Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate

Posted: June 10, 2017 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Nice article from Mike Jonas on solar influence on climate

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Mike Jonas

And what might they be?” – Dr. Leif Svalgaard

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.

In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. This should also answer Leif Svalgaard’s…

View original post 4,744 more words

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Here’s another correlation. Michael Mann’s 2008 temperature reconstruction from 1200AD vs integrated Steinhilber et al solar reconstruction based on 10Be

  2. ROG I PUT THIS OUT BUT IT BELONGS HERE SO I SENT AGAIN. THANKS

    I still think the variability of the sun and associated secondary effects cause the climate to change moderated by the strength of the geo magnetic field. Part of my argument I present on this post.

    LETS TALK ABOUT THE SUN AND HOW IT MIGHT CHANGE THE CLIMATE

    Areas of importance which are neglected in large part are the solar wind speed ,the global electrical circuit, and galactic cosmic rays . Actually they are all tied to one another.

    When the solar wind decreases the intensities of galactic cosmic rays (GCR)that are allowed to enter the atmosphere will increase and this this in turn intensifies the global electrical circuit.

    It has been shown through actual data on a short term basis (days) through the monitoring of Forbush decreases and SEP events which stands for solar particle events both of which originate from the sun , that the electrical circuit decreases following a Forbush decrease which is a lessening of galactic cosmic rays ,while it increases following an SEP event.

    This has big implications for solar /climate relationships on a longer term basis because it has been shown through these day to day events that when a FORBUSH DECREASE take place the global electrical circuit decreases which results in a decrease in global cloud coverage and cyclonic systems weakening while the opposite follows an SEP event.

    This then can be applied to what happens to global cloud coverage and cyclonic systems over a long term basis when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum period of activity which lowers the solar wind allowing more GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS to enter the earth’s atmosphere which increases the strength of the global electrical circuit which has been shown on a short term basis(through actual data ) to increase cloud coverage and strengthen cyclonic systems.

    CRITERIA NEEDED

    350km/sec or lower is needed for the solar wind speed in order to get GCR counts high enough( at least 6500 units) which then will impact the global electrical circuit through strengthening it on a long term basis which then would promote greater global cloud coverage and strengthen cyclonic systems. Higher albedo for sure /and perhaps more precipitation.

    In the meantime EUV(100 units or less) /UV light is on the decrease which will effect the atmospheric circulation(more meridional) and sea surface temperatures respectively.

    All this is going to lead to global cooling.

    Getting back to the solar wind and it’s effects upon the climate these two values are needed in my opinion which are again a solar wind speed sustained over months of less then 350km/sec and a resultant AP index over months of 5 or lower.

    Solar irradiance will not be a major player in the changing of the climate it may drop by .15% which would only contribute a .1c to maybe .2c to global cooling.

    AS OF NOW GCR COUNTS HAVE BEEN ABOVE 6500 UNITS FOR A FEW MONTHS AND LOOK TO BE INCREASING. READING TODAY 6650 UNITS, AND THE SOLAR WIND HAS FINALLY STARTED TO COME DOWN RIGHT NOW AT 300KM/SEC ALONG WITH THE AP INDEX.

    Will this persist and become more common place as we move forward? I say yes and this should in turn effect the climate by cooling it.

    Leave a Reply

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘ A moderate chaotic (green) type of the SIM (1985–2040) indicates lowered both solar activity
    and surface air temperature.’ [see Fig.1]
    I. Charvatova and P. Hejda

    Figure 1. Above: the solar orbit divided into two basic types, the one ordered in JS (Jupiter/Saturn) trefoils (yellow) and one disordered (chaotic) (green). The Sun is returning at the trefoil orbits after 178.7 yr
    . . .
    The trefoil is a stable shape. A movement of the Sun along one loop or arc lasts for 10 yr (JS/2).

    http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/21/2014/prp-2-21-2014.pdf

    Ordered: three loops + two arcs (total=5) = 2.5 J-S = 49.66~ years (mean)

    NB the ratio of the trefoil to the rest of the 178.7 years (Jose cycle) is 5:13, because there are 18 (5+13) ‘J-S/2’ in that period. This is the Fibonacci number equivalent of 1:Phi².
    13/5 = 2.6
    Phi² = 2.618~

  4. oldbrew says:

    Re GCRs: Piers Corbyn usually points out they are a proxy for solar wind strength (stronger solar wind = less GCRs and vice versa).

    So is solar wind strength the significant variable rather than the GCRs themselves?

    GCRs don’t cause major power blackouts but the Sun does…
    http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.solarwind/solar-winds-effect-on-earth/

  5. Leif says “All solar activity measures follows the variation of TSI”

    He keeps repeating this fallacy, the solar wind was weaker around the sunspot maxima of 1968-69 and 1979-80, and stronger in between them.

  6. tom0mason says:

    Thank-you tallbloke for the link and to Mike Jonas for his article.

    AGW advocates appear to seek not to use science to expand our understanding of nature but to limit the science to their mistaken beliefs.
    There is no coherent explanation of the totality of our climate but these advocate are happy to stay put in their very limited and faulty understanding of what they believe to be true. This is a grand display of hubris and is a scientific travesty – the AGW endeavor reduces science to just a catalog of what they believe are facts, and not an imaginative expansion of mankind’s knowledge in attempting to understand this planet’s dynamic and nonlinear climate processes.

    The sun is this planet’s source of energy, thus is the major player in changing our climate. Any change in the solar output, be it radiation, particles, or changes of a magnetic/electrical nature, no matter how slight will have repercussions on our climate, and often it appears to be in a majorly way. Conversely CO2 could never be a major player on this wet and windy planet as it’s effects are far too small and subtle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s