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.
Geoff Sharp (21:34:47) :
I was stating the LIA had some of deepest and most prolonged grand minima of the Holocene (which cant be argued against).
No, you were categorically stating that it was the deepest of all, not just of ‘some’. And there were even deeper ones when it was not cold:
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
Leif Svalgaard (21:56:38) :
The 14C (INTCAL98) records certainly suggest the LIA was the longest and deepest. You can split hairs like you always end up doing, but it is not strengthening your argument.
the LIA had some of deepest and most prolonged grand minima of the Holocene (which cant be argued against).
Of course if was cold.
Geoff Sharp (22:03:23) :
The 14C (INTCAL98) records certainly suggest the LIA was the longest and deepest.
Not at all, if you’d care to examine:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf
or
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
The deepest are marked at the upper edge of the TSI graph at the bottom. Not how warm the deepest of those were.
Leif Svalgaard (22:08:58) :
So you ARE arguing with Solanki and Usoskin….lets just leave it at that. Conversation is pointless, but I will continue to point out where you are leading us astray.
Leif Svalgaard (12:39:43)
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.
The knowledge about how aerosols are put together and aggregated into bigger aerosols is limited. Pierce & Adams make assumptions about the microphysics of aerosols in accordance with present scientific findings, but due to the uncertainty I think there are two alternative conclusions to draw from their results: GCRs have no effect on clouds or The reason that we see no effect of GCRs on clouds in Pierce & Adams model could be a result of their initial assumptions being wrong.
A couple of months ago Svensmark published a paper on Forbush decreases. His conclusion is that during these events GCRs have a considerable effect on low clouds and this seems to contradict Pierce & Adams findings. So which one should we go with? The model of Pierce & Adams or the measurements of Svensmark?
Geoff, if you mean a collective “us” I will have to disagree about being led astray.
Pamela Gray (23:22:55) :
Geoff, if you mean a collective “us” I will have to disagree about being led astray.
I am sure I am not the only one here that think the Sun plays an important role in our climate.
@Leif Svalgaard
In the german wikipedia they say this:
“Das Spörerminimum (nach dem deutschen Astronom Gustav Spörer) ist eine Periode besonders geringer solarer Aktivität im Zeitraum zwischen 1420 und 1570 mit einem Schwerpunkt zwischen 1420 und 1550. Da der Zeitraum vor der Beobachtung von Sonnenflecken liegt, lässt sich das Minimum nur indirekt durch den C13 Gehalt in Baumringen dieser Periode nachweisen. Die Periode ging mit einem besonders kühlen Erdklima einher, wie beim Maunderminimum.”
That means, that the temperature minima of the LIA correlate with the minima of the activity of the sun.
A similar paper can be found here for the alps for the whole holocene :
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf
„Noch spannender wird die Geschichte, wenn die von den Proben bestimmten Alter mit der 14C-Produktionsrate verglichen werden: Die Proben folgen auf Zeitabschnitte mit reduzierter 14C-Produktion in der Atmosphäre.Da die 14C-Produktion zu einem grossen Teil von der Sonnenaktivität abhängig ist – starke Sonnenaktivität bedeutet starkes Erdmagnetfeld und daraus folgernd schwache 14C-Produktion –, entsprechen offenbar die bestimmten «Holz- und Torfphasen » der Alpengletscher Zeiten mit einer bestimmten Sonnenaktivität.“
All the glacier retreats during the holocene correlate with low C14-production.
and we must not forget this:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060725/20060725_08.html
“four glacial advances occurred between AD 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar-activity minima,” (for the tropical Andes).
All these scientists speak about a sun-climate link. Isn’t that to much a coincidence?
Best regards and have a noce day
Eddy
It is interesting that Svensmark rates high enough to be tested by the LHC.
Bengt A (23:21:11) :
So which one should we go with? The model of Pierce & Adams or the measurements of Svensmark?
Other people looking at Forbush Decreases find no such effect, e.g. Sloan and Wolfendale.
David Ball (01:35:11) :
It is interesting that Svensmark rates high enough to be tested by the LHC.
Not at all. Svensmark is only using some vacant facility there.
