Last week, a Norwegian official-looking – and in my view – climatesceptic website praised Eigil Friis-Christensen from the Danish space center (featuring in the Great Global Warming Swindle) and hailed him for having given the best speech ever in the annual Birkeland seminar organized by Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (NASL). There were rumours of controversy behind the scene before the seminar, as the NASL is regarded as a prestigious body in Norway.
Furthermore, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen have written a response (title ‘Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing’; DNSC Scientific Report Series 3/2007) to a recent paper by Lockwood and Frohlich (LF2007). In this response, they state ’… [LF2007] argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago‘. Another quote from their response is ‘Here we rebut their argument comprehensively’. So the cosmic ray theory isn’t quite dead after all?
There are several earlier posts here on RC that provide a background to the story about the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and our climate (here, here, here, here). There is still no long-term trend in the GCR, not even in the Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s response (see also figure below). This seems to be acknowledged now.
The LF2007 paper and the response focus on just the last 2-3 decades for which there were direct measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI= solar energy summed over all wavelength), but if they had read my paper on this issue in GRL 2005, they would have seen that there has not been any trend in solar activity or GCR since 1952 (also seen in the figure below).
In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover (IPCC AR4), and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere. The only explanation we can offer is an enhanced greenhouse effect.
It may be of interest for historians that the story about the GCR has been a long-winded epic (total cloud cover, low clouds, adjustment of ISCCP cloud data, etc.), and now new characters are thrown onto the stage: radiosonde measurements (HadAT2) representing the tropospheric temperatures and data from a ‘simple’ ocean data assimilation (SODA).
SF2007 argue that: ‘When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record’. This is a rhetorical question, and not a very scientific one. For starters, one cannot exclude the possibility that near-surface processes dominate at lower altitudes thus degrading any correlation. But, in the mind of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, it is perhaps the GCR that is the most dominant driver.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen do not disclose the geographical coverage of the ocean temperature they use to correlate with GCR, but the strong annual cycle and inter-annual variations are typical characteristics of local observations rather than global fluctuations. Note, the global surface temperature includes the world oceans (~70%) of the surface.
Another interesting aspect is the improved correlation with altitude. This is not what one would expect to see if the GCR mechanism played a key role, as changes in cloudiness would affect the planetary albedo, and hence the solar energy absorbed by the surface. The troposphere would then respond to the surface changes.
A more likely explanation could be that changes in UV associated with the solar cycle affects the stratosphere (a little disputed hypothesis), and that the signal then propagates down into the troposphere. Thus, we cannot rule out that solar activity influences our climate in ways that do not involve GCR and clouds.
The physical link between any ultra-small particles and much larger the cloud condensation nuclei is still lacking, even after the experiment performed in Copenhagen. Thus, the hypothesis is still speculative. The GHG-effect, on the other hand, is well-established.
According to the official looking Norwegian climatesceptic website, Friis-Christensen states that his work has been controversial, but mainly because of political and not scientific reasons. The fact that he and Svensmark now offer a response to LF2007 seems to contradict his own belief.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen object to LF2007 by stating ‘Lockwood and Frohlich erase the solar cycle from various data sets by using running means of 9 to 13 years’. It is interesting to note that Svensmark and Friis-Christensen now acknowledge the fact that filtering time series can produce misleading impression after the dubious curve-fitting magic in the famous Friis-Christensen & Lassen (1991) science paper.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen further argue ‘In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero’. This is not true, as the IPCC AR4 highlights. I think the the statements in their response ‘use of a long running mean creates the illusion that the temperatures are still rising rapidly early in the 21st Century’ and ‘global surface temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998’ are dishonest (see figure above ).
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen should know of the chaotic nature of our climate system and the fact that it takes more than a few years to determine whether there is a trend or a pause in the trend. The most convincing explanation is that there are also many factors (such as aerosols) playing a role, adding to inter-annual and inter-decadal variations.
It is worrying that the director of the Danish space center makes such misleading claims and then receives honours in Norway by NASL. The controversy running up to the event was therefore understandable, even though Friis-Christensen was supposed to talk about geomagnetism rather than climate.
