This paper suggests a terrestrial impact on cloud cover from the interplanetary electric field (IEF) via the global electric circuit. A primer video on the GEC is below.
Clouds blown by the solar wind M Voiculescu et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032
Abstract
In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.
Introduction
There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change. Despite the progress in understanding the processes driving the Earth’s climate, quantifying the natural sources of climate variability, especially regarding solar effects, remains elusive (Solomon et al 2007, Gray et al 2010).
Although climate models are highly sophisticated and include many effects, they are not perfect and observational evidences are modest and ambiguous. Empirical evidences suggest a causal relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly in the pre-industrial epoch (Bond et al 2011), but possible mechanisms are unclear and qualitative. The balance between reflected radiation from space and Earth at different wavelengths contributes to temperature variation in a significant manner (Hartmann et al 1992), thus cloud cover play a major role in the terrestrial radiation budget. Modeling cloud contribution to climate at different spatial and temporal scales is probably the most challenging area of climate studies (Vieira and da Silva 2006). Despite increasing number of solar-cloud studies, there is no clear understanding of solar effect on cloud cover. Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input and could explain solar-related variability observed at different time scales (from days to decades) in various cloud parameters, as for instance cloud cover (Udelhofen and Cess 2001, Marsh and Svensmark 2000, Voiculescu and Usoskin 2012) or cloud base height (Harrison et al 2011, Harrison and Ambaum 2013).
One indirect mechanism relates to the fact that the solar spectral irradiance varies significantly in the UV band, whose effect is limited to the stratosphere, thus a stratosphere–troposphere–ocean coupling, ‘top-down’ effect, is required (Gray et al 2010, Meehl et al 2009, Haigh et al 2010). Another mechanism relies on possible variations of atmospheric aerosol/cloud properties, affecting the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and, consequently, the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Two possible physical links have been proposed: one via the ion-induced/mediated nucleation by cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) (Dickinson 1975, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Carslaw et al 2002, Kazil and Lovejoy 2004, Yu and Turco 2001) and the other via the global electric circuit (GEC) effects on cloud/aerosol properties (Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010). The former mechanism might be hardly distinguishable from noise, especially at short-term scale, as demonstrated using in situ/laboratory experiments (e.g., Carslaw 2009, Kulmala et al 2010, Enghoff et al 2011, Kirkby et al 2011) and statistical studies (e.g., Calogovic et al 2010, Dunne et al 2012). Opposing, studies of Svensmark et al (2009), Enghoff et al (2011), Svensmark et al (2013), Yu et al (2008) have shown that an impact of ionization on new particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) exists. Thus it is possible that the CRII-nucleation mechanism operates at longer time scales, but it might be spatially limited to the polar stratosphere (Mironova et al 2012). On the other hand, the GEC-related mechanism may be important (e.g., Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010, Rycroft et al 2012), particularly for low-clouds and some links have been shown to exist between atmospheric electricity properties and cloud evolution/formation (Harrison et al 2013).
Since all solar drivers correlate to some extent, it may be difficult to evaluate which driver or combination of drivers is the best candidate for cloud cover modulation. An attempt to differentiate between solar irradiation (total or UV) and CRII effects on cloud cover has been made by Kristjánsson et al (2004), Voiculescu et al (2006, 2007), Erlykin et al (2010), who showed that various mechanisms might act differently at different altitudes and geographical locations. However, the GEC is affected by the solar activity in a different way, via the interplanetary electric field (IEF), so that only positive IEF plays a role, while negative IEF does not. Positive IEF corresponds to a interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with a southward component, or negative z-component, which favors a direct energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere and to ionosphere. For negative IEF (positive z-component of the IMF) the transfer is much less efficient and only a very small percentage of the solar wind energy is transferred to the magnetosphere (e.g. Dungey 1961, Papitashvili and Rich 2002, Siingh et al 2005). Thus, in contrast to other potential solar drivers which are expected to exert a monotonic influence, IEF is expected to affect clouds only when IEF is positive. This feature has a potential of separating the IEF effect from other drivers. Here we present results of correlation studies between the interplanetary electric field (IEF) and cloud cover, which might indicate the most probable mechanism that might affect cloud cover. We discuss here mainly results obtained for low cloud cover (LCC), but we also refer to middle- (MCC) and high-clouds (HCC).
