Corrected Sunspot History: Climate Change Not Due to Natural Solar Trends

[StudentOfClimatology]

First class tin foil hat stuff here guys. The solar component is very small and it has been declining since 1950 and yet temperatures still go up? Can it have a small affect on global temperatures? Sure. But the overall difference in forcing from a modern solar max and min is like 0.2 W/m^2. Solar certainly had some contribution to the early 20th century warming, but that impact is long gone and the temperatures remain elevated.

The observed solar forcing is too small to account for the observed warming after 1950, I think we can all agree on that. That being said, there will be no linear relationship between solar forcing and climate change anyway because the system's thermal inertia is too high. It takes centuries for the system to equilibrate to any substantial, persistent radiative forcing.

[nzucker]

I thought the cosmic ray theories were shown to be a negligible contribution (if at all) by the peer reviewed science quite a while ago.

The IPCC does not acknowledge any significant contribution by cosmic rays. 

 

It's possible that the cosmic ray/solar minimum angle hasn't been studied enough, but I haven't really seen a mechanism proposed that would explain the observed warming, especially in the face of steady output from the sun during the last 60 years.

[Isotherm]

First class tin foil hat stuff here guys.  The solar component is very small and it has been declining since 1950 and yet temperatures still go up?  Can it have a small affect on global temperatures?  Sure.  But the overall difference in forcing from a modern solar max and min is like 0.2 W/m^2.  Solar certainly had some contribution to the early 20th century warming, but that impact is long gone and the temperatures remain elevated.

 

 

If you're referring to the notion that the solar component is intricately and significantly involved in climate variations (to this day), you'd be calling countless scientists with peer-reviewed research tin-foil hat wearers.

 

The following study demonstrates the strong relationship between millennial variations in sunspot number and Antarctic temperature over the previous 11,000 years. Furthermore, they note that the millennial variation of SSN leads temperature by approximately 30-40 years - which scientifically, makes sense given the enormous thermal inertia of Earth's oceans. Consequently, it comes as no surprise to me that solar activity generally reached a climax around 1958-1962, yet the global temperature climax response occurred 40 years later, in complete accordance with the ideas presented in the paper. The Earth continues to run very warm overall due to the lagged heat of the previous strong solar cycles.

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268882338_Correlation_between_solar_activity_and_the_local_temperature_of_Antarctica_during_the_past_11000_years

 

 

 

Here's another recent paper which discusses the potential impact of energetic electron precipitation on mesospheric ozone:

 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141014/ncomms6197/full/ncomms6197.html

 

 

Although the variations in total solar irradiance are relatively small across the 11-year cycle, one must also consider the following: variations in UV radiation and corresponding modulation of atmospheric ozone chemistry, thus, indirectly affecting climate; changes in radiative forcing due to less (more) clouds via decreases (increases) in cosmic rays; cosmic ray impact on the lower stratospheric ozone budget, the influence of ozone on the temperature/humidity trends near the tropopause and consequently the greenhouse effect; variations in geomagnetic activity, particularly concerning their impact at higher latitudes, and finally, the cumulative forcing induced by successive solar cycles of high magnitude on the climate regime.

 

 

The solar component has not been declining since 1950. While the strongest solar cycle - highest sunspot count - occurred in the late 1950s, the following cycles were still very potent, and the totality of the 1950-2000 period yielded (arguably) the most impactful solar activity the Earth's seen in several hundred years (At least). It's not as simple as sunspots increase / temperature increase, sunspot decreases / temperature decrease. The Sun, overall, is poorly understood in terms of its effects on climate. Part of the problem is that some (really, most) of the Sun's climate modulation is not yet quantifiable due to the complexity of the processes involved, and as a result, it is completely discounted as a variable in climate change.

[Isotherm]

Strongly agree. This is my stance as well. The debate, in my mind, comes down to the amount of weight each component has on climate change.

 

 

Yes, and as I've said before in this forum, I believe the third requirement of causality will eventually be answered in totality as we progress forward over the next 10-20 years. We're still in a period such that it's difficult to ascertain the relative attribution of solar activity versus anthropogenic forcing. This is because, based upon the research I've done, the recent tri-decadal temperature rise has occurred in accordance with solar forcing and various amplification mechanisms. The problem is there's likely multiple causes and we're still in the process of eliminating alternative hypotheses. It's difficult to determine the more influential variable until we are able to isolate one of them. It's possible that this could occur going forward, if solar activity continues to decline / remains extremely low in the ensuing cycles, as this will allow the primary causative forcing to become more apparent.

