Levy walks, solar flares, and warming

Interesting paper “Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?” – M Lockwood1, R G Harrison, T Woolling and S K Solanki.
Link to Physics World article here:-
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42298
Part quote from article – (bold mine)
“…changes to the behaviour of a current of air known as a jet stream that travels west to east across the Atlantic. The jet stream can get caught up in itself and remain blocked over the ocean, preventing mild maritime winds from reaching Europe and allowing icy arctic winds to take their place. Changes in solar magnetic activity would affect the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun, which could then affect temperatures and wind patterns in the stratosphere, effects which, as shown by other recent research, can feed down to the troposphere – the lowest portion of the atmosphere.
According to Lockwood, lower solar activity does not guarantee a cold winter. He points out that England’s coldest winter on record was 1684 but that the following year was the third warmest on record, even though solar activity remained very low. Conversely, he adds, 1947 was a cold winter even though solar activity was high. However, he says, the results show that there are more cold winters when solar activity is low and more warm ones when it is high…”

I am follow the discussion from this night. By my opinion it is very interesting ,because the problem the relationship “sunspot activity -solar
flares” is noth enough close. It is very crude similarity of the sunspot and flare (+CME) 11 yr cycles. The relationship is relative good in the increasing and near maximal phases, but after that /in the downward phase/ it is falling down. This effect is very good expressed for the strong classes flares (M and even more for X) as well as for CMEs.
During the last month in collaboration with Dr. Peter Duchlev (from our Institute of Astronomy -Bulg. Academy of Sciences) we finished a study for reconstruction of C, M and X classes flares time series since March 1968 up to Dec. 2009 by using of SOLRAD and GOES satellite data. For the period between March 1973 to Aug. 1975 there are not observations and we put there “synthetic data” -on the base of multiple regressions between the monthly number of C,M and X flares as predictants and the montly numbers of radiobursts in four frequences in the MHz and GHz ranges + the F10.7 flux as factors-predictors / very good relationships , coeffucients of correlation R =0.79 for the X class, 0.89 for the C lass and 0.92 for the M class, the period is AD 1980-2009; GOES data; small residual variance -14% for M to 38% for X/.
The most interesting result is that there is NOT relationship between the sunspot cycle magnitude and the number of M and even more X class flares. For example cycle No 20 is the most weakest as sunspot magnitude from the last 4 ones, BUT the percent of X class flares and the absolute number is essentially higher as in No 21, 22 and 23. In contrary , for the C -class events the situation is very roughly like for the sunspots, i.e. they are less in No 20 as in 21, 22 and 23. The overall flare activity roughly follow the C and B class flare activity and by this one it roughly follow the overall sunspot activity too. But this is not valid for M and for X classes flares.
The last one is VERY IMPORTANT in the context of the “Sun- climate” relationship.
I am interested of solar flares influences over the climate since 2003, after when I found statisticaly strong cycles in the range of 50-70 years and ~ 110-120 years in the “Greenland” 10Be series with strong analogs in climatic data series. Because now is very late night there I will only mark my general conclusions concerning the flares- climate relationship
1. The most powerfull flares – especially the higer degrees of the X class are the most important component of the overall “Sun-climate” relationship, about 50-60% participation , which is 2-2.5 times higher as from TSI or GCR variations. The quasy 55-60 and 110-120 year climatic oscilations are caused by the “flare” solar component. The 55-60 both and 205-210 yr cycles are very clear detectable in the midle latitude auroral events.
2. However the effect is strongly non-linear and its sign depend by the N-S assymetry. At mean and high level of flare activity in the northern hemisphere the effect is “climate cooling” and “climate warming ” in the case of when there are high levels and negative (south) assymetry. WWhen the sunspot activity tend to 0 /during the ssolar minimums/ the south assymetry correspond to cooling , while the north one -for warming. These effects are very exactly detected by multiple regression analysis/There are 42-45, 54 , 66 and 115-120 year cycles in the N-S sunspot arrea assymetry for the period 1820-1994.
3. Physical mechanisms of the relationships (hypothesis)- (a) high energetic solar particles ionization and aerosol generation forcing in the trophosphere; (b) spaccial redistribution of the galactic cosmic rays flux and on this base – climatic effect
4. The warming tendency after AD 1975 is most probably caused by two factors: a/ the downward tendency of flare activuty from the stronger classes and the transition of the sunspot arrea assymetry index from positive to negative near to AD 1975-76.
5. Relations for the Sun-climate relationship during solar cycle No 24: It need to taken into account not only the weak general amplitude of this cycle /i.e relative low levels of TSI and high levels of GCR/ but also the flare activity regime and the assymetry index. The most possible situation – low overall sunspot activity centered predominaantly in the Norther Sun hemisphere + high number of M and X class flares, i.e. general cooling effect
6. In the flare activity during the great solar minima epochs the stronger classes M and X are dominated. There are historical evidences for this one. The climate cooling during these epochs is much more caused by this one as by the TSI decreasing. This is why the deepest phases of cooling are not strongly centered to the deepest phase of sunspot minimums, but usually are delayed approximately by one 11 yr cycle

