By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD (reprinted from his blog with permission)
UPDATE (12:35 p.m. CDT 19 May 2011): revised corrections of CERES data for El Nino/La Nina effects.
While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.
I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.
If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.
BACKGROUND
The single most frequently asked question I get after I give my talks is, “Why didn’t you mention the sun?” I usually answer that I’m skeptical of the “cosmic ray gun” theory of cloud changes controlling climate. But I point out that Svensmark’s theory of natural cloud variations causing climate change is actually pretty close to what I preach — only the mechanism causing the cloud change is different.
Then, I found last year’s paper by Laken et al. which was especially interesting since it showed satellite-observed cloud changes following changes in cosmic ray activity. Even though the ISCCP satellite data they used are not exactly state of the art, the study was limited to the mid-latitudes, and the time scales involved were days rather than years, the results gave compelling quantitative evidence of a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover.
With the rapid-fire stream of publications and reports now coming out on the subject, I decided to go back and spend some time analyzing ground-based galactic cosmic ray (GCR) data to see whether there is a connection between GCR variations and variations in the global radiative energy balance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy, taken from the NASA CERES radiative budget instruments on the Terra satellite, available since March 2000.
After all, that is ultimately what we are interested in: How do various forcings affect the radiative energy budget of the Earth? The results, I must admit, are enough for me to now place at least one foot solidly in the cosmic ray theory camp.
THE DATA
The nice thing about using CERES Earth radiative budget data is that we can get a quantitative estimate in Watts per sq. meter for the radiative forcing due to cosmic ray changes. This is the language the climate modelers speak, since these radiative forcings (externally imposed global energy imbalances) can be used to help calculate global temperature changes in the ocean & atmosphere based upon simple energy conservation. They can then also be compared to the estimates of forcing from increasing carbon dioxide, currently the most fashionable cause of climate change.
From the global radiative budget measurements we also get to see if there is a change in high clouds (inferred from the outgoing infrared measurements) as well as low clouds (inferred from reflected shortwave [visible sunlight] measurements) associated with cosmic ray activity.
I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow, since it is the first station I found which includes a complete monthly archive for the same period we have global radiative energy budget data from CERES (March 2000 through June 2010). I’m sure there are other stations, too…all of this is preliminary anyway. Me sifting through the myriad solar-terrestrial datasets is just as confusing to me as most of you sifting through the various climate datasets that I’m reasonably comfortable with.
THE RESULTS
The following plot (black curve) shows the monthly GCR data from Moscow for this period, as well as a detrended version with 1-2-1 averaging (red curve) to match the smoothing I will use in the CERES measurements to reduce noise.
Detrending the data isolates the month-to-month and year-to-year variability as the signal to match, since trends (or a lack of trends) in the global radiative budget data can be caused by a combination of many things. (Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.)
The monthly cosmic ray data at Moscow will be compared to global monthly anomalies the NASA Terra satellite CERES (SSF 2.5 dataset) radiative flux data,
which shows the variations in global average reflected sunlight (SW), emitted infrared (LW), and Net (which is the estimated imbalances in total absorbed energy by the climate system, after adjustment for variations in total solar irradiance, TSI). Note I have plotted the variations in the negative of Net, which is approximately equal to variations in (LW+SW)
Then, since the primary source of variability in the CERES data is associated with El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, I subtracted out an estimate of the average ENSO influence using running regressions between running 5-month averages of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and the CERES fluxes. I used the MEI index along with those regression coefficients in each month to correct the CERES fluxes 4 months later, since that time lag had the strongest correlation.
Finally, I performed regressions at various leads and lags between the GCR time series and the LW, SW, and -Net radiative flux time series, the results of which are shown next.
The yearly average relationships noted in the previous plot come from this relationship in the reflected solar (SW) data,
while the -Net flux (Net is absorbed solar minus emitted infrared, corrected for the change in solar irradiance during the period) results look like this:
It is that last plot that gives us the final estimate of how a change in cosmic ray flux at Moscow is related to changes in Earth’s radiative energy balance.
