Correlation of Solar Cycle Length & Arctic Temperatures in Svalbard

[William]

As most are aware Solar Cycle 24 appears to be a change from the highest solar activity in the last 10,000 years (solar cycles last half of the half the twentieth century) to a Maunder Minimum. Will there be any observable changes in planetary climate caused by the abrupt change in the solar cycle?

This paper finds that there is correlation between the annual Arctic temperatures and the Arctic winter temperatures with solar cycle length, with a 10 to 12 year lag between when the solar cycle length changes and when there is the start of the observed temperature change.

Based on this observed correlation the authors predict a 3C drop in annual Arctic temperatures and a 6C drop in Arctic winter temperatures, due to the sudden change in solar activity.

Comments:
1. The authors only have long term data at this specific location however they are assuming the Arctic as a whole is affected by the same physical mechanism that causes the long term correlation in temperature and solar cycle length that is observed at this location.
2. That assumption maybe reasonable as there is an observed long term trend. It is difficult for random temperature changes to affect one specific location in the Arctic on a long term and repeatable basis.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures

The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity.

Additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5±2 oC from solar Cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 oC.

[William]

As noted above, there is an observed negative correlation (negative as the Arctic is warm when the solar cycle length is short and cold when the solar cycle length is long) of Arctic temperature with solar cycle length with a 10 to 12 year lag for the temperature change to be observed from when the solar cycle changes.

As noted in the above paper, observations indicate that the mechanism causes the Arctic winters to be significantly colder or warmer.

The following is a paper by Tinsley and Yu that explains the likely mechanism.

The solar cycle modulates high speed galactic particles (called GCR "galactic cosmic rays", mostly protons. Incorrectly called rays for historical reasons.) which strike the earth's atmosphere forming ions.

At lower levels in the atmosphere an increase in GCR causes an increase in cloud forming ions which in turn causes an increase in cloud forming ions. This mechanism has been confirmed by the recent CERN experiment and has independently confirmed by Svensmark. Observational data does show correlation of low level planetary clouds with GCR however there is a second mechanism electroscavenging where by solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. Solar wind bursts occurred for solar cycles 22 and 23 occurred during the solar cycle minimum therefore even though GCR has high the ions that were created where removed by the space charge differential that is created in the ionosphere which then removes the ions. (See Tinsley and Yu's paper for details.)

At higher levels in the atmosphere increased number of ions inhibits cloud formation. As high altitude cirrus clouds (the wispy clouds) warm the planet by the greenhouse effect, an increases in ions (created by GCR) causes a reduction in cirrus clouds which in turn causes cooling particularly in the winter, at high latitude locations. The increase in GCR and ions cause an increase in planetary cloud at lower levels in the atmosphere which increases the planet's albedo which also causes cooling.

What is interesting is how does one explain why there is a 10 to 12 year delay in the cooling or warming and the change in the solar cycle length and why is the solar cycle length an important parameter. Historians noted there was 12 year delay in cooling after the occurrence in the Maunder minimum, for example.

As there has been roughly 10 years of low solar activity, if the first paper's premise is correct, we should start to observe significantly colder Arctic annual temperatures and winter temperatures.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
By Brian A. Tinsley and Fangqun Yu

The GCR flux is responsible for almost all of the production of ionization below 15 km altitude, that determines the conductivity in that region. The MeV electrons and their associated X-rays produce ionization in the stratosphere, and affect the conductivity there. The current flow in the global electric circuit is generated mainly by charge separation in deep convective clouds in the tropics, and maintains the global ionosphere at a potential of about 250 kV. Variations above and below this value occur in the high latitude regions due to solar wind -magnetosphere - ionosphere coupling processes. The current density Jz varies horizontally due to variations in the local vertical column resistance (this is affected by the GCR and MeV electron fluxes) and by variations in the local ionospheric potential (especially to those in the high latitude regions). Because Jz flowing through clouds in the troposphere responds to conductivity and potential changes occurring all the way up to 120 km altitude, it is a very effective coupling agent for linking inputs in the stratosphere and ionosphere with cloud levels.

Based on the GCR-CN-CCN-Cloud hypothesis and the influence of GCR ionization change on particle formation rate at different altitudes as shown in Figure 4.2, we can expect that if GCR variations have any impact on cloudiness, they should correlate positively with low cloud amount and negatively with high cloud amount. For middle clouds, such a correlation (if any) is likely to be weak.

