How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[BornFromTheVoid]

The thermosphere cools in response to global warming.

The theory that this would happen: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GL016i012p01441
The evidence that it happened: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL027185
There is more out there, easy to find through google!

Given the thermosphere is so sparse the temperature cannot be directly measure, how does variations in this layer affect our weather? That's the question!

EDIT: Given how distant and mostly empty the thermosphere is, and that the sea ice is refreezing at about the rate we'd expect over the last decade or so too, the link you suggested definitely is not there, jonboy! Also, the oceans absorb the majority of CO2 we emit and the heat it generates, regardless of the error ranges in that recent study. This is a fact - nothing less.

Edited November 16, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid

[jonboy]

18 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

The thermosphere cools in response to global warming.

The theory that this would happen: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GL016i012p01441
The evidence that it happened: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL027185
There is more out there, easy to find through google!

Given the thermosphere is so sparse the temperature cannot be directly measure, how does variations in this layer affect our weather? That's the question!

EDIT: Given how distant and mostly empty the thermosphere is, and that the sea ice is refreezing at about the rate we'd expect over the last decade or so too, the link you suggested definitely is not there, jonboy! Also, the oceans absorb the majority of CO2 we emit and the heat it generates, regardless of the error ranges in that recent study. This is a fact - nothing less.

No

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

This is were closed minds really bug me!!

[BornFromTheVoid]

5 minutes ago, jonboy said:

No

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

This is were closed minds really bug me!!

What are you saying "no" to? What is my mind closed to?

You asked how AGW affects the thermosphere and I answered and provided evidence. I suggested a good question is how variations in the thermosphere, which are lied with solar cycles, influence our weather.

Perhaps you misread something?

[jonboy]

2 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

What are you saying "no" to? What is my mind closed to?

You asked how AGW affects the thermosphere and I answered and provided evidence. I suggested a good question is how variations in the thermosphere, which are lied with solar cycles, influence our weather.

Perhaps you misread something?

You said the thermosphere cools in response to global warming I said it does not the element that has by far the overriding influence is the solar cycle either the depth of the minimum or the high activity at its peak. It is not global warming that dictates

[Methuselah]

14 minutes ago, jonboy said:

No

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

This is were closed minds really bug me!!

And how many times has Mlynczak directly observed the data (the temperature of the thermosphere, during a GSM) that would back-up his claims? And how did he get up there? We only had hot-air balloons, back then...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just now, jonboy said:

You said the thermosphere cools in response to global warming I said it does not the element that has by far the overriding influence is the solar cycle either the depth of the minimum or the high activity at its peak. It is not global warming that dictates

I never said it dictates. However it does cause cooling, this is another fact. Even on the SABER sites, they had to account for the cooling influence of our GhG emissions to assess the solar influence.
You can read the paper here they published on the topic here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070965
Some snippets...

"The F10.7, Ap, and Dst indices are used in linear regression fits to the 14.5 year time series of radiative cooling by carbon dioxide and nitric oxide measured by the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument on the TIMED satellite. Databases of these indices are used to develop the radiative cooling time series from 1947"

"The Sun is currently in the declining phase of solar cycle 24 (SC 24), which, as measured by sunspot number, is perhaps the weakest in the past 100 years (see Figure 1). Understanding the variability imposed on the atmosphere by the Sun is also critically important for separating natural variability from anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere, such as those associated with increasing carbon dioxide"

So whether you like it or not, even at the thermosphere you have to take into account the influence of AGW to understand other drivers of variability

[jonboy]

1 minute ago, Ed Stone said:

And how many times has Mlynczak directly observed the data (the temperature of the thermosphere, during a GSM) that would back-up his claims? And how did he get up there? We only had hot-air balloons, back then...

Like every other AGW scientist he used a reconstructed computer model. Now if you don't like that approach lets call the same for AGW

[jonboy]

1 minute ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

I never said it dictates. However it does cause cooling, this is another fact. Even on the SABER sites, they had to account for the cooling influence of our GhG emissions to assess the solar influence.
You can read the paper here they published on the topic here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070965
Some snippets...

"The F10.7, Ap, and Dst indices are used in linear regression fits to the 14.5 year time series of radiative cooling by carbon dioxide and nitric oxide measured by the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument on the TIMED satellite. Databases of these indices are used to develop the radiative cooling time series from 1947"

"The Sun is currently in the declining phase of solar cycle 24 (SC 24), which, as measured by sunspot number, is perhaps the weakest in the past 100 years (see Figure 1). Understanding the variability imposed on the atmosphere by the Sun is also critically important for separating natural variability from anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere, such as those associated with increasing carbon dioxide"

So whether you like it or not, even at the thermosphere you have to take into account the influence of AGW to understand other drivers of variability

But you seem to want to say that AGW is the main driver I say it is not it is the sun's output via F10.7 etc that is the overriding driver

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, jonboy said:

But you seem to want to say that AGW is the main driver I say it is not it is the sun's output via F10.7 etc that is the overriding driver

Which begs another question: if solar cycles are the 'main driver', why isn't the planet cooling?

