Guest essay by David Archibald
News comes that the light reflected back from Uranus is affected by the solar cycle.
“The atmosphere around Uranus is one of the coldest in the solar system, but still contains clouds and ice, like our own atmosphere here on Earth.
“The changing brightness of the planet shows that something is happening to the clouds. We have found that the change is caused by two processes.
“One is chemical, caused as fluctuating levels of UV sunlight alters the colour of particles in the atmosphere. The other is due to high-speed particles from outside the solar system, known as galactic cosmic rays, bombarding the atmosphere and influencing the formation of clouds.”
The scientists used data from telescopes on Earth, as well as cosmic rays measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft, to make their assessment.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-sun-remote-planet-uranus-brightness.html#jCp
To put that solar effect into perspective, the following is a schematic representation of the relative distances of the Earth and Uranus from the Sun:
If the solar cycle affects the climate of Uranus then it could reasonably be expected to affect Earth’s climate. The solar irradiance hitting Uranus is 3.69 W/m2, what hits Earth is 368 times greater. Svensmark’s theory of clouds being affected by cosmic rays is eternal; to recap the the changing interplanetary field controls the flux of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth which in turn changes the neutron flux and production of nucleation sites for cloud droplets. Clouds reflect 40 percent of sunlight straight back into space; open ocean absorbs 95 percent so the amount of cloud cover controls global temperature as shown by this graphic:
Figure 1: Tropical cloud cover 15N – 15S and global air surface temperature 1983 – 2009
The cloud cover data in Figure 1 came from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project which stopped in 2009 which is a pity because it was showing good support for Svensmark’s theory. Despite the fact that Solar Cycle 24 is weaker than Solar Cycle 23 in terms of sunspot number and F10.7 flux, total solar irradiance has been as constant as the northern star as shown by the LASP data in Figure 2:
Figure 2: Total solar irradiance aligned on solar minimum
Figure 2 shows that the Sun in Solar Cycle 24 has been tracking Solar Cycle 23 closely for the last few years. Figure 3 shows that the interplanetary magnetic field has been backloaded for this cycle with a new high in activity after solar maximum:
Figure 3: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2017
The sum of the magnetic field, the flow density and flow speed produces the solar wind flow pressure:
Figure 4: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1967 – 2017
Sunspot number and F10.7 flux may be weak but the solar wind flow pressure is back to the levels it held over Solar Cycle 23, with the jump up in activity from solar maximum in 2014. The next stage in the process is the neutron flux that initiates cloud formation:
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017
The neutron count is back to levels above that of recent solar minima and the 1970s cooling period. Until recently climate hasn’t followed in response. The eternal question is the length of the current cycle and thus the timing of the next solar minimum.
Figure 6: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle aligned on solar minima
Figure 6 shows that Solar Cycle 24 (red line) is tracking along with Solar Cycles 21 and 22 which were strong, short cycles. But anything could happen. When the solar wind flow pressure finally collapses into solar minimum, the neutron flux should reach a new high for the instrument record.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
It doesn’t have to be cosmic rays that have the observed effect on Earth:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Of course not. But it does require a certain amount of intelligence. Not a lot, but some.
This guys analysis of the F-35 debacle is enough to get his ideas on the table all by itself, we can almost ignore physics.
I published an article “power spectrum analysis” of global solar radiation and net radiation intensities. The results showed sunspot cycle and its multiples [10.5 plus or minus 0.5 years] for Indian stations.
Cube root of rainfall showed a relationship with solar radiation and evaporation [over northeast Brazil] & cloud cover to Sunshine hours, etc. published in 70s & 80s.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Sorry.
I thought the ‘Science was Settled’ about fifteen-ish years ago.
Yet this suggests perhaps it is not.
Goodness.
Auto
Cosmic rays are deflected from the solar system by magnetic fields associated with outflowing energetic solar particles. The flux of these particles and fields is much weaker at Uranus than at Earth, and thus the influence of the solar cycle on cosmic ray density in Uranus’ atmosphere would be less.
Evidence does exist of modulation of cosmic ray intensity by the solar cycle at the orbit of asteroids (between Mars and Jupiter).
and thus the influence of the solar cycle on cosmic ray density in Uranus’ atmosphere would be less.
Most of the solar modulation takes place in the outer solar system, way beyond Uranus.
