JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The solar wind dumps energy into the far upper atmosphere through a kind of slow massive lightning

UPDATE: Libby Plummer at The Daily Mail  has a different take, calling this a natural thermostat that cools the upper atmosphere after solar storms. I guess we’ll have to wait to see the paper to see if this can be connected to the global surface temperature at all.

The solar wind is is coming at us at a million miles an hour, but we really don’t know much about what happens when it weaves and buffets past us. In a news release NASA GISS describe how their traditional understanding of what is going on 150 miles up can sometimes just turn inside out. That’s  “Revolutions in Understanding the Ionosphere, Earth’s Interface to Space”. It describes how energy from space weather can get into the ionosphere, and also muck up some of our satellites.

Despite climate models being sure that the Sun has hardly any effect, even NASA Giss admits there are some pretty wild things going on up there, and they are mostly due to the Sun. As the solar wind blasts in, it can set up a voltage difference between the upper layers of the atmosphere and the “magnetosphere”. A current will flow, discharging this energy into the ionosphere. They call it “lightning” but say it can take hours, making it hard to visualize without a few beers. Rather significantly they also warn that “the amount of energy transferred is hundreds to thousands of times greater”. Ooh?

This type of lightning is more likely during solar storms, and not surprisingly, can heat up the ionosphere and upper atmosphere. That effect can slow satellites, but it doesn’t always work like that. I gather the new finding is that sometimes these geomagnetic storms can make nitric oxide in the upper atmosphere and this would dump heat into space and cool things. Indeed the NASA experts talk about “overcooling” and say the upper atmosphere collapses down instead of puffing up (as it does when it warms). The poor satellites end up speeding up. It must play havoc with the orbits. (I wonder if the Grace satellites, which assess ice loss through changes in the speed of the satellites, are at the right height to be affected.)

“Overcooling is most likely to happen when very fast and magnetically-organized ejecta from the sun rattle Earth’s magnetic field,” said Knipp. “Slow clouds or poorly-organized clouds just don’t have the same effect.”

This means that, counterintuitively, the most energetic solar storms are likely to provide a net cooling and shrinking effect on the upper atmosphere, rather than heating and expanding it as had been previously understood.

Apparently there is an effect from ground level storms that changes things up high (and anyone want to bet that there is an effect back down…)

It’s all very poorly understood, but the big climate models are 95% certain it has no effect at all. Sounds to me like we’re getting a little bit closer to figuring out another mechanism whereby the sun can change the Earth’s climate through magnetic fields and solar winds. Perhaps this is the “notching effect” or Force N or if one of these parameters lags solar TSI (total solar irradiance) by 11 years, it may be Force D, the delayed effect. Or it might be neither, and have little effect down on the ground… these overcooled patches seem to be “localized” and obviously we’ve got very little data to guess with. What kind of proxy tells us about atmospheric temperatures 150 miles off the ground, and 150 years ago?

– Jo
Ionosphere, Atmosphere, Storms, space weather, NASA.

PRESS RELEASE

Scientists from NASA and three universities have presented new discoveries about the way heat and energy move and manifest in the ionosphere, a region of Earth’s atmosphere that reacts to changes from both space above and Earth below.

Far above Earth’s surface, within the tenuous upper atmosphere, is a sea of particles that have been split into positive and negative ions by the sun’s harsh ultraviolet radiation. Called the ionosphere, this is Earth’s interface to space, the area where Earth’s neutral atmosphere and terrestrial weather give way to the space environment that dominates most of the rest of the universe – an environment that hosts charged particles and a complex system of electric and magnetic fields. The ionosphere is both shaped by waves from the atmosphere below and uniquely responsive to the changing conditions in space, conveying such space weather into observable, Earth-effective phenomena – creating the aurora, disrupting communications signals, and sometimes causing satellite problems.

 

Changes in the ionosphere are primarily driven by the sun’s activity. Though it may appear unchanging to us on the ground, our sun is, in fact, a very dynamic, active star. Watching the sun in ultraviolet wavelengths of light from space – above our UV light-blocking atmosphere – reveals constant activity, including bursts of light, particles, and magnetic fields.

Occasionally, the sun releases huge clouds of particles and magnetic fields that explode out from the sun at more than a million miles per hour. These are called coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. When a CME reaches Earth, its embedded magnetic fields can interact with Earth’s natural magnetic field – called the magnetosphere – sometimes compressing it or even causing parts of it to realign.

It is this realignment that transfers energy into Earth’s atmospheric system, by setting off a chain reaction of shifting electric and magnetic fields that can send the particles already trapped near Earth skittering in all directions. These particles can then create one of the most recognizable and awe-inspiring space weather events – the aurora, otherwise known as the Northern Lights.

But the transfer of energy into the atmosphere isn’t always so innocuous. It can also heat the upper atmosphere – where low-Earth satellites orbit – causing it to expand like a hot-air balloon.

“This swelling means there’s more stuff at higher altitudes than we would otherwise expect,” said Delores Knipp, a space scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder. “That extra stuff can drag on satellites, disrupting their orbits and making them harder to track.”

This phenomenon is called satellite drag. New research shows that this understanding of the upper atmosphere’s response to solar storms – and the resulting satellite drag – may not always hold true.

“Our basic understanding has been that geomagnetic storms put energy into the Earth system, which leads to swelling of the thermosphere, which can pull satellites down into lower orbits,” said Knipp, lead researcher on these new results. “But that isn’t always the case.”

Sometimes, the energy from solar storms can trigger a chemical reaction that produces a compound called nitric oxide in the upper atmosphere. Nitric oxide acts as a cooling agent at very high altitudes, promoting energy loss to space, so a significant increase in this compound can cause a phenomenon called overcooling.

“Overcooling causes the atmosphere to quickly shed energy from the geomagnetic storm much quicker than anticipated,” said Knipp. “It’s like the thermostat for the upper atmosphere got stuck on the ‘cool’ setting.”

That quick loss of energy counteracts the previous expansion, causing the upper atmosphere to collapse back down – sometimes to an even smaller state than it started in, leaving satellites traveling through lower-density regions than anticipated.

A new analysis by Knipp and her team classifies the types of storms that are likely to lead to this overcooling and rapid upper atmosphere collapse. By comparing over a decade of measurements from Department of Defense satellites and NASA’s Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics, or TIMED, mission, the researchers were able to spot patterns in energy moving throughout the upper atmosphere.

“Overcooling is most likely to happen when very fast and magnetically-organized ejecta from the sun rattle Earth’s magnetic field,” said Knipp. “Slow clouds or poorly-organized clouds just don’t have the same effect.”

This means that, counterintuitively, the most energetic solar storms are likely to provide a net cooling and shrinking effect on the upper atmosphere, rather than heating and expanding it as had been previously understood.

Competing with this cooling process is the heating caused by solar storm energy making its way into Earth’s atmosphere. Though scientists have known that solar wind energy eventually reaches the ionosphere, they have understood little about where, when and how this transfer takes place. New observations show that the process is localized and impulsive, and partly dependent on the state of the ionosphere itself.

Traditionally, scientists have thought that the way energy moves throughout Earth’s magnetosphere and atmosphere is determined by the characteristics of the incoming particles and magnetic fields of the solar wind – for instance, a long, steady stream of solar particles would produce different effects than a faster, less consistent stream. However, new data shows that the way energy moves is much more closely tied to the mechanisms by which the magnetosphere and ionosphere are linked.

“The energy transfer process turns out to be very similar to the way lightning forms during a thunderstorm,” said Bob Robinson, a space scientist at NASA Goddard and the Catholic University of America.

During a thunderstorm, a buildup of electric potential difference – called voltage – between a cloud and the ground leads to a sudden, violent discharge of that electric energy in the form of lightning. This discharge can only happen if there’s an electrically conducting pathway between the cloud and the ground, called a leader.

Similarly, the solar wind striking the magnetosphere can build up a voltage difference between different regions of the ionosphere and the magnetosphere. Electric currents can form between these regions, creating the conducting pathway needed for that built-up electric energy to discharge into the ionosphere as a kind of lightning.

