How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just a general reminder, if you copy and paste content from other websites, please provide a link to the original source. Otherwise offending comments will start getting removed.

[Derecho]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Just a general reminder, if you copy and paste content from other websites, please provide a link to the original source. Otherwise offending comments will start getting removed.

Apologies, the website I used is here:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/972b/248440ddb7a8a5f4b88b7d3cb4c60e64be36.pdf

[Catacol]

It amazes me how often a thread that focuses on less accepted areas of science/debate descends into this kind of bickering. It happened over on TWO years ago and I got sick of reading it - and we have more of the same here. Frankly those who don't want to engage in the possibility that low solar might impact should stride off to another thread, rather than try to sidetrack the debate by pushing it into other avenues of discussion, and anyone looking to post supercilious snipes or engage in oneupmanship needs to be banned.

For what it's worth - as a historian - I have always felt that history as a discipline is valid here. Accepted science has been around for thousands of years and has NEVER been a constant. In other words - every generation on the historical timeline believes it has the answers....but in reality these answers change and develop over time. We have learned much on the impact of CO2 since the 1970s and are learning more all the time. But anyone who thinks this is the end of the journey is, based upon a sample size of the entirety of human history, highly likely to be wrong. It wasn't so long ago that conventional science rejected any solar factors on global weather - and then in the internet era the language changed, including from our own MetO, and small impacts were accepted. There is no reason to believe that our understanding of the sun's impact has reached the end of the research trajectory.

So - a valid debate. Let's have the debate. Those who don't want to debate and/or don't believe in solar influence, go and moan about it on the moaning thread.

[Devonian]

6 hours ago, Catacol said:

It amazes me how often a thread that focuses on less accepted areas of science/debate descends into this kind of bickering. It happened over on TWO years ago and I got sick of reading it - and we have more of the same here. Frankly those who don't want to engage in the possibility that low solar might impact should stride off to another thread, rather than try to sidetrack the debate by pushing it into other avenues of discussion, and anyone looking to post supercilious snipes or engage in oneupmanship needs to be banned.

For what it's worth - as a historian - I have always felt that history as a discipline is valid here. Accepted science has been around for thousands of years and has NEVER been a constant. In other words - every generation on the historical timeline believes it has the answers....but in reality these answers change and develop over time. We have learned much on the impact of CO2 since the 1970s and are learning more all the time. But anyone who thinks this is the end of the journey is, based upon a sample size of the entirety of human history, highly likely to be wrong. It wasn't so long ago that conventional science rejected any solar factors on global weather - and then in the internet era the language changed, including from our own MetO, and small impacts were accepted. There is no reason to believe that our understanding of the sun's impact has reached the end of the research trajectory.

So - a valid debate. Let's have the debate. Those who don't want to debate and/or don't believe in solar influence, go and moan about it on the moaning thread.

A debate but one in which only the opinions you want to hear is allowed? Is that a debate?

Without the sun this planet would be a very, very cold rock - no one doubts that, I certainly don't. I do, though, (if I'm allowed to?) doubt that the solar cycle has much effect on weather or climate. But, again, it seems you're saying that sort of thinking should go somewhere else and the thread thus become self confirmatory?

Edited July 18, 2019 by Devonian

[jonboy]

32 minutes ago, Devonian said:

A debate but one in which only the opinions you want to hear is allowed? Is that a debate?

Without the sun this planet would be a very, very cold rock - no one doubts that, I certainly don't. I do, though, (if I'm allowed to?) doubt that the solar cycle has much effect on weather or climate. But, again, it seems you're saying that sort of thinking should go somewhere else and the thread thus become self confirmatory?

The posts are not self confirmatory they are exploratory yet when anyone posts anything that might suggest that other factors maybe at play you and others use your usual tactics to belittle the ideas being put forward. If you don't think solar minimum has any effect on our weather or climate say so once and then let others explore the topic as intended

[Devonian]

12 minutes ago, jonboy said:

The posts are not self confirmatory they are exploratory yet when anyone posts anything that might suggest that other factors maybe at play you and others use your usual tactics to belittle the ideas being put forward. If you don't think solar minimum has any effect on our weather or climate say so once and then let others explore the topic as intended

I've been belittled by being called closed minded - it's not MY tactic...

I've not said, or think, that solar minimum has no effect, I just think (if I'm allowed to think and say that?) the effect is tiny.

If I, or my views, aren't attacked I wont feel the need to defend myself or them.

Ok, lets see something posted to debate, not more attacks on people please

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Devonian

[Crepuscular Ray]

7 hours ago, Catacol said:

It amazes me how often a thread that focuses on less accepted areas of science/debate descends into this kind of bickering. It happened over on TWO years ago and I got sick of reading it - and we have more of the same here. Frankly those who don't want to engage in the possibility that low solar might impact should stride off to another thread, rather than try to sidetrack the debate by pushing it into other avenues of discussion, and anyone looking to post supercilious snipes or engage in oneupmanship needs to be banned.

For what it's worth - as a historian - I have always felt that history as a discipline is valid here. Accepted science has been around for thousands of years and has NEVER been a constant. In other words - every generation on the historical timeline believes it has the answers....but in reality these answers change and develop over time. We have learned much on the impact of CO2 since the 1970s and are learning more all the time. But anyone who thinks this is the end of the journey is, based upon a sample size of the entirety of human history, highly likely to be wrong. It wasn't so long ago that conventional science rejected any solar factors on global weather - and then in the internet era the language changed, including from our own MetO, and small impacts were accepted. There is no reason to believe that our understanding of the sun's impact has reached the end of the research trajectory.

