by Javier Vinós & Andy May
“Once you start doubting, just like you’re supposed to doubt. You ask me if the science is true and we say ‘No, no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong’ … When you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” Richard Feynman (1981)
5.1 Introduction
The 1990s discovery of multidecadal variability (see Part IV) showed that the science of climate change is very immature. The answer to what was causing the observed warming was provided before the proper questions were asked. Once the answer was announced, questions were no longer welcome. Michael Mann said of a skeptical Judith Curry: “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility” (Mann 2008). But as Peter Medawar (1979) stated, “the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.” Scientists’ opinions do not constitute science, and a scientific consensus is nothing more than a collective opinion based on group-thinking. When doubting a scientific consensus (“just like you’re supposed to doubt,” as Feynman said) becomes unwelcome, the collective opinion becomes dogma, and dogma is clearly not science.
Lennart Bengtsson, former director of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, winner of the Descartes Prize and a WMO prize for groundbreaking research put it succinctly after agreeing to participate in a skeptical organization headed by Nigel Lawson, a member of the House of Lords and former Chancellor of the Exchequer:
“I had not [been] expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expected anything similar in such an originally peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently, it has been transformed in recent years” (von Storch 2014).
This is the effect that dogmas have on scientists, normal scientific research becomes impossible by introducing a strong group-bias against questioning the dogma.
Once dogmas are established, they tend to evade scientific scrutiny. Stuart Firestein, when reviewing the main mistaken scientific consensuses of the past in his 2012 book, Ignorance: How it Drives Science, wonders if
“… is there any reason, really, to think that our modern science may not suffer from similar blunders? In fact, the more successful the fact, the more worrisome it may be. Really successful facts have a tendency to become impregnable to revision.” Stuart Firestein (2012)
The main dogma of climate change science is stated in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3)”(IPCC 2014).
However, there is no evidence confirming this dogma. It is based on computer model results that were programmed with the same assumptions that emerge from them, in a clear case of circular reasoning. An example of such assumptions is that the only accepted effect of solar variability on climate is the change in total solar irradiance (TSI). None of the solar effects described in Part II are included because they are not accepted, and even if they were accepted, we would not know how to program them. We don’t know how they happen or how they affect climate. Such is the hubris of modern climate theory supporters that they believe we understand how climate changes well enough to make reliable projections 75 years into the future.
Fig. 5.1. The main dogma of climate change science is shown in Figure SPM.3 from AR5. The fifth IPCC report, claims that observed 1951-2010 warming was due to anthropogenic causes, without contribution from natural forcings, despite low volcanic activity and high solar activity; and without any contribution from multidecadal oscillations, despite the 1976-2000 period of warming coinciding with an AMO upswing.
In Part III we showed the importance of meridional transport (MT) and the latitudinal temperature gradient (LTG) in both the global and regional climate. They determine the amount of energy directed toward the poles. In Part IV we showed that changes in MT cause climate regime shifts, and that these shifts alter the energy budget of the climate system. This evidence refutes the dogma, revealing that changes in MT constitute a climate forcing not accounted for in Fig. 5.1. In Part II we reviewed the evidence that changes in solar activity affect the polar vortex, ENSO, Earth’s rotation rate, and planetary wave atmospheric propagation properties, resulting in dynamical spatiotemporal changes in atmospheric circulation, temperature, and precipitation that correspond with substantial climate changes of the past as recorded by paleoclimatological evidence. Each and every one of the climatological factors affected by solar activity points to an effect of the variable sun on MT. Through changes in MT, changes in solar activity constitute one of the main causes of climate change, further refuting the climate dogma.
5.2 Meridional transport multiple regulation
MT is the most important modulator of global climate. The great complexity of the ocean-atmosphere coupled global circulation with all its modes of variability, oscillations, teleconnections, and modulations, is just the manifestation of a single underlying cause, the transport of energy from its climate system entry point to its exit point. Mass (including water) is transported, directly or indirectly, because of energy transport. As we saw in Part III, section 3, MT is mainly carried out by the atmosphere (see Fig. 3.4), and it does so through two separate but coupled tracks, one is through the stratosphere (the Brewer–Dobson circulation, BDC), the other is through the troposphere, mainly over ocean basins with both the atmosphere and ocean contributing. The coupling of these two tracks is variable in time and space (Kidston et al. 2015). At the equatorial zone there is coupling through deep-convection and the ascending branch of the BDC (Collimore et al. 2003), and at high latitudes through the polar vortex (PV). The downward coupling in the mid-latitudes is complex and variable by longitude (Elsbury et al. 2021). The downward coupling is mainly exerted by changes in stratospheric temperature gradients and the response of the wind thermal balance. The wind thermal balance affects the strength of the mean zonal circulation, and the position and strength of tropospheric jets, eddies, and storm tracks (Kidston et al. 2015). The upward coupling depends on changes in convection and atmospheric wave generation. Consequently, the coupling is stronger in winter when temperature contrasts and atmospheric wave generation in the troposphere are more intense, and temperature gradients in the stratosphere are deeper.
Fig. 5.2. Meridional transport diagram. The light-grey rounded rectangles are the two components (tracks) of meridional transport, with their known modulators in white ovals. Black arrows indicate coupling or modulation. Dashed arrows indicate the indirect effect from volcanic eruptions on tropospheric meridional transport and ENSO.Changes in meridional transport affect the energy budget of the Earth’s climatic system by changing the energy transfer intensity from the GHG-rich tropical region to the GHG-poor polar region. From Vinós 2022.
Stratospheric MT is modulated by factors that alter the latitudinal temperature gradient (ozone, solar activity, and volcanic aerosols), or the zonal wind strength (QBO), as they determine the level of planetary wave transmission that powers stratospheric transport. ENSO is part of the tropospheric MT and is determined by its conditions, but it is also a modulator of stratospheric transport, affecting the strength of the BDC (Domeisen et al. 2019), and thus participates in the stratosphere-troposphere MT coupling. Whether the QBO influences ENSO is not known, but all other interactions between these three modulators (solar effect, QBO and ENSO) of stratospheric MT have been documented (Labitzke 1987; Calvo & Marsh 2011; Salby & Callaghan 2000; Taguchi 2010). The stadium-wave represents the coordinated sequential change affecting the interconnected parts of tropospheric MT (Wyatt & Curry 2014). It is a strong multidecadal oscillation in MT, and the importance it has on climate variability cannot be overstated.
Most of the climatic effects from volcanic activity that are not due to the direct reflection and scattering of solar radiation by stratospheric sulfate aerosols, or altered stratospheric chemistry, are accomplished by altering MT. That is why strong tropical volcanic eruptions cause NH winter warming by strengthening the PV (GuðlaugsdÓttir et al. 2019), why they induce ENSO states (Swingedouw et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2018), and why they excite the bidecadal MT oscillation (Swingedouw et al. 2015; see Part IV, Sect. 4.2 & Fig. 4.2), accounting for the interdecadal effects of volcanic eruptions.
Other than variations in the GHG content of the atmosphere, climate changes through changes in MT, and this is likely the main mechanism, since important climatic changes have occurred in the past with only modest variations in greenhouse radiative forcing. The effect of some MT modulators trends to zero when averaged over a few years. This is the case with QBO and ENSO. Multidecadal variability also balances out over longer time frames. However, solar activity has centennial and millennial cycles that become the most important MT modulator at sub-Milankovitch frequencies (i.e., <10,000 years). The Medieval Warm Period, centered c. 1100, the Little Ice Age, centered c. 1600, and the ongoing Modern Global Warming period, coincide with a millennial solar activity cycle, known as the Eddy cycle (Abreu et al. 2010), that displayed high solar activity during the medieval and modern solar maxima (c. 1150 & 1970), and low solar activity at the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder cluster of Solar Minima (c. 1300–1700).
Centennial and millennial changes in solar activity are an important climate forcing because of the persistent effect they have on MT. Solar activity changes alter the global climate system energy budget. Shorter changes in solar activity (decadal) are less important because at these time frames MT becomes more affected by other modulators, like the stadium-wave, ENSO and the QBO, that quite often act in opposition to solar modulation.
5.3 The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis
The current view of climate change, as reflected in the IPCC assessment reports, constitutes a radiative theory of climate. Within this theory, solar variability is only considered in terms of the small radiative changes in TSI (about 0.1 % per solar cycle), despite strong evidence of solar-induced dynamical changes to the global atmospheric circulation presented in Part II. These non-linear, indirect, dynamical effects of solar variability on climate are detectable in climate reanalysis (see Fig. 2.2; Lean 2017), and reproduced by models (Kodera et al. 2016), yet they are not incorporated to the modern climate change theory because no room has been left for them.
The change in solar activity does not have a year-round global effect as expected from a global change in solar radiative forcing. The effect is higher during hemispheric cold seasons, and maximal during the boreal winter, as shown by its modifications to the Earth’s rotation speed (see Fig. 2.5; Le Mouël et al. 2010). The changes in the length of day (ΔLOD) are due to changes in the meridional atmospheric circulation responsible for the increase in the amount of heat transported to the winter pole. This cold-season specific solar effect, tied to the strength of the PV, is seen in climate reanalysis and observations suggesting it affects both atmospheric and oceanic phenomena, including the AO and NAO, blocking events frequency, zonal wind strength, the sub-polar gyre strength, and the North Atlantic winter storm track. The season-specific dynamical effect of solar activity must result in important changes in the amount of heat directed to the dark pole. Most of this heat exits the planet radiated as OLR in the long polar night. Heat flux across sea-ice is always towards the atmosphere, and the increase in non-condensing GHGs favors energy loss through higher radiative cooling from GHG molecules that are warmer than the surface (van Wijngaarden & Happer 2020). Radiative heat loss also increases due to the strong decrease in cloud cover that accompanies the polar winter (Eastman & Warren 2010), and the low absolute humidity of the winter polar atmosphere.
The seasonal asymmetric effect of solar activity on climate establishes solar variability as the most important long-term gatekeeper of the large amount of heat that leaves the planet at the poles every cold season. They are the main heat sink for the planet (see Fig. 3.2). Thus, the hypothesis of how changes in solar activity regulate MT is named the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis (WGK-h). The WGK-h (Fig. 5.3) states that the level of solar activity is one of several factors that determine the strength of zonal winds and thus the propagation of planetary waves in the winter atmosphere. Poleward and upward wave propagation controls PV strength, which is the main modulator of heat and moisture MT to the winter pole. Winters of high solar activity promote stronger zonal circulation, reducing MT, leading to a colder Arctic winter, warmer mid-latitudes winter, a warmer tropical band due to reduced BDC upwelling, and lower energy loss at the winter pole. Winters of low solar activity promote the opposite. The difference in energy loss at the winter pole is large enough to greatly affect the climate of the entire planet when solar activity is consistently high or low for several consecutive solar cycles (i.e., decades).
Fig. 5.3 The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis of solar variability effect on climate. a) High solar activity winters promote a strong stratospheric latitudinal temperature gradient through increased ozone and enhanced ozone heating caused by higher UV radiation. High solar activity, through changes in the thermal wind balance, strengthens the zonal winds reducing planetary wave propagation. This allows the polar vortex to remain strong through the winter, reducing meridional transport and heat loss at the winter pole. The effect on the stratospheric temperature gradient from high solar activity can be opposed by easterly QBO and El Niño conditions. Tropospheric meridional transport is strongly affected by the c. 65-year oscillation, here represented over the Atlantic by the AMO, that denotes a weaker transport when it changes to higher values (heat accumulation in the North Atlantic). The climatic effect is enhanced global warming and a cold Arctic/warm continents winter pattern. b) Low solar activity winters promote a weak stratospheric latitudinal temperature gradient due to lower UV radiation, leading to a weak polar vortex that increases meridional transport and heat loss at the winter pole. The effect on the stratospheric temperature gradient from low solar activity can be opposed by westerly QBO, La Niña conditions, and volcanic aerosol forcing. The tropospheric meridional transport is strong when the c. 65-year oscillation is in the descending phase, and the AMO is changing to lower values (heat reduction in the North Atlantic). Increased transport increases Earth’s speed of rotation as zonal winds decrease, and less angular momentum resides in the atmosphere. The climatic effect is reduced global warming and a warm Arctic/cold continents winter pattern. From Vinós 2022.
The WGK-h is based on the evidence that MT is one, if not the most important, agent for climate change. But as stated previously, MT is modulated by climatic conditions that affect the strength of zonal winds, including not only solar activity but also ENSO, the QBO, stratospheric volcanic aerosols, and the stadium-wave (the multidecadal oscillation in tropospheric MT). As MT depends on atmospheric and oceanic transport, it responds not only to the stratospheric signal that involves solar activity, but also to a tropospheric one that involves the ocean (Fig. 5.3). This double dependency leads to an inconsistency in solar effects that has plagued solar-climate studies. The solar signal is part of a complex system that determines the strength of winter MT, but its long turnover rate (decadal to centennial) accumulates over time.
The mechanisms for the solar effect on climate have been described by multiple authors. Differential heating of ozone by UV, creates a temperature gradient in the stratosphere that affects zonal wind strength. The strength of zonal winds determines planetary wave propagation that affects PV strength. Zonal wind and PV conditions in the stratosphere propagate to the troposphere through thermal wind balance and stratosphere-troposphere coupling. At the troposphere, the position and strength of the jets and the conditions of the Arctic Oscillation are affected (Lean, 2017). However, the WGK-h proposes that the long-term climatic effect of solar variability is mediated through its effect on the MT of heat towards the winter pole, and that the stronger global climatic effects are due to cumulative energy loss at the winter pole during prolonged periods of low solar activity. The main role for solar variability in climate is to act as a winter gatekeeper, promoting energy conservation during years of high solar activity and allowing a higher energy loss during years of low solar activity. As MT is geographically variable, the solar energy gatekeeping role has a stronger effect in the North Atlantic winter storm track and a smaller effect at the south polar cap, with the Pacific and Siberian Arctic winter gateways falling in between.
The WGK-h provides an explanation for the strong paleoclimatic effect of periods of prolonged low solar activity, like the Little Ice Age (LIA), and its alternation with warmer periods like the MWP or Modern Global Warming that correspond to the c. 1000-yr Eddy solar cycle as revealed by solar and climate proxies (Marchitto et al. 2010). It can also explain the North Atlantic region behavior as a climate variability hotspot. Paleoclimatologists have long noticed that many prominent climate change manifestations, such as Bond events, Dansgaard–Oeschger events, Heinrich events, the MWP or the LIA are more prominent or exclusive to the North Atlantic region. This region is a preferred corridor for MT and, thus, it is the area that is most sensitive to changes in it.
5.4 Evidence for the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis
The WGK-h explains how the known short-term dynamical effects of solar UV variability on atmospheric circulation (i.e., the top-down mechanism; Matthes et al. 2016) are responsible for an outsized longer-term modulation of climate change, through persistent changes in MT that alter the radiative properties of the planet.
