By Javier Vinós
Part I in this series on the Sun and climate described how we know that the Sun has been responsible for some of the major climate changes that have occurred over the past 11,000 years. In Part II, we considered a range of changes that the Sun is causing in the climate today, including changes in the planet’s rotation and in the polar vortex that are changing the frequency of cold winters.
None of the evidence for the Sun’s effect on climate we reviewed is included in the IPCC reports. The role of the IPCC is to assess the risk of human-induced climate change, not to find the causes of climate change, which since its inception has been assumed to be due to our emissions.
- Main solar theories
Nevertheless, some scientists continue to try to explain the Sun’s effect on climate and have developed three different explanations. These three theories are not mutually exclusive. The fact that one is true does not mean that the others are false.
The first theory is based on the direct effect on climate of changes in solar radiation. Because the effect is proportional to the cause, we say it is linear.
This theory has been defended by Dr. Soon, Prof. Scafetta and 35 other scientists in a recent paper.[i] To explain the Sun’s effect on climate, these scientists make their own temperature reconstruction, based on rural stations to avoid the urban heat effect, and their own reconstruction of solar activity over the last two centuries. Figure 1 left shows their reconstruction compared to the one accepted by the IPCC on the right. The differences between the two would explain a much larger effect of the Sun on climate than that accepted by the IPCC.
Figure 1. Left graph shows in black a temperature reconstruction using only rural stations from four regions in NOAA’s GHCN dataset, and in orange a high variability solar series. Right graph shows in black a temperature reconstruction with urban and rural stations and in orange an IPCC’s AR6 recommended solar series (from Soon et al. 2023).
In the second theory, it is cosmic rays that change the climate, and the Sun’s magnetic field regulates the number of cosmic rays that reach the Earth. It is therefore an indirect effect, but also a linear one, since the change in cosmic rays would be proportional to the activity of the Sun.
This theory, proposed by Dr. Svensmark, is based on the fact that cosmic rays create ions in the atmosphere that act as cloud seeds.[ii] Part of the theory has been confirmed by experiments in a particle accelerator, but it is not yet known whether the effect is significant enough. One problem is that cosmic rays have increased while satellites show a decrease in the low cloud layer, which may actually contribute to the observed warming.
Figure 2. Percentage cloud cover anomaly (black) from EUMETSAT CM SAF dataset. Cosmic ray data (red) from the Oulu neutron monitor database.
The third theory is the one I have proposed.[iii] In it, the Sun acts indirectly on the climate, and its effect is non-linear because other factors are involved. Non-linear means that the effect is not proportional to the cause. This explains why there is no direct correlation between the Sun and surface temperatures, although the Sun’s effect is important. What is this process, capable of changing the climate in a natural way, that scientists have not properly accounted for? It is heat transport.
Figure 3. Three main types of solar theories based on the direct or indirect effect of different components of solar variability. Less developed hypotheses based on solar particles and solar wind have also been proposed.
- Changes in heat transport change the climate
What is heat transport?
Most of the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth in the tropics, creating a zone of excess energy that receives more energy than it emits, shown in red in Figure 4. Outside the tropics, there are two energy deficit zones, which receive less energy than they emit and whose size depends on the seasons. They are shown in blue in Figure 4, which presents the situation during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. These imbalances should result in continuous warming in the red zone and continuous cooling in the blue zones. That this does not happen is due to the transport of heat, which also transports moisture and clouds, and is very important for the climate. The climate of any region depends on insolation and the transport of heat and moisture.
Figure 4. Actual graphic of the mean top of the atmosphere net radiation by latitude for December-February, showing positive values in red and negative values in blue, placed in a cartoon showing the Earth’s tilt with respect to the Sun. The direction of heat and moisture transport is shown with purple arrows.
Heat transport is a particularly difficult climate process to study and some scientists who research it believe current theories do not satisfactorily describe it.[iv] The seasonal variation in heat transport is very important. Because of the tilt of the planet’s axis, much more heat is transported in the winter than in the summer.
In the first chapter of the 6th Assessment Report, the IPCC provides a clear explanation of climate change, defining its causes as follows: “The natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for climate change are known today as radiative ‘drivers’ or ‘forcers’. The net change in the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere, resulting from a change in one or more such drivers, is termed ‘radiative forcing’.” According to the IPCC, heat transport is not considered a radiative forcing and, therefore, not a cause of global climate change. Its effects only contribute to internal or regional variability. This perspective is reflected in the limited attention given to heat transport in the IPCC reports. In the massive 2,391-page 6th Assessment Report, heat transport is only briefly mentioned in a 5-page subsection on ocean heat content.[v] In this subsection, we learn that climate change is due to heat addition, while changes in ocean circulation cause heat redistribution.
To the IPCC, variations in heat transport have not contributed to recent climate change because they only redistribute heat within the climate system, while recent climate change is due to heat being added to the system. Therefore, heat transport cannot cause global climate change, only regional changes.
Figure 5. The first objection to changes in heat transport being a cause of climate change is incorrect because the greenhouse effect is very uneven, so emissivity is altered by poleward heat transport.
Is this true? Actually, it is not. It is rarely mentioned, but 75% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and water clouds.[vi] And their distribution by latitude is extremely uneven. The tropical atmosphere contains a lot of water, and the polar atmosphere in winter contains almost none. Therefore, the greenhouse effect in the polar regions is extremely small, and the transport of heat from the tropics to the Arctic changes the emissions. This means that the total is not constant, so heat transport has the ability to change the global climate through changes in water vapor and cloud distributions.
In the 1960s, Jacob Bjerknes stated that if the top of the atmosphere fluxes and oceanic heat storage remained relatively stable, the total heat transported through the climate system would also remain constant. This implies that changes in atmospheric or oceanic transport should be compensated by changes of the same magnitude and opposite sign in the other one. This Bjerknes compensation has not been empirically demonstrated but is present in all models despite its physical basis being unknown.[vii] If the compensation is true it should result in transport being constant and, thus, not a cause for climate change.
Figure 6. The second objection to changes in heat transport being a cause of climate change is incorrect because heat transport to the Arctic does not show the expected compensation.
But again, reality is different. Heat transport can increase in the atmosphere and also in the ocean, changing the amount of energy transported. In fact, this is logical because an important part of ocean transport is in surface currents driven by wind, which is also responsible for heat transport through the atmosphere. If the wind increases, the transport in both compartments should increase.
Figure 7. Upper graph, tropospheric winter latent energy transport across 70°N by planetary scale waves (Rydsaa et al., 2021). Lower graph ocean heat transport to the Arctic and Nordic Seas in Terawatts (Tsubouchi et al. 2021).
This is also supported by data from two studies of Arctic heat transport in recent decades.[viii] Both atmospheric and oceanic heat transport increased in the early 21st century. In the Arctic, winter temperatures have risen sharply. Obviously, that heat has to be transported there, because the Sun does not shine in the Arctic in winter, so no heat is generated. And the increase in temperature has greatly increased the emission of infrared radiation into space. Remember that the greenhouse effect is very weak in the Arctic at this time of year, and heat is not retained. Because of the warming of the Arctic caused by increased transport, the planet is losing more energy than it was losing before.
Figure 8. Upper graph, Arctic winter temperature anomaly. Data from Danish Meteorological Institute. Lower graph, 5-year November-April average outgoing longwave radiation anomaly at 70-90°N top of the atmosphere from NOAA data (black) and solar activity (sunspots, red) with a decadal Gaussian smoothing (thick line).
So, what has caused this warming of the Arctic in the 21st century? CO₂ has been rising sharply since the 1950s and its effects on radiation are instantaneous, they do not take 50 years. There’s also talk of it being a consequence of the warming that’s been going on since the mid-1970s, but why should it take two decades for the heat to reach the Arctic? We have the Sun. Arctic warming and increased outgoing radiation coincide in time with the decline in solar activity that began in the mid-1990s with solar cycle 23, which, as we have seen, was accompanied by a weakening of the polar vortex.
How do we know that the change in solar activity caused the change in transport and the warming of the Arctic? Because it has been doing so for thousands of years. A study by leading scientists looked at the relationship between solar activity and Greenland’s temperature and found that over the past 4,000 years, solar activity has been inversely correlated with Greenland’s temperature.[ix] When solar activity decreased, Greenland warmed, as it is doing now. It also says that there have been periods in those 4,000 years when Greenland was warmer than it is now, which is inconsistent with being caused by our emissions.
- How the Sun changes heat transport
The signal from the Sun is received in the stratospheric ozone layer, which absorbs much of the ultraviolet radiation. This is a very sensitive receiver because UV radiation changes 30 times more than total radiation (3%). But in addition, the increase in UV radiation creates more ozone, which also increases by 3%. With more ozone and more UV radiation, the ozone layer experiences a temperature increase of 1°C with solar activity, which is much more than at the surface.
The ozone response to changes in solar activity modifies the temperature and pressure gradients, and this causes the speed of the zonal winds in the stratosphere to change, as we saw earlier. When the activity is high, the gradients become larger and this causes the wind speed to increase, and when the activity is low, the gradients become smaller and the wind speed decreases. In the troposphere, atmospheric waves called planetary waves are generated, and when the wind is weak, they reach the stratosphere and hit the polar vortex, weakening it. But when the wind is strong, they do not manage to enter the stratosphere and the vortex remains strong. Changes in the vortex are transmitted to the troposphere, altering atmospheric circulation and heat transport.
Figure 9. Cartoon showing the mechanism by which solar activity regulates planetary wave activity in the stratosphere and the polar vortex strength and, through it, winter atmospheric circulation and heat transport toward the Arctic.
Planetary waves are atmospheric waves of the Rossby type. The largest storms on the planet fit into their undulations and have a huge impact on meteorology. They are responsible for some of the most extreme atmospheric phenomena, such as the heat waves in Europe in 2003 and in Russia in 2010, and the floods in Pakistan in 2010, in China in 2012, and in Europe in 2013. The amount of energy they move is staggering. Planetary waves are the largest of all, and under certain conditions can reach the stratosphere, hitting the polar vortex and weakening it.
Fifty years ago, a scientist suggested that if the Sun had an effect on climate, planetary waves were a possible candidate for the mechanism.[x] But no one investigated this possibility, and the paper was forgotten.
A 2011 study finally proved him right, showing that planetary waves in the Northern Hemisphere respond to the solar cycle.[xi] Figure 10 shows the sunspot cycle in red and the amplitude of the planetary waves in black. We observe large oscillations from one year to another because the mechanism is not exclusive to the Sun and there are other causes that affect it. This is the difficulty of studying non-linear phenomena. But the effect of the solar cycle is clear, because the highest amplitudes occur in periods of low solar activity.
Figure 10. Planetary wave amplitude index based on the averaged amplitude of wavenumbers 1–3 averaged over 55–75°N in 70–20 hPa (black, from Powell & Xu, 2011). Annual sunspot index (red, from SILSO). Purple circles indicate high wave amplitude years that coincide with low solar activity.
The effect this has on the polar vortex was discussed in Part II and is shown in Figure 11. More active solar cycles, with fewer planetary waves, have faster zonal winds and stronger vortices, while during less active solar cycles the increase in planetary waves weakens the vortex.
Figure 11. Monthly sunspot number (red), cumulative anomaly of zonal wind speed at 54.4°N, 10 hPa (blue, Lu et al. 2008), and the mean vortex geopotential height anomaly at 20 hPa (purple, NCEP, Christiansen 2010).
We have already mentioned the effect this has on the frequency of cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere, but how does this mechanism explain the change in global climate?
- How the Sun changes the climate
My theory is that when solar activity is high, the zonal winds are strengthened, preventing the planetary waves from entering the stratosphere and allowing the vortex to remain strong throughout the winter. By acting as a wall, the vortex reduces heat transport to the Arctic in winter, and this causes temperatures to drop, reducing the infrared emissions to space that allow heat to escape from the Earth. All of these steps have been verified by scientists. The result is that by reducing emissions, the planet conserves more energy, which can cause it to get warmer. This is the situation that occurred from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, when the planet experienced strong warming under high solar activity.
Figure 12. Climate-changing mechanism through changes in heat transport as a result of high solar activity.
When solar activity is low, the zonal winds subside, allowing planetary waves to enter the stratosphere and hit the vortex, weakening it. As the wall weakens, heat transport to the Arctic increases, causing it to warm. This warming increases emissions to space, causing the planet to conserve less energy. The result is that the planet either warms more slowly or cools, depending on other factors. Because this mechanism regulates the amount of heat that enters the Arctic in winter, I have named my theory “The Winter Gatekeeper”.
Figure 13. Climate-changing mechanism through changes in heat transport as a result of low solar activity.
It is important to note that this is not a solar theory, although it does explain the Sun’s effect on climate. Variations in heat transport are a general cause of climate change. Perhaps the most important one. Any factor that persistently changes the amount of heat transported becomes a cause of climate change, and this includes plate tectonics and orbital variations. This theory has the ability to explain the ice age of the last 34 million years, and the growth and shrinkage of the ice sheets in glaciations and interglacials.[xii] The explanations it provides fit the evidence better than the CO₂ changes.
The solar mechanism I propose has the following features:
- It is indirect, because what changes the climate is not the change in solar energy, but the change in heat transport.
- It is exclusively due to changes in the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation.
- It produces dynamic changes in the stratosphere, which is the part of the climate system whose response to the Sun is important for climate change.
- The mechanism works by altering the propagation of planetary waves, as proposed 50 years ago.
- Since there are multiple causes that affect this propagation, the cause-effect relationship becomes non-linear, which makes it very difficult to study because we humans think linearly.
- It affects the polar vortex, which is responsible for transmitting what happens in the stratosphere to the troposphere, determining the position of the jet streams and the atmospheric circulation in winter.
- In its final part, the mechanism alters the transport of heat to the Arctic in winter. This is the most visible effect of the Sun on climate. Winter temperatures in the Arctic and the frequency of cold winters in eastern North America and Eurasia reveal the Sun’s effect on climate.
- Finally, the mechanism works because the greenhouse effect is extremely heterogeneous across the planet. It is a very thick blanket in the tropics, leaving the poles exposed. Increasing CO₂ doesn’t change that because most of the greenhouse effect is due to water, which changes much more than CO₂.
This theory explains many of the problems that the Sun’s effect on climate has always had:
Figure 14. The solar part of the Winter Gatekeeper theory provides an explanation for several questions and solar-climate related phenomena, some of them not properly explained before.
- It explains the mismatch between the small change in solar energy and the resulting climate effect. The change in solar energy only provides the signal, like the finger pushing the button on an elevator. The energy to change the climate is provided by planetary waves, which carry very large amounts of energy and act on sensitive parts of the climate.
- It explains the lack of cause-and-effect correlation claimed by NASA and the IPCC. It is a non-linear process that cannot be required to have a linear correlation.
- It explains the recent warming of the Arctic, the timing of which cannot be explained by CO₂ or global warming.
- It explains the recent increase in cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere that scientists cannot adequately explain.
- It explains changes in the Earth’s rotation due to the Sun that no one has been able to explain. Changes in atmospheric circulation induced by the Sun are what alter the angular momentum responsible for variations in the Earth’s rotation.
- It explains the cumulative effect of changes in solar activity on climate. Why grand solar minimums have such a large effect, proportional to their duration. Low activity alters the energy balance by increasing emissions throughout the duration of the grand minimum, progressively reducing the energy of the climate system and causing the effects to become larger and global over time.
- It explains the greater impact of solar-induced climate change on the Northern Hemisphere, as it affects the heat transported to the Arctic. The Antarctic polar vortex is much stronger and less sensitive to solar forcing. This is why the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, caused by solar forcing, were much more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere.
- It also explains a significant part of the 20th century warming. The 70 years of grand solar maximum in that century caused the planet to increase its energy and warm up.
- Conclusion
The Sun has a lot to say about future climate, but we are not listening. Long-term changes in solar activity are cyclical, and what adds to warming now will subtract from it in the future. This theory does not deny that changes in CO₂ affect climate, and indeed it is based on differences in emissions due to changes in the greenhouse effect, just not in time, but in space, with latitude. But it is undeniable that if the Sun has played a relevant role in the warming of the 20th century, it reduces the role our emissions have played.