SUMMARY
What the above three plots show is that for a 1,000 count increase in GCR activity as measured at Moscow (which is somewhat less than the increase between Solar Max and Solar Min), there appears to be:
(1) an increase in reflected sunlight (SW) of 0.64 Watts per sq. meter, probably mostly due to an increase in low cloud cover;
(2) virtually no change in emitted infrared (LW) of +0.02 Watts per sq. meter;
(3) a Net (reflected sunlight plus emitted infrared) effect of 0.55 Watts per sq. meter loss in radiant energy by the global climate system.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?
Assuming these signatures are anywhere close to being real, what do they mean quantitatively in terms of the potential effect of cosmic ray activity on climate?
Well, just like any other forcing, a resulting temperature change depends not only upon the size of the forcing, but also the sensitivity of the climate system to forcing. But we CAN compare the cosmic ray forcing to OTHER “known” forcings, which could have a huge influence on our understanding of the role of humans in climate change.
For example, if warming observed in the last century is (say) 50% natural and 50% anthropogenic, then this implies the climate system is only one-half as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions (or aerosol pollution) than if the warming was 100% anthropogenic in origin (which is pretty close to what we are told the supposed “scientific consensus” is).
First, let’s compare the cosmic ray forcing to the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) during 2000-2010. The orange curve in following plot is the change in direct solar (TSI) forcing between 2000 and 2010, which with the help of Danny Braswell’s analytical skills I backed out from the CERES Net, LW, and SW data. It is the only kind of solar forcing the IPCC (apparently) believes exists, and it is quite weak:
Also shown is the estimated cosmic ray forcing resulting from the month-to-month changes in the original Moscow cosmic ray time series, computed by multiplying those monthly changes by 0.55 Watts per sq. meter per 1,000 cosmic ray counts change.
Finally, I fitted the trend lines to get an estimate of the relative magnitudes of these two sources of forcing: the cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing. This means the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe.
One obvious question this begs is whether the lack of recent warming, since about 2004 for the 0-700 meter layer of the ocean, is due to the cosmic ray effect on cloud cover canceling out the warming from increasing carbon dioxide.
If the situation really was that simple (which I doubt it is), this would mean that with Solar Max rapidly approaching, warming should resume in the coming months. Of course, other natural cycles could be in play (my favorite is the Pacific Decadal oscillation), so predicting what will happen next is (in my view) more of an exercise in faith than in science.
In the bigger picture, this is just one more piece of evidence that the IPCC scientists should be investigating, one which suggests a much larger role for Mother Nature in climate change than the IPCC has been willing to admit. And, again I emphasize, the greater the role of Nature in causing past climate change, the smaller the role humans must have had, which could then have a profound impact on future projections of human-caused global warming.
Oh I see. It’s the same graph from the manuscript… They say about 15 – 20 % modulation by the solar cycle at 4 GeV. Interesting manuscript.
They also notably say that “up to about 10 GeV galactic electrons show a spectrum similar to that of the proton, [sic] modulation of galactic electrons is observed between 0.1 and 1 GeV.” I was wondering about galactic electrons, the other day. The modulation they say being between only 0.1 – 1 GeV to me is surprising, since it has a mass I think of 5 x 10^-4 x that of the proton, but the same charge. Seems like it should be modulated much more heavily than protons, unless there is something about negative vs. positive charge. But I’m not sure, galactic electrons may not be able to penetrate to atmosphere unless probably at very high energies (unlike for example muons).
Interesting manuscript though.
Still, according to the manuscript, Huancayo with a “rigidity” of 13 GeV has a modulation of about 10 % over solar cycles 21 – 22, and Tsumeb with a “rigidity” of 9.3 GeV has a modulation of about 15 % over the same… will read.
Actually, maybe I have that whole business about the charge-to-mass ration wrong now that I think about it… at the same energy a lighter particle would have to be hauling along at a faster clip… don’t recall enough of my physics, much less the relativistic calculations on this if applicable.
Julian Droms says:
May 23, 2011 at 5:04 pm
They say about 15 – 20 % modulation by the solar cycle at 4 GeV.
And a lot less at the crucial 10 GeV and above.
Seems like it should be modulated much more heavily than protons
It is the energy that counts. For an electron to have the same energy as a proton it must be going much closer to the speed of light [its mass increases].