“Terrestrial lightning takes several milliseconds to occur, while this magnetosphere-ionosphere ‘lightning’ lasts for several hours – and the amount of energy transferred is hundreds to thousands of times greater,” said Robinson, lead researcher on these new results. These results are based on data from the global Iridium satellite communications constellation.

Because solar storms enhance the electric currents that let this magnetosphere-ionosphere lightning take place, this type of energy transfer is much more likely when Earth’s magnetic field is jostled by a solar event.

The huge energy transfer from this magnetosphere-ionosphere lightning is associated with heating of the ionosphere and upper atmosphere, as well as increased aurora.

Looking Forward

Though scientists are making progress in understanding the key processes that drive changes in the ionosphere and, in turn, on Earth, there is still much to be understood. In 2017, NASA is launching two missions to investigate this dynamic region: the Ionospheric Connection Explorer, or ICON, and Global Observations of the Limb and Disk, or GOLD.

“The ionosphere doesn’t only react to energy input by solar storms,” said Scott England, a space scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who works on both the ICON and GOLD missions. “Terrestrial weather, like hurricanes and wind patterns, can shape the atmosphere and ionosphere, changing how they react to space weather.”

ICON will simultaneously measure the characteristics of charged particles in the ionosphere and neutral particles in the atmosphere – including those shaped by terrestrial weather – to understand how they interact. GOLD will take many of the same measurements, but from geostationary orbit, which gives a global view of how the ionosphere changes.

Observations of the Limb and Disk, or GOLD, mission will take complementary observations of Earth’s ionosphere and upper atmosphere. Credit: NASA

Both ICON and GOLD will take advantage of a phenomenon called airglow – the light emitted by gas that is excited or ionized by solar radiation – to study the ionosphere. By measuring the light from airglow, scientists can track the changing composition, density, and even temperature of particles in the ionosphere and neutral atmosphere.

ICON’s position 350 miles above Earth will enable it to study the atmosphere in profile, giving scientists an unprecedented look at the state of the ionosphere at a range of altitudes. Meanwhile, GOLD’s position 22,000 miles above Earth will give it the chance to track changes in the ionosphere as they move across the globe, similar to how a weather satellite tracks a storm.

“We will be using these two missions together to understand how dynamic weather systems are reflected in the upper atmosphere, and how these changes impact the ionosphere,” said England.

ICON and GOLD are Explorer-class missions. NASA Goddard manages the Explorer Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. UC Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory will develop the ICON mission and the two ultraviolet imaging spectrographs, the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., will develop the MIGHTI instrument, the University of Texas in Dallas will develop the Ion Velocity Meter, and the ICON spacecraft is being built by Orbital ATK in Dulles, Virginia. GOLD is led by the University of Central Florida, and the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado Boulder is building the instrument.

NASA Goddard manages the TIMED mission for the Heliophysics Division within the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, built the spacecraft for NASA.

See also Tallblokes post: Revolutions in understanding the ionosphere, Earth’s interface to space

and Tallbloke a few days ago: NASA finds boundary between Earth’s ionosphere and space is shrinking

 

REFERENCE

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. “Revolutions in understanding the ionosphere, Earth’s interface to space.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 December 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161214151652.htm>.
According to the DailyMail:” The research is to be published in the journal Space Weather and Professor Knipp unveiled the findings in a presentation this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union San Francisco.”
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (48 votes cast)
The solar wind dumps energy into the far upper atmosphere through a kind of slow massive lightning, 9.5 out of 10 based on 48 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/z9862sw

147 comments to The solar wind dumps energy into the far upper atmosphere through a kind of slow massive lightning

  • #
    Konrad

    Ah, the old “It could be the Sun, but we missed it because it was “new” science” excuse, agent 99!

    Little problem, while TSI has only increased 0.03 w/m2 since the little ice age, UV has increased 3.0 w/m2.

    The deeper a photon penetrates into our oceans, the longer the energy takes to return to the surface where it can be lost to evaporation, conduction and radiation. The deeper a photo penetrates, the more energy accumulates. Photons at UV frequencies penetrate deepest. SSV (solar spectral variability) is far greater than TSI (total solar irradiance) variability.

    Climastrologists have claimed that all frequencies of solar radiation heat the oceans equally. The simplest of empirical experiments proves them wrong. Their shame is forever. Their misuse of the S-B equation treated the oceans as opaque to sunlight. Their 255K for “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” is pseudo-scientific drivel.

    At minimum 312K, or beyond. Our current average is 288K. So what is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures?

    2515

    • #
      richard verney

      I consider your comments to be something which ought to attract more attention.

      The composition of the ER spectrum could well be important. In a 3d system, it maybe that not all watts are born equal. Where the watt is located could be an important factor, and where in the planet Earth system a watt is located, in part depends upon wavelength.

      We have been raising this for years at WUWT. I seem to recall that we were making similar points on Willis’ post ‘Radiating the Oceans.’ 9and before).

      1313

      • #
        Konrad

        Richard,
        my comments and the empirical experiments that support them are banned at WUWT. Watt’s site is now “lukewarmer central”. Basic experiments such as this:
        http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
        are considered heresy.

        I have great respect for Watts, as he started his journey as an empiricist (We have met, we shook hands). But the influence of Willis, Monckton and Brown has led him astray. Many, including moderators, suggested I should continue fighting for science using a different IP address and screen name.

        I won’t do this. This is the age of the Internet. What I have written cannot be erased. All I need to do is wait ;)

        1914

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Having the courage of your convictions is a major part of the scientific method, also when those ideas don’t play out to a verifiable conclusion the ability to scrap and start again is simply a matter of separating ego from evidence, much like the subject at hand a balance is needed as much as imbalance is in order to create a scenario for correction.

          132

        • #
          Peter C

          I carried out a Konrad selective surface experiment last week.

          Two styrofoam boxes, painted black on the inside and filled with water. Water in one box had ink added. Boxes covered with cling film and exposed to sun. Temperature taken at intervals using a thermometer.

          Result. The water temperature in the inky water was stratified, hotter near the surface but cooler below. After a few hours I stirred the water in both boxes and took the average temperature. The clear water was about 5 degrees hotter than the inky water.

          221

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Far more effect that I would have expected. This has many implications for various oceans around the world, and wet seasons over continents. Most interesting.

            1011

          • #
            Konrad

            Peter the experiment you describe is very similar to this one:
            http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
            (The deeper you build these, the more dramatic the results. Even more dramatic temperature differentials occur with intermittent illumination.)
            I started conducting experiments like these after earlier experiments showed that LWIR from the atmosphere could not heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. I looked for a “greenhouse” effect in the oceans, and it was ridiculously easy to find.

            But I was not the first to find this. I did some searching after the experiments and found many outside climastrology knew about SW heating of SW translucent/ LWIR opaque materials. (Even swimming pool cover manufactures and laminated glazing manufactures knew.)

            Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.
            (Sorry no web link) This was a study of fresh water convecting solar ponds. Way before I was born, researchers at Texas A&M found, as you and I have, that the deeper sunlight penetrates into water before being absorbed, the greater the rise in temperature. Their attempts at making the surface layer in their experiments black plastic failed, and resulted in the first 30mm of water heated, but the average temperature far lower than surface plastic clear and bottom of pond black.

            Essentially, without cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere*, our oceans would become a convecting solar pond, and average temperatures for 71% of the planet’s surface would soar to 335K or beyond.

            *An atmosphere without radiative gases cannot provide conductive and evaporative cooling for the oceans, as it would have no effective way to cool itself.

            313

            • #
              Peter C

              Yes Konrad,

              That is the one. The only variation is that I used black paint instead of a black plastic containers. Also I dipped the thermometer in whereas you show fixed thermocouples.

              I promised to do your experiment and report the results. It has taken me about a year to get around to it!

              As you say, green house gases do not warm the Earth.

              513

              • #
                Konrad

                Congratulations on doing what few other sceptics are prepared to do, empirical experiments. Too many other sceptics, and indeed too many scientists, try to cut&paste and re-analyse the work of others.

                Also good thinking on stirring before measuring, thereby deriving the average temperature without the high cost of 4 separate thermocouples.