[BornFromTheVoid]

@jonboyI'm not saying AGW is the main driver at all, I specifically said the variations are tied with solar activity and pointed out that I never said AGW dictates.

At this point your complete misrepresentation of my comments and your faux frustration is getting tiring.

[jonboy]

2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Which begs another question: if solar cycles are the 'main driver', why isn't the planet cooling?

So you believe if its solar it must be instantaneous. Like everything else if you turn of the heat source (and I don't mean the suns output in wattage terms) then a body will cool quicker than when you turn down the heat source basic science I believe. Its called lag!!!

[jonboy]

3 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

@jonboyI'm not saying AGW is the main driver at all, I specifically said the variations are tied with solar activity and pointed out that I never said AGW dictates.

At this point your complete misrepresentation of my comments and your faux frustration is getting tiring.

The thermosphere cools in response to global warming. Your opening statement how else should one take it other than you believe global warming is the main driver. If that is not the case then I suggest you construct you replies better because any opening line is the one that sticks the most

[Methuselah]

8 minutes ago, jonboy said:

So you believe if its solar it must be instantaneous. Like everything else if you turn of the heat source (and I don't mean the suns output in wattage terms) then a body will cool quicker than when you turn down the heat source basic science I believe. Its called lag!!!

You're attempting to 'sealion' are you?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just now, jonboy said:

The thermosphere cools in response to global warming. Your opening statement how else should one take it other than you believe global warming is the main driver. If that is not the case then I suggest you construct you replies better because any opening line is the one that sticks the most

This is so utterly ridiculous 

You asked how AGW can affect the thermosphere, and so I responded with a comment that it cools the thermosphere. Then you said "no" and claimed I'm closed minded for answering your question and providing evidence for my answer!

The thermosphere does cool in response to global warming, much like the Earth's surface warms in response to it. I posted several papers to back this up. If you disagree, you're a science denier, by definition.

Fact 1: The thermosphere cools in response to global warming - this is the trend

Fact 2: The thermosphere temperature variations appear largely dictated by solar cycles - this is the shorter term variability

Where is the difficulty here? Both can be true at once.

[Methuselah]

There are a few questions about the 'lag' I'd like to ask the Solar Cyclists: just how long is said lag meant to go on for? It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming...So, does their theory not indicate any kind of timeline? Whether it does or it doesn't, fifteen years and counting (without a shred of any detectable cooling, not even a slow down!) seems a tad excessive, to me? 

 

[JeffC]

Ladies & gents, whilst all the AGW discussion is fascinating, and I know it's difficult to avoid as an potential influencer of the manifestation of effects from low solar activity, please can we try to avoid allowing things to get heated on here?

People have different opinions, and from sensible rational debate theories are developed and then either supported or debunked by data or other scientific explanation.

just verbally knocking lumps out of each other based on different views isn't taking us forwards and isn't particularly edifying either.

So please try to keep on the "How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate" bus or I fear normal service may be suspended 

 

[jethro]

Forgive my logical brain here but surely there is only one conclusion from the conversation today? And that is that BOTH the Sun and AGW have an impact upon the temperature of the thermosphere. That being the case, and this being a discussion upon the possible impact of solar minimum upon the weather/climate, shouldn't the focus of the conversation be on the potential for a double whammy cooling on the thermosphere and what that could mean?

Only a numpty refuses to accept the climate has changed and we've played a part in that change. Only a numpty refuses to accept that the Sun has an influence upon weather and climate. So for the sake of sanity can everyone here please accept those two simple facts and explore the possible future of the two combined?

At the time of the last minimum (Dalton) we had bizarre weather, sometimes prolonged cold, sometimes prolonged heat. Often long periods of wet and or dry weather. The net effect in this part of the world was as if someone had taken our usual weather, thrown it in a bag, given it a good shake and randomly picked bits out. The Maunder however, from what can be gleaned from historical records, had the over riding signal of causing much, much colder weather here. Why the difference between the two? Was it purely down to the difference in the depth/length of the minimum or did other things play a part too? If so, what? If we are heading into a Dalton-esque minimum, or even a Maunder style deep. prolonged minimum, how will the weather change here given that so much else is different now? Will the lower ice levels amplify the effect? Nullify it? Or will it make no difference at all and be over-ridden?

