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
What has happened to science?, did science start with the age of internet searchable papers?. The phys.org article states The papers provide the first evidence that two planetary atmospheres have similar variations, in both cases originating from their host star.
Guess what?, in 1977 BBC popular science documentary Horizon (Season 14 Episode 6) “The Sunspot Mystery” described the very same observations of planetary brightness (and Earth climate) variations with sunspot numbers. And the climate guys back then had a refreshingly guarded approach to climate prediction – save one (you would have to watch it to find out who !).
It does seem that old knowledge is having to be revisited for whatever reason.
Before astrophysicists with their radiation budgets (that is all they have in astrophysics) invaded the climate scene it was well known amongst meteorologists that the greenhouse effect (or whatever nomenclature one prefers) was attributable to conduction and convection operating within a gravity induced pressure and density gradient. That was clear in the 50s and 60s when I first studied the subject.
Al the old text books to that effect appear to have been disposed of one way or another.
Yes, I remember reading about the 11-year variation in the apparent brightness of Uranus and Neptune in the early 70s. Corliss has something about this in his Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Moon and Planets volume).
“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. ”
David:
Could you explain why.
I know what it “supports”, and it certainly isn’t that.
What does the Bible say? There are none so blind who will not see.
archi:
Perhaps you will enlighten us.
Then I will tell you meteorology at play.
Interesting
What DOES the Bible say?
…Thou shalt not lie
Therefore the entire Bible is then true.
Genesis 1:14 …Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for SIGNS, and FOR THE SEASON, AND FOR THE DAYS, AND YEARS…
Therefore, since the sun, a star in the firmament of the heaven, we can now answer the question. Is it the sun?
Yes!!!
Looks like someone knew long before CAGW stepped in it. 🙂
P.S. not mocking…mocking is bad.
Sunspot cycles last approximately 11 years, and their presence in the climate data is hardly detectable, however the ~22 year periodicity is present in both, the land and the land & ocean data
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TempSpec.gif
the 22 year cycle is caused by change in the polarity of solar magnetic field, and it has an effect on the length of the maximum GCR impact.
When polarity changes, the trajectory of the GCRs towards the earth also changes from the heliosphere’s polar region to one from the equatorial region, and vice versa.
Result of this is a considerable change in duration of the maximum impact of the cosmic rays.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCRmod.png
Following even cycles maxima, the maximum impact of the GCRs can lasts up to 7-10 years while following odd cycles maxima the maximum GCR impact lasts only couple of years.
Since it is postulated (Svensmark & Kirby) that the GCR variability changes cloudiness, the length of the GCR’s maximum impact will also affect global cloudiness and the global temperature spectral composition (as shown above).
GCR variability illustration is from lecture Solar Activity and Climate given by a renown solar scientist Hiroko Miyahara, from the University of Tokyo ( link, the relevant bit is at 9.00 min in, while the GCR effect starts at 7.30 min in).
There will be attempts to refute the above as it has happened on number occasions before, and no doubt it will happen again.
Happy New Year to all.
This is a second order effect and even as such there is no clear evidence that GCRs influence the climate and especially not on a 22-yr time scale. We may presume that Svensmark et al. knows what their hypothesis entails and that does not include a 22-yr variation, but rather an 11-yr cycle.
In response to another of your comments: what you do is not science and is not progress.
What is the average time that it takes the suns polarity to reverse from one geographic location to the other and back again?
There is a number of 11 years being thrown about as an average of how long the suns polarity goes from the geographic poles to the equator.
11 years is a polarity reversal of 180 degrees, in your opinion, what constitutes as 360 degrees?
The solar poles do not reverse by rotating 180 or 360 degrees. Instead, what happens is that the old polarity is slowly replaced [in place – i.e. in the polar caps] by the new [opposite] polarity coming up from lower latitudes by movements of the solar plasma [from equator to poles]. The process is described here
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the movements of the planets.
during last 75 years (since peak of 1940s) N.H. temperature change by 0.4C, which is 0.1% of its absolute value, I would call that second order change too.
