Jump to content

Have there been changes in the climate produced by the solar minimum?


Antón.B

Recommended Posts

There is an interesting discussion on this subject here :

https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/about/solar-activity-and-surface-climate/

It is, basically, an investigation into whether climate activity can be related to the ‘Ap’ index rather than TSI or sunspot activity. Have a looksee, maybe you can tear some of it apart !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with NASA's take on this question. Space Weather is dynamically shifting in the sense of day-to-day influence on celestial bodies. Earth's own climate is also dynamically shifting, and the most critical factors of Earth's weather involve seasons, polar air masses, upper-level disturbances, and even dust blown off of Northern Africa into the North Atlantic basin. There are so many factors at play that discerning a direct impact to climate in the long term due to Space Weather is not possible with current technology and understandings of Earth's climate over the course of its history as a stable, life-bearing body. We may be able to attribute some aspects of our weather to Space Weather, but those would not be accountable for what ultimately transpires at or near the surface of the planet, in terms of the atmosphere.

I will however be looking into the Northern Pacific basin for deviations from average, in terms of the hurricanes it produces, for the next few years or so. This particular subject may become more interesting depending on whether hurricane production is more substantial during solar minimum or not, and also depending on how said production changes as Solar Cycle 25 ramps up. The same factors that contribute to the development of hurricanes are very similar to those that cause hot, moist air to push northward into the cooler, drier air in high latitudes. Since hurricanes are, in a sense, self-contained disturbances in the atmosphere, these provide more obvious and significant data points to refer to along with non-meteorological studies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for what is, self evidently, a deeply considered reply.

It is important to mention at this point that the data under discussion are ‘Observation and  Discussion’ rather than ‘ Conclusion’ at the moment.

The key concept under consideration is based on the expansion of the upper atmospheric structure under the influence of solar impacts. This is well documented and recorded within satellite drag observations; what is less well understood is the influence that this has at lower levels, down as far as the ‘Steering Level’ where the jet stream path and intensity are seemingly affected.

Under quiet periods, such as we have at present, the steering level structure withdraws back towards the equator (for any given season/time of year) and the ‘Sea/Land Differential’ becomes the dominant factor. This is a far more stable structure, the result of which is that weather patterns tend to become more fixed – so the weather you have is what you keep, be it drought or flood.

Of further interest is the rather surprising effect that solar impacts seem to have on surface storm behaviour. This is discussed here :

https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/about/solar-activity-and-surface-climate/storm-analysis/

If you wish to carry out your own assessment on this, you can plot the daily wind strength of any major storm and cross reference it to the ‘Ap’ impact charts, data at - http://eng.sepc.ac.cn/ApIndex.php   gives the ability to select any given period for direct assessment.

Obviously, a great deal more research and analysis is needed but it is increasingly clear that the recipe for the climatic ‘Minestrone Soup’ is a lot more complex than is generally accepted.

We are now entering what should be the 'Spörer’s Law' years. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few winters, and what impact will be seen in relation to the current solar 'flatlining' we see.

 

Edited by The Atmosphere Guy
Spelling!
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative ENSO conditions have rapidly bloomed since the end of April. I forecast this to happen on Feb 1st with a simple forecast that ENSO 3.4 will reach zero, or move into negative numbers by April/May. The WMO and NOAA at the same time forecast a 60% chance of ENSO neutral through the end of the summer, a 30% of El Nino later in the year, and a 10% chance for a La Nina later in the year. Which forecast was most accurate?

 

spacer.png

Just now, goldminor said:

Negative ENSO....

That forecast of mine is based on the connection which I see between placement of excess sunspots favoring one hemisphere over the other. Imo, sunspots will increase in the second half of this year as I also stated back in December. As the new sunspot  count rises it will cause temps in the ENSO region to plummet even further. This will go hand in hand with the sunspots sitting mainly in the northern hemisphere. The upcoming La Nina should last for a minimum of 2 years. It will be long and deep, and it will cause global temps as seen in the satellite graphs, RSS and UAH, to drop into negative numbers by the end of the year for the first time since 2010/11. There goes NOAA's forecast for 2020 to be another high temp year.