It is the magnetic field associated with the outflowing solar particle field that diverts (bends) the charged cosmic ray particles. The degree of bending of such particles is proportional to the strength of that magnetic field. (The same process occurs in a mass spectrometer.) The magnetic field propagated out from the Sun decreases with the square of distance, and thus its effect becomes less.
You may be thinking of the helio-pause, which is the distance where the Sun’s particle field merges with the inter-stellar field, which does occur far out in the solar system.
The magnetic field propagated out from the Sun decreases with the square of distance, and thus its effect becomes less
The sun is rotating so the fiend is wound up around the sun which causes the field to decrease lineraly with distance far from the sun. Furthermore since the solar wind speed varies with longitude around the sun, solar wind with different speeds are emitted in the same directions as the sun is rotating. This causes the faster wind to crash into the slower wind creating shock waves in the outer solar system with enhanced and very tangled magnetic fields. It are those that deflect the cosmic rays. We also observe that from data from the two voyagers.
Solar wind protons propagate with an average energy of about 1 keV. Much more energetic particles are propagated via coronal mass ejections and solar flares, but the flux of these is much lower and much less uniform. If solar particles have a certain space density when near the Sun, how do they maintain that space density when they move outward and occupy a much larger space volume? It is not shock waves by solar particle collisions that bends a cosmic ray proton having 3 GeV of energy or more. It is the action of a relatively small but steady magnetic field operating on those over the vast distances of the solar system.
“At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Cosmic-ray_flux
“A departure point for these time-dependent steps (both increases and decreases) from a global point of view is that ‘propagating barriers’ are formed and later dissipate in the outer heliosphere during the 11-year activity cycle. These ‘barriers’ are basically formed by solar wind and magnetic field co-rotating structures which are inhibiting the easy access of CRs to a relative degree.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4421.pdf
These interaction regions occur at latitudes covered by the solar magnetic sectors and as those vary with the solar cycle causes a solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays as first proposed by Svalgaard and Wilcox in 1976:
http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf
lsvalgaard December 31, 2017 at 6:19 pm
..“A departure point for these time-dependent steps (both increases and decreases) from a global point of view is that ‘propagating barriers’ are formed and later dissipate in the outer heliosphere during the 11-year activity cycle. These ‘barriers’ are basically formed by solar wind and magnetic field co-rotating structures which are inhibiting the easy access of CRs to a relative degree.”..
_____________________________
Happy New Year Dr. S. and V.
By the time the IBEX was launched the solar system was already in declining solar cycle phases. (23 smaller then 22, 24 smaller than 23)
The heliosphere outer boundaries were in a state of change due to diminishing solar strength. A shrinking of the heliosphere, if you will.
But that’s not the question. lol
Below are the N/S polar strength from WSO. Why the different shape, progression, strength etc. in the North?
Seven Years of Imaging the Global Heliosphere with IBEX
D. J. McComas1, E. J. Zirnstein1, M. Bzowski2, M. A. Dayeh3, H. O. Funsten4, S. A. Fuselier3,5, P. H. Janzen6, M. A. Kubiak2, H. Kucharek7, E. Möbius7
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/aa66d8/meta
2017 April 17
Abstract
We are now able to study time variations in the outer heliosphere and interstellar interaction over more than half a solar cycle. We find that the Ribbon has evolved differently than the globally distributed flux (GDF), with a leveling off and partial recovery of ENAs from the GDF, owing to solar wind output flattening and recovery. The Ribbon has now also lost its latitudinal ordering, which reflects the breakdown of solar minimum solar wind conditions and exhibits a greater time delay than for the surrounding GDF. Together, the IBEX observations strongly support a secondary ENA source for the Ribbon, and we suggest that this be adopted as the nominal explanation of the Ribbon going forward.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
Part of the reason for the WSO different behavior is due to the fact that WSO was broken in 2017, see:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Problem.pdf
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
Carla, if you bother to read what it says on the WSO website you will see the following:
“Warning: WSO Polarization Sensitivity was reduced from mid-December 2016 to late on 18 May 2017 due to contamination on the Littrow lens. Calibration efforts are underway, but all reported magnetic measurements during that time period are about a factor of 1.6 too small.
Thanks to Leif Svalgaard for helping discover this anomaly.”
P.S. The ENA and the ribbon have nothing to do with the magnetic field in the heliosphere.
lsvalgaard January 1, 2018 at 9:29 am
————————-
Lighten up. I was just reading the, “WSO Magnetic Fields are
Suddenly Cut in Half [Again?]”