So - a valid debate. Let's have the debate. Those who don't want to debate and/or don't believe in solar influence, go and moan about it on the moaning thread.

Sorry mate. It's a debate. We're all entitled to our opinions.

[Methuselah]

5 minutes ago, Crepuscular Ray said:

Sorry mate. It's a debate. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Too true, CR...and a 'debate' in which only self-confirmatory arguments are deemed acceptable, is nae a debate. It's an echo chamber!

And, I don't know just when it was 'that conventional science rejected any solar factors on global weather', but it was clearly before my time!

So, by all means present papers that purport to link sunspots to terrestrial seismicity, just be sure to expect scrutiny. (otherwise, what's the point in presenting them?) And, seriously, does the historical fact that people once believed in witchcraft, suggest that---at least in those days---witches were real?

Come on Catacol, play the game fairly: there are always (at least) two sides to a debate...?

[Gael_Force]

On 17/07/2019 at 08:23, Devonian said:

Otoh, when I've more time I'll try to find the paper this refers to.

The link was on the page.  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50211

From brief reading, they were looking at correlation to high solar activity: any link I've seen before has the possible correlation to the deep solar minimums.

 

[Derecho]

9 hours ago, Catacol said:

It amazes me how often a thread that focuses on less accepted areas of science/debate descends into this kind of bickering. It happened over on TWO years ago and I got sick of reading it - and we have more of the same here.

In the past these threads have often descended into denailism about anthropogenic climate change, especially come winter time.

Frankly those who don't want to engage in the possibility that low solar might impact should stride off to another thread, rather than try to sidetrack the debate by pushing it into other avenues of discussion, and anyone looking to post supercilious snipes or engage in oneupmanship needs to be banned.

I have repeated several times that I believe solar activity has some effect on regional atmospheric circulation patterns but not global temperature patterns. I'm fine with debate about that, what I'm not fine with is intentionally misleading about the science with claims that have no backing. Banning is an extremely strong stance on the matter, its not oneupmanship, it's about separating fact from fiction. Thankfully you aren't a moderator. 

For what it's worth - as a historian - I have always felt that history as a discipline is valid here. Accepted science has been around for thousands of years and has NEVER been a constant. In other words - every generation on the historical timeline believes it has the answers....but in reality these answers change and develop over time. We have learned much on the impact of CO2 since the 1970s and are learning more all the time.

Some were touting its impacts well before then...

But anyone who thinks this is the end of the journey is, based upon a sample size of the entirety of human history, highly likely to be wrong.

Those who are most likely to be wrong are those who are most swayed towards what they would like to see happen. Last winter taught us that with all the background signals that failed to come into fruition as much as we wanted them to. Yes I would love to see cold winters again and yes I would like to not have to worry about a warming planet but the scientific literature and the data paints a very clear picture... lets leave it at that.

It wasn't so long ago that conventional science rejected any solar factors on global weather - and then in the internet era the language changed, including from our own MetO, and small impacts were accepted. There is no reason to believe that our understanding of the sun's impact has reached the end of the research trajectory.

It does have an impact yes but there are many other variables impacting regional climate variability too and the variation of solar activity associated with the sunspot cycle on global temperatures has been dwarfed by the rise associated with GhG emissions, so the situation is changing all the time. Nobody is dismissing it has an effect, I believe it affects what goes on in the stratosphere which in turn affects synoptics at the surface. However its impact really isn't simple as this paper by Lockwood et al (2010) show. 

 

Solar flux on the x axis, detrended CET on the y axis, middle graph - correlation of CET with NH temperature

Link to paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf

Does this look convincing to you, it is only just statistically significant, with the paper concluding that solar minimums slightly increase the chances of a severely cold winter here, how is that not fair to argue? 

So - a valid debate. Let's have the debate. Those who don't want to debate and/or don't believe in solar influence, go and moan about it on the moaning thread.

So anybody who has convincing evidence global temperatures are not affected by solar activity or that the regional picture is complicated is making an invalid argument? This is debate in itself! so this final sentence comes across as very contradictory! People can say what they like, but if its without any backing then they should expect the argument to face a level of scrutiny.

For what its worth I don't see a solar moaning thread anywhere either...

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[frederiksen90]

Dette påvirker solens minimale blokeringsfrekvens, havfladetryk og havoverfladetemperatur.

Sidste 10 år sommer NAO (værdier for 2009-2018).

2009
-1,0

2010
-1,9

2011
-2,5

2012
-1,4

2013
+2.0

2014
-0.7

2015
-0.1

2016
+1,0

2017
-0,3

2018
+1,5

Der er en ret klar tendens i NAO- signalet. Den NAO var meget negativ for 4 på hinanden følgende somre falder sammen med sol minimum. Fælles for sommeren 2009-12 er, at de alle havde en gennemsnitlig NAO- værdi på -1 eller lavere. Derefter har NAO nogle meget svingende værdier fra sommeren 2013-18. Og den svingende tendens i NAO opstår trods stort set uændret SST i disse år. Men i denne periode havde vi stadig 3 somre af 5, hvor NAOvar negativ - men ikke så lav som i 2009-12. Her kan man derefter indrømmes at tro, at det var issmeltning i disse somre, hvilket resulterede i noget koldt ferskvand, hvilket fik jetstrømmen til at bevæge sig længere mod syd.

