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.
In their news release they talked about this reduction in solar activity would affect the whole solar system. But they did not say how it will affect the whole solar system else than saying it could affect astronauts!!!???
Me think someone has pulled the plug on what they could say!
“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?”
You are missing that the cosmic rays in question are very high energy, not like the protons from the sun that cause the aurora as they fly back and forth from pole to pole. The high energy rays are not really affected by the local magnetic flux. However as they pass through the sun’s magnetosphere which extends well past the planets they may well be diverted somewhat and fewer of them penetrate in to the inner planets (that’s us). Read Svensmark’s book, “The Chilling Stars”. I did and I am convinced by it that this is the real reason for global climate change.
John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee
I think we should all remember that while the Sun is a variable star, it is a remarkable stable variable star.
We don’t know how much it varies over the long-term, but it looks the maximum changes in the Sun will only vary the Earth’s climate by +/- 1.5C.
Changes in the Earth’s orbit, however, can affect the climate by +2.0C / -6.0C.
Pompous Git,
Please let me respond for NASA.
The Solar connection we are talking about only affects the Nile River valley, or at most the African continent. Yes we said it helps us understand climate on a global basis but that does not mean it is a global phenomenon, like Global Warming.
Thank You,
Mike Bryant
One of the panelists suggested the follow-up mission to Ulysses would be called “Telemachus” – son of Ulysses, get it? Yeah, me neither.
Anyway, the new official name for the follow-up mission is “Bailout.”
It already has a budget of $700 Billion (but could go much higher!)
It’s planned for low-earth-orbit, mostly around New York City, but there will likely be many unscheduled orbital diversions, especially to Washington D.C. and various political campaigns.
The orbit will stabilize, then decay remarkably quickly as soon as the budget is exhausted.
Unfortunately, the new mission will produce very little new data. In fact, any of the records not shredded will be heavily edited before public release.
“IRACS – Ignore, Ridicule, Attack, Copy, Steal”
Words to live by, ‘eh?
“We don’t see any link between the minimums, cosmic rays (which are increasing now) and earth’s climate.”
It is reassuring to know that the Sun’s variability does not effect the Earth’s climate and that the heat “generated” by 57 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 is sufficient to cause climate change and warm the globe, although this has never been shown to be true by any factual scientific evidence. Not to deliberately neglect Dr. Pachauri and BGW, but the ppm of CH4 due to bovines are unknown to me at this time. CH4, when in sufficient concentration, will generate heat when ignited. Interestingly, CO2 is commonly used to extinguish heat sources.
What often surprises me is that AGW theory is accepted at face value based upon the absorption spectra of CO2 and GCMs with enough tunable parameters that you can get pretty much any results you want out of them. Yet any theory that has a non anthropogenic cause for warming or cooling has to undergo rigorous experimentation.
On another note, doesn’t less UV radiation mean less ozone is formed and, since ozone is a GHG, a cooler earth?
Well, as usual, it looks like empirical evidence will have the last laugh. Let’s just see how long that the sunspots remain at a minimum and temperatures remain cooler than the 1998 Hysteria. Eventually, even NASA will grudgingly admit that “gee there might be a correlation between our climate here on earth and the behaviors of that fireball thing.”
“Patrick Henry (12:45:59) : says…
“From the NASA press release-
“[T]here 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”
Why in the world would they say that these studies are CONTROVERSIAL! Are they afraid of the results?
John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee
It is 2:56 PT right now. You should see the thin ozone blanket over the western part of the US now! If ozone is a blanket that either keeps warm air in or cosmic rays out, either the Sun or the Earth needs to trim it’s toenails!
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us
“Also, there are controversial studies linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness and climate change on Earth. That link may be tested in the years ahead.”
As I think more about it, – it seems to me – that the author of this NASA press release, Dr. Tony Phillips, has been a bit jarred, first by the extended solar minimum and long spotless streaks of late, and now by this Ulysses news.
Dr. Phillips was the one who actually wrote the headline and the story, “What’s wrong with the sun? (nothing).”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/13/spotless-days-400-and-counting/
and this was his sub-head:
“July 11, 2008: Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.”
Of course, he was acting as writer/reporter, and quoting David Hathaway.
First, after the “spotless August” controversy, he assured us once again that this is all normal behavior, nothing to worry about… but then curiously mentioned that if this – normal – behavior continues for another year, “it might be time for us to rethink our assurances.”
In his new quote – about the GCR-Climate link being “tested in the years ahead,” he seems to me to be saying…
1) That this solar minimum could go on a long, long time – YEARS ahead? And as he suggested, the “trend” could continue long enough to affect a mission to the moon (not gonna happen before 2020, unless China does it), or even to Mars? (Probably not in my lifetime).
– so he can not possibly still believe that “the sun is behaving normally”
2) He now at least considers Svensmark’s “Cosmoclimatology” worthy of a “test – in the years ahead.” A crack in his personal AGW armor wide enough to allow that – MAYBE – there is at least ONE competing theory, which would mean [GASP] The Science Is NOT Settled??!!
and 3) He doesn’t MENTION Hathaway, but is he still quoting Hathaway, or is his own personal position starting to pull away from that of Hathaway?
It just struck me that they are hoping the CO2 will be strong enough to keep us warm, rather than drop too precipitously cold. Was the magnetism from the Cycle 24 spot measured? 2015 or no?