The effect of solar variability on climate on a centennial to millennial timescale has long been established by paleoclimatology (Engels & van Geel 2012), but this knowledge could not be incorporated to our understanding of climate change because of the lack of a known mechanism. Solar variability during the Holocene is relatively well known through the cosmogenic isotope record (mainly 14C and 10Be records). The LIA is not the only secular period of the Holocene where an association can be established between persistently reduced solar activity in the form of solar grand minima (SGM) and a significant cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, together with a change in precipitation patterns that affected large regions, including the tropical monsoons (Wang et al. 2005b). At c. 11.4 kyr BP the Pre-Boreal SGM coincides with the Pre-Boreal Oscillation (Björck et al. 1997). At c. 10.3 kyr BP the Boreal 1 SGM coincides with the Boreal Oscillation 1 (Björck et al. 2001). At c. 9.3 kyr BP the Boreal 2 cluster of SGM coincides with the Boreal Oscillation 2 (Zhang et al. 2018). Between 7.7 and 7.2 kyr BP a LIA-like period coincides with the Jericho cluster of SGM (Berger et al. 2016). At c. 6.3 kyr BP another period of low solar activity coincides with another climate pessimum (Fleitmann et al. 2007). At c. 5.2 kyr BP the large global glacier advance that froze Ötzi the iceman in the Alps coincided with the Sumerian cluster of SGM (Thompson et al. 2006). At c. 2.8 kyr BP, another climate pessimum identified with the Great Winter of the Bronze Age Nordic sagas (Fries 1956) coincided with the Homeric SGM (Chambers et al. 2007). And at c. 0.5 kyr BP the LIA coincided with the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder cluster of SGM (Kokfelt & Muscheler 2012). Twenty-five SGM have been identified during the Holocene (Usoskin 2017), but since 12 of them belong to 4 clusters, there are 17 periods of persistently reduced solar activity in 11,700 years. Despite the difficulties of studying the climate of past millennia, half of them have already been convincingly related to periods of profound climate worsening, in some cases associated with human population struggles (see Fig. 2.1; Bevan et al. 2017). It is not surprising that so many paleoclimatologists are convinced solar variability has a profound effect on climate change (Rohling et al. 2002; Hu et al. 2003; Engels & van Geel 2012; Magny et al. 2013).
The WGK-h requires that solar modulation of climate is accomplished by the top-down dynamical mechanism acting on MT. Colin Hines conceived the bases of the top-down mechanism in 1974, and the first evidence was published by Joanna Haigh in 1996, incorporating the crucial role of ozone as the UV variability sensor and transmitter. Since then, the top-down mechanism has found support in observations, reanalysis, and modeling (Gray et al. 2010; Gruzdev 2017; Kodera et al. 2016). The WGK-h links the top-down mechanism to the detected long-term effects of solar variability on climate through persistent modifications to the most important climate variable, the MT of energy from the tropics to the poles.
The WGK-h is supported by evidence of a solar effect on climate that is otherwise difficult to incorporate into alternate hypotheses. It explains why the semi-annual component of the changes in the Earth’s speed of rotation, manifested as changes in the length of day (∆LOD; see Part II), responds to changes in solar activity (Le Mouël et al. 2010). The LOD changes are a manifestation of the solar modulation of the winter atmospheric circulation. It also explains why the multidecadal trend in ∆LOD changes correlate with climatic changes (Lambeck & Cazenave 1976; Mazzarella, 2013).
Solar modulation of ENSO (see Part II) also supports the WGK-h. Low solar activity promotes a stronger MT, favoring La Niña conditions at the equatorial Pacific, probably in response to a higher BDC upwelling through tropical stratosphere-troposphere coupling. This is the opposite of tropical volcanic eruptions which produce a weaker MT and stronger PV, inducing El Niño conditions in the equatorial Pacific probably through a reduction in tropical upwelling by the opposite mechanism.
The warm Arctic/cold continents (WACC) winter pattern, linked to low solar activity (Kobashi et al. 2015; Porter et al. 2019), also constitutes evidence for the WGK-h. During prolonged periods of low solar activity, the Arctic is characterized by warmer winters, while the mid-latitude continents suffer colder winters due to more frequent incursions of polar air masses. The opposite happens during prolonged periods of high solar activity, explaining why Arctic sea-ice initiated a great reduction at the climatic shift of 1997 (see Part IV) and not during the previous decades of prominent global warming. Arctic amplification since 2000 manifests as a cold season phenomenon, with little summer temperature increase, supporting the underlying seasonal changes in MT that have taken place.
As required by the hypothesis, stratospheric planetary wave amplitude is modulated by solar activity (Powell & Xu 2011; see Fig. 2.8), with low solar activity resulting in increased planetary wave amplitude that should promote a stronger BDC and weaker PV.
The biennial oscillation (BO) changes the PV from a strong configuration one winter to a weak configuration the next (Fig. 5.4a). It results from the solar cycle modulation of the QBO bimodality and its interaction with the strong polar annual variation (Baldwin & Dunkerton 1998; Salby & Callaghan 2006; Christiansen 2010). After the 1976–77 climate shift, the bimodality in the QBO and the BO weakened, resulting in a predominantly strong-vortex phase (Fig. 5.4a; Christiansen 2010). At the 1997–98 climate shift, the bimodality in the QBO and the BO changed again to a stronger-bimodality weaker-vortex phase. These climate shifts define the 1977–97 period when the effect of the QBO on the strength of the PV by the Holton–Tan mechanism weakened considerably (Lu et al. 2008; see Part II). In the 1970s, the QBO at 50 hPa, and extratropical winds at 54°N and 10 hPa broke their correlation while becoming more predominantly westerly (positive) as shown by their cumulative value (Fig. 5.4b; Lu et al. 2008), weakening the winter coupling between the QBO and the PV for the period 1977–97, as stronger westerly winds hinder the propagation of lower amplitude planetary waves. The stronger PV that resulted from the high activity solar cycles 21 and 22 produced a slight cooling trend in winter Arctic temperature (Fig. 5.4c, grey area), while the weaker PV that resulted from the lower activity of solar cycles 20 and 23 (and 24) resulted in warming trends in the winter Arctic (Fig. 5.4c, white areas). The relationship between the strength of the PV and winter Arctic surface temperature is very clear. Notice that winter Arctic temperature evolution is opposite to NH temperature evolution, underscoring their negative correlation.
Fig. 5.4. Polar vortex, zonal wind, Arctic temperature, and the solar cycle. Vertical dashed lines mark the solar minima, and the gray area corresponds to the climate regime period between the 1976 and 1997 climate shifts. a) October–March mean vortex at 20 hPa, as the leading principal component of the mean geopotential height north of 20°N empirical orthogonal function, from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis dataset. Higher values denote a strong vortex for that winter. Circa 1976 a regime shift took place from a generally weak vortex displaying bimodality to a stronger vortex with unimodality. The opposite shift took place c. 1997. Dotted lines are average values for the periods separated by 1976 and 1997. After Christiansen 2010. b) Black line, cumulative of the 3-year averaged November–March average zonal-mean zonal wind speed at the equator at 50 hPa. Grey line, cumulative 3-year averaged November–March average zonal-mean zonal wind speed at 54.4°N at 10 hPa. Dotted lines are linear trends for the cumulative 54.4°N data for the periods 1959–65, 1965–76, 1976–97 and 1997–2004. Data after Lu et al. 2008. c) Winter (December–February) mean temperature anomaly calculated from the operational atmospheric model at the European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecast for the +80 °N region. The dotted lines are linear trends as in (b) except the last period ends in 2010. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute. d) Black line, number of sunspot spotless days in a running 6-month window. Gray line, monthly sunspots. Horizontal dotted lines are the average monthly number of sunspots for each solar cycle (SC). Data from WDC–SILSO. From Vinós (2022).
As required by the WGK-h, seasonal patterns of 80–90 °N temperature anomaly display very important changes over time. Arctic summer and winter temperature anomalies did not display any significant long-term deviation from average during the 1970–99 period, indicating a surprising difference from the global warming experienced by most of the planet at the time, and in stark contrast to the polar amplification predicted by theory and the climate models. Starting in 1997, the Arctic summer temperature anomaly displays a small decrease of about half a degree (see Fig. 4.6a), while the Arctic winter temperature anomaly shows a huge increase reaching +8 °C average during the 2017–18 winter (Fig. 5.5). The heat responsible for this winter temperature increase is transported to the Arctic from lower latitudes (see Part III). It is paradoxical and contrary to the prevalent view, that Arctic warming was less pronounced during the rapid global warming period of the 1980s and 1990s and is more pronounced during the recent period of reduced warming, often called the pause or hiatus in global warming. This apparent contradiction can be resolved if solar activity regulates the amount of heat directed to the poles during the winter. According to the WGK-h, the increase in winter poleward heat transport responsible for the temperature increase in the Arctic in that season is contributed by the persistent decrease in solar activity since 2004. The negative correlation between long-term solar activity and Arctic winter temperature is clear (Fig. 5.5).
Fig. 5.5. Arctic winter temperature is solar modulated. Black curve, smoothed 10.7 cm solar flux as a proxy for solar activity. The third order polynomial least-squares fit has been calculated with all the data available since 1947 to reduce the border effect in the graphed data. Data from the Royal Observatory of Belgium STAFF viewer. Red curve, winter (December-February) mean temperature anomaly calculated from the operational atmosphere model at the European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecast for the +80 °N region, with a third order polynomial least-squares fit. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute. From Vinós (2022)
The solar-induced changes in the Arctic have many consequences. The WGK-h requires an increase in cold-season Arctic OLR when decadal solar activity decreases. This increase was observed in the 1997 climate regime shift (see Fig. 4.7). The increased energy loss at the poles since 1997 must have contributed to the pause in global warming. At the same time the strong wintertime warming in the Arctic has little effect on the regional cryosphere, since Arctic winter temperature is c. 25 °C below freezing on average. Meanwhile, the modest summer temperature decrease has a stabilizing effect on summer sea-ice extent that displays a pause since 2007 (Fig. 5.6). Paradoxically, the big increase in yearly averaged Arctic temperature is being publicized as evidence of hefty Arctic amplification, yet it coincides with a pause in Arctic summer sea-ice extent change that might even lead to a modest increase over the present solar cycle (SC25, 2020–c. 2031). Unless the Arctic temperature increase is seasonally analyzed, it is difficult to understand what is happening, but then it becomes clear that Arctic amplification is not an amplification of global warming. Arctic winter warming is a strong indication that the climatic effect of solar variability is being profoundly misunderstood, and the contribution from the MSM in solar activity to modern global warming is much larger than accounted for in the IPCC reports and current climate models. A clear prediction from this hypothesis is that the Arctic winter temperature anomaly will start to decrease when a new more active solar cycle takes place. This could happen with solar cycle 26, which is predicted to increase in activity c. 2032 (Fig. 5.7). That decrease in temperature should be accompanied by an increase in Arctic sea-ice.
Fig. 5.6. Projections of Arctic sea-ice decline. Model simulations (continuous colored lines, 2006–2090), and observations (black line, 1935–2021) of Arctic sea-ice extent for September. Colored lines for RCP scenarios are model averages from CMIP5, after Walsh et al. (2014). Light Brown dashed line is a model based on the known 60 and 20-year periodicities in Arctic sea-ice. Black continuous line is NSIDC September Arctic sea-ice extent for the satellite window (1979–2021), while 1935–1978 September Arctic sea-ice extent data is from Cea Pirón & Cano Pasalodos (2016) reconstruction. Dark red dashed line is a sigmoid survival curve fitted to 1979–2012 data with ice-free conditions near 2030, following the Arctic sea-ice death spiral proposed by Mark Serreze (2010). The conservative projection, the lighter brown dashed line, explains the pause in Arctic sea-ice melting since 2007 and suggests over 2 million km2 of Arctic sea-ice remaining by summer 2100. From Vinós 2022.
Fig. 5.7. Sunspot forecasting based on solar activity cycles. a) 1700–2020 international annual sunspot number, along with the rising linear trend. The centennial Feynman periodicity is shown as a sinusoidal curve with minima at the times of the lowest sunspot numbers, defining the centennial periods F1 to F3. Their span is dictated by the dates below. The F3 period displays the highest number of sunspots of the three. F2 period was affected by the presence of a de Vries bicentennial cycle low at SC12–13 and displays less sunspots than the other two. Source of data: WDC–SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. b) Solar model built on the spectral properties of solar activity from cosmogenic and sunspot records. The model assumes default maximum activity for each cycle that is then lowered by the distance to the lows of the five cycles considered, the 2500-yr, 1000-yr, 210-yr, 100-yr, and 50-yr cycles. Cycle dates and periods deduced from past activity are projected into the future, producing a solar activity forecast for 2022–2130. F4 is projected to coincide with a peak in the millennial Eddy cycle identified from Holocene solar proxy records, and likely to have as many sunspots as F3 despite another de Vries cycle low expected for SC31–32. SC1, SC10, SC20, and SC29 constitute lows in the pentadecadal solar periodicity, which reduces sunspot numbers at the peak of the centennial periodicity. The model (Vinós 2016) does not project maximum activity (more variable), but the sunspot sum over the entire cycle. The 2016 model was correct in forecasting SC25 activity higher than SC24 and lower than SC23. Now it forecasts increased solar activity from SC24 to SC28. From Vinós 2022.
5.5 The asymmetric High-solar/Low-effect — Low-solar/High-effect paradox
Since the sun powers the climate system it is logical to assume that a more active sun, by providing more energy, should have a proportional effect on climate, that is opposite to the effect of a decrease in energy by a less active sun. However, the study of paleoclimatology shows that this is not the case. Solar activity effect on climate is highly asymmetric, with low solar activity having a much more profound effect on climate than high solar activity.
The study of solar paleoclimatology was pioneered by Andrew Douglass (1919) and revived by the landmark study of John Eddy (1976) on the Maunder minimum. SGM throughout the Holocene and their associated climatic effects have been identified by many authors (Vinós 2022). The SGM from the past 1,000 years have received the names of astronomers, while those for the previous 7,000 years received names taken from human history (see above and in Vinós 2022). What is glaringly lacking is the corresponding identification, naming, and climatic studies of solar grand maxima. While they can be mathematically defined on the solar activity record (Usoskin 2017), only the two most recent ones, the medieval solar maximum and the modern solar maximum have been named. Paleoclimatic studies do not produce an obvious high solar activity-climate association. It appears solar grand maxima leave a much smaller footprint on the paleoclimate record than SGM.
What paleoclimatology is telling us is that solar-climate scientists should pay more attention to the effect of low solar activity on climate. The WGK-h helps explain why low solar activity has a stronger effect on climate than high solar activity.
The 11-yr solar cycle maximum is a lot more variable than the solar minimum. Although sunspots are perhaps not the best way to gauge solar activity during solar minima, the sunspot record (13-month smoothed; SILSO 2022) shows that solar maxima have varied between 81 sunspots in 1816 and 285 in 1958, a 204-sunspot difference. By contrast solar minima have varied only between 0 sunspots in 1810, and 18 sunspots at the highest minimum in 1976, an 18-sunspot difference. During a solar grand maximum, like the modern one (1935-2005; see Fig. 1.6), 6 years of high or very high solar activity are followed by 5 years of low or very low solar activity. During a SGM all years, decade after decade, have low or very low solar activity.
When solar activity is low the effect of the equatorial stratosphere on the PV (Holton–Tan effect) is stronger and the PV becomes anomalously weaker. Thus, at solar minimum the solar effect is maximum. The biggest positive deviations from trend in winter Arctic temperature usually take place during solar minima (Fig. 5.5). The climatic shifts of 1976 and 1997 took place at the solar minimum, which is evidence of the WGK-h. The 1925 shift also took place right after the SC15–16 minimum, and the 1946 shift after the SC17–18 minimum (see Fig. 4.8c & f; Mantua et al. 1997). Solar activity level between minima determines the level of equatorial-polar atmospheric coupling and the Arctic climate over that cycle (Fig. 5.4d). Since regime shifts in atmospheric circulation and climate appear to take place at solar minima, over the following years the activity of the solar maximum determines if a shift takes place. If the activity is similar to the prior cycle there is no shift, if it is markedly different the shift starting at the solar minimum is confirmed. A predictable result is a high frequency of climate phases that span two solar cycles, like the 1976–1997 period. This explains the repeated reports of 22-year solar signals in climate proxies, like the bidecadal drought rhythm in the western US (Cook et al. 1997), or tree-ring width in the Arctic (Ogurtsov et al. 2020) and Southern Chile (Rigozo et al. 2007).