Her følger SST- kortene i juli 2009-2018

2009
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.16.2009.gif

2010
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2010/anomnight.7.15.2010.gif

2011
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2011/anomnight.7.18.2011.gif

2012
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2012/anomnight.7.16.2012.gif

2013
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2013/anomnight.7.15.2013.gif

2014
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2014/anomnight.7.17.2014.gif

2015
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2015/anomnight.7.16.2015.gif

2016
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2016/anomnight.7.18.2016.gif

2017
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2017/anomnight.7.17.2017.gif

2018
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2018/anomnight.7.16.2018.gif

2019
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2019/anomnight.7.18.2019.gif

Sidste gang vi havde lav solaktivitet, hvor den geomagnetiske aktivitet (solvind) bundet, var i 2009-12. Hvis du bemærker udviklingen af SST- kortene i juli, så ser du tydeligt tendensen i Nordatlanten. I 2009-12 var SST betydeligt varmere omkring Grønland og koldere generelt i eller øst for Newfoundland. Så er det bemærkelsesværdigt at se, hvordan det ændrede sig i 2013. Koldt og varmt vand i det nordlige Atlanterhav skiftede rundt, da zonalstrømmen intensiverede, da geomagnetiske aktiviteter steg - og her ville det være mere naturligt, at koldt ferskvand var relateret til nedsmeltningen , hvilket bidrog til den negative NAO .

Hermed vil jeg illustrere, hvordan jeg tror, at relationerne mellem SST og NAO i interaktion udvikler sig efter historisk opvarmning i stratosfæren relateret solminimum.

Den seneste splittelse af Polar Vortex i januar 2019, hvor stratosfæren og troposfæren koblede, havde en langsom proces med langsom overflade handling. Afbrydelsen af PV forårsagede, at jetstrømmene slog kraftige bølger. På flere steder ramte stærkt koldt og snefald Nordamerika og Canada godt ind i foråret. Koldt trængte langt sydpå, mens varmen på den anden side af jetflyet kunne flyde langt nordover i Europa. I mellemtiden er den geomagnetiske aktivitet af solen faldet til et meget lavt niveau, hvilket muliggør galaktisk kosmisk stråling, der trænger ind i stratosfæren. Dette styrker den troposfæriske blokering på den nordlige halvkugle, hvilket forårsager NAOat dykke. Det er her, hvor det bliver interessant. Svag solenergi forårsager kosmisk stråling for at forbedre koblingen mellem stratosfæren og troposfæren, hvilket får processen til at gentage med vedvarende blokering, herunder Grønland og Nordatlanten.

NAO dived betydeligt i slutningen af april, da blokeringsfrekvensen blev øget af Grønland. Længe før og efter havde vi en kontinuerlig transport af varmestrøm i stratosfæren via skandinavisk / eurasisk højt tryk - og denne vedvarende udvikling af varmestrøm har opretholdt en usædvanlig lang kobling mellem stratosfæren og troposfæren, hvilket kan have bidraget til den efterfølgende styrkelse af grønlands blokering via solvinden. Det er så værd at bemærke, at havfladetemperaturen ( SST ) ændrede sig hurtigt fra maj til juli, efter at blokeringsfrekvensen steg nær Grønland. I maj var havet stadig betydeligt koldere syd for Grønland:
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2019/anomnight.5.16.2019.gif

To måneder senere er det så mærkbart opvarmet i samme område:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2019/anomnight.7.18.2019.gif

Efter vedvarende impulser af varmestrøm og stabil stratosfærisk-troposfærerkobling er positive geopotentiale højder og blokeringsfrekvensen således steget kraftigt i Grønland. Det har bragt varme til Grønland - og smelten i Grønland og Arktis lå tæt på bunden i juni. Det har gjort vandet varmt op meget. Så det er slående, at det ikke er SST, der styrer blokeringsfrekvensen, men blokeringsfrekvensen, som tilsyneladende styrer ændringerne i SST - i det mindste i dette tilfælde. Blokeringen begyndte derfor, før SST ændrede sig. Det skal være stratosfæren (muligvis via solaktivitet), som påvirker havets omsætning og ikke omvendt.

Hvis vi går tilbage til sidst, startede vi solminimum i 2009, vi har helt identisk situation. En del af Polar Vortex, der ramte rekord i januar, faldt sammen med svækkelsen af solvinden nær bunden. Og så er det slående, at NAO var negativ i løbet af sommeren med stigende blokering på Grønland. Det er igen værd at bemærke, at siden vinteren begyndte i 2008/09 var havet varmt øst for Newfoundland og koldt af Sydgrønland:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2009/anomnight.1.5.2009.gif

Men i løbet af foråret og sommeren efter PV- splittelsen opretholdt koblingen mellem stratosfæren og troposfæren, som resulterede i vedvarende blokering, og det medførte, at oceanstrømmen ændrede sig. Havet syd for Grønland og isen blev opvarmet, mens det blev afkølet øst for Newfoundland:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.16.2009.gif

So the process that is now taking place between the stratospheric troposphere, the blocking frequency, the NAO, the SST and the trend in the solar wind is completely identical to 2009. I am increasingly excited about whether there is anything in this - so now it must be winter soon - especially because we are facing a winter where we want the combination of solar minimum and eastern QBO. This should be able to increase the blocking frequency

 

Before the summer, several forecasts pointed to a positive NAO, but it has gone quite the opposite - and even at the end of June, forecasts continued to predict such despite persistent blocking. Several experts are unaware of the persistent stratospheric troposphere coupling with impulses of heat flux so late in the year - and I think it is the solar activity that matters more than you expect. The models may have difficulty managing how the solar wind affects these layers.

