Hi Dorlomin,
I can't give you the solid evidence you request now because I've not been concentrating on those aspects of the hypothesis I support. But I agree there should be some signatures in those datas.
This is a stop gap response before I go and find some relavent data. Several parts are of my on going learning in climatology and I don't know how long it will be before I can make sure statments on them. Could be years!
***
On rapid effect of sun flares etc. This is the aspect I know least about. I will be reading into it a best I can. It's pure hunch at the mo. All I can say is that
1. I see at least a small correlation between sun activity with the weather I experience 1st hand.
2. It is theorectically plausible that the immense energys of the sun have effects on earths climate. No one disputes the light spectrum of the sun affects Earth's climate, so why not the immense ionic energy?
3. I believe the long term affects of solar ionic energy are apparent, and other non-weather short term affects are apparent.
e.g. ultra long distance ham radio is only possible during sun-to-Earth ion bombardment. So why not the weather?
On cloud behaviour varying with latitude in corelation with ionic input. No link. But this is a difficult thing to do because.
1. Earth Weather system is complex and noisey.
2. Cloud distribution varys with latitude anyway, this makes it fundamentally difficult to detect the effects of ionic influence.
3. It's a serious project that would take alot of effort. Money to back such a project is difficult to find since it is not AGW.
Not to say such a link doesn't exist. It's a ongoing project to find one.
wrt to cloud cover variation during the 11 years cycle. My research is ongoing. Ontop of what I said before consider these factoids which motivate my interest in this theory.
1942-3 Winters described at time 'as worst in 200 years', were during solar minimum.
Worst recent winter in North England, landscape of 8 foot ice and snow monoliths into March - 1963 , at solar minimum
1984 6 foot snow drifts common in North england. During solar minimum
1994 June. Astonishingly powerful and lengthy electrical storms over North England. During solar minimum.
All these events were considered freak.
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php
for sunspot data archive.
Earths magnetic field. I don't think Earth's magnetic field has much effect on the overall incoming amount of ionic energy. The sun's field is much stronger , ( around a million times I recall? ). I don't expect to see any significant signature of weather change during Earth magnetic reversals for this reason*. Others in the sunspot camp disagree. But I consider this superfluous to the sunspot theory of Earth climate.
* I know AGWers like to fixate on things that amount to less than millionths of the total influence, like parts of atmospheric methane per total. Sorry please ignore this dig
Milankovich. I'm more intersted in shorter time periods than those considered by Milankovich. The Schwabe cycle is roughly 11 years. The gleissburg cycle is roughly 100 years. I base my predictions of global cooling on the behaviour of these cycles and the 400 years of data we have on them. Nothing to do with Milankovich. I haven't considered the mixing of sunspot theory with milankovich. I see it as superfluous. I expect it'll be roughly be arithmetic.
Dissindent,
What a well worded post. I have a slight fear you might have done a 'cid' and just copied and pasted from some pro article. Otherwise you give the impression of being a proffessor or something. If so what are you doing here??
After carefully reading it a couple of times I found what u say internally consistent and compelling. I have to agree with the bulk of what your saying.
One or two niggles. e.g.
>the clusters do not last a long time
You leave the possibilty that as long as there are sufficent clusters being formed, enough of them will beat the odds of disbanding, to instead seed water droplets.
But really the 'high brow' discussion of the sunspot Earth climate mechanism is not crucial. There is 400 year data on the corelation. At matt Simmons says ' data beats theory every time'. If consistent analysis yields counter to the data, the basis of the analysis is wrong.
The svensmark mechanism for the sunspot - Earth climate corelation is open to dispute. The sunspot Earth climate corelation isn't. At best, you can only convince me that svensmark is wrong or there's a serious flaw in our understanding of physics.
OK, with that in mind, getting back to the ionic seed theory of clouds...
Key conjecture points.
Water weather system is responsible for very large amount of temperture moderation on Earth.
Only slight disturbance to this system is enough to significantly change climate.
Acknowledging the point dissident makes, ionic seeding of clouds is small compared to other seeding mechanisms.
But the large variation in solar ionic activity over the inter schwabe and gleissburg cycles is enough to constitute a 'slight disturbance' to the water weather system via ionic cloud seeding.
In summary, in contrast to AGW, ionic cloud seeding theory doesn't consider small changes in micro components to Earths atmos, it considers small changes in behaviour of major components of Earth's atmos.
Now let's speculate on ionic cloud seeding to global temperture relation.
My take on it...
OK, data presented by archibald shows high energy galactic radiation increases at solar min, these are the ions which chiefly affect cloud formation.
Clouds form more readily during solar minimum and weak solar cycles.
Also, the whole cloud part of the water cycle is accelarated. i.e. clouds form faster, under dryer conditions and pricipate more readily.
This has a 'squeezing the cloth' effect on atmospheric water. Water will be expelled from the atmos more readily. That means less water in the atmos.
Water is by far the most powerful greenhouse atmos agent. A small reduction will significantly reduce global temp.
At the new lower temp, evaporation rates will be lower, but lower cloud cover will give longer time for ocean exposure to sunlight, a big mechanism for evap.
Note that my theory is different to svenmark's in that he reckons the new ionic induced clouds, once formed, will persist in high quantity in the atmos, and it's the 0.6 albedo of these clouds which'll cause global cooling via reflection of incoming solar energy.
Note this marked difference in theorys is possible because of the 2 main opposed effects of clouds. 1. they reflect sunlight, 2. they preserve Earth heat by internal reflection and specfic heat capacity. Which effect prevails? It is speculative.
Another key data to note is that during cool periods, the Earth tends to get less precipitation. This is a main influence in my 'less clouds' variation on svensmark's theory.
Note it's less clouds on global average. Some localised cloud density increase is certain. e.g. Where I live. In england the moisture from the gulf stream will condense faster and precipitate more onto england. During low ionic periods, this moisture would hang in the atmos for longer and travel further around Europe, providing longer lasting greenhouse effects.
I've seen this very markedly over the last 3 years as solar minimum arrived, we've had increasingly wet weather.
I anticipate the question ' how does the cloud formatiom mechanism distinguish between solar ions and comsic ions ' ? Comsic ions are more powerful. I don't know exactly how this affects cloud formation but it does.
Finally, I've just adrressed this implicity already by outlining the mechansm.
>In the lower troposphere, the ambient CCN are already high and the GCR contribution is nothing more than noise.
But I'll say explicity here that I'm dissagreeing with you on this. The corelation between GCR and global temp is in the link I gave to dorlomin in my last post. So GCR can't be just noise.
Otherwise I agree with what you say.