“”P.S. The ENA and the ribbon have nothing to do with the magnetic field in the heliosphere.””
The article I posted ‘was’ paywalled. The price was right. Looking at images now. As I like to do first. lol
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0067-0049/229/2/41/Full/apjsaa66d8f22_lr.jpg
Figure 22. IBEX ENA maps of survival-probability-corrected 1.1 keV ENAs (top) compared to the time series (bottom) of the solar wind dynamic pressure at 1 au (white), and sunspot number (red). For typical “recycle” times across most of the sky of ~2–4 years (shaded for 2009 and 2016) and year-long maps (additional dotted lines), solar wind variations observed at any given time produce ENA emissions with this sort of multi-year time delay.
So, the ribbon has nothing to do with the magnetic field.
lsvalgaard January 1, 2018 at 10:44 am
So, the ribbon has nothing to do with the magnetic field.
———————————————————
Magnetic fluxes are relevant to that ahh, question.
Not so sure about that as yet.
The Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) wraps around the heliosphere which is composed of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF), solar wind/density. The Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) PILES UP during wrapping around the heliosphere. When it piles up, does it break and mix with IMF during the reconnection processes? Where do those ISMF fluxes go?
Is the Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) positive or negative?
We know that propagation of GCR through heliosphere varies dependent of whether the solar cycle’s north pole is positive or negative. And that during solar maximum the polar fields are absent.
There is an ‘inward’ and outward winding of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field IMF (+-)
Like the role of geothermal heat from the outer core on Earth, there are still a lot of unanswered questions on the role of the Local Interstellar Medium and its associated Magnetic Fields influence on the heliosphere.
One of us has to do their dishes, make some split pea and ham soup and vacumn, read a newly downloaded paper yet today.
fun fun fun
Repeat: the ribbon is not determined by the magnetic field [outside or inside the heliosphere].
Yeah, just walk away and get busy and think of something I should have added to the previous comment.
And we know that during solar cycle, the flux progression is from the polar regions to the equator and back again to the polar regions.
We know that propagation of GCR through heliosphere varies dependent of whether the solar cycle’s north pole is positive or negative. And that during solar maximum the polar fields are absent.
And we know that during solar cycle, the flux progression is from the polar regions to the equator and back again to the polar regions.
Not quite correct. A better characterization would be
“One can look at the solar cycle as a continuous conversion of the poloidal field to the toroidal field and back to the poloidal field. While the generation of the toroidal field is probably a rather deterministic and orderly process, the generation of the poloidal field seems to be a much more random process, as only a very small fraction (1%–2%) of the toroidal field is converted to polar fields by diffusion and/or circulation.”
From http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
And again, this has nothing to do with the ribbon or the ENA.
It’s going to cause world chaos when the next mini ice age comes.
Somehow I suspect that the UN’s approach to addresing that world chaos will involve wealth redistribution, an experiment in global Socialism, and Agenda 21.
I think it’s more than a suspicion.
Nah! Not them! Their strength is the strength of ten, for their heart is pure.
“…Somehow I suspect that the UN’s approach to addresing that world chaos will involve wealth redistribution…”
Nowadays they just print the money they want for their projects, after keeping a cut for themselves of course. By the time the currency dilution makes its way down to the rest of us we’ll hardly notice that a loaf of bread now costs a percent or two more.
as long as we have lots of oil and gas and coal we will make it through.
+100! Just so!
We don’t need to go to outer reaches of the solar system to realise the sun is primary driver
On this graph we can see that the North Hemisphere’s temperature data (CRUTemp4) has two prominent periodicities ascending well above the noise level:
– 9 years, most likely associated with the AMO 9 years decadal periodicity
– 21.8 years, most likely associated with solar magnetic cycle (2 x sunspot cycle) periodicity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT4spec.gif
Unless it can be shown that the 21.8 periodicity has some other external source or alternatively some kind of an internal oscillation time constant, than it should be, within the reason, accepted to be a reflection of the solar activity effect on the NH’s temperature natural variability.
Unless it can be shown that the 21.8 periodicity has some other external source or alternatively some kind of an internal oscillation time constant,
Ignorance about something cannot be taken as evidence for something else…
“….. evidence for something else….”
and what that ‘something else’ might be ?
When confronted with a certain phenomenon I can not explain it is the luck of knowledge, but others are at liberty to reject it’s existence.
Like the Sun is the ultimate causal effect on the Earth’s climate?
