More support for Svensmark’s cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s climate hypothesis

There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to  Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:

cosmic_rays_cloud_flowchart

The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:

Cosmic_rays_feedback_fig1

 

The new paper suggest that changes in the quantity of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are caused by changes in the cosmic ray flux:

The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.

The wider variation in CCNs makes the Svenmark’s hypothesis more plausible since the effect on clouds would also be proportionately larger.

They conclude:

The measured 0.1% level of the longterm TSI variations on Earth’s climate (i.e., solar direct climatic effect) is too small to account for the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes, and several mechanisms amplifying the solar variation impacts have been proposed in the literature.

Here we seek to assess how much solar variation may affect CCN abundance through the impacts of GCR and temperature changes on new particle formation, using a global aerosol model (GEOSChem/APM) optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. Based on the GEOSChem/ APM simulations, a decrease in ionization rate associated with GCR flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces global mean nucleation rates CN3, CN10, CCN0.8, CCN0.4, and CCN0.2 in the lower troposphere (0–3 km) by 6.8%, 1.91%, 1.36%, 0.74%, 0.54%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of the impact of 0.2 C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%.

The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger than in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere and about a factor of two larger during the corresponding summer seasons. The average solar cycle signals are stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed. The regions and seasons of stronger solar signals are associated with the higher concentrations of precursor gases which increase the growth rate of nucleated particles and the probability of these nucleated particles to become CCN. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude. Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.

Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate. To study the impacts of a 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle on cloud albedo, precipitation, cloud lifetime, and cloud cover, a global climate model considering robust aerosol–cloud interaction processes is needed. It should be noted that 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle shown here only considers the effect of ionization rate and temperature change on new particle formation. During a solar cycle, changes of other parameters such as UV and TSI flux may also impact chemistry and microphysics, which may influence the magnitude of the solar indirect forcing. Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.

Note the bold in the last paragraph.

WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer pointed out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

The paper at ERL:

Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei

Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo

The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2 °C temperature increase enhances the CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 [cloud condensation nuclei] based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.

The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf/1748-9326_9_4_045004.pdf

h/t to The Hockey Schtick and Bishop Hill

About these ads

244 thoughts on “More support for Svensmark’s cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s climate hypothesis

  1. The clear test for this theory would be actual observations of changes in global cloud cover dependent on solar variations. Is there anyway to make such observations say through satellites?

    Bob Clark

  2. Goes hand-in-hand with Kirby’s work. seehttp://notrickszone.com/2013/05/19/cerns-jasper-kirkby-on-the-newest-unpublished-results-of-cloud-the-results-are-very-interesting/

  3. There are obvious gross ways in which mainstream AGW thinking has (in my opinion) muddied the waters with respect to understanding climate.

    One of the more subtle damages however, has been IMO to get us in the habit of thinking of simple explanations. CO2 is the control knob. How many times have we heard that?

    I don’t think our climate is anywhere near that simple. I expect people will start popping up with arguments to demonstrate that cosmic rays cannot be the ‘control knob’, and that therefore Svensmark is wrong. To which I reply, there probably isn’t a single ‘control knob’ to this complicated system. This doesn’t mean cosmic rays necessarily have nothing to do with it.

  4. As the paper concludes: ” Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.” = please give me more money.

    The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] the past 300 years, while the climate has. For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.
    Understandably, the authors did not show a plot of solar [cosmic ray] activity.

  5. So it fails for the last cycle – Temperature stable for 17+ years according to Monkton.

    So if AGW is destroyed by this lack of temperature increase, then surely this theory is also destroyed?

  6. “The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] the past 300 years, while the climate has. For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.”
    I’m anything but knowledgeable about solar activity but I doubt that we have accurate data of solar emissions for the past century. Nor is there any reason to doubt that solar emissions can have an affect simply because other factors have affected the climate over tthe past century.
    The most you can say is that, IF the solar activity levels are validated as non-changing, then solar levels do not account for all climate change, which I don’t think is was ever an issue in doubt.

  7. The effect of GCR/solar changes to CCN will only be seen in cloud data sets for areas where CCN number is the limiting factor on cloud formation. Where there are already abundant CCN and moisture is the limiting factor, GCR/solar increases in CCN production will not manifest as increased cloud cover. I am waiting for a study to look theoretically at the areas where CCN number is the limiting factor and then show us cloud data just for that region that supports the connection. I believe the data will show the connection clearly if or when that is done…until then, using large scale cloud sets with larger variabilities built in will make it difficult to distinguish the relatively small changes that might be occurring due to GCR influences.

  8. “There are obvious gross ways in which mainstream AGW thinking has (in my opinion) muddied the waters with respect to understanding climate.One of the more subtle damages however, has been IMO to get us in the habit of thinking of simple explanations. CO2 is the control knob. How many times have we heard that? I don’t think our climate is anywhere near that simple. ”
    Obviously that CO2 control knob ain’t been working lately. Another muddied water is when
    the issue is overly simplified to one of “Change/No change”

  9. Making a climate model prediction is like rolling 100 bowling balls downhill on a gravel road for a mile and predicting the exact spot where each will stop. Cosmic rays might just be one rock in that road and it could be a big one or a little one. Once you get that model up and running, lets add in doing the same run during a earthquake.

  10. Climate science needs more work like this, investigating things other than CO2, but what a shame that some things must not be stated in papers like this, such as “this work may lessen the estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2″. Since govt funds most research it should have a vigorous policy for journals of no censorship for political reasons.

  11. These theories based on solar observations, were used by long range weather forecaster Inigo Owen Jones and heirs Lennox and Hayden Walker who were greatly admired by Australian farmers since their long-range weather forecasting was considered to be an invaluable tool for effective farm management..

  12. Here’s the key phrase: “the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes.” Literature shows correlations between berillium-10 and climate swings represented by Ice-rafting debris in the north Atlantic. See Bond, et al., herePersistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene.

    They write, “Our correlations are evidence, therefore, that over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output.

    A solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic. Indeed, previous studies have tied increases in the Δ14C of tree rings, and hence, reduced solar irradiance, to Holocene glacial advances in Scandinavia (15); expansions of the Holocene Polar atmospheric circulation above Greenland (16); an abrupt cooling in the Netherlands about 2700 years ago (17); and lacustrine records from the Faroe Islands (18). All of these events closely match prominent increases in North Atlantic drift ice (Fig. 3, A and B).

    The observations are key. They provide direct evidence of a strong solar-climate link.

    Protests against this conclusion referencing the small changes in TSI do not dismiss the evidence. Such protests just admit of a lack of understanding in the solar-climate effect. I.e., the theory of the solar-climate connection is inadequate to explain the observations.

    Lack of a solar-climate theory does not refute the solar-climate evidence. The meaning of the isotopic solar-climate signature, after all, is grounded in nuclear physics not in solar climatology.

  13. Lief: “For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago,”

    This ignores a buffered or delayed effect. I would say that the prior five cycles have been larger than average. You need to warm and cool the oceans in order to see much movement. And you need to include ocean cycles in your analysis. Just doing a single cycle single element analysis is not science.

  14. I fear I have to agree with Leif Svalgaard (lsvalgaard above). The authors are are a long ways from meeting their burden of proof.

    This paper is about how much the sun’s variation affects the temperature.

    It seems to me that the very first thing that one would need to do is to show that there IS a solar influence on climate, then we could talk about how much influence there is. They say, for example:

    The measured 0.1% level of the long-term TSI variations on Earth’s climate (i.e., solar direct climatic effect) is too small to account for the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes, and several mechanisms amplifying the solar variation impacts have been proposed in the literature.

    But what they never do is show us the “apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes” … heck, as Leif points out, they never even show us a plot of the variations in what they claim is the main variable, cosmic ray activity.

