I saw this yesterday, but I decided to wait a day just in case it disappeared. It’s quite the surprise to see the New Scientist dedicate a story, much less an editorial saying that the sun has a role in climate.
Here’s some excerpts:
THE idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.
…
So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.
The reverse is true in solar minima, and the effect is particularly evident in Europe, where minima increase the chances of extreme weather. Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.
The second effect is bottom-up, in which additional visible radiation during a solar maximum warms the tropical oceans, causing more evaporation and therefore more rain, especially close to the equator.
…
The third solar influence on climate is extraterrestrial. Earth is bombarded by cosmic rays from exploding stars, which are largely deflected by the solar wind during solar maxima and to a slightly lesser degree in minima.
One theory held that cosmic rays cool the planet by helping to form airborne particles that water vapour condenses onto, increasing cloud cover. However, models suggest the effect is tiny (Nature, vol 460, p 332). Just to be sure, though, the idea is being tested by the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Initial results are expected in the next six months.
A theory that has more traction with climate scientists says the rays may change cloud behaviour rather than formation. Using weather balloon measurements, Harrison has shown that clouds have charged layers at their top and bottom, and he suggests that ions produced by cosmic rays might be responsible (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043605). “The charge might make it easier for larger water droplets to form,” he says, causing rain to fall sooner during solar minima. “But that’s just one of many possibilities.”
Read the full article here
Things make me question whether these are scientists at all after comparing their words above with some reality in this: just read the abstract (unless you have a spare US $ 31.50)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2010.02.014
Don’t take me wrong, these are very precise instruments, they can measure within a day within a very, very small fraction of 1 W/m2 BUT and a huge BUT, their absolute accuracy has a lot to desire. They know TSI over a 11 year span varied but 0.1% to great precision but they just aren’t quite sure if the BASE TSI was 1367, 1365, 1364, or 1361 W/m2, not really. Absolute accuracy and precision are two completely different animals. Another paper speaks of the great degradation most of the radiometers suffer from and they have algorithms and attempts to correct this but are the degradation just that, degradation, or were they seeing secular trends in the BASE TSI. I’m still not convinced they know what they are talking about because they basically keep lying by omission of all of the facts.
@ur momisugly Maxbert says:
“Oh, I get it. The sun affects the weather, but not the climate.”
Lol…of course, how could we have thought any different?
CAGW industry preparing for this:
Re: earlier post, i.e.
John Finn says: .
September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am
I forgot to mention a key point from the Shindell et al Abstract
They even mention the AO and NAO oscillations. To answer Tallbloke’s point
The warmista are circlng their wagons, and dragging the horses behind, as usual.
I think the warmista have had this issue covered for some time.
It is unfortunate that popular and political science is presented regularly by the media is hopes of a Pulitzer, while good work and good theories are buried in abstracts and web pages.
So there’s nothing in the article that disputes the IPCC’s conclusions.
This is fascinating but doesn’t change the overall picture of our understanding of global warming.
The significance of this is that it now seems to be accepted by parts of the mainstream media and some mainstream climatologists that the significant effect from a change in the level of solar activity lies in the resultant latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems which is the very indicator that I have been banging on about for several years now having first noticed the equatorward latitudinal shifting around 2000.
Indeed my entire New Climate Model is built up from the initial observation of that latitudinal shifting and the logical implications thereof for the global energy budget. It has taken me ten years to get from that initial observation to a workable hypothesis as to how it might fit a coherent climate overview.
There is an interesting implication as regards Svensmark’s GCR proposal.
If the jets shift equatorward from a less active sun (for whatever reason) then that suggests overall system cooling because the equatorward shift of all the cloud bands increases albedo and reduces solar shortwave into the oceans.
With the troposphere cooling the ability of the air to hold water as vapour will fall so as long as the cooling process is in progress the rate of cloud formation will run ahead of the rate of evaporation so that an increase in total cloudiness should be observed.
However at the same time the lower solar activity will let in more GCRs but that would not be the main reason for more clouds.
On that basis Svensmark’s observation would be upheld but not the causative relationship.
It may just be a coincidence that a less active sun results in both increased cloudiness and more GCRs with no substantial cause and effect relationship between GCRs and cloudiness.
It’s worth a ponder.
Here another paper on the absoluely precise, don’t ever question them, radiometers flying above: /sarc
http://www.acrim.com/NASA_NIST%20TSI%20Workshop/Output/Day2%20Summary_v9.pdf
Sadly, Rhys Jagger, society is sick. But the anti-bodies are kicking in and fighting back at last. There is hope that society will overcome this dread disease. The twerps have noticed at last that it is the sun at the centre of the solar system and not themselves.
Layne Blanchard says: September 24, 2010 at 11:22 pm
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they steal and plagiarize your good work while holding you in an arm lock of unabated contempt and strawman misrepresentations.
Richard S Courtney at September 25, 2010 at 1:19 am
I hope you are right and that further damage from CAGW can be stopped very soon (e.g wind farms).
Prof Philip Stott has been saying the same for some time. “You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Global Warming is as dead as a door-nail, although I suspect that the Global Warming Ghost will hang around moaning and wailing for quite a while yet”. See http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/4/27_Nails_in_the_Global_Warming_Coffin.html
This is still not the whole story, but at least it’s a start.
Where is the 600 km high Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge covering an area in circumference equivalent to 25% of the atmosphere in this diagram?
They show the “thermosphere” as being a sphere when in-fact the “thermosphere” is actually the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge. It is a 600 km bulge under the solar point and only exists on the sunny side of the globe.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
Hurrah!
