|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 12, 2011 19:59:58 GMT 1
BBC' s favourite weather man speaks out! (but he's just a meteorologist) Met Office wakes up to solar influence on climatePaul Hudson Wednesday, 12 October 2011 For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision. Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it's been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland. Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently. In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog. Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun's brightness, but this research has discovered that it's the variation in the sun's Ultra Violet (UV) output that's crucial. According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface - leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe. When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west. Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting. Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun's changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures. The work is based on an 11 year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time. But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline. If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming. This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it's a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 13, 2011 11:18:13 GMT 1
Sun-watchers hope giant telescope will get green light
Observatory would reveal structures that trigger sunspots and space weather.
Eric HandThe summit of Haleakala in Hawaii will gain its largest telescope yet if plans are approved. Close and bright though it is, the Sun still defies a thorough understanding. One reason is that some of the features on its roiling surface are too small and short-lived to be studied even by the world's largest solar telescopes. That will change if the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) proceeds with its latest project — the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), a Sun-gazing behemoth due to be built on the summit of Haleakala, the highest peak on the Hawaiian island of Maui. This month, an officially appointed arbiter will weigh the scientists' goals against objections raised by conservationists and Native Hawaiian groups to decide whether the US$298-million project can break ground later this year. With more than twice the aperture of existing solar telescopes (see 'Eyes on the Sun'), the 4-metre ATST will be large enough to tease out small structures on the Sun, particularly magnetic flux tubes — the hitherto unseen precursors to sunspots. Sunspots, in turn, give rise to giant coronal loops and flares, which can unleash bursts of radiation and cause magnetic disturbances that sometimes threaten spacecraft, communication networks and power grids. Heliophysicists say the improved resolution should help solar science to move into the challenging terrain of predicting space weather. "The societal need is really driving this community," says Thomas Zurbuchen, a solar physicist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is vice-chair of a decadal survey for heliophysics that is due to release its research priorities next March. Although not the only phenomenon the ATST will explore, flux tubes are of especial interest because these short-lived, 100-kilo metre-scale features are thought to be conduits of magnetic field lines through the solar surface. Studying them as they evolve should shed light on larger-scale solar phenomena that can affect Earth. "If you want to understand coronal heating and solar-wind acceleration, then you have to understand these fundamental scales," says Todd Hoeksema, a solar physicist at Stanford University in California. Ultimately, solar astronomers hope to monitor the Sun 24 hours a day using a global network of telescopes. A European telescope of similar size is planned for the Canary Islands, and India is considering a 2-metre instrument. But the ATST will be built first if it passes a final hurdle. Last December, more than seven years after the NSO chose the site, Hawaii's Board of Land and Natural Resources gave permission to develop it. A group called Kilakila O Haleakala ('Majestic is Haleakala' in Hawaiian) has contested the decision. An endangered seabird, the Hawaiian petrel or 'ua'u (Pterodroma sandwichensis), nests near the proposed site. Furthermore, some Native Hawaiians say that the telescope's stark white enclosure — necessary to control heat-induced air currents within the scope's optical path — will scar a sacred area. But the telescope builders say they will do all they can to mitigate the impacts. Construction workers will limit vibrations that could collapse the petrels' burrows, and will receive 'sense of place' training to avoid culturally insensitive missteps. Honolulu-based lawyer Steven Jacobson, the arbiter appointed by the board to re-evaluate the permit, says that he will hand in his recommendation in the next week. NSO director Stephen Keil is cautiously optimistic that Jacobson will give the telescope the green light — although he has seen the process take plenty of detours before. "It keeps me awake every night," he says. "This is part of doing business in Hawaii." There are other issues to be resolved — not least whether the cash-strapped National Science Foundation can find enough money. A $146-million infusion from the 2009 stimulus-package fund has paid for early work on the telescope's mirror. But Keil says the project will need "make up" funding of around $30 million a year — six times the amount it received in 2011 — if it is to begin operations by 2018 as planned. By then, a new solar clearing house will be ready to receive data from the telescope. On 30 September, the board of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, which oversees the NSO, announced that the observatory's headquarters are to move to the University of Colorado at Boulder. The move, planned for 2016, will spell the end for the NSO's current homes in Sunspot, New Mexico, and Tucson, Arizona, and for the ageing solar telescopes at the two sites. Administrators hope that the consolidation of staff and resources, coupled with the anticipated power of the ATST, will usher in a new era for the field, allowing astronomers to see the Sun in an entirely new light. www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478166a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20111013
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 13, 2011 12:08:14 GMT 1
The sun can affect climate but this has always been the case and does not alter the fact that human activity is warming the earth to an alarming degree. You have to look at the global ramifications of warming and not just more localised weather patterns caused by solar activity. There are two cases here: one that is a natural and long term phenomenon and one that is an unnatural and sudden change in climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2011 1:37:18 GMT 1
What "sudden change in climate" are you referring to, abacus?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2011 1:52:16 GMT 1
At the end of last year the following page at NASA started to get some exposure around the blogosphere then it was removed, I think about 9 months ago and now brings up "Page not Found". The URL is: - science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/Worth another read in these enlightened days? “What are the primary forcings of the Earth climate system?"