It is clear from Figure 4.2 that an increase in GCR ionization rate associated with solar activity leads to an increase in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ > 0) in the lower troposphere (as indicated by the arrows) but a decrease in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ < 0) in the upper troposphere (as indicated by the arrows). In the middle troposphere, dN/dQ changes sign and the average value of dN/dQ is small compared to that of lower and upper troposphere.

[MikeMcc]

Rasmus has already ripped into this one at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...the-best-part/

The techniques used don't fit when looking further back, they don't explain the recent divergence between solar activity and rising temperatures, nor suggest any mechanism why the moon should have any bearing on climate!

[Swift]

Rasmus has already ripped into this one at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...the-best-part/

The techniques used don't fit when looking further back, they don't explain the recent divergence between solar activity and rising temperatures, nor suggest any mechanism why the moon should have any bearing on climate!

Nice catch MikeMcc and an interesting read.

[Ara Pacis]

I guessing that someone already looked at the possibility that a 10-12 year delay in a 11 year cycle might, not be a delay but a immediate result.

[William]

Rasmus has already ripped into this one at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...the-best-part/

The techniques used don't fit when looking further back, they don't explain the recent divergence between solar activity and rising temperatures, nor suggest any mechanism why the moon should have any bearing on climate!

Mike,

RealClimate was discussing another paper.

O. Humlum, J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl, "Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change", Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, 2011, pp. 145-156. DOI.

The paper quoted in the first comment of this thread notes there is correlation of Arctic temperature and solar cycle length.

The paper in the first comment of this thread makes a very specific prediction of a 3C average cooling and 6C winter cooling in the Arctic region, due to the recent solar cycle change. There was in the past a 10 to 12 year delay before the climate change occurred. We are roughly 10 years into the long cycles. We should start to experience cooling in the next couple of years.

There is a mechanism to explain the cooling. The CERN experiment supports the assertion that ions mediate cloud nucleation formation. As I noted in Tinsley and Yu's paper higher intensity and higher energy levels of GCR are expected to increase the amount of low level clouds (which increases planetary albedo) and decrease the amount of high altitude cirrus clouds which reduces the greenhouse affect and causes cooling.

There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes.

In regard to your other comment concerning why there was a divergence between between solar cycle progression and planetary cloud cover, there is a physical explanation. Solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions by the mechanism that is called electroscavenging. There was an increase in solar wind bursts at the end of the last two solar cycles. As noted in this paper solar wind bursts do not normally occur at the end of solar cycle.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

[William]

I guessing that someone already looked at the possibility that a 10-12 year delay in a 11 year cycle might, not be a delay but a immediate result.

There was a 12 year delay from the onset of the Maunder minimum to the first observed cooling. The delay is a delay. It is not part of the cycle. It has something to due with what is happen when the sun changes from a short magnetic cycle length to a long magnetic cycle length.

The magnitude of the cooling in this case (solar cycle 24 to solar cycle 25) will be greater if a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to the short solar cycle length.

I find this interesting as whether the planet will or will not cool is not an academic question. i.e. There will be observational evidence to prove or disprove the theory. It appears solar cycle 25 will be a Maunder minimum.

[Tensor]

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
By Brian A. Tinsley and Fangqun Yu

The GCR flux is responsible for almost all of the production of ionization below 15 km altitude, that determines the conductivity in that region. The MeV electrons and their associated X-rays produce ionization in the stratosphere, and affect the conductivity there. The current flow in the global electric circuit is generated mainly by charge separation in deep convective clouds in the tropics, and maintains the global ionosphere at a potential of about 250 kV. Variations above and below this value occur in the high latitude regions due to solar wind -magnetosphere - ionosphere coupling processes. The current density Jz varies horizontally due to variations in the local vertical column resistance (this is affected by the GCR and MeV electron fluxes) and by variations in the local ionospheric potential (especially to those in the high latitude regions). Because Jz flowing through clouds in the troposphere responds to conductivity and potential changes occurring all the way up to 120 km altitude, it is a very effective coupling agent for linking inputs in the stratosphere and ionosphere with cloud levels.

Based on the GCR-CN-CCN-Cloud hypothesis and the influence of GCR ionization change on particle formation rate at different altitudes as shown in Figure 4.2, we can expect that if GCR variations have any impact on cloudiness, they should correlate positively with low cloud amount and negatively with high cloud amount. For middle clouds, such a correlation (if any) is likely to be weak.