This article can also be watched in a 19-minute video with English and French subtitles.
References
[i] Soon, W., et al., 2023. The detection and attribution of northern hemisphere land surface warming (1850–2018) in terms of human and natural factors: Challenges of inadequate data. Climate, 11 (9), p.179.
[ii] Svensmark, H., 1998. Influence of cosmic rays on Earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters, 81 (22), p.5027.
[iii] Vinós, J., 2022. Climate of the Past, Present and Future. A scientific debate. Critical Science Press. Madrid.
[iv] Barry, L., et al., 2002. Poleward heat transport by the atmospheric heat engine. Nature, 415 (6873), pp.774-777.
[v] Fox-Kemper, B., et al., 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. 6th AR IPCC. Ch. 9 Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change. pp.1228–1233.
[vi] Schmidt, G.A., et al., 2010. Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115 (D20).
[vii] Outten, S., et al., 2018. Bjerknes compensation in the CMIP5 climate models. Journal of Climate, 31 (21), pp.8745-8760.
[viii] Rydsaa, J.H., et al., 2021. Changes in atmospheric latent energy transport into the Arctic: Planetary versus synoptic scales. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 147 (737), pp.2281-2292. Tsubouchi, T., et al., 2021. Increased ocean heat transport into the Nordic Seas and Arctic Ocean over the period 1993–2016. Nature Climate Change, 11 (1), pp.21-26.
[ix] Kobashi, T., et al., 2015. Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42 (14), pp.5992-5999.
[x] Hines, C.O., 1974. A possible mechanism for the production of sun-weather correlations. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 31 (2), pp.589-591.
[xi] Powell Jr, A.M. and Xu, J., 2011. Possible solar forcing of interannual and decadal stratospheric planetary wave variability in the Northern Hemisphere: An observational study. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73 (7-8), pp.825-838.
[xii] Vinós, J. 2023. Solving the Climate Puzzle. The Sun’s surprising role. Critical Science Press. Madrid.
“The climate of any region depends on insolation and the transport of heat and moisture.”
Excellent, Javier !
I find the explanation of dr. Antero Ollila much more convincing. The last 40 years, the global cloud cover has been reduced by 4 % according to satellite measurements, NASA CERES and other, and there has been an increase og global temperature due to increased absorbed solar radiation at the earth and oceans surfaces, see
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/antero-ollila-the-2023-record-temperatures/
It is possible. But, what made the cloud cover change? Let’s remember that cloud formation and distribution are strongly affected by meridional heat transport through changes in wind speed. Figure 2 shows that global cloud cover decreased mostly in the mid 1990s, which is when meridional transport experimented a step change driving enhanced Arctic warming.
Javier:
You ask “But what caused the cloud cover to change?”
Cloud formation requires moisture nucleation sites, which, in our present climate, are primarily SO2 aerosols, small droplets of Sulfuric Acid, which have a high affinity for moisture, often being used as a drying agent.
Since circa 1980, due to “Clean Air” activities, the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere dropped from 139 million tons to 73.5 million tons in 2022, resulting in fewer nucleation sites, fewer clouds (as shown in your Figure 2), and gradually rising temperatures.
In 2020, low sulfur fuels for maritime shipping were mandated, further reducing the number of SO2 aerosol nucleation sites available, visibly reducing cloud cover, and causing even higher temperatures.
In 2023, the moisture injected into the stratosphere by the Jan 15, 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption began settling out in late Feb, and by June 8, it had flushed enough SO2 aerosol nucleation sites out of the atmosphere to decrease cloud formation enough to cause the 2023 El Nino.
(I see the fingerprint of SO2 aerosols wherever I look).
That’s lost in the noise of natural aerosol variability. And cloud variability. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1768028430593864037
But the HTHH aerosol flushing hypothesis is interesting.
What do you think caused the nearly identical el nino progression in the 1870s? Was there another water vapor eruption I’m unaware of? https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1800962427627942256
There’s no clear evidence that cloud cover depends on human SO₂ emissions. And it is unlikely because human emissions are recent and clouds are as ancient as liquid water on the Earth’s surface.
“it is unlikely because human emissions are recent and clouds are as ancient as liquid water on the Earth”.
A ridiculous response. Sure clouds were always there, but we are talking about a recent small variation in cloud cover, not the existence of clouds. That you make such a silly, irrelevant response says all we need to know about your ideas.
You are not even scientific enough to correctly use the word hypothesis. Why Judith gave three articles to your non scientific waffle is beyond me. Maybe she is short of contributions these days.
I’ve just look back over these three articles and it is the usual bunk that you come out with. It’s way too late to leave comments on parts I and II now. It is a shame those skeptical of the AGW scare mongering cannot come up with better than this.
Climategrog’s response appears to suggest that human emissions have always been a problem with humankind in the writer’s pathetic response to Javier, for human carbon dioxide emissions is what alarmists claim is causing the current damage. And so what caused previous warming?
This is about par for the course among the CAGW believers who really do need to be much, much clearer about what exactly it is that is causing temperatures to steadily rise from the lows of the LIA, just as the temperatures rose in the Holocene, without an ICE in sight to boost any or all kinds of warming emissions.
The planet is getting warmer and greener as it has done many times and long before human beings roamed the planet. Mother Nature has more power in her little finger than humans could ever put together. Humans need to stop gloating about their conceits and start working out how we can recover from the ill conceived stupidity of the past several decades. Even AI has a hard time making stuff worse than it really is without a programmer’s tender loving attention to the detail of doing so. We need politicians with brains and ability and not petty liars who love money and power.
One thing is simple chaos. Another is non-greenhouse gas anthropogenic factors. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1768028430593864037
Increased SW radiation absorption is driving the vast majority of warming https://mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297.
Between 1980 and 2016 we grew the terrestrial biosphere by 95Gt C and by about 3Gt C/yr since. This growth reduces dust & other aerosols. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1756225093561176259?s=20
There is much more forest & vegetation now than the beginning of last century. Despite this growth in potential fuel, wildfire is down substantially https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1667650617081208834, so there are less aerosols from that.
CO2 uptake means much more photosynthetic efficiency & water efficiency; less stressed plants produce less cloud forming aerosols https://twitter.com/JennyR37094269/status/1758979237791531305.
Also, increased precipitation clears aerosols (dust, etc) & increased soil moisture means less aerosols from land.
There’s also been changes in the amount, location, & methods of biomass burning. Plus, we’ve reduced tilling for agriculture tremendously.
Some of this may be considered feedback to CO2 increases. I don’t know whether they are technically feedbacks because they are not physical responses to radiative forcing. Some are feedbacks in the sense that they are additional forcing as result of non-radiative responses to CO2 & other greenhouse gases (increased precipitation is the result of GHG forcing—it’s itself a negative feedback—& the resultant aerosol reduction is feedback to a that).
There’s probably a limit to how much these forcing can increase. Plants can only be so “unstressed”. Wildfire can only get so low & stay low so long. Moisture only reduces aerosols from land that’s dry.
I suspect a lot of the warming we’ve experienced may be due to increased biosphere growth.
This part 3 invites comment, but it is going to be way out beyond the scientific tether.
Quote “– some of the major climate changes that have occurred over the past 11,000 years. -“.
Fig 4 shows the effect of earth axial tilt. However the assumption is that this tilt has never varied much, such as to effect earth’s climate in a major way. This is a major error. Three major changes have occurred in the last 7000 years, the last in 2346bce. All are abrupt. The last from an earlier ~14 degree to ~25. Time in less than a day. Effect: cataclysmic.
Heat transport at 14 degree tilt means that temp gradient from tropical to polar is greater. The earlier change from ~20 to ~14 occurred about 3550bce, and coincides with the Sahara desiccation.
These changes have been abrupt. So the other invisible elephant is the trigger mechanism.
The evidence for such cataclysmic axis-inclination shifts is very weak and likely to respond to other explanations. It would cause a climate shift out of the scales and nothing like that is registered in the climate proxy records.
Tiny changes of 2° in the axis tilt are responsible for glaciations that cover large parts of the NH with mile-high ice sheets. No change larger than that has happened in the last million years, at least.
Javier:
The evidence for axial tilt shifts is being misinterpreted. I have collected an amount of data specifically for the 2346bce event (explaining also the dynamics – my project). However my first supporting clue came from the Temperature Anomaly curves for polar and equatorial. See link here, top figure (ex Wiki) : https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
No precise date then, but the abrupt temp change at about 2345bce is very evident. So was the earlier one in reverse at about 3550bce (your Nature Unbound IX post linked the dates to the Eddy cycle) [first dates obtained from tree-rings; pers corr; they were quite precise].
From 2346bce temperatures decreased/trended-down to about 500ce, again an Eddy inflection point/root. Post that date ????
Tiny changes of 2° in the axis tilt are responsible for glaciations that cover large parts of the NH with mile-high ice sheets.
Correlation is not causation. Every major glaciation was preceded by much warmer time with much more evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice on land. Ice ages were causes by ice on land. Ice core records show that more polar evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice occurred in warmest times when evaporation of polar oceans was even possible. And, Yes, energy transport from tropical oceans into polar regions does power the ice machines, ice builds and spreads and the spreading ice causes most of the cooling and it often does resonate with external forcing, like any dynamic, complicated system. Since ice ages and warm times do not always correlate with external solar and orbit factors, since the external solar and orbit factors have followed mostly the same patterns for millions of years while the internal climate evolved a huge amount, much of the internal response of climate was due to changes in internal response.
IR out that removes energy such that ocean water can become ice on land does most of the formation of the ice in warmest times. The cooling from that IR out happens many years later after the sequestered ice has spread and is thawing by reflecting and cooling.
Climate is not in static balance, climate is in longer term dynamic balance.
Climate theory says reducing IR out causes warming, if that were true, the times with least IR out would be warmest and the times with most IR out would be coldest.
IR out is very strongly a function of temperature to the fourth power. An honest plot of IR out and temperature actually shows much more IR out in warmest times and much least IR out in coldest times. That can only be possible if the ice that thaws in coldest times provides cooling that is equivalent to the IR out that formed the ice during warmest times.
You can never properly analyze a complicated system if you do not consider the dynamics of the major internal parts. Ice on land near the poles alternating with water in the oceans closer to the equator are major internal parts with mass and spring rates that have changed by huge amounts over millions of years. Areas of ocean evaporating and areas of ice thawing are spring rates, mass of water and ice are internal mass amounts that have changed. Sea ice is the control that turns polar ice machines on and off. Temperature that sea ice freezes and thaws is thermostat settings. Tropical currents thaw polar oceans and power evaporation and snowfall. Land ice pushed into the turbulent salt-water currents chill the currents to below freezing and form sea ice that turns off the ice machines until the land ice is depleted.
It takes a lot of solar energy to evaporate enough water to put enough ice on land to cause major ice sheets. That can only happen when polar oceans are warm enough. Ice ages are cold a long time because it takes a long time the thaw a lot of ice. Oceans did not rise as the greats ice sheets thinned because the most ice was around the Arctic, the Arctic was depressed and the melt water from the great ice sheets filled the Arctic with melt water. Warming out of major ice ages occurred quickly because the depleted ice sheets retreated quickly. Oceans rose quickly and in spurts because the melt-water was released from the Arctic Ocean in surges.
popesclimatetheory:
“Correlation is not causation.” Granted; but neither holds a hypothesis without proof.
A paper I came across some two decades ago said an obliquity of some 23 degrees prevents the onset of a glaciation. The reason is the polar caps get too much heat. (20 yrs ago obliquity change was on the hymn sheet; today it is only CO2).
Glaciation takes a long time, based on the last four glaciations, it takes 70+ kyrs. Two conditions are necessary for onset; a large transport of vapour from equatorial, and very cold poles hi-loss. That means low obliquity. In reverse melt is fast – at high obliquity- because heat energy at poles is direct. (plus the factor of incidence angle)
See link pls: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1957722401069222&set=pb.100063509740636.-2207520000
insolation curves at various tilt angles (from Ito & Hamano) superimposed on temp gradient for today and for Eocene (ex video). Today’s correlate; Eocene high tilt angle indicated.
Eocene 55 – 34 My> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-annual-mean-temperature-variation-of-the-Earth-through-time-last-400-million_fig1_332395869
Why interglacial onset is abrupt? Large heavy polar caps, under certain conditions, can make the ‘Z’ axis unstable. Onset of tilt change is fast. As said above, in 2346bce it was 14deg to 24-25; in less than a day.
melitamegalithic,
“Glaciation takes a long time, based on the last four glaciations, it takes 70+ kyrs. Two conditions are necessary for onset; a large transport of vapour from equatorial, and very cold poles hi-loss. That means low obliquity. In reverse melt is fast – at high obliquity- because heat energy at poles is direct. (plus the factor of incidence angle)”.
–
A large transport of vapor from equatorial results to warmer Polar areas.
Also the low obliquity results for Polar areas to higher annual average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos V
At low obliquity, inter-tropics receive/have a high temp. Night-time loss will be higher. Polar regions are then heat loss only areas.
See the first link in my above post the temp gradient at low obliquity – as worked by Ito/Hamano.
You can deal with the matter from another angle. A vertical rotating heat exchanger axially perpendicular to energy flow has the best heat transfer (to space for the earth). As the axis is tilted transfer is reduced. See Venus for that – a stalled heat exchanger. Thermal residence time increases, temp will rise until it reaches balance input/output.
melitamegalithic,
“At low obliquity, inter-tropics receive/have a high temp. Night-time loss will be higher. Polar regions are then heat loss only areas.”
I think you are right.
Because at low obliquity the surface temperatures will be more differentiated. As a result the average surface temperature lessens.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Obliquity of the Earth
One of the parameters Milanković
https://astronoo.com/en/articles/obliquity-earth.html#:~:text=The%20axial%20tilt%20or%20obliquity%20is%20the%20angle,per%20year%20or%20%E2%89%881%20degree%20every%207800%20years.
The slow change in direction of the axis of rotation of the Earth is called the precession of the equinoxes.
The axial tilt or obliquity is the angle between the axis of rotation of the Earth and its orbital plane, it remains confined between 21.8° and 24.4°. Currently, it is 23°26’14” but the axis is recovering about 0.46″ per year or ≈1 degree every 7800 years.
Moreover, this axis oscillates around a cone, the full cycle (360°) lasts 25,765 years.
This angle (≈23°26′) made the changing seasons. Indeed, in summer, the sun is higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere.
At the equator the length of day and night does not vary (although the Sun’s position in the sky varies). At the poles, day and night lasts six months each.
The obliquity characterizes therefore the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the ecliptic varying between 21.8° and 24.4°.
small variations in the obliquity have broad implications for the sunshine at latitude 65°, which is considered the most reliable criterion of melting ice sheets.
The combination of these two effects produces an oscillation of the Earth’s obliquity, very limited, about 1.3° around a mean value close to 23.5°.
The combined period of these oscillations is about 41 000 years. The obliquity has a great importance on high latitudes because it is the cause of the seasons, if the obliquity were zero, there would be no seasons, and thus little variation in temperature. It is a parameter or Milanković Milanković cycles corresponding to three astronomical phenomena affecting the Earth’s eccentricity, obliquity and precession.
They are used in the context of the astronomical theory of paleoclimatology. They are partly responsible for natural climate changes that have major consequence, the glacial and interglacial periods.”
(Emphasis added)
Christos V’
Milankovitch based his theory on the earlier study of JN Stockwell. The study is based on the secular changes. Apparently the abrupt/step changes were unknown to the science world (but not to the ancients, vide the Phaethon myth from Plato).
Minor changes do have ” broad implications”. Not more than 2yrs ago evidence was found to confirm abrupt changes, and their broad implications. See link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
As per link 173CE (an Eddy cycle peak) luckily the Chinese recorded an obliquity disturbance (I had learned to look for tell-tales in any sediment record/data, and this one did not disappoint. The ~2345bce link was an extra bonus). As per evidence in link, the idea that earth is stable is a cult figment.
To add a rant: less than an hour ago I watched a programme on Italian TV – subject Math through the ages-, where the speaker complained academia also no longer instructs on learning the basics/derivations but only the application. In my ‘limited’ experience that is when things start to go very wrong. Relying on Stockwell/Milankovitch is an example – imo.
