Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv posted a guest essay at Luboš Motl The Reference Frame titled: The CLOUD is clearing
In a nutshell he’s saying that cosmic ray flux modulated by solar variability has a strong place right alongside CO2, and may in fact be a larger forcing.
He writes:
The results are very beautiful and they demonstrate, yet again, how cosmic rays (which govern the amount of atmospheric ionization) can in principle have an effect on climate.
What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an amplification mechanism must be operating.
…
As a consequence, anyone trying to understand past (and future) climate change must consider the whole effect that the sun has on climate, not just the relatively small variations in the total irradiance (which is the only solar influence most modelers consider). This in turn implies, that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun, and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg increase per CO2 doubling)
Read the entire essay here
h/t to Dr. Indur Goklany
Also, William Briggs has an excellent summary as well.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The study gives a mechanism that could explain the Maunder and Dalton etc minimums. Quiet sun = more GCRs = more clouds = more reflection of sunlight back into space = cooling.
@ur momisugly Leif
A bit disingenuous of you to cherry pick one sentence from Nir Shaviv.
Kirkby has changed his tune recently compared to previous statements he’s made, even in published material. Why is that? But you are content to use one liners to support your POV, and imply or state outright everyone else are complete dunces unless you approve.
M.A.Vukcevic says:September 1, 2011 at 11:54 am “My simple view is the Sun is constant (within reason)”
But as many others have pointed out the UV content of the TSI is not any where near “constant”, so why only use TSI?
The CAGW proponents doesn’t like the idea of any kind of rays entering the earth’s atmosphere since the precautionary principle then states they need to spend all their money on tin foil, and courses in hat making, to protect, their otherwise unshielded heads, from being bombarded by potentially brain frying cosmic rays and not just brain sucking Rays from CIA.
DR says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm
A bit disingenuous of you to cherry pick one sentence from Nir Shaviv.
It would seem that this is the most important sentence. If that statement were false, the rest falls apart.
But you are content to use one liners to support your POV, and imply or state outright everyone else are complete dunces unless you approve.
I point out that the temperature variation does not match the cosmic ray variation. What does that make of people who in spite of that think there is a ‘well known’ relation?
I tend to agree with MA Vukcevic. I think the cosmic ray effect, like CO2 is marginal. I am more persuaded by the arguments that periodically flying through cosmic dustclouds will have a more profound influence.
There is an obvious correlation between solar activity and the weather on earth. However I am told that it is not radiation-based as the levels remain roughly static, so is it the effect of the magnetic field ? What apart from cosmic rays does the magnetic field affect ?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/29/acs-webinar-on-climate-change-part-ii/
Does it make sense that if we cross the galactic equator, that we get even more than if we’re slightly above or below? Becase according to the Mayans, we’re in the midst of crossing it now.
“We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. ”
what? how can a trace chemical have such an effect. Impossible. The same goes for C02, its only a trace element and we all know that the skeptical argument about trace elements rulz!.
/sarc off
John Barrett says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:42 pm
There is an obvious correlation between solar activity and the weather on earth.
This is not ‘obvious’ and not established.
What apart from cosmic rays does the magnetic field affect ?
The sun’s magnetic field [as measured by that which is dragged out by the solar wind to hit the Earth] has not shown any significant trend since at least the 1830s [and that is the main reason the cosmic rays haven’t either]: http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
“There are apparently numerous correlations from the solar ‘barycentre properties’”
Right. That is also why GCR activity increases and decrease as to the extent that old sol is agitated by solar system bodies tugging it out of round, thus increases and decreases in the size of the hypothetical solar oort cloud. The understanding here is that GCR activity accounts for condensation nuclei for cloud formation as do other atmospheric ions. The total needs to be accounted for to quantify cloud coverage on a standard day, or any other day.
The problems are in hypothesis ownership. We are constantly arguing over minutia rather than focused on the big picture. Most of what we scientifically study in global climate is hypothetical. Correlations are devised and discovered, however it is the entirety that is not understood and what follows are hypothesis of correlation.
CERN used a controlled lab to reproduce the Svensmark hypotheses. Many other hypothesis are historical in data collection: example tree rings; however that particular historical data is grossly biased and incomplete. Then there is surface temperatures that are scattered about and UHI. In a short drive to the grocery store I observe the temperatures change by 10 degrees! Who decided what to use???? Thus the history has to be set in a context that supports the hypotheses and vice verse without all the biases.
