Global warming discussion IV

[Haig]

moving right on to some climate science and the consequences of our warming the planet....

Except the sun and planet have other ideas

Stephen Wilde has a theory. Plug in your brain, and follow this chain of potential influence:

The Sun —-> UV or charged particles —- > ozone —-> polar jet streams —–> clouds —–> surface temperatures.

Summary of the Stephen Wilde Hypothesis

In essence: The Sun affects the ozone layer through changes in UV or charged particles. When the Sun is more active there is more ozone above the equator and less over the poles, and vice versa. An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower. There is thus a solar induced see-saw effect on the height of the tropopause, which causes the climate zones to shift towards then away from the equator, moving the jet streams and changing them from “zonal” jet streams to “meridonal” ones. When meridonal, the jet streams wander in loops further north and south, resulting in longer lines of air mass mixing at climate zone boundaries, which creates more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back out to space, determining how much the climate system is heated by the near-constant incoming solar radiation. Thus the Sun’s UV and charged particles modulate the solar heating of the Earth.

Good explanation of why this may be an enduring and increasingly dangerous pattern

Nope, the JET STREAM has been stuck over the UK for a few weeks now and it's for that reason the flooding has happened.

What controls the JET STREAM? It's our variable star of course

With an INACTIVE Sun (as we have now) Earth system losing energy, Jet Stream moves towards the equator, more clouds, high albedo

With an ACTIVE Sun (as we had last century) Earth system gaining energy, Jet Stream moves towards the poles, less clouds, low albedo

the collision zone

Under the Jet Stream

worth the read

Oh Yes !

Is the Sun driving ozone and changing the climate?

The new paper by Andersson et al builds on the hypothesis that ozone is influential and a potential mechanism to amplify solar factors. It adds energetic electron precipitation (EEP) to spectral changes in UV, which is a significant step forward.

Andersson et al describe it as having a short term regional effect, with no implications for global or long term climate change. But if the effect is significant between the peak and trough of a single solar cycle, then surely it is also going to be significant over the millennial cycle of solar variation — such as that observed from the Medieval Warm Period through the Little Ice Age and up to date.

Observations of climate changes across the last thousand years suggest that it must be so. In the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland had agriculture and the Western Isles of Scotland were prosperous with a much larger population than today—which implies more poleward climate zones and zonal jets at that time. In contrast, ships logs from the Little Ice Age show much greater Atlantic storminess and more equatorward mid latitude depression tracks at that time (depressions generally follow the tracks of the jet streams).

How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature PDF

Note that the solar UV warming effect on ozone in the stratosphere becomes weaker as one approaches the poles whereas the solar proton destruction of ozone in the mesosphere becomes stronger as one approaches the poles. I suggest that within the polar vortex (poleward of the mid latitude jets) the solar proton effect becomes dominant and affects the height of the polar tropopause more than does the solar UV effect but due to the reversed sign of the solar proton effect (cooling) as compared to the UV effect (warming) both processes act on the jets the same way.

The temperature differential between surface and stratosphere will increase either if the surface warms or if the stratosphere cools so a higher tropopause (globally averaged – never mind the latitudinal variations) and a poleward shift of the jets is consistent either with AGW theory which proposes a warming of the troposphere from human CO2 or in accordance with my hypothesis which proposes a cooling of the stratosphere from some natural solar induced process when the sun is more active.

So which is it – natural or anthropogenic ?

The jets were more poleward during the Mediaeval Warm Period hence the reported Viking settlements in Greenland so the temperature differential from surface to stratosphere must have increased then too and at that time there was no significant warming in the troposphere from human emissions thus the cause of the poleward jets back then must have been a net cooling of the stratosphere from entirely natural causes at a time of (then as now) a more active sun.

On the basis of logic and observations and contrary to AGW theory it must be the case that the stratosphere cools naturally when the sun is more active and warms naturally when the sun is less active.

Maunder Minimum jets were well south of what we see today and we know that from ship's records. MWP jets were north of even what they were in the 1990's because the Vikings could settle Greenland back then.

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645.

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

Also interesting ...

SUN EXPERIENCES SEASONAL CHANGES, NEW RESEARCH FINDS

In the new paper, the authors conclude that the migrating bands produce seasonal variations in solar activity that are as strong as the more familiar 11-year counterpart. These quasi-annual variations take place separately in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

“Much like Earth’s jet stream, whose warps and waves have had severe impact on our regional weather patterns in the past couple of winters, the bands on the Sun have very slow-moving waves that can expand and warp it too,” said co-author Robert Leamon, a scientist at Montana State University. “Sometimes this results in magnetic fields leaking from one band to the other. In other cases, the warp drags magnetic fields from deep in the solar interior, near the tachocline, and pushes them toward the surface.”

