Guest post by Alec Rawls
In an interview with NewScientist magazine, Imperial College professor of atmospheric physics Joanna Haigh scoffs at the idea that late 20th century warming could have been caused by the sun:
Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. “If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985.”
What she means is that the 20th century’s persistent high level of solar activity peaked in 1985. That is the estimate developed by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich. The actual peak was later (solar cycle 22, which ended in 1996, was stronger than cycle 21 by almost every measure) but set that aside. Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
Haigh’s argument against solar warming was in response to my suggestion that one new sentence in the leaked Second Order Draft of AR5 is a “game changer.” That is the sentence where the authors admit strong evidence that some substantial mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The only solar forcing in the IPCC’s computer models is Total Solar Irradiance so if some solar forcing beyond TSI is also at work then all their model results are wrong.
No, no, no, Haigh told the NewScientist, it is “the bloggers” who have it all wrong:
They’re misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say.
Look whose accusing people of misunderstanding. This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing. When a forcing goes barely past its peak (solar cycle 22 nearly identical in magnitude to cycle 21), does that really create cooling? Haigh should try it at home: put a pot of water on a full burner for a minute then turn the burner down to medium high. Does she really think the pot will stop warming, or that it will actually start to cool?
“Deliberately or otherwise,” this is an astounding misunderstanding of the very most basic physics, and Haigh is not the only consensus scientist who is making this particular “mistake.” Hers is the stock answer that pretty much every “consensus” scientists gives when asked about the solar-warming hypothesis. I have collected examples from a dozen highly regarded scientists: Lockwood, Solanki, Forster, Muscheler, Benestad, and more. Not surprisingly, it turns out that they are all making some crucial unstated assumptions.
Solar warming and ocean equilibrium
To claim that the 20th century’s high level of solar forcing would only cause warming until some particular date such as 1970, or 1980, or 1987, one must be assuming that the oceans had equilibrated by that date to the ongoing high level of forcing. That’s just the definition of equilibrium. After a step up in forcing the system will continue to warm until equilibrium is reached.
When I asked these scientists if they were making an unstated assumption that the oceans must have equilibrated by 1980 say to whatever forcing effect high 20th century solar activity was having, almost all of them answered yes, each giving their own off-the-cuff rationale for this assumption, none of which stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. Isaac Held’s two-box model of ocean equilibration is better than Mike Lockwood’s one-box model, but just move to the next simplest model, a three-box model of ocean equilibration, and any idea that longer term forcing won’t cause longer term warming collapses.
The well mixed upper ocean layer (the top 100-200 meters) does equilibrate rapidly to a change in forcing, showing a response time of less than ten years, but that isn’t the end of the story. As the top layer warms up it transfers heat to the next deeper ocean layers. If the elevated forcing persists then these next deeper layers will continue to warm on the time scale of multiple decades to multiple centuries. This warming will reduce the temperature differential between the upper and deeper layers, causing there to be less and less heat loss over time from the upper to the deeper layers, causing the upper layer to continue to warm on the time scale of multiple decades to multiple centuries.
This accords with what we actually see. Since the 50 year absence of sunspots that coincided with the bottom of the Little Ice Age, 300 years of uneven warming have coincided with an uneven rise in solar activity. Any claim that these three centuries of natural warming had to have ended by a particular 20th century date (never mind right when solar activity was at its peak), is at the very least highly speculative. To claim that we can be confident that this is what happened is borderline insane.
Or maybe it’s that other thing that Joanna Haigh insinuates about. Maybe there is an element of deliberateness to this “misunderstanding” where scads of PhD scientists all pretend that warming is driven by the rate of change of the temperature forcing, not the level of the forcing. How else to blame late 20th century warming on human activity? Some rationale has to be given for why it can’t have been caused by the high level of solar activity that was still raging. Aha, what if temperature were driven by the trend in the forcing rather than the level of the forcing? That would do it. Let’s say that one. Let’s pretend that even peak forcing will cause cooling as soon as the trend in the forcing turns down.