Edited July 19, 2019 by frederiksen90

[frederiksen90]

This affects the sun's minimum blocking frequency, sea surface pressure and sea surface temperature.

Last 10 years summer NAO (values for 2009-2018).

2009
-1.0

2010
-1.9

2011
-2.5

2012
-1.4

2013
+2.0

2014
-0.7

2015
-0.1

2016
+1.0

2017
-0.3

2018
+1.5

There is a fairly clear trend in the NAO signal. The NAO was very negative for 4 consecutive summers coinciding with the sun minimum. Common for the summer 2009-12 is that they all had an average NAO value of -1 or lower. Then, NAO has some very fluctuating values from the summer of 2013-18. And the fluctuating trend in NAO occurs despite virtually unchanged SST these years. But during this period we still had 3 summers of 5, where NAOvar negative - but not as low as in 2009-12. Here one can then be admitted to believe that it was ice melting in these summers, which resulted in some cold fresh water, which caused the jet stream to move further south.

Here follows the SST cards in July 2009-2018

2009
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.16.2009.gif

2010
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2010/anomnight.7.15.2010.gif

2011
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2011/anomnight.7.18.2011.gif

2012
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2012/anomnight.7.16.2012.gif

2013
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2013/anomnight.7.15.2013.gif

2014
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2014/anomnight.7.17.2014.gif

2015
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2015/anomnight.7.16.2015.gif

2016
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2016/anomnight.7.18.2016.gif

2017
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2017/anomnight.7.17.2017.gif

2018
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2018/anomnight.7.16.2018.gif

2019
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2019/anomnight.7.18.2019.gif

The last time we had low solar activity, where the geomagnetic activity (solar wind) bound, was in 2009-12. If you notice the development of the SST cards in July, then you clearly see the trend in the North Atlantic. In 2009-12, SST was considerably warmer around Greenland and colder generally in or east of Newfoundland. Then it is remarkable to see how it changed in 2013. Cold and hot water in the North Atlantic changed as the zonal stream intensified as geomagnetic activities increased - and here it would be more natural that cold fresh water was related to the meltdown. which contributed to the negative NAO.

Herewith I will illustrate how I believe that the relations between SST and NAO in interaction develops after historical warming in the stratosphere related solar minimum.

The recent split of Polar Vortex in January 2019, when the stratosphere and troposphere coupled, had a slow process of slow surface action. The interruption of PV caused the jet currents to beat powerful waves. In several places, very cold and snowfall hit North America and Canada well into the spring. Cold penetrated far south, while the heat on the other side of the jet could flow far north in Europe. Meanwhile, the geomagnetic activity of the sun has dropped to a very low level, allowing galactic cosmic radiation to penetrate into the stratosphere. This strengthens the tropospheric blockage in the northern hemisphere, causing the NAOat dive. This is where it gets interesting. Weak solar energy causes cosmic radiation to improve the coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere, causing the process to repeat with persistent blocking, including Greenland and the North Atlantic.

NAO dived considerably in late April, when the blocking frequency was increased by Greenland. Long before and after, we had a continuous transport of heat flow in the stratosphere via Scandinavian / Eurasian high pressure - and this sustained development of heat flow has maintained an unusually long coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere, which may have contributed to the subsequent strengthening of Greenland's blocking by the solar wind. . It is so worth noting that the sea surface temperature (SST) changed rapidly from May to July, after the blocking frequency rose near Greenland. In May, the sea was still considerably colder south of Greenland:
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2019/anomnight.5.16.2019.gif

Two months later, it is so noticeably heated in the same area:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2019/anomnight.7.18.2019.gif

After persistent impulses of heat flow and stable stratospheric-tropospheric coupling, positive geopotential heights and the blocking frequency have thus increased significantly in Greenland. It has brought warmth to Greenland - and the melting in Greenland and the Arctic was close to the bottom in June. It has made the water warm up a lot. So it is striking that it is not the SST that controls the blocking frequency, but the blocking frequency, which apparently controls the changes in SST - at least in this case. The blockage therefore began before SST changed. It must be the stratosphere (possibly via solar activity) that affects the ocean's turnover and not the other way around.

