Solar stuff

[Chris]

Are we entering another solar minimum and will it impact our climate?  Time will tell. 

The sunspot count today is 102; solar cycle 24 has developed a second peak and the forecast for cycle 25 is the lowest in nearly a century.

[weatherfan2012]

I agree I know Geos is a very interisting read in the solar induce cooling and ice age idea as is phil be good to get both there in puts in this.

[Geos]

I thought solar activity would be of less intensity by now. It's very wintry to winter, I hate to see what the next couple of winter's will bring to North America!

[snow_wizard]

I certainly hope the coming grand minimum is good for the NW.  I see it as our only real hope to get back to the kind of winters we used to have.

[TheBigOne]

Would a mini ice age actually bring lots of snow to us or would death ridges be more common while continental North America gets pounded to death with waves of snow/cold to the East Coast more akin to Snowmaggaden that shut down DC and the rest of the Mid Atlantic for a week either in 2009 or 2010 I can't remember.

[TheBigOne]

Kind of interesting to see how our weather patterns, and even climate as a whole might go with a solar nap. Its evident that the blocking episodes so far are not exactly favorable for snow for us (Seattle et al), and it might be heresy to say that in a colder climate over all, the PacNW might be drier and a little more ridge-y than normal.

 

I would love to get some of our solar aficionados discussing this. 

 

Me and Dad both have wondered the very same thing as you have.    Don't forget to include effects like underwater volcanos that will warm certain parts of the ocean that will alter the jet stream causing cold/storms in weird areas.   We aren't the Ring Of Fire for nothing.

[Andie]

Finally someone mentions the million plus volcanoes, fissures, and vents in the ocean. The ocean can just hold so much in terms of heat and gases and then it releases some. Indonesian volcanoes have been quite active lately as has Etna. Just more SO2 in to the atmosphere. I'll leave it to others to weigh in on its affects on the,jet stream but I do think it affects our atmosphere.

Where is WeatherPhil when you need him ?

 

It's only one domino on the board but many miss it. I do think the sun and general electrical solar system is the gorilla in the room though.

[Chris]

Kind of interesting to see how our weather patterns, and even climate as a whole might go with a solar nap. Its evident that the blocking episodes so far are not exactly favorable for snow for us (Seattle et al), and it might be heresy to say that in a colder climate over all, the PacNW might be drier and a little more ridge-y than normal.

 

I would love to get some of our solar aficionados discussing this. 

 

One school of thought says equatorial convection will increase.  Increased convection -->more disruptions to jet--->more blocking but not necessarily 6 week long ridges.  Eventually the greater cloud cover would reduce the energy reaching the surface. 

 

I have no theory on it, but am extremely curious how it will play out. 

 

And for what its worth, the sun has hardly been quiet lately.

[weatherfan2012]

your right the sun has been a bit active in terms of sunspots but not with the amount of flares as Geos has stated most have it done much.this is a seacond max peak I beleave would be good to have phil chime in for sure.

[Phil]

One school of thought says equatorial convection will increase. Increased convection -->more disruptions to jet--->more blocking but not necessarily 6 week long ridges. Eventually the greater cloud cover would reduce the energy reaching the surface.

 

I have no theory on it, but am extremely curious how it will play out.

 

And for what its worth, the sun has hardly been quiet lately.

As a matter of fact, that's a very good description of what actually happens. Notice that unlike the rest of the northern hemisphere, the equatorial troposphere has featured no statistically significant warming trend since 1979:

 

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5372/o3yo.jpg

 

Spectral analysis indicates this is mostly due to decreasing convection over time..when you decrease tropical convection/cloud cover, you reduce the rate of latent heat release in the tropical mid/upper troposphere. So you cool the upper troposphere, and warm the lower troposphere..you also reduce the rate of electric discharge, the amplitude of the Rossby wave train, strength of the BDC, hence the thermal gradient/etc..

 

This favors weakened and broadened Hadley Cells...eventually the rubber band snaps and you get a poleward cell migration, warming the mid latitudes even further.

 

Greenhouse theorists predicted increased warming with height, with a maximum warming near the tropopause, (AKA the tropical upper tropospheric hotspot) due to the fact that thermalization of the low-frequency emissions from CO2 should be maximized up there given the reduced temperature with the lapse rate and the lack of H2O.

 

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/1756/bzm4.jpg

 

The fact that there has been a cooling above 300hpa essentially gave away the saturation, which is also somewhat evident in the latest CERES data.

 

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7316/59j8.jpg

[Chris]

Sunspot activity continues to be active.  According to space weather.com, today's number is 197.  Red auroras in Europe now, and NOAA says they may be visible in the northern US tonight.