Conclusion
Here we present a result of an empirical study showing that there is a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field, that favors a particular mechanism of indirect solar activity influence on climate: global electric circuit affecting cloud formation. We show that all characteristics of the relationship are in line with what is expected if the interplanetary electric field affects cloud cover via the global electric circuit:
(1) the low cloud cover shows a systematic correlation, at interannual time scale, with positive interplanetary electric field, at mid- and high-latitude regions in both hemispheres;
(2) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and interplanetary electric field in tropical regions;
(3) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and negative interplanetary electric field over the entire globe.
As an additional factor, cosmic ray flux may also affect cloud cover in the presence of positive interplanetary electric field. No clear effect of cosmic ray flux during periods of negative IEF was found.
Similar, but less statistically significant results were found also for middle and high cloud cover, suggesting that the primary effect is on low-clouds. The fact that the found statistical relation exists only for the periods of positive IEF and not for negative IEF disfavors other potential mechanisms of sun–cloud relations at mid–high latitudes, such as via ion-induced/mediated nucleation or UVI influence. However, the latter might work at low–mid latitudes. Although this empirical study does not give a clue for an exact physical mechanism affecting the clouds, as discussed above, it favors a particular solar driver, solar wind with the frozen-in interplanetary magnetic field, that affects the global electric current system at Earth. The result suggest that further research of solar-terrestrial influence ought to focus more also on this direction.
=============================================================
The paper is open source, see it here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/article
Related: No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926 (Sager and Svalgaard 2004)
Related articles
- Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DirkH says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:06 am
Gravity even causes the protective hypothesis of Dark Matter, because it needs it to keep the Gravity-only cosmology alive for the time being.
Gravitational effects are observational evidence for their existence. Dark Matter is an observational fact, not yet understood theoretical, but observations trump theory, don’t you think?
Intergovernmental Electric Field? Hah!
for the sardonically impaired: /sarc
Nice summary of the various proposed possible mechanisms of solar amplification. Contrast with the IPCC, which in the Second Order Draft of AR5 acknowledged the extensive historic and paleo evidence that SOME mechanism of solar amplification seems to be at work, then only mentioned one of the possible mechanisms (page 7-43, lines 1-5):
They found the evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism unconvincing and used this as their excuse for leaving it out of their models. Nowhere else in the report are any of the other possible mechanisms of amplification considered, with the result that this acknowledged evidence is never taken into account.
The only change in the final report was to edit out the SOD’s acknowledgment that the empirical evidence points to SOME mechanism of solar amplification being at work. I’ve got a post on this subject on the back burner. Will try to get to it soon.
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:33 am
In the end, gravity is the root cause of everything, even electric and magnetic fields. To get an electric field you need to separate positive and negative charges. Since the negative charges [electrons] are much lighter that the heavier protons, gravity can separate the two and create a [weak] electric field, which if the charges are free to move in turn creates an electrical current which has an magnetic field.
Leif, stupid question: as the particles get kinetic energy in the sun and the electrons are 1000+ easier then heavy ions, does this cause more electrons to escape the suns’ gravity in comparison to ions and thus creating a local electrical charge at the suns surface?
Lars P. says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:26 am
as the particles get kinetic energy in the sun and the electrons are 1000+ easier then heavy ions, does this cause more electrons to escape the suns’ gravity in comparison to ions and thus creating a local electrical charge at the suns surface?
It does [initially], it is called the Pannekoek-Rosseland Polarization Electric Field, but it is very small and doesn’t really play a significant role in anything and carries in it its own limiting factor: if electrons escape, the Sun is left a little more positive, but then that extra positive charge attracts electrons trying to escape, so the imbalance soon comes to a halt and does not build up any further.
