Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

Interesting that Abdussamatov predicts cooling from next year as a result of reduced TSI, reduced greenhouse gasses, expanding ice coverage and a -ve global energy imbalance. That's quite a bit to start happening very soon.

Solheim et al predicts a hemispheric drop of 0.9C during this solar cycle, so they expect the temperature to go something like this...

That will be interesting if it happens, something to test at least.

 

A few other bits

 

Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate

 

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

 

Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming

[knocker]

A couple of images.

 

 

[Methuselah]

On the other hand, knocker, there's nothing to suggest that the upcoming 'minimum' won't actually bottom-out at a higher that the last one did?

[crikey]

KNOCKER

Equatorial to polar temperature gradient in the stratospheric layer

 

Forms a  horizontal thermocline from equator to pole at the stratospheric altitude

 

Changes in stratospheric temp' due to a range of factors can change the thermocline gradient and impact Jetstream strength and position as the Jetstream resides in the stratosphere.

 

There is also a vertical thermoclines that varies with altitude from the surface to the stratosphere and even higher

 

Solar minimum and maximum  impacts ozone and UV concentration in the stratosphere and relates to temp 'changes there

 

My favourite researcher of the stratosphere is

 Prof. Dr. Karin Labitzke

 

awesome !!

 

http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/

 

----------

 

Thankyou JETHRO for those links. They look fabulous . I will read in the coming days and comment

 

I did read that news article about' lockwoo'd on the cool spells in the UK.

I was surprised he said the downturn commenced mid 80's? and we are half way through the downturn? ????

 

Not all agree on timing then, which surprise me . I must read his research

-----------------

 

BftV

Yes Interesting that some scientists calculating a steep descent in global temp;

like Abdussamatov

This is based on cycle harmonics of when cycles overlay and produce constructive interference

Some cycle researchers have identified up to 4 cycles aligning at max around 2000 and hence say we have reached modern  maximum.ie.. Qian and lu (2010)

All 4 cycles decline at the same time producing a saw tooth wave effect

a steep downturn.

Archibald also has similar bold predictions of large drops in global temp

 

Some are more conservative like Scafetta that recognise some C02 forcing and calculate the mix of cycle downturn and C02 forcing

 

I think Archibald , Landscheidt and Abdudussamatov subscribe to a zero or negligible forcing of C02

________________

 

Thanks for those thumbnails KNOCKER. I will copy and archive those.

 

By the way.

Don't forget the solar system tidal influence. Its not all solar induced

 

also amplification effects from solar . Top down theory.

-----------------

 BNSue.  When  will the 200 yr De Vries minimum bottom out and how much can GHG retard the downturn?

 

I think in the first of Jethros links( LOCKWOOD) the minimum could retard global temp incline from AGW  0.3 deg c by 2030

0.1 deg c per decade l assume?

 

However this will depend on the 'true' climate sensitivity of C02 and the  true forcing values in  the downturn in the 11 yr cycle AND the downturn in  forcing of the other 3 cycles including  200 yr cycle which Lockwood has not quantified?

 

Lets add in the downturn as well of the 60 yr cycle (AMO) commencing maybe 2020?

Could get a downward saw tooth effect as cycle analysis indicates

 

Could get surprisingly ugly if the likes of Archibald ,Landscheidt  et al are correct

[knocker]

KNOCKER

Equatorial to polar temperature gradient in the stratospheric layer

 

Forms a  horizontal thermocline from equator to pole at the stratospheric altitude

 

Changes in stratospheric temp' due to a range of factors can change the thermocline gradient and impact Jetstream strength and position as the Jetstream resides in the stratosphere.

 

There is also a vertical thermoclines that varies with altitude from the surface to the stratosphere and even higher

 

 

I'm not sure I follow all of that Crikey. Most of it but "and position as the Jetstream resides in the stratosphere?".

 

.

[crikey]

KNOCKER

I have found a really good tutorial on the stratosphere and Jetstream for you. It is probably targeted 1st/2nd yr uni
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/index.htm
 
I would like to sit down and read myself.. ..One day.LOL
 
I have taken one of the professors diagrams and highlighted the position of atmospheric layers
and also the position of major Jetstream/s on the pic' below
 
This is a vertical profile that illustrates the change in temperature at different altitudes and at different latitudes of first of  the global atmospheric layers
Notice the top of the tropopause is highest at the equator and lowest at the poles ( a thermocline or temperature gradient)
 the temperature gradients from equator to pole
This temperature difference between poles and equator is different at different altitudes
I have marked in a thermocline in brown.
 
Changes in solar contribution amongst other things alters the temperature gradient profile. This can affect Jetstream strength and position and weather in the troposphere

 

picture from http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_Js/6-02.jpg

and modified and linked to my pics

https://picasaweb.google.com/104698633266954768357/STRATOSPHERE#5897831796751546930

 

Hope that assists..