Isvalgaard is absolutely correct, vukcevic.
It’s known as “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”, “argument from ignorance” is one of the classic logical fallacies and one continually used by alarmists. Hence their use of waffle words and false adjective boosters; e.g. might, could, may, robust, “must be”, “only remaining thing”, etc.
The plain truth is such claims are assumptions, beliefs, speculation and of course, opinion. None of theose are science or part of the scientific process.
“but others are at liberty to reject it’s existence”, when opinions, speculations, assumptions, and belief claims are presented as some sort of science; any description of those claims should clearly identify them as possibilities or theories in progress.
All assumption and presumptions that self falsifies as unproven assumptions that an assumed correlation may could in a far fetched manner might possibly hold merit…
ATheoK
Thank you for your extensive comment. I’m not sure I understood all of it, perhaps you should followed Dr. Svalgaard and simply say “Vuk you are an ignoramus”.
[snip]
[snip]
“Ignorance about something cannot be taken as evidence for something else…”
That doesn’t seem to stop the IPCC!
Chris
There always have been those who relentlessly attempted to halt progress of human understanding of science and natural events in general. Motivations are various and many, ranging from defending institutional status quo, personal income or dubious status to promoting alternative theories.
More importantly see my comment at : January 1, 2018 at 5:21 am
Vuk, either I’ve had too much gin, not enough gin, or I need some replacement memory cells. But I thought the AMO was a 60 year cycle. Isn’t 9 years a lunar cycle ?
“We identify one strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO at period 9.1 ± 0.4 years and p-value 1.7% (CL 98.3%).”
Richard A. Muller & Judith Curry : Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures
I think it is just great that we have so much information on the science behind everything, unfortunately it will change nothing.
Wish we could actually predict the future climate. It is cooold today and I don’t like it.
You think you’ve got problems, pity the poor New York residents as they will be under water by tomorrow morning per James Hansen: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/31/climate-expert-james-hansen-new-york-vanished-underwater-midnight/
Frozen water? Or globally warmed ice?
Well, today New York is still “afloat.” Sad 🙂
Maybe the current 400 feet of sea level rise over the last few thousand years is continental sinking into the basalt abyss and the continents just hit bottom in recent times. Another topic.
ug high temp today in mid maine was 2F.
started morning out at -13f and tonight will be -16f or so.
next Saturday the high is supposed to be -3 F.
cold weather really taking a toll on machinery and fuel usage.
forgot to mention with wind chills its been -12f to -18f all day
[snip]
[snip]
Fig 1 suggests that tropical cloud cover increases as global temperature rises as per the age old historical observation that air above the oceans has a maximum possible temperature whatever the level of insolation.
Shouldn’t we be seeing less cloud cover with a more active sun and the temperature following (subject to oceanic thermal inertia) ?
If one considers global cloud cover rather than tropical cloud cover then we get the correct signal, hence my preference as regards consideration of the clouds generated by jet stream tracks. More when the jets are wavy at a time of quiet sun and less when the jets are zonal at a time of active sun.
That involves a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which would not need any change in condensation nuclei of which there are more than enough anyway which is why I doubt the Svensmark diagnosis.
Stephen your theory can coexist with Svensmark.
Do you think a wayward jet stream causes blocking highs?
ironicman,
It could coexist with Svensmark but I don’t think it does because there is no shortage of condensation nuclei in the first place so more make little difference.
The wayward jets are caused by blocking highs which are a consequence of the warmer stratosphere above the poles when the sun is less active pushing tropopause height downward and forcing areas of colder denser air outwards from the poles.
The jets tend to thread their way between high pressure cells.
Thanx for that insight Stephen.
David……..”Uranus ……. something is happening to the clouds.”
What is happening?….more clouds…less clouds?
On aside….I live on a rock out in the tropical ocean….this has been the cloudiest summer, fall, and winter we’ve ever had….days and weeks of cloudy overcast…not really rain…just cloudy…sorta depressing from what we’re used to
Yeah, I “feel” for you and your depression as my toes freeze off. Happy New Year anyway. grumble, grumble.
[snip]
Bartleby you should be banned. Do everybody a favor and just shut up.
I think we are all pretty much over the “Uranus” jokes.
Can’t we just change the name of that planet to Urectum and be done with it?
Bartleby
The giggle factor is always there (we’re all guilty) when discussing a planet called ‘Uranus’ it is difficult enough to bring a topic up for debate surrounding the planet, as it really is a fascinating planet,
Did nurses stand around giggling behind a screen when a proctologist put a finger in your butt or something?
