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.
tallbloke says:
September 4, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Same with sunspot number integration. Leif doesn’t like non-linear correlations though.
I showed cosmic ray integration since 1957. Sunspot integration will give the same result [try it and show it] as SSN is a good proxy for GCRs. And they are not like the temperature variation. This has nothing to do with non-linear correlation. Both Shaviv and Svensmark claim a linear correlation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
We have such a network: see Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Neutron-Monitor-Network.pdf
~
Thank you Dr. S.
Some of this is kinda depressing.
“”The status of neutron monitor operations in the past decade is summarized
in Fig. 1. There were fourteen neutron monitors operated by U.S. institutions at the
beginning of the decade (2001), all but one of which were supported by NSF. Since
then, four have closed, including the two longest-operating monitors in the world
(Climax and Mt. Washington). Of the ten monitors remaining, only two operate with
NSF support. The remainder continue to operate, for the time being, under
institutional support.
The present situation with U.S.-operated neutron monitors is not
sustainable. The small amount of available federal funding makes it difficult to attract
young researchers into the field,..””
Europeans seem to be keeping it up though. Ground based telescopes backing up the ground monitors sounded pretty cool. I didn’t see any in the South Atlantic, some in S. Africa and Peru.
~
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Anthony & Dr. Svalgaard
Secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are not negligible on decadal scale (about order of an average magnetic storm ?), they are most prominent in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Further more they correlate well with long term temperature changes in the region. I would consider this to be effect of the ‘ocean currents – magnetic field’ bidirectional interaction rather then the impact of GCRs.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm
~
Earth’s field is like a leaking sieve during even these slow coronal wind stream events Vuks. That dayside lays open during these coronal windsteam events and looks as though it may be the cause of the dented SAA where it rides nearest to Earth. Not to mention several specific weaker areas not just the poles.
Maybe we should say Earth’s magnetic field collects cosmic rays in its cosmic raydiation belts. Then are released by solar events. No no no they are just jumping around all over the place those pesky cosmic rays.
~
Hmmm Vuks, let me think about this for a while.
“”magnetic field’ bidirectional interaction “”
tallbloke says:
September 4, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“Leif doesn’t like non-linear correlations though.”
Not so much non-linear. But, he prefers memory-less systems. He does not grok ARMA.
Bart says:
September 4, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Not so much non-linear. But, he prefers memory-less systems. He does not grok ARMA.
You have no idea. The climate system has a lot of memory: it takes thousands of years for a step change in forcing to penetrate to the bottom of the ocean, but half of the resulting change in temperature takes place in the first decade, so the effective time constant is short. Therefore it makes no sense to integrate over many decades or centuries. This you, of course, don’t now, so listen and learn.
Should have said,
Dayside lays open during dayside reconnection that occurs with slow speed solar windstreams coming from coronal holes. That constant windstream pressure could be directly related to the dent in the cosmic radiation belts that sits nearest to Earth at the SAA. Or not.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“Therefore it makes no sense to integrate over many decades or centuries.”
See?
Bart says:
September 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm
“Therefore it makes no sense to integrate over many decades or centuries.”
See?
You must mean: “I see!”. Repenting sinners are always accepted back in the flock.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 4, 2011 at 7:48 pm
A lot of derogatory remarks and other gibberish that loosely translates in to “Don’t write, quote or reference anything that contradicts my beliefs, I am the owner of all things solar. Anything not on my power-point slides is heresy and a sin against the keeper of Sol. It is my duty to ensure that the keeper of Sol has the last comment on anything solar.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2011 at 2:23 pm
…1/10 per century
10% per century, makes 5000 – 6000 nT, that is far more than few nT the HMF does.
….correlation you might think there is spurious.
This one is nearly 2000 year long
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Not the Svensmark’s cloud albedo since change is in the opposite direction (weaker mf = higher temperature).
Many spurious events around (currents are currently current!)
See you.
Carla see graph on page 18:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/pdf/1367-2630_11_6_063015.pdf
Andrew30 says:
September 4, 2011 at 10:38 pm
It is my duty to ensure that the keeper of Sol has the last comment on anything solar.
Very perceptive.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 4, 2011 at 11:19 pm
10% per century, makes 5000 – 6000 nT, that is far more than few nT the HMF does.
The HMF has nothing to do with the decrease of the main field, but you are correct that the Earth’s magnetic field is changing significantly. Some think that in a thousand years time it might be gone completely and then come back with reversed polarity.