CLICK the thumbnail below to invoke an enlarged picture

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2013 by crikey

[knocker]

Thanks Crikey.

[knocker]

Wasn't sure what thread to put this in.

 

Mat Collin's talk number 2 at the Chinese Meteorological Administration Summer School.

 

The Response of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to Climate Change

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32802122/MatCollins_ISCS_ENSO.pdf

Edited July 15, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks knocks and Crikey!

 

I think those of us 'running to catch up' will find these resources both informative and useful!

[BornFromTheVoid]

The March 2012 US heatwave primarily the result of natural climate and weather variation

 

 

 

The Making of An Extreme Event: Putting the Pieces Together

Abstract

We examine how physical factors spanning climate and weather contributed to record warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012, when daily temperature anomalies at many locations exceeded 20°C. Over this region, approximately 1° C warming in March temperatures has occurred since 1901. This long-term regional warming is an order-of-magnitude smaller than temperature anomalies observed during the event, indicating the most of the extreme warmth must be explained by other factors. Several lines of evidence strongly implicate natural variations as the primary cause for the extreme event. The 2012 temperature anomalies had a close analogue in an exceptionally warm U.S. March occurring over 100 years earlier, providing observational evidence that an extreme event similar to March 2012 could be produced through natural variability alone. Coupled model forecasts and simulations forced by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) show that forcing from anomalous SSTs increased the probability of extreme warm temperatures in March 2012 above that anticipated from the long-term warming trend. In addition, forcing associated with a strong Madden-Julian Oscillation further increased the probability for extreme U.S. warmth and provided important additional predictive information on the timing and spatial pattern of temperature anomalies. The results indicate that the superposition of a strong natural variation similar to March 1910 on long-term warming of the magnitude observed would be sufficient to account for the record warm March 2012 U.S. temperatures. We conclude that the extreme warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012 resulted primarily from natural climate and weather variability, a substantial fraction of which was predictable.

 

 

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00069.1?af=R&

[VillagePlank]

This guy is clearly a complete muppet, and not used to doing cliamte science. I mean, he took the data, dropped his preconceived notions and concluded where the data took him. Pah!

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/29/cycles-without-the-mania/#more-90598

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm sorry, I'm lost. According to consensus, CO₂ is the primary controller of the climate; more of it means warmer, less of it means cooler. Since there was quite a lot less a long time again, Milankovitch cycles, themselves surprisingly controversial, could be easily determined from the climate record. Since we  now have lots of CO₂ and are {warming rapidly/not warming rapidly*} suddenly the Milankovitch cycles, which according to Vostok accounts for changes of some 12^oC. Now you said, 'when CO2 levels were kept below 300ppm and the Milankovitch cycles controlled the climate.' Have humankind put so much CO₂ out there that it's affecting planet Earth's wobble and solar orbit? As far as I can tell what controlled the climate eons ago is what controls the climate today - there's just more of some less of the other in terms of radiative forcing. Indeed, the Milankovitch 12C far outweights a rather pathetic 2C man is putting out there, wouldn't you agree?

 

 

*delete as appropriate

 

 

Feedbacks are what drives the large temperature changes. The influence of the Milankovitch cycles themselves are not enough to create the large temperature swings seen in the climate record, but when combined with the ice albedo feedback, greenhouse gas feedbacks and whatnot, they accomplish the job.

The fact that we're currently overriding the 8,000 year downward trend shows that the Milankovitch cycles, in and of themselves, cannot do much without the feedbacks, which we're now driving in the opposite direction.

[VillagePlank]

Feedbacks are what drives the large temperature changes. The influence of the Milankovitch cycles themselves are not enough to create the large temperature swings seen in the climate record, but when combined with the ice albedo feedback, greenhouse gas feedbacks and whatnot, they accomplish the job.

The fact that we're currently overriding the 8,000 year downward trend shows that the Milankovitch cycles, in and of themselves, cannot do much without the feedbacks, which we're now driving in the opposite direction.

 

 ... and since feedbacks operate at different rates depending on the ambient temperature, you'd expect that once we reach that top temperature, some (hitherto unknown) negative feedback might kick in. Actually, it's not that difficult to envisage; current thinking is that at an anomaly of around 1C things have slowed down, with the likely heat sink being the ocean. If we are heating up the ocean, what's this going to do to ocean currents? With melting fresh water changing salinity and CO2 induced warming changing temperature - it's kind of an all bets off scenario. And certainly, given the empirical Vostok evidence, it's plausible. As I said, before, now that really is a reason to slow CO2 output! Let's face it oceans starting to soak up ambient energy was a  hitherto unknown negative feedback 10 years ago .... and it's certainly reasonably realistic that the oceans starting to take up excess energy might indeed be a step function (that is to say that there must be a given minimum of temperature before it kicks in)

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

 ... and since feedbacks operate at different rates depending on the ambient temperature, you'd expect that once we reach that top temperature, some (hitherto unknown) negative feedback might kick in. Actually, it's not that difficult to envisage; current thinking is that at an anomaly of around 1C things have slowed down, with the likely heat sink being the ocean. If we are heating up the ocean, what's this going to do to ocean currents? With melting fresh water changing salinity, CO2 induced warming changing temperature - it's kind of an all bets off scenario. And certainly, given the empirical Vostok evidence, it's plausible. As I said, before, now that really is a reason to slow CO2 output!

