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.
Bob Weber says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm
how much the weather and climate are modulated by the interaction of the solar wind and the GEC….Look how long it’s taken to get to this point where we can be confident they were wrong.
I wonder how long it will take before you realize you are wrong. For example, there has been ‘No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926’ :
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf
But weather/climate has changed rather much.
Dr. Svalgaard, what I have said has nothing to do with any IEF, and I don’t know how long it will take for you to realize that.
Bob Weber says:
December 29, 2013 at 7:21 am
what I have said has nothing to do with any IEF
Ah, well. I mistakenly thought that was the topic of this thread….
But I can stand corrected that you disavow any such connection.
Dr. Svalgaard, let’s start with a clean slate right now. I understand why there is confusion about what constitutes “solar forcing” beyond TSI measurements. To understand the electric/magnetic weather effect concepts that I have talked about, we don’t have to look at this particular paper featured on this blog today (despite its usefulness) or any other papers to see how it works.
We don’t have to buy into any EU ideas to understand electric weather. Electric weather ideas are independent of the Thunderbolts project. Perhaps earlier you may have thought I was here to prove EU concepts for them – that’s their job, and if they didn’t make the grade, that’s on them. What EU is or isn’t – is irrelevant to the electric weather paradigm shift that is happening as we speak, a paradigm shift that I and others bring to the table is based on, for me, 10 years of observations, conceptual thinking, and fact-checking.
As I told you before in our previous mental exercises, I am trying to insure that I understand solar wind dynamics and implications – well enough to explain it to both Phds and the man on the street.
Here we go… to understand electric weather and how it changes the weather, open minds will find evidence of solar forcing by space weather today (Dec 29), on the following websites
http://solarimg.org/artis/
http://www.solarham.net/
http://www.spaceweather.com/
From spaceweather:
MINOR RADIATION STORM IN PROGRESS: Energetic protons are swarming around Earth on Dec. 29th following a magnetic eruption near the western limb of the sun: movie. The ongoing radiation storm ranks S1 on NOAA storm scales, which means it is a relatively minor storm with little effect on spacecraft and high-altitude aviation.
From solarham:
A number of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) were observed during the past 24 hours, however all appear to be directed away from our planet. The most energetic of these events was an eruption beyond the northwest limb, resulting in a bright, fast moving, westerly directed CME. This event looks to be directly responsible for the rise in low energy proton levels streaming past Earth. Particles began to saturate the SOHO/LASCO sensor soon after the CME became visible. This resulted in a brief, minor S1 level radiation storm. Proton levels are slowly dropping off this morning.
From solarimg:
GOES xray & proton plots, ACE LE/HE protons and LE electron plots registered an uptick in solar activity from the photons, protons, and electrons emitted from above mentioned CMEs. Also see Jet Stream and US Pressure Index provided by solarimg from today (links here): http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/JetStream/conus.jpg and
http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map.gif
Cause: solar uptick in photons, protons, and electrons. Effect: auroras and the jet stream pushed southward, bringing frigid artic air and more snow.
This particular example is just the latest in a large number solar event-driven weather events here on Earth that I’ve seen in ten years. My research into past extreme weather events reveals this type of repeating pattern throughout SC24. Accumulated cyclone enegy charts for 2013 show a clear correspondence between SSN, flux, and tornadic and hurricane activity, a point also brought out here at WUWT by another commenter named Paul Pierett in his similar research here: http://sunspotshurricanesandglaciers.com/files/74034647.pdf
To top it off, check out “What does the dearth of large SEP events in Solar Cycle 24 tell us about the physics of particle acceleration?” here at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4889.pdf
This month’s US and UK weather was extremely well-predicted by someone who does understand solar-driven electric and magnetic weather effects, someone who has refined his skill through the years to now be at the cutting-edge of understanding applied sciences in long-range weather forecasting, Piers Corbyn. Open minds may inquire at weatheraction.com.
I hope Dr. Svalgaard that you will take ten minutes in about ten days (will announce) when my debut video is posted on my upcoming The Electric Weather Channel (youtube), where you can see for yourself first-hand how solar forcing works beyond TSI, backed up by science, not conjecture. In the meantime keep a keen eye on those active regions… Thank you for being here. I’ll be back.
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm
… For example, there has been ‘No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926′ :
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf
———–
Usually, Dr. S., I agree with or accept your explanations. No, no, no, not this time.
Two stations, both located on the West coast of Greenland? huh
Data so smooth I can ice skate on it.
And remember, I’m just a stamp collector……………………………………………………………………………
Carla says:
December 29, 2013 at 9:04 am
Usually, Dr. S., I agree with or accept your explanations. No, no, no, not this time.
Two stations, both located on the West coast of Greenland? huh
It just happens that the polar cap is covered with an electric current flowing across it at an altitude of 110 km. All stations within the polar cap see the same magnetic effects of the current overhead as well as satellites flying above the current. You can see more here: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202006%20SH51A-06.pdf so start accepting. This is well-established science and is not contentious.
lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2013 at 9:10 am
It just happens that the polar cap is covered with an electric current flowing across it at an altitude of 110 km. All stations within the polar cap see the same magnetic effects of the current overhead as well as satellites flying above the current. You can see more here: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202006%20SH51A-06.pdf so start accepting. This is well-established science and is not contentious.
——————
Thank you Dr. S.
Now be nice bout this..
Page 7
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202006%20SH51A-06.pdf
Why the size difference in the cap of potential between 1904 and 1993-2000? Does size matter? Does it grow and shrink on a time scale of sorts?