Try to have a more professional composure.
By the way, the secret of comedy is.
Uranus…
Is it only me, or does any one else see the pun in the opening line? Must be a full moon cycle too!
Yeah, especially since Uranus is typically where the sun DON’T shine.
All right, I’ll say it you won’t.
Is there life on Uranus?
So, since I was there when this happened, I have an opinion.
We no longer pronounce Uranus as “your anus”. As soon as we discovered the rings around Uranus back in ’79 or ’80 (I can’t remember, senior moment), we decided the new pronunciation would be “Yer a nus” with emphasis on the “nus” part. Like that helped. No one paid any attention, so we were stuck with discovering the rings around your anus. If I have to live with that, so do the rest of you.
Maybe a better example of the acceptable pronunciation is “Yer uh nus”.
I know this won’t help. I’ve been trying for more than 30 years. But that’s what we decided at the time.
RS Brown: There is life there, but not as you would wish to know it!
It did not help a bit that the rings were dark brown.
As for life there…Well< I was going to make a Klingon joke, but Javier will tell me to shut up if I do that.
Menicholas,
Bartleby was showing totally inappropriate behavior and insulting Leif. He has been put in moderation, so my view of his behavior is shared by Anthony. I have no problem with jokes no matter how bad or tasteless they are. I think we all stand to win if commenters abstain from personal attacks no matter to whom.
There is more than 50% chance that the solar activity is at the threshold of one of its centenary Grand Minima (late 1600s, early 1810s and almost early 1910s), and if so it is a matter how long it may last, from one or two up to five decades. All of the Grand Minima were accompanied by considerable cooling from the previously warmer periods. More people are brainwashed about supposedly CAGW, more of a surprise or even shock is waiting around the corner.
50% chance, says who?
Dr. Svalgaard’s graph
http://www.leif.org/research/New-TSI-from-Group-Number.png
What of it? Hansen and the warmunards are busy writing papers which claim that mini-ice age conditions can be triggered by CO2 warming. Effectively now covering every conceivable climatic scenario. How they think they can get away with proposing something as fundamentally unfalsifiable and blatantly anti-scientific as that is anyone’s guess.
A shock? Why? They’ve been getting away with for years. Nothing to stop them now.
“more of a surprise or even shock is waiting around the corner.more of a surprise or even shock is waiting around the corner.”
Personally I’m banking on being dead long before this rather obvious transition takes place. And I’m buying property close to the equator where people speak English.
evidence of solar cycle affecting Earth’s cloud cover
The title is misleading. The evidence is that the solar cycle is affecting the color of Uranus’ cloud cover.
The solar cycle is also affecting the Earth’s upper atmosphere [the ionosphere and thermosphere], but there is no evidence that it is affecting the cloud cover.
.
also the formation of clouds…
“Changes in solar activity influence the colour and formation of clouds around the planet,”
Misquote. Uranus is always completely covered with thick clouds. [not water clouds and not condensed around anything]. Completely different physics from Earth’s.
Something is not jiving here…..You say Uranus is always completely covered with thick clouds…..and Sromovsky says “Only a limited number of small bright clouds at middle latitudes in both hemispheres”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Uranus
anywho..they don’t qualify more clouds? less clouds?…brighter clouds?….dimmer clouds??
…what is the sun making the clouds do on Uranus right now?
“…Misquote. Uranus is always completely covered with thick clouds. [not water clouds and not condensed around anything]…”
Not all clouds on Uranus are “water clouds,” but those at lower pressure are.
“…Completely different physics from Earth’s…”
Which physical laws are different? This should be good…
Not all clouds on Uranus are “water clouds, but those at lower pressure are
Higher pressure:
The data is not very convincing:
http://www.leif.org/research/Uranus-Brightness-Solar-Cycle.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Uranus-Brightness-Solar-Cycle-Power.png
They have no explanation for the other peaks.
There is no evidence for condensation around ions, other than a model simulation of Neptune.
Kind lf like CO2 being the thermostat for Earth’s climate.
“Kind lf like CO2 being the thermostat for Earth’s climate.”
No!? Say it isn’t so!
Some absurdly impotent gas might destroy the entire human universe? It couldn’t be!
Send Leif money. He’ll save you from this disaster. He has a degree. In Science!