Thank you, melitamegalithic.
“The measurements were made by the Chinese Liu Hung and Tshai Yung. Two measurements were made in the same year, a high reached by a steep climb and dropping back faster. Repeated measurements five years later found additional drop. It has been noticed that the Earth could be affected by certain planetary alignments. This possibility was also indicated variously in ancient texts, though subject to interpretation.”
(emphasis added)
Those abrupt changes do not last long enough to cause a new glacial or a new interglacial period.
“the speaker complained academia also no longer instructs on learning the basics/derivations but only the application. In my ‘limited’ experience that is when things start to go very wrong. Relying on Stockwell/Milankovitch is an example – imo.”
(emphasis added)
They rely on Stockwell/Milankovitch, and it is very much wrong.
Christos V
“Those abrupt changes do not last long enough to cause a new glacial or a new interglacial period.”
The abrupt change in 2345bce was from ~14deg to ~24-25.
It has lasted for the past 4370 years, definitely so since 1100bce when the first measurements were made.
About 2345bce I have enough data. From measurements it was ~14deg from 3550bce; earlier ~20deg from 4375bce, and before again near 14deg. It was all so questionable up to a year ago, but since 2345bce has been very well confirmed then the likelihood is the others are correct also. The proxies said so all along.
melita,
There is evidence for this effect, with the options to study its science or to ignore it. The Establishment has so far chosen ignore.
This is a mistake. It is in the same bracket as ignoring the probable effect of changes in ocean basin shape affecting rate of sea level change. Until such little-mentioned effects are properly studied, climate change deduction have to be given large uncertainty estimates. Geoff S
sherro01,
There is plenty of evidence especially in sediment proxies. In spite of the glaring evidence of abrupt change in sediment layers, the demanded questioning of ‘why so’ remains missing. In fact this matter is evident for ~5200bce and ~3200bce. In both these dates there is evident also great geological change especially at continental plate boundaries, namely tectonic micro-plate rotations. In the Mediterranean region this is evident both as plate rotation and as surface land breakup. In both of these instances the events can be read from man-made structures. But not limited to the Med; early info provided pointed to same in the northern countries.
Both dates are Eddy inflection points, the last date linked to widespread civilisation collapse (and none in the past had the technological susceptibility to such events as today)..
melitamegalithic,
“The abrupt change in 2345bce was from ~14deg to ~24-25.”
It is a very big change to happen in short period of time. A change of that magnitude would take to occure some hundreds thousands years.
Could the planets’ aligment to cause such a catastroph?
Christos V,
The answer is yes.
The Maltese civilisation that built the megalithic calendars can be traced through proxies from pre 5200bce to post 2200bce. In that period there appears to have been four obliquity changes. There is no break from one phase to another. It is abrupt.
The catastrophe is evident from man-made tell-tales (however archaeology stays clear of such, for which it has no answer. Today it bugs me to see such and no one asks why so, -silence-. It is ok to see such in science fiction films but not the real thing. A culturally inherited fear?). See link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/beyond-the-heretic-reality/
Such as in link begins to make sense when seen through the earth tilt shifts. From other material the date for the event in the link is 5200bce. (the stock answer from academia is ‘more than 5 million years ago’).
Catastrophes are great and of short duration. Listen to Plato (on Atlantis: ‘in a day and a night; due to a declination of the heavens’).
Thank you, melitamegalithic.
The abrupt inclination of Earth’s axis due to planets’ aligment is very possible, I am not a specialist though.
But, should’t that appear as a some short-term event?
Because the planets’ aligment is a short term orbital event.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos V,
Yes, a short term event, less than a day.
It is a long story; I am presently collating all the details with past examples of how the planets interfere.
However the moon is a critical factor, something we tend to ignore. And it orbits around the earth even faster. But again it is a combination of things.
Some reading material (abstract enough for an idea of planetary disturbance)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/771/1/012001/pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06604
Note second link, the figure 5.9 in the paper, others have linked to half Jupiter orbital period.
Enjoy :)
melitamegalithic, it is an interesting subject.
I am reading the references you provided.
Thank you.
Christos/melitamegalithic,
Alignment of the major planets isn’t that common. This calendar of planet alignment periods may interest you, the gravitational confluence of the largest planets will occur several times over the next 13 months::
Dates when the 4 largest planets align to have the greatest effect on the Sun (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune):
Earlier this month, June 3, 2024: saw a large morning alignment of Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
August 28, 2024: a large morning alignment of Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
January 18, 2025: a large morning alignment of Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, and Saturn.
February 28, 2025: a full evening alignment of Saturn, Mercury, Neptune, Venus, Uranus, Jupiter, and Mars.
August 29, 2025: a large morning alignment of Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, and Saturn.
On September 8, 2040, five naked-eye planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) will align in the sky.
On March 15, 2080, six planets – Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Uranus – will be visible in the morning sky.
This alignment is especially remarkable because it will feature the “great conjunction” of Saturn and Jupiter, which will be only six arcminutes apart.
On May 19, 2161, all Solar System planets, including the Earth, will gather on one side of the Sun.
On November 7, 2176, all Solar System planets, including the Earth, will gather on one side of the Sun.
On May 6, 2492, all Solar System planets, including the Earth, will gather on one side of the Sun.
Jungletrunks,
I would love to see the May 6, 2492 planetary alignment,,,, if there were no such great undesirable strings attached. :)
However the name of the game is “Gravity”. The effect on earth of some other body is proportional to the mass of the other body and inversely proportional to the square of the distance ( x.m/.d2 ). So besides the sun, the order of merit is moon, jupiter, venus. saturn is a distant fourth.)
But there are other factors too, collateral. Change the gravity (scalar part) and mass of crust weigh less; mass of water also – tide rise-; mass of air also – pressure. In first case see Feb 5th 2023 planets + moon position (crust effect).
For air check 28Sep2022 moon and planet alignment.
wiki: “Its central pressure continued to fall to a minimum of 947 mbar (27.96 inHg) before temporarily rising to 952 mbar (28.11 inHg) by 02:00 UTC” as the site faced Jupiter at midnight. Converting potential to kinetic.
There is then the directional part of the ‘gravity vector’. We walk upright with the help of a very sensitive g vector finder in inner ear – acting together with sight. Change g-vec direction (vertigo) and accidents happen; and strange visions -tilted earth (Enoch: “the earth became tilted and its destruction was near”).
“I would love to see the May 6, 2492 planetary alignment,,,, if there were no such great undesirable strings attached. :)”
Ha; details, details.
An important implication from major planet alignment is the confluence of gravity as a cyclical driver of solar inertial motion.
Jungletrunks,
“Who wants to live for ever”, or that long. So many funerals to attend; of descendants no less.
On a more serious tone, gravity is a cyclical group of forces working with and against each other. [However I balk at the idea of ‘solar inertial motion’. As I see it is a technical construct of value, but no real motion. — interesting but way off the subject]
melitamegalithicme,
Solar inertial motion data was used for the discovery of Neptune, the Suns “wobble” is real.
The Discovery of Neptune Revisited https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.06310
Select excerpts:
“We now turn our attention to the problem of the irregularities the orbit of Uranus around the Sun (the primary mass, with M⋆ = M⊙) suffers as a result of its gravitational interaction with Neptune, following the numerical approach outlined in the previous section.”
“In each plot we note overall periodic oscillations due to the relative position between Uranus and each corresponding giant planet which depend on their orbital parameters, as well as annual oscillations due to the motion of the geocenter around the Sun, as happens with the parallactic ellipse of distant sources. As expected, the perturbations by Jupiter are the most noticeable ones, followed by those due to Saturn and finally by Neptune. As time goes by, both configurations in each pair of simulations diverge from each other, resulting in an increasing amplitude of the overall oscillations.”
“Nowadays, we know that the Solar System is much more intrinsically complex than astronomers perceived it to be until the 20th and 21th centuries. Accordingly, the description of many subtle effects in observational data from modern missions requires highly sophisticated models, some of which involve, for instance, general relativistic corrections, as was pointed out in the text, as well as highly refined statistical methods. Interestingly, it remains one of the most intriguing modern unknowns in Astronomy to explain the alleged irregularities in some trans-Neptunian objects which, as pointed out in Section 1, suggest among other hypotheses the existence of a 9th planet in our Solar System, more than 150 years after the discovery of Neptune.”
The science of solar inertial motion is evolving quickly, the following paper was published only in 2018.
Solar barycentric dynamics from a new solar-planetary ephemeris https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2018/07/aa32349-17.pdf
“The barycentric dynamics of the Sun has increasingly been attracting the attention of researchers from several fields, due to the idea that interactions between the Sun’s orbital motion and solar internal functioning could be possible. Existing high-precision ephemerides that have been used for that purpose do not include the effects of trans-Neptunian bodies, which cause a significant offset in the definition of the solar system’s barycentre. In addition, the majority of the dynamical parameters of the solar barycentric orbit are not routinely calculated according to these ephemerides or are not publicly available.”
The before paper was the impetus for me posting the major planet alignment calendar. New work dealing with barycentre dynamics is starting to filter into the published world, Dr. Zharkova’s science being one. With so many occurrences of major planet alignment occurring near-term, within the year (and even earlier this month), it seems a worthy subject to explore; actually I think it’s important science to better understand.
Solar barycentric dynamics seems like the type of asymmetrical science that could fit within Javiers theory except for the fact that the science argues a direct correlation between the Sun and surface temperatures—but it doesn’t use conventional arguments. It’s possible that solar inertial motion is obliquely warming Earth’s climate today, also the recent past; the causation is large planet alignment relative to solar inertial motion. Certain scientists believe solar inertial motion explains all the recent warming, and that it will continue until 2600; not straight-line warming, minima will intercede the timeline.
Jungletrunks,
From your quotes: “annual oscillations due to the motion of the geocenter around the Sun”.
That is more like my thinking. The geocentre -or barycentre-, moves depending on the planets positions. Planets -at any instant- orbit the barycentre, the instantaneous centre of mass. The latter is a mass-less point, a technical construct.
Planets are effected by nearby great masses such as Jupiter, which effects their movement when very near. But not the sun due to its extreme mass -and thus inertia- by comparison.
See link, in conclusion: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab5365/pdf
“the solar system, with some stable solar system variants featuring oscillations in Earth’s orbital inclination that approached, or even exceeded, ten degrees.”
Take an instant when all planets congregate on one side of the sun. The sun is then away from barycentre in opposite direction, when in effect it is being pulled by the combined gravity of the planets toward them. It contradicts Newton’s law. When in effect it is the ‘calculated’ barycentre point that has moved its position.
It is complex as your pieces say; and using barycentre helps determine orbits, eg for earth, better, especially when putting some mass (satellite) in orbit. The Allais effect papers did mention anomalies in satellite flights.
melitamegalithic: “The geocentre -or barycentre-, moves depending on the planets positions. Planets -at any instant- orbit the barycentre, the instantaneous centre of mass. The latter is a mass-less point, a technical construct.”
I agree that the barycentre is a massless point, though it’s what the solar systems mass orbits—”except” for the Sun. The Sun’s inertial motion (SIM) wobbles around the barycentre, which is constantly shifting because of the variable speeds and positions of planetary orbits. My understanding is that the most eccentric solar wobble can place it up to 3 solar radii from the barycentre. An alignment of the larger planets facilitates more eccentricity in the SIM, it places the Earth’s elliptical orbit slightly closer to the sun at times, by a certain solar radius amount. The Earth and other planets are orbiting the solar systems barycentre, not the Sun, which wobbles in its SIM.
“None of the evidence for the Sun’s effect on climate we reviewed is included in the IPCC reports. ”
That is manifestly untrue., and your references are selective in the extreme.
More accurately, sun induced effects on the climate were dismissed by the IPCC. The IPCC’s motives are unclear.
No, more accurately, the IPCC studied the literature on solar induced effects, and found them to be small.
IPCC ARG WG1 section 2.2.1.
It is difficult to get an organization to find something when its budget depends on not finding it.
The conclusions you draw from the IPPC remain very much subject to scientific debate. Even the IPPC acknowledges the confidence levels for solar effect is moderate to very low to no confidence.
Recent estimates of TSI and spectral solar irradiance (SSI) for the past millennium are based upon updated irradiance models (e.g., Egorova et al., 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018) and employ updated and revised direct sunspot observations over the last three centuries (Clette et al., 2014; Chatzistergos et al., 2017) as well as records of sunspot numbers reconstructed from cosmogenic isotope data prior to this (Usoskin et al., 2016). These reconstructed TSI time series (Figure 2.2a) feature little variation in TSI averaged over the past millennium. The TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7–2.7 W m–2 (Jungclaus et al., 2017; Egorova et al., 2018; Lean, 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018; Lockwood and Ball, 2020; Yeo et al., 2020). This TSI increase implies a change in ERF of 0.09–0.35 W m–2 (Section 7.3.4.4).
JTNCS,
Yep, like I implied, IPCC’s assessment of the available literature shows that TSI ERF is, at maximum, 1/10 the ERF of anthropogenic GHGs. And, the GHG ERF continues to grow, while TSI ERF is expected to remain low. See also:
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?”
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017013
It takes a special kind of reasoning by the IPCC to say this in 2.2.1
“ A new reconstruction of solar irradiance extends back 9 kyr based upon updated cosmogenic isotope datasets and improved models for production and deposition of cosmogenic nuclides (Poluianov et al., 2016), and shows that solar activity during the second half of the 20th century was in the upper decile of the range”
and then in same section say this
“ To conclude, solar activity since the late 19th century was relatively high but not exceptional in the context of the past 9 kyr (high confidence).”
Being in the top 10% of anything over 9,000 years ought to qualify for exceptional, unless of course we are looking for a new language.
Or the same kind of reasoning that shows the largest melt rate in Antarctica sitting on top of the greatest level of geothermal activity on the continent but not finding it worthy to even mention it in IPCC6. Naw…just a pay no never mind.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz5845#F3
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/4456b766-f316-405b-b550-343c91aea98b/ggge22402-fig-0001-m.jpg
Kid, It also depends a lot on the range that the decile is applied to. See, figure 2.2(b). The situation is just as they describe.
KId: “It takes a special kind of reasoning by the IPCC to say this in 2.2.1 …”
If anyone believes Kid’s take on things, I’d recommend reading the relevant section (IPCC AR6, WG1, 2.21) for oneself (it is not long) Note figures 2.2 (a),(b).
ganon
I’ve quoted the relevant section. It’s in the top 10% of solar activity of 9,000 years. Nice try at deflection. Grasping at straws are a losing strategy.
But I like my maps of Antarctica even more. The IPCC loses all credibility when it ignores an obvious relationship between geothermal activity and melting rates. Will they right the ship and at least cite dozens of studies identifying geothermal as an integral component of the WAIS dynamics.
The IPCC will continue to wrongly blame Antarctic melting on higher levels of CO2.
Kid,
No, you pre-selected clips from the relevant selection. I simply referred folks to read the whole section and form their own opinion. Once the C-P clips are seen in context, the conflict you insinuate, doesn’t exist.
“That is manifestly untrue.”
Then it won’t be difficult for you to say the pages where the IPCC mentions:
– The known coincidence of grand solar minima of the past with major abrupt climate events.
– The decadal cycle in tropical ocean temperature synchronized with the solar cycle.
– The effect of the solar cycle on ENSO.
– The effect of the solar cycle on Earth’s rotation rate.
– The effect of the solar cycle on planetary wave amplitude.
“your references are selective in the extreme.”
The same can be said of the IPCC regarding solar effects on climate. But I am not writing a review, I am writing a blog post.
“The decadal cycle in tropical ocean temperature synchronized with the solar cycle.”
IT ISN’T, that’s why.
You selectively look at 1970 onwards, neatly avoiding noticing the earlier anti-phase relationship and ignore the progressive phase shift in the data you do show.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sst-vs-ace_n_atl_2017.png
Look at 1880-1915 : 55y/6 cycles ; 9.1y
Look at 1975-2015 : 40y/5 cycles ; circa 8y
That is way shorter than any solar cycle. May be lunar.