It’s one psycho-drama or the other: either Haigh’s insinuations about dishonesty are projection, accusing others of what she and her cohorts are actually doing, or she’s just dumber than a box of rocks.
Haigh also channels Steven Sherwood, pretending that the highlighted sentence is just about GCR-cloud
The draft report acknowledges substantial evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification and lists Henrick Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory as an example of one possible such mechanism (7-43 of the SOD):
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.
Haigh claims that the evidence about cloud formation being induced by cosmic rays points to a weak mechanism, then simply ignores the report’s admission of substantial evidence that some such mechanism must be at work:
Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says.
Rawls says that if Haigh had read the actual sentence itself, she would have realized that it isn’t about galactic cosmic rays, but only mentions GCR-cloud as one possible solar amplifier.
Aussie climatologist Steven Sherwood did the same thing, claiming (very prematurely) that the evidence does not support GCR-cloud as a substantial mechanism of solar amplification, then pretending away the report’s admission of clear evidence that some substantial such mechanism is at work:
He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.
“I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.
As JoNova and I blogged last weekend, this ploy inverts the scientific method, using theory (dissatisfaction with one particular theory of solar amplification) as an excuse for ignoring the evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. Using theory to dismiss evidence is pure, definitional anti-science. Unfortunately, NewScientist gives this slick anti-scientist the last word:
“The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.”
Sherwood and Haigh are flat lying to the public about what a simple single sentence says, pretending the admission of strong evidence for some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing was never made, then trusting sympathetic reporters and editors not to call them on it. This is why the report had to be made public. After my submitted comments showed how thoroughly the new sentence undercuts the entire report it was obvious that the consensoids who run the IPCC would take the sentence right back out, and here Sherwood and Haigh are already trying to do exactly that.
Too late, anti-scientists. Your humbug is on display for the whole world to see.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“Weirdly when I look at cloudiness at Forbush events where GCR increase dramatically I can find no change in cloudiness. When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent. Seems they want to claim an effect but not define a test for it.
Perhaps not all readers are aware of the Wilson Cloud Chamber, invented 100 years ago, which detects subatomic particles by the creation of a streak of cloud through the chamber caused by water droplets condensing in the wake of particle track. GCRs were detected along with other particles using the chamber. (Let us hope Svensmark and colleagues gave credit to Wilson for the idea.) How’s that for a testable hypothesis? Much more convincing than the curve fitting “evidence” of CO2 goes up, temp goes up; ladies’ hemlines go up, copper prices go up and the like.
Perhaps the manifestation of the GCR cloud streaks is more subtle and not easily seen in satelite imagery. There can be no question, I would hope, that GCRs do create a water droplet track. To be easily visible it would require high humidity. It would also be confounded somewhat by the presence of already formed clouds nucleated by other aerosols. Perhaps the trains of water droplets occur from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere creating a more diffuse, diaphanous cloudiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
Also, none other than William Herschel, Astronomer Royal who noted the relationship between sunspot numbers and the price of wheat! Presumably low numbers-high prices. “He became famous for his discovery of the planet Uranus, along with two of its major moons (Titania and Oberon), and also discovered two moons of Saturn. In addition, he was the first person to discover the existence of infrared radiation. He is known, as well, for the twenty-four symphonies that he composed.” (from Wikipedia) A comparison of the giants of science with today’s fare in climate science (and apparently physics – Haigh, Sherwood, etc) is most telling.
Silver Ralph says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:55 am
then why do the completely independent Greenwich Sunspot counts agree with them?
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/130_12.png
First, they are not sunspot numbers but sunspot areas, and they do not agree with the official Zurich sunspot numbers. See slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
We are, in fact, using the Greenwich Sunspot Areas to validate the artificial change around 1946.
As you can see in this graph, the Greenwich Sunspot count also shows a clear increase in activity since the LIA
The LIA was not in 1874. See slide 8 of the above link. Activity has a roughly 100 year ‘cycle’ and your plot starts at a low cycle, as we having right now.
Silver Ralph says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:55 am
then why do the completely independent Greenwich Sunspot counts agree with them?
