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.
Does anybody think the report of a visible gamma ray burst caught on tape by the “Pi in the Sky Program” in Chile has anything to do with solar wind low?
A Sky and Telescope article speculated that the burst would have destroyed the earth if it’s origin had been in our galaxy.
Okay, I agree that Svensmark’s information is technically speculation. But then so is CO2. And I will also have to say based on what I have seen of Svenmark’s research it correlates better then CO2. However I am still skeptical of both. While Svenmark may be right I do not know that other factors more or less significant may not be the real reason this is occuring.
Explorboy (10:19:21) :
“Does anybody think the report of a visible gamma ray burst caught on tape by the “Pi in the Sky Program” in Chile has anything to do with solar wind low?”
No.
“A Sky and Telescope article speculated that the burst would have destroyed the earth if it’s origin had been in our galaxy.”
Lucky we are. It is the anthropic principle.
Leif, I have mentioned to you my interest in the ozone layer over the western part of the US. The first time I mentioned it it wasn’t a relatively large area. It has grown to include many more states than it did when I first asked you about it. Do you have any thoughts as to why this area is growing larger? I don’t know what it did last year at this time. Since I am a redhead with a history of skin cancer, the ozone layer has been my friend for many years so I have more than a passing interest in it besides possible connections with climate. Do you think this is cosmic ray related and therefor connected to the Sun’s decreasing magnetic protection? Do you think this area will grow larger and thinner? Or is this just temporary noise?
They don’t even seem to want to talk about the possibility of solar activity relationship with climate. If it’s debatable, should they be afraid to talk about the two sides of the debate? If it’s been scientifically proven as wrong, shouldn’t they be able to cite that? Meanwhile don’t you think this would be heavilly scrutinized with public funding if it had the potential to support AGW beliefs (rather than the potential to raise questions or undermine the IPCC)? If there were a similar theory that would add to the AGW cause, it would probably be upon us as the next harbinger of doom for global warming, front page headline news on CNN.
This is not a scientific atmosphere.
Me (11:15:41) :
” They don’t even seem to want to talk about the possibility of solar activity relationship with climate. ”
NASA’s so-called “Sun-Earth Connection” program
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/
does not even mention climate.
As long as they are part of the “man-made global warming” orthodoxy, where ONLY man-made CO2 influences climate, NOTHING else…
the sun is automatically excluded from any discussion of climate.
Pamela Gray (10:57:32) :
Do you have any thoughts as to why this [ozone hole] area is growing larger? […] Or is this just temporary noise?
Ozone is mostly generated in the tropics where sunlight is the strongest. Then the ozone is transported to higher latitudes by something called the Dobson-Brewer Circulation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Nimbus_ozone_Brewer-Dobson_circulation.jpg
Ozone is destroyed by the reaction with atomic oxygen: O3 + O → 2 O2 catalyzed by free radicals, like hydroxyl (OH), nitric oxide (NO) and atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). Man is still pumping some of that stuff [maybe now mostly the unregulated bromine] into the atmosphere so we are probably partly responsible for the decrease of ozone. I don’t know what the long-term trend is. My daughter-in-law, Signe, had an article in Nature magazine a couple years back [she even made the cover picture – made me proud] about that. Here is what she and Betsy said:
Review, Nature 441, 39-45 (4 May 2006) doi:10.1038/nature04746
The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer
Elizabeth C. Weatherhead & Signe Bech Andersen
Abstract
Evidence of mid-latitude ozone depletion and proof that the Antarctic ozone hole was caused by humans spurred policy makers from the late 1980s onwards to ratify the Montreal Protocol and subsequent treaties, legislating for reduced production of ozone-depleting substances. The case of anthropogenic ozone loss has often been cited since as a success story of international agreements in the regulation of environmental pollution. Although recent data suggest that total column ozone abundances have at least not decreased over the past eight years for most of the world, it is still uncertain whether this improvement is actually attributable to the observed decline in the amount of ozone-depleting substances in the Earth’s atmosphere. The high natural variability in ozone abundances, due in part to the solar cycle as well as changes in transport and temperature, could override the relatively small changes expected from the recent decrease in ozone-depleting substances. Whatever the benefits of the Montreal agreement, recovery of ozone is likely to occur in a different atmospheric environment, with changes expected in atmospheric transport, temperature and important trace gases. It is therefore unlikely that ozone will stabilize at levels observed before 1980, when a decline in ozone concentrations was first observed.