[FreeRain]

If you're referring to the notion that the solar component is intricately and significantly involved in climate variations (to this day), you'd be calling countless scientists with peer-reviewed research tin-foil hat wearers.

 

The following study demonstrates the strong relationship between millennial variations in sunspot number and Antarctic temperature over the previous 11,000 years. Furthermore, they note that the millennial variation of SSN leads temperature by approximately 30-40 years - which scientifically, makes sense given the enormous thermal inertia of Earth's oceans. Consequently, it comes as no surprise to me that solar activity generally reached a climax around 1958-1962, yet the global temperature climax response occurred 40 years later, in complete accordance with the ideas presented in the paper. The Earth continues to run very warm overall due to the lagged heat of the previous strong solar cycles.

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268882338_Correlation_between_solar_activity_and_the_local_temperature_of_Antarctica_during_the_past_11000_years

 

 

 

Here's another recent paper which discusses the potential impact of energetic electron precipitation on mesospheric ozone:

 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141014/ncomms6197/full/ncomms6197.html

 

 

Although the variations in total solar irradiance are relatively small across the 11-year cycle, one must also consider the following: variations in UV radiation and corresponding modulation of atmospheric ozone chemistry, thus, indirectly affecting climate; changes in radiative forcing due to less (more) clouds via decreases (increases) in cosmic rays; cosmic ray impact on the lower stratospheric ozone budget, the influence of ozone on the temperature/humidity trends near the tropopause and consequently the greenhouse effect; variations in geomagnetic activity, particularly concerning their impact at higher latitudes, and finally, the cumulative forcing induced by successive solar cycles of high magnitude on the climate regime.

 

 

The solar component has not been declining since 1950. While the strongest solar cycle - highest sunspot count - occurred in the late 1950s, the following cycles were still very potent, and the totality of the 1950-2000 period yielded (arguably) the most impactful solar activity the Earth's seen in several hundred years (At least). It's not as simple as sunspots increase / temperature increase, sunspot decreases / temperature decrease. The Sun, overall, is poorly understood in terms of its effects on climate. Part of the problem is that some (really, most) of the Sun's climate modulation is not yet quantifiable due to the complexity of the processes involved, and as a result, it is completely discounted as a variable in climate change.

Interesting post thanks.

[Isotherm]

One additional point. Unfortunately for those who were hoping that this recent sunspot revision would effectively eliminate any further discussion of solar forcing on climate, that is far from the case.

 

If one were to operate with the assumption that the revised sunspot count is now in fact the "correct" version, the Modern Maximum is still unique in the record of the past 400 years due to the fact that we experienced several consecutive potent cycles over the period of cycle 17-22.

 

Consider the following paper by Dr. Leif Svalgaard et al (2014). The "Modern Maximum" could possibly be redefined as not necessarily a period in which solar cycles are of greater magnitude than previous cycles, but a period in which there are successive strong cycles. The Earth impact of successive solar cycles of high magnitude is largely ignored by the IPCC literature. As I noted in my previous long post with the research paper, system inertia will delay the influence of solar forcing by potentially 30-40 years. The conclusions by Dr. Svalgaard are relatively similar in that the solar forcing could induce a lagged impact on climate due to the thermal inertia of the atmosphere-ocean system. Accumulated solar energy has progressively increased over the period 1960-2005, due to the aforementioned effects of system inertia. This is precisely the period over which solar attribution of climate is claimed to be extremely minimal by the IPCC.

 

 

"Revisiting the Sunspot Number: A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle"

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KziIb2gFjXsJ:arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3231+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

A couple of direct quotes from that study:

 

"However, although recent cycles do not reach unprecedented amplitudes anymore, the

repetition of five strong cycles over the last 60 years (cycles 17 to 22, with the exception

of cycle 20) still marks a unique episode in the whole 400-year record. This unique character

is also illustrated when considering another sunspot byproduct, i.e. the number of

spotless days over each sunspot cycle minimum. As can be seen in Fig. 64, this number is

strongly anti-correlated with the amplitude of the adjoining cycles (given by the reversed

green curve)."

