101 replies to this topic

[Waterspout]

John S2, on 23 August 2011 - 15:39 , said:

On the subject of colder winters, the most plausible theory I have come across is that the state of the sun's magnetic field - it has been exceptionally low recently - indirectly affects the jet stream and causes more blocking.

In general I agree with your posting, however it is the drop in the Sun's UV Output by around 30% since the last Solar Max, which has a well known physically modelled effect of altering the Jet Stream and Blocked patterns into NW Europe. UV affects Ozone production in the atmosphere which affects the Jet Stream.

There's some good reading/papers on this here:

http://pubs.giss.nas...cgi?id=sh05100g

http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=7122

Ironically 2 of the authors are Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.

This research was further reflected on by Mike Lockwood more recently in the explaining Winters of 2009-2010:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm

"The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun. "

[Waterspout]

Well Well and as if by magic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15199065

I often email Richard Black, especially when he writes articles telling us Scientists say The Sun has no role in our Climate. I actually emailed him 2 years ago regarding the UV connection to European Winters, and I've just had the pleasure to email him again to congratulate him on the BBC playing catch-up with reality. ;-D I have to say he always replies as a courtesy.

Edited by Waterspout, 09 October 2011 - 22:00 .

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Waterspout, on 09 October 2011 - 21:59 , said:

Well Well and as if by magic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15199065

I often email Richard Black, especially when he writes articles telling us Scientists say The Sun has no role in our Climate. I actually emailed him 2 years ago regarding the UV connection to European Winters, and I've just had the pleasure to email him again to congratulate him on the BBC playing catch-up with reality. ;-D I have to say he always replies as a courtesy.

Hi WS,

I sent an email to a couple of friends of mine today, reminding them that I pointed out the drop in UV and the effect I thought it would have -- just under 3 years ago. Glad to see that scientists now think I'm right.

The bit that always makes me smile is someone saying "the sun has no effect on our climate". However no sun = no climate and small changes in the sun at non visible wavelengths could always have been a driver that couldn't be measured until recently

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not think anyone doubts the suns impacts on weather/climate ? What is under debate is mans impact? The latest spate of " X" flares from the sun ( and the solar storms assoc.) show us the sun is ramping up to solar Max. Should we suffer another early ,biting Arctic blast this Nov/Dec are we going to put it down to an active sun or are we going to look North to the ice loss this summer for our explanations as to why?

Prior to Wed's winter update I'll give you mine . Cold Nov/Dec then a middling Jan/Feb/March. Why? The Arctic Amplification and the 'Faux High' it drives over sections of the Arctic ocean (driven by the ocean shedding the heat it gained over summer) with any 'deep cold slipping south into temperate zones. This is of course balanced by WAA into the Arctic to compensate for the cold air that slipped south......maybe it's our turn for some of that and Central Europe will get the 'early Arctic Blast'????

[pottyprof]

Gray-Wolf, on 11 October 2011 - 09:41 , said:

I do not think anyone doubts the suns impacts on weather/climate ?

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

[Waterspout]

Gray-Wolf, on 11 October 2011 - 09:41 , said:

The latest spate of " X" flares from the sun ( and the solar storms assoc.) show us the sun is ramping up to solar Max. Should we suffer another early ,biting Arctic blast this Nov/Dec are we going to put it down to an active sun or are we going to look North to the ice loss this summer for our explanations as to why?

Solar Max is now expected around 2014. Some X-Ray Flares have indeed gone off lately, but the background UV Output has not increased that much so far, although I don't have current figures for the UV Spectrum. It will ramp up slowly, irrespective of any X-Ray flares going on. So, in % change terms I don't think the current UV Output is much different to that in 2009/2010.

I must search out the figures now! One thing is interesing. The Solar Min in 2009 had a UV level 6% lower than the Solar Min of 1996. So, is there a threshold level which kicks in this Northern Blocking scenerio, or is it controlled by many years of lower UV over time? I don't think anyone has the answers to this as of yet. We can just keep monitoring what happens I suppose.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

pottyprof, on 11 October 2011 - 11:22 , said:

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

Maybe all that energy is stored somewhere so that there is a lag of some kind creating an effect that even in solar minima we can still be warming since the energy from the more viscous material emits more slowly [1]





[1] http://en.wikipedia....eaky_integrator

EDIT: for all the long-timers on here, I know this is a little mischievous

Edited by Sparticle, 17 October 2011 - 06:52 .

[Solar Sausage]

pottyprof, on 11 October 2011 - 11:22 , said:

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

Tbh PP, all most people have ever said (there are some loons, I admit) is that the Sun is not the sole contributor to our climate...If it was - we'd all be frozen solid?

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Pete Tattum, on 17 October 2011 - 08:47 , said:

(there are some loons, I admit)

Me! Me! ME!

[Solar Sausage]

Sparticle, on 17 October 2011 - 08:50 , said:

Me! Me! ME!

Count me in, too!

[Gray-Wolf]

You are a naughty one Sparticle!!! as for the 'lost' energy ? did we not just find a goodly amount of it in the 100 to 200m Ocean depths?

EDIT: Count me in on the 'Loons' camp too please!!!

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 17 October 2011 - 10:20 .

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Yes, we did; but I could never prove that that made up the difference; it was child's play to prove that the pycnocline 'trapped' (more than) the excess, but I had problems showing that emissivity between layers took time because of the differences in density - which is a little different from thinking of the ocean as a slower mode of transport for heat (which was the original hypothesis)

I did once find some law (regarding atrophy of emissivity between different densities) that seemed to describe it (ie it explained why the heat in the pycnolcine takes longer than you'd expect to escape - think of the other layers around the pycnocline as blankets) but have long since lost all my files and can't for the life of me remember what it was or where I found it.