But I’m not sure, galactic electrons may not be able to penetrate to atmosphere unless probably at very high energies (unlike for example muons).
Doesn’t matter much as there are 100 protons for each electron.
Just for the little guys here who have been trying to follow all of this:: can anyone of you tall guys just give a summary as to what he/she personally believes is the reason for the additional heat that has been coming from outside on earth during past 4 decades and that has pushed up up the average temperature on earth?
My own results so far show that it is not an increase in GHG’s that did it, http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
–not even a portion, especially not as much as 50%.
HenryP says:
May 23, 2011 at 10:44 pm
just give a summary as to what he/she personally believes is the reason for the additional heat that has been coming from outside on earth during past 4 decades and that has pushed up up the average temperature on earth?
It may have pushed up the temperature in other parts of the solar system too.
Basically, the sun has been more active in the latter half of the C20th than it has been for thousands of years according to Sami Solanki, chief solar physicist at the Max Planck Institute.
Leif doesn’t think it makes much difference to Earth, but I disagree, for several reasons.
1) The solar signal in the surface temperature record is small, but this is for two main reasons:
(i) The Biggest el Nino’s occur near solar minimum, and la Nina’s often occur near solar max. This ‘squashes’ the signal over the solar cycle, but the energy for the el Nino events has to be solar derived, so needs adding to rather then subtracting from the solar signal, which is in effect what happens due to it’s timing.
(ii) When the sun is more than averagely active, the ocean squirrels away extra incoming energy well below the surface where the measurement takes place, and not all of it re-emerges in el Nino’s within a few years. This is evidenced by the rise in sea level due to thermal expansion since the 1950’s, empirically measured by satellite altimetry (TOPEX, JASON), and the extra heat by bathythermographs,(XBT’s) and latterly ARGO. So a big proportion of the extra energy is retained by the ocean for a longer period. Now the sun has gone quiet and remained below average activity levels for 5 years, that energy is slowly re-emerging, and sure enough, ocean heat content is starting to slowly fall since 2005. (Loehle 2010 ARGO data).
2) Although the increase in solar output (TSI) is small over the latter C20th, the amount of extra insolation at Earth’s surface is proportionally larger, i.e. There is a terrestrial amplification of the solar signal. This is most likely due to reduced cloud cover 1980-1998 letting extra sunshine in. This has been measured empirically by ISCCP (weather satellite cloud project), and deduced by the effect on sea level. (Shaviv 2008 http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter )
The decrease in cloud cover *may* be linked to the increase in solar output by the hypothesised Svensmark effect this thread is concerned with. The theory that increased solar activity reduces the amount of cloud seeding galactic cosmic rays getting into earth’s lower atmosphere. Leif may be right that the Earth modulates GCR’s more than the sun does, but because the evolution of the geomagnetic field in the northern hemisphere resembles the solar heliomagnetic evolution (Vukcevic’ research), this point may be moot, because if my theory (which is not allowed to be discussed here) is correct, there is an underlying causation for both.
Hope that helps.
Thanks! I get (most of) it. I am sure this blog must be rated highest in the level of scientific discussion available anywhere in the world on this subject.
1) It may have pushed up the temperature in other parts of the solar system too
Is there no other place in the solar system where we could actually measure this to get another opinion (confirmation or non-confirmation)? Did we perhaps not leave some temp. measuring equipment on the moon?
2) reduced clouds letting more sunlight in, is definitely in line with my own observations, i.e. maximum temps. rising versus humidity and precipitation falling.
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 12:18 am
Basically, the sun has been more active in the latter half of the C20th than it has been for thousands of years according to Sami Solanki, chief solar physicist at the Max Planck Institute.