Now all we need is for Chris Huhne MP and British insurance companies to open their eyes to the truth, instead of seeing ‘unusual’ weather as a means of either making claims about new green jobs or stinging us with increased insurance premiums.
Andrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:51 am
So there’s nothing in the article that disputes the IPCC’s conclusions.
Yes we can agree with the IPCC that their level of scientific understanding for solar influences is low. eg Haighs comparison of observations with the “Lean” model.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/simspectralobservation.jpg
Tim Williams says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:10 am
DirkH says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:13 am
“First they vilify skeptics for eons, now they triumphantly declare that the sun has an influence. What opportunistic apple-polishers.
I’m not aware of any respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist that has ever said that the sun does not influence the climate. Please provide some evidence or a link for any opportunistic apple polisher that has in the past declared that the sun has no influence on climate.
Thanks.”
With “they” i was referring to the NS editors, not to climate researchers. As you might remember, they had some “science-settled – skeptics-are-flat-earthers” opinion pieces.
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 1:51 am
“So there’s nothing in the article that disputes the IPCC’s conclusions.”
Dispute of the IPCC’s conclusions is Not Necessary.
Burden of proof that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming rests with the IPCC and their minions, not the skeptical scientists. The IPCC has not demonstrated any proof or empirical evidence of causation.
The scientific method does not require an alternate explanation to falsify the hypothesis the CO2 is the cause of Global Warming.
The null hypothesis of natural variation as the cause of all climates in all regions has not been falsified.
The IPCC’s conclusions that have not yet been shown as total fabrications dispute themselves.
I attended a lecture on this subject by Mike Lockwood at Trinity College, Dublin on September 23. It was a very slick presentation with great slides and animations. He made the case that changes in the sun’s output are a factor of 10 less than the ‘forcing’ seen over the last century that caused a 0.8C rise in average global temperature. He blamed half of this increase on GHGE and rest on resulting positive feedbacks. He said practically all feedbacks were positive! I questioned him at the end about UHI’s contribution to the overall world temperature increase since the CET which is corrected for UHI only showed a 0.4C increase, and why he believed that clouds were more positive than negative feedback and got waffly answers. “Why would anyone not properly account for UHI?” “If more Arctic temperatures were included in HADCRUT the global temperature rise would be even more.” His cloud response was a waffly explanation of high clouds and low clouds.
His overall theory about variations of UV output from the a quiet sun interfering with the jet stream and causing climate disruption in Europe was a reasonable theory as far as it goes. He explained it with reference to cold winters in England during Maunder Minimum. I suspect that they needed something to explain cold winters in Europe in the future when the world as a whole bakes. He also made reference to the potential stopping of the North Atlantic drift due to fresh water from all the melting ice in the Arctic. Relied very heavily on Michael Mann for temperature reconstructions.
Someone else asked him about the atmosphere or climate (terrible puns!) for climate scientists lately and he went on at length about ‘poor Phil Jones’ whose only sin was arrogance having to suffer the ‘slings and arrows’…
Overall, I agree that raw solar output does not explain global temperature increases but then neither do greenhouse gas emmissions. Some of the people I spoke to after the lecture are more worried about an overdue ice age and believe anything we can to to warm the Earth is a good thing!
“Roald says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:53 am
This is fascinating but doesn’t change the overall picture of our understanding of global warming.
The findings do not suggest – as climate sceptics frequently do – that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun. “There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate,” says Giles Harrison, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Reading, UK. “They are not supported.”
”
For a minute there I was doubting my sceptism – you know, how all the models are wonderful and they didn’t need to include the sun etc. but now Dr Giles Harrison has told me ‘there is nothing to see here’ I feel much better. sarc/off
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swshargi/
chers David
Breaking News! The Sun influences climate! Who would have thought it!
What next?
Breaking News! Apples fall down from trees. Gravity Discovered!
Stephen Wilde: sorry if this seems a silly question.
Is it possible that clouds, with their differing +/- charges top/bottom, are directly influenced by geomagnetic field strength fluctuations; for positional bias equatorial/poleward?
I remember seeing a basic demonstration of an electro magnet, with the old iron filings thing showing the effect of the magnetic field. As power was increased/decreased, the effect was most clear on the outer edges of the field, where the equator would be. Imagine this in a 3D model, a spinning spherical magnet in a vacuum, surrounded by charged particles; would the particles increase/decrease at the equator/pole depending on the field strength and charge polarity?
Hi Mak! Don’t you just love the way Anthony turns these interesting, but not earth shattering, articles/papers into “shock and awe”?
Interesting but hey! Climate change and the sun? I’m not sure…
Am more familiar with the Sloan and Wolfendale model, which fails to reflect Hendrik Svensmark’s hypothesis, but has been cited widely as disproving it.
I suppose we must await CERN. Svensmark has conducted additional measurements as solar activity has permitted, the results of which, he reports, confirm his work to date. It’s demonstrably early to state with any degree of certainty that the effects on ionization are small. It seems to me that Harrison et al make use of this interim moment – where the CERN Cloud series initial reports not yet expected – to diminish or to undermine work which is in progress.
But perhaps they do not, or perhaps this is quite usual in the cut and thrust of publication. Whatever it is, it’s distinctly premature.
DirkH says: September 25, 2010 at 2:37 am
“I’m not aware of any respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist that has ever said that the sun does not influence the climate”
Well, you really narrowed that down. If you were to drop the ‘respected’ bit and open it up to the people working for and with the IPCC then it would be simpler to come up with some names. Respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist; that’s a tough one.