Some are now saying bombogenesis instead of polar vortex because… it sounds cooler!
If we had the mathematics to model the physical mechanisms and the product of their synchronizations and the effects of the swirling vortices in the oceans and atmosphere, it would take more energy to run the computers than AI will require.
First, a summary of what climate feedbacks are, by definition: In response to a surface temperature change, other changes in the climate system (clouds, etc.) can either magnify (positive feedback) or reduce (negative feedback) the original temperature change. The single largest feedback is negative: the increase in infrared energy lost to space as temperature increases. This so-called “Planck effect” is what stabilizes the climate system against runaway change. ~Dr. Roy Spencer
The warm AMO phase increases lower-mid troposphere water vapour, and reduces low cloud cover, so the globe has gained and not lost energy since the post 1995 increase in poleward heat transport.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/meantemp_0-2000m.png
Negative North Atlantic Oscillation regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2012 drove the AMO warming, due to a general weakening of the solar wind. Though heatwaves like 2003 need stronger solar wind states to occur, not less UV. And not decided by the solar cycle, but by the gas giants.
The greatest solar forcing of climate variability is through the discrete solar forcing of heat and cold waves, at weekly scales.
The Discrete Solar Forcing Of Major Heat And Cold Waves.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
The Soon et al. 2023 graph is very problematic. The late 1800’s were warmer than the early 1900’s, because it was a centennial solar minimum, so the AMO had to be warmer.
Then there is the post 1995 divergence problem, lower solar but rising temperatures.
The critical issue is associating lower sunspot numbers in the 1970’s with a colder AMO, while the AMO is obviously warmer during the centennial solar minima.
Clearly the AMO varies inversely to changes in solar forcing during centennial solar minima. While the coldest AMO anomalies in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, are tightly correlated to the strongest solar wind periods of the space age observations.
Clouds not considered …
Using a state-of-the-art simulation of the heliosphere, we show that during the passage, the heliosphere shrinks to a scale of 0.22 au, smaller than the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. This would have put the Earth in direct contact with the dense interstellar medium for a period of time and exposed it to a neutral hydrogen density above 3,000 cm−3. Such a scenario agrees with geological evidence from 60Fe and 244Pu isotopes. The encounter and related increased radiation from Galactic cosmic rays might have had a substantial impact on the Earth’s system and climate.
…
Some argue that such high densities would deplete the ozone in the mid-atmosphere (50–100 km) and eventually cool the Earth43,44. This work should be revisited with modern atmospheric modelling. This cooling is aligned with what is seen for oxygen isotopes measured in the microscopic skeletons of foraminifera on the sea floor45
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02279-8
Interesting but highly speculative and without supporting evidence. Everything in that paper is “if…” and based on models about things we know very little.
Agreed. But it adds another known unknown to the climatology bucket.
Interesting but that was 2-3 Myrs ago.
Pingback: How we know the sun changes the climate. III: Theories - Climate- Science.press
What an extremely well presented article. That was truly fascinating.
One thing: “The seasonal variation in heat transport is very important. Because of the tilt of the planet’s axis, much more heat is transported in the winter than in the summer.”
By that you mean in a NH winter? Or both hemispheres? By the end of the article it seems clearly that the solar effect is more pronounced in the NH so I am presuming that line to mean seasonal variation in the NH as opposed to the SH where the effect is weaker.
Can you quantify the difference between the hemispheres? Is the reason for the difference due to the land mass of Antarctic acting as physical barrier to both ocean and atmospheric heat transport?
Thank you again for such a clear, well presented, well argued article. I was especially impressed that it isn’t claiming to be the only explanation, and that the mechanism can have multiple factors driving it, as well as other theories of solar influence not being discounted. It’s beautifully and realistically messy.
Transport is more intense during winter in each hemisphere because the insolation and temperature latitudinal gradients become a lot steeper, driving stronger winds and more heat transport.
The reason why the NH is more sensitive to solar-induced climate change is that 70% of land and most high mountain ranges are in the NH, so a lot more planetary waves are generated, driving a weaker more susceptible polar vortex.
There’s about 10 times more sudden stratospheric warming events in the NH polar vortex than in the SH one.
Ignoring the polar vortex gatekeeper aspect for a second, there’s also much, much more heat transport because of the arctic ocean. And when there is increased solar absorption in the oceans, thinning sea ice also lets more heat out.
I was surprised to discover that ocean heat transport only dominates transport in the tropical oceans and its importance decreases with the distance to the equator so in high latitudes atmospheric heat transport is responsible for the bulk of transport. But this was already known in the 1980s and well supported by the evidence.
The atmosphere is the primary heat mover in the planet, due in great part to latent heat, so most heat transport takes place over ocean basins that provide humidity.
“I was especially impressed that it isn’t claiming to be the only explanation, and that the mechanism can have multiple factors driving it, as well as other theories of solar influence not being discounted. It’s beautifully and realistically messy.”
Javier, my earlier comment got stuck, but agnostic says it much better than I did. You’ve presented a very impressive theory that deserves serious consideration in science. I also hope your theory serves to bend the “climate industries” faith based CAGW narrative—if they want science, here it is, or do they wish to become the irony of their own making, science deniers?
I’m almost certain now that the dynamic coupling between the stratosphere and the lower troposphere triggered by variations in stratospheric ozone feeding into the jet streams and the propagation of planetary waves explains most, if not all of climate change over decadal/multidecadal scales. This implicates the sun and solar UV variability, especially during Grand Solar Minima, when solar UV drops dramatically for long periods. It also implicates other causes of stratospheric ozone variability. Phenomena such as submarine volcanos which inject huge amounts of ozone depleting water vapour high into the stratosphere. The GHG radiative theory obsessives may be correct in their assertions that the direct radiative forcing of this water vapour can only account for a small rise in global temperature, but they are completely ignoring indirect dynamical processes which might also affect global heat distribution and hence average global temperature.
I’ve flagged this in comments on The Australian website as a “must read”, and have submitted a portion to Letters to the Editor.
Also posted at The Times in a climate article.
Javier
Another excellent presentation. And one that elaborates and explains even more beyond those pieces that I have read previously about your theory.
“… because we humans think linearly.”
We also like our science simple. Which this is not. The reality of our climate is that it’s extremely complex.
The IPCC, on the other hand is about marketing, theatrics and promotion. Simple fits right into their strategy. Complexity of the climate does not.
Thanks again for the wonderful read.
A Green Unicorn splats against the windshield of the Reality Bus.
Umicore SA, a major supplier to Volkswagen AG, replaced its chief executive and will reassess spending plans for its battery materials business due to the industrywide slowdown in electric vehicle demand. …
The company has yet to deliver on any of its battery materials business objectives, so the announcement “suggests a negative read-through” for operating results.
Umicore shares plunged as much as 11%, their steepest intraday drop since June 2022. The stock traded down 5.9% as of 11 a.m. in Brussels, where the company is headquartered.
Umicore cited
slower demand growth for EV battery materials as the reason it’s initiating a review of the business. The company will share initial findings when it releases earnings results for the first half of the year on July 26.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-16/vw-battery-partner-replaces-ceo-and-reviews-spending-on-business
Another spear into the Green Beast …
Vitor Abreu is a geologist
…
The head of a 14-person consultancy — headquartered in his suburban Houston home — had discovered what could become one of the world’s biggest oil and gas deposits off the coast of South Korea, spurring hopes of an energy windfall even as skeptics raised questions. His firm found a prospective area, which still required full-fledged drilling to prove its size and viability.
Announced by President Yoon Suk Yeol in a televised speech, the potential find has gripped a nation struggling with costly fuel imports, underscoring the extent to which energy security has become a priority globally, even if it means tapping fossil fuels that might set back climate goals for decades.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-12/major-oil-find-by-tiny-geology-firm-spurs-hopes-doubt-in-south-korea
You should check out Brett Christophers new book “The Price is Wrong” subtitle: “Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet”.
Bottom line is there is no bottom line without government $$ despite the price of solar dropping by 85% since 2008.
His solution, Nationalize the grid and turn the power sector over to Co-Ops and state-owned utilities.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/are-markets-the-right-tool-for-decarbonizing
The article acknowledges that electric generation from renewables are not really less expensive than the costs of electric generation from fossil fuels. So the proposed answer is a version of forced soviet style central planning. Tell us where that has worked efficiently.
So Brett Christopher is a Socialist? I would say the solution is to let each regional grid manage its own affairs. There is already enough regulation and giving the Fed more authority will just muck it up more than it already is mucked.
You are lucky you have nat gas plants in Texas, Jack!
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO/GenerationByEnergySource-14/edit
joe,
I don’t know the answer, but I am wondering why one of the largest electric power companies in America (Vistra Corp. VST) has a Price/Earnings ratio north of 54. That’s Fifty Four times earnings for a company that just a little over 3 years ago killed dozens of people and cost trillions in damages from winter storm Uri. In fact, they even threatened bankruptcy right after Uri and the PUC responded by leveling a .055 KWh delivery charge on all customers for 10 years and later completely absolved Vistra from having to pay billions owed from the $9,000 KWh prices ERCOT forced them to pay for several days during Uri.
I would love a free market but this isn’t it.
Nice propaganda, Jack! The power companies didn’t kill people, the weather killed them. Who knows the details of each death? Not you. Some may have died walking or in their cars. No technology is perfect and none can be made to withstand any outlying condition, like that bitter cold snap in Texas. What is it with Lefty’s that they have to twist the truth like you just did? Lies, damned lies, and leftys.
DALLAS, April 03, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-rules-winter-storm-154000782.html
“a December 2023 ruling by the 1st Court of Appeals, which dismissed wrongful death, personal injury and property damage claims against wholesale power generators, such as Luminant, NRG, Exelon and Sempra Energy Resources. In 2023, the Texas Supreme Court found that ERCOT, the nonprofit corporation operating the state’s electrical grid, qualified for sovereign immunity from litigation.”
Your vision of a free market sucks.
The current electricity market isn’t a free market by any means. It is highly regulated. So much so, that the same immunity that the government enjoys is bestowed upon the electricity companies.
Javier Vinós, your hypothesis is brilliant, which explains the dynamic processes in both the troposphere and stratosphere and thus also the connection between solar activity and climate change. Your hypothesis will clearly fundamentally change the climate debate.
Javier:
I think that you will agree that cloud formation requires moisture nucleation sites, of which the low-sulfur maritime fuel result is a prime example. With regular fuel, there was a trail of clouds behind the ships, but with low-sulfur fuel, the trail of clouds essentially disappeared (fewer SO2 aerosol nucleation sites).
These is no necessity for the SO2 aerosols to be human-caused.
Whenever there is a a VEI4 or larger volcanic, eruption, their sulfurous emissions into the stratosphere are converted into SO2 aerosols, and when they settle out, as for Hunga-Tonga, the air usually clears enough to cause an El Nino.
Neither volcanoes nor SO₂ emissions are important for long-term climate determination. They have a short-term effect.
They do have a short-term effect, but if there is a persistent source, such a coal burning or use of high sulfur fuel, then the effect will likewise be persistent.
Thanks, Javier. Well written, clear.
Javier, Thanks for sharing your ideas.
I’ve found that most of the papers I’ve read on the topic of linking solar activity to global temperature ignore the earth’s long-term response, as was done in your first figure. The earth has an integrator-like response due to the heat capacity of the oceans and ice-caps. Plots like Soon’s are about as useful as plotting vehicle speed vs accelerator pedal position.
The integral-like response for periods longer than 11 years is also important in understanding that the earth’s response to changes in solar activity (TSI or magnetic) is 10 times more sensitive for periods of 100 years than it is for changes over periods of 10 years. This is why we can’t use TSI reconstructions, there’s too much baseline uncertainty when combining data from different satellites, or proxies.
In this graphic, which I haven’t publicly shared before, I show the coherent frequency-response calculation between global temperature and sunspot data. The red traces are temperature/sunspot. The blue trace is my model predictions/sunspot (model from my github page). The 20dB/decade line is the frequency response of a perfect integrator.
https://localartist.org/media/TempSunspotFRF.png
For periods longer than 11 years, the earth acts like an integrator, For periods shorter than 11 years, weather is busy compensating for the uneven distribution of energy. For periods associated with the sunspot cycle, the earth’s response is quite low and coherence drops. This is where it’s important to remember that sunspots are a proxy for solar activity, not solar activity. It’s also possible that the earth is cancelling the small changes in TSI through the troposphere interactions you describe, or through some other resonant mechanism.
Rob cutler – Agree with your comment and the issue of the long term effect of solar output and long term climate. The IPPC and most of the “scientists” & activists show a bias to the belief that changes in solar output manifest in climate change within a very short period (within 5-20 years maybe ) where as its more likely to be 30-70 years due to the inertia of ocean heat content accumulation.
When I further shorten the analysis length to allow more averaging, I find that the sun does affect weather, primarily with periods of 6.5, 2.5 and possibly 1.75 years.
Hi Robert,
As I have said to you previously, what you say does make sense. This is independent of the way the climate system responds to the sun. It is clear that the energy received by the climate system and transformed into heat follows multiple paths with very different time periods before exiting as IR radiation. And at any time all that is integrated into an input and an output that depends as much on the solar input as in what is happening within the climate system.
The time periods you detect of 6.5, 2.5 and 1.75 years are likely to correspond to ENSO and the QBO. At least, the frequencies look similar.
While I’ve wondered if there is a sensitivity to the 22-year Hale cycle, which would be magnetic, there may be another explanation which better fits the marker shown in my plots.
From a recent paper by Stefani et al:
“… which follows from the rosette-shaped, 19.86-year periodic motion of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-024-02295-x
The 22-year cycle is clearly visible in some climate proxies, like tree-ring width, but this does not mean that it comes from the Hale cycle. There is no evidence that the climate system responds to changes in polarity in the solar magnetic field. I consider it more probable that if it has a solar origin it might be due to a tendency for solar cycles to come in pairs of similar amplitude, as it is happening now with SC24 and 25, or before with SC21 and 22.
Alternative explanations should always be considered, and rated in terms of evidence support.
“It also explains a significant part of the 20th century warming. The 70 years of grand solar maximum in that century caused the planet to increase its energy and warm up.”
The primary sun-climate mechanism, the accumulation of absorbed solar radiation by the ocean, was not even mentioned in this self-aggrandizing article, nor was there presented even one single calculation or science experiment result to confirm any of the many claims made herein, including the last one quoted above. It’s pure unadulterated hand-waving.
This vacuous theory should be renamed “the winter wind blows” theory of climate change. The arctic polar vortex changing from solar UV was not responsible for the arctic temperature increasing in the late 21st century, no, it was from the warmer ocean circulating, something scientists have long known about before Javier decided to shine up the word “transport” and make it the responsible agent.
There was not one calculation, so it’s pseudoscience.
When you said the words, “It explains…” – it doesn’t explain it.
Javier Vinos’ Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis is pseudoscience.
“the accumulation of absorbed solar radiation by the ocean, was not even mentioned”
That’s part of the first theory: the direct linear effect of total solar irradiation on the climate system.
You simply ignore the problem of the small amount of energy in relative terms (0.1%) that solar variations display.
Soon et al. try to explain it with a high variability reconstruction. Whether it is correct or not, I can’t say. You simply ignore the problem, so everybody ignores your hypothesis.
@ Javier, you really aren’t very bright, clever, yes, but not smart.
If you were smart you’d already know the important defining differences between the Soon etal work and mine, but you don’t.
I’m not going to give you all the differences today, but rest assured everyone, Willie Soon’s work and mine are not very similar at all, not comparable, even though we both use TSI.
His problems were his choice of TSI dataset and his view of the solar influence as completely direct with no significant lag.
Willie Soon has not learned the hard lessons, neither have you.
Bob Weber,
Please avoid being personally unpleasant to others. It helps not and turns people off reading your words. Geoff S
“You simply ignore the problem of the small amount of energy in relative terms (0.1%) that solar variations display.”
No, I don’t, and I never ignored any such problem, ever. It was I who developed systems to understand this issue, not you.
You are gaslighting me and everyone else for saying so, as I solved the climate issue more than two years ago and you are aware that I have shown you multiple times here and at WUWT.
