AGW relies on solar variability

[sigurdur]

Thank you william. I had forgotten about two of those papers. Thank you again.

[glc]

William

re: seesaw effect and stuff

Lets' be clear here. I've never said that cyclical factors were not happening and that they don't influence tmepratures at the regional, hemispherical and possibly global level, e.g.

- a negative NAO moderates NH temepratures
- a negative PDO moderates temperatures particularly, it seems, in the US.

I am well aware of the "seesaw" effect between NH and SH. However, it's not really a "seesaw" effect we're seeing is it? On a seesaw one end goes up while the other end goes down by the same amount Arctic temperatures have risen and fallen over the past century but the falls have not been as big as the rises. You also need to consider that your seesaw effect is nowhere near symmetrical, i.e.

UAH trends since 1979:

NoPol +0.46 deg per decade
SoPol -0.05 deg per decade

NH +0.20 deg per decade
SH +0.07 deg per decade

A true cycle tends to return to an original state once the cycle is complete. Again the evidence suggests this is not happening. The NAO peaked in 1989/90. The effect of the recently weaker NAO has been to slow warming (perhaps) - not to reverse it. We have the same with the PDO. Don Easterbrook predicts cooling from about ~2000 because, according to him, the PDO went into it's cold phase in 1999. There is no cooling. The trend even since the cherry-picked year of 1998 is positive (not significant but positive). Solar activity has been at it's weakest for more than a century - but to what effect ??

As far as the IPCC predicted warming of 3-4 deg is concerned. I don't subscribe to that. I still reckon ~1.5 per 2xCO2 is about right. I'm expecting AVERAGE temperature rises of ~0.15 deg per decade, but because of all the factors mentioned some decades will be less and some more.

[william]

glc,

The solar wind bursts and the solar magnetic cycle affects on planetary cloud cover which is latitude specific and which affects the hemispheres in different amounts explains why the 20th century and early 21st century was primarily at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere.

At the Real Climate site and in the IPCC AR4 it is assumed that the sun can only affect planetary temperature by changes in the total solar output TSI.

The observational data current and in the past supports the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover.

It is estimated that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes modulation of planetary clouds.

If the 75% estimate is correct then planetary feedback strongly negative and a doubling of CO2 will warm the planet less than 1.2C.

As you note if the 75% of the 1979 to 2003 warming was due solar magnetic cycle changes the planet will now start to cool. There has been no ocean warming since 2003 (seven years) based on the ARGO data.

The AWG climate scientists do not understand electroscavenging. It is very difficult if a person takes a very public stand concerning a subject to even read the papers from the competing hypothesis.

The Real Climate authors had not read the papers I posted at their blog site. What they posted at that site concerning solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds is not correct as it did not concern solar wind bursts and the mechanism electroscavenging.

GCR can be high however if solar wind bursts are also high the solar wind bursts remove the cloud forming ions via the mechanism electroscavenging and make it appear that high levels of GCR does not result increased planetary cloud cover and planetary cooling. There is high correlation of planetary cloud cover and GCR up until 1994 at which time there is an increase in solar wind burst particularly at the end of the solar magnetic cycle.

There is a second mechanism by which solar activity changes modulates planetary cloud cover. Solar wind bursts caused by coronal holes create a space charge difference in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. The next paper provides data the shows there is close correlation with geomagnetic field changes (ak) which are caused by the solar wind burst and planetary temperature. The next review paper by Tinsley and Yu summaries the data that supports the assertion that solar activity changes modulates planetary cloud cover and shows how that mechanism is hypothesized to work.


www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

There is close correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind bursts as measured by the geomagnetic parameter AK that changes in proportion to how the solar wind burst in question affects the geomagnetic field.

Once again about global warming and solar activity
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, that explains how solar wind bursts by the process electroscavenging, increases in the global electric circuit, and thereby removes cloud forming ions.

The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

Hi sigurdur,
Your welcome. This is an interesting subject. Competing scientific hypotheses. Very public name calling in the media that climate skeptics are idiots and that there is very high certainty that the planet will warm 3C and that ice sheets will melt.

This is an example of scientific group think by a small group of scientists. There is overt pressure to interpret the data to support the program. If the data does not fit the hypothesis then the assumption was that it will eventually so what is the harm in manipulating the data now to help with the program negotiations. The risk in that strategy is if the planet cools now how does one explain what is happening in terms of mechanisms?

[sigurdur]

William:
It is a very interesting subject. It does not recieve the press coverage because it is not related to co2. It is more plauseable though as there is such strong correlation. What we all have to remember is that h20 vapor is a much stronger GHG than co2. Co2 will help retain heat, but the variability of h2o will drive climate verses co2 reacting to climate.