MODERATOR:
I would appreciate it very much if you were to take “Dr. Svalgaard’s” commentary on this subject and future subjects in this topic with a large grain of salt.
Dr. Svalgaard is making claims inconsistent with known science; in fact it is well known and understood that the sun (our star) is responsible for providing all energy available on our planet. To suggest otherwise is pure tomfoolery. I’m myself an emeritus of the institution he claims allegiance with and I find his commentary noisome in the extreme.
Bartleby.
“I would appreciate it very much if you were to take “Dr. Svalgaard’s” commentary on this subject and future subjects in this topic with a large grain of salt.”
Two things:
1. Dr, Svalgaard stands behind his words by publishing his full name to his comments, you don’t.
2. I’ve met and know Dr. Svalgaard personally, he argues from a scientific basis, even if that basis is unpopular.
So, no.
“The solar cycle is also affecting the Earth’s upper atmosphere [the ionosphere and thermosphere], but there is no evidence that it is affecting the cloud cover.”
Speak for your own anus Leif. The rest of us will take care of managing our own?
Thanks.
[snip – that’s an ugly and pathetic attack, and a policy violation – and you want me to listen to your suggestions about Dr. Svalgaard? I think not. You are on moderation now- Anthony]
There is supposed to be moderation for the prevention of such childish ad homs on here.
But again it fails.
ToneB: I agree.
Bartleby, apparently you cannot manage your behavior, let alone scientific discourse. As a result, you nullify your own comments. Go away unless you can join adult discussions. So far, I see no such ability in you.
Plain language summary from the paper, bold mine:
“Measurements of the planets Uranus and Neptune have been made using a telescope, for every year from 1972 to 2015. How bright a planet appears to us is an indicator of the cloud cover in its atmosphere. An 11 year brightness variation was spotted in the Neptune observations many years ago, indicating that a process linked to the the Sun’s 11 year activity cycle affects the planet’s clouds. This inspired us to look at the data for Uranus more closely, and we found the same signal as for Neptune. There are two possible explanations. One possibility is chemical, when light from the Sun affects the color of particles in the planet’s atmosphere. Our other possibility is that energetic particles from outside the solar system, cosmic rays, influence particle, or cloud formation. (Cosmic rays are “bent” away from the solar system by the Sun acting as a magnet, so are also affected by its 11 year activity cycle). In our results, we actually find that both of them have a small effect on the clouds on Uranus. This is the first evidence of two planetary atmospheres—Neptune originally and now Uranus—showing similar variations, in both cases originating from their host star.”
From the abstract-
“The statistics show that 24% of the variance in reflectivity fluctuations at 472 nm is explained by GCR ion-induced nucleation, compared to 22% for a UV-only mechanism. Similar GCR-related variability exists in Neptune’s atmosphere; hence, the effects found at Uranus provide the first example of common variability in two planetary atmospheres driven through energetic particle modulation by their host star.”
However: if GCR would effect cloud cover (CC) and on this way the GMST one would see some energy in the fourier of the GMST. This is not the case. This says NOT that the arerosols aren’t produced (Svensmark is right perhaps) BUT that these aerosols do not have the impact on Clouds ( aka aerosol-cloud interactions:ACI) that climate models estimate. This has wide ranging influences on the sensivity vs. GHG, those are LOWER than models estimate. One big forcing vs. GHG is calculated from ACI. This is low ( negligible) as some recent papers suggest from observations of ship tracks and volcanos. A direct outcome is: Climate sensivity vs. GHG must be smaller than models estimate.
BTW: A happy new year 2018 for all following this blog!
“International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project which stopped in 2009 which is a pity …”
I agree that this is a useful data set. It suffers from a cross satellite calibration issue owing to its dependence on continuous polar orbiter coverage, but this primarily affects the reconstructed surface temperatures and not the cloud properties. The scatter plots at this link shows how many of the reported and derived variables are related to each other. The relationship between total cloud cover and temperature is particularly interesting as are those between the surface temperature, solar forcing and planet emissions.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens
While it may be coincidental, the data stopped being updated shortly after I demonstrated to Rossow how his data supported a sensitivity far lower than his source of funding (GISS) wants people to believe. At the time, he was trying to convert to higher resolution pixels which I seem to recall was because they hoped that at a better resolution, the data would show what they were expecting relative to positive cloud feedback which the existing ISCCP data doesn’t confirm.