It looks to me, from the count of weasel words that nobody knows.
One more question LEif:
Do you think, theoretically, that cosmic rays destroy ozone, and if so, which kind of cosmic ray particle has this potential and how does it work?
Just wondering–
Had we possessed the ability to reduce co2 emissions/”repair ” the ozone “hole”–
how cold would it be in S.Africa(not to mention the rest of the world)now ?
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-complexity.html
Pamela Gray (14:32:34) :
Do you think, theoretically, that cosmic rays destroy ozone, and if so, which kind of cosmic ray particle has this potential and how does it work?
There have been some sensationalist reports of that, e.g. in that bastion of truth that Scientific American has become: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=study-suggests-cosmic-ray however many studies have shown that when you have a strong burst of Solar cosmic rays [a proton event or preceding a large Forbush Decrease] you can detect a small influence right at the time of the event, but the ozone quickly recovers and the overall effect is insignificant. Such events are rare, there has not been any this year.
Leif Svalgaard (15:29:08) :
Pamela Gray (14:32:34) :
Not last year, either.
Even the notoriously pro-AGW BBC mentioned Svensmark’s theory in its article. I was amazed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7632331.stm
“Some researchers have attempted to link the intensity of cosmic rays at Earth to cloudiness and climate change. Current conditions may be a good opportunity to test these ideas further. ”
Ok, it was just a small paragraph near the bottom :/.
Robinson,
There is another very important item in the BBC story.
“Reduced solar activity also leads to the cooling of Earth’s upper atmosphere”
We have been told by climate modellers that the observed cooling of the upper atmosphere was due to increased CO2 concentration. It appears that view is being challenged by scientists.
Pamela. You might want to also read this: http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week38/Thursday/091811.html
“What about back radiation, that ingenious quantum mechanical mechanism that induces global warming?”
Could it be Asperger’s benefits are restricted?
I think that we should not fall into the trap of thinking that the climate of our earth is caused by any one thing by itself. Magnitisim, decrease of solar wind and lack of sunspots are contributors to our climate indeed. But the sun itself is not the only contributor to our climate. We should at least have learned from the Co2 folks this one thing.. putting blinders on and pointing at the only thing you can see does not show you the entire picture.
I think of it as pulling the lever of a one armed bandit. If you get low sunactivity, coupled with an upswing in major volcanic activity, coupled with tricky ocean currents no one seems to know how to predict. Chiching.. cooler weather. But you can have many combinations of the same three.. I know I have highly simplified a seriously complicated thing but it seems like the best we can do at this point is observe and stop jumping to the worst possible conclusions.
Leif, I have been watching that ozone area everyday for months now. Noticed something. During the night, the ozone level recovers a bit. Especially when the area was smaller this Spring. Even the area it has grown to now seems to recover a bit over night. Then by mid afternoon it has grown thinner again. So this would lead me to speculate that we are dealing with a Sun affect of some kind. There seems to be discussion that some of it is related to pollutants, and some of it related to sunlight. I wonder what it was like when the Sun was more magnetically active. Is it possible that this ozone affect is timed with this magnetically weak Sun?
JAFAC (19:13:22) :
Leif Svalgaard (21:30:16) :
Jafac. Good Question. What follows is the result of strong interest, a lot of data analysis and a little bit of theory.
Part of the answer is at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
Look at Past Years Annual Time Series T Mean EQ
You will see that there is a peak temperature at 1mb in March and another in September. This is when the solar wind couples most closely with the Earth’s magnetosphere. That high temperature is due to short wave radiation. Apparently it penetrates into the tropical atmosphere to a greater degree at these times. For this to happen we need a redistribution of the atmosphere. Take it from over the Equator on the day-side and put it somewhere else.
Bear in mind that the Earth is closest to the sun on January 3d with almost 7% more irradiance at that time. However the Earth has its warmest air temperature in July when the land masses of the northern hemisphere heat the atmosphere by surface contact , release of latent heat and a little radiation to about 15°C (near surface) as against the 3°C experienced in January. Because relative humidity falls as the air warms in mid year there is a large reduction in global cloud cover, the effect extending into the southern hemisphere as far as 30°South.
