This is a follow-on from another recent Talkshop post:
The subject is a paper that appeared in 2009 which relates to the discussion.
Hopefully the following abstract of it speaks for itself.
The subject is a paper that appeared in 2009 which relates to the discussion.
Hopefully the following abstract of it speaks for itself.
Prolific solar-planetary scientist and long-time talkshop friend Nicola Scafetta has a new paper published in Physica A entitled ‘Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they related? Yes, but non linearly. A reply to Gil-Alana et al. (2014)’ which comments on Gil-Alana et al 2014; a paper purporting to dismiss any correlation between solar activity and terrestrial surface temperature. Nicola gently points out the limitations of their methods and patiently explains how the astronomical-solar signal can be found in the data. Here is Figure 3 to whet your appetite:
Nicola also provides plots of several of the various solar and temperature related indices and techniques for representing them over a wide range of timescales which clearly demonstrate the plain fact of the close coherence between the activity of our host star which supplies all our energy, and the fluctuations of the lovely moderate temperatures we live in on the surface of our planet.
A plot of the two datasets taken from a live spreadsheet implementing data delay, set here for zero. Unfortunately the data tends to cause filter ringing and is impulsive anyway so this is not up to my usual standards of fidelity. A line plot doesn’t help but is clearer. Correlation peaks at r2 = 0.8, neutron data is inverted, data is normalised and made more comparable.
I’ve been meaning to post this for some time but the saga unfolding at Jo Nova with “a theory” where currently I have no idea whether it is reasonable might link.
From 16th May 2014 CERN newswire, I missed it
CERN Experiment Sheds New Light on Cloud Formation
Geneva, 16 May 2014 – In a paper published in the journal Science today, CERN’s* CLOUD** experiment has shown that biogenic vapours emitted by trees and oxidised in the atmosphere have a significant impact on the formation of clouds, thus helping to cool the planet. These biogenic aerosols are what give forests seen from afar their characteristic blue haze. The CLOUD study shows that the oxidised biogenic vapours bind with sulphuric acid to form embryonic particles which can then grow to become the seeds on which cloud droplets can form. This result follows previous measurements from CLOUD showing that sulphuric acid alone could not form new particles in the atmosphere as had been previously assumed.
“This is a very important result,” said CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby,…
Quote: ‘scientists found that when the speed and intensity of the solar winds increased, so too did the rate of lightning strikes.’
That raises the issue of cyclical weather events driven by the Sun.
From the Hockey Schtick, via the GWPF, news of a new paper supporting the Svensmark hypothesis:
NEW PAPER CORROBORATES SOLAR-COSMIC RAY THEORY OF CLIMATE
10/04/14 The Hockey Schtick
A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters corroborates the Svensmark cosmic ray theory of climate, whereby tiny 0.1% changes in solar activity are amplified via the effect on cosmic rays and cloud formation, which in turn may control global temperatures.
The authors find cosmic ray variations due to changes over solar cycles may have as much as 10 times larger effect than previous studies have estimated. The paper also finds that a tiny 0.2C temperature increase increases the cosmic ray induced cloud condensation nuclei by around 50%, thus acting as a natural homeostatic mechanism.
Over the last five years there’s been a revival of an old hypothesis which suggests that the motion of the planets around the Sun modulates its output, and that variation in the Sun’s output affects the Earth’s weather and in the longer term, shifts in regional and global climate. This revival has been most visible here in the blogosphere, where ideas can be kicked around with less professional reputational risk, and a faster exchange and development of concepts and narratives can take place. There has also been a steady trickle of papers published in the scientific literature relevant to the theory, and these have been championed and denigrated by bloggers on both sides of the issue.
Naturally, in the overheated atmosphere of the climate debate, the second part of the idea is especially controversial, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change telling us that human emitted ‘greenhouse gases’ are the primary driver of global warming since the middle of the last century. They also say the Sun’s variation has very little effect on climate change. An IPCC author recently took exception to our special edition on the theory and got the journal we published it in axed. The first part of the idea is controversial too, as the received wisdom from most mainstream solar physicists is that the planets are too small and too far from the Sun for their motion to affect it. They are sure that the Sun runs an internal ‘dynamo’ (Babcock & Leighton) and ‘chronometer’ (Dicke) which accounts for the observations of its cyclic variations that have been made over the centuries.
H/T to Gerry Pease for alerting me to this paper from last year by Steinhilber and Beer which lays out a solar prediction from their analysis of their reconstruction of solar activity from proxy data.
Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years
Friedhelm Steinhilber1 and Jürg Beer1
Received 18 May 2012; revised 18 February 2013; accepted 2 March 2013.