“We may presume that Svensmark et al. knows what their hypothesis entails and that does not include a 22-yr variation, but rather an 11-yr cycle.”
that sounds a bit odd coming from a scientist, I’m not particularly concerned what Svensmark knows or not, I look at the data, do bit of analysis and report, it’s lot of fun, if not much of science as you would insist.
Presumably, Svensmark looks at the data too, and perhaps has a better background in science to interpret what he sees and how plausible the result may be. He is not in it for the fun, but for the truth [he may not have gotten it yet] and is trained as a scientist to not be fooled by spurious correlations [although he is not quite successful at this]..
*and back (peak to peak)
Doc
Searching for truth in science is a hopeless task, there is no final or everlasting scientific truth. Science is bound within the constraints of the laws that the fallible humanity has devised. The nature is an inflexible lady, she couldn’t care less for ‘scientific’ truth as we see it.
there is no final or everlasting scientific truth
Not true. Examples of everlasting scientific truths: the Earth is round, it revolves around the sun [not the other way around],. sunspots are magnetic, the Universe is expanding, there is Helium in the Sun, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, CO2 is plant food, etc, etc, etc.
Now, for scientific truth there are legions of pseudo-scientific nonsense peddled by ignorant people.
Lief,
“what happens is that the old polarity is slowly replaced [in place – i.e. in the polar caps] by the new [opposite] polarity coming up from lower latitudes by movements of the solar plasma [from equator to poles].”
Old and new polarity… what? it’s a straight forward concept being expressed,
if it takes a bar magnet 11 years to turn upside down 180 degrees, how long does it take the bar magnet to turn 360 degrees?
Lief,
“This has nothing whatsoever to do with the movements of the planets.”
I am discussing solar polarity on this issue, I’m open to discuss other components of the solar system too, I enjoy the subject.
Polarity denotes the direction of a magnetic field. Perhaps you have a reading problem.
The sun has a global magnetic field with poles at the North and South poles of the sun. Currently the direction of the magnetic field at the North pole is directed away from the Sun’s surface [we call that positive or north polarity]. At the South pole the magnetic field is currently pointed into the sun. We call that negative of south polarity]. The magnetic field at the poles does not move around on the sun [like rotating from from pole to the other – although there are some people who mistakenly believe so], but grows and shrinks in response to magnetic flux moving up from lower latitudes. The process is described here:
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
P.S. I have no idea what you are talking about [neither does the sun]. I hope you have.
Lief,
“Polarity denotes the direction of a magnetic field.”
A bar magnet coloured red denotes the direction of its polarity, if it took 11 years to reverse the bar magnet 180 degrees, how long would it be until it reversed 360 degrees?
Leif,
“Currently the direction of the magnetic field at the North pole is directed away from the Sun’s surface”
You’re suggesting that the sun only has a surface towards its equator because the N polarity is at rest over a geographic pole, when in fact you are no longer observing resistance of both polarities interacting through the surface moving toward and away from the equator.
The suns polarity is 4 dimensional (xyz plus time) and it is instantaneous. it isn’t a photon of visible light and it isn’t mass,
Here’s a question, just for fun; if you have a sheet of paper over a bar magnet and a sprinkle of iron filings on the paper. How does the Iron filings move the bar magnet?
I have no idea what you are babbling about. Read the link I gave you.
A bar magnet coloured red denotes the direction of its polarity, if it took 11 years to reverse the bar magnet 180 degrees
To repeat: the sun is not a revolving bar magnet. If you want to keep the image of a bar magnet, think of it this way: the bar magnetic gets weaker and weaker until its magnetism is completely gone, then it gets stronger and stronger [with the opposite direction] until it has recovered [its now reversed magnetic field]. This takes 11 years, and then the process repeats.
Leif,
“If you want to keep the image of a bar magnet, think of it this way: the bar magnetic gets weaker and weaker until its magnetism is completely gone…”
I like that analogy 😀
The sun has a self-degaussing mechanism,
Maybe you can see my concern with this?
The sun has a self-degaussing mechanism,
Well, any time you superpose negative and positive magnetic fields they cancel out.