The surges of magnetic fuel from the Sun’s interior catastrophically destabilize the corona, the Sun’s outermost atmosphere. They are the driving force behind the most destructive solar storms.

“These surges or ‘whomps’ as we have dubbed them, are responsible for over 95 percent of the large flares and CMEs—the ones that are really devastating,” McIntosh said.

The quasi-annual variability can also help explain a cold-war era puzzle: why do powerful solar flares and CMEs often peak a year or more after the maximum number of sunspots? This lag is known as the Gnevyshev Gap, after the Soviet scientist who first reported it in the 1940s. The answer appears to be that seasonal changes may cause an upswing in solar disturbances long after the peak in the solar cycle.

 

[macdoc]

Britain has started naming storms and there have been four monsters in just a few weeks starting with Abigail....

There are two factors at play here .....the Gulf Stream is slowing but still carries a tremendous amount of heat ( record temps this summer ) so that spreads across the North Atlantic as the North Atlantic drift....not a hot current compact like the Gulf Stream is and what more important the heat and moisture load above the ocean.

good article that graph is from .

The more immediate cause of the storms is the collision of the slowing Gulf Stream ...which is still carrying all that record heat ....just slower
and abnormally cold current coming down from the Artic ( Frobisher current I think ...could be wrong ).

THAT is abnormally cold just south of Greenland

It's the gradient between the systems that is causing the storms.

Cold Blob' in North Atlantic Ocean May Affect Weather in Europe, Eastern US
Alex Sosnowski
By Alex Sosnowski, AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist
October 15, 2015; 5:40 AM ET

A "blob" of abnormally cold water in the North Atlantic, located near Greenland, has the potential to put enough drag on the ocean current to impact weather conditions in the years to come.
According to data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sea surface water temperatures over much of the Atlantic were warmer than average spanning January to August 2015. Waters from the northwestern Caribbean to the central part of the ocean were not only very warm but were record warm.

The collision of record high temps and well below normal cold water from the north is creating the conditions for devastating storms, high winds and the atmosphere holding a tremendous amount of water which when cooled by the collision creates both record winds and record rainfaills.'

Another expensive consequence.

 

[Belz...]

At least you can't cherry-pick your data from that one.

Looks like you're wrong again !

Did you just admit to not believing a word of what you post?

 

[Haig]

Did you just admit to not believing a word of what you post?

Nope, wrong again Belz I posted just part of a cartoon that you thought couldn't happen

Here's a good one too

Saturday Silliness – Speak softly and carry a big Hockey Stick to the Senate

Since there was so much coverage of Mark Steyn’s take no prisoners testimony at the Senate hearing this week, (full text and video) I commissioned Josh to create a cartoon that sums up what went on. It will be in our upcoming U.S. (and Canadian) edition of the Josh -WUWT climate calendar, look for it to be announced very soon – Anthony

 

[Trakar]

Except the sun and planet have other ideas

Stephen Wilde has a theory. Plug in your brain, and follow this chain of potential influence:

The Sun —-> UV or charged particles —- > ozone —-> polar jet streams —–> clouds —–> surface temperatures.

Summary of the Stephen Wilde Hypothesis

Hypotheses require a lot of compelling supportive evidence and integration with other accepted and compellingly supported understandings, before they achieve much standing. If you think these hypotheses have merit, you should encourage the author(s) to publish in an appropriate journal.

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo

This much repeated fairytale, has been just as repeatedly shown to be a disingenuous and misleading interpretation of the study cited (which it self is more than a bit dubious in its methods and findings). If this one study does turn out to be right, we’d see solar conditions equivalent to the Maunder Minimum in the 2030s.

This won’t cause the world to enter a mini ice age — for three reasons:
1)The Little Ice Age turns out to have been quite little. 2) What cooling there was probably was driven more by volcanoes than the Maunder Minimum.3) The warming effect from global greenhouse gases will overwhelm any reduction in solar forcing, even more so by the 2030s.

So, is the term "Little Ice Age" (LIA) more of an exaggeration (LIE)?

"Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia"
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

...Palaeoclimate records spanning the past millennium are often characterized as including some manifestation of a warm Medieval Warm Period (MWP) followed by a cool Little Ice Age (LIA)23. Previous reviews of these intervals have shown a tendency for centennial-scale temperature anomalies, but have also emphasized their heterogeneity through space and time6,24–27. Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend...

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

Science, but no support for your claims and beliefs. The main disingenuity of the article is the statement: "Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645." this misstatement should explain that it’s a 60% reduction in the magnitude of the solar cycle (not solar activity), this translates to about -0.1W/m² in total, which, at current rates of human induced amplification, would mean that this overall reduction would be completely offset by 3 years of human CO₂emissions.

Also interesting ...

