Back on December 12th 2009 I posted an article titled:
Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate?
We then had a string of sunspots in December that marked what many saw as a rejuvenation of solar cycle 24 after a long period of inactivity. See December sunspots on the rise
It even prompted people like Joe Romm to claim:
But what Joe doesn’t understand is that sunspots are just one proxy, the simplest and most easily observed, for magnetic activity of the sun. It is the magnetic activity of the sun which is central to Svensmark’s theory of galactic cosmic ray modulation, which may affect cloud cover formation on earth, thus affecting global temperatures. As the theory goes, lower magnetic activity of the sun lets more GCR’s into our solar system, which produce microscopic cloud seed trails (like in a Wilson cloud chamber) in our atmosphere, resulting in more cloud cover, resulting in a cooler planet. Ric Werme has a nice pictorial here.
When I saw the SWPC Ap geomagnetic index for Dec 2009 posted yesterday, my heart sank. With the sunspot activity in December, I thought surely the Ap index would go up. Instead, it crashed.
Annotated version above – Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Ap.gif
Source data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
When you look at the Ap index on a larger scale, all the way back to 1844 when measurements first started, the significance of this value of “1” becomes evident. This graph from Dr. Leif Svalgaard shows where we are today in relation to the past 165 years.
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png
With apologies to Dr. Svalgaard, I’ve added the “1” line and the most current SWPC value of “1” for Dec 2009.
As you can see, we’ve never had such a low value before, and the only place lower to go is “zero”.
But this is only part of the story. With the Ap index dwindling to a wisp of magnetism, it bolsters the argument made by Livingston and Penn that sunspots may disappear altogether by 2015. See Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015
Above: Sunspot magnetic fields measured by Livingston and Penn from 1992 – Feb. 2009 using an infrared Zeeman splitting technique. [more] from the WUWT article: NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?
The theory goes that once the magnetic strength falls below 1500 gauss, sunspots will become invisible to us.
Note where we are on this curve that Dr. Svalgaard also keeps of LP’s measurements:
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
It appears that we are on track, and that’s a chilling thought.
NOTE TO COMMENTERS AND MODERATORS: No off-topic discussions of Landscheidt, “electric universe”, or “iron sun” will be permitted on this thread. All will be snipped. Stay on topic. – Anthony
Sponsored IT training links:
Planning to take on BR0-001 certification? Then try out our 646-364 prep resources and earn best score in 642-165 exam.
[quote DavidE (14:46:52) :]Have you tried removing these…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
corrections from the temp data & seeing what the R2 is?[/quote]
No I haven’t. I can give it a go, but I’ll need NOAA temps to use NOAA adjustments, and that will take me some time to parse up.
But I can give a guess that it wouldn’t change the results much. As far as I can tell, the reason the clouds don’t have a better match is that there’s little blips scattered like noise throughout the temperatures, not because of large changes to the temperature anomaly over time.
These “little blips of noise”, I assume, are caused by the “other things”, El Nino, greenhouse gases, land use, changes in TSI, etc.
=-=-=
Counter example
=-=-=
The 0.5 R² for clouds/temperatures actually seems fine to me. If it were much higher, I’d worry.
For example, the R² for CO2/temperatures is 0.96. That’s nearly perfect! It means 96 times out of 100 if you tell me the temperature, I can accurately tell you the CO2.
The problem with an R² value that high is if we assume it means CO2 is driving temperatures, then there isn’t any other significant driver of temperatures. There’s no room left for cosmic rays, methane, dirty snow, land use, etc.
Fortunately, we know from ice cores that temperature precedes CO2 changes, not the other way around. Temperature changes happen first, CO2 changes follow temperature. So CO2 isn’t a driver. So we can accept the CO2/temperature R² as just a correlation, not a cause and effect.
But clouds/temperatures _are_ cause and effect. We can measure the light they reflect into space, the light they absorb, and the light they reflect back to Earth and know that clouds _cause_ the temperatures to be about 20 degrees lower than they would be without any clouds.
But we also know that clouds aren’t the only cause. So if clouds had a nearly perfect R², something would be wrong.
There are more things betwixt heaven and earth, Joe Romm,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy!
We truly live in interesting times!
Is there any evidence in the weather data that the atomosphere cooled (like an air conditioner) from the expansion of the gas after a magnetic storm? The expansion would also increase clouds (like a cloud chamber.)
Here is Kirby explaining the CERN CLOUD experiment to study cosmic cloud effect on cloud formation.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088
Harold Blue Tooth (15:29:08) :
“There is also lower activity in the earth’s own magnetic field. A band going over Brazil and out over the Atlantic toward Africa of earth’s magnetic field is weak, and weakening.”
You are referring to the well documented South Atlantic magnetic anomaly, where intensity of magnetic field drops to very low values, it has moved from the cost of Africa to the coast of Argentina in the last 300-400 years.
