|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2016 15:56:36 GMT
Several articles have been posted here which claim there will be a drop in Solar activity over the next 50 years or so. Here on the other hand is is a recent predict1on based on an extensive analysis of past long term cycles that says" ...solar activity during the 21st century should be similar to solar activity enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century." euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/Very good article duwayne. One item (at least) was missing. He states that ... The climatic effect is also probably not due to changes in radiation reaching the surface, as we know they are very small. He does not address the issue of a shift in the radiation spectrum, e.g. changes in the amount of UV radiation under different solar conditions, which could significantly affect ocean heating. Whatever happens, we are in a 'favorable' position temporally to observe what actually happens. That may (or not) change many paradigms. It seems we may be cursed (or blessed) to live in interesting times. Bring on the 'true' scientists. Yep, this little blip in solar activity of roughly so far a bit more than a half of solar cycle may be a typical periodic blip but we have no idea what the general direction of solar activity is going. Put together 2,000 earth climate scientists who have thermometers, pressure gauges, windometers, you name it everywhere cannot definitively say anything about earth's climate. The pause demonstrates that conclusively. And what it may well be is that what we need to do is understand the climate of the sun. A place we cannot even get an instrument near to. I am liking the solar spectrum frequency change combined with the huge momentum of the ocean to absorb heat. I am currently favoring that because such an explanation seems to be the only one that explains why the thermosphere is so hot. . . .and explains the longterm delayed correlation to solar activity we have seen in the last 300 years since we started consistently counting solar activity. Perhaps what we need is an index of higher solar frequencies and a better understanding of how greenhouse gases respond to light at different frequencies. Some think CO2 amounts to nothing because its frequency range is so low that all its capable of doing is warming very cold places via radiation. . . .but can't even do that because its such a rare gas on this planet.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 11, 2016 20:57:22 GMT
I am liking the solar spectrum frequency change combined with the huge momentum of the ocean to absorb heat. While the ocean's capacity to absorb heat does appear to be huge, with all the buffering that entails, I wonder whether we underestimate the ocean's ability to cool relatively quickly ... particularly in the upper layers. As an example, the North Atlantic north of 40 N Latitude has cooled about 0.9 C (SSTs) in the last decade ... most of it in the last 4-5 years. This amounts to about 9-10 percent of its surface layer temperature. At greater depth (0-700 m), it has cooled by 0.5 C over the same time period, which amounts to about a 6 percent loss. This is a huge amount of energy. I choose the N Atlantic because it is geographically constrained. Very little of that energy appears to be circulating downward (according to Argo). Thus, that part which is not going into melting ice, must be loss to the atmosphere, and ultimately to space. We assume that this is occurring largely due to some interference (currently unproven cause) in the northward flow of warm tropical surface waters. With little heat replenishment, this may serve as a reasonable example of natural(?) heat-loss magnitude in a high-latitude ocean. We have seen climatewise, what happens when you temporarily 'park' a large body of warm water off the northwest coast of North America. There the SST temperature change from trough to peak amounted to about 2 C. While we have historical accounts of what happens when the N Atlantic goes cold, we are about to get a well-documented (data wise) example of climate effects on the cold side.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2016 23:22:06 GMT
I am liking the solar spectrum frequency change combined with the huge momentum of the ocean to absorb heat. While the ocean's capacity to absorb heat does appear to be huge, with all the buffering that entails, I wonder whether we underestimate the ocean's ability to cool relatively quickly ... particularly in the upper layers. As an example, the North Atlantic north of 40 N Latitude has cooled about 0.9 C (SSTs) in the last decade ... most of it in the last 4-5 years. This amounts to about 9-10 percent of its surface layer temperature. At greater depth (0-700 m), it has cooled by 0.5 C over the same time period, which amounts to about a 6 percent loss. This is a huge amount of energy. I choose the N Atlantic because it is geographically constrained. Very little of that energy appears to be circulating downward (according to Argo). Thus, that part which is not going into melting ice, must be loss to the atmosphere, and ultimately to space. We assume that this is occurring largely due to some interference (currently unproven cause) in the northward flow of warm tropical surface waters. With little heat replenishment, this may serve as a reasonable example of natural(?) heat-loss magnitude in a high-latitude ocean. We have seen climatewise, what happens when you temporarily 'park' a large body of warm water off the northwest coast of North America. There the SST temperature change from trough to peak amounted to about 2 C. While we have historical accounts of what happens when the N Atlantic goes cold, we are about to get a well-documented (data wise) example of climate effects on the cold side. I agree. The ocean has big differences in its warming and cooling ability because of the cooling/heating variability being on the surface. Convection aids cooling and relegates warming to conduction below the thermocline. I have said my theory of ice loss is that it primarily results in more rapid ocean cooling and that should show first in the Atlantic. climate science laid the bet on positive feedback from sea ice loss. Observations are strongly suggesting its negative. I think what the case might be is solar minimums and maximums are far too short to fully influence the ocean and ice loss which mostly occurred in the last decade may noe be showing its effect rapidly. this may at least be in part an oversteer effect that creates the ocean multidecadal cycle. . . .or at least i am not seeing a solar effect striking at a 67 or 72 year pattern. I have not spent a lot of time with the astrometeorologist charts that attempt to match that so i am not convinced, but what i have seen are shorter (11yr) and longer term matches. namely the noaa chart that applies multidecadal smoothing that shows a corrolation in excsss of three decades. the fact that solar/surface ocean peaked in the mid 80's is now putting us at the end of the noaa solar effects smoothing suggesting that if solar activity stays low we should see cooling..
