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.
Jeremy (22:01:54) :
Svensmark has proposed that it is NOT simply overall cosmic ray flux but HIGH ENERGY cosmic ray flux (the muons that reach the lowest levels in the atmosphere).
The muons are generated by the cosmic rays as they hit the atmosphere.
According to Svensmark, the earth’s magnetic field does not affect the highest energy cosmic rays (it only modulates the weaker kind).
By the same token, the solar wind does not affect the highest energy cosmic rays either.
Edouard (01:54:06) :
I’ve asked you 2 times before, why there is a correlation between climate (glacier stands in the Alps and in the Andes) and the LIA-minima
The global temperatures were low during the LIA [by definition – since the LIA is defined as a time when temperatures were low], but the LIA lasted much longer than the low solar activity that by coincidence was also found at times during the LIA.
According to Svensmark, the earth’s magnetic field does not affect the highest energy cosmic rays (it only modulates the weaker kind).
By the same token, the solar wind does not affect the highest energy cosmic rays either.
Ok let me get this straight, the earth’s magnetic field sits tightly around the earth. The heliosphere goes out around 9 times the distance to Neptune. The heliosphere ,”by the same token”, does not affect high energy cosmic rays from space any more than the localized Earth’s magnetic field does. I find this odd fact quite surprising – are there any papers showing this unusual fact to be the case – or are you simply making an assumption that two independent and unrelated fields behave in exactly the same way when it comes to cosmic rays?
Leif Svalgaard (04:54:21)
“According to Svensmark, the earth’s magnetic field does not affect the highest energy cosmic rays (it only modulates the weaker kind).
By the same token, the solar wind does not affect the highest energy cosmic rays either.”
Doesn’t a stronger solar wind push the heliopause further out into space, thus makes it harder for GCR to reach the earth?
The majority of the water that flows out of the Mississippi River is sourced from the Gulf of Mexico. The clouds that come from the prevailing westerlies, loose most of their rain in Rockies, which sets up the rain shadow band of dry land that ends about 250 miles west of the Mississippi River.
The weather pattern that creates enough rain, that will saturate the ground, and then flow into the rivers that form the river valley, is a slow moving low, that moves across the South, drawing moisture north were it clashes with colder air decending out of Canada.
The larger precip patterns, come from strong sub-tropical highs that set up in the pacific and create a jet stream that buckles over the middle of the lower 48, and create this pattern of rain, that will end up flowing out the Mississippi River.
I can think of several reasons why this would occur on a 34 year pattern, but I don’t yet understand, why there is a 34 year lag. My guess would be the way the Pacific and the Atlantic change phases, and how this area in the Gulf of Mexico can be pushed and pulled by both oceans.
Jeremy (07:08:19) :
Ok let me get this straight, the earth’s magnetic field sits tightly around the earth. The heliosphere goes out around 9 times the distance to Neptune.
Bengt A (07:10:23) :
Doesn’t a stronger solar wind push the heliopause further out into space, thus makes it harder for GCR to reach the earth?
It is not the size of the heliosphere as such that determines the modulation of the GCRs. Within the heliosphere these are knots and bundles and sheets of tangled magnetic fields. Those magnetic inhomogeneities are what scatter GCRs. Charged particles ‘gyrate’ around magnetic fields. The radius of the gyration determine if the field will scatter the rays. If the radius is large enough, the GCR will not ‘see’ the magnetic field irregularity, much as a big truck will not be bothered by a small pothole; the radius depends on the energy of the GCRs and inversely on the magnetic field strength. The Earth’s magnetic field is 100,000 times stronger than the field in the distant heliosphere, so will mean a similar reduction of gyroradius. The highest energy GCRs have very large gyroradii by virtue of their high energy [they are the big trucks]. So, at low energy, both Earth and Sun will modulate GCRs, at the highest energies, neither will. For medium energies, there will a ‘sweet spot’ where the Earth will not, but the sun will. Svensmark argues that ‘his’ GCRs sit right at that sweet spot. This is a weakness of his theory. Furthermore, at higher energies the GCRs become progressively rarer, so another ‘sweet spot’ must be there, namely that just enough GCRs to have effect are present at the first sweet spot. Too many special pleadings like this make the argument weaker.