                310

            • #

              Hi Konrad,

              You are clearly right about the effect of solar penetration into water and your setup is a good means of illustrating that.
              However, you don’t need a radiatively active atmosphere to cool the oceans.
              The oceans will still conduct into the mass of a non radiative atmosphere and the evaporative phase change will still occur thus injecting radiatively active water vapour into the atmosphere in any event.
              Neither the conducting nor the evaporating cool the oceans beyond the period of time required for the first convective overturning cycle to take place because once the loop closes there is as much KE returned to the surface in descending columns as is taken up in ascending columns for a net zero thermal effect from then on.
              The oceans warm above 255k and thereby warm the atmosphere only in relation to the time taken for the first convective overturning cycle to take place and for Earth that is the observed ‘extra’ 33k.

              That extra 33k is attributable to the specific values of gravity, atmospheric mass and insolation pertaining on Earth and nothing else.

              See here:

              http://www.newclimatemodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/TheSettingAndMaintainingOfEarth.pdf

              The temperature of the oceans and thus of the atmosphere is determined by the weight of the mass of the atmosphere bearing down on the water surface simply because it is that weight which sets the energy value of the latent heat of vapourisation.

              512

              • #
                Konrad

                Stephen,
                there is no +33K, you need to look for the -24K.
                You need radiative gases to cool the atmosphere, empirical experiment proves that conduction back to the surface is ineffective for cooling gases in a gravity field.
                http://i57.tinypic.com/24qsrrn.jpg
                Our atmosphere cannot cool without these gases. It is notable that there are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases in the mix. Not one.

                Gases in our atmosphere certainly both absorb and radiate LWIR. For as little as $100 you can buy a bolometer and measure this. Radiation from the atmosphere varies greatly with humidity. Peak atmospheric radiation occurs at the moment of cloud formation.

                Are there hundreds of w/m2 being radiated as climastologists claim? No, measurement within the hohlrumn of the atmosphere gives the wrong answer due to “cavity effect”, well known to engineers using themography. (Bolt holes and cavities in a machine casing appear hotter than their surroundings in the thermal image, even though they are physically at the same temperature).

                But our atmosphere can certainly both warm by absorbing LWIR and cool by emitting it. It just happens that the atmosphere can heat by surface conduction, release of latent heat of evaporation and to a very small degree absorption of surface LWIR. However its only effective cooling mechanism is emission of LWIR to space. Radiative gases are critical to atmospheric temperatures, they just play a greater role in cooling than they do in warming.

                316

              • #

                Hi Konrad.

                i) The S-B equation gives a surface temperature of 255K for the Earth as a blackbody in thermodynamic equilibrium. Actual measurements show the surface to average out at 288K

                ii) Your empirical experiment does not apply since there appears to be no provision for the expansion of the vertical column with height.

                iii) The atmosphere is cooled perfectly satisfactorily by the ground when the air in descending columns falls until it comes into contact with an unilluminated surface exposed to the night sky. The cold surface pulls heat from the air in contact with it very effectively and if the air is constantly being replenished by continuing descent then the cold surface continues to draw energy from that newly fallen air.

                iv) If there are no radiative gases then the surface radiates to space at 255k as observed and convective overturning retains 33K cycling constantly between the mass of the surface and the mass of the atmosphere via conduction.

                312

              • #
                Konrad

                Stephen, you may think me rude but I have torrid to reply, but I have been censored three times in a row.

                Let’s try again shall we moderators?
                i) The S-B equation gives a surface temperature of 255K for the Earth as a blackbody in thermodynamic equilibrium.
                This is incorrect. That is exactly what the first experiment image I posted on this thread disproves. You can’t use the S-B equation to determine “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” for an ocean planet.

                ii) Your empirical experiment does not apply since there appears to be no provision for the expansion of the vertical column with height.
                The experiment I posted in my reply to you simply demonstrates that for gases in a gravity field, the surface if far more effective at conductively heating the atmosphere than conductively cooling it. Yes, in the real atmosphere there is a pressure gradient and vertically circulating air experiences adiabatic cooling on assent, and heating on decent. This is irrelevant as the cooling is matched by the heating. No energy is gained or lost (the very meaning of “adiabatic”). Rayleigh-Bernard circulation depends on energy gain in a fluid in a gravity field at a lower point than energy is lost.

                iii) The atmosphere is cooled perfectly satisfactorily by the ground when the air in descending columns falls until it comes into contact with an unilluminated surface exposed to the night sky. The cold surface pulls heat from the air in contact with it very effectively and if the air is constantly being replenished by continuing descent then the cold surface continues to draw energy from that newly fallen air.
                No, that is not what empirical experiment and CFD shows.
                http://i58.tinypic.com/mww6s3.jpg

                iv) If there are no radiative gases then the surface radiates to space at 255k as observed.
                This has never been “observed”. If the oceans were at 255K, they couldn’t radiate LWIR at 240 w/m2 as H2O only has a hemispherical LWIR emissivity of 0.69.

                Stephen, there is a simple reason all strong vertical circulation in our atmosphere ceases at the tropopause. That is the point the atmosphere can no longer support H2O in any of its three phases. That is the point where the atmosphere loses its radiative cooling ability. That is where the atmosphere loses the “cold side” needed to drive Rayleigh-Bernard circulation.

                Here’s a basic rule of thumb: “If the figures 255k or 33k have any mention in your climate modelling, there is a 99.999% chance you have it wrong”. – Konrad

                014

              • #

                Konrad,

                I think we must agree to disagree but I need to make some final points:

                i) I agree that for an ocean planet S-B cannot apply. That is why in one of my articles I aver that the oceans should be regarded as contributors to the overall greenhouse effect (thus my Hot Water Bottle Effect) but in the end the ocean heat content is also determined by the weight of air pressing down on the surface so we are back to just atmospheric mass, gravity and insolation. The S-B number relates to a bare surface with no atmosphere and no oceans. The 288K number is what we see after adding our atmosphere and our oceans.

                ii) The cooling in ascent and heating in descent is not irrelevant even though it is a zero sum game. In reality, a surface is NOT more effective at conductively heating an atmosphere than conductively cooling it as witness the speed at which a radiatively cooling surface will suck heat out of the air above it. Descent ensures a continuing flow of new air to the cold ground which extracts the heat from descending air exactly as fast as the rising air takes heat from the ground elsewhere. They must be equal or you cannot have an atmosphere in hydrostatic balance.
                Thus there is total energy ‘worth’ 33k constantly cycling up and down via conduction within the convective overturning cycle. That 33k cannot escape to space whilst engaged in supporting the weight of the atmosphere but it does add 33k to the surface temperature over and above the S-B calculation. I have submitted a detailed desacription as to how that works to Joanna but she has yet to publish it.

                iii) Then you cannot have a hydrostatically supported atmosphere yet there it is.

                iv) Taking the Earth as a whole 255k radiates to space even though we have oceans and atmosphere. The surface needs to average 288k to be able to get 255K of radiation past oceans and atmosphere. The radiative capabilities of both land and water surfaces do indeed differ but they average 288k.

                The tropopause is caused by ozone warmimg in the stratosphere which creates a temperature inversion that blocks further uplift.If there were a continuing decline in temperature with height then convection would go higher and take frozen or supercooled water with it.

                011

              • #

                Konrad said:

                “No, that is not what empirical experiment and CFD shows.
                http://i58.tinypic.com/mww6s3.jpg

                I see that there is no provision there for the surface at the base to cool radiatively to space. Thus the surface never gets cold enough to suck energy out of the descending column as fast as energy is conducted into the base of the ascending column.

                The real world with the night side able to radiate directly to space past the mass of the atmosphere is a different scenario entirely. In that case the unilluminated ground can get very cold and draw enough energy from descending air to match the energy put into the air on the illuminated side.

                010

              • #

                Strange how many red thumbs have been provoked by such a simple and clear exposition. Has someone worked out how to abuse the system ?

                16

            • #
              richard verney

              The key to understanding our climate is to understand the oceans. We live on a water world and the heat capacity of the oceans dominates, and the oceans act as a heat pump circulating energy around the planet both via oceanic currents, and by powering atmospheric weather patterns.