Thus, the WGK-h provides an explanation for the asymmetric solar effect paradox. According to the hypothesis, years of high solar activity result in less energy loss at the winter pole due to a stronger PV and reduced MT (Fig. 5.3a), while years of low solar activity result in more energy lost from the opposite effect (Fig. 5.3b). During high activity solar cycles, 5-6 years of above average solar activity promote lower energy loss at the poles, followed by 4-5 years of below average solar activity that promote higher energy loss at the poles, resulting in moderate warming. During low activity solar cycles, all or nearly all years display below average solar activity resulting in intensified cooling.
The asymmetry in the 11-year cycle variability and in the solar effect on climate by the WGK-h explain why paleoclimatologists only detect the outsized climatic effect of SGM on climate. It is expected from theoretical considerations that long uninterrupted periods of low solar activity should have a bigger climate effect than long periods of intermittent activity. Paleoclimatological observations confirm this expectation, supporting that the climatic effect of solar activity is real.
5.6 The Cycle-length/Climate-effect paradox
One of the main objections to a more substantive role on climate change by the sun is that the 11-year solar cycle does not appear to have a great effect on climate. Modern climate analysis using satellite data since 1979 have covered almost four full solar cycles, and it is clear that the changes observed, although significant, are modest (Lean 2017; see Fig. 2.2). And no change is clear between cycles, much less a trend in any climate variable that would correlate to the trend in solar activity.
But solar activity also displays longer cycles. Solar cycles receive the name of important solar researchers. The 11-yr Schwabe cycle, the 22-yr Hale cycle, the 100-yr Feynman cycle, the 200-yr de Vries cycle, the 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the 2500-yr Bray cycle have all been described in the scientific literature as having a climatic effect (see Vinós 2022, and references within). The 100-yr Feynman cycle is responsible for two 11-yr cycles with low activity in the early 1800s (cycles 5 & 6, 1798–1823), the early 1900s (cycles 14 & 15, 1902-1923) and the early 2000s (cycles 24 & 25, since 2008 and until c. 2030). The 200-yr de Vries cycle is responsible for the spacing of the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder grand minima during the LIA. The 1000-yr Eddy cycle is responsible for the main climatic periods for the past 2000 years, the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages cold period (also known as the Late Antiquity Little Ice Age), the Medieval Warm Period, the LIA, and the Modern warm period that started c. 1850, with some anthropogenic contribution during the past seven decades.
From paleoclimatic studies the longer the solar cycle, the more profound its climatic effect. The biggest effect comes from the 2500-yr Bray cycle, the longest clearly discernible cycle in solar and climatic studies. This cycle, presented in Part II (Sect. 2.2), and Fig. 2.1, not only established the biological subdivisions of the Holocene (the Boreal, Atlantic, Sub-Boreal, and Sub-Atlantic periods), but also caused great periodic fluctuations in human populations of the past. As Bevan et al. (2017) say:
“We demonstrate multiple instances of human population downturn over the Holocene that coincide with periodic episodes of reduced solar activity and climate reorganization. … This evidence collectively suggests quasi-periodic solar forcing of atmospheric and oceanic circulation with wider climatic consequences.”
Those periodic episodes of human population downturn correspond in great part to the 2500-yr Bray cycle, as can be appreciated in Fig. 2.1 or in their figure 3. One can only imagine the kind of climatic effect of the 2500-yr Bray cycle to cause such downturns in human population.
It appears paradoxical that solar variability has almost no effect on the short term (the 11-year cycle), but a huge effect on the long term (the 2500-yr cycle). The WGK-h also provides an explanation for this cycle-length/climate-effect paradox. As shown in Fig. 5.3, solar activity is not the only modulator of MT. At least the QBO, ENSO, the stadium-wave oscillation, and volcanic eruptions act as modulators of MT, and therefore the effect on a particular year can be the opposite of what solar activity alone could dictate. On top of that during an average activity 11-yr solar cycle close to half of the years act in one direction and close to the other half in the opposite direction. The result is a moderate effect where causality is unclear.
The effect of the QBO and ENSO tends toward an average of nearly zero in a few years, and the multidecadal oscillation in a few decades. The longer the solar cycle the longer the period with low solar activity at its troughs. As we have seen, the biggest climatic effect is produced by continuous periods of decades when most of the years display low solar activity. The small increment in the large amount of energy that the planet loses at each winter pole during low solar years is cumulative, as with the increased energy retained by the rise in CO2. Progressively the planet loses more energy that it gains, and cools down. The longer the cycle, the longer the downturn, and the more profound the cooling. The areas in the MT main paths, particularly the North Atlantic region (including Europe and North America) cool first, longer, and more profoundly, but the energy drain affects the entire planet. And although the Arctic region initially warms due to a larger influx of energy from the enhanced MT, it eventually cools too, as the entire planet gets colder.
Climate is therefore not very sensitive to solar activity until several consecutive 11-yr cycles of consistently low or high solar activity cause the effect to raise above background noise. And then only if the multidecadal stadium-wave oscillation is not acting on MT in the opposite direction. Solar activity and the stadium-wave cooperated during the 1976–1997 climate phase to produce accelerated warming through a strong reduction in MT, that resulted in a long period of global wind stilling (McVicar & Roderik 2010; Zeng et al. 2019) for which no explanation has been provided until now. Since 1998 MT has increased, producing Arctic warming and a pause in global warming. The concatenation of two consecutive low solar activity cycles since 2008 and the approaching shift in the stadium-wave towards an AMO cooling phase, signaled by the recent cooling of the North Atlantic warming hole (46°N–62°N & 46°W–20°W; Latif et al. 2022), spells trouble for the CO2-hypothesis of climate change. The CO2 hypothesis projects accelerating warming for as long as atmospheric CO2 keeps rising. But natural climate change is cyclical, and the modern theory of climate change does not understand that.
In this part of the series, we have seen how changes in solar activity produce changes in climate by modulating the MT of energy towards the poles in a seasonally dependent manner. The result is that the Modern Solar Maximum has significantly contributed to modern global warming, and the current extended solar minimum is at least partially responsible for the ongoing reduced rate of global warming. But the sun’s role as a modulator of poleward energy transport cannot be deduced from first principles. The stratospheric ozone response to UV changes affects MT via the Charney-Drazin criterion, the Holton-Tan effect, and stratospheric-tropospheric coupling. All these atmospheric phenomena derive from observations, not theory. The IPCC considers that solar variability slightly affects climate through small changes in total incoming energy. The top-down mechanism acts through small UV changes that involve even less energy. The change in UV energy, transferred to stratospheric ozone, is partly converted to changes in wind speed. The energy to alter stratospheric circulation dynamics and, through coupling, tropospheric circulation is provided by atmospheric waves generated in the troposphere, not by incoming radiation from the sun. The WGK-h proposes that the energy that alters the climate as a response to solar changes is energy already in the climate system. Under low solar activity this energy is directed to the poles and radiated to space, cooling the planet, and under high activity it remains within the climate system longer, warming the planet. This unexpected energy bypass, that cannot be deduced from theory, is what made the solar-climate question unsolvable for so long. In the last part we will review the evidence that MT is the true climate control knob, and how it can explain the climate changes that have taken place on the planet from the early Eocene hothouse, 52 million years ago, to the present icehouse.
As usual,
Bibliography:
https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/VinosMay-Bibliography.pdf
Abbreviations-Glossary:
https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/VinosMay-AbbrevGlossary.pdf
The combination of ignorance and panic have produced the three worst ideas in human history:
1. Analysis of post-WW1 European troubles and panic led to a Final Solution: Kill All The Jews. Any question this was the worst idea in human history?
2. Analysis of troubles in single parent households and associated communities and panic led to another dumb idea: Destabilize the Nuclear Family. Talk about destructive.
3. Rising seas and misunderstood climate instability has given us the perfect totem for panicked ignorance: Greta. And a new HORRIBLE idea: Limit Energy Production. How many millions will die and suffer if human progress is stopped?
THANK YOU Dr. Curry for working against ignorance and panic. Who knows how many lives you will save…
I just want to live long enough to see this nonsense displaced. I wonder what events or data will show the confirming biased data to be what it is. How many years of non warming and zero carbon damage to the economies will it take to overcome the dogma?
According to Judith latest tweet, it might take 50 years.
http://twitter.com/curryja/statuses/1563916228598460416
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (V). A role for the sun in climate change – Andy May Petrophysicist
I know this is boring of me but there are numerous win-win options for addressing climate change regardless of its extent, cause, nature and direction or even if a major food crop failed. The following shows what I mean:
https://regenfarming.news/articles/1699
Can I rather rudely suggest that one meaning of “academic” is pointless and ongoing bickering on climate change is an obvious example – see also Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” and the Time for Action scene
It’s the Wily E. Coyote principle – keep chasing the roadrunner expecting a different outcome. But both the world and climate science are moving on.
Regarding your introductory quote by Feynman. Yes, being skeptical and re-examining hypothesis is the essence of science.
On the other hand, current actions can not be delayed due to need for absolute certainty. Feynman participated in the Manhattan Project even when absolute certainty was not possible.
In fact, Feynman’s entire genius was the ability to connect empirical evidence to formal logical structures. His “intuition” was his most defining feature, not a reliance on mathematical certainty.
So perhaps your use of this quotation may be a touch misleading.
“On the other hand, current actions can not be delayed due to need for absolute certainty.”
That’s politics, not science. But if climate theory is wrong, as it seems, actions cannot be right, can they? That’s the problem with acting without knowing.
The main principle in Medicine is “do not harm.” The main principle in climate policies is “do not care about doing harm.”
You are confusing politics and governance. There is no certainty that a hurricane will hit any particular spot, but not preparing for the consequences is dereliction of duty.
Primum non nocere is fine when the patient is stable. If you are admitting a patient in shock with leukocytosis, and you delay antibiotics until the cultures are back with specific sensitivities, you are committing malpractice.
So you compare the perfectly known effect of a hurricane hit, with the completely unknown effect of increasing CO2 emissions. Don’t forget to prepare for alien invasions now that you are at it. Models indicate the galaxy is full of aliens, and there is plenty of evidence on alien sightings.
They will complain of science discredit when it is being dragged through the mud of politics.
Your response is a non-sequitur.
It is worse than a non sequitur, for Javier fails to appreciate that hurricane damage is often normalized.
The notion that “current actions can not be delayed due to need for absolute certainty” doesn’t apply when (a) there is nothing even vaguely close to “absolute certainty” and (b) there has been no consideration of the impact of the “current actions”. For example, you should always consider the effect of shifting trillions of dollars from purpose A to purpose B, before doing so. Purpose B may be “good” but shifting trillions of dollars away from Purpose A may be A LOT worse. It’s interesting to see how the left-wing dogma promulgators NEVER even mention or consider that simple immutable truth.
I wonder how many pair of socks you need with absolute certainty and how many you got in your drawer, Jonathan.
Risk managers who wait for absolute certainty before acting tend to lose their job when something finally happens.
I guess you didn’t read my post before replying, Willard.
Since your guess does not rest on absolute certainty, Jonathan, you should not have responded.
Here’s the part you might want to re-read, because the entire predicate of your post misses this, and is therefore a non-sequitur: ‘The notion that “current actions can not be delayed due to need for absolute certainty” doesn’t apply when (a) there is nothing even vaguely close to “absolute certainty” and (b) there has been no consideration of the impact of the “current actions”.’
And risk managers who don’t consider the effect of shifting trillions of dollars from one purpose to another, go down in history like Mao, for example. And risk managers who have no idea what the level of “certainty” is before they act, are dumb and ultimately dangerous people.
That section makes no sense as it is, Jonathan, so I would rather continue the silliness of Javier’s philosophy.
But since you insist, (b) would not need to sp
Damn tablet.
Your (b) would not need to apply in cases of certainty either. It also begs a question you obviously have not researched.
There is nothing very serious behind your political jab.
Wrong. (b) always applies independent of the level of certainty. You need to study some basic logic, Willard.
If your (b) always apply, Jonathan, then I duly submit that your *unless* clause was overly silly.
Have you ever wondered why there is a thing called risk-based analysis?
Whether there is anything close to absolute certainty seems to be in the eyes of the beholder at present. So your (a) is a subjective measure at best. Why don’t you enumerate in non-climatologist language the assumptions, implicit and explicit, which underlie the CAGW and explain why they are unlikely to be true.
Your (b) is just preposterous since the entire political argument and some of attempts at governance have been focused on the costs and burdens of diminishing CO2 accumulation.
Willard, it’s interesting that you consider my “*unless*” clause to be “overly silly,” especially given the fact that I wrote no “unless” clause. Again, READ before you respond, and you might be able to carry on more productive conversations.
Jonathan,
‘Does not apply when’ works like an unless clause. Unless we have some kind of cost-benefit analysis and unless we have certainty, etc.
You mentioned logic, no?
Jonathan – It’s best to ignore Willard. (S)he loves to bait others into handbag fights.
Considering that Jonathan runs with But Modulz in one comment and praise satellite models in the next, Jim, that would be wise.
“Again, READ before you respond.”
Unfortunately, climate ballers’ purpose is to prevent others from READing coherent arguments. And they’ve been very successful at it. The current energy situation in Europe was their goal. You can only get to this point by mercilessly attacking and distracting from any thoughtful contemplation of rational energy policy.
Jeff is FAILing again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
Surely he understands that teh Donald’s détente toward teh Vlad may have been like leaving Ukrainians girls to Ghislaine Maxwell. Or that most gas is needed for another grid than electricity. Or that more than 50% of german electricity still comes from the evil stuff he hates so much. Or that his current intervention goes against what Jim just said.
He soldiers on.
The Precautionary Principle operates by the same method as Pascal’s Wager. Since risk is probability times impact, then in cases where the probability is unknown, we can always get the action we want simply by dialing the impact up to infinity. The bigger the impact, the less evidence we need. So people wanting to take action but who don’t have the evidence tend to predict catastrophic consequences. The more dire the catastrophe predicted, the less evidence they usually have.
The problem is that the principle can be applied to anything. Anyone can invent endless imaginary hobgoblins to scare the populace, so that they will be clamorous to be led to safety, and in support of any policy you choose. You need no evidence. You just have to prophesise consequences so dangerous that the demand for evidence is overruled. We raise the hypothesis that bad weather is caused by witches. Our evidence is shaky, but we tell the people that if we fail to take action the harvests will fail and the fishermen will all be lost in storms at sea, and the whole community will slowly and horribly die. So we can persuade the populace to burn the witches just in case. And then, if it turns out we were wrong, it doesn’t matter because we already got what we really wanted – our enemies destroyed and us in control.
This happens so often in practical politics that it really ought to be our default asumption, whenever some new prophecy of doom arises.
The warning signs are all there. The problem with alarmist climate science is not simply the uncertainty. It’s that they don’t follow the scientific method. They try to shut down or shut out criticism. They don’t show their working. They don’t fix critical flaws when they’re pointed out. They act like it’s more important to support the orthodoxy than to find the truth. It stinks of politics.
We don’t have *absolute certainty* that climate alarmism is bogus, but given the catastrophic cost to the world economy and risk to industrial civilisation if it’s allowed to proceed, we shouldn’t let *lack of absolute certainty* stop us shutting them down. There! Same argument. Opposite conclusion.