    Look, I’ve spent a good chunk of my work on climate searching fruitlessly for some relationship, any relationship, between solar variations and climate. But like the study involving sunspots and the Parana River or the study about sunspots and sea level, as soon as I’ve looked at the claimed “apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes” they’ve evaporated into thin air.

    And these authors don’t help us in that regard. They make the following statement:

    The necessity of amplifying TSI variation by a factor of around 3 to explain the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on the temperature record has also been noted (Douglass and Clader 2002, Scafetta and West 2006).

    Scafetta? Really? Look, folks, anyone citing Scafetta might as well just wear a sign ,,,

    I also looked at the Douglass and Clader study and wasn’t impressed. They claim a correlation between TSI and lower troposphere temperatures. I looked and couldn’t find it. Well, not exactly. A cross-correlation analysis finds a weak negative correlation with a lag of about 2 years, but when I divide the data in half, I find that the correlation disappears entirely. In addition … why would the correlation be negative, with temperatures decreasing as solar levels increase? That makes no sense, and increases the odds that the correlation is spurious.

    And this is consistent with everything else that I’ve found regarding sun-temperature correlation. IF the ~11 variations in solar irradiance are affecting the temperature, the signal is vanishingly small. If it weren’t, we’d have isolated and analyzed it long ago. This aspect of climate has been studied since the 1800s, and to date, nobody I know of has ever shown any kind of strong correlation between the 11-year solar cycles and the weather.

    Finally, the authors detail their method for doing the study, viz:

    Here we seek to assess how much solar variation may affect CCN abundance through the impacts of GCR and temperature changes on new particle forma- tion, using a global aerosol model (GEOS-Chem/APM) opti- mized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes.

    So once again, it’s models all the way down. No data were harmed (or even used) in the analysis.

    Me, I’d place absolutely no credence in this study at all. They haven’t shown the simplest evidence that their claimed correlation between the sun and the weather even exists, much less that it shows what they are claiming.

    w.

  15. For the connection between cosmic ray flux and climate see Fig8 at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

    I say here
    “NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
    However as the Watts piece shows it appears increasingly likely that the cosmic ray flux via the Svensmark mechanism may be the principal driver.
    See several other posts at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot .com
    for a forecast of the timing and amount of the possible coming cooling based on the natural 60 and 1000 year quasi periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count and 10Be as the most useful proxy for solar activity.

  16. We have two problems:

    1) Why is the global temperature so stable over time and

    2) Why does it change, when it does, from time to time.

    A) IMHO water, covering most of the earth’s surface, having a maximum density at 4 degrees C, would cause all manner of self regulatory behaviour wrt temperature.

    B) External influences such as cosmic rays, described above fit the bill.

  17. Sadly the actual observations of low cloud percentages.. clouds at 1018hPa, 991hpa, 887 hpa, 771hpa, 648 hpa,548hpa. and 447hPa show NO RELATIONSHIP between changes in GCR and changes in clouds. None. Zip. zero.

    That no changes at all low altitudes however you want to define that.
    No changes by season
    No changes by latitude
    No changes by season*latitude

  18. I first encountered this theory several years ago in a series of articles in the Canadian National Post. There are fairly complete records of sunspot activity since Galileo discovered them.

    What I would like to find out is if there are satellite records of the changes in Earth’s albedo, and how does that match up with the recent sunspot record? Might tell us a lot…

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/16/lorne-gunter-global-warming-try-global-cooling/

  19. The anti-solar crowd are never biased, or have money or other personal motivations other than pure science. Yessiree Bob.

  20. Tilo says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:07 am
    This ignores a buffered or delayed effect.
    Svensmark in his various papers claim a direct effect with no delay….

    Bruce Cobb says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:14 am
    The anti-solar crowd are never biased, or have money or other personal motivations other than pure science
    Very perceptive. It is time that such a view is supported by more than just you.

  21. Whats needed, as others point out, is a detailed statistical study of what has actually happened to cloud in the era in which we have data (from about 1983) via the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project – at different levels, optical thickness, and spatial distribution, and the correlated (or not) with cosmic ray flux – as per Svensmark’s original paper covering solar cycle 22. Svensmark himself extrapolated to cycle 23, but his methods were criticised in the science literature – that does not mean he was wrong, but as far as I am aware, he only responded on the website of the Danish Space Agency – and that is not an adequate peer-reviewed response, at least not in this polarised arena. So where are the studies for cycle 24? Or the period through 2008 when global temperatures dropped so precipitously – what was happening with clouds and cosmic rays then? Instead – Svensmark disappears to a well-funded lab to do chemistry experiments which will never be acceptable for a real-world atmosphere. Why is no-one doing the detailed cloud assessments. This is the real key to natural variability.

  22. Yeah, I don’t want my earlier remark to be misconstrued. Those who claim it’s cosmic rays are in the same bucket in my book with those who claim it’s CO2. If the data don’t support it, all we’ve got is some theoretical relationship in both cases. I suspect cosmic rays ~do~ affect cloud formation under some circumstances. I also suspect CO2 has ~some~ influence on temperatures. All I’m saying is I think oversimplifying is a mistake.

  23. Willis says
    IF the ~11 variations in solar irradiance are affecting the temperature, the signal is vanishingly small. If it weren’t, we’d have isolated and analyzed it long ago. This aspect of climate has been studied since the 1800s, and to date, nobody I know of has ever shown any kind of strong correlation between the 11-year solar cycles and the weather.
    Henry says
    My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at a rate of -0.055 per annum since 1998.

    and it seems to me there is an obvious 11 -12 year (=half solar cycle) up and down movement?

  24. So the Earth’s climate may be significantly effected by radiation originating from far outside our solar system? Is is possible for anything to be less effected by a carbon tax?

  25. The number of factors that could influence climate is mind boggling. Too much effort is going into finding the one and only one silver bullet. We may have knowledge of but a very small fraction of all the processes that are influencing our climate. It is possible that a complete string of scenarios all alternatively inter-related and independent variables that have some role to play. Cosmic rays may be influencing our climate but only when conditions u and w and y and z exist. Or any subset of a multitude of other conditions exist. Can a strong correlation ever be found for any single factor until we know all the possible intervening variables?

  26. Ah but:
    ” lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 9:01 am
    As the paper concludes: ” Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.” = please give me more money.

    The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] the past 300 years, while the climate has. For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.
    Understandably, the authors did not show a plot of solar [cosmic ray] activity. ”

    However — When the sun was very active [millennial scale Grand Maximum] during the previous 3 cycles [21, 22, 23 -- especially 22] all of the “AGW industry” folks was talking non-stop about warmest ever and Catastrophic Global Warming and how we did it with our Fossil CO2 — Now that we see that cycle 24 is quite quiet — all the AGW folks are talking about the “Pause” and trying to finesse how CO2 keeps increasing and temperatures might even be dropping.

    Seems to me — we have an opportunity thanks to the Sun — let’s look at the next couple of cycles which the solar folks seem to think will be very low — perhaps approaching the Dalton Minimum of the early 19th C. if the “Pause” continues and deepens – - then the Svensmark [solar output fluctuations amplified by cloudiness changes] hypothesis might begin to gain some traction

    It;s unfortunate that there is no good proxy for cloudiness???? — otherwise we could compare cloudiness with the historical instrumental and pre-instrumental record of solar activity — in particular since we now have a well established ability to extract solar activity from radioisotopes in ice and tree rings — Maunder Cloudiness should have been dramatic!!

    Anyone — made a study of cloudiness in Dutch Landscapes circa 1650?

  27. WEST HIGHLANDER SAYS
    anyone — made a study of cloudiness in Dutch Landscapes circa 1650?
    henry says
    I am dutch, but I was not around that time?

  28. lsvalgaard
    You concentrate only on one aspect of solar activity. Therefore, despite of your findings temperature at mid-latitudes will decline.
    Has no such thing as global temperature.