              A point I have repeatedly made at WUWT is that we are very lucky that the absorption characteristics of solar ER in water is very different to the absorption of LWIR in water.

              If solar was absorbed in the same way as DWLWIR, the oceans would have boiled off long ago. It is precisely becasuse solar is absorbed at depth and the energy diluted and dissippated by volume that the oceans gently warm/stay warm.

              Your illustration of where the energy is concentrated in the top 30mm illustrates the issue. The warmer this layer is, the more it promotes evaporation (from the top microns) which in turn leads to cooling of the very top layer of the oceans, and prevents the oceans from warming especially since ocen overturning and the action of wind/swell are slow mechanical processes, and when wind is strong this too promotes evaporation thereby removing energy into the atmosphere, and keeping the very top layer of the ocean cool

              One can only effectively heat the oceans if energy is absorbed at depth and diluted/dissipated by the great volume which occurs at that depth.

              PS. On a number of occassions I have reviewed your experiments, although I have not sought to replicate them.

              PPS You should not stop commenting upon WUWT. The people on that site have a wide range of views although you are right that Willis and Moncton are luke warmers, but I can respect that even if I consider that they ought to be a little more sceptical.

              310

            • #
              mark

              Any kid that has jumped into a turkey nest dam can confirm this experiment. Clay white water, stratified, top couple of inches warmed but the lower layers are freezing!…in the middle of western Queensland summers, very refreshing!

              20

        • #
          bobl

          What you say is demonstrably true, Some of that “Basic Physics” the warmies constantly carry on about demonstrates that our globe is only selectively reflective, for example the oceans reflect blue light more than red and the land reflects green and red.

          Take two surfaces, both red, shine an intense red light on one and a blue light of equal power on the other, measure their temperature and the one illuminated by the blue light will be hotter.

          I take it that it’s more Svalgaard that warps WUWT science Svalgaard is of the opinion that all watts are born equal. While trivially it’s true in physics, as soon as you interpose chemistry, that changes. We know for example that low level temperature inversion causes convective cooling to stall and makes it hot and oppressive on the surface. More upper level Solar UV could lower the height of the inversion layer (the tropopause) creating more frequent lower level inversions and therefore hotter weather (on average). Same thing with these particle charges, the scientists all make simplification that the energy exchange (lightning) is between the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. Well where does it go from there, the ionosphere can’t keep gaining charge relative to the surface forever. So there has to be a dissipative flow somewhere, which results in heating!.

          Engineers know this intuitively because lossless systems just don’t exist – there are ALWAYS LOSSES. One of the basic inferences of the klimatariat is IR Out = Insolation in, and Hansen reckons it’s true to within 1/2 a watt with around 99.83% conserved and wonders where the other 1/5 of one percent went and claims it’s heating the earth uncontrollably – that’s extraordinary. For an Engineer to expect any system natural or otherwise to be 100% conservative is unrealistic (impossible) and I wouldn’t be satisfied unless I could show about a 5% loss minimum. The fact that the balance is 99.83% conservative actually demonstrates that the balance is a coincidence. The result of energy transfers to and from heat and other forms (like electrical, EM, chemical, potential,Entropy etc).

          The real situation (from an Engineers point of view) is:

          IR(Out) = Insolation(In) + NonRadiativeGains – NonRadiativeLosses.

          Until you know NonRadiativeGains, and NonRadiativeLosses (all of them) that are at least 3 orders of magnitude below the result of this energy balance ( energy sources and sinks of 1mW per square metre or greater ), you actually know NOTHING ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT AT ALL. For all you know it’s all leaked away in other energy forms. For example, Photosynthesis doesn’t just sequester CO2 – it sequesters ENERGY turning some solar photons into chemical bonds it fits in the Non Radiative Loss column.

          149

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Trump’s election has already opened the eyes of scientists at NASA and academic institutions to reality!

      58

  • #
    john karajas

    It must be CO2-generated solar wind.

    58

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    Off thread, sorry. Latest Delingpole podcast with Tim Ball. Brilliant. Excellent stuff about Maurice Strong.

    72

    • #
      Turtle of WA

      He mentions his work with Malcolm Roberts in Australia, too.

      32

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Turtle.
      That was fascinating. His comment on the Maldives and Tuvulu and the importance of their vote (each equal to China’s in the UN) to the Maurice Strong control of IPCC was something I suspected, but hadn’t seen expressed anywhere else.
      His giving Senator Roberts global recognition for the role he’s playing in the “emperical evidence” challenge is welcome.
      Well worh the 54 mins listening.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      40

    • #
      Annie

      What I heard was very good but unfortunately the sound quality became very bad after a while and unlistenable in the end. I’ll try again when I have time.

      10

  • #
    James Dellingpole

    Where’s the notch? We want you to pick up you Nobel. Come on, give it to us. It is so boring when you try to play journalist. We have Breitbart for that. Science and Nature papers now! Pick up the Nobel!

    [Sock puppet. Pick a different name - Jo]

    434

  • #
    rapscallion

    “Despite climate models being sure that the Sun has hardly any effect”

    Are these guys jumping the shark or what? Even the most fundamental courses on meteorology base the entire subject on just three basics.
    The Sun (which heats the land and sea), The winds (caused by temperature/pressure differences) and the coriolis effect. Remove the Sun and there is NO Weather.

    100

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      The questions are about how changes in solar output might bring changes to Earth’s climate(s).
      No one disputes the existence of the Sun.

      70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Some forty years ago (struth!) I was a member of a team, researching and mapping variations in the height and density of the ionosphere, over land and water.

      There was never any doubt, at that time, that the atmosphere was highly sensitive to variations in solar output, which rises and falls in an approximate eleven-year cycle. The frequency of sunspots also follows an eleven-year cycle, but is slightly out of phase with the ionosphere. It was obvious then, that both of these cyclic phenomena have a direct correlation with terrestrial weather, and another group were researching possible candidates for causation.

      A third team were researching the Earths magnetic field (that shields us from cosmic radiation), and how that might be affected by solar variation.

      That research had been going on for some time, when I joined the team, and continued after I left. While I was there, nobody mentioned CO2, except in relation to fire extinguishers.

      122

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Rereke Whakaaro.

        “cyclic phenomena have a direct correlation with terrestrial weather”

        References in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

        92

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          We weren’t researching and writing a scientific paper (which few would read), we were researching, and providing input to, an Engineering Reference Book called, “Reference Data for Radio Engineers”, sponsored and published by the ITT. It was definitely peer reviewed, because sufficient copies were sold of our edition, to require several reprints. I presume that it has been superceded, because a) it was a long time ago, and b) the technology has moved on; considerably.

          The point I was making in my previous comment is that, we were directly monitoring and measuring changes to the height and density of the ionosphere, and other layers in the Earth’s atmosphere, in regard to how they effected radio communications. What I didn’t mention in my previous comment, because I thought it was patently obvious, was that viewing the “atmosphere” as a whole, as climate science does, is incorrect. The atmosphere consists of multiple layers, some of which are electrically charged (think thunderstorms), and others are not. Layers have different weather phenomina exist at different altitudes – look up “wind shear”, behave differently under different circumstances – think inversion layers. Engineers and Applied Scientists know this, and work with it every day. It is only the theoretical climate scientists who think we have “one atmosphere”. I guess it simplifies the computer models they use. But it doesn’t prove that their conclusions are right.

          Right now, we appear to be close to a cusp between the last solar cycle, and the next. We can therefore expect the mean global temperatures to decrease somewhat, over the next four or five years. If that is correct, what will you and Mr Appell do? You are in print, on the way-back machine, for being solar cycle deniers.

          68

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Rereke Whakaaro.

            I will take that as no reference in the scientific literature.

            “It is only the theoretical climate scientists who think we have “one atmosphere””

            A reference for that claim? Personally I have seen data from climate researchers on the troposphere and the stratosphere, that includes the prediction the stratosphere will cool as greenhouse gases increase. Above that there is no weather, so it is reasonable that it is not included. But I could be wrong that they don’t include layers above the stratosphere (eg the TOA).

            “If that is correct, what will you and Mr Appell do?”

