Guest essay by Robert Johnson
How plasma connects the Sun to the climate
The Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) are a plasma phenomenon caused by charged particles from the solar wind entering the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Magnetic storms in the ionosphere, which have occasionally damaged satellites in orbit, are also evidence that the Earth’s upper atmosphere is electromagnetically connected to the Sun via the plasma in interplanetary space.
It’s recently been recognised that the atmosphere below the ionosphere is also a weak plasma due to the ionisation caused primarily by cosmic rays. So it’s plasma all the way down! The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun; even the air we breathe is all part of the same system.
This talk at the recent SIS meeting introduces plasma to the general reader and investigates how it enables variations in the Sun’s output to directly influence the weather systems here on Earth.
Here are the links to the text + slides on google drive; there are two size options with differing picture quality available to view and/or download. Apart from that, they’re identical.
“The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth”. Text and slides (20Mb)
“The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth”. Text and slides (5 Mb)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cosmic ray (CR) impacts on the atmosphere. Main CR (including SEP and GCR) influences on the atmosphere. CR are the main source of ionisation in the lower atmosphere. The shading depicting the main region of this ionisation also shows that the CR ionisation is focused on the polar regions (Usoskin et al. 2011). Note that the GEC is distributed over the whole Earth.
Reading some of these exchanges, I am reminded of a Dave Barry column I read a very long time ago. I barely remember the exact wording, but it was about the guys who looks for subatomic particles in the rails of debris from collisions of other particles.
I laughed for years over the line:
“Oh, there is one! I saw one! At least, I think it was one.”
Correct typo: …particles in the trails of…
Unusual minimum of 2008-2009 may be a signal of impending changes in solar activity.
Just noticed this paper by Madhulika Guhathakurta and Tony Phillips on Tony’s spaceweather.com site, entiled ‘The Solar Cycle Turned Sideways’. As a layman, I found it informative.
https://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/pdf/Lika_sideways_SC.pdf
As each year literally passes by the scientific evidence for solar/climate connections keeps increasing overall. Of course there will always be hold outs , but that is normal.
I would say there are so many solar/climate connections out there that the probability that one or two at the very least will be realized is very high, and this is all it will take just one or two of the solar climate connections to be real and there is a solar/climate connection in play.
In addition the various theories put forth from this evidence are quite good and logical .
Then in addition to all of this, is the global temperature data corresponds quite strongly to solar variability as is evidenced by the temperature drops associated with the Maunder and Dalton Solar Minimums and the temperature rise of the Solar Maximum ,corresponding to the Medieval Warm Period and Modern Warm period of temperature last century, as well as the temperature rise following the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Solar Minimum.
In addition many of the solar climate connections are not only superimposed upon noise in the climate system but the solar variability within itself often times acts in opposition to it’s effects on the climate system.
An example would be during a prolonged solar minimum period ozone decreases in the lower stratosphere but increases in the upper stratosphere.
Another example would be some particular waves of UV light (240nm) have a much greater impact on ozone formation then others and it has been found that UV light and visible light are in anti-phase with one another which obscures TSI variability, or makes it seem less then what it really is.
Another example is it has been suggested that an intensification of both Arctic Anticyclones and Mid Latitude Cyclones will be associated with an increase with GCR flux at solar minimums of the 11 year cycle when the polar vortex is in an epoch of strength, but the opposite will occur when the polar vortex is in an epoch of weakness.
That is with the 11 year solar cycle which is not going to have the same effects that a prolonged solar minimum period will have on the climate.
It is not straight forward and that is the point I am trying to make and there are also just to many possibilities out there , some are gong to come to fruition.
all it will take just one or two of the solar climate connections to be real and there is a solar/climate connection in play
It is simpler than that, all it will take is just zero solar climate connections to be real and there is no solar/climate connection in play…
Your opinion which you are entitled to.
Yes, it does seem far-fetched that the big hot thing in the sky which provides nearly every joule of energy that the Earth receives, could possibly have an affect on the climate.
