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.
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].
Once again another emerging area of science, and there just maybe a physical link in the making, has the missing AM been found?
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79
Geoff Sharp (20:08:26) :
Once again another emerging area of science, and there just maybe a physical link in the making, has the missing AM been found?
since there is no missing AM [as we have shown you repeatedly] this is an emerging area of pseudo-science [although it has old roots].
Geoff Sharp (20:08:26) ” http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79 “
Here’s a suggestion Geoff: Using the wiggle-matching technique you describe, compare your “planet” curve here …
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sun_planet_am.png
…with Sun_SSB distance (instead of with Sun_SSB AM). [You’ll get a better shape match – could become one of the clues you’re looking for, in the mystery you’re building for us…]
Cheers,
Paul.
Paul Vaughan (00:19:27) :
Geoff Sharp (20:08:26) ” http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79 “
Here’s a suggestion Geoff: Using the wiggle-matching technique you describe, compare your “planet” curve here …
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sun_planet_am.png
…with Sun_SSB distance (instead of with Sun_SSB AM). [You’ll get a better shape match – could become one of the clues you’re looking for, in the mystery you’re building for us…]
Cheers,
Paul.
I noticed the same shaped curves as well…I have compared them and the difference is still there. Difference is good.
Leif Svalgaard (09:48:20)
What is wrong with Svensmarks Forbush paper?
That was discussed on WUWT a while ago [August?]
In that thread from august I find two objections (Maybe this isn’t the place to continue that discussion, anyway here I go): 1. You seem to think that Svensmark used an invalid method to select Forbush events. 2. You seem to think that there a too few events in the analysis.
Regarding number 1. The events were ranked according to the level of ionization of the lower atmosphere. I don’t see what’s wrong with that? Would GCRs count be a better method of selection or how are you supposed to do this?
Regarding number 2. There are not that many events to analyze to start with and the Aeronet network has taken measurements only from 1998 onwards. In other scientific areas it is a valid method to look at strongest events while studying a phenomenon, e.g. you can study the strongest earthquakes, strongest hurricanes, strongest meteorite impacts etc. Why isn’t it OK to analyze the five strongest Forbush decreases?
Bengt A (04:57:42) :
Regarding number 1. The events were ranked according to the level of ionization of the lower atmosphere.
A Forbush decrease is a DECREASE of the cosmic ray intensity, so one should select according to the lowest ionization, no?
Leif Svalgaard (07:54:06)
Yes, of course. Maybe I was a bit unclear, but that was what I tried to say. I don’t have access to the on line material for this article so I don’t know exactly how they did this. I hope they have looked for the lowest level of ionization and ranked that event the highest. Otherwise it makes no sense!
Sorry to be going on about this, but I think this is Svensmarks strongest paper (for some of you maybe that doesn’t count for much). That’s why I am keen to understand the detailed critique.
Bengt A (09:17:05) :
I hope they have looked for the lowest level of ionization and ranked that event the highest. Otherwise it makes no sense!
they did not. Anyway, the statistics is too poor for any firm conclusions. The strongest argument against the cosmic ray idea is that temperatures the past 60 years [since we have good GCR measurements] simply do not correlate with the GCR flux.
If they did, we would not have this discussion.
Is Motl talking about the same paper?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/forbush-events-confirm-cosmoclimatology.html
“An independent set of measurements has also shown that the amount of aerosols, i.e. potential nuclei of the new clouds, also decreases. All these “strength vs decrease” graphs display a lot of noise but the negative slopes are almost always significant at the 95% level (with one dataset being an exception, at 92%, which is still higher than the official IPCC confidence level that climate change is mostly man-made).”
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:42)
So I’ve read Svensmarks article once more and found this (my bold). Clearly says that they picked decrease/minimum ionization. (Still would like to know if there is a possibility to access the on line material for a non-subscriber?) :
Table 1 lists the strongest FDs, 1987-2007. The first and second columns give the numerical order and the dates of the Forbush minima in the daily averaged GCRs . The third column is the strength of the FD, defined by the change in the ionization at the minimum, relative to a base period 14 days before the minimum. The value of the ionization decrease is normalized to be relative to the variation in ionization during the solar cycle at a latitude of 45 deg. On average the solar cycle variation in GCR ionization is 10 -15 % below 6 km altitude [Bazilevskaya et al., 2008].
I understand your argument about a lack of correlation, but in my opinion this paper shows a cause and effect relation between GCRs and clouds whether or not we find correlations to climate/temperature. Maybe this effect is of minor importance, nevertheless it’s observable and thus need to be investigated.
Bengt A (13:34:43) :
in my opinion this paper shows a cause and effect relation between GCRs and clouds
It shows at best a correlation. What weakens the argument for cause/effect is the lag between cause and effect. The causal link would be expected to be immediate, not delayed for days.
OK. Thanks for the discussion!
One last note:
Sunspot number may appear to be the “better” variable for some purposes, but aa is “better” for comparisons with a variety of terrestrial variables at interannual timescales.
I wonder what South Africa’s indefatigable hydrologist Will Alexander thinks of this? He’s worked on sunspots and South African river flows for perhaps forty years, and predicts a severe drought for the period 2009-20016.
See http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/