Now heading into a Little Ice Age says astrophysicist Piers Corbyn

[GaWx]

Would anyone like to share an opinion on this? I'm not taking a side.

http://iceagenow.inf...astrophysicist/

“Little Ice Age (Maunder-Dalton) circulation patterns are emerging and more rapid world cooling is taking over,” says astrophysicist Piers Corbyn.

“The Sun’s magnetic field is getting into a muddle as one half of it changes out of step with the other and this muddled behavior is likely to become very marked in MAY,” says Corbyn, of WeatherAction.com.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Would anyone like to share an opinion on this? I'm not taking a side.

http://iceagenow.inf...astrophysicist/

“Little Ice Age (Maunder-Dalton) circulation patterns are emerging and more rapid world cooling is taking over,” says astrophysicist Piers Corbyn.

“The Sun’s magnetic field is getting into a muddle as one half of it changes out of step with the other and this muddled behavior is likely to become very marked in MAY,” says Corbyn, of WeatherAction.com.

We are near record levels of heat right now.

[phlwx]

Corbin whiffed badly last winter on the US east coast...probably worse than Bastardi did.

[Tropopause_Fold]

Corbin is a well-known denialist who runs a nutty business predicting weather a year out and then betting on it. he has no legitimate climate change publications or expertise.

the fact you posted this junk science means that you have indeed taken a position on it--you think it merits discussion.

it generally takes 2 minutes to do the background research to determine if someone is a crackpot, thus saving the forum from junk threads.

you sound like such a nice person.

[A-L-E-K]

We are near record levels of heat right now.

Corbin is a well-known denialist who runs a nutty business predicting weather a year out and then betting on it. he has no legitimate climate change publications or expertise.

the fact you posted this junk science means that you have indeed taken a position on it--you think it merits discussion.

it generally takes 2 minutes to do the background research to determine if someone is a crackpot, thus saving the forum from junk threads.

/thread

[WeatherRusty]

If the Sun were the dominate radiative forcing agent, then yes of course global temp would drop accordingly. However, solar variation (~0.1% or 1.3W/^2 = 0.25W/m^2 radiative forcing) is known to directly influence global temp only by 0.1 to 0.2C ....before feedback.

Greenhouse warming by increasing CO2 at current rates can equal and negate that in less than one decade.

[GaWx]

Corbin is a well-known denialist who runs a nutty business predicting weather a year out and then betting on it. he has no legitimate climate change publications or expertise.

the fact you posted this junk science means that you have indeed taken a position on it--you think it merits discussion.

it generally takes 2 minutes to do the background research to determine if someone is a crackpot, thus saving the forum from junk threads.

*Weather Rusty, please let me know your opinion about the cosmic ray theory mentioned in this post*

I haven't stated my opinion on this guy per se. I wanted to see how others here would react to him without my giving an opinion about him. However, I will say that I do feel that the idea that the sun's changing magnetic flux over the centuries has quite possibly had a significant effect on global climate is at least worthy of discussion. I see no reason for it to not be discussed in a climate change forum since climate changes are likely due to a combination of factors, man related as well as other factors.

Looking back at sunspot counts, which at least loosely approximate 10.7 and other measures of solar flux, it appears that the last half of the 20th century quite possibly experienced the highest level of solar flux emitted for any 50 year period during the last 360+ years.

See this table for monthly sunspot counts since 1749:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/MONTHLY

I'm aware that sunspot counts can be affected to some extent by the devices used over the centuries to view the sun. Absent of that having skewed the counts too much, one can see how much higher the counts were during 1950-2000 vs. earlier 50 year periods.

I've also been reading a number of articles that suggest that a reduction in cosmic rays reaching Earth (and our solar system in general) during the last half of the 20th century resulting from an increase in solar flux during that period could have been a significant contributor to global warming. The hypothesis I've read is that more cosmic rays mean the formation of more molecules in the atmosphere which would allow for more seeding for cloud formation. More clouds mean less sunlight reaching Earth which means cooling. So, IF this were truly a valid idea, I'm wondering if the sun's increased flux during the latter 20th century could have been a significant factor regarding global warming during the late 20th century.

Anyone have thoughts about the decrease in the amount of cosmic ray energy reaching Earth during 1950-2000 possibly having been a significant factor regarding global warming? Could the effect of the sun's flux cycles on climate be increased by the cosmic ray contribution?