*rolls the eyes*
If ever there was an example of post-modern research thinking, Salvatore has provided it. Come equipped with confirmation bias then set out to find stuff that might match your bias. Warmists do it all the time. The fact that they get paid for it out of my tax dollars and solar-climate enthusiasts do not does not make one or the other side any more legit. Confirmation bias does not depend on a paycheck.
Salvatore strikes me as a person I could trust to change his mind in the face of sufficient evidence.
Just my personal belief, mind you.
How about you, Ms. Gray, any axes to grind?
Kind of makes you wonder how Piers Corbyn manages to get it right about the weather based on his solar work…….
except that he is not right. But he is very good at convincing the gullible.
@ur momisugly Leif,
Maybe gullible, but not stupid.
any evidence to back that up?
Ya, how do you prove your not an idiot.
Just admit it, it’s easier.
The “idiot” thing, was directed at myself.
Thanks, Robert Johnson. Very interesting linked document.
This study along with so many others shows how the tide is going against those who do not subscribe to solar /climate connections.
I also predict they will grudgingly change their views if at all, and will hold out in the face of the data to the very end. It is very similar to those who keep promoting AGW theory in the face of data that shows this theory is utter nonsense.
The study presented today is excellent and I will be obtaining many more additional solar/climate insights from this study.
No, it is not excellent. It is full of misquotes and misunderstandings.
That is your opinion, which you are entitled to.
The high magnetic activity of the sun does not cause temperature fluctuations in the stratosphere over the polar circle. Of course, there is also no pressure peaks.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2015.gif
The polar vortex is strong, because the ice grows quickly.
This study is fantastic and much appreciated.
“Monitoring cosmic rays is one way to gain a better understanding of the very complex relationship between Earth and the rest of the universe. In a time when people tamper with practices that alter our atmosphere, we have to be aware of the risks. The atmosphere is naturally balanced to protect life on earth from such dangers as cosmic rays. Ozone, the stratosphere, and ionosphere are all fragile components of the atmosphere which man in many ways has invaded.”
“North-south running pipelines at high latitudes are prone to corrosion from large electrical currents running deep through the Earth. The electrical currents are enhanced by magnetic field changes from the solar wind. The changes in the magnetic field are detected by cosmic ray monitors. These currents are a major cause of corrosion in the Trans Alaska pipeline which runs south from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.”
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/listen/main.html#atmos
“Another event recorded by neutron monitors is caused by solar flares. Solar flares erupt from the surface of the sun during high solar activity. Occasionally solar particles accelerate to such high energy (greater than 400 million electron volts) that they are seen by the neutron monitor. Thus, while galactic cosmic rays are less common during high solar activity, solar cosmic rays are more common. The flare particles are recorded as a sharp increase followed by a slower decrease to previous values, usually within 24 hours. Figure 7 illustrates how neutron monitors at Inuvik and Goose Bay responded to a flare on May 24, 1990.”
The Earths magnetic field acts as a protective barrier against cosmic rays. Because they are mostly charged particles, their direction of travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. The higher the energy acquired by cosmic ray particles, the less affected they are by magnetic fields.
Cosmic rays do not get far into the atmosphere before they collide with nitrogen or oxygen molecules in the air. The collision destroys the cosmic ray particle and the air molecule, and then several new particles emerge. Cosmic rays from space are termed “primary,” and any particles created in the atmosphere from collisions are termed “secondary.” A bit of energy is transferred to each new secondary particle. Secondary cosmic rays spread out and continue to hit other particles and air molecules, creating a cascade of particles showering towards the ground. Figure 2 shows how the particles shower to the ground.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/listen/fig2.jpg
Sunspot number: 27
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
“It’s recently been recognised that the atmosphere below the ionosphere is also a weak plasma due to the ionisation caused primarily by cosmic rays. So it’s plasma all the way down!”
Very interesting. That would mean that there are two types of plasma that are operational in Earth’s atmosphere:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-by
It’s the sun stupid. No wait, it’s what is affecting the sun stupid. No wait, it’s what is affecting what is affecting the sun stupid. No wait…
LOLOL!!!
