This paper suggests a terrestrial impact on cloud cover from the interplanetary electric field (IEF) via the global electric circuit. A primer video on the GEC is below.
Clouds blown by the solar wind M Voiculescu et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032
Abstract
In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.
Introduction
There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change. Despite the progress in understanding the processes driving the Earth’s climate, quantifying the natural sources of climate variability, especially regarding solar effects, remains elusive (Solomon et al 2007, Gray et al 2010).
Although climate models are highly sophisticated and include many effects, they are not perfect and observational evidences are modest and ambiguous. Empirical evidences suggest a causal relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly in the pre-industrial epoch (Bond et al 2011), but possible mechanisms are unclear and qualitative. The balance between reflected radiation from space and Earth at different wavelengths contributes to temperature variation in a significant manner (Hartmann et al 1992), thus cloud cover play a major role in the terrestrial radiation budget. Modeling cloud contribution to climate at different spatial and temporal scales is probably the most challenging area of climate studies (Vieira and da Silva 2006). Despite increasing number of solar-cloud studies, there is no clear understanding of solar effect on cloud cover. Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input and could explain solar-related variability observed at different time scales (from days to decades) in various cloud parameters, as for instance cloud cover (Udelhofen and Cess 2001, Marsh and Svensmark 2000, Voiculescu and Usoskin 2012) or cloud base height (Harrison et al 2011, Harrison and Ambaum 2013).
One indirect mechanism relates to the fact that the solar spectral irradiance varies significantly in the UV band, whose effect is limited to the stratosphere, thus a stratosphere–troposphere–ocean coupling, ‘top-down’ effect, is required (Gray et al 2010, Meehl et al 2009, Haigh et al 2010). Another mechanism relies on possible variations of atmospheric aerosol/cloud properties, affecting the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and, consequently, the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Two possible physical links have been proposed: one via the ion-induced/mediated nucleation by cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) (Dickinson 1975, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Carslaw et al 2002, Kazil and Lovejoy 2004, Yu and Turco 2001) and the other via the global electric circuit (GEC) effects on cloud/aerosol properties (Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010). The former mechanism might be hardly distinguishable from noise, especially at short-term scale, as demonstrated using in situ/laboratory experiments (e.g., Carslaw 2009, Kulmala et al 2010, Enghoff et al 2011, Kirkby et al 2011) and statistical studies (e.g., Calogovic et al 2010, Dunne et al 2012). Opposing, studies of Svensmark et al (2009), Enghoff et al (2011), Svensmark et al (2013), Yu et al (2008) have shown that an impact of ionization on new particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) exists. Thus it is possible that the CRII-nucleation mechanism operates at longer time scales, but it might be spatially limited to the polar stratosphere (Mironova et al 2012). On the other hand, the GEC-related mechanism may be important (e.g., Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010, Rycroft et al 2012), particularly for low-clouds and some links have been shown to exist between atmospheric electricity properties and cloud evolution/formation (Harrison et al 2013).
Since all solar drivers correlate to some extent, it may be difficult to evaluate which driver or combination of drivers is the best candidate for cloud cover modulation. An attempt to differentiate between solar irradiation (total or UV) and CRII effects on cloud cover has been made by Kristjánsson et al (2004), Voiculescu et al (2006, 2007), Erlykin et al (2010), who showed that various mechanisms might act differently at different altitudes and geographical locations. However, the GEC is affected by the solar activity in a different way, via the interplanetary electric field (IEF), so that only positive IEF plays a role, while negative IEF does not. Positive IEF corresponds to a interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with a southward component, or negative z-component, which favors a direct energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere and to ionosphere. For negative IEF (positive z-component of the IMF) the transfer is much less efficient and only a very small percentage of the solar wind energy is transferred to the magnetosphere (e.g. Dungey 1961, Papitashvili and Rich 2002, Siingh et al 2005). Thus, in contrast to other potential solar drivers which are expected to exert a monotonic influence, IEF is expected to affect clouds only when IEF is positive. This feature has a potential of separating the IEF effect from other drivers. Here we present results of correlation studies between the interplanetary electric field (IEF) and cloud cover, which might indicate the most probable mechanism that might affect cloud cover. We discuss here mainly results obtained for low cloud cover (LCC), but we also refer to middle- (MCC) and high-clouds (HCC).
Conclusion
Here we present a result of an empirical study showing that there is a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field, that favors a particular mechanism of indirect solar activity influence on climate: global electric circuit affecting cloud formation. We show that all characteristics of the relationship are in line with what is expected if the interplanetary electric field affects cloud cover via the global electric circuit:
(1) the low cloud cover shows a systematic correlation, at interannual time scale, with positive interplanetary electric field, at mid- and high-latitude regions in both hemispheres;
(2) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and interplanetary electric field in tropical regions;
(3) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and negative interplanetary electric field over the entire globe.
As an additional factor, cosmic ray flux may also affect cloud cover in the presence of positive interplanetary electric field. No clear effect of cosmic ray flux during periods of negative IEF was found.