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:32 am
It does [initially], it is called the Pannekoek-Rosseland Polarization Electric Field, but it is very small and doesn’t really play a significant role in anything and carries in it its own limiting factor: if electrons escape, the Sun is left a little more positive, but then that extra positive charge attracts electrons trying to escape, so the imbalance soon comes to a halt and does not build up any further.
Thanks for the fast answer! Are there any existing measurement as to what the field and what the charge would be?
I am baffled. This stuff seems complex and hard to reduce to a simple graph –like a hockey stick, say. None of this appears to be built into The Models that form The Consensus and I do not understand how this relates to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon so how can it be climate science and get published? I thought clouds were an effect not a cause: AGW is reducing cloud cover at the same time flood-causing rainfall increases. Everybody knows that so what has the sun got to do with it?
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:49 am
you then appear to agree with my assertion that there is a (causal or not, future science may show which one) correlation between magnetic field and global temperature variabilities.
At the same level of importance as the correlation (causal or not, future science may show which one) between global temperature and the price of a US postal stamp.
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:04 am
What might be useful is to have Leif read the history for Hannes Alfven
Hannes was a personal friend of mine and I know very well his views on things, thank you much.
we live in a “magnetic universe” (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, “…No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference
of the moving plasma.”
You got that one right. Hannes Alfven stressed that very same point.
Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became “the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory.”
Indeed, that is true, simply because we cannot recreate the conditions of a cosmic plasma [especially its low density and large dimensions] in the laboratory. Luckily, we can observe such plasmas in space.
But, if I can make a suggestion as an outsider looking in, maybe Leif would consider releasing the Electric Universe hostage so that people can have permission to question cosmological assumptions here … ?
To question assumptions you need to know something about the conditions, situations, observations, and physics involved. Without that, such questioning is vacuous and you better retreat to a learning mode.
Lars P. says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:40 am
Are there any existing measurement as to what the field and what the charge would be?
No, as we cannot get close enough to the Sun for that [without burning up]. Calculations suggest a value of a few hundred Volt for the potential.
Piers Corbyn, Weather Action, London,
said this years ago, and expounded his
method in 2011, in Germany, at the 4th
EIKE meeting of scientists.
A link to the 27 mins video is attached to
the name above. Note that although this is
a recent video, Corbyn has been saying
these things for decades.
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:56 am
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:49 am
you then appear to agree with my assertion that there is a (causal or not, future science may show which one) correlation between magnetic field and global temperature variabilities.
—————————-
At the same level of importance as the correlation (causal or not, future science may show which one) between global temperature [as derived only by climate models] and the price of a US postal stamp.
_________________
fixed
Svalgaard @ur momisugly vukcevic
At the same level of importance as the correlation (causal or not, future science may show which one) between global temperature and the price of a US postal stamp.
Causes of the rise in the US and for that matter UK stamps’ cost is a well known known To the contrary, here is my short illustrated list of known unknowns ; the AGW sedated academia is reluctant to step out of its comfort zone and is scared even of an unknown’s shadow. May the Anno Domini 2014 grant them valour of the scientists from the decades and centuries past.
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
the AGW sedated academia is reluctant to step out of its comfort zone and is scared even of an unknown’s shadow.
AGW has absolutely nothing to do with the science of the Sun and Geomagnetism. Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.
Old Hoya says: @ur momisugly December 26, 2013 at 11:43 am
………..? I thought clouds were an effect not a cause: AGW is reducing cloud cover at the same time flood-causing rainfall increases. Everybody knows that so what has the sun got to do with it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No sun ====> no evaporation of water =====> no clouds. Actually no sun ===> no atmosphere and no life on earth.
