An interesting tidbit from the Australian Antarctic Division (h/t to Trevor Gunter)
Scientists have long searched for linkages between solar variability and weather. The sun varies on a wide-range of time scales, most dramatically on an ~11 year cycle which is strongly associated with the number and extent of sunspots on the sun and the occurrence of aurora at high latitudes. While correlations of weather and solar variability have been reported, often-times to disappear when further measurements become available, no viable mechanism for the strongest associations has been confirmed. One difficulty is that the variable solar energy, despite sunspots and aurora being spectacular, is but a small fraction of 1% of the total solar energy. Any mechanism for changing weather and climate by solar variability must involve influencing the distribution of the energy within the weather system. One possible mechanism is via the Earth’s geoelectric field.
Thunderclouds separate electric charge with positive charges accumulating in the upper reaches of the cloud and negative charges near its base. The lightning generated drags current from the Earth and, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is easier for this current to return to the Earth in a less dramatic fashion via the 99% of the Earth not covered by thunderstorms at any particular time. Currents preferentially travel along lines of least resistance. At altitudes above ~90 km, the Earth’s atmosphere contains a sufficient density of free electrons for a global equipotential to be largely maintained. The Earth’s surface is another global equipotential. Conductivity in the region of the atmosphere between these boundaries generally increases with altitude, and is dominantly maintained by ionising radiation from cosmic rays. The variation in conductivity in the atmosphere is such that the path of least resistance at an altitude greater than ~5 km is via the ionosphere, where it may spread globally and return to ground via the global ‘fair-weather’ field.
Global thunderstorms maintain the lowest reaches of the ionosphere at a potential of ~250 kV with respect to the ground. This results in a very weak atmospheric current (3 pico-amps per meter squared) toward the Earth in the fair-weather regions of the globe, and near the ground maintains a substantive vertical electric field of some 100 volts per meter. Cosmic ray ionisation, the magnitude of which can be controlled by solar activity via the solar wind, modulates the resistance of this global electric circuit in which thunderstorms are the generators. By controlling the ease with thunderstorms can dissipate current it is feasible that solar activity may modulate the intensity of thunderstorm development, thus modulating the distribution of energy within the meteorological system.
High, dry regions with no thunderstorms, such as the Antarctic plateau, are ideal for monitoring the global geoelectric circuit. Additional solar influences on the geoelectric field occur at high latitudes, via the same processes that generate the aurora. In conjunction with Russian and American colleagues, we presently measure the geoelectric field at the Russian station, Vostok, on the Antarctic plateau. We have shown that solar variability can influence the geoelectric field measured at ground level in polar regions, and are continuing to develop research instrumentation and methods of testing the viability of a solar variability influence on weather and climate through modulation of the geoelectric circuit.
For more information, email: sas@aad.gov.au
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have posted this video before when something in the ballpark of this topic comes up. It’s a simple introduction :
Smokey (19:30:33)
“a jones, I look forward to your post.”
I look forward to the post too.
Even if the paper is garbage as some claim, it is a signal that conveys information about pockets of society.
Rooted amongst the very deepest of human instincts is a fundamental value that transcends whatever message “climate science” is trying to hammer:
People will choose freedom over slavery any day.
(maybe even if it is “reason” that is trying to enslave them)
Paul Vaughan (15:52:33) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:16:39)
My theory was that Leif Svalgaard would rush to Pamela Gray’s defense since Pamela Gray appears to have adopted Leif Svalgaard’s “consensus” view without question.
Your catching on Paul.
I would like hear Leif’s account of how much CO2 is affecting world temps. His past statements to the press would suggest quite a bit?
Leif Svalgaard (18:59:07) :
Joel Shore (18:44:24) :
“I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T
Hear, hear.”
ROTFLMAO
Well, Ok. If doing so removes one still further from either of you two, then perhaps it is good advice. LOL
Paul Vaughan (22:24:03) :
“[…] a remarkable consensus is now emerging […]“
It’s not everyday I see a paper announced as a “Consensus” – beginning with the very first word in it’s title.