I believe that Solanki [et al.] are wrong on this. Some of the arguments for why he is wrong are here: http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf or here: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
Muscheler et al. discuss some of these issues here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf as does Berggreen et al here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
This is such a fundamental question that a workshop is scheduled for next year [if approved] to resolve this. It has become clear that there were long term changes in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) as a consequence of magneto-hydrodynamic processes on the Sun. After a decade of vigorous research, reasonable agreement has been achieved between IMF strength (and open flux) estimates based on geomagnetic data and the inversion of the paleo-cosmic radiation data for the last ~100 years. Fundamental questions have been raised on topics such as the existence of a floor in the IMF strength (B), the character of the solar wind during grand minima, the possible disappearance of the solar wind within historical times, and the evolution of future solar change. The purpose of the workshop is four-fold: (a) to extend/substantiate the geomagnetic-based reconstruction of solar wind parameters from ~1840-2010 and to resolve the remaining discrepancies among the geomagnetic-, cosmic-ray-, and sunspot-based reconstructions, (b) to explore the open questions regarding the technical issues that need to be addressed to make this possible; (c) to use the foregoing work and the long-term cosmogenic radionuclide record to improve existing estimates of heliospheric properties for the last 104 years, and (d) to address by numerical modelling the outstanding physical questions that have been raised thus far. Expected output of this effort: (1) A definitive/consensus time series, with uncertainties, of the IMF strength from ~1840-2010 that can be used as a key to calibrate/interpret the cosmogenic nuclide data for the last 10^4 years. Such a record will have implications on topics ranging from the solar dynamo to cosmic ray modulation to climate change. (2) Technical papers focused on such topics as the effect of Earth’s changing dipole on the geomagnetic and cosmic ray record, inter-calibration of neutron monitor, 10Be data, and sunspot data with spacecraft measurements of the solar wind magnetic field (B), and long-term calibration/homogeneity of the sunspot number. (3) Scientific papers focused on such topics as the disconnect between solar wind B and cosmic ray modulation in solar cycle 20, the amplitude of solar activity from ~1940-1990 relative to the last ~10^4 years, the possible existence of a floor in B, and the nature of the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 24, 2011 at 4:01 am
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 12:18 am
Basically, the sun has been more active in the latter half of the C20th than it has been for thousands of years according to Sami Solanki, chief solar physicist at the Max Planck Institute.
I believe that Solanki [et al.] are wrong on this.
Yeah, so do I. From the way I’m correlating my data, I think the truth is somewhere between Solanki’s position and yours.
Just picking up one aspect of your proposed changes to the sunspot record. In your poster you say:
“in order to remove the 1945 discontinuity [and be consistent with modern
counts] we must increase the pre-1945 Rz by ~20%:”
Which sounds innocuous enough. But when you look closely at the graph following this reasonably bland statement you see that the ‘adjustments’ are not 20% across the board, but get bigger as you go back further in time. This is so pronounced that, for example, solar cycle 3 doesn’t increase by 20%, but by 120%. And the increases aren’t just in the peak amplitudes but also in the areas under the curves. This is particularly noticable with the Dalton Minimum cycles, which also more than double in total spot counts.
I never reject anything out of hand without giving someone the chance to explain their position, so please tell me how this “increase the pre-1945 Rz by ~20% but double the much older cycles” thing works from your angle.
Hi folks, I find that the entry of Henrik Svensmark on Wikipedia is very much outdated, and I am trying to update the relevant information. Who would like to join hands with me?
TODO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 5:55 am
I never reject anything out of hand without giving someone the chance to explain their position, so please tell me how this “increase the pre-1945 Rz by ~20% but double the much older cycles” thing works from your angle.
But you seem not to read very well. Immediately after that Figure I say: “This, of course, just makes the discrepancy with the Group Spot Number worse”. What is plotted is the adjusted SSN [red] and the Group SN [black]. The whole point was that the GSN is not calibrated correctly and that the 20% adjustment just makes the GSN even less. BTW, Solanki uses the GSN to calibrate the 14C and 10Be values and therefor automatically gets the wrong result that solar activity in the latter part of the 20th century is the highest ever.
How is it possible that you could not be aware of this? Boggles the mind, actually.
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 5:55 am
I never reject anything out of hand without giving someone the chance to explain their position, so please tell me how this “increase the pre-1945 Rz by ~20% but double the much older cycles” thing works from your angle.
Realizing that we have to take small steps, I’ll try to help you along. You start by opening http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
Slide 2 shows the definition of the Wolf [Zurich] SN and of the Group SN. The idea of counting groups only sounds good on the surface as everyone should be able to count the big groups without worrying about the small spots on the limit of detectability.
