Nir Shaviv on the CLOUD experiment, worth a read

It is now known that most cosmic rays are atom...

Cosmic rays interact with Earth's atmosphere - Image via Wikipedia

Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv posted a guest essay at Luboš Motl The Reference Frame titled: The CLOUD is clearing

In a nutshell he’s saying that cosmic ray flux modulated by solar variability has a strong place right alongside CO2, and may in fact be a larger forcing.

He writes:

The results are very beautiful and they demonstrate, yet again, how cosmic rays (which govern the amount of atmospheric ionization) can in principle have an effect on climate.

What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an amplification mechanism must be operating.

As a consequence, anyone trying to understand past (and future) climate change must consider the whole effect that the sun has on climate, not just the relatively small variations in the total irradiance (which is the only solar influence most modelers consider). This in turn implies, that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun, and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg increase per CO2 doubling)

Read the entire essay here

h/t to Dr. Indur Goklany

Also, William Briggs has an excellent summary as well.

About these ads

174 thoughts on “Nir Shaviv on the CLOUD experiment, worth a read

  1. All one has to do to confirm the sun is the primary driver of the climate is look at all the historic records going back hundreds and in some cases, many thousands of years. As for CO2, the historical record shows little impact on climate from changing levels.
    So what gives? Politics, bias, narrow thinking, wishful thinking, or a mix thereof.

  2. Though Judith Curry has not yet made her official CLOUD post, there is a video of Shaviv’s talk at the ACS meeting: http: //judithcurry.com/2011/08/29/acs-webinar-on-climate-change-part-ii/. Scroll down.

    Shaviv’s work will draw attention to the work of Svensmark and Kirkby. The importance of these three scientists is found mainly in the fact that each of them practices entirely within the confines of scientific method. The contrast with the practice of Warmista is stark.

  3. Dr. Nir Shaviv,

    A lucid article. Thank you.

    Yes, we can see IPCC vested scientists downplaying the evidence showing the significance of solar modulation of GCR on climate.

    Keep spreading the word. AR5 is coming.

    John

  4. Of course, Dr. Shaviv leaves out one important statement from the lead author everyone seems afaid to accept: “[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”
    Rather than just copying what is very well explained elsewhere, try looking at:

    http://skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html

    The explanation includes numerous journaled papers and reviews explaining why GCR have some influence on cloud behavior (a potential mechanism for cloud formation but does not indicate GCRs significantly promote cloud formation in the real world), but they are not responsible for significant climate change now or in the geologic past.

  5. This confirmation comes on the heels of the revelation that measured terrestrial heat radiation is about twice as much as climate modellers had assumed and incorporated into their calculations. Entirely consistent with the CERN findings. Instead of modelling CO2 climate interactions, I suggest someone use the sunspot,heliosphere,cosmic radiation, PDO, and NAO data for the last 30 years and project temperature out another 10 or so. I think we will find very little room for a measurable CO2 effect.

  6. Sensor operator says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am

    I always wonder why people show up to assign homework. If you have an argument to make, and you can make it in your own words, please do so.

  7. @Sensor operator says: September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am

    I think Dr. Shaviv is not afraid.

    septicalscience.con is a hack science site, why would any one click on a link with a lie in its name ?

  8. >> Sensor operator says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Rather than just copying what is very well explained elsewhere, try looking at: <<

    Ah yes, SkepticalScience.com. Doesn't it give you pause to refer to a website who's name itself is a lie?

  9. Sensor Operator,

    Have you read the book Chilling Stars, if not then you should.

    The links you give are just BS modeling papers. Until further actual experiments are performed, the GCR to clouds hypothesis remains a plausible hypothesis. The initial CERN results SUPPORT the theory that GCRs induce ionization that can form particles. Although the link to seeding clouds (small particles to bigger ones) has NOT been tested, the basis for the theory appears to be on very solid ground – rather than struck out it has got to first base (using a sporting analogy). The initial results ARE encouraging and your disingenuous attempts to downplay the GCR hypothesis simply reflect the pre-conceived opinions of yourself and others that nothing affects climate in meaningful way except CO2. Intelligent people will accept that it is much much more likely that a great many things can and do affect climate and that GCRs are just another of many untested possible variables. Possibilities that NEED to be investigated experimentally rather than “modeled”! As an engineer, I know all to well how useless models are in the face of complex systems. If we understood everything we would not need scale models, experimental mock ups, extensive prototyping and test pilots to test commercial versions.

    You and your ilk are so narrow minded that you cannot see the woods for the trees. You are blinkered by your religion. I doubt we will fully solve the climate conundrum in my lifetime or my childrens lifetime. Over the next 100 years, I expect we will still be improving our knowledge or will have long given up trying to solve such an impossibly complex system. Time will tell if GCRs, like CO2, turn out to be a blind alley or a minor side street on our long journey of scientific discovery.

  10. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:01 am

    The cosmic rays albedo negative feedback is about same magnitude as CO2 positive feedback, both negligible.

    Odd, I remember Svensmark showing a cosmic relationship to the relative position of our solar system in our galaxy as a relationship to global temperatures AND a relationship of solar activity as well. I don’t see that with CO2. Correct me if I miss understood Svensmark’s work.

  11. Sensor operator says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am

    You might have an argument if the Milky Way was not a multi-armed spiral, but an elliptical instead.
    You might have an argument if the Sun exhibited no variation, but it does.
    You might have an argument if the CLOUD experiment failed to rise empirically, but it did.
    Your steady-state Galaxy, Sun and Planet are not available to grow the runaway CO2 tracegas theory into a Godzilla tipping point. Global tracegas warming is not going to get us going in the 21st Century, and is not going to give rise to any skyscraping advances in knowlege and technology.

  12. John Whitman says:
    >…Yes, we can see IPCC vested scientists downplaying the evidence showing the significance of solar modulation of GCR on climate.

    ++++++

    It appears that, as was the case with AR4, the conclusions were written some time ago. All that remains before launch is to fill in the gaps with sciencey paperwork. Upstart findings like CLOUD are a mere distraction to be examined perhaps in AR6 or 7 by which time a consensus can be forged.

    CERN wants 5 years of big funding to continue ‘work’ to find out if CCN’s cause visible clouds. They can keep mentioning their discovery of the importance of the trace quantities of ammonia. Good for them. Press on. Go for it. Maybe they too will find out how CCN’s form clouds and publish it in a textbook on Atmospherics. Oh wait…

    In the meantime, why wait for AR5’s launch date? Release the conclusions now so the sciencey papers can be properly selected to support its truthiness. No sense letting people waste research money between now and then on contradictory unscientific investigations.

    /sarc-faceit

    But methinks the future of CAGW is going to get CLOUDier by the week.

  13. Is there a correlation between lightening strikes and the levels of cosmic rays entering low Earth atmosphere?
    Large buildings, like the Empire State, might have strike trackers and allow us to know the rate of lightening strikes. An ionized trail could possibly form a track for an electrical discharge.

  14. Crispin in Waterloo says: September 1, 2011 at 11:08 am

    CERN wants 5 years of big funding to continue ‘work’

    Translation: CERN want 5 more years on the gravy train during which they will bury this research so there is an excuse not to give any funds to any laboratory with the honesty to do it properly …. in the (totally vane) hope from “community” that within 5 years the world is going to be a flaming ball of fire with hundreds of meters of sea level swamping the planet (except the bit where Al Gore has a condo on the sea front) …. OR at least those on the gravy train can retire on a good pension and spend their ill gotten gains.

    At least that’s what my translator comes up with, or is it broken?

  15. First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate.
    If this is ‘well known’ then why all the discussion. The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate. Application of the ‘scientific method’ that some cling to, now requires one to drop the hypothesis, or, at least, as Kirkby et al. admits to note that the CLOUD results say nothing about the climate link.

  16. And whilst we’re on the subject of CERN, what is the point of CERN? I remember they were a prestigious research institute back in the 1980s, but what have they done since then? Are they still looking of the “god” particle or the “unified theory of how to get research funding” or whatever it was? I assume they haven’t found nuclear fusion which would be useful.

    And, what do you do with a god particle?

    Seriously, what is the economic justification for CERN?

  17. It is misleading to put the cosmic ray effect alongside CO2. More like cosmic rays should be placed well above CO2 as a climate factor as, beyond the first 10s of CO2 ppm, its efect drops off quite rapidly, a la Beer’s Law.

    Placing them side by side gives the warmists hope—all they have to do is discount cosmic rays and claim CO2 ascendancy again. If CO2 is well below CO2, all is lost.

  18. highflight56433 says:
    September 1, 2011 at 10:41 am
    ……………………
    The problem is that the GCRs count that gets through the Earth’s magnetic field is far too low to make any difference.
    There are apparently numerous correlations from the solar ‘barycentre properties’, Hale cycle, cosmic rays etc.
    I myself have produced some:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Atlantic-Essential.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm

    and more relating to climate, sunspot cycles, the solar magnetic field etc, so you may be forgiven if you assume I do have an obsession with correlations.
    I do not think that solar variability of the TSI is sufficient enough to explain MWP, LIA or current warming. Without mechanism with the energy required to move the oceans temperatures it’s just a speculation.
    My simple view is the Sun is constant (within reason) the ocean currents are not, the acquired heat from Equator to about 35+ degrees latitude is partially re-radiated and partially moved towards the poles. How much goes towards to poles depends on the strength of the ocean currents. Stronger currents more heat is transported (with related consequences), and vice versa, etc., etc.

  19. The study gives a mechanism that could explain the Maunder and Dalton etc minimums. Quiet sun = more GCRs = more clouds = more reflection of sunlight back into space = cooling.

  20. @ Leif
    A bit disingenuous of you to cherry pick one sentence from Nir Shaviv.

    What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an amplification mechanism must be operating.

    Kirkby has changed his tune recently compared to previous statements he’s made, even in published material. Why is that? But you are content to use one liners to support your POV, and imply or state outright everyone else are complete dunces unless you approve.

  21. M.A.Vukcevic says:September 1, 2011 at 11:54 am “My simple view is the Sun is constant (within reason)”
    But as many others have pointed out the UV content of the TSI is not any where near “constant”, so why only use TSI?

  22. The CAGW proponents doesn’t like the idea of any kind of rays entering the earth’s atmosphere since the precautionary principle then states they need to spend all their money on tin foil, and courses in hat making, to protect, their otherwise unshielded heads, from being bombarded by potentially brain frying cosmic rays and not just brain sucking Rays from CIA.

  23. DR says:
    September 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm
    A bit disingenuous of you to cherry pick one sentence from Nir Shaviv.
    It would seem that this is the most important sentence. If that statement were false, the rest falls apart.

    But you are content to use one liners to support your POV, and imply or state outright everyone else are complete dunces unless you approve.
    I point out that the temperature variation does not match the cosmic ray variation. What does that make of people who in spite of that think there is a ‘well known’ relation?