Climate change is a function of long-term TSI differences and their integration into the climate, the thing you have ignored.
https://i.postimg.cc/769RYf0b/S-B-Equation-and-Sun-Climate.png
Javier told me before at this very website that anyone (referring to me) that claims to know how the climate changes was lying and they knew they were lying. Talk about being unpleasant sherro!!
Why didn’t someone step in and say something to Javier for that?
So if anyone thinks Javier has actually solved the climate change problem without TSI or thinks that I didn’t solve it with TSI please show your calculations.
Bob Weber, you and I have come up with similar solutions, but there are a couple of reasons my model produces more accurate results, and from your choice of parameters and the things you’ve written, I’m not sure you fully understand how your model works.
Integrating solar activity, while necessary for modeling the earth’s response, isn’t even the model’s primary function. One of these days I’ll finish writing the paper that explains everything. For now I’ll just say that sunspots are a proxy for solar activity, not a scaled version of solar activity.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
Robert, I think it’s funny you should think I don’t know how my own model works, and as you didn’t provide a specific reason why, I must assume you don’t understand something about it.
It also makes it hard for me to help you better understand it, and I’ve also not shown everyone everything on blog posts.
I’ve seen your work on github months ago, and looked at your system and realized you do an advanced form of sunspot curve-fitting to a temperature time-series with a high R^2.
I don’t remember the exact details of your work right now, so I’m not sure if I might have missed something important, but
you are right that sunspots are only a proxy for solar activity.
There needs to be an applied working understanding of the sunspot-TSI relationship and the TSI mechanism re the earth’s temperature, which happens to be the vital part of my work.
The TSI integration is necessary as the ocean stores solar energy changes for over a hundred years, there must be a way to express the impact of solar variation over that storage time.
That is what my application of the S-B equation is all about; it works perfectly well using the standard value for albedo.
Keep up your good work and thanx for your input.
“One of these days I’ll finish writing the paper that explains everything.” – Hey that’s my line!
There’s no advanced curve fitting, the biggest difference is the length of the moving average. The length was critical, which was a red flag for me. Understanding why length was critical was necessary to rule out the result being a spurious correlation. Understanding why also helped me better understand how solar activity is encoded in the sunspot data, and when the model will work, and when it wont.
I have left a partial clue as to the solar activity encoding in this posting (and the first reply).
https://judithcurry.com/2024/06/11/how-we-know-the-sun-changes-the-climate-iii-theories/#comment-1006930
I was surprised no one responded to those plots.
@Robert, yes the length of time is important. I arrived at 109 years (+ an 11 year lag) for the sunspot relationship with the 30-year running average of HadSST3, which is seen in the bottom half of my S-B infographic, for an R^2 of 0.95. This correlation relationship was then tested using the S-B eqn with a SN-TSI model to get a confirming ‘physical’ result.
Your time period is very close to mine, so I think we are talking about the exact same mechanism expressed differently, but my model is ‘physical’ as it is an upgrade from the dimensionless lagged correlation with sunspots/SST to TSI (W/m^2) and SST.
This is all anyone needs to know today to understand that the current CO2 radiative forcing regime is flat out unnecessary, as well as many other alternative solar theories like Javier’s.
Bob Weber, in the process of understanding why my model worked I found that I could separate the sunspot signal into two orthogonal signals x1, x2 where x1+x2=SN.
As you can see in these plots, x1 corresponds almost perfectly to someone’s reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field. Similarly x2 aligns well with portions of a TSI reconstruction and well aligns with the PMOD TSI composite. (Note: The two plots are over different time scales)
https://localartist.org/media/SUNSPOT_ORTHO_SIGNALS.jpg
Based on these results one might argue that the solar magnetic fields are responsible for recent global warming, which may be true, but I’m not going to push that argument (yet) because all I’ve really shown is that we’re all relying on common proxy datasets. As interesting as these results are, I don’t feel that proven anything “physical”.
It should be obvious that low solar periods result in Arctic warming, my argument has been the same for 11 years.
Negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions increase during low solar periods. Negative NAO conditions warm the Arctic directly with through warm humidity events (and cyclones) reaching further north due to the associated wavier jet stream, and indirectly through driving a warmer AMO.
So the popular labels that have been attached to the Greenland GISP series, such as the Minoan Warm Period, was actually the grand solar minimum of the late Neolithic collapse, which also disappeared the Minoans. And the Medieval Warm Period label around 1000 AD was the Oort solar minimum. The River Nile froze in 1010.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-13246-x/MediaObjects/41598_2017_13246_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Yes, I agree. On a millennial scale Greenland follows the rest of the planet, but on a centennial scale it goes the opposite way to solar activity. GISP2 and other Greenland cores do not reproduce the planet’s temperature changes, nor do Antarctic cores as we are seeing now.
The AMO goes the opposite way to solar activity, which makes the planet warmer, along with Greenland. With a deeper centennial minimum some land regions may show a mean cooling trend, but not the globe because of the warmer AMO and increased El Nino conditions.
Clearly the AMO has been warmer during the previous and current centennial solar minima, the question then is why did the AMO warm from 1925. Negative NAO conditions were the driver of the AMO warming, I am assuming that weaker solar wind states caused the negative NAO episodes.
It’s good to have agreement on Arctic warming being normal during low solar periods, that is important. Where we differ is 1) UV forcing versus solar plasma forcing of the polar vortex or in my case the NAO, and 2) whether the global thermal reservoirs warm or cool during decades of increased poleward heat transport. And of course I argue for the discrete solar forcing of weekly scale NAO anomalies driving mid latitude heat and cold waves, which cannot be due to UV variability.
Ice core temperatures represent the temperature of the polar water that evaporated and provided the source of the water that formed the ice. Yes, that is not the planet’s temperature.
You seem to consider NAO as a climate organizer controlling AMO. My view is different. Both NAO and AMO are manifestations of heat transport conditions that respond to several factors, being polar vortex strength the main one during the winter.
Javier
The AMO does respond strongly to the NAO, hence it is called the leading mode; -NAO => +AMO, and +NAO => -AMO. That is the main one during any season, and there are plenty of negative NAO/AO winter periods with no SSW or notably weak polar vortex.
Feedbacks from the AMO and ENSO to the NAO do exist, but they vary dramatically according to the AMO phase.
8 month lagged major warm pulses to the AMO occur after El Nino episodes during a warm AMO phase, via negative lagged NAO conditions, but these are absent during a cold AMO phase.
And moreover, if a weak or collapsed winter polar vortex were to drive a warmer AMO, it would have to operate via the NAO.
Why I believe Javier’s solar attribution hypotheses have great credibility!
Small increases in solar insolation, increase the tropical heat gradient and thus create small increases in trade wind strength. Increased trade winds increase upwelling of cooler subsurface waters in the eastern oceans, generating the cold tongue observed in La Nina and ENSO neutral conditions. That increases the east-west temperature gradient which then strengthens and amplifies the trade winds. The cooler tropical eastern oceans also reduce cloud cover which causes greater solar heat flux into the oceans. As all studies have shown the greatest amount of net heat flux happens in the tropical eastern Pacific where the La Nina cold tongue exists.
That heat flux is then transported westward and towards the poles, where en-route its ventilation warms the atmosphere. As most studies have shown during the sunspot minimums, the Pacific was in an EL Nino-like state that weakens trade winds and heat flux into the ocean. Studies of ocean productivity all show reduced upwelling and low productivity during the Little Ice Age, but an increase in upwelling since 1850 resulting in a more La Nina-like surface ocean.
During the Little Ice Age, solar minimums were observed, and the resulting weakened trade winds create an El Nino-like Pacific Ocean, which in turn reduce ocean heat flux and poleward heat transport
The largest warm pulses to the AMO, i.e. maximum poleward heat transport, peak around 8 months after the peak of a major El Nino episode. Like in 1878.
“Small increases in solar insolation, increase the tropical heat gradient and thus create small increases in trade wind strength.”
FYI Jim, this concept is from my 2022 Sun-Climate Symposium poster, a mechanism I talked about on your blog post
My published work on these small insolation increases preceded anyone else’s, and I directly told you Jim Steele about it a few weeks ago but you still falsely assigned the credit for it to him.
Here was my comment about changes in insolation:
“The solar minimum La Niña cloudlessness enhances TSI ocean absorption as sunspots increase during the sunspot cycle rising phase.
I’ve also categorized many other climate indices besides HadSST3 by their individual sun warming thresholds to find an overall climate response continuum to sunspot number during the rising phases of solar cycles of between about 85-105 SN.
The Niño12 SST and trade winds are on the bottom end of this spectrum of climate responses to solar activity, with a threshold near 85 SN, indicating it is the first region to respond to the sunspot cycle ascending phase, heralding an upcoming transition between La Niño & El Niño, a tipping point, for the natural oscillation you described.”
We must start from the average conditions of the equatorial Pacific, that is, neutrality.
Relatively warmer waters in the west and relatively colder in the east.
The thermocline instability in this case remains not too large.
When solar activity grows and is high, the equatorial Pacific accumulates more heat and thermocline instability grows.
To reduce thermocline instability and reduce the gradient, first a strengthening of La Nina occurs superficially and then a warming of the total ocean surface with a transfer of warm waters from west to east.
During the phase of high solar activity, the equatorial Pacific tends to have an increase and dominance of the Enso phases in the direction of positivity.
When solar activity drops and is low the opposite happens.
Less heat is accumulated by the ocean and the thermocline instability does not increase much except slowly.
Consequently, superficially with reduced solar activity the aspect of the Pacific does not manifest itself with dominant phases towards the positivity of Enso.
Rather the appearance is a neutrality tending towards the negative.
This is the ultimate irony. Dimowits, soft on crime, let krim a nails roam the streets, then they steal the Lefty’s charging cables. Serves them right.
DETROIT (AP) — Just before 2 a.m. on a chilly April night in Seattle, a Chevrolet Silverado pickup stopped at an electric vehicle charging station on the edge of a shopping center parking lot.
…
The scene that night has become part of a troubling pattern across the country: Thieves have been targeting EV charging stations, intent on stealing the cables, which contain copper wiring. The price of copper is near a record high on global markets, which means criminals stand to collect rising sums of cash from selling the material.
The stolen cables often disable entire stations, forcing EV owners on the road to search desperately for a working charger. For the owners, the predicament can be exasperating and stressful.
https://apnews.com/article/electric-vehicles-charging-cables-stolen-copper-tesla-5f003686cade63fade2e8d7dd3402f3a
President Joe Biden’s aggressive climate regulations targeting fossil-fuel-fired power plants will create widespread electric grid instability and lead to mass blackouts impacting millions of Americans, according to a recent study commissioned by North Dakota’s state government.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-epa-rules-will-cause-blackouts-for-millions-of-americans-study-warns/
The Solar constant is about 1362 W/m2. It is the average annual solar flux’ intensity.
How much is the solar variability?
Christos, you refer to solar flux as a constant, but I seriously doubt it is as stable as many believe. You probably saw this graphic when I posted it earlier, but let me explain how I interpret it.
https://localartist.org/media/stft.JPG
Looking at the lower plot, each line represents a spectrum of the sunspot signal computed over 100 year segments with the newest data in each segment ending at the year indicated on the vertical axis. The labeled years are plotted in a darker shade.
The 11-year sunspot cycle has a frequency of approximately 0.09 year^-1. The peak is marked showing the estimated frequency over 9 cycles. The upper plot is similar, except computed over 150 years, which provides less temporal resolution and with a different window, which lowers the frequency resolution.
While the sunspot cycle is given to be 11.08 years, and is likely locked to planetary motion, it varies quite a bit around that average as you can see in my plot. The sun’s magnetic field is thought to be the product of convection currents of ionized gases. Should the output of the sun’s nuclear core vary with time, one might expect that the convection currents would also vary in intensity. A hotter sun would likely have shorter sunspot cycles (higher frequency).
If you look carefully at the frequency of the 11-year cycle, you’ll see the trajectory is quite similar to the earth’s global temperature. My simple filter-based model does a better job of extracting this information. All of this suggests to me that the solar flux varies over time a great deal more than the small changes in TSI associated with individual sunspot cycles.
This really belongs under Part 1 of Javier’s series as it relates to the past. Here’s the same frequency-domain analysis of sunspot data, using a 14C proxy to look further back in time. What this shows is that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were in fact global. Current temperatures are slightly warmer than the peak of the MWP.
https://localartist.org/media/stftC14.JPG
See my previous post for an explanation of the analysis.
Thank you, Robert, for your response.
“While the sunspot cycle is given to be 11.08 years, and is likely locked to planetary motion, it varies quite a bit around that average as you can see in my plot. ”
Please provide some figures, like solar constant variables, how many W/m2 the solar constant varies during that sunspot cycle?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, While we know home much TSI varies over one 11 year period, we don’t really know how the baseline varies over multiple periods. Here’s one example showing the range of TSI reconstructions. TSI composites from satellite measurements have similar issues.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304018426/figure/fig6/AS:373825926647813@1466138454759/TSI-reconstruction-models-provide-estimates-of-solar-variability-from-the-Maunder-Minimum.png
Also, as I’ve said elsewhere, the earth integrates solar energy. With integration, even a small error in TSI estimation will grow into a large error if you were to try and predict temperature from TSI, and that’s even before you consider how the earth is actually responding to solar activity (radiated, and/or magnetic)
The good news is that the sunspot data is currently free from climate-change bias.
BTW, on my last plot I used a 200 year analysis interval, this causes temporal features to show up about 50 years late in the plot. For example, the coldest (global) years of the LIA occur around 1600, not 1650. https://localartist.org/media/stftC14.JPG
Thank you, Robert.
Hi Robert,
Don’t forget that you are looking at solar cycle period as a proxy for solar activity, not at a global temperature proxy. If the sun has an outsized effect on climate, as we both believe, you won’t see the effect on temperatures from other causes, including any possible anthropogenic effect.
The Medieval warm period and Little Ice Age were indeed solar caused, and proxies are very clear that the effect was larger in the NH. As far as I know, my hypothesis is the only one that says the effects of solar activity on climate should be larger in the NH than in the tropics or SH, and points to the weakness of the NH polar vortex as the cause of this asymmetric effect.
Hi Javier,
You wrote: “Don’t forget that you are looking at solar cycle period as a proxy for solar activity, not at a global temperature proxy.”
I’ve found that the earth has an integral-like response to solar activity that I have shown has a time-constant in excess of 60 years, and based on other factors is well in excess of 100 years. My sunspot model both extracts and integrates solar activity.
The spectral analysis approach does something similar. It extracts solar activity by estimating the frequency of the 11-year cycle. However, by using data analysis lengths of 100 years or more in the spectral estimation, the result somewhat approximates earth’s integral-like response and therefore can be treated as a proxy for global temperature.
Obviously, I’ve made no claims as to the physics of how solar activity drives global temperature, only that it does. I’m open to both irradiance and magnetic effects, and can’t rule out climate feedback mechanisms that amplify, or attenuate those effects.
Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Bill – Were you not familiar with the famous “Oregon Petition” before now? Got a degree? You can sign it…
And you would certainly know about that…
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/B-A-Bushaw-8748013
Funny, I didn’t find anything for “The Great Walrus”.
… no doubt a nerve has been struck. ;-)
A zero? Meaning a nothing? And you’re a … something? What cliff did you just fall over?
Bill,
No, in this context, a zero is someone who has nothing to say about climate or science, but engages in personal attacks on those that do (Are you one of them?). If I insult them in return, it is only because they initiated it. And yes, a zero, but not a nothing – it’s a number that indicates a lack of content.
Bruce … my unsolicited advice from the peanut gallery would be:
– don’t take things so personally.
– when we do take things personally most times our response just ‘verifies’ the attack.
– personal attacks just take one down a rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of talent on this site. My wish would be that we realize that no one is immune from criticism, and that criticism is not a bad thing … when done without rancor … as it facilitates discussion.
Bill,
Thanks, for the advice. But I will respond to provocations as I see fit.
Bruce … you’re free to say what you want, to be who you want. My comments concern the irony of counterproductive discourse, which applies to all of us.
