Geomagnetic Forcing of Earth’s Cloud Cover During 2000-2008?
Guest post by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I’ll admit to being a skeptic when it comes to other skeptics’ opinions on the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate. Oh, it’s all very possible I suppose, but I’ve always said I’ll start believing it when someone shows a quantitative connection between variations in global cloud cover (not temperature) and geomagnetic activity.
Maybe my skepticism is because I never took astronomy in college. Or, maybe it’s because I can’t see or feel cosmic rays. They sound kind of New Age to me. After all, I can see sunlight, and I can feel infrared radiation…but cosmic rays? Some might say, “Well, Roy, you work with satellite microwave data, and you can see or feel those either!” True, but I DO have a microwave oven in my kitchen…where’s your cosmic ray oven?
Now…where was I? Oh, yeah. So, since I’ve been working with 9 years of global reflected sunlight data from the CERES instrument flying on NASA’s Terra satellite, last night I decided to take a look at some data for myself.
The results, I will admit, are at least a little intriguing.
The following plots show detrended time series of monthly running 5-month averages of (top) CERES reflected shortwave deviations from the average seasonal cycle, and (bottom) monthly running geomagnetic Ap index values from the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. As I understand it, the Ap index is believed to be related to the level of cosmic ray activity reaching the Earth. (I will address the reason for detrending below).
Note that there is some similarity between the two plots. If we do a scatterplot of the data (below), we get an average linear relationship of about 0.05 W per sq. meter increase in reflected sunlight per 1 unit decrease in Ap index. This is at least qualitatively consistent with a decrease in solar activity corresponding to an increase in cloud cover.
(I’ve also shown a 2nd order polynomial fit (curved line) in the above plot for those who think they see a nonlinear relationship there.)
But just how big is this linear relationship seen in the above scatterplot? From looking at a 70-year plot of Ap data (originally from David Archibald), we see that the 11-year sunspot cycle modulates the Ap index by at least 10 units. Also, there are fairly routine variations on monthly and seasonal time scales of about 10 Ap units, too (click on image to see full-size):
When the 10 Ap unit variations are multiplied by the 0.05 scale factor, it suggests about a 0.5 W per sq. meter modulation of global reflected sunlight during the 11 year solar cycle (as well as in monthly and yearly variations of geomagnetic activity). I calculate that this is a factor of 10 greater than the change in reflected sunlight that results from the 0.1% modulation of the total solar irradiance during the solar cycle.
At face value, that would mean the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)
Now, returning to the detrending of the data. The trend relationship between CERES reflected sunlight and the Ap index is of the opposite sign to that seen above. This suggests that the trend in geomagnetic activity during 2000-2008 can not explain the trend in global reflected sunlight over the same period of time. However, the ratio of the trends is very small: +0.004 Watts per sq. meter per unit Ap index, rather than -0.045. So, one can always claim that some other natural change in cloud cover is overpowering the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness. With all kinds of climate forcings all mingled in together, it would be reasonable to expect a certain signal to emerge more clearly during some periods, and less clearly during other periods.
I also did lag correlation plots of the data (not shown), and there is no obvious lag in the correlation relationship.
All of this, of course, assumes that the observed relationship during 2000-2008 is not just by chance. There is considerable autocorrelation in the reflected sunlight and geomagnetic data, which I have made even worse by computing monthly running 5-month averages (the correlation strengths increased with averaging time). So, there are relatively few degrees of freedom in the data collected during 2000-2008, which increases the probability of getting a spurious relationship just by chance.
All of the above was done in a few hours, so it is far from definitive. But it IS enough for me to keep an open mind on the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations. As usual, I’m just poking around in the data and trying to learn something…while also stirring up some discussion (to be enjoyed on other blogs) along the way.
UPDATE (12:30 p.m. 10 December 2009)
There is a question on how other solar indices compare to the CERES reflected sunlight measurements. The following lag correlation chart shows a few of them. I’m open to suggestions on what any of it might mean.
