Slide from Shariv lecture
Prof. Nir J. Shaviv, who is a member of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. According to PhysicaPlus: “…his research interests cover a wide range of topics in astrophysics, most are related to the application of fluid dynamics, radiation transfer or high energy physics to a wide range of objects – from stars and compact objects to galaxies and the early universe. His studies on the possible relationships between cosmic rays intensity and the Earth’s climate, and the Milky Way’s Spiral Arms and Ice Age Epochs on Earth were widely echoed in the scientific literature, as well as in the general press.” — From Nir’s blog [1]
Nir gave a lecture at EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie [2]) January 2013. In the lecture at EIKE he flows through some of what is wrong with IPCC assertions and models, then drops in extraterrestrial, solar wind, galactic cosmic rays, showing some neat plots. Asserts that solar accounts for a major proportion of whatever temperature change has gone on and how IPCC omit critical factors. Models are over-sensitive.
EIKE made a video of the 37 minute lecture, available on YouTube.
His information pre-dates the new Svensmark cosmic ray evidence and of course a lot else which has gone on since late 2012.
Nir’s lecture style in English is hesitant as he searches for words, please stick with him and I expect some surprises will arrive. Don’t miss the occasional rapid wit either.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/8QtnueIJGjc?feature=player_detailpage
(Alternate link, force HTML5 in HD)
(Link to video from Nir Shaviv’s blog)
1. Nir Shaviv’s blog http://www.sciencebits.com/about
2. EIKE http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/
Article posted by Tim.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Oh well, for good or ill I’ve gone for changes in cloudiness induced by changes in ozone concentrations above the tropopause rather than the Svensmark hypothesis.
I think that is a more complete account of the varied events that we actually observe.
The cosmic ray theory needs to somehow explain how additional cloud nucleation in the troposphere can then translate to changes in stratosphere temperatures and changes in both jet stream behaviour and climate zone positioning.
On balance I think any effect from cosmic rays would only slightly facilitate the other effects from changes in ozone quantities.
Lots of things change when solar variation occurs but most of them have no direct significant climate system consequences.because they do not affect global air circulation.
Svensmark and his supporters need to direct their attention to that issue.
I agree any mechanisms are no more than speculative, not that CO2 is more than speculative.
An area which I seem to be working over is atmospheric transmission, very poorly known. This is surprising given there is 100 years of puzzling over atmospheric transmission. A lot of oddments turning up which I hope will eventually jigsaw into something I can write up.
Ozone, yep, is probably connected.
Excellent. I found it one of the most helpful explanations I’ve seen on the CR theory. He gives every impression of being a proper scientist, as do his comments on his website.
Two things MH.
1. He mentions solar “cosmic” rays are not energetic enough to matter.
2. Is about the solar wind. Looks at part of this I’ve just come across a paper about trying to get a solar wind proxy via aa index etc. where this mentions the fairly poor modulation by the sunspot cycle. I’m thinking this might explain the poor showing of the sunspot cycle in 14C data.
Aside: the paper does mention a 9 year signal in I think velocity, double take for me because some time ago I extracted an asymmetry signal from the hathaway/nasa/greenwich sunspot dataset where this had dominant 45 year and 9 year cycles, very clear. I have no idea what is going on.
FYI http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5202/52020121.pdf
A thread author I’m using an opportunity to produce a side issue. Get what we can from the general ideas set up by Shaviv.
A quick follow up on 9 year because it is so specific seems to show surprise and dismissal in papers as something else such as lunar or luni-solar in relation to PDO.
A fairly solid paper where Yusuke Yokoyama is a notable name, subject I was going to raise sometime. [1]
Possible link between multi-decadal climate cycles and periodic reversals of solar magnetic field polarity
Hiroko Miyahara a,b, ⁎ , Yusuke Yokoyama a,c , Kimiaki Masuda b
Click to access Miyahara_EPSL_2008.pdf
Doesn’t entirely latch onto it or show a static signal and yet figure 2b has little 11 year but a great big 9 year. This supports a fairly low signature of sunspot cycle in radionucliide.
What I have in mind is keeping eyes open for 9 year since this is an unusual period so it might act as a signature.
Here is the solar signature, an oddity. There is no additional signal processing, stranger is the absence of the 11 year movement. The function is sunspot area biased to polar and sum of north and south.
1. For now take a look at Dr. Yusuke Yokoyama’s laboratory at the Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo.
http://ofgs.aori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yokoyama/english/index.html
EG.
“Solar Activity and Earth’s Magnetic Field Anomaly
Nuclear isotopes (10Be, 14C, 26Al, 36Cl and so on) created by the interaction between cosmic rays and atmosphere record the past solar activity and earth’s magnetic field anomaly. We are trying to reveal the system of this variability by analyzing rare nuclear isotopes in ice cores, ocean and lake sediments and tree rings.
Moreover, it was previously believed that the change in insolation by 1 % didn’t affect the climate variability. However, now we are revealing that it is the cosmic rays reaching the earth, not the insolation, that is affecting global climate. We started investigating the relationship between the earth’s magnetic field and climate too.”