13 hours ago, The Atmosphere Guy said:

The key concept under consideration is based on the expansion of the upper atmospheric structure under the influence of solar impacts. This is well documented and recorded within satellite drag observations; what is less well understood is the influence that this has at lower levels, down as far as the ‘Steering Level’ where the jet stream path and intensity are seemingly affected.

 

 

 

The current deflation of the upper atmosphere can be observed in current temps across the Himalaya Mt range, imo. Those temps have currently been lower than on average for this time of year as compared to at least the last several years for which I have saved daily pics of. This is the current look. The region just started warming up bout 4 days ago. I would estimate that the delay in warming is around 3 to 4 weeks compared to previous years. Also of interest is the atmospheric and temp changes from 500 hPa and higher. I read the changes as signs of steady cooling. ... https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=92.84,40.07,672/loc=94.312,32.534

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will likely see the return of the Megadrought to North America and South America due to more frequent Nina stages.
Europe, on the other hand, will see severe dry summers and more severe and snowy winters due to the cooling of the Atlantic Ocean.

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2020 at 2:14 PM, goldminor said:

[1]That forecast of mine is based on the connection which I see [a.]between placement of excess sunspots favoring one hemisphere over the other. [b.]Imo, sunspots will increase in the second half of this year as I also stated back in December.

[2]As the new sunspot count rises it will cause temps in the ENSO region to plummet even further.

[3]This will go hand in hand with the sunspots sitting mainly in the northern hemisphere.

[4]The upcoming La Nina should last for a minimum of 2 years. It will be long and deep, [a.]and it will cause global temps as seen in the satellite graphs, RSS and UAH, to drop into negative numbers by the end of the year for the first time since 2010/11.

[5]There goes NOAA's forecast for 2020 to be another high temp year.

[6]The current deflation of the upper atmosphere can be observed in current temps across the Himalaya Mt range, imo.

[7]Those temps have currently been lower than on average for this time of year as compared to at least the last several years for which I have saved daily pics of. This is the current look. The region just started warming up bout 4 days ago.

[8]I would estimate that the delay in warming is around 3 to 4 weeks compared to previous years. Also of interest is the atmospheric and temp changes from 500 hPa and higher. I read the changes as signs of steady cooling. ...

 

I'm afraid my response to your comment will not be in the tone you might be hoping for. It will not be the kind of exchange two may share over a glass of well-aged wine, with an aristocratic backdrop consisting of bookshelves filled to the brim with glorious, detailed encyclopedias and the biographies of many great scientists of the past and present, globes showing every minutiae of Earth's topography, nor wallpaper consisting of every known constellation with various means of referencing their location in the sky.

Instead, we will take to the street to deal with the problems that have just wandered from your brain into the public consciousness, as these are dangerously misinformed and recklessly formed thoughts indeed. I have numbered each separate claim for simplicity and reference. I must warn the more spiritually biased who visit here that we all should do our own research to properly grasp the concepts being discussed, before making judgment of others, and especially before making wild predictions. This will absolutely come off as confrontational, as I am challenging every single claim made here by this individual:

[1]A connection which you alone can see, but is unseen by others, and is based on your opinion as indicated by "imo" is entirely irrational.

[a.]Using the power of abstract interpretation to cut through the unusual vocabulary and grammatical structure you've used here, is it correct to surmise that you are calling at least some portion of the last few years of sunspots "excessive"? Or, is it so that you are basing a forecast of Earth's weather on a prediction of a La Niña event, which itself is based on which hemisphere of the Sun has the most sunspots? Do you not realize that sunspots are only Earth-facing for a relatively short period of time, such as around 3-5 days? What is the mechanism of action between an Earth-facing sunspot, and Earth's atmosphere, in your opinion? Does your opinion differ from the objectiveness of reality? Do you know what sunspots are?