Dr. Svalgaard,
“Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.”
The value and not the heading would seem to be what is relevant. The value is still in the warm range.
If the Svensmark hypothesis is correct, I suspect it is not the part of the climate system where the amplitude of the change in cosmic ray intensity is greatest at the poles that is the most relevant, but rather where most of the solar energy enters the climates system, i.e., at the tropics. The solar correlated variation in CSI near the equator is still on the order of 10% with the solar cycle.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:12 am
Carla see graph on page 18:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/pdf/1367-2630_11_6_063015.pdf
~
Thanks Vuks, my brain just exploded. Did a little more than just look at the graph on page 18. Started my read after intro on page 17 thru conclusions.
That these hotspots are indendent of the dipole and correlate with major ocean currents wowee. Have to wonder about surface currents on the solar disk too and wonder for a while. (ie have to get some work done around here)
Hope Leif reads this, as it would be a good addition to his repetoire. Probably already has and made the hair stand up on the back of his neck. lol
Surface harmonics, now what could be the energy source..
BTW, Thanks for the link Mr. Vuks..
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:12 am
Carla see graph on page 18:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/pdf/1367-2630_11_6_063015.pdf
Ryskin’s speculations are basically nonsense. The observed secular evolution of the main field is a consequence of motions in the liquid metal outer core. His lament that data coverage is poor is moot as the modern description is based on almost perfect coverage provided by orbiting satellites.
Martin Lewitt says:
September 5, 2011 at 7:09 am
If the Svensmark hypothesis is correct, I suspect it is not the part of the climate system where the amplitude of the change in cosmic ray intensity is greatest at the poles that is the most relevant, but rather where most of the solar energy enters the climates system, i.e., at the tropics. The solar correlated variation in CSI near the equator is still on the order of 10% with the solar cycle.
There is great confusion on this. Svensmark and other adherents claim that only high-energy GCRs with energy above 10-15 Gev are effective. These enter the atmosphere equally at all latitudes. It is the lower energy particles that have a latitude dependence. The main point is still that there has been no trend at all in the GCR flux over the past 60 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png
Dr. Svalgaard,
“The main point is still that there has been no trend at all in the GCR flux over the past 60 years:”
When I look at the graph I see a potential contribution to the mid-century cooling that isn’t present in the increasing CO2 trend. The cool phase of the PDO and the generous uncertainty in aerosol forcing allow the mid-century cooling, a plateau in solar activity, an increase in black carbon and CO2 forcing to all be accomodated in the models. The modelers generally agree that even if the forcing circa 2004 doesn’t increase at all, the climate is “committed” to another 1 degree C of warming over the next century. Had the oceans reached equilibrium with solar forcing at the beginning of the plateau in solar activity circa 1940? Or was there unrealized climate commitment even then? The models generally spin up from what the conditions are thought to have been in 1880, but what was the state of the oceans really after the centuries of “the little ice age”? Solar activity does not have to increase after 1940 in order to have contributed to the late century warming, it only had to remain at levels higher than the oceans had yet to reach equilibrium with, which the modelers (Wigley, et al, and Meehl et al) say would take over 1000 years.
There is a reason that the IPCC summary is very careful to keep solar grouped with volcanic and CO2 grouped with aerosols and black carbon:
“During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.”
And that is because if you combined solar with aerosols and black carbon the models would also be able to simulate the observed patterns in warming. Volcanoes combined with CO2 would likely have produced cooling. Very likely, the uncertainly in aerosols which allow models ranging from 2 degrees C to 6 degrees C sensitivity to “match” the observed temperature pattern would also allow the models to match the pattern with changes in aerosol forcing alone. And these remarkable models could accomplish all that “matching” without getting ENSO, the PDO, the precipitation, the surface albedo feedback or the clouds right. I don’t think we can rule out variation in solar coupling to the climate being responsible for 30 to 60% or more of the recent warming even granting flat solar activity for the last half of the century. Which makes me skeptical of a 90% likelihood that nearly all the recent warming is due to GHGs. The say “most”, but don’t contradict the interpretation “nearly all”. It appears to me that the proponents of the anthropogenic GHG theory have been trying to obscure rather than clarify the issues with their careful word crafting, political maneuvering, personal attacks and refusal to consider the implications of the model diagnostic literature. My null hypothesis would be a 30-30-30 split between solar, natural variation (like the PDO), and CO2 (with black carbon) based upon our current understanding, with the PDO probably also attributed partly to solar variation in some kind of resonance with the ocean basins.