If we go back to the end, we started the solar minimum in 2009, we have a completely identical situation. Part of Polar Vortex, which hit record in January, coincided with the weakening of the solar wind near the bottom. And then it is striking that NAO was negative during the summer with increasing blocking in Greenland. It is again worth noting that since the winter began in 2008/09 the sea was warm east of Newfoundland and cold of South Greenland:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2009/anomnight.1.5.2009.gif

But during the spring and summer after the PV split, the coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere, which resulted in persistent blockage, maintained and the ocean current changed. The sea south of Greenland and the ice was heated while it was cooled east of Newfoundland:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ sst /anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.16.2009.gif

So the process that is now taking place between the stratospheric troposphere, the blocking frequency, the NAO, the SST and the trend in the solar wind is completely identical to 2009. I am increasingly excited about whether there is anything in this - so now it must be winter soon - especially because we are facing a winter where we want the combination of solar minimum and eastern QBO. This should be able to increase the blocking frequency 

Before the summer, several forecasts pointed to a positive NAO, but it has gone quite the opposite - and even at the end of June, forecasts continued to predict such despite persistent blocking. Several experts are unaware of the persistent stratospheric troposphere coupling with impulses of heat flux so late in the year - and I think it is the solar activity that matters more than you expect. The models may have difficulty managing how the solar wind affects these layers.

[Catacol]

On 18/07/2019 at 09:28, Ed Stone said:

Too true, CR...and a 'debate' in which only self-confirmatory arguments are deemed acceptable, is nae a debate. It's an echo chamber!

And, I don't know just when it was 'that conventional science rejected any solar factors on global weather', but it was clearly before my time!

So, by all means present papers that purport to link sunspots to terrestrial seismicity, just be sure to expect scrutiny. (otherwise, what's the point in presenting them?) And, seriously, does the historical fact that people once believed in witchcraft, suggest that---at least in those days---witches were real?

Come on Catacol, play the game fairly: there are always (at least) two sides to a debate...?

There are indeed at least two sides to any debate, but there are also widely varying styles of conducting the debate. The key is the intent behind the comments made, and there are those who barely disguise their contempt for the possibility that new avenues of investigation may open up, or that areas of pseudo-science may turn out to have more to them than our current understanding allows us access. The point about witches is interesting - witches as we would define them have of course been disavowed as nonsense....but meanwhile others who chose to challenge orthodoxy have themselves become great men and women of history, praised today for their foresight but ridiculed during their time. I am reminded of the 19th century Hungarian doctorr Semmelweiss who argued powerfully that he reduced mortality in his labour wards by the washing of hands....and was ridiculed for his ideas so much that he was eventually committed to an asylum where he died. He could not explain why the washing of hands reduced mortality rates - but he shouted loud to any who would hear him....and none did. Shortly after he was committed to an asylum Louis Pasteur published evidence proving germ theory, and Joseph Lister worked on antiseptic treatments that revolutionised surgery and hospitals in general. They got the credit....but Semmelweiss was the true observational frontiersman. A man shouting witchcraft to the voices of accepted practice, whose belief in the magic of hand washing was proved 100% correct. History is littered with examples of "witchcraft" being shown to be true in time - do not be so quick to assume that history is a tale of straight line progress and the triumph of convention. It most certainly is not.

Cutting more specifically to your second sentence - modern interpretations on solar impacts have been taken forward by new instruments and data. I forget exactly when I started reading into weather on the internet - it was sometime around 2001 I think, not too long after moving to Somerset, and solar discussions leapt forward as proper interest was taken in acquired data at around that time. I have struggled to remember or find the conversations from back then - but this article from 2011 neatly summarises the developing thinking on the back of data from NASA, and without doubt we have a way to go yet on this in terms of fully understanding impacts. Interesting follow up posts from Frederiksen..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065

Finally - before seeking a "fair" game - check the evidence. Go back and read page 13 of this thread. Those who began to discuss solar impacts were quickly slammed - the word "bunk" appeared and one poster was accused of complacency. Before the page was done we had then drifted into a series of posts that pushed the debate back into one dominated by man's destruction of the atmosphere via CO2 increase. This thread was not one directed at the AGW issue - but I stand my ground on this when stating that other threads on the internet have been trashed in the past by posters pushing the single CO2 agenda again and again. When discussing solar impacts there is NOT an assumption that CO2 is therefore irrelevant. How could this be the case - we all know that CO2 increase is creating a greenhouse effect. It is clearly signposted on a near daily basis in the media despite the efforts of Trump and others like Bastar*i to ridicule the evidence. Do not use the obvious reality that CO2 is impacting on our planet as a tool for suggesting that other lines of investigation or theorising are not valid in themselves.

 

[Catacol]

On 18/07/2019 at 10:19, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

Quicksilver - be very clear that a reply dissected line by line in red ink is a points scoring exercise and, in a public context, a case of one-upmanship. Your PhD tutor might do it with a draft copy of a dissertation - and it is commonplace in the world of media and politics where every soundbite counts - but to take my post as an attack on you (which it wasn't) and then produce that kind of microscopic response is very revealing. I am a moderator in other spheres of my professional life, and in any publication under my banner a post like that would be deleted via intervention. We can agree that solar influence affects circulation and not temperature: I am in your camp there, and the impacts of circulation changes are another ongoing area of observation and debate...but you have misunderstood the purpose of my post if you felt it was one that required step by step analysis.

By way of a briefish response:

1. Where has there been an attempt to scientifically mislead? Cant see it. And what is your definition of fiction? I am with you on the fact of CO2 impact...but I am not convinced by the shouting down of "fiction" at all. We live in a world of grey much more than black or white. Is our understanding not more complete if we retain a grip on the interconnectedness of all factors?

