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 The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 31, 2011 at 6:10 pm
It is always proper to respond positively to reasonable requests indicating a willingness to learn [or be reminded].
Geoff Sharp says:
May 30, 2011 at 7:20 am
Some points that need to be discussed:
I think we need to acknowledge that Wolf’s contribution to planetary theory are probably irrelevant.
Wolf’s contribution is of historical importance, even if it is not of immediate numerical relevance.
Dynamo theory can exist and dovetail with planetary theory.
Agreed, and I’ve been saying the same thing to Leif for a long time now.
The “z” axis theory (tallbloke) needs to provide some meaningful data.
The correlation I have discovered between ‘z-axis’ motion and hemispheric sunspot production asymmetry should be telling you not to ignore it. In my view, both ‘z-axis’ and ‘x-y-planar’ motion is effective in modulating solar activity. If changes in solar angular momentum are important, so are reversals in the direction of the Sun’s motion up and downwards. QED.
The correlation I have discovered between ‘z-axis’ motion and changes in the Earth’s length of day are telling us that lgl has a good point. The fact that Ian WIlson independently discovered a (weaker) correlation between LOD and x-y planar motion should be telling you something too. Leif may have retreated from Newtonian thought experiment to Einsteinian incalculable catchall, but this correlation indicates forces acting between the Sun, the Earth, and (predominantly) the outer planets.
Cheers, and may good fortune aid your persistent endeavour. Thanks also for your work on sunspot counts, keep it up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:33 am
After an initial jump there are still charges left in the ‘channel’ with will guide the next jump [lightening does the same]. BTW you couldn’t operate a Van der Graaf generator in a plasma with near infinite conductivity, it would short immediately. If there were no solar wind, a planet’s magnetic field could influence the Sun [although the effect would be vanishingly small owing to the magnetic force falling off with the cube of the distance]. The solar wind that brings the sun’s magnetic field out to the planets also prevents the planets’ magnetic field to get to the Sun.
Flux tubes are analogous to ‘the channel’. Electron flows of equal magnitudes go both ways down wires simultaneaously according to some recent reading I’ve done.
Perhaps I should have said ‘he later abandoned the idea’ to forestall silly debate over when [I shall not object if you substitute ‘soon’ by ‘later’ on your website, but you should show the maturity to change the text to what I otherwise suggested]. Wolf clearly did struggle over the years with the problem, never finding a good correlation when new data became available. It is clear that his initial optimism didn’t stay with him. His real discovery of the relationship between the variation of the compass needle and sunspots held up and he every year [when he published the sunspot numbers] never failed to point out that the relationship still held. He never [after his initial announcement] again mentioned his planetary formula [which he would have if the agreement persisted – as he did with the magnetic needle], except finally admitting in 1893 that it didn’t really work to his satisfaction.
I will add your extra statements and graph to the article as I find time. Fair’s fair.
Rudolf Wolf (7 July 1816 – 6 December 1893)
Was this a deathbed recantation Leif? 🙂
Hung has not made any predictions. How many ‘successful’ predictions of flares has he made after his technical report [not even a peer-reviewed paper] was submitted to NASA?
You are now saying both that he didn’t and he did. This is progress. 😉
When in an elevator with a broken cable falling freely towards the ground, you, a hammer, and feather all fall together and are not accelerated relative to each other. It is sad that almost 100 years after that realization it still needs to be said to people who profess they know something about science.
But they are accelerated towards each other Leif. That’s what Newton told us. And if you want to tell me there is no gravitational force and my body is warping time andspace around me, I’ll ask you to do the calcs to show us. 😉
Present a time series of the planetary data and show that whenever a solar cycle has a period of, say, 10.4 years, the planetary series for that same cycle also has a period of 10.4 years. Do this for each of the 23 cycles we have and present here a table of the results [with 23 entries]. If you fail to do this, we can cross out your claim that the planetary data matches.
The graph I linked upthread shows that when corrected for solar windspeed, the match improves. This is what indicates to me that we are looking at an electromagnetic influence on cycle timings. Cycle amplitudes are more likely to be influenced mostly by the angular momentum changes related to barycentric motion releasing energy in the sun’s convective cells, as Wolff and Patrone describe. (Not release of gravitational potential energy as you persist in saying)
Your false precision makes your graph a lot less useful than Timo’s probability distribution graph in my opinion.
The way to deal with uncertainty is to smooth the raw data or fit them to an assumed distribution and show that the fit is significant. I agree that actual data might be less useful than suitably made-up data.
Timo Niroma used unconventional methods, but they are fully described, and the raw data is smoothed by his technique (creating an approximation of a normal ditribution around the uncertain value). The resulting graph is clearly and unambiguously labeled as a probability distribution. Where are the error bars on your graph Leif?