  29. Typo:
    “The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger than in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere”

    Probably should read:
    “The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere”

  30. and no changes whether you look at daytime clouds or night time clouds.

    The seasonal and diurnal changes in clouds are huge. Looking at the period where we have the best data ( highest vertical resolution, and highest grid scale resolution and most frequent temporal resolution ) you will find no link between increased GCR and cloud fraction.. no matter how you cut the data: look by season, by latitude, by pressure level, by day or night, nothing.
    try an epoch superposition.. nothing.

  31. Willis says : “Scafetta? Really? Look, folks, anyone citing Scafetta might as well just wear a sign ,,, ”

    Hey, Scafetta’s empirical cycle curve-fitting model has been pretty good over the last decade and that puts him 25y ahead of the A-team of AGW.

    The 9.1 year cycle he found and neatly showed was due to the presence of the moon using JPL ephemeris, has also been found in NH land SAT by BEST project.

    I’ve also shown it many ocean basins in ICOADS SST and in cross-correlation of Atlantic and N Pacific and is present in Indian Ocean.

    Since 9.1 will drift in and out of phase with any solar signal, failing to recognise the presence of the lunar 9.1 cycle will mess up any attempt at detecting solar link and also mean trivial attempts to dismiss such a link unfounded because they are over simplistic. All that can show is that the “it’s the sun, stupid” crowd are as simplistic and incorrect as that “CO2 control knob” crowd.

    There are many things affecting climate. If we had not spend the last 25y twisting the models and the data to fit a foregone conclusion, we would certainly have a better understanding by now.

  32. lsvalgaard says: “The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] ”

    With that in mind look at the unprocessed (grey line) mean of the Neukom proxies.

  33. Co2 is not the driver of the warming from the 1970′s. It’s the weakening of the Suns magnetic field by 50%. As the Suns magnetic field weakened it released more energy warming the Earth, Now the temps have flat lined. The suns solar wind is so weak that it can’t protect Earth from cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are known to interact in the atmosphere to create clouds, You can see this interaction with the planes contrails, instead of dissipating it spreads out forming a larger area of thin clouds. I expect to see a sudden drop in global temps and temps will continue to fall for years to come until the Suns magnetic field gets back to normal.

  34. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 9:01 am

    The CCN effect is proven in the laboratory, just as the LWIR absorption by CO2 is, and unlike that property, has been for decades a useful tool (cloud chambers) in subatomic particle studies.

    At least one study, “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia,” by Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland, shows a steady increase in the production of 14C and Be10 over the 19th and 20th centuries that would clearly correlate better with post_LIA warming than atmospheric CO2 does. If 14C and Be10 are indeed cosmogenic isotopes, and they really have been increasing in occurrence over the last two centuries, and, as you say, there has been no “significant” changes in cosmic ray flux, we have a theoretical problem that actually does need “more money.”

  35. Duster says:
    April 10, 2014 at 11:41 am
    At least one study, “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia,” by Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland, shows a steady increase in the production of 14C and Be10 over the 19th and 20th centuries
    That study has been superseded by later data and a better calibration of the record.

  36. lsvalgaard says:

    For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.

    For another example: In September, we in the northern hemisphere will be down to the same level of daily insolation as we had back in March. By your … ‘logic’ … if NH September is not as cold as March, then the our trip around the sun cannot drive the seasons. Yeah … no.

    The idea that climate forcings must act instantaneously is asinine.

  37. mosher says
    you will find no link between increased GCR and cloud fraction.. no matter how you cut the data: look by season, by latitude, by pressure level, by day or night, nothing.
    try an epoch superposition.. nothing.
    henry says
    I agree that the cloud story could probably be a red herring as explanation for the global cooling

    this is my explanation:

    I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.

    My theory fits my observations for the drop in global maximum temperatures….

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    One would still have to explain why the drop in magnetic field strength on the sun causes an increase in these substances TOA that back radiate (mostly) UV to space.

  38. Both sides of the argument appear to be only partially correct.
    There is GCR-cloud effect, appears to be significant but short lasting, and most of all requires strong geomagnetic storm, which is very rare.
    Above comments are based on analysis of a single event starting on 7th March 2012, when Ap-index peaked over 100, 4 times during period of one week. Such events are very rare; since there was a delay about 6 days it is hard to tell if tropics cloudiness change was a causal or coincidental. All supporting data are included in the link so anyone can have a go.

  39. Cosmic ray theory debunked,

    ‘This one is important…the Sun doesn’t alter much, [the theory says] the Sun modulates the cosmic rays, the cosmic rays modulate the clouds, the clouds modulate the temperature, so the Sun amplified hugely… but we have reasons to believe it’s a fine tuning knob…the cosmic rays came streaming in…we had a big cosmic ray signal and the climate ignores it and it’s just about that simple, these comic rays didn’t do enough for you to see it, so it’s a fine tuning knob’. R Alley.

  40. Tex

    “The effect of GCR/solar changes to CCN will only be seen in cloud data sets for areas where CCN number is the limiting factor on cloud formation. Where there are already abundant CCN and moisture is the limiting factor, GCR/solar increases in CCN production will not manifest as increased cloud cover. ”

    YES. this is something that most people dont get. One way to explain it to them is as follows.
    If you already have 100% cloud cover, adding GCR won’t get you anything.
    and at the other end of the spectrum, if there isnt enough moisture you wont get clouds regardless of the GCR.
    Testing this, finding the conditions where the change in GCR is the factor that drives cloud product, is searching for a needle in a haystack.

    ########################

    I am waiting for a study to look theoretically at the areas where CCN number is the limiting factor and then show us cloud data just for that region that supports the connection. I believe the data will show the connection clearly if or when that is done…until then, using large scale cloud sets with larger variabilities built in will make it difficult to distinguish the relatively small changes that might be occurring due to GCR

    If you look at the research on ionization you will see that the change in ionization is a function of latitude and pressure level. What I did was look at every pressure level I had ( 1018,991,887,771,648,548,441) and also looked at night versus day, and looked at the data
    globally, by hemisphere, by 1 degree, 5, degree, 10 degreee, 15 degree, and 30 degree latitude bands.. Thats a lot of data snooping.. and found nothing

    That is not to say there isnt something small there, but nothing was detectable.

    As Leif points out. Even IFF GCR caused more clouds or fewer clouds, the problem remains
    No secular trend.

  41. Meh. I’d forgotten how weak the case was for this as far as the data goes. After googling a bit and looking at Svensmark & Chistensen 97 again and the responses to it, all I can say is. Meh.

  42. “Above comments are based on analysis of a single event starting on 7th March 2012, when Ap-index peaked over 100, 4 times during period of one week. Such events are very rare; since there was a delay about 6 days it is hard to tell if tropics cloudiness change was a causal or coincidental.”

    Interesting Vuk.

    I can look for that in data that has more resolution than MODIS.

    what did you find in night clouds?

  43. Leif> For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.

    I expect better than this from a scientist who knows the difference between a value and its derivative with respect to time.

    When I park my car at work, the speedometer goes back down to 0, just like it is in my driveway, but I’m not in the same place. In order to get the climate back to what it was a century ago, we have to get solar activity below its average over the last century for a substantial length of time (all other things being equal).

  44. The polar vortex is a direct hole through the atmosphere into space. That means it is the input of the coldest air(ions that recombine) on the planet.

  45. “All that can show is that the “it’s the sun, stupid” crowd are as simplistic and incorrect as that “CO2 control knob” crowd.”

    you misunderstand the “control knob” metaphor.

    Go to the primary source. Alley Argues.

    1. There are many knobs. C02 is just one.
    2. If you want to understand Paleo, you need this knob.

    In short the biggest control knob in history is c02. other things matter as well.