“The Medieval Warm Period, centered c. 1100, the Little Ice Age, centered c. 1600, and the ongoing Modern Global Warming period, coincide with a millennial solar activity cycle, known as the Eddy cycle (Abreu et al. 2010), that displayed high solar activity during the medieval and modern solar maxima (c. 1150 & 1970), and low solar activity at the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder cluster of Solar Minima (c. 1300–1700).”
The MWP had generally shorter centennial solar minima, but some were very deep, like in the 1120’s. The LIA had generally longer centennial solar minima, but also had several high solar activity periods. The term “millennial cycle” can tend to blind people to that, they imagine that solar activity varies like a sine wave over 1000 years. I would argue that it is a mean 863 years, and describe it as an event series. With a series of longer centennial minima, which overlap with a series of high solar periods also at roughly centennial intervals. With GSM series starting 350 and 1215 AD, and high solar series starting 750 and 1610 AD. Much of the 1610’s to mid 1660’s was very warm to hot in Europe, but cold in Greenland like the late 700’s. The 1730’s were as warm as the 1930’s in England.
“Centennial and millennial changes in solar activity are an important climate forcing because of the persistent effect they have on MT. Solar activity changes alter the global climate system energy budget. Shorter changes in solar activity (decadal) are less important because at these time frames MT becomes more affected by other modulators, like the stadium-wave, ENSO and the QBO, that quite often act in opposition to solar modulation.”
Shorter changes in solar activity are the most important as they drive the weekly NAO/AO anomalies ultimately (inversely) driving ENSO and the AMO, and of course they drive the heat and cold waves in the mid latitudes. Solar forcing on MT has very little persistence, the longest I can see is from negative NAO, through El Nino, and back through negative NAO episodes driving a major warm pulses to the AMO, in about 14-18 months total. The direct solar effect on NAO/AO anomalies is at daily-weekly scales, driving AMO anomalies which can alter radically at seasonal scales.
So Javier … are you willing to go out on a limb and make a prediction? What is going to happen between now and 2030? Will the globe cool, stay the same, or warm? Looking at the 2nd to the last paragraph where you say 2 lower than average solar cycles coupled with a cooling AMO spells trouble for the CO2 theory seems to suggest that the globe will begin to cool.
As always, prediction is the Platinum Evidence of a theory being correct. We know the CO2 guys are predicting we are all going to fry (for that matter they’ve been predicting that for 40 years). It’d be nice to have an alternative prediction.
Sure. I would expect a continuation of the pause between now and 2035. Essentially, very little warming in the first third of the 21st century. Clearly not what the IPCC predicted. As they predicted accelerated warming, having decelerated warming is a problem.
will increase low *cloud* cover,
“I would expect a continuation of the pause between now and 2035. Essentially, very little warming in the first third of the 21st century.”
Already false.
Taking smoothed GISS as a guide, temperature has already risen 0.43 degrees this century.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt
“Already false.”
You’ll have to wait until 2035, as you don’t know what the temperature evolution will be. Or are you so tall that you can see future climate coming?
Warming since Feb 2016 has been negative. That’s 6.5 years. It is reducing the overall warming for the past 22.
> Warming since Feb 2016 has been negative
2016 1.01 0.87
2017 0.92 0.91
2018 0.85 0.92
2019 0.98 0.93
2020 1.01 0.93
2021 0.84 0.93
“Warming since Feb 2016 has been negative”
Feb 2016 is the new 1998? Who knew!
GISS is the most extreme, most manipulated, most inaccurate data set of all the global temp sets. Furthermore, the notion that you could obtain a meaningful “surface temperature” from a bunch of thermometers poorly placed in a tiny number of locations around the globe is beyond ridiculous. And, in any case, if one could accurately measure the temperature of a two-dimensional surface (like the earth surface) tells you NOTHING about heat content and heat flow, as any first or second-year physics student can tell you. UAH satellite data, which is the best of all the global sets, by far, has the decadal trend at +0.13C since Dec 1, 1978. Using that general trend, the lower troposphere warming since 2000 is approximately +0.29C. On the other hand, the trend is clearly DOWN for at least the last 6 years. In any case, by ALL measures, the so-called “warming” of the planet (which is not demonstrated by any of these global data sets) is by all empirical measures INSIGNIFICANT, the temperature of the earth is AMAZINGLY stable, and nobody has shown that anything done by humans has caused or could possibly cause any effects that come close to the level of the natural variations of the climate/temperature etc. The notion that a trace gas like CO2 (the source of all life on the planet!), which is at its lowest level in the 4 billion years since the planet came in to being, is somehow dangerous is beyond an absurdity! It is insane and inane dogma promulgated by morons. Nobody with fairly rudimentary scientific and mathematical understanding could believe in that nonsense.
GISS is junk, meaningless data, as is any dataset that purports to track the “surface temperature” of the globe. Of all the “Global Temperature” datasets, the only somewhat meaningful one, from the point of view of actual physics, is the UAH data. Using their linear decadal trend since Dec 1 1978, you getabout +0.29C in warming since 2000. But it’s actually less than that because as Javier stated, the temp has been declining for the last 6.5 years. In any case, even if you could measure it properly– and you cannot — the temperature of the “globe surface” is a MEANINGLESS number. The temperature of a two-dimensional surface tells you NOTHING about heat content and flow which is a three-dimensional physical property. And even the so-called variations shown in all these “global” datasets is well within natural variation. And the notion that a trace gas such as CO2 (the source of life on the planet) somehow single handedly and magically controls the “global temperature” is beyond ridiculous and not believed by anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of physics.
Is the 2000 to 2013 period long enough to be a good test of your hypothesis Javier?
“Is the 2000 to 2013 period long enough to be a good test of your hypothesis Javier?”
No. It is consistent with the hypothesis, but the hypothesis has been developed afterwards. Also, a decade and a half of no warming does not require an explanation unless one is selling the idea that an increase in CO2 must accelerate the warming.
Also, lack of warming for 2000-2035 would be consistent with any oceanic hypothesis that depends on AMO too, as AMO is scheduled to decrease, and that is part of my hypothesis.
The real test is when a more active solar cycle comes, probably in the mid-2030s, and Arctic amplification goes in reverse. Nobody has predicted that.
Look at it this way, the circulation models predict increasingly positive NAO with rising CO2 forcing, but the decline in the solar wind strength since 1995 easily overwhelmed that, and the resultant negative NAO drove a warmer AMO and Arctic. So when the solar wind strengthens again, driving positive NAO regimes and AMO and Arctic cooling, the extra CO2 forcing can only aid it.
No doubt the solar wind will be stronger again around and just after sunspot cycle 25 maximum, driving another North Atlantic ‘cold blob’, followed by another warmer AMO period, before plunging down into the next cold AMO phase from the mid 2030’s, like from the mid 1960’s. And the drop in SST’s will increase low cover, and increase CO2 uptake in the North Atlantic too. Continental glaciers will advance.
And yet atmospheric temps are rising at a little more than 0.2 C/decade – powering through the pause.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
There was a very slight cooling trend 2002 to 2014, El Nino conditions powered warming since 2014.
Actually at 0.13C per decade per UAH satellite data which is the only meaningful dataset on global temps
Surface temps are only sensible heat and neglect moist enthalpy. Satellites provide a much better and more complete picture of atmospheric energy dynamics.
Richard Lindzen puts it succinctly, “Obviously, the concept of an average surface temperature is meaningless.”
Surface temps themselves what with latent and sensible heat are imprecise. I referred to the lower atmosphere and near global coverage of the satellite record – over 40 years now. Almost all of the post 1976/77 climate shift period and all of the post 1998 shift – if that wasn’t a shift in 2020.
Dr Deanster
… make a prediction?”
Surely this was covered by IPP AR4 Ch 16 p771 Moore et al –
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The
most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate
change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. ”
Does this still apply, or has the science (or the selective advertising of it) overtaken and “cancelled” that quote?
Geoff S
Computer models are nothing more and nothing less than a mathematical representation of the programmers’ BELIEFS. Averaging the belief systems of a group of people who all believe virtually the same thing doesn’t make it into reliable science, or science of ANY kind. Models are not science. Now sometimes models are helpful in moving toward particular understandings of limited areas of science, but let me say it again, models are NOT science. And models that have been shown to be GROSSLY wrong in numerous ways, over and over again, aren’t very useful at all.
Computer Climate Models == Garbage In –> Garbage Out
According to the Lund 2006 reconstruction the Gulf Stream lost about 10% of its heat transport between the MWP and the LIA. It then gained that back between the LIA and now.
Specifically they show evidence of a weakening of the transport at the Florida strait during the LIA. It is difficult to know what it meant for the entire North Atlantic ocean transport.
There is strong evidence from at least 20 sites in the North Atlantic and West Mediterranean that storminess was greatly increased during the LIA. There is no way to interpret that evidence except that atmospheric meridional transport was greatly enhanced during the LIA. 17 sites are included in figure 10 from this article:
Costas, S., Naughton, F., Goble, R. and Renssen, H., 2016. Windiness spells in SW Europe since the last glacial maximum. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 436, pp.82-92.
https://sapientia.ualg.pt/bitstream/10400.1/9623/1/Costas%20et%20al._EPSL_R3.pdf
Increased AHT, decreased OHT, cooling world. Sounds like a model exercise.
Nordic Seas Heat Loss, Atlantic Inflow, and Artic Sea Ice Cover Over the Last Century.
This paper touches on a lot of the topics you have been covering and is fairly recent.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020RG000725
Steven, great reference! Thanks.
Part 1 and 2 in the referenced article discuss many of the things I have said about transport to the Arctic.
“The sea ice cover of the Arctic is set to further decrease in the future.”
I can already see the media headings: -Scientists surprised by turnaround in Arctic sea ice.
Assumptions are the poisson of the scientific method.
“Whether the QBO influences ENSO is not known”
ENSO can influence the QBO, like the missing easterly phase with the 2016 super El Nino.
“Tropospheric meridional transport is strongly affected by the c. 65-year oscillation, here represented over the Atlantic by the AMO, that denotes a weaker transport when it changes to higher values (heat accumulation in the North Atlantic). The climatic effect is enhanced global warming and a cold Arctic/warm continents winter pattern.”
Negative NAO drives a warmer AMO, and the warmer AMO warms the Arctic Ocean.
“The main role for solar variability in climate is to act as a winter gatekeeper”
Solar activity discretely drives all our summer heatwaves in our UK maritime climate, apart from brief Saharan plumes. I have predicted every solar driven warm burst this summer within 1-2 days.
“Low solar activity promotes a stronger MT, favoring La Niña conditions at the equatorial Pacific”
So why do El Nino conditions increase during centennial solar minima?
“A clear prediction from this hypothesis is that the Arctic winter temperature anomaly will start to decrease when a new more active solar cycle takes place. This could happen with solar cycle 26”
Agreed, because of stronger solar wind states causing positive NAO/AO regimes, driving a colder AMO.
Re Fig. 5.7.
The longest back to back pair of super centennial solar minima for 3450 years, begin from around 2095. and again from around 2200 AD.
“The 200-yr de Vries cycle is responsible for the spacing of the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder grand minima during the LIA.”
There are centennial through the whole period, from around 1215, 1315, 1425, 1550, 1666, 1798, and 1879. Only two cycles need considering because only two exist, centennial minima on average every 110.5 years (107.9 long term), and the grand solar minima series cycle of 863 years. But we don’t use mean cycle lengths for prediction, we map each centennial minimum discretely.
anomalistic “110.5” derivation:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/10/30/orbital-resonance-and-the-celestial-origins-of-earths-climatic-changes-why-phi/comment-page-3/#comment-179360
Pingback: When dogma creates hubris and passes for climate science | Pursue Democracy
This article series does a great job of showing the complexity of interdependencies forming climate dynamics. The enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2 has a great gig. Whatever the global mean surface temperature signal is over the any recent or future period is the EGHE signal is hidden under it.
And the IPCC is getting pretty darn sure AGW accounts for about 100% of whatever the net change is over any time interval. Nice science career if you can get-it.
Though if ocean heat content anomaly paused or fell for a couple of years, along with GMST that would be hard to explain under a positive radiative forcing. So there does seem to be a potentially definitive disqualifying event out there for the EGHE.
The IPCC is a political body where politicians write summaries that do NOT accurately represent the science contained in the full reports. That’s not to mention all the science that is politically excluded from the reports in the first place. Anybody citing IPCC or Wikipedia as science is obviously not a scientist.
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (V). A role for the sun in climate change – Watts Up With That? - Marin NewsPress USA
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Speculation (V). A task for the solar in local weather change – Watts Up With That? - news page
Javier, have you read Harald Yndestad blogg? He has found that the moon 18.6 syklus turned in 2016-17 from varmer vater ,to colder vater koming in too Arktis, and is importent to the ice in the Arktis.
Sorry, english is not my languaga,
https://www.climateclock.no/
I know Yndestad from his publications, but I haven’t read his blog. Thank you for the link.
“The season-specific dynamical effect of solar activity must result in important changes in the amount of heat directed to the dark pole. Most of this heat exits the planet radiated as OLR in the long polar night. Heat flux across sea-ice is always towards the atmosphere, ”
–
Is this true?
While some heat exits as OLR at the TOA we have a problem at night in the middle of winter with dark pole ice specifically in the Arctic.
–
While it seems unlikely the dynamics are that the TOA can be under the surface in such a setting. In other words the direction of the heat flux is from the warmer atmosphere to the colder ice.
Impacts of Changes in Sea Ice and Heat Flux on Arctic Warming
Yong Cao1, Lingen Bian2*, Jinping Zhao1
1Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China.
“The average sensible fluxes measured at the ice stations during the 2008 and 2010 observation periods were −1.51 and −1.89 W/m2, and the average latent heat fluxes were 2.41 and 1.5 W/m2, respectively. A negative sensible heat flux indicates that the atmosphere transfers heat to the sea-ice surface. A positive latent heat flux indicates that the sea-ice surface transfers heat to the atmosphere.”
Winters of high solar activity promote stronger zonal circulation, reducing MT, leading to a colder Arctic winter, warmer mid-latitudes winter, a warmer tropical band due to reduced BDC upwelling, and lower energy loss at the winter pole. Winters of low solar activity promote the opposite. The difference in energy loss at the winter pole is large enough to greatly affect the climate of the entire planet when solar activity is consistently high or low for several consecutive solar cycles.
–
The problem here is that the amount of energy being lost in midwinter whether high or low solar activity is present elsewhere in the planet is that the amount of energy radiating to space is multiple orders of magnitude smaller than that radiating to space from the surface anywhere but the pole.
A 10 C difference in temperature at the north pole in midwinter is a miniscule amount of energy change compared to 10C in Summer and we are not talking about a 10C change, merely a 0.5C change at temperatures well below 250 K, are we not?
“Winters of high solar activity promote stronger zonal circulation, reducing MT, leading to a colder Arctic winter, warmer mid-latitudes winter…”
True, but the positive NAO/AO conditions are associated with faster trade winds. There are also related changes in low cloud cover to consider.
“A 10 C difference in temperature at the north pole in midwinter is a miniscule amount of energy change”
Yet it produced a step change in OLR of +6 W/m2 as per Fig. 4.7. That is not small peanuts. Compare that with the energy change from CO2 over the same amount of years.
You seem to forget that the poles in winter are under strong radiative cooling conditions. They receive zero energy from the sun and yet radiate energy very efficiently. They are the reason we are still in an Ice Age despite CO2 levels not seen since the Mid-Miocene Climate Optimum.