  24. I tend to agree with MA Vukcevic. I think the cosmic ray effect, like CO2 is marginal. I am more persuaded by the arguments that periodically flying through cosmic dustclouds will have a more profound influence.

    There is an obvious correlation between solar activity and the weather on earth. However I am told that it is not radiation-based as the levels remain roughly static, so is it the effect of the magnetic field ? What apart from cosmic rays does the magnetic field affect ?

  25. Does it make sense that if we cross the galactic equator, that we get even more than if we’re slightly above or below? Becase according to the Mayans, we’re in the midst of crossing it now.

  26. “We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. ”

    what? how can a trace chemical have such an effect. Impossible. The same goes for C02, its only a trace element and we all know that the skeptical argument about trace elements rulz!.

    /sarc off

  27. John Barrett says:
    September 1, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    There is an obvious correlation between solar activity and the weather on earth.
    This is not ‘obvious’ and not established.

    What apart from cosmic rays does the magnetic field affect ?
    The sun’s magnetic field [as measured by that which is dragged out by the solar wind to hit the Earth] has not shown any significant trend since at least the 1830s [and that is the main reason the cosmic rays haven't either]: http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf

  28. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
    “There are apparently numerous correlations from the solar ‘barycentre properties’”

    Right. That is also why GCR activity increases and decrease as to the extent that old sol is agitated by solar system bodies tugging it out of round, thus increases and decreases in the size of the hypothetical solar oort cloud. The understanding here is that GCR activity accounts for condensation nuclei for cloud formation as do other atmospheric ions. The total needs to be accounted for to quantify cloud coverage on a standard day, or any other day.

    The problems are in hypothesis ownership. We are constantly arguing over minutia rather than focused on the big picture. Most of what we scientifically study in global climate is hypothetical. Correlations are devised and discovered, however it is the entirety that is not understood and what follows are hypothesis of correlation.

    CERN used a controlled lab to reproduce the Svensmark hypotheses. Many other hypothesis are historical in data collection: example tree rings; however that particular historical data is grossly biased and incomplete. Then there is surface temperatures that are scattered about and UHI. In a short drive to the grocery store I observe the temperatures change by 10 degrees! Who decided what to use???? Thus the history has to be set in a context that supports the hypotheses and vice verse without all the biases.

    So with the big picture in mind, we have ocean currents, ocean temperatures, earth tilt and orbit, oort extent, solar wind, total solar radiance, solar system barycenter, volcanic activity, continental drift, atmosphere density and its components, and etc., any GCR increase or decrease in our ever changing climate system has an affect, be it small. Continue to grow with new understandings and keep the word hypothesis in context of what is believed.

  29. A. C. Osborn says:
    September 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm
    M.A.Vukcevic says:September 1, 2011 at 11:54 am “My simple view is the Sun is constant (within reason)”
    But as many others have pointed out the UV content of the TSI is not any where near “constant”, so why only use TSI?
    …………….
    Agree, but UV is only a tiny part of the TSI, with not much energy, while the rest of TSI has a lot of it! Ratios of the heat retained / reradiated / moved pole-ward is the only thing that can move global climate (with of course the theory as formulated by my old university’s professor Milutin Milankovic, who sadly died long before I got there)

    Steven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm
    ……….
    You are correct
    both the GCR and the CO2 are about equal in their irrelevance.

  30. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    And there never will be a perfect correlation with anything with so many factors affecting the climate.
    Let the physics experimentors keep right on experimenting and sorting it out, and let the Astrophysicists keep right on finding out what’s really out there.
    Meanwhile, it’s time to chew on recent discoveries. It doesn’t cost anything.
    We still don’t know the why of what’s gone on in the Sun to produce what we are currently seeing, and, like the climate, we may never really know.
    Why did the Sun do that? Why didn’t it keep on with the big cycles?

  31. Steven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop
    Like AGW became a religion so is skepticism. Both developments are saddening, but such is human nature, I guess, that things eventually end up like this.

  32. As a chemist my eyes opened most at the mention of 35 pptv of ammonia in the chamber mix. This is such a small quantity that there would be problems even in metering it accurately. Despite some deep thinking, I cannot discern its fuction. At those levels, factors such as adsorption on chamber walls would have to be considered.
    Anyone have an idea? I would feel intuitively that this chamber concentration is well below that found in the natural atmosphere, especialy close to the ground (where it might not be relevant to some mechanisms – also noting that its atmospheric residence time is probably very short).

  33. David Corcoran says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm
    Leif, hasn’t the effect of Forbush events on cloud cover already been clearly demonstrated?
    No: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html
    “In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data”

    rbateman says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    Why did the Sun do that? Why didn’t it keep on with the big cycles?
    We must always keep looking. but that is very different from saying: “it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate”

  34. Let me roll up my sleeves and tighten up my pull ups.
    Some vital data has recently surfaced that Earth has been bombarded by cosmic particles in ‘hotspots’ around the globe.
    It is difficult without a longer study to determine if this is a cyclic trend or random.
    If we assume that there is a correlation with increases in cosmic particles as a by-product of a lessening solar magnetic field and/or event anomalies, what difference does it make if the solar wind varies or not ‘dragging’ out to Earth?
    I would think our concern or focus should be the returning magnetic flux from the outer boundaries of the heliosphere.
    If we assume that outgoing solar winds alone dictate trends in cosmic particles, then how does that justify ‘hotspot’ activity?
    Having said all this, to assume their isn’t ‘any significant trend’ in increases of cosmic spallation, at a geophysical level, maybe a bit archaic and/or premature.

  35. Steven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop
    =======
    Along with the economy, jobs and confidence in our elected officials.
    My only hope is to stem the bleeding before the “patient” dies.
    Oh, I forgot, the windmills will save us all.

    Reason is losing out to guilt driven popularity polls.
    Check your history books for what comes next.

  36. ClimateForAll says:
    September 1, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    I would think our concern or focus should be the returning magnetic flux from the outer boundaries of the heliosphere.
    There really isn’t any. It is like asking about returning river water from the Gulf to St. Louis.
    to assume their isn’t ‘any significant trend’ in increases of cosmic spallation, at a geophysical level, maybe a bit archaic and/or premature.
    That is what the observations show.

  37. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

    If this is ‘well known’ then why all the discussion. The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate. Application of the ‘scientific method’ that some cling to, now requires one to drop the hypothesis, or, at least, as Kirkby et al. admits to note that the CLOUD results say nothing about the climate link.

    —————-

    Leif,

    It seems in the true nature of the scientific process we have Dr. Nir Shaviv disagreeing with Dr. J. Kirkby. Let their dialog begin. Is either Kirkby or Shaviv invested with more authority than the other in this matter? It would seem not. I would like to see them dialog directly with us watching.

    Leif, which graph(s) of Shaviv’s do you have issue with?

    John

  38. Steven Mosher says on September 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    “We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. ”

    what? how can a trace chemical have such an effect. Impossible. The same goes for C02, its only a trace element and we all know that the skeptical argument about trace elements rulz!.

    Too bad you don’t carry out into the next step (unlike CO2 which _is_ at EOL); what does that ‘nucleation’ of a beginning ice/water particle do next? Growing in size and number, altering the local environ from WV to ice particle/visible water/clouds etc …

    .

  39. John Whitman says:
    September 1, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    Is either Kirkby or Shaviv invested with more authority than the other in this matter? It would seem not. I would like to see them dialog directly with us watching.
    Authority doesn’t do much for me.

    Leif, which graph(s) of Shaviv’s do you have issue with?
    I’ll turn it around: which graph of his matches the actual cosmic ray intensity measured?

    tallbloke says:
    September 1, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    Yes, but not by the people Leif links to.
    In this business, cherry picking what you like is a time honored practice.

    .

  40. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    David Corcoran says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm
    Leif, hasn’t the effect of Forbush events on cloud cover already been clearly demonstrated?
    No: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html
    “In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data”

    I only had a few minutes to scan your linked reference, but I found this+

    “Whether such a signal exists at all can not be ruled out on the basis of the present study, due to the small number of cases and because the strongest Forbush decrease events indicate
    slightly higher correlations than the average events. Even though those strong events are rare, with only 6 events over 5 years, the amplitude is similar to that occurring during the solar cycle, so from a climate perspective these strong events may deserve particular attention. Further investigations of a larger number of such events are needed before final conclusions can be drawn on the possible role of galactic cosmic rays for clouds and climate.”

    In general I would agree that it is entirely premature to conclude that Svensmark et al have been proven right, but I’m also not so sure that it is justified to claim they’ve been proven wrong

  41. Leif, if we asked Shaviv why he does not agree with you on cosmic ray intensity what do you feel his argument would be? and why do you feel he is incorrect? I assume you know his argument (but perhaps not?)

    Thanks

  42. The issues related to science and politics are confused here. There is a strong desire on the part of many people to use the CERN results to push back hard on the political forces that are using poor science to drive policy, regulations, taxation, and finally bury the free market. Yet again, the pure science forces are ignoring the political battle. You can’t separate these two aspects, even if you’d like, because you won’t be doing science for long if the economy collapses.

    Generally speaking, war and starvation are bad for free thought.

    Get out of the ivory tower, and get your hands dirty. You will have to pick a side at some point, or you will be placed in one camp or another by others. Don’t forget you are a human, living in a civilized society. I doubt you are growing all your own food and supplying all your own water and electricity.

    If you want to avoid a very bad outcome, it is time face the forces seeking total control. Lend a credible voice to oppose power-mad governments. Provide practical alternative visions of the future. Find ways to show the public what authentic experts recommend. If you actually believe windmills and PV will work, fully scaled to supply a significant portion of the population, maybe start by explaining to us how that approach could be practical. I certainly don’t believe it. Otherwise, we need to articulate a better way.

    Einstein knew we needed a Manhattan project to survive WW II. He worked to help make it happen. After we won the war, he and others had the luxury of having some second thoughts about the result. We face another threat to freedom and even survival. We haven’t earned the right to sit back and assess the results.

  43. I’ve read a post today on another website that said if the Earth’s magnetic poles are shifting, the magnetic shield would be weakening and in the process and hence changing the amount of cosmic rays that are hitting the Earth. Something to think about…

  44. I still want to see the actual numbers on cloud formation.

    The CLOUD experiment has confirmed that there is an effect, but we don’t know if it is minimal or climate-driving.

    The problem is that climate science does not want to know what the answer is. They would be perfectly happy if all further experiments were quashed. I and you, however, should want to know what the answer is.