To answer the question I posed in the beginning of this post, I think that the chapter on the connection between GCR and clouds is not yet closed, but all the evidence goes against the notion that GCR are the cause of the present global warming.
To expect clockwork from the Solar Cycle is a bit too much. First, the underlying cycle itself is 22 years, rather than 11. So, to draw any conclusions based on less than 22 years is questionable. Second, although this cycle manifests in 2 roughly 11 year cycles, with nominally 7 active and 4 quiet years, the delta on the active years is +/- 2 and on the inactive years +/- 1. The cycles themselves can range from 9 to 14 years. To talk about a new Maunder minimum at this point is very premature. First, we’ve seen precisely ONE Maunder Minimum–it was a unique event, making it kind of difficult to predict the next. There was a significant dip near the beginning of the 19th century and another around the beginning of the 20th, but these do not compare, really.
As to how Solar Cycle might affect climate, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, solar cycle affects a lot of things–including not just solar proton fluxes and GCR flux, but also total solar irradiance, and especially short-wavelength irradiance. Given that GCR flux is only one of several factors that are varying over this cycle, attaching such a large importance to it strikes me as strange. First, the flux averages only about 5 particles per cm^2 per second, and the solar cycle only brings that down to about 3 during solar max. Any trend due to increasing heliomagnetic field would be a tiny fraction of that modulation. And then there’s that pesky fact that there’s no evidence of a systematic trend in GCR flux since at least the 1950s and the fact that the favored mechanism–changes in the number of cloud nucleation sites–has zero empirical evidence and no real theoretical basis.
Solar scientists love to try and guess what the next Solar Cycle will be like, but this is mainly a game. Our understanding of solar dynamics is far more rudimentary than our understanding of climate. It’s basically like the hurricane guys trying to predict the hurricane numbers every year. I wish it were otherwise, as then I’d be able to make reasonable estimates of how much radiation shielding astronauts will need when they go to the moon. However, predicting the “next Maunder Minimum” is a bit like economists forecasting the next recession–they’ve predicted ten of the last four recessions.
Re: #188
Evidence please John Finn!
How much detail do you want? I’ve already mentioned the length of solar cycle. The current cycle, i.e. cycle 23 is already well over 11 years long. There’s every chance that it will be another 12 months before SC24 gets under way which means SC 23 will be longer than any cycle since the 19th century. Longer cycles tend to be followed by weaker cycles which tend to coincide with colder periods on earth.
Let me know if this is sufficient.
In reply to Ray Lambury’s comment:
“To talk about a new Maunder minimum at this point is very premature. First, we’ve seen precisely ONE Maunder Minimum–it was a unique event, making it kind of difficult to predict the next. There was a significant dip near the beginning of the 19th century and another around the beginning of the 20th, but these do not compare, really.”
Ray, we appear to be six months away from entering a Maunder minimum. What will or will not happen is still uncertain, however, six months is a fairly short time in the future, so the issue of past predictions is irrelevant.
As discussed the sun is not following any of the past cycle patterns and the solar electromagnetic cycle is trending lower and lower. You are quite correct in stating solar physics do not know what could causes a sudden interruption of the solar electromagnetic cycle which is believed to be the cause of Maunder minimum, however, based on observations that does appears to be what is happening (see my comment 193)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#comment-59024
A drop in planetary temperature, due to an abrupt change in the sun, would also not be a total surprise. Some researchers have been saying, for example this paper, that there are persistent drops in planetary temperature which appear to correlate with drops in the solar electromagnetic cycle. It appears your comment that the planet has only seen one Maunder minimum is not correct.
Persistence Solar Influence on Climate in Holocene, By Bond et al.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
“A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic 1500-year cycle. The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the solar signals and transmitting them globally.”
“A prominent feature of the North Atlantic’s Holocene climate is a series of shifts in ocean surface hydrography during which drift ice and cooler surface waters in the Nordic and Labrador Seas were repeatedly advected southward and eastward, each time penetrating deep into the warmer strands of the subpolar circulation . The persistence of
those rather dramatic events within a stable interglacial has been difficult to explain.”
Re: #203 (William Astley)
You say “we appear to be six months away from entering a Maunder minimum,” and “the sun is not following any of the past cycle patterns.”
I’ll repeat what Ray said: Evidence, please. So far you’ve only given one reference (Bonev et al. 2004) which suggest this, and to me it seems to be based on extremely flimsy evidence. Meanwhile, NASA’s solar cycle prediction committee has catalogued 45 predictions of cycle 24, none of which suggests a new “Maunder-like” minimum.
What else have you got?
John, which of the many predictions are you referring to? Cite please? If it’s not one already being considered you can urge the author to email it to the group; the email link is on this page:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Oct_2006.html
“The panel will consider all new, relevant information submitted to it at any time up until the panel issues a final prediction.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AAS…210.9208D
“Solar Cycle 23 has been a weaker magnetic cycle when compared to Cycles 22 and 21. The lower rate of sunspot emergence and the lack of large spot groups combined with the slower meridional flow observed during most of the cycle resulted in a slower magnetic polar reversal and a longer than average cycle. We are currently observing the slow decline of Cycle 23 towards its minimum phase but comparison to previous cycles suggests that solar minimum is still many months away.”
Title: The Declining and Minimum Phase of Solar Cycle 23
Publication: American Astronomical Society Meeting 210, #92.08
Publication Date: 05/2007
William Astley posts:
[[Ray, we appear to be six months away from entering a Maunder minimum.]]
Care to take a bet on whether that will happen or not? Say one hundred dollars ($100.00)? Which you collect if it happens in the next twelve (12) months. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Tamino (204), I justify the assertion that a sever Maunder is six months away based on the paleoclimatic record and recent solar observations. There is a pattern in the paleo record of an increase in planetary temperature followed by a sudden and sever drop, in temperature. In the twentieth century the sun was at its highest electromagnetic activity level in 8000 years (see link below.)
Evolution of the Sun’s Large-Scale Magnetic Field since the Maunder Minimum
“A part of the Sun’s magnetic field reaches out from the surface into interplanetary space, and it was recently discovered that the average strength of this interplanetary field has doubled in the past 100 years. There has hitherto been no clear explanation for this doubling. Here we present a model describing the long-term evolution of the Sun’s large-scale magnetic field, which reproduces the doubling of the interplanetary field. The model indicates that there is a direct connection between the length of the sunspot cycle and the secular variations.”
Based on my understanding of the science (i.e. I am extapolating backwards from the paleoclimatic record based on my understanding how the sun has and could affect planetary temperature) The drop in temperature would be caused by an interruption in the solar electromagnetic cycle (no more sun spots, no more solar equatorial coronal holes,a sever drop in the solar large scale magnetic field, and a drop in the solar wind. These changes are consequences of the root causes of the solar change.) and by a drop in the TSI.
In Reply to BPL (207) you do not understand my motif or my concern.
William Astley, now let me get this straight. You are basing your prediction of doom and gloom on an un-peer-reviewed extrapolation of a model in a single paper by Solanki? And you haven’t even run your conclusions by Solanki to see if he agrees that you understand his model? And you predict all this knowing that solar cycles range in length from less than 9 years to more than 14? And based on all this, you are predicting that we will se another Maunder Minimum–an event that has occurred precisely once that we know of and that long before we had any scientific observations of solar cycle? That about got it? So, if you take Barton’s bet, can I get in on some of that action, too?
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/
The Sun and the Earth’s Climate
Joanna D. Haigh
“…This article reviews some of the evidence for a solar influence on the lower atmosphere and discusses some of the mechanisms whereby the Sun may produce more significant impacts than might be surmised from a consideration only of variations in total solar irradiance.”
[ Large, extensive, current review article ]\’
“the apparent success of the tropospheric GCM studies (see Section 6.4) in simulating the observed response to solar variability provides intriguing evidence that changes to the stratosphere, specifically induced by variations in solar UV radiation and resulting changes in ozone, can influence the troposphere. But they do not provide a detailed understanding of the mechanisms whereby these effects take place.
Recently some effort to advance understanding of the mechanisms of stratosphere-troposphere coupling has been made through the use of simplified general circulation models (Polvani and Kushner, 2002; Kushner and Polvani, 2004; Haigh et al., 2005; Haigh and Blackburn, 2006). These models include a full representation of atmospheric dynamics but only highly-parameterised representations of radiative and cloud processes so that multiple runs can be carried out. These experiments are not intended to simulate solar (or any other specific) forcing factors but to identify and investigate possible mechanisms for stratosphere-troposphere coupling.”
…
“… With regard to the climate, further data-mining and analysis are required to firmly establish the magnitude, geographical distribution and seasonality of its response to various forms of solar activity. Understanding the mechanisms involved in the response then becomes the overriding objective. Current ideas suggest three main avenues where further research is needed. Firstly, the means whereby solar radiative heating of the upper and middle atmosphere may influence the lower atmosphere through dynamical coupling needs to be better understood. Secondly, it needs to be established whether or not variations in direct solar heating of the tropical oceans can be of sufficient magnitude to produce apparently observed effects. Thirdly, more work is needed on the microphysical processes involved in ion-induced nucleation, and, probably more importantly, the growth rates of the condensation nuclei produced.”
In reply to Ray Ladbury’s comment (209).
“You are basing your prediction of doom and gloom on an un-peer-reviewed extrapolation of a model in a single paper by Solanki?”
No, I have looked at fundamental solar research, solar climatic research, as well as the paleoclimatic record. (ie More than one paper. Multiple cross discipline type of research.)
As I said, the observed change will not be gradual. (i.e. The change will occur over about two years. The earth’s temperature will of course take decades to cool although there would be an initial sharp change that will be observable and news worthy.) We will in a fairly short period of time be able to see if that hypothesis is correct, so there seems to be no point in betting. We can have this conversation again six months from today and see if there is or is not an observable change.
Svensmark notes that heliosphere stretches out to roughly 5 times the distance from the sun to Neptune. Svensmark states that it takes roughly 2 years for the heliosphere to adjust to a change in the average speed of the solar wind. The typical solar wind is 350 km/hr to 750 km/hr. The solar wind is now around 300 km/hr and gradually dropping, however, high speed winds from cornal holes still continue to mask the change. The cornal holes are gradually starting to disappate. The reduction in the TSI should be fairly quick, say also over a couple of years.
Solar Research:
A maunder minimum appears to occur due to an interruption of the magnetic flux generating mechanism that is hypothesized to be located at the boundary between the radiative zone and convection zone of the sun. The current theory for sunspot generation, has the magnetic field for the sun spots generated at the radiative/convection zone interface.
Paleoclimatic Record
A slow down does not match the paleoclimatic record. There are a series of semi-periodic warmings and coolings in paleoclimatic record. I have found papers that show the changes in temperature have been planet wide which would support a solar mechanism.
Recent Research Solar Direct and Indirect Modulation of Clouds
I have reviewed Palle, Svensmark, Tinsley, and so on work on solar changes and climate. I believe their research supports a solar mechanism that can significantly reduce planetary temperature.
William Astley, You are pretty isolated in predicting a Maunder-like minimum. The only peer-reviewed paper I could find that comes close is that by Clilverd, who predicts a “Dalton-like” minimum. The community is split–quasi normal, or slightly below normal. I would call the evidence for that weak. We’ve got another year to go before we’re even out of the “normal” range for solar cycles. I find it very hard to think of your prediction as science.
Hmmmm — if we get a sudden cooling, that’s going to make the ocean acidification change go much faster, isn’t it?
And plankton actually contribute a good bit to stirring the upper water.
Maybe Dan O’Neill (“Odd Bodkins” cartoonist) really was right that the aliens are converting Earth to match their preferred living conditions.
Kilimanjaro is a volcano. A recent Nova program “Volcano Above the Clouds” mentions that the film crew found Kilimanjaro’s rocks to be “hot to the touch” and saw steam escaping from vents not too far from the glacier. If we are being honest, this rather important “warming fact” needs to be mentioned at the front of the section. If honesty is not the best policy, you may moderate at will. If I’m wrong, I will accept criticism without malice on my part.
petefontana, Kilimanjaro is inactive and no new volcanic activity is expected. The energy input to the volcanos surface is less than that from magma 400 meters below the surface. The activity from the fumaroles is mainly just the venting of steam–it’s localized.
Having said this, I don’t think there’s necessarily consensus on shy Kilimanjaros glaciers are melting. Anthropogenic climate change may be a contributing factor, there’s research that suggests it’s solar driven. In either case the geologic contribution is negligible.
Ray Ladbury, that seems like a reasonable explanation. As a boy, I was often flummoxed by fumaroles and I see that is still the case. Riddle me this then: if the earth witnesses a massive volcanic eruption (plinian?), do things get cooler or warmer on our planet? Are things like that modeled?
Pete,
> “massive volcanic eruption … cooler or warmer …”?
The answer is yes; read at least the brief summaries you’ll see here for a mostly good overview:
http://www.google.com/search?q=volcanic+eruption+warming+cooling+atmosphere
Petefontana,
The initial effect of a volcanic eruption is always cooling due to dust and aerosols in the air. There is some evidence that massive volcanism of the eemian raised CO2 levels high enough that temperatures were much warmer than at present, but that is an exceptionally large volcanic event. Mt. Pinatubo’s effects were pretty much nailed by GCMs.
Hank Roberts and Ray Ladbury, thanks. Hank I did read some of the material you mentioned. (I will probably read more later, because I find the geologic stuff very interesting). And unfortunately, you are quite correct. It is not a question that is easily answered as “always warmer or always cooler”. Ray I also accept that “Mt. Pinatubo’s effects were pretty much nailed by GCMs”. However, that raises a nagging personal problem for me.
Fitting a model to past events is almost always possible, especially if you add lots of variables, and don’t worry about adjusting your goodness of fit measures (or even if you do adjust). But certainly, this is different than using the models to make projections of future events. Do the models really add a “volcano variable” in making projections? Wouldn’t this add a distressing level of uncertainty? Personally, I would be very tempted to just say “model projections do not include, volcanoes, comets, etc.) But of course volcanoes (real volcanoes, not faux volcanoes) do happen. And will happen.
Petefontana, I agree that fitting a model to past events is no great shakes, but applying a model with no tweaking of parameters and getting results that match is. One of the misconceptions that is common about GCMs is that they have lots of unconstrained parameters. They don’t. The parameters are tuned using datasets on past climate, etc. Where parameters are uncertain, simulations are run over a range of parameters and conservative conclusions are drawn.
WRT volcanism and other catastrophes, you have to distinguish between their immediate and local effects–which can be severe, but are generally irrelevant on climatic scales–and their long-term effect which can be characterized effectively by an “average” contribution. This is true of most Poisson processes.
Petefontana, make sure you’re clear on the distinction between a “model” and a “scenario” — there are quite a few different models out there, those are big computer simulations run by different organizations. Each grinds through a long computation with a set of specific physical known information and possible information. Each does that multiple times.
A single “scenario” is one result from one run of one model with one set of assumptions.
I’m _sure_ that’s not right, it’s my approximation of an answer (someone will point to a better one).
So yes models include volcanic events and effects.
Now, look at scenarios.
In fact look at a particular set of three scenarios, these are quite famous ones because they were lied about in public testimony to Congress, the liars were caught at it, and the liars have continued to lie about them with impunity. That’s politics.
Scenario “B” here includes one volcano. One did happen.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/viewpoint.cfm
Ray Ladbury and Hank Roberts, once again thanks for your patience. I do have questions about a lot of these things, but these may have all been answered in other places on this blog.
By the way, I’m not sure I think “global warming/climate change” is the world’s most serious problem. I happen to think Problem #1 is people being jerks to each other. You have both been amiable discussants. Thanks.
Hank Roberts I found the Hansen article interesting and I find the kind of fraud attributed to Pat Michaels to be reprehensible. There is no excuse for this kind of outright deceit.
I appreciate the “model” vs “scenario” explanation, that was helpful. I also appreciate the Poisson processes random things get averaged over time argument (You seem much more familiar with this than I am, Ray).
If Hansen had been that certain of the accuracy of the GISS model predictions in 1988 and felt “B” was the best scenario, and most reasonable scientists agreed, why wasn’t the whole “planet in crisis” argument made then? Isn’t the level of certainty in the accuracy of a model only possible after you’ve made projections and waited to see what happens?
Nothing is perfect. I’m just not sure how imperfect all this stuff is.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Doesn’t this look linear?