[socold]

Apr 10, 2010 2:00:03 GMT william said:

socold,

The blog you link to makes urban legend statements. i.e. The blog does include data and scientific papers that support their statements.

Uh....what?

What we are currently observing Arctic warming and Antarctic cooling or visa versa has happened before and is due to either higher GCR, or due to electroscavenging, or due to changes in the geomagnetic field inclination or intensity.

Or due to none of those things. There's a article out about GCRs and their influence on global temperature. It concludes:

"In our view the jury is back and the verdict is that cosmic rays and solar irradiance are not guilty for most of the Global Warming. Nevertheless, they could be responsible for a contribution and we look forward to
future experiments such as CLOUD at CERN which should be able to quantify to what extent ionization plays a part in the production of aerosols, the precursors of cloud formation."

www.europhysicsnews.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epn/pdf/2010/01/epn20101p27.pdf

Which is my view too. I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that there is a solar mechanism that has a bigger effect on climate than TSI. Perhaps that will be shown, but it isn't today.

(See the papers I have linked to above and my comments for details as to how each mechanism works. i.e. I am explaining mechanisms that are described in scientific papers as opposed to making up my own mechanisms. There is observational and logical that supports the mechanisms that I describe above.)

Describing mechanisms is all well and good but what about quantifying their effect? A good example is TSI which is the only quantified mechanism to affect climate significantly. Other mechanisms may end up being quantified and we find they have no signfiicant effect on climate. And even in the case of TSI that does have a significant effect the trends are insufficient to explain much of recent warming.

[sigurdur]

Yes, recent being the past 140 years.

[william]

Socold,

The blog (Real Climate) you link to makes urban legend statements. i.e. The Real Climate blog does not include data and scientific papers that support their statements. What the use instead dollops of sarcasm.

Where Real Climate posts papers the authors of the papers do not understand what electroscavenging is or the details of how GCR affects low level and high level tropospheric clouds. Likely the problem is that pear review of the Real Climate posted papers is limited to the cabal of scientists who are focused on the AWG agenda. as opposed to the science (Science is neutral.) As I noted, my posts on that site were the only mention of electroscavenging. As noted in Tinsley and Yu's paper there are two not one mechanism that modulates planetary cloud cover.

Tinsley and Yu's paper notes an increase in GCR results in an increase in low level clouds and reduction in high level clouds. (See below for details. The Real Climate writers had not read Tinsley and Yu work and hence did not understand that the observations strongly supports Tinsley and Yu mechanisms. (Note mechanisms is plural not singular. One mechanism removes cloud modulating ions. Increasing GCR causes an increase in low level clouds and a decrease in high level clouds. (Note also the GCR affects are latitude dependent.)

Higher levels of GCR cause an increase of low level clouds and reduction in high level clouds. The net affect of the cloud (whether it warms or cools the planet) depends on the relative strength of the cloud albedo as compared to the cloud greenhouse affect.

The net affect for an increase in low level clouds is to cool the planet as the energy reflected into space by a low level cloud is greater than the clouds greenhouse affect.

For high level clouds the opposite is true an increase in high level clouds will warm the planet.

It should be noted that GCR affects low level clouds by increasing the number of water droplets in the cloud and increasing the clouds lifetime both of which increase the net amount of radiation reflected into space.

So re-looking at the paper socold linked to.

Post 1994 (figure 1 in that paper) there is a net reduction in low level clouds which would have caused the planet to warm if there was not a net reduction in high level clouds. The reduction in low level clouds is due to electroscavenging which removes cloud forming ions and the reduction in high level clouds is due the high levels of GCR.

The paper you linked to does not know about electroscavenging. There were strong CME ejections post 1994 which removed cloud forming ions. Therefore even though GCR was high there was a reduction in planetary clouds rather than an increase as the strong solar winds created a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removed cloud forming ions.

Read through Brian Tinsley and Fangqun review paper.

This is from the paper Socold linked to. The authors data showed a significant reduction in planetary cloud cover post 1994 which other researchers also found. The planet did not however warm as there was also a significant reduction in high level clouds due to high GCR.

‘Expectation’, the observed fractional cosmic ray variation in Figure 2, ismarked asNM. It is evident that themagnitudes of the dip depths are independent ofVRCO,i.e.,that variations in cloud cover do not follow variations in cosmic rays intensity. Hence this evidence fails to corroborate the connection between cosmic rays and clouds. (My comment the authors of this paper do not understand what electroscavenging is or how GCR affects planetary cloud cover. The data they have included in their papers strongly supports Tinsley and Yu's mechanism.