            A rhetorical question. I can also say what will you do if the Global Mean Temperature continues to increase over the next four to five years? Personally I fear nothing from any Wayback machine as all my discussion have been in good faith. The people who have willfully deceived on the other hand will have a lot to worry about.

            137

        • #

          Harry Twinotter

          References in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

          The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

          This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 degree C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed.

          Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
          Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
          .
          .
          Solar wind-driven geopotential height anomalies originate in the Antarctic lower troposphere

          This supports a mechanism involving the action of the global atmospheric electric circuit, modified by variations in the solar wind, on lower tropospheric clouds.

          Geophysical Research Letters
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061421/abstract
          .
          .
          Clouds blown by the solar wind

          Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC.

          Environmental Research Letters
          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032

          111

  • #
    ren

    Abstract
    It has been suggested that the Sun may evolve into a period of lower activity over the 21st century. This study examines the potential climate impacts of the onset of an extreme “Maunder Minimum‐like” grand solar minimum using a comprehensive global climate model. Over the second half of the 21st century, the scenario assumes a decrease in total solar irradiance of 0.12% compared to a reference Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 experiment. The decrease in solar irradiance cools the stratopause (∼1 hPa) in the annual and global mean by 1.2 K. The impact on global mean near‐surface temperature is small (∼−0.1 K), but larger changes in regional climate occur during the stratospheric dynamically active seasons. In Northern Hemisphere wintertime, there is a weakening of the stratospheric westerly jet by up to ∼3–4 m s−1, with the largest changes occurring in January–February. This is accompanied by a deepening of the Aleutian Low at the surface and an increase in blocking over Northern Europe and the North Pacific. There is also an equatorward shift in the Southern Hemisphere midlatitude eddy‐driven jet in austral spring. The occurrence of an amplified regional response during winter and spring suggests a contribution from a top‐down pathway for solar‐climate coupling; this is tested using an experiment in which ultraviolet (200–320 nm) radiation is decreased in isolation of other changes. The results show that a large decline in solar activity over the 21st century could have important impacts on the stratosphere and regional surface climate.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758621/
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.png
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
    http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/DailySummary/GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_T2_anom.png

    72

    • #
      ren

      “This is accompanied by a deepening of the Aleutian Low at the surface and an increase in blocking over Northern Europe and the North Pacific.”

      50

      • #
        ren

        Space weather arises as a result of various dynamic, but relatively short-lived, phenomena produced by the Sun, which are carried in the solar wind and which may interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere (see our on-line glossary for other common terms). Long-term changes, that is, changes over decades to centuries, also occur in the near-Earth space environment. These changes are due to long period variations in solar magnetic activity and in variations in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. However, for the most part we are concerned only with those space weather ‘events’ that happen on time scales of minutes to a few days. The implications of long-term variations in the Sun’s magnetic field, for example on possible connections with climate change, is still being actively discussed by scientists.
        http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/research/space_weather/spweather.html

        51

  • #
    Cynical Seamus

    Last few paras: “GOLD’s position 22,000 miles above . .” 220?

    30

  • #
    Martin

    Interesting, might have a effect on cloud formation like also the galactic cosmic rays.
    https://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud

    42

  • #
    Raven

    “Overcooling causes the atmosphere to quickly shed energy from the geomagnetic storm much quicker than anticipated,” said Knipp. “It’s like the thermostat for the upper atmosphere got stuck on the ‘cool’ setting.”

    Call me suspicious but this “Overcooling” will dovetail very nicely into the narrative should the planet be heading into a La Nina cooling phase.
    Of course, this “Overcooling” has no bearing on the underlying warming trend due to increased CO2 . . .

    82

    • #
      John Smith

      That’s the thing I’ve never been able to get straight about this climate change thing.
      I know we’re supposed to panic if it warms 2C.
      What do we do if it cools?

      Kidding.
      Up, down, sideways, the Overlords will demand panic.

      102

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Overheating? Overcooling?

    How about overloaded?

    And that’s a whole lot of whatever it is going on to dismiss with a statement like,

    It’s all very poorly understood, but the big climate models are 95% certain it has no effect at all.

    Shouldn’t that be 97% ???

    A long time ago when I was listening to early CD players (1983) the salesman told me some good advice about audio equipment and specs. He said, “Regardless of the specs, if you can’t hear it, it ain’t there.” And that advice saved me from spending more money than it took to please my ears instead of playing specmanship games.

    Now it appears to me that I can’t hear (see, feel, hear) any of this whatever it is going on. And according to that good advice from an audio gear salesman, if you can’t hear it, it ain’t there — one more time.

    I suppose this will be argued for a long time until all but the most diehard are exhausted. But what does it actually mean to we poor surface dwellers? Apparently not much. Maybe nothing since it must have been going on for the whole history of this planet and we never noticed it affecting our lives in any identifiable way.

    It is interesting that for as long as NASA has been in the climate and space businesses they haven’t reconciled the models with the reality. But then, it’s only NASA, so what do you expect? They can do the moon but not the Earth. Go figure.

    I wonder if the current political winds can convince NASA to do a little introspection for a change.

    112

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I suppose I should say it instead of implying it, just in case it wasn’t so obvious. spec = models in the comment above.

      110

      • #
        David Maddison

        Except that all audio equipment works no matter what the spec, even the cheapest models produce acceptable results which is more than can be said for any climate “model” in existence.

        61

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          David

          You’re certainly right in general about audio equipment. But I have had it proven to my satisfaction that you can or at least could at that time hear the difference between cheap CD players and better ones, both played through the same system with the same material and the volume equalized. I suspect the audible difference was in the frequency response of the analog section in the cheaper player. If the digital front end is handled at all it’s handled perfectly and you never hear the slightest artifact from disk read errors, they’re simply reconstructed and it goes right on without your ever being aware of any problem. And in spite of all the early “misunderstanding” (and I’m being charitable to the doubters) of how digital recording worked, that was always the case. I only had one disk that was so bad the player muted over a bad data block.

          10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Sounds like NASA is catching up with Piers Corbyn and the solar effects on weather and climate.
    http://www.weatheraction.com/

    92

  • #

    The gradient of temperature from surface to space is set by gravity, atmospheric mass and insolation from space. Gravity and mass set up the density gradient with height and it is that density gradient that determines how much, and how high, energy conducted from the surface can travel up the vertical column via conduction. Radiation within the atmosphere is therefore a consequence of the conductively induced thermal gradient and not a cause of it though radiation can cause distortions of the density gradient within the column but that simply gets corrected by convective changes.
    The lapse rate (fall in temperature with height) is the observed manifestation of that gradient and it varies greatly between surface and space because the different characterisatics of the various atmospheric layers distort it one way or another.
    If the atmosphere is to be retained in the long term the average actual lapse rate from surface to space must match the ‘ideal’ lapse rate set by mass, gravity and insolation.
    All upward or downward thermal waves are simply the various actual lapse rate slopes jostling amongst themselves (via convection) to maintain the ‘ideal’ average lapse rate slope.
    Convection varies as a complete negative system response whenever lapse trate slopes diverge from the ideal such that the convective changes neutralise radiative imbalances to keep the atmosphere forever in hydrostatic equilibrium.

    See here:

    http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

    “Radiative equilibrium profile could be unstable;
    convection restores it to stability (or neutrality)”

    Therefore radiative characteristics of atmospheres are prevented from altering surface temperatures.
    Only changes in gravity, mass or insolation can affect surface temperatures.

    1014

    • #
      Mike

      I have my own gamma spectrometry kit and a lead testing chamber to attenuate background radiation that i originally started using to test for Fukushima fallout into our food chain and so on because i wanted to see for myself and learn more and yes, when there was an increase in Berylium 7 and isotope of berylium it was always associated with a CME and it was picked up by various people including myself by testing rain water on more than one occasion.

      My own theory from some very loose observation tended to confirm that when a coronal mass ejection (CME) colides with the earth, we get an increase in rain, probably because the resultant material in the form of particles allow for droplets of water to grow around them that then form/seed more clouds.