Some layman muttering about clouds. Seems to be a lot of cloud around at the moment. 😉
A personal observation; I have noticed at the end of a fine sunny day the air temperature drops quite sharply in the evening if the sky overhead is clear. If, during the course of the night, a layer of cloud arrives overhead, I am talking 10/10ths cloud, the temperature will rise, sometimes to what seems to have been the daytime average.
I make the assumption that the initial radiative surface cooling has been countered by backradiation from the water droplets in the cloud which have an emissivity factor better than 0.9 which seems to rapidly reach equilibrium temperature and remain constant for the remainder of the night.
I have noticed this effect many times here in the UK and in the deserts of Arabia and South Africa.
The albedo of the cloud tops is always mentioned but what about the longwave radiation from those same cloud tops. Molecules that absorb high frequency/energy photons don’t necessarily reradiate the same photon, they more often radiate a lower frequency/energy photon, often more than one.
My point is that the clouds not only reflect light they radiate LWIR out to space. These same cloud tops will be radiating LWIR all through the night at much better efficiency than the surface. Agreed the cloud tops will be a couple of degrees cooler than the base but the energy path through the cloud (adiabatic lapse rate) can be quite short.
Is this effect taken into account when calculating atmospheric energy changes?
“I make the assumption that the initial radiative surface cooling has been countered by backradiation from the water droplets in the cloud which have an emissivity factor better than 0.9 which seems to rapidly reach equilibrium temperature and remain constant for the remainder of the night.”
A layer of cloud signifies the arrival of warmer air aloft. The radiatively cooled lower layer in contact with the surface cools the upper later to its dew point and cloud condenses out.
Thereafter it is the warmer air aloft that radiates downward (not just the cloud droplets) and since the cloud droplets prevent both convection and further radiative cooling the lower layer and the surface gradually warm until they reach the temperature of the warmer air aloft.
The rate of upward radiation from any surface to an open sky is determined by the density of that surface so upward radiation from the cloud tops is determined by the density of the cloud and since clouds are less dense than the solid surface below their rate of radiative cooling will be less than that of an exposed solid surface.
@ Richard III. There is a cooling effect from clouds during the day through greater reflection of sunlight and a warming effect by trapping IR loss from the surface mainly at night. These have been measured globally by CERES (Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System). The net effect of cloudy skies compared with clear skies on the earth’s energy balance is cooling by -21 W/m2. This means that you only need small changes in cloud cover (say reduction by 5%) to be comparable to all anthropogenic increases in CO2 forcing.
In the UK the net radiative forcing of clouds is larger because our clouds are 90% low lying. You only have to sit on a beach in August to know how cold it gets when a cloud passes in front of the sun !
Beware confounding of svensmark’s theory with mention of cosmic rays, which are a good indicator of changes in the shape of terrestrial circulation.
Also be aware when interpreting stats that circulation spatiotemporally modulates “TSI” proxy records.
more to say later (no time…)
Thank you Stephen and Clive. The internet is my class room. 🙂
I made myself a solar cooker and have managed an occasional successful cook out here in Pembrokeshire. I am very aware of the cloud if it gets in the way of my cooker. I wave my beer can and shout rude words. I live under Green One and a jet contrail can also make the temperature in my cooker drop off.
@ Stephen Wilde (I’ll try to maintain my composure)…
“A layer of cloud signifies the arrival of warmer air aloft.”
It is not necessarily warmer air but it is absolutely and indication of moisture & lift.
“The radiatively cooled lower layer in contact with the surface cools the upper later to its dew point and cloud condenses out.”
…The lower layer of what…the upper layer of what…I have no idea what that means.
“Thereafter it is the warmer air aloft that radiates downward…”
No, it does not. The air/objects at the surface have no way to know of *any* temperature advection aloft, be it warm advection or cold advection. Inversions (warm air over cold air) happen all the time in the atmosphere. In the Arctic during cold snaps, the icy surface is *much* colder than the air aloft just a few hundred feet above producing extreme surface inversions. With dry warm fronts, the surface temp is colder than the air aloft with no clouds present. When warm air blows over cooler water, the water cools the air at the surface & the warm air just above it has no clue to what is happening below due to the inversion.
“…and since the cloud droplets prevent both convection…”
the presents of droplets (or ice crystals, as it applies) have no control as to whether the parcel that contains them is colder than, the same or warmer than their surrounding environment.
“..and further radiative cooling the lower layer and the surface gradually warm until they reach the temperature of the warmer air aloft.”
Again, No…(see above concerning temps aloft & inversions)
“The rate of upward radiation from any surface to an open sky is determined by the density of that surface…”
No, it’s determined by the amount of water vapor in the air parcels at the surface. The higher the water vapor content, the less LWIR is radiated out to space (presuming a clear sky).
“…so upward radiation from the cloud tops is determined by the density of the cloud…”
No, upward radiation from the cloud top is determined by the altitude of the cloud top. Since the cloud parcels are basically at the temp of the surrounding air, the higher the cloud top, the colder the cloud top, thus, there is less IR to be radiated out to space. The surface of the cloud top is all that is exposed to space & the temp of that surface is what radiates to space. Any & all cloud below is ‘insulated’ due to water drops/ice being an IR blocker.
All clouds block surface LWIR escaping to space – regardless if they be low stratus, mid alto or high cirrus, thick cumulus or thin cirrus, it takes very little cloud volume to stop surface cooling via heat being radiated to space.