It is seen that the correlation with the cosmic ray rate is largely negative for the high altitude clouds,MCC and HCC, opposite to expectation if there were a causal link between cosmic rays and clouds.is yet another reason why we should discount the effect of cosmic rays on the cloud cover, at least by way of their direct effect on cloud formation. (My comment. A decrease in high level clouds is exactly what Tinsley and Yu predict will happen. A reduction in high level clouds supports Tinsley and Yu. Who reviewed this paper?) ]

www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu

Observations of changes in cloud properties that correlate with the 11-year cycles in space particle fluxes are reviewed. The correlations can be understood in terms of one or both of two microphysical processes; ion mediated nucleation (IMN) and electroscavenging. IMN relies on the presence of ions to provide the condensation sites for sulfuric acid and water vapors to produce new aerosol particles, which, under certain conditions, might grow into sizes that can be activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN).

Electroscavenging depends on the buildup of space charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds as the vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit encounters the increased electrical resistivity of the clouds. Space charge is electrostatic charge density due to a difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions. Calculations indicate that this electrostatic charge on aerosol particles can enhance the rate at which they are scavenged by cloud droplets. The aerosol particles for which scavenging is important are those that act as insitu ice forming nuclei (IFN) and CCN. Both IMN and electroscavenging depend on the presence of atmospheric ions that are generated, in regions of the atmosphere relevant for effects on clouds, by galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The space charge depends, in addition, on the magnitude of Jz. The magnitude of Jz depends not only on the GCR flux, but also on the fluxes of MeV electrons from the radiation belts, and the ionospheric potentials generated by the solar wind, that can vary independently of the GCR flux. The roles of GCR and Jz in cloud processes are the speculative links in a series connecting solar activity, the solar wind, GCR, clouds and climate. This article reviews the correlated cloud variations and the two mechanisms proposed as possible explanations for these links.

It is clear from Figure 4.2 that an increase in GCR ionization rate associated with solar activity leads to an increase in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ > 0) in the lower troposphere (as indicated by the arrows) but a decrease in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ < 0) in the upper troposphere (as indicated by the arrows). In the middle troposphere, dN/dQ changes sign and the average value of dN/dQ is small compared to that of lower and upper troposphere.

[glc]

glc,

The solar wind bursts and the solar magnetic cycle affects on planetary cloud cover which is latitude specific and which affects the hemispheres in different amounts explains why the 20th century and early 21st century was primarily at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere......etc

William

I'd like to respond to your post with a quote from one of the foremost solar researchers of the past 40 years, i.e. Leif Svalgaard, who says

The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this

I see no reason to disagree with Leif.

[northsphinx]

Our climate change despite little change in solar output which for me is the proof that the radiative balance model is wrong.
It there is very little change in incoming radiation would that not be able due to radiative models to result in large and sometime very fast climate change as it have been during last 1 mil years.

[magellan]

Apr 10, 2010 18:35:34 GMT glc said:

glc,

The solar wind bursts and the solar magnetic cycle affects on planetary cloud cover which is latitude specific and which affects the hemispheres in different amounts explains why the 20th century and early 21st century was primarily at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere......etc

William

I'd like to respond to your post with a quote from one of the foremost solar researchers of the past 40 years, i.e. Leif Svalgaard, who says

The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this

I see no reason to disagree with Leif.

Leif Svalgaard can't explain this, although he asked WUWT readers to spot the error, but it was actually Leif that was in error. This has been presented to you on at least two other occasions, perhaps you just didn't see it or hoped it would just fade away. Let's guess: the hydrological cycle doesn't affect climate either

Solar Activity and Regional Streamflow



How long has Leif been studying climate issues, two years or so? Ah, he must be much more knowledgeable than the likes of Will Alexander after 40+ years of studying South African climate right?
anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/

The truth is Leif has boxed himself in a corner and most of what he says is opinion. He has no idea how much the sun must change to affect climate, as do you or most others.

[socold]

Apr 10, 2010 18:33:38 GMT william said:

(Note mechanisms is plural not singular. One mechanism removes cloud modulating ions. Increasing GCR causes an increase in low level clouds and a decrease in high level clouds. (Note also the GCR affects are latitude dependent.)

The mechanism for that is neither established let alone quantified. And now:

Post 1994 (figure 1 in that paper) there is a net reduction in low level clouds which would have caused the planet to warm if there was not a net reduction in high level clouds. The reduction in low level clouds is due to electroscavenging which removes cloud forming ions and the reduction in high level clouds is due the high levels of GCR. The paper you linked to does not know about electroscavenging. There were strong CME ejections post 1994 which removed cloud forming ions. Therefore even though GCR was high there was a reduction in planetary clouds rather than an increase as the strong solar winds created a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removed cloud forming ions.

There is not even correlation...

I wait with baited breath for mechanism to be established and effect quantified.

[william]

Socold et al.

Why are you talking about TSI. The 20th century warming was not due to the sun getting warmer or colder.

