Posted on 09/15/2015 2:59:59 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
From the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR)
New perspectives for long-term climate predictions?
Are climate predictions over periods of several years reliable if weather forecast are still only possible for short periods of several days? Nevertheless there are options to predict the development of key parameters on such long time scales. A new study led by scientists at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel shows how the well-known 11-year cycle of solar activity affects the long-time development of dominant large-scale pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere.
For their investigations the scientists used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. In addition, this model includes an interactive chemistry module which can for instance cope with the effect of ultraviolet radiation (UV) in the upper atmosphere. This additional component seemed to be key to transmit the variations in the solar radiation which might have only a small direct impact on the earth’s surface, through a complex mechanism from the stratosphere (10-50 km altitude) to the lower atmosphere.
“We have carried out several experiments,” says Dr. Rémi Thiéblemont from GEOMAR, lead author of the study. “We conducted model experiments over a period of 145 years, with and without the influence of solar activity “, Thiéblemont continued. The sun’s influence could clearly be identified in the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation, which is roughly speaking the pressure difference between the Azores high and the Iceland low. The ratio between these two pressure systems often determines the weather in Europe over longer time periods, such as whether the winter months turn warm and stormy or cold and snowy. The researchers found a time lag between variations in solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure patterns of about one to two years, which can be explained by an interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean. By comparing the two experiments with or without solar activity, they were able to prove for the first time that the sun irradiance serves as a phase-lock for the North Atlantic Oscillation. With this context, an increase of the predictability of the decadal NAO phase can be expected.
“The fact that the circulation in the upper atmosphere responds significantly to the solar fluctuations, is already known”, Prof. Dr. Katja Matthes, initiator and co-author of the study from GEOMAR explains. “On one hand we can demonstrate with this new study how the transmission of the signal to the Earth’s surface and its interaction with the ocean works, and on the other hand we can show the importance of the chemical reactions for the coupling”, Prof. Matthes continued. So far, most global climate models have neither a sufficient resolution in the stratosphere nor interactive chemical components. “Although the solar effect on the North Atlantic Oscillation explains only a few percent of the total variance, the close relationship between solar activity and phase North Atlantic Oscillation is an important indicator to improve the predictability of climate variability”, Dr. Thiéblemont summarizes.
There is still a long way to go, for successful and reliable long-term forecasts up to a decade. Nevertheless, for successful predictions it is important to include solar fluctuations, Professor Matthes concludes.
###
Scientific paper:
Thiéblemont, R., K. Matthes, N.-E. Omrani, K. Kodera and F. Hansen, 2015. Solar forcing synchronizes decadal climate variability North Atlantic. Nature Communications, doi: 10.1038/ncomms9268.
A true ‘Sherlock’ moment.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Bookmark
Ask your sisters to please explain to you how just 0.0037% of our atmosphere can possibly capture enough heat, then back radiate that heat in large enough quantities to cause global climate change
Their eyes will cross
Man only produces enough CO2 to take up just 0.0037% of our atmosphere- that means that 99.9863% of the atmosphere is FREE FROM CO2 produced by man
What’s even funnier is the FACT that over the whole course of man’s complete history, man has only produced 0.00022% of the CO2 that natures and the earth’s mantle has created
Your sisters very likely believe that the atmosphere is “saturated with CO2 produced by man” (infact, ask them how much of the atmosphere has CO2 in it caused by man- get them to show how little they actually know about the issue)
After they answer, tell them the truth- the answer is 0.0037%
IF you want to explain the math to them, tell them the atmosphere has a TOTAL of 0.04% CO2 in it (BOTH Natural and man produced), Man is responsible for just 3.4% of ALL the CO2 In the atmosphere, so this means 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.0037% of the atmosphere consists of man produced CO2
(Note, I may be figuring this wrong- math was never my strong point- If someone wants to figure out the math to the letter, the atmosphere weighs 6 quadrillion tons, and man produces approx. 7 billion tons [sounds like a huge amount, but it is insignificant compared to the total volume of the atmosphere]- so figure out what % 7 billion tons is of 6 quadrillion tons)
oh my gosh my side hurts- thanks-
Don’t worry. When Barack takes the sun away you’ll be too bust freezing to death to feel the pain ;)
But, but ,but what about Sea Oh Too?