"The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth's climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth's orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing "orbital mechanics" force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth's exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling -- perhaps the next ice age.
However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.
Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or "aerosols") would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.
Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth's climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate."courtesy of Green Sand at Bishop Hill bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/12/quote-of-the-day.html#comments |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2011 9:45:02 GMT 1
What "sudden change in climate" are you referring to, abacus? Well, for example, the Little Ice Age. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 14, 2011 11:49:42 GMT 1
I was asking what "unnatural and sudden change in climate" you were attributing to the relatively recent increase in CO2, abacus. Because I must have missed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 24, 2011 20:11:34 GMT 1
Discussion of sunspot variation and the solar effect on climate. Interview with Dr David Hathaway from NASA starting about 4 minutes to 18 minutes in. (You probably wont be interested in the Erich Von Daniken piece which follows!) Graphs etc here www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htmAre we going into a Grand Minimum like the Maunder Minimum? What will the effect be? Solar physicists don't know! |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 6, 2012 19:01:44 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 21, 2012 12:49:56 GMT 1
Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl & Ole Humlum:
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures Click source to download PDF file "Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures" (Submitted on 14 Dec 2011)and read FULL report from an-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl & Ole Humlum. climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8859 |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 21, 2012 12:53:25 GMT 1
AbstractRelations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorologicalstations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region.
No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed.
We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase in the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9248 |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 21, 2012 14:42:20 GMT 1
SOLAR INERTIAL MOTION NEWTON (1687) showed that the sun is engaged in continual motion around the centre of mass of the solar system (i.e. the barycentre) as a result of the gravitational force exerted by the planets, especially Jupiter and Saturn.vi He came to this conclusion analytically (not by observation) by working through the consequences of his law of gravitation. The sun is in free-fall around the barycentre as a result of planetary gravitational force. The sun orbits the barycentre inside a circular area which itself is just over two solar diameters in diameter. This might be negligible for the solar system but it is highly significant in relation to the size and nature of the sun. Amongst other things, the sun may be travelling through its own electromagnetic fields during various stages of its journey. Unlike planetary orbits around the barycentre, the sun’s orbit around the barycentre differs greatly from orbit to orbit. The general form of the sun’s barycentric orbit is an epitrochoid, a big circle continuous with a little ring nestling asymmetrically inside it. At one phase, the orbit is nearly circular, almost two solar diameters in diameter. At another phase, the Sun is impelled on a backward, or retrograde, journey in which it undergoes a tight loop-the-loop, crossing over its own path in a loop that is less than one solar radius. The epitrochoid’s asymmetric ring arises from the sun undergoing the retrograde loop-the-loop. No alignment of the planets in relation to the Sun repeats itself exactly, because the solar system is chaotic, containing intrinsic randomness. As a result, no two epitrochoid-shaped solar orbits are the same. Nevertheless, they can be classified into eight distinctive patterns, each of about 179 years’ duration, which is also the time taken for the planets to occupy approximately the same positions again relative to each other and the sun. In this time the sun completes about nine orbits, or one planetary cycle. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, Rhodes Fairbridge began to explore the hypothesis that there might be a regular input of energy to the earth of astronomical origin. According to this hypothesis, the many regular periodicities that are revealed in, for example, tree rings, ice cores, biota, rocks, sediments, sand dunes, beachridges, strandplains, geomagnetic records, glaciations, geology, geomorphology and the extensive layers of sediments such as those that make the striking Hudson Bay varves, would require the same type of regular input of immense energy as that which drives the tides. Rhodes Fairbridge considered that climate change was regulated by forces outside the normal terrestrial atmosphere and its dynamic systems. He was one of the early advocates of the idea that the large-scale episodes of major climate change had astronomical origins. FAIRBRIDGE (1961c) spoke of Milankovitch’s ‘elegant mathematical theory’, drawing attention to its strengths and weaknesses, including some doubtful assumptions and conflict between evidence and prediction, which have only recently been addressed. He looked for the type of energy and regularity, like the lunisolar tides, that controls the earth’s daily and annual motions. This led him to explore solar periodicities, principally the sunspot cycles, as the source..... read more of this fascinating article by Richard Mackey here www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2012 15:09:17 GMT 1
Yet Another Paper Shows “The Enormous Importance Of Solar Activity Fluctuations On Climate”By P Gosselin on 14. Mai 2012 notrickszone.com/2012/05/14/yet-another-paper-shows-the-enormous-importance-of-solar-activity-fluctuations-on-climate/Yet another study has appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, this one looks at the precipitation history on the Tibet Plateau of the last 1000 years.  Figure 1: Reconstruction of precipitation amounts for the edge of the Tibet Plateau. The bars on the chart depict prominent weak phases of solar activity, which correspond to Om = Oort Minimum; Wm = Wolf Minimum; Sm = Spörer Minimum; Mm = Maunder Minimum; Dm = Dalton Minimum). Figure from: Sun & Liu (2012). Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt have written a summary of this paper, which I’ve translated in the English: ============================================== New Study of the Tibet Plateau: Whenever Solar Activity is Weak, the Rains DisappearBy Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt The Tibet Plateau is at 3000 to 5000 meters elevation the highest and most expansive high plateau on Earth. Therefore it reacts sensitively to climate changes. Junyan Sun and Yu Liu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences studied tree rings in the northwest plateau edge from two living 1000 year old trees. Tree growth in the area of study is particularly sensitive to the amount of precipitation. Both scientists were able to reconstruct the distinct precipitation fluctuations occurring over the last 1000 years. The corresponding wet and dry periods each lasted some decades. A comparison to the other climate reconstructions coming from the same region shows great similarities in moisture development and that we are dealing with a representative regional climate signal. There were pronounced periods of droughts from 1092-1172, 1441-1517 and 1564–1730. Especially the Great Drought of 1441-1517 is mentioned in numerous historical documents and catastrophe reports. The Great Drought occurred during a weak period of solar activity, the so-called Spörer Minimum, which occurred from 1420 to 1570. Interestingly, almost all other periods of drought occurred during times of solar minima, among them the Oort Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (see Figure 1 above). Every time the sun goes into a slumber for a few decades, the rains on the Tibet Plateau stay away. A frequency analysis of precipitation curves also delivers evidence on solar cycles. Here the Gleissberg Cycle (60-120 year period) and the Suess/de Vries Cycle (180-220 years) are seen in the datasets. The study once again documents the enormous importance of solar activity fluctuations on the development of climate. Why the IPCC degrades this important natural climate driver to a secondary small player in theoretical climate models (See our article: “What is the coming solar activity slumber bringing? The Hadley Centre Leaves Its Back Door Open“) simply boggles the mind. ===================================================== Indeed. And with every passing study, it is becoming increasingly clear that the CO2 warmists are either in deep denial or complete intellectual oblivion. ----------- Two trees only! But they are VERY long-lived trees so I see nothing wrong in using their tree rings as proxies for rainfall. Rainfall is the single most important limiting factor on tree growth, after all. Since the tree ring widths align with known periods of drought and sunspot minima I guess the two trees are pretty conclusive witnesses! (Unlike the Magic Larch of Yamal, for example, that we are supposed to beleive is somehow "tele connected" to the global mean temperature!) |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2012 16:02:30 GMT 1
Venus is one third closer to the sun than Earth.
Images like this get things in proportion I think, demonstrating the relationship of our planet to its star.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2012 10:13:25 GMT 1
|
|