Lastly, do you not understand that the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun are near-equally exposed to Earth, and that your idea of a SC24 sunspot(southern solar hemisphere) having more influence on Earth's southern hemisphere, or the opposite in SC25 sunspots(northern solar hemisphere) having more influence on Earth's northern hemisphere, is an elementary error on your part? The error being that the hemisphere of Earth most exposed to the sun is dependent on Earth's seasons, or the time of the year - which is known to shift over a relatively long time scale - such as Winter and Summer? Specifically, we are most exposed to the solar northern hemisphere in September and solar southern hemisphere in March. (source: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/solar-rotation.html )

[b.]This is hardly your opinion. This is what it looks like for a new solar cycle to begin; more sunspots will form on the opposite hemisphere... more sunspots will appear, period.

[2]This is easily disproven. The burden of proof is on you, however, so I will leave the busywork of finding temperature anomaly records to you, as they will disprove a connection between solar activity and temperatures in the Pacific region, anyways.

[3]Refer to earlier explanation of exposure to the sun's two hemispheres. Sunspots do not have an effect on Niño 3.4. They do not influence weather on Earth in as great of a way as you are imagining they do.

[4]Are you referring to the 10% chance of negative Niño values as forecasted by NOAA? You seem to be betting all-in on such low odds... Remember, El Niños and La Niñas are not determined by small periods of warming or cooling, but by multiple three-month intervals of SST warming/cooling, averaged out. You seem to not understand this.

[a.]Temperatures in many places throughout Earth always have cold and warm seasons, where temps below 0ºC are not uncommon; as you near the equator of the planet, however, it becomes less and less common for such extreme temperature swings, due to more consistent amounts of daylight that is received. For instance, if you were to live right on the equator of Earth, you'd have 12h of daytime and 12h of nighttime regardless of the time of year. If you were a few miles north of the equator, you'd have a few more minutes of daytime in the summer and a few less minutes of daytime in the winter. This scales with distance to Equator, where at the poles, periods of constant daylight and constant nighttime occur at varying times of the year. Elementary lesson in "what is a season?" aside, you are grossly overestimating the change in climate due to La Niña - especially in the early onset.

If you are suggesting that the entire planet will turn into an ice cube simply due to La Niña, then I am aghast. Surely, this is not what you meant, and I'm just misinterpreting your language. The places that have historically and commonly fallen below 0ºC during winter will continue to be cold during periods of the year where it is likely to be cold. Meanwhile, tropical climates will continue to be tropical and mostly unaffected by these events. Your choice of wording here seems to be calculated, so as to invoke fear from the less informed, and this is a stance in science which does not respect reality, and spreads misinformation for the sake of chaos. Hence, it is called pseudo-science.(Really, it's just fear mongering)

[5]Earlier in your post, you mentioned some figures:

Quote

I forecast this to happen on Feb 1st with a simple forecast that ENSO 3.4 will reach zero, or move into negative numbers by April/May. The WMO and NOAA at the same time forecast a 60% chance of ENSO neutral through the end of the summer, a 30% of El Nino later in the year, and a 10% chance for a La Nina later in the year.

But you say, "There goes NOAA's forecast" as though you just blew the roof off of their shindig. In actuality, you made an even less determinate forecast of the Niño 3.4 index than NOAA. You are dismissing their predictions based on quite literally their own least-probable outcome prediction. Remember, 30% is higher than 10%. There is a reason those figures were both given - these are degrees of certainty. Look at it conversely; It is 90% uncertain if a La Niña state will occur, and 70% uncertain if a El Niño state will occur. Measurements will be taken and real determinations can be made after the fact, but if you want to make your own predictions, do not make them in spite of the data you are using as a reference.

[6] While this is an accurate observation, it does not have a overruling effect on the rest of the planet's climate. It is also not your opinion; you are stating this as a derived and objective fact. This is an assertion of your belief of what is true and real - an argument and a declaration besides oneself. An opinion is something you project personal value onto. Opinions don't have much of a place in this discussion.