Thanks for your attention and patience with a layman. 🙂
“Did you ask yourself why all ‘planets’ polar areas are ….”
Yes, I did in fact. My assumption was: if Im an alien, why we have that polarity in temperatures in that objects?
But in other way I was thinking in the mangetic forces that mantain the solar internal combustion. And I thougth: that is proved in laboratory in earth, for high temperatures and pressures. And its used in some economic process to generate better combustion results. Maybe something happens in more cold objects. Like Earth. As Tenuc is taking in consideration.
Later I was trying to figure how we got that cold in poles and hot in equator. And I was trying to figure how that system works. For me, the air circulation is like a giant thermal pump with subsystems or cells. An the cold in poles arent only an effect of insulation but rather an gigantic pump sucking energy from the poles and sending that hot air to the equatorial area. Something like an object with three poles. One in the equator and others two located near the vortices of the magnetic field of Earth. Or something like that.
Later I was thinking in that post and after reading more I realised that the answer is the Sun and his magnetic activity, that triggers a serie of events, and shows us some correlations because the phenomena starts in the sun and affects muche more thatn we assume. Correlations without causation, but triggered my the same thing: the electromagnetic sun activity.
When I was thinking in that giant thermal pump I realised that others may have the same idea in similar way. As for example, katya Georgieva. So I tried to understand how magnetic fields could be associated with high atmosferic pressures and also the corialis effect induced by changes in our magnetic fields.
The problem to me is that I dont have enouph knowledge to connect all that things. And suspect when some studies are neglected. Maybe are really bad or maybe are ignored. But I allways read it all even if they look not proved. But I cant filter that works as I would like.
But to me, all that makes sense. The sun changes and a lot of things in Earth changes too, because were conected moreto the sun than we assume.
Before that view I dindt have that sense of global mechanism as today. Today Im pretty sure that the sun and his magnetic behaviour is more important than I saw in the climate debate. And the air circulation in the Earth is more like a giantic thermal pump with sub systems, working together. And the magnetic forces are connected somehow with that giantic system, like in the sun, for example. So when that magnetic forces are affected by the sun, the clima changes. In different ways, like the corialis mechanism,or like the differential in high/low pressures and so on. And others effects are in motion too, like vulcanic activity ou even the cosmic rays bombardment.
To me, today, that makes sense. To others maybe not. But to me the magnetic field of earth is more than a shield: he affects the weather and put that gigantic thermal pump in motion. Or at least have some role in the mechanism. Even the coincidence of high pressures with magnetic “anomalies” maybe arent only coincidences. Even the NAO and that differential pressures has some magnetic effects, even in the magnetic solar winds or other solar bombardments to the earth and to our atmosfere.
Maybe Im onlye speculate or assuming an mechanism that isnt real and only a perception of a layman. But that is my real opinion.
Leif Svalgaard (05:55:49) :
On a scientific note, I’d like to find out if any work has been done on quantifying the amount of heating induced in ferromagnetic matter when it is brought into a magnetic field.
I don’t know that it would qualify as science and I certainly didn’t get any quantified data, but I have had the opportunity to participate in quite a number of informal experiments along those lines. Most people probably have also. All you need is any device with an electric motor. All you need do is immobilize the motor shaft and turn on the power and you’ll get rather immediate confirmation of the phenomenon
But, more seriously, your request got me wondering if anyone had ever attempted to model what effect variability in the solar magnetosphere might have on the core temperature of the planet and whether if any changes occurred they would be significant enough to introduce a long term variability in the geothermal contribution to the planetary energy balance.
I’ve always admired your patience in dealing with some of the guff you have to deal with by posting here and I hope you realize there are many who greatly appreciate you appearances here, because, no matter what the topic of the moment is, when you’re involved in the thread there is always an increase in the number of interesting questions to think about. Over the years I’ve been dropping in around here, the comment threads where you have been involved have always been the most educational and productive and I’d like to offer my heartfelt thanks for your efforts here and in your own exemplary work.
