Solar Cycle Link to Global Climate: Now Something Official
Posted by jennifer, July 17th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
THERE is nothing new about claims of a link between solar cycles and global climate. But now there is research which has been peer-reviewed and published somewhere reputable. Also, the work was by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to yesterday’s press release it shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean. This is what they say:
“THE research may pave the way toward predictions of temperature and precipitation patterns at certain times during the approximately 11-year solar cycle.
“These results are striking in that they point to a scientifically feasible series of events that link the 11-year solar cycle with ENSO, the tropical Pacific phenomenon that so strongly influences climate variability around the world,” says Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences. “The next step is to confirm or dispute these intriguing model results with observational data analyses and targeted new observations.”
The total energy reaching Earth from the sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the solar cycle. Scientists have sought for decades to link these ups and downs to natural weather and climate variations and distinguish their subtle effects from the larger pattern of human-caused global warming.
Building on previous work, the NCAR researchers used computer models of global climate and more than a century of ocean temperature to answer longstanding questions about the connection between solar activity and global climate.
The research, published this month in a paper in the Journal of Climate, was funded by NSF, NCAR’s sponsor, and by the U.S. Department of Energy.
“We have fleshed out the effects of a new mechanism to understand what happens in the tropical Pacific when there is a maximum of solar activity,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the paper’s lead author. “When the sun’s output peaks, it has far-ranging and often subtle impacts on tropical precipitation and on weather systems around much of the world.”
The new paper, along with an earlier one by Meehl and colleagues, shows that as the Sun reaches maximum activity, it heats cloud-free parts of the Pacific Ocean enough to increase evaporation, intensify tropical rainfall and the trade winds, and cool the eastern tropical Pacific.
The result of this chain of events is similar to a La Niña event, although the cooling of about 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit is focused further east and is only about half as strong as for a typical La Niña.
Over the following year or two, the La Niña-like pattern triggered by the solar maximum tends to evolve into an El Niño-like pattern, as slow-moving currents replace the cool water over the eastern tropical Pacific with warmer-than-usual water.
Again, the ocean response is only about half as strong as with El Niño.
True La Niña and El Niño events are associated with changes in the temperatures of surface waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean. They can affect weather patterns worldwide.
The paper does not analyze the weather impacts of the solar-driven events. But Meehl and his co-author, Julie Arblaster of both NCAR and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, found that the solar-driven La Niña tends to cause relatively warm and dry conditions across parts of western North America.
More research will be needed to determine the additional impacts of these events on weather across the world.
“Building on our understanding of the solar cycle, we may be able to connect its influences with weather probabilities in a way that can feed into longer-term predictions, a decade at a time,” Meehl says.
Scientists have known for years that long-term solar variations affect certain weather patterns, including droughts and regional temperatures.
But establishing a physical connection between the decadal solar cycle and global climate patterns has proven elusive.
One reason is that only in recent years have computer models been able to realistically simulate the processes associated with tropical Pacific warming and cooling associated with El Niño and La Niña.
With those models now in hand, scientists can reproduce the last century’s solar behavior and see how it affects the Pacific.
To tease out these sometimes subtle connections between the sun and Earth, Meehl and his colleagues analyzed sea surface temperatures from 1890 to 2006. They then used two computer models based at NCAR to simulate the response of the oceans to changes in solar output.
They found that, as the sun’s output reaches a peak, the small amount of extra sunshine over several years causes a slight increase in local atmospheric heating, especially across parts of the tropical and subtropical Pacific where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce.
That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing extra water vapor. In turn, the moisture is carried by trade winds to the normally rainy areas of the western tropical Pacific, fueling heavier rains.
As this climatic loop intensifies, the trade winds strengthen. That keeps the eastern Pacific even cooler and drier than usual, producing La Niña-like conditions.
Although this Pacific pattern is produced by the solar maximum, the authors found that its switch to an El Niño-like state is likely triggered by the same kind of processes that normally lead from La Niña to El Niño.
The transition starts when the changes of the strength of the trade winds produce slow-moving off-equatorial pulses known as Rossby waves in the upper ocean, which take about a year to travel back west across the Pacific.
The energy then reflects from the western boundary of the tropical Pacific and ricochets eastward along the equator, deepening the upper layer of water and warming the ocean surface.
As a result, the Pacific experiences an El Niño-like event about two years after solar maximum. The event settles down after about a year, and the system returns to a neutral state.