(That is for those who didn’t understand the sarcasm. After the troll invasion recently I thought a simple explanation best. )
Leif – what causes gravity? How does it work mechanically? Do you think solar activity is the driver for weather and climate changes? If it isn’t, do you know what drives the weather/climate, because if it’s not the sun, what is it? I know there’s a lot of opinions on the matter of matter, gravity, electricity and magnetism discussed in places like the General Science Journal, where opinions run the gamut, so what do think?
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Leif – what causes gravity? How does it work mechanically?
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is the best explanation we have at this moment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Do you think solar activity is the driver for weather and climate changes?
Only of a very small part of that, perhaps 0.1 degree.
If it isn’t, do you know what drives the weather/climate, because if it’s not the sun, what is it?
Every complex system [such as climate] has internal, natural variations about a mean, so it is no surprise to me that we observe such.
Re: “To question assumptions you need to know something about the conditions, situations, observations, and physics involved.”
It seems that Alfven spent a good part of his lifetime trying to walk back a mistake he claims to have made early on in his career. His life story looks to actually be an incredibly introspective and thought-provoking story of an expert who had to muster the courage to publicly question his own prior expertise, and admit on the most public stage possible that he had made a mistake which others then copied. The lesson is not only deeply profound, but also seems to have been lost on today’s scientific culture — and it seems we don’t have to guess why, for the story is not even told to physics students today.
In marketing terms, this is called “priming” the customer. The physics students are simply being primed to accept MHD through selective recounting of Alfven’s story. But, in truth, this is less about science and more about humans playing games with one another. For, once the story is told, then one has to imagine that it VERY MUCH impacts a typical person’s views of MHD.
If he was truly a close friend of yours, then can you not see that he might be just a little bit upset — if he was here to comment — that his life story and repeated efforts over many years to correct the record are consistently left out of the modern “scientific journalism” on the subject of cosmic plasmas? Is it not incomprehensible to anybody else that David Talbott seems to be one of the few people who today recounts Alfven’s life story, as if it actually matters? Why do modern scientists treat the story of MHD’s inception as though it is irrelevant to our beliefs about MHD? Once the story is actually told, it becomes self-evidently important — and even vital context for those who might be having doubts about a universe that we are told is only 5% baryonic matter.
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.
Well Dr. Svalgaard
In my illustrated list of known unknowns , I used data from sources such as NOAA, NASA, ETHZ, Potsdam, Dr. Svalgaard’s files etc, all highly respected sources.
I show and emphasise existence of correlations between various data sets, which any scientist including yourself can always duplicate if inclined to do so.
Even you said yourself:
Actually looks very much like the two graphs I have just linked. referring to:
http://www.leif.org/research/Secular-Variation-CLA-ABG.png
Where is pseudo-science in there and why do you think that is scary?
I have no idea why it would be so, unless you see in those correlations something more than just simple coincidence or at best (or worst) numerology, neither of which should unduly concern, even less scare or corrupt anyone.
As a sign or respect I shall for now, retreat from the further ‘contest’.
Looking at the atmosphere and its processes its not hard to see that its not just a process of electromagnatisum or chemical reactions, rather its a electrochemical process.Couloumbs Law
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Why do modern scientists treat the story of MHD’s inception as though it is irrelevant to our beliefs about MHD?
What Alfven was railing about was the belief that MHD was universally applicable. Today we know it is not. If it were, nothing interesting would ever happen. Almost all interesting phenomena are caused by electric currents which result from a breakdown of MHD when you press plasmas with oppositely directed magnetic fields together. This is universally accepted by modern scientists [so Alfven is vindicated on that detail]. You are barking up a non-existing tree.
those who might be having doubts about a universe that we are told is only 5% baryonic matter.
You can only really doubt something you know something about because you have to base the doubt on something other than belief and agenda. What do you actually know about that great discovery of modern science?
Re: “Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.”
People generally fear anything which is different — and this applies to scientific models too — but be aware that this fear originates within your subconscious. It’s not the product of rational thought; it’s the result of a simplistic process of pre-conscious pattern-matching — the sort of thought that keeps lizards alive for long enough to procreate.
