphere with descending air and the normal low pressure cells in the troposphere with rising air is described here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/18/introducing-the-new-wuwt-northern-polar-vortex-page-with-explanation-and-observations/
130
Thanks Stephen,
It will take me a day or so to absorb the info on your reference page. Nice graphics there.
For the moment I will accept that air from the troposphere goes up into a low pressure and stratospheric air goes down, then both spread out along the tropopause, adding to the polar cell.
Any update on the explanation for the 11 year delay?
50
My guess is that it takes about 11 years or so for the solar changes to work through the system so as to produce measurable temperature changes over and above temperature changes caused by internal system chaotic variability.
There is also the issue of oceanic thermal inertia which is linked to the ENSO process and that could interfere with the response time.
81
Billy: Jennifer Marohasy’s last post was October 28/14 and if I remember correctly, she was off working on a project or something.
30
I don’t know if this is helpfull. The difference between RSS and RSS(land only) is of the order of 1/10th of a degree but it does show a correlation with TSI
Land temperatures should be more susceptible to changes in TSI so it doesn’t really help with understanding global changes in temperature but it does show that the Earth does notice the changes in TSI.
30
Many thanks to David and Jo for running this and helping with the graphics.
The main point of doubt made so far is as to whether there are also zonal/meridional changes in the southern hemisphere.
There are but they are less pronounced due to less land masses interrupting the flow of air around the gobe.
In the southern hemisphere there is a clearer latitudinal shift of the climate zones as a whole as compared to the northern hemisphere.
There is plenty of evidence of such past latitudinal shifting in the southern hemisphere.
CO2 variations might have an effect on the global air circulation but it would be miniscule and unmeasurable compared to the vastly greater shifts from the top down solar effect described above and the subsequent ocean response on the global air circulation from below.
Climate change is simply a consequence of the ever changing interaction between top down solar and bottom up ocean influences on the global air circulation.
Those climate changes also serve as the negative system response to ANY forcing agent that seeks to change global surface temperature because changes in the climate zone positions, intensities or sizes alter the rate of flow of solar energy through the Earth system.
163
Is it not thermodynamics that drives the greater bulge of the troposphere over the tropics? If so a weaker sun would surely result in less of a bulge there with a corresponding bounce upward in the polar regions. Assuming generally dry lapse rates at the poles and wet lapse at the tropics the result would be a slight warming of surface temperatures at the poles and a slight cooling at the tropical surface towards slightly less extremes between polar and equatorial regions. With a third less energy from the sun (as in dinosaur times) this effect would have been much stronger and so with an equalising of tropopause height a much calmer and equable global climate became much easier to sustain. The Faint Young Sun Paradox
10
Hi Pablo.
A weaker sun reduces ozone above the equator which results in cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling the stratosphere LIFTS the tropopause so the equatorial bulge is HIGHER when the sun is weak.
The opposite above the poles due to the different mechanism there.
Lifting the tropopause above the equator and depressing it above the poles when the sun is less active pushes polar air equatorward more often and for longer.
Exactly as observed.
70
Around sunspot maximum UV is highest, but the solar wind often has a local minimum at sunspot maximum. The effects of the weak solar solar wind on increased negative NAO/AO and El Nino episodes are clearly overriding any opposite sign effects of increased UV at these events where they occur.
11
Thanks for your rapid response Stephen. I follow your work closely.
I wasn’t really questioning the reality of your ozone effect, just that perhaps it might be dwarfed by energy generated in the tropics. And that perhaps the meridonal jet stream of the present is a result of less conflict between tropical and polar air masses. If actual measurements of tropical tropopause height do indeed show an increase in height with a weaker sun then my dinosaur age theory of a lesser equatorial bulge aiding the equable climate of the time and the connection with Claes Johnson’s”Faint Young Sun Paradox Resolved” theory of an overall increase in the lapse rate to 8.5C/km due to a less vigorous atmosphere coupled with drop in tropopause temperature from -50C to -68C at 10 km altitude resulting +15 C at surface is plainly wrong.
Actually thinking about it a bit more …you’re talking about sunspot related effects and I’m confusing it with a much dimmer sun so perhaps this fluctuation of tropopause height could be relevant to both scenarios.
40
Pablo,
Climate variability for the purpose of my article is the result of the constant ever changing interplay between the top down solar effect and a resultant delayed bottom up ocean effect.
Meridionality increases when the top down effect is dominating and zonality when the bottom up oceanic effect is dominating.
That, however, assumes constant top of atmosphere insolation with the main variable being the proportion of that insolation that enters the oceans.
If one changes top of atmosphere insolation such as seen during the ice age portions of the Milankovitch cycles or the changes since the early faint sun then that is a different scenario which would involve a latitudinal shift of the entire global air circulation pattern separately from the cloudiness chamnges which I think are caused by wavelength and particle changes within a constant level of insolation.
80
Stephen Wilde recognises a connection with gravity but fails to understand how the thermal energy from the Sun gets down into the surface, crust, mantle and core of a planet. When I tell people that the Sun maintains the temperature at the core of our Moon, and Earth, and Venus, and Uranus they laugh and think it impossible.
But if all planetary cores were just cooling off from arbitrary initial temperatures then there would be infinitesimal probability that the temperature gradients all just happened be based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases and other matter. And even if that were the case by sheer coincidence at this point in time, then it would not be the case in a billion years from now if cooling continued. Why is it that all temperature profiles from planetary cores out to where there is radiative balance with the Sun (somewhere in the troposphere) just happen to have the right gradient to get the temperature down to just the right level at just the right altitude? I have explained (and published) what happens but it takes several pages to do so.
410
Plenty of room on this page. Knock yourself out.
80
” but fails to understand how the thermal energy from the Sun gets down into the surface, crust, mantle and core of a planet.”
This comment describes someone who has extremely poor conceptual skills.
All that the Sun’s energy can do is DELAY the cooling of Earth and the other astronomic entities you list.
The penetration distance of the Solar energy into either the land masses or ocean of Earth is insignificant.
You must also be aware that the Sun is doomed to collapse and Engulf Earth at some time in the future and I believe it will happen within your “billion years”.
You may have a point about gravity and gases but you show some little incapacity to get the bigger picture, and then hold it steady!
KK
00
Kinky Keith:
I replied on January 4th but my reply to you was delayed due to a misunderstanding by the moderator that the plot in this summary page is based on planetary orbits, not temperature data that happens to be well correlated. I suggest you read the linked page. Maybe you’d care to explain why the core of the Moon is so hot despite the very cold surface on the dark side. Real physics will blow your mind.
13
Doug
Thanks for the response but I looked quickly at the attachment and saw a mention of how you had explained the missing heat noted by James Hansen.
That involves the assumption that Hansen got the thermodynamic balance almost right.
I don’t think he had a clue so I’m not sure how relevant it is to find other bits and pieces of “heat”: it is a massive problem and best handled by the “black box” concept that I have mentioned before.
For warmers this involves limiting timescales and other factors to identifiable periods so that the base factor can be isolated and assessed.
They leave so many open ended factors unidentified, let alone quantified, that their work can only be described as “Unscientific”.
KK
00
How about you just read all of the summary linked in my 8:33pm comment – all two columns?
Solar radiation to the surface does not supply enough thermal energy to explain the observed surface temperatures, not on Earth and nor on Venus.
Hansen got it totally wrong by assuming back radiation supplies the extra (missing) energy. It does not do so for the reasons explained in that linked summary. Perhaps you think you can explain how we get the extra thermal energy which is needed and which is about the equivalent of the solar flux at top of atmosphere. Have you never looked closely at those energy diagrams?
So next time you read the word “missing” and jump to your own conclusions about what you think the rest of what I am saying will be, how about you just read what I actually do explain with valid physics which you will not be able to disprove.
03
CR
” I have explained (and published) what happens but it takes several pages to do so.”
No need to write it all down here!
Just post a link to your “published paper” & we’ll all read it at the link – you climate researcher you!!
ROTFLMAO
Cheers,
20
You can start with the link in my reply to KinkyKeith at 8:33pm above. It would take you too long to read my published articles, peer-reviewed paper and book.
03
CR
Must disagree with your first paragraph. Core,s temp and energy is caused by a natural decay of radioactive elements and gravitational forces creating high pressure and temperature. This has nothing to do with the Sun.
The size of the planets is important unless these are close to Jupiter etc, big planets that exert significant gravitational squeeze like in the case of Io. Our Moon is almost certainly a dead moon with very little if any seismic activity. Why? Because it is too small to retain heat after 4.6 billion years. The Apollo missions from memory left seismographs on the surface but recorded nothing.
30
Dariusz
No those processes do not account for the total supply of energy to the core of a planet or our Moon, for example. In fact gravitational forces only convert potential energy to kinetic energy in collapsing gaseous planets, notably Jupiter. In the case of the planet Uranus there is nowhere near enough internal energy generation and no convincing evidence of cooling off of its small solid core that is at about 5,000K. See this summary.
03
Dariusz:
I quote: “The moon has an iron-rich core with a radius of about 205 miles (330 km). The temperature in the core is probably about 2,420 to 2,600 F (1,327 to 1,427 C).”
[source]
00
Evidence for the deliberate use of fire by early humans is now dated back to around a million years ago.
Human Ancestors Used Fire One Million Years Ago
&
&
So in reality Attenborough is not only apparently ignorant about the rise of our species and when but causes astonishment that somebody who has passed himself off as world expert on all things living should be so ignorant of human history that he inflates the length of our existence as species tenfold all apparently to be used to impose his own ideological fixated climate alarmist beliefs on an unsuspecting and trusting public.
Of course getting caught filming the Frozen wilds of the Arctic in a German Zoo didn’t do his reputation any good at all. And thats only one.
How many more fake scenes and over egged and very dubious claims did Attenborough indulge in and was never caught?
100
Sigh!
That was supposed to be following gai’s post at #8.6.1
20
There can be little doubt that variations in solar intensity and albedo cause the whole temperature profile in the troposphere to rise and fall (maintaining the thermodynamic equilibrium state with its associated temperature gradient) thus affecting the supported surface temperature.
But there’s more to solar cycles than the short-term 11 to 13 year cycles in sunspots. For example, glacial periods appear to be regulated by variations (caused by Jupiter) in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit over a 100,000 year cycle. This affects the annual mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, and thus the solar intensity varies as the square of that distance.
But planets also have magnetic fields which reach to the Sun and appear to affect insolation levels and sunspot and/or cosmic ray levels. The most compelling evidence is found in the strong correlation between Earth’s climate cycles and the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in this* inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. From this we can predict nearly 500 years of cooling after the year 2058.
* For the source of this image refer to the website shown bottom right and then click the image on that site.
33
Greenland mass balance on the up and up.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/greenland-breaks-record-for-one-day-ice-mass-gain/
Sea level expected to begin falling shortly.
30
Sorry to say that it will take me several more readings to digest all this.
In the meantime, I remember Louis Hissink and his pushing a theory of the sun and it’s relationship with Earth that wasn’t well received. Could he be closer to the truth than we ever guessed? I don’t know.
At least the Stephen Wilde Hypothesis is based on observation of things we can actually measure, making it a lot more worth pursuing than the “CO2 did it” theory.
51
Hi Roy.
We expected it to be a lot to digest and had considered breaking it up but in the end decided it best to present a coherent scenario all in one go and deal with any aspects that caused confusion in comments or later posts.
70
Stephan, I hope you’re still following this thread.
I think I get the basic idea well enough except for one thing. And maybe I’m missing the obvious. But first of all, what are energetic electrons?
And then, it seems counter to theory I know that electrons would be moved along the lines of magnetic force. A changing field would move electrons perpendicular to the magnetic field and a moving electron in a steady magnetic field would be moved perpendicular to the field also. And electrons would not be simply attracted to anything magnetic as if they were a speck of iron.
What am I missing?
00
Hi Roy.
I only say that charged particles are preferentially directed in at the poles. My point is that for whatever reason ozone falls above 45km especially towards the poles when the sun is active and energetic electron precipitation appears to destroy ozone above 45km and especially towards the poles.
My hypothesis is neutral as to whether those EEPs follow the magnetic field lines or not as long as their effect is indeed above 45km and towards the poles.
In fact those EEPs are only one possible factor.
My hypothesis merely proposes that the observed effect is caused by changes in the mixture of wavelengths and particles coming from the sun and I leave it to others to establish which wavelengths and which particles.
For whatever reason the effect on ozone of an active sun above 45km and towards the poles is the opposite sign of the previously held view and that has been integral to my hypothesis since 2010.
One simply has to have that opposite sign ozone response to get jet stream and climate zone changes in the direction(s) observed.
Nothing other than a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles can shift the jets and climate zones latitudinally. That is the critical insight.
23
Stephen,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I tried to read more into the theory than it actually contains.
Roy
00
Off topic but perhaps interesting: yesterday morning (1/1/15) in Pasadena, California at 8 AM just before the annual Tournament of Roses Parade kicked off, the temperature was 30° F, the coldest January 1st recorded at the start of the parade since 1932. Since it was a clear and beautiful morning and the sun had already been up since around 6 AM the actual temperature at sunup would probably have been at least a couple of degrees lower.
These strange things flying in the face of the CO2 theory of global warming just keep happening. It’s as if nature planed them in advance to show us she doesn’t care what we think.
61
I should add that they probably tracked the temperature because parade day always dawns very cold in Pasadena. I wouldn’t have guessed that there was a record of temperature for that specific place and time. But there it was.
Having been there in person I can attest to the feeling that my ears would break off if I touched them. 😉
30
From the summary of Wilde’s hypothesis:
“An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower. There is thus a solar induced see-saw effect on the height of the tropopause”
How absurd is this? The stratosphere (or mesosphere) warms and thereby pushes the underlying tropopause downwards!? Now how is this supposed to work in the real world? In what direction does gravity pull? In what direction does air density and pressure increase? In what direction do we have a solid, immovable surface to prevent thermal expansion and in what direction do we NOT have such a surface?
29
Kristian,
You seem to have missed this:
“Ozone variations affect the temperature of the stratosphere, which in turn affects the height of the tropopause. From page 14 of Zangl and Hoinka:
“Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”
90
Someone else claiming the same thing as you do, Stephen, doesn’t make it right. I’ve seen the same nonsensical claim being made several places, by several people. Think it through, Stephen. Go through the questions I pose and see what answers you come up with. A warming stratosphere won’t expand downwards against gravity, against higher air density and pressure, towards a solid, immovable surface at the bottom of the atmosphere when there is no such barrier at the top of the atmosphere. The only way a higher layer of atmosphere can push down on a lower layer of atmosphere would be if the higher level all of a sudden became heavier (containing more mass), so that the pressure from above grew. The stratosphere warming doesn’t make it heavier, Stephen.
People get causation completely backwards here. The tropopause lifts when the TROPOSPHERE warms and likewise subsides when the troposphere cools. Tropopause height answers to what’s going on BELOW it, not above it.
So when the tropopause has lifted over the last three to four decades, it has done so because the surface and hence the troposphere has gotten warmer. Pure logic. During that same time it just so happens that the stratosphere has actually cooled. So the elevated tropopause would thus seem to be “associated with” a cold stratosphere.
28
Kristian.
Tropopause height will rise either when the troposphere warms OR when the stratosphere cools.
Hence my proposition that climate change is a result of the interplay between top down solar forcing and bottom up oceanic forcing.
Troposphere height is dependent on BOTH troposphere temperatiure AND stratosphere temperature so your comment is flawed.
94
Stephen, you can keep asserting this as much as you like. It doesn’t make it so. You have provided no physical mechanism whatsoever for how and why a cooling (warming) stratosphere would raise (depress) the tropopause underneath it. Without the cooling/warming making it lighter/heavier at the same time. You appear to not even comprehend what I’m pointing at …
Where’s your data showing the stratosphere warming/cooling with the solar cycles and the concurrent lifting and sinking of the tropopause over say the last few (3-4-5) decades!?
Without any data to back up your claims, your hypothesis rests on conjecture, on circular reasoning and nothing else; just like with the AGW one.
39
Here is the connection: The QBO (Quasi-Biennial-Oscillation) and the Brewer-Dobson Circulation
Look for the papers on these two atmospheric circulations and ozone. There are several of them out there.
Here is a bit more.
30
“Connection” to what, gai?
I know perfectly well how the Brewer-Dobson circulation works, thank you. I know about the jets and the polar vortex and the Rossby waves.
None of them concern what I’m getting at here: tropopause height. Only processes from the surface UP TO the tropopause affect tropopause height. What happens ABOVE the tropopause affects … what’s above the tropopause.
18
Kristian,
Your position appears to be that stratosphere temperatures have no effect on tropopause height.
Good luck with that 🙂
113
Yes, of course it is. Until you give me the physical mechanism through which the temperature (not the weight) of a higher atmospheric layer all by itself could affect the vertical extent of a lower atmospheric layer, that will be my position. A position I’m pretty comfortable with, thank you.
You, on the other hand, keep stating things as facts that are by no means shown to be so, for no other reason than you wanting them to be facts, because that’s what your hypothesis would require (and hence postulates). In other words, they exist as fact only in your head. Good luck with that approach to science, Stephen 😀
010
Kristian, it is very simple.
The greater the fall in temperature with height the faster convection operates and the higher it gets.
If you cool the stratosphere whilst leaving the temperature of the troposphere the same then you increase the rate at which temperaure declines with height and convection works faster and rises higher for a raised tropopause.
The opposite if you warm the stratosphere.
Basic meteorology.
62
“The greater the fall in temperature with height the faster convection operates and the higher it gets.”
Yes. INSIDE THE TROPOSPHERE, Stephen. Not across the tropopause layer. You do not make convection move beyond this by cooling the stratosphere above it. The temperature gradient from top of convection, through the tropopause and into the lower stratosphere would have to be made steeper than the DALR to provoke further convection. In reality, though, it starts out, by definition, coming up from below, at the point where it drops to 2K/km and below; at the top, at the lower end of the stratosphere, it has dropped to 0K/km or less (meaning, negative – it starts warming with altitude).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lDWhrbP1huo/TQZYCws8pAI/AAAAAAAAAAk/exdVQjGIXl8/s1600/earth+profile.jpg
“If you cool the stratosphere whilst leaving the temperature of the troposphere the same then you increase the rate at which temperaure declines with height and convection works faster and rises higher for a raised tropopause.”
Listen, the temperature DOESN’T decline with altitude through the tropopause, Stephen. It doesn’t matter what happens temperaturewise in the stratosphere on the other side of it does. Because through the tropopause, the temperature gradient drops to 0K/km and below.
That’s the whole point. There is no convective connection between the surface of the Earth (or the troposphere) and the lower stratosphere (unless we have a so-called ‘tropical overshoot’). How you came to believe that somehow there is, is beyond me …
06
All this argument from Kristian about heat flowing in the atmosphere makes me long for, oh what? co2.
Remind me Kristian, What does co2 have to do with it?
50
Hold on a second.