“.5 The asymmetric High-solar/Low-effect — Low-solar/High-effect paradox
Since the sun powers the climate system it is logical to assume that a more active sun, by providing more energy, should have a proportional effect on climate, that is opposite to the effect of a decrease in energy by a less active sun. ”
–
I for one cannot see such a paradox occurring. The immense energies and wind and current formation due to both the massive energy and the Coriolis forces are the major drivers of weather.
Javier/Andy,
Does there exist a consolidated version I can download and print? Printing directly from the web is…annoying. (…and I need to be able to use a pen and a highlighter in order to absorb it all.)
rip
No, I’m sorry. There is my book that is academic, and therefore geared towards graduate students and academics, that should come out in September and I will make widely accesible to anybody interested. Then there will be a book in a few months that Andy and I are writing, directed to a more general readership and more accesible to people without great knowledge of the science of climate change. The material in these articles is a high level preview of what should go into that book.
Javier –
Please post when the book is available
Thanks
The eBook is available for pre-order since yesterday. The hardcover will not be available for pre-order for a few days. The book will be published on September 20.
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/climate-of-the-past-present-and-future
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BCF5BLQ5/
At Kobo it is possible to preview the book, and that includes Judith’s foreword.
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (V). A role for the sun in climate change Just another Online News & Entertainment Site
A long article series of long articles deserves a long response.
1. The WGK-h is based on the evidence that MT is one, if not the most important, agent for climate change. And,
MT is the most important modulator of global climate.
The most important modulator of solar activity is the equatorial ocean absorption, which then drives poleward heat transport to the Arctic, which is the secondary response.
That conclusion is mine as well as others such as David Douglass and Robert Knox:
The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures
The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures
2. Solar modulation of ENSO (see Part II) also supports the WGK-h. Low solar activity promotes a stronger MT, favoring La Niña conditions at the equatorial Pacific [my bold]
This is wrong for the same reason as 2a is wrong, see below 2a.
https://i.postimg.cc/7hvjBJz5/Solar-Cycles-and-Tropical-Step-Changes.png
2a. When the system accumulates excess energy, Los Niños occur to efficiently spread the excess through the rest of the climate system. – quote from Part II text
2a is a gross error, as it is trivial to find there is no overall warming without El Niños, and no overall warming with La Niña. The heat gets distributed during El Niño not La Niña.
Clear evidence is in the next image below, top panel HadSST3: no net warming during La Niña, only from El Niño.
La Niña predictably occur after solar minima due to a cyclic accumulated TSI deficit. The next image snippet is from my 2018 AGU poster about the effect of solar irradiance extremes, which shows a repeating pattern of alternating equatorial OHC cooling under low cycle TSI and then warming from high cycle TSI.
https://i.postimg.cc/xjWs5Fjv/AGU-2018-Fig-15b-f-Solar-Cycle-Eq-OHC-Pattern.png
3. The difference in energy loss at the winter pole is large enough to greatly affect the climate of the entire planet when solar activity is consistently high or low for several consecutive solar cycles (i.e., decades).
This is misleading. It’s Sun>Tropics>SST poleward heat transport>Arctic response. Energy loss at the poles was initialized by high solar activity induced global warming of the ocean, the actual thing that ‘greatly affected the climate of the entire planet ‘. The author infers the Arctic tail wags the climate dog.
Global warming ensued from El Niños, which affected the Arctic.
https://i.postimg.cc/3wHnhy0d/30y-SST3-v-30-i-MEI.jpg
The next set of images shows the strong influence NH SST has on Arctic Sea Ice and 80N temperature, which makes the oceanic component of poleward heat transport from the tropics the most important fact underlying the upward trend in 80N T and downward trend in Sea Ice Extent, ie the Arctic climate.
NH Sea Ice Extent is highly significantly anti-correlated with NH SST (r=-.74), and 80N T is highly anti-correlated with NH SI Extent (r=-.86) at zero lag for both, while 80N T lags NH SST significantly (r=45) by 5 months.
https://i.postimg.cc/xTMLm9cV/NH-SST-NH-Sea-Ice-Extent-and-80-N-Temperature-Correlations.png
There was no discussion here of the geomagnetic activity effect on the Arctic climate.
Here are two of at least dozens of papers on significant solar influences on the Arctic that were neglected in Javier’s articles.
Causes of non-stationary relationships between geomagnetic activity and the North Atlantic Oscillation
Impact of solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity on polar NOx, ozone and temperature in WACCM simulations
Lastly, where is the statistical support for Javier’s many claims?
Understood. I’ll look forward to reading the books then…
Hi Javier,
I’ve read the WGK-h series with great interest. I’m confused by one apparent contradiction:
Part IV (Fig 4.8d): “…periods of decreasing zonal circulation correlate with a deceleration of the Earth and an increase in ∆LOD (Lambeck & Cazenave 1976).”
Part V (Fig 5.3): “Increased transport increases Earth’s speed of rotation as zonal winds decrease, and less angular momentum resides in the atmosphere.”
I see no contradiction.
A strong zonal circulation reduces meridional circulation and meridional transport. More angular momentum resides in the atmosphere, so the Earth rotation slows down, and the day lengthens.
A strong meridional circulation has the opposite effect.
your reply states:
strong zonal -> Earth rotation slows down -> day lengthens
so the opposite
strong meridional -> Earth rotation speeds up -> day shortens
But the quote from Part IV seems to state:
meridional -> Earth rotation slows down -> day lengthens
What am I missing?
I see what you mean. Figure 2.5 should clear this. Figure 2.5a shows the general (multidecadal) LOD trend. From 1975 to 2003 ∆LOD went from 3 ms to 0.5 ms. This was a period of low MT and high zonal circulation with the rotation speeding up. Figure 2.5b shows the seami-annual (seasonal) changes in ∆LOD, specifically the NH winter change. In the NH winter of 1980 (high solar activity) ∆LOD decreased by 0.25 ms, while in the NH winter of 1985 (low solar activity) it decreased by 0.55 ms. Something similar happens at every solar cycle. With the arrival of the winter, atmospheric circulation becomes more active transporting more energy poleward and accelerating the Earth spin. This circulation increase is enhanced under low solar activity increasing transport and displaying a bigger acceleration causing a larger decrease in ∆LOD. So for the seasonal change more transport under low solar activity implies a bigger decrease in ∆LOD.
The stratospheric (solar) effect acts over the seasonal circulation, while the tropospheric (stadium wave) effect acts on the multidecadal circulation.
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (V). A role for the sun in climate change - News7g
Javier | August 29, 2022 at 12:17 pm | Reply
“You seem to forget that the poles in winter are under strong radiative cooling conditions. They receive zero energy from the sun and yet radiate energy very efficiently. They are the reason we are still in an Ice Age despite CO2 levels not seen since the Mid-Miocene Climate Optimum.”
I doubt very strongly your contention that the winter poles being under strong radiative cooling conditions [wherever their location has been over the past 4 billion years], has ever had anything to do with whether we are in Ice Ages or not.
Ice Ages are not due and have never been due to radiative conditions.
They are due to the amount of energy the planet has been able to receive from the sun.
You confound ice ages and glaciations. Too many kids’ movies?
And glaciations aren’t about differences in the amount of energy the planet receives, they are about its distribution by latitude and season.
You really do need to read my book.
angech, glacial cycles are triggered by Milankovitch Cycles which are the cycles in eccentricity of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, cycles in Earth’s obliquity, or tilt of the axis relative to the sun, and axial precession, or wobble of the Earth’s axis. And as the obviously brilliant Javier stated, ultimately this results in a different distribution of solar energy by latitude and season. Those cycles are in 10000s of years. As for ice ages, those happen on a scale of 10s or 100s of millions of years. The current ice age that we are in now began about 3 million years ago.
See Quaternary Ice Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
And why pray tell am I supposed to look at that Wikipedia article, Ron Graf?
Trade winds counter planetary angular momentum – more or less hence longer or shorter LoD – on the equator where there is more torque. Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. At and near the equator is where the mechanical advantage is. There is low pressure near the equator, high pressure to the south and winds curl about to the west with the Coriolis force.
e.g. https://windy.app/textbook/trade-winds-simple-explanation.html
Trade winds are of course not strictly constant in a turbulent fluid flow over baroclinic oceans on a spinning planet. Wind pushes land and oceans casually and a mite of angular momentum bleeds away in viscous dissipation.
‘Why is Earth suddenly slowing down?
Since the 1960s, when operators of radio telescopes around the planet started to devise techniques to simultaneously observe cosmic objects like quasars, we have had very precise estimates of Earth’s rate of rotation.
A comparison between these estimates and an atomic clock has revealed a seemingly ever-shortening length of day over the past few years.
But there’s a surprising reveal once we take away the rotation speed fluctuations we know happen due to the tides and seasonal effects. Despite Earth reaching its shortest day on June 29 2022, the long-term trajectory seems to have shifted from shortening to lengthening since 2020. This change is unprecedented over the past 50 years.’ https://www.livemint.com/science/news/earths-days-mysteriously-getting-longer-and-scientists-don-t-know-why-11659937735152.html
Unprecedented precision detecting a state change? If climate shifted after 1998 to more La Nina like conditions – climate may shift again at any time. If the 2020 LoD shift is real we may have to lose milliseconds from years instead of adding them. That would be unprecedented.
It’s quite possible that the 20th century saw a millennial scale spike in El Nino like conditions – seen in a Law Dome Antarctica ice core (- https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml -). It figures in Australian rainfall.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png
A La Nina appeared post the 2020 solar cycle terminator as predicted. Has the millennial scale spike in El Nino like conditions peaked?
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.png
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
The days are indeed getting longer from momentum bleeding off – but at a considerably slower rate than decadal.
‘Overall, Earth’s spin has slowed by about 6 hours in the past 2740 years, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. That sounds like a lot, but it works out to the duration of a 24-hour day being lengthened by about 1.78 milliseconds over the course of a century.’
https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-eclipses-show-earth-s-rotation-slowing#:~:text=Overall%2C%20Earth's%20spin%20has%20slowed,the%20course%20of%20a%20century.
‘Overall, Earth’s spin has slowed by about 6 hours in the past 2740 years, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. That sounds like a lot, but it works out to the duration of a 24-hour day being lengthened by about 1.78 milliseconds over the course of a century.’
Somehow I doubt that as it could mean the earth is capable of stopping over the course of a mere 11,000 years.
Some misunderstanding on my part?
Unrelated but if it did slow down since we are living on it how would we know?
Vindicating my usual policy of going to the source.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/b71b4281-9d40-4266-9924-43027a846a14/rspa20160404f19.jpg
‘Figure 19. lod 1700–2015 derived from lunar occultations. The black curve is the slope on the spline curve displayed in figure 10. The green curve is the half-yearly values derived from the loess smoothing after 1800 as described in §5b. The red curve is the IERS data as displayed in figure 16.’
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2016.0404
Perhaps to try the best of theories is to throw a monkey wrench at it.
“Overall, Earth’s spin has slowed by about 6 hours in the past 2740 years, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.”
Seems that that is about the time Joshua stopped the sun and the moon.
Go figure.
They aren’t saying that the days used to be 18 hours long, just that the earth should be a quarter of a day further into it’s rotation than it actually is at the moment, if it has always been rotating at it’s present rate.
earths-days-mysteriously-getting-longer-and-scientists-don’t-know-why
Clearly they don’t read enough. Changes to the speed of rotation have been thoroughly studied for over 60 years. Changes in the frequency from 6 months to over a decade respond primarily to changes in atmospheric circulation, including seasonal, QBO, ENSO and solar activity causes. Changes of higher frequency are mainly tidal in nature, and changes of lower frequency respond to core-mantle interactions.
Trend switches are not uncommon, and if you look at figure 2.5 you’ll see a few.
https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Fig-2.5.png
Further we have a problem I am still not able to resolve properly concerning both TOA and your statements
“Heat flux across sea-ice is always towards the atmosphere ”
“You seem to forget that the poles in winter are under strong radiative cooling conditions. They receive zero energy from the sun and yet radiate energy very efficiently.”
which may not be correct.
A paradox as you like to say.
I cannot explain the concept as fully as I would like other than to say that your second contention is only true in an atmosphere less world.
In a world with an atmosphere and due to IR scattering the atmosphere above the dark pole in winter is actually only sending out to space the energy that the final emitting layer can muster.
This energy is supplied by the large amount of transmitted and scattered atmospheric IR from the sun, not the earth surface.
In fact the Arctic atmosphere could warming both the layers below it down to the surface and above it to space.
If enough scattered light comes across it can actually warm the surface.
Heat flux could go towards the sea, not the atmosphere in some situations?
Clearly sometimes you really don’t know what you are talking about.
Understanding the energetics of the climate system is critical to understand climate change. You could start by re-reading parts 3 and 4.
Understanding the energetics of the climate system is critical to understand climate change.
-Doing my best.
You could start by re-reading parts 3 and 4.
-Part 1 had a lot of useful information as well.
sometimes you really don’t know what you are talking about.
-Only find out by listening, reading and thinking.
–
There is no easy path to getting ideas out and you will get misinformed, motive driven people disagreeing with some of your premises as well as some highly thought of scientists with a lot invested in alternative views to your own.
–
You and Andy, more than most, are aware of the limitations in measurement of a lot of the energy flows with the current satellite equipment available.
There are problems with energy budgets and with the physics which seem to let energy be stored in jiggling particles on the one hand and on the other insists the overall energy input must match the overall energy output without a pause for a storage phase
–
“sometimes you really don’t know what you are talking about”
–
Fair enough.
Shoot down or ignore the rubbish.
Clear up any problems or misconceptions.
It is a tough gig doing all the work you both have done to get your concepts out there.
If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good about it and what’s bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. ~Richard Feynman
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (V). A role for the sun in climate change - Energy News Beat
What’s good about theory is evidence.
“Overall, Earth’s spin has slowed by about 6 hours in the past 2740 years, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.”
–
The Royal Society used to be rigorous and scientific.
Such piffle is this is hardly evidence of anything except their current severe malaise.
As I have said that is not from the Royal Society.
According to the CERES satellite data, as a 24/7 global average, upwelling (headed to space) thermal radiation from the surface is just under 400 watts per square meter (W/m2).
Downwelling (headed to earth) thermal radiation from the clouds/atmosphere absorbed by the surface is about 345 W/m2. And net solar (surface downwelling less surface reflected) energy absorbed by the surface is just under 165 W/m2.
To put this into perspective the incoming solar energy is APPROX [A] 341, comprising SW and IR.
Reflected SW and IR is A 102 SW 28 and IR 74
Transmitted is A 161 SW
Absorbed is A 78 both SW 28 and IR 50
One would conclude that most of the IR is absorbed and that this would be high in the atmosphere at the level of the TOA in a layer just above the TOA as at this level all the IR reaching earth including the IR from the sun is going back into space.
Neat, huh.
Say A 50 IR just going back into space, never touches the earth
leaves A 28 SW going down to the clouds and particulates but also not reaching the earth.
This leaves A 28 IR being formed at these levels to work upwards.
Why upwards ?
Because all the other IR coming up is in virtual balance with it layer by layer with a slight upward pressure due to there being more below so more is coming up than ever goes down.
I.e. A 78 IR going back to space as well, A 128 IR in toto upwelling.
With respect to the reflected radiation this is effectively reflected at the TOA as well.
Hence at the TOA we already have upwelling or outgoing A 56 SW and 124 IR
giving A 180 outgoing SW and IR.
Meanwhile at the surface A 161 SW turns into 161 IR to go out.
When it eventually reaches the TOA it to goes totally out balancing the books.
So how does 161 at the surface turn into 341 going back out?
The 161 can only go out [? a few meters??] before it is completely absorbed and has th radiate back and up again
As it heats up half its energy is coming back down to the surface again which acts as a BOA [Bottom of Atmosphere].