This study is insightful, and is talking about mattes which need to be brought out when it comes to solar/climate possible connections. This current prolonged solar minimum period I hope will shed more light on this study.
The study presented here is saying as far as I can determine that galactic cosmic rays modulate the global electrical circuit, in that when the global electric circuit increases ,due to galactic cosmic rays increasing more clouds will result along with pressure variations at the surface of the atmosphere correlating to the global electrical circuit.
They are saying pressure variation at the surface will increase when the global electrical circuit is stronger via cosmic ray increases and vice versa WHEN the solar cycle is in an 11 year so called rhythmic cyclic mode.
What one has to keep in mind is when a study is referring to the 11 year rhythmic solar cycle variability mode versus the climate(as this one apparently is ) or when studies are referring to prolonged periods of solar variability versus the climate which does not result in necessarily the same climatic outcomes.
An example of this is below which suggest the following ; which is at times of prolonged solar minimum conditions the evidence is the strength of the polar vortex will diminish in intensity due to ozone concentration changes in distributions between the equator and poles in a horizontal and vertical sense, giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern. In addition a meridional atmospheric circulation pattern will give rise to stronger surface pressure systems all things being equal.
On the other hand another study tries to convey that over an 11 year solar cycle(11 year solar cycle) an intensification of surface pressure systems are shown to be in evidenced with an increase in GCR at times of the solar minimum when the sun is in an 11 year rhythmic cycle and the polar vortex is in an epoch of strength. To make it more confusing this same study says when the polar vortex is in an epoch of weakness the effects of the 11 year sunspot cycle versus GCR are opposite. The epoch cycle for the polar vortex relative strength being 60 years.
So various studies are talking about different items(surface pressure versus polar vortex strength) while at the same time some are equating the changes to an 11 year solar cycle versus prolonged solar events. It can be extremely confusing if these matters are not clarified.
I will try to send this study
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-relates-natural-60-year.html
Here is this study about GCR and 11 year solar rhythmic cycle and the effects on surface pressure systems.
Robert Johnson,
Here is a summary of what is wrong with your presentation: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Slide 44
step 1: UV warms the ozone layer in the stratosphere
step 2: alters the temperature gradient in the troposphere
You need to be more explicit in step 2.
slide 54
step 1: charged particles in an electric field create an electrical current
step 2: that drives barometric pressure changes
You need to be more explicit in step 2.
slide 58:
step 1: Clear air is a weak plasma
step 2: winds driven partly by electromagnetic forces
You need to be more explicit in step 2.
If you want to convince me that you are not a crank, back up your assertions and speculations with calculations to show that they are plausible. While you are at it, you can provide calculations to show that ion production by cosmic rays is sufficient to supply the downward current of 1.6 pA/m^2 (your number) and that such ion production is significant with respect to other sources, such as radon.
But you won’t, since you are just a crank. (I will apologize if you actually provide reasonable calculations.)
“step 2: alters the temperature gradient in the troposphere”
A warm stratosphere does push the tropopause down and a colder stratosphere allows it to rise but UV only has an effect in so far as it affects the ozone creation / destruction balance. There are other chemical reactions that are more significant.
“step 2: that drives barometric pressure changes”
The change in tropopause height affects convection which drives barometric pressure changes but that is nothing to do with electrical currents.
“step 2: winds driven partly by electromagnetic forces”
Winds are driven by density variations
Thus I think this thread is flawed.
Mike this is very complicated and I agree with your points but I think they have one of the general areas of where the solar/climate connection needs to be focused on.
Nevertheless, that is why in my previous post I tried to show the confusion which you brought out even more so in your post.
I think the generality of this study is good but not the specifics in some instances. .