Similar, but less statistically significant results were found also for middle and high cloud cover, suggesting that the primary effect is on low-clouds. The fact that the found statistical relation exists only for the periods of positive IEF and not for negative IEF disfavors other potential mechanisms of sun–cloud relations at mid–high latitudes, such as via ion-induced/mediated nucleation or UVI influence. However, the latter might work at low–mid latitudes. Although this empirical study does not give a clue for an exact physical mechanism affecting the clouds, as discussed above, it favors a particular solar driver, solar wind with the frozen-in interplanetary magnetic field, that affects the global electric current system at Earth. The result suggest that further research of solar-terrestrial influence ought to focus more also on this direction.
=============================================================
The paper is open source, see it here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/article
Related: No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926 (Sager and Svalgaard 2004)
Related articles
- Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since a positive IEF is necessarily ionic, that makes sense (nucleation modulation, I assume.)
In recent years, number of articles published suggesting influence of solar wind on cosmic rays (cloud formation), SW magnetic pressure effect the Earth’s atmosphere (Mansurov effect) and now:
“a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field.”
.
It may be obvious that such an effect would vary in step with the sunspot cycle, but that is not the case for a simple but a lesser known reason.
The Earth’s field is not constant either, it shows similar decadal variability, as shown in the data from and used by number of distinguished geo-magnetic scientists and researchers (Jault Gire, LeMouel, J. Bloxham, D. Gubbins, A.Jackson, R. Hide, D. Boggs, J. Dickey etc,)
Since changes in either of two fields affect strength of our ‘local’ interplanetary electric and magnetic field, it would be expected that the magnetic variability time function produced by combining two sets of available data, may show if there is any effect on the Earth’s climate change. .
I did calculations just over a year ago introducing terms ‘Geo-Solar Oscillation’ and ‘Geo-Solar Cycle’.
Comparing the GSC to two well known climatic sets of data opens a way into an unexpected and fascinating direction for climatologists’ research
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
PS.
UK MetOffice announced it will provide daily ‘space weather’ forecasts from April 2014.
Would be interesting to see what correlation, if any, may be evident with the combining of the CRII and IEF anomalies.
I think there are many parameters in the solar “system”. The solar wind is actually a carpet of flux tubes, more dense at the current sheet. Flux tubes could be considered electrical wires back to the source. Voyager has found signs of such structures all the way out to the heliosphere boundary. The Earth has a large one connecting it to the sun.
“Flux tube texture of the solar wind: Strands of the magnetic carpet at 1 AU?”
Borovsky, Joseph E.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Volume 113, Issue A8, CiteID A08110
It is argued here that the inner heliosphere is filled with a network of entangled magnetic flux tubes and that the flux tubes are fossil structures that originate at the solar surface. 65,860 flux tubes are collected from seven years of measurements with the ACE spacecraft at 1 AU by spotting the flux tube walls with large changes in the magnetic field direction and the vector flow velocity
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..113.8110B
This would lead to planetary position modulating electrical activity on the solar surface which would modulate solar wind speed…. Which interacts with the IMF.
“Orbital resonance and Solar cycles”
by P.A.Semi
Abstract
We show resonance cycles between most planets in Solar System, of differing quality. The most precise
resonance – between Earth and Venus, which not only stabilizes orbits of both planets, locks planet Venus rotation in tidal locking, but also affects the Sun:
This resonance group (E+V) also influences Sunspot cycles – the position of syzygy between Earth and
Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of “severe winters”. ”
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
Introduction: ‘There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change’
Presumably, if they had left the last word out they wouldn’t have got any funding. Sad.
from the video: “..it wouldn’t be called basic research if we knew what the outcome would be”
So real science is back? – nice!
The answer my friends is blowing in the wind.
And how many other forces are there, that affect the climate? I suggest that we still are not even close to figuring that question out, about such a complex system as our planet’s climate. Surely this is another nail into the simplistic theory of AGW.
It is worth googling for ‘ electric universe’
electric stuff (plasma etc.) are an important part of our universe and may make a large, as yet not understood, contribution to the climate.
Could IEF mean a kind of lightning going up? This could result in cause and effect being reversed, i.e. clouds affecting IEF. There is a much higher concentration of electrons in the earth’s atmosphere than in surrounding space. In general my thoughts on EU follow those of Leif Svalgaard.
I’d refer the authors to the CERN bubble chamber work for the “how” part.
And now the UK Met Office will forecast ‘space weather’!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2529312/And-weather-space-Updates-warn-solar-flares-storms-forecast-Met-Office-actually-correct.html
“For instance, key satellites, including those that beam TV programmes could be temporarily switched off, to prevent them burning out.”
How thoughtful. /sarc
If only the IPCC had been set up to investigate all potential causes of climate change rather than just the one they knew was the right one, we might have been reading papers like this twenty years ago.
To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.
The difference between principles and principals should be obvious to anyone who finished year 10, and surely shouldn’t be a mystery to someone (author? editor?) at the University level.
