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.

Climate Alarmism in the 70s, Pinoy Style

For Filipinos who were born in the 50s and 60s (or born in the 70s and 80s), do you remember a song by Asin, "Masdan mo ang kapaligiran"? It was a famous song sometime in the 70s. Here's part of the lyrics:
--------

...Ngunit masdan mo ang tubig sa dagat
Dati'y kulay asul ngayo'y naging itim...

Ang mga batang ngayon lang isinilang
May hangin pa kayang matitikman?
May mga puno pa kaya silang aakyatin
May mga ilog pa kayang lalanguyan?

Darating ang panahon mga ibong gala
Ay wala nang madadapuan
Masdan mo ang mga punong dati ay kay tatag
Ngayo'y namamatay dahil sa 'ting kalokohan.
-----

Fast forward to today, about 30 years after that famous song...

-- ang dagat, kulay asul (blue) pa rin
-- ang mga batang 30s na ngayon, may hangin pa ring natitikman
-- may mga puno pa rin silang aakyatin (pero ayaw na umakyat, marami nang bondying na eh)
-- may mga ilog pa rin silang nalalanguyan (marikina river pwede pa, pasig river di na)
-- mga ibong gala, madami pa rin
-- mga puno, kalaban ng kuryente ng meralco kasi matataas ang dahon, fire and electrical hazards na.

lesson: climate alarmism in the 70s was proven wrong,.
climate alarmism of this decade is proven wrong in recent years up to the present.


Meanwhile, here's a short discussion about the effects of ocean decadal oscillations (pacific, atlantic) and cycles, and the Sun, on the world's climate. And some projections of what type of global cooling we are entering -- Dalton minimum type (2-3 decades cooling) or Maundeer Minimum type (7 decades cooling). 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/winter.pdf

About El Nino and La Nina cycles, here's a good chart, from 1979 to 2009.


The problem with the alarmists is that they will insist that persistent cooling in the coming years is a result of "man-made climate change" and hence, all forms of environmental regulations such as carbon emission trading system (ETS) and other variants of carbon cap and trade, should be pursued at the global level.

Little Ice Age for the Next 300 Years?

Sometimes I am following some literatures by some astrophysicists and geologists who are watching solar activity in relation to global climate.

Last March and April, I was reading some of them predicting global cooling for the next 30 years, starting this year. Then last month I read Piers Corbyn, a British astrophysicist and owner of climateaction.com, saying that his prediction is cooling for the next 100 years. Then today I encountered this article from a Finnish astrophysicist predicting a ooling for the next 300 years!

The Maundeer Minimum 3 centuries ago lasted for 70 years. They've had a "year without summer" where they still have snow even during summer months. Then the next long period of ooling was the Dalton minimum that occured 2 centuries ago. This Finnish physiist is now saying that current indicators (very low solar irradiance, very low solar magnetic field, very few sunspot numbers, etc.) point to a cooling worse than the Dalton Minimum!

To see details of this physicist's analysis, see the entire article in this link. Below I only copy-pasted the less technial conclusions.

The science of "global warming" is falling like a deck of cards but the politics behind it is rising like the world's tallest buildings in Dubai, Taiwan and China.
---------------

http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-Haven-County-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Solar-Physicist-Predicts-Ice-Age-What-happened-to-global-warming

Solar Physicist Predicts Ice Age. What happened to global warming?
July 6, 10:19 PM

Kirtland Griffin
New Haven County Environmental Policy Examiner

Timo Niroma, a physicist from Finland, publishes a Solar Report each month. He has given his permission to use it and distribute it to all so here it is. It will be a regular feature here and I hope you look forward to it as much as I do. The report is not written in the usual user-friendly way, but is rather intended for scientists that are familiar with the information contained in it. I will attempt to simplify and explain the details of the report and how it could impact you and, of course, Al Gore and company. As the predictions come true, as I assume they will, the green lobby will go on unemployment compensation. Let's start at the beginning and take it piece by piece.

"JUNE BREAKING NEWS: THE CYCLE GOES AT THE MOMENT BELOW DALTON LEVEL" gives away the punch line but let's see how he gets there....

Remember Dalton means, "Coooooold, Brrrr! Then we have this:

"The yearly sunspot numbers of 1795-1798 were 21, 16, 6.4 and 4.1, the
corresponding values for 2005-2008 were 30, 15, 7.6 and 2.8. The first full
Dalton year or 1799, had a SSN value of 6.8. The SSN of the first 6 months of
2009 is 1.7".

The progressions illustrate that there is a similarity between the years prior to the Dalton, and the minimum leading up to the cycle #24 but lower than those leading up to the Dalton.

Next is an interesting list of Climatic periods in our past on Earth, all of which correlate with solar parameters at the time. Folks back then recorded a tremendous amount of information about the Sun and there were also proxy measurements available.

"Well, there was the 300-year Roman Optimum in 100 BC to AD 200, the 200-year
oscillation 200-900 (200 cold, 300 warm, 400 cold, 600-900 cold), the 300-year
Medieval Optimum 900-1200 (with some colder spells plus warm aftermaths), the
300-year Little Ice Age 1400-1700, the 300-year "Global Warming" 1700-2005 (with
some drawbacks especially in the 1800's). A NEW LIA WITH SPÖRER AND MAUNDER IN
2005-2300???"

That's 300 years of cold, in case you missed it! The Maunder minimum was the bottom of the Little Ice Age from which all IPCC temperature charts begin. That is because it was coldest then and makes the warming look worse. Had they started their charts during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) we would be wondering why it is still so cool. Like when are we going to get to the good stuff.

And then we get the punch line:

"THE CYCLE 24 HAS NOW GONE CLEARLY BELOW DALTON LEVEL."

This is pretty strong evidence. Had you been reading these reports for a few years you would have seen that Timo has been very conservative in his predictions. His earlier predictions were much less severe but trust me, you would be a lot happier with global warming than you will be with a Maunder type solar event. You can take that to the bank. The only thing that makes me grin about this is that it will end the man made global warming scam once and for all. Unless they can convince politicians that we did that too.
-------

Update:
After I posted "Little ice age in the next 300 years?" below where I mentioned Dr. Piers Corbyn, I got an email from him correcting the website address that I mentioned. I wrote climateaction.org, when it should have been climateaction.com. I have already corrected it.

I saw Piers' presentation during the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) in NYC last March, sponsored by the Heartland Institute. I was a bit amused by his looks -- he looked a bit like Albert Einstein, long, curly and uncombed hair, and presenting a lot of Greek equations.

In one of my talks here in Manila on global cooling vs. global warming politics, I used some charts from Piers' powerpoint presentation in that conference.

Piers gave me some links to his latest long-term climate forecasts. Other materials can be downloaded at their website, www.climateaction.com.