Slide 3 shows that the Group idea doesn’t really work as different observers report very different group counts, so you need to calibrate using a ‘personal’ constant for each observer, anyway.
Slide 4 shows that the result of the inter-observer calibration produces [solid curve] values that are much smaller than the wolf numbers [dotted curve]. This gives rise to the perception of a steady rise [red arrow], or for some people [e.g. Solanki] a step change around 1900 [green lines]
Slide 5 shows how the Wolf numbers themselves evolved. Wolf doubled his original values before 1800, almost halved solar cycle 5, and later adjusted everything before 1849 up by 25%. How did he justify this?
Slide 6 shows Wolf’s wonderful discovery: that the size of the daily variation of the compass needle was simply related to the sunspot number [due to (but he didn’t know that) a current in the atmosphere generated by UV from the Sun].
Slide 7 shows what that daily variation looks like
Slide 8 gives more detail about the daily variation
Slide 9 shows the variation since the 1880s of the size of the daily variation derived from French observatories, but all observatories actually report the same size
Slide 10 shows that the F10.7 microwave flux is well-determined by measurements by Canadian and independent Japanese observers
Slide 11 shows that there is a very tight relationship between the daily variation and F10.7 as there should be, because F10.7 is a very good proxy for the UV. this means that Wolf’s idea of using the daily variation to calibrate the sunspot number is physically sound. Actually what he really does is to calibrate the SSN to match F10.7 [which we today consider a ‘true’ indicator of solar activity].
Slide 12 just extends that with yet another example.
So the purpose of the paper was to show that Wolf’s procedure to calibrate the sunspot number gives a number that is an F10.7 [or just solar activity] proxy. F10.7 is a measure of the magnetic field in the lower corona.
Now open the other link: http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf
Slide 2 shows a statement by Waldmeier which I shall show is incorrect
Slide 3 shows his description of a change of how he counts sunspots, where 1 big spot is counted as 5 spots.
Slide 4 shows how that weighting works at Locarno [SIDCs SSN is calibrated to Locarno]. On 2010-8-27 spot number 83 is counted as three spots, on 2010-9-13 spot number 93 is counted as 2 spots, and on 2010-4-22 spot number 26 is counted as 1 spot. this overcounting of large spots naturally inflates the sunspot number
Slide 5 just reminds you of Wolf’s discovery [which is actually his most important one] and that he realized that the relationship forded a way of relating the subjective sunspot number to an objective physical quantity
Slide 6 shows again the variation of the daily range since the 1880s. And how it looks very much like a solar cycle.
Slide 7 quantifies the relation and shows that 98% of the variation of F10.7 matches that of the daily range rY
Slide 8 shows again how this looks for Helsinki and its replacement station Nurmijarvi. Note that activity in the 1840-1870s is the same as that for the 1970-2000s
Slide 9 begins a series of slides to show the effect of Waldmeier’s overcounting. First that for the same value of rY, Waldmeier’s SSN is 22% higher that before he took over
Slide 10 shows that compared to the sunspot areas, Waldmeier’s overcounting produces 17.5% more ‘spots’ for the same sunspot area
Slide 11 shows the ratio of the Group SN and the Zurich [Wolf] SN and how there is a discontuity when Waldmeier took over [pink and blue dots]
Slide 12 shows that the Waldmeier’s SN is 20% higher than that derived from Calcium spectral lines
Slide 13 reminds the reader that the Ionospheric Critical Frequency [which depends strongly on solar activity] also had a discontinuity when Waldmeier took over
Slide 14 shows the result of adjusting the Zurich number Rz up by 20% [red curve] and how that makes the discrepancy with the Group SN [black curve] even worse
Slide 15 shows [again] how Wolf himself adjusted his counts to match the geomagnetic data [and as we now know: F10.7]
Slide 16 just documents [believe it or not there are deniers out there that will not believe that Wolf adjusted anything] that adjustments were made
Slide 17 shows the Group and Official Wolf [Zurich] sunspot numbers and how they disagree
Slide 18 quantifies that disagreement [yellow vs. pink dots] to be about 40%
Slide 19 lists geomagnetic observatories operating before and after that 40% jump
Slide 20 shows [upper plot] that the Rz [blue] and Group number Rg [pink] after 1880 are related to rY in the same way. But as shown in the lower plot, the Rg values [filled red diamonds] from years before 1850 fall way short of the relationship valid for years after 1880. Adjusting the pre-1850 values up by 40% [factor of 1.4] brings them into line with the newer data.