  45. ammonia in the gas phase as a density of 0.72 kg/m3, a little less than methane and much less than N2, 1.2 kg/m3, and O2 1.4 kg/m3. Both ammonia and methane make floating balloons, so ammonia in the upper atmosphere is no problem.
    A reasonable ligand, in both liquid and gas chemistry, for free electrons in the form of the ammoniated electron radical anion.
    An ammoniated electron would produce a really strange set of hydrogen bonded water clusters, on one side you would have a water cluster binding to the hydrogen atoms and on the other a really strong N(-) H-O-H bond, what is would do to the lone pair would be eye watering.
    Essentially what you have is a molecule with the ability to hydrogen bond to the lone pairs of the oxygen atoms of three water molecules N-H…:O-H and on the other side you have an electron trio, giving two 1 1/2 pairing electrons, giving two strong H-N;…H-O-H
    My guess is that this might act as a catalytic template, generating two asymmetric, repulsive, water clusters that have a tendency to undergo fission. You could have episodic loss of water clusters, like a drop of a pipe. As the cluster gets bigger the hydrogen bonding energy at the surface of the water cluster will get to be bigger than the inelegant bonding to the nitrogen electron pair and a half.
    I must admit I hadn’t thought about a possible autocatalytic water nucleation reaction using an ammoniated electron but it would be very hard to make an unfractured water cluster, by that meaning having interconnected hydrogen bonds on the inside, around an ammoniated electron. Growing and budding is actually a real possibility; thanks Geoff Sherrington.

    This is definitely one for the quantum computing chemists

  46. S. Geiger says:
    September 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm
    Leif, if we asked Shaviv why he does not agree with you on cosmic ray intensity what do you feel his argument would be? and why do you feel he is incorrect? I assume you know his argument (but perhaps not?)
    I don’t think he would have an argument as the trend in cosmic ray intensity is an observational fact.

    Hoser says:
    September 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Get out of the ivory tower, and get your hands dirty.
    Like Jim Hansen…

    kramer says:
    September 1, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    I’ve read a post today on another website that said if the Earth’s magnetic poles are shifting, the magnetic shield would be weakening and in the process and hence changing the amount of cosmic rays that are hitting the Earth. Something to think about…
    The changing magnetic field of the Earth is, in fact, regulating the cosmic ray flux, and that much more than the sun. The observations I refer to are of the net result and show no trend.

  47. Leif – you say “I don’t think he would have an argument as the trend in cosmic ray intensity is an observational fact.”, so could be please be clearer on what aspects you and he disagree on? I thought you stated that you disagreed with his graph of cosmic ray intensity, apparently I’ve mistaken this point.

    Thanks

  48. Steven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop………………………………………….

    That’s right Steve, I have no concern that co2 increases on the order we are witnessing and on the order of the next 100yrs of spew will cause a climate catastrophe. A global mean temperature as measured today with our shoddy, non-homogenous surface data set and shoddy proxy data gives this 25yr meteorologist little faith in the ridiculous metric known as a ‘global mean temperature’ or any prediction made by IPCC or any other outfit. I fully understand the inherent issues with predicting the future and there is no evidence that co2 DRIVES climate in anything but the most trivial way. However, I DO fully understand the money that is being made by the alarmists and the political ramifications of going down this insidious green highway. It’s plain and clear as an autumnal Canadian High and if you can’t see this, you’re simply a fool.

  49. S. Geiger says:
    September 1, 2011 at 6:32 pm
    I thought you stated that you disagreed with his graph of cosmic ray intensity, apparently I’ve mistaken this point.
    We cannot disagree on the graph, as that is a simple observational fact. He ignores the graph [I think] or does not know about cosmic rays [I don't think so, but it is possible].

  50. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    Hoser says:
    September 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Get out of the ivory tower, and get your hands dirty.
    Like Jim Hansen………….

    NOW THAT’S A KNEE SLAPPER!!! BWAH HA HA!!…

  51. Leif Svalgaard says: September 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    [The changing magnetic field of the Earth is, in fact, regulating the cosmic ray flux, and that much more than the sun. ]
    Nope, that is Not True, it is the Sun.

    Indian Journal of Radio and Space Physics
    Volume 35, December 2006. pp 387-395
    Correlation of the long-term cosmic ray intensity variation with sunspot numbers and tilt angle

    Introduction:
    The long-term behavior of cosmic rays in relation to solar activity has been extensively studied by many authors and different epochs. Now it is an established fact that galactic cosmic rays are inversely correlated with sunspot numbers, having their maximum intensity at the minimum of the sunspot cycle.

    See Also: Figure 2.

    http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/3932/1/IJRSP%2035%286%29%20387-395.pdf

    Check the Actual Measured Data, not your old power point slides and other models.
    I did point this out to you last week, perhaps you forgot, again.

  52. Bill Illis says:
    September 1, 2011 at 6:08 pm
    The problem is that climate science does not want to know what the answer is. They would be perfectly happy if all further experiments were quashed. I and you, however, should want to know what the answer is.

    Spot on Bill.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    In this business, cherry picking what you like is a time honored practice.

    In your case even from within the paper you linked to.

    Dave Wendt says:
    September 1, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html

    “Whether such a signal exists at all can not be ruled out on the basis of the present study, due to the small number of cases and because the strongest Forbush decrease events indicate
    slightly higher correlations than the average events. Even though those strong events are rare, with only 6 events over 5 years, the amplitude is similar to that occurring during the solar cycle, so from a climate perspective these strong events may deserve particular attention. Further investigations of a larger number of such events are needed before final conclusions can be drawn on the possible role of galactic cosmic rays for clouds and climate.”

    The duty of a scientist is to bend over backwards to show the public how he may be wrong; as Feynman said in his treatise on integrity. The scientists who made the study Leif linked discharged that responsibility honorably and responsibly.

  53. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    Steven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    dont bug them with observations Leif. their skepticism has flown the coop
    Like AGW became a religion so is skepticism. Both developments are saddening, but such is human nature, I guess, that things eventually end up like this.

    ===================================

    That is a big fat red herring and you know it (or maybe you don’t). But the two do not match.

    “Skepticism is a religion?” What the hell are you talking about?

    I thought skepticism was the proper attitude in matters of science.

    And so I suppose you are including yourself in the “human nature”….things “eventually ending up like this.”

    Achilles heel…found.

    Even you have one…and it is a prejudice against any scientist who disagrees with you.

    Prove me wrong!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  54. Andrew30 says:
    September 1, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    [The changing magnetic field of the Earth is, in fact, regulating the cosmic ray flux, and that much more than the sun. ]
    Nope, that is Not True, it is the Sun.

    Cosmic rays produce radioactive 14C atoms. Here is the concentration of 14C for the last 11,000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png The red curve is the measured concentration [corrected for the decay of 14C]. The blue curve is the solar part of the variation. Here is the 14C plotted together with the strength of the Earth’s magnetic dipole: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg The little wiggles are the solar part. Even Kirkby gets it wrong. Here is a plot of cosmic ray intensity according to him http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png the red curve is actual concentration, the blue curves the solar part. Beer explains how the modulation of the cosmic rays depends on solar activity and on the geomagnetic field [slide 12 ff] http://www.leif.org/EOS/Beer-GCRs.pdf As you can see the geomagnetic modulation is by far the largest.

    tallbloke says:
    September 1, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    The duty of a scientist is to bend over backwards to show the public how he may be wrong; as Feynman said in his treatise on integrity. The scientists who made the study Leif linked discharged that responsibility honorably and responsibly.
    In stark contrast to what Svensmark did.

  55. Nir Shaviv’s blog http://www.sciencebits.com/ is a great read. I especially recommend his discussion of climate sensitivity. He doesn’t post very frequently, but whenever he does, it is pure gold.

    Could we have his blog added to the list of recommended links?

  56. savethesharks says:
    September 1, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    “Skepticism is a religion?” What the hell are you talking about.
    Prove me wrong!

    You do a good job yourself on that. Most of the people that proclaim themselves ‘skeptics’ adhere to a set of beliefs that cannot be attacked. They are equally dogmatic as the AGW crowd, albeit with opposite sign. To wit: the venom spewed, the falsehoods trumpeted, the ignorance displayed. Take Andrew30 as a shining example.

  57. Scottish Sceptic says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:39 am

    And whilst we’re on the subject of CERN, what is the point of CERN? I remember they were a prestigious research institute back in the 1980s, but what have they done since then? Are they still looking of the “god” particle or the “unified theory of how to get research funding” or whatever it was? I assume they haven’t found nuclear fusion which would be useful.

    And, what do you do with a god particle?

    Seriously, what is the economic justification for CERN?

    CERN has been preparing the Large Hadron Collider and the experiments around it for all these years. The cost of CERN , and of ITER, and of any other large collaborative research site, is comparable and no more than the cost of an airplane carrier .

    What is the economic justification of an airplane carrier that may be destroyed in a night?

    Of course the reason for research institutes is to answer the frontier questions in physics. When frontier questions in science are answered twenty, thirty, a hundred years hence great technological and societal changes take place. Nobody could foresee the technological use of electromagnetism when Maxwell had the breakthrough research.

    The same is true for quantum mechanics and nuclear energy.

    And in addition there are the spin offs.

    If you took the trouble to energize your grey cells you would have known that even this medium we are communicating in, the world wide web, is a spin off from the CERN research of the eighties. Can anybody foresee the spin offs from the current technological push that building and maintaining such a machine and such detectors involves? Already the GRID is pushing data gathering storage and manipulation to never before seen levels.

    Some humility in questioning is in order.

  58. Andrew30 says:
    September 1, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    See Also: Figure 2.

    http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/3932/1/IJRSP%2035%286%29%20387-395.pdf

    These people are rediscovering that the cosmic ray intensity is modulated by the tilt of the heliospheric current sheet. Something I discovered and described in Nature back in 1976: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0.pdf
    This solar cycle dependence is but a very small addition to the main variation caused by the varying strength of the geomagnetic dipole. You see, as Mark Twain once said: “it is not what you know that gets you in trouble, it is what you know, that just ain’t so”.

  59. “cosmic ray flux modulated by solar variability has a strong place right alongside CO2″
    right alongside CO2 ? CO2 doesn’t have a strong place in climate modulation!

  60. I want to add a postcript on my diatribe about CERN and large research effort, as also space exploration:

    When we look at the works of humans, what remains is the pyramids, the parthenons, the taj mahals , the medieval cathedrals. Building all these required a tremendous collaborative effort and a large percentage of the GDP of the time. Why? It seems that in humans there is a collective urge to create monuments in the glory of the deity of the time.

    We do not glorify deities, but we do have knowledge and technology as a goal. Our collective collaborative efforts are the modern cathedrals, this time glorifying knowledge and the mind.

  61. Jason says:
    September 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    “Does it make sense that if we cross the galactic equator, that we get even more than if we’re slightly above or below? Because according to the Mayans, we’re in the midst of crossing it now.”

    Actually, we’re not. It will be somewhere between 5 to 15 million years until that happens. What the hoopla is (in relation to the Mayans) is that the orientation of the Earth-Sun will be pointed at the center of the Galaxy… and event that takes about 8 to 12 years to complete… and which has been going on for about 3 to 4 years now.

  62. Leif,

    I suspect there is an apples and oranges issue here. You are talking about total CR flux. But the CRs of interest in the solar moderated climate model are only the high energy ones – above 15 GeV – which are capable of penetrating and causing ionisation in the lower atmosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field has a huge impact on the total CR flux, but it has its predominant impact on the low energy flux (below 15GeV), and these CRs don’t penetrate to the lower atmosphere anyway and therefore couldn’t seed clouds.