“El Niño and La Niña seem to have their own separate mechanisms,” says Meehl, “but the solar maximum can come along and tilt the probabilities toward a weak La Niña. If the system was heading toward a La Niña anyway,” he adds, “it would presumably be a larger one.”
[The photograph of the sunset was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in Darwin, Australia, in October 2005.]
“that certain core assumptions are true by consensus. ” WRONG
“core assumption is climate sensitivity” WRONG
“Computer modeling then becomes a very deductive siren ” – and do you propose to examine multiple factors of interaction and chaos – without a few hundred years and a replicate planet Earth or 12.
Louis – political philosophy is your core skill – BUT NOW me for you to tell us how YOU would go about climate research.
Prepare for smoke and/or crickets chirping.
“climate research”? Here would be a good place to start; note the reference to the Journal of Forecasting which David Stockwell has used for his recent ‘break’ paper;
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.pdf
What a bit of emotional qualitative nonsense from non-authorities. Heartland should get back to propping up the tobacco industry. This is the mob that put together dodgy lists which named scientists are not allowed to withdraw from. Coho – I spit on your choice.
ooooo Louis – Louis where r u? yoo- hooo !
1. Once again Luke (aka Eeyore) brayed: Where did Raupach say “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated” . I responded:
See Chap. 6 in Canadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L (eds) (2007) Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World.
The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg Canadell et al, Chap. 6 Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink, by Josep G. Canadell · Diane E. Pataki · Roger Gifford · Richard A. Houghton · Yiqi Luo · Michael R. Raupach, Pete Smith, Will Steffen. Luke, please explain if you can with your smaller than a donkey’s brain what is meant by “Saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink”?
2. Eeyore also said: “dreadful referencing. Media release – couldn’t find it.” Sorry I gave the wrong date, was actually 22 October 2007. It said “There has been a decline in the efficiency of natural land and ocean sinks which soak up carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities, according to findings published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US (PNAS).” What does decline mean in this context if not saturating sinks? In any case all data since 2006 shows an increasing uptake of CO2 emissions.
2. PNAS etc – you assumed wrongly, actually see Canadell Raupach et al PNAS November 2007, where again “declining efficiency= saturating”.
3. Eeyore again: “Trust you are not going to looking at wiggle watcher short periods or conflating declining sink with ‘saturated’.” So what in Eeyore’s vocab does “declining” mean if not saturating?
4. Garnaut’s Enting shows “declining” sinks in both absolute and relative terms. What does that mean to you donkeys if not “saturating”?
What a ranter. Saturating may be far from SATURATED. Are you actually thick. Stop being disingenuous and get published rebuttals in the “offending” journals. Otherwise stay whining.
As for “PNAS etc – you assumed wrongly” – it is customary to provide decent references – but you obviously lack the normal basic formalities of science. And the other one a wrong date !
“no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated”
“SATURATED” !!!!!!
YOUR WORDS MATE – I’ll remember this one forever.
“In any case all data since 2006 shows an increasing uptake of CO2 emissions.” – you laughable little person. A wiggle watcher. Hey Tim – maybe the trend went down again after 9:05am yesterday?
This is so utterly appalling – that you can write 1000 word essays here old mate – I’m not wasting any time chasing down material which you wantonly misrepresent nor am I going to bother reading any of it. As found out over at Deltoid – a waste of time is our Timmy.
What an absolutely frightful little ranting person you are.
“What an absolutely frightful little ranting person you are.”
What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black
Luke the Donkey braying at me again: “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated” “SATURATED” !!!!!! YOUR WORDS MATE – I’ll remember this one forever.” One again look at the CSIRO’s lead donkeys’ (Canadell & Raupach) chapter title:
Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink.
Actually Luke would perform a real social service by restricting his comments to Deltoid where he knows no dissent will be allowed.
Simply cite the line where it says : “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated” or remain infamous.
Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink.”Therefore the fertilization effect of N deposition on
C uptake at present is probably close to the saturation
level _if it has not already been reached_”.(p.64).)
from Canadell Pataki Raupach et al“Saturated carbon sinks” .
“Saturated carbon sinks
The researchers (Josep G. Canadell, Corinne Le Quere, Michael R. Raupach, Christopher B. Field, et al.) say that climate-induced shifts in wind patterns over the Southern Ocean have brought carbon-rich water toward the surface, reducing the ocean’s ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On land, extensive droughts have reduced the uptake of carbon by plants. ‘Weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2,’ said co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology”.
In plain English, land and sea are saturated as stated in the headline reporting the authors’ media release.