      “Detected Be-7, Pb-210, and U-235 in local rain”

      http://www.gammaspectacular.com/index.php?route=forum/post&path=268
      And
      http://www.gammaspectacular.com/index.php?route=forum/post&path=1339

      51

      • #
        Mike

        Well…not exactly my own theory, but one that is seemingly confirmed in my capacity which may be scant.

        “A Danish group that has reproduced the Earth’s atmosphere in the laboratory has shown how clouds might be seeded by incoming cosmic rays. The team believes that the research provides evidence that fluctuations in the cosmic-ray flux caused by changes in solar activity could play a role in climate change. Other climate researchers, however, remain sceptical of the link between cosmic rays and climate.”
        http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/09/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation

        50

        • #

          Mike,
          It does look as though cosmic rays are influencing cloudiness but one can say that about a number of solar parameters that all vary in parallel with the level of solar activity.
          To choose which parameter is really having the observed effect then one needs a mechanism. I don’t agree with Svensmark’s suggestion about condensation nuclei because there are plenty of them in any event and the random nature of such cloud creation does not fit the observed patterns of cloudiness changes within the circulation system. We can see that clouds increase when there are longer lines of air mass mixing during periods of more wavy (meridional) jet stream tracks.
          Instead I suggest that one needs a way of getting solar changes to alter jet stream behaviour (and thus total global cloudiness)
          The way to do that is to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
          Only my proposed ozone mechanism can provide that outcome.

          411

          • #
            Mike

            Thanks for taking the time to reply Steven.
            The idea that there already plenty of particles for precipitation to form around seems sound to me. Very sound indeed.

            “I don’t agree with Svensmark’s suggestion about condensation nuclei because there are plenty of them in any event….”

            27

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Stephen,

      In your New Climaate Model there is an atmospheric refrigeration cycle which cools the surface of the earth. To the extent that green house gases have any effect on this refrigerator, they act to cool the atmosphere and hence the surface.

      The observed lapse rate is somewhat less on average than the DALR (approx 7C/km compared with 9.8C/km). Is the lapse rate affected by the presence of green house gases, including water?

      101

      • #

        Hi Peter,

        I don’t recall referring to an atmospheric refrigeration cycle.
        GHGs have a net zero effect, neither warming nor cooling because convection adjusts to neutralise their effects.

        I analysed the effect of condensing and non condensing GHGs on lapse rate slopes here:

        http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/

        412

        • #
          AndyG55


          “GHGs have a net zero effect, neither warming nor cooling because convection adjusts to neutralise their effects.”

          YIPPEEEEEEEE.. someone figures it out !! :-)

          Hi Stephen, Love your work :-)

          413

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks Stephan.

          I don’t recall referring to an atmospheric refrigeration cycle.
          GHGs have a net zero effect, neither warming nor cooling because convection adjusts to neutralise their effects.

          No you did not refer to a refrigeration cycle. That was my interpretation.

          I refer however to your diagram (Figure 3) called Non Condensing Green House Gas (eg CO2)

          Ascending air cools less than the DALR because “cooling is slowed by radiation from the surface” until it reaches a level called hydrostatic balance. Above this level the rising air is warmer than it should be (by DALR) because of radiative gas. The air then radiates more to space than would be the case without radiative gas.

          Then on the way down, “warming is slowed by radiation to space” until the the hydrostatic level (liberating even more radiation to space). After that the the air is cooler than it should be but “warming is accelerated by radiation from the surface” (surface transfers more energy to the air). The air arrives back at the surface cooler than it left. That cools the surface!

          Also there is a big difference in temperature between the ascending air and the descending air (at the equivalent altitudes) which is a refrigeration cycle acting on the atmosphere..

          40

          • #

            Ah, I see.

            However the air leaving the surface beneath rising columns is warmer than it otherwise would be so that offsets the air beneath descending columns being colder than it otherwise would be.
            Thus zero net effect.

            313

  • #
    • #
      Mike

      I should have seen this post first before posting my last..oops.
      ” The Sun —-> UV or charged particles —- > ozone —-> polar jet streams —–> clouds —–> surface temperatures.

      Stephen Wilde put forward the first version of this hypothesis in 2010. It is long past time to get into those details.”

      47

      • #
        Mike

        In saying that, the beings on other planets who are observing us may be confused and wondering…….they are destroying all their forests and they are clearly destroying all of their scant habitat containing what little biodiversity that is left there and the process is clearly speeding up, and in spite of this, all they are doing about it is talking or arguing the weather….

        23

  • #
    Schrodinger's Cat

    This concerns the same topic with a slightly different slant. Knipp claims that nitric oxide forms which causes the atmosphere to shrink and shed energy. The article does not explain how it does this.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-discover-natural-thermostat-that-cools-the-air-in-earths-atmosphere-after-solar-storms/

    Nitric oxide can readily oxidise to the dioxide then be split by sunlight, releasing oxygen to form ozone. The ozone is a GHG and can aid cooling by radiation. It also absorbs the high energy UV.

    The upper layers of the atmosphere provide a reaction vessel in which we have extremely high energy particles and plasma, protons and electrons, high energy UV, reactive chemicals, photocatalysis, high temperatures,strong magnetic and electric fields and atmospheric gases. This is such a unique witch’s brew that reactions might take place that we would normally not consider to be relevant.

    It just needs, for example, the production of aerosols or cloud seeding species to make a significant change to earth’s albedo. I’m convinced that this is an area of solar – earth interaction that very poorly understood.

    61

    • #
      tom0mason

      Schrodinger’s Cat,

      “It just needs, for example, the production of aerosols or cloud seeding species to make a significant change to earth’s albedo. I’m convinced that this is an area of solar – earth interaction that very poorly understood.”

      Maybe some cosmic dust? [LINK]
      Those tiny particles of solid material floating around in the space between the stars. It is composed of smoke-like small particles varying from collections of just a few molecules to grains of 0.1 mm in size.

      Other specific dust properties:

      In circumstellar dust, astronomers have found molecular signatures of CO, silicon carbide, amorphous silicate, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, water ice, and polyformaldehyde, among others (in the diffuse interstellar medium, there is evidence for silicate and carbon grains).
      Cometary dust is generally different (with overlap) from asteroidal dust. Asteroidal dust resembles carbonaceous chondritic meteorites. Cometary dust resembles interstellar grains which can include silicates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and water ice.

      Estimates of the daily influx of extraterrestrial material entering the Earth’s atmosphere range between 5 and 300 tonnes of the stuff raining down on the Earth daily or nearly 2,000 to over 100,000 tons per year. Are exact daily estimates known? Maybe it varies much more periodically, and our solar system has not (re)entered that part of the universe recently.
      Consensus science says that these particles (apparently) have no great effect on our atmosphere, weather, or climate.

      52

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    The ionosphere is very tenuous, so it’s not surprising it’s largely ignored. However, it’s quite thick, much of the time, so it’s unlikely for photons to pass through it without interaction. Odds are, they’ll hit something. I often wonder if it doesn’t act like the grid in a vacuum tube.

    80

  • #
    tom0mason

    They may be able to answers many of those niggling questions that have been left unanswered for so long.
    Back in 1998 Dr. Sten Odenwald voiced a few of these –
    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/workbook/storms.html

    41

  • #
    James Murphy

    It’s about time that someone kept an ion the solar wind.

    170

  • #
  • #
    John in Oz

    It’s so difficult to keep up with all of the new discoveries in ‘settled’ science.

    92

    • #

      Wouldn’t you think, Horatio,
      those cli-scientists would show
      ‘more-things-in-heaven-and earth’-humility
      regarding Naychur’s interacting complexity?
      - But no, there’s 97 percent certainty,
      … a consensus that makes nonsenssus,
      considering all the things they do not’know.’

      30

  • #
    • #
      el gordo

      More low cloud cover.

      Australia is taking a bucketing even as La Nina and the IOD remain neutral, simply amazing.

      11

  • #

    This could be the mechanism for Davids notch theory. I have long suspected that there is a trade off with UV and EUV over the solar cycle that’s masks any 11 year cycle in the climate record.

    Perhaps as David has theorised we need to look at cumulative effects over longer time periods.