Carla says:
December 29, 2013 at 9:51 am
Why the size difference in the cap of potential between 1904 and 1993-2000? Does size matter? Does it grow and shrink on a time scale of sorts?
Because the speed of the solar wind and the magnetic field varies over time. The very last slide shows both and the [lack of] variation of the electric field VxB.
Additionally Dr. Svalgaard, I will make every attempt at understanding and conveying with precision the GEC and IEC as they relate to weather and climate, and I’m positive any mistakes I make will will be corrected by feedback from others such as yourself. So far, the only thing I can disagree with you on technical grounds that you said to me is “a box of electrons of zero size”. One thing about being 20+ years past university education is the appreciation for the need for precision in speaking with a Phd while conveying concepts, and for an equal ability in speaking a language understandable to the non-college educated.
When I was a feature editor for our university student newspaper back in the days of Pons and Fleischman’s “cold fusion” fervor, it was my responsibility to accurately understand and convey their ideas, and the opinions of many department heads from physics, mechanical, and electrical engineering, along with the technically degreed university president – all Phds. So I understand the challenge to both understand and convey complex ideas from Phds to the man on the street, and I strive to satisfy both. Unfortunately the past two weeks I’ve been so busy handling snow in the driveway, parking lot, and the roof almost everyday, leaving me somewhat tired and distracted from giving some things like this paper and every concept in it all my attention.
My beautiful blonde-haired nationally-certified massage therapist lady with a high school algrebra education understands and follows electric weather with me, understands how it works, knows what to look for to see it coming, and watches it happen along with me almost everyday as she has for six years. If she can understand it, so can everyone else.
Bob Weber says:
December 29, 2013 at 9:00 am
This particular example is just the latest in a large number solar event-driven weather events here on Earth that I’ve seen in ten years.
what is lacking [the same problem Piers has] is a simple statistical [numerical] study of precisely what was predicted and what was actually found. Meteorologists well know how to do this, perhaps you could learn to do it too and apply those methods. To say ‘that I’ve seen’ simply does not cut it. The easiest one to fool is oneself [if one is honest], the next-easiest is a paying customer [if one is a bit less honest] who does not like to accept that he has been had.
Bob Weber says:
December 29, 2013 at 10:09 am
So far, the only thing I can disagree with you on technical grounds that you said to me is “a box of electrons of zero size”.
On what technical grounds? It is generally accepted that electrons have no extension, i.e. zero size, so any collection of electrons packed as closely as possible will also have zero size [apart from the impossibility of doing so]. In a black hole, for example, gravity overwhelms the electron degeneracy pressure which normally prevents electrons to occupy the same space and we, of course, for the thought experiment assumes that that pressure can be overcome. BTW, for the conclusion the exact sizes of the boxes are not relevant.
Carla
You could try to get this link
solar.gmu.edu/teaching/CSI662_2007/lect12/lect12.ppt
via google
Dr. Svalgaard I completely understand what you mean here. Since recognizing the problem of conveying the solar activity connections I had “seen”, and in evaluating Corbyn’s methods, I set about to demonstrate for myself if there was any way to objectively determine how solar activity influences the weather and climate, and also to try to score his forecasts, realizing that I just can’t stand here waving my hands jumping up and down saying, ya I’m right, he’s right, and you should believe me just ’cause I say so. I understand that doesn’t cut it. Thus far, I am totally in agreement – I have to demonstrate validity just like anyone else.
Further, it doesn’t cut it for me to assert anything from my place in life about electric weather without scientific backup that can be investigated and evaluated by others, and has predictive power. So, even though I’d recognized electric weather signatures as they happened over the years, I had found it a difficult challenge to put it together for someone in your position to evaluate.
It wasn’t until November this year, when Typhoon Haiyan hit, and all the CAGW crowd jumped on board calling it a result of global warming, that I said to myself, that’s it, I’m done messing around. Even though I have no experience writing science papers to satisfy the requirements of the peer-review process, I set about examining GOES and ACE data, and geomagnetic activity, and “saw” a regular, high correspondence of extreme weather events after higher solar activity events/levels, in a way I have not seen very many talk about. What I saw in that data was recurring circumstantial evidence for direct solar forcing of earth weather that appeared to me to be grossly overlooked. My ten-minute presentation is based on what I found, why I think it matters, and how well Piers did in the last three months.
Additionally, if I could ever get the time and energy to attempt to write a documented science paper for peer-review, someone like you would see there are many scientists whose papers relate in important ways to the points I’m making – papers I’ve collected for six years, which doesn’t even touch the number of paywalled papers I’ve flagged for future purchase, evaluation, and inclusion.
The way things are going, such a paper by me is on the horizon, not right in front of me. So the next best thing I can do now is to release my preliminary findings so people like you might have a reason to believe TSI is not the only solar measure that counts, and that claims of global warming causing extreme weather events are unfounded. Thereafter, I will leave it up to professional scientists like you and others to do “the science”. That’s the best I can do from where I am now.
And just so you know, I tell a lot of people the following: “you can’t fool anyone if you don’t fool yourself first”. So I am completely aware of what I’m getting myself into with people like you. That is the reason why for the first time in six years I’ve started to comment on blogs, because I believe for good reasons that I’m not fooling myself, and I would never try to deliberately mislead on matters of such importance, or try to interfere with someone’s ideas maliciously. I had to start somewhere. I hope you understand its been an honor speaking with you. Where I live, there isn’t a BS/MS/Phd within 50 miles for me to talk to about anything, and my sweetheart can only take so much, if you get my drift.
Some backup here: http://www.thegwpf.org/madhav-khandekar-global-warming-extreme-weather-link/