It’s like the ozone hole/Freon thing. Take dyed freon. Release it in a container/room. It goes to the ground. Outside it is absorbed into the soil.
What it does not do is defy gravity or catch miraculous air currents that take it on it’s evil mission to 70,000 feet to destroy ozone.
You can’t tell them that without the Thorazine look appearing either.
Well stune my bieber! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
********************************EXCERPT***********************************
Tom in Florida says:
“Although the solar effect on the North Atlantic Oscillation explains only a few percent of the total variance, ”
Say what? So the solar effect is very, very small. But we already knew that.
Will we see an obvious call for more funding for the authors?
Oh yeah, there it is:
“There is still a long way to go, for successful and reliable long-term forecasts up to a decade. Nevertheless, for successful predictions it is important to include solar fluctuations, Professor Matthes concludes.”
**********************************************EXCERPT*********************************
Salvatore Del Prete says:
When solar activity enters a prolonged minimum period of activity look for a negative AO/NAO.
Big things come in small packages? lol
*******************************************EXCERPT***************************
Rhoda K says:
Fitting, again. What one would love to see in any or all of these curve-fitting theories is a provable prediction, or mechanism subject to measurement or observation. But then I’m an Oxfordshire housewife with only a housewife’s grasp of such things.
******************************************EXCERPT********************
Ben of Houston says:
It’s interesting mathematical work. However, it still ends up as a “We took this out and it broke our model” method. That’s not a valid tactic for evaluating whether something is real.
That said, the evaluation of lag between solar activity and the NAO is a good one, though I wonder why they would need a model for that, as it’s a historical analysis, and it appears that they properly qualified their results, and it does provide a suggestion for a causal link.
While it seems like a likely reasult and I agree with the general tone and direction, this isn’t evidence. Just because it makes your model fit better doesn’t mean that an effect or connection is real.
Black Hole Son won't you come and wash away the brain...
**************************************EXCERPT****************************************
Mike says:
They are experimenting to see what their model will do. As long as they don’t think they are experimenting to see what the climate will do, there’s no harm in it.
If the model ends up doing something similar to observed data ( and at the same time ) it may be an interesting experiment. If it does something different to what observations show ( and at the same time ) they can put it in a box with all the other models produced over the last 30 years.
The sun has influence on our climate?
Wow, I would have never have guessed.
[[What it does not do is defy gravity or catch miraculous air currents that take it on it’s evil mission to 70,000 feet to destroy ozone.]]
Not true, I was flying once, and looked out the window and saw a Freon molecule with an evil grin on it’s face headed straight for the atmosphere, as though it were on some kind of weird evil mission- but luckily it was headed off by a molecule of CO2 which gobbled it up and crapped it out again- I saw it plummet to earth and hit a liberal smack in the face and they never blinked an eyelash-
LOL!
[[While it seems like a likely result and I agree with the general tone and direction, this isn’t evidence.]]
And claim by ‘man-caused global warming’ advocates that state: “It’s hotter out by a fraction of a degree, there is more Co2 now, therefore CO2 causes global climate change’ is evidence? Because that’s all they got because the math does NOT support their claim- their claim is no more valid than saying “When it gets hotter, thermometers go up, therefore rising mercury in thermometers causes global climate change” They are equating correlation with Causation- We could just as easily make the claim that “It’s slightly warmer these days, and there are more liberal universities than ever- so therefore liberal blowhards are the cause of global climate change”
Let’s also not forget that what this research you’ve cited states is farm ore valid and reasonable than a hypothesis that CO2 causes global climate change when the Facts clearly show CO2 ALWAYS rises many hundreds to 1000’s of years AFTER temps rise
I dunno how to post graphs- but here’s a graph showing ice core samples proving temps rise first, then 800 (+200) years later CO2 rises
[[If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect. This hasn’t happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force, and the models are missing the dominant driver.]]
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/
And another thing, IF Co2 is the major cause of temperatures rising, then temps would not have stayed flat for two decades now- and now scientists are beginning to say the flat temps are likely to continue for some time-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.