SUN EXPERIENCES SEASONAL CHANGES, NEW RESEARCH FINDS

Definitely interesting, but as far as I can tell, completely unrelated to climate change much less any of the pseudo-science fantasies you promote here.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, wrong again Belz I posted just part of a cartoon that you thought couldn't happen

Wow! A cartoon! That is some convincing data!

Yep. You don't believe a word of what you post.

 

[Haig]

Hypotheses require a lot of compelling supportive evidence and integration with other accepted and compellingly supported understandings, before they achieve much standing. If you think these hypotheses have merit, you should encourage the author(s) to publish in an appropriate journal.

As I understand, there are papers about this and other related studies in the process for publication in the meantime here is compelling supportive evidence and integration with other accepted and compellingly supported understandings

The atmospheric global electric circuit: An overview (a very large PDF)

Abstract:
Research work in the area of the Global Electric Circuit (GEC) has rapidly expanded in recent years mainly through observations of lightning from satellites and ground-based networks and observations of optical emissions between cloud and ionosphere. After reviewing this progress, we critically examine the role of various generators of the currents flowing in the lower and upper atmosphere and supplying currents to the GEC. The role of aerosols and cosmic rays in controlling the GEC and linkage between climate, solar-terrestrial relationships and the GEC has been briefly discussed. Some unsolved problems in this area are reported for future investigations.

5. Global Electric Circuit and global temperature (climate change)
Recently it has been suggested to use GEC as a tool for studying the earth’s climate and climatic changes, because of its direct connection with lightning activity

Bruce Leybourne: Earth as a Stellar Transformer — Climate Change Revealed | EU2015

Published on 10 Dec 2015
In this presentation, Bruce Leybourne will present climate as the interplay between Field Aligned Currents in the ionosphere and Induction Currents charging Earth’s core. He will show that climate change is driven by a transformer effect between plasma ring currents coupled to solar winds, which induce telluric currents in upper mantle structures grounded to the core. This transformer effect is strongest at the south-pole where the polar plasma jet is more strongly coupled to an upper mantle ridge structure encircling Antarctica. This effect exerts climate control over the planet via aligned tectonic vortex structures along the Western Pacific rim, electrically connected to the core. This is consistent with the “Earth Endogenous Energy” theory (Gregori, 2002 – Earth as a rechargeable battery/capacitor). Intense solar outbursts result in intense plasma impinging upon Earth, creating a modulating effect to atmospheric pressure, global Jet Stream patterns, global warming and cooling cycles. These changes are directly linked to charging and discharging phases of the Earth and result in fluctuations of Earth’s magnetic field cycles in rhythm with the climate.

Bruce Leybourne is current Research Director of Institute for Advanced Studies in Climate Change (IASCC) and also works with Geostream Consulting LLC and Climate-Stat Inc. to improve geophysical-weather models. His education includes bachelor and master degrees in geology from the University of North Carolina and University of Southern Mississippi respectively. On the subjects of geophysics and climate, Bruce has spoken at many international conferences, authored and co-authored many papers and is currently organizing a book to reveal the true nature of climate change. Past experience with over 10 years offshore including: Gravity/magnetic survey work onboard seismic exploration vessels and seafloor mapping, oceanography, and geophysics with the Naval Oceanographic Office on multi-mission military-surveys.

Wow! A cartoon! That is some convincing data!

Yep. You don't believe a word of what you post.

Oh dear! you're wrong AGAIN

 

[macdoc]

Cloudy with a chance of warming
Date:
December 10, 2015
Clouds can increase warming in the changing Arctic region more than scientists expected, by delivering an unexpected double-whammy to the climate system, according to a new study by researchers at NOAA, the University of Colorado Boulder and colleagues.

"As the Arctic atmosphere warms and moistens, it becomes a better insulator. While we expected this to reduce the influence from clouds, which provide additional insulation, we find that clouds forming in the Arctic in these conditions appear to further warm the surface, especially in the fall and winter," said Christopher Cox, lead author of the new paper published today in Nature Communications. Cox is a research scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), who works at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

Clouds are a complicated character in the climate change story: They can cool the planet's surface by reflecting sunlight, and they can insulate it and keep it warm.

"To understand why and where Earth is warming, you have to understand the overall effect of clouds," Cox said.

Head north to the Arctic, and clouds' impact on climate is particularly difficult to understand, he said. The amount and manner in which clouds warm the surface is determined by an intricate dance between moisture (relative humidity), temperatures and the properties of the clouds--and that dance "is different in the Arctic, where the air is colder and drier than at lower latitudes," Cox said.

To nail down the overarching influence of Arctic clouds on temperatures, he and colleagues from CIRES, NOAA, Washington State University, Idaho and Chile analyzed measurements from three science research stations in the far north: Barrow, Alaska; Eureka, Canada; and Summit, Greenland.

They assessed things like temperature, relative humidity, and a measure of the cloud insulating properties ("the downwelling infrared cloud radiative effect"), and they looked at how those factors interacted with one another (in different parts of the infrared spectrum).