In fact, scientists do not “fear” theories. And you know this, actually, for if I first engaged your rational mind by directly asking you which you fear the most — the threat you can see or the one you cannot — you would definitively answer the one you cannot see. So, when you tell us all that pseudoscience is the threat which we should be paying attention to, realize that you’re not giving your rational mind the opportunity to assert that, in fact, dogma is the far more serious threat to science, of the two, for the obvious reason that it is invisible and asserted by authority.
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Where is pseudo-science in there and why do you think that is scary?
Pseudo-science comes in when one dresses up unfounded speculation as fact and is scary because in this day and age it is important that the populace at large is educated about real science and not be fed a never-ending stream of nonsense.
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:34 pm
In fact, scientists do not “fear” theories. And you know this, actually, for if I first engaged your rational mind by directly asking you which you fear the most — the threat you can see or the one you cannot — you would definitively answer the one you cannot see.
Quite the contrary. Scientists welcome what we cannot see. We call them ‘discoveries’ and all scientists dream of making such. The more, the better. The worst fear is that we stagnate and no new trails into the unknown are blazed. The difference between science and pseudo-science is how you blaze a trail into the unknown. About the skepticism and caution with which you proceed and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.
Re: “The difference between science and pseudo-science is how you blaze a trail into the unknown. About the skepticism and caution with which you proceed and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.”
Okay, but the problem for this argument is that IEEE never stopped publishing peer review on this topic of electrical cosmology.
Even the discipline of physics education research (like Eric Mazur of Harvard) has for a couple of decades now struggled to get through to university physics professors sufficient to explain to them that their teaching techniques are failing to have much impact upon students’ Aristotelian preconceptions. If the academic physicists won’t even listen to THAT, then I think it’s safe to say that they are simply not in the business of listening at all to anybody they’d prefer to ignore.
And on this point … “and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.” …
From Don Scott’s The Electric Sky, page 12:
“When mathematicians (and geometry students) `derive a proof,’ they are developing a sequence of logical steps that leads to a final statement that is consistent with the first statement in the derivation. As an example, if we accept the basic definitions, axioms and postulates of Euclid’s geometry, we can `prove’ that `lines parallel with another line are parallel to each other.’ But this is not a proof of the existence of any real-world physical mechanism — it is an exercise in the logical manipulation of a set of basic mathematical axioms. Such manipulations are completely internal to mathematics and remain disassociated from the real world unless and until such an association is demonstrated by observation and experiment.
“In the deductive method, one starts with a presumed law of nature — an obviously correct (accepted) generalization about the way things work — and deduces (works out, derives) its logical consequences.
“A hypothesis arrived at via this deductive method is promoted to the status of being a theory when and if a large enough body of experts accepts it. This is an application of the Socratic method, also sometimes called the `dialectic method.’ Socrates (469-399 B.C.) believed that truth was discovered through intense conversations with other informed people. In this method, a vote of the experts determines when and if a theory is correct. Once such a theory has been accepted, it is not easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence. It is, however, often modified — made more complicated. When over time a theory becomes officially accepted, the essence of the matter has been settled and fixed. Modifications to the fine points of the theory can then be proposed and debated, but the backbone structure of the theory is set. That framework has already been firmly established.
“An inherent flaw lurking in this method is: What if your `obviously correct,’ basic, starting-point presumption is wrong?”
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“An inherent flaw lurking in this method is: What if your `obviously correct,’ basic, starting-point presumption is wrong?”
In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects. EU has never done a single one, so does not qualify as science. Simple as that. Most people should be able to fathom that.
There are other things to add to this post to help create a clearer picture. Things like the Fair weather electric field (high pressure system) and the foul weather electric field(low pressure system) The fair weather electric field is driven by the sun and the foul weather electric field is driven by point charges created by earths 6000k core. There’s a good example of how point charge words, look up Atlant Australia.
Temperature = Electric potential at work