Even when the polar regions which are tiny compared to the rest of the Sun go away, there is a lot of magnetic flux elsewhere. In fact, the sun is most magnetic at solar maximum when to polar filds have gone away. Nothing to be concerned about.
Ahh typing the name ‘Leif’… Apologies Sir.
*miss typing
There you go again letting hubris get in the way of commen sense.
You say “the Earth is round”, it is not, it is ovoid.
You say ” the Earth is 4.5 billion years old”, but in fact there is no Absolute proof, you have not gone back in time to see if the earth appeared at 5 Billion years, or 4.7 billion years or 4.25 billion years and yet you state it as a “truth”.
You can say it is “Estimated to be 4.5 billion years old”, not that it is.
There you go again letting hubris get in the way of common sense.
Your comment shows that perhaps common sense is not so common…
Picking nits is not productive. ‘Round’ as opposed to ‘flat’ is good enough. And the age of the Earth is well established to be 4.543 billion years [give or take a few million years], etc.
No “Established” is not the TRUTH.
Scientists keep giving Estimated, Established and Concensus “Facts” and at a later date admit they were wrong.
You yourself should know that as your group has just changed the Wolf Sunspot Numbers that have stood for a very long time.
As to nit picking, you are correct, you are a very highly regarded Scientist and precise language is necessary when you are making your point and especially when you are describingwhat is Scientific “Truth”
If you had written “The Earth is not Flat”, fine but you stated the Earth is Round as a Truth and it is not.
You continually criticise others for getting things wrong or inaccurate, but do not appear to hold yourself to the same standard.
If you had written “The Earth is not Flat”, fine but you stated the Earth is Round as a Truth and it is not.
Your feeble attempt at nit picking falls flat.
The dictionary definition of ’round’ is like or approximately like a circle or a sphere.
The Earth certainly falls under that. Mastery of language and clarity of thought are essential ingredients of serious discourse, but you demonstrate deficiency with both.
Very informative post Vukcevic. I want to see global cloud coverage changes as we move forward . I expect it to increase.
I only put together what is or should have been already known.
There is another possibility that considers non-TSI, non-Svensmark solar magnetic cycle effect on the global temperatures, but I leave it for another time.
I only put together what is or should have been already known.
By whom?
Perhaps you might consider that there are things you don’t know. [and don’t even know that you don’t]
lsvalgaard says:
“the Universe is expanding”
The earth is round suggesting the universe is expanding in the same sentence.
Galaxies far off in space and time (literally) after they have formed are moving away from each other, therefore the entire universe is expanding!
Closer to home, our own galaxy “the milky way” has formed,
Have a guess what the “the milky way” is doing? it is moving toward the Andromeda Galaxy.
Even Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein both disagreed with the way the interpretation of these observations were being presented.
There is no workable concept as an “expanding universe” in physics, that’s for media scientists like Bill Nye, Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I’lll lean towards Hubble and Einsteins view on this issue.
The planet is round, spherical in shape 😀
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The Universe is expanding, but for nearby objects gravity is strong enough to counteract the expansion and nearby [on a cosmological scale] objects move around each other held together by gravity. But gravity gets weaker [fast] with distance so at large distances becomes too weak to overcome the observed expansion of space.
I noticed that the observational data was recorded during the time when Neptune and Uranus’ orbits were being perturbed by each other, they were in a close enough proximity to adjust their orbits slightly, this last occurred just before 1846 when Neptune was discovered,
If both planets are in close proximity, it would be likely that galactic cosmic rays/particles would be attracted more to that area,
These two planets have enormous polarities, two strong polar fields in the same place at the same time can effectively double any process taking place.
And there is the suns polarity sweeping through the solar plane, the movement of the suns polarity reversing increases when these two planets are approaching each other, also during, when the two planets are moving away from each other, the timing of the suns polarity slows down.
This thread, thus this blog is being degraded by unmoderated comments entirely inappropriate for a discussion on scientific matters. Moderators?
And if archibaldperth is also the author of the post, shame on him! He should step up to the plate and correct this!