    As Shaviv himself says “On the time scale of tens of thousands of years, Earth’s magnetic field varies and with it the flux of cosmic rays which can penetrate the atmosphere. Because however the magnetic field can only prevent the penetration of cosmic rays which are anyway severely attenuated by the atmosphere, changing the magnetic field, and even altogether switching it off is not expected to give rise to significant climate effects.” He goes on to quantify the size of the expected effect – small but observable – looks for an effect of this size in the observational data – and finds it. So he hasn’t ignored the effect of variation in the Earth’s magnetic field as you seem to think.

    C_14 levels provide a measure of TOTAL CR flux. But most of the C_14 is produced by low energy CRs very high in the atmosphere – above the altitude where cloud seeding effects are expected. So C_14 levels are not directly measuring the CR flux of interest. In fact they have an inverse relationship! Low energy CRs come mostly from the sun. High energy CRs come mostly from outside the solar system. When solar activity is high the number of low energy CRs from the sun (and therefore the total CR flux) goes UP. However the solar wind is more active which means that the number of high energy CRs reaching us from outside the solar system goes DOWN!

    C_14 levels are not used by Shaviv to directly measure the flux of high energy CRs of interest. They can however be used after adjustment for the much slower variation in the earth’s magnetic field, to infer solar activity levels, and this is the use Shaviv makes of them. His preferred instrument for deducing high energy CR levels is evidence from the rate of degradation of iron meteorites.

  63. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    Beer explains how the modulation of the cosmic rays depends on solar activity and on the geomagnetic field [slide 12 ff] http://www.leif.org/EOS/Beer-GCRs.pdf As you can see the geomagnetic modulation is by far the largest.

    So given geomagnetic variation, which has been considerable on Geological and shorter timescales, your argument about insufficient variation is moot.

    tallbloke says:
    September 1, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    The duty of a scientist is to bend over backwards to show the public how he may be wrong; as Feynman said in his treatise on integrity. The scientists who made the study Leif linked discharged that responsibility honorably and responsibly.

    Leif: In stark contrast to what Svensmark did.

    In stark contrast to what you did with your one word negative answer and selective quote too…

  64. anna v says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    CERN has been preparing the Large Hadron Collider and the experiments around it for all these years. The cost of CERN , and of ITER, and of any other large collaborative research site, is comparable and no more than the cost of an airplane carrier .

    Tesla achieved more on a shoestring.

  65. tallbloke says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    So given geomagnetic variation, which has been considerable on Geological and shorter timescales, your argument about insufficient variation is moot.
    My argument is not of insufficient variation but about the temperature variation not being the same as the cosmic ray variation and that therefore cosmic rays not being a major factor in climate. This should be clear to you by now.

    In stark contrast to what you did with your one word negative answer and selective quote too…
    Still in the insulting business, eh? When there are conflicting papers it usually means that the case is not established.

  66. Dr. S. has a point, the geomagnetic field is far stronger modulator, so if GCRs are suppose to control climate her is a good correlation I found about a year ago:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm

    which is far better than anything Shaviv, Kirkby or Svensmark have come up.
    So why I do not subscribe to the GCR hypothesis ?
    My answer ‘where is the beef’ ?, certainly not in the GCR, CO2 or any other ‘parts per million / billion’ entity.
    Back to the drawing board.

  67. Ian H says:
    September 1, 2011 at 10:52 pm
    But the CRs of interest in the solar moderated climate model are only the high energy ones – above 15 GeV – which are capable of penetrating and causing ionisation in the lower atmosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field has a huge impact on the total CR flux, but it has its predominant impact on the low energy flux (below 15GeV), and these CRs don’t penetrate to the lower atmosphere anyway and therefore couldn’t seed clouds.

    These high energy CRs are also not modulated very much by the Sun. And are also much rarer. See slide 11 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Beer-GCRs.pdf
    And Shaviv forgot the tell Kirkby about this, c.f. Kirkby’s plot of GRs [derived from 14C]: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png

    14C is produced mostly in the lower atmosphere at about 5000 m altitude where the density of the atmosphere is high enough.

    Low energy CRs come mostly from the sun.
    No, very little of the CRs come from the sun.

  68. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:15 pm
    When there are conflicting papers it usually means that the case is not established.

    When discoveries are in conflict with the AGW meme, the publication of the paper is delayed and the rebuttal paper frequently appears in the same issue of the journal…

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    David Corcoran says:
    September 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm
    Leif, hasn’t the effect of Forbush events on cloud cover already been clearly demonstrated?
    No: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html

    In the case of the paper you cited, the authors also say:

    “By focusing on pristine Southern Hemisphere ocean regions we examine areas where we believe that a cosmic ray signal should be easier to detect than elsewhere.”

    In fact, it has been discovered that the southern ocean is an area of high primary production for phtyoplankton, which generate large amounts of CCN generating aerosols. Furthermore, the nearest neutron monitoring station, in South Africa, has an amplitude of GCR incidence only half that of Oulu in Finland. Furthermore, their study area went right to the Equator in a large swath of the Pacific, where GCR incidence is weakest of all. In Fig1 of the paper the projection of the globe used masks the fact that by far the majority of their areas of study lie within the region of the earth where GCR incidence is weakest. In summary, The deck was stacked in favour of a negative or at best weak result.

    Since most of the climate change (warming) we have seen is in the Northern Hemisphere, it is questionable whether they were looking in the right place anyway. Hardly surprising then, that their result, although positive, wasn’t as strong as those obtained by Svensmark.

    A competent and impartial scientist carrying out his duty to give the public a balanced understanding (especially one who spends a lot of time on blogs) would highlight these facts rather than giving a one word negative answer to someone asking if the correlation of low cloud cover reduction and GCR incidence reduction had been established.

    It has, multiple times, by Svensmark and others.

  69. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:02 am
    Furthermore, they note that the nearest neutron monitoring station, in South Africa, has an amplitude of GCR incidence only half that of Oulu in Finland.
    For the high energy GCRs that Shaviv and Svensmark claim are involved there is no difference between the stations and the latitude difference only affects the low energy GCRs. All those special pleading things are just signs that the effect is not established and that was my point.

  70. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:02 am
    Since most of the climate change (warming) we have seen is in the Northern Hemisphere, it is questionable whether they were looking in the right place at all.

    Absolutely.
    Northern Hemisphere.
    North Atlantic and the Nordic seas !

    There is the beef, hundreds of W/m2 of heat released, moving back and forth the polar jet-stream. Forget about the CO2, GCR. LOD and such like ‘parts/million’ real but insignificant entities.

  71. One criticism The authors of the paper Leif cites is this:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

    “They also pointed out that a version of the ISCCP low
    cloud cover, which combines infrared and visible channels,
    is more accurate and reliable than the IR-only version used
    by Marsh and Svensmark (2000), and that using the more
    accurate version yields much poorer correlations with GCR
    and TSI than the IR-only version does.”

    Is anyone aware of Svensmark’s response to this criticism?

  72. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:02 am
    A competent and impartial scientist carrying out his duty to give the public a balanced understanding (especially one who spends a lot of time on blogs) would highlight these facts rather than giving a one word negative answer to someone asking if the correlation of low cloud cover reduction and GCR incidence reduction had been established.

    the question was if the correlation had not already been clearly established [implying that it had]. The simple answer is ‘No’. I backed that up with a reference. No need to cite dubious claims either way. Your moral indignation is ill founded and unbecoming.

  73. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:10 am

    tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:02 am
    Furthermore, they note that the nearest neutron monitoring station, in South Africa, has an amplitude of GCR incidence only half that of Oulu in Finland.
    For the high energy GCRs that Shaviv and Svensmark claim are involved there is no difference between the stations and the latitude difference only affects the low energy GCRs.

    Thanks for your response. I can see why they would use high energy events as clear exemplars of the effect, but I doubt they believe lower energy events have no effect, because lower energy events are far more prevalent and will have a bigger cumulative effect than rarer high energy events.

    Please can you point me to a link where I can see Svensmark or Shaviv saying that only high energy GCR’s are involved.

    Thanks

  74. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:23 am
    There is the beef, hundreds of W/m2 of heat released, moving back and forth the polar jet-stream. Forget about the CO2, GCR. LOD and such like ‘parts/million’ real but insignificant entities.

    Vuk, the question is, what external factors if any directly or indirectly affect the changes in those flows?

  75. and table III on the next page:
    Estimated Solar Max-Min 30-year trend Century trend
    Relative Change (%) in: 1983–1987 1964–1995 1901–1995
    Cosmic Ray (>12.91GeV) 3.5 􀀀3.5 􀀀11.2
    Solar Source Magnetic Flux 41 131
    Global Low Cloud Fraction (ISCCP) 6.1 􀀀3.5 􀀀8.6

  76. Shaviv himself:
    ‘ The energies stopped by Earth’s magnetic field are typically up to 10 GeV, in equatorial regions. At polar regions, Earth’s field can stop only lower energies.’

  77. Look Svensmark’s research and the people at CERN have put forth an idea, there is not enough evidence to say that it is the main, or even one of the main, regulating factors in the earths temperature. While it is an interesting discovery it may have less to do with the current earth climate as it may be for understanding future or previous climactic events. I do not know how much of the particle actually can reach the earths surface but from what I have seen bandied about it is not enough to matter.

    Look if CO2 is ultimately causing catastrophic global warming I will one day be humbled and have to admit it but let us not fall into the same dogmatic response and grab hold of new news as though it is a way to fight the dogmatic response of AGW belief. We know and understand that CO2 hangs onto heat for longer than a world without it. How much of a temperature increase that will occur is really the only science that is being debated. No one disagrees that CO2 increases temperature, it is more a question of whether the feedback effect amplifies the CO2 to ever higher levels. I would also add that a warmer more Carbon rich planet may well be preferable to what we have now, but of course this a heresy.

    Lief, thanks for taking the time to converse with people here and for answering questions with fact rather than hyperbole, which is unfortunately what my post is.

  78. 1 degree C increase with doubling of CO2.

    Still the mantra. So please explain how, during the Ordovician period with CO2 atmospheric content of 8000ppmv, we had an ice age? And a severe and prolonged one at that.

  79. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:45 am
    Thanks for your response. Please can you point me to a link where I can see Svensmark or Shaviv saying that only high energy GCR’s are involved.

    Refer to Ian above:
    Ian H says:
    September 1, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    You should be able to use Google to good effect on this.

  80. Vuk, thanks.
    That data in Fig 11 and table III is:
    ” with a neutron counter at Huancayo (cut-off rigidity 12.91 GeV).”

    Huancayo is latitude 12S, so only stronger more energetic GCR’s make it through to the near surface. Up inthe arctic region where the biggest climate changes have been happening, the energy required is much lower.