Having got all that under your belt consider that Outgoing Long Wave Radiation (as measured at top of atmosphere) has been increasing over the period of observation. The irradiance from the sun is invariable. For the Earth to emit more long wave radiation all that has to happen is that the reflection of short wave radiation from the sun has to diminish. That happens if there is less cloud. With less cloud the Earth absorbs more of the available energy from the sun and emits it in its signature long wave form.
If greenhouse theory were valid we would expect OLR to diminish.
Between 40°N and 40°S the Earth absorbs more energy from the sun than it emits. Between 40° and 90° of latitude more energy is emitted than is absorbed. If the tropics admit more energy it is expressed as a temperature increase at high latitudes, especially in winter, because the sea is then warmer. The tropics is an ‘open system’ that leaks energy laterally.
The cloud free areas of the subtropical rain shadow areas to the east of the major continents expand and contract according to change in temperature at 200hPa. There is enough ozone at 200hPa to respond strongly to UV light. As a result the inter-annual variability in temperature is strong at this level. The seasonal variation in temperature at 200hPa is half that at the surface. The atmosphere has the effect of damping temperature variations not amplifying them. The inter-annual variability at 200hPa is twice that at the surface. With change in temperature there is a change in relative humidity and condensation phenomena. Temperature at 200hPa is minus 55°C. You get a lot of cirrus albedo bang at this level for your specific humidity buck.
Space is not free of all material. What comes from the sun is tenuous. But the atmosphere is thin and tenuous too. Depending upon the pressure of the solar wind the atmosphere slips a little away from the dayside towards the poles and the nightside. You can see this in photos of the Earth taken in the UV from space. The atmosphere in its higher regions is plasma. So is the solar wind. In plasma, magnetic and electrical forces accelerate charged particles and when they move some of the neutral gas is entrained. The part that tends to be eroded is the atmosphere above the equator where the pressure of radiation is greatest. Being a balding gent I need a hat, and so do some parts of the Earth. These are the parts where the energy is absorbed that is responsible for the warming of the tropics.
The atmosphere has no sharp boundaries. Between 200hpa and the absolute perimeter of the electrically unbalanced material that originates as atmospheric gas there is no more than 10% of the total mass of the atmosphere. This is a very fluid zone. As it expands and contracts, slips and slides, it conditions the amount of UV that penetrates to 200hPa. That drives the cloud cover. The cloud cover determines the degree of absorption of the ever abundant energy of the sun. Without the cloud we would fry, no, not fry, poach.
Check the relationship between the SOI and OLR at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt1.shtml
That same relationship holds for the entirety of tropical latitudes. It shows that during cooling events OLR increases. It does so because the surface temperature varies little but the clouds that cause the cooling get in the way and shunt out more OLR than a cloud free atmosphere.
QED The sun drives ENSO.
ENSO drives the PDO and the NAO
The PDO and the NAO record episodes of high latitude warming and cooling. The last episode of Arctic warming prior to that which is on the turn at present was in 1940-50.
That is the big picture of how the sun drives temperature change on Earth.
“The atmosphere has the effect of damping temperature variations not amplifying them.”
Good stuff, as always, Erl.
Erl Happ (08:23:50) :
Space is not free of all material. What comes from the sun is tenuous. But the atmosphere is thin and tenuous too. Depending upon the pressure of the solar wind the atmosphere slips a little away from the dayside towards the poles and the nightside. You can see this in photos of the Earth taken in the UV from space.
This is not correct, kind of as wrong as it can be. The solar wind pressure is balanced by the magnetic field of the Earth, about 10 Earth radii out from the surface in the direction of the Sun. The result of this process is called the Magnetosphere that forms a cocoon around the Earth, with a long tail [extended way past the distance to the Moon in the direction away from the Sun. Internal processes within the Magnetospheric tail cause aurorae on the nightside of the Earth, resulting from energy being deposited about 100-200 km up in the form of energetic electrons. These electrons collide with the air, which excites its constituents (molecular nitrogen and atomic oxygen). The excited molecules or atoms soon relax, releasing the energy in the form of light. The UVI satellite detects the ultraviolet portion of the emitted light. Our eyes detect the visible portion [the aurora].
Gary Gulrud (08:40:38) :
“The atmosphere has the effect of damping temperature variations not amplifying them.”
Good stuff, as always, Erl.
what happened to ” a possible multiplier, with giant impact measured in W/m2.”?
It seems to me that that faulty link in Erl’s chain of arguments [as I just pointed out] invalidates the rest, unless I’m told that that link [and potentially others, as well] was not necessary [if so, why was it there?].