Regards,
Jeff
It will lock? And ozone decreases. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.gif
Jeff,
Thanks for your comments but I find them confused and prefer not to risk creating more confusion by addressing each point individually so I’ll just give two examples.
You say:
” upward radiation from the cloud top is determined by the altitude of the cloud top. Since the cloud parcels are basically at the temp of the surrounding air, the higher the cloud top, the colder the cloud top, thus, there is less IR to be radiated out to space.”
Which is true as it stands but clouds vary in density and denser clouds at a given height will radiate upward more energy than less dense clouds at the same height so my point about density remains relevant and correct.
Then you refer to inversions where no cloud forms and of course they do happen but that would be because there is insufficient moisture for the temperature differential to cause clouds to condense out and here we are only considering scenarios where there is enough such moisture.
The way my simple mind sees this is clouds shut the ‘window’ for surface radiation but use that same window to radiate out to space. The cloud density acts as a ‘dimmer switch’, more density equals ‘brighter’ outgoing LWIR. 🙂
Richard,
Yes, that is a neat way of describing it.
One way to think of cloud tops is to compare them with mountains at the same height. Far less radiative energy loss occurs over Tibet because the snow covered surface is 4000m above sea level so the temperature is ~ 25C less than Calcutta.
It’s not that simple Clive, yes the high altitude is colder but this is confounded by less water vapour.
Here in England I noticed the IR emission at Chilbolton was if anything greater during the cold winter than during a heat wave. Reason is atmospheric water column depth.
The general altitude problem was written up as part of the huge paper written 100 years ago by Angstom. It includes plots of emission vs. altitude, interesting stuff.
I believe this is all about the optical depth under various names or parts of the same thing. It is optical depth which ought to have varied by a of a name I cannot remember found it has been constant.
This is why some of use are so interested in stratospheric water etc.
I still haven’t written the articles about the Angstom work, a major task for me, so much of it.
Question; through that 4,000 metres of dense, moist, smoggy and dirty air over Calcutta, just how wide is the window? In other words how much energy is absorbed into heating the air in that 4,000 metre upward path? What is the level of the outgoing LWIR over Calcutta at 4,000 metres compared to the pristine and cold snow covered Tibet? Snow has very good emissivity, say 315w/m^2 at 0C. Assume 25C for Calcutta. 🙂
For surface radiant heat from Calcutta IR photons are spread over a Boltzmann distribution with T= 301K. Those in the IR window go straight out to space. The rest get absorbed and re-radiated by water vapor absorption and CO2 lines diffusing heat upwards – this is the so-called radiative transfer. Eventually the atmosphere runs out of CO2 and H2O and the energy radiates to space. Each wavelength has it’s characteristic “emission height” where the mean free path for IR photons > TOA. So in Deserts with very low H2O lots of energy radiates near the surface and cooling is fast. For Calcutta H2O emission heights are much higher up in the atmosphere so much radiant heat gets trapped and cooling is less efficient.
Now bung some clouds in the way. Clouds are liquid water or ice droplets. They absorb everything including the IR window and diffuse all photons up through the cloud. From the surface to the bottom of the cloud the situation for IR photons is the same. When they hit the cloud itself they are all absorbed because the cloud acts like a defuse body of water (e.g. a lake). Therefore they block all IR from the surface and then re-admit IR as a black body from the top of clouds at the local temperature there. In that sense they are completely different to water vapor because they also block the IR window. Clouds trap radiant heat which otherwise would escape to space.
However the albedo cooling effect is even greater than this because clouds reflect so much SW solar radiation. On average they reflect -44 W/m2.
Net Cloud Forcing = Trapped Heat – Reflected Heat
= 23 W/m2 – 44 W/m2
= -21 W/m2 of COOLING !
Over Antarctica AAO index also increases.
Stephen,
I believe you might be confusing the behavior of Shortwave Radiation (visible sunlight) with Longwave Radiation (thermal component). With respect to the Shortwave Radiation (SWR), what you are saying is correct – the density or thickness of the cloud dictates how much SWR is reflected off the cloud surface either down to the Earths surface or out to space – this is the same as the clouds albeto (how ‘white’ it is). The thicker the cloud is, the more SW radiation is reflected.
*HOWEVER*, with regard to LWR, it is a totally different issue. A thin cloud will block LWR just as much as a thick cloud and the LWR being emitted from the surface of the cloud will be the same as the temperature at that level. For example, for a cumulus cloud, the LCL (Lifted Condensation Level) is 40 deg. the temp of the cloud base will be 40 deg and if you look at the cloud base with an infrared imager, it will register 40 deg. Now, say 30,000 ft up at the top of the cloud, it hits the tropopause which means the parcel reaches the same temp as it’s surroundings & stops lifting and say, for the example, that temp is -60 deg. An infrared imager (ie. satellite), will see the cloud top temp as -60 deg. Now a few miles away from this cumulus cloud is a thin wispy cirrus cloud at the tropopause as well. The IR imager will see it as being -60 deg as well with no distinction between it from the cumulus *BUT* SW radiation will see the cirrus as nearly transparent & shine on through with very little reflected.
These effects are very apparent on any satellite imagery (visible & IR) with either the Polar orbiting or GOES satellites.