The sun modulates planetary cloud cover by two mechanisms. (1) Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by process that is called electroscavenging and (2) when the solar heliosphere weakens more GCR strikes the earth. Electroscavenging can remove cloud forming ions even when GCR is high, thereby making it appear that increasing and decreasing GCR does not cause increase and decreasing of low level cloud and the reverse with high level clouds.

If you look at this paper that provides data the validates mechanism, there is close correlation of GCR levels and planetary cloud cover until 1994. In 1994 coronal holes start to appear at low latitudes on the sun particularly at late in the solar cycle. Which removes cloud forming ions.

Do you have an explanation as to why low level clouds decreased post 1994? Note high level clouds decreased during the same period due to increased GCR which is consistent with Tinsley and Yu's mechanism.

You will get your wish to see this mechanism in action as the solar wind bursts have started to abate and GCR is at its highest level since instrument measures have been taken.


www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity by K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi and B. Kirov

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

www.europhysicsnews.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epn/pdf/2010/01/epn20101p27.pdf

[glc]

Apr 10, 2010 22:03:11 GMT magellan said:

Apr 10, 2010 18:35:34 GMT glc said:

glc,

The solar wind bursts and the solar magnetic cycle affects on planetary cloud cover which is latitude specific and which affects the hemispheres in different amounts explains why the 20th century and early 21st century was primarily at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere......etc

William

I'd like to respond to your post with a quote from one of the foremost solar researchers of the past 40 years, i.e. Leif Svalgaard, who says

The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this

I see no reason to disagree with Leif.

Leif Svalgaard can't explain this, although he asked WUWT readers to spot the error, but it was actually Leif that was in error. This has been presented to you on at least two other occasions, perhaps you just didn't see it or hoped it would just fade away. Let's guess: the hydrological cycle doesn't affect climate either

Solar Activity and Regional Streamflow



How long has Leif been studying climate issues, two years or so? Ah, he must be much more knowledgeable than the likes of Will Alexander after 40+ years of studying South African climate right?
anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/

The truth is Leif has boxed himself in a corner and most of what he says is opinion. He has no idea how much the sun must change to affect climate, as do you or most others.

Magellan

Leif might have jumped in a bit too quickly on the Alexander study, but he is right on the relative energy output of the various solar parameters.

As a point of interest could you tell us what relevance the mississippi river flow has to do with global climate - assuming that there is a genuine correlation between solar activity and streamflow. I'm not sure there is.

[magellan]

Apr 10, 2010 23:49:21 GMT glc said:

Apr 10, 2010 22:03:11 GMT magellan said:

Leif Svalgaard can't explain this, although he asked WUWT readers to spot the error, but it was actually Leif that was in error. This has been presented to you on at least two other occasions, perhaps you just didn't see it or hoped it would just fade away. Let's guess: the hydrological cycle doesn't affect climate either

Solar Activity and Regional Streamflow



How long has Leif been studying climate issues, two years or so? Ah, he must be much more knowledgeable than the likes of Will Alexander after 40+ years of studying South African climate right?
anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/

The truth is Leif has boxed himself in a corner and most of what he says is opinion. He has no idea how much the sun must change to affect climate, as do you or most others.

Magellan

Leif might have jumped in a bit too quickly on the Alexander study, but he is right on the relative energy output of the various solar parameters.

As a point of interest could you tell us what relevance the mississippi river flow has to do with global climate - assuming that there is a genuine correlation between solar activity and streamflow. I'm not sure there is.

LOL, no matter how many studies are thrown out, you will just repeat the same mantra.

If you need explaining how the hydrological cycle affects climate it is worse than we thought.

[kiwistonewall]

I totally agree with Leif:

The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this

It is obvious the the energy changes alone cannot effect the weather. This doesn't mean that the Sun cannot effect the weather, only that it isn't through the mechanism of TSI changes. I think we all can agree on this.

The OTHER changes in the sun (which may or may not correlate with TSI) can, and almost certainly do effect Earth Climate.

One vary clear effect is UV change on Ozone production.

NASA Quote from:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php

Though UV solar radiation makes up a much smaller portion of the TSI than infrared or visible radiation, UV solar radiation tends to change much more dramatically over the course of solar cycles.
...
The impacts of undulating UV solar radiation may be substantial. Since UV radiation creates ozone in the stratosphere, the oscillation in UV levels can affect the size of the ozone hole. Absorption of UV radiation by the ozone also heats up the stratosphere. Many scientists suspect that changes in stratospheric temperatures may alter weather patterns in the troposphere.

and from the same source:
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).


And then we have the Solar wind & its effects on incoming Cosmic radiation (again, not a function of TSI)

So the fact that TSI changes are not likely to effect weather, while true, has nothing to do with the debate on the effect of solar variability.