This is not about climate, only that the previously disparate estimates of the Sun’s magnetic field field in the past are converging towards a consensus of the people involved. Nothing wrong with that. Good, actually.
Geoff Sharp (04:21:01) :
I would like hear Leif’s account of how much CO2 is affecting world temps. His past statements to the press would suggest quite a bit?
I would estimate a few tenths of a degree at the most.
gary gulrud (05:07:23) :
Well, Ok. If doing so removes one still further from either of you two
wish you would remove yourself completely, as you bring nothing to the table.
Leif Svalgaard (19:54:17) :
Robert Bateman (19:47:30) :
So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
Pretty much. Except that ‘measurable’ is too fuzzy. I would say they are in principle measurable [and there are claims that they have been measured, e.g. a 0.1K influence of TSI], but difficult to ‘discern’ over the naturally occurring noise and stochastic’cycles’ as any complex phenomenon exhibits.
Saved in “My documents”. Thanks Robert for outing Leif :~D.
Gerry (10:14:23) :
Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.” You need to also read this:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Svensmark_FriisChtr-Reply%20to%20Lockwood.pdf
Gerry,
No it has not, don’t trust Wikipedia because it is run by warmists.
Svensmark has replied to the claims from Lockwood.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/10/svensmark-and-friis-christensen-reply.html
If Wikipedia would have been a “neutral, unbiased collection of data”, these publications would have been added to the subject.
Svensmark claim is currently investigated by CERN but problems with the gigantic magnets of the super collider have caused for a delay.
Also other scienists like Nir Sharviv have problems with Lockwood (and Frölich)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
Ron de Haan (09:37:14) :
Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.”
It is human nature to believe what they want to believe no matter what the data shows. To wit: flat-earthers, astrology, AGW, GCRs, etc.
Leif Svalgaard (14:54:47) :
Ron de Haan (13:27:08) :
If you quote me, please make a correct quote, I stated NO measurable effect.
We can measure temperatures to a very small fraction of a degree, like 0.001 K or better. So if the effect was 0.002 K it would be measurable. You do not really mean ‘measurable’. You meant ‘discernible’ which means that if the CO2 had a 0.5 degree effect that can easily be measured], but was buried in 2 degrees [say] of natural ‘noise’, then one could say ‘not discernible’, but certainly measurable. When I said ‘NO effect’ I meant ‘NO measurable effect’, with the implicit assumption [which is always there – stated or not] that anything that is smaller than we can measure [as limited by our instruments] is NO effect.
Leif,
Thank you for this explanation.
I will adapt my reply:
The science about the influence of CO2 on earth temperatures is not settled.
If CO2 would be a driver of earth temperatures we would have seen an increase of temperatures related to the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels.
This is not the case. As CO2 levels (still) rise, temperatures are going down.
One of the problems is that we currently fail to determine the exact effect of the total CO2 budget on earth temperatures, because it’s signal is “buried”in the two degree of “Natural Noise”.
So, if we can not determine the effect of the total flux of CO2 on earth temperatures, how can we conclude that Anthropogenic CO2, which is according to Professor Emiritus Jan Veizer less than 5% of the total CO2 flux, be responsible for the melting of glaciers, the Greenland Ice Cap, the Arctic Sea Ice and the Antarctica Icecap?
The answer is, we can’t and as time goes by it will become clear that the entire AGW doctrine has been based on a hoax and it will also become clear that CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25376454-5013479,00.html
Leif Svalgaard (09:48:16) :
Ron de Haan (09:37:14) :
Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.”
It is human nature to believe what they want to believe no matter what the data shows. To wit: flat-earthers, astrology, AGW, GCRs, etc.
Leif,
Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.
Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.
Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.
Fair enough. Except that proponents don’t seem to wait. And even if the SKY experiment turns out to work, does not mean that it works in the real atmosphere; so far the albedo measurements show that albedo does not track the solar cycle, so perhaps yet another mediator must be postulated. In the lab, I can get CO2 to absorb infrared light, does that prove AGW?
Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.