Harry Lu (18:52:17) :
Thanks for that Harry, I googled FFT and came up with ‘Fast Fourier Transform’. However, your linked graphs don’t mean much to me yet (I’ll ‘bone up’ on that later), but your description of time series to frequency rings a bell on carrier wave frequency spectral separation and information content to me for telecoms. They aren’t the same, but I think can have similarities where there is close carrier bleed through between signals in AM (audio modulation).
I think I get the idea. We’re looking for a frequency that isn’t there in the solar signal, to match an observed temperature anomaly frequency. However, as ocean surface is ~70% of Earth’s surface with an albedo of ~0.9 (ignoring cloud shadow), wouldn’t the major ‘coupling’ be to ocean surface temperatures, or perhaps near [sub] ocean surface temperatures? As the ocean surface coupling would likely be swamped at times in tropical latitudes and result in hurricanes and typhoons (the ‘overheated’ thermostat).
So. Why are we looking for this coupling in land near surface temperatures?
I still favour the UV hypothesis. It has a memory that presents as ozone propensity.
Again, thanks for the ‘pointers’. I’ve already used them, but being sole carer for my mother 24/7 at her home for over a year now (she’s 98 in May) I’ve not been able to use my LAN network at home with all my references. I’m stuck with this pesky lap top that doesn’t even have a printer attached to it. However, I’ll survive and thanks for your help.
BTW, EUV isn’t the usual ‘Dobson’ figure, It’s the level that UV may damage your skin! This brings about a calibration and unification scenario.
PS. My post may have been superseded by Boris. I haven’t digested this yet.
Best regards, suricat.

Leif Svalgaard (19:16:34) :
the Solanki reconstruction does not match the Steinhilber very well
Considering they are both proxy records taken from different area’s there is a remarkable match between both sets, perhaps you have not seen the match up?
Keeping in mind all the data sets mentioned are proxy records the match up of Solanki and Moberg is good, certainly good enough to suggest strongly there is a link between the two. Also keep in mind the earth bound systems and buffers involved in the climate process, you cannot expect an exact match.
Speaking of peer review, last time I checked the Steinhilber paper we have been discussing was not peer reviewed, is that still the case?

Yet another ‘NEW’ ‘investigation’ to ‘disprove’ the already clearly demonstrated causal connection between solar activity (particularly particle-magnetic) and Earth’s weather!
They use the same tired old 3 step deceit:-
1. Choose any solar parameter that follows the 11 year cycle (as most do).
2. Compare that on short time scales preferably about 5 years or less (to keep the 11 year signal in view) with world temperatures – which it is well known follow the 22 year magnetic cycle of the Sun.
3. Announce !*!!NEW!!*! FINDINGS that half the time the two data sets move in different directions (OBVIOUSLY!) and therefore “The Sun Doesn’t do it”. Put this in any Climate-fraud friendly journal which will likely put an editorial Comment to the effect ‘Oh well then it must be CO2’.
However in using the “It’s not a dog therefore it must be a Cat!” ruse be careful to avoid approaching any actual Canine Defence journals because they might actually conclude “Ah well then it must be cats”.
The negative scientific integrity of the anti-solar crew (or cru) and associates has been reported before but most usefully have a look at
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=6
and Comment therein which Links to VIDEO.
Also for web-movies showing examples of the causal chain of (PREDICTED) events Solar flares -> Sudden Ionospheric disturbances -> geomagnetic storms -> shifts in polar winds & jetstream -> predicted weather extremes, have a look at:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No8.pdf
Thanks Piers Corbyn (also piers@weatheraction.com)

Leif Svalgaard (07:56:03)
In suggesting a runaway event I think you have missed the point that I am proposing only a redistribution of energy within the system.
Any additional non solar warming of the layers of atmosphere above the stratosphere caused by an acceleration of the upward energy flow would be offset by the corresponding cooling of the stratosphere for a zero net effect from the energy redistribution process overall.
The more active sun draws energy through the system faster by first warming and then expanding the atmosphere. You have accepted that the extra UV during periods of more active sun affects layers other than the thermosphere, indeed you have accepted that an effect is observed down to the stratosphere itself.
That radiative effect works faster than the predominant conductive and convective processes in the troposphere can adjust to it and the temperature of the stratosphere varies whilst the equilibrium remains out of balance. That imbalance affects the size, position and intensity of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations then vie with oceanic effects on the energy flow from below and it is the ever changing balance between solar effects from above and oceanic effects from below that dictates every climate phenomenon and all the observed variability.