“The solar cycle could be entering a phase with a
stronger-than-usual “La Niña” character. Following a
century-level solar minimum during 2008–2009, Solar
Cycle 24 has risen up—but only enough to become the
weakest cycle in more than 50 years. Total solar irradiance,
which always experiences an uptick around
Solar Max, has increased only half as much as in the three
previous cycles, while UV/EUV irradiances (key drivers
of space weather) are up only 50%–70%. These low
numbers are not indicators of “quiet,” however. As the
solar cycle turned sideways shows, solar variability
always has the potential to have a major impact on Earth
and humanity.”
http://oi59.tinypic.com/28mdt.jpg
ren,
It is part of the chain of causation in my New Climate Model that solar induced variations in global albedo alter the amount of solar energy entering the oceans and thereby alter the relative strengths of El Nino and La Nina phases of the ENSO cycle
Your post appears to support that.
We are also agreed on the apparent link between solar activity, the size and shape of the polar vortices and the zonality / meridionality of jet stream tracks.
There is a problem.To sudden temperature rises above about 25 km in the stratosphere it occurs in the middle of winter. So it can not be UV.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2015.gif
I think it is much simpler than all that plasma / electric field stuff since all one needs to do is alter ozone amounts above the tropopause differently above equator and poles in response to solar variability.
I started along that track in 2010 and a recent version can be found here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Simply proposing solar effects on the ozone creation / destruction balance neatly sidesteps Leif’s objections. A chemical reaction process is all one needs.
The proposed effect on global albedo and heating of the oceans overlaps with part of the chain of causation set out in my New Climate Model.
I’m not objecting to try to find sun weather/climate connections, having done that myself in the past [even being credited with reviving the ‘field’ back in the 1970s]. I’m objecting to the trash being trotted out in this tread. The amount of nonsense being lapped up by the unwashed masses is amazing.
The only point I have brought out today is there are many (possible) solar/climate connections and because there are so many there is a possibility that some are going to prove to be correct.
I think the area this study centered on is one of the areas where the connection might come about although there are so many different areas.
I say there has to be something to this, if not why then all of the countless studies which if anything are increasing in this area. No one is going to waste their time studying an area that does not offer possibilities.
Another point is the more I study this area the more unknowns I see that are out there. This area has many more discoveries and to make any clear conclusions at this stage is very premature to say the least.
Every study has to be analyzed and talk about.
I think the prolonged solar minimum if it turns out to be significant is going to go a long way in clearing matters.
I think there are solar climate connections others do not.
I tend to agree.
It was your, often ascerbic, comments that led me to look for something more plausible than the sort of explanation proposed in this post.
Since ozone reacts with incoming solar energy to create the temperature inversion that creates the tropopause it is but a short step to seek a link between changes in wavelengths and particles from the sun and chemical changes involving ozone.
Having noted the cyclical changes between zonality (less clouds) and meridionality(more clouds) it was necessary to propose a solar induced change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
No need for ‘plasma’ in space or an electric universe,
There may be a correlation with cosmic rays and magnetic field strengths but those are not causative factors since they do not directly affect the ozone creation / destruction balance.
I much prefer my solution to any other currently out there, and there are lots.
I like to keep things simple but no more simple than necessary 🙂
“by the unwashed masses” …. Well how very elitist. Yes, how dare anyone disagree huh? Do you refer to yourself as we yet?
Stephen, I agree with your solar/climate connections although I think there may be many others which you as of today do not recognize. I emphasize may. That is why a study of this sort is good even though it should have been more clear.
They always write these things as if we the readers know more then we do, including myself.
I want studies which are every clear and take a step by step approach.
As we know many of the studies posted are mumble jumble with data that is so confusing it is impossible to follow.
Salvatore,
Anything that affects the ozone creation / destruction balance above the tropopause is accommodated by my hypothesis.
If it doesn’t affect the ozone creation / destruction process then it cannot affect the global temperature unless it is variations in atmospheric mass, the strength oif the gravitational field or TOA insolation.
The increase in the galactic radiation is very visible in the the zone of the ozone.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png
In case of doubt my 12.46 post was intended for Leif but it appeared out of position.