    Of course people “popularized” this argument, dumbed it down, used it as propaganda,
    but the real argument is quite different

  46. Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but simply a faint haze or aerosol effect . All we would see would be that the sky was a slightly paler blue? Again I urge interested parties to look at the Steinhilber cosmic ray intensity graphs Fig 8 at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

    This shows cosmic ray highs at the various temperature minima over the last thousand years. This also fits well with the temperature data in Fig 3 at the same link

  47. lsvaalgard: “solar activity hasn’t varied much over the past…”

    Yeah, right.

    While this is sunpot numbers they represent overall activity and solar energy transfer to earth.
    Over time, the cumulated deviation from mean adds up to a meaningful difference in energy flow.
    So here the incoming energy has been higher than the long term average during second half of last century, and are now starting to drop heavily….

  48. The Diagram (Fig. 1 in the paper, 2nd in the post) is premised on Greater Solar activity begets less GCR and fewer nucleation sites.

    1. The box in the upper right has both a cooler and warmer arrow. The relative magnitudes in effect are not obvious. So this is sloppy thinking at best.

    2. In the same box: “The number of cloud drops” has a blue downward arrow. Is it that the number of drops decreases or that the change in the number of cloud drops (either increasing or decreasing) is a cooling effect? Sloppy.

    3. The radius of cloud drops has a red (warmer) ?increasing? Arrow. Why? Is this a citreous-paribus argument that with more nucleation sites, the radius must decrease for the same amount of water in the atmosphere? I’ll by that, but the hidden assumption is there is no change in the water content of the atmosphere, a most dubious assertion. Oh, but they will get to that later.. (no they won’t)

    4. Cloud Albedo: In the scenario of less GCR, there are fewer drops and increased radius. That would tend to decrease albedo which would NOT be a cooling effect.

    5. For smaller number of drops, but larger radius, Precipitation does what? It is a red increasing arrow. Does rain increase or decrease? They imply that precipitation increases and is a warming effect. (it is not a blue upwards arrow). Increased precipitation is greater heat transport via convection, evaporation, heat of fusion at altitude. That is a Cooling process.

    6 From the Red increasing precipitation box we go to a Blue (?cooling?) decreasing cloud cover. Say again?

    What does that increased cooling rain do to cloud cover? What time of day is it? What does it do to the water content of the atmosphere? (I’d think it on balance increases it — deserts are seldom cloudy) So… probably MORE cloud cover on average, and MORE cloud cover during daylight. Probably greater variability in cloud cover over the course of the day.

    That lead us to the Earth’s temperature box, which in the diagram follows two ? Decreasing? Blue ?cooling? Arrows and they show a red increasing arrow. That seems mighty confused. Cloud Albedo probably increases and is a cooling factor. The precipitation path is ambiguous, but I believe greater precipitation begets a moister atmosphere, faster water cycle and an ultimate cooling effect.

    So the “Earth’s Temperature” box really should result in a net cooling that reduces the temperature increase direct from the TSI. On balance, it is a NEGATIVE Feedback.

    Scrap the diagram and fix its problems. Separate the numeric change (increasing, decreasing) from its (warming, cooling) implication. And as is usually the case, it is the stuff that is missing that is the real problem.

  49. it is a long from a droplet to climate change on a large scale, there must be other limiting factors for cloud formation, so even the mechanism is valid; there will be a long way to afterward.

    ANd if you look at any correlations between solar activity and climate there can be other phenomenon at play than just increase in nucleii formation…

    understand the mechanism, and quantifyi it…then make prediction and see if observations are in agreement with calculations…

  50. Well I see the usual set of problems here.

    Leif has explained to us many times, that the 0.1% solar cycle variation, that is observed, would only result in about 70 mdeg. C temperature change , IF it all manifested itself as a Stefan-Boltzmann black body rebalance; which it doesn’t. Such a variation is not detected.

    Svensmark’s thesis, while likely technically correct (Wilson cloud chambers DO work), does not appear to have the magnitude of an effect to show up. It’s another “butterfly” perturbation..

    All kinds of atmospheric crud cause water droplet nucleation and hence cloud formation.

    A lot of rainfall arrives on earth already thriving with bacterial colony life. Bacteria make very nice nucleation sites.

    All of these aerosol options are simply ways for water to condense; but how much.

    I think Roy Spencer’s observation, that just small cloud cover changes cause very large energy unbalance effects.

    I think that is the crux of the problem; the water cycle is a negative feedback regulation of earth’s Temperature, and it is plenty powerful enough to erase solar cycle 0.1% changes, any Svensmark effects, and CO2 as well. I have repeatedly arhued that the Frank Wentz et al paper (observations) completely explains the effect and the cause of the cloud cover changes, that Roy postulates.

    Remember it is changes over climate periods (30 year) and NOT last night’s weather, that is happening.

    And global cloud cover is monitored satisfactorally, by only one entity.

    Mother Gaia tracks the cloud cover, continuously, continually, and exactly, and set the temperature to exactly what it is supposed to be.

    We humans, have NO MEANS of correctly sampling earth cloud cover, from the point of cloud area, cloud optical density (water content), and cloud persistence time (before dissipation by precipitation). Such measurements can only be made from underneath the clouds, and no such observation network exists.

    So I believe Roy Spencer called it; and Wentz et al, observed it and measured it; but Svensmark and TSI cycling, while likely happening, are simply lost in the noise after cloud feedback gets through setting the Temperature, exactly where MG says it needs to be.

    I think the notion that earth lies in the Goldilocks zone, and we are so fortunate, is just human centric nonsense.

    Life on planet earth evolved here in this zone; because it could; and it has adapted to flourish under the conditions we have, and it has always done so, even though the key parameters of comfort, have been grossly different in the past. It never stopped life from flourishing and adapting, in the past, and a little change here and there, won’t stop adaptation in the future.

    Last night, I accidently watched a section of a preposterous PBS (send more money) marine biology program,, all about carbon dioxide, seaweed, sea urchins and sea otters; that warned of the coming catastrophy from loss of sea otters.

    Hey the little furbag monsters, having eliminated the abalone, on the west coast, are now eradicationg the sea urchins as well. This is good for humans, because sea urchins devour seaweed, which only grows at a slow rate of about a foot in 24 hours, and that seaweed (they call it kelp to sound scientific; but it’s seaweed); and in turn, that seaweed gorges on CO2, and makes life on earth possible for humans.

    Now they never showed any video, of any sea urchins chewing down the kelp forests; well to be fair, there was no kelp at all growing where the sea urchins live.

    Now I haven’t messed with too many live sea urchins while scuba diving.

    These scientists were carefully measuring the diameter of sea urchins with a caliper to measure the threat to sea weed. Just what is the measure of the diameter of a sea urchin while it is waving its spines around to defend itself from the fur coats on the hoof.

    But I have seen many a dead sea urchin shell, made into a light bulb or candle container, and they seem to be made out of CO2, or limestone if you prefer.

    I would think that a surfeir of sea urchins would do more to sequester CO2, than any seaweed.

    Now remember that sea otters were once thought to be extinct, due to the fur trade, and I never heard of the oceans being overrun with sea urchins, and the extinction of seaweed, and global warming/ acidic oceans due to lack of sea otters.

    Yes I happen to like sea otters too; and other otters as well; but I believe the decline of California sea otters, is entirely due to them eating themselves out of house and home.

    Absent any significant predation, including human, these eating machines, have denuded vast areas of former shell fish, abalone, and sea urchin habitats, all along the west coast.

    The marine mammal protection act has done more to destroy west coast fish stocks, than any human predation has.

    But such touchy feely studies will continue to be funded by a gullible public, just like climate research. What a gig; get a degree, get a living at taxpayer expense, tour the world, and report your null results in 30 years when you are ready to retire (on a taxpayer footed pension.)

    We are all being scammed.