The rest of the slides have to do with the Livingston and Penn effect and SISC’s recent undercounting of spots and are not directly relevant, excpet
Slide 27 that notes that there is ‘No Modern Grand Maximum’
Now, all this is upsetting to a lot of people, and we are organizing [another] workshop in September to clear all this up and get [hopefully] everybody on the same plane. The community cannot accept that there are two sunspot series [Wolf and Group] and that people can just cherry pick which one fits their pet theory.
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 5:55 am
I never reject anything out of hand
If you have followed along the steps in my previous comment you must come to the same conclusion as I, unless you specifically can show which steps do not hold.
More details about the Waldmeier overcounting here: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-12Jan.pdf
Hi Leif,
I’m sure you’re right about Waldmeier overcounting. My own data correlations tell me that as well. And I’m sure you’re right about early group sunspot numbers ending up as under-represented alongside Wolf’s later magnetic methods too. I think you might have gone a bit too far with the adjustments though. We have to remember there were real people looking through real telescopes at the actual sun back then. And they were trying pretty hard to do a diligent job. Some people who prefer actual observations to nice neat results which fit pet theories might take exception to the idea that those observers managed to miss half the spots they were trying to count. OK, I know the situation is more complex than that and you are bumping up the early numbers to fit Waldmeier, and that accounts for part of the discrepancy. However, I think you might be better off presenting your own pet theory in terms of your IDV metric and a back extrapolation of it, rather than trying to ram wholesale mega adjustments to the sunspot number down the throats of people who prefer actual empirical observations.
I think for your conference you should consider letting other peoples ideas and data speak too. Otherwise it just looks like a party line being defined and an ultimatum being declared: “Join us or be cast out of the main stream.” We all know where that leads.
I realised something about the Svensmark hypothesis this morning which will (I hope) make some sense to you. I’ll share it later. Right now it”s a very beautiful May evening here after several squally days, and I’m taking my lady for a walk over the hill to see some music played at a nice country pub.
More later.
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 11:35 am
rather than trying to ram wholesale mega adjustments to the sunspot number down the throats of people who prefer actual empirical observations.
You are missing the point completely [and you did not step for step argue if there is a problem with them]. Everything I presented is the results of actual empirical observation; of sunspots, of microwave emission, of geomagnetic data. The Waldmeier adjustment is the smaller part [20%]. The real gorilla in the room is the group sunspot number [40%]. Even Ken Schatten, one of the originators of the GSN, agrees with my analysis. Unless you specifically argue each step, my analysis stands. Now, it is common practice to chicken out rather than to address the issue, so your reluctance is understandable and human. The easy way out is just to accept my analysis.
I fell the sun shining..
But not today again..
Well, bottom line, more studies needed, but what this data empirically suggests, is “total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe.”
My guess though, is this is before you factor in any feedback mechanisms additionally contributing to a warming (or cooling), since the study looks at fairly short term variations in cosmic ray flux, unlike studies on monotonic increases in atmospheric CO2.
I would also note, that cosmic ray influences on cloud nucleation also have the potential to directly affect atmospheric water vapor concentrations (e.g. condensation, precipitation) in a manner over and above what the general temperature-related (“feedback”) effects it may have in common with CO2, for example. Given the short time frames of GCR modulation in this study. these effects may not be apparent / included. Not sure how you would address that though (empirically, without resorting to some shitty modeling methods)…
Julian Droms says:
May 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I would also note, that cosmic ray influences on cloud nucleation also have the potential to directly affect atmospheric water vapor concentrations (e.g. condensation, precipitation) in a manner over and above what the general temperature-related (“feedback”) effects it may have in common with CO2, for example. Given the short time frames of GCR modulation in this study. these effects may not be apparent / included. Not sure how you would address that though (empirically, without resorting to some shitty modeling methods)…
We already have some useful empirical data for this issue of humidity. The CO2 fanatics like to play it down, as it doesn’t gel with their agenda, but the NCEP re-analysis of the radiosonde data is pretty good in my opinion.