I believe a fellow named Archimedes found that it was differences in density, not temperature, that cause objects to float and parcels of warm air to rise.
IIRC the way it goes is.. The air parcel decreases in density from expansion due to heating. The parcel rises until the density matches the density of the surrounding air.
From ideal gas law, P1.V1/T1 = P2.V2/T2 ; The P2 will continually decrease to match the pressure of surrounding air. That means a combination of expansion and cooling must occur.
Kristian declares “the temperature DOESN’T decline with altitude through the tropopause..”, which is true simply by the definition of tropopause. But the DENSITY does decrease with height through the tropopause and beyond.
So that statement does not logically support the conclusion: “There is no convective connection between the surface of the Earth (or the troposphere) and the lower stratosphere”. The rising air parcel will keep rising until it reaches density parity regardless of surrounding temperature gradient.
If there were no convective exchange through the tropopause that would have to be shown by observation, not by the above reason.
As the tropopause is due in part to the lower heat capacity of air after the water has condensed out of it, and the top of cloud formation is an IR source, the tropopause height should be affected by how high moist air rises before density equalisation.
Stephen will have to argue that the density of a rising air packet will reach parity with surroundings sooner if the stratosphere is cooler, so lowering the tropopause.
Good luck with that. 🙂
Kristian will have to argue that the temperature of the stratosphere makes no difference to how soon a warm air parcel stops rising. Again, good luck with that.
Hypothesis: If the
GHGsIR-active gases in the stratosphere are cooler, they warm the lower layers less, which increases that layer’s density and increases the rate at which the troposphere’s density decreases with altitude, so the air parcel reaches parity at a lower altitude, thus lowering the tropopause.Surely I get points for trying.
20
Mark D. asks: “Remind me Kristian, What does co2 have to do with it?”
Absolutely nothing.
03
Andrew McRae, you said:
“I believe a fellow named Archimedes found that it was differences in density, not temperature, that cause objects to float and parcels of warm air to rise.”
Indeed. Thing is, you need to understand how convection works in the troposphere. Air density is ALWAYS lower higher up than further down. That doesn’t mean there’s ALWAYS convection (lifting of air) going on. You need to cross some threshold. You should read up on air stability/instability and potential temperature:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html
You should also know that the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR) in the atmospheric boundary layer (the 0.5 to 2 km of air closest to the surface) AND in the uppermost reaches of the troposphere, moving towards the tropopause, is normally pretty much dry (DALR), meaning 9.75 K/km. There is simply no water condensing. As long as the environmental lapse rate (ELR), the actual temperature gradient, remains less than this, air will not rise. The air is stable. At the tropopause level, coming up from below, the temperature gradient drops to 2 K/km and continues to drop until it passes 0 K/km and turns negative – we have reached the lower stratosphere.
The air is stable up there, Andrew. Stratified. No convection. That’s what separates the troposphere from the stratosphere. It’s in their very names and nature. The ONLY way convection could lift air masses through the tropopause (some would call it lifting the tropopause itself) would be from excessive buoyant momentum up from BELOW (this would arise from extra strong heating/evaporation/condensation down low). This happens for instance during powerful tropical thunderstorms where you have to so-called ‘overshoot’ from the top.
05
Andrew said:
“Stephen will have to argue that the density of a rising air packet will reach parity with surroundings sooner if the stratosphere is cooler, so lowering the tropopause.”
Actually I am saying that the density of a rising air packet will reach parity with surroundings LATER if the stratosphere is cooler so raising the tropopause.
Kristian thinks that the stratospheric inversion layer presents the same amount of resistance to upward convection even if one reduces the slope of that inversion in the stratosphere. In fact, the cooler the stratosphere the less resistance there is to upward convection and the tropopause itself will rise.
You can’t keep ignoring this:
“Ozone variations affect the temperature of the stratosphere, which in turn affects the height of the tropopause. From page 14 of Zangl and Hoinka:
“Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low tropopause (high tropopause pressure).””
32
“Kristian thinks that the stratospheric inversion layer presents the same amount of resistance to upward convection even if one reduces the slope of that inversion in the stratosphere. In fact, the cooler the stratosphere the less resistance there is to upward convection and the tropopause itself will rise.”
You just don’t get it, do you, Stephen? You don’t want to get it, because your whole hypothesis rests on this premise of yours being true. It most assuredly is not. And I have tried to explain to you now over several postings the simple logic behind and the definitive physical restraints on this being the case. But you just won’t listen. You’re not even addressing the points I’m making. You just move on with your preconceived ‘knowledge’ that it is so.
It doesn’t matter if the stratosphere above the tropopause gets colder, Stephen, because the temperature gradient through the tropopause layer, from the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere, is 2 K/km at the lower end and drops to 0 K/km and beyond at the upper, so that it goes from positive below to negative above (this is why the tropopause is commonly called an inversion layer).
There cannot be any lifting of air masses in a situation where the temperature gradient (the ELR) above the air masses is 2 K/km and lower. If you increase this gradient to 2.1 or 2.2 or 3 makes absolutely no difference. Either there will be convection. Or there won’t be.
Do you seriously not see this!?
Read about the stability of air masses, Stephen! And take a good look at the gradient from the troposphere through the tropopause and into the lower stratosphere.
“You can’t keep ignoring this:”
I’m not. I’ve already given you my opinion on this. But you don’t read what I write, so what’s the point?
I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying it’s wrong. In fact, it’s pure, unsubstantiated, poorly thought-through nonsense. At odds with common meteorological principles.
17
If the sun cools and the UV component reduces substantially, won’t most of the UV be trapped in the Stratosphere (ozone etc.) at the usual rate. But the remaining sunlight being absorbed into the oceans will not warm them as much as it lacks the most energetic portion of the solar spectrum. Result would be cooling of the troposphere and with a constant lapse rate cause contraction, and a lower height tropopause.
Now all I need is a way of warming the stratosphere. Since it is Climate Science a model will do.
00
“There cannot be any lifting of air masses in a situation where the temperature gradient (the ELR) above the air masses is 2 K/km and lower. If you increase this gradient to 2.1 or 2.2 or 3 makes absolutely no difference. Either there will be convection. Or there won’t be.”
*Sigh*
I clearly shouldn’t have put down those numbers, because they just end up confusing the point I’m trying to make.
The lower-end (upper troposphere) 2 K/km lapse rate tropopause threshold is of course not itself affected by what’s going on with the upper (lower stratosphere) negative lapse rate. The tropopause layer isn’t paper-thin. It is up to several kilometres thick, defined as the section of atmosphere where the tropospheric positive lapse rate (maintained by convection from below, around 10 K/km as high up as convection will push) is slowly turned over to the stratosphere’s negative lapse rate. In the tropics, the temperature inversion is normally much more abrupt than at mid and high latitudes:
http://www.goes-r.gov/users/comet/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_2_page_5.0.0.htm
If anything at all were to happen, it would be this: If the lowermost air layer of the stratosphere were to cool, it would become slightly denser and subside a little, thus leaving the cooler air layer a little bit lower according to the negative lapse rate of the stratosphere, and as a result turning the tropopause layer a little bit less thick to maintain the temperature gradient through from the upper troposphere. If the lowermost air layer of the stratosphere were to warm, it would become slightly less dense and lift a little, thus leaving the warmer air layer a little bit higher according to the negative lapse rate of the stratosphere, and as a result turning the tropopause layer a little thicker to maintain the temperature gradient through from the upper troposphere.
The temperature profiles of the troposphere below and the stratosphere above, however, are themselves fundamentally distinct in their origin and held completely apart by the tropopause layer. The height of the 2 K/km tropopause threshold, coming up from below, is entirely dependent on the mean tropospheric upward buoyant momentum of heated air masses, the mean tropospheric temperature and the mean tropospheric humidity (plus, some have argued, on the mean, pressure-based IR opacity of the atmosphere; refer to Robinson & Catling, 2013-14). That is, entirely on TROPOSPHERIC processes. It can not be ‘pulled’ upwards by a change in the stratospheric lapse rate, on the other side of the tropopause layer. There is no ‘gradient connection’. Moreover, a cooling lower stratosphere would, if anything, subside slightly into the tropopause layer, not lift as if by heating.
07
Kristian:
You are correct in pointing out that Stephen Wilde has not used valid physics to explain what would be essential additional thermal energy flows into the surface of Earth (and Venus etc) that are over and above what direct solar radiation can deliver. For example, the mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth’s surface is about 163W/m^2 but that absorbed by the Venus surface is less than 20W/m^2. Yet the Venus surface rises in temperature by about 5 degrees at any particular location on the equator as it passes through four months of sunlight. If you are interested in the correct physics it is explained here.
05
I saw video of so called”sun lightning” on numerous youtube posts yesterday.I’ve never seen anything like it!
30
I like the thought of “climate” as something other than “highly homogenized surface temperatures from mostly sea level sites in easy to access metropolitan areas”.
As a senior I’ve seen wet years and dry years, hot years and cold years, and, being a bit country, good and bad growing years. Community perceptions are generally in agreement on these things, so its not one man’s imagination. Reading the papers, different regions, and countries, have comfortable and less comfortable climate years in variable sequences. A monolithic cause by a trace gas in a monotonic climb as a theory is disproved by the data; the null hypothesis of uniformly rising temperature is false. This kind of post seems to return us to science by providing new thesis. Wonderfully useful, whether right track or wrong track, and a welcome change from the usual tilting at windmills to fund the UN wastrels.
61
Somewhat off topic, but hot off the press and hopefully of interest – I posted the following Central England Temperature record (CET) prediction on this website towards the end of December.
I’ve cut out a small amount so that you don’t all fall asleep!
I stuck my neck out and had a go at predicting December’s temperature.
“No computer models, no fancy statistics, just a plain inspection of the record’s figures and a bit of simple arithmetic.
From January to November inclusive, the monthly averages in degrees Centigrade for 2014 are 5.7, 6.2, 7.6, 10.2, 12.2, 15.1, 17.7, 14.9, 15.1, 12.5 and 8.6.
The hottest average for a year was 2006, showing 10.82⁰C.
So, assuming that we hit this figure again, let’s have a look at what December may bring.
My calculation comes to 4.04⁰C, but I’m going to round off this figure (four hundredths of a degree means nothing) – so, I suggest that December’s CET temperature will be 4⁰C at the most, but in all likelihood less than that, since I doubt we’re going to see the record average of 2006 again this year.
Four degrees Centigrade for December? Not at all an unusual figure, and that’s going right back to the 1600s.
The coldest December ever was -0.8⁰C in 1890, and the warmest was 8.1⁰C in 1934, a value also seen in 1974.”
My own back yard temperature readings (admittedly a rough and ready approach) suggested I’d be right.
However,the result is out.
I’ve just had a look at the CET, and I was wrong.
The December reading is 5.2⁰C,and this makes the annual average temperature shown on the CET 10.93⁰C, which is THE HOTTEST EVER.
Your comments please!
30
The ‘wavering’ Jet Stream theory seems to be an attempt to retain the latitudinal aspects of ENSO, while trying to explain the longitudinal effects of Solar Induced ‘Dry Cycles’.
Forget the ENSO Fantasy and accept that these ‘Dry Cycles’ are Longitudinal. They are the reason for simultaneous ice fluctuations in the Arctic and Antarctic, the current Dry and Cold North America, and the failure of the Monsoon rains west of 110 degrees longitude, (Beijing.) The current ‘Dry Cycle’ regime started there in mid February 2014 and has now reached the East Coast of Australia.It will result in a Dry Period of Five years. This particular series of cycles previously occurred in 1997 – 1979 – etc.
The so called ’11 year notch’ is obviously the well documented 11.1 year Sunspot Wave Frequency, used by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990) to identify and forecast these ‘Dry Cycles’.
Alex found the 11.1 year Sunspot Wave Frequency was in fact not accurate enough and should instead have a value of 11.028148 years. He recognised a causal entity in the Sun emanating from the 27 day rotation rate zone (the Sunspot Latitude) and termed it the ‘W’ or Weather Factor. (Solar Particles?)
An updated version of this work (including ‘Dry Cycle’forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
I am happy to supply David Evans and Stephen Wilde with a copy on request. Piers Corbyn already has one.
40
I have no problem accepting that there are also longitudinal effects arising primarily from land mass distribution. They might even persist across multiple years. We see something similar over the past two winters in Western Europe where temperatures have been higher than normal as a result of unusual cold plunges over North America distorting the jet stream tracks in the approaches to Western Europe.
I had a look at the Gaddes work some time ago and dioscarded it for some reason that I cannot recall. Others are free to have a look and form their own judgments.
Here is an example of some past interaction involving Don Gaddes:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/joe-bastardi-exposes-the-true-climate-deniers/
21
There is only one problem with Steven Wilde’s hypothesis!
Between about 1940 and 1970 the Earth had a meridional wind pattern and it was
cooling, yet the level of solar activity was at its highest level in centuries.
I believe that this directly contradicts Steven’s hypothesis.
The Russians showed that the winds in the Earth’s troposphere change
from being meridional to zonal (and then back again) roughly once every 30 years.
A dominant meridional wind pattern cools the Earth’s mean temperature
while a dominant zonal wind pattern warms the Earth’s mean temperature.
Unfortunately, sunspot records show that there is no 30 year period
low solar activity followed by a 30 period of high solar activity.
I think that Steven’s hypothesis might apply to the 200 year
DeVries cycle of solar activity but its certainly does not work
the decadal time scale.
32
Solar cycle 20 was less active than those before and after and that quieter cycle accounted for the mid 20th century cooling period.
Ian’s comment is therefore incorrect.
81
Ian, I advise you to study with great care the ICOADS spatiotemporal wind record if you think what the Russians found is a dominant global pattern. Stephen’s narrative is out by 1/4 Schwabe cycle, it refers to assumed cloud patterns that aren’t in any empirical record Stephen can point to, and it extrapolates unsupported assumptions about clouds to theoretical surface temperatures that do not match recorded surface temperatures, but Stephen does correctly emphasize that the shape of the atmosphere pulses with the solar cycle. We have hard evidence of this, which I have illustrated on many occasions. It’s obvious that misunderstandings arise when these topics are discussed without attention to the physical differences between seasons & hemispheres (austral winter, austral summer, boreal winter, & boreal summer).
I advise everyone to get a handle on EOF1/PC1 of global wind. I’ve concentrated a good number of aggregation tips over here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/agu-presentation-argues-that-ne-pacific-centennial-trend-is-mostly-natural/
Ian, when exploring the wind field, take a careful look in the Atlantic off northwest Africa. Note well the multidecadal pattern there that is not evident elsewhere, where the centennial pattern dominates (globally). I’ve posted a January vs. July flashing animation lower in the thread that should clarify why this is so.
Regards
10
Paul,
The Earthshine project shows reducing cloudiness until the late 90s and increasing cloudiness since then.
That is in accordance with my narrative.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
54
Stephen,
The Russian patterns to which Ian is referring are based on integration.
This is definitely at the root of some of the more serious misunderstandings we’ve seen.
The patterns off Africa in the Atlantic are coherent with the integrals of wind patterns elsewhere. I suspect that many commenters haven’t taken a careful enough look at ICOADS spatiotemporal wind records to realize this.
I’m trying to get people to look at first order effects before they obsess over third- and fourth-order effects.
So it’s not that you and I are in disagreement. Rather it’s that we each have a different contribution to make.
Best Regards!
10
Ian Wilson wrote: “I believe that this directly contradicts Steven’s hypothesis.”
So too does valid physics.
Yes but the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets was falling whilst the Earth was cooling. This plot exhibits 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles all calculated from planetary orbits and compellingly well correlated with Earth’s natural climate cycles. You can read why carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it in the summary web page linked in some of my other comments.
04
It’s the end of the thread …
John Howard
Brendan Nelson
Malcolm Turnbull
Kevin Rudd
Julia Gillard
Kevin Rudd
Tony Abbott
Bill Shorten
This is a list of Australian political leaders who have one thing in common.
~ ~ ~
The environmentalists don’t believe Abbott, no matter how much tax-payer money he wastes:
SMH: Heat is on Abbott government over climate change as world turns
If climate change was a liability for Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2014 – witness how it dogged his visit to the United States and then dominated G20 coverage after President Barack Obama’s “Save the Reef” speech – there are many reasons to think it will be an even bigger issue in 2015.
. . .
The GreenAbbott climate policies are even more a shambles than GreenLaboUr.
They appeal to no-one.
That is why Abbott is next on that list.
And Shorten.
We will have to continue voting each one OUT until they get the message.
Abbott could get off the list now.
Come out and say that because of the pause, the settled science into doomsday global warming is uncertain, and an immediate review must be undertaken before more money is spent, if not wasted on a fools foley.
Undecided, un-informed voters, voters with a nonchalant opinion will be polarised.
Green heads will pop, and it will be world news.
Undecided voters will welcome the honesty, and when all is revealed, Abbott will not be on that list.
Because the “deniers’, as Abbott’s $200M UN-IPCC newly bought mates call them, aren’t going away.
102
Proof read:
“Fool’s folly”
20
Community Alert — dark endgame attack on solar-climate perception escalated with release of ERSSTv4
41
Whatever the Sun is driving or not, I have not seen a single scientific evidence of climate change yet. The “global temperature” nonsense does not count, it is not scientific. I know, so many papers… thousands… and all those professors… Still, it is not science, let us face the shocking reality.
45
The temperature changes a little when a greater proportion of the available solar energy enters the oceans but the change in global air circulation is the necessary negative system response which ensures that energy out continues to match energy in.
To deny any climate change one must also deny the MWP and LIA, the shift from zonal jets pre 2000 to meridional after 2000 and the long run of strong El Ninos relative to La Ninas pre 2000.
There is climate change but it is almost entirely natural to the extent that any effect from our emissions would not be measurable.
72
The same goes for your MWP, LIA, XYZ and whatever. No sign of science there either, just “papers”. Many many “papers”. Many many people have had a good life feeding on that crap for decades, which had been the lesser evil until it went political.
27
I don’t think you can simply dismiss ALL observed variability as not being evidence of ‘climate change’.
40
Yeah, right, just CALL this unscientific crap “observed” and the problem solved.
17
It’s hardly science to dismiss anything out of hand without examining it. Are we to believe that in the past no one could make a thermometer or that having such a thermometer, no one had an honest motive in recording what said thermometer was telling him? I think not.
What I find appalling is to write off things, anything, without reason or to adopt a theory without supporting evidence and make policy based on that theory.
Both are equally wrong and I do not understand why anyone wanting to be taken seriously as a scientist would want to do either one.
There is a considerable body of evidence from anecdotal/circumstantial to observed data that says climate has changed in the recent (100s of years) past. No one item of that means anything. But the weight of a lot of things becomes convincing that something happened and the climate didn’t stay the same year after year, century after century.
The one thing we do not have is any credible evidence that human introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is doing anything except possibly improving crop yields.