[Jesse]

he's a kook, and as such, his ideas don't belong in a science-based forum.

His ideas scare you because they present a threat to your established ideology, so you react negatively and fiercely.That much is obvious.

I'm sure 400 years ago you would have hated Galileo too.

PS: Learn how to use a damn shift key. Although I'm sure being smarter than everyone is too time consuming to bother yourself over such trivialities.

[A-L-E-K]

His ideas scare you because they present a threat to your established ideology, so you react negatively and fiercely.That much is obvious.

I'm sure 400 years ago you would have hated Galileo too.

PS: Learn how to use a damn shift key. Although I'm sure being smarter than everyone is too time consuming to bother yourself over such trivialities.

evacuate earth

[GaWx]

If the Sun were the dominate radiative forcing agent, then yes of course global temp would drop accordingly. However, solar variation (~0.1% or 1.3W/^2 = 0.25W/m^2 radiative forcing) is known to directly influence global temp only by 0.1 to 0.2C ....before feedback.

Greenhouse warming by increasing CO2 at current rates can equal and negate that in less than one decade.

WeatherRusty,

Please see my prior post, in which I talk about the idea mentioned by some scientists about the possible impact of the increase in cosmic rays on global warming during the late 20th century. If there were a true connection, might the sun's variation related influence, both direct and indirect combined, actually be a good bit higher than the 0.1 to 0.2 C you mentioned being a direct result? Thanks.

[Jonger]

We are near record levels of heat right now.

.53C, remove UHI and its probably within a margin of noise on a graph.

[GaWx]

wxtrix,

"Figure 2: Normalised changes in cosmic rays since 1953. There has not been a significant downward trend. The exceptional solar minimum in 2008-2010 stands out a little."

If you were to look more closely at this, you could certainly interpret this differently from what was said just above this. Here's why:

Please refer to the monthly sunspot activity as per this link:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/MONTHLY

1) The late 1950's sunspot peak was already VERY high. The subsequent sunspot peak (late 1960's) wasn't nearly as high. So, the associated cosmic activity min. having risen around that sunspot peak vs. the prior one is intuitive as per this theory.

2) The early 1980's sunspot peak was significantly higher than the late 1960's peak. So, the lower cosmic activity in the early 1980's in relation to the cosmic activity of the late 1960's is also intuitive.

3) Admittedly, I don't know what happened around 1983 and late 1991 with those sudden spikes downward although they were only a little past their respective sunspot peaks.

4) The early 1990's sunspot peak was slightly higher than the early 1980's one. So, the slightly lower cosmic activity in the early 1990's in relation to the cosmic activity of the early 1980's is also somewhat intuitive. Perhaps there is also some kind of cumulative effect?

5) The subsequent sunspot peak (early 2000's) wasn't nearly as high. So, the associated cosmic activity having risen around that peak vs. the prior one is intuitive as per this theory.

6) The subsequent sunspot minimum (late 2000's) was the lowest since well before 1950. So, the cosmic rays then being at a clearcut peak then.for the entire period since 1950 is intuitive. I'd also say that that cosmic ray peak associated with the solar min. stands out more than "a little".

7) It would have been nice to be able to know the cosmic activity prior to 1950, especially during low sunspot periods such as the early 1900's and late 1800's as well as during the Dalton and Maunder minima. I suspect that the cosmic activity during those periods' individual cycle sunspot minima could have all been quite high on a similar chart. If that were the case, you would have seen a major drop in cosmic activity around the 1940's vs. earlier in the 1900's.

[WeatherRusty]

WeatherRusty,

Please see my prior post, in which I talk about the idea mentioned by some scientists about the possible impact of the increase in cosmic rays on global warming during the late 20th century. If there were a true connection, might the sun's variation related influence, both direct and indirect combined, actually be a good bit higher than the 0.1 to 0.2 C you mentioned being a direct result? Thanks.

OK, I'll try to approach this from an angle different from some others.

First, this research is taken seriously, since cloud amount can have a very strong impact on global temperature. High clouds tending to warm, low clouds tending to cool.

Traditional climate science and the atmospheric sciences in general treat cloud amount as a feedback to temperature and humidity, rather than a leading determinant or forcing on temperature.