A few simple questions, there are many, many more, any chance of discussing them sensibly?

 

[cheeky_monkey]

Correct me if i am wrong but i understood that Solar Minimums have the biggest climatic effect on North West Europe, in other parts of the world seems the impact is far lower to almost non existent 

[JeffC]

2 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Correct me if i am wrong but i understood that Solar Minimums have the biggest climatic effect on North West Europe, in other parts of the world seems the impact is far lower to almost non existent 

Is that a fact, a hunch or is it because we perceive a greater difference or want to?

Or is it because our climate locally is so zonal usually that the more meandering jet stream gives a greater effect here compared to other regions?

[BornFromTheVoid]

8 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Correct me if i am wrong but i understood that Solar Minimums have the biggest climatic effect on North West Europe, in other parts of the world seems the impact is far lower to almost non existent 

I've seen plenty of research linking the NAO and the sun. That's probably one of the clearest relationships that exists with solar activity, even though the mechanism is still debated somewhat. There are others around the world, but few have as many studies or as much evidence to support them.
Another interesting aspect of the solar - NAO link is then how long term variability in the NAO can also influence the north Atlantic drift and AMOC in general, which suggests a route whereby solar activity can indirectly alter the AMOC. As you go further down the chain, you have to include more variables and teleconnections though, so the original link to solar activity becomes weaker and more tricky to distinguish, but it's an interesting area of research nonetheless. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

On 16/11/2018 at 10:58, jonboy said:

Like every other AGW scientist he used a reconstructed computer model. Now if you don't like that approach lets call the same for AGW

Indeed they do, jonboy, but they also have the decency to include projected margins of error...Where are the margins of error, in the word 'always'?

[tablet]

On ‎16‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:15, Ed Stone said:

There are a few questions about the 'lag' I'd like to ask the Solar Cyclists: just how long is said lag meant to go on for? It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming...So, does their theory not indicate any kind of timeline? Whether it does or it doesn't, fifteen years and counting (without a shred of any detectable cooling, not even a slow down!) seems a tad excessive, to me? 

 

no noticeable cooling , is that right ?

Western Pacific , He et al., 2018

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683618810399?journalCode=hola

Together with the weakening upwelling condition observed from the same core, we believe that the temperature decreasing trend in the studied region since the end of the LIA [(the recent ~100 years)] is probably caused by changes in current strength instead of coastal upwelling. Less warm water from the south area was transported to the region, probably because of the changes in the weakening KC overturning the increasing global temperature signal in the YS and ECS regions since the end of the LIA (He et al., 2014). In fact, this decreasing SST trend was also observed in many UK’37-SST records among sites located in the mid-latitude western Pacific region since the end of the LIA (Figure 3, Kim et al., 2004; Li et al., 2009; Nakanishi et al., 2012b; Ruan et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011). In addition, three ~400-year UK’37-SST records from sediment cores collected in the Mirs Bay, northeastern Hong Kong also show cooling trends in this period

Subpolar north Atlantic , Orme et al., 2018

https://folk.uib.no/abo007/publications/orme_miettinen18.qsr.pdf

The diatom-based reconstruction shows warmer reconstructed temperatures than the dinocyst-based reconstruction and the modern measured summer SST (June-August) of 10.9°C. … The overall long-term cooling trend in the diatom-based SST reconstruction for the last 6.1 ka fits with the widely established cooling in the subpolar North Atlantic since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, resulting from decreasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation (e.g. Calvo et al., 2002; Marchal et al., 2002; Andersen et al., 2004a, 2004b; Andersson et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2015; Sejrup et al., 2016). … The earliest warm period at ~6.1-4 ka BP had average reconstructed SSTs of 12-13.3°C, with the warmest temperatures in the record occurring at ~6.1-5.5 ka BP (c. 13°C). The cooler period ~4-2 ka BP had reconstructed SST that varied around 11.5°C, with minima at 3.2 and 2.4 ka BP interrupted by a short warming at 2.7 ka BP. In the most recent period after 2 ka BP the SSTs again increased peaking at 1.8 ka BP, yet SSTs did not attain values as high as those reconstructed for 6.1-4 ka BP. … In the diatom-based record the mean reconstructed temperature between 4 and 2 ka BP is 11.5°C compared with 12.5 and 12.1°C in the periods before 4 ka BP and after 2 ka BP respectively, showing a reconstructed cooling of 0.6-1°C. In the dinocyst-based record the mean reconstructed temperature between 4 and 2 ka BP is 10.3°C compared with 11.3 and 11.6°C in the periods before 4 ka BP and after 2 ka BP respectively, showing a cooling of 1-1.3°C

...so "   It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming "   ,, it would seem not all of the world

[JeffC]

6 hours ago, tablet said:

no noticeable cooling , is that right ?