14
I have repeatedly challenged all sort of warmists or “climate scientists” including those calling themselves skeptics to present the scientific proof for their “global temperature” calculations. I also simply asked them to present the scientific calculation of their “global temperature” taking as an example the year 666 or 1666. On various blogs. It did not trigger any scientific response.
It is not a secret that they assign mean temperatures to huge areas for no scientific reason.
Let’s face the reality. “Global temperature” established in the “climate science” has nothing to do with science.
The difference between “global warming” and the other claim about “greenhouse effect” is merely that “global warming” is theoretically possible while the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC (based on “climate science as well) is absolutely absurd and physically impossible.
Your mention of crop yields is irrelevant.
14
Well said, Greg. 🙂
03
There is a pattern in Green activism
Refrigerants to $600 a kg, thanks to the Ozone hole and Global Warming. Rare earth mines all closed and critical rare earths like Neodymium jumped from $14kg to $250kg, 300kg needed for each windmill.
Western CO2 dropping and industry closing, a society dependent on the vagaries of the wind.
Is refrigerant gas use, rare earth use, CO2 output actually decreasing? No, it is increasing but has all gone to China where there are no such restrictions while Western governments pick up unearned taxes by acting as Green tax collectors.
Could it be that the Greens are simply attacking Western manufacturing in concert with compliant governments who love the extra income?
Amazingly this morning we read in the Australian there is an imminent problem with gas and energy supply because of the dramatic drop in world oil prices? How does that work? Or is that an imminent problem with government income as most of our petrol cost is punitive taxation?
There is a de facto alliance between taxation hungry Western governments and Green parties to push all manufacturing, all labor, all mining and all emissions to China. Does this reduce world emissions and world pollution? No. Just not in my backyard. Caring types.
72
On the delay we see between the sun and earth’s weather.
E.M. Smith might have a piece of the puzzle.
So that is one of the possible time lags. Latitude runs from 0° at the equator up to 90° at the poles. 0° to 50°S covers all but the tip of South America and 0° to 50°N covers most of the area in the NH where thermometer readings are taken. Northern Canada and Siberia have few thermometers SEE: Mapping global warming
Perhaps that is the ~11 years out of the ~18
20
This is way out there, but is important.
Steve McIntyre has updated his thoughts on the Mann versus Styne case.
I hope Jo has the time to read this. If Mann can call McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism “pure scientific fraud” then he should be able to take some of his own medicine. Fairly easy to understand I’d say?
http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/01/oral-argument-2-epa-on-fraud-allegations/#more-20493
20
An observation about the Sun-ozone-cloud albedo-lagged temp response hypothesis. (Yes, I know that characterization simplifies and does not do full justice to the zonal/meridional varying albedo hypothesis that is the posited underlying lag mechanism).
I have studied both the (mostly ship based) longer term ICOADS cloud data, and the shorter term sat based ISCCP. See, for example, essay Cloudy Clouds in ebook Blowing Smoke (which also hyperlinks to the database references). In neither database is there the sort of general half solar cycle cloud variance required by this hypothesis.
Now, I have not studied clouds in detail latitudinally, which would provide (perhaps) support to the zonal/meridional variation mechanism. Nor are all clouds created equal in albedo/warming/cooling effect. But suggest that hypothesis advocates do so with respect to latitude and cloud type. Is a Feynman level verification/falsification of the proposed hypothesis. Imperfect data is available.
Regards to all ‘Down Under’ from ‘Up Over’ –and HNY.
40
Stephen Wilde writes: “Climate change is simply a consequence of the ever changing interaction between top down solar and bottom up ocean influences on the global air circulation.” but strictly speaking most people would think of air circulation as relating to wind. Also, there is no evidence that the ocean warms the lower atmosphere, because the solar radiation cannot raise the thin transparent layer of the ocean surface to anywhere near its actual temperature. It must be the atmosphere maintaining the ocean temperature by convective heat transfer into the ocean. Most upward convective heat transfer is from dry land absorbing direct solar radiation. The “top down” solar influences actually occur only in sunlit hours and have nothing to do with air circulation by wind that may well be caused by oceans, but is irrelevant to temperatures and the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in calm conditions.
Wind (air circulation) does not explain why the surface temperature of Earth (or other planets) is higher than the effective radiating temperature.
Wilde’s discussion of solar variation causing natural climate cycles is correct, but that only explains why the effective radiating temperature of the Earth varies. It does so with strong correlation with the 934-year and 60-year cycles in the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets.
But there is still a need to understand precisely how and why altering the effective radiating temperature (found around 4Km to 5Km up in the troposphere) then affects the surface temperature. You have to explain the necessary energy flows into the surface, because the Sun’s direct solar radiation into the surface cannot supply sufficient energy. (This is very obvious on Venus, for example.)
When air moves up or down solely because of wind it does not warm or cool very much in the process. Of course things settle down when the wind stops, but if, for example, a warm wind flows across a valley and then up a mountainside, we get Foehn winds which are still warmer at the top of the mountain (and going over and down the other side) than air would normally be at that altitude. Likewise the strong downward winds at the South Pole tend to convey the upper tropospheric temperatures down to the surface, leaving little or no temperature gradient in the troposphere there.
Thermal heat transfer which is actually in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics will always be such that it is tending to establish a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy. That appears to be the physics which Stephen Wilde does not understand, perhaps because of his lack of qualifications in physics.
When this is understood, everything falls into place and we can also understand even the sub-surface temperatures down to the core which, by the way, should be close to 6,000K by such calculations. The “upward influences” in so far as convective heat transfer are concerned, actually come from warmed solid surfaces which we all know can be heated to higher temperatures than the oceans, and thus drive upward convective heat transfer. In contrast, downward convective heat transfer is driven by the absorption of new thermal energy in the upper troposphere and above. On Venus, for example, the Sun can only raise the temperature of regions under about 400K and so there must be downward convective heat transfer (establishing thermodynamic equilibrium) to the surface when it is being heated from 732K to 737K over the course of four months of sunlight.
07
Climate Researcher,
None of that is relevant here and is too confused in any event.
80
It is not I who is confused Stephen, but I admit this is 21st century physics that you probably don’t understand yet.
We are talking on this thread about why it is natural causes that determine (and indeed regulate) solar radiation and cosmic rays, and thus climate cycles on Earth.
I have recently written a succinct summary of these very points, including the effect on climate of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets as shown in the graphic and explained in the text here.
But we also need to rule out the conjecture that carbon dioxide might add additional warming to such natural climate cycles. This is where thermodynamics comes into it. If you don’t understand the physics on that linked page I am happy to answer genuine questions.
06
Stephen
It is highly relevant because, unless you can explain with correct physics (in line with the laws of physics) how the solar energy gets into the surface then you have no grounds for blaming the Sun for climate change. Yes the Sun does do it, but not by direct radiation and not in accord with your “explanation” which is not valid, as Kristian has correctly pointed out to you. You need a better understanding of entropy for starters.
06
Could someone please explain to me why this very simple mechanism is NOT the main theory?
Is it too simple?
solar wind comes screaming in at something like 600 Km/s. It hits some ozone either in the O2O or O3 state and makes H20.
Instead these seem to suggest nitrogen needs to be involved.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00878715#
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023322711580#
00
It just dawned on me that I am one proton short of a drink.
10
Steven Wilde said:
“Solar cycle 20 was less active than those before and after and that quieter cycle accounted for the mid 20th century cooling period.
Ian’s comment is therefore incorrect.”
Ian’s response:
Solar cycle 20 peaked around 1969-70 which was at the end of the 30 year cooling period.
The cooling period started in the early 1940’s and was followed by solar cycles 18 and 19
which were probably the two strongest solar sunspot cycles in over 200 years.
So, Steven’s comment is therefore incorrect.
13
The weakening solar activity that culminated in cycle 20 was spread across the decline of cycle 19, the whole of cycle 20 and the early part of cycle 21 so that gives us 20 years.
Then we have the matter of ocean cycles sometimes being in phase and sometimes out of phase with solar cycles.
There was a cool PDO during strong cycles 18 and 19 and the weak cycle 20
Taking those factors together accounts for the 30 years of slight cooling during the mid 20th century despite strong cycles 18 and 19.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/
32
@ IAN
See if you can tell why it was so cold during solar cycle 8, and then you may drop the tired arbitrary warmist argument that SSN was higher in solar cycles 18&19.
10
‘There were a total of 446 days with no sunspots during SC 18, which was characterised by “giant” sunspots and values of the solar flux during this cycle turned out to be particularly high.’
Wiki
00
Additionally, consider a possible shift in the Polar Vortex (South), which in turn affects the circumpolar and normal jet streams. The jet stream becomes a meridional loop, allowing arctic air (cold) to descend.
00
Jan 03, 2014:
http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif
00
NASA scientist know TSI is useless information: TSI is almost always constant because the Sun itself is a very massive, hot object.
Early researchers on “missing solar neutrinos” agreed: Changes in TSI would be undetectable even if the nuclear solar engine turned off for several years!
02
Wilde is still using debunked Earthshine data.
good grief
04
Earthshine is good to go and its fair to say that CO2 does not cause global warming.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98481
21
I pulled this from that link…
‘The data also reveals what Goode calls a “hint” of a 2.5 percent decrease in the Earth’s albedo over the past five years.
‘The researchers are a little cautious on this point, because their equipment is not quite precise enough to be definitive, but Koonin points out that if the decrease is only one percent, that’s a major change.
‘In fact, it’s too much of a change to be the result of greenhouse warming.
‘It would take all of the greenhouse gases released since pre-industrial times to push the Earth’s albedo down by 2.5 percent, and their data indicates that the drop occurred over just five years.’
40
Like most d[snip] sites anymore, this site blocks comments it doesn’t want to hear. The surest sign yet that you are not just wrong, but that you know you’re wrong.
[use of the “d” word without substantiating what it is being denied will likely get you moderated] ED
[David, For someone who has had over 200 comments published at this site, this is an irrational claim to be making. I can assure you very few comments are blocked or moderated. And very few commentators are put into auto moderation unless they show persistent inability to follow the basic rules of posting comments. Obviously moderator discretion is used, but ad homs, off topic and impolite comments are regularly moderated. You have scored the trifecta today. If you want to make a sensible comment on the content, then please feel free. Also, you have been to this site often enough to know that use of the term ‘denier’ is considered highly derogatory because most users refuse to even define what they think is being denied. – Mod]
[So readers can see the comments David is complaining about not being published I have shown them below made one minute and three minutes before The one above. – Mod]
David Appell: Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?
David Appell: You’re STILL hawking Force X??
19
David
I welcome your presence. Pls,state your point and let,s start a reasonable discussion. I am not a denier or a sceptic and have no personal or financial attachment to this blog. I just look at the evidence, use my brain and knowledge, make my own judgment and choose to share some of my thoughts on line.
In fact this is my job, putting together jigsaw puzzles where I have perhaps 5 to 20% of data based on which I have to make decisions using models that I build. If the model does not predict observational data I discard it or amend it for further testing. I work with colleges that build their own models and we often get involved in heated discussions focusing on thought and logic, but no personal abuse. In fact if I did that I would be sacked, particularly, if I repeated that behaviour, I would never be employed in my industry again. I work in the field of geology with 30 years of experience with numerous papers published, but never before I was called a denier or a person that never believed in evolution, just to name a few civilised descriptions.
The denier term is particularly unsettling to me as I came from Poland, the land of the majority of nazi concentration camps. Other meaning of this term is to deny something that is obvious and should not be even discussed. This again reminds me of my younger years of living under communism. If I had that unquestionable attitude in my professional life I would be mediocre and never employed, perhaps with the exception of the government, a body that I do not wish to be associated with.
70
David: I happen not be convinced by the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing a dangerous warming of the planet.
However, I have on occasion agreed with comments that those who think otherwise have made, and said so on this website. If I notice something which contradicts my thinking I take note and explore the issue further.
Please don’t call people ‘deniers’ – it doesn’t sit well with those who have many years of experience in science and technology, who are numerate, have enquiring minds and have well backed-up reasons for their comments.
Look at my comment (number 39) on this thread. I’m going to be thinking about this issue over the next few days, because subjectively 2014 hasn’t seemed to me to have been an exceptionally hot year at all in the UK where I live. There are some related matters I’m already aware of, and that’s why I’m asking for the views of others on this. Any relevant point you care to make would be welcome!
60
Very few people would DENY that CO2 absorbs ground origin IR.
What is not made clear by you however is the basic quantification of the Human Origin CO2 effect.
It has to get in line behind natural origin CO2, water vapour ( a huge item quantitatively) and the astronomic and orbital effects well known to real science.
Human origin CO2 can never be relevant, it is an effect almost immeasurable in the vast forces at work here.
Two years ago:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earths-energy-balance-measured-models-are-wrong/#comment-1163015
KK
41
I fixed the errors in your statement, now go forth and complain on the alarmist sites who ban skeptics, delete their comments, etc. since by your logic and reasoning the operators of those sites are “not just wrong but know they are wrong.”
How many years have you been at this David and you still can’t get it right. Projection seems to be your only skill.
70
David Appell,
This site allows anyone to post and to comment with balance, transparency and little interference or moderation.
There is no requirement to register, unlike alarmist sites that require a registration process and then only ever allow pro warmist comments.
The fact that trolls don’t appear to inhabit warmists sites is an indicator that:
1. Sceptics don’t feel the need to convert others to a particular beleif because sceptics are open evidential based theories.
2. Trolls are generated from warmist sites evidence by strong bias and often frantic comments.
3. Trolls seem to inhabit sceptic sites because the much greater freight across sceptic sites allows them an opportunity to vent.
3. The more badly goes the war the more desperate goes the propaganda.
5. So far David Appell remains typical of the all the points above.
Yours,
James Bradley
71
David Appell,
Something vaguely familiar about your writing… vaguely William Connolley familiar.
50
That is a low blow James.
I didn’t say undeserved………
00
Mark,
I see a correlation, good enough for the goose…
20
May be a clue into David Evans’ notch-delay theory, this is from my research into the expansion and contraction of planetary orbits and its relationship with the suns polar field reversals.
A breakdown of planetary orbits and solar activity.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6awa59CAAAtzNy.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6awLtKCMAEgxwV.jpg
10
Larger versions.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6awa59CAAAtzNy.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6awLtKCMAEgxwV.jpg:large
10
Could it be that this ozone theory only lowers the tropopause height in the tropical night as during the day thermodynamics could reverse that effect. If so this would increase the thermal capacity of the diurnal bulge to squeeze energy faster from the tropics to the poles during an active sun.
20
We are considering decadal, multidecadal and centennial variations here.
40
Force X could be some ocean thermal inertia which may have a tendency to align with the solar cycles.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj237/tolou1/Solar%20SSN/SunspotsMonthlySIDCandHadCRUT4GlobalMonthlyTemp_Markers_zps34503bc7.gif
00
David Evans thinks that ocean thermal inertia is dealt with by a low pass filter rather than the notch delay theory.Force X is proposed to be behind the notch delay aspect.
I think it likely takes 11 years or so for the effect of ozone changes in the mesosphere to work down through the polar vortices so as to ultimately affect global cloudiness. Only after global cloudiness changes does the issue of ocean thermal inertia become relevant because there is no change in solar input to the oceans until cloudiness changes.
That would make Force X the ozone changes above 45km and towards the poles which is the missing climate driver according to the recent Andersson paper.
I am neutral on the Force X issue since it doesn’t really affect my hypothesis but it would be consistent with my hnypothesis for David to be right.
43
The oceans affected by human activity, naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun.
I emphasize with the idea that Naval War had a great impact in the climate change. I suggest visiting http://www.1ocean-1climate.com.
20
Steven Wilde said:
“The weakening solar activity that culminated in cycle 20 was spread across the decline of cycle 19, the whole of cycle 20 and the early part of cycle 21 so that gives us 20 years.”
My response:
I genuinely believe that your hypothesis has some merit but, as scientist, I am obliged to point out that what you say above is scientifically incorrect. Here are the reasons why:
1) [Event A] The general level of solar activity on the Sun rose dramatically between about 1930 through to at least 1957 – the peak of strongest cycle in 200 years, cycle 19.
This is an indisputable observational fact!
2) [Event B] The cooling period for the Earth lasted from 1940 through to the mid-1970’s (at the latest).
Again, this is an indisputable observational fact!
3) Causality dictates that if A produces B then A must come before B.
4) However, the first 17 years of the cooling epoch (1940 – mid 1970’s) was a period of [definite] increasing solar activity.
Hence, any theory that says that decreasing solar insolation due to reduced solar activity always produces a cooling of the Earth
is deniging the law of causality – at least on the decadal time scale.
14
Hello again Ian.
I referred you to a link that showed that it was the negative PDO that accounted for some of the cooling during the 30 year period that concerns you.
Some years ago I discussed the interplay between sun and oceans here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
in particular:
“1) Active sun in cycles 18 and 19 then a less active sun in cycle 20 plus a negative PDO = cancelling out of expected warming followed by cooling when the sun gets less active in cycle 20 (!940 to 1975).
2) Active sun during cycles 21, 22 and the double peak of 23 plus positive PDO = significant warming. (1975 to 1998)
3) Slightly quieter sun during extended tail end of cycle 23 plus positive PDO = stable temperatures. (1998 to 2007).”
You can quibble about the precise terminology with the benefit of hindsight but the basic principles have been shown to be valid. It was the negative PDO that started the cooling from 1940 despite active cycle 18.
52
This post is important because it points to the massive involvement of “other effects” besides human origin CO2 as being part of the driving force behind the worlds oceans and atmosphere.
Unfortunately I must plead ignorance of the finer details of the processes mentioned and cannot afford the time needed to bone up on the topic figuring it would take many months of detailed analysis.
That leaves me sitting here looking at some of the posts that question the accuracy of certain items in the post.
People like “Ulric” and “Kristian” may or may not have valid points; I just can’t tell.
Perhaps they are just debating minor detail or perhaps they are here to rubbish Stephen, who knows.
Regardless, the post does a great service in highlighting what is a massive movement of water and air which involves large doses of energy which originated from the Sun.
That is the main issue which warmers cannot deny and while there are lots of mentions of obscure items for me in the upper atmosphere we cannot escape the fact that nearby space around the Earth is a gigantic heat sink just waiting for more energy to be drawn to its’ 1.6 C deg above absolute zero ; itself minus 273.6 deg C.
Whatever; the post is a winner.
KK
20
Stephen Wilde ; You say you read ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (Alex S. Gaddes,1990) some time ago – but you ‘cannot recall’ why you discarded it.
The planetary longitudinal effects of the ‘Dry Cycles’are to do with the Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field and the interaction (fragmentation) of cloud formation by the Solar emissions of the ‘W’ Factor – not land mass distribution. (As you would know if you read the work.)
The bottom line here is the veracity (or otherwise) of the resulting ‘Dry Cycle’ forecasts. Refute these if you can. I have outlined the latest planet – wide longitudinal ‘Dry Cycle’ activity in my previous post.(#40)
Alex S. Gaddes did not find which Solar particles were responsible – but he suspected neutrinos. He was intrigued (as were others at the time) by their apparent periodic ‘disappearance.’