I know you don’t like X, but the short post below by Judith reposting Sabine Hossenfelder’s comments on being blocked by Michael Mann for questioning his ‘rules of discourse’ (my term) illustrates what I mean. Check it out.
https://x.com/curryja/status/1801280532518678642
Bill, I simply note that you have directed none of your advice and “reprimands” to The Great Walrus, who initiated this by suggesting that I lie about my educational and professional background. That tells me all I need to know – thanks for your thoughts anyway.
Bill,
RE blocking: I have not been blocked, but I have certainly been censored. You’ll note that the original comment from The Walrus, and my response thereto, have been removed from the thread.
Bruce … I have not had conversations with TGW, so my comments were a conversation with you. As I said, what we were talking about applies to all.
I can’t be certain, but the deleted comments may have been done precisely because the monitor (or Judith) may have agreed with you that TGW overstepped. I’ve seen that happen before here.
This blog allows much back and forth. In the end, it’s up to us to treat each other with a minimal level of respect, regardless of what is said.
It’s the old adage: ‘lie down with dogs, and you’ll get fleas’. Occasionally, I find myself scratching more than usual. Then I know it’s time to change it up.
Bill, I see no need to treat a person, who makes false personal attacks, with any respect whatsoever.
Bruce … on the face of it, I agree 100%. For myself, when faced with repeated disrespect, I’ll say my piece then ‘walk’ away. We can ‘win’ a reasoned point, but there’s no winning an emotional point. You can’t punch someone’s lights out through a key board, no matter how much you’d like to. Over responding to ‘button pushing’ is a waste of time, and only encourages the behavior.
For what it’s worth, that’s my take.
From this blog post: “When solar activity is low, … the planet either warms more slowly or cools, depending on other factors.”
If that statement is correct, then heat content of the oceans (where most of the energy exchange near the earth’s surface takes place) should decline or increase more slowly when solar activity declines. However, ocean heat content has accelerated since the solar maximum of the mid-20th century. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42468-z
That is strong evidence against the Winter Gatekeeper having a significant effect on planetary warming or cooling.
The evidence is not such.
Look at figure 15 in this paper:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663
Ocean heat content has been increasing more slowly since the late 1990s, as the WGK hypothesis requires.
Of course the Hunga Tonga eruption has caused a huge amount of ocean warming recently, but volcanic eruptions disrupt climate projections for several years due to their unpredictable nature.
Javier,
The more recent reference (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42468-z) shows continuing acceleration in ocean heat content from the 1960’s through the 2010s. The earlier reference (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663) shows acceleration after 1980 and then a deceleration in the decade 2000-2010. Both show that the ocean is accumulating heat faster than the average rate of the last 30-40 years of the 20th century. Solar activity peaked before 1960.
The data contradict the WGK hypothesis!
…Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ~ Oregon Petition
Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. The bare assertion that global warming is caused by man’s CO2 (AGW) has never been proven. Outside of Western government scientists AGW has always been seen as nothing more than base conjecture. Stupid American taxpayers payed through the nose for global warming models (GCMs) — fabricated by school teachers who cannot live outside academia — and, the models can never be verified. The fledgling field of Climatology failed to stand up to scientific inquiry and climatists are now seen more as numerologists pushing wack beliefs, much like the ancient science of astrology.
How much is the solar variability?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Since the task defined by the IPCC is to identify human causes (e.g. emissions) then surely a deeper interest to the Urban Heat Island effect would surely suggest that human conurbations of any size must have an effect upon temperature. This would not simply be from emissions but from building materials, roads anything that obscures the normal role of earth (the glaring clue?)
in helping keep the mechanics of temperature simple enough for us to understand and not get alarmed about.
The IPCC is not playing the role of open minded human beings but, like the UN, is grasping at power, money and control without democratic election of any kind. How much sponsorship and investment is going to unworthy of destructive causes (wind and solar)? How many billionaires actually know better what they do (zero)?
I am now going to reread the whole three papers and digest them as best I can. Thank you Javier for an interesting read.
So, yeah, heat pumps aren’t up to the task.
Five of the Biggest Heat Pump Challenges And How to Solve Them
A wave of startups are scrambling to tackle the barriers stopping heat pumps from hitting the big time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-13/five-biggest-heat-pump-challenges-and-how-to-solve-them
It makes perfect sense when you look at the big picture. Every KWH those heat pumps save needs to be diverted to make American bitcoins.
“Trump says remaining Bitcoin must be made in US”
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4717755-trump-says-remaining-bitcoin-must-be-made-in-us/
Did you hear that the Petrodollar is dead? Saudi Arabia didn’t renew the 50-year-old agreement so what the world needs now are petrobitcoins!
So now the free market will determine what currency is used. That said, the “petrodollar” issue is complicated. Dollars will still probably be used to buy oil in the Middle East. But there are other ramifications.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/the-us-is-facing-a-major-challenge-as-petrodollar-loses-force-1032063614?op=1
I believe Earth’s average surface temperature is Tmean = 288K.
I don’t believe 288K emits 398 W/m2.
What about you?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Because a body at the temperature of 288K (14 C) doesn’t emit 398W/m2
Nor a body at the temperature 255K (- 18 C) emits 239W/m2
We do not see that happening in our everydays life. Because many of us have experienced what it is like at 14 C and what
it is like at – 18 C.
Also we know how hot it feels the 398W/m2, and how hot
it feels the 239W/m2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Your surroundings are emitting plenty of infra-red at 255K. You are just losing more to them than they are losing to you.”
But we know how hot it feels the 398W/m2, and how hot
it feels the 239W/m2.
When in a room, at –18 C , a small room 4m x4m x3m …
The 4 walls area is 4 x4m x3m = 4 x12m2 = 48 m2
The floor and ceiling area 2 x4m x4m = 32 m2
The total emitting area 48 m2 +32 m2 = 80 m2.
What is the total emitted power according tothe S-B emission law then?
For –18 C (255K) it sould be 239W/m2 x80 m2 = 19.120 W
or 19,12 kW.
19,12 kW is too much emitted energy inside the room, but the room thermometer is always at –18 C.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: How we know the sun changes the climate. III: Theories – Watts Up With That?
Climate Change? There’s your problem!
This study also raises fascinating questions about the potential consequences of the inner core’s changing rotation on Earth’s surface. Could these variations in rotation affect the Earth’s magnetic field, climate, or even the length of our days? Vidale suggests it’s possible the change could lead to changes in the length of a day by fractions of a second. “It’s very hard to notice, on the order of a thousandth of a second, almost lost in the noise of the churning oceans and atmosphere,” he says.
Future research will undoubtedly explore these intriguing possibilities in greater depth.
“The dance of the inner core might be even more lively than we know so far,” Vidale adds
https://studyfinds.org/earth-inner-core-rotation-slows/
Javier,
You have put a lot of research effort into these 3 parts of suggested mechanisms. I do not like suggesting a little more effort.
As a scientist reading and researching global warming since 1992, your mention of planetary waves took me by surprise. I had little recollection of planetary waves in reading before yours. I hope that there is a simple explanation such as planetary waves being just a new catch-all term for miscellaneous processes with other names.
OTOH, if you are proposing planetary waves as a new feature with new properties, can I suggest that they need more description? Are they waves that repeat like sine waves, or do they come irregularly like waves of invaders in history? How is the start and end of a planetary wave described if not cyclic? If cyclic, what typical frequency?
(Note: I have been rather sick undiagnosed for the last month with mind not 100%, so please say if I sound stupid. Thanks. Geoff S)
Short story: Planetary waves = Rossby waves = standing waves in the polar vortices, driven/influenced by Coriolis and pressure gradient forces. here’s a visual:
https://cdn.britannica.com/29/101929-050-12FE7B77/Rossby-wave-patterns-air-formation-North-Pole.jpg
“As a scientist reading and researching global warming since 1992, your mention of planetary waves took me by surprise. ”
You being a scientist researching global warming for 30+ years, I am surprised that these waves were unfamiliar to you. Maybe just the “fuzziness” of illness. Hope you recover/feel better soon.
Rossby OK, must have missed =planetary in my gappy education. Thanks to all. Geoff S
Rossby’s papers are available from here:
https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/journal_of_marine_research/
Planetary atmospheric waves are an important component in the series of events leading to a Grand Solar Minimum.
I would enjoy hearing Javier’s take on Zharkova’s double dynamo theory. I think it tucks neatly into the Winter Gatekeeper theory, does it not?
Zharkova’s solar double dynamo model predicts that Earth has just entered a modern grand solar minimum, its prediction was described as a short duration grand minimum occurring between 2020-2053. (See video beginning just after the 33 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMK2QIw-YE The short version of how I interpret her theory is that a double dynamo cyclic effect causes a cascade of perturbances on Earth. Cycle 25 shows a steeper growth of the number of spotless days than any other cycles including the ones during the Dalton min (cycles 15 and 24).
Zharkova uses Shindell et al., 2001, Science as reference for expectations. It describes the effects of the Mauder Minimum https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sh05100g.html (Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are among the et al). Short take: less ozone effects planetary atmospheric waves, these in turn perturb Earth’s jet stream, kicking the North Atlantic Oscillation into a negative phase.
Jungletrunks, while Zharkova’s dynamo model may be correct, the concern I have is how far she’s trying to extrapolate. If I remember correctly, her model for the two PCA’s involves about 60 estimated parameters. Solar magnetic data only goes back to 1976, so I’m skeptical that anyone can accurately estimate all of the gain,frequency and phase parameters in her harmonic model using only 40 years worth of data (she initially estimated the parameters about 2015). I’m also skeptical that those parameters would be stable for hundreds of years, much less thousands.
It will be interesting to see if her GSM predictions come true. My own predictions based on existing sunspot data (no extrapolation) suggest that we’re at peak global temperatures and that the earth will begin to slowly cool over then next decade.
Thanks for the reply, Robert.
I can’t challenge either yours, or Zharkova’s scientific arguments. But I do find her arguments extremely eloquent in presentation. Have you reviewed all her work leading up to her theory?
Dr. Zharkova retracted her last published paper in 2019, as I recall, but has since resubmitted it. She has been painted with a scarlet letter by the climate orthodoxy, much like Dr. Curry has. I find this appalling. It doesn’t make her ideas correct, but some of the interpretations used to discredit her I know were incorrect; and if I can see it, that says something in itself.
One thing is certain, Dr. Zharkova’s degree of confidence is high, she’s on record that we’re on the precipice of a short duration grand minimum–occurring between 2020-2053–that’s a gutsy call by her. We won’t have to wait too long. Someone will be forced to issue a mea culpa, I’m rooting for Dr. Zharkova to be right.
Jungletrunks, I have not reviewed all of her work, but I did spend some time going over her 2015 Heartbeat of the Sun paper. I’ve also played around with the solar magnetic field data and found that I could construct a sunspot number plot using the toroidal magnetic field data.
There’s a program to download and extract solar magnetic data on my github site (getSynopticData.py). Among other things, it creates a butterfly plot.
My take is the same as the take from Ilya Usoskin:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05203
I cannot judge the inners of her model, but her model does not reproduce past solar activity so it should not be able to correctly predict future solar activity.
I have studied the distribution of grand solar minima through the Holocene and it is not random. It follows long and short periodicities. This spectral evidence does not support a grand solar minimum for the 21st and 22nd centuries.
I appreciate your thoughts, Javier.
I can’t argue the science, but I can point out some error between interpretation of viewpoints from Usoskin’s argument with Zharkova that includes certain jumps to conclusions; compared to your interpretation of what’s being argued that skews these arguments somewhat further.
Interestingly, Usoskin, in the critique you’ve posted, is arguing that there’s more randomness to solar cycles than Zharkova demonstrates in her projections, that if her theory were correct, her model could demonstrate accurate alignment to minima over millions of years. I must, as a matter of common sense/critical thinking, agree with Usokin’s idea that a complete theory should accurately project alignment to prior minima going back millions of years. But here’s the thing, Zharkova also agrees with this, she’s stated it. She specifically discussed that the double dynamo model is incomplete, yet it presents a major advancement in dynamo theory, and it “does” project hindsight alignment over a few thousand years.
In short, Zharkova describes her work on the double dynamo as being “on the right track”, she suspects there’s more layers to the dynamo, much like how a prism separates the component spectrums of light (an analogy she uses).
I must say you’ve mischaracterized her work, Javier. A comment you made directly to Zharkova was insulting: “My method is different to yours. I do cycle analysis, because solar activity has a cyclic behavior.” It’s insulting because Zharkova’s science leading to her double dynamo theory is ALL about cycle analysis. While I can’t argue the science per se, whether she’s right, or wrong, I can plainly see the depth of work she’s done on solar cycles. With all due respect (I enjoy the strong foundation many of your arguments have), your prior comment says you’ve not carefully reviewed Zharkova’s work, Usoskin either; sacred cows and affirmation herding can be stubborn as we all know; I’m not saying this is all of it, but there’s at minimum some important misinterpretation of Zharkova’s work.
Beyond the dynamo theory, Uroskin is at odds with Zharkova on other of her theories too, and many other scientists exploring the Sun’s inertial motion around the solar system’s barycentre. I find the subject very interesting.
Some Usoskin/Zharkova argument:
Usoskin: “…The movement of the Sun around the Solar system barycenter is imaginary and is used to simplify some mathematical computations. Of course, you can calcuate these cycloides mathematically and discuss those, but there is no such movement in an inertial system. Try to describe in this way (viz. orbiting around the barycenter of the solar system) a gravitational maneuver of a spacecraft arounf Jupiter… The n-body problem cannot be reduced to this simple movement, it would just too simple. Moreover, since all gravitational movements are free falls, no forces are produced. The only real way of planets to affect solar variability is via tidal effects, but those are negligibly small for the Sun. there is yet an idea of the planetary torque on the tachocline, but that’s is not applicable to the Sun. References provided by V. Zharkova on the barycentric movement are to marginally scientific works not taken seriously in the solar-planetary community.
Zharkova response: “Illya Usoskin is not a specialist in the planetary motion to declare any thoughts about it. So his conclusions are not the authority and any relevance to our results. He got his answers to his comments. Now he wants a bit more glory at our expenses. While he was afraid to give us an oral talk to discuss this problem in open. Who is speaking then in the bushes???”
Jungletrunks,
What I did 4 years ago was to check Figure 3 from Zharkova et al. 2015, where she reconstructs her model output:
“The predicted summary wave (the sum of two principal components) calculated from 1200 to 3200 years from the ‘historical’ period (cycles 21–23) marked with a black oval. The historical maxima and minima of the solar activity in the past are marked by the horizontal brackets.”
I compared it with a solar activity reconstruction from 14C, in red, in the following figure:
https://i.imgur.com/naW9TtH.png
The result is very troubling. Zharkova misrepresented several features to fit her model. Her Medieval Warm Period falls squarely on top of the Spörer Minimum that took place during the Little Ice Age. She placed the Dalton Minimum covering the entire 1700s instead of the early 1800s. Her Little Ice Age spans between 1570-1780, while the real one took place between 1300-1850. This figure is deceiving and should have been rejected by the peer-review.
I did not pretend to insult anybody with my comments. I do not know how much of a progress her double dynamo model is, but I do know that the output of her model does not agree with past solar activity, and therefore it is not useful to project future activity.
Javier, Her work is clearly based on the science of solar cycles. Beyond this, I do see where the breakdown in argument occurs. It’s messy, kind of like your theory is, and any other theory as complex as climate, or astrophysics.
Zharkova sees a problem with the Spörer Minimum because of the way it presents itself within the linear solar cycle, she’s interpreting the data from a solar perspective, as well as the terrestrial evidence; so she’s looking at it from two entirely different perspectives. She may be entirely wrong, but she has what appears to be a plausible hypothesis for an anomaly she’s seeing that could upset the periods you’re referring to.
Maybe you can make the argument that the Spörer Minimum had no associated aberration. I do agree there’s a convenient argument for fitting. But I also, as a matter of common sense, I feel that a theory that projects an alignment with minima going back millions of years is unachievable, it’s an unfair critique at face value—such would have to factor in all natural disasters upsetting the cyclic rhythm of solar cycles going back millions of years, relative to how they present themselves on Earth. As it is, 11 years is an average recurrence, science knows some 11 year cycles have come early, at 5 years, others several years beyond 11 years—Zharkova of course knows this. Looking at the body of her work I don’t think the baby twins dynamo can be thrown out with the bathwater in consideration of the science being settled on the Spörer Minimum.