I also have the DX data (almost 1 TB) from which I was able to reverse engineer away the cross satellite calibration issues and cross check my reconstructions of planet emissions and cloud reflectivity based on what was reported in the D2 data.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/overview.html
Wow. They stopped the ISCCP cloud project in 2010. Trump, order GISS to do their work.
I’m sure though there are other sources for the data, just how telling it is to stop a project like this. And, to add insult to the injury, it was an Obama era event.
Hugs,
Yes, this was a useful project.
The data is actually collected by NOAA from the polar orbiters and geosynchronous satellites covering the Americas and also by international agencies collecting data from satellites covering Europe, India and Asia. This data is still being collected by those agencies.
The value added by the ISCCP project was to convert the data from these various sources into a consistent format and make it available, along with several derived data products. Cross calibration was an added value, except for the flaw in the algorithm that depended on continuous coverage by a polar orbiter whenever another satellite is replaced. In 2001, there was only one polar orbiter left (there have usually been at least 2) which itself was drifting a bit. It was replaced with a new generation of satellite with a different receiver characteristic. The sudden shift in the reference was something the algorithm couldn’t deal with and led to about a 3C jump in the baseline surface temperature. This jump is often pointed to as why the ISCCP data is not useful, but to be clear, it’s only not useful for establishing temperature ‘anomalies’. It’s very useful for understanding the average transfer functions, how clouds behave from a macroscopic point of view and is even useful for measuring trends once the calibration issues are addressed.
It is not at all surprising that Obama admin stopped this research that posed a threat to the Gorebull Warming Hoax.
The Obama admin also stopped a very low cost ($20m annually) research project on Low Dose Radiation Damage that was studying cellular repair mechanisms for radiation damage. This research threatened the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis of radiation damage that is the foundation for the anti nuclear energy alarmists.
Greens use junk science (Gorebull Warming and LNT) to sideline US nuclear and coal so that the new natural gas from fracking is used to generate electricity rather than to compete with oil in the transportation sector. The beneficiary of this policy is the OPEC monopoly in the transportation sector.
Greens expose their hypocrisy since coal is attacked for generating CO2 while nuclear is also attacked even though it is the solution to CO2 emissions.
Two years should settle the argument, plenty of time to get Svensmark’s Noble prize ready.
Me thinks he would have to share it with Jasper Kirby.
Don’t you mean Jasper Kirkby. If you are going to give him a NOBEL prize it should have his name spelled correctly.
Mote likely his d3n!3r oubliette.
I have spent a long time trying to see a link between the sun and our climate. I mention a few of the things I have considered just to stimulate the thinking of others who may have ideas that I have missed.
– Modulation of GCRs affect cloud formation as Svensmark suggests.
– Changes in solar wind affect cloud formation
– Changes in solar magnetic field affects arrival of cosmic and meteorite dust
– Changes in solar cycle affect gravimetric changes and ocean overturning
– Changes in TSI UV content that change atmospheric chemistry
The solar effect could be a combination of these or perhaps none.
I hope that Svensmark is correct, but one question I have is what key differences are there between the solar wind and GCRs in terms of interactions leading to cloud seeding?
Both contain electrons and the nuclei of hydrogen, helium, etc. and have high energies (velocity). Why do the modulated GCRs have a greater effect?
The GCRs arrive at a velocity approaching that of the speed of light. The GCRs
use the atmosphere as their personal cloud chamber. Atom smashers.
The solar wind is much more sedate.
The GCRs arrive at a velocity approaching that of the speed of light.
really??
@ur momisugly frankclimate
Yes. They are really moving. They are way up in the relativistic velocity range. As a result, they can have energy levels orders of magnitude greater than the most energetic gamma rays.
https://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcr.html
I wonder about the outgoing aspect of the total “energy budget” . . in terms of potential changes in airborne water’s “greenhouse effect” due to changes in the earth’s magnetic field. All that incoming energy from the sun has to go out, and since water is the chief “greenhouse gas”, and water is effected by magnetic fields, it seems to me there is potential for non-incoming changes in the “radiation equation” . .
Another difference is that GCR have higher energy, and although they increase with latitude they hit all over the Earth. Solar wind particles are lower energy and enter the Earth almost exclusively at the poles. If there was an effect of solar wind on clouds it should be on polar clouds. In the same manner it is known that the solar magnetic field is capable of affecting surface pressure at the poles (Svalgaard-Mansurov effect).
So if you want to propose an effect on climate it is easier with GCR. With solar wind you would have to also explain how a polar effect should affect the climate of the entire planet. It is not impossible, but gets more complicated, as the changes have to be bigger.