Oops, I didn’t scroll far enough up the screen, that was tallbloke’s question I was responding to. But Leif, the last part of my comment still pertains, thanks again for your invaluable work.
PJMM (16:03:34)
I don’t mind reading speculation like this at all PJMM. Or Tenuc’s latest response.
Where does the almost incomprehensible soup mix of interactions begin for you in your endeavor, the magnetopause region or lower? Earth orbits an ever changing density field whether it is solar induced, interstellar inflow driven or both.
Ray (08:22:34) :
This is the largest one I have seen so far:
at/near the South Solar Pole
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/COMP_A_latest.jpg
and the corresponding weaker one at/near the North Solar Pole
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/COMP_B_latest.jpg
Dr. Svelgaard,
Just one more question please. Was the suns’ activity higher in the last half of the 20th as compared to before 1950?
thanx
tallbloke (13:42:11) :
It was aimed at the tendency to ridicule and denigrate the person as a way of dismissing them. I have had this from a lot of the warmist scaremongers too.
Calling your ideas nonsense is not ridiculing you, but simply labeling them as they are. Then what is the definition of nonsense? Nonsense is something that flies in the phase of generally accepted ‘knowledge’, and is therefore subject to change with time. The notion of moving continents was once nonsense [kind of still is as it is not really the continents that move, but the [sea]floor they are sitting on]. The notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old is nonsense, but was not always that as it was once accepted knowledge. The notion that planets influence the Sun [or life in general] is nonsense, but was not always so [even Rudolf Wolf once believed in the theory] and astrology in general was once held in high esteem. In dealing with people believing in nonsense, one does not ridicule them as that only stiffens there resolve. One tries to patiently explain [again and again and again, …] why current wisdom holds that their ideas are nonsense. Such explanations generally have no effect, [or even the opposite effect] to wit: the discussions on this blog, or trying to teach a hardened AGWer the badness of his ways. There is, it seems, nothing more frustrating than someone that is impervious to reason [from both sides] so no wonder that sparks fly at times. Still, that is a poor excuse for your outburst about me ‘behaving like them’ as behavior is not the subject under discussion. So, no attack on you, but a relentless attack on pseudo-science [whoever is spouting it].
DeNihilist (19:17:38) :
Just one more question please. Was the suns’ activity higher in the last half of the 20th as compared to before 1950?
Yes it was [the official sunspot number in the 1st half was 48 and in the 2nd half 73 – but we believe that the official numbers after 1945 are about 20% too high; if you subtract 20%, it is still 58, so yes a tad higher – but not a lot]
DeNihilist (19:17:38) :
Just one more question please. Was the suns’ activity higher in the last half of the 20th as compared to before 1950?
Yes it was [the official sunspot number in the 1st half was 48 and in the 2nd half 73 – but we believe that the official numbers after 1945 are about 20% too high; if you subtract 20%, it is still 58, so yes, a tad higher – but not a lot]
Dear Leif,
Welcome Back, you words of knowledge have been missed in these forums.
What are your current thoughts about our minimum at this point in the cycle. 2009 is close to passing 2008 for lack of sunspots, we have 3 of the top 20 years out of the last 150+ years according to the graphic I saw here yesterday. 2010 has the appearance of being an additionally low rate of production year for sunspots. When is your current estimated peak for this cycle?
Best Regards,
Jack Barnes
Dr. Svelgaard,
” Such explanations generally have no effect, [or even the opposite effect] to wit: the discussions on this blog, or trying to teach a hardened AGWer the badness of his ways. There is, it seems, nothing more frustrating than someone that is impervious to reason [from both sides] so no wonder that sparks fly at times.”
If you think this is bad, you should read the dog training blogs discussing the “Dog Whisperer” Cesar Milan. They make GG look like an afternoon tea between friends!
Thanks for your time sir, you are helping this old plumber find his way through this maze.
Jack in Oregon (20:02:54) :
What are your current thoughts about our minimum at this point in the cycle. 2009 is close to passing 2008 for lack of sunspots, we have 3 of the top 20 years out of the last 150+ years according to the graphic I saw here yesterday.
