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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Science journalism, almost but not really science.
Nescafe almost but not really coffee
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 11:57 am
Something about something that has nothing to do with the hypothesis that human caused emissions of CO2 are the cause of Global Warming. (“some people believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus”)
How exactly does what people believe is the cause of AIDS:
Prove that C02 is the cause of Global Warming?
or
Prove that natural variation is not the cause of regional climates?
Or was that just a failed (third) attempt at a distraction in the hope that I would forget the scientific method.
The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the hypothesis, not the skeptical scientists.
Cliff
Data question
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Andrew30, I haven’t claimed that AGW is proven.
Your argument: The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the hypothesis, but AGW cannot be proven, itself proves what exactly?
Regarding the null hypothesis, A potential null hypothesis is “AGW is not occurring” if the data show a statistically significant change not accounted for by natural climate forcings, the null hypothesis is rejected.
So it’s a weight of evidence issue, a forcing exists, either it’s a natural forcing or it’s anthropogenic, to which does the weight of evidence point? Thus far we have a coherent anthropogenic theory vs a hodge podge of numerous natural forcing theories none of which have a coherent form as global climate forcing large enough to explain observation.
“Henry Pool says:
September 25, 2010 at 11:40 am”
Hi Henry. I’m open to suggestions as to why the jets migrate equatorward when the sun is less active but it must be something to do with the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the strength of the inversion at the tropopause.
It’s well established that phenomena known as sudden stratospheric warmings send the jets equatorward for a while and I propose a similar less dramatic effect from any stratospheric warming even if gradual over decades.
I have suggested a couple of possibilities but they are not critical for me. Any proven mechanism will fit in well enough.
The trouble is that the stratosphere has to warm to send the jets equatorward yet conventional climatology says the stratosphere cools when the sun is less active.
Currently it has warmed despite the quiet sun and the jets have moved equatorward.
When the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled and the jets went poleward.
The old explanation that CFCs disrupted the natural scheme of things is no longer tenable but I have yet to hear an intelligent comment on the issue from any AGW proponent.
I think they’ve got the sign wrong for the solar effect on stratospheric temperatures but that would be such a huge turnaround for climate theory that I’m not surprised by a period of silence.
I guess CAGW scientists should be refered to as “helioskeptics”, or maybe “solar deniers”.
Vuk etc. says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:07 pm
For it we should be forever grateful, despite all the warmth from the sun, without the magnetic shield there would be no life on this little blue planet.
That “magnetic shield” which we could call, more properly, electromagnetic, it is a double layer, the same as when we make buffer solution (like Coke at pH=3,5), so as to any more acid or alkali added won´t change its relative equilibrium, except in a catastrophic event.
So, the Sun, also, with its two polar fields, which if considered isolated (removed from any interference from other fields), could show a perfect regularity. If free from preconceptions we could consider the difference between a harmonic manifestation and an interferred one, we could identify the fields, or waves, which interfere with Sun´s fields. (Sin y+Cos y).
Thus, Vukcevic, present us an almost armageddonian forecast: The Sun at the ER!!:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PolarFields.gif
John Finn says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:47 am
To answer Tallbloke’s point
I think the warmista have had this issue covered for some time.
Revisionist claptrap. Schmidt was coauthor of a paper about a year ago which claimed to show the solar influence on climate was aonly around 10% of the co2 forcing.
Utter bollocks.
Now we have New Scientist doing a story on Kilimanjaro’s ice, which may cause a little more grief for those on Al Gore’s side of the fence.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727794.400-kilimanjaros-vanishing-ice-due-to-treefelling.html
Of course, regular readers of WUWT were well informed of this fact over two and a half years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/25/yet-another-inconvenient-story-ignored-by-the-msm/
As per usual, well done Mr. Watts.
Hehe 🙂 Perhaps they have realised that their readership is declining because they continually recount that the Sun has nothing to do with the planet’s climate 🙂 Many smilies. It will be fun to watch them squirm and jiggle as they try to worm their editorial stance away from AGW catastrophism.
My suggestion to the publishers of the once-worthy New Scientist magazine” “Fire them all; editors and enviromental journos”
Ben U. said @ur momisugly September 24, 2010 at 10:28 pm
I’ve long thought that a heliocentric perspective has a certain appeal.
Very subtle, Ben; I salute you … as does Galileo 🙂
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm
” I haven’t claimed that AGW is proven”
I agree, AGW has not been proven, and can not be disproven.
That the fact that an unproven and non-falsifiable hypothesis (AGW) is not occurring does not prove that natural variation is not the cause of regional climates.
That the fact that an unproven and non-falsifiable hypothesis (AGW) is not occurring is irrelevant.
These solar connection stories always appear without a mention of how to make your own cosmic ray detector.
Unless I am naive and mistaken (quite possible!), I think it might be an important point, a demonstration of principle in the real world, not just words and numbers on a map:
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/ss/cosraydetect.htm
Is it irrelevant?
I feel there is another Sun effect that is important and doesn’t often get taken into account is the magnetic interaction between the Sun and earth causing periods of INCREASED seismic activity thus more submarine volcanic activity that increases Ocean temps by Hydrothermal and Magmatic Processes and is probably largely responsible for the recent co2 rise as well,then there is the much avoided question how much effect the nearing of the Earth and solar system to the thin magnetic disc of the Galactic equator and surrounding denser area of the spiral arm space cloud, (local fluff) as NASA calls it, to make it sound like it has a lesser effect and less dangerous?
Forecast graphs of solar activity, seismic and volcanic activity
of compression rims of the Earth.