    My thoughts are UV, EUV along with ozone play a major role in the creation of more low pressure systems at the higher latitudes, that in turn bend the jet streams, but this is probably a secondary system quite different from “the notch”

    39

  • #
    el gordo

    Watts is running the story and has a great pic of a CME.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/earth-sun-scale.jpg

    52

  • #
    David Maddison

    There is a lot of stuff going on in the upper atmosphere that has only relatively recently been discovered. I wrote an article on some of this that appeared in April 2016, Silicon Chip.

    For an image showing some of the phenomenon such as sprites, elves and blue jets see, for example, https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/capital-weather-gang/201209/images/lightning_sprites.jpg

    Also there is the “global electric circuit” with a typical current averaged over the whole planet of around 1800A at 280kV running between the upper atmosphere and the surface.

    All these things may have unknown influences on the climate.

    64

    • #
      tom0mason

      David Maddison

      Also known from the very start of long range telephone links, at the beginning 20th century, was the influence of solar cycles and solar flares on induced currents disturbing the telephone system.
      The strangest of these is the enormous currents encountered propagating through buried (and under sea) ground conductor wiring. e.g. cabling with earthed/grounded conductor (correctly bonded to ground connection both ends) was found to have 100s sometimes thousands of amps flowing through it, with arching causing operational problems. These cables appeared to be affected by N/S or E/W geographical orientation as well as the solar activity. Sometimes the induced currents were useful with operators reporting the use these long distant links without the batteries connected!
      AT&T and all major national and international telephone companies have, at sometime, investigated the problem, however finding the documentation specific to this subject has proved difficult. I used to have an original print of a document on this subject from Cable & Wireless (IIRC) from about 1968-69, unfortunately it is now long lost.

      70

    • #
      tom0mason

      David Maddison,

      You may be interested to see this http://slideplayer.com/slide/5895493/

      From slide 39 onward is sprites, elves, and blue jets

      30

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Thank you, JoNova, for posting this abrupt back-tracking by NASA and climatologists before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

    Here is the message sent to President-elect Donald J. Trump with a hyperlink to another peer-reviewed paper on NEUTRON REPULSION that will be published before Trump’s inauguration:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/20161215_Message_to_Donald_Trump.pdf

    Empirical evidence for NEUTRON REPULSION is indelible recorded in exact rest masses of the ~3,000 types of atoms that comprise all matter and will remain as indelible empirical evidence of continued fraudulent government science if President Trump’s Science Advisor and DOE’s Energy Secretary fail to hold government scientists responsible.

    Indelible evidence of the force of creation and destruction of atoms might be viewed by some as additional scientific evidence of God:

    http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42042/20160613/world-renowned-scientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm

    The Sun’s pulsar core is also the source of high energy cosmic rays that produce electrically charged clouds, lightening and thunder.

    210

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “Despite climate models being sure that the Sun has hardly any effect,”

    No, the climate models do take into account solar insolation. Without solar insolation the models would show no warming, and the Global Mean Temperature would be around 3K.

    What the climate models do show is the global warming cannot be explained by changes in solar insolation. There is some effect, and it is small.

    1416

    • #
      Mark M

      Hola Harry.
      “The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012.
      And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.”

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak
      . . .
      A climate doomsday would be more convincing if you could highlight which models you are referring to.

      85

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Mark M.

        I am not sure what you are getting at, no one said any model projection will get the global mean temperature exactly right. The models give a spread of possible trajectories.

        From the article you referenced:

        “Over longer periods, the climate models seem to be more accurate. From 1951 to 2012, “simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend,” the IPCC researchers said.”

        94

        • #
          tom0mason

          Harry,

          The problem is that the models are never correct unless ‘tuned’ for a task, and then they take 100s if not many thousands of iterations of ‘tweaking’ runs to get a good result. Sadly it will only stay in step with observations for about 2 years or so.

          Dr Curry who has expressed that as a tool for science they could be useful, as a mechanism for (predicting)projecting the future (or more damning the past) they are useless.

          From Dr. Curry’s Executive Summary of her report to a group of attorneys:
          “Key summary points:

          ▪ GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation procedures that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

          ▪ There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex
          nonlinear climate system.

          ▪ There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming.

          ▪ There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

          ▪ The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the IPCC do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

          Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCM climate models are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.”

          Apart from that I’m sure they are fun to play with, just like any big, expensive games machine.

          25

          • #
            AndyG55

            And let’s not forget.

            If a model hind-casts to GISS or HadCrut.. that model is INTRINSICALLY WRONG.

            It is hind-casting to data that has been thoroughly manipulated to CREATE a warming trend, get rid of the 1940′s peak etc

            With this in-build fabricated warming, the model doesn’t have a chance in anywhere of getting any “projection” remotely correct.

            Its GI-GO right from the start.

            513

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            tom0mason.

            Yet the Global Mean Temperature continues to increase, as projected by the climate models.

            95

            • #

              No you are wrong Harry,since the IPCC gave a range of PER DECADE trend projections from 1990 Report,

              Based on current model results, we predict:

              under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)emissions of greenhouse gases,a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 02°C to 05°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century

              The actual per decade warming trend since 1990 is well below the minimum MODELLED rate,that it is safe to say that the AGW conjecture is not supportable.

              314

            • #
              AndyG55

              No it doesn’t

              The ONLY warming has come from El Nino EVENTS which have caused fractional degrees of warming, and REGIONAL variability due to the NATURAL ocean oscillations

              This FACT can be clearly seen by looking at periods between those events, and at places that are unaffected the underlying trend

              In those periods and places .. THERE IS NO WARMING

              There NO CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite temperature record.

              314

            • #
              AndyG55

              The is no “GLOBAL ” warming.

              There is regional warming and cyclic warming, both driven by series of the strongest solar cycles in over 400+ years that occurred in the latter half of last century. The FOUR strongest solar cycles ever recorded occurred during that period..

              These regional and cyclic effects feed into the so-called, but meaningless, “global” average.

              212

            • #
              tom0mason

              Harry,

              “Yet the Global Mean Temperature continues to increase, as projected by the climate models.”

              1. This year’s warmth, like last year is due to the El Nino something NOT programmed it to the climate models.

              2. Which climate model? Which of the many thousand iterations per model was the luck one?
              Last time I looked more that 88% of them were wrong in either direction, or timing, or amount, or any combination of them, for the alleged warming to date. 100% of them have been shown to be wrong with past predictions (10 and 20 years ago) for the current imagined ‘global’ temperature*.

              Please feel obliged to correct me on the figures with reference links.

              * Note there is no such thing as a global temperature, it is a number based on a highly mobile hypothesis of settled’ seance.

              19

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                tom0mason.

                Figure 2.1e page 55

                http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2015/2015_bams_eee_low_res.pdf

                No, the models do not project individual ENSO events, I would be impressed if they did. But the ENSO events are not long-lived and tend to cancel out.

                If you have a list of the climate models that you think are “wrong”, please list some so we can have a look.

                If you think a Global Mean Temperature cannot be estimated, do not let the staff take your temperature next time you go to the doctor or hospital.

                110

              • #
                AndyG55

                “If you have a list of the climate models that you think are “CORRECT”, please list some so we can have a look.”

                That will be hilarious, and a very short list.

                012

    • #
      Bulldust

      You were almost there… just needed a full stop earlier:

      What the climate models do show is the global warming cannot be explained.

      94

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Why are you so touchy about a particular phrasing of Jo’s. She might has said it economically to save on text, or simply tongue in cheek.

      Can’t you just read the article, read the replies and add to the conversation?

      62

    • #
      Konrad

      “the climate models do take into account solar insolation”
      No, they do not take proper account of how the sun heats the surface of our planet. None of the models properly account for solar penetration of the oceans. They all effectively treat the oceans as opaque to sunlight. This fundamental mistake has was made by Fourier in 1824, and all of climastrology has his error as its foundation.

      Here are five simple rules that you can easily confirm via empirical experiment:
      http://i59.tinypic.com/10pdqur.jpg
      Anyone claiming “255K for average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” has provably ignored this most basic physics.

      613

  • #
    Bulldust

    In case you thought the US election drama was over, think again. Unlike Australia where the ballot has the final say, in the US elected representatives form the so called “electoral college” to vote who becomes president.