Here’s an interesting comparison of specific humidity near the tropopause and the sunspot number averaged over 8 years:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 24, 2011 at 11:46 am
The easy way out is just to accept my analysis.
This rebel isn’t ready to be assimilated. I have my own internally consistent pet theory with data to back it up, just like you.
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 4:08 pm
This rebel isn’t ready to be assimilated. I have my own internally consistent pet theory with data to back it up, just like you.
As you said: “I think you should consider letting other peoples ideas and data speak too”,
but I take it then that you would rather continue with blinkers on, instead of seriously looking at the “actual empirical observations”. This was, of course, predictable, although deplorable.
tallbloke says:
May 24, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I have my own internally consistent pet theory with data to back it up
Presumably that data involves solar activity in some form [otherwise it is of no interest]. Most likely the sunspot number is part of your data. So, the question is: “which sunspot number?” The group sunspot number or the ‘official’ SIDC (Wolf, Zurich) number?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“which sunspot number?” The group sunspot number or the ‘official’ SIDC (Wolf, Zurich) number?
Greenwich/Hathaway for the sunspot areas from 1874.5. I use this dataset for my studies on the hemispheric asymmetry of sunspot production. You said two years ago that I was wasting my time, because no-one had ever found any way of making sense of it:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/barycentre-sunspots.gif
SIDC for the full sunspot time series from 1749. This graph shows the relationship of solar activity with the motion of other solar system masses above and below the solar equatorial plane. It also shows why I agree with you that Waldmeier overcounted:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
That second graph also lends a lot of independent support to your idea that the GSN is way too low in the early part of the record, and shows that the sun’s recovery from the Maunder and Dalton Minima was quite sudden and complete, rather than gradual, as the GSN followers seem to think. Thus we are also in agreement that there is no ‘modern grand maximum’ although due to the short minima and high amplitude of cycles of the late C20th, the average sunspot number taken over a multi-decadal period was undoubtedly higher than average in terms of the last 300 years. So, a ‘modern maximum’, if not a ‘grand’ one.
I would be very interested in hearing your presentation at the proposed workshop, and also in getting a chance to have my own findings discussed by an expert panel. It would show great maturity and an open minded attitude to the science if you could extend an invitation so that I could have that opportunity.
On a personal note, I’d very much like to meet you, and discuss your work, which I hold in high regard. It’s always easier to learn from people and appreciate those aspects of their knowledge which conflict with your own, when a friendly, free flowing discussion takes place in a face to face situation.
tallbloke says:
May 25, 2011 at 12:25 am
Greenwich/Hathaway for the sunspot areas from 1874.5.
That record is a composite of Greenwich and SOON areas. The SOON data from 1977 on are 40% too low [different calibration], and Hathaway increases those data by 40% in one of his composites. But he has both the raw and adjusted data on his website, so you have to be careful which one you use. It looks like you use the unadjusted [wrong] one, but check.
SIDC for the full sunspot time series from 1749.
Yet you quote Solanki [who uses the GSN] on the ‘greatest in 10000 year’ nonsense. You shouldn’t mix and match use of disparate data like that.
That second graph also lends a lot of independent support to your idea that the GSN is way too low in the early part of the record
I dislike using the match to a theory as support for adjustment of the data. What happened to ‘most people prefer actual empirical observations’? My analysis uses only the data as it must be. No ‘pet theory’ involved.
the average sunspot number taken over a multi-decadal period was undoubtedly higher than average in terms of the last 300 years. So, a ‘modern maximum’, if not a ‘grand’ one.
If you reduce the modern values by 20%, the difference is much smaller and not really different from the mid 19th century or late 18th. There is a time in each century with elevated solar activity [some people call this the Gleissberg cycle].
I would be very interested in hearing your presentation at the proposed workshop, and also in getting a chance to have my own findings discussed by an expert panel.
Th workshop is concerned with discussion of the actual data, so if you have something on that it might be useful.