 

 

"Still, although the levels of activity were not exceptional except maybe for cycle 19, the

particularly long sequence of strong cycles in the late 20th remains a noteworthy episode.

Indeed, the 400-year sunspot record and one of its by products, the number of spotless days,

show that such a tight sequence of 5 strong cycles over 6 successive cycles (from 17 to

22, except 20), which we can call the “Modern Maximum”, is still unique over at least

the last four centuries. Given the inertia of natural systems exposed to the solar influences,

like the Earth atmosphere-ocean system, this cycle clustering could still induce a peak in

the external responses to solar activity, like the Earth climate. However, we conclude that

the imprint of this Modern Maximum (e.g. Earth climate forcing) would essentially result

from time-integration effects (system inertia), since exceptionally high amplitudes of the

solar magnetic cycle cannot be invoked anymore."

[skierinvermont]

That is the same conclusion the recent report reached. 1950-2005 was still quite strong due to successive strong cycles.

 

However, the thermal inertia argument is just nonsense. It cannot possibly explain how the earth has accumulated 1 BILLION Hiroshima bombs of heat in the last 10 years in the midst of an exceptionally weak solar cycle. 

 

According to the 'thermal inertia' nonsense the earth should have started to cool (although it would still be quite warm the cooling should have begun as soon as solar activity became weak). 

[Isotherm]

That is the same conclusion the recent report reached. 1950-2005 was still quite strong due to successive strong cycles.

 

However, the thermal inertia argument is just nonsense. It cannot possibly explain how the earth has accumulated 1 BILLION Hiroshima bombs of heat in the last 10 years in the midst of an exceptionally weak solar cycle. 

 

According to the 'thermal inertia' nonsense the earth should have started to cool (although it would still be quite warm the cooling should have begun as soon as solar activity became weak). 

 

 

Actually, the cooling should not have begun immediately. I posted a study in an earlier post which demonstrated the lagged relationship between T and SSN across millennia, namely, variation in SSN leads T by 30-40 years. The immense thermal capacity of the oceans will prevent a rapid response, even to exceptionally low levels of solar activity. Scientifically, the argument is quite reasonable considering our knowledge of Earth's high specific heat. Of course, if 5-15 years from now, global temperatures are rapidly increasing, relative attribution will become more apparent insofar as the solar forcing on climate. However, at this juncture, I'm not at all surprised that we haven't seen any cooling from the recent weak solar cycle 24. I think many are underestimating the forcing induced by successive strong cycles, and thus the cumulative effect of the solar energy. We cannot simply examine the TSI fluctuations over the 11-year cycle, as I explained earlier.

[skierinvermont]

Actually, the cooling should not have begun immediately. I posted a study in an earlier post which demonstrated the lagged relationship between T and SSN across millennia, namely, variation in SSN leads T by 30-40 years. The immense thermal capacity of the oceans will prevent a rapid response, even to exceptionally low levels of solar activity. Scientifically, the argument is quite reasonable considering our knowledge of Earth's high specific heat. Of course, if 5-15 years from now, global temperatures are rapidly increasing, relative attribution will become more apparent insofar as the solar forcing on climate. However, at this juncture, I'm not at all surprised that we haven't seen any cooling from the recent weak solar cycle 24. I think many are underestimating the forcing induced by successive strong cycles, and thus the cumulative effect of the solar energy. We cannot simply examine the TSI fluctuations over the 11-year cycle, as I explained earlier.

 

It can take 30-40+ (actually possibly centuries) for maximum warming to be reached once a forcing is applied (like an increase in TSI). But once the forcing is applied the warming begins immediately. It's like a pot on the stove, there is a lag of 10 minutes before it reaches its new hotter equilibrium temperature, but when you take it off the burner it IMMEDIATELY begins to cool. Even if you take it off the burner before it reached its maximum temperature, it will still IMMEDIATELY begin to cool.

 

There is simply no way around this theoretical argument. Unless you can explain to me how a pot of hot water, once removed from the burner, can continue to warm?