Opposite is case for the N Hemisphere, where there is a strong positive anomaly in Central Siberia, where magnetic field in the last 10-15 years has become stronger than the previous maximum located at the Hudson Bay (rem. E’s magnetic field in the NH is not strongest at the mag. SP, while in the SH it is strongest at the mag. NP; confusing- mag SP is near geo NP).
I have produced a unique diagram of evolution of the NH’s anomaly during last 400 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMFevolution.gif
the real question is whether this drop in solar magnetic output is anthropogenic. it looks like we might be destroying the entire solar system, not just the planet. all we’re missing is a theory. anyone?
I’m sure that the Earth has seen this before many, many times, but in our short lifespans, it does prove to be interesting. This may well be the smoking gun that blows away the CO2 theory and sheds light on the real reason(s) behind climate change. The next 10 to 30 years should provide some interesting results.
If this has any influence on the earth we also must see a reaction in the rest of the solar system. This would be the prove that man made global warming is nonsense.
magicjava (15:56:38) :
Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest collusion between those deriving the land based temperature sets, I suspect that subtracting those corrections from any of them would yield similar results.
As for ocean temps, that’s a different story.
DaveE.
Lucy Skywalker (12:39:38) :
the understanding of Scientific Method itself needs deepening, to reach those “fobidden” areas with a bit more humility and openness to data from all sources.
Well said Lucy.
Just good practice and good manners. If you modify someone’s graphic and create a derivative product, it is only fair to make it clear you are not putting words in their mouth and inform the reader that they are viewing a derivative product not a copy of the original.
Larry
OT but let me see if I can explain why I think CO2 cannot cause runaway global warming. If I have this wrong would someone correct me? The mechanism for positive feedback from CO2 is that it prolongs the retentions LW IR in the near surface atmosphere, which thereby increases the temperature. This increase in air temp increases the evaporation of water into vapor, which is an even greater greenhouse gas than CO2. The Earth then equilibrates to a higher overall temp.
I maintain that if water vapor is a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 then CO2 cannot change the equilibrium temperature. This is so because there is no reason why water vapor alone would not cause runaway warming in the first place unless there was some negative feedback based on water vapor to stop it.
Imagine a real greenhouse with automatic vent and a large fish pond inside. The sun heats the air inside and the vents open to establish equilibrium. Next we add a few more hundreds of parts per million of CO2. What would be the result – the vents would open a couple of seconds earlier.
If what I propose is not true we would not be having any discussion of this topic because life on Earth as we know it would not exist.
Re: Invariant (11:46:54)
Interesting notes – I would add:
We’ve barely begun conditional analyses, so we’re a very long way from being down to residual chaos & measurement noise.
Clearly the obvious explanation is that Voyager 1 has poked a hole in the Heliosheath and let all the solar wind escape into interstellar space. This decreased the backpressure on the sun and lowered the force required to push out more solar wind. That therefore decreased the over all energy level to maintain equilibrium, so the sun cools down, so we cool down. It is simple journalistic physics.
What we must do is to divert the New Horizons space probe towards the hole and plug it up with its high-gain dish. The repair should only take about 40 years, so if I could get funding to build the equipment to pinpoint the location of the tear and monitor the effect for the next 40 years then I can guarantee that the mission will succeed the year after I retire.
The observation: Solar Activity at low to very low levels for an extended period.
: Climate cooling off rather strongly for the same period.
The Science: How this stuff works. Not in by any means. Too many links unknown or in a low state of knowledge.
AGW does not fit the observation, therefore it is null and void.
“”” DirkH (15:23:50) :
“George E. Smith (15:12:28) :
[…]
So the sun surface at about 6000 K radiates much more LWIR at 10-15 microns, than does the earth surface at about 300K. But then you have to apply the inverse square law from solar surface to earth orbit, to find the amount of 10-15 micron radiation falling on earth from the sun; and yes CO2 and H2O and any other GHG will snap that up, just as quickly as it does the earth surface emissions. But by the time it gets to earth it is much weaker than the earth emissions.”
Ok – i’ll buy all that, we can probably settle on “LWIR from the sun is negligible”. But – this is a serious question – as you seem to know more about this than me: Do you have a figure about how much LWIR from the sun we get per m^2 ? I guess the upward LWIR is about 300 W/m^2. Do you have a guess as to how big the suns radiative flux in the CO2 + H2O absorptive spectrum actually is when it enters the atmosphere? “””
Well Dirk,
Let me give you some data in the easiest form for me to get at it. This is data on “Solar Spectral Irradiance” (air mass zero) which is just a fancy way of saying outside the atmosphere, whereas, direcvtly under an overhead sun, at the surface , would be air mass 1, for one atmosphere of air absorption between outer space, and the ground. For lower elevation suns, you get a higher air mass, because of the longer inclined path; got that; prtetty easy idea.