So with the big picture in mind, we have ocean currents, ocean temperatures, earth tilt and orbit, oort extent, solar wind, total solar radiance, solar system barycenter, volcanic activity, continental drift, atmosphere density and its components, and etc., any GCR increase or decrease in our ever changing climate system has an affect, be it small. Continue to grow with new understandings and keep the word hypothesis in context of what is believed.
Leif, hasn’t the effect of Forbush events on cloud cover already been clearly demonstrated?
A. C. Osborn says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm
M.A.Vukcevic says:September 1, 2011 at 11:54 am “My simple view is the Sun is constant (within reason)”
But as many others have pointed out the UV content of the TSI is not any where near “constant”, so why only use TSI?
…………….
Agree, but UV is only a tiny part of the TSI, with not much energy, while the rest of TSI has a lot of it! Ratios of the heat retained / reradiated / moved pole-ward is the only thing that can move global climate (with of course the theory as formulated by my old university’s professor Milutin Milankovic, who sadly died long before I got there)
Steven Mosher says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm
……….
You are correct
both the GCR and the CO2 are about equal in their irrelevance.
dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:42 pm
And there never will be a perfect correlation with anything with so many factors affecting the climate.
Let the physics experimentors keep right on experimenting and sorting it out, and let the Astrophysicists keep right on finding out what’s really out there.
Meanwhile, it’s time to chew on recent discoveries. It doesn’t cost anything.
We still don’t know the why of what’s gone on in the Sun to produce what we are currently seeing, and, like the climate, we may never really know.
Why did the Sun do that? Why didn’t it keep on with the big cycles?
Steven Mosher says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop
Like AGW became a religion so is skepticism. Both developments are saddening, but such is human nature, I guess, that things eventually end up like this.
As a chemist my eyes opened most at the mention of 35 pptv of ammonia in the chamber mix. This is such a small quantity that there would be problems even in metering it accurately. Despite some deep thinking, I cannot discern its fuction. At those levels, factors such as adsorption on chamber walls would have to be considered.
Anyone have an idea? I would feel intuitively that this chamber concentration is well below that found in the natural atmosphere, especialy close to the ground (where it might not be relevant to some mechanisms – also noting that its atmospheric residence time is probably very short).
David Corcoran says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Leif, hasn’t the effect of Forbush events on cloud cover already been clearly demonstrated?
No: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html
“In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data”
rbateman says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Why did the Sun do that? Why didn’t it keep on with the big cycles?
We must always keep looking. but that is very different from saying: “it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate”
Let me roll up my sleeves and tighten up my pull ups.
Some vital data has recently surfaced that Earth has been bombarded by cosmic particles in ‘hotspots’ around the globe.
It is difficult without a longer study to determine if this is a cyclic trend or random.
If we assume that there is a correlation with increases in cosmic particles as a by-product of a lessening solar magnetic field and/or event anomalies, what difference does it make if the solar wind varies or not ‘dragging’ out to Earth?
I would think our concern or focus should be the returning magnetic flux from the outer boundaries of the heliosphere.
If we assume that outgoing solar winds alone dictate trends in cosmic particles, then how does that justify ‘hotspot’ activity?
Having said all this, to assume their isn’t ‘any significant trend’ in increases of cosmic spallation, at a geophysical level, maybe a bit archaic and/or premature.
Steven Mosher says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop
=======
Along with the economy, jobs and confidence in our elected officials.
My only hope is to stem the bleeding before the “patient” dies.
Oh, I forgot, the windmills will save us all.
Reason is losing out to guilt driven popularity polls.
Check your history books for what comes next.
ClimateForAll says:
September 1, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I would think our concern or focus should be the returning magnetic flux from the outer boundaries of the heliosphere.
There really isn’t any. It is like asking about returning river water from the Gulf to St. Louis.
to assume their isn’t ‘any significant trend’ in increases of cosmic spallation, at a geophysical level, maybe a bit archaic and/or premature.
That is what the observations show.
—————-
Leif,
It seems in the true nature of the scientific process we have Dr. Nir Shaviv disagreeing with Dr. J. Kirkby. Let their dialog begin. Is either Kirkby or Shaviv invested with more authority than the other in this matter? It would seem not. I would like to see them dialog directly with us watching.
Leif, which graph(s) of Shaviv’s do you have issue with?
John
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm
David Corcoran says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Leif, hasn’t the effect of Forbush events on cloud cover already been clearly demonstrated?
No: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html
Yes, but not by the people Leif links to.
This has probably caused past extinctions, and very sudden ones at that.