I’ll have a look.
Such is the case with holiday- not so many people looking at moderation. I’ve removed Bartleby’s offensive and stupid comments that were policy violations, and put him on moderation.
Sigh…
I’ve also suggested to archibaldperth that his comments were inappropriate and suggested he apologize .
I apologize unreservedly to Dr Svalgaard.
Were you drunk when posting what you now apologizes for?
Ok, let’s let it be. He apologized. Let’s all move on.
Thank you David Archibald.
lsvalgaard says:
“The Universe is expanding, but for nearby objects gravity is strong enough to counteract the expansion and nearby [on a cosmological scale] objects move around each other held together by gravity.”
(Please refrain from throwing tantrums Leif, just discussing facts)
What happens when two massively dense bodies “on a cosmological scale” come into contact with each other? they rip each other apart, correct?
What happens when there is a point in time with a stronger gravitational pull than the speed of light?
The mass of our sun can bend the light from distant stars, correct?
Where are you getting the “Universe is expanding” narrative from?
E=mc2 in physics describes that energy and mass is interchangeable, energy can not be created or destroyed. correct?
The concept of time and distance is clear,
Observing objects at an extreme distance such as galaxies should have moved away from each other after they have formed, how are you going to see newly forming galaxies?
let that last point sink in…
What happens when two massively dense bodies “on a cosmological scale” come into contact with each other? they rip each other apart, correct?
Most of the time they quietly simply merge. That is how giant elliptical galaxies are formed.
“It is widely accepted that the evolution of elliptical galaxies is primarily composed of the merging of smaller galaxies. Many galaxies in the universe are gravitationally bound to other galaxies, which means that they will never escape the pull of the other galaxy. If the galaxies are of similar size, the resultant galaxy will appear similar to neither of the two galaxies merging, but will instead be an elliptical galaxy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy#Evolution
Where are you getting the “Universe is expanding” narrative from?
From direct observations of the redshift from distant galaxies
Observing objects at an extreme distance such as galaxies should have moved away from each other after they have formed, how are you going to see newly forming galaxies?
Because of the finite speed of light, the galaxies we see at large distances are very young. Galaxies in their youth, so to speak. So we can directly see them form and evolve. Let that sink in.
He has shown that he doesn’t have shame. Sad what discourse has become.
You have just argued against Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein’s view on the universe. you have even thrown out the theory of special relativity in favour of a wikkilank,
You really would argue up is down lol
Nonsense. Read the links and my comments carefully. Don’t put foot in mouth [unless you can’t help it].
It is true, why on earth would I lie ffs, I could pull anything right now from any of your links and you would argue against it, I actually did that before quoting you word for word and you still disagreed in a negative way.
Nonsense. As Willis said: show me the exact words you are objecting to, or shut up.
Lief, your patience is commendable.
Sparks, I often listen to a webcast called Astronomy Cast. It’s been running weekly for about 10 years, so they have an archive of almost 500 shows. They cover all the topics you and Lief are talking about – redshift, expansion, colliding galaxies (because they’re close enough for gravity to overcome expansion), and how we can see billion year old galaxies as they’re formed. And they explain it in layman’s terms, so people like us can understand it.
http://www.astronomycast.com/archive/
Solar activity crept up a bit during December. Sunspot cycle 24 number for December in the old money (Wolf SSN) rose slightly from 3.4 to about 5 points while the new Svalgaard’s reconstructed number is at 8.2.
Composite graph is here
SC24 is nearing what might be the start of a prolong minimum (possible late start of SC25 too), ‘dead cat bounce’ from these levels is unlikely.
while the new Svalgaard’s reconstructed number is at 8.2.
Perhaps you should stop spreading misinformation. Version 2 of the sunspot number is not ‘mine’ but is a community effort promoted by the World Center for Sunspots in Brussels.
Keep using the old scale is not productive unless, of course, the goal is to sow confusion or demonstrate ignorance.
OK, apology.
Correction: the new SILSO reconstructed number is at 8.2.