E.N.Khalilov 2010
http://www.seismonet.org/page.html?id_node=130&id_file=97
Increased eruption frequency
Anual active Volcano count
Worldwide Earthquake and active Volcano Statistics
http://www.khptech.com/blog/4/ww-earthquake-stats
http://tinyurl.com/2cxr3df
http://tinyurl.com/2a8zwnb
http://tinyurl.com/2ba97o9
http://tinyurl.com/26h32hp
http://tinyurl.com/24zapjq
http://tinyurl.com/234xohm
http://tinyurl.com/2cqzx68
http://tinyurl.com/285bt98
http://tinyurl.com/2bxfhqy
http://tinyurl.com/2cr525j
http://tinyurl.com/2d9hy6o
http://tinyurl.com/2e5u6vg
http://tinyurl.com/2c3ctpl
http://tinyurl.com/2euusez
http://tinyurl.com/24qczrf
http://tinyurl.com/25zj4tr
http://tinyurl.com/23d4666
Increased tectonic activity
http://www.nov55.com/volcan.html
@Michael in Sydney — “So a 0.1% change in the sun’s brightness…”
You are spot on!
What the warmists don’t grok is that even 0.1% of a VERY LARGE number is still a very huge number. Maybe they don’t grok how much energy is in the Watts per square meter over all the square meters in the daylight side of the earth.
Maybe they would grok it if somebody showed / offered them 0.1% of the USA’s GDP, or of the UK’s or Australia’s or… no, I forgot, they have a non-scientific agenda and will insist into the next ice-age that 0.1% is a negligibly small number, and can be ignored.
As a scientist, they shame all I hold dear.
Newt Love (my real name)
Lets understand the possible impact of this paper. In it they say…
In other words, once the AR5 comes out, if sceptics yell “It’s the Sun stupid” they can say “we’ve accounted for that, see the AR5”.
Solar effects were generally left out of GCM’s, but the “science was settled”.
Now that they will “generally” include solar effects, the science is REALLY REALLY SETTLED.
Can one lose any more respect for scientists? At the moment I have the lot of ’em well below politicians and used car salesman.
p.s. Listen you morons, until and unless you know what makes the Sun tick, you ain’t gunna convince me that you know enough about our climate, therefore, I don’t approve of one extra cent in taxes for this scurrilous scam.
Andrew W:
I assume you are being deliberately stupid when, at September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm, you assert:
“Regarding the null hypothesis, A potential null hypothesis is “AGW is not occurring” if the data show a statistically significant change not accounted for by natural climate forcings, the null hypothesis is rejected. ”
No! Absolutely not!
The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless a change is observed to have occurred. And it is a fundamental scientific principle that the null hypothesis is adopted unless and until emiprical evidence of a change has occurred.
There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.
Hence, the only applicable scientific hypothesis concerning global climate change is the null hypothesis: i.e. nothing has altered natural global climate change.
This will remain true unless and until some evidence of a change (e.g. due to AGW) is obtained.
Richard
One day we’re all going to have to face the cold hard truth, sorry, moist cool truth and warm moist truth, that the elephant in the clothes dryer on this planet is water vapor. Nothing, I say again, Nothing is going to get done one way or the other until we get our hands on this enormous and horrific problem. Now the EPA is just wasting precious time and money (don’t know where they’re getting the latter) on all this CO2 crap. We need the mainstream scientific media to stop, look, and feel what’s going on and start getting the Enviro Mob to tackle this immediately. Why aren’t they listening? (non-sarc & sarc off)
Yes, the sun has been designated the new fall guy. Anything but the comets.
Andrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm
So it’s a weight of evidence issue, a forcing exists, either it’s a natural forcing or it’s anthropogenic, to which does the weight of evidence point? Thus far we have a coherent anthropogenic theory vs a hodge podge of numerous natural forcing theories none of which have a coherent form as global climate forcing large enough to explain observation.
Actually, no. What you have is nothing more than a weak conjecture based on an exaggerated (due to incorrect measurement) warming coinciding with a rise in C02, some part of which is probably anthropogenic, and a whole host of models attempting to “prove” that C02 is causing it.
Sorry, but most of your “evidence” is manufactured (like the hockey stick). It is based on the idea that C02 is driving temperatures up. But, what has happened? They’ve gone from calling it global warming, to climate change, to climate disruption. Funny how they keep pulling the rug out from under you Believers.
This is an old political trick: Can’t you beat them, join them.
Richard S Courtney says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:19 am
A year ago in a presentation at York University I stated that the CAGW scare is dead. I said the scare would have its economic ‘life-blood’ cut off in Copenhagen and, after that, it would fade away.
—————
Are you going to the Naomi Oreskes bunfest at York U this week? I’m facing a paper deadline and am waffling as to whether or not to go. Is anybody else planning to show up?
Richard S Courtney says:
I assume you are being deliberately stupid…
September 26, 2010 at 4:18 am There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.
Wow! Talk about disconnected from reality.
Bruce Cobb, I look forward to your peer reviewed paper proving the temperature rise of the last hundred years is not unusual and that it can be explained by natural forcings.
Newt Love says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:03 am
Maybe they don’t grok how much energy is in the Watts per square meter over all the square meters in the daylight side of the earth.
Watts per square meter is bread and butter to climate scientists, obviously you don’t know much about the AGW debate.
Solar variation through the solar cycle amounts to a change in insolation of about 0.25 Watts per square meter, increased GH gases ~2 Watts per square meter, and in the latter it’s a continuous forcing adding up over decades, rather than a few years and then reversed.