Jeremy (07:08:19) :
Bengt A (07:10:23) :
Without going into too much technical discussion, a graph often helps. Look at Figure 1 of
http://www.atic.umd.edu/pub/Shikaze.pdf
that shows the change in GCR intensity for minimum year 1997 to maximum year 2000. Note that for low energies there is a clear difference [‘modulation’], but for higher energies the curves come together and there is in the end [at the highest energies, the right hand edge of the graph] no more modulation.
The nonsensical musing about the 34 year lag continues.
A little more to help people see clearly:
It’s not bivariate. [Thank goodness we don’t live in such a simple world.] Think about conditioning variables.
Paul Vaughan (11:36:22) :
The nonsensical musing about the 34 year lag continues.
A little more to help people see clearly:
It’s not bivariate. [Thank goodness we don’t live in such a simple world.] Think about conditioning variables.
The reason people continue is that you give them no help in clearing this up, just general waffle that they can’t relate to.
Leif Svalgaard (09:08:14)
For medium energies, there will be a ’sweet spot’ where the Earth will not, but the sun will. Svensmark argues that ‘his’ GCRs sit right at that sweet spot. This is a weakness of his theory.
I believe that this thing with medium energies is derived from calculations with the CORSICA-program as explained in Svensmarks latest papers. There are convincing arguments for that if GCRs affect low clouds it ought to be mid and high energy GCRs. The highest energies will not be modulated by either geomagnetic or inter planetary fields (as you state) so if there is modulation that leaves us with the mid energy GCRs. We can call this a ‘sweet spot’ but I still don’t see the weakness in this line of argumentation?
Furthermore, at higher energies the GCRs become progressively rarer, so another ’sweet spot’ must be there, namely that just enough GCRs to have effect are present at the first sweet spot. Too many special pleadings like this make the argument weaker.
I don’t understand this part about another sweet spot? To affect low clouds, according to Svensmark, you need CGR in the GeV-range. That is all there is to it. There sure are loads of CGRs in the GeV-range, though not as many as in the lower energies, so that should not be a problem for his theory.
Bengt A (11:50:50) :
There are convincing arguments for that if GCRs affect low clouds it ought to be mid and high energy GCRs.
You have now moved from ‘highest’ to ‘mid’. These also hit the atmosphere at the level of the high clouds.
There sure are loads of CGRs in the GeV-range, though not as many as in the lower energies, so that should not be a problem for his theory.
the issue is whether there are enough. People have modeled this and find that there are not enough to have any effect.
Lief: Too many special pleadings like this make the argument weaker.
Thanks for the reply. I see your argument makes sense… a “special case” tends to weaken the foundation for a hypothesis. So I agree with you. I also appreciate your kindness in educating me with how you came to your conclusions.
However, the BESS paper shows a difference in solar effect on cosmic rays of an order of magnitude (factor of 10) at low energies to a factor of 2 at medium energies and down to a small percentage at higher energies (between what looks like 1% at the very highest and to around 10% at 10 GeV/n).
Far from undermining Svensmark’s theory the data seems to explain very well why the modulations in cloud cover might be very small (a few percent). If all cosmic rays in general were influencing cloud cover then it would indeed be a surprising special case that an order of magnitude (factor of 10) change in GCR’s would have such a small effect (a few percent in cloud cover over humid oceans). However, if only a small proportion of cosmic rays (those with enough energy to reach the appropriate lower altitude levels) are involved then it might be construed as actually encouraging (for Svensmark hypothesis) to see that modulations of a few percent can be expected at higher energies (in line with the necessary small magnitude of the albedo changes from cloud cover that are purported to influence global temperatures).
Of course, although we disagree on the “weakness” of the Svensmark theory, this is all speculative conjecture about a mechanism. Only a proper lab experiment will determine if the relationship between GCR’s and cloud formation at various altitudes (pressure, temp & humidity) is of the precise type needed to make Svensmark theory plausible. This kind of experiment would either strengthen or help throw out Svensmark’s hypothesis. With so much money spent on Climate research (30 billion or more by some estimates), I sincerely hope Svensmark gets the necessary funding to make the requisite experiments.
Jeremy (13:09:02) :
>i>However, the BESS paper shows a difference in solar effect on cosmic rays of an order of magnitude (factor of 10) at low energies to a factor of 2 at medium energies
People have calculated from present knowledge how large the effect might be and fins that it is generally too low:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL037946.pdf
My point is that the evidence is weak, the jury is out, and nothing is settled here. This is, of course, far from the rabid followers of the hypothesis that assume it true because it gives them an argument against AGW.