If solar ‘minimum’ [ill-defined as it is] was in December 2008 it is not surprising that 2008 and 2009 seem to have the same solar activity, as minimum was right between them.
2010 has the appearance of being an additionally low rate of production year for sunspots.
Since 2010 has not rolled around yet, it is hard to say what its production rate is, no?
When is your current estimated peak for this cycle?
A F10.7 radio flux of 123 solar flux units [corresponding to about 72 sunspot number]. There is some evidence that the sunspot number is no longer a good measure of solar activity. I give a talk on that at AGU in SF tomorrow: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Best Regards,
Jack Barnes
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:21) :
Fingers didn’t obyy me.
Jack in Oregon (20:02:54) :
What are your current thoughts about our minimum at this point in the cycle. 2009 is close to passing 2008 for lack of sunspots, we have 3 of the top 20 years out of the last 150+ years according to the graphic I saw here yesterday.
If solar ‘minimum’ [ill-defined as it is] was in December 2008 it is not surprising that 2008 and 2009 seem to have the same solar activity, as minimum was right between them.
2010 has the appearance of being an additionally low rate of production year for sunspots.
Since 2010 has not rolled around yet, it is hard to say what its production rate is, no?
When is your current estimated peak for this cycle?
A F10.7 radio flux of 123 solar flux units [corresponding to about 72 sunspot number]. There is some evidence that the sunspot number is no longer a good measure of solar activity. I give a talk on that at AGU in SF tomorrow: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Thank you, I agree I am being presumptuous, but if we have had a bottom bell curve that includes an 07 in it, I am willing to guess that 2010 is comp to it activity wise. We will see if I am wrong, or lucky next December. Zero obvious skill in making a WAG.
A comment, thank you for the pdf. However it is reading top to bottom but what would be right to left. At least in my adobe acrobat software.
I believe you might need to resave it with all views changed 90 degrees clockwise. That should/will line up the presentation.
Best,
Jack
Jack in Oregon (21:21:40) :
I believe you might need to resave it with all views changed 90 degrees clockwise. That should/will line up the presentation.
Depending on your version you can click on TOOLS or OPTIONS and install the ROTATE clockwise feature…
Has there been much in the way of research into the estimated state of the Sun during an ice age period? Since the earth has been in an ice age more then it has not, over all lately in geological terms. What do the models look like that would put the earth into an ice age historically?
Thanks again,
Jack Barnes
Leif Svalgaard (19:31:38) :
The notion that planets influence the Sun [or life in general] is nonsense, but was not always so [even Rudolf Wolf once believed in the theory] and astrology in general was once held in high esteem.
Nonsense is something that flies in the phase of generally accepted ‘knowledge’, and is therefore subject to change with time.
If I may paraphrase:
Yesterdays highly esteemed theories and generally accepted knowledge are todays nonsense. Today’s generally accepted ‘knowledge’ and highly esteemed theories are tomorrows nonsense.
The wheel turns…
If the rate of change of latitude of Earth’s magnetic poles correlates with changes in Earth’s length of day, which also correlates with the lunar nodal cycle (a correlation which would have been even more precise in the past when the moon was closer to Earth), which also correlates with the motion of the planets and the sun’s variability, then it’s clear that there are harmonic resonances at work in the solar system whatever their as yet undiscovered underlying physical causes are.
To discourage and denigrate the study of these phenomena because yesterday’s astrology is incompatible with today’s generally accepted knowledge is as nonsensical as discouraging the study of epigenetics because Lamarckism was superceded by mendelev.
To dismiss the second order statistical evidence of these harmonic patterns as ‘numerology’ is as nonsensical as discouraging the study of acoustics because the proportional Pythagorean musical scale is no longer used by todays electronic frequency oscillators. The r^2 values are high enough, and the probabilities that the numerical relationships between orbital frequency and orbital distances are down to chance are so vanishingly small, that ignoring them because they don’t fit with other fashionable theories built on todays generally accepted knowledge is in my view profoundly unscientific.