=======================================
1002, we hardly knew ye…
“Region 1002 (N26W40) was quiet and stable and has decayed to a small C-type sunspot group. ”
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
GCR cloud formation also increases the efficiency of the condenser in the Carnot Cycle which transfers heat from the oceans (via evaporation then cloud formation ) into space.
In a closed system, an increase in efficiency leads to a greater cycle speed as well.
Consider how much heat the Oceans lost when they dropped 300M and all that water became vapor, then condensed, then formed snow and then was locked up in ice. The heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion are two very big numbers multiplied by all that ice.
“If ozone is a blanket that either keeps warm air in or cosmic rays out” – but it is not. Can I sell you an ion fountain blanket?
Mark Nodine (13:36:42) :
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.)
Mark and others:
I haven’t had time to comment on account of being at UC Berkeley for a seminar and other research-related work. I’ll try to catch up. I do think that the whole thing was pretty lame.
Why does CO2 or Ozone not react to convection like all other gases. If they do react to convection then how do they form a ‘blanket’. Is there some invisible force that causes them to gather together in a boundary. Is a more realistic view that they dispersed in higher concentrations near their source and concentrations decay both vertically and horizontally (1/R cubed). If clouds are taken into the picture as well it seems to make a very complex picture. Then throw in wind currents. Trivial to model I am sure. The sun makes it very complex, even without cosmic rays and UV in the equation.
Among a few organizations involved in “speculation!”
CERN
Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center
Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research
Leibniz Institute for Troposhperic Research
Paul Scherer Institute
Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory
Lebedev Physical Institute
Racah Institute of Physics
Finnish Meterological Institute
And as many univeristies.
John-X, your post of 13:34 and your final query “I’m just wondering now how many Global Warmers are going to suddenly remember [this]- was their idea all along.”, reminded me of this old sequence:
Six Phases of a Project:
Enthusiasm
Disillusionment
Panic
Search for the Guilty
Punishment of the Innocent
Praise and Glory for the Non-Participants
-Morrow
Leif Svalgaard (16:20:26) :
” Mark and others:
I haven’t had time to comment on account of being at UC Berkeley for a seminar and other research-related work. I’ll try to catch up. I do think that the whole thing was pretty lame. ”
Agree re: lameness.
Couple people on the forum over at solarcycle24.com mentioned that the Q & A was ‘painful’ – and I think they were speaking of the questions more than the answers.
I knew these Ulysses project people were not going to be drawn into ANY speculation about climate, and their climate answers were all, “we don’t know,” “that’s all speculative,” and of course, the obligatory bow to AGW, “the temperature is going to stay up because of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Interesting that the woman from “Old Farmer’s Almanac” was allowed to get a question in but Anthony wasn’t.
Leif, if you haven’t already, please – carefully – read Dr. Tony Phillips public affairs write-up about the conference
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
I’ve said above that, when compared to his previous statements and previous positions (which I am of course inferring), Dr. P is shaken. He may not be an apostate – yet – but he may be fast approaching The Crisis.
He seems (and again, this is my interpretation – please tell me what you think) – seems – to be allowing that a) Contrary to his July 11 story, the sun may NOT be behaving normally; and b) hey, that Svensmark guy may be on to something after all – “the years ahead” are actually a test, and may prove him right
From the Jasper Kirkby (CERN) paper:
“Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect cosmic rays with clouds: firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes.
“Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically- plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate.
“However, a concerted effort is now required to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938
I wonder if they’re going to use the new LHC (Large Hadron Collider) Doomsday device for GCR cloud nucleation experiments.
As someone mentioned earlier, “AGW” can just be floated out there, propped up with “adjusted” data, and what someone here calls PlayStation computer models, and we’re all demanded to “take action” – damn the cost and don’t ask any questions…
any competing theory has to be subjected to REAL science, including, if necessary, the newest and most powerful weapons in the arsenal of physics.
Oh well, whatever it takes, as long as the real research is being done.
Tim G.
Your 11:37:08 question re cosmic rays and clouds:
First, you really should read The Chilling Stars and take a look at the Svensmark/Friis-Christensen web pages on Cosmoclimatology
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/resolveuid/86c49eb9229b3a7478e8d12407643bed
The links between solar activity, clouds and climate are unfortunately rather complex. I’ve got some more useful info archived (including a paper that claims to have looked for a link between GCRs and climate and found it doesn’t exist), but it’ll take me a while to find it and present it, so let me know if you’re still looking at this page and I’ll try to post it here.
Meanwhile, the Earthshine project is interesting – it measures the Earth’s albedo (effectively, cloud cover) from reflection off the moon. See
http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_etal_EOS_2006.pdf (nice graph shows IPCC CO2 Wm-2 against albedo Wm-2)
http://www.spacearchive.info/news-2004-05-27-cit.htm
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/04/albedo-and-earthshine.html
http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007.pdf
Ray, good point. I couldn’t listen to the press conference but didn’t they mention, in the slides at least, the fluctuation of the heliosphere?
Good article encouraging space exploration of galactic connections to Earth before we jump off the deep end of AGW scare tactics.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/opinions-2008/opinion-jul2308b.html
John-X (17:03:17) The Farmer’s Almanac has Joe d’Aleo writing about global cooling. They’ve got lots of street cred.
==========================================