    Willis’s recent expose, on the completely ineffectual decline in ML sunlight, due to volcanoes, with nary a Temperature change in response, should be enough to set the scam alarms off.

    Svensmark is interesting; even gave CERN something to do; but isn’t it just another butterfly ??

  51. From the first box of the cartoon diagram I suggest you could also add as a hypothesis:

    Lower magnetic field strength —> Fewer solar surface faculae —-> greatly diminished EUV (30-120 nm) and FUV (emission —> 120-200 nm) —> greatly diminished (nonlinear to delta TSI) ionization of O and N species, and much less ozone creation in stratosphere —> less outgoing surface IR reflectance back to atmosphere (thermal blanket effect diminished) —> climate cools.

  52. JJ says:
    April 10, 2014 at 12:07 pm
    I quoted you, not Svensmark. Own your words.
    I quoted Svensmark. In his papers there is no delay.

    The Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) says:
    April 10, 2014 at 12:24 pm
    I expect better than this from a scientist who knows the difference between a value and its derivative with respect to time.
    We are discussing the Svensmark mechanism, and Svensmark does not invoke any ‘lag’ or delay. His effect in immediate.

  53. I have read from the “joes” at weatherbell that they feel low solar activity correlates well with increased high latitude blocking in the NH, hypothesized to be due to solar wind interaction with the upper atmosphere (stratosphere & above) , with that then effecting the tropospheric circulation. So, no global temp effect, just a circulation effect. Probably why Henry P saw an 11-12 yr cycle in his AK data , which would be strongly influenced by NH blocking patterns

  54. A normal Sun with a normal magnetic field would keep the temps stable, Now weaken the magnetic field for enough time and you get a imbalance in temps to the down side due to the increase in GCR’s. At solar max you should have a low neutron count, now look at the yearly graph going back to the 60′s. I think there is a correlation with temps on the amount of time above and below the zero line. Look at where the count is now, it’s at the zero line at solar max so it cant counteract the cooling from the last minimum. I expect at the next minimum they will have to make a new graph to fit the increase in the neutron count. Just looking at that chart you can tell a lot, whether one solar max cancels out a solar min to keep temps flat. Looks like this solar max is not going to counter the last solar min so cooling will be the result.

  55. Leif, the warming response will be immediate. Just as it would be when you turn on the burner under a pot of water. But unless you drop a few ice cubes into the pot, once you turn the burner off, the water will not cool at the same rate that it heated up. The earth is the same way. When you allow extra energy in, it will warm nearly instantaneously. However, returning to the same energy input level as 100 years ago after a period of elevated input, you will not see an immediate decline, because the energy is absorbed into the system (ocean heat, etc) and the temperature will only proceed back to the level it was 100 years ago if you have a similar period of energy input that is below what it was 100 years ago.

  56. Tex says:
    April 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    the temperature will only proceed back to the level it was 100 years ago if you have a similar period of energy input that is below what it was 100 years ago.
    The point is that in each of the three centuries (18-20) solar activity [and cosmic rays] have behaved the same way: starting low, then increasing to a maximum mid- or late-century before falling to a low at the end of each century. The maxima and the lows have not been substantially different, so I would expect the climate also not to be substantially different unless you invoke lags of many centuries in order to de-couple climate from solar input.

    The SIDC and I [with coauthors from Spain and USA] are putting final touches to a draft of our reassessment of the solar cycle. My input can be seen here http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI-Book-Section-4.pdf
    skip to Figure xx12 so get the bottom line. But remember that this is work in progress. You are getting a front seat to see science at work. An earlier paper is here http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf

  57. Cloud height, has in fact been decreasing.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm

    If the ratio of low to high clouds increases, there is net cooling as low clouds radiate from a warmer place in the troposphere.
    I have always felt that this is evidence of a negative feedback from an increase in water vapor, which would happen in the lower troposphere.

    One element that seems to be overlooked is the explosive growth response by vegetation to the increasing CO2(and warming in the 80′s/90′s) and the contribution of this to evapotranspiration.

    The US Midwest during the growing season is a a perfect example of this effect with planted crops.
    Consider this a regional real world outdoor laboratory. Tightly packed rows of tens of millions of acres of corn(double the density of 30 years ago) over an area the size of almost a dozen states has resulted in a noted increase in dew points(+5 F or greater in some cases) creating a more humid micro climate when corn plants are established and tapping deep soil moisture. The evapotranspiration contributes to low level moisture, which lowers the lifting condensation level needed for rising air to form clouds(causing them to be lower) and formation of convective clouds earlier in the day as well as increasing rainfall from weather systems, which in turns feeds the cycle by returning moisture to the ground/plants…….which can use it for additional evapotranpiration.

    Also, the more dense vegetation vs less dense vegetation or bare ground plays a role………even in deserts that are greening up from increasing CO2.

    This effect may be mostly independent of the variation in cosmic rays or it could be enhanced/suppressed by changes in GCR’s.

  58. Steven Mosher says:
    April 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    “All that can show is that the “it’s the sun, stupid” crowd are as simplistic and incorrect as that “CO2 control knob” crowd.”
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Nice video. One question. What was the temperature of the Earth’s core 4.6 billion years ago and how much heat was reaching the surface. No one ever seems to talk about that. Are there papers on heat transfer from the earth in geologic time?

  59. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 11:56 am

    JJ says:
    April 10, 2014 at 11:53 am
    The idea that climate forcings must act instantaneously is asinine.
    Tell that to Svensmark et al.

    well yes and no.

    It is onservable that the suns straight insolation drives the seasons with ABOUT 6-8 week lag at my latitude. (UK) – peak ice being mid to late Feb usually., If there is any.

    that is ‘instant’ in climate change terms as good as.

    Surface sea temperatures take longer of course, and spreading the change round the globe takes years but everything about the cloud model shows that for land based surface readings there should be little or no lag.

    Now on scafetta. To make the claim that svensmark and scafetta are dong no more than curve fitting implies that AGW proponentd are doing something more than mere curve fitting, but in reality they are not.

    The chief difference between then and Svensmark and Scafetta is that they dont claim to be providing the final solution – they are pretty honest that this is a work in progress, and that whilst they both think they have seen SOMETHNG neither is quite sure what it is they have seen or how it works.

    And what seems – according to the CLOUD experiments at CERN – to affect cloud formations is not just any old cosmic radiation. NO sirree bob. You appear to need a pretty deep penetrating high energy muon, and those tend to be the least affected by sun deflection, which might place the actual cause of climate change outside the solar system.

    I think we would be better off without the fanbois constantly yelling from one end of the spectrum to another that such and such theory has ‘discovered the causes of climate change’ The reality is beginning to dawn that in fact its a gigantic puzzle and we have perhaps found a few pieces to fit together but the overall picture is MASSIVELY unclear.,

    And that is in the end the position we must take. AS skeptics we are sure that CO2 has SOME effect: we are also pretty much of the opinion that is not the whole story and in fact its effects may be second order or lower to the point where we can ignore it. That doesn’t mean we have to explain what IS causing it though. It is enough to say ‘Carbon Dioxide?’ Not guilty’ and let science take its course.

    So I would say wit Svensmark we are precisely where we should have been years ago with CO2. Does cosmic radiation flux influence earth’s climate? Almost certainly. It would be strange if it did not, The question is is not that, it is by how much and of what sort.

    If you were to ask the average educated man in the street of 100 years ago ‘what affects the climate most’ he would have said ‘the sun, because summer is warmer than winter’ If you had then asked what the second most important thing is he would have said ;’the clouds, because they block sunlight’ and a cloudy day is always cooler than a clear day and warmer than a clear night, all other things being equal’.

    He certainly wouldn’t have said ‘carbon dioxide’;

  60. All signs point to ice age, by next winter hell will freeze over. Nothing but frozen co2 molecules!!!!!!! No I’m serious.