    It is highly unusual for the member of the electoral college not to vote along the lines determined in their individual states (i.e. if Texas went for the Republican candidate, the Texas electoral college members are expected to vote that way), but not unprecedented. Desperate lefties are therefore trying to subvert the will of the people and encouraging Republican electoral college representatives to flip or abstain. Add to the mix a bunch of celebrities who still don’t get the fact that we don’t care what they think:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/celebrities-urge-electoral-college-to-dump-trump/8124722

    And the left lambasted Trump for suggesting he would question the outcome of the election. Their outrageous hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    In the unimaginable situation where enough flipped to reject Trump, can you even begin to imagine the fallout?

    62

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    The models are based upon CO2 science that is 30 years out of date. Latest knowledge tells us that the sun’s radiation cycles have to be considered in their effect upon the earth’s climate . . . IPCC,none so blind . .
    GeoffW

    44

    • #
      tom0mason

      Geoffrey Williams,

      As the whole darn thing in based on the rambling of Svante Arrhenius [HERE], someone who initially did not know of modern EM radiative physics, or later understand it when shown to him. However he did understand that CO2 was very good for plants and therefore life in general on this planet, and voiced such an opinion.

      “Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth’s surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming” (from the Wikipedia entry link above).

      So this dumb idea has been kicking around for some considerable time.

      45

      • #
        Konrad

        Actually it pre-dates Arrhenius. In 1824 Fourier mistakenly calculated that the surface of our planet was hotter than it “should be” for an object at 1 AU from the sun. He did not properly account for the surface properties of the planet, then when on a fruitless search for what was making the surface hotter. He considered a physical atmospheric GHE, and even cosmic rays.

        But all the time the answer was within his grasp. A fellow scientist of the time de Saussure, had an empirical experiment that interested him. A black cork lined flask with multiple vertically separated panes of glass. When exposed to the sun, the air in each layer would heat, with the bottom layer hottest. Fourier wondered if the atmosphere could be acting in this way, but dismissed the idea as there was no barrier to convection like the glass layers in de Saussure’s flask. The flask experiment didn’t model an atmospheric GHE, but came very, very close to modelling how the sun heats the oceans.

        Fourier shouldn’t have been wondering what was making the surface warmer, but what was making it cooler. The answer to that is the conductive and evaporative cooling that only a radiatively cooled atmosphere can provide.

        611

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Thanks TomO, hence ‘the science is settled and all that . .’
        GeoffW

        27

  • #
    Ruairi

    As the solar winds blow fast and slow,
    They would vary Earth’s magnetic glow,
    Through the ionosphere,
    And by steps would appear,
    To change weather patterns below.

    50

  • #

    It is well known that NO created in the top levels of the atmosphere are transported down to the Mesosphere and Stratosphere where NO has a direct impact on ozone creation AND destruction.

    Interesting that Svalgaard fails to take this into consideration in the past and current discussions on this topic at WUWT?

    There are a lot of pioneers like Haige, Baldwin, Lockwood etc that were all over this as far back as the 90′s where they postulated the effect of ozone distribution and climate.

    I have a reference page (2010) that has a lot of links and discussion on the topic for those interested.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/128

    27

    • #

      Svalgaard is completely blind to any non TSI thermal effects on the atmosphere.
      Haigh et al got close and first found that the solar effect on ozone reversed above 45km and towards the poles. They failed to see the practical implications of that.
      Thus far I am the only person to create a hypothesis that accommodates that reverse sign effect in a way that accounts for observed climate shifting.

      310

      • #

        It takes real data and a peer reviewed paper to claim any discovery of sorts.

        Sadly that is lacking, and we are just a few who have postulated.

        64

        • #

          Unduly humble and pessimistic :)

          Wegener comes to mind.

          “Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift at the beginning of the 20th century. His idea was that the Earth’s continents were once joined together, but gradually moved apart over millions of years. It offered an explanation of the existence of similar fossils and rocks on continents that are far apart from each other. But it took a long time for the idea to become accepted by other scientists.”

          412

          • #

            I can claim the same with respect to my work on Uranus and Neptune. But I have real data and a paper published (still unchallenged) that can be falsifiable.

            Thought bubbles without data and peer review are just hand waving exercises, we all have our theory’s on how solar output can influence climate, but without data we are just muck….

            SW is no Robinson Crusoe ..

            143

  • #
    Raven

    Hi Tom0mason,

    Re: Svante Arrhenius from your Wiki link:

    . . He used his [Nobel Committee] positions to arrange prizes for his friends (Jacobus van’t Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev).

    Looks like gatekeeping has been kicking around for some considerable time too, eh . . ;)

    61

  • #
    Dennis

    I recall reading some years ago about plans to harness the solar winds to undertake space travel like the sailors of old explored Earth.

    30

  • #
    ianl8888

    O/T and not unexpected, but very depressing:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/12/16/billions-wasted-in-economy-sapping-energy-regulations/

    We really do have absolute Di…Heads seeking power. No choice at all. My view that mass civil disobedience in the shape of informal voting, repeated a few times, is the only thing which will change this still stands. I’m aware others disagree, but that view of “civic duty” has achieved only regression.

    It seems the US was lucky it had a Trump, as vulgar as he appears to be.

    21

    • #
      Dennis

      Political meddling from ministers bowing to green ideologues and enjoying the patronage of renewable businesses that can exist only on the back of political favours is forcing Australians to pay a high price. At the turn of the present century, reform had meant Australians enjoyed the cheapest electricity in the world. Even though other developed countries have become infected with the same green poison that is raising Australia’s prices, none have the same severity of sickness. American and French consumers now pay half our average of around 30 cents per kilowatt hour, even Japanese households, in a country with negligible domestic energy resources, have electricity cheaper than Australians.

      This week Eddie Obeid was jailed for misconduct in office but the costs of his crimes are chicken feed compared to those of the nation’s energy ministers.

      31

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…mass civil disobedience in the shape of informal voting, repeated a few times…’

      Hear Hear

      We could start up a Vote Informal Movement (VIM)

      21

  • #

    I have heard this also; a small force and a small acceleration, but given enough time one could reach high velocities and go a long way.

    An easy way to show this is to look at the current speed of Voyager One, which was launched on Sep05 1977, so 49 years ago.

    The average orbital speed around the Earth was the usual 17,500MPH.

    Voyager One, currently 20.625 Billion Kilometres from Earth (137.87AU) is currently travelling at around 30,000MPH.

    Source

    Tony.

    20

    • #
      Peter C

      Boldy going where no spacecraft has been before!

      Voyager 1 will be slowing down now due to the gravitational attraction of the sun. However it gained extra energy by slingshot trajectories near Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune and hence has more than enough energy to escape the solar system altogether, never to return.

      40

      • #
        Konrad

        Despite many claims that the “Pioneer anomaly” has been solved, a conclusive answer remains elusive. There may be more that the sun’s gravity slowing the Voyager probes.

        110

  • #
    RoHa

    “They call it “lightning” but say it can take hours, making it hard to visualize without a few beers.”

    That’s my idea of real science.

    50

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “Sounds to me like we’re getting a little bit closer to figuring out another mechanism whereby the sun can change the Earth’s climate through magnetic fields and solar winds.”

    The article does not mention climate at all. That’s not surprising, the effects in the thermosphere and ionosphere do not make it down into the troposphere where weather and climate happen.

    This is just another “anything but CO2″ post.

    126

    • #
      tom0mason

      NASA thinks the magnetic and electrical effects from space affect the climate.

      … to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.

      Regardless of the eventual connections to be established between the solid Earth and climate…

      also see http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/scientists-discover-new-mechanisms-space-events-effect-earths-climate.html

      01

    • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      “This is just another “anything but CO2″ post.”

      Science and REAL data show that IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT CO2

      There is absolutely no CO2 warming signal in any of the untampered temperature or sea level data. NONE.

      So YES.. It is NOT CO2.. so it must be something else that has caused the tiny amount of El Nino and ocean cycle warming during the last half century.

      A look at the solar cycles might give you a very good hint.

      315