 

I think it's more the case that at the peak temperature, the northern hemisphere insolation begins to decrease, increasing snow and ice cover and enhancing the THC, which sequesters CO2 and starts off a chain reaction of feedbacks that results in cooling. But with the initial push by the Milankovitch cycles, just as it creates the initial push required for warming, so no need for an big unknown that decides when enough warming is enough!

[VillagePlank]

I think it's more the case that at the peak temperature, the northern hemisphere insolation begins to decrease, increasing snow and ice cover and enhancing the THC, which sequesters CO2 and starts off a chain reaction of feedbacks that results in cooling. But with the initial push by the Milankovitch cycles, just as it creates the initial push required for warming, so no need for an big unknown that decides when enough warming is enough!

 

That doesn't make much sense; since we talk of the degree of temperature causing environmenta catastrophe, not CO2 - unless CO2 has other chemical properties I am not aware of, CO2 might be attributed to the cause of temperature rise, but the temperature rise is what does the damage: ie if CO2 didn't cause temperature rise, would we be concerned about it? If the Milankovitch cycles, which mediate over about 12C kick in, our measly 2C by the end of this century isn't going to matter one iota - unless there is some sort of Heaviside step-function controlling when or if the oceans take up excess energy. It is just as plausible that the rate of energy update by the ocean is exponential in terms of temperature rise, which, indeed, would appear to us to  be a step-function. It's also easily modelled with a leaky integrator ie the rate at which the ocean uptake occurs (the leak) is dependent on how much temperature there is (water in the bucket)

[Methuselah]

But aren't the Milankovitch cycles currently tending cooler?

[VillagePlank]

Yep -  but the effect is over, at least, 28,000 years, the first 6,000 years of which has already passed. That's a cooling rate of some 0.00043 degC/yr, pretty much undetectable in multiple human generations.

[BornFromTheVoid]

That doesn't make much sense; since we talk of the degree of temperature causing environmenta catastrophe, not CO2 - unless CO2 has other chemical properties I am not aware of, CO2 might be attributed to the cause of temperature rise, but the temperature rise is what does the damage: ie if CO2 didn't cause temperature rise, would we be concerned about it? If the Milankovitch cycles, which mediate over about 12C kick in, our measly 2C by the end of this century isn't going to matter one iota - unless there is some sort of Heaviside step-function controlling when or if the oceans take up excess energy. It is just as plausible that the rate of energy update by the ocean is exponential in terms of temperature rise, which, indeed, would appear to us to  be a step-function. It's also easily modelled with a leaky integrator ie the rate at which the ocean uptake occurs (the leak) is dependent on how much temperature there is (water in the bucket)

 

You've lost me a bit. 

The Milankovitch cycles rely on feedbacks in order to cause the big variations that they do, so CO2/water vapour/ ice albedo feedbakcs are part of that temperature variation associated with the Milankovitch cycles.

Saying that our, perhaps, 2C increase is nothing compared to the Milankovitch cycles 12C variations (is that just Vostok, or global) makes no sense to me?

[knocker]

The Milankovitch Theory: problems and explanations.

 

Source.

John Turner and Gareth J. Marshall, Climate Change in the Polar Regions, CUP.

 

 

 

Mlan.pdf

[Methuselah]

Yep -  but the effect is over, at least, 28,000 years, the first 6,000 years of which has already passed. That's a cooling rate of some 0.00043 degC/yr, pretty much undetectable in multiple human generations.

Not sure I see how that really makes all that much difference, Sparky? As far as I'm aware most (or all) of the natural climate forcings are pointed 'downwards'...So, the question still remains: why are global temperatures misbehaving? 

[VillagePlank]

Not sure I see how that really makes all that much difference, Sparky? As far as I'm aware most (or all) of the natural climate forcings are pointed 'downwards'...So, the question still remains: why are global temperatures misbehaving? 

 

There's another problem. CO2 accounts, according to the IPCC, for about 90% of all the forcing, so only 10% of the problem can be attributed to natural drivers; given the excessive pumping out of CO2. I'd suggest that those figures need revising, now. Is 10% enough? I'm not so sure ...

Edited August 10, 2013 by Sparkicle