Solar modulated galactic cosmic rays (very high energy charged particles which follow magnetic field lines) are thought to vary in their impact on the atmosphere with the changing solar magnetic field. By the action of GCRs ionizing particles in the atmosphere more cloud condensation nuclei are thought to be formed and available within the layer of low cloud formation. This could, it is suggested result in an increase in low cloud amount.

The result would be externally driven cloud amount being a forcing of climate to some degree rather than simply acting as a feedback.

The question is, is this actually occurring in the atmosphere? I believe the answer to that question remains unknown.

Most consider the already available CCN more than plentiful enough to support any amount of cloud formation induced by temperature and humidity;

[GaWx]

it doesn't matter. cosmic rays aren't the cause of global warming.

The question in my mind is whether or not lower (higher) solar flux induced cosmic ray activity increases (decreases) could POSSIBLY be ONE of the factors that causes global cooling (warming) to an UNKNOWN extent. I think that even WeatherRusty is not eliminating this possibility based on what he just posted. I don't think it is known that it is as black and white as you think.

[cmc0605]

This is an example of where you actually need to work through the numbers to get at answer rather than using one's intuition.

There are a number of hypotheses that people have come with for solar indirect effects, the cosmic ray one being popular, but the scientific community has found little evidence that it can substantially impact surface temperatures. There are a number of qualitative steps in logic (increased nucleation to higher numbers of CCN, that this change in CCN actually changes cloud properties, and that this impacts Earth's radiation budget to a noticeable degree) but once you get quantitative it does not translate well into an important mechanism. These two papers are some of several different pieces of work showing this.:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037946.shtml

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.html

Richard Alley also showed a pretty convincing example in his AGU talk a couple years back of a large change in cosmic ray flux in the ice core record that didn't seem to show a climate manifestation, so this seems to be a small tuning knob at the very best, and since there's been no trend in the cosmic ray flux over the recent decades it can't be the cause of modern global warming even if it had the theoretical capacity to be.

As for the original post, the most obvious mechanism for the sun to let us head into a Little Ice Age is indeed the direct change in brightness. WeatherRusty is quite right that the associated radiative forcing is rather small, and would be offset by only a decade or so of increased CO2. A number of papers have demonstrated this as well. In fact, the actual little ice age is now thought to be much more related to volcanic activity than to sunlight (e.g., Miller et al 2012, GRL).

[GaWx]

...since there's been no trend in the cosmic ray flux over the recent decades it can't be the cause of modern global warming even if it had the theoretical capacity to be.

cmc0605,

1) If there had been a chart going back to the early 1900's, I suspect you would have seen a big jump between the early and late 20th century because sunspot activity during the early 1900's was much lower:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/MONTHLY

2) Can you eliminate the possibility of a lag effect? The sunspots really first picked up in the late 1930's and then a lot more in the 1940's to 1950's. Although there were variations as previously mentioned, they stayed relatively high for much of the time through the rest of the 1900's. So, perhaps any possible effect from lowered cosmic rays continued in a lagged warming into the 1990's??

[cmc0605]

2) Can you eliminate the possibility of a lag effect? The sunspots really first picked up in the late 1930's and then a lot more in the 1940's to 1950's. Although there were variations as previously mentioned, they stayed relatively high for much of the time through the rest of the 1900's. So, perhaps any possible effect from lowered cosmic rays continued in a lagged warming into the 1990's??

I don't know of any mechanism that would hide a detectable response for nearly a century and have it "show up" right now (where was the energy going?). But in order to do a quantitative attribution for any cause, you need to show that the expected spatial and temporal evolution of the climate response to that cause is in some way representative of what we see. That applies to CO2, solar irradiance, or whatever else, and invariably involves some sort of physical model. I've not yet seen a compelling physical justification for the cosmic ray impact on climate, let alone an assessment of its spatio-temporal structure, to really say confidently what an anomalously high or low cosmic ray count should "look like" (if it shows up at all).

Because of the results of the aerosol and solar physics community, some of which I linked to above, I suspect you need to really look hard statistically to see an impact, if there is one, and I have doubts you could detect this sort of fine-tuning knob against the backdrop of ENSO or Atlantic variability, and background signals associated with greenhouse and aerosol forcings.