The list of donkeys grows ever longer, so Luke is in good company. Pace Field, there is no accelerating, and the sinks took up around 60% in the last 2 years, up on the long term average since 1958.
Reducing and reduced are NOT saturated. In plain English you’re a dick.
“fertilization effect of N deposition on C uptake” – no idea what the context is.
For heavens sake man – get a grip. Honestly if you really think that’s what the words mean – see a doctor.
The actual press release says:
Decline in uptake of carbon emissions confirmed
Reference: 07/211
A decline in the proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions absorbed by land and oceans is speeding up the growth of atmospheric CO2, according to a paper published today in the US Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
IT DOES NOT SAY SATURATED you utter shonk.
And they certainly aren’t saturated;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ocean_heat_and_mlo_co2_rate_2004-20091.png
CO2 declining in tandom with declining OHC; where is Will Steffan when you need him?
Luke aka Donkey #1: “IT DOES NOT SAY SATURATED you utter shonk.”
What does this (Canadell Pataki Raupach et al“Saturated carbon sinks” ) say?
Luke “But Jen – how can you possibly blog this – these guys are establishment scientists – and we all know that establishment scientists cannot be trusted…”
No…you have it wrong. It is the mathematicians, atronomers, biologists, chemists, geophysicists and computer programmers passing themselves off as climate scientists who cannot be trusted. There are many good scientists who still use the traditional method of direct observation, rather than the virtual science used by climate modelers. Do get with it, Lukey.
cohenite “Yeah luke, I kinda expected that AGW would lay claim to the GPCS…”
If you’re refering to the models used in the study of ocean systems like ENSO, that’s a far different matter than the gobbeldy gook used in models in the AGW paradigm. Scientists have been using models since the 1960′s, when computers became readily available. Dr. Joanne Simpson was using them to model clouds back in that era, and when she retired from NASA recently, after a distinguished career as a meteorlogist, she claimed they were not accurate enough to use as climate predictors.
The models used in the study of oceans are used largely to model ocean currents and wind systems. Those variables can be directly observed and confirmed, whereas the climate cannot. That’s what the IPCC affirmed in TAR. Climate models start out with a universal equation into which is programmed reality as the programmers envision it. Unfortunately, not many of them have expertise in physics and many of the parametres programmed into the models are either wrong or poorly understood.
Ocean models have been around since the 1960′s and they are far more sophisticated than climate models.
cohenite “No, no, no luke; you can’t hide behind Meehl and his magic what-if time machine; they have the same problem which Keenlyside has;….”
The other side of that coin was the study by Tsonis et al. One person on that study (Swanson) was over at realclimate kissing butt and using Keenlyside’s argument that the lack of a warming trend was only temporary. IMHO, the Tsonis study was far more to the point and a compare and contrast is given here between Tsonis and the RC suck Swanson.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/natural-climate-shifts-swanson-v-tsonis/
Here’s what Tsonis had to say:
“But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.
Richard Lindzen interpreted the work of Tsonis et al to mean warming had leveled off, not that it was in remission. Only a crank modeler or one of their religious followers could read that into Keenlyside or Tsonis.
“If you’re refering to the models used in the study of ocean systems like ENSO, that’s a far different matter than the gobbeldy gook used in models in the AGW paradigm” – are you mental ?
the models are the same – if not using similar components. Do you think there’s a parts bin marked “AGW component”.
“Climate models start out with a universal equation into which is programmed reality as the programmers envision it” – utter bullshi
Coho disown this bozo. It’s stuff like this that just makes you ROTFL.
If you had a half a brain Robbo (stupid “if” by me) you would have read Parker et al and thrown yourself out the window. Remember who’s the crank – this is the bloke who’s had the full acid trip “THERE IS NO BACK RADIATION”. which got morphs to “Well it’s not doing anything” which got run over by his idol Spencer who gives CO2 the marks it deserves.
Robbo your pants are around you ankles and we’ve done your hair in plaits. Off to mummy with you now. Quietly does it. Don’t annoy Timmy the ranter.
ee-ore ee-ore ee-ore eey-ore
Hi Gordon; the Tsonis and Swanson paper on climate breaks is critiqued at Niche modeling;
http://landshape.org/enm/swansons-pc-projection/#more-2704
It’s not a critique, it’s a random bunch of people on the internet humming and hawing over something they don’t understand. Pretty much what happens here, too.
Google: “Rhodes Fairbridge solar inertial motion model of climate change” to get a good sense of where all this is taking us in the very near future.