“People have calculated from present knowledge how large the effect might be and fins that it is generally too low:”
Seems the clouds never got the memo?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/attempt-discredit-cosmic-ray-climate-link-using-computer-model
Leif Svalgaard (13:51:50) :
My point is that the evidence is weak, the jury is out, and nothing is settled here. This is, of course, far from the rabid followers of the hypothesis that assume it true because it gives them an argument against AGW.
And we wouldn’t want that now would we?
It seems Leif is out to bash Nicola Scafetta, Henrik Svensmark and Mike Lockwood among others, and to promote the PMOD TSI of Frolich and the revised line toeing of Judith Lean.
I see battle lines being drawn in the physicists sandpit.
tallbloke (15:58:14) :
It seems Leif is out to bash Nicola Scafetta, Henrik Svensmark and Mike Lockwood among others,
Not Lockwood anymore. He has seen the light and agrees closely with us now, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Convergence.png And we don’t ‘bash’. Scientific disagreement is different from ‘bashing’.
and to promote the PMOD TSI of Frolich and the revised line toeing of Judith Lean.
Froehlich’s PMOD TSI is wrongly calibrated [and he knows it and is in the process of fixing it]. e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20Difference%20PMOD-SORCE.pdf
No battle lines. The way it works is that the wrongs are quietly forgotten [Lockwood is a good example] by everybody, except [at times] by lone holdout by the authors [and they eventually die].
yonason (15:15:51) :
“Seems the clouds never got the memo?”
You can find ANY viewpoint whatsoever on the Internet, even that the Goracle is 110% correct. Reading the Pierce and Adams’s paper I find no flaws with it.
Leif Svalgaard (04:54:21) :
The global temperatures were low during the LIA [by definition – since the LIA is defined as a time when temperatures were low], but the LIA lasted much longer than the low solar activity that by coincidence was also found at times during the LIA.
Not by coincidence, we had 3 of the strongest grand minima in a row all separated by 172 years average. This is the lowest and longest period of solar activity during the 11,000 year Holocene record.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/c14nujs1.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (16:55:40) :
“Reading the Pierce and Adams’s paper I find no flaws with it.”
Nor does the author of the comment I linked to, as his comments show.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/attempt-discredit-cosmic-ray-climate-link-using-computer-model#comment-105
But their paper is a model, and the fact is that clouds do seem to empirically respond to cosmic rays.
Also, here’s 50 years of ocean data that correlte amazingly well with CRF
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
– more empirical evidence that says the models are missing something important.
So, when it comes to a well written theoretical paper and empirical observations that contradict it, I have to side with the data over the calculations, at least until (reliable) contradictory data becomes available.
yonason (17:41:41) :
Also, here’s 50 years of ocean data that correlte amazingly well with CRF
It correlates equally well with TSI.
Geoff Sharp (17:12:09) :
Not by coincidence, we had 3 of the strongest grand minima in a row all separated by 172 years average. This is the lowest and longest period of solar activity during the 11,000 year Holocene record.
Not at all:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf
yonason (17:41:41) :
the fact is that clouds do seem to empirically respond to cosmic rays.
Have a link to that? That clouds correlate with the solar cycle does not show that they correlate with cosmic rays.
Leif Svalgaard (18:04:14) :
Not at all:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf
Are you suggesting the work of Solanki, Usokin and Steinhilber et al is now in question?
To deny the importance and strength of the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder minima is going against most of what recognized science suggests in this field. Perhaps it fits into Leif’s law:
If it doesn’t fit your agenda its pseudo-science.
Geoff Sharp (19:04:16) :
Are you suggesting the work of Solanki, Usokin and Steinhilber et al is now in question?
No, just your interpretation of it, and your false claims.
Just compare solar activity {TSI, SSN, inverse CRF, whatever] with reliable reconstruction of temps:
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
Geoff Sharp (19:04:16) :
Are you suggesting the work of Solanki, Usokin and Steinhilber et al is now in question?
But there is a big question mark about the last 150 years of the series. Much too high. But that is another matter. The major flaw is with your statement not their work.
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:51) :
Geoff Sharp (19:04:16) :
Are you suggesting the work of Solanki, Usokin and Steinhilber et al is now in question?
—————
But there is a big question mark about the last 150 years of the series. Much too high. But that is another matter. The major flaw is with your statement not their work.
Your rambling….the last 150 years are not important, I was stating the LIA had some of deepest and most prolonged grand minima of the Holocene (which cant be argued against).
Of course if was cold.