By the way Leif, is there any way of reconstructing solar wind dynamic pressure (proton density).
Thanks.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:48 am
The correlation I have discovered between ‘z-axis’ motion and hemispheric sunspot production asymmetry should be telling you not to ignore it
I wasn’t ignoring, but asking for more detail.
Can we see data for the planetary mass above and below the solar equator (blue line) going back 3000-4000 years. I suspect the pattern may break down due to planetary precession, but I could be wrong. It would be good to see the unsmoothed data as well.
Hi Geoff,
The pattern is consistent, assuming the jpl ephemeris is correct and the angle planets orbit at doesn’t change much over several thousand years. I would guess the direction of tilt of the Sun will precess over very long periods (galactic orbit) and that the angle of tilt would probably change as we go above and below the galactic plane. Those changing orientation parameters aren’t important on the timescale we are discussing however, and anyway, the plane of the planetary orbits probably tilts along with the sun.
That said, the question of why it should be that the planets occupy a fairly narrow band of orbital planes which is tilted at quite a big angle to solar axial rotation is an interesting one, which we shouldn’t ignore. It speaks to me of a torque reaction to back-EMF.
When you look at the unsmoothed data, you see patterns very similar to the x-y planar situation. I’ll dig out and post a couple of graphs on a blog post when I get the chance.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
May 31, 2011 at 6:10 pm
“It is always proper to respond positively to reasonable requests indicating a willingness to learn [or be reminded].”
You mean a willingness to teach.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:50 am
Hi Geoff,
The pattern is consistent, assuming the jpl ephemeris is correct
Thanks Rog, I would like to see that. My interest is more in the relationship between the planetary mass and the solar cycle modulation, rather than the hemispheric relationship.
Hi Geoff,
Me too. I mentioned the hemispheric asymmetry because it demonstrates a direct statistical relationship with the z-axis motion. Of course, it will be synchronised with the x-y planar motion too, and disentangling the relative size of the effects is a part of the puzzle.
A thing to note is that hemispheric asymmetry is greater when the Sun is more active overall. This is a clue.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:48 am
Dynamo theory can exist and dovetail with planetary theory.
Agreed, and I’ve been saying the same thing to Leif for a long time now.
So, you are both saying that the solar dynamo creates and maintains the solar cycle, this is progress.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:16 am
Flux tubes are analogous to ‘the channel’. Electron flows of equal magnitudes go both ways down wires simultaneously according to some recent reading I’ve done.
Very energetic particles [both from the Sun and also GCRs] can overcome the solar wind tsunami, but they are tenuous and don’t play any role in the overall energetics.
Was this a deathbed recantation Leif? 🙂
No, he knew he was wrong already in the 1860s, so was just setting the record straight. Already in VIII [1859] he said that he would follow up his work on his planetary formula [ and show the result ‘in later communications’]. He never did.
You are now saying both that he didn’t and he did.
No, I was asking you how many successful [real] predictions he has made after submitting his report. As far as I know: zero. So, no real predictions at all, successful or not.
if you want to tell me there is no gravitational force and my body is warping time and space around me, I’ll ask you to do the calcs to show us.
Einstein showed us all that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Wolff and Patrone describe. (Not release of gravitational potential energy as you persist in saying)
Wolff and Patrone claim that
Where are the error bars on your graph Leif?
A count does not have error bars. If I count the loose change in my pocket, the number is exact. What he does [inadmissibly] is to vastly increase the number of cases to create the illusion of false significance. In usual counting statistics the chance that the exact count could have occurred by chance involves the square root of the count. So if two bins have, say, a count of 4 and of 2, are they significantly different? The square roots of 4 and 2 are 2 and 1.4, so the counts with ‘error bars’ are 4+-2 and 2+-1.4, which means that the difference between 4 and 2 is not significant. Timo inflates the number of cases to about 20 and so creates the false impression of good statistics on made-up data.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:31 am
By the way Leif, is there any way of reconstructing solar wind dynamic pressure (proton density).
Yes, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Density-Reconstruction.png
Ulric Lyons says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:34 am
“It is always proper to respond positively to reasonable requests indicating a willingness to learn [or be reminded].”
You mean a willingness to teach.
You are avoiding the question.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:39 am
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:50 am
Both of you are failing to provide the year by year list of predicted sunspot number, so your ideas are useless as a predictive tool, as well as useless as a means to verification.
Leif says:
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:31 am
By the way Leif, is there any way of reconstructing solar wind dynamic pressure (proton density).
Yes, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Density-Reconstruction.png
How cool is that!
Thanks Leif, I should be able to reconstruct a data set from my solar wind velocity and sunspot number data which is good enough for my purposes.
Leif says:
Both of you are failing to provide the year by year list of predicted sunspot number, so your ideas are useless as a predictive tool, as well as useless as a means to verification.