[7]Average temperatures are based on much more data than "several years" of observation. It is more than likely wildly inaccurate, and furthermore is irrational to base average temperatures, as well as concurrent deviation from the supposed averages, on your limited data set. It would be like if we were to have only been watching the sun for the last eleven years, and thus believed the solar cycle lasts eleven years. While true, it is unverifiable with such a limited data set. It should also be noted that average temperatures are just that - adding the numbers together, and dividing by the quantity of data points. There should always be a margin of error, and you shouldn't expect the actual temperature on a given day to be precisely average all the time.

[8]Isolating your observations arbitrarily, and applying derived conclusions to the rest of the planet's climate and atmosphere, is entirely irrational. There is so much going on with our planet's atmosphere, that purposefully oversimplifying meteorology, and being so reductive of the complexity of various fields of science to come to frivolous and fear-mongering conclusions... it is truly worrying that you spend your time this way.

 

But, I'm one to talk. I spent a lot of time writing this response, and I know it will either be ill-received, or result in an even greater effort from you to push some horrible and tremendously false narrative here. If you do care to read it, and somehow don't get your feelings hurt(as most people seem to bring personal feelings into any discussion, scientific or otherwise), then please, take the extra step to simply re-evaluate before publishing your ideas.

Edited by Christopher S.
  • Dislike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing of what you wrote contradicts what I have described.
My impression is that what departs from your opinion must fundamentally be wrong.
If anyone is convinced of what he says, I don't see why he can't make that claim.
If he is wrong, well, he will correct himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Aeon said:

Nothing of what you wrote contradicts what I have described.
My impression is that what departs from your opinion must fundamentally be wrong.
If anyone is convinced of what he says, I don't see why he can't make that claim.
If he is wrong, well, he will correct himself.

What is the point of this comment? What are you even talking about?

I wrote what I wrote to demonstrate the fact that just speaking feelings and opinions and attaching them to science to make bold claims with "scary" language isn't fair to anybody.

Never mind, I see that I'm not speaking with someone of an adult mind. To take a defensive-confrontational stance and dismiss what I have written as simply an opposing, bigoted opinion is indicative of someone just seeking attention on a forum/trolling.

Edited by Christopher S.
  • Dislike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions derive from expressing a certain point of view regarding certain scientific facts.
The language you describe as "frightening" implies your own descriptive point of view to which not everyone could agree.


 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

 

 

 

 

But, I'm one to talk. I spent a lot of time writing this response, and I know it will either be ill-received, or result in an even greater effort from you to push some horrible and tremendously false narrative here. If you do care to read it, and somehow don't get your feelings hurt(as most people seem to bring personal feelings into any discussion, scientific or otherwise), then please, take the extra step to simply re-evaluate before publishing your ideas.

You replied as expected. Nice going. A bit flowery with the opening though. I thought that this was a site for science discussion, even if one disagrees with what is being proposed. So no nice chat over an aged Bordeaux, and I am no aristocrat.

I stated clearly and simply what I consider to be an overlooked/unseen important aspect of what drives the climate of the planet. My forecast which I made at the beginning of February actually was formed back in December. I made a comment on Feb 1st presenting the forecast in a simple statement . My forecast was 100% right, as can be seen by looking at actual temp change in the 3.4 region. Note that NOAAs primary forecast for 60% neutral through the end of the summer was a total miss when the 3.4 region dropped down to -0.6C over the course of the last week. It has since bumped back up a few tenths.

Here is more on how I have derived my thoughts, ... https://goldminor.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/sun-enso-atmospheric-temps-correlation/

I plan to prove through the course of this year that I can accurately forecast temp shifts in the 3.4 region. It is my only way to show others that what I have seen is correct. I do not have the science and mathematical background to speak in terms which would be more understandable. What I do have is 12 years of reading climate science related material, and putting my mind to work sorting out the puzzles. I am equipped in that regard with a well above average mentality, and a great inner curiosity.