  81. There is too much defence of entrenched positions in this discussion and too little room for wonderment.
    It’s entirely reasonable to build apparatus to test an idea that seems plausible on paper. So let’s do full gamut of CLOUD experiments before doing too much prediction.
    We know that clouds form and go away, but we are less successful in controlling them. This is because we lack knowledge of mechanisms. Let’s increase that knowledge with open minds.
    As to wonderment, I come back to that 35 pptv of ammonia introduced into the chamber. As DocMartyn above speculates, at that concentration it is likely to be catalytic – but the wonderment is, who selected it as a possible catalyst? Who took the trouble to cleanse the chamber of higher ambient quantities of natural ammonia, and then introduced this trace of ammonia, and why? Are there prior publications, or did serendipity work? I guess that it is no accident that 35 is twice the molecular weight of ammonia, in round figures.
    We’ve seem ammonia have a significant effect on cluster nucleation. I don’t know the nature of the next set of chemistries to be tested, but would be fascinated to be working wiith a team of people with such original thoughts. Maybe the next paper will report larger clusters. Maybe there will be an experiment that starts with clouds and helps understand their induced rate of growth/shrinkage.

    Give it a chance, guys, it’s early days.

  82. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 1:35 am
    Huancayo is latitude 12S, so only stronger more energetic GCR’s make it through to the near surface. Up inthe arctic region where the biggest climate changes have been happening, the energy required is much lower.
    But both Svensmark and Shaviv maintain that on;y the high energy one [greater that 10-15 Gev] penetrate deep enough to have effect. One cannot have it both ways.

  83. tb
    Yes, but here is the big BUT
    the CR impact is strongest at the poles (due to shape of the magnetosphere) and if the CRs form clouds, that is the area to look at, but in the polar regions they have positive (warming) effect on the global temperatures:
    – Albedo there is high (ice and snow) so effect is only on the open ocean surface (none in the Antarctica) which is significant only during 2-3 of the summer months.
    – For the most of the year insolation is very low and in the winter nonexistent, the area is covered with even more ice and snow, so cloud albedo is irrelevant, but clouds act as a blanket, preventing heat escaping, so winter temperatures would be somewhat higher than in a case of the cloudless skies.
    Hence: falling intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field, more CRs at the poles, more clouds, less cold winters, less ice formed in the winter, larger ice-free areas in the summers, and possibly higher global temperatures; exactly the current scenario, but opposite to what is suggested by Svensmark, Kirby and Shaviv.
    Even so, the GCRs count is so low that any of the above hardly makes any difference.

  84. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:44 am

    tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:02 am
    A competent and impartial scientist carrying out his duty to give the public a balanced understanding (especially one who spends a lot of time on blogs) would highlight these facts rather than giving a one word negative answer to someone asking if the correlation of low cloud cover reduction and GCR incidence reduction had been established.

    the question was if the correlation had not already been clearly established [implying that it had]. The simple answer is ‘No’. I backed that up with a reference.

    Your simple answer is simply wrong. The study you cite did find the correlation, despite the choices of locations and methods, albeit not as strong a correlation as was observed by Svensmark.

    No need to cite dubious claims either way. Your moral indignation is ill founded and unbecoming.

    Just saying it as I see it Leif. Your reply was incorrect, and the selective quote from the paper compounded the inadequacy of your response. Your imputation of what the questioner was implying is an assumption.

    Here’s a couple more quotes from the conclusions in that paper:

    – Cloud droplet size has a rather large negative correlation
    with GCR, in agreement with a possible GCR-CCNcloud
    coupling. In one of the domains studied (off the
    coast of SW Africa), that correlation was statistically
    significant.

    – The six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude
    show on average slightly stronger indications of a
    cosmic ray signal in the cloud parameters than the average
    of the other cases, with 16 out of 24 explored correlations
    having the expected sign, but only 4 of these
    have correlations above 0.5 in absolute value. Due to
    the limited number of cases studied, the significance of
    this result is difficult to evaluate.

    – One of the domains studied (mid-Atlantic) showed correlations
    which for all four cloud parameters have signs
    that are consistent with a cosmic ray induced CCN formation.
    In this rather small domain cloud susceptibility
    is large, implying a potentially large impact on cloud
    albedo. A more detailed analysis of this domain revealed
    high correlations between GCR and the properties
    of high clouds in general and low clouds of intermediate
    optical depth.

    I stand by my assessment that your one word negative reply and your selective quote was highly misleading.

    The full paper is available for free a couple of clicks further on from the abstract you linked to:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

    People can decide for themselves whether your selected quote was representative of the rest of the study.

  85. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 1:51 am
    I stand by my assessment that your one word negative reply and your selective quote was highly misleading.
    The authors’s own conclusion:
    “In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data.”
    Go tell them that their conclusion was highly misleading.

  86. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 2, 2011 at 2:11 am

    tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 1:51 am
    I stand by my assessment that your one word negative reply and your selective quote was highly misleading.

    The authors’s own conclusion:
    “In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data.”
    Go tell them that their conclusion was highly misleading.

    I’ve seen many papers where the money quote contradicts the main findings, and so have you. So I don’t need to go and harrass them for doing what they had to do in the current scientific situation of the gatekeepers and guardians of the AGW hegemony forcing authors to contradict the rest of their conclusions before allowing the paper to be published. The only failure here was that they didn’t keep the paper behind a paywall. I notice you only linked to the abstract rather than the freely available full paper though.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

    Again, the conclusions in the same paper that Leif chose not to mention:

    – Cloud droplet size has a rather large negative correlation
    with GCR, in agreement with a possible GCR-CCNcloud
    coupling. In one of the domains studied (off the
    coast of SW Africa), that correlation was statistically
    significant.

    – The six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude
    show on average slightly stronger indications of a
    cosmic ray signal in the cloud parameters than the average
    of the other cases, with 16 out of 24 explored correlations
    having the expected sign, but only 4 of these
    have correlations above 0.5 in absolute value. Due to
    the limited number of cases studied, the significance of
    this result is difficult to evaluate.

    – One of the domains studied (mid-Atlantic) showed correlations
    which for all four cloud parameters have signs
    that are consistent with a cosmic ray induced CCN formation.
    In this rather small domain cloud susceptibility
    is large, implying a potentially large impact on cloud
    albedo. A more detailed analysis of this domain revealed
    high correlations between GCR and the properties
    of high clouds in general and low clouds of intermediate
    optical depth.

  87. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 2, 2011 at 1:48 am

    tb
    Yes, but here is the big BUT

    Thanks Vuk, good observations. I think there are all sorts of interesting possibilites around the Svensmark hypothesis, including the possibility that the effect might be one of warming in some places and times of year and cooling in others.

    Quite a lot of GCR’s will make it into the lower atmosphere south of the ice too. Worth finding out what the net effect is I’d say.

  88. There is a new petition on the UK government website: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/15656

    I would urge everyone in the UK to sign. It reads:

    Take seriously the risk of more extreme winters

    Following a succession of cold winters and cool summers (like the notorious BBQ summer), we now have corroboration by the CERN physics institute of the work of Svensmark and others which clearly indicates a link between climate and solar activity. Other scientists suggest that the recent drop in solar activity may herald a new Maunder minimum which was a period of low solar activity, few sunspots and extremely cold weather. In light of this evidence, we ask the government to ensure it is prepared for a sustained period of extreme cold and ask it to urgently undertake research to understand the effects of solar activity.

  89. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 2:41 am
    I’ve seen many papers where the money quote contradicts the main findings
    The authors state their main findings as follows:
    “The overall conclusion, built on a series of independent statistical tests, is that no clear cosmic ray signal associated with Forbush decrease events is found in highly susceptible marine low clouds over the southern hemisphere oceans. […] For the ongoing global warming, however, the role of galactic cosmic rays would be expected to be negligible, considering the fact that the cosmic ray flux has not changed over the last few decades – apart from the 11-year cycle”.

  90. The elephant in the room (Earth’s variable, natural, long and short term climate variations) is always shoved to the back when the Sun and CO2 are discussed. Why is that? Does the obvious not interest people who want only to find needles in the haystack?

  91. Pamela Gray says:
    September 2, 2011 at 6:51 am
    The elephant in the room (Earth’s variable, natural, long and short term climate variations) is always shoved to the back when the Sun and CO2 are discussed. Why is that? Does the obvious not interest people who want only to find needles in the haystack?
    Because the adherents of each religion only want to hear the teachings of their own prophet, and reality does not enter the preaching.

  92. I was amused at how Gavin responded when one of his faithful hinted that Svensmark may be on to something.

    I agree that this is not the slam dunk proof that the denialists claim it is. But it does lend support to Svensmark’s theories. At the very least, it doesn’t disprove them. In the text you provide additional steps that would be needed to show the correlation, so, you clearly are not dismissing the possibility that cosmic rays influence on cloud formation could be a much more significant contribution to global temperature change that previously thought.
    I think what this paper most significantly shows is that the science is definitely not settled.

    [Response: This idea far predates Svensmark – going back to Ney in the 1950s or Dickinson in the 1970s. What people have objected to in Svensmark’s work is not the idea that there are potential connections between GCR fluxes and climate, but rather the ridiculous overselling of their results, the inappropriate manipulation of data, and the lack of predictability of any of their proposed correlations when new data arrives. There are many issues in climate that are worth more study and this is certainly one of them, regardless of the previous overwrought hyperbole. – gavin

  93. DCA says:
    September 2, 2011 at 7:17 am
    I was amused at how Gavin responded when one of his faithful hinted that Svensmark may be on to something.
    To the faithful on both sides, the science doesn’t matter.

  94. Sensor operator says:
    September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am

    “Of course, Dr. Shaviv leaves out one important statement from the lead author everyone seems afaid to accept: “[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”

    And of course you leave out that the only thing underpinning the CO2 narrative is that climate models can’t reproduce observations without adding CO2 forcing and water vapor amplificaiton thereof into the model and they don’t of any other forcing agency to add instead of CO2.

    So the whole CO2 premise is based on logical fallacy called argument from ignorance i.e. we are ignorant of anything other than CO2 which could be the cause ergo CO2 is the cause.

    Well, now here’s another possible cause… GCR variability.

    It’s important to note that GCR variability was hypothesized by Svensmark 15 years ago and it took 15 years to get an experiment funded to test the hypothesis. That’s because the climate boffins and political machinery we’re out to blame CO2 and weren’t interested in finding other possible explanations. They not only aren’t interested but pointedly impede testing of alternative explanations.

    The most important thing the CLOUD experiment did was it didn’t falsify the GCR hypothesis but rather confirmed that GCRs do indeed increase the amount of small particulates which can go on to agglomerate into particles large enough to form condensation nuclei. Now further experimentation is called for to determine if the GCR effect in vivo is operational in situ. One wonders how many more years the CO2 conspiracists will delay further experimentation around the GCR hypothesis.