I found the chart from another NW thread - oh, and it wasn't Kirchoffs law.

EDIT; using Rayleigh number rings a bell from the dim distant past ... if I recall correctly, the sums didn't quite add up- so the initial results seemed to be the product of overfit which is a shame because I used all the normal techniques to avoid such a basic error.

EDIT2: incidentally, the changes to pycnocline above certain latitudes - and therefore heat content escaping faster - was also a theory associated with arctic ice loss but at the time, antartica was gaining ice (even though it was fracturing faster) We also worked on a causal mechanism for ENSO along the same lines given that the warmer (or cooler) waters cluster around the equater, densities also made absorption a problem (ie the pycnocline acted like a mirror) until a certain threshold was reached where it got overloaded and 'over' heated the layer underneath.

EDIT3: Of course, all conjecture - I could never prove a thing. So close, yet so, so, so far away ....

Edited by Sparticle, 17 October 2011 - 11:23 .

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks ( really) for trawling back through that Sparticle!

I'll have a muse and trawl around myself to see if I can find 'numbers' around that might prove helpful in this ?(if I ever get the time to that is!!)

[jethro]

Pete Tattum, on 17 October 2011 - 08:47 , said:

Tbh PP, all most people have ever said (there are some loons, I admit) is that the Sun is not the sole contributor to our climate...If it was - we'd all be frozen solid?

But that's not quite right though Pete and to be honest, that's just a cover-all, get out clause.

When it comes to climate and more importantly, recent climate, the argument has been that only TSI is relevant, that it is the only thing which varies which can have any impact upon short term climate and that the changes in recent decades cannot account for change in climate. The new research shows that the (regarded to be) sceptical side of this debate were right to insist that only measuring TSI alone is not enough.

[Solar Sausage]

jethro, on 17 October 2011 - 15:00 , said:

But that's not quite right though Pete and to be honest, that's just a cover-all, get out clause.

When it comes to climate and more importantly, recent climate, the argument has been that only TSI is relevant, that it is the only thing which varies which can have any impact upon short term climate and that the changes in recent decades cannot account for change in climate. The new research shows that the (regarded to be) sceptical side of this debate were right to insist that only measuring TSI alone is not enough.

Good point, J...We are learning all the time. But, whatever, GHG's (and the biosphere) and their 'balance' with Solar input and re-radiation, are what maintain the Earth's 'heat balance'. But, there's nowt we can do to alter Solar output...

[Weather Ship]

I don't know whether this has been posted before. It's a paper from last year. It's quite long and detailed so can't make any observations as haven't had a chance to read properly but at first glance looks quite interesting. Just a quick extract from .

6.4. Climate Change
[164] Finally, the role of solar variability in climate change has received much public attention because reliable estimates of solar influence are needed to limit uncertainty in the importance of human activity as a potential explanation for global warming. Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [IPCC, 2007]. The change in solar radiative forcing since 1750 was estimated in the IPCC [2007] report to be 0.12 W m−2, corresponding to an increase in TSI of 0.69 W m−2. A value of 0.24 W m−2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate. Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC‐related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic

Solar Influences on Climate.

http://www.agu.org/j...009RG000282.pdf

Edited by weather ship, 22 October 2011 - 11:42 .

[Cloudman]

pottyprof, on 11 October 2011 - 11:22 , said:

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

What an amazing comment, how do you think natural climate change over geological time is explained in paleoclimatology ? The influence of UV on atmospheric circulation has been known since Jo Haigh's paper in 1995. Are you aware if Shindell's paper from 2001 using a GCM to simulate the little ice age attributing it to increased northern blocking over Europe associated with a long term drop in UV

[Cloudman]

weather ship, on 22 October 2011 - 11:34 , said:

I don't know whether this has been posted before. It's a paper from last year. It's quite long and detailed so can't make any observations as haven't had a chance to read properly but at first glance looks quite interesting. Just a quick extract from .

6.4. Climate Change
[164] Finally, the role of solar variability in climate change has received much public attention because reliable estimates of solar influence are needed to limit uncertainty in the importance of human activity as a potential explanation for global warming. Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [IPCC, 2007]. The change in solar radiative forcing since 1750 was estimated in the IPCC [2007] report to be 0.12 W m−2, corresponding to an increase in TSI of 0.69 W m−2. A value of 0.24 W m−2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate. Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC‐related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic

Solar Influences on Climate.

http://www.agu.org/j...009RG000282.pdf

That does go to the heart of the matter, changes in solar output over these timescales only have quite small impacts on global temperature relative to greenhouse gas forcing but the larger changes in UV do have an impact on atmospheric circulation and hence regional weather but not global temperature.

[Village]

That doesnt follow

Cloudman, on 22 October 2011 - 12:24 , said:

That does go to the heart of the matter, changes in solar output over these timescales only have quite small impacts on global temperature relative to greenhouse gas forcing but the larger changes in UV do have an impact on atmospheric circulation and hence regional weather but not global temperature.

I dont think that follows personally. If regional weather eversoslightly changes as it does all of the time this does have an impact on global temperatures. One rarely has regional variability without a change in temperature and therefore global temperatures. This also follows with regards to precipitational variability because the process of varying humidity also alters atmospheric energy and surface temperatures most particularly nocturnally.

[Solar Sausage]

Village, on 01 December 2011 - 14:15 , said:

That doesnt follow


I dont think that follows personally. If regional weather eversoslightly changes as it does all of the time this does have an impact on global temperatures. One rarely has regional variability without a change in temperature and therefore global temperatures. This also follows with regards to precipitational variability because the process of varying humidity also alters atmospheric energy and surface temperatures most particularly nocturnally.

Unless of course, said local changes are essentially random. In which case the increases at some locations might be more-or-less offset by decreases at others