Previous work suggested that as the atmosphere itself warms and becomes more moist it becomes a better insulator, so the clouds themselves have a diminishing contribution to warming. This is likely true on a global scale: It's as if a person is already warm under a blanket and adding another blanket has little additional effect.

However, this team found a different behavior when temperature and humidity increase in the cold Arctic. There, clouds can retain their ability to warm the surface, and actually appear to be amplifying regional warming. In this cold, dry region, adding a second "blanket" can, in fact, make it even warmer.

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151210091851.htm

 

[macdoc]

Lots going on in the north

Significant changes in one of Earth's most important ecosystems are not only a symptom of climate change, but may fuel further warming, research suggests.

One of the biggest studies to date of key vegetation in the Arctic tundra provides strong evidence that dramatic changes in the region are being driven by climate warming.

Studies of tundra shrubs -- which act as a barometer of the Arctic environment -- show that they grow more when temperatures are warmer. Increased shrub growth, driven by recent and future warming in the Arctic, could cause more warming in tundra ecosystems and for the planet as a whole.

Taller shrubs prevent snow from reflecting heat from the sun back into space, warming Earth's surface. They can also influence soil temperatures and thaw permafrost. Increased shrubs can change the cycling of nutrients and carbon in soil, affecting its decomposition and the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere. All these factors can contribute to climate warming both in the Arctic and on a global scale.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150706114229.htm

 

[Belz...]

Wow! A cartoon! That is some convincing data!

Oh dear! you're wrong AGAIN

So it's not convincing, then?

I'll takt that as confirmation that you don't believe a word you type.

 

[Trakar]

As I understand, there are papers about this and other related studies in the process for publication in the meantime here is compelling supportive evidence and integration with other accepted and compellingly supported understandings

You are apparently relying on a colloquial, subjective (and completely irrelevant) understanding of the term "compelling" rather than an appropriate scientific understanding of the term.

The atmospheric global electric circuit: An overview (a very large PDF)

I find it interesting, but uncompelling and largely irrelevant rather than directly supportive of any argument I've seen you make.

Bruce Leybourne: Earth as a Stellar Transformer — Climate Change Revealed | EU2015

And now you venture into Youtube buffoonery and Intertoobs pseudoscience.

 

[Haig]

You are apparently relying on a colloquial, subjective (and completely irrelevant) understanding of the term "compelling" rather than an appropriate scientific understanding of the term.



I find it interesting, but uncompelling and largely irrelevant rather than directly supportive of any argument I've seen you make.



And now you venture into Youtube buffoonery and Intertoobs pseudoscience.

Thanks Trakar for your views although it's disappointing that you refuse to see the science referenced in my last two posts, in particular.

No matter:- the science of the Sun - Earth connection and the Global Electric Circuit is gaining recognition and support all the time.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Thanks Trakar for your views although it's disappointing that you refuse to see the science referenced in my last two posts, in particular.

No matter:- the science of the Sun - Earth connection and the Global Electric Circuit is gaining recognition and support all the time.

Whether it is or is not, matters little, because it does not in any way refute CO2 as a greenhouse gas, nor the measurements of CO2 reaching ~400ppm nor human activity being the cause for the increase.

Everyone knows the sun has an effect on climate, it is obvious. Without the sun this would be an iceball or not even exist at all. But that whole line of reasoning is pertaining to natural climate fluctuations, not AGW, which is the man made part. Just the standard AGW denialist strategy of finding red herrings to obfuscate.

 

[macdoc]

Can we collectively stop feeding the troll and move on to some climate science instead of catering to the 2 year old demanding attention.

 

[Reality Check]

Except the sun and planet have other ideas
...

The usual delusions about the Sun and climate.
Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or two

 

[Reality Check]

Here's a good one too ....

Usual WUWT idiocy, this time about Steyn's rants: Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or two

 

[Reality Check]

As I understand, there are papers about this and other related studies in the process for publication...

You do not understand anything about climate science, Haig, as is well documented.
Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or two

Here we have the total idiocy of citing a deluded speaker at an Electric Universe conference (EU2015). These are "conferences" about the universe with no working astronomers attending ! The reason being that the organizers are the neo-Velikovsky Thunderbolts cult whose followers are so deluded that they believe that comets are rocks that were blasted off planets in recent times (as recorded in myths)!
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. (mostly from citations from Haig!).

 

[Haig]

Can we collectively stop feeding the troll and move on to some climate science instead of catering to the 2 year old demanding attention.

Stop picking on RC I'm sure he will do better.


How about recognising this climate science ? HERE


[IMGw=640]http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[Haig]

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

 

[Belz...]

Haig breaks the silence on his pretend denial.

At least you can't cherry-pick your data from that one.

Looks like you're wrong again !

Did you just admit to not believing a word of what you post?