  95. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 2, 2011 at 6:06 am

    “The overall conclusion, built on a series of independent statistical tests, is that no clear cosmic ray signal associated with Forbush decrease events is found in highly susceptible marine low clouds over the southern hemisphere oceans. […] For the ongoing global warming, however, the role of galactic cosmic rays would be expected to be negligible, considering the fact that the cosmic ray flux has not changed over the last few decades – apart from the 11-year cycle”.

    Yes but the flux (via sunspot proxy) for past 50 years has been at the highest sustained level in the 400-year history of sunspot counts. There’s huge heat sink called the global ocean that can keep on storing additional energy over that entire 50 year cycle. This should be intuitive to the author who wrote the above paragraph because every dumbass knows that when you put a flame under a pot of water it doesn’t start boiling instantly but, as long as the flame remains, it will continue to get warmer until it does start to boil. GCRs would presumably work the same way – turn up the heat and leave it on the higher setting for 50 years and climate slowly but surely gets warmer. Like duh.

  96. tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 2:41 am

    “The authors’s own conclusion:
    “In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data.””

    Author’s conclusion is just his interpretation of the data. Others may interpret the same data differently. There’s a great degree of data ownership issues prevalent in bandwagon science. Whoever actually obtained the data feel’s he’s the only one who can interpret the data as well. That ain’t the case. The data belongs to everyone. The interpretations belong to individuals. There’s a tremendous degree of resentment when someone who didn’t do the work of obtaining the data uses it to reach different conclusions. It’s understandable of course “I worked for the data so it’s mine and mine alone to interpret” but science isn’t supposed to work that way. The data is supposed to be as available to critics as it is to supporters. Instead of this we’re seeing FOI laws being employed by potential critics to obtain the original data upon which conclusions were built. Even you should realize that isn’t right. That’s bandwagon science and hoarding the data is a defense strategy to protect the bandwagon conclusions i.e. circling the wagons around the data so the savages can’t get at it.

  97. Of course the Sun affects the Earth and the Earth’s climate, but not the way the ‘exclusive knowledge’ whish or want to understand it.
    I can confirm that the reconstruction by Svalgaard – Cliver of the HMF has a good resonance (well almost) in the North Atlantic, and from then on in events like the Atlantic Multidecadal and the North Atlantic Oscillations as contained in the data of the relevant indices.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm

    Hey doc, I did offer the NAP data a year ago, still not interested?

  98. John Marshall says:
    September 2, 2011 at 1:23 am

    “1 degree C increase with doubling of CO2.

    Still the mantra. So please explain how, during the Ordovician period with CO2 atmospheric content of 8000ppmv, we had an ice age? And a severe and prolonged one at that.”

    The Ordovician is a sole exception to the rule. Given it was 500 million years ago there is not precisely measurable alignment between evidence of glaciation and evidence of atmospheric CO2. I posted an article on another thread in the past couple of weeks where further research showed a mistaken alignment of a 50,000 years and the CO2 level was indeed very low at the beginning of Ordovican ice age and the gradual build-up of CO2 led to its ending.

    The story about CO2 level not aligning with past ice ages is pure urban legend based on exactly one ice age that appeared to be an exception to the rule and new evidence indicates it was mistaken dating of the geologic column rather than an exception to the rule.

  99. Dave Springer says:
    September 2, 2011 at 9:17 am
    Yes but the flux (via sunspot proxy) for past 50 years has been at the highest sustained level in the 400-year history of sunspot counts.
    Actually not [apart from the flux going inverse with the sunspot numbers]. The sunspot numbers were highest in the late 18th century.

  100. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 2, 2011 at 9:33 am
    Hey doc, I did offer the NAP data a year ago, still not interested?
    No, as the data is made up. And without an explanation of what it is, is useless.

  101. Dave Springer says:
    September 2, 2011 at 9:17 am

    “This should be intuitive to the author who wrote the above paragraph because every dumbass knows that when you put a flame under a pot of water it doesn’t start boiling instantly but, as long as the flame remains, it will continue to get warmer until it does start to boil.”

    That is exactly the point to make when discussing global temps. The long term energy accumulation (for earth it is primarily sourced from the sun) is a function of how much and how long. The result is cooling or warming based on the influence.strength. After which we apply other influential effects short term and long term.

    What matters is that we recognize individuals have an opinion on where climate is headed. Prepare for whatever direction you consider it to be headed. Just don’t force yourself interest onto others for the sake of ideology..

  102. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    Hoser says:
    September 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Get out of the ivory tower, and get your hands dirty.
    Like Jim Hansen………….

    There’s your classic “I’m too important to do that” argument.

    I see the same attitude with business people and politicians who can’t face the opposition in a true public arena. At least Hansen goes out and speaks to actual live humans. His message is wrong, but he’s busy convincing people of his position. He uses his credentials to lend weight to his arguments. Others with similar credentials need to step up.

    If we want to counter the Left, we have to talk to people, that is, live humans. People want to have a chance to look you in the eye and hear your voice. Can you do that? Too uncomfortable? Well, that’s not the case with all of us. More of the opposition to Hansen need to get out in the real world and talk about what science really is, how climate hysteria is not science, and what we should be doing to keep people working, and improve the living conditions for more of us. Right now we are going in the wrong direction based on falsehoods.

    At times, we must fulfill a duty to our fellow citizens in other ways besides just doing our regular jobs. There are serious issues affecting us, as I described previously. We may not have time to wait for pure science to solve problems, or for Nature to teach lessons. When government interferes, it affects all of us. When a company takes a risk, it only affects the shareholders and employees. We need to get government out of the science business, and stop corrupting the process to justify its designs for acquiring more power. There is a global effort to take control. We all need to oppose them now. The average person can’t do it without our help.

    Even if all you do is speak to a group of undergraduates, you are helping.

  103. Hoser says:
    September 2, 2011 at 11:31 am
    “Even if all you do is speak to a group of undergraduates, you are helping.”

    Yes, yes and yes. If you live and work in a bubble then engage others at the grocery store line, etc. The Gorophyte Deo is grasping its last breath.

  104. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 2, 2011 at 6:06 am

    tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 2:41 am
    I’ve seen many papers where the money quote contradicts the main findings
    The authors state their main findings as follows:
    “The overall conclusion,…”.

    You’ve missed out the main findings in the conclusions section of the paper which confirm the link between GCR’s and clouds. Here they are again for easy reference:

    – Cloud droplet size has a rather large negative correlation
    with GCR, in agreement with a possible GCR-CCNcloud
    coupling. In one of the domains studied (off the
    coast of SW Africa), that correlation was statistically
    significant.

    – The six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude
    show on average slightly stronger indications of a
    cosmic ray signal in the cloud parameters than the average
    of the other cases, with 16 out of 24 explored correlations
    having the expected sign, but only 4 of these
    have correlations above 0.5 in absolute value. Due to
    the limited number of cases studied, the significance of
    this result is difficult to evaluate.

    – One of the domains studied (mid-Atlantic) showed correlations
    which for all four cloud parameters have signs
    that are consistent with a cosmic ray induced CCN formation.
    In this rather small domain cloud susceptibility
    is large, implying a potentially large impact on cloud
    albedo. A more detailed analysis of this domain revealed
    high correlations between GCR and the properties
    of high clouds in general and low clouds of intermediate
    optical depth.

  105. Hoser says:
    September 2, 2011 at 11:31 am
    If we want to counter the Left
    This is not about contering the Left, but about Science. You should never let your political goals determine the outcome of scientific investigation.

    tallbloke says:
    September 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    The authors state their main findings as follows:
    “The overall conclusion,…”.
    You’ve missed out the main findings in the conclusions section of the paper which confirm the link between GCR’s and clouds.

    The authors are very clear on what their findings are. With random data you can always find wiggles that match anything. It is the ‘overall conclusion’ that matters. The authors state clearly that they do no confirm any such link. In addition, Kristjansson is one of Svensmarks sharpest critics, so is not trying to confirm the climate link ‘under the radar’. Perhaps I should also refer to Sloan and Wolfendale http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001 or Pierce and Adams, or …

    Even Kirkby admits that the CERN result has nothing to do with the climate link.

  106. Dave Springer says:
    September 2, 2011 at 9:36 am
    John Marshall says:
    September 2, 2011 at 1:23 am

    “1 degree C increase with doubling of CO2.

    Still the mantra. So please explain how, during the Ordovician period with CO2 atmospheric content of 8000ppmv, we had an ice age? And a severe and prolonged one at that.”

    The Ordovician is a sole exception to the rule. Given it was 500 million years ago there is not precisely measurable alignment between evidence of glaciation and evidence of atmospheric CO2. I posted an article on another thread in the past couple of weeks where further research showed a mistaken alignment of a 50,000 years and the CO2 level was indeed very low at the beginning of Ordovican ice age and the gradual build-up of CO2 led to its ending.

    The story about CO2 level not aligning with past ice ages is pure urban legend based on exactly one ice age that appeared to be an exception to the rule and new evidence indicates it was mistaken dating of the geologic column rather than an exception to the rule.

    The Ordovician is not a sole exception, it is one of many “exceptions” to an absurdly fictitious rule. Here are some more:

    Marinoan ice age, 670-630 mYa, atmospheric CO2 >10,000ppm

    Sturtian ice age 750-700 mYa, atmospheric CO2 >10,000ppm

    Huronian ice age, about 2 billion years ago, CO2 probably >20%

    Co2 exerts no effect whatsoever on global temperature. What is your problem with this obvious fact?

  107. Since many regions of earth are devoid of natural sources for CCNs (e.g. dust),
    ——-
    Thus seems to be an odd thing to say since we have just had a big discussion about soot deposits in the arctic.

    Until cosmic ray nucleation can be shown to be a more powerful effect than all the other sources of cloud nucleation there is no proof. There is only conjecture at this stage.

  108. Review of:

    http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

    The huge difference to CLOUD experiment (in my view):

    “In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course
    of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the
    small droplets the clouds consist of.”

    This is a clear omission by CLOUD, where they only give it 30 minutes to 2
    hours at max.

  109. LazyTeenager says:
    September 2, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    “There is only conjecture at this stage.”

    That argument is a double edged sword. It applies to both sides.

  110. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

    “The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate.”

    But, its integral is.

  111. Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    “The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate.”
    But, its integral is.

    No, as you are not showing the integral of the cosmic intensity.

  112. Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    That argument is a double edged sword. It applies to both sides.
    No, it does not. Not every conjecture is equal.

    Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    “The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate.”
    But, its integral is.

    Actually, the price of a US postage stamp is driving climate [especially the past 60 years] as this correlation clearly shows:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/

  113. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    “No, it does not. Not every conjecture is equal.”

    It doesn’t matter. They’re both, by your own words, still conjectures.

    “No, as you are not showing the integral of the cosmic intensity.”

    But, it is a valid proxy for it, as is demonstrated in the first link I gave,

  114. Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm
    It doesn’t matter. They’re both, by your own words, still conjectures.
    It does matter, even if conjectures. Your argument is of the nature that my chances of winning the lottery must be 50% because either I win or I don’t.