I hope the foregoing demonstrates that it is possible to discuss these issues without rancour or the use of dismissive name calling. If I were to be lucky enough to find that my research were to result in a body of evidence so solid that even you could not refute it, I would name the field ‘Numero-Astrology’ just to get my own back. 😉
I do appreciate the value of your wisdom and scientific caution, but sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. Can you appreciate the value of following lines of investigation even if an a priori dismissal within the constraints of currently accepted knowledge is plausible?
The eternal tension between scientific conservatism and radical theorising is an intrinsic and essential Hegelian dialectical dynamic in the progress of knowledge.
Have a read of Thomas Khun’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’.
Dave Wendt (16:27:15) :
Oops, I didn’t scroll far enough up the screen, that was tallbloke’s question I was responding to. But Leif, the last part of my comment still pertains, thanks again for your invaluable work.
Lol! :-))))
Damned by the retraction of effusive praise. 😉
At least I’ve been involved in a lot of those threads kicking in some ideas, asking some of the (I hope) interesting questions and getting some great answers from Leif, along with the flak.
PJMM (16:03:34) :
But to me the magnetic field of earth is more than a shield: he affects the weather and put that gigantic thermal pump in motion. Or at least have some role in the mechanism. Even the coincidence of high pressures with magnetic “anomalies” maybe arent only coincidences. Even the NAO and that differential pressures has some magnetic effects, even in the magnetic solar winds or other solar bombardments to the earth and to our atmosfere.
Maybe Im onlye speculate or assuming an mechanism that isnt real and only a perception of a layman. But that is my real opinion.
Nothing wrong with speculating about possible mechanisms. And you are right to mention the correlations. In fact, I think Leif did some work on this back in the 70’s along with some other authors.
Is that right Leif?
tallbloke (02:02:42) :
At least I’ve been involved in a lot of those threads kicking in some ideas, asking some of the (I hope) interesting questions and getting some great answers from Leif, along with the flak.
The back and forth that goes on here is what I’ve appreciated most about WUWT. We all set off in pursuit of knowledge, but rarely achieve it. Perhaps, in the end, the best we can hope for is the ability to ask better questions.
Dave Wendt (03:44:54) :
The back and forth that goes on here is what I’ve appreciated most about WUWT. We all set off in pursuit of knowledge, but rarely achieve it. Perhaps, in the end, the best we can hope for is the ability to ask better questions.
I think of it as ‘being confused on a higher plane’. 🙂
“Where does the almost incomprehensible soup mix of interactions begin for you in your endeavor, the magnetopause region or lower? Earth orbits an ever changing density field whether it is solar induced, interstellar inflow driven or both.”
As I can understand, when the solar activity changes, changes in all aspects. How isnt very well understood.
We know Ionosphere changed. Is that normal? Is an unique event? Or the ionosphere changes everityme the sun induces changes?
What are the effects of that changes, when the iopophere is more closed the solids?
But later we have more effects to understand. if the low magnetic solar activity induces changes in the earth core and induces jerks, for example, what effects have in the gases in atmosfere? Gravitacional forces is enouph to sustain sincronism between solids and gases? Or the air circulation is affected because solids change velocity an gases have kinetic energy like water?
In meanwhile we got more cosmic rays. Is Kirkby and Svensmark rigth? If yes what are the “secondary” effects in the pump system? If not is only air circulation changed by Jerks or LOD? And changes in High and Low atmosferic presures?
But we got more solar magnetic effects in our system, as Georgyeva tried to prove. That affects metereological events. At least in subsystem in North Atlantic, special in low pressures in Iceland and High pressures in Azores islands.
I think the changes are in all planet and in all atmofesric layers. I cant say what effects are but looks to me, nitrogen in above layers are like supercondutores. If so, geomagnetic fields must to have some interaction. If so, low solar activity has some effect in that gas. Maybe larger that we are assuming.