  61. Leo Smith says:
    April 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    You appear to need a pretty deep penetrating high energy muon, and those tend to be the least affected by sun deflection
    In fact, they show almost no solar activity cycle modulation.

  62. The amount of normal clouds stays relatively stable , It’s the amount of GCR’s clouds that changes. GCR clouds created during the minimum and then removed during solar max. But if solar max doesn’t remove them all, they begin to cool. Thus the amount of time above and below the zero line on the cosmic ray chart. GCR clouds are thin and wispy and block 2-3% of the suns rays. Now imagine 10yrs above and 4yrs below, that would have a cooling effect. I can tell by all the non responses that you think this is to simple to make a difference, Well keep it complicated then. There is nothing complicated about the climate. KISS, keep it simple stupid.

  63. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Duster says:
    April 10, 2014 at 11:41 am

    That link is interesting reading. I will be watching for the results of the study. I would be quite interested in the studies that contradict the increase in 10Be and 14C production during the last two to three centuries. The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene. That would imply warming weather, IF the linkage is a simple linear one, which seems unlikely. Long term studies seem to show the same, but the resolution seems to be very low. At the other end are a large number of studies that focus pretty strictly on the post A-bomb era, which is much too short. Also, confounding effects are worth a look. We know that thunderstorms can generate gamma ray bursts, so it seems possible at first glance that the planet can produce some of its own 14C and 10Be without cosmic help.

  64. Steven,

    …Of course people “popularized” this argument, dumbed it down, used it as propaganda, but the real argument is quite different…

    I appreciated the video. Still, if an argument is popularized, dumbed down, used as propaganda, and takes hold, then it matters. I don’t see what difference it makes that it’s not the real original argument.

    Again, thanks though. It’s nice to know what the original source was.

  65. Duster says:
    April 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm
    The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene.
    That is because the Earth’s magnetic field which much more strongly that the Sun screen us from cosmic rays has been changing

  66. wayne says:
    April 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm KISS I agree – it is the principle and sheer magnitude of the solar effect that matters. Delving ever deeper is simply descending into CHAOS theory, remember ‘A beautiful mind’

  67. Svensmark’s Galactic Cosmic Ray theory is a nice theory, but it doesn’t correlate to observations with my Artificial Neural Network ANN at http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/climate-forcing.htm

    I’ve tested different input signals against satellite measurements. The strongest correlation was with SST Sea Surface temperature, which makes sense.

    This is then followed by ENSO, LOD, the solar wind and SOI in decreasing order. ENSO is correlated to LOD and the LOD signal is therefore in reality as a result from ENSO variations.

    Yes, variations in the global mean temperature is partly dependent on variations in solar electro magnetic activity, but it is not as a result from variations in GCR. Solar wind is the culprit.

  68. when the suns output is low the therasphere collaspes a thinner atmosphere allows more energy to flow back out to space

  69. Steven Mosher says (April 10, 2014 at 10:10 am)
    “Sadly the actual observations of low cloud percentages.. clouds at 1018hPa, 991hpa, 887 hpa, 771hpa, 648 hpa,548hpa. and 447hPa show NO RELATIONSHIP between changes in GCR and changes in clouds. None. Zip. zero.”

    Some people believe in an indirect aerosol effect where changes in CCN change end up changing the droplet size in clouds and therefore its optical properties. Physics predicts that optical properties will vary with droplet size. What changes in clouds have not relationship to GCR: cloud cover, cloud altitude, or cloud optical properties (which perhaps simply means albedo)?

  70. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:23 am

    ——
    Bruce Cobb says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:14 am
    The anti-solar crowd are never biased, or have money or other personal motivations other than pure science
    ——-
    “Very perceptive. It is time that such a view is supported by more than just you.”
    __________________________
    Classic.

  71. For me this only addresses part of the issue. The concentration of cloud forming chemicals available in the atmosphere is largely controlled by the oceans. Wind strength, deep water upwelling, ocean biology, and possibly ocean volcanism- especially close to areas of deep water upwelling all seem to me deeply connected to low cloud formation.

  72. Does the sun’s magnetic field affect the Earth? Interesting question. If it affects the Earth it could easily affect the Earth’s weather. Fascinating theory.

  73. Mosher, I said this before. The place to look is over the ocean, away from areas where there lots of aerosols that can already act as ccn.. I suggested that making a mask of areas with high average levels of CCN would be a good place to start.

  74. The main reason anyone is interested in solar influence on climate is that the Church of Radiative Climatology went and made a fuss about radiative gases reducing the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. 0.8C in 100 years is well within the bounds of natural variability and if it hadn’t been for the inane claims of the Climastrologists, then 0.8C would be a matter of academic interest only and study of possible solar influence could be carried out in a calm and considered manner.

    Because of the Climastrologists, the issue of solar climate influence has now become politicised, with global warming propagandists like the BBC looking to the sun for an exit strategy to save them from decades of burning shame.

    There will be many ways solar variability effects climate. Some influences may be fast, like expansion and contraction of the thermosphere or changes in cloud cover. Some will be slow like SW/UV energy accumulation below the diurnal overturning layer in the oceans (the Svensmark effect would have both fast and slow influence). The various mechanisms may only have a minor influence, but they only need to add up to 0.8C per century. Ideally study of such mechanisms should be done in the traditional scientific manner, not the crazed pseudo scientific circus style of climastrology.

    The best way to get back to traditional science is to destroy the pseudo science of global warming. And to do that, all you need to understand is the basics -

    The sun heats the oceans.
    The atmosphere cools the oceans.
    Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
    AGW is a physical impossibility.

    Then everyone can get back to the traditional scientific method. Currently Lukewarmer sceptics appear to be the biggest roadblock trapping us in the land of “post normal science”.

  75. “aaron says:
    April 10, 2014 at 4:51 pm
    Mosher, I said this before. The place to look is over the ocean, away from areas where there lots of aerosols that can already act as ccn.. I suggested that making a mask of areas with high average levels of CCN would be a good place to start”

    Did that. Looked over land, looked over the Ocean. Looked for a signal in each and every grid cell.
    Nothing. nada. Zilche.

    Every cell. Day. Night. Every season. Every month. All latitude bands. All pressure levels.
    Nada. Zilche. Zero.

    Look

    The hypothesis is that more GCR will change the amount of low level clouds.
    I tested that hypothesis.
    Multiple times; day clouds, night clouds. high latitude, low latitude. by hemisphere, by latitude band.
    different bands. Down to 1 degree. every grid. Different pressure levels.

    At some point it comes down to saying.. theory BUSTED. and somebody who believes in the theory has to suggest something to fix the theory.

  76. “Some people believe in an indirect aerosol effect where changes in CCN change end up changing the droplet size in clouds and therefore its optical properties. Physics predicts that optical properties will vary with droplet size. What changes in clouds have not relationship to GCR: cloud cover, cloud altitude, or cloud optical properties (which perhaps simply means albedo)?”
    ###############
    \ some people believe in space aliens. If you have a theory the first test is this.

    Is the theory falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE. by in principle we mean this: can you specify in advance
    a quantity to investigate.

    As you write it “GCR may change something” well duh. The trick is to specify in advance what exactly will change and at least a direction.

  77. “Whats needed, as others point out, is a detailed statistical study of what has actually happened to cloud in the era in which we have data (from about 1983) via the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project – at different levels, optical thickness, and spatial distribution, and the correlated (or not) with cosmic ray flux – as per Svensmark’s original paper covering solar cycle 22. ”

    Prior cloud datasets dont give you best verticle resolution or horizontal resolution or temporal resolution.
    If the GCR effect is there, you should be able to see it daily, monthly or yearly.

  78. Mark

    ” I don’t see what difference it makes that it’s not the real original argument.”

    really?

    Anthony makes a good argument about surface station micro site bias. basically that half the warming since 1979 in the US is due to siting issues.