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on May 12, 2016 6:13:57 GMT
Looking at icefisher's [impressive] graph, two things seem obvious:
a) The sun has a considerable effect across a solar cycle, and hence cannot be ignored for modelling purposes.
b) As mentioned, on the most recent solar minimum, the graph broke downwards.
While I expect a current update would show a spike upwards following El Nino, bear in mind El Ninos are net COOLING events for the planet as the oceans disgorge contained heat.
My dirty crystal ball says an update in a few months will show an awful spike downwards.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 12, 2016 9:01:24 GMT
Baring sea and areas south in N pacific also seem to be losing heat, judging by ssta anyway. ...
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 12, 2016 15:29:32 GMT
Baring sea and areas south in N pacific also seem to be losing heat, judging by ssta anyway. ... The N Pacific is looking more and more like the N Atlantic along about 40 N latitude. Warm sub-tropical gyre disappearing into a mass of colder water. Here comes the continuation of the negative PDO??? If there were an Atlantic equivalent of the PDO, it seems it would be in its negative phase.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 22, 2016 0:28:42 GMT
The Earth's albedo is a fundamental climate parameter for understanding the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It has been traditionally measured not only from space platforms but also from the ground for 16 years from Big Bear Solar Observatory by observing the Moon. The photometric ratio of the dark (earthshine) to the bright (moonshine) sides of the Moon is used to determine nightly anomalies in the terrestrial albedo, with the aim of quantifying sustained monthly, annual, and/or decadal changes. We find two modest decadal scale cycles in the albedo, but with no significant net change over the 16 years of accumulated data. Within the evolution of the two cycles, we find periods of sustained annual increases, followed by comparable sustained decreases in albedo. The evolution of the earthshine albedo is in remarkable agreement with that from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System instruments, although each method measures different slices of the Earth's Bond albedo. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068025/abstract;jsessionid=0A215B60C83C8956B1B6CC062CE56DE6.f04t03
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 22, 2016 8:27:25 GMT
Need a few smart people to discuss so I can figure out what it means ..... please.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 22, 2016 8:33:10 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/19/earthshine-project-reports-on-earths-reflectance-over-the-last-16-years/Also discussed here, Basically, they've been measuring the albedo of the earth from 2 means, satellite, and from earth via changes in reflectivity off the moon (effectively the amount of light reflecting off the earth, then back of the moon can be measured) The measurements from the satellite data and the earth based measurements match!! woohoo!! And they show not much change over the last 16 years. So questions are, should albedo change if world affected by CO2 or not?? Does this confirm 'the pause'??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 22, 2016 10:33:56 GMT
Is there a school of thought that suggests CO2 affects albedo? OR, is it just the lower ice factor?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 22, 2016 11:17:26 GMT
Thinking cloud cover?? Your right about ice of course, but surely albedo at the equator is stronger then the poles??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 22, 2016 12:13:57 GMT
Thinking cloud cover?? Your right about ice of course, but surely albedo at the equator is stronger then the poles?? What percentage of the Earth's land mass is in the tropics cf. water? Relative reflectivity of each?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 22, 2016 12:59:31 GMT
I'd have to look into that, but angle of incidence is much greater at poles for example??
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 22, 2016 13:17:24 GMT
I'd have to look into that, but angle of incidence is much greater at poles for example?? Obviously, the amount of light reflected to the moon from the poles depends on the point in sidereal cycle it is unlikely to receive a lot from the poles compared to the area between 80N and 80S see
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 22, 2016 13:29:30 GMT
That pic is a great illustration of where I was coming from.
Therefore, if co2 affects cloud cover, albedo should have changed during the period of study.
|
|