It can only lose half its energy upwards at the very cold surface temp that 161 W/m2 emits at.
The recycled energy [back radiation] [not renewed or stored energy] causes the Earth or Ocean temperature to rise until a balance is struck with the energy coming back in from above.
This allows the surface saturated layer to fully discharge 341 W IR to the next layer.
The ascending layers become thinner as they go up meaning that for the same number of H2O and CO2 molecules the parcel of air in the layer is thinner and at less pressure and therefore cooler despite the same amount of energy going out to space from this parcel.
Hence the TOA is always fully in balance quasi instantaneously.
Despite millions or billions of absorption /emissions it takes no time at all at the speed of light for the balance to be kept in check.
Hence the energy in always equals the energy out.
What of latent heat and sensible heat?
What of the movement of the air particles?
What of conduction , convection and currents?
Is there extra energy there?
No.
They are just descriptors of where the emitting particles are that were originally at the earth surface.
So, angech …
> The recycled energy [back radiation] [not renewed or stored energy] causes the Earth or Ocean temperature to rise until a balance is struck with the energy coming back in from above.
Aside from the semantics of recycled vs stored, this energy you speak of went through (let’s call them) processes till you say a balance is/was reached. A period of time that we’ll say was in the beginning, when there was no energy balance. And then, once this balance is reached the energy in equals energy out.
If I’ve summarized you correctly, are you saying these processes do not change? I don’t think you would say that. So, if the processes do change then there would be times when energy in doesn’t equal energy out. No?
“If I’ve summarized you correctly, are you saying these processes do not change? I don’t think you would say that. So, if the processes do change then there would be times when energy in doesn’t equal energy out. No?”
No.
Thank you Bill for reading what I have tried to say and pointing out the problems inherent in the argument.
There are two obvious problems you clearly point out.
The first is that there is an apparent gain in motion by molecules, masses of molecules, planets when they receive external energy.
On the surface and atmosphere at least which we characteristic as them having gained and therefore stored energy
A seemingly obvious and good argument
Secondly the temperature of the planet warms up.
as RIE says without thinking it through “His Wily E. Coyote epic failure is the idea that the planet can’t warm or cool.”
A seemingly obvious and good argument.
Both arguments are wrong due to the existence of the SB equation which states, in one way, that any received energy in must equal the energy going out not including any de novo nuclear or other true energy production by the object itself.
Either a fundamental law of physics, SB, is wrong or what we think we are seeing, storage through motion build up, is not correct.
I go for the former.
Let me address RIE first.
RIE believes that the increase and decrease in the temperature of an object is not related to the emmission of energy from that object.
That there is a disconnect before it can emit at the means that the object absolutely cannot emit the same amount of energy that it is taking in.
That there is no connection between the energy in and out
“Despite millions or billions of absorption /emissions it takes no time at all at the speed of light for the balance to be kept in check.
Hence the energy in always equals the energy out.”
It’s “no time at all” perhaps relative to waiting for a long traffic light, but milliseconds are a very long time for a molecule of CO2 to be excited by a 15 micron photon with no way to let go of it’s new energy until either colliding with another molecule or releasing a 15 micron photon. If it collides with another molecule first then the energy raises the temperature of that environment. If the CO2 emits the photon it can travel in any direction, including back the direction it came from. This all acts to impede the flow of energy, i.e. insulating the gradient, and increasing the effective height of the theoretical TOA, where outgoing photons equal incoming photons. Right?
Ron Graf | August 31, 2022 at 8:30 pm |
“Despite millions or billions of absorption /emissions it takes no time at all at the speed of light for the balance to be kept in check.
Hence the energy in always equals the energy out.”
It’s “no time at all” perhaps relative to waiting for a long traffic light, but milliseconds are a very long time for a molecule of CO2 to be excited by a 15 micron photon with no way to let go of it’s new energy until either colliding with another molecule or releasing a 15 micron photon. If it collides with another molecule first then the energy raises the temperature of that environment. If the CO2 emits the photon it can travel in any direction, including back the direction it came from. This all acts to impede the flow of energy, i.e. insulating the gradient, and increasing the effective height of the theoretical TOA, where outgoing photons equal incoming photons. Right?
Ron,
You are right.
That is the standard view.
Bill Fabrizio expressed the same answer in a slightly different format.
It is the format we are all raised on and accept.
–
Yet the fact that energy in has to equal energy out says this cannot happen.
There are no milliseconds gaps occurring at steady state.
If, if you accept this premise to be true and all physics is built on it there can be no gap.
The way the light gets in and out of the system is not being described correctly.
I can quite happily agree with you and Bill and RIE if SB and Newton/Einstein are wrong.
Will put this further down as well to discuss if you can see the problem.
And thank you for putting it so clearly to explain why the model used allows storage of energy which leads to people seeing energy imbalances.
Perhaps you are game enough to give a similar good TOA definition for me here.
All energy wants to flow from a point of greater concentration to one of lesser until an equilibrium is produced according to the second law of thermodynamics. Until an equilibrium is achieved there is a gradient. The rate of progress toward equilibrium in a given gradient is determined by the system’s internal kinetic dynamics.
Thanks to the work of Javier and Andy we have a better understanding of the internal kinetic dynamics. Most of the debate in climate science is over what forces and which dynamics are more consequential as compared to the others.
The oceans have enormous heat capacity with only their skin interacting with the atmosphere at any given instant. A slowing of deep ocean upwelling will warm the planet’s surface and conversely a sudden increase in upwelling could give massive surface cooling. Similarly a sudden change in meridional transport will change the radiative profile of the planet. Diddo a change in cloud formation, major volcano, asteroid strike or nuclear winter.
The point is that the planetary TOA equilibrium in total energy is a constantly moving target of constantly reversing gradients.
His Wily E. Coyote epic failure is the idea that the planet can’t warm or cool.
Sorry, Bill Computer keyboard problems
Let me address RIE first and his unusual for him schoolboy error.
“His Wily E. Coyote epic failure is the idea that the planet can’t warm or cool.”
I merely, and correctly say that the amount of energy going in and out is the same despite the change in flux.
So the planet does warm and cool with a change in the emissions coming out of it.
When you measure the level of emissions coming out they are equal to the amount going in.
The planet temperature is a measure of the rate of emission flow, not the amount of emissions coming out.
This varies with the size and mass of the planet, not the innate amount of energy passing through the planet.
Take a steady emission state.
The planet does not suddenly decide to store some energy and appear hotter while actually get colder.
It does not suddenly decide to emit more and appear warmer while actually getting hotter.
If it gets more energy the mass stays the same, the planet does not get smaller to increase the flux.
It increases in temperature instead.
The characteristic of mass under increased energy flow is that the mass stays the same but the appearance of the mass to us changes.
It increases in volume and brightness but it is not moving any faster in relation to its own unique position in space.
The increase in volume is due to some molecules moving more quickly and others moving less quickly but remember the mass has not changed in momentum or position of itself.
The rearrangement is merely how mass has to be when more energy passes through it.
Proof is in the absolute unchanged parameters of mass velocity and position of the irradiated mass.
Proof is in the SB which says that the measured energy coming out has to be unchanged.
There is no extra energy in the mass particles.
Some have more, others therefore have less.
They have their own innate energy which they cannot release or transfer .
The earth is not suddenly flying off jet propelled by atoms with extra energy away from the heat source.
The planet has been warming relentlessly. The extra Joules in the Earth system is the measure of the imbalance between energy in and energy out over the period.
Simple math and physics with no need of copious mad rambles.
Silly nonsense. Remember Robert models are NOT science. Now if we look at proxy measurements of temperature, that IS science and what we see is that the planet has been COOLING for about 6500 years. See for example Kaufman et al (June 2020) “Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach”. You’ll note the small blip representing the last 100 years is not very significant at all, and as numerous other studies have shown, proxy estimates of global temperature change over the last 100 years are well within the 1 sigma of centennial variations over the last 10,000 years. In other words, to put it in simple terms for you, so far we have seen NOTHING unusual in global temperature. You may want to read also “An Estimate of the Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures” by Nobel prize winning (and IPCC lead author) Philip Lloyd (2015).
To simplify it further for you Robert, here is a pretty graph from Kaufman et al: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/6
I’ll keep it simple for you Jonathon. The world is warming – the post 1998 climate shift regardless – and that’s because there is more energy in the system as a result of an energy imbalance at TOA.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Actually, right now, Robert, ALL MEASUREMENTS show cooling for the last 6.5 years. And no measurements show any recent changes in the last several hundred years that are anything outside of natural variations that have occured for the last 4 Billion years. But it’s clear that you are not a scientist and do not understand science, so I won’t continue this conversation.
And to simplify for your Robert, the graph that you linked to is a linear trendline (.21C/decade) from 1979 to 2022 from the exaggerated/manipulated RSS dataset. The much more accurate satellite data is published by UAH, and that shows a much shallower linear trend (.13C/decade) and neither is relevant in the larger discussion, because they don’t prove anything other than that temperature naturally changes all the time. As I already pointed, the variation is well within the centennial 1 sigma for the last 10,000, so in other words it says NOTHING about whether human beings have had ANY effect on global warming.
6.5 years since the last El Nino? You make assertions that are not demonstrable or even sensible.
Greenhouse gases cause global warming despite all the nonsense found on CE. It will continue to trend up while emissions continue against a background of modest decadal variability.
angech
“According to the CERES satellite data, as a 24/7 global average, upwelling (headed to space) thermal radiation from the surface is just under 400 watts per square meter (W/m2).
Downwelling (headed to earth) thermal radiation from the clouds/atmosphere absorbed by the surface is about 345 W/m2.”
–
How it is possible?
At night: “Downwelling (headed to earth) thermal radiation from the clouds/atmosphere absorbed by the surface is about 345 W/m2”?
In winter? In polar areas?
–
A planet doesn’t interact with solar flux on the average surface area.
A planet interacts with solar flux only at the instant of incidence, not on 24/7 global average.
So the actual physics involved are very much different.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
“A planet interacts with solar flux only at the instant of incidence, not on 24/7 global average.
So the actual physics involved are very much different.”
The actual physics do not change.
What you mean is that the application of the physics is to the averaged figures which leads to problems with how much and where the energy is.
To have any meaningful discussion about science topics of this nature you have to specify your terms and find a way to make the maths work.
Fortunately this can be done.
angech, we are not justified to average solar flux’s interaction with planet surface over the entire globe.
–
Interaction with matter happens on the very instant of incidence, interaction cannot be averaged, it is physics.
_
” and find a way to make the maths work.”
What maths doesn’t work?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What maths doesn’t work?”
All that is based on wrong assumptions. Accountants call it “messaging the numbers”, a way to achieve the desired results. There is fundamental ‘dogma’ that has gone unquestioned. Anything built on that is faulty.
I note with interest that Vinós and May have drawn attention to the role dogma plays in current Climate Science. My personal interest has been in its theoretical fundamentals and I’ve come to question dogmas of Convective Equilibrium and the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. Although you won’t find the following references in current literature, they were worthy of concern and debate in the 19th century. (Original sources are best found from quotation searches in books.google.com.)
Kelvin(1862):
“When all the parts of a fluid are freely interchanged and not subject to the influence of radiation and conduction, the temperature of the fluid is said by the Author to be in a state of convective equilibrium.”
Maxwell(1866):
“…. the flow of heat depends on the variation of temperature only, and not on the direction of the variation of pressure. A vertical column would therefore, when in thermal equilibrium, have the same temperature throughout.”
Boltzmann(1875):
“… die schwindigkeitsvertheilung des Gases genau ebenso beschaffen ist, wie in einem Gase von gleicher Temperatur, auf das keine Aussenkräfte wirken.” ( … the velocity distribution of the gas is exactly the same as in a gas of same temperature, on which no external forces act.)
To paraphrase, Kelvin proposes, Maxwell (or Boltzmann) disposes … until a century later when the notion that lapse rates are equilibrium properties re-surfaces as the cornerstone for all models purporting to calculate greenhouse warming. It is generally agreed convection and radiation are partners in transporting energy from surface to space. Should one be impeded, one might naively suppose both will participate in restoring net energy transport with changes in both boundary temperatures and thermal gradients. Dogma, however, asserts that gradients are determined by an equilibrium parameter, specific heat, and independent of greenhouse gases.
For a brief, non-mathematical discussion, in terms of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, dissipation, radiative absorption and convective viscosity and how all play roles in shaping thermal profiles,
https://pdq2021.000webhostapp.com/Convective_Equilibrium.pdf
Well done, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand the usage of the term “equilibrium” in thermodynamics.
VTG, you made no demonstration of a better understanding so I will help you. In climate dynamics equilibriums’ only relevance is in the sign of the gradient. All of the questions of what effects are the dominators of the battlefield of multi-dimensional quasi-chaos is found in kinetics, which is the determinate factor in the steady-state.
Javier,
You have mentioned a number of times that greater heat transport to the poles cools down the Earth by increasing OLR. Can you be a bit more specific about how that works? My first thought would be that allowing the heat to travel equator to pole before being radiated results in a hotter planet than one where it radiates away while still at the equator.
If we think of a queue where one person per minute joins it at the back, and one person per minute leaves it at the front, the average density of people in the queue depends on how long it is. A short queue leaves a lot of empty space. A long queue stores lots of people.
My second thought was that global energy balance doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with global mean temperature. Stefan-Boltzman is a non-linear T^4 law, so a given temperature change affects the energy radiated in the hot parts of the world far more than the cold parts. You can keep the mean temperature the same, but increase the energy radiated by increasing the range of temperatures. The increase in temperature at the hot end has a bigger effect on energy radiated than the equal decrease in temperature at the cold end.
A third thought was that the temperature at the equator is limited by a cloud thermostat. When the temperature hits about 30 C, clouds form and increase albedo. If heat is trapped at the equator, this effect kicks in earlier and less energy is absorbed. If heat is allowed to escape towards the poles, cooling the equator, it can absorb more energy from sunlight before the thermostat kicks in.
It seems to me that the consequences for global energy balance of changes in the *spread* of temperatures are moderately subtle, and need more than a one-line passing reference.
Hello NiV, welcome back!
Hi Judith!
It’s very good to talk to you again, although I have mixed feelings about being ‘back’. After the excitement of Climategate and the enquiries ten years ago, the politics seemed to go quiet, I assumed they had quietly given up (although they were not about to admit it), and I moved on to other topics. But recently, alarmist climate activism seems to have resurrected itself, and people have started asking me questions about it in casual conversation again. (We had a day of very hot weather here recently, which the TV news connected to climate change…) I figured I needed to get back up to date on the science, if we’re going to re-run the whole debate with a new generation.
This Winter Gatekeeper series has been very good. It’s the best thing I’ve seen so far, this time around.
Like :)
Sorry, I didn’t see this comment before.
I hope your question got answered in part VI. If not please discuss this matter there.
TVcritic says: “Your (b) is just preposterous since the entire political argument and some of attempts at governance have been focused on the costs and burdens of diminishing CO2 accumulation.”
Anyone notice that both costs and burdens are both NEGATIVE influencers. Why do the climate religious adherents never include the other “B” word, BENEFITS?
Ron Graf | August 31, 2022 at 8:30 pm | explains the concept of the standard model which allows objects to store and build up heat in reply to my contention below
“Despite millions or billions of absorption /emissions it takes no time at all at the speed of light for the balance to be kept in check.
Hence the energy in always equals the energy out.”