    “No, as you are not showing the integral of the cosmic intensity.”
    But, it is a valid proxy for it, as is demonstrated in the first link I gave

    Even if so, the notion of the integral in this connection is nonsense. The integral of a time series of random numbers will be increasing with time.

  115. Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 8:19 pm
    And, here is Svensmark’s paper “Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate”. See Figure 3b.
    Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.

  116. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    “Your argument is of the nature that my chances of winning the lottery must be 50% because either I win or I don’t.”

    No. My argument is of the nature that we cannot revert to a preindustrial society to forestall an alleged catastrophe on the basis of a conjecture.

    “The integral of a time series of random numbers [with a positive bias offset] will be increasing with time.”

    Fixed. Now, what does that have to do with the integral of an anomaly from the mean?

    “Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.”

    You appear not to have read the description of the thick black line.

  117. Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    No. My argument is of the nature that we cannot revert to a preindustrial society to forestall an alleged catastrophe on the basis of a conjecture.
    No, it was not stated that way. If you wanted to say what you just said, you should have said just that, instead of the nonsense you dished up.

    “The integral of a time series of random numbers [with a positive bias offset] will be increasing with time.”
    Fixed. Now, what does that have to do with the integral of an anomaly from the mean?

    The cosmic ray variation is on top of a [large] positive bias.

    “Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.”
    You appear not to have read the description of the thick black line.

    The thin line is the neutron flux with has an absolute calibration. The ion chamber data does not. You appear not to know much about cosmic rays and their measurements. Perhaps 3c is simpler to understand as it uses the [valid] sunspot number proxy. Note how the thin line does not match the dashed line.

  118. Bart says:
    September 4, 2011 at 12:58 am
    Your first two counterpoints are either argumentative or confused.
    The confusion is firmly on your part. Here is the integral of the cosmic ray intensity at Thule if you want to calculate it over the departure from the mean: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Cosmic-Ray-Integral.png any other station shows the same variation just with smaller amplitudes.

    On the third:
    Thus, the data to compare with would not have been with neutron monitor data but with ionization chambers which exhibit a much smaller latitudinal dependence.

    The ionization chamber data do not have an absolute calibration and any long term trend is suspect. The latitudinal dependence is a red herring. Here you can see that the variation at Tsumeb [cutoff=9.2 Gev, close to the equator] is the same shape as at all other latitudes, but with much smaller amplitude as at higher latitudes: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg

    Any comment on figure 3c?

  119. Bart says:
    September 4, 2011 at 12:58 am
    Thus, the data to compare with would not have been with neutron monitor data but with ionization chambers which exhibit a much smaller latitudinal dependence.
    The latitudinal dependence is not of the neutron monitor data, but of the primary cosmic rays. If the particles possess energy, which is greater than the magnetic cut-off energy, they will cross through the magnetosphere and reach the upper layers of the atmosphere.
    But if their energy is insufficient they will not. This means that the high energy [greater than 10-15 Gev] cosmic rays hits at all latitudes equally and are therefore the same part of the neutron monitor counts for all stations. That at higher latitudes there are many more additional cosmic rays with lower energies is irrelevant.

  120. Dr. Svalgaard,

    “The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate.”

    Camp and Tung and separately Lean, both have established a signature of the solar cycle on the climate in the satellite data of the last 30 years. Since the cosmic rays vary with the cycle, they might account for some of the variation that Camp and Tung assume to merely be due to the sun’s variation in radiative forcing. Their model independent estimate of climate sensitivity from the signature would be inflated if some of it should have been attributed to the hypothesized cosmic ray effect instead. It was never valid in a nonlinear system to assume the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing was the same as that to solar variation.. A solar modulated cosmic ray effect would make the differences in their forcing more than just ozone generation and coupling vertically and horizontally to different parts of the climate system.

    Uncertainty in aerosol forcing has been shown to account for how models disagreeing by a factor of 3 in climate sensitivity can still “agree” on the 20th century temperature variation. Doubtless, such juggling of the aerosol figures could also explain the temperature variation of the last 60 years on their own. The cosmic ray hypothesis could explain the recent warming by giving more credibility to solar variation as the cause of the little ice age and climate commitment from the thernal inertia of the ocean would explain why we are still warming, and aerosols could perfect the fit for the last 60 years. If it doesn’t seem pretty to you, you shouldn’t like the “agreement” of the models with the climate and each other either.

  121. So..if Earth’s magnetic field is the primary modulator of GCR here on Earth..why then don’t we establish a network of moniters within the weaker and stronger areas of the magnetic field to see where hotspots might be or what field strengths are more effective than other areas.
    I’m trying to picture neutron moniters floating on platforms in the South Atlantic (anomaly)..lol somehow or bouyed balloons..
    Earths magnetic field is not consistent in several areas, so larger weaker areas and tree ring data I have issue with. But blueberry pancakes and sausages sound good right now..

    REPLY:
    The Earth’s magnetic field is too weak and small, it is the solar magnetic field which is modulating GCR’s – Anthony

  122. Martin Lewitt says:
    September 4, 2011 at 8:40 am
    Camp and Tung and separately Lean, both have established a signature of the solar cycle on the climate in the satellite data of the last 30 years. Since the cosmic rays vary with the cycle, they might account for some of the variation that Camp and Tung assume to merely be due to the sun’s variation in radiative forcing.
    There is a solar cycle effect, but it is small. From radiative forcing one would expect 0.07 C. The various claims center on an effect twice as large. This is usually ‘explained’ as due to ‘feedback’, but could as you note also be due to cosmic rays, so TSI gives 0.07 and cosmic rays some 0.08 C. But these as cyclic and the trend in TSI is downwards and in cosmic rays non-existent, so neither explains the much larger [10X the cycle effect] upwards trend in temperatures. The claims that TSI and/or GCRs are major players in the climate and that is what I say is not established. That there can be tiny, second order effects is not disputed.

  123. I’m also having issue with Nir Shaviv theory on iceages and spiral arm crossings. Seems further out from the arms the cooler it would be. It is suggested that we are above the plane heading out in our galaxies nose side in its direction of travel, an are where we find Intergalactic Cosmic Rays. How’s that.. I could defer.. nah pancakes were good.

  124. Carla says:
    September 4, 2011 at 8:43 am
    So..if Earth’s magnetic field is the primary modulator of GCR here on Earth..why then don’t we establish a network of moniters within the weaker and stronger areas of the magnetic field to see where hotspots might be or what field strengths are more effective than other areas.
    We have such a network: see Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Neutron-Monitor-Network.pdf

    REPLY: The Earth’s magnetic field is too weak and small, it is the solar magnetic field which is modulating GCR’s – Anthony
    The Earth’s field is strong enough and varies enough to be the primary modulator on time scales of centuries and longer. On shorter time scales, the variation is too slow to be visible, so the tiny solar modulation of GCRs at energies thought to effective becomes observable.

  125. Carla says:
    September 4, 2011 at 10:10 am
    where we find Intergalactic Cosmic Rays.
    We are moving so slowly and the Galaxy is so big that any variation would take thousands of years to play out. When it comes to ultra-high energy cosmic rays we are already observing Intergalactic Cosmic Rays. Such are so rare that they have no measurable influence on anything.

  126. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 4, 2011 at 6:06 am

    “The latitudinal dependence is not …”

    IMO, Dr. Shaviv has answered this question satisfactorily.

  127. Bart says:
    September 4, 2011 at 11:53 am
    IMO, Dr. Shaviv has answered this question satisfactorily.
    Neither you nor Shaviv appear to know enough about cosmic rays to provide satisfactory answers. But, many people hold unfounded opinions, so why not you, too.

  128. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Some of them also think bald assertion and bluster form a foundation.

  129. Anthony & Dr. Svalgaard
    Secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are not negligible on decadal scale (about order of an average magnetic storm ?), they are most prominent in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Further more they correlate well with long term temperature changes in the region. I would consider this to be effect of the ‘ocean currents – magnetic field’ bidirectional interaction rather then the impact of GCRs.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

  130. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are not negligible on decadal scale (about order of an average magnetic storm ?),
    They are negligible as the impact of any change has to be seen as the fraction of the change of the total. That fraction is of the order of 1/1000 per year or 1/100 per decade or 1/10 per century.
    Your ocean current effect is much too small for anything, so any correlation you might think there is is spurious.

  131. Bart says:
    September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

    “The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate.”

    But, its integral is.

    Same with sunspot number integration. Leif doesn’t like non-linear correlations though.

  132. tallbloke says:
    September 4, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    Same with sunspot number integration. Leif doesn’t like non-linear correlations though.
    I showed cosmic ray integration since 1957. Sunspot integration will give the same result [try it and show it] as SSN is a good proxy for GCRs. And they are not like the temperature variation. This has nothing to do with non-linear correlation. Both Shaviv and Svensmark claim a linear correlation.

  133. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
    We have such a network: see Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Neutron-Monitor-Network.pdf
    ~
    Thank you Dr. S.
    Some of this is kinda depressing.

    “”The status of neutron monitor operations in the past decade is summarized
    in Fig. 1. There were fourteen neutron monitors operated by U.S. institutions at the
    beginning of the decade (2001), all but one of which were supported by NSF. Since
    then, four have closed, including the two longest-operating monitors in the world
    (Climax and Mt. Washington). Of the ten monitors remaining, only two operate with
    NSF support. The remainder continue to operate, for the time being, under
    institutional support.
    The present situation with U.S.-operated neutron monitors is not
    sustainable. The small amount of available federal funding makes it difficult to attract
    young researchers into the field,..””
    Europeans seem to be keeping it up though. Ground based telescopes backing up the ground monitors sounded pretty cool. I didn’t see any in the South Atlantic, some in S. Africa and Peru.
    ~
    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Anthony & Dr. Svalgaard
    Secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are not negligible on decadal scale (about order of an average magnetic storm ?), they are most prominent in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Further more they correlate well with long term temperature changes in the region. I would consider this to be effect of the ‘ocean currents – magnetic field’ bidirectional interaction rather then the impact of GCRs.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

    ~
    Earth’s field is like a leaking sieve during even these slow coronal wind stream events Vuks. That dayside lays open during these coronal windsteam events and looks as though it may be the cause of the dented SAA where it rides nearest to Earth. Not to mention several specific weaker areas not just the poles.
    Maybe we should say Earth’s magnetic field collects cosmic rays in its cosmic raydiation belts. Then are released by solar events. No no no they are just jumping around all over the place those pesky cosmic rays.
    ~
    Hmmm Vuks, let me think about this for a while.
    “”magnetic field’ bidirectional interaction “”

  134. tallbloke says:
    September 4, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    “Leif doesn’t like non-linear correlations though.”

    Not so much non-linear. But, he prefers memory-less systems. He does not grok ARMA.