The next logical step may be to correlate the arrival of these neutrinos,(or other entities,) with the onset of the ‘Dry Cycles’, as set out exactly in ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’.
Again, if you and others persist in trying to fit ENSO and ‘decadal activity’ into what is actually happening – you are doomed to perpetuate the mistakes of history.
11
Hi Don,
I didn’t read all of it because it didn’t join the dots in the way I have now done. I felt there was too much missing to persevere with it.
Lots of people, including your Dad, figured out individual components but so far as I know no one else before me has created a similarly plausible natural climate change overview.
41
Extract from Alex S. Gaddes ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990)
Appendix 4:
Model of a Convection ‘Still’
Alex S. Gaddes.
Raising of climatic temperature to a mean, specific, critical point, somehow dissociates moisture from lower atmosphere.
The more moisture used up, the drier and hotter the climate, the more dry air available to the convection ‘still’. So, the more super-cooled air delivered at the Poles.
Areas with drought conditions would be prevalent and widespread. Unexplainable ‘spot droughts’ would be conspicuous.
The deserts would tend to migrate away from the poles, ahead of cooler and wetter conditions. The vortex would centre over the point of greatest surface value of terrestrial G, in this case the Poles,
Thus, it seems, that there would always be extreme cold at the Poles (no matter where situated) so long as there were deserts and/or areas of dry air supply, in conjunction with required mean, specific, critical temperature.
The nightmarish hurricanes etc. which blast down from the Poles, would enter the lower atmosphere via the roaring circular cataracts over the Poles, the velocity of which would be easy to calculate from Density – Volume – Height.
It would be analogous to a kind of ‘invisible super Niagara’, but none the less real.
How else can the observed phenomena be explained? As far as I’m aware, the ratio of the lower atmospheric winds blowing to the Poles, to those blowing from the Poles is relatively low – where, density considered, there ought to be hurricane force winds, of greater mean volume and velocity blowing to the Poles, simultaneous with those blowing away there-from.
Even granting the above to be the case, would the enormous volume of warm air moving towards the Poles, spend sufficient time there to bring about the observed reduction in temperature? I doubt it. The role played by the Polar night, would be, I believe, only a supplementary one.
No one has yet explained to my satisfaction, just how this ‘snap freeze’ is brought about. It is beyond my comprehension to grasp, if the Pole itself is endowed with such physical powers! The model (Fig. 18) shows that the latter would not be necessary.
The above hypothesis has the advantage of being readily accessible to scientific test.
Mawson states that the average wind velocity for one year (continuous) at their base at Adelie Land, was 50 mph.*
As this record was taken about 1000 miles from the Pole, it would be reasonable to suppose that closer proximity to the Poles would make for higher average velocities.
Now if (as has been vaguely shown, in most authoritative works that I have been able to find) the devious wind currents moving from the equator to the Poles, finally reach the Poles (after continually changing direction and, presumably, gaining in density) and duly swing round to thereby commence the journey back to the equator, from whither comes the energy to accelerate the velocity of the (now) high density air?
*I learned from Mr. Robert Smith, who was a passenger in the recent Dick Smith tourist plane to Antarctica, that they enjoyed perfect weather, without a sign of turbulence on the Antarctic continent during the flight. Does this mean the tropospheric energy is also being piped away along with our momentum? For instance, how to explain the riddle of the missing Westerlies? Not all that long since, These ‘Roaring Forties’ could be guaranteed to set in (at this latitude, about 35 degrees south) around August, and continue to blow for about two months.
Would the low density in-going winds have the right order of velocity and whatever to make this geophysical U-turn and retain the observed characteristics?
Whereas; the mechanics of the hypothetic convection ‘still’ require only that the volume of warm dry air rises to a height whereby it gains a position of potential energy, from where it becomes gradually denser.
It would already be rotating, with Earth. As it gained density, so would it gain momentum. This, in turn, would be governed by the laws of the vortex? (see appendix. 6.) Also Kepler’s Second Law would govern the gradual decrease in velocity, as it reached the Pole.
The problem is, how did the Jet Stream gain such a high peripheral velocity?
Fig. 18: Convection Still
To me it seems that this would be a kind of equilibrium of spin. The above would be the velocity of rotation of Earth at the surface (approx.) 1000 mph.
Still following Kepler’s Second Law, we produce the hypothetic sweeping line from the axis of the Earth to a position in space, indicated by the peripheral velocity of the jet stream, over and above the mean velocity at Earth’s surface.
Another factor would be centrifugal force, caused by high velocity of periphery, would accommodate the fresh, warm, dry air, whilst space would be provided, as air cooled and became denser; so ‘sinking’ and spiraling toward the greatest point of value of terrestrial G – at the Poles. Thus we have two basic features of spin, as components of the basic cause, as well as warm, dry air rising and terrestrial G.
From the above considerations the requirement necessary to start the ‘still’ is the raising of the mean, specific, critical temperature of an area large enough to create enough dry air to inaugurate the jet stream.
From there on, the system would be more or less self regulating – the mechanism relying on a constant supply of warm, dry air. The basic energy would ultimately be derived directly from the Sun and Earth rotation.
03
KinkyKeith:
I can understand your disbelief, but what I have written is based on valid physics. There is no evidence of internal energy generation or cooling off for the planet Uranus. The Sun keeps it at its current temperatures in the troposphere and right down to the core. Why do you suppose the temperature gradient is so close to the expected value all the way to the methane layer which is in radiative balance with the Sun near top of atmosphere? This layer is the only heat source, and the temperature gradient builds downwards from it, not upwards from the 5,000K small solid core thousands of kilometres further down.
05
Doug.
We are not on Uranus, nor are we talking about Uranus.
Your comment appears confused and makes untrue statements such as :
” This layer is the only heat source, and the temperature gradient builds downwards from it”.
What about all the UV which makes it to the Earths surface?
KK
60
We are in a solar system which shares common laws of physics on all planets. There is no solar radiation (UV included) which makes it to the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface. The direct solar radiation striking Earth’s surface has a mean of 163W/m^2 and that cannot possibly explain observed temperatures. Now read my summary linked above because I am not wasting time repeating any more of it here.
05
Hurrah!
81
And that, GA, is why I’ve spent a few hours writing a permanent, succinct summary of what is in the book and some supplementary interesting information regarding the effect of planetary orbits on Earth’s climate. It is entirely up to any reader as to whether they wish to read and learn about the valid physics therein, but if you or anyone on any blog writes stuff based on invalid physics I will respond accordingly because I’m sick and tired of the GH garbage that is plunging developing countries into poverty and costing countless lives.
07
oh good. Have you bought yourself any spectrographic equipment yet so you can falsify 100 years of science?
50
Pinpoint precisely where you think I have “falsified 100 years of science.” You and others can read my explanation here.
If you are unable to discuss the valid physics involved then I suggest you refrain from interfering perhaps because of some pecuniary interest you have and thus need to remain anonymous.
04
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/weekend-unthreaded-8/#comment-1247532
00
I know that Ulric Lyons, Kristian and Doug Cotton have all developed ideas of their own as to why the Earth’s climate is as it is.
Because of that it is important to each of them to deal with points in my hypothesis that do not fit with their ideas.
However, I respectfully claim the right to my own viewpoint which I believe is closer to the reality than theirs.
This is not the time or place to try to resolve such issues. In good time the climate itself will resolve them.
In the meantime I am satisfied with recent findings that support my 2010 original version such as the recent paper from Andersson et al.
74
You invite us, Stephen, to “deal with points in my hypothesis that do not fit with their ideas.”
In general you appear to imply that the reason the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient is found in all planetary tropospheres has something to do with air or gas circulation caused primarily by wind in all its forms.
Wind has nothing to do with the convective heat transfer which is necessary for the gradient to form.
For the troposphere of Uranus to keep getting hotter as you go down there needs to be relatively calm conditions for the necessary convective heat transfers to form the expected –-g/Cp gradient which they do within about 10% on that planet. The only significant heat source is that due to absorption of solar radiation in the methane layer near the top of the Uranus atmosphere. There the temperature is less than 60K being in radiative equilibrium with the Sun’s radiation. But at the base of the nominal troposphere it is 320K and the small solid core (55% the mass of Earth) is around 5,000K and will remain so while ever the Sun continues to radiate at present-day levels. The planet is not just “cooling off” and nor is there significant internal energy generation from matter. What happens is explained in my hypothesis outlined here and in my book. You are welcome to discuss the physics therein.
09
You invite us, Stephen, to “deal with points in my hypothesis that do not fit with their ideas.”
In general you appear to imply that the reason the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient is found in all planetary tropospheres has something to do with air or gas circulation caused primarily by wind in all its forms.
Wind has nothing to do with the convective heat transfer which is necessary for the gradient to form.
For the troposphere of Uranus to keep getting hotter as you go down there needs to be relatively calm conditions for the necessary convective heat transfers to form the expected –-g/Cp gradient which they do within about 10% on that planet. The only significant heat source is that due to absorption of solar radiation in the methane layer near the top of the Uranus atmosphere. There the temperature is less than 60K being in radiative equilibrium with the Sun’s radiation. But at the base of the nominal troposphere it is 320K and the small solid core (55% the mass of Earth) is around 5,000K and will remain so while ever the Sun continues to radiate at present-day levels. The planet is not just “cooling off” and nor is there significant internal energy generation from matter. What happens is explained in my hypothesis outlined here and in my book. You are welcome to discuss the physics therein.
09
Wilde:
“However, I respectfully claim the right to my own viewpoint which I believe is closer to the reality than theirs.
This is not the time or place to try to resolve such issues. In good time the climate itself will resolve them.”
Rather than waste words on my astonishment of the solipsism, I will give you a forecast. As in the Dalton and Gleissberg Minima, the coldest period for the mid latitudes will occur roughly between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak solar cycles in the minimum, ~2015-2025. How cold it gets is significantly effected by the planetary ordering of solar activity through the period. And the best heliocentric analogue which was mostly in solar cycle 8, from 1836-1845, was within 0.01°C of the coldest years of Dalton (1807-1817). The climatic outlook is a sharp increase in negative NAO/AO, El Nino conditions and episodes, positive Indian Dipole episodes, a renewed warming of the AMO and Arctic, persistent drought in the US great plains, Australia, and India/Indonesia. NW Europe will see a long string of very wet cool summers.
The forecast for the main periods of negative NAO and associated weather through to 2016 is here, and will be followed by an extremely cold Jan-Mar 2017, the previous analogue being Murphy’s Winter of 1838:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/#comment-1498257
02
“1836-1845, was within 0.01°C of the coldest years of Dalton (1807-1817)”
CET: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
00
To all:
In regard to the first paragraph in the top article there is other literature talking about the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, such as this:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/09/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation
We need to understand (if only from the compelling correlation that is evident) that planetary orbits are involved in regulating cycles. After all, what other long-term regulatory factors might be involved?
The magnetic fields of the planets reach to the Sun and obviously vary in intensity depending on the distance which varies for an elliptical orbit. It seems likely that it is the effect of these varying magnetic fields which affects cosmic ray levels and maybe UV intensity and sun spot activity.
So there is a plausible mechanism linking the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets with climate, as shown here.
I have then explained how the variation in solar intensity getting past the clouds subsequently affects surface temperatures, but that process is not one which involves wind of any form as I believe SW implies, perhaps more so in his other articles and comments elsewhere.
If you put together the first paragraph here (which I can’t verify to be correct, but seems plausible) or the explanation in the above-linked article about cloud formation, with the valid physics that I have presented regarding convective heat transfers, then you probably have a pretty complete explanation, including why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.
05
“The magnetic fields of the planets reach to the Sun and obviously vary in intensity depending on the distance which varies for an elliptical orbit. It seems likely that it is the effect of these varying magnetic fields which affects cosmic ray levels and maybe UV intensity and sun spot activity. ”
Well put.
But then:
” the variation in solar intensity getting past the clouds subsequently affects surface temperatures, but that process is not one which involves wind of any form”
Now you say that temperature variation does no lead to wind?
Huh?
Exzaaasperating !!
KK
50
The sentence has the meaning that the process of affecting surface temperatures is not one which involves wind of any form.
As I said, read my summary and stop wasting my time.
06
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/draft-ipcc-report-leaked-the-evidence-is-so-overwhelming-it-has-to-be-kept-secret/#comment-1204450
Energy moves under pressure; no not that pressure, I mean the pressure of the thermal gradient.
KK
00
In calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours there will be an environmental temperature gradient above Earth’s surface (say 7 degrees per kilometer) but not necessarily any net thermal energy movement up or down, because there is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and so, by definition, no net energy flows across any boundary internal or external.
04
As I said, read my summary (linked above) and stop wasting my time.
04
“Energy moves under … the pressure of the thermal gradient”
Nope. Entropy always increases and that determines the direction of convective heat transfers in isolated systems. You need to study the Second Law of Thermodynamics rather than just referring to a restricted corollary of that law which is only valid in a horizontal plane.
04
oug,
My hypothesis does not exclude planetary effects on solar activity but I have no need to enter into that contentious aspect.
I doubt the cosmic ray effect for reasons stated elsewhere. I prefer cloudiness changes from variations in the length of the lines of air mass mixing between zonal and meridional jet stream tracks.
I am aware of your position on convection but it does not square with mine for reasons we need not discuss in detail here. The winds which concern me are the upward and downward flows in high and low pressure cells because they do work with and against gravity which leads to changes in temperature along the lapse rate slope.
There is currently a lot of good stuff about the behaviour of gases moving up and down within a gravitational field here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/
I recall that your theory relies on diffusion (conduction) rather than up and down convection and we have disagreed on that issue before.
34
The upward and downward winds do not help form the temperature gradient. They work against it. This is obvious at the South Pole where the downward winds are strong enough to cool the surface to temperatures similar to the upper troposphere from whence they came. The temperature gradient is not formed by winds: it is disturbed by wind. The explanation is in the summary linked in other comments.
05
The temperature gradient is only formed by convective heat transfer in calm conditions, and wind disturbs it temporarily. That’s what physics tells us.
04
SW:
Physicists talk about convective heat transfer and, as you will read in the summary linked in other comments, that is what I am talking about. It is what happens on Venus also, where the Sun can only raise the temperature in regions in the upper troposphere and above where temperatures are less than about 400K. It is convective heat transfer which, over the course of four months of sunlight, conveys the new thermal energy into the lower troposphere and the surface, raising the temperature of the surface from about 732K to 737K.
Wind is a totally different process and would not transfer thermal energy downwards this way. It does not happen on Earth, or Venus, or Uranus or anywhere. Your hypothesis is disproved because it does not “work” above the South Pole or on other planets, or anywhere. You have no explanation as to why Earth’s surface warms by day and cools by night on cloudy days when no sunlight reaches the surface – just as an example. You also cannot explain why the core of the Moon is over 1,300C due to convective and conductive heat transfer of solar energy.
04
Regarding the errors in the Hockey Schtick articles, see this page of my third climate website.
05
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/ […]
00
This would occur if the extreme ultraviolet that drives ozone creation and destruction, and the effects of the energetic electron precipitation found by Andersson et al, both lag the trends in bulk TSI (visible light and normal UV) by one sunspot cycle
Solar EUV follows the sunspot cycle very accurately and it is generally accepted that TSI does as well:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf
So we can eliminate the ‘lag’ idea.
34
Hello, Leif.
There may be no lag in the change in the quantity of EEPs or other relevant wavelengths and particles but it then takes time for the change in ozone amounts high up to filter down through the polar vortices, change jet stream/climate zone positioning and alter total global cloudiness enough to significantly alter solar energy into the oceans.
60
Stephen Wilde:
“..but it then takes time for the change in ozone amounts high up to filter down through the polar vortices, change jet stream/climate zone positioning..”
Excursions in the jet stream latitude/track very regularly follow daily scale planetary ordering of the solar signal with little lag. Such that I could forecast Arctic outbreaks from around 7 Jan 2014, 10/11 Nov 2014, and 26/27 Dec 2014. Anything that takes more than a few days to develop, won’t be able to account for the majority of jet stream excursions.
The jet is highly mobile, it can move north-south 1000 miles in in a week. The only thing that has any real lag is how atmospheric circulation patterns organise SST patterns, and how they then feedback to the jet stream patterns. Like with the very warm NE Pacific SST’s since March 2013 that have dictated particularly the winter jet stream track across the US and Atlantic/UK etc.
I don’t think that there are long term cycles in the solar forcing of jet stream latitude. Even with solar minima, it’s just a stream of noise, an events series, just with an increase in short term cold shots. And the amplitude of the noise is far larger than any perceived cycle. It’s the summing effects of the oceans that creates the cycling.
11
Ulric said:
“I don’t think that there are long term cycles in the solar forcing of jet stream latitude. Even with solar minima”
Then that is where I think you go wrong.
Your short term predictions are all well and good (though I’m sceptical about their level of utility) but over decades and centuries you should also factor in the solar induced latitudinal shifting AND the varying, lagged, ocean response.
32
No its all discrete events at weekly to seasonal scales. Averaging the jet latitude over decades or centuries says nothing about what scales that the solar forcing operates at.
20
I have some difficulty in accepting that too much accuracy can be expected in describing Earths machinations when time scales are not clearly stated.
There are far too many overlapping effects which may or may not be active at any particular time.
KK
00
One can’t state the time scales any clearer than the dates that I gave above. I had also originally specified the duration for each window of Arctic outbreaks.
10
Ulric, I am agreeing with your comment as I see the failure to specify time scales for “Models” as a major scientific failure.
🙂
KK
10
Wilde said:
“Your short term predictions are all well and good (though I’m sceptical about their level of utility0”
I feel the need to pick up on this point again. Why exactly are you sceptical of the level of utility?
My contention, is that I have empirical hindcasts of solar forcing at the scale of weather going back hundreds of years. All you are presenting is a postulate that there is “solar induced latitudinal shifting” of the jet steam at decadal and longer scales. You have no direct evidence of it.
11
“Why exactly are you sceptical of the level of utility?”
Because you haven’t made a fortune from your predictions.
22
That is not a measure of the utility of a free forecast. My intentions are to publish and teach my findings so that anyone can apply them for forecasting. And to provide critical evidence for the solar forcing of the climate at the scale of weather.
This being a direct challenge to the assumption that weather patterns are internal and stochastic, and evidence of an addition solar forcing metric that is neglected in climate models, one that operates at down to daily scales.
01
I’m sure you would charge for it if it had utility.
00
I’m sure you would if you had the means. I’m more interested in getting it across to people to marvel at and ponder upon, and realise the changes that it will inevitably make to weather climate and solar science.
Which is why I posted the link to the forecast for the next 2 years above.
00
Leif
I agree that solar changes lead to instantaneous adjustment of TSI but this problem is about what happens to the energy after it has arrived here.
It gets tied up in the large scale Mass, Heat and momentum transfer of air and water and some energy is even stored in living things.
