|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 6, 2015 0:51:39 GMT
"is this effect big enough to affect anything??"Not a big effect? How much force is required to change the orbit of the Earth and Jupiter as the barycenter moves? How much force is required to 'wobble' the Sun? I don't know, but I've never seen proof that either happens...far as I can tell, the sun doesn't wobble much? Well that is what I said up-thread. The Sun is seen as special in the universe as the only star that has no doppler wobble due to planets orbiting it. Every other star has a wobble, that is one way they find planets around stars. The Sun is obviously very special.
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 7:09:37 GMT
Post by missouriboy on Jan 1, 2016 7:09:37 GMT
I was updating my AMO Index data and decided to add the 'not detrended' index data set ... and for fun, I went back and grabbed the latest sunspot data and plotted it with the AMO data. I was surprised at the very nice fit from 1856 to about 1995 ... then everything fell apart. Any comments?
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 15:30:39 GMT
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2016 15:30:39 GMT
I was updating my AMO Index data and decided to add the 'not detrended' index data set ... and for fun, I went back and grabbed the latest sunspot data and plotted it with the AMO data. I was surprised at the very nice fit from 1856 to about 1995 ... then everything fell apart. Any comments? View AttachmentIt sorta fits, but there are several failures in the graph, not counting the end one.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2016 18:45:00 GMT
It sorta fits, but there are several failures in the graph, not counting the end one. explanation please of failures? Period 1856-1900, it is an inverse relationship. Then 1915-1960ish, it sorta follows. Then 1960-1995 or so it fits nicely. Then after 1995 it once again departs. I am not saying the sun is not a driver of the AMO cycle. But we have to remember that Atmospheric Brightness is also in play. The departure after 1995 or so makes total sense, are the atmosphere became clearer. Sun spot activity is not a good indicator of overall TSI, in that the variation of TSI is actually somewhat low. There IS a relationship between sun spots and UV variation, which is actually very large. But..now we get on shaky ground, as the actual measurements of that variation are not long in the tooth. It is becoming pretty clear that UV variation has a large impact on jet stream placement, which affect weather and potentially climate if said variation stays somewhat constant at a high or low end of said variation. Believe it or not, there is still one heck of a lot that is NOT known. Casual effects potentially? What causes said casual effects? That seems to be one very large question.
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 18:52:33 GMT
Post by missouriboy on Jan 1, 2016 18:52:33 GMT
I was updating my AMO Index data and decided to add the 'not detrended' index data set ... and for fun, I went back and grabbed the latest sunspot data and plotted it with the AMO data. I was surprised at the very nice fit from 1856 to about 1995 ... then everything fell apart. Any comments? It sorta fits, but there are several failures in the graph, not counting the end one. Yep ... At the cycle-specific level there are numerous deviations, as I would expect since I don't know how much faith to put in pre-1950s(?) AMO monthly values ... plus there are likely other forces at work than just the sun. But, at the macro level. the approximate 30-year changes in direction ... that was pretty impressive I thought ... until it wasn't after about 1995?
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 20:07:00 GMT
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2016 20:07:00 GMT
All during the earlier period, there was abundant particulate pollution. After 1993 or so, the level dropped, the atmosphere cleared somewhat nicely.
The sad thing is, prior to 1950's, an actually ACCURATE measurement of the AMO is reanalysis. I have read so many crappy ones, that made it to print, that I really don't have a lot of reliability in them.
An actual astute graph, showing a major disconnect to correlation. But potentially, that disconnect has been there all along? That the correlation is a very short match?
When we know now that there are roughly 56 year, 78 year, 160 year, 1,000 year cycles in the sun, not to mention ocean current cycles....damn...we sure as hell don't know much yet!
Butttttt, some of us are still learning, questioning.
There is one hell of a lot more to climate than CO2, and as of yet, I am NOT convinced that CO2 plays an actual driving force. Potentially, a minor one?