Recently, a new low-noise record of solar activity has been reconstructed for the past 9400 years by combining two 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica with 14C fromtree rings [Steinhilber et al., 2012]. This record confirms earlier results, namely, that the Sun has varied with distinct periodicities in the past. We present a prediction of mean solar magnetic activity averaged over 22 years for the next 500 years mainly based on the spectral information derived from the solar activity record of the past. Assuming that the Sun will continue to vary with the same periodicities for the next centuries, we extract the spectral information from the past and apply it to two different methods to predict the future of solar magnetic activity.
This is a major new paper published in the March issue of prestigious journal ‘Solar Physics’ by solar-planetary theorists Ken McCracken, Jurg Beer and Friedhelm Steinhilber, which makes a newer and more extensive analysis of planetary motion in relation to the Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 Glactic cosmic ray proxies than the 2400 yr Hallstat cycle study we looked at yesterday. The paper has been in the works a long time (submitted in July 2012), achieving final acceptance in late February this year. I can’t make the whole paper available due to copyright restrictions, but the abstract gives a clue as to the content. I’ve added one of the figures up to help convey some of the more important results. I’ve also appended the bibliography, as this isn’t part of the paper’s main text, it’s great to see Geoff Sharp and Ian Wilson getting citations. We can discuss other parts of their paper in comments. Boy is Martin Rasmussen going to look stupid in the future, by axing PRP for publishing our solar-planetary special edition.
The press release from BICEP making claims regarding detection of gravitational waves which inform us about the origin of the cosmos has been doing the rounds of the world’s media organisations. Hans Jelbring comments:
Big Bang – The greatest fairy tale ever told
Hans Jelbring – 18-3-2014
There is freedom of choosing religion in our country so there is no problem what you or I believe. On the other hand there is a problem when scientists mix facts supported by evidence and laws of nature with fantasy, unfounded hypotheses and faith.
There is no qualitative difference being a creationist believing that earth and our galaxy was created 6000 years ago or believing that the universe was created from a small cosmic egg 14 billion years ago. From where did this egg originate and what existed before that? There must have been something more (or rather, less) than a nuclear bomb within it since at that point not even matter are believed to has existed. None of these beliefs are or can be supported by scientific methods or verified experience. Hence, it cannot be classified as science.
A new paper in press at Elsevier finds air pressure changes linked to Forbush Decreases in the extra-tropics. These can affect the regime of blocking highs and the landfall of cyclonic weather systems. The paper marks a further step forward in understanding solar-terrestrial relations.
Atmospheric pressure variations at extratropical latitudes associated with Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays
I. Artamonovaa,a S. Veretenenkoa,b
a St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia
b Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, St. Petersburg 194021, Russia
Changes of troposphere pressure associated with short-time variations of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) taking place in the Northern hemisphere’s cold months (October–March) were analyzed for the period 1980–2006, NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data being used. Notice- able pressure variations during Forbush decreases of GCRs were revealed at extratropical latitudes of both hemispheres. The maxima of pressure increase were observed on the 3rd–4th days after the event onsets over Northern Europe and the European part of Russia in the Northern hemisphere, as well as on the 4th–5th days over the eastern part of the South Atlantic opposite Queen Maud Land and over the d’Urville Sea in the Southern Ocean. According to the weather chart analysis, the observed pressure growth, as a rule, results from the weakening of cyclones and intensification of anticyclone development in these areas. The presented results suggest that cosmic ray vari- ations may influence the evolution of extratropical baric systems and play an important role in solar-terrestrial relationships.
H/T to ‘Catweazle’ for mentioning this report: nasa-sun-earth – on solar-terrestrial relations. A web summary is available here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
This solar reconstruction uses a combination of 14C and “archeomagnetic field models” (Licht) to show strong solar activity modality.
Fig 3 from paper
Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity
I. G. Usoskin, G. Hulot, Y. Gallet, R. Roth, A. Licht, F. Joos, G. A. Kovaltsov, E. Thébault and A. Khokhlov
A&A 562 L10 (2014)
One of our merry band of collaborators on our Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics, the journal axed by executive officer Martin Rasmussen of parent publishing house Copernicus, and castigated by science blogger Anthony Watts, is Italian physics professor Giovanni P. Gregori. here’s the letter he sent to Rasmussen:
Martin Rasmussen, Esq.,
Ref.: Pattern Recognition in Physics
Dear Mr. Rasmussen,
following the letter by the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, I guess I have to spend a few words on this unfortunate controversy.
I like to begin and recall a few statements by Jules-Henri Poincaré (1854-1912).
“La liberté est pour la Science ce que l’air est pour l’animal”
[“Freedom is for Science much like air for an animal”
Dernières pensées, appendice III]
“La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti,
ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée”
[“Never submit thought to any dogma, or to any party,
or to any passion, or to any interest, or to any idea”]
“La pensée n’est qu’un éclair au milieu d’une longue nuit.