Lag times for some processes can be estimated but together all factors interacting make it an impossible task to work out a combined lag time from scratch but it may be possible to see the combined lag effect as some are postulating.
KK.
00
For ease of access I’ll repeat one of my above comments here.
My hypothesis merely proposes that the observed effect on the climate system is caused by changes in the mixture of wavelengths and particles coming from the sun and I leave it to others to establish which wavelengths and which particles.
For whatever reason the effect on ozone of an active sun above 45km and towards the poles is the opposite sign of the previously held view and that has been integral to my hypothesis since 2010.
One simply has to have that opposite sign ozone response to get jet stream and climate zone changes in the direction(s) observed.
Nothing other than a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles can shift the jets and climate zones latitudinally. That is the critical insight.
33
Physicists talk about convective heat transfer and, as you will read in my summary linked in other comments, that is what I am talking about also. It is what happens on Venus, where the Sun can only raise the temperature in regions in the upper troposphere and above where temperatures are less than about 400K. It is convective heat transfer which, over the course of four months of sunlight, conveys the new thermal energy into the lower troposphere and the surface, raising the temperature of the surface from about 732K to 737K.
Wind is a totally different process and cannot transfer thermal energy downwards this way. It does not happen on Earth, or Venus, or Uranus or anywhere. Your hypothesis is disproved because it does not work above the South Pole or on other planets or anywhere. You have no explanation as to why Earth’s surface warms by day and cools by night on cloudy days when no sunlight reaches the surface just as an example. You also cannot explain why the core of the Moon is over 1,300C due to convective and conductive heat transfer of solar energy.
05
Physicists talk about convective heat transfer and, as you will read in my summary linked in other comments, that is what I am talking about also. It is what happens on Venus, where the Sun can only raise the temperature in regions in the upper troposphere and above where temperatures are less than about 400K. It is convective heat transfer which, over the course of four months of sunlight, conveys the new thermal energy into the lower troposphere and the surface, raising the temperature of the surface from about 732K to 737K.
Wind is a totally different process and cannot transfer thermal energy downwards this way. It does not happen on Earth, or Venus, or Uranus or anywhere. Your hypothesis is disproved because it does not work above the South Pole or on other planets or anywhere. You have no explanation as to why Earth’s surface warms by day and cools by night on cloudy days when no sunlight reaches the surface just as an example. You also cannot explain why the core of the Moon is over 1,300C due to convective and conductive heat transfer of solar energy.
05
Heat Transfer on Earth; not Uranus.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/weekend-unthreaded-8/#comment-1247532
KK
20
Stop wasting my time and everyone else’s with your conjectures about the core heat warming the oceans. Such have no foundation in physics.
Read http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/weekend-unthreaded-61/#comment-1659430
07
When I visited the big Island of Hawaii I saw the molten core of the Earth coming in direct contact with the ocean and heating it.
The are many known subsurface vents and on top of that the less obvious heat transfer from core to ocean base continues.
As mentioned in my link above, miners do find that as they go deeper the Earth warms.
They do not find that it gets cooler.
This tells me that energy is escaping from the Earths core to atmosphere.
KK
20
Hi KK, certainly there is energy being leaked from the mantle into the oceans..
…through vents, volcanoes etc, as well as probably through the thinner crust under the oceans
How much? And did it have any contribution to the very small amount of warming over that latter part of last century? … a much harder question to answer.
Also note that the “miner” temperature issue could also be related to increased atmospheric pressure in deep mines not allowing energy to escape up the pressure/temperatre gradient.
10
An interesting point Griss.
Having watched the temperature gauge while traveling at 35,000 feet I can appreciate that a deep mine , say 1 km, would have
(according to estimates on line) an increase of 6.5 C deg due to added air pressure.
I’ve been 4,000 ft down a mine and it does get warm.
Now I want to know what really is the temperature of the Earths crust and is there a gradient as I proposed in one of my earlier posts last year?
With surface/soil/ ground/rock temps at about 18 deg C at latitudes 30 degrees either side of the equator there is a stated outgoing estimated by somebody ?? of 40 watts/m2 from the surface ie Earths heat loss?
We learn something every day; thank you Doug.
KK
00
You guys need to read about boreholes that are 9Km or more deep – not mines.
Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Continental_Deep_Drilling_Program
00
Sorry to have to embarrass you yet again KinkyKeith, but you missed an “m” which stands for “milli” …
“The accepted value of mean global heat flow increased from 64 to 79 mW/m2 during the last decade.”
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GD005p0217/summary
00
KK: If you want to understand the valid physics explaining volcanic energy you know where to look. I can assure you that the energy from volcanoes etc is orders of magnitude less than what the Sun delivers to Earth. Do you ever wonder what keeps the core of the Moon hotter than 1,300C? No it’s not internal energy generation, and neither does such necessarily supply all the energy in lava. I first published a paper on planetary core and surface temperatures over two years ago.
04
KK writes: “This tells me that energy is escaping from the Earths core to atmosphere.:
It doesn’t “tell” you that: you have incorrectly assumed it. The temperature gradient in the outer crust (such as in the 9Km deep German borehole) is about what we expect based on the quotient of the acceleration due gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter. Hence that gradient represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (or near enough) and so we don’t know which way the net heat flow (if any) is directed, but it is most likely inwards on a sunny day.
06
“but it is most likely inwards”
Now that is real science; spoken like a true warmer!
Most likely it’s incorrect?
You still haven’t responded with a plain English answer to my request;
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/weekend-unthreaded-61/#comment-1659475
KK
00
“but it is most likely inwards on a sunny day.”
And at night?
And on a cloudy day in winter?
KK
00
Please see this comment below. You have a wrong impression altogether of my motives. It would be better if you focused on the valid physics which I have presented rather than the incorrect conjectures of Stephen Wilde which run contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
[Read http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ – Mod]
06
The Hockey Schtick blog has a wierd version of the Second Law in their current blog. How far can junk science degenerate? The Second Law applies to an independent process or to a combination of dependent processes. If it only applied to the whole Earth system you might as well say water could flow uphill up a mountain provided it flows further down the other side. You could prove that with your peculiar version of the Second Law.
06
“might as well say water could flow uphill up a mountain provided it flows further down the other side.”
You mean, like a syphon ?
51
A siphon is a perfect example of two dependent processes, just like I said above “a combination of dependent processes” for which the Second Law applies. Now, if you cut the hose at the top the two sides no longer have dependent processes, and so this example makes my point perfectly.
04
When I apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics correctly I am able to explain the energy flows which James Hansen could not, and so invented flows he attributed to back radiation which cannot slow non-radiative cooling – only radiative cooling. And CO2 cannot significantly affect the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which results from the Second Law.
Stephen Wilde has no understanding whatsoever as to why we need to understand the Second Law before we can explain the energy flows in a planet’s troposphere and sub-surface regions down to the core. This is the 21st new century paradigm shift in climate science about which I first published a paper and article well over two years ago, and then my book. See my new (third) climate website linked in other comments here.
Radiation into a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of the temperature thereof. That fact, derived from valid physics, shatters the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture. Valid physics replaces it with a sound explanation that is universal.
02
Moderator: Yes the GH radiative forcing conjecture does ignore The Second Law of Thermodynamics. See: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/#comment-1663236
02
Moderator:
I have set up this (third) climate website WhyItsNotCO2.com so as to minimise the length of comments and avoid repetition. I will continue to expose false physics and, as you can see on that site, I have pages dedicated to valid critiques of posts on WUWT and the Hockey Schtick as they are the only two sites that have banned my comments lately. However, I have used the name “Climate Researcher” on WUWT recently, and that was why I used it here for consistency with duplicated general comments.
Be assured, above all, that my comments and website contain valid physics which no one in the world has been able to successfully fault. Physicists have given favorable reviews about what I have written in the book and comments on other threads. Australians in general lack sufficient understanding of thermodynamics, so it’s not surprising that we get inane comments from some. Stephen Wilde is in error in thinking that downward wind forms the adiabatic lapse rate, but his misunderstandings are understandable as he has no qualification in physics. The thermodynamics of the atmosphere is all totally within the realm of physics I trust you would agree.
You can delete this comment of course, and there’s also one comment that was accidentally posted twice, perhaps due to a double click with the mouse. So you may wish to tidy that up.
07
Stephen, you can disagree with me all you like, and quote MS who is also mistaken, but you are in effect assuming that downward winds are going to warm the surface, which they clearly don’t do at the South Pole. They do not supply the extra thermal energy which is required because of the fact that direct solar radiation is insufficient.
My hypothesis is developed directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics for which a prerequisite is an isolated system. A system into which wind enters (and thus adds energy) is not isolated, and so you are in effect assuming that the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics will still function and give the same result, namely the expected environmental temperature gradient that we observe. Furthermore, since planetary surfaces in general warm during sunlit hours and cool on the dark side, you would need all your wind going downwards by day and upwards by night on all planets.
But until you read, study and understand my hypothesis you will have no concept as to what I am talking about. The new summary I’ve l;inked elsewhere may be sufficient. Meanwhile the following applies to what you incorrectly claim because you want the Second Law to apply when it does not do so …
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
—Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
06
Doug, your comments are off topic for this thread but since you persist I will address the issues.
You said:
“since planetary surfaces in general warm during sunlit hours and cool on the dark side, you would need all your wind going downwards by day and upwards by night on all planets.”
I say that on average there is net uplift on the sunlit side and net descent on the dark side. The opposite of what you said.
The S-B temperature for a planetary surface without an atmosphere is the average of the temperatures on the sunlit and dark sides.
Uplift on the sunlit side reduces the maximum surface temperature by taking heat up and away from the surface.
Descent on the dark side raises the minimum surface temperature by moving heat back towards the surface. That warming descending air reduces surface cooling by limiting convection from the unlit surface rather than by conducting energy back to the surface though there is a
In reality, for a rotating sphere, the entire atmosphere is divided into cells of uplift and descent on both sunlit and dark sides. Those cells create the climate zones.
On average overall there is a net increase of Earth’s temperature by 33C above S-B due to the length of time that the energy is tied up in the convective cycle.
The process applies to all planets with atmospheres and the greater the mass of the atmosphere the longer (and the more) energy is tied up in the convective cycle and the higher the surface temperature rises above S-B.
Note that the sinking air warms at the dry adiabatic lapse rate as it descends.
It is that warming on descent that dissipates clouds and results in clear skies. Those clear skies are similar to the clear glass roof of a greenhouse in that they let solar radiation reach the surface beneath.
That warming on descent also reduces the rate of temperature decline with height which suppresses convection from the surface so that the surface remains warmer than it otherwise would have done. That is similar to the way that a greenhouse roof supresses convection and allows heat to increase beneath.
That is the true greenhouse effect.
24
A well written outline Stephen, useful for someone like myself who may not be immediately familiar with the goings on in the upper remote areas of the atmosphere.
14
ps.
No doubt you and Doug are both aware that averaging day and night planetary temps is probably just a beginning in assembling all of the detail which is involved in such complex and chaotic systems ( I actually hate that term but; Chaotic) and that the S-B equation has been a source of trouble for many who use it in inappropriate situations.
To people like Doug who constantly quote results based on S_B it might be instructive for him to talk to a practicing thermo engineer who actually could show him why use of even the use of emissivity factors for what might be assumed to be grey body surfaces is fraught with difficulty and traps for the uneducated pure physicist.
We have seen this so often from the warmer camp where they assume black or grey body characteristics when the system does not qualify for the use of Stephan – Boltzman.
No doubt Doug is ware of the Diurnal bulge, a massively disruptive factor, just one of the many messing with our atmosphere.
I wish everybody trying to do an energy balance on the planet great luck.
You are all going to need it.
KK
04
KK,
I think that the S-B calculation is a useful starting point but no more. The features necessary to comply precisely with S-B do not exist on any planetary body.
Once one begins to move away from the raw S-B calculation there is no way of measuring exactly what the real average temperature actually is or should be for any particuilar planetary body.
There are too many constantly changing and interacting variables for a meaningful average temperature to be ascertained.
All one can do is consider the general principles in a conceptual rather than mathematical manner and see how well any resultant concept fits real world observations over time.
Once one has a working concept then one can use mathematics to try and extract the relative scales of the variables involved and see how they affect each other but an average temperature alone is not helpful.
My efforts have been focused on creating a conceptual model which accounts for as many observations as possible. Others can then start to apply some maths in order to develop predictive skill.
My hypothesis fits a wider range of climate observations than any other hypothesis that I am aware of thus far.
24
Stephen, you have correctly identified the complexity of the problem and that is so much more than many others have done.
As I said in an earlier post, and I’m no expert on ocean or atmospheric heat transfer, what I took from this post is that there is a very plausible mechanism at work which dwarfs the human origin CO2 effect, which is the core of the CAGW Religion.
Good post.
KK
02
Actually, KK it is very simple
The surface becomes warmer than S-B simply because any gravitational potential energy (GPE) created from surface kinetic energy in convective overturning that is not radiated to space is returned to the surface as heat on the next descent. GPE is not heat and does not radiate.
That returning heat energy then has to be added to the continuing flow of new solar energy and the two energy sources combine to give a surface temperature for the Earth 33C higher than S-B predicts.
The surface then fails to radiate to space at that higher temperature because the excess energy goes straight back into the next convective ascent via conduction from surface to air and so is simply not available to be radiated to space.
The same package of energy at the surface cannot be in two places at once. Either it radiates to space or it conducts to the air and convection balances the two processes to ensure that energy out equals energy in when viewing the Earth from space.
23
thanks Stephen’
That was useful but I still have a lot of angst about using S_B to get a theoretical temp for Earths surface when emissivities vary so much from place to place.
Thermodynamics of complex systems is not as easy as just using a good equation as Doug seems to like to do.
Understanding the practical situation is critical but what I said before; you have given insight into how release of energy back to space can be delayed long enough and consistently enough to give us a liveable environment although many in the northern hemisphere at the moment might disagree about that.
KK.
03
…for sure the heat from the sun is what matters most, but this heat to a very high percentage absorbed by the oceans, and according to the laws of physics released to the atmosphere, making the oceans the driver of climate.
20
No, the thin surface layer of the oceans is transparent and not a black body. In any event, the solar flux reaching it is only a mean of about 163 watts per square meter which cannot explain the ocean’s temperature even if it were all black asphalt.
05
Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes (1990)
Appendix 3:
“Magnetic Fields and the Evolution of the Venusian Atmosphere
Alex S. Gaddes, (unpublished paper on the intensity of the magnetic field, relative to rotation rate, as applied to Earth and some neighbouring planets, with variations in intensity of Earth’s magnetic field over time; also some speculations on the evolution of Venus’s atmosphere.)
Mercury has a rotation rate of 58.65 Earth days and a revolutionary period of 88 Earth days, with a magnetic field strength of between 350 and 700 gammas, which about one percent of that of Earth.
It is noteworthy that Mercury has a Di-pole M.F., aligned with its spin axis, similar to that displayed on Earth.
Venus’s magnetic field at the time of writing is unknown to me, but has a retrograde rotation rate of 243Earth days at the crustal surface, compared with an atmospheric rotation rate of four to six Earth days.
The search for an explanation for the difference in rotation rates between Venus and its atmosphere, has led me back to my model of a convection ‘still’’ which incorporates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum as the major factor, coupled with other relevant phenomena.
Let us assume that Venus (at one stage of its evolution) possessed an atmosphere and rotation rate, approximately, of a similar categorical order to that of Earth’s at the present time.
Being closer to the Sun, the buildup of carbon dioxide in Venus’ atmosphere would proceed at a much faster rate than in that of Earth.
Thus it should follow that the well known ‘greenhouse’ effect (which is already in evidence here on Earth) would have long since produced the phenomena observed on Venus at the present time.
I explain the difference in rotation rate between the atmosphere and surface of Venus thus: The gradual buildup of carbon dioxide raises global specific temperature to the level required to activate (consequently) the further rapid buildup of carbon dioxide and jet streams (the scenario at present prevailing on Earth) and, subsequently, the observed physic-chemical constitution of Venus’ atmosphere at the present time.
This would be a gradual process, proportionate to, and in step with, the raising of the mean global temperature over time.
At this stage, it seems in order to invoke the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Thus, Venus would have an atmosphere of ever- increasing density, evolving over a long period of geological time.
Moreover, as the density increased, so must the mass, and consequently, the momentum. It follows that, in gaining this angular momentum, Venus’ atmosphere must- needs plunder the angular momentum of the planet’s crustal surface at the equator.
From the foregone deductions, it is clear what has brought about the conditions prevailing on the enigmatic Venus. The above explanation, if correct, should hold as a powerful argument for the validity of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, as a likely solvent in the problems surrounding spin physics, at least as applied by me to date.
Looking back over my work, it would seem to me that Earth is tending toward a similar state of evolution. However, our salvation might well lay in the fact that we are unique (as regards the inner planets,) in-as-much as Earth has been fortuitously provided by Nature with an abundance of water.
According to Rankama and Sahama, (pp. 542-545, Geochemistry, 1950,Chicago Press) the ocean acts (in this case) as a built-in safety device in that it dissolves excess carbon dioxide above a critical partial pressure in the atmosphere.
As a point of interest, the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could well presage the imminence of a new burst of life in our oceans, and the instigation of a new age of coal measures. A repeat performance of Late Paleozoic Times?
It seems unlikely (from the above-listed evidence of the role of the sea in relation to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) that planets Mercury, Venus and Mars ever displayed significant seas.
With regard to the matter of the relative magnetic field intensities of the various planets under discussion, the implication is overwhelming that the field intensities in question, are governed by the rate of spin of the outer crustal surface (equatorial) of the planets (excluding the atmosphere,) relative to their respective cores: that, if Venus definitely does not have a magnetic field, then the critical rate of spin of the crust, relative to the respective core, has slowed below the critical speed (required by the dynamo theory,) necessary to maintain a magnetic field.
Regarding the aberrations in the Earth’s magnetic field since records began in about the 1850’s:
According to W. M. Elsasser (Scientific American, 1958) the intensity of Earth’s magnetic fields, from the beginning of records to the time of his writing, had waned by about five percent.
If it were possible to compare Earth’s axial spin rate, between its value at the beginning of records and now, it would seem to me that a definite slowing down would show up as being intimately related to the sunspot number and intensity of the magnetic field.
I am not aware if Mars possesses a magnetic field or not, but if similar physico-chemical conditions prevail there, as those which constitute the make-up Earth, from centre to crustal surface, it should follow that Mars does possess a magnetic field, though not so intense as that of Earth (owing to the smaller size of the critical features which presumably contribute to the existence of a magnetic field, relative spin.
Intuition indicates that there is an equation (maybe already written somewhere) which will nicely accommodate the problem of the relationship of the intensity of the magnetic field to the physical dimensions of the relevant sections of the planet to its axial spin.
Of course, it would be necessary to take into consideration the size and composition of the respective cores, relative to the outer crust of the planet under study.