I’ve been working on cycle timing rather than amplitude, so I don’t have a dataset to offer. Sorry.
Cycle amplitude is next on my list though, and once I have a method I am personally confident in, you can be sure I will provide you with a prediction time series, for your eyes only until I’m ready to publish.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 8:07 am
Thanks Leif, I should be able to reconstruct a data set from my solar wind velocity and sunspot number data which is good enough for my purposes.
You need the magnetic field too: density [protons per cm^3) = B^2/(Vo^2(0.00195 Rz + 0.186)) where B is HMF in nT, Vo is solar wind speed in units of 100 km/sec and Rz is the sunspot number. For long-term reconstructions you must consider the possibility that Rz may not be correct.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 8:14 am
you can be sure I will provide you with a prediction time series
for all enthusiasts: unless a time series [year by year] can be produced you cannot claim ‘excellent agreements’. Such claims would have to wait for production of said series. If you are only predicting amplitudes you can construct a year-by-year time series by using an average timing and by scaling the average shape of a cycle by the predicted amplitude [as Dikpati did]. If you are only predicting timing, you can use an average shape and amplitude of the cycle.
All attempts of verification fail on the lack of a well-defined comparison time series.
for your eyes only until I’m ready to publish
No need. Publish first, then there is a firm basis for discussion.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 8:07 am
Thanks Leif, I should be able to reconstruct a data set from my solar wind velocity and sunspot number data which is good enough for my purposes.
The theory behind it is that we expect ‘equipartition’ between the various forms of energy: the kinetic energy has to be strong enough to drag the magnetic field out from the Sun, so the stronger the magnetic field [B] is, the stronger the solar wind has to blow [kinetic energy ~mass x speed squared]. Mass goes with the density [n], and the magnetic energy goes with the square of the field, so mag energy/kinetic energy should be roughly constant: Quasi-Invariant Q ~ B^2/(nV^2). However, CMEs also helps blast magnetic fields into space, to Q should increase with the number of CMEs which follows the sunspot number. As you can see http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Quasi-Invariant.png that is indeed the case, so we need to correct for that [which is the Rz dependent divisor]. So, here you have a mechanism and a physical explanation and good quantitative relations. Until you get the planetary theory on the same level, it will continue to be fringe-physics.
Aye aye cap’n
Thanks for the useful equation for proton density. How well is the CME-sunspot number relationship holding up at the moment?
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
How well is the CME-sunspot number relationship holding up at the moment?
Nobody has remarked on a breakdown of that relationship, so I expect it to be still valid. I could bring it up to date, but then there is the question: how well did it hold up before 1965? Once there is a good physical reason for a relationship that game doesn’t need to be played all the time.
Just thought it might help validate the Waldmeier correction factor by another method.
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Just thought it might help validate the Waldmeier correction factor by another method.
Will not do, as the spread is too large and there could be other reasons, e.g. L&P effect or Gleissberg ‘cycles’.
But since it is easy to verify, here is the up-to-date version http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Quasi-Invariant.png
It has not changed significantly. The formula now becomes [protons per cm^3) = B^2/(Vo^2(0.001905 Rz + 0.191)) which within the errors is not different from the previously given.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm
The formula now becomes [protons per cm^3) = B^2/(Vo^2(0.001905 Rz + 0.191))
which can be written in the simpler form:
n = 5.25 (B/Vo)^2/(1+Rz/100)
Near deep solar minima where B~4, V~400 hence Vo~4, and Rz~0 you simply get n~5.25 as a sort of baseline value.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 1, 2011 at 7:35 am
“You are avoiding the question.”
Your guess could be as good as mine, I have though looked at enough past examples to be able to apply it very successfully in forecasting short term terrestrial surface temperature deviations.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:58 pm
I have though looked at enough past examples to be able to apply it very successfully in forecasting short term terrestrial surface temperature deviations.
so in your opinion, Ceres is very important. Enough that its influence can be seen [‘looked through’] directly, rising over all the other things that affect the weather.
Is it possible ceres is the orphan moon of the planet which is now the asteroid belt?
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Is it possible ceres is the orphan moon of the planet which is now the asteroid belt?
There is not enough mass in the asteroid belt to form a decent size planet. More likely, several smaller planets formed and later collided and disintegrated in the process.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:17 pm
“so in your opinion, Ceres is very important. Enough that its influence can be seen [‘looked through’] directly, rising over all the other things that affect the weather.”
No, inferior planet configurations involving Ceres are not responsible for the largest changes in solar activity, but are still important.
Other configurations of different bodies result in far larger changes in solar activity, AND hence the weather.
“density [protons per cm^3) = B^2/(Vo^2(0.00195 Rz + 0.186)) where B is HMF in nT, ”
Gezundheit 😉