Regards,
Jeff
NOAA/NESDIS GOES ops
New article on my own blog so I can cite here in context, historic work about radiation vs. altitude
SEV = 9a
Caution: “45 year” fails careful diagnostics. (It’s based on a demonstrably false (methodologically hidden) assumption.)
Tip: It’s 54 year with 2 phase reversals.
The record’s too short to know whether this pattern stays stable. Nonetheless it’s an observation that’s coherent (over the span of existing records) with the NPI integral (& Vangengeim’s ACI, which Tim has recently discovered via 1 of the fish population classics).
Further caution: There are 2 qualitatively-differing types of 54 year patterns on record (as I have illustrated many times).
There are no data to say it’s clouds alone. It’s a broader class of circulation & hydrology variables that are collectively constrained by solar activity.
bad *ss interfering with perceptions & interpretations of solar-terrestrial-climate stats:
NASA, lunar, moon, rotation, youtube, video
I’m inclined to agree Paul, there are mode changes in something wobbling around that rate. Someone else looking in more detail is welcome.
Rewind to some time ago, this also fits (phase match) satellite lower troposphere and sea level data as was up to say 2009, when goalposts moved around. Sun leads. Can’t immediately find the plots.
Once again thank you Clive Best and thanks to JKrob for helpful comment. Would like to discuss the Boltzmann distribution for CO2 in the atmosphere as to me it seems performance is vastly different between sun and no sun conditions. I am unable to see how CO2 can absorb any IR energy from the surface at any time but can see how conduction of energy from the atmosphere ensures a steady output of 15 micron radiation from the CO2 at just about all altitudes, but this will highjack the thread. 🙂
Jeff.
I am considering the density of the cloud within the top surface layer of molecules not the depth or thickness of the cloud.
More molecules in that layer will radiate more longwave upward at any given temperature.
But where is the missing ‘amplification mechanism’
I feel sure it would be broadly agreed that the innovative research work of Shaviv, and also that of such of his contemporaries as Scaffetta, Svensmark, and Ian Wilson, in their respective and related fields is quite outstanding in its depth and quality of analysis and the conclusions they are able to draw and the hypotheses they propose. Their work points clearly to the connections they outline.
But as Shaviv once more in this excellent video alludes, and as he has alluded previously in his papers over the years, and as some of his contemporaries have also alluded, their work is not yet able to provide an explanation of the energy amplification that is required to explain the magnitude of temperature deviations that have occurred cyclically over multi-decadal and multi-centenial periods of the recent millennia. Deviations in the order of 20 to 30 w/m² over sustained periods of time are required.
Shaviv has labelled this as ‘the missing amplification mechanism’. It would be very interesting to hear a little more from these quite excellent scientists as to whence and how such sustained magnification might derive from the hypothesised connections they have outlined. One cannot necessarily expect definitive proof or even robust evidence, but they might be prepared to give us their ‘thinking aloud’ speculations on this
Lawrence
“But where is the missing ‘amplification mechanism’”
More clouds when the jet stream tracks are more meridional and thus less solar energy getting into the oceans to drive the climate system.
The thermal effect being out of proportion to the underlying variation of ToA insolation.
But I agree that Shaviv and Svensmark fail in that area whereas my ozone related hypothesis is at least plausible and may in fact have nailed it.
Stephen – where can I read more on your ozone related hypothesis
Lawrence
Well Tallbloke, thanks for the video link.
The theory is interesting and my self have been checking into the different ionization processes.
At around 20 min. into the video referring to times of slower solar wind speeds he says of high speed GCR.
“”they dominate the amount of ionization we have in the bottom of the atmosphere.””
That’s “blocking incoming solar heat,” even without the nucleation.
But that’s not why I am here.
Also along these lines, is the path that interstellar dust grains take into the heliosphere.
Fritsch et al has modeled the paths of the interstellar dust grains. . These guys collectively are tops in their fields and lots of longevity together.
Figure 13 page 24
depicts dust grain propagation for both positive N solar pole “defocusing” and negative N solar pole which produces a “focusing” affect, much the same way as GCR.
arXiv:1210.1127v1 [astro-ph.SR] 3 Oct 2012
Trajectories and Distribution of Interstellar Dust Grains in the
Heliosphere
Jonathan D. Slavin
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, MS 83, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA
02138
Priscilla C. Frisch
University of Chicago, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5460 S. Ellis Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60637
Hans-Reinhard M¨uller
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
Jacob Heerikhuisen, Nikolai V. Pogorelov
Department of Physics and Center for Space Physics and Aeronomic Research, University
of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899
William T. Reach
Universities Space Research Association, MS 211-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035
and
Gary Zank
Department of Physics and Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research, University
of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35805
Click to access 1210.1127.pdf
During times of “focusing” we also see more ENA H, O, Ne. These streams are also fluctuating in that the stream locations are not stationary.
But all these things affect amounts of ionization whether in interplanetary space or within Earth’s orbit. The ENA (through photo ionization, charge exchange, electron collisions) are partly responsible for the density of the solar “halo” at 1 AU. With all this ionization I am wondering how reliable is the way we measure TSI.
Think focusing cones and crescents in earth’s orbit. Crescents yes crescents………..
Since the discussion is changes in interstellar material such as GCR entering the heliosphere during low solar activity and how that might make changes in Earth’s climate..