I like to rule out plausible competing hypotheses and to directly address possible contrary evidence before I declare the science “settled”. Those declaring the science settled have done neither.
The next couple decades promise to be exciting times for climate science. What do you think is the best proxy reconstruction of the high energy component of the GCR flux we can do covering both the MWP and the little ice age?
Martin Lewitt says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:25 am
What do you think is the best proxy reconstruction of the high energy component of the GCR flux we can do covering both the MWP and the little ice age?
The community has recognized the need for an impartial and thorough discussion of this question with as a result a reconstruction that can be trusted: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
The Steinhilber 2010 reconstruction seems good to me [with a few caveats] back to about 1720.
Martin Lewitt says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:25 am
Solar activity does not have to increase after 1940 in order to have contributed to the late century warming
There is good evidence that solar activity has not changed since the 1720s. See Figure 2 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thank you for your efforts to advance the science. Hopefully you can validate a proxy that will allow confidence in an even longer reconstruction.
regards and good luck!
*****
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2011 at 6:03 pm
You have no idea. The climate system has a lot of memory: it takes thousands of years for a step change in forcing to penetrate to the bottom of the ocean, but half of the resulting change in temperature takes place in the first decade, so the effective time constant is short.
*****
Only half of the resulting changes in a decade? The diurnal “lag” is ~3 hrs. The seasonal lag is ~2.5 months. I’d bet the 50% change from a global forcing-change occurs in, at most, only a few yrs — the time-constant for aerosols from Pinatubo (which was nearly global) was only a yr or so. Yes, the deep ocean does have a long memory, but it’s a small, barely-recalled memory.
But I agree w/your point.
Dr. Svalgaard,
“There is good evidence that solar activity has not changed since the 1720s.”
I agree that solar activity that high in the 1700s is problematic. It might take the maunder minimum combined with volcanic activity over the 1700s and the preceding centuries to have the oceans in a state where climate commitment could carry warming through the second half of the 20th century. Volcanic activity would have to have canceled out that burst of sustained solar activity. Here is a recent report of volcanic activity:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Gao2008JD010239.pdf
The argument then would be that the late 19th century and the 20th century are characterized as much by low volcanic activity as by high solar activity. In which case this IPCC statement:
“During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling.”
Is relative to what? Over the last 50 years the low level of volcanic activity increased more than the solar changed, would not be saying much at all. Could the warming just be due to much less net cooling than the oceans have adjusted to, i.e., a high levell of solar activity and a low level of volcanic cooling?
Good luck to the team.
Co-Organizers: Leif Svalgaard (USA), Mike Lockwood (UK), Jürg Beer (Switzerland)
Team members: Andre Balogh (UK), Paul Charbonneau (Canada), Ed Cliver (USA), Nancy Crooker (USA), Marc DeRosa (USA), Ken McCracken (Australia), Matt Owens (UK), Pete Riley (USA), George Siscoe (USA), Sami Solanki (Germany), Friedhelm Steinhilber (Switzerland), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), Yi-Ming Wang (USA)
I wonder would they make of this little graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm
I done most of data organising and have a rough draft; once it is finished I will email graph with a short intro to all members.
beng says:
September 6, 2011 at 6:36 am
Only half of the resulting changes in a decade? […]
But I agree w/your point.
Look at Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048623.pdf
Martin Lewitt says:
September 6, 2011 at 7:19 am
Volcanic activity would have to have canceled out that burst of sustained solar activity.
There is evidence that the cosmogenic record is contaminated by volcanic activity [and climate change itself controlling the circulation that brings 10Be to the polar regions]. The dips in solar activity deduced from the cosmic ray record around 1700, 1810, and 1890 may be more due to volcanic activity than to solar activity.
10Be is deposited by adhering to stratospheric aerosols which then drift down and rain out. The amount of aerosols in the stratosphere is controlled mainly by volcanic eruptions. There were such strong eruptions in 1693 (Hekla on Iceland, having large effect on nearby Greenland), 1766 (Hekla), 1809 (see Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), 1815 (Tambora), 1883 (Krakatoa).
It is estimated that more than half the change in the cosmic ray record is due to such non-solar effects.
*****
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2011 at 10:27 am
Look at Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048623.pdf
*****
Thanks. I’ll study that. We’re really not that far apart to begin with.
I realize that an earth w/large continental ice-sheets present (unlike today) will have longer lag times, w/such large, relatively atmospheric & solar-interactive masses present.