Guest post by Dr. Leif Svalgaard
The following abstract of a poster to be presented next month at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union caught my eye:
Session Title: GC11A. Diverse Views From Galileo’s Window: Solar Forcing of Climate Change Posters Chair: Willie Soon, Nicola Scafetta, Richard C Willson
ID# GC11A-0685: Dec 14 8:00 AM – 12:20 PM
Revised Assumptions and a Multidiscipline Approach to a Solar/Climate Connection
C. A. Perry (US Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS, USA).
Abstract:
The effect of solar variability on regional climate is examined using a sequence of physical connections between solar variability , Earth albedo, ocean temperatures, ocean currents (Ocean Conveyor Belt), and atmospheric patterns that affect precipitation and streamflow. The amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and its oceans is thought to be controlled through an interaction between Galactic
Cosmic Rays (GCRs), which are theorized to ionize the atmosphere and increase cloud formation. High (low) GCR flux may promote cloudiness (clear skies) and higher (lower) albedo at the same time that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is lowest (highest) in the solar cycle which in combination creates cooler (warmer) ocean temperature anomalies. These anomalies have been shown to affect atmospheric flow patterns and ultimately precipitation over the Midwestern United States. A study has identified a relation between geomagnetic index aa (GI-AA), and streamflow in the Mississippi River Basin for the period 1878-2004. The GI-AA was used as a proxy for GCRs. There appears to be a solar “fingerprint” that can be seen in hydroclimatic time series in other regions of the world, with each series having a unique lag time between the solar signal and the hydroclimatic response. A progression of increasing lag times can be spatially linked to the ocean conveyor belt, which could transport the solar signal over a time span of several decades. The lag times for any one region vary slightly and may be linked to the fluctuations in the velocity of the ocean conveyor belt.
A graph is attached to the abstract (as seen above):
http://www.leif.org/research/MissGeomagGraphBW.jpg
The poster seems to report on earlier work presented here:
http://ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/
Where the same figure appears.
Now, what is wrong about this graph [and the conclusion, of course] ?
I’ll let you all find out what.
It is an example of three things:
- The desperate need for establishing a Sun-Climate [or is it weather, when on a decadal basis?] causing this kind of sloppy work (the graph contradicts the mechanism given for it)
- The lack of internal quality control by USGS
- The lack of quality control by the conveners of the AGU session.
UPDATE:
Thanks to all the readers who so generously [some gleefully] have pointed out my misinterpretation of the figure. This, of course, makes my initial assessment of the quality control moot and void, with an apology to those involved. Perhaps this shows how important a graph can be [cf. the impact of the Hockey Stick] and how important is clear labeling of what is shown.
UPDATE2:
Since GCRs follow the the sunspot numbers and not the aa-index, the proper parameter to compare with would be the sunspot number. This also allows use of the streamflow data back to the beginning of the series in 1861. The following Figure shows the correlation with this parameter, providing a prediction of the flow to beyond 2040, should the flow indeed be correlated with the sunspot number 34 years earlier.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It appears that his hand slipped as he was drawing the graph 🙂
Easy. Except for the 1930 and 1998 peaks (in which no directional cause may be inferred) it would appear (assuming a causal relationship) that Mississippi flow forces Geomagnetic flux with a 1-3 year lag.
That’s why they call it “The Mighty Mississippi”, I guess.
Something seems to be, in the vernacular, bassackwards.
Why would a higher flux result in greater flow? Wouldn’t that result in fewer cosmic rays, clearer skies, and potentially less flow?
And yeah, why does the graph of flux extend into the future?
Looking at my guest comment, it struck me that an interpretation of the graph could be that the streamflow could be controlled by solar activity three solar cycles earlier. This would make my complaints moot, but that conclusion was so far from my mind that it did not register as a possible one. What say all of you?
Leif, I don’t think the timescales for water transport work:
1600 years? Even if it were a factor of ten shorter for water trasnport it still wouldn’t work. Besides the other issues, I just don’t see how they can suggest a ocean heat transport>evaporation>precipitation mechanism at the timescale they propose (3x solar cycle) – Anthony
Well, Leif, I’ve heard it said that the Mississippi is an old man, thus he has a LOONNGG memory. You never know …
‘course, one might ask if the paper itself posits a 33-year time lag. I’d bet against it.
While the numbers for Geomagnetic flux for 2011, and perhaps 2012, appear to be in already, it appears that the Mississippi stopped flowing somewhere around 2004 or 2005…
I’d say it’s not connected because the Mississippi river flow is controlled by a continuous set of locks and dams along its entire length, not so much by nature.
“Leif Svalgaard (21:33:34) :
Looking at my guest comment, it struck me that an interpretation of the graph could be that the streamflow could be controlled by solar activity three solar cycles earlier. This would make my complaints moot, but that conclusion was so far from my mind that it did not register as a possible one. What say all of you?”
I think this was what was intended. Following the second link you provided, I found the following quote below the graph:
“Comparison of the 36-month moving average of the Mississippi River streamflow and the Geomagnetic Index AA. Streamflow has been lagged 34 years after the Geomagnetic data.”