My largest beef is how CO2 continues to rise at the end of each interglacial, yet temps plummet...and I mean PLUMMET! IF, and that is a BIG IF, CO2 is so major a driver, why do temps continue to fall as CO2 rises?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 1, 2016 20:17:30 GMT
I posted this before I saw your reply above.I brought this up again because it had been awhile since we discussed it ... and, as the AMO continues its descent (assumption on my part), all the forces operating on N. Atlantic ocean temperatures will be of great interest, as we try to understand the dynamics of climate change. The scientific community is also monitoring many more variables than they have in the past. I still have faith that, if the monitoring holds up, the next decade should expand homo sapien's knowledge base dramatically ... assuming of course that the science is NOT settled. This colloquial assembly helps me to sift the data and theses with great help from this assembly of fine minds. And repetition helps to penetrate my thick skull. That said, I think we believe / propose the SW ultra-violet energy is an important variable in ocean temperatures. Therefore, anything that affects SW-UV in terms of solar output and atmospheric transmission may have a very important impact on ocean temperatures and climate. What we think we know 1. UV declines or rises in direct ( ?) relation to solar cycle strength. Thus, low points between cycles produce less UV radiation than during solar cycle peaks. The geomagnetic AP index is considered a proxy(?) for solar UV. 2. UV radiation penetration of the atmosphere is related to transmissivity of the atmosphere at UV-specific wave lengths. Thus, water vapor, clouds and other atmospheric particulates may have an important effect on how much SW-UV that reaches the surface ... and warms the oceans. 3. Solar cycle strength appears to be declining from higher values prior to solar cycle 23 toward low points whose bottom we don't know, but the solar geomagnetic AP index in cycle 24 is lower lower than cycle 19 and any cycle in the current index that goes back to ~1840 (chart below). Thus, UV radiation should be down since 2000. 4. Atmospheric clarity (and we assume transmissivity) is up. Water vapor in the atmosphere and lower-level cloud cover has declined slightly since about 1996(?). Therefore, more of the UV radiation that hits the Earth's atmosphere shoud be transmitted to the surface(?) ... but we don't know how much. 5. So, UV production is down(?) but the amount transmitted is up(?). If there is a relationship between AMO temperature and these solar variables, transmission must outweigh production( ) since the AMO Index continued to increase after cycle 22.
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 20:51:45 GMT
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2016 20:51:45 GMT
Missouriboy: Plot the AMO index to El Nino events.... You may be surprised what you see. I did a quick one in my head, of course, that is not as good as looking at a graph.
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 20:52:16 GMT
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2016 20:52:16 GMT
Then plot the AMO index to La Nina Events.....please? Pretty please?
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 21:16:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by acidohm on Jan 1, 2016 21:16:37 GMT
Then plot the AMO index to La Nina Events.....please? Pretty please? +1 both!!!!
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 21:18:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by acidohm on Jan 1, 2016 21:18:57 GMT
Then plot the AMO index to La Nina Events.....please? Pretty please? +1 both!!!! Tho...it seems a bit disingenuous that the Atlantic could be tied in to Pacific perturbation........but I like it!!
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 1, 2016 21:46:04 GMT
Post by flearider on Jan 1, 2016 21:46:04 GMT
tie them into antarctic growth and melt ?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 1, 2016 22:14:53 GMT
Then plot the AMO index to La Nina Events.....please? Pretty please? The Nino Region 3.4 values contain both Ninos and Ninas. Very interesting ... just like Joe Bastardi talks about ... El Ninos spike the heat and then it declines afterward in a series of steps. Minor issue I can't explain ... how does a warm-water event in the Pacific affect water temperature in the Atlantic? Here's where the twilight zone theme starts to play.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2016 22:48:41 GMT
Could.....just could it be that the sun drives both events? And is much more important to the cycles than is currently understood?
Remember when I stated that the ATLANTIC was the major driver of EXTENDED drought in California/American Southwest? IF ya don't, I did say that. That came from an ag weather site, premium. I stopped paying...so prob can't find it but they had done a lot of research into this.
OF course, it doesn't fit the AGW narrative, so I think they were the ONLY ones doing this research. But it DOES fit an Ag pricing narrative! And of course, they get paid for success or else no one would subscribe to them. Funny thing how that works eh?
|
|
|
AMO
Jan 2, 2016 0:25:22 GMT
Post by missouriboy on Jan 2, 2016 0:25:22 GMT
Could.....just could it be that the sun drives both events? And is much more important to the cycles than is currently understood? Remember when I stated that the ATLANTIC was the major driver of EXTENDED drought in California/American Southwest? IF ya don't, I did say that. That came from an ag weather site, premium. I stopped paying...so prob can't find it but they had done a lot of research into this. OF course, it doesn't fit the AGW narrative, so I think they were the ONLY ones doing this research. But it DOES fit an Ag pricing narrative! And of course, they get paid for success or else no one would subscribe to them. Funny thing how that works eh? I do remember you saying that ... and, to me, the sun has always seemed the likely culprit ... if we ever figure it out. So ... it's like two big batteries ... the Sargasso and the western tropical Pacific. Charge em up and they pulse in slightly different ways. They discharge ... then they charge again. The Gulf Stream and western Pacific (Japanese) currents are major arteries moving warmed blood away from the heart. And Enso is
|
|