Why not invite Zharkova to intellectually duke it out with ya on CE, Javier? I’ll bring the popcorn.
test; ok
Jungletrunks this is a reply I did not manage to post earlier, to the discussion further up. (paste only does not work, and I keep forgetting).
Jungletrunks: Tks, you force me to oil my neurons (it is a recommended exercise).
I stand to be corrected, but I feel there was always something not right about the matter. Let us take it in steps.
See link: https://astro.unl.edu/naap/esp/centerofmass.html
The calculation for centre-of-mass of ‘two point sources of mass’ in that situation has an underlying assumption that the two bodies are seemingly rigidly tied by ‘weightless rigid rod’ -(as in link).
From what I recall, in a similar situation with a large rotating mass with a small out-of-balance weight, the response/deflection of the large mass lags behind the applied centrifugal force of the small weight; a phase shift. There is none in the example in link. (the solar system has several such, and with differing frequencies).
On a different aspect, the large mass has ‘angular momentum’. To copy/paste from wiki “For a planet, angular momentum is distributed between the spin of the planet and its revolution in its orbit, and these are often exchanged by various mechanisms.” What is happening in the sun — when the barycentre is in the middle,, and when it is a solar diameter away?”
I just do not know what effects are considered in the proposed SIM. I am way out of my depth here, but I remain somewhat ‘skeptic’. :)
ps. Seeing Illya Usoskin’s view on the matter reinforces my view however poor it is.
Thanks for your reply, melitamegalithic.
Ilya Usoski argument, directed at Zharkova’s theory of solar inertial motion: “…since all gravitational movements are free falls, no forces are produced. The only real way of planets to affect solar variability is via tidal effects…”
The problem with well known experts who project personal gravity is that people are easily pulled into the weight of their footsteps.
Usoski’s before statement strikes me as absurd relative to his argument against Zharkova’s solar inertial motion theory.
Gravity has omnidirectional influence.
Sure, the planets are falling towards the Sun. Centrifugal force keeps the planets in orbit. It’s science 101, except for contemporary high schooler’s, that is.
Because gravity is omni-directional, the planets are pulling towards the center mass of the solar system, while centrifugal force keeps them in orbit. Considering that the weight of orbital mass is not fixed, should not alignment of mass to one side of the solar system exert greater pull towards the center mass than if it were evenly distributed around the solar system’s barycentre?
“Sure, the planets are falling towards the Sun. Centrifugal force keeps the planets in orbit.”
A lot of people would disagree with that statement. Centrifugal force is an apparent force that appears when the point of reference is rotating. It does not exist if the point of reference is inertial.
The planets do not fall toward the Sun because their speed gives them an inertia to scape the orbit that is matched by the gravity from the Sun. More speed and they leave the orbit, less speed and they fall to the Sun. No centrifugal force is required.
Quote: “—Considering that the weight of orbital mass is not fixed, should not alignment of mass to one side of the solar system exert greater pull towards the center mass than if it were evenly distributed around the solar system’s barycentre?”
I would reword >> ‘weight of orbital mass is not evenly distributed [it is fixed].’
Yes, but nothing changes position (that is nothing moves from its stable orbit. Ergo the sun has no orbit (temporary) since it is at the barycentre at some time and out of it at other times.
Some definitions are vexatiously confusing. Take centrifugal force. A good example is the revolving weights governor. Rotation makes the weights fly out and held by extended springs. If the spring breaks the weight fly at the tangent, the direction of the inertia at that point, but the force that extends the spring is perpendicular to the tangent. Dynamics if a witch’s brew.
Thanks, melitamegalithic, and Javier, for helping with clarity, and keeping it real; also for being accommodating in the arena of opinion.
Trunks … thanks for the Zharkova video link. And for the great back and forth you stimulated here. Like you, I value and enjoy Javier’s hypothesis. So … I agree that the two of them should find a single topic they could discuss here on CE. And maybe that’s an interesting format for Judith to explore for other pairs, etc.
Zharkova presented the Hallstatt theory in the presentation previously linked to.
The Hallstatt cycle is an oscillation with a period of 2100-2500 years. It forces temperature variances independent to solar cycles minima, or maxima. It explains why we can have an increasing trend of warming during a minima, or cooling during a maxima; depending on what stage within the oscillation a minima, or maxima occurs.
“Some physical mechanisms explaining a planetary modulation of solar and climate activity are currently investigated (Abreu et al., 2012, Scafetta, 2012b, Scafetta and Willson, 2013b, Wolff and Patrone, 2010). A planetary origin of solar and climate oscillations, which has been proposed since antiquity, does have numerous empirical evidences (e.g.: Abreu et al., 2012, Charvátová, 2009, Cionco and Soon, 2015, Fairbridge, 1984, Fairbridge and Sanders, 1987, Hung, 2007, Pick, 1986, Jose, 1965, McCracken et al., 2013, McCracken et al., 2014, Mörner, 2013, Mörner, 2015, Mortari, 2010, Puetz et al., 2014, Salvador, 2013, Scafetta, 2010, Scafetta, 2012a,Scafetta, 2012b, Scafetta, 2013, Scafetta, 2014, Scafetta, 2016; Scafetta and Willson, 2013a, Scafetta and Willson, 2013b, Sharp, 2013, Solheim, 2013, Tan and Cheng, 2013, Tattersall, 2013a, Tattersall, 2013b, Wilson, 2013).”
Hallstatt cycle describes “…a repeating pattern in the periodic revolution of the planets around the Sun: the major stable resonance involving the four Jovian planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – which has a period of about p = 2318 years.
“On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene”
At the Hallstatt time scale, maxima of the radionucleotide production occurred when, within each pericycle-apocycle orbital arc, the time required by the PMC to move from the minimum to the maximum distance from the Sun varies from about 8 to 16 years while the time required by the same to move from the maximum to the minimum distance from the Sun varies from about 7 to 14 years, and vice versa. Thus, we found that a fast expansion of the Sun-PMC orbit followed by a slow contraction appears to prevent cosmic rays to enter within the system inner region while a slow expansion followed by a fast contraction favors it. Similarly, the same dynamics could modulate the amount of interplanetary/cosmic dust falling on Earth. Indeed, many other stable orbital resonance frequencies (e.g. at periods of 20 years, 45 years, 60 years, 85 years, 159–171–185 years) are found in radionucleotide, solar, aurora and climate records, as determined in the scientific literature. Thus, the result supports a planetary theory of solar and/or climate variation that has recently received a renewed attention. In our particular case, the rhythmic contraction and expansion of the solar system driven by a major resonance involving the movements of the four Jovian planets appear to work as a gravitational/electromagnetic pump that increases and decreases the cosmic ray and dust densities inside the inner region of the solar system, which then modulate both the radionucleotide production and climate change by means of a cloud/albedo modulation.
Several authors have concluded that the observed 2100–2500 year oscillation both in the cosmogenic radioisotope records and in the climate records has a solar origin (e.g.: Dergachev and Chistyakov, 1995, Hood and Jirikowić, 1990, Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). Indeed, 14C records, as well as 10Be records reproduce features present in the sunspot number records such as the Maunder and Dalton solar minima, and other solar directly observed patterns (cf.: Adolphi et al., 2014, Bard et al., 1997, Bard et al., 2000, Scafetta, 2012a, Steinhilber et al., 2009, Usoskin et al., 2016). However, these considerations still do not explain why solar activity should vary with a 2100–2500 year oscillation. Indeed, this oscillation might also be forced on the system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825216301453
On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene
An oscillation with a period of about 2100–2500years, the Hallstatt cycle, is found in cosmogenic radioisotopes (14C and 10Be) and in paleoclimate rec…
http://www.sciencedirect.com
Feel better, Geoff. Like this comment, you always have a way of stimulating the conversation.
Ditto, Bill, I have a great deal of respect for Geoffs knowledge and commentary. He knows more than I ever will about climate. Hope you get to feeling better, Geoff.
Geoff S: No, ‘planetary waves’ is not “…just a new catch-all term…”.
Search Google Scholar for ‘planetary waves’ in title. You might start with this 1948 paper by Rossby; see footnote [1]:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1949.tb01928.x
Sorry that you are ill.
Careful Dr Curry. You’re making too much sense. Might get cancelled (again). But not if we can help it…. Thank you for your independent thinking.
Javier,
You write:
“CO₂ has been rising sharply since the 1950s and its effects on radiation are instantaneous, they do not take 50 years. There’s also talk of it being a consequence of the warming that’s been going on since the mid-1970s, but why should it take two decades for the heat to reach the Arctic?”
I don’t see any great delay in heat reaching the arctic. Ice has been melting there since at least 1980. Of course a glass of ice water sitting in the sun remains at zero centigrade until the ice is gone.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly
“I don’t see any great delay in heat reaching the arctic. Ice has been melting there since at least 1980.”
Yes, you don’t see the Danish Meteorological Institute data about winter temperature in the Arctic (no melting in winter):
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php
And you don’t see in sea-ice anomaly three different periods: Slow melting to 1997, fast melting 1997-2007, no melting since 2007.
But it is not my fault that you don’t see what the data shows. Selective blindness has no cure.
And what about the North Pole New Year’s thaw
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/12/santas-warm-welcome-home.html
And the continuing meltdown of the North side of Svalbard ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-polar-bear-express.html
Cherry picking at its best, Russell :)
“You claimed Earths warming was only due to natural orbital forcing.
But then you offer NO science explanation for the warming of the last half century.
Why do you ignore contradictory facts?
While AGW does offer an explanation in terms of an increasing GHE.”
–
The science explanation for the warming of the last half century:
The orbitally forced global warming process is a slow millenials long phenomenon.
The our last 50 years observed (because the last 50 years we are in the satellite measurements era) what we observe is the acceleration of the Polar Temperatures Amplification Phenomenon.
You rely on Stockwell/Milankovitch, which claims we are in orbitally forced cooling trend, and it is very much wrong.
It is wrong, because the obliquity variation cycle is currently very small, it is ~1 degree, which affects global temperatures very little.
The warming is orbitally forced, but it is not the ” 2,5 degrees the obliquity variation theory”, what causes the current millenials long warming is the “precession of eqinoxes cycle“.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: COME SAPPIAMO CHE IL SOLE CAMBIA IL CLIMA. III: TEORIE
On the other hands we live in electric and magnetic universe, with our planet electric circuit missing and not well understand in numerical model physics
Sun energetic waves and particles are the main climate drivers easy to find everywere
The NOAA’s GHCN, GISS, also ERA 5 dataset are compromised, especially in the last 20 years mainly because of UHI effect and changing from thermometers in glass with electronics sensors on WMO “recommendations” since 2000′, much sensitive at any form of non-climatic heat sources.
EVs lose charge.
The approval figures for electric cars in Germany show a clear downward trend. In May 2024, the German Federal Motor Vehicle Authority (KBA) registered 29,078 vehicles with electric motors. This corresponds to a decline of 30.6 percent compared to May last year. Compared with April 2024, the number of new registrations continued to decline. Last month, there were 1,676 more approvals with 31,384 electric cars. A total of 236,425 new passenger cars were registered in May, which means a decline of 4.3 percent compared to the same month last year
https://blackout-news.de/aktuelles/trend-setzt-sich-fort-zulassungen-fuer-elektroautos-sinken-auch-im-mai-weiter/
https://notrickszone.com/2018/09/24/climate-scientist-karl-zeller-sums-up-the-discovery-that-pressure-not-co2-determines-planets-temps/
Thread bombing does not help your cause, it hurts it. Get a clue.
The Biden administration effectively allows energy policy decisions with wide ramifications to be made by unelected bureaucrats in California.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has key outstanding requests with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact certain environmental regulations that go above and beyond federal rules, and the EPA has granted CARB waiver requests over the course of President Joe Biden’s first term. Over time, these waivers and the policy outcomes they facilitate will allow CARB to alter the economies of other states, including those that do not wish to be impacted by CARB’s rules and have no influence over the agency, according to policy experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“EPA-granted waivers enable CARB to effectively dictate motor vehicle, trucking, and rail transport policies for the rest of the country,” Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/16/biden-epa-california-carb-waiver-key-policy/
Thanks, Jim. Good piece. Public policy can be influenced/implemented in different ways, as this shows.
Wind folly …
How much back-up do we need for our 11.5 gigawatt wind system? About 11.4 gigawatts.
Wind energy failed on Thursday at what must be close to a record low — with barely 88MW of production from 11,500MW of wind turbines. That’s about 0.7% of total nameplate capacity.
With construction costs running at $2 million for every theoretical megawatt of turbine, that’s $20 billion dollars of machinery sitting out there in the fields and forests of Australia producing about as much as two diesel generators.
We have 84 industrial wind plants across 5 states of Australia, and the green band below was their total contribution to our national electricity needs on Thursday — put your reading glasses on.
From Jo Nova’s site. Search on “jo nova”.
In some parts of the country, switching from a heat pump to natural gas furnace can cut 75% electricity cost for winter heating. Think on that for a while. What’s the best heating solution for the poor??
Jim
The conclusion seems deceptive as it doesnt include the addhitional costs os natural gas.
And could you enlighten us on those “additional costs”, Rob?
Oh, if you mean the cost of the natural gas bill, nat gas is cheaper per BTU than electricity. That disparity will only widen as lefty’s make electricity more expensive with wind, solar, and grid build-out.
As reported by Automotive News, the results suggest that 29 percent of EV owners worldwide will likely go back to ICE for their next vehicle. The most crucial factor in abandoning EVs is the state of the public charging infrastructure, followed by the high costs of ownership and the need to find a more suitable car for longer journeys.
The percentage of EV owners willing to switch back to ICE in the US rises to 46 percent, or almost 1 in 2 current EV owners, as they claim affected by the slow rollout of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program by the US Department of Energy. In fact, only 9 percent of the total participants in the study are happy with the expansion of the public charging network in their region, showing that this is a global issue..
https://www.carscoops.com/2024/06/new-study-finds-46-of-ev-buyers-in-the-us-want-to-go-back-to-ice/
A ‘public charging network,’ sounds a lot like taking the bus.
“ As reported by Automotive News, the results suggest that 29 percent of EV owners worldwide will likely go back to ICE for their next vehicle.”
Who didn’t see that coming. Two steps forward, one step back.
If you build it, they will come, only happens in movies. Apparently when it comes to cars, if you build it right, they will come is more appropriate. Or, maybe more to the specific point, if you build it , including a more long lasting and cheaper and lighter battery, and greater ancillary network of charging stations that are ubiquitous with shorter charging times, overcoming all the consumer anxieties associated with buying an EV, they will come.
All those Utopian dreams washing away like a sand castle. Just another idealistic liberal pipe dream up in smoke.
But, when all else fails in a democratic, free market economy, there is the old tried and true Stalinistic approach, a .38 revolver held to the temple.
Pingback: COME SAPPIAMO CHE IL SOLE CAMBIA IL CLIMA. III: TEORIE – ItaNews24
Javier –
At the end of Part I the link to the video is now missing.
Yes, it got cut out in the posting process.
The very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How does decreasing solar activity increase the amplitude of planetary waves?
andrea, I was hoping Javier, or someone else, would answer you. It’s a good question.
From Javier’s book, “Solving the Climate Puzzle”, Box, 23. The first evidence of a solar effect on climate, page 199:
“The solar effect on climate can be reversed because it depends on the conditions of planetary wave propagation in the stratosphere, which are affected by any factor that modifies temperature or wind speed there. One such factor is the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation that modulates the global circulation in the stratosphere through the Holton-Tan effect. Whe4n the oscillation reverses, so does the solar effect on climate, as the propagation of planetary waves in the stratosphere changes from being facilitated by the change in solar activity to being hindered. El Nino events also affect the conditions for planetary wave propagation in the stratosphere. Figure B23 shows the effect of the 1987 and 1998 El Nino events on winter polar stratospheric temperature. However, this composite behavior is too complex even for many scientists, so it is generally ignored.