This is a proposed standard curve for (SSI)0, and it also is somewhat dated and standardized to 1353 W/m^2 for TSI, whereas modern satellite measures say 1366 or thereabouts.Under this proposed Standard, the maximum Solar spectral Irradiance is 2066 W/m^2/micron (bandwidth) so this is a small bandwidth measure, not the whole shebang.
Going to 0.5 microns, which most of us think of the as the real solar peak wavelength or the one that corresponds to the sun temperature of about 6000K, we get 1942 W/m^2/micron.
At 1.0 microns wavelength (twice the peak, we get 748; 2 microns is 103; 4 microns is 9.5; 8 microns is 0.60, which is about where the “atmospheric window” falls; the hole in the water/CO2 absorption. At 16.0 microns, we only have 0.038 W/m^2/micron left, and it is actually abut 0.049 at 15 microns which is about twhere the main CO2 absorption band is.
Now if you say that the CO2 band is from about 13.5 to 16.5 micorns, or abpout 3 microns wide, then that solar energy would be about 0.147 W/m^2. The per micron has vanished since we just applied the 3 micron spectral width to get rid of that.
So you can compare the 0.147 W/m^2 to what the surface spectral irradiance is.
This data is right out oif “The Infra-Red Handbook, which is a publication of The Infrared information Analysis Center; which is a DOD analysis center of the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM).
Library of Congress card number is 77-90786, and
ISBN no is 0-9603590-I-X
This is a somewhat difficult to come by handbook that was prepared for the military (Us navy actually, relating of course to weapons systems.
A little dated; but an absolute mine of information.
Vuk etc. (16:07:43) :BTW, over that area where recently an air france flight sadly fell down, and airbuses are built as flying electric condensers: Aluminum on the outside, carbon fiber in the middle as dielectric, and aluminum in the inside….just pray not to cross a storm.
> robr (16:29:07) :
OT but let me see if I can explain why I think CO2 cannot cause runaway global warming.
Brilliant, It’s Settled!
Here is where can look at the Cosmic Ray measurement. Scroll down and plug in 1964, generate chart, and see how high can we go…
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Here is cloud cover. Maybe someone can explain which one of these is what we are looking for.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal7.html
I guess the Sun spots picture is not right, the last peak time should be 2000-2001 instead of 2003-2004. Here is the plot from NOAA site:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
The sun spots cycle time span is a very important issue to determine the earth temperature.
….after being defrosted by gas-powered blowtorches.
“”” robr (16:29:07) :
OT but let me see if I can explain why I think CO2 cannot cause runaway global warming. If I have this wrong would someone correct me? “””
Well what you say is certainly true as far as I am concerned.
Wtaer content always greatly exceeds CO2 contnet, and water absorbs more LWIR than CO2 does, so water vapor can do all the GHG effect needed without any goosing from CO2. The water feedback enhancement of CO2 is a myth. H2O by itself is a perfectly good greenhouse gas.
What H2O has, that no other GHG has including CO2, is that H2O exists in the atmosphere in all three phases; no other GHG does.
As a vapor, H2O has both coolin effects due to blocking solar radiation from the surface, thereby cooling the surface, but also atmospheric warming by absorbing both incoming solar spectrum and surface emitted LWIR. Evidently the overall effect, is that we are not at -30 C or whatever the BB temperature would be.
But water in the solid, and liquid phases, forms clouds which result in cooling the surface (over climate time scales), so cloud percent increase means cooling, and when it cools too much precipitation removes clouds, so it warms up again.
i’m quite convinced generally that the temperature comfort range of the arth is completely set by the physical properties of H2O, and has almost nothing to do with CO2. And no I do not deny that CO2 absorbs LWIR in the 15 micorn region, and therby warms the atmosphere slightly; big deal, so the percentage of cloud cover goes up as CO2 goes up.
And no I don’t have any detailed numbers; maybe if I had one of those wonderful taxpayer grants, I could even research that.
And I’m standing in the street with my hands in the air, for anybody to shoot at.
i’d love to hear how CO2 manages to defeat H2O’s grasp of the problem.
I also believe it doesn’t have much to do with statistical mathematics.
Errrm! Doesn’t this mean we are screwed? The implication is that this is a warm winter – compared to what is coming. I assume any winter crops will be damaged, but will the summer crops be affected as well. Does anyone know what it would be like if we went back to the 1850s in terms of climate, with six times the population?!
[Quote nofreewind (17:37:36)] :
Here is where can look at the Cosmic Ray measurement. Scroll down and plug in 1964, generate chart, and see how high can we go…
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Here is cloud cover. Maybe someone can explain which one of these is what we are looking for.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal7.html [/quote]
You want low cloud cover.
I have it already downloaded this and other climate data and put into spreadsheet form if you want it. I called it the Climate Scientist Starter Kit, and you can get it here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepoomaaddon/files/Climate%20Scientist%20Starter%20Kit.zip/download
worse than we thought