[Jesse]

Sunspot activity continues to be active.  According to space weather.com, today's number is 197.  Red auroras in Europe now, and NOAA says they may be visible in the northern US tonight.

 

Is this peak in sunspot activity higher than we were anticipating for the current cycle?

[Chris]

http://s26.postimg.org/5p4w2oyft/sunspot.gifThis cycle has a double peak but lower than projected.

[Chris]

AP progression through February

http://s26.postimg.org/atv4avdcp/image.gif

[richard mann]

-

Just basic curiosity here, ...
 
Does anyone here know whether or not—whatever extent of—"solar activity", is included, input as main parameterization to any of the main "models" at this point. ?

[Phil]

No, solar activity is not accounted for in dynamical modeling..because we're not exactly sure how to model it..yet.

[richard mann]

-
.. I see. 
 
So, ...
 
— And with my working to understand to gage the validity—even degree more specific—of this activity's working to influence the atmosphere as whole, or either whatever aspect of it, ...
 
What exactly, are "we" .. sure of. ?
 
What's the correlation more basic. ?
 
— Thinking, more basically. ?

[Chris]

The sunspot number is back under 100.

[Phil]

-

.. I see.

 

So, ...

 

— And with my working to understand to gage the validity—even degree more specific—of this activity's working to influence the atmosphere as whole, or either whatever aspect of it, ...

 

What exactly, are "we" .. sure of. ?

 

What's the correlation more basic. ?

 

— Thinking, more basically. ?

This would take me days to explain fully, so I'll have to briefly summarize it. The Sun acts on various atmospheric dynamics on all sorts of timescales..and in many manners.

 

The upper atmospheric wind-field (SAO, QBO, QTO), upper atmospheric chemistry, the Brewer-Dobson cells, the annular modes (AO/AAO), MJO & it's mean period frequency, general tropical convective schemes, cloud microphysics/nucleation rates, ENSO/Walker/Hadley cells/ & global metidional cells, Rossby wave amplitude, GWDT/UAAM, breaker flow fields, etc, are all affected and occasionally dominated by various aspects of solar activity, and they are all connected to one another..internally, as well..

 

The timescale of response (to solar forcings) ranges from 5 minutes to 15 years..depending on the type of solar forcing and the system state itself, as these dynamics are also modulated by the system itself, with its high thermal inertia. Much of what the system is doing now was forced externally 5-7 years ago, put it simply...and that previously-forced internal inertia may contradict present external forcings...if that makes any sense. For example, I shake a flag pole..eventually it begins to sway at its resonance frequency. If I push and pull the flag pole at the right frequency. I can break the flag pole. But if I shake it too fast or too slow, it won't move. In this case, the climate system has many "resonances", but I think you get the point.

 

ENSO can be predicted 5-7 years out...eventually atmospheric science will realize that ENSO is the system's response to disequilibrium, and is not a random, internally-driven oscillation. Neither is the PDO, or the AMO. Remember, harmonic resonance cannot exist without a trigger.

 

Also know that there are various solar forcings. The gamma ray flux, UV flux, solar wind, infrared flux, etc all affect the system on in different manners, on the different timescales. The solar wind governs the systems "master functions" on long timescales (decades), while shorter term fluctuations in irradiance affects the upper atmosphere very quickly.

[richard mann]

-
.. If very well outlined—and with my certainly appreciating your time taken to point to each of these ideas, ... all pretty much what I had imagined. 
 
So, what is it that you look at, or perhaps looked at otherwise, that we should per your view, more in particularly, and apart from the sun's impact more than its main and more basic compliment of insolation daily, where considering the different main and larger effects more cyclically appreciated by degrees as being attributable to solar weather, e.g. whether ENSO or otherwise perhaps something else occurring more multi-decadally. ? 
 
— As a side note here, personally I attribute the variability of and where looking at the main and broader oscillations that you've pointed to, to gravity. .. That more external to and impacting, set against that more basic and emanating more outward from, the earth. And with this, gravitational attraction being mainly what moves colder air mass around the planet. And so not, so much, allowing for the more thermally driven scenarios / effects .. that you've suggested / pointed to, being the case. 

[Chris]

Current sunspot cycle is in red.

 

http://s26.postimg.org/86emib8m1/minimax.jpg

[Chris]

Relatively quiet today on the sun.  Doesn't look much like a solar max.

 

http://s26.postimg.org/rgcwtmwrd/sun_5_22k.jpg

[snow_wizard]

It certainly appears the solar activity is in a slow decline now. The flux numbers have stabilized far below what they were a few months ago. It's really intriguing how much lower the AP has been with this cycle than what it was on the last one also.

[Chris]

Sunspot # now at 55

http://s9.postimg.org/4jb8pwq73/sunspor1898.gif

[Phil]

We decline overall through the summer, IMO.