Do I get a Nobel Prize too? 🙂
Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
I don’t think that CERN is undertaking this experiment. Rather Svensmark is piggy-backing on some of CERN’s facilities.
Some of my wilder ideas are done at Stanford, this does not mean that Stanford is undertaking an attempt to further my wild ideas, just that Stanford supports a certain level of academic freedom.
peter_ga (18:57:55) :
Although I am reasonably skeptical, I find all these attacks on the greenhouse effect to be fairly unscientific. There is no doubt that greenhouses work by inhibiting convection.
peter_ga
I always have thought that convection was stopped by inversion, not by a “greenhouse”.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49)
FYI: I found the use of the word “Consensus” in the title a little arrogant & over-bearing. I literally nearly spit involuntarily on the screen the second I saw it as the very first (not at all suggestive(?)) word of the title of the paper.
There may very well be a consensus emerging, but the paper is posted for public viewing by people who are very far removed from it (so the word “sheeple” comes to mind).
To be clear: I respect your scientific contributions.
Leif Svalgaard (10:53:07) :
Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.
Do I get a Nobel Prize too? 🙂
Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
I don’t think that CERN is undertaking this experiment. Rather Svensmark is piggy-backing on some of CERN’s facilities.
Some of my wilder ideas are done at Stanford, this does not mean that Stanford is undertaking an attempt to further my wild ideas, just that Stanford supports a certain level of academic freedom.
Leif,
I really think you should earn a Noble Prize, only for replying to all the posters here at WUWT. On the other hand if I were you, I would be glad not to have one because the community of Nobel Prize winners like Gore, Crutzen and Steven Chu make up quite a bunch of loonies.
I can not judge if Svensmark is piggybacking on CERN Facilities or not.
I’m not an insider.
But I certainly support the concept that any theory, no matter how wild, that could lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms that make this world tick should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.
Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49) responding to gary gulrud (05:07:23)
“wish you would remove yourself completely, as you bring nothing to the table.”
I’m going to be forthright:
No matter what Leif Svalgaard’s status – & value to the community – comments like this should not get through.
Leif, WUWT Policy states:
“Everyone who visits here is welcome to post”
Who has a monopoly on multi-faceted concerns about the multi-dimensional climate controversy?
One of the features I advertise most about this site in promoting it to others is the mix of participants (something which engenders broad appeal). I only wish the conduct was more decent & respectful.
I think there may be some misunderstanding of Leif’s position as I see it.
He is clearly not supportive of AGW and, irritatingly to some (including me sometimes) neither is he supportive of any other ideas that cannot yet be proved.
His purpose is in applying scientific rigour to woolly and speculative concepts and that is fine because it tests one’s opinions very effectively.
However the fact is that the science is indeed unsettled so speculation and judgement whether woolly or not is essential to give a direction to the research we need to get nearer the truth.
Those of us who are trying our best to sort scientific wheat from chaff are helped rather than hindered by Leif’s useful scientific challenges.
I don’t agree with Leif’s persistent negativism but he is entitled to apply it even if both he and those who receive the benefit of his comments occasionally become a little uncivil.
This board is a model of civility compared to others.
Paul Vaughan (14:13:11) :
No matter what Leif Svalgaard’s status – & value to the community – comments like this should not get through
I agree, but so should also not the posting to which this was a reaction [a posting you were not forthright to quote]. I hope that Gary has picked up his sorry a** after having laughed it off, as I did not wish him any bodily harm 🙂
By allowing such statements, the moderators wisely give the offenders [appearing so puerile and ridiculous] enough rope to hang themselves by. Your self-righteous complaining, on the other hand, serves little purpose and bring even less to the table.