Points taken from the above Notes;
I would further point out the significance of the observed variation of spin rate in the atmosphere of Venus.
To explain the anomaly, it is necessary to take into account the fact Venus’ atmosphere is represented by a very dense gas. A classic analogy might be made with the root cause, namely the Sun.
It is well known to scientists that the Sun is made up of an extremely dense gas which rotates differentially, at varying rates.
Evidently this phenomenon is an inherent property of a dense gaseous body, spinning on its own axis in space, the boundaries between the various rotation rates signifying zones of differential shear.
For instance, it should follow that an area under observation at the Equator, would be seen to spin at a faster rate than would an area observed at a higher latitude, precisely as in that observed in the Sun.
Given the physico-chemical conditions prevailing in Venus’ atmosphere at present, it might not be necessary to invoke a moving core as an accessory to the maintenance of a Venusian magnetic field.
It might be possible to maintain a weak magnetic field by friction in the differential shear zone of an atmosphere consisting of a high-density, electrically conducting gas.
Apparently the principle of the self-exciting dynamo remains valid, whether applied to a dense-gaseous, or a solid-fluid system, like that of Earth’s classic model.
The ever-increasing build-up in density and momentum of Venus’ atmosphere has, over the eons of time, progressively plundered almost all of the original angular momentum held at the equatorial crustal surface of that planet.
It seems likely that an earlier spin rate for Venus would have been more in keeping with the 4-6 Earth day rotation rate observed in that planet’s present atmosphere.”
See previous extract Model of a Convection ‘Still’ (Post #66)
20
Don it is interesting that you link planetary magnetic fields with sunspots, for that is what I have also written about and why it must be magnetic fields from the planets that regulate Earth’s natural climate cycles by way of their affect on the Sun. This then becomes the “missing link” which provides a physically feasible explanation for the very strong correlation between Earth’s climate and the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets, as shown on my linked website.
06
No Don – “The gradual buildup of carbon dioxide raises global specific temperature” is not correct for Venus or any planet. Radiation from carbon dioxide in the Venus atmosphere cannot deliver 16,000W/m^2 of thermal energy from the atmosphere to the surface, this being several times the solar flux that originally entered at the top of the atmosphere. In fact, because the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it cannot deliver any thermal energy, because the electro-magnetic energy in the radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the hotter surface. The postulate cannot explain why a point on the equator rises in temperature (from 732K to 737K) during the 4-month-long Venus day. My paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (March 2012) enlarges upon all this. What does explain the energy flows on Venus is here.
03
Some are of the opinion that I’m just interested in book sales. I’m not. I’m “interested” in reducing poverty in developing countries and saving lives that are being lost due to the greatest hoax in world history. Carbon dioxide cools. Water vapor cools and valid physics can be used to explain why.
I’ve already put my money where my mouth is, sinking $3,000 into the book which I’ll never get back by a long shot now that it is being sold with royalties under $1 just to get the truth out. I’ve also set up a new website outlining what is in the book anyway, and so that WhyItsNotCO2.com, if linked saves much space and repetition in comments. What is in the website is correct physics.
07
“Stephen Wilde is in error in thinking that downward wind forms the adiabatic lapse rate”
Gravity and atmospheric mass subjected to insolation through the gas onto a solid surface cause the lapse rate slope in accordance with the Gas Laws and the consequence is that dry descending air warms at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
That is irrelevant to the original post and should not be discussed here.
34
Stephen, your “dry descending air” can only form the temperature gradient adiabatically by way of convective heat transfer which, in physics, also includes diffusion. Air circulation and wind are totally different phenomenon and not adiabatic because external energy is being introduced as wind approaches the isolated system (such as a column of air) under consideration.
Downward winds at the South Pole convey the cold air from the upper troposphere to the surface, thus maintaining the surface temperature at similar levels to the tropopause. If the winds formed a “lapse rate” of, say, 8 degrees per Km then the South Pole would be perhaps 60 or more degrees warmer than it is. In general, planetary surfaces warm when the Sun shines. Do your downward winds only occur then and, if so, why?
This is relevant to the topic, because you are assuming some link between the height of the tropopause and the surface temperature, are you not? So you need to be able to explain that, as your article leaves such obvious questions unanswered. What really happens is explained in my linked website.
08
“you are assuming some link between the height of the tropopause and the surface temperature, are you not?”
I am acknowledging that the height of the tropopause is a result of the temperatures of both stratosphere and troposphere and that solar induced ozone effects in the stratosphere affect tropopause heights differently at equator and poles when solar activity varies.
Have you actually read my article?
An adiabatic process cannot include diffusion (conduction) because that implies a transfer of energy in from the surroundings which is a diabatic process. Convection operates adiabatically because uplift and descent involve work done against or with gravity and that work has a thermal consequence.
Upward and downward air movements constitute winds just as much as lateral movements. They are occurring above 50% of the Earth’s surface at any given moment because every uplift is countered by a descent.
The poles are not warmed so much as other latitudes by descending adiabatic air because the tropopause height is lower and the lack of insolation keeps the surfaces cold as well.
All this is off topic so please desist.
33
Stephen, you say:
“I am acknowledging that the height of the tropopause is a result of the temperatures of both stratosphere and troposphere and that solar induced ozone effects in the stratosphere affect tropopause heights differently at equator and poles when solar activity varies.”
No. You are not ‘acknowledging’ it at all. You are simply claiming it. That’s a different thing altogether. You’re claiming it without any observational evidence to back it up. You’re just piling assertions upon assertions.
Tropopause height is the sole result of the thermal processes and properties of the TROPOSPHERE below it. The stratosphere and its ozone is held high in place specifically by the troposphere’s constant convective upward ‘thrust’. You could for instance read this study from a specific locality:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98JD01929/abstract
Its abstract states:
“For the central European station of Hohenpeissenberg, averaging of ozone profiles grouped by tropopause height shows that the ozone mixing ratio profile in the lower stratosphere shifts up and down with the tropopause. The shift is largest near the tropopause and becomes negligible above 20 to 25 km. As a consequence a high tropopause is correlated with low total ozone and a low tropopause with high total ozone. Independent of season, total ozone decreases by 16 Dobson units (DU) per kilometer increase in tropopause height. At Hohenpeissenberg the tropopause has moved up by 150±70 m (2 σ) per decade over the last 30 years. If the −16 DU per kilometer correlation between total ozone and tropopause height is valid on the timescale of years, it is speculated that the observed increase in tropopause height could explain about 25% of the observed −10 DU per decade decrease of total ozone. This is of the same magnitude as the 30% fraction of midlatitude ozone depletion which current stratospheric models have difficulty accounting for. For Hohenpeissenberg the increase in tropopause height appears to be correlated with observed tropospheric warming: At 5 km altitude, for example, temperature has increased by 0.7±0.3 K per decade (2 σ) since 1967.”
Another study, on trends in tropical stratospheric ozone:
https://staff.ucar.edu/browse/people/12245/OSGC-000-000-002-658
Its abstract reads:
“Long-term observations of stratospheric ozone from the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II) satellite (1984-2005) are combined with ozonesonde measurements from the Southern Hemisphere Additional Ozonesondes (SHADOZ) network (1998-2009) to study interannual variability and trends in tropical ozone. Excellent agreement is found comparing the two data sets for the overlap period 1998-2005, and the data are combined to form a continuous time series covering 1984–2009. SHADOZ measurements also provide temperature profiles, and interannual changes in ozone and temperature are highly correlated throughout the tropical lower stratosphere (16-27 km). Interannual variability in stratospheric ozone is dominated by effects of the quasi-biennial oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and there are also significant negative trends (-2 to -4% per decade) in the tropical lower stratosphere (over 17-21 km). These tropical ozone trends are consistent with results from chemistry-climate model simulations, wherein the trends result from increases in upwelling circulation in the tropical lower stratosphere.”
There is absolutely NO (!!!) observational evidence to be found from the real world pointing towards the tropical/subtropical tropopause having subsided over the last 3-4 decades. If anything, the opposite has happened. A natural consequence of an enlarged Hadley-Walker cell (increased both in height and in width), resulting from a generally strengthened tropical/subtropical convective cycle since the late 70s.
Your fanciful idea that the tropical stratospheric ozone somehow in cycles pushes down on the tropical tropopause to in a way sort of squeeze the Hadley cell out, like some flabby balloon, rather to the sides, finds no support whatsoever in the real, observable Earth system.
04
The abstract states:
” a high tropopause is correlated with low total ozone and a low tropopause with high total ozone”
More ozone in the stratosphere causes warming and so high total ozone causes a low tropopause, just as I say. When the sun is more active ozone shows net creation over the tropics. That is well establioshed as per Hood and McCormack, 1992; Chandra and McPeters, 1994; Hood, 1997. That directly contradicts your assertion that stratosphere temperatures have no effect on tropopause height.
You point out that in fact observations show that ozone overall declined when the sun was more active whereas such established climatology expected it to increase when the sun was more active.
One of my main points is that very observation which is why I say that over time the ozone effect above 45km and towards the poles comes to dominate and overrides the extra ozone creation above the tropics.
Note that my hypothesis refers to RELATIVE ozone amounts so in the diagram at a time of active sun ozone above the tropics increases RELATIVE to ozone above the poles.
I agree that ideally the diagram should say that the equatorial tropopause falls relative to the polar tropopause when the sun is more active rather than just saying that it falls.
Established climatology failed to realise that the ozone depleting processes above 45km and towards the poles were overriding the ozone creation process above the equator which is why they jumped onto the CFC bandwagon in order to explain the discrepancy that you just pointed out and which I have mentioned in earlier articles.
The enlarged Hadley cell during a period of active sun was a result of the top down ozone destruction process above the poles being more significant globally than the ozone creation process regionally above the tropics. In that way you can still have a higher tropopause above the equator when the sun is active (due to the bottom up oceanic response to more sunlight entering the oceans) but still have the equatorial tropopause RELATIVELY low compared to that at the poles.
As I have said many times the state of the global air circulation is the net outcome of the constant interplay between the bottom up ocean response that you mention when you refer to the quasi biennial oscillation together with ENSO and the top down solar effect from the poles which I have introduced.
The result is the see saw in tropopause height between equator and poles referred to in my hypothesis.
I am grateful to you for pointing out how the diagram could be improved.
32
Actually, Kristian, I’ve just recalled that the Hadley cells are not on the equator but to the north ansd south of it.
It is a general principle within an atmosphere that what goes up must come down so if ozone increases above the equator it can indeed push the tropopause down but that would put pressure on the Hadley cells to make them expand upwards as well as laterally.
So it may well be that the equatorial tropopause falls in absolute terms as well as relative to the polar tropopause though I don’t need an absolute fall for my hypothesis to be correct.
32
“It is a general principle within an atmosphere that what goes up must come down so if ozone increases above the equator it can indeed push the tropopause down but that would put pressure on the Hadley cells to make them expand upwards as well as laterally.”
I don’t get you, Stephen. This is just going back to my original point. How on Earth would more ozone in the stratosphere ‘push’ down on the tropopause? There is no more mass, hence no more pressure from above. The ozone is created (and destroyed) in situ. There is no extra mass being injected into the stratosphere specifically to create this extra ozone. This idea is just as silly as the one about a warmer stratosphere ‘pushing’ down on the tropopause. How? Through what physical mechanism?
I will grant, if you warm the tropopause itself, all the way down to where the tropospheric temperature profile ends and starts transitioning into the stratospheric gradient, then you would lower the thermal tropopause as defined. The point is, such lowering is so miniscule (and only affects the very uppermost gradient) that it has absolutely no implication whatsoever for any global tropospheric regime. It’s not like there’s a pressure wave being propagated downwards from this occurrence. The tropopause isn’t pushed down at all. The tropospheric temperature profile simply starts transitioning a little bit further down. This has been observed during massive volcanic eruptions such as El Chichón and Pinatubo. During the former, a tropical tropopause lowering of 200 m was observed. Not a whole lot. And this came from sudden, massive warming (on the order of several degrees) of the tropopause itself. Ozone warming of the lower stratosphere would be centred in the stratospheric layers above the tropopause, so would not affect the tropospheric temperature profile below the tropopause.
01
Stephen, you say:
“The abstract states:
” a high tropopause is correlated with low total ozone and a low tropopause with high total ozone”
More ozone in the stratosphere causes warming and so high total ozone causes a low tropopause, just as I say.”
No. That’s just you reading your belief into what they say. But they don’t say what you want them to be saying, Stephen.
What the abstract specifically points out is this: “For the central European station of Hohenpeissenberg, averaging of ozone profiles grouped by tropopause height shows that the ozone mixing ratio profile in the lower stratosphere shifts up and down with the tropopause.”
The ozone mixing ratio profile shifts up and down with the tropopause. Notice their wording. They don’t say anything about the changing ozone mixing ratio profile shifting the tropopause up and down. Instead they observe: “For Hohenpeissenberg the increase in tropopause height appears to be correlated with observed tropospheric warming: At 5 km altitude, for example, temperature has increased by 0.7±0.3 K per decade (2 σ) since 1967.”
Since the change in ozone mixing ratio becomes negligible above 20 to 25 km, the shifting up and down of the tropopause becomes the main reason for the change in total ozone. Hence your extracted quote, in context:
“The shift [in ozone mixing ratio] is largest near the tropopause and becomes negligible above 20 to 25 km. As a consequence a high tropopause is correlated with low total ozone and a low tropopause with high total ozone.”
Two more quotes from the abstract very clearly point out the direction of causation here:
1) “Independent of season, total ozone decreases by 16 Dobson units (DU) per kilometer increase in tropopause height.”
They are very careful about not saying: The tropopause height increases by 1 km per 16 DU decrease in total ozone. See the difference? It is the tropopause rising that causes the decrease in total ozone. Not the other way around.
2) “At Hohenpeissenberg the tropopause has moved up by 150±70 m (2 σ) per decade over the last 30 years. If the −16 DU per kilometer correlation between total ozone and tropopause height is valid on the timescale of years, it is speculated that the observed increase in tropopause height could explain about 25% of the observed −10 DU per decade decrease of total ozone.”
The tropopause lifts because of tropospheric thermal expansion and increased convective uplift. This in turn would contribute to the depletion of lower stratospheric ozone. Ozone simply doesn’t like it very much in a tropospheric regime. The two don’t go well together. There’s a certain balance here between atmospheric processes producing ozone and atmospheric processes destroying ozone. This balance point is to be found pretty close to the tropopause, an abrupt (L-shaped) transition in relative destruction/production ratios. And that’s why 90% of Earth’s ozone is in the stratosphere. For CO, for instance (CO, not CO2), this balance goes the opposite way. It doesn’t like it very much in the stratosphere, so nearly all of it resides in the troposphere. Again, the breakpoint is very close to the (thermal) tropopause. (H2O, same thing.)
– – –
You continue: “I agree that ideally the diagram should say that the equatorial tropopause falls relative to the polar tropopause when the sun is more active rather than just saying that it falls.”
Again, Stephen, you are just assuming causation. This is why I challenge your hypothesis. Because you simply seem to have decided for yourself that it is the stratospheric ozone that somehow determines this variation in tropopause height, when there is absolutely no indication of this being the case from real-world observations.
Once more: Tropopause height responds to the mean temperature, humidity and convective power of the troposphere below it. If the Sun is more active and this leads to a warming world, then the NH high-latitude/polar tropopause would NATURALLY rise ‘relative to’ the tropical/equatorial tropopause. Because that’s how ‘global warming’ works. The heat is spread from the equator towards the poles. In the SH it never really manages to reach Antarctica, so there would be no southern polar warming relative to the tropics, but in the NH, high-latitude/Arctic warming would be massive relative to the tropics.
The whole point is once again, as the tropical zone has widened over the last 3-4 decades, so also has the tropical tropopause lifted. For the same reason: The Hadley cell has grown from more tropical tropospheric heat and humidity + increased convective power. At the same time, tropical lower stratospheric ozone has been depleted, most likely from a combination of mechanisms: i) the tropopause lifting (same effect as in Hohenpeissenberg), ii) the volcanic eruptions of El Chichón (1982) and Pinatubo (1991), and iii) an increased Brewer-Dobson circulation, moving ozone from the tropics towards the poles, the reason very likely to a large extent simply being the increased tropical tropospheric uplift from below.
00
All that verbiage relies on your contention that the rising troposphere causes a reduction of ozone in the stratosphere.
In fact the ozone amounts are dependent on a range of solar related chemical processes in the stratosphere and mesospohere that affect the balance of ozone creation and destruction.
Therefore, your contention is wrong.
“Ozone variations affect the temperature of the stratosphere, which in turn affects the height of the tropopause. From page 14 of Zangl and Hoinka:
“Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”
I think I prefer to go with them rather than you 🙂
10
Stephen
Have you clicked my name (above) to read my explanation?
The temperature gradient forms in calm conditions (adiabatically of course) when no new energy is being received, such as in the early pre-dawn hours. Then when the Sun rises it delivers more new thermal energy mostly in the colder regions of the upper troposphere (especially on Venus) where it can actually raise the temperature as per S-B calculations. On Venus this could be regions at temperatures less than 400K say. Now, just deal with the energy delivered in, say, the first hour and imagine the solar radiation stopped somehow. We now have a state which is no longer thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated environmental lapse rate) because it has extra thermal energy in the upper regions. Now, as a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached (with the same gradient but higher overall level) we have an adiabatic process wherein energy is being redistributed with a net convective heat transfer downwards towards the 732K surface of Venus. And that’s how the energy gets into the surface and raises it temperature to 737K, not all by direct solar radiation, especially on Venus. Uranus does not even have a surface at the base of its nominal troposphere, but the same physics applies and it gets hotter than Earth’s surface down there.
07
The heat at the Venusian surface is caused by adiabatically warmed descending air reducing convection beneath the region of descent.
That is what allows surface temperature to rise above S-B for any planet with a gaseous atmosphere.
24
Doug
Now in this post you are actually communicating.
Good. You may get somewhere using plain English to help us understand what you believe.
As to the content I don’t want to say I could immediately go in to say either side is correct or whether it is just a matter of interpretation that keeps you from agreeing on something.
KK
00
If you don’t understand the terms used by physicists you could look them up on Wikipedia or elsewhere. But, in general, climate change and planetary temperatures are all explained by the laws of physics which most climatologists do not fully understand.
Why those who don’t understand such physics feel a need to air their hand waving conjectures on climate blog sites is somewhat beyond my understanding except, of course, if they have pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo, as opposed to ridding the world of its needless concern over carbon dioxide, and thus reducing poverty and saving lives. But money speaks louder than someone else’s life I guess.
07
Stephen claimed Earth’s surface is heated only by “insolation through the gas onto a solid surface” but such direct solar radiation absorbed by the surfaces of Earth and Venus can in no way raise the temperatures thereof to the observed levels without some additional thermal energy input which, in practice, reduces the amount of cooling at night so the mean temperature (based on maximum and minimum temperatures) works out to be higher. Otherwise, if the temperatures the previous night had not been maintained (as they are by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient) then, on a clear day in the tropics with the Sun directly overhead, the Sun would not have enough time in the day to raise the temperature to heat wave levels, for example, even if S-B calculations indicate such maximums.