 

BTW, I've finished my 2015-16 ENSO calculations. Expecting a swing right back to La Niña.

[Chris]

The sunspot number is at 37

 

http://s16.postimg.org/e9wzoe345/suni1898.gif

[Chris]

The lowest I've seen in a few years.  Sunspot number is 11.

 

http://s22.postimg.org/8lszmc17l/sun7_17.gif

[Chris]

And today we have the first spotless day in nearly 3 years.  The next few years will be a good test of the solar activity/earth climate impact.

[Phil]

And today we have the first spotless day in nearly 3 years. The next few years will be a good test of the solar activity/earth climate impact.

We'll likely see the cooling begin in 2017 +/- 1yr as TSI/UV begins to decline. The longer term solar-wind forcing on the governing atmospheric dynamics has been cancelled by the current solar radiative max

 

In the recent global warming period, the "warming" occurred during the rise into solar max, then flat-lined until the next solar max...now we see that the current TSI/UV max has not led to any temperature spike:

 

http://catchmypicture.com/f/0BEBew/800.jpg

 

http://catchmypicture.com/f/YUdyv7/800.jpg

[Phil]

To be fair Phil, over the past few years I have seen your date slip where in late 2010 you called for 2014 to be the start of cooling to now where it may be late as 2018. Is there a cut off date where if we don't see any cooling then you revaluate your thought process?

 

What?

 

Not to be harsh, but I never said anything like that. I predicted the planetary energy budget would reach spatial equilibrium w/ incoming during winter 2012-13...and that the cooling would begin at approximately 2017, +/- 1yr.

 

My prediction for radiative equilibrium actually was too conservative...on a planetary scale we're now emitting more than we're receiving

[Phil]

If we are at a point of loosing more energy than taking in, would it be safe to say then we plateau out or even start to cool over all until '17, where we drop off significantly?

Possibly, but it will probably be statistically insignificant. There's been a slight global cooling of the atmosphere since 2001 by most metrics.

 

The deep oceans, however, have not yet reached equilibrium, and may be a long way from doing so...but they're not involved indirect thermal exchange with the radiative column (sfc-TOA). The concept of radiative equilibrium involves the system's boundaries that are directly interactive...IE, in a 1-2 stage energy exchange. The deep oceans would probably continue warming for 50+ years even if we were to enter a full blown ice age right now..

 

Speaking of radiative equilibrium, the atmosphere must achieve it first, (due to the basic thermodynamics within energy flow and exchange)...whether you hypothesize GHG forcing, solar forcing, etc. The next boundary to achieve equilibrium will be the high-capacity upper oceanic mixing layer (40-70m). Once this has occurred, global temperatures will decline as the "heat tap" will be turned off, so to speak. The deep oceans will achieve equilibrium much later and are irrelevant unless you look on a 500-1000yr timescale.

[Phil]

To explain the equations regarding GHG forcing, it's important to know that even before we began pumping CO^2 into the atmosphere, every photon emitted from sfc in the necessary frequencies was already intercepted within the first 2150ft of the column..the hypothesized thermalization due to additional CO^2 would have to occur in the mid-upper troposphere above 400hpa, where temperatures are below the analogous intercepted frequencies..these frequencies are analogous to, at most, -35F.

 

This would warm the upper troposphere, and this heat would subsequently be conducted/circulated through mixing, following the lapse rate. So eventually this added heat will travel through the column, reaching the surface/SSTs, hence forcing them to warm through conduction and back-radiation..

 

The fact that the upper troposphere is not warming is the real problem the AGW community is facing...not "the pause" in warming

[richard mann]

-

Aren't acronyms convenient. ? .. for those who use them. (?)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGW

 

The fact that the upper troposphere is not warming is the real problem the AGW community is facing...not "the pause" in warming

.. Your impression, or something that you've read pointed to by the so-called "AGW community", more in fact. ?

[Phil]

Those who propose anthropogenic radiative-forcing is responsible for the majority of observed warming since 1950

[richard mann]

-

Those who propose anthropogenic radiative-forcing is responsible for the majority of observed warming since 1950 ....

.. I'm sorry. ?

— You appear to have identified better, whom you had been referring to here above. But haven't really answered my question. .. I'm in fact, looking at and for the more "factual", elements here.

The fact that the upper troposphere is not warming is the real problem the AGW community is facing...not "the pause" in warming

.. Your impression, or something that you've read pointed to by the so-called "AGW community", more in fact. ?

 

— If by .. Those who propose anthropogenic radiative-forcing is responsible for the majority of observed warming since 1950 ...

 

.. As stated, where. ?