 

Empirical evidence backs this up too. The earth has cooled immediately in response to other negative forcings like Pinatubo and El Chichon. Your nonsensical 'thermal inertia' should apply to ALL negative forcings, but clearly it does not.

[FloridaJohn]

The immense thermal capacity of the oceans will prevent a rapid response, even to exceptionally low levels of solar activity.

Let me know if I am misuderstanding something here.

 

If the theory is that the thermal capacity of the oceans are "slowing things down," then during high solar activity we should see the ocean temperature rising, and then during low solar activity we should see the ocean temperature falling. Due to the amount of energy stored in the oceans, this will take some time to happen.

 

My question is this: if we are now in a low solar activity level, shouldn't we see the ocean temperature leveling off before it starts to decrease? I can understand that it might not be decreasing just yet, but if the amount of energy coming into the ocean has been reduced, then the rate of warming of the oceans should be reducing as well.

 

What am I missing here?

[skierinvermont]

Let me know if I am misuderstanding something here.

 

If the theory is that the thermal capacity of the oceans are "slowing things down," then during high solar activity we should see the ocean temperature rising, and then during low solar activity we should see the ocean temperature falling. Due to the amount of energy stored in the oceans, this will take some time to happen.

 

My question is this: if we are now in a low solar activity level, shouldn't we see the ocean temperature leveling off before it starts to decrease? I can understand that it might not be decreasing just yet, but if the amount of energy coming into the ocean has been reduced, then the rate of warming of the oceans should be reducing as well.

 

What am I missing here?

 

You're not missing anything, and as explained above we should not just be witnessing a leveling off, but we should be witnessing a cooling off.

 

This is what happened during previous negative forcing events (Pinatubo, El Chichon). The 'thermal inertia' nonsense should apply to all negative forcings, not just solar, but clearly it does not. Which makes perfect sense, since it defies common sense to begin with.

[Isotherm]

The comparison you're attempting to draw between the change in radiative forcing via volcanism and solar activity is quite different, and really apples/oranges. The forcing of volcanism on climate operates on much shorter-term time scales, due to the dramatic, immediate decrease in solar insolation. Variations in radiative forcing via solar activity are longer-term.

[Isotherm]

Let me know if I am misuderstanding something here.

 

If the theory is that the thermal capacity of the oceans are "slowing things down," then during high solar activity we should see the ocean temperature rising, and then during low solar activity we should see the ocean temperature falling. Due to the amount of energy stored in the oceans, this will take some time to happen.

 

My question is this: if we are now in a low solar activity level, shouldn't we see the ocean temperature leveling off before it starts to decrease? I can understand that it might not be decreasing just yet, but if the amount of energy coming into the ocean has been reduced, then the rate of warming of the oceans should be reducing as well.

 

What am I missing here?

 

 

The rate of oceanic warming will decrease only after atmospheric temperatures have shown a response. And in fact, the rate of OHC increase in the 0-700m layer has decreased over the past decade vs. the previous decade. The rate of atmospheric warming has decreased over the past decade in comparison to 1995-2005. So while we have not seen global temperatures decrease, the rate of warming has already responded to the change in RF induced by lower solar activity. Thus, in response to the "pot on the stove" argument, I argue that a cooling response has been occurring atmospherically over the past decade, in comparison to the previous decade.

 

 

[Mallow]

The rate of oceanic warming will decrease only after atmospheric temperatures have shown a response. And in fact, the rate of OHC increase in the 0-700m layer has decreased over the past decade vs. the previous decade. The rate of atmospheric warming has decreased over the past decade in comparison to 1995-2005. So while we have not seen global temperatures decrease, the rate of warming has already responded to the change in RF induced by lower solar activity. Thus, in response to the "pot on the stove" argument, I argue that a cooling response has been occurring atmospherically over the past decade, in comparison to the previous decade.

 

 

Even if I could agree with everything else you were saying, this makes no sense. If your argument is that the atmospheric thermal inertia is caused by oceanic heat storage, then the heat content of the ocean should respond essentially immediately even if the air temperature doesn't. Instead, the heat content has continued to go up dramatically (and much more than even the global air temperature). And there's no slowdown--the 1990-2015 period slope is essentially the same as the 2005-2015 slope.