The supplementary documentation from this more recent article..follows the original article.
Decades-Long Changes of the Interstellar Wind
Through Our Solar System
P. C. Frisch,1* M. Bzowski,2 G. Livadiotis,3 D. J. McComas,3,4 E. Moebius,5 H.-R. Mueller,6
W. R. Pryor,7 N. A. Schwadron,5 J. M. Sokół,2 J. V. Vallerga,8 J. M. Ajello9
Click to access Decades-Long%20Changes%20of%20the%20Interstellar%20Wind%20Through%20Our%20Solar%20System.pdf
Abstract
..””Recent results obtained by NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer mission during 2009–2010
suggest that neutral interstellar atoms flow into the solar system from a different direction than
found previously. These prior measurements represent data collected from Ulysses and other
spacecraft during 1992–2002 and a variety of older measurements acquired during 1972–1978.
Consideration of all data types and their published results and uncertainties, over the three
epochs of observations, indicates that the trend for the interstellar flow ecliptic longitude
to increase linearly with time is statistically significant..””
Why they didn’t use any of the IMAGE/LENA data in the above I don’t know, but..
In the supplementary documentation
Supplementary Materials for;
Decades-Long Changes of the Interstellar Wind Through Our Solar
System
Click to access Frisch.SM.pdf
Published 6 September 2013, Science 341, 1080 (2013)
P. C. Frisch,* M. Bzowski, G. Livadiotis, D. J.McComas, E.Moebius, H.-R.Mueller, W.
R. Pryor, N. A. Schwadron, J. M. Sokół, J. V. Vallerga, J. M. Ajello
See Figure S1 page 3
..Interstellar atoms are rapidly ionized inside of 1 AU in the upwind direction (dark
blue region), enhancing the upwind pickup densities that create the crescent feature.
The partial ellipse shows the projection onto the ecliptic plane of the highly inclined
orbit of Ulysses…
More on cresents and focusing cones.. of an interstellar nature. Maybe all this adds up to something eh.?
Interstellar Pickup Ions at 1 AU with
STEREO/PLASTIC
Christian Drews
May 24, 2013
http://d-nb.info/1035405539/34
See page 14 Figure 1.3.:
An illustration of the pickup ion flux (color coded contour) born from interstellar
neutrals in the vicinity of the Sun. In this view the interstellar neutrals enter the
heliosphere from the right…
As a result the observed neutral and pickup ion intensity shows a clear
longitudinal dependency that resembles the form of
a crescent if viewed in polar coordinates (thick red line). Both the focusing cone and
interstellar crescent are believed to be aligned along the in
fow axis of the interstellar medium…
Maybe all this adds up to something eh.?
So.. only if you look at the 3 figures of the articles I suggested above.. you might clearly see that there exists crescents and focusing cones at 1 AU within Earth’s orbit. That like the GCR seem also to fluctuate with solar cycle.. Also, that it is not only the increase of GCR at Earths orbit, but also a combination of a number of other interstellar medium.. that will affect earths atmosphere.
Someone might mention to Stephen Wilde that LOD (earth rotation) will affect atmospheric and oceanic circulations. Quite effectively too..
Tim: I’m not satisfied with the level of insight we have so far achieved on 9a, 54a, etc. It’s interesting stuff for sure and I’m solidly confident about some of the conclusions I’ve drawn on 9a, but it concerns me that many in the solar / climate discussion cannot independently distinguish between which insights are black-&-white and which ones are grey. Let’s eagerly await the next key clue that leaps our insight from the greys into the realm of mathematical proof….(I suggest we set our sights that high…)
– –
Carla, thanks sincerely for the timely notes. If I remember correctly, Piers Corbyn has always pointed to interstellar dust.
Lawrence,
See here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Carla,
I’m aware of the potential for a length of day (LOD) element just as I am for a cosmic ray component and an influence on the sun from planetary gravitational influences.
However, I have come to the conclusion that that the primary influence is varying stratospheric temperatures in response to solar changes and their effect on the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Only that can achieve the full range of climate observations and so it must boil down to changes in ozone amounts and distribution because ozone is what creates the temperature inversion at the tropopause in the first place by reacting directly with incoming solar shortwave.
Lock both polar stratosphere at altitudes above 20 km.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp30anim.shtml
LOD is a response, not a driver.
Paul Vaughan: LOD is a response, not a driver.
I think it can be both a response to changes in the mass distribution of bodies within the solar system, (as well as annual events such as the exchange of angular momentum between Earth and atmsphere) and a driver of shifts in things like the positions of the magnetic poles (especially the north magnetic pole), and the up/downwelling of seawater at both sides of ocean basins, which then affects cloud amount.
Multidecadal shifts in LOD are of a much greater magnitude and duration than the annual/quasi biannual effects, and appear to be linked to changes in outer core convection patterns, in turn linked to the relative motion of the Gas Giants. There is significant inertia to overcome, which is why the effect lags the cause by 30 years, and the magnitude is small (a few milliseconds on rapidly rotating Earth which has high angular momentum, significantly more on slow spinning Venus – 6 minutes in 15 years).
tallbloke says:
September 21, 2013 at 12:29 pm
..shifts in things like the positions of the magnetic poles (especially the north magnetic pole), ..