The new SILSO reconstructed number has been in use only for about two years, while there are hundreds of papers published in the last decades using the old Wolf SSN, therefore I provide both numerically and graphically for a quick and easy reference.
Often we see temperatures quoted in the old Fahrenheit and the more recent Celsius and no one is particularly concerned by seeing two units appearing in parallel.
while there are hundreds of papers published in the last decades using the old Wolf SSN, therefore I provide both numerically and graphically for a quick and easy reference.
Bad idea, as the old one is faulty. You analogy with Fahrenheit and Celsius scales is invalid as they both are valid. And the old SSN is not produced anymore so you must be making it up [perhaps it should be called the Vuk Number].
Correction: the new SILSO reconstructed number is at 8.2.
It is not a reconstructed number. It is a measured number equal to the number of groups times 10 plus the number of spots [normalized to the Locarno station and averaged over about 60 observers].
Leif, with great horrify I was aware what happend with this blogpost during the discussion. My approach to the Svensmark-paper and it’s impact on the GMST is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/31/baby-its-cold-outside-evidence-of-solar-cycle-affecting-earths-cloud-cover/#comment-2705940 . A more technical question: What do you think about this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa93ef/meta ? I tried to replicate their method and failed… sent an email to the lead-author. They claim that SC25 will be weaker than SC24…
The paper smacks too much as curve fitting for my taste. The authors carefully do not [as far as I can see] actually predict a number for the size of SC25 so they are somewhat protected from falsification. If we use the polar fields [which are now a bit stronger than during the previous minimum, we would predict a slightly stronger SC25. See: http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
lsvalgaard December 21, 2016 at 6:23 pm
the suns polar reversal has slowed down
“On the contrary, it had progressed as usual, and is now complete and a new polar field is building. As far as we can observe the new fields are not weaker than the old ones before the reversal, and possibly will be stronger as the field is still growing in the North.”
Leif,
Do you still feel the same about pole reversal as you did a year ago?
Thanks,
JimG1
Same as I felt 40 years ago.
I figured that but was specifically referring to your feeling about the coming strength “possibly will be stronger”. ?
There is evidence for that:
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
Yes vukcevic, stop spreading misinformation.
I’ve just apologised, it was meant as a compliment for a great achievement. In future I will credit SILSO, the publishers,
Leif,
Thanks.
Vukcevic,
Thanks for the link to the Japanese work. If correct about the polarity and waviness influence on cosmic rays then this adds further colour to Svensmark theory.
Frankly, I wish Lief would just stop crushing any and all attempts to advance science of climate change. For sure, these cosmic ray theories are weak and in their infancy but the evidence of some kind of link is nevertheless quite strong. The exact mechanism and detail seems poorly understood and indeed it could be just a correlation and not a causation. However, with respected scientists like Lief killing every hypothetical notion out there it seems unlikely any of these alternate theories will ever achieve funding. Perhaps that is Lief’s intent – kill funding for these alternate theories? If it is not his intent then perhaps he should re-consider how aggressively he keeps attacking alternate theories like Svensmark. After all, climate does change and we don’t have a good answer for much of the detail and the CO2 theory is obviously a complete failure, as all the physics and data shows.
it could be just a correlation and not a causation.
The problem is that there is no good correlation, so speculating above causation is just that, speculation.
Funding and acceptance are usually done on the merits of a proposal, and the merits are not really there either. Scientists are conservative people and require good evidence in order to accept [or fund] new ideas. This is how it should be. There are many examples of hypotheses that were lingering in the shadows until compelling evidence finally was found. Examples: Einstein’s general theory of relativity, plate tectonics, ‘jumping genes’, dark matter, etc, etc. When the evidence is finally there, the change of heart is usually swift and broad.
CO2 theory is obviously a complete failure
apart from most scientist disagreeing with that, it is a fallacy to believe that the failure of one theory automatically proves another [or all others!] theory correct.
Perhaps what I have seen with regard to cosmic rays is all cherry picked but what I have seen is mildly convincing and seems mildly plausible. It would appear worth investigating since TSI does not seem to do a big enough job.
