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.
Here’s an excellent, recent (April 2008) paper on “Cosmic Rays and Climate,”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
by Jasper Kirby of CERN (European Center for Nuclear Research).
CERN is conducting what is hoped will be THE definitive experiment simulating the effect of very high energy particles ionizing the atmosphere.
Kirby seems quite convinced already of the merits of Svensmark’s theory:
“Increased GCR flux appears to be associated with a cooler climate, a southerly shift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and a weakening
of the monsoon
“and decreased GCR flux is associated with a warmer climate, a northerly shift of the ITCZ and a strengthening of the monsoon (increased rainfall).”
The obvious place to begin would seem to be Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5027 – 5030 (1998).
At a glance he seems to establish that cloud cover correlates with cosmic ray flux over the period 1978-1996, that cosmic ray flux anti-correlates with sunspot number over the period 1930-1996, and that various things correlate with temperature.
What I found interesting were the following quotes from the press release:
“the sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels since accurate readings became available. ”
– and –
“the solar wind’s global pressure is the lowest we have seen since the beginning of the space age.”
If they had been climate scientists, I would bet that they would say the following instead:
“the sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels in history”
– and –
“the solar wind’s global pressure is the lowest in history”
For some reason, they felt it necessary to qualify their answers when a climate scientist would not.
TimG – Read the book! However for starters read this article:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117980230/PDFSTART
Studying the correlation between cosmic rays, cloudiness and temperature is exactly what Svensmark has done!
What I’m anxious to hear about is how this correlation has progressed over the last 12 months! I would expect to see a notable increase in cloud levels.
My apologies to the author of “Cosmic Rays and Climate,”
it is Jasper KIRKBY, not “Kirby” as I said
“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’.”
Scientists can be such prima donnas, always so protective of turf. And when some scientists breech protocol, their ideas are considered “speculation”. It sounds as though the only area of impact by the sun they’ll look at is on instruments (no matter their location) and anything that happens outside the atmosphere, just as climate science seems to dismiss changes in solar activity as being of no real significance, since that’s happening outside the atmosphere. It’s a sad state of affairs when science buries its head in the sand and will only study things in isolation, denying impacts and relationships between solar bodies. It’s especially sad when acknowledging the poor understanding of what’s happening on the sun while also claiming it has little impact on the climate.
NASA’s reporting on this issue, I feel was responsible, too bad they are not as humble on other issues. You folks who want NASA to come out and say that lower sun activity will certainly mean a cooler climate might not be thinking the politics all the way through.
What if nothing happens? That is certainly a possiblity isn’t it? Then the Global Warmists get to come out and say, “See! NASA said that it was supposed to get reall cold, but nothing happened and this proves Global Warming is Real! We told you so!”
Now that NASA has not come out and say that the sun is going to have any effect, should it get cooler or stay the same our side can make a case that Global Warming is not real. Had NASA made some big statement about how it was going to get cooler, then it would have to get cooler lest Global Warming becomes a proven fact. This way, we have 2 options “nothing happens or it gets cooler” disproves Global Warming. With a statement from NASA expecting cooler temperatures, the warmists would get 2 ways to win the debate, get it?
The bloggers who are writing pieces about “Ice Age Coming” are painting the side of the debate that says “it’s all natural” into a corner and are increasing expectations of something fantastic happening. This may or may not happen, so its best to be conservative and admit that we do not know or understand everything, but the climate MIGHT cool as a result.
Interesting NASA responsiveness.
Others have been trying to watch the NASA press teleconference, with dismal results:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=109
Anthony Watts has been kind toNASA; I, too, would be interested in Dr. Svensmark’s views.
Let us examine a single aspect of this. Subatomic particle hits on CMOS cells in DRAM. This could be a looming disaster, based on that one aspect alone.
At this point, I am reminded of an archetypal response of scientific orthodoxy to new and different discoveries.
It is analogous to Max Planck’s maxim that new ideas – new “paradigms” in science – don’t become accepted because the “scientific community” studies, accepts and then embraces the new reality.
Planck said new paradigms in science become the new norm because people who believed in the old paradigm die off and are replaced with younger people who never received the old system as gospel, and so never had their egos wrapped up in it “having” to be true.
In this version (which I heard explicated by the late Arthur Jones – don’t know if he was the originator or not), there is a typical, step-by-step response to new ideas. The more revolutionary the new ideas, the more violent the response, but always in the same sequence:
First step is IGNORE the new idea
If it persists, RIDICULE it
If it still won’t go away, ATTACK the idea and all who discuss it
When it becomes clear that new ideas are taking over, might as well get on the bandwagon and COPY the new ideas, use them in your own work
Then, suddenly remember that it was your idea to begin with, and STEAL it – claim credit for the original idea and all the supporting research. You can even complain about others plagiarizing your brilliance.