Though I don’t aspire to the planetary theory, it is noteworthy that since 2009 the latitudinal movement of the N. magnetic pole has slowed considerably. And that the N. magnetic pole instead is now moving more longitudinally. In addition the South Atlantic Anomaly (since the 1600s) has been growing larger and its extent is also shown in the overall weaking in latitudinal lines that surround it both north and south of the magnetic equator. This would also affect GCR coming into the Earth system differently now than lets say at the Dalton or Maunder. As well as having affects on solar activity reaching earth at the dayside.
Since this has been going on for quite some time now, I also don’t see the PT theory here either. Looking for something instead that changes on longer time scales. Like perhaps the local interstellar neighborhood surrounding the heliosphere bubble. And if there has been a slowwwwwwly increasing interstellar neutral population increasing at Earth that we are now just learning of its extent, there is still a lot to be learned about interplanetary space..
Question
If the Earth’s magnetic field has been steadily weakening from the SAA (equator) outward and GCR are better able to penetrate these regions, historically how do we even know what the level of GCR have been, if the distribution of GCR on the Earth is not equal for all locations…………………………………………….?
Just a thought, like thinking out loud, type question.
Carla says:
If the Earth’s magnetic field has been steadily weakening from the SAA (equator) outward and GCR are better able to penetrate these regions, historically how do we even know what the level of GCR have been, if the distribution of GCR on the Earth is not equal for all locations.
That’s what I’m saying that the starting point in this cycle has changed a lot. If this cycle is the weakest since more than 100 years, the galactic radiation is also the largest for 100 years, and its distribution depends on the current Earth’s magnetic field. The animation stratosphere, it seems that the strongest lock formed south of South America and moves with the polar vortex.
We recommend that you examine the chart below. It can be seen that the lowest temperature and the highest speed in the midst of a polar winter occurs at a height of from 100 to 10 mbar, or from 15 to 30 km.
At the same time shows that in this area increases the ionization of the atmosphere that falls just below 10 km.
It seems that the faster whirl, you even a small change in temperature can cause severe destruction.
It’s like a football player, which you are very dissipated, even brush defenders can cause dangerous injury.
Multidecadal LOD is controlled by solar cycle deceleration.
Due to the multivariate coupling at the terrestrial end, we often end up venturing into (avoidable) misunderstandings whenever this comes up.
…so we can be alright because we can all be right
[ :
hope that makes sense
Paul Vaughan: Multidecadal LOD is controlled by solar cycle deceleration.
Some people think the magnetic couplings are strong enough to act as a brake or accelerator on the Earth.
Others think spin-orbit couplings via gravitational effects might be responsible. Given that solar variation correlates with the planetary motion, disentangling cause and effect will take a while.
Deductions can be made from disparate facts which together help point to understanding. Oceanless Venus has slowed by 6 minutes in the last 15 years.
Until we see some convincing looking numbers and theory, we’ll rule nothing out.
“Rule nothing out” can be interpreted 3 different ways …so as I see it, if 1 person interprets it 1 way and another person interprets it 2 different ways, we’re probably having good fun. Win-win.
Is it a failure or a stroke of radiation?
[link to cosmic ray plot at oulu]
tallbloke says:
September 22, 2013 at 12:38 am
…Deductions can be made from disparate facts which together help point to understanding. Oceanless Venus has slowed by 6 minutes in the last 15 years…
—-
I’m wondering which last 15 years? What is 2013 to 1998? Or 2009 to 1994?
Venus is different for sure by location to its star, it is always orbiting in a higher density halo, more ionized, more twisting of the current sheet etc.. more drag on rotation.
So the lag time for Venus to speed up its rotation will take longer than Earth. So..might take a few consecutive low solar activity cycles before we see a speed up?
Thanks for the comment Stephen.
The sensitivity to rotation for atmospheric circulations to become more meridional is right there.
ren says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:03 am
Is it a failure or a stroke of radiation?
[link to cosmic ray plot at oulu]
—
Take a look at the Moscow Neutron Monitor.
If you want to get a feel for the new GCR levels as we move into this new solar min activity period,
Try in putting, Jan.1996 to Sep. 21 2013, 1day, corrected for pressure
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
I’ve put this together, not as simple as it seems, a story in this not yet revealed.
There is very little carbon 14 data around, in this case data from NIWA at Baring Head, New Zealand, I’ll cite fully in an article later on. Data is too erratic to do much with it other than show points.
Moscow is northern hemisphere, nz southern.
1. The solar sunspot cycle only weakly appears in 14C.
2. Terrestrial and solar magnetic polarity affect neutron flux in addition to solar magnetic wind.
3. Tallbloke challenged me over why little 11 year is present in paleo 14C data. I’ve been looking into this for some time, fits with something else I am doing. An article is on the way where there might be a surprise because if I am right this fits independently with two other works which dispute things to do with CO2. Put another way, something is wrong.
Carla correct me if I’m wrong. Is if the solar cycle is the lowest since at least 100 years, it can be assumed that cosmic rays will be highest for 100 years and is primarily at the poles Earth?
Hi Carla, sorry for the brief reply, I’m trying to finish a paper to a deadline. Venus’ rotation has slowed down over the last 15 years:
I hear what you are saying about proximity to the Sun, but remember that Venus doesn’t have a strong magnetosphere, so how will the coupling take place?
