A refreshing deviation from the pervasively-malicious, strictly-narrow linear-view that is undermining the sustainable defense of civilization – thank you Richard for sharing your grip on paradox.

That’s right Leif, I did inorder that our friends here did not have to waste their time.

A good way into the vast literature on the phenomena being researched by the Australia’s Antartic Divison is the university web page of Brian Tinsley, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas Dallas
here http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html

Here’s a quote from it:
“About half of the global warming over the past century can be accounted for by changes in the sun and the solar wind, and there are well documented correlations of climate during past millennia with cosmic ray flux changes. These can be understood in terms of electrical interactions between cloud droplets and aerosol particles responding to solar wind-induced changes in atmospheric ionization and in the latitude distribution of Jz, as discussed above.

In a recent collaboration with Dr. Gary Burns of the Australian Antarctic Division we have confirmed with high statistical significance small changes in Antarctic surface pressure with small solar wind-induced changes in Jz, which are consistent with our hypothesized effects on Jz on cloud cover. In the Arctic the Jz changes are of opposite sign, as are the correlated pressure changes. Further, there are pressure changes that correlate with Jz changes due to changes in the current output of low-latitude thunderstorm generators, that have the same sign in the Arctic as in the Antarctic, as expected from theory. The implication is that global changes in Jz produce global changes in suitable types of clouds, and in some cases changes in precipitation.”

Have in mind when considering the question “Does the Sun affect Climate?” that it is necessary to consider all of the ways in which solar activity impacts climate: the Sun’s gravitational and electromagnetic fields, the Sun’s plasma output and the Sun’s radiation output.

The interaction effects between these classes of variables can be highly significant, sometimes amplyfying , sometimes damping each other. It is no good just considering any one class of these variables eg radiation , plasma, in isolation from the others and in without regard to interaction effects amongst them all. In addition, there is, of course, the climate periodicities that arise from phase synchronisation between the several large atmospheric/oceanic oscillations which are, afterall, the proximal cause of the Earth’s climate dynamics.

Thanks

ISCCP results are running higher than Palle’s but are considered ‘broadly in agreement’.

I don’t know about the deep thinkers but 2% increase in cloud cover seems like it might just be a significant player. I wonder what the noctilucent cloud contribution might be.

go to http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

and change the albedo by 2% to see the effect in the toy model. It is a 0.64C change in global temperature.

Why, standard boilerplate in publicly funded research; suitable for the opening paragraph of the ‘current’ study as well as motivation for ‘further research’ as a concluding remark.

This says nothing whatever about any evidence presented in the paper. One might have presented results or have simply outlined a funded proposal.

Big Bear updated their site in the last year. A little graphic compares curves of Earthchine and the ISCCP project.

http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/

ISCCP results are running higher than Palle’s but are considered ‘broadly in agreement’.

I don’t know about the deep thinkers but 2% increase in cloud cover seems like it might just be a significant player. I wonder what the noctilucent cloud contribution might be.

Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
“Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.
Fair enough.”

Except that proponents don’t seem to wait. And even if the SKY experiment turns out to work, does not mean that it works in the real atmosphere; so far the albedo measurements show that albedo does not track the solar cycle, so perhaps yet another mediator must be postulated. In the lab, I can get CO2 to absorb infrared light, does that prove AGW? .

The chaotic nature of climate has been discussed often enough here, so the concept of “albedo tracking the solar cycle” cannot be defended as such. “The solar cycle contributing to albedo ” might, and we would still need a chaotic model to see this.

It would be naive to expect any single input driver to be in one to one correspondence with long range climate changes as it is for for CO2. It is a synergy that is being played out.

In any case the albedo measured by Palle et al covers a very small time frame for anybody to be able to conclude much, except that currently it is rising. Do you have other data? Have you seen any current measurements?

Kirby’s conclusion is:
“The question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out.”

This honest assessment by Kirby is a far cry from ‘there is plenty of evidence’.

We are due for a de Vries cycle cold event (210 year period) and a Bond event (1,470 year period). There is a good paper on the solar control of Alaskan glaciers at:
http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/GPC_2008.pdf

Recently when I was shopping around for some new channels of funding I was coming across websites instructing as follows:

“Successful applicants will:
1) demonstrate global warming,
2) demonstrate impacts of global warming, &/or
3) demonstrate projected impacts of global warming.”

Those aren’t the exact words used, but if you filter off the fluff, that’s all there is.

I won’t be surprised if there are soon some waves of funding for natural climate research because a lot is invested in the climate-alarm models and they will need to be tweaked towards reality. If such waves of funding arise, first recipients are likely to be those who served well in the past. (The waves may not be large enough to reach others.)

Orders of magnitude more (not less) research funding is needed to ensure the sustainable defense of civilization; however, …

… The trick is in the channeling of that flow. My experience has been that nasty administrative folks can make a real mess of anything. (I call it “adminabalism” – that’s a combo of administration, ballistic, & cannibalism — as ugly as it sounds – patently unethical.)

Charles spanked me once, that was enough.
Let us all hope the effect doesn’t wear off too quickly.

No harm inflicted, just an wee tad jealous some are funnier unintentionally and unknowingly than I am by design.

Charles spanked me once, that was enough.

Ron de Haan (14:08:18) :
should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.
Most scientists pride themselves of investigating ideas objectively. Problem is that many ideas do not pass an obvious ’smell test’ and so many scientists do not think it worth their time [and may not have the funding provided by both government and corporations to conduct research of other than what these consider relevant].

Leif,

Glad to hear from you that most scientists do perform objective investigation.

But I am worried.

I am worried about those scientists that are not objective and carry ideological hence political agenda’s and I am worried about the increasing influence of Government financing research at the scale announced by the Obama Administration.

I rather see scientists selling their projects in an open market even if project financing is difficult that having to deal with a society that is based on the laws of corporatism which quite accurately describes the current developments.

He is clearly not supportive of AGW and, irritatingly to some (including me sometimes) neither is he supportive of any other ideas that cannot yet be proved.

His purpose is in applying scientific rigour to woolly and speculative concepts and that is fine because it tests one’s opinions very effectively.

However the fact is that the science is indeed unsettled so speculation and judgement whether woolly or not is essential to give a direction to the research we need to get nearer the truth.

Those of us who are trying our best to sort scientific wheat from chaff are helped rather than hindered by Leif’s useful scientific challenges.

I don’t agree with Leif’s persistent negativism but he is entitled to apply it even if both he and those who receive the benefit of his comments occasionally become a little uncivil.

This board is a model of civility compared to others.