I just finished participating in the press teleconference call in for reporters with NASA and their panel of solar experts today. There was a lot of interesting discussions and questions. Unfortunately even though I put in for a question, I was shut out, and judging from the order of the questions asked and the organizations represented, clearly they played favorites for getting maximum exposure by choosing the larger media outlets first, such as AP’s Seth Borenstein who got the first question. That’s understandable I suppose, still I really wanted to ask what they though about the step function in the Ap Index that occurred in October 2005 and has remained flat since.
I took quite a bit of notes, and I’ll write more later from them, but for now I wanted to give my readers a chance to weigh in.
See the written NASA press release here
The three general things that struck me most from this conference were:
1) We don’t know enough yet to predict solar cycles, we aren’t “in the game”, and “we don’t really know how big next maximum will be”.
2) We don’t see any link between the minimums, cosmic rays (which are increasing now) and earth’s climate. This was downplayed several times. Some quotes were “none of us here are experts on climate, and when asked about Galactic Cosmic Rays and Svensmark’s climate theory is the answer was “speculation”.
3) The minimum we are in now is “unique for the space age”, but “within norms for the last 200 years”, but we are also surprised to learn how much the solar wind has diminished on a truly “entire sun” scale.
Here are a couple of the graphics they provided, note the difference in solar wind pressure between the two measurement periods.
And the fact that the electron density and temperature have decreased about 20%
Anyone who has listened to this teleconference is welcome to weigh in. For those that did not hear it, The RealAudio file would not play on my PC, did anyone record it? If so advise and I’ll post it here.
Tim,
Good question, and it has been raised on numerous occasions here. Yet, I still have not seen any real good data on cloud cover…which is in itself very complex.
Maybe someone will steer us in the right direction here.
Somehow it’s hard to imagine how a “deep, prolonged solar minimum” would have no effect whatsoever on Earth’s climate. If sun experts cannot say anything about the link between the sun and the climate, how can climate experts rule out that the sun plays a major role in the climate system? I just don’t get it.
I just have to say thanks for a great blog and articles like this.
Unfortunately, I did not hear the audio.
The indications Anthony has provided seem to indicate that these scientists were a little defensive, plead ignorance or were just dodgy on the subject of sun’s influence on the climate. (Maybe I’m reading him wrong).
Why the defensive and anxious atmosphere at the press conference?
A dormant sun should be good news for all them solar-flare-sensitive high-tech gadgets and telecommunications satelites NASA has got out there.
You’s expect optimism and giddiness, wouldn’t you?
Was there an aura of optimism permeating thoughout the press conference,
or was it tense?
Someone please please find a link…I need to listen to it.
I feel like ive just come upon an accident at the side of the road and there is a cop there(nasa) waving me on yelling move on nothing to see here!
We all know (or should know) that correlation is not the same as causation. Correlation is a big part of the AGW’er arguement. We routninely will criticize the AGW hypothesis on the basis that this is correlation, not causation. Some of the posters above point to correlation of low solar activity & colder climate, but to have a more convincing arguement, someone needs to put some “causation” science behind it. Intuitively, this hypothesis makes sense since our world is “solar powered”, but intuition isn’t goode enough. We need some more “causitve” science. Clearly Svensmark’s hypothesis of cosmic rays / clouds / albedo changes isn’t univerally accepted for “causation”. Why is that? What part of the arguement doesn’t work for some & what data & analysis could be used to address those concerns? Someone with more skills in those areas (& more time to investigate than me) should be looking at this & posting.
I’ll through one thing out that concerns me as a geophysicist. The earth’s magnetic field strength has generally been decreasing in strength throughout the last century. Shouldn’t that let more cosmic ray energy into our atmosphere? If so, shouldn’t that have led to more cloud cover , increased total Earth albedo & a decreasing global temperature trend ? What am I missing here?
If anyone could most a good summary of solar causitive arguements, I think everyone reading would appreciate it.
As community of “skeptics”, we need to bring our “A” game if we are going to convince the world at large that there is more going on with climate than C02 (which I fully believe). Given that solar effects could be significant climate player, we need to have an arguement better than “correlation”, if it is in fact a valid hypothesis.
It looks like each group at NASA has their own sandbox and no one wants to mess up anyone else’s sandbox.
FM
Thanks for the no.
I tried it…no answer. “Please leave a message…”
I asked them to post an audio link.
“There has to be a satellite that measures the area of the earth that is covered in clouds every day”
If there isn’t, ask the satellite photography organizations for statistics about the percentage of cloudless areas which they find. They have at least been working hard at looking between the clouds, whether they’ve been measuring clouds or not.
I must admit hearing the panelists say, “I don’t know…” was refreshing for me. How many times do we hear, “The accelerating ice loss will without doubt lead to an “ice-free” arctic.”, or “The temperatures will definitely increase 2C over the next hundred years.”, or “The GCMs are adamant on this fact.”?
At least, when they don’t know, they tell us they don’t know. I would like to hear similar statements from IPCC, GISS, HADCRUT, NSIDC and many others.
Svensmark’s lab results have still not yet to be backed up by scientific concensus using real world results, it’s definitely a case of if you want to believe then it carries more weight.
Regards
Andy
Cristoffer,
As Lief has pointed out many times, there doesn’t appear to be any solar data or proxy that consistently matches with changes in Earth climate data or proxies. If you observe something that should affect a system in every way you can think of, and nothing correlates with your variable of interest, then you have to assume there isn’t a linkage between them. Of course, it doesn’t mean that something you aren’t measuring from the same source wouldn’t correlate.