So however you look at it, there must be an alternative explanation. What happens is that incident solar energy that is absorbed in a planet’s upper troposphere and above is transferred into the lower troposphere and surface by convective and conductive heat transfers. This happens because entropy is increasing as a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium is being approached. Click my name (above) to read more on my website.
06
The reduction of cooling is from descending adiabatically warmed air reducing local convection.
The total thermal value of the process for the Earth as a whole is 33C
24
No SW. Firstly, your air cannot be “warming” if it is descending because of wind, but it’s not a case of just a “reduction of cooling” because the Sun’s direct radiation into the surface (a mean of 168W/m^2 or less) is far too little to raise the mean temperatures to observed values in the first place. This comment is continued by clicking my name above.
07
I’ve read your helpful link and commented on it at Roy Spencer’s site.
Descending air does warm adiabatically at the dry adiabatic lapse rate by converting gravitational potential energy back to heat.
The insolation to the surface is enough to raise the temperature by 33C if one reduces the rate of removal of energy from the surface by convection and dissipates any clouds as seen in high pressure cells around the globe.
24
Descending air does warm adiabatically at the dry adiabatic lapse rate”
Only for adiabatic convective heat transfer processes, not if it is wind (sometimes called forced convection) such as the strong downward wind at the South Pole which don’t form a typical temperature gradient.
The insolation to the surface is enough to raise the temperature by 33C if one reduces the rate of removal of energy from the surface by convection,”
No it’s not. Radiation doesn’t work that way. More energy would just be radiated out of the surface. Radiation cannot make a target hotter than the black body temperature based on the amount of radiation absorbed.
07
The surface becomes warmer than S-B simply because any energy in convective overturning that is not radiated to space is returned to the surface as heat on the next descent.
That returning heat energy then has to be added to the continuing flow of new solar energy and the two energy sources combine to give a surface temperature for the Earth 33C higher than S-B predicts.
The surface then fails to radiate to space at that higher temperature because the excess energy goes straight back into the next convective ascent via conduction from surface to air and so is simply not available to be radiated to space.
The same package of energy at the surface cannot be in two places at once. Either it radiates to space or it conducts to the air and convection balances the two processes to ensure that energy out equals energy in when viewing the Earth from space.
24
Douglas; The Earth’s Magnetic Field is linked to ‘Dry Cycles’on Earth, as a ‘transporter’ mechanism for the Solar emissions that constitute Alex S. Gaddes’ ‘W’ ( Weather’) Factor.(Evans Factor X?) I do not know of the 934 year, or 60 year super-imposed cycles you mention, but you are correct in noting that the Cycles constitute an overlapping ‘hierarchy’. They range from the important 6.75 year cycle (made up of 3 X 2. 25 year sub-cycles,) to a 167.49 year ‘Solar beat’ cycle and beyond, (as described in deep ice core, sediment, and tree-ring data.)
This 6.75 year Dry Cycle is the real value of the original ENSO ‘7 year drought’ recognised by Peruvian farmers and others. The trouble arises when the inaccuracy is attempted to be used as a predictive device – it doesn’t work. Subsequently we are now wallowing in the prolonged (and expensive) forty year El Nino Fantasy, and subjected to its bogus ‘decadal’ predictors and other fanciful self-justification.
I have looked at your predictions and find no Longitudinal Orbital aspect. I do not know how you arrived at these conclusions – but as an example, your contention of a ‘Wet’2017 does not comply with my reckoning of a Five Year Dry Period started circa 110 degrees longitude in mid February 2014 – and reaching Australia now.(thirty degrees/month with the Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.) You have also omitted the very important Lunar Metonic Cycle (due in 2016.)
The question asked should not be ‘How does ozone react with UV to produce precipitation?’
– but rather,’How does the ‘W’ Factor ‘fragment’ cloud formation and produce these potentially devastating ‘Dry Cycles’? (Note (among others) the prolonged droughts that wiped out the Mycenae and Indus Cultures, the Mill Creek peoples of North America and the Hopi Indians.)
If you are interested Douglas, I am happy to send you (or anybody else) an updated version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S Gaddes 1990. (including ‘Dry Cycle’ forecasts to 2055) It is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
00
Don
Nicola Scafetta has studied the cycles and refers to the 60 year cycle here. As the 60 year cycle is declining we should expect the current net slight cooling to continue until at least 2027. After 2059 the planetary orbits indicate long-term cooling will start for half of the next ~934-year cycle in the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets.
Your comments about “wet 2017” don’t relate to anything I wrote so perhaps you were replying to someone else.
02
It is the very process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which sets up a density gradient and simultaneously a temperature gradient. The pressure gradient is a corollary.
Convective heat transfers in all directions continue to restore the temperature gradient when it is disturbed by new absorption of thermal energy and/or weather conditions, notably wind in any form.
Wind is not convection as far as the physics I am talking about is concerned. When strong winds blow downwards at the South Pole they disturb thermodynamic equilibrium so much that there is hardly any temperature difference in the troposphere. The winds are carrying cold air down to the surface but is does not have time to warm adiabatically and thus thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated density and temperature gradients) is not attained.
When Stephen implies that air circulation currents cause warming as the wind goes downwards he is implying a process that is not what the Second Law says will happen.
04
Douglas; I apologise if I misquoted your forecast.
It is important to realise that the Solar induced ‘Dry Cycles’ move from East to West around the planet with the Solar Orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, while the prevailing weather moves from West to East, due to axial spin. This effect can be seen in action at the moment.
The current ‘Dry’ Cycle has crossed the East Coast of Australia, while the prevailing Lows are ‘stalled’ in the centre. There will be no cyclone activity in the Coral Sea this season
and precipitation activity will progressively diminish as the ‘Dry’ Cycle moves West to its starting longitude of 110 degrees (circa Beijing) to begin its second year.
00
Don we seem to have our wires crossed. I’m not into that level of meteorology: just global climate trends. The only “forecasts” I have made are along the lines of that quoted below and archived over 3 years ago. I may have been out a bit regarding accelerated cooling in 2014, but I still believe that will be apparent this year.
“From 2003 the effect of El Niño had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising. By 2014 the decline should be steeper and continue until at least 2027. (This statement was archived 22 August 2011”
00
Sorry Douglas, let’s try to get back on track.
I agree with your assertion of a general cooling. Stephen Wilde seems to be playing ‘fast and loose’ with the Second Law. Your point is well made that his model is in trouble because of this. Note Alex S. Gaddes’ Model of a Convection Still,(Post #66) – and his exposition on the Venusian Atmosphere, (Post #76)
21
There is no breach of the second law in anything I have said so I must assume that you are misunderstanding some aspect of my hypothesis.
14
I said, Stephen, that you are implying that there is a process operating which is not what the Second Law says will happen. I stick by that statement.
Again, stop wasting my time and read what physicists agree with me about regarding how the Second Law process leads to a density gradient and a temperature gradient. (I hope you agree to that point.) Then, the breakthrough is understanding the implications regarding convective heat transfers, all of which you can read about by clicking my name.
07
Doug,
Your basic premise is that solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and percolates downward via diffusion (conduction) to cause the surface to become warmer than the S-B calculation predicts.
I know of no physicist who agrees with that scenario and you have been banned from various sites for thread hijacking where you tried to push your views despite them not being on topic. You have done just that here.
Your scenario of downward flow of heat is as flawed as the AGW proposition of back radiation.
As soon as one realises that heat in the form of KE is recovered from gravitational potential energy in descending air you no longer need either of those flawed propositions.
The surface becomes warmer than S-B simply because any energy in convective overturning that is not radiated to space is returned to the surface as heat on the next descent.
That returning heat energy then has to be added to the continuing flow of new solar energy and the two energy sources combine to give a surface temperature for the Earth 33C higher than S-B predicts.
The surface then fails to radiate to space at that higher temperature because the excess energy goes straight back into the next convective ascent via conduction from surface to air and so is simply not available to be radiated to space.
The same package of energy at the surface cannot be in two places at once. Either it radiates to space or it conducts to the air and convection balances the two processes to ensure that energy out equals energy in when viewing the Earth from space.
54
Stephen:
Firstly, you seem to forget that the Earth’s surface is not a black body and so S-B calculations are inapplicable.
Of course molecules exchange KE and PE in flight between collisions. What you write just proves you haven’t understood a word of what I’ve written here, because that is an integral part of my hypothesis (and you could not have missed it in that explanatory website) just as it was for the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt.
You still have not explained how the necessary thermal energy gets down into the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it’s hotter than Earth, but 30 times further from the Sun. There’s no surface there to fulfill your imaginings about solar radiation supposedly being strong enough to raise the temperature to observed levels.
Does 20W/m^2 raise the Venus surface to 735K Stephen?
Actually you’d need over 16,000W/m^2. I know of no physicist who would agree that your conjectures about these matters do in any way whatsoever comply with the laws of physics. In contrast, what I present is derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you can’t pinpoint any error, especially with your lack of qualifications in physics, Stephen Wilde, so you just invoke your lawyer tactics.
Why and when does your convective (downward) heat transfer apparently help the insolation to radiate at levels above its Planck function? Morning, noon or night? Oh, it must be by day I suppose, like when convection is usually rising from a heated surface. What happens when there is thick cloud cover day and night in some region? Your surface would just get colder and colder, unless there was a heat transfer from the colder atmosphere into the warmer surface, like would have to happen when the Venus surface is warming. How does the convection “know” which way to go? It’s not like a ball thrown into the air that must come down again. That’s a joke about parcels of air that apparently pass right through each other on the way up and down.
Get one of your friendly physicists to explain what I have written to you – maybe like this physics educator reviewing my book …
“Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
05
SW: Kinetic energy recovered in the descent of a stone thrown into the air cannot exceed the initial kinetic energy on the ascent if the stone landed at the same height from which it was thrown. You imply that new energy is created this way so as to make the surface warmer than it was originally. What happens at night? Does the surface keep getting warmer by this up and down imagined cyclic air convection?
And did you not say that the circulation has something to do with wind? If it did, then it would not achieve the effective temperature gradient, just as downward wind at the South Pole fails to do.
That’s not where the required extra energy comes from. I have explained quite clearly that it comes from incident solar radiation which is absorbed in the atmosphere rather than getting through to the surface. We know that over 20% of such radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and that extra energy is needed. Again I say, think about the Venus surface warming by day to make up for the 5 degrees of cooling the previous night. Think of how the energy gets down into the lower troposphere of Uranus where there is no solar radiation reaching, nor any surface.
06
You are confusing the gravitational potential energy acquired by a solid lifted up against gravity with the gravitational potential energy acquired by a gas when it is lifted up against gravity.
By virtue of the Gas Laws the gravitational potential energy acquired by the gas molecules is proportional to any reduction of pressure thereby allowing the molecules to move apart which reduces the total amount of molecular vibrational energy within a given volume and that causes KE to convert to gravitational potential energy. The temperature falls. You don’t get that mobility between molecules within a solid which is why there are separate rules for gases. That is also why the volume term (V)is present in the Gas Laws. There is no volume change for a solid stone lifted up or down within a gravitational field.
As soon as one reverses the process by descent which increases pressure and forces the gas molecules closer together then that increases the total amount of molecular vibrational energy within a given volume. GPE converts back to KE and the temperature rises.
No energy is created or destroyed, it merely changes form between GPE (not heat) and KE (heat).
Simple movement up and down within a gravitational field around a sphere causes reduction or increase in pressure with the consequent change in temperature as GPE and KE are substituted for one another as necessary to retain the lapse rate gradient.
The rules apply just the same for any gaseous body where the gases are supported against gravity.
Where a proportion of the solar input is absorbed directly by the atmosphere then the effect is to provoke upward convection from the point of absorption and not downward diffusion to a lower point.
Once upward convection starts then there is also descent elsewhere to match it and GPE energy is then locked into the convective cycle at the expense of KE for as long as insolation continues.
33
Stephen Wilde says: January 9, 2015 at 1:01 am:
“You are confusing the gravitational potential energy acquired by a solid lifted up against gravity with the gravitational potential energy acquired by a gas when it is lifted up against gravity.”
No, Stephen. No.
YOU are the one that’s being utterly and fundamentally confused on this issue. You mix together at will ‘gravitational potential energy’ (GPE), which is a system (MACROscopic) quantity, not a molecule (MICROscopic) quantity, with the potential part of the (microscopic) ‘internal energy’ of a system, which doesn’t concern gravity AT ALL, it concerns only ‘intermolecular attractive forces’, only to get your warped understanding of how the adiabatic process works to add up.
You cannot lift something, a solid object or a parcel of gas, doesn’t matter, higher up and make it cool from you simply lifting it, Stephen. As you lift the gas, it expands (because external pressure is reduced), doing work on its surroundings, thus losing internal energy (you know, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). This is the ONLY reason it cools when lifted. That IS what ‘adiabatic cooling’ is all about.
When you lift an object (or a volume of gas), you change the energy associated with its macroscopic motion and position (‘gravitational PE’ and ‘mechanical KE’ (MKE)). These are Newtonian quantities, not thermodynamic ones. You DON’T change the temperature-related (microscopic) energy associated with its internal energy. The individual molecules making up the object/gas are not affected by moving the object/gas at large up or down, for crying out loud!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
(I don’t know how many times I’ve shown you this, Stephen. How many times I’ve provided these links. As many times as you’ve simply dismissed them offhand, refused to read them, I guess.)
There’s been a bunch of competent people telling you exactly what your confusion amounts to on this particular subject for quite some time now, Stephen. I’ve pointed out the simple flaw in your understanding again on this thread (quotes just below). In fact, the flaw is so simple a scoolchild would spot it right away. But you just refuse to listen. Refuse to read. Just go on and on with your very own eccentric interpretations of common meteorology. Inside your little bubble, you KNOW them to be true, so it just doesn’t matter what other people say or what evidence they present.
“Simple movement up and down within a gravitational field around a sphere causes reduction or increase in pressure with the consequent change in temperature as GPE and KE are substituted for one another as necessary to retain the lapse rate gradient.”
Exactly NO. This is precisely where your confusion lies. GPE and MKE only concerns macroscopic motion/position of the system as a whole. This is uncontroversial and well-established, Stephen. What concerns the TEMPERATURE of the system (by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) is its ‘internal energy’ [U]. It can be changed by a transfer of energy as ‘heat’ [Q] to/from the system, and/or through a transfer of energy as ‘work’ [W] to/from the system. Both transfers would change the internal energy and thus (barring phase transitions) the temperature of the system. This is uncontroversial and well-established, Stephen. In an adiabatic process, the transfer of energy as heat [Q] to/from the system does and cannot happen. Q=0, so the entire change in internal energy occurring across the adiabatic process, from the initial to the final state, is from work being done on or by the system. This is the very definition of an adiabatic process, Stephen. Uncontroversial and well-established.
So when the air parcel rises, the surrounding/external pressure on it is lowered and the parcel expands as a result, DOING WORK ON ITS SURROUNDINGS, thus losing internal energy and cooling in the process. Moving down, the opposite happens, the surroundings are doing work on the parcel, its internal energy increases and it warms in the process. This IS the adiabatic process, Stephen. For the umpteenth time …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
04
Kristian said:
“So when the air parcel rises, the surrounding/external pressure on it is lowered and the parcel expands as a result, DOING WORK ON ITS SURROUNDINGS, thus losing internal energy and cooling in the process. Moving down, the opposite happens, the surroundings are doing work on the parcel, its internal energy increases and it warms in the process. This IS the adiabatic process.”
You are failing to distinguish between work done on the surrounding molecules as against work done with or against gravity.
The gravitational field is part of the surroundings just as are the surrounding molecules.
Work done against surrounding molecules is diabatic because the work done transfers heat and internal energy across the boundary from one parcel of air to another.
Work done with or against gtravity is adiabatic because no heat or energy is transferred across the boundary from one parcel of air to another.
Instead, in so far as the work done is done with or against gravity the KE within the rising or falling parcel converts to or from GPE with total internal energy (KE plus GPE) remaininmg the same. Since the total internal energy remains constant there is no breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
We have both now made our positions clear so please desist from hijacking this thread since neiether of us can persuade the other.
22
Stephen Wilde, you say:
“You are failing to distinguish between work done on the surrounding molecules as against work done with or against gravity.”
Dear, Stephen, I’m not failing to distinguish. I know perfectly well what you’re saying. It’s just that’s it’s fundamentally wrong and horribly confused. And you (and anyone) can find out exactly how and why it’s so fundamentally wrong and horribly confused by simply reading ANY textbook or ANY scientific entry anywhere on the ‘adiabatic process’.
Like this one (random pick):
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/cooling_processes/cooling_processes.html
“ADIABATIC PROCESSES
# No energy exchange through heating: ΔH = 0
# Temperature changes associated solely with work (expansion/contraction): PΔα = –CvΔT
– Increase in volume (expansion) produces decrease in temperature
– Decrease in volume (compression) produces increase in temperature
# Adiabatic processes are reversible
# Adiabatic processes in atmosphere mainly related to vertical motion
# Vertical motion subjects air parcels to changes in pressure
– Rising air parcels expand due to reduced pressure and cool
– Sinking air parcels contract due to increased pressure and warm”
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/cooling_processes/first_law.gif
I’m just here to make sure you understand that you will get nowhere with your line of argument, because you have the ‘adiabatic process’ completely and utterly misunderstood, and still you cling to this warped misconception of yours with every fiber in your body even after evidence has been repeatedly presented to you in plain words, in black and white, right in front of you, that it is wrong.
By lifting an object, or a parcel of air, you indeed do work on it against gravity. But you do MECHANICAL (Newtonian), macroscopic work, not THERMODYNAMIC, microscopic work. You absolutely fail to see the difference. Read again:
“Internal energy is defined as the energy associated with the random, disordered motion of molecules. It is separated in scale from the macroscopic ordered energy associated with moving objects; it refers to the invisible microscopic energy on the atomic and molecular scale.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
And:
“In thermodynamics, the internal energy is one of the two cardinal state functions of the state variables of a thermodynamic system. It refers to energy contained within the system, while excluding the kinetic energy of motion of the system as a whole and the potential energy of the system as a whole due to external force fields. It keeps account of the gains and losses of energy of the system.
The internal energy of a system can be changed by (1) heating the system, or (2) by doing work on it, or (3) by adding or taking away matter.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
You don’t change the temperature of something by doing MECHANICAL work on it, Stephen. Then you simply change its speed/movement and/or position. You change its temperature by doing THERMODYNAMICAL work on it, by changing its ‘internal (microscopic) energy’.
The adiabatic process is not in the lifting and sinking itself. The adiabatic process is in the expansion/contraction occurring AS the air parcel rises and falls in the atmosphere, because of changing external pressure.