It is clear from Figure 4.2 that an increase in GCR ionization rate associated with solar activity leads to an increase in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ > 0) in the lower troposphere (as indicated by the arrows) but a decrease in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ < 0) in the upper troposphere (as indicated by the arrows). In the middle troposphere, dN/dQ changes sign and the average value of dN/dQ is small compared to that of lower and upper troposphere.[/url]

I have a couple of things. One, this link provides a plethora of papers refuting the cosmic ray - climate connection. Two, even Tinsley and Yu are very circumspect when claiming anything for this paper.

For instance:

there is no decisive result at present to determine how much of the observed decadal variations are due to particle flux inputs as compared to
total or spectral irradiance changes. (However, there is no such ambiguity concerning the correlations of atmospheric dynamics with particle fluxes on the day-to-day timescale.)

Or:

Quantitative evaluations of various aspects of the cloud microphysics have not yet been made.

And

For example, for IMN the growth of the ultrafine particles to CCN size has not yet been modeled, nor has the effect of changes in droplet size on eventual cloud cover . For electroscavenging, the cloud processes linking ice production rates with precipitation rates for various types of clouds has not yet been modeled. Field measurements on the global circuit as well as on cloud microphysical parameters are needed, together with laboratory measurements of IMN and electroscavenging.

Also:

Clearly there is a great deal of modeling that is needed in order to provide quantitative relationships between atmospheric ionization and macroscopic clouds properties. .... Improved cloud cover and precipitation data covering more solar cycles would be useful for validating the present observational results, and as more accurate inputs into global climate models.

Those comments make that paper real speculative and not at all useful for any kind of support. After all, they flat out say they can't quantitatively show any connection.

Finally, this paper was discussed in a previous thread here . Ari Jokimaki had asked several questions in post #62, #70, and #74 in that thread (and also referred to questions in earlier posts that had not been answered). Here you were asked by a moderator to answer Ari's questions. Here you said you had nothing else to say. Does your reference to this paper now mean you will be answering the questions?

[William]

I have a couple of things. One, this link provides a plethora of papers refuting the cosmic ray - climate connection. Two, even Tinsley and Yu are very circumspect when claiming anything for this paper.

For instance: Or: And Also:

Those comments make that paper real speculative and not at all useful for any kind of support. After all, they flat out say they can't quantitatively show any connection.

Finally, this paper was discussed in a previous thread here . Ari Jokimaki had asked several questions in post #62, #70, and #74 in that thread (and also referred to questions in earlier posts that had not been answered). Here you were asked by a moderator to answer Ari's questions. Does your reference to this paper now mean you will be answering the questions?

Tensor,
The papers you refer to do not take into account the phenomenon electroscavenging. Tinsley's paper includes a link to Marshall's paper that shows 95% correlation of planetary cloud cover to GCR changes up until 1999, at which time the correlation breaks down as there were solar wind bursts that removed cloud forming ions. Enric Palle published three different papers that all supported that assertion.

The authors of the paper quoted in the first comment of this thread specifically state the Arctic will cool 3C in average and 6C during the winter based on the recent solar cycle change.

[William]

As I said there are a number of papers that provide support for the ion mediated nucleation. This is a new paper that reproduces the effect using high energy particles from CERN.

This is quite recent.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/press.../PR15.11E.html

CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation
Geneva, 25 August 2011. In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN2 has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth's surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.

[William]

If any one is interested this is the paleoclimatic record that Realclimate were discussing. What was their explanation for the climate changes in the paleo record?

Tensor, what is your explanation for the changes in the paleo record?

http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%...CA%20DomeC.gif

[MikeMcc]

Even if there is a significant driving influence from other factors, any other theory would still have to explain why CO2 is not having the predicted effect from it's very well understood mechanism. Professor Humlum has a record of grasping at straws and inapproapriate data presentation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core3.html

[Torsten]

If any one is interested this is the paleoclimatic record that Realclimate were discussing. What was their explanation for the climate changes in the paleo record?

Tensor, what is your explanation for the changes in the paleo record?

http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%...CA%20DomeC.gif

The chart is from Humlum's website. The intent is clearly to imply how global temperature in the Holocene is not driven by CO₂ concentration. So he takes a regional proxy record that ends about a hundred years ago, sticks another scale on the right side that is supposed to indicate a corresponding "approximate global temperature anomaly", and adds about a degree C at the end of the line to indicate warming since the end of the proxy record. But I understand that Greenland's average summit temperature has risen by more than the global average since then, especially in recent years. Further, the modern CO₂ rise, if Humlum chose to show it, would be right off the chart. It's just plain dishonest to add a bit of the modern record to one panel of the chart and not to the other.