Edouard (01:00:59) :
All these scientists speak about a sun-climate link. Isn’t that too much a coincidence?
Good for funding purposes.
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
compares solar activity [bottom] and global temperatures [top] the past 2000 years. As should be obvious there is no correlation between the two. You can find dips that coincide and dips that do not. An example of the latter is the two hundred year period centered on 660 AD where solar activity was even lower than during the Spoerer minimum, but it was warmer than today.
Geoff Sharp (23:47:15) :
I am sure I am not the only one here that think the Sun plays an important role in our climate.
What a crock.
David Ball (01:35:11) :
It is interesting that Svensmark rates high enough to be tested by the LHC.
Indeed, and we won’t resolve the different opinions voiced here until they get some LHC results to help prove disprove Svensmark.
I would like to say a big than you to Lief for his comments! I feel I continue to learn a huge amount from his contributions and I deeply respect that people can have a discourse here and yet still respect different individual positions on an issue.
This kind of healthy discussion is science.
“Consensus” is NOT science.
Jeremy (07:13:24) :
“Consensus” is NOT science.
But Consilience is. But that I mean that scientists by various methods and various data can eventually come to a ‘general agreement’ about a subject. There is, of course, no guarantee that that agreement reflects actuality, but it is a statement of ‘the best we can do with what we have got’. Purveyors of pseudo-science like to point to cases in the past where the ‘general agreement’ was wrong as an argument for the notions that any harebrained scheme will eventually be vindicated. This blog [and others] teems with examples of that.
@Leif Svalgaard
Thank you very much for taking your time to answer our questions. At least I know what you say an mean exactly! 😉
I still don’t know if there is any mechanism that links the activity of the sun to “local” climate (in Europe for example).
Maybe also that other strong climate mechanisms overway the influence of the sun sometimes, or maybe its just pure coincidence!
The scientist Schlüchter also says this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144535.htm
“Southern Glaciers Grow Out Of Step With North”
Maybe he doesn’t need any more funding?! 😉
Thank you again 🙂
Eddy
Leif Svalgaard (06:51:59)
Other people looking at Forbush Decreases find no such effect, e.g. Sloan and Wolfendale.
No, I know. Sloan & Wolfendale didn’t find anything. Neither did Kristijansson (or almost nothing). But Svensmark did and that’s because he used a different methodology, e.g. he used the AERONET network for tracing aerosols. In my opinion this is a strong paper giving some real evidence for GCRs affecting aerosols and clouds. There’s nothing about correlations or sunspots or proxies or climate models or other ‘hot topics’ within this climate change debate. Just plain measurement data. And of course the conclusion, something that would be obvious for anyone looking at the plotted data, that GCRs affect clouds.
I have not seen much critic on the internet other than ‘Slon & Wolfendale didn’t find anything’ or ‘Kristijansson didn’t find anything’. Maybe I am asking for too much, but it would be interesting to read a critical analysis of this very paper. What is wrong with Svensmarks Forbush paper?
Svensmarks paper: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf
Bengt A (09:44:43) :
What is wrong with Svensmarks Forbush paper?
That was discussed on WUWT a while ago [August?]
Lucy Skywalker (03:34:15) “Paul Vaughan, I’d love to see a post by you here.”
Lucy, you might like figures 90-93 (pp.55-56) here:
Semi, P.A. (2009). Orbital resonance and solar cycles.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.5009.pdf
Thanks to Geoff Sharp & G.E. Pease for drawing my attention to this article. I ran a time-normalized wavelet-power analysis yesterday and it was a cinch to see that Uranus periodically interrupts power at the Jupiter-Neptune frequency to produce the 11.1 year pattern that is visually evident in Earth-Moon-system angular momentum with respect to the center of the Sun.
For anyone who is handy with the Helmholtz acoustic equation, this is simply U-(N-J):
(11.86630899)*(164.888325) / (164.888325 – 11.86630899) = 12.78649873
(12.78649873)*(84.05119028) / (84.05119028 + 12.78649873) = 11.0981628
[in years]
Note that this is equivalent to J-(N-U), which I have already addressed here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm
People relying on traditional FFT analysis (& even those relying on non-time-normalized wavelet-power analysis) could easily miss the obvious.