This is all sooo simple and sooo basic, Stephen. 1st Law of Thermodynamics. But you still choose not to listen.
“Work done against surrounding molecules is diabatic because the work done transfers heat and internal energy across the boundary from one parcel of air to another.”
Again, Stephen, read about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and how it directly relates to the adiabatic process. Energy is not transferred as heat [Q] across the boundary, but as work [W], so when Q=0, then the change in internal energy is all due to work being done: ΔU = –W. And a change in internal energy induces a change in system temperature:
“(…) if you are presented with a high temperature gas, you cannot tell whether it reached that high temperature by being heated, or by having work done on it, or a combination of the two.
To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.“
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
“We have both now made our positions clear so please desist from hijacking this thread since neiether of us can persuade the other.”
There is nothing to ‘hijack’, Stephen. This thread is basically dead.
00
Stephen, I know you will never learn. But I need to point this out.
You say (to Doug):
“Your scenario of downward flow of heat is as flawed as the AGW proposition of back radiation.”
Which is correct.
But then you go on to explain your own mechanism for extra surface warming:
“The surface becomes warmer than S-B simply because any energy in convective overturning that is not radiated to space is returned to the surface as heat on the next descent.
That returning heat energy then has to be added to the continuing flow of new solar energy and the two energy sources combine to give a surface temperature for the Earth 33C higher than S-B predicts.”
How you fail to see that this is the EXACT equivalent to the AGW “back radiation” argument, is beyond me.
– – –
You also continue to flaunt your utter ignorance on ‘the adiabatic process’, ‘internal energy’ and ‘temperature’ (the 1st Law of Thermodynamics), all common thermodynamic concepts:
“As soon as one realises that heat in the form of KE is recovered from gravitational potential energy in descending air you no longer need either of those flawed propositions.”
‘Gravitational PE’ and ‘mechanical (Newtonian) KE’ do not at all affect or pertain to the temperature of a gas, Stephen. The ‘internal energy’ [U] of the gas (and only that) does. The ‘gravitational PE’ and ‘mechanical KE’ of a gas volume (or ANY volume of mass) are specifically excluded from its ‘internal energy’ budget as they simply don’t relate to thermodynamic processes, but rather to Newtonian (macroscopic motional/positional) ones. You have been told and shown these simple and basic facts now so many times, just going lalalalalala and moving on with your private delusions every single time, that one starts to wonder what’s actually going on.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
07
Sorry , Kristian, but you are hopelessly confused.
70
Yeah, all you need to do, Stephen, is actually read the links I provide and you will see that you are clearly the confused one.
In fact, everyone should read those links and realise how deluded the ideas promoted by Stephen Wilde from inside his little bubble of self-invented nonsense physics really are, where, however clear and basic the evidence presented is of him being wrong, he is still right, because … he says so.
Some quotes to take home:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
“Internal energy is defined as the energy associated with the random, disordered motion of molecules. It is separated in scale from the macroscopic ordered energy associated with moving objects; it refers to the invisible microscopic energy on the atomic and molecular scale. For example, a room temperature glass of water sitting on a table has no apparent energy, either potential or kinetic. But on the microscopic scale it is a seething mass of high speed molecules traveling at hundreds of meters per second. If the water were tossed across the room, this microscopic energy would not necessarily be changed when we superimpose an ordered large scale motion on the water as a whole.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
“In thermodynamics, the internal energy is one of the two cardinal state functions of the state variables of a thermodynamic system [the other being entropy]. It refers to energy contained within the system, while excluding the kinetic energy of motion of the system as a whole and the potential energy of the system as a whole due to external force fields. It keeps account of the gains and losses of energy of the system.
The internal energy of a system can be changed by (1) heating the system, or (2) by doing work on it, or (3) by adding or taking away matter.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
“Internal energy involves energy on the microscopic scale. For an ideal monoatomic gas, this is just the translational kinetic energy of the linear motion of the “hard sphere” type atoms, and the behavior of the system is well described by kinetic theory. However, for polyatomic gases there is rotational and vibrational kinetic energy as well. Then in liquids and solids there is potential energy associated with the intermolecular attractive forces. A simplified visualization of the contributions to internal energy can be helpful in understanding phase transitions and other phenomena which involve internal energy.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html
“The change in internal energy [U] of a system is equal to the heat [Q] added to the system minus the work [W] done by the system: ΔU = Q – W.
(…)
When work is done by a thermodynamic system, it is usually a gas that is doing the work.
Work done by a system decreases the internal energy of the system, as indicated in the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
“ON THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF ‘HEAT’ AND ‘WORK’ AS AGENTS FOR ADDING ENERGY TO A SYSTEM
(…) if you are presented with a high temperature gas, you cannot tell whether it reached that high temperature by being heated, or by having work done on it, or a combination of the two.
To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
“An adiabatic process is one in which no heat [Q] is gained or lost by the system. The first law of thermodynamics with Q=0 shows that all the change in internal energy [U] is in the form of work done [W].”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_heating_and_cooling
“Adiabatic heating occurs in the Earth’s atmosphere when an air mass descends, for example, in a katabatic wind or Foehn or chinook wind flowing downhill over a mountain range. When a parcel of air descends, the pressure on the parcel increases. Due to this increase in pressure, the parcel’s volume decreases and its temperature increases as work is done on the parcel of air, thus increasing the internal energy. The parcel of air is unable to dissipate energy as heat, hence it is considered adiabatically isolated, and its temperature will rise sensibly.
Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure on an adiabatically isolated system is decreased, allowing it to expand, thus causing it to do work on its surroundings. When the pressure applied on a parcel of air is reduced, the air in the parcel is allowed to expand; as the volume increases, the temperature falls as internal energy decreases.”
02
I have now added a new web page here which contains a lot of evidence in support of the hypothesis (on the Home page) regarding downward convective heat transfers in planetary tropospheres and downward conductive heat transfers in their sub-surface regions, enabling solar energy to maintain temperatures therein.
03
Kristian (and Stephen)
The cooling and warming are due to interchanges of KE and PE during molecular movements between collisions. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us entropy increases until there are no unbalanced energy potentials, these potentials taking into account the PE as well as the KE.
In the absence of other changes (PE+KE)=constant at different altitudes in an isolated column of gas in an ideal atmosphere. This leads to a density gradient and, simultaneously, a temperature gradient. The pressure gradient is a corollary (pressure being proportional to the product of temperature and density) and so pressure is not the cause. It is temperature and density which are determined first by the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The hypothesis outlined here is of course based on Kinetic Theory – the same theory which can be used to develop the Ideal Gas Laws. There is no point in trying to explain the temperature changes using Ideal Gas Laws when it is easier and clearer to use Kinetic Theory and develop an hypothesis from first principles, as I have done. Then we can understand how and why there is downward convective heat transfer to warmer regions that is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. See also the new page of evidence on that new website which over 100 a day are now visiting.
14
Kristian,
There appear to be two issues that those links do not seem to deal with:
i) Total internal energy is kinetic energy and potential energy combined but those links refer just to heat as internal energy which is KE only and not potential energy.
ii) Although there is reference to work done on surroundings there is no distinction between work done on surrounding molecules which is diabatic and work done with or against gravity which is adiabatic.
Without those distinctions the links cause confusion.
33
Yes PE plays a role in determining entropy, as I clearly explained in the website linked in the above comment which comment and website Stephen, Kristian and others should read. About 1,000 others per week are visiting that site – because it has the correct physics, which none of you here understands yet. You don’t even understand why the density gradient exists because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, yet the existence of such should be ample evidence that we must consider gravitational potential energy in all entropy considerations pertaining to unbalanced energy potentials which exist in the absence of thermodynamic equilibrium.
I remind you that the Earth’s surface is not a black body, so you can’t determine its temperature using Stefan Boltmann calculations. But even if it were black asphalt the mean solar radiation of less than 168W/m^2 being absorbed cannot raise its temperature above about 235K. (I don’t mean 255K.)
[but you meant “Stefan Boltmann” Ha Ha? Gawd I hope there isn’t a black body laying around.] ED
03
Sorry about my typo leaving out the ‘z’ in Boltzmann. A black body by definition only receives and emits energy by radiation. Earth’s surface also has sensible heat transfers between it and the atmosphere, as well as the lower depths of the oceans and the sub-surface regions in land masses. This comment is continued in my website linked in other comments.
00
Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes (1990)
Model of a ‘Convection Still’ (See Post #66)
“Points taken from the Model;
The fact that, as the air becomes more dense, so its degree of inertia must rise in direct proportion, must have a significant effect. According to Newton, the higher the degree of inertia, the greater the tendency to move in a straight line at constant speed.
It seems to me that a high degree of inertia would (in conjunction with a progressively shorter distance of revolution) tend to have a compensating effect for gravitation.
This bearing in mind the tendency to maintain the initial peripheral speed, plus the fact that the whole spinning mass would have a tendency to move toward the point of least resistance, owing to reduction of pressure at periphery, plus the added tendency to freeze up, according to the principle of the spinning cone………”
“On being advised by Dr Harrington of the correlation by scientists of the Chandler Wobble etc. with the occurrence of major earth-quakes, I was moved to seek a cause for the phenomena (see pages 166-7 of Ref. No.17,)
Considering this information in conjunction with the Law on Conservation of Angular Momentum, it seems that, if the intensity of the Jet Stream is greater in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern, it should follow that there ought to be a greater transfer of angular momentum in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern.
Assuming the above to be the case, it should follow that the rotation of the Northern Hemisphere would tend to slow down to a greater degree than that of the Southern, with a consequent resultant stress (torsion) which must ultimately find release, after elastic limit is reached, by dislocating the Earth’s crust.
This ‘brake’ being applied, unevenly, to the one Hemisphere, would tend to instigate the Chandler Wobble as well as other local irregularities of rotation, plus the enigmatic pear shape of the Earth.
From the above considerations it is tempting to conclude that major Earth dislocations and volcanicity be likely attendants with glaciation.” (pp 75 -76)
00
Stephen Wilde:
You wrote here “the speed of the hydrological cycle changes to a miniscule extent in order to maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium.”
Well valid physics tells us conduction across the interface between the sea surface and the atmosphere will even out any temperature difference. That’s all.
Valid physics tells us that some of the solar radiation gets down into the cooler regions below the ocean surface, and so we can’t count that energy as if it were all absorbed in the thin almost transparent surface layer. Most likely it just makes the lower layers less cold, but not as warm as the surface, so there’s no heat transfer back up to the surface, especially in the tropics. The energy absorbed beneath the surface in the tropics probably follows isotherms towards the poles. So the Sun’s direct radiation doesn’t have a hope of raising the surface water temperature to what is observed. Work it out.
Valid physics tells us that the whole “Earth+atmosphere” system will act as a black body and remain in radiative balance with the Sun. It doesn’t need air mixing by hydrological cycles or wind of any form. Such mixing disturbs thermodynamic equilibrium and it is only restored in calm conditions. But mixing does not affect radiative balance significantly.
There’s no equivalent hydrological cycles keeping Venus temperatures constant. A location on its equator cools by about 5 degrees during its 4 month long night, and warms back up on the sunlit side. How does the required energy get there Stephen, as I have asked you many times? It is not by direct solar radiation, but it is from solar radiation that has raised the temperature in regions in the upper troposphere (and above) where temperatures are under about 400K. The surface temperature at any particular location on the equator rises from 732K to 737K over the course of the 4-month-long Venus day. That needs net thermal energy input.
Unless your hypothesis functions correctly universally for all planets it is proven wrong. It does not even function on Earth because solar radiation into the surface has a mean of 168W/m^2 or less. Work it out.
Besides, how are you going to stop the Second Law of Thermodynamics functioning and carrying out the process described in my hypothesis?
15
I read somewhere that the strongest El Ninos form just after a solar minimum (trade-winds relaxing). And likewise La Ninas (strongest trades) closest to a maximum.
00
Is the Sun driving Ozone and changing the Climate? Yes – but it is not ozone that is primarily changing the Climate.
I would like to hear David Evans on this subject. His ‘Factor X’ would seem to be the ‘Sleeping Giant’ in the Climate Change debate – but it seems to have been summarily declared irrelevant by Stephen Wilde.
I would also like to hear Svensmark’s latest views on the subject. He is the nominal modern pioneer of Ozone/UV research – he would needs be have a Model that displays his views on Ozone/UV interaction, (that either confirms or denies Steven Wilde’s Model.) Svensmark is also in a unique position (via his association with CERN Cloud Division and the European particle accelerator) to do the research necessary on the further establishment of ‘Factor X.’
Neutrinos – or some other entity?
00
Douglas Cotton #76.2 ” No Don. The gradual build-up of carbon dioxide raises global specific temperature, is not correct for Venus,or any planet….”
Hope this is not too simple for you Douglas;
Heat Budget.
Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point, to define what is meant by the Earth’s heat budget.
There are at least two major contributors to Earth’s heat budget. They are the Sun, and radioactivity from the Earth’s own rocks.
The amount of heat garnered by Earth from the Sun is, in the first place, dependent on solar output, and secondly, the amount of solar energy the Earth actually receives at the surface, this is called insolation.
This latter factor is governed by the transmisivity of the Earth’s atmosphere (the amount of dust therein, cloud cover etc.) and crustal albedo.
Regarding Earth’s internal heat source, the heat generated by radioactivity throughout the Earth, sooner or later (depending on the conductivity of the rocks,) finds its way to the surface. So, at the same time as the Earth is receiving heat from the Sun, it is also radiating heat back into space.
It is this simultaneous, two-way traffic in heat, that over a long period of time sustains an average surface temperature on Earth. This, briefly, is what is meant by the Earth’s heat budget.
The Effect of CO2
Carbon –dioxide forms only a very small part of Earth’s atmosphere (about .33 of one percent,) but the importance of its existence, even in such a small concentration, is paramount to the biosphere.
For instance, it is the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which provides the basic carbon, around which all life on Earth is built, through the plants, which (through photosynthesis) convert the Sun’s energy and carbon dioxide into food, which in turn, is utilised by the animal parasites.
Earth would have Frozen Long Ago
Moreover, if it were not for this small component of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Earth would have long since frozen over, simply because of the peculiar property of this gas, which allows it to transmit white light (sunlight) but remain opaque to infra-red (heat) rays (which is the form in which the Earth radiates the excess heat energy back into outer space.)
This phenomenon goes by the name of “The Greenhouse Effect.” It is this “Greenhouse Effect” which affords us the equable climate/weather conditions which are compatible with life as we know it.
Should it so happen that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere were to become greater or lesser, then it would follow that the ”Greenhouse Effect” must vary in direct proportion. The former is just what has been found to have taken place…..
Obviously if the rising carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere were the only consideration one could predict, unequivocally, that inundation of the lowlands of the Earth would be inevitable in the immediate future.
However, (see Ref. Nos. 12 and 13) it [rising carbon dioxide level] could well turn out to be lucky for us, in the light of those other factors which act in the opposite way to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I refer to wind-blown and volcanic dust in the atmosphere and the ever-intensifying albedo factor….”
‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes (1990)
30
You have not addressed the points in my comment, so I won’t address yours personally as I have already done so in the linked website.
However, I note that yYu overstated the percentage of CO2 by more than 8 times and you have not read my website linked in that reply – a site now being read at a rate of over 1,000 a week because, based on thousands of hours of research and 50 years’ experience with physics, the science I state is correct, whilst the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is proven false by the physics I present which is supported by copious empirical evidence throughout the Solar System. And, by the way, the terrestrial output from Earth’s crust is of the order of 70 milliwatts/m^2 and is completely dominated by other energy flows. You cannot prove the core is cooling for any planet.
03
I wandered why in 1970 why the weather was 3 weeks earlier than year before.
well it still happens today
for example it was a hot January 2014 but this year it was hotter in December becuase of the 3 week earlier pattern until it becomes out of alignment with the season.
I have worked out then in the 1990 that was due mercury retrogading around the sun.
now it all makes sense with mercury it front of the sun or behind, or the way it retrograde away from elipic or right angles to it.
with this knowledge i can predict when weather will have greatest effect on causing cyclones or drought.
With todays information age i can now look at the 250mb winds patterns which miss up yhe atmosphere to cause cyclones or drought due how mercury goes around the sun.
00
Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather, Alex S. Gaddes (1990)
Solar System Running Down
This indicates that the Solar System’s ‘clock-works’ is slowly running down, along with that of the rest of the Universe. According to scientists, the rate at which the Earth’s day is lengthening, is one second in every 1000 years.
Newton’s Law of Gravitation states that two (or more) bodies will attract each other in proportion to their respective masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
It is the gravitational effect of the Moon and, to a lesser degree, the Sun and planets, that produces the reaction in the Earth which we call tides.
Not only does the ocean react by the well known ebb and flow of the tides, but at the same time there are tides raised in the solid Earth and the atmosphere too. These tides are in fact a never-ending train of cycles, wrought mainly by the influence of the Moon on land, sea and air…….
‘There happens to be a minor cycle of the Earth’s magnetic field, with an accepted value of 15.5 months…..’
“I see in my previous notes that if the abovementioned EMF minor cycle is allotted a value of 15.401 months and the Chandler wobble cycle (14 months) is given a value of 13.958 months, then 29 EMF minor cycles exactly equal 32 Chandler wobble cycles, which in turn, precisely equal one 37.22 year double period of the Moon’s metonic cycle (regressional period of the Moon’s nodes)….”
“Witness the example (above) of the combination of the EMF minor cycle, with Chandler Wobble cycle, coinciding with the double metonic cycle of the Moon’s nodes. “It might turn out that the Sun is responsible for both our weather and long-term climate patterns; that some unknown X factor (you’ve named it the ‘W’ (weather) factor) is emanating from the Sun at a steady rate, retrograde, relative to the Earth’s rotation, in some way superimposes its influence on Earth’s upper air wave system, which (in turn) in accord with hierarchic principle, controls the climate/weather systems of our troposphere. …”
(Letter to Doctor H.J Harrington 10 January 1979.)
A Model
With regard to the idea of a westward drifting cyclic system, I developed a model which provided for a global meridional westward drift of the cycles, simultaneously across the latitudes. As intimated by the above letter to Dr Harrington, it was the one I used to explain the anomalous distribution of climate/weather patterns in time and space.
00
Hi Joanna
This comment refers to your and David’s solar model. I have been reading Climate Change The Facts 2014 to which you are a contributor. The book is very interesting and has raised some points that I had thought were settled science.The one I want to refer to in respect of your model is a comment in the paper by Wille Soon to the effect (page59):
“Misplaced reliance on eleven-year synthetic solar cycles. There are no known measurements to suggest the existence of the eleven-year-like solar cycles in the sun irradiance variation for all historical time. … ”
He continues to say that assuming such cycles in models can create artificial results. He also says that the problems arise through the use of the inaccurate PMOD or ACRIM data rather than the more accurate RMIB data.
The question I have is how would using the RMIB data affect your model, especially your as yet unidentified mechanism for the 11 year lag?
00