Also, consider that distant Saturn has also changed radio emission frequency rate considerably (between 636 mins and 647 mins), thought to be linked to rotation rate also.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=1530
We are studying rotation rates here:
Carla still look at this chart, especially on September 21.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=04&startmonth=09&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=23&endmonth=09&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
It might be worthwhile to recall the movie.
ren, there have been several articles mentioning cosmic rays / neutron flux, possibly the most useful is this one
I thought there was a more apt article but searching the Talkshop and my own blog I can’t find it. Might be a case I did the work but never actually published.
Tchannon solar system is now in the Orion Arm. This location makes it a low solar activity, cosmic rays can grow by leaps and bounds.
What are the timescales?
I understand that millions of years. The reason I say only possible when the Earth for several years will be very poorly protected by the Sun’s magnetic field. It seems to me that the effect of cosmic rays on the climate over the next year will be totaled.
Tchannon very afraid that, given the little-known phenomena associated with low solar activity, such as the temperature in the stratosphere over the Arctic Circle, they will be attributed to global warming.
That’s possible but where is viable evidence for extreme short term detail?
You are echoing http://calderup.wordpress.com/
The earth systems are almost certainly chaotic and follow power law, not Gaussian as assumed by the majority formally in science. Regime changes will according to this happen entirely naturally without needing outside stimulus, but that would trip change.
Surprisingly there were and are a few who take this kind of view.
Here is a large paper published 1999 in International Journal of Climatology where the presence of the name Joseph Fletcher is significant, possibly the last paper where his name appeared (he died 2008). He grew up through military aviation, particularly deeply involved in the Arctic
“On May 3, 1952, pilot William P. Benedict and Fletcher as co-pilot[4] flew that plane to the North Pole, becoming the first humans to land there and the first humans (together with scientist Albert P. Crary, who flew with them) to set foot on the exact geographical North Pole. (However, some sources credit this achievement instead to a Soviet Union expedition that landed there on 23 April 1948.[5])
Fletcher left the Air Force in 1963. In later years, he held various management positions in meteorological institutions, including a post as director of the NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).” — wikipedia
Wikiipedia completely misses his technical importance, he insisted that data matters.
He started COADS which today is ICOADS.
Changes in atmospheric circulation over northern hemisphere oceans associated with the rapid warming of the 1920s
Congbin Fu1,*, Henry F. Diaz 2, Dongfeng Dong 1, Joseph O. Fletcher2
Article first published online: 2 JUN 1999
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199905)19:63.0.CO;2-P
Open access PDF. 26 pages, for a journal is huge.
Conceptually it deals with climatic jumps, or regime changes where it shows evidence.
This mentions “In his classic studies of chaotic systems, Lorenz has proposed a nondeterministic theory of climate change with his concept of the ‘almost-intransitivity’ of the highly nonlinear climate systems. There exists the possibility of multiple stable solutions to the governing equations even in the absence of any changes …”
I add, this fits with dimensionality, fractal-like, Hurst, etc.
At the end it does offer opinions on possible evolution, eg. “An alternative model could begin with a lessening of high latitude sea ice coverage. This would then lead to (a) enhanced heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere; (b) a larger measure of warming of surface air temperature compared to SSTs; (c) a weakening of the meridional temperature gradient, and …”
However, I believe that the sun in a few years to change the point of view of many scientists. Look though the lack of hurricanes this year, and yet had to be more. However, I doubt that will ever this year.
Tallbloke, can appreciate you are busy, I work and have around 40 open windows on my computer. with tech. docs., from solar, to interplanetary to interstellar and beyond..that need completion.
But .. Saturn’s rotation.. the article states they may be mistaken about its rotation rate, based on the criteria used. Should I come across something related will drop in..@.. the talkshop.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=1530
“”Therefore, the logic went, the period measured in the radio emissions must be the period of the deep interior. In fact, the International Astronomical Union has adopted the Voyager-determined radio period of 10 hours, 39 minutes and 24 seconds as the length of a day on Saturn. This same technique has been used to infer the rotation periods of Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune.
However, based on ongoing measurements of the radio period of Saturn by a spacecraft called Ulysses that have been confirmed by Cassini measurements, Saturn’s radio period is currently longer than 10 hours, 47 minutes and is continuously varying. This dramatic change of period of several minutes in just a couple of decades would violate conservation of both angular momentum and energy, if the period really represented that of the deep interior of the planet. Hence, scientists do not think that Saturn has actually slowed its rate of rotation. Instead, it appears that the magnetic field observed exterior to the planet is slipping in some way with respect to its source deep in the interior of the planet. And, given that, we currently do not know what the rotation period of Saturn’s deep interior is. This is one of the deepest mysteries remaining for Cassini to solve in its remaining tour of study of the Saturnian system.””
Yep Ren saw that spiker.. did you notice the rise to a new level over the month.
Where do they enter mostly, along the heliospheric magnetic equator into the solar system. Now ya made me wonder about how much their gyro radius might like Earth’s magnetic equator.. What a way to catch a ride into the atmosphere, via gyro and splat..