You don’t need atmospheric physics PHD to figure out that CO2 is a negligible factor compared to what we see in the paleo climate records. Almost any physics and most engineering degrees are enough. CO2 is most clearly an indicator of climate but not a driver. CO2 being a failure suggests we should invest resources elsewhere even in exploring wacky new theories to a limited extent.
Plate Tectonics was discovered several times and it took a long time to become accepted. A graduate student at my Physics department called Tuzo Wilson found the most compelling and irrefutable evidence regarding transverse faults but plate tectonics had long been suspected for maybe a century or more. Cosmic Ray cloud theory lacks solid evidence and so did Plate tectonics until the US Navy measured extensively the magnetic field over the oceans and Tuzo put two and two together.
Cosmic Ray cloud theory lacks solid evidence
Well, it is worse. There is good evidence against it. The observed temperatures [and clouds] do not correlate with GCRs. The theory makes specific predictions and they fail. This is why it is not generally accepted. Not because of lack of evidence, but because of direct evidence against it [failed predictions].
My mention of Tuzo Wilson is not as clear as it should b – Tuzo found irrefutable evidence that “transverse faults” were in fact transform faults at mid-oceanic ridges. This was the key evidence that clinched long suspected plate tectonics theory.
“You don’t need atmospheric physics PHD to figure out that CO2 is a negligible factor compared to what we see in the paleo climate records.”
That’s the complete opposite of the facts.
Paleo records show the fact that (then) CO2 was a feed-back, that amplified the change – that is the driver of warming/cooling was changes in the Earth’s orbit. So followed via warming/cooling of the oceans (sink/source).
When put in the atmosphere first it is a driver.
Toneb,
Climate change happens about 800 years before CO2 rises – this is not a driver. Climate drives or modulates CO2 not the othe4 way round.
So you argue that the current rise on CO2 is due to climate 800 years ago. Fools rush in where wise men refuse to go, as they say.
“Fools rush in where wise men refuse to go, as they say.”
My bread-making, strawberry picking Viking ancestors decided to rush off to America. Maybe it was wise, maybe it wasn’t, but it *was* carefully decided and worked out well enough.
but it *was* carefully decided
As I recall the story, Eric the Red fled Iceland because he was banned for murder [so had little choice] and it seemed to be a family trait as his father fled to Iceland from Norway also because he was banned for murder…
“So you argue that the current rise on CO2 is due to climate 800 years ago.”
Lief, isn’t it possible that an MWP driven increase in CO2 was underway, but was completely swamped by the industrial revolution?
The warmists argue precisely that, namely that the extra CO2 caused by [“swamped by”] the industrial revolution and later human activity are responsible for recent global warming. Is that what you are arguing, too?
No, I’m not arguing for or against anything; I’m just looking for answers.
Jeremy, plausible mechanism is the key here. Atmospheric semi-permanent pressure systems caused by the Coriolis effect, continental positions, and oceanic gyri and currents are immensely powerful components of intrinsic drivers of our climate and its variations. By themselves they produce multidecadal changes in climates throughout the globe. Several act upon solar radiance to produce mind boggling changes in climates. For example, La Niña and El Niño events produce fairly consistent weather pattern changes around the globe. Any extrinsic factors would likely need to demonstrate the ability to overcome Earth’s own weather systems in observable ways. No suggestions presented so far rise to that level. Leif serves a valid role in pointing out lack of plausibility and relevance.
Pamela Gray says:
“oceanic gyri and currents are immensely powerful components of intrinsic drivers of our climate”
Currents are not a driver of any system, currents are being driven by default in physics. science, life, the universe…
Sparks, quote my words exactly. I said “components of drivers”.
Ahh you meant currents are components of natural drivers, it read above that you were including currents along with… sorry 🙂
“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.”
GCR’s have increased while cloud cover has decreased. That’s a pity.
What’s up with the random ‘reply’ links?
Thou shalt not lie
Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: “All Cretans are liars.”
Everyone should try this, take a fact from an accomplished scientist and pose it to Leif, see what happens, the result is hilarious!