So I am a bit proud of my initial success at getting this first part of the forecast. Therefore I speak out, and add further thought. Right? I mean just how effective would it be if I came out to claim that I successfully forecast last weeks weather?

 

Edited by goldminor
forgot to shorten Chris's reply
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/5/2020 at 22:37, Antón.B said:

Have there been changes in the climate produced by the solar minimum?

The solar minimum taken individually does not produce large short-term changes but the decreasing solar cycles can certainly be blamed for over half a century to today.
 

Edited by Aeon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is ample meteorological evidence that shows the hottest years correspond with sunspot maximums, e.g., the 1988 hot spell was exactly at that point. There are many dates that correspond like the peak sunspots of the 1930's and the temperature records and dust bowl. The low sunspots of the 1970's correspond to the climate being called "the new Ice Age" LOL by NASA and most others. https://earthsky.org/space/solar-cycle-24-25-sunspot-predictions

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the last couple years have had cool and rainy summers. Across Canada winter has been long and farmers have had a hard time. The weakness of solar activity is what allowed the arctic vortex to flex south into the US and parts of Canada, producing -50 and even colder temperatures in areas that would usually have mild winters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of interesting points to watch over the coming months will be firstly the tropical storm season and the intensity of the storm activity. The peak in ‘Russell-MacPherron’ effect occurs around the autumnal equinox tending to coincide with the peak of the storm season. Whether there will be any serious solar impacts at that point and if/whether there is any identifiable interaction with surface storm behaviour will be a valid observation.

Second point arises from the concept of 'Spörer’s Law'; the December ‘Russell-MacPherron’ dip can go seriously deep under these conditions giving some very cold winter conditions.

Predictions are always hazardous – the safety of ‘interested observation’ provokes less antipathy!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Noah Sabatier said:

Yes, the last couple years have had cool and rainy summers. Across Canada winter has been long and farmers have had a hard time. The weakness of solar activity is what allowed the arctic vortex to flex south into the US and parts of Canada, producing -50 and even colder temperatures in areas that would usually have mild winters.

I think that is why we are currently seeing these continuous stream of storms popping up in the Pacific. Here in Northern California the rains keep moving in off of the Pacific. It rained last night, and for about 1/4 of the month of May. Tonight temps are going to drop to around freezing. The record from 1914 is 29 F. Might get some snow tonight. The current forecast has extensive cloud cover through the middle of the month, at least. Several more days of rain is forecast for 4 days from now. On the bright side the fire danger is minimal, and the blackberry season will be amazing this year. This is what the Indians would call blackberry rains. ... https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-154.00,46.71,827/loc=-141.762,43.140

The cloud cover in both hemispheres looks well above average to my eye. The question is "Is there more to this than just the current solar minimum effects?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently the Gulf Stream is cold and Nina is returning.
These are conditions that will produce drought in the western united states and with a cold North Atlantic the summer could go from a rainy extremity to a hot and dry extreme. (Europe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you compare the behavior of the Jet Stream during Little Ice Age and now, you will find that the extreme weather conditions are the same.
We can call them what we want, but I don't see much difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The Little Ice Age described as an extremely freezing period is a myth.
It was freezing and torrid.

2) An example of many is the summer and autumn 1666 in Northern Europe, the year of the Great Fire of London. It was very hot and dry until late autumn due to the high pressure.
Later the arrival of winter 1666/67 was so cold that the seas around Holland froze.

3) The more the high layers above the troposphere cool down, the more the Jet Current becomes unstable and the differences in high and low pressure become greater.
Very hot and dry, very cold and wet.
Depending on the season.

Ocean conditions also influence this, and in the last decade drought has dominated because of the cold North Atlantic and Nina.
Except the USA in the past few years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aeon said:

1) The Little Ice Age described as an extremely freezing period is a myth.
It was freezing and torrid.

 

I have noticed something similar when researching the temperature history of different cities/locales around the world. What was apparent was that record high temps for a location would often be followed by record lows in the same season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.