Stephen Wilde (15:39:44) :
I don’t agree with Leif’s persistent negativism
I might comment on this. I’m a very positive person, well conditioned to accept wild and far-out ideas [quoting Niels Bohr commenting on somebody’s theory: ‘his ideas were not wild enough to be true’] as some of mine are too [as people keep telling me]. I’m only objecting to what ideas, correlations, ‘theories’, etc, that I see as either unfounded [e.g. statistically insignificant], overstated, or violating physical laws [as I know them]. That that comes across as ‘persistent negativism’ may be a comment on the quality of most such…
Not all ideas deserve ‘equal time’. Examples: ‘evolution’ vs. ‘creationism’, ‘young Earth’ vs. ‘geological time scale’, ‘neutron stars at the center of a iron Sun’ vs. ‘helioseismic evidence and direct neutrino measurements’, ‘electrical currents coursing through the Universe’ vs. ‘known plasma physics’, ‘spin-orbit angular momentum coupling’ vs. ‘Standard celestial mechanics guiding our spaceships successfully to distant planets’, etc.
Most of these invalid ideas are very dearly held by their proponents and any opposition to them is bound to be met with outrage and hostility as so often displayed here. This is only human, but so be it, and as well as their ideas should get their 15-minutes, so should reasoned debunking of them, without that spilling into 800-comment threads.
Ron de Haan (14:08:18) :
should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.
Most scientists pride themselves of investigating ideas objectively. Problem is that many ideas do not pass an obvious ‘smell test’ and so many scientists do not think it worth their time [and may not have the funding provided by both government and corporations to conduct research of other than what these consider relevant].
Leif Svalgaard (21:00:32) :
Ron de Haan (14:08:18) :
should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.
Most scientists pride themselves of investigating ideas objectively. Problem is that many ideas do not pass an obvious ’smell test’ and so many scientists do not think it worth their time [and may not have the funding provided by both government and corporations to conduct research of other than what these consider relevant].
Leif,
Glad to hear from you that most scientists do perform objective investigation.
But I am worried.
I am worried about those scientists that are not objective and carry ideological hence political agenda’s and I am worried about the increasing influence of Government financing research at the scale announced by the Obama Administration.
I rather see scientists selling their projects in an open market even if project financing is difficult that having to deal with a society that is based on the laws of corporatism which quite accurately describes the current developments.
Ron de Haan (07:35:02) :
I am worried about those scientists that are not objective and carry ideological hence political agenda’s and I am worried about the increasing influence of Government financing research at the scale announced by the Obama Administration.
As far as politics is concerned, scientists are like other people [perhaps a little bit to the left…] with many of the same agendas, etc.
And as far as Governments are concerned, a people [supposedly democratic] has the government they elected and therefore deserve. On the other hand, the US is not a democracy but a republic and US voters are easily manipulated.
“I hope that Gary has picked up his sorry a** after having laughed it off, as I did not wish him any bodily harm :-)”
No harm inflicted, just an wee tad jealous some are funnier unintentionally and unknowingly than I am by design.
Charles spanked me once, that was enough.
gary gulrud (10:25:43) :
“I hope that Gary has picked up his sorry a** after having laughed it off, as I did not wish him any bodily harm :-)”
No harm inflicted, just an wee tad jealous some are funnier unintentionally and unknowingly than I am by design.
The little designer logo [ 🙂 ] was perhaps unknowingly overlooked.
Charles spanked me once, that was enough.
Let us all hope the effect doesn’t wear off too quickly.
Re: Ron de Haan (07:35:02)
Recently when I was shopping around for some new channels of funding I was coming across websites instructing as follows:
“Successful applicants will:
1) demonstrate global warming,
2) demonstrate impacts of global warming, &/or
3) demonstrate projected impacts of global warming.”
Those aren’t the exact words used, but if you filter off the fluff, that’s all there is.
I won’t be surprised if there are soon some waves of funding for natural climate research because a lot is invested in the climate-alarm models and they will need to be tweaked towards reality. If such waves of funding arise, first recipients are likely to be those who served well in the past. (The waves may not be large enough to reach others.)
Orders of magnitude more (not less) research funding is needed to ensure the sustainable defense of civilization; however, …
… The trick is in the channeling of that flow. My experience has been that nasty administrative folks can make a real mess of anything. (I call it “adminabalism” – that’s a combo of administration, ballistic, & cannibalism — as ugly as it sounds – patently unethical.)