2. Subjective bias making it more likely that error follows - agreed. I constantly hope for snow in winter, and am guilty of reading every 50/50 prognosis as a chance for snow rather than a chance not. Glass half empty or half full...or something like that I guess...and the snow damned well hardly ever comes. But not the point I was making. My argument is that anyone who thinks that we have all the answers now is likely to be disappointed. Buy a time machine and jump forward 300 years - and the science they will present then will be different to now. That is not an arrogant assertion - it is evidenced by human history in its entirety - and in that context we should remain open minded to the high likelihood that our current interpretation has flaws because we have an imperfect understanding of the full set of drivers acting on our climate and weather.

3. Solar minimums possibly increase the likelihood of a cold UK winter? Observations from my life would say yes - cold zones around 1984-87, 95-96 and 09-12 suggest so. Regionally the result of a more meridional atlantic jet, and possibly an overall bias towards a blocked pattern at high latitude? Again - probably yes. Is it a pattern repeated around the NH? - genuinely don't know. Is there clear and unequivocal science on this? Not that I have read...but I'll play Dr Semmelweiss for a moment and stick with my observation. As Crewecold has said - the next 2 - 3 winters will be important for the theory that low solar is conducive to high lat atlantic blocking and therefore patches of significant cold for the UK...and if we dont get a cold one by 2022/23 then it would put a hole in the theory to some degree. I read on twitter today that solar minimum is predicted to be within the next 6 - 9 months. This is all valid debate and is exactly what I punchily asked for in my post - so I'm not sure where you have got your idea of an "invalid argument" from. I wouldn't argue that any of this is invalid. All areas of supposition and investigation have validity.

Which takes me back to the start of this post. Your decision to launch into a detailed riposte suggests to me that you feel the science of AGW is undermined in threads like this where other possible climate/weather drivers are discussed. Can't agree. What is irritating is when posters stifle debate with assertive judgement, and seek to use published papers as a reason for ending a conversation. In 1977 Hubert Lamb wrote that CO2 was probably a pretty small factor in determining climate change. Good job that the debate and investigation continued - 7 years later he began to change his tune. Scientific assessment develops and changes as fast as any aspect of human existence. It is not a fixed constant.

I'll withdraw to lurker status on this thread once again now. I have no wish for protracted duelling on a subject that is wreathed in a degree of mystery. I'll observe the next few years, and look out for any published research that takes the debate further as I do think solar impacts is an area of understanding that has a way to go yet.

[BornFromTheVoid]

@frederiksen90 I had a quick look at the annual sunspot count and summer NAO - can't see much connection back to 1950 at least. In fact, the highest summer NAO value occurred during a minimum, and the lowest value during a maximum.

Correlation coefficient is only -0.01 too.  Even with various lags there's no correlation either.

NAO Data: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table

Solar Data: http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles

[Methuselah]

10 hours ago, Catacol said:

There are indeed at least two sides to any debate, but there are also widely varying styles of conducting the debate. The key is the intent behind the comments made, and there are those who barely disguise their contempt for the possibility that new avenues of investigation may open up, or that areas of pseudo-science may turn out to have more to them than our current understanding allows us access. The point about witches is interesting - witches as we would define them have of course been disavowed as nonsense....but meanwhile others who chose to challenge orthodoxy have themselves become great men and women of history, praised today for their foresight but ridiculed during their time. I am reminded of the 19th century Hungarian doctorr Semmelweiss who argued powerfully that he reduced mortality in his labour wards by the washing of hands....and was ridiculed for his ideas so much that he was eventually committed to an asylum where he died. He could not explain why the washing of hands reduced mortality rates - but he shouted loud to any who would hear him....and none did. Shortly after he was committed to an asylum Louis Pasteur published evidence proving germ theory, and Joseph Lister worked on antiseptic treatments that revolutionised surgery and hospitals in general. They got the credit....but Semmelweiss was the true observational frontiersman. A man shouting witchcraft to the voices of accepted practice, whose belief in the magic of hand washing was proved 100% correct. History is littered with examples of "witchcraft" being shown to be true in time - do not be so quick to assume that history is a tale of straight line progress and the triumph of convention. It most certainly is not.

Cutting more specifically to your second sentence - modern interpretations on solar impacts have been taken forward by new instruments and data. I forget exactly when I started reading into weather on the internet - it was sometime around 2001 I think, not too long after moving to Somerset, and solar discussions leapt forward as proper interest was taken in acquired data at around that time. I have struggled to remember or find the conversations from back then - but this article from 2011 neatly summarises the developing thinking on the back of data from NASA, and without doubt we have a way to go yet on this in terms of fully understanding impacts. Interesting follow up posts from Frederiksen..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065

Finally - before seeking a "fair" game - check the evidence. Go back and read page 13 of this thread. Those who began to discuss solar impacts were quickly slammed - the word "bunk" appeared and one poster was accused of complacency. Before the page was done we had then drifted into a series of posts that pushed the debate back into one dominated by man's destruction of the atmosphere via CO2 increase. This thread was not one directed at the AGW issue - but I stand my ground on this when stating that other threads on the internet have been trashed in the past by posters pushing the single CO2 agenda again and again. When discussing solar impacts there is NOT an assumption that CO2 is therefore irrelevant. How could this be the case - we all know that CO2 increase is creating a greenhouse effect. It is clearly signposted on a near daily basis in the media despite the efforts of Trump and others like Bastar*i to ridicule the evidence. Do not use the obvious reality that CO2 is impacting on our planet as a tool for suggesting that other lines of investigation or theorising are not valid in themselves.