It would show great maturity and an open minded attitude to the science if you could extend an invitation so that I could have that opportunity.
IMHO Science should not be done with an ‘open minded attitude’. The only thing that counts at the end of the day is the data and one cannot be open minded about the data. The workshop will take place at Sunspot, NM, where we have limited logistic facilities [can accommodate ~12 people only], but our work and presentations there will certainly be open to everyone.
On a personal note, I’d very much like to meet you, and discuss your work, which I hold in high regard. It’s always easier to learn from people and appreciate those aspects of their knowledge which conflict with your own, when a friendly, free flowing discussion takes place in a face to face situation.
I’m in Petaluma, CA, and everyone is welcome. As the National Solar Observatory at Sunspot is open to the public you are also welcome there in September.
Hi Leif,
Thanks for the tip on the Hathaway dataset, I’ll check that out when I revisit my sunspot asymmetry work. It’s genuinely nice to know a welcome awaits me in sunny California when I get there. I’m hoping to do a good stretch of the Pacific Crest Trail sometime in the next couple of years, and a trip out to the coast is a must too. I guess the world can wait a little longer for my cosmically important discoveries. 🙂
Perhaps one day the empirical planetary data will be regarded as important to the study of the sun in the same way geomagnetic data is now, thanks to the efforts of Wolf, and a line of people stretching from before him to you and your colleagues.
tallbloke says:
May 25, 2011 at 11:49 am
Perhaps one day the empirical planetary data will be regarded as important to the study of the sun in the same way geomagnetic data is now, thanks to the efforts of Wolf, and a line of people stretching from before him to you and your colleagues.
When Wolf discovered that the geomagnetic data could be used to calibrate the sunspot number, nobody really believed him. It took until the 1930s for that to be accepted and even then there were important doubters [e.g. Sidney Chapman]. The stumbling block was the lack of a viable mechanism [as usual]. There is no shortage of weird correlations, but without a mechanism that is energetically plausible, no progress can be made.
[from: http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Magnetic-Observatory-Support.pdf ]
“The discovery of the sunspot cycle and the first results of the ‘Magnetic Crusade’ together made it clear that solar and geomagnetic activity are intimately related and that observing one is learning about the other [both ways]. Understanding of this magnificent relationship had to await more than a century of progress in both physics and observations, and only in the last few decades have we achieved the elucidation that in the middle of the 19th Century was so fervently hoped for: The lack of rapid progress so frustrated the observers [and their funding agencies] that many observatories were shut down or had operations severely curtailed, because as von Humboldt remarked in vol. 4 of his Cosmos: ‘they have yielded so little return in proportion to the labor that had gone into collecting the material’ “
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 25, 2011 at 3:35 pm
When Wolf discovered that the geomagnetic data could be used to calibrate the sunspot number, nobody really believed him. It took until the 1930s for that to be accepted and even then there were important doubters [e.g. Sidney Chapman].
Yes, I can see it might be a long haul for the planetary theory. Wolf started that one too, and the progress is continuing through another strand of investigators stretching from him.
The stumbling block was the lack of a viable mechanism [as usual]. There is no shortage of weird correlations, but without a mechanism that is energetically plausible, no progress can be made.
There is no shortage of mechanisms. Understanding how these apparently small energies have the effect they evidently do is the stumbling block. Once an oscillation has built up in a semi rigid body (high solar gravity and internal magnetism), it only requires relatively small energies to maintain it. Especially as the solar pulse engine bounces along working on the same frequencies as the orbital period of it’s biggest planet and the beat between that planet and Earth much of the time. Cycle lengths cluster around 10.4 and 12 years. Anyway, once the numerical relationships between the correlations are teased out, a critical mass will be reached where the correct mechanisms become apparent through logical inference and modeling confirmed by experimental observations.
…solar and geomagnetic activity are intimately related and … observing one is learning about the other [both ways].
Yes, I want to learn more from you about that. Specifically, what effect has the secular decrease in the strength of the geomagnetic field had on the magnetometer readings measuring the solar perturbations of it? Presumably, the differences of the magnitude of the changes in the geomagnetic field between northern and southern hemisphere stations enable you to calibrate in some way to adjust for this when reconstructing past solar activity?