Sorry, my fourth bullet point should have been gravitational, not gravimetric.
No. Solar changes are tiny as is human contributions to the natural greenhouse effect. Intrinsic changes are yet to be fully understood. All other factors need to take a wait-in-line ticket.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/
Why do I hate wind chills? Because it depends on which way you are running…Into the wind wear gloves – with the wind, take the gloves off…
Wind chill factor was adjusted to reflect a lesser effect after the CAGW agenda. hmmmm
UV? maybe the ring on Uranus gets bleached too.
I remember back in the olden days, when we just called it Winter, and everyone knew that some Winters were very cold in some places, others were very cold in other places, and some Winters were not so cold.
But no one was all confused or angry about it, one way or the other.
That’s because, as my 14-year old likes to say, nobody had figured out how to make money off it yet. (insert sound of mic drop)
Excellent point.
Now I remember, My grandfather used the same term.
“To put that solar effect into perspective, the following is a schematic representation of the relative distances of the Earth and Uranus from the Sun:”
Perhaps the distance relationship may be accurate but the size relationship is WAY off.
One is too hot, one is too cold and the little one is just right.
As an old Floridian you know comparing Earth & Uranus is like comparing ‘oranges and lemons’, or the cockney chap I learned English would have it Bells of St. Clements.
Not sure why you’re obsessing on this point. The takeaway from the Uranus gig for me was simply that if as demonstrated the Sun is capable of driving observable physical changes in the atmosphere of outer gas giants then it isn’t unlikely that it can do so on Earth.
Because Uranus effect is of totally different nature to that what we see on the Earth. Density of both solar wind and CME at clouds Uranus (distance 18 – 19 AU) are only a fraction of what is the case at the Earth’s orbit (1 AU).
In addition Jupiter & Saturn magnetospheres are huge, they take relatively large spatial angle of heliosphere, and doing so shield Uranus every 19 and 30 years from any effect of solar activity, leaving it open to only its own magnetic field as a defence from the GCR .
You can clearly see those periodicities in the spectral response of the effect provided:
9 year component is most likely second harmonic of the 19 year one.
Oranges & lemons.
Back in 2011 which looking through the Met Office climate summaries l was struck by how close the trends for annual sunshine amounts and annual mean temps for the UK matched. Since 1930 when sunshine amounts have fallen so do the mean temps and when sunshine amounts increase so do the mean temps. The match is not perfect but was amazed by how close it was.
From 1997…amazing how far we’ve come in 20 years…
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/galleries/clouds-on-uranus
“…Using visible light, astronomers for the first time this century have detected clouds in the northern hemisphere of Uranus…Uranus has also been called bland and boring, because no clouds have been detectable in ground-based images of the planet. Even to the cameras of the Voyager spacecraft in 1986, Uranus presented a nearly uniform blank disk, and discrete clouds were detectable only in the southern hemisphere…”
I don’t know about Uranus, but mine is freezing.
I don’t know how light can be reflected back from a place where the sun don’t shine…
Light reflected by Uranus … and it’s not even 1-April !
There is something odd about those two spectral diagrams. Looking closely I noticed some doted lines; after a bit of enhancement I got this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Uspec.gif
Spectral components are the same but amplitudes were greatly reduced in the normally visible version.
Graphs we see are from Dr. Svalgaard’s library, I don’t know if he noticed this before.
The dotted lines show the ‘error bars’. I.e. the distance between the dotted lines is an indication of the error bar.
What is interesting about Figure 6 is that the peaks are aligned at 47 months into the cycle.
What is interesting about Figure 6 is that the peaks are aligned at 47 months into the cycle
No, that is not interesting at all. It is an artifact of the fact that everything above 55 degrees is just one pixel on the WSO magnetograms. In fact, the tilt should [by definition] go all the way to 90 degrees at every sunspot maximum, but the instrument cannot resolve that because of the coarse spatial resolution.
More dezinformatsiya from Dr Svalgaard, or should I say Dr Svalgaardokov, I am inclined to report you to Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation.
As a co-discoverer of the Heliospheric Current Sheet and a co-developer of the Wilcox Solar Observatory it may be presumed that I know I am talking about. You, sir, on the other hand show clear evidence that you do not.[In addition your comment is juvenile and demeans WUWT].
I agree Dr. Svalgaard, and I’m disappointed that David Archibald would stoop to this.