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/130_12.png
First, they are not sunspot numbers but sunspot areas, and they do not agree with the official Zurich sunspot numbers. See slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
We are, in fact, using the Greenwich Sunspot Areas to validate the artificial change around 1946.
As you can see in this graph, the Greenwich Sunspot count also shows a clear increase in activity since the LIA
The LIA was not in 1874. See slide 8 of the above link. Activity has a roughly 100 year ‘cycle’ of which we had had three the last 300 years and your plot starts at a low cycle, as we having right now.
See slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
We are, in fact, using the Greenwich Sunspot Areas to validate the artificial change around 1946.
Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Silent???
Then how come WUWT had this thread? and Luboš Motl had Forbush decreases confirm cosmoclimatology?
Sure sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
Forbush decrease + one week delay => the mass of water stored in clouds decreases.
Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
I think it has more to do with the fractured way Mr. Mosher sometimes communicates with incomplete/cryptic commentary on blogs. People often can’t figure out what he’s saying. I sure can’t sometimes. Thats’ not intended to be derogatory, only pointing out that better communications are needed if cogent responses are expected.
The spoken word has much inflection that adds communication, whereas the Internet written word, rattled off as a short comment, basically leaves it in a confused or incomplete comprehension state. The onus is on the commenter to be clear and precise. See Dr. Robert Brown’s comments for example.
Anthony
MarkW says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:31 am
Obviously the hottest day of every year occurs on the summer solstice and temperatures start droping the very next day.
==========================
Actually the hottest temperatures are roughly 6 weeks after the summer solstice, depending on location.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic?
When I was a student of physics at Imperial many years ago, it was a renowned college, part of the University of London. Since then it has become a separate organisation and has become commercialised. It now is prepared to employ second and third rate academics as long as they bring in the money (as per the Grantham Institute with its millions). As long as Grantham is pulling the strings, the academic “scientists” will defend the BS climate change mantra to the bitter end (which doesn’t seem far off now). Hopefully
JJ says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:13 am
Alec is absolutely correct. IPCC identifies that something other than TSI is likely happening, dismisses the notion that one thing is happening, and concludes that nothing is happening. This is false reasoning.
No, IPCC says that TSI does not explain the reported correlations between GCRs and climate [without acknowledging that those correlations are even valid] and then goes on the examine the GCR-cloud link and concludes that that doesn’t work:
“7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.” [my bold: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else]
Here is some interesting sunspot number history
It would appear that the decadal average yearly sunspot number level of about 30-50 seems to be the tipping point where levels below this range seems to cause global cooling and above this figure causes global warming unless ocean cycles happen to be out of sync and over ride any warming or cooling
DURING DALTON MINIMUM
The average yearly sun spot numbers during the Dalton Minimum decades [ 1790 to 1837], a period of much colder temperatures like the period 1880-1910 were 27.5, 16.5, 19.3 and 39 . So there is some convincing evidence that low decadal solar sunspot numbers and declining global temperatures are directly linked.
LAST 140 YEARS
decadal decadal decadal
hadcrut3gl hadsst2gl average
decade sunspot #
1870 -0.274 -0.252 51
1880 -0.298 -0.26 37
1890 -0.388 -0.353 45
1900 -0.426 -0.453 35.5
1910 -0.44 -0.442 39.2
1920 -0.29 -0.312 42
1930 -0.139 -0.139 51.1
1940 -0.05 -0.082 72
1950 -0.172 -0.159 91.7
1960 -0.126 -0.103 60.9
1970 -0.102 -0.082 61.6
1980 0.079 0.0445 84.2
1990 0.325 0.185 67.2
2000 0.411 0.334 49.6
The last 10 years 29.2
One can y see that there is a common link between the period of Dalton Minimum, the period 1880-1910 and our current period of 2000-2012 to 2030. It is a decadal sunspot number below 30-50 range and the temperatures were or are cooling in each case.
the1pag says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:41 am
… Has there been any clarification or new report about this from CERN?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Found this The preliminary findings of the Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment, published in Nature journal on Wednesday, show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere cosmic rays cause a ten-fold increase in the formation rate of tiny aerosol particles
But it has the usual get Published Free Card.