Mais c’est cet éclair qui est tout”
[“Thought is like a lightning in the middle of a long night.
But this lightning is everything”]
Science is made of ideas, both correct and wrong. How can we assess what is correct if this is not compared with what is wrong? Observations, models, extrapolations, forecast, etc. are not science. They are only tentative applications of science. But science is made of ideas.
A new paper in the Royal Meteorological Soc quarterly a review paper finds that stratosperic ozone recovery in the southern hemisphere will have a strong effect on surface temperatures.
Climate System Response to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Recovery
Michael Previdi1,*, Lorenzo M. Polvani1,2
We review what is presently known about the climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and its projected recovery, focusing on the responses of the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere. Compared to well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs), the radiative forcing of climate due to observed stratospheric ozone loss is very small: in spite of this, recent trends in stratospheric ozone have caused profound changes in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) climate system, primarily by altering the tropospheric midlatitude jet, which is commonly described as a change in the Southern Annular Mode. Ozone depletion in the late twentieth century was the primary driver of the observed poleward shift of the jet during summer, which has been linked to changes in tropospheric and surface temperatures, clouds and cloud radiative effects, and precipitation at both middle and low latitudes.
A conclusion and its implication in the summary paper was: because our scientific investigation leads us to the prediction that the Sun is headed into a protracted minimum, the warming forecast by the IPCC might not happen.
This has led to the journal being axed by the parent Publishing house Copernicus. The papers are still available at this link
Please download and disseminate them widely.
Heres the letter sent to Coordinating editor Nils Axel Mörner and chief editor Sid Ali Ouadfeul:
UPDATE 23:12;13 – I’ve bumped this post back to the top, as we now have a link to the special edition with all the papers collated in one place, along with our introduction and conclusion. There are still two more papers, from Nicola Scafetta and Ivanka Charvatova, being finalised which will hopefully appear at the same url before the new year. Download and enjoy – Merry Christmas everybody!
This post will help explain why I haven’t been around as much as I’d like over the last couple of months. Thanks to the tireless effort of our handling editor Nils-Axel Morner, the special edition of the journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics we’ve been working on is nearing completion. Here’s the cover:
Guest post fromm Tim Cullen. Be sure to visit his site MalagaBay.
In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen discovered a connection between cosmic rays and global cloud cover.
In 1996 a surprising discovery was announced that the intensity of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere correlates closely with variations of global cloud cover [Svensmark and FriisChristensen 1996].
Clouds both reflect incoming and trap outgoing radiation, and they thus play an important role in the Earth’s radiation budget.
Center for Sun-Climate Research – Technical University of Denmark
The discovery revealed a 2% variation in cloud cover during the solar sunspot cycle.
The reported variation of cloud cover was approximately 2% over the course of a sunspot cycle.
This may appear to be quite small; however, the possible consequences on the global radiation (energy) budget are not.
The vigilant and logically minded Michael, proprietor of the excellent Hockey Schtick blog, has highlighted a paper published in ERL which is either a nicely judged ‘under the gatekeepers noses’ manoeuvre or an inadvertant self immolation of the global warming theory, which relies on net positive climate feedbacks to produce a scarinario.
Reposted from The Hockey Schtick :Wednesday, November 13, 2013
New paper shows the ‘simple basic physics’ of greenhouse theory exaggerate global warming by a factor of 8 times
A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters shows that simple greenhouse effect calculations predicted a catastrophic 6.6C increase of global temperature over the past ~150 years due to the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm today. Observations, however, show the temperature rise was only 0.8C, or ~8 times less than predicted by the so-called ‘basic physics’ of the greenhouse effect. According to the authors; (more…)
Repost of a repost by Clive best, shamelessly stolen because it’s so good. This adds to the several posts already here at th talkshop comparing sunshine hours to temperature regionally and globally. How long can the mainstream climate scintists ignore this growing body of evidence which demonstrates a link between solar activty levels, albedo cloud amount levels and surface temperature? H/T to A.C. Osborn
This is a repost written by Euan Mearns and is an introduction to the work we consequently did this summer concerning cloud and CO2 radiative effects on UK temperatures. Two more posts will follow describing the radiative model in more detail.
Figure 1 Maximum daily temperature (Tmax, red, LH scale) and minimum daily temperature (Tmin, blue, RH scale) from the Leuchars weather station. The red and blue lines are annual averages. The black lines are centred 5y moving averages. Note high degree of co-variation between Tmax and Tmin. Also note how temperatures drifted higher during the 1990s and 2000s but recently are drifting down again, in keeping with the global temperature trend.