K Rosebrook

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2006JD007150.pdf

Usoskin, Ilya G. and Gennady A. Kovaltsov, Cosmic ray induced ionization in the atmosphere: Full modeling and practical application, J. Geophysical Research, V. 111, D21206, doi:10.1029/2006JD007150, 20068 November 2006.

“The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name “cosmoclimatology”.

Publications
* Cosmoclimatology

* Sun-Climate Publications-Full Text

* A brief summary of cosmoclimatology “Summary of a review article on cosmoclimatology by Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center, published in Astronomy & Geophysics, February 2007.”

* Harrison. R. Giles; & David B. Stephenson, Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds. Proc. Roy. Soc. A. V462, Nr 2068, Apr. 8, 2006, 1221-1233.

* Marsh, Nigel, Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties, J. Geophysical Research, V. 108, No. D6, 4195, doi:10.1029/2001JD001264, 2003

* Marsh, Nigel D. & Henrik Svensmark, Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays, Phys. Rev. Letters, 4, Dec. 2000, Vol. 85, No. 23, 5004-5007.

* Rusov, V; A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev, Galactic Cosmic Rays – Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 1. Theory, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, (2008) In Press

* Rusov, V; A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, О. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev, Galactic Cosmic Rays – Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 2. Comparison of Theory with Experiment. Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, (2008) In Press

* Svensmark, Henrik, & Eigil Friis-Christensen, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics, V. 59, N. 11, pp. 1225-1232, 1997

* Svensmark, Henrik, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh, Martin B. Enghoff, & Ulrik I Uggerhǿj, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proc. Royal Soc. A. 2006, 1773.

* Svensmark, Henrik, Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. A & G, February 2007, Vol. 48 #1, 18-24

* Usoskin, I.G. & N. Marsh, G. A. Kovaltsov, K. Mursula, O. G. Gladysheva, Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 31, L16109, doi:10.1029/2004GL019507, 2004

* CLOUD Proposal Documents
“CLOUD – Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets” at CERN

* INITIAL CLOUD RESOURCES & SCHEDULE Jan 20, 2006
* New Experiment to Investigate the Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds and Climate CERN Press Report Geneva, 19 October 2006.

“A novel experiment, known as CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets), begins taking its first data today with a prototype detector in a particle beam at CERN1, the world’s largest laboratory for particle physics. The goal of the experiment is to investigate the possible influence of galactic cosmic rays on Earth’s clouds and climate. This represents the first time a high energy physics accelerator has been used for atmospheric and climate science.”

* Brian H. Brown, Short-term changes in global cloud cover and in cosmic radiation, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 70, Issue 7, May 2008, Pages 1122-1131

“Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) have been suggested as a possible contributory mechanism to cloud formation. . . .There is an association between short-term changes in low cloud cover and galactic cosmic radiation over a period of several days. This could arise if approximately 3% of the variations in cloud cover resulted from GCR.”

(significance p=0.06)

* Christiansen, Freddy, Joanna Haigh, & Henrik Lundstedt, Influence of Solar Activity Cycles on Earth’s Climate, Task 700-Summary Report Conclusions and Recommendations, Danish National Space Center, April 11, 2007.

* Marsh, Nigel & Torsten Bondo, Task 5-Hypothetical Physical Mechanisms, WP503-Role of Ionisation, Influence of Solar Activity Cycles on Earth’s Climate, Danish National Space Center, Sept. 14, 2006”

* Kirkby, Jasper, Cosmic rays and climateSurveys in Geophysics 28, 333–375, doi: 10.1007/s10712-008-9030-6 (2007). (CERN-PH-EP/2008-005, 26 March 2) 42 page review
The main experiments are:
* Ion-induced nucleation:
* Growth of CN into CCN:
* Activation of CCN into cloud droplets:
* Ice particle formation:
* Collision efficiencies of aerosols and droplets:
* Freezing mechanism of polar stratospheric clouds:

“. . .The most persuasive palaeoclimatic evidence for
solar/GCR forcing involves sub-orbital (centennial and millennial) climate variability over the Holocene, for which there is no established forcing agent at present. Increased GCR flux appears to be associated with a cooler climate, a southerly shift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and a weakening of the monsoon;. . .The satellite data suggest that decreased GCR flux is associated with decreased low altitude clouds, which are known to exert globally a net radiative cooling effect. Studies of Forbush decreases and solar proton events further suggest that decreased GCR flux may reduce high altitude (polar stratospheric) clouds in the Antarctic.. . .Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out. With new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN, there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question within the next few years. . . .”

I have no intention of being pessimistic. But IMHO it helps to try to name the creature accurately.

I have a BSc, MS and the completed course work and research for a not completed PhD. I understand the truth of your explanation, and I suspect you know the truth of my comment.

How does that relate to the “finagle factor” my father taught me about eons ago?

http://quietsafe.org/FinaglesLaw.html

Focus first on the Aerosol report due August 25th

There also does not appear to be any reference to McIntyre & McKitrick.

e.g., Note the following (with left line numbers):

2340 Figure 5.35 Updated composite proxy-data reconstruction of Northern
2341 Hemisphere temperatures for most of the last 2000 years, compared with other published
2342 reconstructions. Estimated confidence limits, 95%. All series have been smoothed with a
2343 40-year lowpass filter. The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), about 950–1200 AD.
2344 The array of reconstructions demonstrate that the warming documented by instrumental
2345 data during the past few decades exceeds that of any warm interval of the past 2000
2346 years, including that estimated for the MCA. (Figure from Mann et al. (in press).”

The figure 5.35 and figure description is given later:

Figure 5.35. Updated composite proxy-data reconstruction
2774 of Northern Hemisphere
2775 temperatures for most of the last 2000 years, compared with other published reconstructions.
2776 Estimated confidence limits, 95%. All series have been smoothed with a 40-year lowpass filter.
2777 The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), about 950–1200 AD. The array of reconstructions
2778 demonstrate that the warming documented by instrumental data during the past few decades
2779 exceeds that of any warm interval of the past 2000 years, including that estimated for the MCA.

One may take further confidence from the following on page 2:

25 9.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
26 Chapter 5 Temperature and Precipitation
1 Statistically valid confidence levels often can be attached to scientific findings, but commonly require many
independent samples from a large population. Such a standard can be applied to paleoclimatic data in only some
cases, whereas in other cases the necessary archives or interpretative tools are not available. However, expert
judgment can also be used to assess confidence. The key findings here cannot all be evaluated rigorously using
parametric statistics, but on the basis of assessment by the authors, all of the key findings are at least “likely” as
used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (more than 66% chance of being correct); the authors
believe that the most of the findings are “very likely” (more than a 90% chance of being correct).

See especially section:
1728 5.4.9d Climate of the past millennium and the Little Ice Age

The whole focus of this multidecade, multinational effort has warped science with its starting fundamental premise that mankind is changing the global climate. Such a prejudicial assumption then colors all the work that follows.

It is said that one man can make a difference. In this case, I suppose that that one man would be the man behind the scenes, Maurice Strong, who said in 1990, “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?” and “In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

No, it’s not some nefarious hidden conspiracy. Just a confluence of interests (and grant money) that have brought us to this sad state of affairs. The science should be studying how all the factors (yes, even the sun) affect the climate, how they interact, and how to adjust to possible changes (warmer or cooler). There is no single factor that results in real climate change. Just as AGW proponents dismiss Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as a significant factor in climate change, so too are changes in CO2 levels not a significant factor in climate change. Changes are wrought by a sum of a combination of factors from TSI, Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR), solar and earth magnetic fields, changes in ocean temperatures and currents, changes in cloud cover and albedo, etc.

Climatology needs to move beyond being colored by political suggestions and beliefs and reassert the hallmark of science — skepticism.