    Suppose somebody takes that argument and says “skeptics deny all the warming in the world since 1850′

    would that matter?

    Of course. if we are after the best explanations of our world, then we do ourselves no favors by repeating rumours and mispresentations. find the best arguments and challenge them.

  79. vuk.

    you didnt look at night clouds? I know where to find MODIS..
    hmm, when I get a chance I’ll look at your event using higher res data.
    may take a while.. downloads take a week at least

  80. Dr Svalgard’s posts often make me think of this quote; “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” – Arthur C. Clarke

  81. Leif

    “The SIDC and I [with coauthors from Spain and USA] are putting final touches to a draft of our reassessment of the solar cycle. My input can be seen here”

    Thanks, fascinating read.

  82. I post here mostly to keep my place in the thread make it simply to go back and start were I stopped.I do so enjoy reading all your comment

  83. “I think Roy Spencer’s observation, that just small cloud cover changes cause very large energy unbalance effects.”

    so the indetectable changes in cloud cover cause the detectable secular changes in temperature,
    while the detectable secular changes in c02 cause nothing?

    For grins I was going to do a chart of GCR versus clouds and then tell people it was CO2 versus clouds. The point? they would look at the chart and say “the two are unrelated”

    But when you show people the relationnship between GCR and clouds ( there is none) they will
    not falisfy their hypothesis they will invent stuff out of whole cloth..

    a. oh look at low level clouds ( this was the first change in the theory after it was busted)
    b. no wait, look at forbush events when the change in GCR is big
    c. no wait look at integrating the GCR
    d. no wait, look at other cloud properties
    e. no wait, look at this other data.. say diurnal range
    f. no wait, maybe the effect is so small ( 1%) that its indetectable, but has a big effect
    g. no wait, we see part of the process in the lab, your real world measurements have to be wrong
    h. no wait, maybe it happens on odd tuesdays during the full moon when jupiter is aligned with mars.

    I mean the warmista are bad enough refusing to climb down from a 3C per doubling.. but GCR nuts take the cake.

  84. But wait

    “Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but simply a faint haze or aerosol effect ”

    See people..

    there you go. Now look for Haze..

    Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but a magic undetectable fairy dust that controls the temperature?”

  85. I’m quite concerned about the next solar minimum. We are now at the second peak of a really weak max. The minimum a few years from now could really be a barn buster in terms of GCRs.

  86. noloctd says:
    April 10, 2014 at 6:39 pm
    Dr Svalgard’s posts often make me think of this quote; “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” – Arthur C. Clarke
    And when he says “show me your evidence”, what do then think?

  87. In response to:
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 9:01 am
    As the paper concludes: ” Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.” = please give me more money.
    The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] the past 300 years, while the climate has. For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.

    William:
    You are mistaken. The planet is now cooling. The ‘climate’ is changing to the climate during the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. Record sea ice in the Antarctic and recovering sea ice in the Arctic.
    What has changed that could have caused the sudden cooling both poles? CO2? No CO2 is increasing. Has the sun changed? Yes. Note the delay in cooling of the planet due to the sun is caused by the change in the sun and is the reason for the sudden significant changes to the geomagnetic field.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    Does the current global warming signal reflect a recurrent natural cycle and that is caused by solar magnetic cycle changes? Yes, the Southern sea region has warmed and cooled 342 times. The warming cycle excludes the Antarctic ice sheet which is isolated by the polar vortex. The Antarctic ice sheet response differentially than the Greenland ice sheet to an increase in cloud cover as the Antarctic ice sheet albedo is slightly greater than the albedo of clouds. The higher albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is caused by the very, very, high velocity and steady Antarctic winds that break the snow crystals, creating an ice like substance. The different response to a change in cloud cover at high latitude regions is the cause of the polar sea-saw which is the term for the fact that proxy record shows the Greenland ice sheet cools when the Antarctic ice sheet warms and vice versa.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

    P.S. Richard Alley is drinking the cool aid and is a true AGW believer. I am curious when the true AGW believers will start to jump ship, as the planet cools.

  88. William Astley says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
    You are mistaken. The planet is now cooling.
    The planet has been cooling the past many thousands of years. The Sun has not changed over that span. As I have said many times, your ideas are flights of fancy. Some people like such, so enjoy your ride.

  89. Steven Mosher says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:03 pm
    “Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but a magic undetectable fairy dust that controls the temperature?”
    ————————————-
    So what caused the little ice age or the medieval warm period?

    It couldn’t have been changes in CO2 concentration because atmospheric CO2 concentration is driven by temperature.

    Perhaps variation in levels of “magic undetectable fairy dust”?

  90. One can discount many theories, but one cannot discount our lack of understanding of the interaction of those terrestrial and non-terrestrial influences on our climate. We have much to learn.

  91. Steven Mosher says:
    April 10, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Mark

    ” I don’t see what difference it makes that it’s not the real original argument.”

    really?

    Anthony makes a good argument about surface station micro site bias. basically that half the warming since 1979 in the US is due to siting issues.

    Suppose somebody takes that argument and says “skeptics deny all the warming in the world since 1850′

    would that matter?

    I stand corrected. Thanks Steven.

  92. The first diagram in the post above is one of mine from about six years ago. Still fresh, still relevant – a classic. There is a paper coming that will explain just how long the lag is – can’t say more.

  93. For grins I was going to do a chart of GCR versus clouds and then tell people it was CO2 versus clouds. The point? they would look at the chart and say “the two are unrelated”

    But when you show people the relationnship between GCR and clouds ( there is none) they will
    not falisfy their hypothesis they will invent stuff out of whole cloth..

    I think Steven’s got us here. I’ve been in a vaguely bad mood all day, most like because I knew in the back of my mind I was bullshitting myself.
    ~sigh~
    Bitch about Mosher hit and runs? I didn’t know how good I had it. ;)

    Thanks Steven.

  94. David Archibald says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:59 pm
    There is a paper coming that will explain just how long the lag is – can’t say more.
    Wrong attitude David. If you have some to bring to the table, say it, otherwise …

  95. From “The Hunt for Red October”:

    “Personally, I’d give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?” states Captain Ramius.

    “We’re out of the lane!”

    “You’re relieved!”

    Somewhere in the Orion Spur of Red Route 1…….the Neptune Massif lurks……

    Like the two previous post-MPT interglacials, which also occurred at an eccentricity minimum, MIS-11 and MIS-19, the Holocene (MIS-1) either will or won’t go longer than about half a precession cycle.

    It literally is just that simple.

    Anything else is just feldercarb.

  96. Ah, Dr Svalgaard. You should learn to enjoy climate science while it is still of interest to some people. A lot of enjoyment is from the anticipation of something wonderful. That is what I am providing to the readers of WUWT. An extra component of joy. And something wonderful is coming. People like yourself who over-emphasise the hand of man in climate and deny the Sun’s influence will read it and become enlightened. It is bullet-proof. In fierce tempest it is coming, in thunder and earthquake like a Jove, to sweep the flimsy construction of the warmers in the peer-reviewed journals from the plain of battle.

  97. IPCC backing off!

    Reuters’ original headline was the straightforward “UN climate report stops short of clear economic case for action”. now it is:

    10 April: Reuters: Alister Doyle: UPDATE 1-UN climate report seeks clearer economics to guide action
    A U.N. report about ways to fix global warming due on Sunday is likely to disappoint investors seeking clear-cut economic calculations about the benefits and costs of curbing rising greenhouse gas emissions.
    Authors say the report stops short of an economic bottom line since it is hard to put a value, for instance, on human lives lost to extreme weather or on risks of a faster melt of Greenland’s ice sheet that would push up sea levels.
    The United States and other governments, at talks in Berlin, were pushing for clearer economic arguments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is meant to guide ***trillion-dollar*** curbs on greenhouse gas emissions…
    STERN REVIEW
    The lack of a clear economic bottom line “is a worry … the elements are all there but it takes too much work to lift them out,” said Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics…
    Investors are also concerned about difficulties in comparing IPCC estimates of costs and benefits.
    ***”It’s a hard read,” Stephanie Pfeifer, Chief Executive of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change that groups pension funds and asset managers that control 7.5 trillion euros ($10.35 trillion), said of the reports.
    Clearer economic conclusions would help persuade companies and investors to act, she said…

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/climate-un-idUKL6N0N24IF20140410

    the headline should be: “financial institutions seek clearer IPCC economics to guide financial action”!