[Phil]

It is often referred to as the "hot spot", essentially an area where warming is maximized as radiation in certain frequencies intercepted via CO^2/H^2O is thermalized upon molecular collision (with N^2/O^2, primarily)...this intercepted radiation is only thermalized in the upper atmosphere for the reasons I glossed over in my original post...I can go into more of the physics behind this and radiative transfer in general, if you'd like.

 

If there's one thing I've noticed catch on since the 1990s, it's climatologists' obsession with radiation as full parameterization of energy flow...probably because it's easy. Problem is the laws of radiative transfer within a fluid was never meant to be/shouldn't be applied with the gravitational force present.

[richard mann]

-

... Apparently you're not going to answer my question. ... As you've apparently (?) seen it only as spring board and opportunity, to clarify what you've had in mind otherwise. (?)

 
— None of which (if btw.) I have any reason to agree, or disagree with .. more immediately here. 
 
.. I've asked a fairly simply and straight-forward question.  .. Twice now.

[Phil]

I don't understand your question. Can you elaborate? Thank you.

[richard mann]

-

I don't understand your question. Can you elaborate? Thank you.

The fact that the upper troposphere is not warming is the real problem the AGW community is facing...not "the pause" in warming.

Is this above, ..

.. Your impression, [....... ] or something that you've read pointed to by the so-called "AGW community", more in fact. ?
 
— What's to explain. ?

[Phil]

The impression I get when looking at satellite measurements of the radiation budget (CERES and AIRS, particularly) is that the theorized radiative forcing is not occurring in the manner it is anticipated to, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the gravitational force's role in setting the hydrostatic lapse rate/thermal gradient. I'm not the first one to suggest this.

 

We have in fact witnessed a marked increase in net outgoing radiation, mostly in the upper spectra w/ in the atmospheric window. The observed explanation for the warming is a reduction in tropical cloud cover, a poleward migration of the Hadley Cells, and a depletion in O^3/weakening of the Brewer-Dobson cells..

[richard mann]

.. hmmn. 
 
"Phil", ....
 
$ .... Is, the idea / fact, ...... that the upper troposphere is not warming, .. and so (?) ... the real problem the AGW community is facing...not "the pause" in warming, ..... 
 
.... your .. own .. impression. ? ... Or not. ? 
 
And / or, otherwise, .... something that you've read ..... pointed to .. more specifically ... by the so-called "AGW community", more in fact. ?   @

[Phil]

AGW theory requires the intercepted IR to be thermalized in the upper troposphere before that heat can go anywhere. If the upper troposphere isn't warming, then they have a problem.

[richard mann]

-
With this response, ...
 
— And if with my still, not in fact having gotten an answer more direct, more specific, to my question posed to you above, ...
 
..... Sounds, as if certainly, ...  
 
.. that this is, "your impression".
 
— And not, .... something that you've read pointed to more specifically by the so-called "AGW community", more in fact.  

In any case, and with my daring to venture further into this idea / sub-theme here with you (i.e. hoping for a response perhaps at least a tad more cogent and connected where considering it.), .....

 

If not your impression, more solely, ...... And with what you've suggested both here and more initially above, being also not something that the "AWG community" has conceded, apparently, ....
 

AGW theory requires the intercepted IR to be thermalized in the upper troposphere before that heat can go anywhere. If the upper troposphere isn't warming, then they have a problem.

  
... I would ask, regarding what you've said here more just above, ...

 

According, to whom. ?  This, or otherwise looked at, what .. citable literature. ?

 

— i.e. From where, does this thinking stem.

[Phil]

According to the laws of radiative transfer. This is pretty much agreed upon, if I'm not mistaken...

 

http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc

[richard mann]

According to the laws of radiative transfer. This is pretty much agreed upon, if I'm not mistaken...

 

http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc

 

.. You did this before. I ask a straight-forward according to whom, general question, the broader theme then, as with this idea, obviously having to do with "Physics", ....

 

And you plop down "According to the laws of Physics". If in this case more pointing to some of them more specific. 

 

— I've simply asked you to point to where you've seen what you've suggested, pointed to elsewhere / asserted otherwise .. if it hadn't been something that you've arrived at more yourself alone.

 

.. Before I check the document that you've routed to above, .. does what it contains work to demonstrate what you've suggested above. ?

[Phil]

Yes, the document is written by a physicist who has reached the same conclusion as I have.

[richard mann]

-
Clear enough.
 
.. Where, within it more specifically. ?

 

— Perhaps you could quote some of what you've noted that does so.

[Chris]

I've no idea how they got these numbers from 1600 AD, but here you go -

http://s12.postimg.org/953mzfhy5/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

[Phil]

A lot it is derived via isotope analysis via ice core data. It's a fairly reliable method.

[richard mann]

- 
... And, as to this then. ?
 
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php?/topic/24-solar-stuff/?p=30146