Karin Labitzke spent the next 27 years working on her discovery. She identified the changes in the winter tropospheric circulation that occur as a result of the solar cycle and contributed significantly to the understanding of the stratospheric solar signaling pathway discussed in this chapter.”
Sorry, I’m not a scientist, so that’s the best I can do. Like much in climate science, there’s an effect that’s clearly observed but the actual physical mechanism isn’t fully understood.
Thanks Bill !
I am more inclined to believe that downward solar activity generates a cooling of the equatorial Pacific and this is what comes out of the re-analyses.
The cooling of the equatorial Pacific means stronger trade winds, greater air lift and greater geopotential to be redistributed towards the Arctic area (larger Rossby waves).
Increased formation of high-pressure blocking structures at high latitudes and descents of cold air towards the south.
I live in Venice, Italy and the cases in which the lagoon froze (very frequent during the Little Ice Age) were all in winters dominated by negative Neutral Enso and La Nina.
Always the same pattern brings continental polar air from the Euro-Asian continent towards the west (anti-zonality).
That is, a blocking high pressure from the North Atlantic through the UK, part of Scandinavia and Russia and a blocking cyclone over the Mediterranean.
You see
Hi Andrea,
Planetary waves are generated at the troposphere and the lower amplitude ones never leave it. The higher amplitude ones, upon reaching the tropopause, can only penetrate the stratosphere if zonal wind (East-West direction) is easterly (from East to West) and not very strong. Otherwise, they are reflected back to the troposphere.
Zonal stratospheric wind is easterly at 50°N during the winter. When solar activity is low, the vertical temperature and pressure gradients in the tropical to mid-latitude stratosphere are less pronounced, and as a result zonal wind speed is lower. Under these conditions, more planetary waves of higher amplitude can propagate in the stratosphere.
Think about it in this way: if at the beach the wind is blowing from the shore to the sea, waves will be smaller and less frequent, but if it is blowing from the sea to the shore waves will become larger and more frequent. In the stratosphere the sun is affecting wind speed, and through it, planetary waves and vortex strength.
Hi Javier! Heat always passes from a hotter body to a colder one. Rossby’s breaking waves respond to the need for the same movement.
That is, to reduce the tropics/poles gradient. Rossbys do not amplify and bring more heat into the Arctic and polar stratosphere if there is less south/north gradient. Simply because there is no need. Solar activity probably influences through other mechanisms.
“Heat always passes from a hotter body to a colder one. Rossby’s breaking waves respond to the need for the same movement.”
This is not entirely correct. Both hotter and colder bodies produce IR (thermal) radiation. Hotter bodies just produce more. So heat also goes from the colder body to the hotter one, just less of it.
Atmospheric waves do not respond to any need. They are a product of a force and a restoring mechanism resulting in an undulation that transmits energy and momentum through the medium in which they propagate. In the case of atmospheric Rossby waves the generating force can be thermal contrast between land and sea or turbulence generated by the wind on the leeward side of a mountain range. The restoring mechanism is potential vorticity, which is the conserved combination of potential temperature and the vorticity resulting from the Coriolis effect causing a westward movement that is stronger the farther away from the equator.
Planetary waves carry with them westerly momentum due to the way they are generated. Solar activity just affects the easterly speed of zonal winds. If it is too strong most waves dissipate without reaching the polar vortex. When solar activity is low and zonal winds are slower, more of the bigger planetary waves reach the polar vortex. They break against it depositing their westerly momentum, and as a result the easterly momentum of the vortex decreases more and more, the winds that form the vortex slow down and the vortex weakens.
This is how the Sun affects climate the most. It is not simple, nor intuitive, but that is why it is a 200-year old problem.
Hi Javier
But it is the increase in the thermal gradient between the poles and temperate zones that increases the baroclinic instability which is at the origin of the formation of the flow undulations (Rossby waves) which redistribute the air masses in our hemisphere with the effect to reduce those same gradients.
And to “give us” heat waves in the medium-high latitudes and cold waves in the medium-low latitudes.
As often happens at the end of winter.
As for the Rossby breaking waves, just take a look at the average temperatures of the mid-low stratosphere in winter and associate them with the heat flows towards the mid-low polar stratospheric area to understand that it is the increase in the thermal gradient that stimulates the transfer of heat .
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/merra2/temperature/t60_90n_70_2023_merra2.pdf
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/merra2/heat_flux/vt45_75n_70_2023_merra2.pdf
Yes, I recognize the importance of gradients. From gravity to heat diffusion, many things happen in physics because of gradients. The latitudinal temperature gradient is the most important engine of heat transport, but there are other factors involved. The gradient is much stronger in the SH because Antarctica is colder, yet heat transport is smaller in the SH because there is an interhemispheric transport of heat from the SH to the NH.
So transport is modulated by factors other than the temperature gradient, and that is where my theory fits.
Indonesia has transformed global nickel supply during the past decade, attracting billions of dollars in Chinese investment. But the battery-metal boom that’s created fortunes and tens of thousands of jobs is also raising increasingly uncomfortable questions around the price of this success.
Our reporting in the past year at a sprawling complex of factories, smelters and coal-fired power plants on the island of Sulawesi — where companies have direct relationships with some of the world’s largest battery manufacturers — found many of the trappings of development.
But we also found a record of fatal accidents and ecological damage.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-06-18/battery-metals-indonesia-can-t-ignore-the-cost-of-its-nickel-boom
Air Conditioning relies on electricity. It helps people cope with “heat waves” A.K.A. Summer. Electricity isn’t something you want to make more expensive and less reliable by building out unreliable wind and solar.
New England Heat Wave …
In July 1911, along the East Coast of the United States, temperatures climbed into the 90s and stayed there for days and days, killing 211 people in New York alone. At the end of Pike Street, in Lower Manhattan, a young man leaped off a pier and into the water, after hours of trying to nap in a shady corner. As he jumped, he called: “I can’t stand this any longer.” Meanwhile, up in Harlem, an overheated laborer attempted to throw himself in front of a train and had to be wrestled into a straitjacket by police.
In an age before air conditioning or the widespread use of electric fans, many struggled to cope with this multi-day deadly heat. June had been easy enough, but a sweep of hot, dry air from the southern plains suppressed any relief from the ocean breeze. In Providence, Rhode Island, temperatures rose 11 degrees in a single half hour. New York City and Philadelphia became sweltering centers of chaos, while all across New England, railway tracks buckled, mail service was suspended and people perished beneath the sun. Total death tolls are estimated to have topped 2000 in just a few weeks.
https://www.history.com/news/heat-wave-1911-weather-insane
Thank you, Javier.
Very cogent.
I’ve come to grasp/infer aspects of this on my own over the years, only to have them slip away or forget about them. It’s wonderful seeing you bring it all together and then some.
I’ll suggest one more thing to consider, it’s not just UV regarding the sun. Magnetism varies similarly.
“It is shown that at a time of low geomagnetic activity planetary waves with large amplitudes prevail in the northern hemisphere due to the orographic effect of the Rocky Mountains and Greenland.”
“Downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682697001193
https://x.com/jennyr37094269/status/1804299789468651971?s=46
Thank you Aaron, interesting paper. They say:
“The results enable us to test a causal link of the Sun-weather processes, to explain strong interannual climate and weather changes in several key regions of the northern hemisphere, mainly in winter, and to study possible causes of the North Atlantic Oscillation.”
For several decades quite a few researchers have been looking at the effect of the Sun on winter atmospheric circulation in the NH. If the IPCC was looking for the causes of climate change all these studies would have not been ignored or dismissed as regional or unconvincing.
The effect of geomagnetic changes on climate is even less established than the effect of solar variations. The top-down solar mechanism based on the effects of UV on ozone is to some extent present in climate models. As far as I can tell, the authors present good evidence for the solar-induced changes in winter NH atmospheric circulation, as Labitzke and van Loon did 10 years earlier, but the evidence that it is due to geomagnetic changes is less solid. One intriguing possibility to merge these results is through the effect of geomagnetic changes on ozone through what is known as Forbush decreases.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2023EA002954
IIRC, geomagnetism is somewhat coupled to solar magnetic field and varies with it some.
An aside, if there is some cloud response to CRF, I suspect there are also other mechanisms through which CRF may affect climate on longer timescales (non linearly). CRF could affect magma, changing pressure and circulation and response to magnetism). It may also affect ocean circulation (ionizing molecules and changing their response to magnetic fields). Period of low solar activity could increase response to changes in magnetic field when they happen.
One of the reasons I remain open to climate being influenced by solar magnetic fields is this very interesting empirical result, which I can’t defend, explain, or dismiss.
As I explained in this previous post I found that I could separate the sunspot signal into two orthogonal signals which sum to the sunspot signal. These components may be related to TSI and the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). See post for plot.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/06/11/how-we-know-the-sun-changes-the-climate-iii-theories/#comment-1007039
When I apply my model to orthogonal components, this is the result. m(x1) is my model applied to x1, which is the component that aligns well with a reconstruction of the IMF. The model is a simple linear filter, so m(x1) + m(x2) is the sunspot model prediction when applied to the sunspot signal.
https://localartist.org/media/SeperateComponents.png
What makes this result even more intriguing is that the x2 component is similar to low-variability TSI reconstructions, and matches the the PMOD TSI composite, which is what many use to say that TSI is relatively constant, and that the sun doesn’t affect climate to any significant degree.
This doesn’t prove anything, it’s not even strong evidence, but I think it is a clue that deserves further investigation. There’s no telling what we’d find if we investigated the effects of solar magnetic fields on climate with even 1% of the effort applied to GHG’s.
“geomagnetism is somewhat coupled to solar magnetic field and varies with it some.”
Yes, geomagnetism is the result of the changes due to variations of the Earth’s magnetic field and variations of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) created by the Sun. The Earth’s magnetic field changes slowly, while faster magnetic changes are usually due to the IMF.
Climate-magnetism studies are still in the phase of looking for correlations. Mechanisms are unclear and have no evidence support. Obviously, it cannot be ruled out that magnetic changes have a role in climate change, but in my opinion it would require an indirect mechanism that is so far unknown, because of the little energy involved.
A reversal in Earth’s magnetic field thousands of years ago plunged the planet into an environmental crisis that may have resembled “a disaster movie,” scientists recently discovered.
Our planet’s magnetic field is dynamic and, numerous times, it has flipped — when the magnetic North and South Poles swap places. In our electronics-dependent world, such a reversal could seriously disrupt communication networks.
But the impact could be even more serious than that, according to the new study. For the first time, scientists have found evidence that a polar flip could have serious ecological repercussions. Their investigation connects a magnetic field reversal about 42,000 years ago to climate upheaval on a global scale, which caused extinctions and reshaped human behavior.
https://www.livescience.com/magnetic-flip-42000-years-ago.html
Magnetic field reversal 42,000 years ago changed climate dramatically. Smaller variations should have some effect.
https://www.livescience.com/magnetic-flip-42000-years-ago.html
I completely disagree with that. I have looked in detail into last glacial period climate change and I can’t distinguish any significant effect from the Laschamps excursion 42K years ago.
In this figure I made are three of the best records, EPICA ice core from Antarctica, NGRIP ice core from Greenland, and LR04 benthic stack from the Earth’s oceans. Nothing unusual happened 42K years ago.
https://i.imgur.com/aatCBMM.png
Then I saw no effect, now I am an unbeliever
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
No effect of cosmic rays on climate.
On top of that the largest dent on ∆14C during the Holocene 9,600 years ago appears to correspond to the Vela supernova remanent and has no climate effect associated. Cosmic rays have no significant effect on climate.
Javier, one of the theories is the magnetic fields modulate GCR’s which affect cloud formation. Do we know whether or not cloud formation is the same today as it was 42k year ago?
We don’t know anything about clouds in the past, but we do know a little about climate in the past. The cosmic radiation during the Vela supernova and the Laschamps event was orders of magnitude bigger. The lack of prominent climate effects does not support cosmic rays hypotheses of climate change.
Comment regarding clouds up thread, reposting.
One thing is simple chaos. Another is non-greenhouse gas anthropogenic factors. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1768028430593864037
Increased SW radiation absorption is driving the vast majority of warming https://mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297.
Between 1980 and 2016 we grew the terrestrial biosphere by 95Gt C and by about 3Gt C/yr since. This growth reduces dust & other aerosols. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1756225093561176259?s=20
There is much more forest & vegetation now than the beginning of last century. Despite this growth in potential fuel, wildfire is down substantially https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1667650617081208834, so there are less aerosols from that.
CO2 uptake means much more photosynthetic efficiency & water efficiency; less stressed plants produce less cloud forming aerosols https://twitter.com/JennyR37094269/status/1758979237791531305.
Also, increased precipitation clears aerosols (dust, etc) & increased soil moisture means less aerosols from land.
There’s also been changes in the amount, location, & methods of biomass burning. Plus, we’ve reduced tilling for agriculture tremendously.
Some of this may be considered feedback to CO2 increases. I don’t know whether they are technically feedbacks because they are not physical responses to radiative forcing. Some are feedbacks in the sense that they are additional forcing as result of non-radiative responses to CO2 & other greenhouse gases (increased precipitation is the result of GHG forcing—it’s itself a negative feedback—& the resultant aerosol reduction is feedback to a that).
There’s probably a limit to how much these forcing can increase. Plants can only be so “unstressed”. Wildfire can only get so low & stay low so long. Moisture only reduces aerosols from land that’s dry.
I suspect a lot of the warming we’ve experienced may be due to increased biosphere growth.
aaron,
“I suspect a lot of the warming we’ve experienced may be due to increased biosphere growth.”
–
The increased biosphere growth is a small positive feedback.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jim2 … thought you might enjoy this from Roger Caiazza,
“This post summarizes comments that I submitted in response to comments submitted by Sierra Club and Earthjustice in the Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and a Clean Energy Standard – Zero Emissions Target Case No. 15-E-0302. This proceeding addresses the need for a dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR) to resolve problems associated with a drought of wind and solar resource availability. My comments explain why I believe that the Sierra Club and Earthjustice fail to appreciate the potential magnitude and duration of the wind and solar resources “gap” and its impact on the DEFR requirements.”
https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2024/06/18/personal-comments-submitted-on-the-nys-defr-proceeding/
Here’s a short summary of the comments …
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-6-19-in-case-you-think-someone-has-the-answer-to-new-yorks-looming-energy-disaster
Bill – Your post highlights one of the problems of trusting the climate scientists. If they display this much ignorance with simpler topics such as renewables, then how can we trust them with the complex climate science.
Jacobson’s 100% renewable studies is one of the best examples of the wholesale dishonesty of activists posing as scientists. Note to any activist – If you cant find at least 10 substantive distortions reading Jacobsons studies, then you are either thoroughly indoctrinated or very poorly informed.
Agreed, Joe.
Bill – an example of Jacobson distortions
Jacobson claims oil and gas takes up more land area than windfarms based on the following logic
Oil gas lease with 80 acres subsurface rights and 1 acre surface footprint is counted as 80 acres usage. While windmill with 1/2 acre footprint is counted as only using 1/2 acre of land area all the while ignoring the lost productivity on the land – both crop and ranching. Drive by a wind farm and you notice all the cattle congregate upwind from the windmill.
When it comes to gauging the impact of intermittent energy sources on the grid, it really doesn’t take a PhD to figure out it ain’t good!!
One would think … yet we keep heading towards these demand and supply cliffs, all while weakening grid resilience. For some reason I keep thinking of the British doctor at the end of “The Bridge Over The River Kwai” … “Madness … madness.”
Pingback: L’action du soleil sur le climat (3ème partie) – Le Point de Vue
The world surpassed 25,000 Terra Watt hours of electricity usage in 2022. That’s 25KTWh/year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/280704/world-power-consumption/
Chris Martz has taken data from A US Department of Energy publication in 2015 and made an interesting graph of Material Requirements by Energy Source, using Material (type: concrete, steel, etc) Usage at (Tons/TWh).
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1804842214230761815
I’m sure there are more updated numbers, yet it gives you a sense of the vast quantities of materials required for a green conversion. It also makes one think it such quantities and their costs are properly included in LCOE calculations.
Pingback: Woher wir wissen, dass die Sonne Motor des Klimawandels ist. Teil 3: Theorien | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie