Showing posts with label solar cycle 24. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solar cycle 24. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Climate Tricks 2: Solar Activities (TSI, Ap index, Neutrons) Don't Matter

One of the climate tricks by the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents is to almost totally ignore the role of the Sun on our climate. Thus, they do not pay any attention to solar activities as measured by total solar irradiance (TSI), geomagnetic field or the Ap index, and neutron count, among others.

Here are two recent papers by Australian geologist David Archibald, both posted in Dr. Archibald is saying that as the current solar cycle 24 (one solar cycle is 11 years on average, some are shorter, some are longer) is projected to be long, probably 18 years. Longer time for the Sun to ramp up, global cooling happens and is extended.

I added a 3rd paper from by Pierre Gosselin, more peer reviewed papers are coming out saying "It's the Sun, Stupid".

So even if each person on the planet will be riding a car and the number of SUVs will double to its current number, global cooling will still happen. So what's the fuss about all those UN and government efforts to "fight global warming and climate change" and "save the planet"?

(1) Solar Cycle 24 Length and Its Consequences
Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 is now three years old and predictions of the date of solar maximum have settled upon mid-2013. For example, Jan Janssens has produced this graph predicting the month of maximum in mid-2013, which is 54 months after the Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum in December 2008:
For those of us who wish to predict climate, the most important solar cycle attribute is solar cycle length. Most of the curve-fitting exercises such as NASA’s place the next minimum between 2020 and 2022 (eg: Solar minimum in December 2022 would make Solar Cycle 24 fourteen years long, which in turn would make the climate of the mid-latitudes over Solar Cycle 25 about 1.0°C colder than the climate over Solar Cycle 24.

Curve-fitting leaves a lot to be desired. Even late in the progression of Solar Cycle 23, the curve fitters in NASA had poor predictive ability.
Examination of Altrock’s green corona emissions plot from mid-2011 suggests that a new predictive tool is available to us. The original is available here:

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Climate stupidity 10: The Sun and GCRs don't affect climate?

In the last UN IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4), this is the summary of radiative forcing (RF, externally-imposed global energy imbalances) values, in Watts per square meter (W/sq.m.). Meaning, these are the anthropogenic (man-caused) and natural (the Sun's total solar irradiance, TSI) factors that influence planet Earth's climate (warming or cooling).

According to the IPCC AR4, net anthropogenic forcing was 1.6 W/sq.m. while solar forcing was only 0.12 W/sq.m., no other natural factors considered. In short, anthropogenic sources of warming was about 13x larger than the Sun's potential contribution. And the world said "AMEN" to the supposedly "scientific consensus". So, since humanity's modernization is evil, then the UN and many governments shall limit, over-regulate and over-tax energy sources that caused such "unprecedented global warming."

This "consensus" is challenged by more and more scientists (especially physicists, geologists and climatologists) since the IPCC has been producing its Assessment Reports, especially AR4 (released in November 2007). According to this group of scientists, the two main natural factors that the IPCC deliberately omitted and significantly underrated significance, are (a) galactic cosmic rays (GCRs, shown in this illustration), and (b) the Sun, as indicated by the TSI. (a) was omitted while (b) was underrated.

There was a press release last month, Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover. (H/t to WUWT's
New study links cosmic rays to aerosols/cloud formation via solar magnetic activity modulation).

Here, 5 scientists from Denmark's AU and DTU Space showed in their paper published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that GCRS -- charged particles like protons, electrons, other particles -- can create small floating particles, aka aerosols, in the atmosphere, that help form clouds. More GCRs, more aerosols, more clouds, more shortwave (SW) radiation or sunlight reflected back into space by the clouds, less warming (or more cooling).

Now a famous climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, wrote yesterday, Indirect Solar Forcing of Climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate. He admitted that before, he did not believe the GCRs-Sun-climate theory. But upon investigation of the high GCR count in Russia, he plotted the data with reflected SW (low cloud increase) and long wave (LW) emission, and he came up with this preliminary results:

for a 1,000 count increase in GCR activity as measured at Moscow, there appears to be:

(1) an increase in reflected sunlight (SW) of 0.64 Watts per sq. meter, probably mostly due to an increase in low cloud cover;
(2) virtually no change in emitted infrared (LW) of +0.02 Watts per sq. meter;
(3) a Net (reflected sunlight plus emitted infrared) effect of 0.55 Watts per sq. meter loss in radiant energy by the global climate system.

He concluded that "the cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing. This means the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe."

The implication is that there is "a much larger role for Mother Nature in climate change than the IPCC has been willing to admit. And the greater the role of Nature in causing past climate change, the smaller the role humans must have had, which could then have a profound impact on future projections of human-caused global warming."

And here we are still stuck with fighting various governments' various energy and environmental regulations and taxation, upon the plodding and cheating by the UN IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO, other UN bodies. Political science is proven once more, to be a lot more powerful than hard climate science.

On November 25, 2010, I wrote this,

Sun-GCRs-clouds-climate theory

This illustration simplifies the relationship between an active (or inactive) Sun and planet Earth's climate of global warming or global cooling. This picture is from Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

The blog post is about a paper, "Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes" by B. A. Laken , D. R. Kniveton, and M. R. Frogley. Portions of the Abstract says,

The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux on Earth’s climate is highly uncertain. Using a novel sampling approach based around observing periods of significant cloud changes, a statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude (60°–30° N/S) cloud decreases operating over daily timescales; this signal is verified in surface level air temperature (SLAT) reanalysis data.... These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.

There you go. GCRs from exploding stars in the universe -- stars are born, stars are dying, endlessly, in our ever-dynamic universe -- help produce the "seeds" in cloud formation. More GCRs, more clouds, less sunlight, global cooling. This illustration explains it further.

Henrik Svensmark from Denmark was among the physicists who made that theory. My picture with Dr. Svensmark last May this year, during the Heartland Institute's 4th ICCC in Chicago. He's in the middle. Beside him is a German friend, Wolfgang Muller of IUF-Berlin.

And here's a graph about the inverse relationship between GCRs and Sunspot number (SSN) in each solar cycle. Active Sun has more SSN, which reduces GCRs in the Earth's atmosphere, with reduces the cloud cover.

Most warmers are either ignorant, or are denying, the important role of the Sun on our planet's climate. They are so dead-set on ecological socialism -- more environmental regulations, more energy taxation, more carbon trading, more global junkets, more money transfer from rich countries to poorer countries, more climate bureaucracies -- with them as mediators.

And on February 09, 2011, I also wrote this:

SC 24 and Dalton Minimum Pattern

Here's the latest graph of total solar irradiance (TSI), active region count from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, a solar physicist. Graph is from WUWT's Solar images and data page.

Current solar cycle (SC) 24 is now behaving almost exactly, if not weaker, than SC 5, the start of Dalton Minimum global cooling in the 1800s. With expected solar maximum of only 100+ TSI sometime in 2013-14, this is indeed a very weak SC. The comparison of TSI number, about two years after the transition from the previous SC -- in SCs 22and 23, SC 24 really shows a meek Sun.

Warming fanatics do not have this kind of literature -- the role of the Sun in the Earth's climate of warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles. Solar data are publicly available, free, and updated daily or weekly. But fixation with the "evil CO2", a very useful gas that we humans exhale, a useful gas that our vegetables, rice, flowers and trees use to produce their own food, makes them ignorant about the Sun and other natural factors that can influence planet Earth's climate.

At 342 watts per sq. meter solar energy reaching our planet, it is indeed a huge source of warming. So that a reduction of solar power from 342 to only 340 w/sq.m. would have some significant effect on our planet's climate.