“….But these are still far too small to create clouds…..”
Unfortunately as Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski proved, stepping on the toes of the money men and power grabbers will get you fired.
Very few scientists are willing to buck the ‘system’ just for the sake of honesty because it gets you passed over at a minimum and fired and blackballed if you really tick-off the Money People. (BTDT)
FAO D Böehm
‘And don’t waste your time posting your silly video propaganda’ why are they propaganda? When they rely on valid scientific evidence? I notice you can’t counter them, except by blowing smoke at them!
‘Learn to think and speak for yourself for a change’ the reason I can see so far ahead is because I’m standing on the shoulders of giants, were as you are only standing on their toes!
“‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else”
No, “these” refers to “observations” – a lot different.
What you must realise is that the people who have been promoted in much of science have been defenders of the IPCC scam. But to do that you can’t be very bright.
QED……
gnomish says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:05 am
“it can’t be nice for a climate catastrophists kids and pets about now…”
This may be the most cogent comment in the thread – also very funny.
Mosher claims that proponents of GCR-clout are silent about Forbush events:
Svensmark is far from silent about evidence from Forbush events. From the abstract of his 2009 GRL paper:
He also issued an entertaining press release:
http://phys.org/news168353215.html
Carter says:
“…they rely on valid scientific evidence…”
Wrong. Your alarmist propagandists cherry-pick only those facts that support their agenda.
Look out the window, Carter. What do you see? There are no fast rising seas, as was incessantly predicted by your same alarmist crowd. There is no acceleration of natural global warming since the LIA — in fact, global warming has stopped. It may resume, but not one of the GCM’s predicted this halt in warming. The widely predicted “tropospheric hot spot” never appeared, either. And so on. Failed predictions are the hallmark of the alarmist crowd.
Face it, Carter, everything predicted by your “experts” has ended in failure. You smugly comment, “the reason I can see so far ahead is because I’m standing on the shoulders of giants, were as you are only standing on their toes!”
That foolish insult takes the place of the scientific facts I asked you to provide, Carter. Your total lack of empirical evidence shows that the AGW conjecture is unmeasurable. And if it is unmeasurable, it will remain nothing more than a conjecture.
You have no scientific evidence proving that AGW exists. It may, but if so it is a minuscule effect, so minuscule that you cannot even find it, and no one else can, either.
Mario Lento is right, you have been sucked in by alarmist propaganda. You cannot think for yourself, so your only response is to insult. Get back to us if and when you can show empirical, testable evidence proving AGW. Until then, your response shows just how impotent you are in a scientific debate.
herkimer says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:34 am
The last column gives what we now believe is the correct sunspot number
1830 67.4 80.9
1840 57.2 68.6
1850 42.7 51.2
1860 48.9 58.7
1870 51.3 61.6
1880 37.7 45.2
1890 45.9 55.1
1900 35.5 42.6
1910 39.2 47.0
1920 42.0 50.4
1930 51.1 61.3
1940 72.0 79.2
1950 91.7 91.7
1960 60.9 60.9
1970 61.6 61.6
1980 84.2 84.2
1990 67.2 67.2
2000 49.6 49.6
Gary Pearse says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:56 am
“these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else”
No, “these” refers to “observations” – a lot different.
These observations as referred to in the reported correlations. Exactly the same thing. No other observations were mentioned except those reporting correlations between GCRs and climate.
Dr. Svalgaard maintains that solar activity could not be the cause of multi-decadal temperature variability.
Using the same sunspot number values as Dr. Svalgaard, Vukcevic demonstrates the opposite i.e. that the solar activity is indeed THE CAUSE of multi-decadal temperature variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Dr. Svalgaard objections to the Vukcevic calculation:
employing the sunspot magnetic polarity
using the Earth’s magnetic variability as a secondary parameter in his calculations.
Dr. Svalgaard finds result infuriating calls correlation spurious, or even worse.