Leif,
What I understand is that its 5 to 15 Earth radii. Highly variable.
The photos that I refer to show a lot more than an aurora. They show an excitation of the atmosphere in general, and its distribution is asymmetrical.
How do you explain the March and September maxima at 1hPa? That is the observation we need to work with. The second observation that is critical to the argument is the strong fluctuation in temperature at 200hPa, peaking in March and the third is the variation in OLR.
The peripherals re the aurora etc are irrelevant.
Can we deal with the main thrust of the argument. But, tomorrow. It’s bedtime.
Erl Happ (10:07:52) :
What I understand is that its 5 to 15 Earth radii. Highly variable.
So what? It actually varies from 3 to 60 Re. But that is irrelevant because the atmosphere does slip as you surmise.
The photos that I refer to show a lot more than an aurora. They show an excitation of the atmosphere in general, and its distribution is asymmetrical.
The excitation on the dayside is caused by solar UV and Xray, on the nightside by the aurorae [and precipitating particles from the tail in general]
How do you explain the March and September maxima at 1hPa?
Geomagnetic activity [and therefore aurorae] peaks in March and September [as I have explained to you numerous times] and has nothing to do with UV. UV peaks in January when we are closest to the Sun..
The part that tends to be eroded is the atmosphere above the equator where the pressure of radiation is greatest.
No, there is no erosion of the atmosphere above Equator due to the solar wind.
So, it seems to me that your arguments do not hang together. If you seek to explain everything you often end up explaining nothing.
You do a disservice to other readers by pretending that you understand the physics:
QED The sun drives ENSO.[…]
That is the big picture of how the sun drives temperature change on Earth.
moderator :
Geomagnetic activity [and therefore aurorae] peaks in March and September [as I have explained to you numerous times] and has nothing to do with UV. UV peaks in January when we are closest to the Sun..
should not be in italics, please. Move the less than / i greater than up before this sentence.
Leif:
‘does slip’…..or ‘does not slip’.
I repeat my question. How do you explain the maxima at 1hPa in March and September. If you look at the data you will see the September maximum beginning to influence the data at 30hPa. Mostly the March maximum is dominant but sometimes the September maximum is stronger.
I am not saying that UV peaks in March and September. I am saying that the penetration of UV has a seasonal peak in March and September. UV does not need to change if the atmosphere changes in such a way as to allow an invariable level of UV to penetrate a little further at this time. I use UV in the sense of all short wave radiation. It is manifestly short wave radiation that is ‘largely responsible’ for temperature peaks above 30hPa where ozone is at a maximum. You agree when you say: “The excitation on the dayside is caused by solar UV and Xray”. OLR from the Earth is responsible for the August maximum in the stratosphere from 100hPa to 30hPa. So, it too plays a part.
I reckon I am doing the readers a service. The gorilla in the room is ENSO. Our GW friends acknowledge that it very much influences temperatures around the globe but they insist that it is due to an ‘internal oscillation’. I reckon that they need to familiarize themselves with the way a pendulum moves and then go have another look at ENSO. ENSO is the Pacific manifestation of a warming event that involves the entire tropics. It is not ‘teleconnected’ to changes in weather elsewhere. That is fairies in the bottom of the garden stuff.
Just click through the data seen at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt1.shtml
The dynamics are presented as if it were just the Pacific. In truth when you go to the trouble of compiling the data across all areas from Greenwich to 180° in each direction the same relationships appear.
How does the level of global OLR systematically increase from 1948 onwards without a fall in albedo? It is a fall in albedo that has caused the energy gain in the tropics that feeds into high latitude temperatures. That fall in albedo is strongly related to temperatures at 200hPa. The link above will also show relationships between the SOI and temperatures at 200hPa.
There is a fundamental disconnect between temperatures at 200hPa and temperatures at the surface. At 200hPa there is slightly more than half the ozone content that there is at 100hPa and sufficient water vapour to form cloud. Cirrus clouds have been observed up to 100hPa and into the stratosphere.
For the dynamics of cloud variation over the recharge areas for tropical warming events see: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~baum/CloudPressure/CloudPressure.html
The recharge areas are humidity deficient because they are in the rain shadow of the continents in the trade wind zone and their waters are very cold. The waters are cold because of the ocean circulation. There are none colder than the waters that trend northwards off the South American coastline. The Andes are tall mountains. Its a very simple story really.