Anyone handy with acoustics will see the connection with the following:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/absaayoy1111.1111.png
Some clues are provided here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm
[There’s one loose end related to nutation that I haven’t gotten around to yet.]
I again ask that people not misrepresent my work; it is true that I investigate synchrony. (People might find it amusing to see some of the e-mails I’ve received – my response generally goes like this: “I have made no such claim.”)
Leif Svalgaard (18:37:00) :
http://www.tau.ac.il/institutes/advanced/cosmic/Conferences/2002_COSPAR_Houston/CosmRays_WheatPrice1.pdf
See figure 2, and related discussion. Also, I already gave a link above. Here it is again.
http://static.icr.org/i/articles/af/figure_2.jpg
see also here, where it’s figure 3.
http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/1105389911/1113511992_en/
(same figure, but with whole paper)
And clouds are inversely related to the solar cycle, in that when TSI is max, CRF, which is attenuated by solar wind, decreases. When solar wind is weak, CRF increases, and so do clouds, at least according to the data in the links above and below. It remains to elucidate the mechanism, or to disprove the apparent connection, but until then there’s sufficient reason to believe one exists. CERN is taking it seriously.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
As I said in another comment, if you can provide a better explanation, I’m all ears, as I’m sure these folks at NASA would be, as well.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf
(NOTE – those guys also invoke the geomagnetic field, which ties it back in with the the initial topic of the thread.)
One final comment. A “proof” based on the business model.
The first stage is determining if there is a market, which, in the case of CRF and clouds, is equivalent to determining if there is a likely connection by showing correlation. That having been done, the company moves on to the next phase of bringing the product to that market, a much more expensive task, and a waste if there is no market.
In the case of CERN, they are investing in the next phase, looking for a specific mechanism for the process. There would be no point if they didn’t already believe there was a connection.
“The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists.”
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
That’s expensive and time consuming. You don’t spend a lot of money and time looking for a mechanism for a process for which there is no evidence, and in which you don’t believe.
As you well know, scientists and engineers don’t like wasting time or resources, especially when resources are limited and their careers depend on constantly focusing on what they think will be most important.
If the correlation didn’t exist, and wasn’t compelling, they wouldn’t be doing those experiments.
Heads In The Clouds, Or Down To Earth Science?
Here’s what they are looking for.
Paul Vaughan (10:42:33)
U-(N-J):
(11.86630899)*(164.888325) / (164.888325 – 11.86630899) = 12.78649873
(12.78649873)*(84.05119028) / (84.05119028 + 12.78649873) = 11.0981628
[in years]
Note that this is equivalent to J-(N-U)
Pure gold. Thank you.
Leif Svalgaard (18:04:14) :
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
Seems like the data in the graph has been detrended (5th°Poly), and clipped from detrending. Curious data…
yonason (11:27:42) :
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
You were claiming this was an LHC experiment, but in the left side bar it explicitly says that it is not an LHC experiment, which is what I pointed out.
The money for CLOUD does not come from CERN or LHC, but from other institutions.
That’s expensive and time consuming. You don’t spend a lot of money and time looking for a mechanism for a process for which there is no evidence, and in which you don’t believe.
Do you know how many billions are spent on the AGW boondoggle?
ET (13:41:16) :
Leif Svalgaard (18:04:14) :
Seems like the data in the graph has been detrended (5th°Poly), and clipped from detrending. Curious data…
One has to do this as the background varies in different ways, so cannot be related to solar activity and has to be removed. Not curious, important.
tallbloke (13:15:54) :
Paul Vaughan (10:42:33)
“Note that this is equivalent to J-(N-U)”
Pure gold. Thank you.
Pure cyclomania.
Clarification:
The observation is empirical, based on NASA Horizons output.
Paul Vaughan (15:44:22) :
The observation is empirical, based on NASA Horizons output.
The cyclomania is not in analyzing the cycles [we know the planets cycle], but in ascribing physical significance to these [which I know you don’t, so my comment was not directed at you].