[nflwxman]

Even if I could agree with everything else you were saying, this makes no sense. If your argument is that the atmospheric thermal inertia is caused by oceanic heat storage, then the heat content of the ocean should respond essentially immediately even if the air temperature doesn't. Instead, the heat content has continued to go up dramatically (and much more than even the global air temperature). And there's no slowdown--the 1990-2015 period slope is essentially the same as the 2005-2015 slope.

Not only that, but the 0-700m level is quite impacted on short scales by ocean circulations like ENSO. The 0-2000m OHC is an extremely stable measure of forcing since the ARGO era and is not impacted by ENSO/PDO, ect.

 

 

[Isotherm]

The equilibration process is still not fully understand; however, numerous papers have proposed possible mechanisms by which the temperature response lags solar forcing. Equilibration does not occur immediately following a decrease in solar radiative forcing (thus global "cooling" should not have been expected to date).

 

The following paper found a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response. Below is a snippet of the potential mechanisms. Since we do not have a very extended record of ocean heat content, it's difficult to draw conclusions regarding its relationship to the solar-climate relationship.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035930/full

 

"[12] The obtained lag of 10–30 years is also obvious when looking only at the solar frequency bands (see, e.g., Gleissberg cycle, Figure 3d). This is indicative of a variable response time between the initial solar signal and the regional temperature and thus, an indirect effect of solar variability on the temperature evolution at our study site. Possible indirect effects are 1) changes in stratospheric chemistry through variations of solar UV irradiance, and rather speculative: 2) direct influence of the solar wind and 3) changes in cloud cover induced by modulation of the cosmic ray flux [Marsh, 2007]. However, all these mechanisms are supposed to operate on much shorter time-scales and are therefore not sufficient to explain the observed lag. Potential justifications for decadal lags are changes in ocean and atmospheric circulations triggered by variations in TSI. Perry [2007] proposed that increasing solar radiation leads to a warming of the tropical and subtropical oceans. This temperature anomaly is transported within the ocean conveyor belt to the particular ocean area that affects regional climate with varying lag times due to the heat capacity of the ocean and varying fluctuations in the velocity of the ocean currents. Furthermore, temperature gradients in the ocean influence the atmospheric pressure pattern. Indeed, models calculate that the lower NH temperatures in the period 1650–1850 are due to a decreased solar activity in this time forcing a shift towards a low index state of the NAO/Arctic Oscillation (AO) with a lag of 20 years [Shindell et al., 2001]. Temperatures in Central Siberia are influenced by the NAO [Marshall et al., 2001; Ogi et al., 2003]. This is corroborated by the spectral analysis of the reconstructed temperatures revealing significantly NAO specific periodicities at 8.3 and 2.3 years (Figure 3). Thus, the above mentioned mechanism is one possible solar activity-temperature coupling for this region."

[Mallow]

The equilibration process is still not fully understand; however, numerous papers have proposed possible mechanisms by which the temperature response lags solar forcing. Equilibration does not occur immediately following a decrease in solar radiative forcing (thus global "cooling" should not have been expected to date).

 

The following paper found a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response. Below is a snippet of the potential mechanisms. Since we do not have a very extended record of ocean heat content, it's difficult to draw conclusions regarding its relationship to the solar-climate relationship.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035930/full

 

"[12] The obtained lag of 10–30 years is also obvious when looking only at the solar frequency bands (see, e.g., Gleissberg cycle, Figure 3d). This is indicative of a variable response time between the initial solar signal and the regional temperature and thus, an indirect effect of solar variability on the temperature evolution at our study site. Possible indirect effects are 1) changes in stratospheric chemistry through variations of solar UV irradiance, and rather speculative: 2) direct influence of the solar wind and 3) changes in cloud cover induced by modulation of the cosmic ray flux [Marsh, 2007]. However, all these mechanisms are supposed to operate on much shorter time-scales and are therefore not sufficient to explain the observed lag. Potential justifications for decadal lags are changes in ocean and atmospheric circulations triggered by variations in TSI. Perry [2007] proposed that increasing solar radiation leads to a warming of the tropical and subtropical oceans. This temperature anomaly is transported within the ocean conveyor belt to the particular ocean area that affects regional climate with varying lag times due to the heat capacity of the ocean and varying fluctuations in the velocity of the ocean currents. Furthermore, temperature gradients in the ocean influence the atmospheric pressure pattern. Indeed, models calculate that the lower NH temperatures in the period 1650–1850 are due to a decreased solar activity in this time forcing a shift towards a low index state of the NAO/Arctic Oscillation (AO) with a lag of 20 years [Shindell et al., 2001]. Temperatures in Central Siberia are influenced by the NAO [Marshall et al., 2001; Ogi et al., 2003]. This is corroborated by the spectral analysis of the reconstructed temperatures revealing significantly NAO specific periodicities at 8.3 and 2.3 years (Figure 3). Thus, the above mentioned mechanism is one possible solar activity-temperature coupling for this region."