#1 – the Mississippi River flow shows little overall trend
#2 – the aa index mirrors, falls below and rises above in agreement and contrarian to the river flow. There is no consistency to the relationship, linear or non-linear.
What it says is that climactic zones of the Mississippi River basin are too varied to utilize flow rates as an indicators of continental climate.
There is no way to distinguish competing zones having disparate precipitation from a truly basin-wide average year. GCR levels would be too far ahead in the chain of command even if they were unquestionably first cause.
Kurt (21:45:09) :
>i>“Comparison of the 36-month moving average of the Mississippi River streamflow and the Geomagnetic Index AA. Streamflow has been lagged 34 years after the Geomagnetic data.”
The graph makes it look like the aa is lagging. OK, so I was wrong [given that interpretation – goes to show how careful a graph should be made in order not to make a wrong conclusion easily]. If indeed a 34-yr lag was meant, then the last 34 years of aa would provide a prediction of the streamflow for the next 34 years. THAT would have been an interesting plot.
If you have several thousand years worth of data, like the Nile or the Yangtzee Rivers, and a good proxy for aa, you might be able to find some sort of repeatable sequences. Failing that, compare as many varying river basins for the 1860-present timeframe and see what emerges.
Mark Twain commented on the Mississippi flow years ago. Here is his quote
“In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
I was wrong in calling the work ‘sloppy’. Tricky to interpret, perhaps, and a bit far out: the 3 cycle delay is hard to swallow. Perhaps, that is what makes the paper a breakthrough, of sorts…
I showed it to the cat. As far as I can tell he is laughing.
Of course I cannot be sure of that since I have not done a statistical analysis as to whether he is laughing.
Must get government grant to investigate this further.
Kindest Regards
While the hypothesized causal relationship sounds plausible, I question a 33 or 34 year time scale. Geomagnetic phenomena affect incoming cosmic rays, which affect atmospheric ionization (instantly — there is no time lag). The ionization affects cloud formation, presumably on a time scale of hours to .. perhaps … weeks (that’s probably too long). Cloud formation affects precipitation on a scale of weeks or days (here I’m completely ignoring the chaotic dynamical system, just looking at the direct path of water from evaporate to precipitate). From the event of precipitation one might imagine perhaps a 2 year residency within the Mississippi river system (not including deep lake water that may be considered, for purposes here, fixed and outside consideration). There is very little multi-year snow/ice in the Mississipi basin, so there is no further storage beyond the system of locks and dams mentioned by Mike McMillan above.
At the outside I can imagine sources for up to 3 years of lag between geomagnetic flux changes and affect on Mississippi flow.
I think the hypothesis remains plausible, but that Mississipi flow is too problematic an indicator. Is there not a record of worldwide precipitation that can be obtained or reliably proxied? That would be the right place to look to support or falsify the hypothesis. Too many things can go wrong in a geographically localized proxy such as this.
It takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong.
The author has it backwards: The flow of water in the Mississippi controls the sun.
This, like much here, is way over my head. But here’s a nit I can pick, in Leif’s intro: “at the Fall Meeting of …”
The seasons aren’t capitalized.
I agree with Mark Twain.
Measured at St Louis, you’re just downstream of where the Missouri and Illinois rivers join in, and lest we forget the #%@& up in Chicago reversed the Chicago river in 1900 so their sewage dumps into the Mississippi, rather than polluting their sacred Lake Michigan. Did I leave anything out?
The connection with the oceanic conveyor is laughable. Increasing ‘lag’ times just mean there’s no correlation, and therefore no causation. That doesn’t mean I intend to take off my tinfoil hat, though.
The attempt to correlate a single factor to another in a complex system where any number of factors might dominate at different times?
The graph seems to roughly correlate but it AIN’T LAGGED! OOOPs it kind of undermines their thesis of a multi-decadal delay.
I’ve been working on these interannual-timescale aa index phase-relations with precipitation and other climate indices on-the-side. I am 100% certain there is something to them [that is possibly going to look dead-simple once someone works out some key detail(s)]. I can devise dozens of aa-based variables that show clearly-nonrandom phase-relations and I can get the eras of phase-match to shift around (by working with different timescale-contrasts), but I’ve put the investigations aside for awhile because:
a) it is complex (…so I have to wait for revelation — complex discovery is not easily forced onto a schedule).
b) the research community is not terribly supportive of pioneering that does not [yet] have all the phase-reversals worked-out.
c) funding & opportunity direct focus.
Btw: I’m not convinced that the signals of interest are (entirely) of solar origin. (See the works of Yu.V. Barkin and run comparisons with SOI.) Also, I don’t assume this is about GCRs.
Very interesting. I plan to look into this again in future (hopefully following a revelation).
Roger Knights (22:18:50) :
This, like much here, is way over my head. But here’s a nit I can pick, in Leif’s intro: “at the Fall Meeting of …”
The seasons aren’t capitalized.
Nit pickers are my specialty 🙂
From AGU’s website:
The Fall Meeting is expected to draw a crowd of over 16,000 geophysicists from around the world. …
I do believe that this is a case for Dr. Boli.