Journal of Climate 2013 ; e-View
The Surface Climate Response to 11-Yr Solar Forcing During Northern Winter: Observational Analyses and Comparisons With GCM Simulations
| Abstract |
|---|
The surface climate response to 11-yr solar forcing during northern winter is first re-estimated by applying a multiple linear regression (MLR) statistical model to Hadley Centre sea level pressure (SLP) and sea surface temperature (SST) data over the 1880-2009 period. In addition to a significant positive SLP response in the North Pacific found in previous studies, a positive SST response is obtained across the midlatitude North Pacific. Negative but insignificant SLP responses are obtained in the Arctic. The derived SLP response at zero lag therefore resembles a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). Evaluation of the SLP and SST responses as a function of phase lag indicates that the response evolves from a negative AO-like mode a few years before solar maximum to a positive AO-like mode at and following solar maximum. For comparison, a similar MLR analysis is applied to model SLP and SST data from a series of simulations using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. The simulations differed only in the assumed solar cycle variation of stratospheric ozone. It is found that the simulation that assumed an ozone variation estimated from satellite data produces solar SLP and SST responses that are most consistent with the observational results, especially during a selected centennial period. In particular, a positive SLP response anomaly is obtained in the northeastern Pacific and a corresponding positive SST response anomaly extends across the midlatitude North Pacific. The model response versus phase lag also evolves from a mainly negative AO-like response before solar maximum to a mainly positive AO response at and following solar maximum.
Has anyone bothered to calculate the *total amount* of change in solar energy hits Earth from that "tiny variation" over the course of a sunspot cycle?
ReplyDeleteThe warmistas always use percentages rather than hard numbers because they know the full and very huge numbers would help people see how wrong they are.
Comment cross-posted from WUWT:
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/another-amplification-mechanism-discovered-by-which-the-sun-affects-earths-climate/#comment-1293279
May 1, 2013 at 5:57 am
More papers on solar cycle effects on climate/temp/weather:
1) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0214.1 Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms
2) http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-29172-2_155#page-1 Stratospheric Responses to the 11-year Solar Cycle in MAECHAM5 with and without Ocean Coupling
3) http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4348-9_31#page-1 The Atmospheric Response to Solar Variability: Simulations with a General Circulation and Chemistry Model for the Entire Atmosphere
4) https://dlib.lib.washington.edu/dspace/handle/1773/21870 Climate Response to Solar Variation: Cyclic and Secular
It’s the sun, stupid.
We learned thus stuff ( not all the fancy numbers, graphs & charts), the basics, which haven't changed. The sun, weather cycles, moon/tide effect, etc. waaaaaay back in about the fourth grade science classes. But I'm old, & that was when they used to teach in school instead of indoctrinate according to politically correct agenda.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have a system with oscillations, sometimes a weak forcing function can control the phase even though the forcing function does not cause the oscillations. I often suspect this may be the case for the Earth's orbital variations being correlated to the glacial oscillations.
ReplyDelete