 

The argument is that heat is redistributed via internal variability. But the heat has to go somewhere in the first place, and if it's not the atmosphere and it's not the ocean, where is it going?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Even if I could agree with everything else you were saying, this makes no sense. If your argument is that the atmospheric thermal inertia is caused by oceanic heat storage, then the heat content of the ocean should respond essentially immediately even if the air temperature doesn't. Instead, the heat content has continued to go up dramatically (and much more than even the global air temperature). And there's no slowdown--the 1990-2015 period slope is essentially the same as the 2005-2015 slope.

The system would have to fully equilibrate before it can cool. A pot on a stove won't necessarily begin cooling if you turn the flame down.

In Earth's case, only about 20% of the oceans, in terms of mass, actually recieve solar radiation. It takes a long time for conduction and fluid motion to carry out the equilibration process. So, I'd argue that if there's a solar component to climate change, there will be a long lag involved. In fact, there'd probably be no detectable statistical relationship whatsoever.

[FloridaJohn]

 A pot on a stove won't necessarily begin cooling if you turn the flame down.

 

 

But the rate of warming will change, no? That should be detectable pretty quickly, I would think.

[StudentOfClimatology]

But the rate of warming will change, no? That should be detectable pretty quickly, I would think.

Yes it should, but how significant the slowdown is will depend on the remaining net energy differential after the forcing reduction. It's probably more complicated in Earth's case, given non-linear feedbacks involving multi-domainal circulations and the associated convection/albedo, etc. Earth isn't exactly an easy test rat.

There actually has been a slowdown in warming over the last decade, but that may have more to do with tropical forcing/La Niña and less to do with reduced solar forcing unless La Niña is somehow the way the system expresses a response to reduced solar forcing.

[nflwxman]

Yes it should, but how significant the slowdown is will depend on the remaining net energy differential after the forcing reduction. It's probably more complicated in Earth's case, given non-linear feedbacks involving multi-domainal circulations and the associated convection/albedo, etc. Earth isn't exactly an easy test rat.

There actually has been a slowdown in warming over the last decade, but that may have more to do with tropical forcing/La Niña and less to do with reduced solar forcing unless La Niña is somehow the way the system expresses a response to reduced solar forcing.

Not seeing that at all.  Unless you just mean the top portion of the ocean.

 

[FloridaJohn]

Yes it should, but how significant the slowdown is will depend on the remaining net energy differential after the forcing reduction.

 

OK, that sounds plausible. Where do we find the evidence of a slowdown caused by a reduction in the sun's influence? Ocean temperatures continue to rise, air temperatures continue to rise. It seems to me, that if the sun's output has been reduced, but the earth continues to warm, then there is some effect overpowering the influence of the sun. I don't see the mechanism for a "lagging" effect that wouldn't show up in some data almost immediately.

[Mallow]

Not seeing that at all.  Unless you just mean the top portion of the ocean.

 

 

 

Even just the top portion of the ocean continues to warm at about the same rate, unless you cherry-pick end points based on ENSO (and even then, I don't know that the difference in slope would be statistically significant, since you'd have to cherry-pick over such short time scales).

[griteater]

It can take 30-40+ (actually possibly centuries) for maximum warming to be reached once a forcing is applied (like an increase in TSI). But once the forcing is applied the warming begins immediately. It's like a pot on the stove, there is a lag of 10 minutes before it reaches its new hotter equilibrium temperature, but when you take it off the burner it IMMEDIATELY begins to cool. Even if you take it off the burner before it reached its maximum temperature, it will still IMMEDIATELY begin to cool.