Dr. Svalgaard may or may not be correct, for time being his authority prevails, but the history of science is abundant with similar examples.
Often the initial findings were strongly denounced by those who considered themselves guardians of ‘correct’ science, but eventually ‘spurious’ was recognised as correct.
Decade ago no one would pay much attention to the Vukcevic calculation, but what happens in the coming decade may be very different.
Time will tell.
Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:07 am
Svensmark is far from silent about evidence from Forbush events
That may be so, but recent data shows a disconnect between cosmic rays and low-cloud cover:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png from
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1
In reply to Steven Mosher’s comment concerning a request to explain Svensmark mechanisms (note plural rather than singular.) and request for proof of the mechanisms.
Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
Which leads one to examine the work of Svensmark and Kirkby on the effect of varying GCR on cloud formation…
Weirdly when I look at cloudiness at Forbush events where GCR increase dramatically I can find no change in cloudiness. When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent. Seems they want to claim an effect but not define a test for it.
William:
I can explain the Svensmark mechanisms in detail at all levels. There will be a CNN level testable hypothesis. If I understand the mechanisms there will be news worthy cooling of the planet.
There are three different Svensmark and Tinsley ion mediated cloud formation mechanisms by which solar changes affect planetary cloud cover (four mechanisms if one counts the modulation of cirrus clouds):
1) Low and weak solar heliosphere which results in increased GCR which results increased ion production.
2) Solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. This mechanism is called electroscavening. There is tight correlation between GCR levels and planetary cloud cover (18 year correlation) up until around 1992. 1992 to 2006 there is a significant increase in solar wind bursts which removes ions. Hence for that period even when GCR is high there is no increase cloud cover as the ions are removed by electroscavenging. See papers linked to below.
3a) Large solar potential changes. (The driver for this mechanism is what happens when very large objects collapse. See comments for details.) Our sun is a second generation star that formed on the core of super nova. After very long periods of high solar activity when the sun changes abruptly to a Maunder minimum there is a delay (10 to 12 years for the earth) as the planets in the solar system reach equilibrium with the solar potential change. While the earth reaches equilibrium, atmospheric ions are removed and there is an increase in volcanic activity. A proof of this assertion would be a sudden and unexplained drop in planetary temperature when the Svensmark GCR mechanism kicks back in.
3b) An increase in GCR also causes a reduction in high level cirrus clouds. The high level cirrus clouds warm the planet particularly at high latitudes during the winter by the greenhouse effect. (See Tinsley’s paper linked to below for details.) Another proof of the item 3 assertion would be record cold temperatures at high latitude regions in the winter. In the Northern hemisphere that will result in record increase in Arctic sea ice.
Comment:
The physics of what is causing the solar potential change is the same as what is causing the potential change for the super massive objects that are found in the core of every galaxy. In the last 5 years, astrophysicists have found a set of structured anomalies (cannot be explained by the current models) concerning galaxy formation and evolution with redshift and quasar evolution of properties with redshift. This mechanism explains the structured anomalies. See for example Disney et al’s Nature published paper “Galaxies are simpler than expected” – six galaxy parameters that should be random are tightly controlled by some unknown mechanism – and Steinhardt and Elvis’ “The Quasar Mass-Luminosity Plane II: High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle” – that reports that some unknown mechanism is limiting the mass of the quasar’s super massive object by redshift. The Steinhard/Elvis finding is related to the finding that quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift and that there is no evolution of metallicity in quasar spectrum with redshift.)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.1554.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3155v1
Since you mentioned Forbush events here is a paper that indicates there is an effect. The Forbush event also creates a space charge differential in the ionsphere which removes cloud forming ions which explain the lack of correlation of cloud cover at high latitudes. At low latitudes the space charge mechanism has less effect.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/662166078h432877/
Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
The changes of rainfall values during great Forbush decreases recorded by the low-latitudinal neutron monitor of Huancayo (47 events from 1956 through 1992) were examined. The data on precipitations were taken from the State of São Paulo and from the Amazonian region, Brazil. As a rule, the data from more than 50 meteorological stations were used for each events. The main result is the following: during strong decreases of cosmic-ray flux in the atmosphere (great Forbush decreases) the precipitation value is decreased. The effect of rainfall changes is seen more distinctly if wet seasons are considered.
Correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind modulation
A) Correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind modulation of geomagnetic field index.
Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
B) Two mechanisms by which solar winds (electroscavenging) and changes to the solar heliosphere modulate (ion mediated nucleation) planetary clouds (see paper for details this excerpt describes concerning electroscavenging which is not discussed at Real Climate as it is “off message”,)
http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/Yu_CR_CN_Cloud_Climate_JGR02.pdf
The solar wind affects the galactic cosmic ray flux, the precipitation of relativistic electrons, and the ionospheric potential distribution in the polar cap, and each of these modulates the ionosphere-earth current density. On the basis of the current density-cloud hypothesis the variations in the current density change the charge status of aerosols that affect the ice production rate and hence the cloud microphysics and climate [e.g., Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The underlying mechanism is that charged aerosols are more effective than neutral aerosols as ice nuclei (i.e., electrofreezing) and that the enhanced collections of charged evaporation nuclei by supercooled droplets enhance the production of ice by contact ice nucleation (i.e., electroscavenging). Both electrofreezing and electroscavenging involve an increase in ice production with increasing current density [e.g, Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the dayto-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects [e.g., Tinsley, 2000]. Kniveton and Todd [2001] found evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at midlatitudes to high latitudes, and they pointed out that their results are broadly consistent with the current density-cloud hypothesis.
C) Satellite measurement of planetary cloud cover that confirms planetary cloud cover is modulated by GCR and solar wind bursts Mechanism where Changes in Solar Activity Affects Planetary Cloud Cover 1) Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
Increases in the suns large scale magnetic field and increased solar wind reduces the magnitude of GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
2) Increase in the Global Electric Circuit
Starting around 1993, GCR and low level cloud cover no longer correlate. (There is a linear reduction in cloud cover.) The linear reduction in cloud cover does correlate with an increase in high latitude solar coronal holes, particularly at the end of to the solar cycle, which cause high speed solar winds. The high speed solar winds cause a potential difference between earth and the ionosphere. The increase in potential difference removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere through the process “electro scavenging”. Satellite data (See attached link to Palle’s paper) that confirms that there has been a reduction in cloud cover over the oceans (There is a lack of cloud forming ions over the oceans. There are more ions over the continents due to natural radioactivity of the continental crust that is not shielded from the atmosphere by water.)
As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Give up Gail Combs, it’s useless.
Leif says that because the added sentence appears in a subsection on cosmic rays and clouds, Haigh is “absolutely correct” to treat the added sentence as being just about GCR-cloud while ignore how it acknowledges that SOME substantial mechanism of solar amplification must be at work.
Somebody on the writing team had the courage to slip this bit of truth into the report and Leif thinks that because it wanders outside of the subject heading in which it appears it is okay to pretend it doesn’t exist. Read the SENTENCE Leif. It says exactly what I say it says. Haigh is indeed “flat our lying” about it, and now you are making inane excuses for her lying, pretending that sentences are limited by section headings. Sheesh.
The best report on empirical evidence for a GCR – cloud cover link is here:
http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/dbs202/publications/2006/harrison2006.pdf
I have no stake in this debate, but see that the AGW people do their best to show that there is no link, while there is a lot of empirical evidence that there indeed is a link between solar activity in general and climate (but if that is by GCR or the UV/ozone/jet stream position or another mechanism, for me still is unresolved).
vukcevic says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:15 am
Dr. Svalgaard finds result infuriating calls correlation spurious, or even worse.
You presume too much. Nothing is ‘infuriating’, correlations are simply spurious.
Often the initial findings were strongly denounced by those who considered themselves guardians of ‘correct’ science, but eventually ‘spurious’ was recognised as correct.
For every one of those, there are myriads that stay spurious.
Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
Read the SENTENCE Leif.
how about YOU reading the sentence Alec. Here it is:
“7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.” [my bold: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else]