It’s “no time at all” perhaps relative to waiting for a long traffic light, but milliseconds are a very long time for a molecule of CO2 to be excited by a 15 micron photon with no way to let go of it’s new energy until either colliding with another molecule or releasing a 15 micron photon. If it collides with another molecule first then the energy raises the temperature of that environment. If the CO2 emits the photon it can travel in any direction, including back the direction it came from. This all acts to impede the flow of energy, i.e. insulating the gradient, and increasing the effective height of the theoretical TOA, where outgoing photons equal incoming photons. Right?
–
some digression,
“If it collides with another molecule first then the energy raises the temperature of that environment”
–
What is the temperature of that environment?
How does it get raised by only the collision?
If it lets go of the new energy photon would that not both decrease the energy in the system but make it appear warmer by one photons warmth of energy?
In other words the environment would be instantly colder but the thermometer would show it as hotter.
If it does not release the proton and does not change in speed how has it become hotter?
The old Schrodinger cat gets a look in.
If they hold onto the energy for a millisecond then millions might do it all at once.
But how do you know if it is hot or cold, alive or dead until it releases the photon.
Answer you don’t.
The problem is this.
The model says the molecule absorbs the photon raising its energy state and at some later time releases it
The model also says that a single molecule at absolute zero has only intrinsic energy.
It is quite happy to stay that way forever.
Now a single photon is created and happens to head towards the single molecule.
What earthly reason does a bit of mass have to accept a photon it has chucked away in the past and does not need?
How does it collide?
One is an energy wave, the other a mass
The photon is spread out in space, ever attenuating.
The molecule is there with fly paper, a lasso, a net perhaps all ready to catch it?
Actually no, it is at its rest state quite happily doing nothing, not wanting visitors, and definitely let all its photon catching equipment go with the last photon that left it.
Energy in at the speed of light, energy out.
No gap or pause whatever in standard physics.
If there was then objects by delaying milliseconds [no rule for that] could delay for minutes or years
If enough of them do it they could store up extra joules continuously and relentlessly.
The earth could become warmer than the sun,
If physics worked that way
Sorry for waxing poetic.
Could you explain your concepts of the energy in the system and why the molecule has to wait milliseconds?
“Could you explain your concepts of the energy in the system and why the molecule has to wait milliseconds?”
Hi Angech, the answer is I don’t know exactly but there is a long and robust debate on EGHE physics at a Clive Best posting in 2010: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
Your question about what controls the average time a CO2 molecule will spontaneously go from an excited state back to its pre-photon absorption state is a good one and I trust even if that property is not adequately explained that it can be accurately measured in bulk to determine an average residence time. The question of how likely that event is to occur rather than the CO2 molecule transferring its excited energy to another molecule by collision is I think is a worthy topic. Some say it’s one in a million and others, it’s something like one in 10 or one in 20. It certainly depends on the density of the local atmosphere and thus increases with height.
The Einstein coefficients tell us that the lifetime for spontaneous photon emission is directly proportional to a distance characterizing stimulated absorption or emission. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is given by integration of their ratio over all frequencies and independent of material differences. Black-body radiation is the spontaneous emission of photons from thermal excitations within the skin-depth of a surface.
https://pdq2021.000webhostapp.com/Black_Body_Radiation.pdf
This professor’s video explains why Kirchoff’s Law is invalid and needs re-investigation. If Kirchoff is wrong it undermines all assumptions about blackbody radiation’s universality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw
I learned from the video.
1) Gases do not emit in a continuous spectrum.
2) Only carbon black or certain graphite’s emit as a true continuous blackbody.
3) Sun spots are caused by local areas becoming electrically conductive, which also makes them less emissive by physics since conductivity and emissivity are linked.
One question I would like to put out is on the effect of the 2nd law on the energy budget. The TOA at a radiative equilibrium is not at a thermodynamic equilibrium since the outgoing photons are much more numerous in the lower energy IR than the higher energy photons from the Sun’s emission spectrum. The greater numbers of lower energy particles inherently represent a higher entropy state than the incoming particles. This means that the thermodynamic equilibrium needs some number less Earth emitted photons to equal out the Sun’s incoming radiation. Right? Anyone?
I don’t think so. IR is a more degraded form of energy than visible or UV. The conversion is what allows all the work the climate system does in the form of weather, and all the chemical reactions, including those in living beings. In the process, the entropy of the Universe increases.
Javier, congrats on your paper and thanks for your reply. I hear you saying that the outgoing LW radiation must have the same enthalpy and the SW incoming radiation in addition to all the work that it just did for life and weather on the planet. I agree that all those processes contributed to the heat to produce the much larger amount of lower energy photons going out. I am just wondering if even at the TOA interface the universe gives any favor to the outgoing for giving the universe a higher entropic state, if indeed it is. After all, photons to the extent of their particle nature are creatures of entropy. Right?
The question comes down to: does the TOA have to obey Kirchoff’s Law, of incoming equaling outgoing energy, when the system is not technically in thermal equilibrium due to the different blackbody profiles of the reflected outgoing versus the emitted outgoing?
I don’t believe the TOA is in any sort of equilibrium at any time between energy in and out. I’ve never seen any evidence for that equilibrium. It looks to me one of those assumptions that aren’t true. The fact that the Earth is always warming or cooling at any given time frame is evidence the equilibrium does not exist.
The change in planetary work and heat is equal to energy in minus energy out.
d(W&H)/dt = energy in – energy out
The derivative is equal to zero at least twice a year – when warming becomes cooling and vice versa.
Work is a transfer of energy from one place to another. The amount of energy is not changed regardless work being done or not. No matter the form of energy involved, when work is done part of the energy is transformed into thermal energy (IR). That is the basis of thermodynamics.
When we push a box, energy inside our chemical bonds gets transferred, and part is lost as heat from our body for the effort, and from friction between the box and the surface.
Work can be seen as a byproduct of energy transfer. It doesn’t affect the amount of energy. More energy doesn’t mean more work. More transfer of energy does mean more work. The equable climate of the Early-Eocene must have seen less atmospheric work, as the latitudinal temperature gradient had to be shallower. That despite the climate being much warmer. The LIA saw more atmospheric work (increased storminess).
As the planet warms, the obvious projection (supported by evidence) is less storms, not more.
The subject was energy balance at TOA.
90% of the extra energy is in the oceans. It should result in a more energetic and dynamic system as a hypothesis. But I am not about to bloviate on something intrinsically empirically indemonstrable.
The universe wants energy to dissipate. We call this force entropy. In chemistry we see that entropy can be traded for enthalpy. Heat is released when water condenses because the atmosphere is doing work in reversing the dissipation or free floating water vapor into its less free liquid state.
Entropic dissipation applies not only to molecules but also to photons. Imagine the Sun’s rays as a liquid stream of high energy photons. Some of them are reflected from the Earth as the same high energy liquid. But the others leave as dissipated IR. Those high energy photons got converted into more numerous, thus more free, (thus higher entropy), low energy photons.
Isn’t this like a spray of water hitting a hot grill, with some of the water splattering off and the rest evaporating into steam? Might not the Earth’s TOA be getting cooled by the exit of low energy photons just as the grill gets cooled by the heat of vaporization of water?
If so, I am not saying this is consequential to the EGHE. Of course, a rise in the ocean’s heat content is the final arbiter of the proof of a radiative imbalance.
Thinking in terms of statistical thermodynamics – entropy is the net flow of energy from warmer to cooler regions.
Condensation happens when the air temperature drops sufficiently that the kinetic energy of water vapour molecules is no longer sufficient to counter intermolecular attraction.
The Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution is a key detail.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/imgkin/mxspd.gif
To answer my own question about the TOA entropy balance, the increase in entropy from the more numerous outgoing low frequency photons is offset by an entropy decrease by their lower ability to carry information, known as Shannon entropy. High frequency waves can carry more information than lower ones. Wave cycles are in essence interchangeable with particle number in terms of entropy.
IR and SW photons differ in frequency. Calling it degraded adds to already immense energy gobbledegook.
‘In thermodynamics and molecular chemistry, the enthalpy or heat content (denoted as H, h, or rarely as χ) is a quotient or description of thermodynamic potential of a system, which can be used to calculate the “useful” work obtainable from a closed thermodynamic system under constant pressure and entropy.’ https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Enthalpy
Thus moist enthalpy is the latent heat in water vapour and in liquid water. Enthalpy is an extension of the 1st LoT. And IR emission is entropy.
– In classical physics, the entropy of a physical system is proportional to the quantity of energy no longer available to do physical work. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system any activity increases the entropy.
– In quantum mechanics, von Neumann entropy extends the notion of entropy to quantum systems by means of the density matrix.
– In probability theory, the entropy of a random variable measures the uncertainty about the value that might be assumed by the variable.
– In information theory, the compression entropy of a message (e.g. a computer file) quantifies the information content carried by the message in terms of the best lossless compression rate.
– In the theory of dynamical systems, entropy quantifies the exponential complexity of a dynamical system or the average flow of information per unit of time.
– In sociology, entropy is the natural decay of structure (such as law, organization, and convention) in a social system.
– In the common sense, entropy means disorder or chaos.’
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Enthalpy
Some math is necessary. Else what can it possibly mean and how can it be usefully applied to the Earth system?
‘The zeroth law of thermodynamics begins with a simple definition of thermodynamic equilibrium . It is observed that some property of an object, like the pressure in a volume of gas, the length of a metal rod, or the electrical conductivity of a wire, can change when the object is heated or cooled. If two of these objects are brought into physical contact there is initially a change in the property of both objects. But, eventually, the change in property stops and the objects are said to be in thermal (thermodynamic) equilibrium. Thermodynamic equilibrium leads to the large scale definition of temperature. When two objects are in thermal equilibrium they are said to have the same temperature. During the process of reaching thermal equilibrium, heat, which is a form of energy, is transferred between the objects. The details of the process of reaching thermal equilibrium are described in the first and second laws of thermodynamics.’ https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/thermo0.html
A parcel of air may achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings – but the system at TOA is nonequilibrium thermodynamics. There is energy in and energy out – and the difference in accordance with the 1st LoT is the change in planetary energy content – the change in enthalpy.
The change in planetary heat content over a period is equal to the change in work and heat in the system is equal to energy in less energy out. The change in planetary heat content is observed – mostly as ocean temperature.
d(W&H)/dt = energy in – energy out
‘In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general
induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding
any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena
occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.’ https://apex.ua.edu/uploads/2/8/7/3/28731065/four_rules_of_reasoning_apex_website.pdf
The Feynman quote at the top of the post is misused and misleading. The implications of Newton’s 4th rule of experimental philosophy are that empirical results in climate science should be regarded as ‘very nearly true’.
Paul Quondam
Black-body radiation is the spontaneous emission of photons from thermal excitations within the skin-depth of a surface.
–
Paul,
Some of your comments and insight might be good but spontaneous emission is to put it politely virtually impossible..
The concept that something can happen spontaneously is great for religion but cannot and does not exist in the science that we know.
God does not play dice with the universe.
If he does he certainly has never shown it.
Ron Graf | September 1, 2022
“Could you explain your concepts of the energy in the system and why the molecule has to wait milliseconds?”
Hi Angech, the answer is I don’t know exactly but there is a long and robust debate on EGHE physics at a Clive Best posting in 2010:
–
Thank you Ron.
I do not know the answer fully either but considering
1that energy as energy waves do not stop [they would have to transform into mass]
and
2 that matter cannot move as a wave ever.
We are left with quantum and time space concepts that we do not fully understand but demand that there is no overall time gap between absorption
better defined as energy going into the mass somewhere
and emission defined as energy commingle out of the masses somewhere where the energy may be changed in terms of wavelengths and number of photons but has not been stopped at all.
This allows SB to work but one has to consider any existing mass as more or less a solid object in toto.
Before everyone shakes their head a simple example we all except and recognise is the flow of electricity in a wire.
The current coming out at one end of the wire is exactly the same amount of energy [minus transmission losses] even if it comes out at different strengths.
Nobody says the electrons have to wait milliseconds to jump out at the other end or on the way through.
The fact that we see one atom appear to hold onto energy at a site of contact does not and should not mean that one has not popped out on the other side of the mass having been pushed out by the entrance of the energy into the energy field which cannot be stopped .
The rearrangement of the matter in space that we see is not wave energy is it?
Rather the expansion contraction and movement apparent to us with our limited sensors is just the same as one planet appearing to move in orbit around a sun when actually both the sun and planet are travelling on smooth straight lines in the space time continuum.
Our understanding of physics is based on being able to use theorized equations to predict future states of matter-energy in the aftermath future interactions. A lot of our current foundational physics is still being debated. I was surprised to just find that blackbody radiation universality, which was part of a “law,” Kichoff’s Law, was poorly founded but accepted for over a century until now.
The Big Bang Theory is coming under new scrutiny with the James Web photos of the early universe. Spiral galaxies looking much like nearby ones are seen already mature much earlier than they should have been. Dark matter and dark energy seem to be either fudge factors for our lack of validity of current cosmological physics or amazing yet to be explored phenomena. Either way, our understanding is always much less authoritative than authorities project.
“Dark matter and dark energy seem to be either fudge factors for our lack of validity of current cosmological physics or amazing yet to be explored phenomena.”
Clearly fudge factors to try to keep alive a theory that does not match observations, for lack of a better theory. Pretty much what happened with the Continental Drift Theory for over 40 years.
The faith in dark matter or energy is no different from the faith in God. It just explains things.
Science, when in a hole, keeps digging. It should just stick to the scientific method and recognize there are limits to our knowledge. “We don’t know” is the only valid answer when we don’t know.
Robert I. Ellison | September 1, 2022 at 8:56 pm | Reply
‘In thermodynamics and molecular chemistry, the enthalpy or heat content (denoted as H, h, or rarely as χ) is a quotient or description of thermodynamic potential of a system, which can be used to calculate the “useful” work obtainable from a closed thermodynamic system under constant pressure and entropy.
RIE
There is mass which at a molecular level simply means an amount of energy trapped in an unbreakable loop.
By itself forever, a single mass, so described, has no extra energy.
There is an intrinsic or potential energy which can never be realized.
It has no spin as there is nothing to compare it with, no mass for it has nothing to attract or repel.
No velocity for by itself it has no motion.
No EM wave can affect it because being a wave and everywhere in its motion it just passes through.
Given two or more particles however and we have time created and space created and this allows the dynamics of both mass and EM to interact.
Now mass can be traveling extremely fast in opposite directions to other mass particles and two mass particles constitute a time space local continuum which which can effect the composition and nature of energy waves in their vicinity.
According to matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed any energy coming into a system has to leave that system in the same direction to maintain the overall energy balance of the masses and the energies involved.
Consider reflection.
[Considered to be instantaneous, a second example for Ron Graf and Javier and Paul Quondam].
Impossible under the simple Newtonian physics as something with energy, a wave, hitting something else at impossible [light speed] now goes backwards?
Think about it for a moment.
It bounces off a mirror?
Rubbish.
In the concept of the disturbed time space mass relationship.
The position of the masses involved has had to alter to accommodate the energy.
A photon goes out in only one direction ever.
the continuation of the way it came in.
With a one molecule system this is easy to see for there is no other direction, the wave keeps moving forwards.
Introduce two or more masses.
Themselves now subject to severe forces due to their microscopic size and close proximity and the path of emission, while straight in spacetime quantum physics is now bent in observed macroscopic physics.
Given enough particles it can even travel through and out the same side but still be moving in a straight line.
How is this possible?
The wave, attenuated as it is, acts as a particle of energy in the presence of masses and is subject to the same principles that make a planet seem to orbit and exits turning back into a wave or waves as it leaves.
What does it leave behind?
An altered fractal of the mass particles now moved to a different orientation and position in the real world..