Saying they don’t understand or can’t predict the sun seems pretty refreshing to me. A sun is a very complicated system. Of course, so’s the Earth’s climate.
Mike86
Tim G (11:37:08) :
“There has to be a satellite that measures the area of the earth that is covered in clouds every day (like the sea ice area sats). There is also (I assume) a way to measure (maybe indirectly) the amount of cosmic rays we are receiving. ”
It’s called ISCCP – International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project – a long-term record of satellite-based observations of cloud cover.
Svensmark used it to show good correlation between increased GCR (galactic cosmic radiation) and low cloud cover.
GCR is more abundant during solar minimum (like now).
The theory is that very high-energy neutrons which were blasted out of exploding stars elsewhere in the galaxy hit the atmosphere, and produce a cascade of smaller energetic particles, some of which end up ionizing (producing an electric charge) in the lower atmosphere.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/cosmic_rays.html&edu=high
The electric charge increases the formation of aerosols, including sulphuric acid, which both provide nuclei on which water droplets can condense, and attract dust, sea salt, pollen, etc, to provide more and larger condensation nuclei.
The effect of ionization by GCR in this theory is to preferentially produce low clouds.
It is known that low clouds, by themselves, produce net cooling at the surface, whereas high clouds, by themselves, produce net warming.
So a process which preferentially produces low clouds would also preferentially produce cooler temperatures.
Jeff L, increasing cloud cover can trap heat as well as reflect sunlight. It’s a complex set of interaction feedbacks and one reason the climate models have some trouble.
Well, at least NASA said they didn’t know. One of the first baby steps to becoming real scientists is realizing what you don’t know, and stopping with that.
A word of caution about ISCCP – it is a program of GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies
which is under the direction of James Hansen.
No unusual “adjustments” to the data have yet been reported, but I believe caution is called for in any use of the data.
NONE OF US ARE EXPERTS ON CLIMATE..They finally told the truth !!!! It’s about time !iTHOUGHT IT WAS SETTLED.On a brighter note thanks Anthony for uncovering the facts and letting the world know the earth is indeed cooling despite efforts from the global warming nut to block us from knowing the truth.
Cristoffer, it’s because you’re reading a bit to much between the lines. I have unfortunately not yet been able to listen to this press conference (been studying for a darn test all morning), but I believe I can speak in the general based on your comment:
The thing is, scientists can speak generally about the link between the sun and our climate. The general idea is that at a fundamental level, the sun drives our climate because it provides us with a source of constant energy. Here’s the tricky part: Just because the sun drives our climate doesn’t mean that every minute, instantaneous change which occurs at the sun will translate into a meaningful or even tangible effect on our climate.
It’s like the clutch on a car (or at least, like mine). You can press it down by a very small amount, but it won’t quite disengage things until you reach a threshold. Leaving the idea of a solar threshold for another day and someone much more informed than I am, let’s focus on the actual changes rather than the consequences of their various magnitudes.
When the scientists dismissed the sun’s current behavior as insignificant changes in terms of climate (from the timbre of posts here, that seems to be what they did, but again, I haven’t had a chance to watch the video), what they were really focusing on is the overall net effect of reduced solar output. The amount of incoming radiation just won’t change by an appreciable amount to drastically alter the climate (simple calculations of incoming solar radiation and then the use of Steffan-Boltzmann’s law can confirm this). This much is easy to quantitatively demonstrate.
Now, where the tricky things come in are the feedbacks of this process. What effect will decreased solar radiation have on cloud formation? Will a less powerful solar wind result in higher cosmic ray concentrations hitting our atmosphere? What are the net effects of all these? These are the questions which aren’t satisfactorially understood. A caveat, though: Just because we can’t cross the t’s and dot the i’s with regards to these feedbacks doesn’t mean that hypothesis don’t exist about them, and the hypothesis that seems to hold the best is that while these feedbacks will be amplified or dampened, they won’t have such an effect as to offset global warming caused by greenhouse gases.
I hope this helps a bit. It might be a bit convoluted so if I have time later, I’ll listen in on the press conference and make some pointed remarks.
I know this is off topic, and I understand if it needs to be nuked, but I thought I would pass this along for anyone living in SoCal…
http://web-app.usc.edu/ws/eo2/calendar/32/event/867043
The USC Objectivist Club is holding a debate tonight regarding climate change. It is a free event open to public. Someone I work with passed it along and asked if I would let people know who might be interested. I couldn’t think of a better web site.
Again, I understand if this isn’t proper and I apologize if it is.
astonishing
Anthony,
I guess they choose to ignore the historical correlation of the Maunder, Dalton and other minimas that show an almost direct effect on tempuratures during those events. It seems too consistent to be mere coincidence. Whether Svensmark’s theory is accurate or not, it is one plausable theory for an undeniable cause and effect relationship between the sun’s activity and earth’s climatic response. To outright deny any relationship at all seems to beg the question as settled in their view. It breaks the rules of basic science.
From the NASA press release-
there are controversial studies linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness and climate change on Earth. That link may be tested in the years ahead.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
How can they say that CO2 will keep the temperature up when it already hasn’t? The arrogance of those fools that they think we are stupid.
============================================
Oh, I forgot to mention. NASA’s “hope of glory” 24 cycle sunspot is already fading away. Must be a real downer for them.
“clearly they played favorites for getting maximum exposure by choosing the larger media outlets first, such as AP’s Seth Borenstein who got the first question.”
Maximum exposure, yes, but also, the lamestream media being firmly in the AGW camp, they undoubtedly knew they could count on softball questions from them. Bureaucratic pseudoscientists don’t like having the boat rocked in any way shape or form.