Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle.
Archive for the ‘Solar physics’ Category
Nicola Scafetta and Richard Willson: New paper linking short term solar variation with planetary periodsPosted: November 25, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, Dataset, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Dr Nicola Scafetta has asked for assistance from the talkshop to disseminate a talk he has given at the John Locke Foundation recently. We are very happy to oblige. Video below the break. The John Locke Foundation introduces the video with this text:
Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab group and an adjunct assistant professor in the physics department at Duke University. His research interests are in theoretical and applied statistics and nonlinear models of complex processes. He has published peer-reviewed papers in journals covering a wide variety of disciplines, including astronomy, biology, climatology, economics, medicine, physics and sociology. In this speech, he discusses “The Sun, the Moon, and the Planets: The Astronomical Origins of Climate Change on Earth.”
This is great stuff, with Nicola launching straight into the heart of the matter from minute number 1. He says right at the beginning that the oscillations in the solar system caused by planetary motion are mirrored by climate changes on Earth. Someting we have discussed a lot here over the last four years.
The Hockey Schtick is on a roll. Michael has turned up another paper demonstrating a strong solar effect on climate. See his post here
The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
M M Lam et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045001doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045001
© 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Received 5 June 2013, accepted for publication 18 September 2013
Published 4 October 2013
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit.
Unable to face up to losing the debate on energy policy, deputy prime minister and Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg has lost the plot and started playing the holocaust-denier card. In an unparliamentary display of pique, he called his fellow government ministers ‘climate change deniers’ because they are introducing measures to limit the burden on hard pressed fuel bill payers. He said:
Senior members of the Conservative Party now openly attack environmental policies as anti-growth as well as publicly questioning the threat of climate change.
How much more hard science is needed to convince the climate change deniers that they have got it wrong?
Here’s a new paper which looks at the group and Wolff sunspot numbers in the mid C19th. The authors find the Wolff sunspot numbers (WSN) prior to 1848 are too high, and need reducing 20%. This brings the Wolff sunspot number more into line with Group Sunspot Number (GSN). The full paper is available (for a short time) directly from A&A here (free signup required).
Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848
Raisa Leussu1,2, Ilya G. Usoskin1,2, Rainer Arlt3 and Kalevi Mursula1
1 Department of Physics, PO Box 3000, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany
Received: 26 July 2013
Accepted: 23 September 2013
Aims. Sunspot numbers form a benchmark series in many studies, but may still contain inhomogeneities and inconsistencies. In particular, an essential discrepancy exists between the two main sunspot number series, Wolf and group sunspot numbers (WSN and GSN, respectively), before 1848. The source of this discrepancy has remained unresolved so far. However, the recently digitized series of solar observations in 1825–1867 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, who was the primary observer of the WSN before 1848, makes such an assessment possible.
The Talkshop’s favourite weatherman Paul Hudson has been to see Mike Lockwood. It seems the fragile ‘consensus’ on the inability of solar variation to affect climate is coming apart. Now Lockwood is saying a new Maunder or Dalton type minimum is likely upon us, and could cause a general downturn in climatic conditions. This is what we’ve been telling the mainstream solar science community for the last four years. From Paul’s BBC blog:
The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.
I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
New paper finds solar UV varies up to 100 percent during solar cycles, confirms solar amplification mechanismPosted: October 23, 2013 by tallbloke in climate, cosmic rays, Electro-magnetism, Measurement, Solar physics
Big H/T to ‘Lord Beaverbrook’ for alerting us to this new post over at The Hockeyschtick,. Good to see the lead author of this new paper, Dr Sandip Dhomse, is working at my home town University of Leeds.
Back in May, MDPI’s new Journal, Climate, published a paper by Japanese researcher Syun-Ichi Akasofu entitled ‘On the Present Halting of Global Warming’. The paper proposes the idea that the recovery from the little ice age and the 60 year oscillation evident in the data not reproduced by climate models needs subtracting from the temperature history before the effect(if any) of additional atmospheric co2 can be assessed. This enraged several of the new journal’s editorial panel so much that they resigned. The Chief editor provided this reassurance and reasoning:
What we can disclose about the review process of the Akasofu paper, without violating the confidentiality of the review process, is that the manuscript was reviewed by three specialists affiliated to institutes or universities based in Europe and the USA. The reviewers were not from the same institution as the author and they have not co-authored papers with the author in the last five years…
We hope that this opportunity for debate will be taken up by members of the scientific community, and that Climate can facilitate vibrant discussion around environmental climate topics that can often polarize opinion, but are of vital importance for stimulating cutting edge research.