[ben4vols]

About a year ago Roy Spencer did a quick and dirty preliminary look at this topic. His findings were interesting but obviously there is much more work to do as again it was very preliminary.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow, since it is the first station I found which includes a complete monthly archive for the same period we have global radiative energy budget data from CERES (March 2000 through June 2010). I’m sure there are other stations, too…all of this is preliminary anyway. Me sifting through the myriad solar-terrestrial datasets is just as confusing to me as most of you sifting through the various climate datasets that I’m reasonably comfortable with.

It is that last plot that gives us the final estimate of how a change in cosmic ray flux at Moscow is related to changes in Earth’s radiative energy balance.

SUMMARY

What the above three plots show is that for a 1,000 count increase in GCR activity as measured at Moscow (which is somewhat less than the increase between Solar Max and Solar Min), 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.

Finally, I fitted the trend lines to get an estimate of the relative magnitudes of these two sources of forcing: 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.

[WeatherRusty]

Just some random thoughts:

Sunspots represent an area of suppressed convective activity near the photosphere. They may be several hundred degrees cooler than the surrounding plasma gas. They are an indication of intense localized magnetic fields which loop out of the convective zone into the Sun's corona. This activity may be a mechanism (in addition to sonic vibrations) causing the corona to be super heated to over 1 million degrees. Solar storms, or coronal mass ejections, occur when the magnetic field lines supporting concentrated plasma in the corona break, violently accelerating material away from the Sun.

This material helps carry and extend the strengthened solar magnetic field out into the solar system, effectively deflecting GCRs away from the inner solar system.

Sunspots are a visual manifestation of an enhanced solar magnetic field. The Sun radiates more strongly, particularly in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum when magnetic activity is high, despite the slightly cooler effect of the sunspots. During enhanced sunspot activity there is also an increase in faculae, or hotter than average regions which more than compensate for the cooler visible sunspots.

When GCRs impact the Earth's upper atmosphere, their energy is dissipated by collisions with gas molecules. The GCR does not penetrate deep into the atmosphere, but rather a cascade or spray of secondary ionized particles surges down into the atmosphere. It is these secondary rays which are theorized to be involved in cloud nucleation. This is essentially an instantaneous process, I don't see how there could be any lag effect on climate, other than by providing for an increase in very tiny CCNs since cosmic rays represent an ionizing process which certainly can not linger for long.

Skeptics seek to account for our observed warming by ostensibly replacing greenhouse warming with this mechanism. At best, if it is measurable at all, it would be another complimentary factor adding to the sum of natural variability in my opinion. This mechanism does not, if real, negate the physics and enhancement to the greenhouse effect produced by growing CO2 concentration.

[WeatherRusty]

What to make of this study indicating a recent disconnect between GCRs and low cloud amount. The positive correlation appears to break down.

SEE

[The_Global_Warmer]

About a year ago Roy Spencer did a quick and dirty preliminary look at this topic. His findings were interesting but obviously there is much more work to do as again it was very preliminary.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

http://tamino.wordpr...in-temperature/

Your timescale is unbelievably convenient.

Previous periods of record warmth were accompanied by high global ssts and favorable ENSO. So we see sun exhibit a large minimum combined with ENSO and the Global SSTs

We can see from the RSS data set that the Northern Hemisphere during this period stayed steady. And diverged from ENSO quite a bit. It also diverges from the AMO. But RSS also leaves out warming that we see below in the GISS arctic graph.

The arctic, also the place where glacial ice continues to melt faster and faster. Which it self = increased heat. The surface temps also reflect this quite well. This place is also home to higher GHG levels.

Now we look at UAH global TLT anomaly(Climo 1981-2010) We can clearly see ENSO. We can also see continued warming. For instance, the summer of 2011 topped out at the same level of the NINO summers of the 2000s. Yet, the ENSO index would say that should not be. It should not be that warm. Global SST anonomalies also confirm that 2011 shouldn't of peaked that warm either. Oh, yeah that huge solar min has a lagging affect. Not a very long one obviously. but it does. While the sun's output drops the oceans will exhaust more heat vs what they were previously taking in. This is highly reflective in the OHC data.

What your saying does not account for the continuing added heat.

The OP doesn't account for the added heat at all, in fact that guy says it's cooling world, and it's not even close to that.

[ben4vols]

Friv, so you believe the missing heat is buried in the ocean?

[Alpha5]

you sound like such a nice person.

Every response she gives has to be snide and condescending, get used to it