Linked? Drought patterns across Australia (orange) seem to closely follow solar magnetic cycle activity.
Credit: Robert Baker (Geographical Research 46 (4): 396)
Posted on 12/18/2008 11:39:44 PM PST by neverdem
Linked? Drought patterns across Australia (orange) seem to closely follow solar magnetic cycle activity.
Credit: Robert Baker (Geographical Research 46 (4): 396)
An Australian researcher has linked the sun's magnetic activity to rainfall patterns in his country over the past century. The connection is solid enough that meteorologists might be able to use it to make better long-term weather predictions. But experts remain cautious about the wider implications of the findings.
Scientists have long known that the sun plays a key role in Earth's weather patterns. For example, the number of sunspots on its surface--dark zones of intense magnetic activity--peaks about every 11 years, followed by a period of dormancy. The cycle causes swings in sea-surface temperatures--more sunspots mean warmer oceans, and fewer mean chillier waters--but the effect is small. There's also a 22-year cycle, in which the sun changes the polarity of its magnetic field, but it's unclear how that phenomenon affects Earth.
Now geographer Robert Baker of the University of New England, Armidale, in Australia, has linked solar magnetic activity to Earth's climate--at least regionally. Using sunspot counts and Australian meteorological data, as well as NASA satellite data for more recent years, he tracked sunspots and rainfall in Australia from 1876 to 2006. In this month's issue of Geographical Research, Baker reports that the amount of rainfall in most regions of the country tracked the 22-year magnetic cycle almost exactly. "It was unbelievable," Baker says. At the height of magnetic activity, rainfall across most of the country was plentiful. At the other end of the cycle, many of those same regions experienced severe droughts. The findings are particularly compelling, Baker says, because even though the lengths of the magnetic cycles are not precise and can vary by several years, the rainfall patterns followed them.
So what's behind the connection? Baker thinks it has to do with the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation hitting Earth. When the reversing of polarity approaches, he explains, the sun's magnetic field weakens, allowing more UV energy to reach our planet. More UV radiation kills off some of the oceans' plankton, which produce dimethyl sulfide, one of the primary atmospheric chemicals involved in cloud formation, and fewer clouds mean less rainfall.
Based on the 130 years of data, Baker predicts that the current solar cycle, which reached a minimum in 2007, will continue a bit longer. In fact, he says, "there could be a 100-year minimum in solar activity," meaning much of Australia could experience a prolonged drought.
"This could be an important paper," says climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He explains that current climate models don't give the solar effect much weight in general, because scientists think it is overwhelmed by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But if there's a mechanism by which the sun's variations are tied directly to weather patterns, such as the effect of UV radiation on cloud formation, he says, the sun may have a greater impact than the models are showing. As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.
Solar-terrestrial physicist Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton in the U.K. says that the paper suggests a previously unknown effect caused by the solar magnetic cycle. "If the connection [between UV radiation and precipitation] proposed here were real," he says, "it would be both highly significant and very illuminating." On the other hand, Lockwood says, the paper contains no statistical tests, and connections such as the one it suggests "can arise readily by chance, even for extended intervals."
IMHO, this is not good for the global warmists.
How genes are silenced - Molecular snapshot reveals the mechanics of RNA interference.
IMHO, the last link isn't the worst development. I search on Yahoo first. Results are often Wikipedia links. Scientific and technical searches will have more credibility. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia for anything dealing with politics.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
interesting stuff
And the little ice age just happened to line up exactly with the Maunder minimum...
Why the constant search to avoid the obvious?
It's hard to milk the sun for grants.
And here I thought science was the pursuit of truth...
Silly me...
If lower solar magnetic activity leads to more UV hitting the earth killing plankton which results in less dimethyl sulfide which in turn leads to less cloud formation, wouldn't that lead to warming and not cooling??? More clouds reflect more sun light away from earth meaning less solar heat for the earth.
All the published data indicates just the opposite affect. Lower solar magnetic activity results in fewer sun spots and a cooler earth.
What am I missing?
*Chuckle*
And the little ice age just happened to line up exactly with the Maunder minimum...
Why the constant search to avoid the obvious?
Why the constant search to avoid the obvious?It's hard to milk the sun for grants.
Snerk!
Break out the Kalman filters for meta-studies on the *pro*-AGW papers...?
Glad to see they finally figured that one out.
Get a DVD of this and pass it around. The big secret - the sun warms the planet. Shhhhhh...
My guess is the original article.
"More UV radiation kills off some of the oceans' plankton, which produce dimethyl sulfide, one of the primary atmospheric chemicals involved in cloud formation, and fewer clouds mean less rainfall."
IMHO, that sentence needs more explanation.
piytar made a nice summary.
No sunspots -> less solar wind -> more cosmic rays -> more clouds -> more snow/rain and a cooler planet.
If lower solar magnetic activity leads to more UV hitting the earth killing plankton which results in less dimethyl sulfide which in turn leads to less cloud formation, wouldn't that lead to warming and not cooling???
It's more.
Plankton May Influence Climate Change Says UCSB Scientist
The findings indicate that phytoplankton will then produce more DMS(dimethyl sulfide) in response to this increased ultraviolet radiation, causing increasing cloudiness and mitigating the effects of global warming.
IMHO, it's another feedback loop that is fascinating, elegant and unlikely to happen by dumb luck.
Thanks.
So that key sentence in the posted article is a bit funky leading to a wrong conclusion.
The original article essentially says the opposite of what the posted one implies.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/plankton_elnino.html
Nice & Clear Cycle Chart on Nino/Nina Impact -
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Thanks for the URLs.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
For what it is worth:
On the nightside of Earth, clouds prevent loss of heat by reducing its radiation into space.
Also consider that the planet Venus is shrouded in clouds. It is about 67 million miles from the sun. Earth is about 93 million miles from the sun. Using the law of inverse squares, (67/93)^2 = 0.52, shows that Earth receives from the sun about 52% of the radiation per unit of surface area that Venus does.
Yet Venus is a planetary hothouse.
URL Welcome! ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