Robert I. Ellison | September 1, 2022 at 8:56 pm | Reply
‘In thermodynamics and molecular chemistry, the enthalpy or heat content (denoted as H, h, or rarely as χ) is a quotient or description of thermodynamic potential of a system, which can be used to calculate the “useful” work obtainable from a closed thermodynamic system under constant pressure and entropy.
The heat content of a system, open or closed is due to the presence of energy already preexisting in the system under consideration that must dissipate with time.
The work obtainable from a closed thermodynamic system under constant pressure and entropy. is equal to the amount of work being put in to keep it at that constant pressure and temperature minus entropy losses from the machinery being used.
A bit like puffing into a sail along with the wind.
The extras work you do is due to your puffing only.
Constant entropy is a laugh like perpetual energy.
An oxymoron of a term, Constant entropy indeed.
The Earth is a closed nonequilibrium thermodynamic system – ideally you would try to understand what that means. Instead you go further down the rabbit hole of verbose nonsense.
The planet Earth is open WRT mass, energy, and momentum.
Earth’s Climate System boundary at the TOA is open WRT energy.
‘A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although — in contexts such as physics, chemistry or engineering — the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.’ Wikipedia
These things have well defined meanings in thermodynamics. The loss of mass from the Earth is small enough not to matter.
Fun item on news
Sorry Javier
A quiet hurricane season until…..
Tropical Storm Javier swirls in the Pacific Ocean
The eastern Pacific Ocean is bustling with tropical activity again after a several week break with Tropical Storm Javier.
The name Javier has been used for seven tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
Hurricane Javier (1980) – stayed in the open ocean.
Hurricane Javier (1986) – produced high waves in southern California.
Hurricane Javier (1992) – dissipated south of Hawaii.
Tropical Storm Javier (1998) – made landfall in southwestern Mexico, dissipated shortly after moving ashore.
Hurricane Javier (2004) – made landfall in Baja California; later produced rainfall across the southwest United States.
Tropical Storm Javier (2016) – struck Baja California, degenerated into a remnant low shortly after passing offshore.
Tropical Storm Javier (2022) – currently active.
It seems like a persistent guy, this Javier. And he likes to hang out with El Niño.
Javier you say ” The negative correlation between long-term solar activity and Arctic winter temperature is clear (Fig. 5.5).
The correlation as shown in your Fig 5.5 is simply wrong a – Figment of your imagination . Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a 12/13 year delay between the solar actiyity driver changes and the correlative temperature change- see Fig.2 from my Blog
http://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/820570527003668244/3260744859689736991
“Short term deviations from the Millennial trends are driven by ENSO events and volcanic activity.
“Fig 2 The correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. (28,29)
The Oulu Cosmic Ray count shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant secular drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/- and a new solar activity minimum late in 2009.The MSATP at 1991/2 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. In Figure 2(5) short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos. The hadsst3gl temperature anomaly at 2037 is forecast to be + 0.05. ”
Your are right in identifying the MTTP at 2003/4
I would suggest that readers would find that reading the entire Blog post would be useful before. replying. Best Regards Norman
norpag1@gmail.com
angech | August 27, 2022 at 7:44 pm |
“Both Earth and Moon rotate infinite quickly when compared to a non rotating planet, so they are always warmer than it, but can never achieve the surface temperature they would be if that energy was emitted uniformly {As a black body} and if they had no atmosphere.”
angech, all planets and moons without atmosphere in solar system (except the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon), ALL OF THEM have satellite MEASURED mean surface temperatures Tsat higher than their effective temperatures Te.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘ALL OF THEM have satellite MEASURED mean surface temperatures Tsat higher than their effective temperatures Te.’ ALL OF THEM have satellite MEASURED mean surface temperatures Tsat higher than their effective temperatures Te.’
No they do not. Temperature is inferred from IR emissions – it is not necessarily a surface temperature. The Earth emits from higher in the atmosphere – where it is of course cooler than thermometer measured surface temps.
https://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3c.htm
Robert,
all planets and moons WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE in solar system (except the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon), ALL OF THEM have satellite MEASURED mean surface temperatures Tsat higher than their effective temperatures Te.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No they do not. IR emissions are measured remotely and the temperature inferred from physical laws. For a planet without an atmosphere this may approximate to a surface temperature – and is what you want to call ‘effective temperature’. Essentially the SB temperature adjusted for distance to the sun and albedo.
As far as I am concerned such things as your insolation drag coefficient are complete and obvious nonsense to any who have even minimal science literacy.
Check your facts and stop plaguing the site with ultra repetitive errors.
Robert:
“No they do not. IR emissions are measured remotely and the temperature inferred from physical laws. For a planet without an atmosphere this may approximate to a surface temperature – and is what you want to call ‘effective temperature’. Essentially the SB temperature adjusted for distance to the sun and albedo.”
Tsat is higher than Te for all planets and moons WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE in solar system (except the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon).
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here’s my facts. Where’s yours? Or are you content to ultra repetitively assert nonsense?
You concoct a new physics and believe you are a latter day Galileo Galilei challenging the church of climate scientology. It’s all a bit mad.
But surely after 1000’s of repetitions here alone you have said your bit and should give it a rest.
Facts previously mentioned.
https://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3c.htm
Robert:
“Here’s my facts. Where’s yours? Or are you content to ultra repetitively assert nonsense?
You concoct a new physics and believe you are a latter day Galileo Galilei challenging the church of climate scientology. It’s all a bit mad.
But surely after 1000’s of repetitions here alone you have said your bit and should give it a rest.”
Also
Robert:
“For a planet without an atmosphere this may approximate to a surface temperature – and is what you want to call ‘effective temperature’. Essentially the SB temperature adjusted for distance to the sun and albedo.”
—————–
Robert, please check it yourself first:
—–
Mercury Te = 440K Tsat = 340K
Moon Te = 270,4K Tsat = 220K
*
Mars___Te = 210K Tsat = 210K
Io_____Te = 95,16K Tsat = 110K
Europa__Te = 95,16 Tsat = 102K
Ganymede Te = 107,08K Tsat = 110K
Callisto___Te = 114,66K Tsat = 134K
Enceladus Te = 55,97K Tsat = 75K
Tethy___ Te = 66,55 Tsat = 86K
Pluto____Te = 37K Tsat = 44K
Charon Te = 41,9 Tsat = 53K
———–
Robert:
“and is what you want to call ‘effective temperature’. Essentially the SB temperature adjusted for distance to the sun and albedo.”
the SB temperature adjusted for distance to the sun and albedo is always less than satellite MEASURED planet mean surface temperature (except the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon)!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘Mercury Te = 440K Tsat = 340K’
On Earth satellites measure temperature change in the troposphere by sensing changes in O2 excitation.
You cannot even say how the numbers you give are determined.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
—
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴
Where
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin .
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
—
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The planetary rotisserie effect has no validity. Using it to calculate a surface temperature and then claiming that it is a satellite observation is a lie or a delusion.
One of the warning signs of crank science is the ‘discovery’ of new physical laws.
Huh?
What triggers moderation is a mystery.
For a planet without an atmosphere IR emissions are from the surface. The expected temperature is calculated from the SB law.
Christos modifies SB with his ‘new physics’ and claims the result is a satellite observation. There is no clearer warning sign of crank science than new physics.
Robert:
“For a planet without an atmosphere IR emissions are from the surface. The expected temperature is calculated from the SB law.”
–
Robert, neither Stefan, no Boltzmann ever mentioned calculating planet surface temperature.
What you call the SB law is a mathematical abstraction.
It is a mathematical abstraction which doesn’t describe the actual physics involved.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SB is a law of physics based on empirical evidence. What you have is a mathematical abomination.
Robert:
“You concoct a new physics and believe you are a latter day Galileo Galilei challenging the church of climate scientology. It’s all a bit mad.”
–
And
“As far as I am concerned such things as your insolation drag coefficient are complete and obvious nonsense to any who have even minimal science literacy.”
–
Also
“SB is a law of physics based on empirical evidence. What you have is a mathematical abomination.”
–
More
“Christos modifies SB with his ‘new physics’ and claims the result is a satellite observation. There is no clearer warning sign of crank science than new physics.”
–
Robert, what I do is not ‘new physics’ – it is the right physics!!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Stefan-Boltzmann result is replicated by students every day.
https://physics-archive.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Wellons_Web_Article.pdf
Christos quotes me – I know what I said. Is he trying to pull the ad hominin red herring fallacy? There has to be room for honest appraisal and my honest appraisal after some effort to understand is scathing dismissal. The constant repetition doesn’t help.
I asked a simple question – where he got his Tsat from. And I don’t get a simple answer.
Just as an example – the calculation based on the SB law gives an expected average temperature of Mercury of 433 K. Christos claims that satellites measure a temperature of 340 K. 440 K is NASA’s estimate.
e.g. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/681/solar-system-temperatures/
And I still can’t find out from Christos what NASA mission measured an average Mercury temperature of 340 K.
Robert:
“I asked a simple question – where he got his Tsat from. And I don’t get a simple answer.”
–
No, Robert, you didn’t ask – now you are asking.
And here it is the simple answer you get:
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
–
Surface temp. min mean max
0°N, 0°W [13] -173 °C 67 °C 427 °C
85°N, 0°W[13] -193 °C -73 °C 106.85 °C
–
Mercury’s mean surface temperature 67 °C is:
273 °C + 67 °C = 340 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I asked several times. Do you want to troll through the comments?
Now you give a Wikipedia citation that references a model study supposedly giving a mean temperature of a point on the equator. It goes without saying that this is not a measurement by satellite of a planetary average.
https://luna1.diviner.ucla.edu/~dap/pubs/019.pdf
Robert, here it is what your source
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/681/solar-system-temperatures/
says:
“Solar System Temperatures
Mean Temperatures on Each Planet
Planetary surface temperatures tend to get colder the farther a planet is from the Sun. Venus is the exception, as its proximity to the Sun, and its dense atmosphere make it our solar system’s hottest planet. The mean temperatures of planets in our solar system are:
Mercury – 333°F (167°C)
Venus – 867°F (464°C)
Earth – 59°F (15°C)
Mars – Minus 85°F (-65°C)
Jupiter – Minus 166°F (-110°C)
Saturn – Minus 220°F (-140°C)
Uranus – Minus 320°F (-195°C)
Neptune – Minus 330°F (-200°C)
Dwarf Planet Pluto – Minus 375°F (-225°C)”
–
Why shouldn’t I use Wikipedia, as I always do?
–
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
–
Surface temp. min mean max
0°N, 0°W [13] -173 °C 67 °C 427 °C
85°N, 0°W[13] -193 °C -73 °C 106.85 °C
–
Mercury’s mean surface temperature 67 °C is:
273 °C + 67 °C = 340 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“a mean temperature of a point on the equator”
–
A point on the Mercury’s equator having mean temperature 340 K.
It means the planetary average is less than 340 K.
–
Yours’ Mercury’s planetary average temperature is as high as 440 K, which is impossible!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos’ Mercury temperature is based on a model and not observations. The only bodies in the solar system that have surface temps that have been systematically evaluated are the moon and Earth.
Planetary temps are more generally calculated using a modified (for albedo and distance from the sun) form of the SB equation.
‘Mercury – 333°F (167°C)’
167°C = 440°K and not 340°K
And you can’t use Wikipedia because it just isn’t science. It may be quick and convenient for a first step but serious researchers need to delve a lot deeper than that.
Please, Robert, let’s delve deeper than that.
–
Please, Robert, explain why your source ignores the solar system moons’ mean surface temperatures?
–
Why it doesn’t mention our Moon’s mean surface temperature 220 K?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Again with the red herring fallacy. The satellite observed moon surface temperature is 220K. Using the sun’s luminosity, the moon’s albedo and simple geometry it is some 237K. Not too shabby.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/diviner-lunar-radiometer-experiment-dlre
Do you consider the 237 K as Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature tοο?
–
Do you think Earth might have a
288 K – 237 K = Δ 51 C large atmospheric greenhouse warming effect then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Another red herring. Admit your error and you might be able to move on.
Robert:
“a mean temperature of a point on the equator”
–
A point on the Mercury’s equator having mean temperature 340 K.
It means the planetary average is less than 340 K.
–
Yours’ Mercury’s planetary average temperature is as high as 440 K, which is impossible!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert:
“Just as an example – the calculation based on the SB law gives an expected average temperature of Mercury of 433 K. Christos claims that satellites measure a temperature of 340 K. 440 K is NASA’s estimate.”
–
Your source says satellites measure “440 K is NASA’s estimate.”
–
Shouldn’t “the calculation based on the SB law gives an expected average temperature of Mercury” be much higher than 433 K?
Mercury’s surface temperatures are very much far from being close to uniformity.
Thus, when Christos claims that satellites measure for Mercury an average surface temperature of 340 K, Christos is absolutely right!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Satellites have not systematically evaluated Mercury’s surface temperature. But we can estimate effective insolation and use laws of physics – that you say are incorrect 🤣 – to calculate it.
Your Wikipedia citation references an unvalidated model study. Not satellites. Can you not take anything outside of your odd notions and slipshod methods on board?
Robert Ellison is clearly a “climate baller” who is here to do nothing other than clutter the forum with nonsense. He is clearly not a scientist nor an intelligent individual able to carry on a meaningful conversation. He continually posts non-sequitur blather and cuts and pastes WIkipedia articles. Don’t bother responding to him anymore. I was sucked in at first too by his subterfuge, however.
What an dire insult. Unlike Christos I never quote Wikipedia. Only science. Jonathon is clearly a person whose views are fringe extreme at best. He conflates economics and climate science – clearly not knowing much about either – as too many do. And then indulges in a personal attack in defence of Christos’ thesis? 🤣
The solutions to climate change is energy innovation, 21st century land and water management and building resilient infrastructure.
Earth system science on the other hand is endlessly fascinating.
Thank you Jonathan!
I think Wikipedia does an excellent job.
–
Robert keeps quoting sites he thinks are authorized by NASA.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I reference peer reviewed literature and carefully evaluated authoritative sources. As I was taught to do.
Ok!
Hi Javier and Andy — Great work! I looked in the references for von Storch (2014), but it was missing. Thanks. — Craig
It is there at the V. I know that is a problem, but it is where most people would look for it first, and the rest second.
von Storch H (2014) http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html Accessed March 04 2022
I just checked and it still works.
Will you guys quit trying to kill the Golden Goose?
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VI). Meridional transport is the main climate change driver – Andy May Petrophysicist
Pingback: Der Sonne-Klima-Effekt: Die Winterpförtner-Hypothese V - FreeSpeech.international
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #518 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #518on September 5, 2022 at 2:00 pm - Always Bet On Black
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #518 - The Crude Truth
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #518Home - Energy News Beat - Sandstone Group
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup #518 - Energy News Beat
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VI). Meridional transport is the main climate change driver - Energy News Beat
Figure 5-4 shows data to 2010. I am curious what this looks like when extended to 2022. Is there anywhere that shows this?
“Since 1998 MT has increased, producing Arctic warming and a pause in global warming.”
Please explain this statement. Is this referring to the 1998-2014 hiatus? Seems like it needs to be updated to account for 2015 to 2022 jump in temperatures. Or am I missing something?
Pingback: Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis: New support for the effect of solar activity on lower atmospheric circulation | Climate Etc.
Pingback: New research supports the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis – Andy May Petrophysicist
Pingback: New research supports the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: New research supports the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: New research supports the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis – Watts Up With That? - News7g
Pingback: New analysis helps the Winter Gatekeeper Speculation – Watts Up With That? - news page
Pingback: New research supports the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis - Climate- Science.press