When I think in that mechanism I figure an gigantic system that changes his “motion” because solar activity changes too. In the core earth or in high tropposfere. Everything. Maybe thats why we saw correlations in some phenomena. maybe the cause is low magnetic activity that triggers a serie of others event at same time, giving correlation without same causation. Are effects of an gigantic mechanism “suffering” with the changes in low magnetic activity.
I hope this can explain my point of view.
Jack in Oregon (22:01:39) :
Has there been much in the way of research into the estimated state of the Sun during an ice age period?
The Sun doesn’t know when the Earth is in an ice age period, so one would not expect any difference.
tallbloke (01:06:01) :
Can you appreciate the value of following lines of investigation even if an a priori dismissal within the constraints of currently accepted knowledge is plausible?
This is where you go wrong. There is no a priori dismissal and no rancor. Since what you propose is extraordinary, it requires extraordinary evidence. You [and others] have not provided any, so the claims must be dismissed. I don’t know where you get the idea that ‘name-calling’ is going on. It seems that you still do not understand the difference between saying that an idea nonsense and saying that a person is behaving badly.
Have a read of Thomas Khun’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’.
It is very presumptuous [but typical] that you assume that your ‘research’ is revolutionary in the Khunian sense.
Dave Wendt (16:18:22) :
tallbloke (13:42:11) :
On a scientific note, I’d like to find out if any work has been done on quantifying the amount of heating induced in ferromagnetic matter when it is brought into a magnetic field.
your request got me wondering if anyone had ever attempted to model what effect variability in the solar magnetosphere might have on the core temperature of the planet and whether if any changes occurred they would be significant enough to introduce a long term variability in the geothermal contribution to the planetary energy balance.
I’ve found out from this paper that heating by magnetic induction works from the surface inwards rather than the core outwards:
On the Heat Produced in Iron and Steel by Reversals of Magnetization
# John Trowbridge and Walter N. Hill
# Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 18, (May, 1882 – May, 1883)
Then I found out from Wikipedia that magnetic induction heating is only 10% less efficient in non-ferromagnetic conductors:
“This (oscillating) magnetic field creates heat in two different ways. It induces a current in an electrically conductive pot, which produces Joule (I2R) heat. It also creates magnetic hysteresis losses in a ferromagnetic pot. The first effect dominates; hysteresis losses typically account for less than ten percent of the total heat generated.[1]”
So I found me a cheap induction heating hobtop on ebay and I’m going to do a couple of experiments.
1) Check the time difference between heating identical quantities of de-ionized water and sea water from and to the same temperature in identical pots, ferro-magnetic, copper, and glass.
2) Check the effect of changing the frequency of the magnetic field oscillation by wiring it through a 110V industrial tool power converter block. This will be trickier because I’ll have to create a suitable resistance to lower the wattage of the direct 240V to the same as the output of the 110V converter.
Maybe the overall speed of the solar wind isn’t as important as the frequency and amplitude with which it oscillates…
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?…AMS2634.1&ct=1
“ABSTRACT
An update is provided on the Earth’s global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997, Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m−2.”
Interesting. So this extra ‘heat in’ is coming from the sun presumably?
I did some calculations a while back (confirmed by Leif) which showed that to account for the 25mm of sea level rise between 1993-2003 attributable to thermal expansion, the Earth’s oceans absorbed an extra 14×10^23J or so, roughly equivalent to a 4W/m^2 forcing. That would have to be due to reduced cloud mostly, since the sun doesn’t vary that much and co2 ain’t strong enough.
More from the abstract:
“A lack of closure in the energy balance at the surface is accommodated by making modest changes to surface fluxes, with the downward longwave radiation as the main residual to ensure a balance.”
According to the Southampton Oceanography team, the ‘lack of closure in the energy balance’ amounts to around 30W/m^2
No wonder Kevin Trenberth laments the “travesty” of our “inability to account for current cooling”.
And it should be noted that his choice of “downward longwave radiation as the main residual to ensure a balance” is entirely arbitrary.
I have another candidate. 🙂