IRACS – Ignore, Ridicule, Attack, Copy, Steal
I’m just wondering now how many Global Warmers are going to suddenly remember that “Cosmoclimatology” – the link between GCR and Climate – was their idea all along.
Note that on the referenced link above (SolarCycle24 Forum), one post notes that a CD of the entire thing can be had by writing to NASA. See “npsguy” post as reply #8.
“I emailed dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov the PR guy and he said there is no download for the teleconference but he can send me a CD of it. So I gave him my address.”
Pierre Gosselin (11:23:01) : Speculation? Svensmark’s “speculation” just happens to correlate awfully darn well with past events, and the phenomena is confirmed in laboratory experiments.
Leif,
I have gathered from posts you have made in the past that you are unconvinced by Svensmark’s work, but if you gave a detailed analysis of your objections, I fail to remember it. Would you mind sharing your thoughts with us? (This is a question I’ve been dying to ask you for a while, just waiting for the right opportunity.)
The sun is behaving much differently today than it did 10 years ago.
That wouldn’t effect the climate on earth?!
These scientists are hoplelessy deprived of free speech.
Jeff L.:
I’m no scientist, but it would seem to me that a lower strength geomagnetic field might actually decrease clowd cover (by my understanding of Svensmark’s theory). I’m thinking that in a reduced geomagnetic state even a relatively low solar output could still divert inbound cosmic rays. And in so saying, is it possible that a reduced geomagnetic field may even be an avenue to explore in explaining some warming. Just a thought. Back to lurking.
Jason
“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?”
Svensmark’s theory is that it’s only the high energy GCR which impact on low level cloud formation. These high energy CGR (called muons) have too much energy to be impacted substantially by the earth’s magentic field so you would not expect a correlation here. Svensmark conducted experiments (CORSIKA) which indicated that only 3% of the muons could be impacted by the earth’s magnetic field.
Jeff,
I suppose that the sun expanding into a reg giant would also be normal behavior for the sun when it eventually happens as well. I suppose that shouldn’t cause concern either.
With so many people watching it so closely, perhaps the sun is just suffering from a severe case of performance anxiety. One could evoke the old addage, “A watched pot never boils.”
Tim, Pierre, Jeff et al –
I found an albedo pic which I put on my “Primer” here but in my excitement forgot to get the ref. Google it among Images and you may be lucky. I’ll try and fix the link myself meanwhile.
Dr. Tony Phillips http://spaceweather.com
did a write-up for NASA public affairs on the Ulysses news conference
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
” Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%. ”
I don’t recall this being mentioned in the news conference.
“…But any extra cosmic rays can have consequences. If the trend continues, astronauts on the Moon or en route to Mars would get a higher dose of space radiation. ”
But Dr. Phillips, you yourself said that nothing is wrong with the sun, nothing is out of the ordinary, the current solar minimum is well within normal range.
How could the “trend” possibly “continue” long enough to affect a mission to the moon [current US goal – 2020], or to MARS??? [current goal – still science fiction].
Is it perhaps already time to “rethink our assurances,” Dr. Phillips?
Got it, surprise surprise, it’s from this blog and the credits go to Earthshine Project
The following went missing from previous post:
“The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.
The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.
“Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa,” said Ruzmaikin. “The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources – Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya – are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa’s climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis.”
“we don’t know enough yet”
When do you think, you will know more ?
“none of us here are experts on climate”
Maybe you can call an expert and give him your data.
The answer to the question from the Popular Science person about future space travel. Nancy Crooker stated (from my notes and not a direct quote):
The big question is whether the decrease in solar preasure continue or not. On the 100 year cycle, we’re on the down slope of that cycle so it is more likely it will decrease.
The entire panel studiously avoided any “official” climate discussions for all the reasons stated above. But at least they recognize we’re at least on the downward 100 year cycle slope.
Random House asked about the prediction (someone he’d read) the next solar maximum would be 40-50% higher. What I found interesting was Nancy answered this with another “don’t really know” and the erstwhile reporters did not even bother connecting the dots with her “downslope” comment.
i think this conference hopes for headlines like “dangerous to travel in space” and “quiet sun threatens astronauts”. They did say they didn’t have anything even in the queue for funding which might imply NASA doesn’t want to continue anything like this project. Especially since it seems to be turning up data that conflicts with the agency view.
It does put a marker in for a fallback – they reported their findings, warned astronauts, and certified themselves as clueless about climate. Makes one wonder if they carry umbrellas, coats, and sweaters around all day?
Correct me if I’m wrong but if the sun’s output went up 0.2% during the last warming period and it is said that it is not enough to change the temperature of the planet. I recently read a blog where the author did a little math. Warming on earth caused by sun 284 degrees so 284 x .002 = 0.568 This seems fairly close to the actual warming during the last 30 years. It can’t be this simple can it? If it is we are paying these scientists way too much money.