I am sure sound princiPLEs were used to choose the princiPAL investigator, and he, in turn, will apply time proven scientific princiPLEs in his research – he will surely be princiLED princiPAL. One day we may indeed have “Forbes PrinciPLE” of something or other, but at this point in time, this is just bad English that makes me think: how are these people going to master those as yet unknown, enormously complex rules of nature, when well known and relatively simple rules of English grammar are beyond them? And this piece is “freely reproducible for *education* purposes” ?!
The language of Science was, is, and always will be precise and exact. And so it should. Scientists, the real ones, are very careful with the words and language they use, as they should be. Any “Close enough is good enough” attitude towards it, would inevitably spell the end of Science.
Thank YOU Mr. Watts for posting this today. Progress is being made here by people turning their attention to our local star’s many influences. For years I have called this action ‘electric weather’, as the protons and electrons that primarily constitute the solar wind behave in ways that can be considered electrical and magnetic in nature. We live in a universe that is governed by electromagnetic, electrical, and magnetic laws: it’s photons, protons, and electrons that deliver solar/cosmic power and govern terrestrial weather and climate.
Quoting from Sager/Svalgaard: “Magnetic field observations are the sum of the main
field of internal origin and the field resulting from electric currents flowing in space”
We can’t say there’s electric currents flowing in space and then turn around and say the universe and the solar system is not electrical in nature. We can’t have it both ways. Sager/Svalgaard’s conclusion tells me that the sun is in a fairly stable galactic electrical environment. It’s a damn good thing too, because I believe we wouldn’t be here to talk about it if it wasn’t stable.
In Jan 2014 The Electric Weather Channel is going online with a YT channel and website of the same name. Such articles and videos as this one, tons of science papers, new developments, along with solar wind and earth weather analysis will be featured, and I am hoping to make electric and magnetic weather effects easily and widely understood.
The science is settled………………………………………again.
The climate scientists still don’t have a good working model due to co2 contamination and the confusion caused by clouds. 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
Is there a particular type of light radiated when clouds form at particular altitudes/latitudes? A particular absorption when they evaporate?
Would it be observable, or would it be lost in other processes as it moves through the atmosphere?
Could we look at particular wavelengths at particular altitudes to estimate changes in the formation of low cloud cover?
Not only that but
Ever since Herschel it has been evident that there was some kind of relationship between sunspots and climate. Attempts to use this to predict the climate have proved futile. Both the Voiculescu paper and the Semi paper point us to a better understanding of this. We have cosmic rays, IEF and orbital dynamics all of which have some correlation with sunspots and all of which appear to have some correlation with the climate. It’s complicated folks. LOL
(can we say that they all correlate better than CO2?)
commieBob: “Attempts to use this to predict the climate have proved futile. Both the Voiculescu paper and the Semi paper point us to a better understanding of this. We have cosmic rays, IEF and orbital dynamics all of which have some correlation with sunspots and all of which appear to have some correlation with the climate. It’s complicated folks.”
I suspect that there is an effect, but the heat change is primarily in the ocean and in latent heat in the atmosphere. We don’t see 11yr changes in temp because of the chaotic ocean heat processes. Also, I suspect that the polarity of solar cycle phase plays a role (perhaps there is a slight directionality to the particular CR affecting cloud cover in our solar system– some cosmological body outside our solar system may shield or focus these CR in our region of space).
Then there are other possible affects, eg. changes in UV may enhance or offset CRF effects in various conditions.
Should it even be called “electricity”? It would be better referred to as, say, cosmic energy, to distinguish it from electricity, which is manmade.
“Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input”
With this as a premise, no good theory can be achieved. Not even a hypothesis. Perhaps it should say “relatively small change in solar input”, that could be more believable. As with others, I am sick of the the sloppy communication skills demonstrated by scientists (and engineers).
Bob K. says:
December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am
To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.
The difference between principles and principals should be obvious to anyone who finished year 10, and surely shouldn’t be a mystery to someone (author? editor?) at the University level.
———————————————————————————————————
While I broadly agree with your comments about precision in language, the fact is that usage changes all the time and at all levels. In the year that the OED has decided to include knobhead, smeg and hand shandy, dismissing something because of a possible spelling mistake seems a little inflexible.
You may wonder why I say a “possible” mistake, in which case I’d ask you to read the caption again. It’s entirely possible that the intent was to identify Mr Forbes as an “investigator of the principles involved”, in which case the caption is correct 😉
Bruce Cobb says:
December 26, 2013 at 5:50 am
“Should it even be called “electricity”? It would be better referred to as, say, cosmic energy, to distinguish it from electricity, which is manmade.”
Electric forces are electric forces. Physicists don’t subscribe to Newspeak.
Good evidence for the nature and extent of cloud effects. Also may bear on the 20 year cycle in river flows seen in some regions.
This is fascinating! It will be important to distinguish between initial driver and feedback loops. Some folks key into the process and declare DRIVER! when in fact they have been caught in a feedback loop in the data. The initial driver can be an unexciting well-known driver that fails to tickle the fancy.