Personally, I prefer not to poke folks just for the sake of poking. Make a point and move on be it comical or of seriousness. Leif has had his opinions here for many years now, backed by his and others assumed hard works; which he stands firm by. Correct or not, he remains stead fast which I respect. And just for the record I have agreed and disagreed with him. …now, how about some more Scotch from solar cycle 22.
Not sure why I’m in moderation.
So, the title is “evidence of solar cycle effecting earths cloud cover”, I see figure 1, air temperature anomaly versus cloud cover, than later figures, the regular swings of solar cycles. What I do not see in figure 1 is those same regular swings. If you are attempting to prove that solar cycles result in regular swings in cloud cover, your hypothesis has been falsified by the data you provided here.
I suggest a new title, “”evidence of solar cycle NOT effecting earths cloud cover”.
As far as I can see, the total argument here is that figure 1 is on the same page as the later figures, and thus must have some relation to them, even though none is seen. The text merely says that “if this, then that”, provides no proof of “that” happening, merely states that it will as an article of faith, while figure 1 shows that “if this, than NOT that”.
Now, if you are attempting to show that a series of lower solar cycles affect cloud cover, you also have a problem. The data on solar cycles shows lower cycles starting in about the year 2000, while the decrease in tropical cloud cover starts in about 1984, peaks in 1997, and then remains steady. In addition, the cloud graph starts in 1983, while the sun graphs start in 1966, and thus cannot really be compared to each other, what did cloud cover do from 1966 to 84, did it track with solar or not? To really show anything, both graphs of cloud cover and solar cycles must cover the longest period each has been measured, to see if there is any correlation.
In addition, you track AIR temperature anomaly versus cloud cover, the idea being that cloud cover effects air temperature anomaly (why not true air temperature?), a better idea, cloud cover and true sea temperature, and there are other things also that effect cloud cover, ocean currents, winds, ENSO, etc. The idea appears to be to provide no data on anything but solar cycles as effecting cloud cover, thus “proving” that only solar cycles effect cloud cover. If you do not provide data on other things that may effect cloud cover, it is dishonest, the important thing in propaganda isn’t what you say, it’s what you don’t say.
On purely the basis of logical fallacies and improper use of the scientific method, this article can prove nothing. Well, actually, even with the limited data provided, it appears to prove, or at least suggest, that cloud cover is not effected significantly by solar cycles. Perhaps if you censor even more data, and chop out anything that might be contrary to what you are trying to suggest, you could get it to at lest not disprove the premise you are trying to prove.
You might want to look up the phrase “The Narrative”.
North American snow, January 02, 2018 (GOES-16/EAST)
In the wake of a quiet sun….
A First! Snow Falls in Baghdad
By CHRISTOPHER CHESTER (AP)
Jan 11, 2008
==============
Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years
Mark Prigg (Evening Standard)
Oct 10, 2008
==============
The Alps have best snow conditions “in a generation”
Telegraph UK, Dec 2008
==============
Spokane, Washington., residents cope with record snow
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS (AP)
Jan 7, 2009
==============
The day the sea froze: Temperatures plunge to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won’t warm up until Sunday
Daily Mail
Jan 8, 2009
================
Where’s global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
March 8, 2009
[…] The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.
===================
‘Quiet Sun’ baffling astronomers
By Pallab Ghosh (BBC News)
April 21, 2009
The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.
[…] In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell – known as the Maunder Minimum – lasted 70 years, and led to a “mini ice-age”. This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.
According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.
“I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case,” he said.
=========
It’s June…so it must be snowing:
Great British summer goes from sweltering to shivering in just a week
Daily Mail, UK, June 2009
=========
Children die in harsh Peru winter
By Dan Collyns (BBC News, Lima)
July 12, 2009
==========
‘Quiet’ sun could mean cooler days
The Age
September 13, 2009
============
Beijing’s Heaviest Snow in 54 Years Strands Thousand
Bloomberg News
Nov 12, 2009
============
Coldest October since 1945 in NZ
ONE News, November 2009
============
Heavy snow continues as temperatures set to plunge minus 20C
Herald, Scotland
Jan 6, 2010
============
Quiet sun puts Europe on ice
New Scientist
May 4, 2010
[…] The research finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream. These kinks can block warm westerly winds from reaching Europe, while allowing in winds from Arctic Siberia. When this happens in winter, northern Europe freezes, even though other, comparable regions of the globe may be experiencing unusually mild conditions.
Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading in the UK began his investigation because these past two relatively cold British winters coincided with a lapse in the sun’s activity more profound than …
============
Freeze Challenges Power Supply
(Xinhua, China)
Jun 1, 2010
Most parts of China were seized by a sustained cold snap Wednesday, when the minimum temperature hit a 40-year low in Beijing and a rare snowstorm in the central Hubei Province kept all school children at home.
The Beijing weather bureau said the capital had its lowest temperature in 40 years at daybreak Wednesday, when the low was minus 16.7 degrees Celsius.
============
Polar vortex’ grips the US in coldest temperatures in decades
Telegraph.UK
Jan 04, 2014
The United States is spending the first days of 2014 in the grips of record-breaking cold and snow as freezing Arctic winds sweep across the country.
===========
Niagara Falls frozen: tourists flock to see icy spectacle
Guardian
January 13, 2014
===========
Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument
WaPo
February 20, 2014
===========
Historical Great Lakes Ice Cover
NCDC/NOAA
March 2, 2014
===========
Niagara Falls comes to a halt AGAIN
DailyMail
March 4, 2014
===========
Great Lakes covered in record-shattering amount of ice this late in spring
WaPo
April 23, 2014
===========
US weather in pictures: ‘Polar vortex’ brings big freeze to North America
Telegraph UK
Aug 13, 2014
===========
Stunning satellite images show [Arctic] summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7 million square kilometres more than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ice-free by now
DailyMail
August 31, 2014
===========
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
NASA
October 7, 2014
===========
Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
Climate sceptics often claim that recent icy winters show that global warming is not happening. New research suggests the opposite is true.
Telegraph UK
Oct 27, 2014
===========
Earliest ice on record appears on Great Lakes
CBC,
Nov 24, 2014
===========
Fall snow cover in Northern Hemisphere was most extensive on record, even with temperatures at high mark
WaPo
December 4, 2014
===========
NH Snow Cover Extent [2014]
The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during winter (December 2013–February 2014) was 46.2 million square km (17.8 million square miles), 660,000 square km (255,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average of 45.5 million square km (17.6 million square miles). This was the 18th largest winter SCE since records begain in 1967 for the Northern Hemisphere, but the smallest since the winter of 2008/09.
Sea Ice Extent [2014]
[…]
When combining the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, we can examine global sea ice conditions. On a monthly scale, the global monthly sea ice extent was above average during most of 2014, with the exception of February and November.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201413
===========
Roughly translated: some parts of 3% of global surface area are colder than average for the time of year.
Most of the rest of the world is above average in temperature: http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
But let’s just ignore that.
We are in an interstadial warm period. It should be warm. Why is this an issue?
So if 2018 doesn’t turn out to be a really cold year globally, we can safely file this post, alongside many, many others, in the David Archibald bin of ridiculous and unfulfilled forecasts. It’s his speciality.
I am assuming that the cooling will take several years due to the oceans being a giant heat sink?
Bingo! Cooling takes a longer jagged dance down to a frozen hell as the oceans soak up all the heat and keep it. Warming is a rapid rise to a blessed green Earth, presumably as the oceans evaporate all that heat to the atmosphere. Why? Don’t know exactly but there appears to be a floor and a ceiling, indicating that the present % of Earth covered by water is at play in terms of capacity to store heat till no more can be stored leaving land cold, and then rapidly cool giving it up to warm the land. Just my guess, but it appears to describe what the ice cores show.
Most of Australia is cool n the middle of summer, but your Orwellian masters won’t let the records reflect reality.
Does “global warming” cause MILD winters or COLD winters, DWR???
Do you make ice by putting trays of water in a hot oven?
Would you please point out where exactly in that linked article there is a reference to climate.