And surely I can't be the first person to notice this. So I went looking. And I found this.

You know, Alley's data go back almost 50,000 years, but the article Humlum cites is about the Younger Dryas as an abrupt event that was also global in extent. The abstract of the article makes a point of saying:

Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes

(my emphasis). In other words, it's a regional record. And Humlum charts the Post-Dryas data. Brilliant move, that. And you think his site is neutral?

ETA: Gee, I just realized MikeMcc's post above this one has essentially the same link as I posted - and hours earlier!. ...*Torsten hangs head in shame*...

[William]

Tensor,

The paper linked to in the first comment in this thread provides a long term direct temperature measurement at a high latitude location (Arctic) and notes the temperature at that location has changed in the past and the past changes correlate with solar cycle length changes. That paper predicts a 3C drop in annual Arctic temperature and a 6C drop in winter Arctic temperature, due to the apparent change from the highest solar activity in 10,000 years to a Maunder minimum. That paper notes in the past there is a 10 to 12 lag as to when the solar cycle length changes and when there is the observed climate change. This is a very specific prediction that can be falsified.

Realclimate, John Cook, or you do not answer the question why did the Greenland ice sheet temperature changing in the past and why are there cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with the past changes? The Greenland Ice sheet temperature changes do correlate with the Roman Warm period, the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice age. The GRIP1 and GRIP2 core samples are taken in the center of the Greenland ice sheet at a location that was specifically chosen to provide a proxy for the entire ice sheet. It is interesting the ice sheet proxy does correlate with the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period, and the Little ice age.

The book "Ice Chronicles" which discusses the Greenland GRIP1 and GRIP2 ice core data notes there is a 1470 year cycle of temperature variance in the Greenland core data. The book states the cyclic temperature changes is likely solar as there are cosmogenic isotope changes associated with it. Gerald Bond reaches the same conclusion. The book Ice Chronicles notes the scientists who discovered the cycle rapid climate change events are surprised at the rapidity of the warming and cooling in the proxy record. The second ice core GRIP2 has therefore drilled to confirm the proxy observation was correct.


http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Chronicles...e/dp/158465061

The CERN experiment provides direct experiment data to support the ion mediated cloud mechanism. As noted in the published papers above there is a second mechanism electroscavenging whereby cloud forming ions are removed from the atmosphere by solar wind bursts. A paper link to a paper is provide above that shows there were solar wind bursts late in the solar cycle. Ari provides links to papers that ignore the electroscavenging mechanism and allege to disprove the solar modulation of planetary cloud cover as there is no longer correlation during the periods when there are solar wind bursts.

At a certain point it appears Realclimate, John Cook, Ari, and you protest too much. I go away and wait for more data and papers. After a period of time there is new data and papers that supports the solar modulation of planetary clouds hypothesis.

Solar cycle 24/25 does appear to be a change to a Maunder minimum.

The assertion of this thread is based on the paleo record, what is currently happening to the sun, and research related to solar modulation of planetary clouds the high Arctic will cool by 3C annual and 6 C in the winter. It appears that actual cooling of the Arctic which I would assume would result in cooling of Southern Northern Hemisphere regions is the only have this issue will be resolved.


http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/roo...IntRenssen.pdf

Younger Dryas Abrupt Cooling Event

…we argue that this is indeed supported by three observations: (1) the abrupt and strong increase in residual 14C at the start of the Younger Dryas that seems to be too sharp to be caused by ocean circulation changes alone, (2) the Younger Dryas being part of an approxl. 2500 year quasi-cycle also found in the 14C record that is supposedly of solar origin, (3) the registration of the Younger Dryas in geological records in the tropics and the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere.


The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9}11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997).

Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O'Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor affecting climate variations during the Holocene (see also Magny, 1993, 1995a),

http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%...CA%20DomeC.gif

http://www.climate4you.com/

[Jim]

William, you've presented these same arguments - even the same papers - in at least two previous threads... both of which were considered ATM. And both of which I closed.

You don't get to keep doing this, especially outside ATM when you know - should know - better. Thread closed and infraction points given.