Hi Carla,
I haven’t got enough knowledge about the electrodynamics of magnetospheres to say anything much about this. I can make a couple of observations about assumptions though. The paper I’m writing proves beyond all doubt that spin and orbit is linked. We know Saturn’s orbit is growing, so it’s no surprise to me that its rotation is slowing. As for other fluctuations in the radio frequencies, I expect variation in the solar wind speed might have something to do with it. I suspect magnetospheres are more ‘open’ than current theory supposes.
A planet like Venus, with no magnetosphere, is magnetically permeated by the heliomagnetic field. Venus presents the same face to Earth at every synodic conjunction and is almost in a 1:1 with Jupiter too. That tells me Venus has an inhomogenous density distribution (likely a result of the fissioning of a moon, which is now Mercury, according to Tom Van Flandern’s theory). That means Venus’ solid core will be churning around in its liquid core as it rotates, no doubt helping to keep Venus hot. The weakening heliomagnetic field will be supplying less motive force than it was a few decades ago. The friction of the motion of the solid core will be slowing the planet down quite rapidly. Hence the loss of six minutes in 15 years.
tallbloke says: September 24, 2013 at 9:44 am
“I haven’t got enough knowledge about the electrodynamics of magnetospheres to say anything much about this.”
There really isn’t that much to it for an established engineer TB. It’s basically electro/mech with electronics thrown in. Wikipedia has a wide coverage of the disciplines for this category if anyone is interested in ‘de-mystifying’ this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electrodynamics
“A planet like Venus, with no magnetosphere, is magnetically permeated by the heliomagnetic field.”
I concur. IOW, it doesn’t interact because its rotation is too slow.
“Venus presents the same face to Earth at every synodic conjunction and is almost in a 1:1 with Jupiter too. That tells me Venus has an inhomogenous density distribution (likely a result of the fissioning of a moon, which is now Mercury, according to Tom Van Flandern’s theory).”
Though this is a possible hypothesis, Venus would be observed to exhibit ‘eccentricity’ in its rotation. Is this the case?
“That means Venus’ solid core will be churning around in its liquid core as it rotates, no doubt helping to keep Venus hot.”
While the ‘fluid flywheel’ principle between the planet’s solid core and solid crust is credible, the geological time scale must be short. This means that, in geological terms, the ‘lag’ to equalise rotation is short. We seem to be observing this ‘catch-up’ process in ‘real time’.
“The weakening heliomagnetic field will be supplying less motive force than it was a few decades ago.”
??? I thought this was a ‘mechanical effect’ generated by solar wind speed. Perhaps this is a cross discipline confusion?
“The friction of the motion of the solid core will be slowing the planet down quite rapidly. Hence the loss of six minutes in 15 years.”
I think I follow your logic, but disagree. The “solid core” only ‘dampens’ rotation. Rotation is caused by solar wind action on the planet’s atmosphere and crust (excluding external ‘collisional’ forcing that cause aberrations from the ‘norm’).
Best regards, Ray.
tallbloke says:
September 24, 2013 at 9:44 am
..paper I’m writing proves beyond all doubt that spin and orbit is linked. We know Saturn’s orbit is growing, so it’s no surprise to me that its rotation is slowing. As for other fluctuations in the radio frequencies, I expect variation in the solar wind speed might have something to do with it. I suspect magnetospheres are more ‘open’ than current theory supposes…
—
“”We know Saturn’s orbit is growing”” No, I didn’t know that. Thanks, I think..
Which seems to make sense for low solar activity levels.
And the outer planets would be more sensitive to reduction in solar activity, because of the distance factors. Bumps and holes in the current sheet. The solar wind during low solar activity is not so radial.
Earth must have more of a lag time to slow down in rotation.. Think by solar cycle 25 we’ll see it?
By the same token they would also be more sensitive to interstellar factors, at times of low solar activity levels.
Some are saying due to precession around the spiral arm, it just might be a second interstellar wind, as the solar system free falls down the drain..
Like now we see for sure a headwind coming from the direction of galaxy center, but on this rotating arm there would also be a second wind.. which could be part of the spiral arm rotation of the shells (spiral arm size current sheets) like the one the solar system resides in.
A perpendicular as well as a parallel interstellar wind at this particular junction. Some studies ongoing looking at this very situation. And I believe the origin of the very idea is from none other than our observations of Ol Sol’s winds..
They have found some dense small scale structures, like about 1000 X 100 AU. Not something they can see downwind so well though. But that size probably would not be capable of being seen ever again lol…
later..
TB: ‘We know Saturn’s orbit is growing, so it’s no surprise to me that its rotation is slowing.’
We may have to re-think ideas about Saturn’s rotation rate. Some statements from NASA suggest the rate may not be changing, but the methods they have of measuring it are not good enough – i.e. if they are measuring variables not constants that could explain why they are getting ‘unexpected’ results.
‘Cassini has also found that the period at which the SKR’s power is modulated drifts over time, changing by as much as roughly 1 percent per year. Though this change seems small, the rotation rate of a body as massive as Saturn could not change that rapidly.’
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/cassiniscienceleague/science20130209/
OB quoting NASA: “the rotation rate of a body as massive as Saturn could not change that rapidly.’”
“Unless of course, our assumptions about there being no link between orbit and axial rotation are proven wrong” 🙂
Check your inbox please.