  135. Bart says:
    September 4, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    Not so much non-linear. But, he prefers memory-less systems. He does not grok ARMA.
    You have no idea. The climate system has a lot of memory: it takes thousands of years for a step change in forcing to penetrate to the bottom of the ocean, but half of the resulting change in temperature takes place in the first decade, so the effective time constant is short. Therefore it makes no sense to integrate over many decades or centuries. This you, of course, don’t now, so listen and learn.

  136. Should have said,
    Dayside lays open during dayside reconnection that occurs with slow speed solar windstreams coming from coronal holes. That constant windstream pressure could be directly related to the dent in the cosmic radiation belts that sits nearest to Earth at the SAA. Or not.

  137. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 4, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    “Therefore it makes no sense to integrate over many decades or centuries.”

    See?

  138. Bart says:
    September 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm
    “Therefore it makes no sense to integrate over many decades or centuries.”
    See?

    You must mean: “I see!”. Repenting sinners are always accepted back in the flock.

  139. Leif Svalgaard says: September 4, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    A lot of derogatory remarks and other gibberish that loosely translates in to “Don’t write, quote or reference anything that contradicts my beliefs, I am the owner of all things solar. Anything not on my power-point slides is heresy and a sin against the keeper of Sol. It is my duty to ensure that the keeper of Sol has the last comment on anything solar.

  140. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 4, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    …1/10 per century

    10% per century, makes 5000 – 6000 nT, that is far more than few nT the HMF does.

    ….correlation you might think there is spurious.

    This one is nearly 2000 year long

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm

    Not the Svensmark’s cloud albedo since change is in the opposite direction (weaker mf = higher temperature).
    Many spurious events around (currents are currently current!)
    See you.

  141. Andrew30 says:
    September 4, 2011 at 10:38 pm
    It is my duty to ensure that the keeper of Sol has the last comment on anything solar.
    Very perceptive.

    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 4, 2011 at 11:19 pm
    10% per century, makes 5000 – 6000 nT, that is far more than few nT the HMF does.
    The HMF has nothing to do with the decrease of the main field, but you are correct that the Earth’s magnetic field is changing significantly. Some think that in a thousand years time it might be gone completely and then come back with reversed polarity.

  142. Dr. Svalgaard,

    “Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.”

    The value and not the heading would seem to be what is relevant. The value is still in the warm range.

    If the Svensmark hypothesis is correct, I suspect it is not the part of the climate system where the amplitude of the change in cosmic ray intensity is greatest at the poles that is the most relevant, but rather where most of the solar energy enters the climates system, i.e., at the tropics. The solar correlated variation in CSI near the equator is still on the order of 10% with the solar cycle.

  143. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 5, 2011 at 12:12 am
    Carla see graph on page 18:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/pdf/1367-2630_11_6_063015.pdf

    ~
    Thanks Vuks, my brain just exploded. Did a little more than just look at the graph on page 18. Started my read after intro on page 17 thru conclusions.
    That these hotspots are indendent of the dipole and correlate with major ocean currents wowee. Have to wonder about surface currents on the solar disk too and wonder for a while. (ie have to get some work done around here)
    Hope Leif reads this, as it would be a good addition to his repetoire. Probably already has and made the hair stand up on the back of his neck. lol
    Surface harmonics, now what could be the energy source..

    BTW, Thanks for the link Mr. Vuks..

  144. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    September 5, 2011 at 12:12 am
    Carla see graph on page 18:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/pdf/1367-2630_11_6_063015.pdf

    Ryskin’s speculations are basically nonsense. The observed secular evolution of the main field is a consequence of motions in the liquid metal outer core. His lament that data coverage is poor is moot as the modern description is based on almost perfect coverage provided by orbiting satellites.

  145. Martin Lewitt says:
    September 5, 2011 at 7:09 am
    If the Svensmark hypothesis is correct, I suspect it is not the part of the climate system where the amplitude of the change in cosmic ray intensity is greatest at the poles that is the most relevant, but rather where most of the solar energy enters the climates system, i.e., at the tropics. The solar correlated variation in CSI near the equator is still on the order of 10% with the solar cycle.
    There is great confusion on this. Svensmark and other adherents claim that only high-energy GCRs with energy above 10-15 Gev are effective. These enter the atmosphere equally at all latitudes. It is the lower energy particles that have a latitude dependence. The main point is still that there has been no trend at all in the GCR flux over the past 60 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png

  146. Dr. Svalgaard,

    “The main point is still that there has been no trend at all in the GCR flux over the past 60 years:”

    When I look at the graph I see a potential contribution to the mid-century cooling that isn’t present in the increasing CO2 trend. The cool phase of the PDO and the generous uncertainty in aerosol forcing allow the mid-century cooling, a plateau in solar activity, an increase in black carbon and CO2 forcing to all be accomodated in the models. The modelers generally agree that even if the forcing circa 2004 doesn’t increase at all, the climate is “committed” to another 1 degree C of warming over the next century. Had the oceans reached equilibrium with solar forcing at the beginning of the plateau in solar activity circa 1940? Or was there unrealized climate commitment even then? The models generally spin up from what the conditions are thought to have been in 1880, but what was the state of the oceans really after the centuries of “the little ice age”? Solar activity does not have to increase after 1940 in order to have contributed to the late century warming, it only had to remain at levels higher than the oceans had yet to reach equilibrium with, which the modelers (Wigley, et al, and Meehl et al) say would take over 1000 years.

    There is a reason that the IPCC summary is very careful to keep solar grouped with volcanic and CO2 grouped with aerosols and black carbon:

    “During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.”

    And that is because if you combined solar with aerosols and black carbon the models would also be able to simulate the observed patterns in warming. Volcanoes combined with CO2 would likely have produced cooling. Very likely, the uncertainly in aerosols which allow models ranging from 2 degrees C to 6 degrees C sensitivity to “match” the observed temperature pattern would also allow the models to match the pattern with changes in aerosol forcing alone. And these remarkable models could accomplish all that “matching” without getting ENSO, the PDO, the precipitation, the surface albedo feedback or the clouds right. I don’t think we can rule out variation in solar coupling to the climate being responsible for 30 to 60% or more of the recent warming even granting flat solar activity for the last half of the century. Which makes me skeptical of a 90% likelihood that nearly all the recent warming is due to GHGs. The say “most”, but don’t contradict the interpretation “nearly all”. It appears to me that the proponents of the anthropogenic GHG theory have been trying to obscure rather than clarify the issues with their careful word crafting, political maneuvering, personal attacks and refusal to consider the implications of the model diagnostic literature. My null hypothesis would be a 30-30-30 split between solar, natural variation (like the PDO), and CO2 (with black carbon) based upon our current understanding, with the PDO probably also attributed partly to solar variation in some kind of resonance with the ocean basins.

    I like to rule out plausible competing hypotheses and to directly address possible contrary evidence before I declare the science “settled”. Those declaring the science settled have done neither.

    The next couple decades promise to be exciting times for climate science. What do you think is the best proxy reconstruction of the high energy component of the GCR flux we can do covering both the MWP and the little ice age?

  147. Martin Lewitt says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:25 am
    What do you think is the best proxy reconstruction of the high energy component of the GCR flux we can do covering both the MWP and the little ice age?
    The community has recognized the need for an impartial and thorough discussion of this question with as a result a reconstruction that can be trusted: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
    The Steinhilber 2010 reconstruction seems good to me [with a few caveats] back to about 1720.

  148. Dr. Svalgaard,

    Thank you for your efforts to advance the science. Hopefully you can validate a proxy that will allow confidence in an even longer reconstruction.

    regards and good luck!

  149. *****
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 4, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    You have no idea. The climate system has a lot of memory: it takes thousands of years for a step change in forcing to penetrate to the bottom of the ocean, but half of the resulting change in temperature takes place in the first decade, so the effective time constant is short.
    *****

    Only half of the resulting changes in a decade? The diurnal “lag” is ~3 hrs. The seasonal lag is ~2.5 months. I’d bet the 50% change from a global forcing-change occurs in, at most, only a few yrs — the time-constant for aerosols from Pinatubo (which was nearly global) was only a yr or so. Yes, the deep ocean does have a long memory, but it’s a small, barely-recalled memory.

    But I agree w/your point.

  150. Dr. Svalgaard,

    “There is good evidence that solar activity has not changed since the 1720s.”

    I agree that solar activity that high in the 1700s is problematic. It might take the maunder minimum combined with volcanic activity over the 1700s and the preceding centuries to have the oceans in a state where climate commitment could carry warming through the second half of the 20th century. Volcanic activity would have to have canceled out that burst of sustained solar activity. Here is a recent report of volcanic activity:

    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Gao2008JD010239.pdf

    The argument then would be that the late 19th century and the 20th century are characterized as much by low volcanic activity as by high solar activity. In which case this IPCC statement:

    “During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling.”

    Is relative to what? Over the last 50 years the low level of volcanic activity increased more than the solar changed, would not be saying much at all. Could the warming just be due to much less net cooling than the oceans have adjusted to, i.e., a high levell of solar activity and a low level of volcanic cooling?

  151. Good luck to the team.
    Co-Organizers: Leif Svalgaard (USA), Mike Lockwood (UK), Jürg Beer (Switzerland)
    Team members: Andre Balogh (UK), Paul Charbonneau (Canada), Ed Cliver (USA), Nancy Crooker (USA), Marc DeRosa (USA), Ken McCracken (Australia), Matt Owens (UK), Pete Riley (USA), George Siscoe (USA), Sami Solanki (Germany), Friedhelm Steinhilber (Switzerland), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), Yi-Ming Wang (USA)

    I wonder would they make of this little graph:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm

    I done most of data organising and have a rough draft; once it is finished I will email graph with a short intro to all members.

  152. beng says:
    September 6, 2011 at 6:36 am
    Only half of the resulting changes in a decade? [...]
    But I agree w/your point.

    Look at Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048623.pdf

    Martin Lewitt says:
    September 6, 2011 at 7:19 am
    Volcanic activity would have to have canceled out that burst of sustained solar activity.
    There is evidence that the cosmogenic record is contaminated by volcanic activity [and climate change itself controlling the circulation that brings 10Be to the polar regions]. The dips in solar activity deduced from the cosmic ray record around 1700, 1810, and 1890 may be more due to volcanic activity than to solar activity.
    10Be is deposited by adhering to stratospheric aerosols which then drift down and rain out. The amount of aerosols in the stratosphere is controlled mainly by volcanic eruptions. There were such strong eruptions in 1693 (Hekla on Iceland, having large effect on nearby Greenland), 1766 (Hekla), 1809 (see Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), 1815 (Tambora), 1883 (Krakatoa).
    It is estimated that more than half the change in the cosmic ray record is due to such non-solar effects.

  153. *****
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 6, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Look at Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048623.pdf
    *****

    Thanks. I’ll study that. We’re really not that far apart to begin with.

    I realize that an earth w/large continental ice-sheets present (unlike today) will have longer lag times, w/such large, relatively atmospheric & solar-interactive masses present.

Comments are closed.