 

There is simply no way around this theoretical argument. Unless you can explain to me how a pot of hot water, once removed from the burner, can continue to warm?

So why do water temperatures continue to rise after the summer solstice....say, along the gulf coast?  Climo water temperature chart for Destin, FL...

 

[Mallow]

So why do water temperatures continue to rise after the summer solstice....say, along the gulf coast?  Climo water temperature chart for Destin, FL...

 

 

skier wasn't wrong with what he said, but your point is also valid. It can get a bit tricky, but I'll explain the best I can the difference between your analogies.

 

Taking the pot of water off the stove brings the equilibrium temperature from "boiling" down to "room temperature". As long as the water temperature is above that second equilibrium, "room temperature", when you take it off the stove, it will begin to cool immediately. On the other hand, if you start with refrigerated water, put it on the stove until it heats up to "below room temperature", and then take it off the stove, it will continue to warm, just at a much slower rate. This is analogous to the sea surface temperature climatology you posted.

 

So (hypothetically, if solar forcing has a significant impact on Earth's heat content), whether or not the oceans should cool immediately upon a reduction in solar forcing depends on if the solar forcing is reduced to levels low enough such that the new solar-forcing-induced equilibrium ocean heat content is below the current ocean heat content. Regardless, the rate of change of the heat content of the part of the ocean directly impacted by solar forcing should change immediately upon a change in solar forcing. And we have not seen that, suggesting that solar forcing does not play a large role in changing oceanic heat content.

[FloridaJohn]

So why do water temperatures continue to rise after the summer solstice....say, along the gulf coast?  Climo water temperature chart for Destin, FL...

 

 

 

Here's a good analogy I found:

 

"The time delay that causes the maximum and minimum daily temperatures to be about one month behind the solar changes is similar to boiling a pot of water on a stove.

 

When you put a covered pot of water on the stove and turn the burner on high heat, the water temperature in the pot warms. If you turn the burner down but still allow the pot to sit on the stove the water temperature likely will still go up, although not as quickly as when it was on high heat. There is still some amount of heat being added by the hot burner, even with the burner turned down.

 

Eventually an equilibrium will be established where heat added equals heat that leaves. If the burner is then turned down still lower, the pot will start to cool, even though some heat is being added."

 

So the rate starts to change immediately, even if there is some momentary "overshoot" of the temperature of the water.

[Isotherm]

Yes it should, but how significant the slowdown is will depend on the remaining net energy differential after the forcing reduction. It's probably more complicated in Earth's case, given non-linear feedbacks involving multi-domainal circulations and the associated convection/albedo, etc. Earth isn't exactly an easy test rat.

There actually has been a slowdown in warming over the last decade, but that may have more to do with tropical forcing/La Niña and less to do with reduced solar forcing unless La Niña is somehow the way the system expresses a response to reduced solar forcing.

 

 

Strongly agree. Solar forcing and ENSO fluctuations are intricately connected, and ENSO is largely a function of solar activity. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt accurately predicted - from January 11th 1999 - a robust El Nino peaking around 2002.9 +/- 0.6 months, based upon solar eruptional activity.

 

The rate of atmospheric warming has decreased over the 2005-2015 decadal period versus 1995-2005.

[griteater]

^ Thanks guys for the explanation.

[Isotherm]

 And there's no slowdown--the 1990-2015 period slope is essentially the same as the 2005-2015 slope.

 

 

You need to examine the period post 2006, as the solar minimum of cycle 23 (a very potent cycle) did not occur until post 2006. Looking closely at the 0-700m OHC graph, if one compares the pentadal average of 2000-2005, versus 2005-2010, there is a noticeable decrease in rate of warming. 2000 was around 4 (X10^22 Joules), rising to approximately 9 (X10^22 Joules) in 2005. The rise from 2005 to 2010 was significantly less. Even the yearly average rate of warming from 1998-2005 was greater than that of 2005-2014. The former (eyeballing) around 4 in 1998 to 10 in 2005, contrasted with 10 in 2005 to about 13 in 2014.

[Snow_Miser]

A dominant Solar forcing cannot explain upper atmospheric temperature trends. Mainly stratospheric cooling.