I'd agree with about 99% of that @Catacol (Florence Nightingale was ridiculed for daring to suggest a link between surgical instrument-hygiene and patients' likely recovery from war wounds!)...But, it's also the case that t'internet is full of Climate Change Denier blogs claiming that CO2's link to global warming is bunk -- and, that the actual culprit is solar activity...

And, why I'll never subscribe to any notion that the sun has no effect on terrestrial climates, claims that the it's the sole cause of the current warming, are even more clearly absurd...?

[Methuselah]

Interesting aside, here: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/hottest-june-on-record-el-nino-predicted-to-wind-down

On the likelihood of our seeing a much colder winter, over the next few years, I strongly suspect that, as was believed to be the case with 2012-2013, the disruption caused by the summer's melt-out will play a significant part...Should it happen!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/14/arctic-sea-ice-harsh-winter-europe

[Devonian]

21 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

I'd agree with about 99% of that @Catacol (Florence Nightingale was ridiculed for daring to suggest a link between surgical instrument-hygiene and patients' likely recovery from war wounds!)...But, it's also the case that t'internet is full of Climate Change Denier blogs claiming that CO2's link to global warming is bunk -- and, that the actual culprit is solar activity...

And, why I'll never subscribe to any notion that the sun has no effect on terrestrial climates, claims that the it's the sole cause of the current warming, are even more clearly absurd...?

But, surely the message of this thread is we should challenge orthodoxy? So, we should challenge what  Nightingale (and others) discovered and the ideas and treatments that led to? We should treat equally the idea that areas of medical pseudo-science may turn out to have more to them than our current understanding allows us access?

[frederiksen90]

Actually, it's not the number of sun spots that matter most. It is the AP index - the sun's geomagnetic activity that has shown exquisite correlation with the NAO since 1970. The phase of the lowest activity of the solar wind typically occurs after the sunspots are reduced and at the beginning of a new cycle - and it is therefore possible that one cannot see any major correlation between "just" solar minimum and regional / global climate. Usually, the stratosphere and troposphere are not coupled in the summer - but experts have wondered that recent stratospheric warming has affected tropospheric blocking so long this year with unusually long negative NAO. It could just be associated with solar minimum, as research suggests that weak solar wind increases cosmic radiation penetration into the stratosphere, which causes tropospheric blockage. I am very excited about whether it is a warning about what awaits Europe from the coming winter
: http://www.lightinthestorm.com/archives/tag/solar

[Derecho]

On 20/07/2019 at 03:39, Catacol said:

Quicksilver - be very clear that a reply dissected line by line in red ink is a points scoring exercise and, in a public context, a case of one-upmanship. Your PhD tutor might do it with a draft copy of a dissertation - and it is commonplace in the world of media and politics where every soundbite counts - but to take my post as an attack on you (which it wasn't) and then produce that kind of microscopic response is very revealing.

Ok a few things - when I reply to longer posts I like to take things bit by bit - I just find it easier to deal with posts that way. Colour just highlights my reply, I've used blue, bold and red on previous posts. It can seem easy to equate it to one-upmanship - I can assure you that isn't the case. I do admit I did take it to an attack on what I wrote earlier - for which I apologise.

I am a moderator in other spheres of my professional life, and in any publication under my banner a post like that would be deleted via intervention. We can agree that solar influence affects circulation and not temperature: I am in your camp there, and the impacts of circulation changes are another ongoing area of observation and debate...but you have misunderstood the purpose of my post if you felt it was one that required step by step analysis.

By way of a briefish response:

1. Where has there been an attempt to scientifically mislead? Cant see it. And what is your definition of fiction? I am with you on the fact of CO2 impact...but I am not convinced by the shouting down of "fiction" at all. We live in a world of grey much more than black or white. Is our understanding not more complete if we retain a grip on the interconnectedness of all factors?

Last point on it from me, its saying things like AGW proponents are anti-capitalists (something which was going around on TWO and previous threads). Also downplaying the role of GhGs given how overwhelming the evidence is of its effect.

2. Subjective bias making it more likely that error follows - agreed. I constantly hope for snow in winter, and am guilty of reading every 50/50 prognosis as a chance for snow rather than a chance not. Glass half empty or half full...or something like that I guess...and the snow damned well hardly ever comes. But not the point I was making. My argument is that anyone who thinks that we have all the answers now is likely to be disappointed. Buy a time machine and jump forward 300 years - and the science they will present then will be different to now. That is not an arrogant assertion - it is evidenced by human history in its entirety - and in that context we should remain open minded to the high likelihood that our current interpretation has flaws because we have an imperfect understanding of the full set of drivers acting on our climate and weather.

I agree we don't have all the answers but we do know that heat in the troposphere will keep increasing due to the GhG. Where will all the heat go? A sudden huge uptake in heat by the deep oceans? Variations in the weather are obviously much more complicated and I don't think there is anything to dispute there.

