Solar Wind And Clouds

[Minister Monardo]

Abstract
Irradiances from long‐lived stratus‐type clouds at Alert (Canada), Summit (Greenland), and South Pole, previously measured, show correlations with the day‐to‐day input to the global atmospheric electric circuit from the solar wind, as well as with the inputs of low‐ and mid‐latitude thunderstorms and shower clouds. We analyze the measured Alert cloud irradiances, and find differences in the responses to 2, 4, or more solar wind sectors per 27‐day solar rotation. We find seasonal variations in the correlations, with sign reversal in the summer. The correlation coefficients that were found previously for all‐year, all sector types show further increases for just winter months and in addition, for just 2‐sector intervals. At high magnetic latitudes the ionospheric potential correlates strongly with the solar wind sector structure, and determines the flow of current density (JZ) to the Earth's surface that passes through clouds and modifies space charge in them. Parameterizations of the potential distribution near the magnetic pole are used in the correlations. The daily average values depend mainly on the solar wind (interplanetary) magnetic field (IMF) BY component, with lesser influence of the solar wind speed and IMF BZ. Mechanisms by which space charge in clouds can affect cloud microphysics and cloud opacity are described and are qualitatively consistent with the correlations, but need quantitative testing.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

 

[Ophiolite]

This is basically confirming and adding some detail to what we already knew. Yes?

 

[Minister Monardo]

This is basically confirming and adding some detail to what we already knew. Yes?

This science has been ignored by climate change modeling, which uses a "solar constant", in their formulas, determined to prove climate change is overwhelmingly driven by man's activities.
As bad as pollution, tropical deforestation, etc.... are, the climate remains primarily under the influence
of solar forcing.
This is relevant because climate change modeling that minimizes solar effects receive the the lion's
share of research grant funding. I am still learning, so I am not trying to speak as an expert, but
what I have been learning about "space weather", leading into the latest solar cycle has been fascinating.
This decade will inevitably "prove out" much of the last decade's research and modeling predictions.
As my annoying ex wife used to say, "we'll see....."

 

[Ophiolite]

This science has been ignored by climate change modeling

This is not my understanding. I can't ask you to prove a negative, so I shall just have to find an example of climate modelling that takes account of external (of Earth) factors impacting on cloud formation. That will refute your assertion. Watch this space. (Or one lower down that isn't there yet.)

 

[Minister Monardo]

so I shall just have to find an example of climate modelling that takes account of external (of Earth) factors impacting on cloud formation.

I did not say that the modeling disregards external factors, but that they are considered as a "solar
constant" which disregards sharp variations that can occur during solar cycles.
From what I have seen, the climate change research in the last couple decades have kept to a single number that allows the emphasis in studies to be on man's impact on climate.
I found this article from 1975 that suggests that adjusting a solar constant to formulas to be relevant.
The Effects of Changing the Solar Constant on the Climate of a General Circulation Model in: Journal of Atmospheric Sciences Volume 32 Issue 11 (1975)

Beyond weather, worst case scenarios are that solar activity in this cycle will destroy the power grid,
so you can adjust your expectations from there, or not.

 

[sjastro]

This science has been ignored by climate change modeling, which uses a "solar constant", in their formulas, determined to prove climate change is overwhelmingly driven by man's activities.
As bad as pollution, tropical deforestation, etc.... are, the climate remains primarily under the influence
of solar forcing.
This is relevant because climate change modeling that minimizes solar effects receive the the lion's
share of research grant funding. I am still learning, so I am not trying to speak as an expert, but
what I have been learning about "space weather", leading into the latest solar cycle has been fascinating.
This decade will inevitably "prove out" much of the last decade's research and modeling predictions.
As my annoying ex wife used to say, "we'll see....."

Solar radiation is considered a variable not a constant in grid climate change models.

Furthermore solar activity versus climate data has been around for over a century.

An advantage with climate models is that they can be run backwards and compared with actual temperature measurements in the past.
This includes adjusting the amount of solar irradiance in the model to values the Earth received at the time.

​

 

[Minister Monardo]

An advantage with climate models is that they can be run backwards and compared with actual temperature measurements in the past.
This includes adjusting the amount of solar irradiance in the model to values the Earth received at the time.

This guy is awesome. His hypothesis is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

https://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis

 

[sjastro]

This guy is awesome. His hypothesis is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

https://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis

The idea that humans could have altered the climate in pre industrial revolution times could in fact extend as far back as 60000 years.
The first evidence was Australia's flora and fauna seemed to have been altered with human occupation of the continent beginning over 60000 years ago.
This in turn lead to changes in Australia's climate.
How Aboriginal burning changed Australia's climate