New paper in GRL confirms link between sun and clouds on global scale

In summary, the conversation discusses a paper that suggests a link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds on a global scale. The paper has been met with criticism and skepticism, as it conflicts with the widely accepted idea that greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 and CH4, are the main drivers of global temperatures. The paper has also been criticized for its small sample size and lack of long-term data. Other studies and observations suggest a link between cosmic rays and climate change, but the exact mechanism is still debated. Overall, the conversation highlights the ongoing debate and research surrounding the role of cosmic rays in climate change.
  • #141
Saul said:
If the GCR theory is correct, then the planet must start to cool, as GCR is 19% higher than past periods and the solar wind bursts are starting to abate.
Saul, for that statement to hold, you'd have to show, at a minimum, what fraction GCR contributes to planetary energy budget. I have no idea, but if its impact is, say, 5% of albeto based radiation return to space then a 200% increase in GCR won't mean the planet as a whole will 'start to cool'.

There is starting to be some observational evidence that the planet is cooling such as the coldest US October in 110 years and the coldest New Zealand October in 45 years. When the current El Nina dissipates perhaps there will be more observational evidence. November appears to be warmer, however, the warmer November is likely El Nina.
What's the point of saying, aha, there's some cooling (or warming) at some localized point on the planet, in isolation from the rest of planet?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #142
mheslep said:
Saul, for that statement to hold, you'd have to show, at a minimum, what fraction GCR contributes to planetary energy budget. I have no idea, but if its impact is, say, 5% of albeto based radiation return to space then a 200% increase in GCR won't mean the planet as a whole will 'start to cool'.

What's the point of saying, aha, there's some cooling (or warming) at some localized point on the planet, in isolation from the rest of planet?
mheslep,
Based on the mechanisms and past cooling events the planet will overcome the current El Nina and start cooling this winter. The cooling will continue reaching the new equilibrium low in about 5 years.

The cloud data indicates as much as 75% of the planet's 20th century warming was due to solar wind bursts that created a space charge in the ionosphere that removed ions from the atmosphere by the mechanism that is called electroscavenging which resulted in less clouds which caused the planet to warm.

Electroscavenging was stopped (coronal holes are starting dissipate), the solar heliosphere is at its lowest level in almost 50 years, GCR has increased by 19% and based on past solar magnetic deep minimums, GCR will increase to around 30%.

So as there is both a cessation of electroscavenging and an increase in GCR there will be an increase in low level planetary cloud cover which will cause increase planetary low level planetary cloud cover and cooling.

Higher GCR also causes a reduction in high level cloud cover. High level clouds warm the planet particularly at high latitudes in the winter.

The net result will be record cold winter temperatures at high latitudes and more clouds over the oceans as the atmosphere over the oceans is ion poor.

The geomagnetic changes later, perhaps a number of decades later based on the paleoclimatic record.

I am saying the planet has in the past abruptly cooled when the sun went into a deep solar minimum. I have provided a series of paper that show there are abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field inclination and magnitude that correlate with the abrupt cooling event. The hypothesized mechanism is the sun goes into a deep solar magnetic cycle minimum. When the sun restarts there are a series of massive coronal mass ejections which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which cause a flash over from the ionosphere to the planet's surface.

The paper copied above shows evidence of 10 such events in the last 10,000 years. Geomagnetic specialists have coined the term archomagnetic jerks for the observations.

The paper I linked to above shows 5 New Zealand volcanoes that do not share the same magma chamber that suddenly erupted within a period of 100 years and that all capture in their magma flow evidence of a geomagnetic field direction excursion that occurs with in the period.http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html


Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of Earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times,
Initial evidence from the GRIP ice core evidence (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Taylor et al. 1993) indicated that the Eemian (My comment last interglacial period) was punctuated by many short-lived cold events, as shown by variations in electrical conductivity (a proxy for windblown dust, with more dust indicating colder, more arid conditions) and stable oxygen isotopes (a proxy for air temperature) of the ice were used by these workers infer the climatic conditions during the Eemian. The cold events seemed to last a few thousand years, and the magnitude of cooling was similar to the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions; a very dramatic contrast in climate. Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html

The 8200 B.P. event, "lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia (Alley et al. 1997; Barber et al. 1999; Hu et al. 1999; Street-Perrot and Perrot 1990). This event is well-known from the GISP2 analyses, within which it is second only to the Younger Dryas in magnitude of some measurable variables (Alley et al. 1997; Figure 22). The pronounced West Asian signal for the 8200 B.P. event is present in Soreq Cave speleothem records (Bar-Matthews et al. 1999), Negev snail isotope variability (Goodfriend 1991, 1999), low Dead Sea levels (Frumkin et al. 1994), and the geochemistry of stage E to stage F transition at Lake Van (Lemcke and Sturm 1997). . .
."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
Saul said:
The cloud data indicates as much as 75% of the planet's 20th century warming was due to solar wind bursts that created a space charge in the ionosphere that removed ions from the atmosphere by the mechanism that is called electroscavenging which resulted in less clouds which caused the planet to warm.
Okay, sorry, what cloud data? I've missed the link.

I am saying the planet has in the past abruptly cooled when the sun went into a deep solar minimum. I have provided a series of paper that show there are abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field inclination and magnitude that correlate with the abrupt cooling event. The hypothesized mechanism is the sun goes into a deep solar magnetic cycle minimum. When the sun restarts there are a series of massive coronal mass ejections which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which cause a flash over from the ionosphere to the planet's surface.
Okay, but the Adams-Maslin-Thomas paper you referenced proposes no hard connection with these changes. It widely discusses, or even simply muses about, only possibilities as I read it, of a dozen different long term climate effects.
 
  • #144
Data currently available for the Southern Hemisphere is too sparse to allow for construction of a temperature timeline with similar resolution to that in message #138.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2429570&postcount=138

Notice that the graph in message #138 is one of the newest reconstructions with much higher resolution than previously found for the Arctic. It's based on sediments in lakes.
What's remarkable about the graph is that one can pick out a cooling period concident with the Maunder Minimum. So, sunspots and solar changes related to sunspots probably did have a noticeable influcence global temperatures. However, due to their cyclic nature, we can't say that they drove climate over periods greater than ~100 years.

What has happened over the last century in the Arctic is unprecidented over the last 2000 years. The chances of it being caused by changes in sunspots, solar winds, UV spectrum shifts, cosmic rays and everything related is zilch.

Prior to 1910, solar and orbital changes were driving the climate over ~100 years time scales with El Nino/La Nina over time scales of <10 years. Since about 1950, changes in greenhouse gases are dominating climate change. Solar and orbital changes still exist and play a role, but are probably about an order of magnitude smaller than those from greenhouse gases.
 

Similar threads

Replies
184
Views
45K
Replies
35
Views
21K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
11K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Back
Top