Western Pacific , He et al., 2018

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683618810399?journalCode=hola

Together with the weakening upwelling condition observed from the same core, we believe that the temperature decreasing trend in the studied region since the end of the LIA [(the recent ~100 years)] is probably caused by changes in current strength instead of coastal upwelling. Less warm water from the south area was transported to the region, probably because of the changes in the weakening KC overturning the increasing global temperature signal in the YS and ECS regions since the end of the LIA (He et al., 2014). In fact, this decreasing SST trend was also observed in many UK’37-SST records among sites located in the mid-latitude western Pacific region since the end of the LIA (Figure 3, Kim et al., 2004; Li et al., 2009; Nakanishi et al., 2012b; Ruan et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011). In addition, three ~400-year UK’37-SST records from sediment cores collected in the Mirs Bay, northeastern Hong Kong also show cooling trends in this period

Subpolar north Atlantic , Orme et al., 2018

https://folk.uib.no/abo007/publications/orme_miettinen18.qsr.pdf

The diatom-based reconstruction shows warmer reconstructed temperatures than the dinocyst-based reconstruction and the modern measured summer SST (June-August) of 10.9°C. … The overall long-term cooling trend in the diatom-based SST reconstruction for the last 6.1 ka fits with the widely established cooling in the subpolar North Atlantic since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, resulting from decreasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation (e.g. Calvo et al., 2002; Marchal et al., 2002; Andersen et al., 2004a, 2004b; Andersson et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2015; Sejrup et al., 2016). … The earliest warm period at ~6.1-4 ka BP had average reconstructed SSTs of 12-13.3°C, with the warmest temperatures in the record occurring at ~6.1-5.5 ka BP (c. 13°C). The cooler period ~4-2 ka BP had reconstructed SST that varied around 11.5°C, with minima at 3.2 and 2.4 ka BP interrupted by a short warming at 2.7 ka BP. In the most recent period after 2 ka BP the SSTs again increased peaking at 1.8 ka BP, yet SSTs did not attain values as high as those reconstructed for 6.1-4 ka BP. … In the diatom-based record the mean reconstructed temperature between 4 and 2 ka BP is 11.5°C compared with 12.5 and 12.1°C in the periods before 4 ka BP and after 2 ka BP respectively, showing a reconstructed cooling of 0.6-1°C. In the dinocyst-based record the mean reconstructed temperature between 4 and 2 ka BP is 10.3°C compared with 11.3 and 11.6°C in the periods before 4 ka BP and after 2 ka BP respectively, showing a cooling of 1-1.3°C

...so "   It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming "   ,, it would seem not all of the world

I'm more open minded than to say I see things as definitive either way, or possibly just thick. 

There is evidence that can be dragged up by either camp to justify their stance, main issue I have with this extract is that a glossary would be helpful as its a bit ..impenetrable language wise. Oh, and it's clearly an anti AGW post on a thread that's about the effects of solar minimum...

 

[jethro]

Cooling...…..I'm not aware that a quiet Sun is supposed to induce cooling, especially on a global scale. From what I've read, most of the impacts were 'local' weather impacts (for local, I mean hemisphere). The Northern hemisphere was particularly affected in previous deep minimums, especially the Maunder. A quiet Sun changes the weather patterns, a meandering jet stream becomes common place instead of just barrelling across the Atlantic, where it meanders to though is still variable. Extended periods of blocked weather become more common place, the summer we've just had may be just a coincidence, or it may be a prime example - no proof either way at the mo. My basic understanding of meteorology (and it is basic so this may be gibberish) if we have a flood of Artic air heading south in our direction, then something must have headed north, in order to force the cold south. So if it's warm high pressure heading north, and cold air heading south, the net change in temperature on a global scale won't change, it'll merely be re-distributed. Or am I missing something here?

[BornFromTheVoid]

9 hours ago, tablet said:

no noticeable cooling , is that right ?

Western Pacific , He et al., 2018

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683618810399?journalCode=hola

Subpolar north Atlantic , Orme et al., 2018

https://folk.uib.no/abo007/publications/orme_miettinen18.qsr.pdf

...so "   It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming "   ,, it would seem not all of the world

The average temperature of the planet has very much headed upward over the last 15 years. Nobody is saying regional cooling is non-existent. The clue is in the term "Earth". The Earth is warming.
You wouldn't claim someone with a fever is cooling or ok because their pinky is cold - same with the Earth.