Leif Svalgaard (07:56:03) :
On short time-scales there is no good evidence for a GCR influence on ion-nucleation; people trying to measure that directly find no signal, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/acpd-9-21525-2009-print.pdf
In that study, the measurements of nucleation events were taken with instruments 2-8 m off the ground. Only the high energy CRs penetrate to have an effect at such a low altitude (eg. Usoskin et al. 2004), and those CRs are not affected much by solar variations, so one wouldn’t expect to see a solar cycle influence on GCRs and hence ion-nucleation at that height.
If you look at Fig. 11b of the paper, comparing cloudiness & cosmic ray ionisation intensity, there appears to be a correlation.
There are some atmospheric observations in the paper too – Fig. 9 shows that while the ion/particle ratio is highest at altitudes 3000-8000m (for the airborne observations taken in May 2008 over Central Europe), the concentration of particles in the 2-10 nm range drops at heights of 2000-6000m.
One would wish to know the corresponding observations for larger particles – condensation nuclei (CN) are >1-2 nm, and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are about ~50 nm – perhaps at 2000-6000m, CCN are being formed from CN with CN being a limiting resource, hence the drop in 2-10nm particle concentration.
Harrison and Stephenson looked at 50 years of daily instrumental insolation data gathered in the UK, compared to neutron monitor counts from Climax in Colarado, and found a significant correlation. The study is independent of satellite cloud data and provides support for the Svensmark’s CR-cloud work.
“Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds”
Harrison and Stephenson 2006
“Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600×102 neutron counts h−1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (i) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19±4) %, and (ii) the diffuse fraction increases by (2±0.3) %. During sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction.”
“Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.”
Concerning CR activity at different altitudes, latitudes and energies :
“Cosmic ray induced ionization in the atmosphere: Spatial and temporal changes”
Usoskin, Gladysheva and Kovaltsov 2004
Cosmic Rays and Climate
Kirkby 2008
“There is some experimental and observational evidence to support the presence of ion induced nucleation in the atmosphere. Early studies, beginning in the 1960’s, [111, 112] demonstrated ultrafine particle production from ions in the laboratory, at ion production rates typically found in the lower atmosphere. This has also been found in a more recent laboratory experiment, under conditions closer to those found in the atmosphere [113]. Observations of ion-induced nucleation in the upper troposphere have also been reported [114, 115] and also of aerosol bursts in the lower troposphere [116], although their rate frequently exceeds what could be caused by instantaneous ion-induced nucleation. Laboratory
measurements have shown that ions are indeed capable, under certain conditions, of suppressing or even removing the barrier to nucleation in embryonic molecular clusters of water and sulphuric acid at typical
atmospheric concentrations, so that nucleation takes place at a rate simply determined by the collision frequency [117, 118, 119].”

Leif Svalgaard (13:11:53): There is no doubt a retrievable production signal and we are getting better at it. There is also no doubt contamination by other factors: climate, volcanics, geomagnetic field.
I see that you’re pretending that you didn’t reject the availability of this production signal in the earlier thread.
Also, I have to note that you provide no comment on your misleadingly-edited quotation from Steinhilber et al., concerning the presence of production and climate signals. One would normally expect an apology or explanation after being caught in such an apparently mendacious act. It’s a matter of conscience and integrity. Perhaps you feel that the stakes are too high to admit any mistakes or misdemeanours – I suggest an opposite is the case.
Anyway, the geomagnetic field is not a contaminant of the CR-flux signal, although it does need to be considered if calculating solar variables from these proxies.
jinki (18:06:39) :
Figs. 2 & 3 of the Kirkby 2007 paper referenced above show better correlations over the last 2k years. The 10Be & 14C proxies are used to determine CR-flux rather than SSN. The former has a more direct physical relationship to the isotope formation process, and therefore has fewer uncertainties in its derivation.