3. Solar minimums possibly increase the likelihood of a cold UK winter? Observations from my life would say yes - cold zones around 1984-87, 95-96 and 09-12 suggest so. Regionally the result of a more meridional atlantic jet, and possibly an overall bias towards a blocked pattern at high latitude? Again - probably yes. Is it a pattern repeated around the NH? - genuinely don't know. Is there clear and unequivocal science on this? Not that I have read...but I'll play Dr Semmelweiss for a moment and stick with my observation. As Crewecold has said - the next 2 - 3 winters will be important for the theory that low solar is conducive to high lat atlantic blocking and therefore patches of significant cold for the UK...and if we dont get a cold one by 2022/23 then it would put a hole in the theory to some degree. I read on twitter today that solar minimum is predicted to be within the next 6 - 9 months. This is all valid debate and is exactly what I punchily asked for in my post - so I'm not sure where you have got your idea of an "invalid argument" from. I wouldn't argue that any of this is invalid. All areas of supposition and investigation have validity.

Fine and I didn't have a problem with the argument of regional variability. Global variability is fine to argue with provided papers are there to back the argument up.

Which takes me back to the start of this post. Your decision to launch into a detailed riposte suggests to me that you feel the science of AGW is undermined in threads like this where other possible climate/weather drivers are discussed. Can't agree. What is irritating is when posters stifle debate with assertive judgement, and seek to use published papers as a reason for ending a conversation. In 1977 Hubert Lamb wrote that CO2 was probably a pretty small factor in determining climate change. Good job that the debate and investigation continued - 7 years later he began to change his tune. Scientific assessment develops and changes as fast as any aspect of human existence. It is not a fixed constant.

Yes it is true that he was more guarded about how influential CO2 was. I looked at some of his work at UEA (my MSc dissertation was based on Lamb Weather Types) and regionally there are some intriguing variations but he said any movement towards a glacial period would take 3000-7000 years. This appears to be connected to Milankovitch cycles however, how much warmer will the climate be in 50 years? (genuine question), will solar activity impede that.

I'll withdraw to lurker status on this thread once again now. I have no wish for protracted duelling on a subject that is wreathed in a degree of mystery. I'll observe the next few years, and look out for any published research that takes the debate further as I do think solar impacts is an area of understanding that has a way to go yet.

To close, sorry again I took it as a swipe at. I do think its fine to disagree that there is an impact on solar activity globally as long as there is evidence. There is no doubt that without the sun we would be extremely cold... but do time irradiance variations and solar cycles mean much in the grander scheme of things? Overall I think there may be regional synoptic implications but not global temperature implications.

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Gael_Force]

47 minutes ago, frederiksen90 said:

Actually, it's not the number of sun spots that matter most. It is the AP index - the sun's geomagnetic activity that has shown exquisite correlation with the NAO since 1970. The phase of the lowest activity of the solar wind typically occurs after the sunspots are reduced and at the beginning of a new cycle - and it is therefore possible that one cannot see any major correlation between "just" solar minimum and regional / global climate. Usually, the stratosphere and troposphere are not coupled in the summer - but experts have wondered that recent stratospheric warming has affected tropospheric blocking so long this year with unusually long negative NAO. It could just be associated with solar minimum, as research suggests that weak solar wind increases cosmic radiation penetration into the stratosphere, which causes tropospheric blockage. I am very excited about whether it is a warning about what awaits Europe from the coming winter
: http://www.lightinthestorm.com/archives/tag/solar

 There may be a bit of volcanic ash to aid the next winter. Sarychev was thought to have had a bearing on extreme -NAO of 09/10;  Raikoke (same island chain) may have injected enough ash to have a stratospheric effect.

“Radiosonde data from the region indicate a tropopause altitude of about 11 kilometers, so altitudes of 13 to 17 kilometers suggest that the eruption cloud is mostly in the stratosphere,” said Carn. “The persistence of large SO2 amounts over the last two days also indicates stratospheric injection.”

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145226/raikoke-erupts

Sorry bit off the main topic but a reminder that many aspects go into a winter ..... great pics of both from the ISS.

 

  

 

[Devonian]

57 minutes ago, frederiksen90 said:

Actually, it's not the number of sun spots that matter most. It is the AP index - the sun's geomagnetic activity that has shown exquisite correlation with the NAO since 1970.....

...
: http://www.lightinthestorm.com/archives/tag/solar

The graph in that article stops in 2000. Is there a more up to date graph that you might be able to point me to?

[JeffC]

Thanks all for entering into mature debate and taking the time to research the research so to speak.

I think it's important that when there are so many different hypotheses and facets to this fascinating topic, we all understand that it is likely that none of us have the 100% silver bullet cast iron guaranteed copper bottomed answer ( I couldn't fit any more metals into that statement!), so a degree of not taking umbrage at someone challenging one way of thinking or another is required.

Maybe it's easier for me because I know a lot about nowt and nowt about a lot, but we all need to understand that ( and to use Florence Nightingale thread again) maybe need to nurse bruised ego's when that challenge comes and not take offence, it's all part of the learning process

Cheers

[Methuselah]

Just came across this, on the Beeb's website and, as is does make reference to Solar activity, I thought I'd bung it in here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49086783 

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Just came across this, on the Beeb's website and, as is does make reference to Solar activity, I thought I'd bung it in here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49086783 

Thanks but I find it increasingly difficult to read such stuff - you'll know why.