  98. If the sun was acting normal gcr’s would not be a factor, but when the sun looses half it’s magnetic field strength GCR’s have a huge impact on our climate. Your witnessing something never before seen in the history of man, the start of an ice age. What caused the Suns magnetic field to weaken? For that you need to look outside our solar system for the cause. Did our solar system move out of an area high in energy? Current flowing in from our galaxy into our solar system has dropped off weakening the suns magnetic field? So any past studies of our climate system is meaningless. Everyone is in for a big surprise.

  99. wayne says:
    April 10, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    when the sun looses half it’s magnetic field strength GCR’s have a huge impact on our climate. Your witnessing something never before seen in the history of man
    The Sun’s magnetic field [and that in interplanetary space that controls the GCRs] is the same now in cycle 24 as it was in cycle 14, a hundred years ago, e.g. Figure 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf

  100. Willis
    I quote Dr. Nir Shaviv. See Figure 3 in the link for correlation between cosmic ray and low cloud cover. http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    “The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.”

  101. William McClenny – you are right we do need to know where we are relative to the natural orbital cycles and the 405000 year eccentricity cycle is a good place to start . These cycles are seen in the geological record back at least 450 million years. We are indeed at a similar place to MIS 11 and 19. These orbital cycles are then modulated by natural quasi cycles of solar activity notably during the Holocene by the 1000 year and 60 year cycles, see

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    Obviously the effect on climate of the activity cycles will be different at different phases of the orbital cycles that is why the temperature cycles are fuzzy ie quasi periodic and quasi repetitive in amplitude.
    Steve Mosher Your the one claiming that the fairy dust is undetectable I’m saying that the haze is visible and the sky a paler blue . The effect is similar to some of the effects of the Carrington event – read up on various Loomis accounts especially the illustrated one in Harpers magazine..
    ,

  102. I still be believe the solar wind is going to just stop after SC24. We will be shrouded in deep clouds like the earth was in other ice ages. I guess I have hard core D-K syndrome.

  103. Mark Adams says:
    April 10, 2014 at 9:07 pm
    I guess I have hard core D-K syndrome.
    There is hope for you, real sufferers from D-K don’t know they suffer or deny it.

  104. Mosher, there are times when you irritate me. But today your quips about fairy dust and “no…wait…” were grand and had me laughing hard enough to almost…almost…spill my glass of wine. Jolly good quips.

  105. Thanks for the encouragement, am really do not want to be D-K or predictor of doom. I hope I am wrong and that you are correct in these matters of the Sun.

  106. “””””…..Steven Mosher says:

    April 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    “I think Roy Spencer’s observation, that just small cloud cover changes cause very large energy unbalance effects.”

    so the indetectable changes in cloud cover cause the detectable secular changes in temperature,
    while the detectable secular changes in c02 cause nothing?…..”””””

    Not a persuasive argument there Steve. There’s that old saw:

    Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    You say “indetectable changes in cloud cover.”

    I’ll cut you some slack and ignore the typos, I do it all the time.

    But be honest it is “undetected” cloud changes that bother you; not “undetectable” cloud changes.

    The cloud changes themselves maybe undetected by us, but not by planet earth, which monitors cloud cover 24 / 7 / 365.25 and over every square inch of the earth surface; and Wentz et al say the precipitation has increased (due to a small Temperature rise during their experiments), and increased precipitation guarantees there was increased cloud cover.

    You cannot observe that for which you have no apparatus capable of observing.

    And we have NO means of continuously and continually monitoring total earth cloud cover from the underside, which is where the precipitation comes from.

    But planet earth does.

    My internet security keeps on telling me that WUWT is a persona non grata website, and it constantly expunges it from my table of favorites: What gives ??

  107. No problem Mark.

    I just wasted the past couple months looking through piles of data and finding nothing.

    I know when I finally find a GCR signal it will be in the last place I look.. hehe kinda like lost car keys..

    Although vuk has a nice little event.. maybe that can provide some clues for isolating.

    The question is when am I done?

    logically, one could hold on to the thesis forever.

  108. lsvalgaard writes, “The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] the past 300 years, while the climate has. For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.”

    That is kind of a weak argument. The last time if got very cold after the well referenced Medieval warm period was during the Maunder Minimum. What caused the Maunder Minimum? Some say it was volcanic yet volcanic events should not have that much impact. The other thing that happened was the lack for years of almost all sun spots indicating a relatively weak sun.

    Assume that when the sun has very low solar cycles that there is a larger cosmic ray flux and that this does have an impact on cloud formation – Svensmark’s theory. But cosmic ray flux is not the only thing impacting climate. Perhaps during typical solar cycles, the relative warming/cooling from changes in cosmic ray flux are lost in the noise of normal climate variation – but during very low solar cycles, the impact on clouds is relatively larger. So, along with changes in TSI and solar spectrum this can account for some amount of the cooling.

    I’ve read the paper and based on it think that the authors evidence is not that convincing. But I don’t think that means that Svensmark’s theory is incorrect. Nor do I know of a better theory. Therefore, my conclusion is that more work is needed to substantiate it better, disprove it or come up with a better theory.

  109. BobG says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:21 pm
    For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.”
    That is kind of a weak argument.

    It is much stronger than Svensmark’s claim based on only two recent solar cycles. You really can’t have it both ways.
    But I don’t think that means that Svensmark’s theory is incorrect
    It has been falsified, what more to say?

    It is not up to us to disprove his ‘theory’ [Mother Nature did that already], but to him to prove it, and there he has failed. That some people still think that the theory is good sounds more like wishful thinking to me ["what else can it be?" "I don't know of any better", etc]. The evidence so far as amply discussed in the post does not lend credence to the Cosmic Ray HYPOTHESIS. Not a theory, mind you.

  110. Apologies for being late to this party.
    A Forbush Decrease can have an immediate (in climate terms) effect.

    http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.html

    Specific conditions are spelled out in the paper.
    Presumably the effect is of changed GCRs on clouds.
    To dismiss Svensmark’s theory because there isn’t a linear correlation in what is acknowledged to be a complex coupled non-linear system strikes me as being a large step too far.
    How about we keep a collective open mind and see where the real science takes us?

  111. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:58 am

    West Highlander, Leif, Willis I just repeat part of my earlier comment- For the connection between cosmic rays and temperature over the last 1000 years see
    “For the connection between cosmic ray flux and climate see Fig8 at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html


    What’s not to like?

    I looked at Figure 8. In answer to your question “what’s not to like”, I don’t like the total absence of any source for the neutron count. I don’t like the lack of units for the neutron count. I don’t like the lack of a source for the 9,000 year reconstruction of the “Geomagnetic Dipole Field”. I don’t like the fact that the dipole field is different than the dipole moment, which is what I suspect they are actually measuring. I don’t like the fact that they are appearing to try to establish a correlation between cosmic rays and sunspots, but they don’t provide any correlation analysis. I don’t like that there is no provenance for the sunspot data. I don’t like the fact that they don’t give any source for the graph itself.

    I don’t like the fact that you claim that figure 8 shows what you call the “connection between cosmic rays and temperature” when Figure 8 says nothing about temperature at all.

    And finally, I don’t like going on a wild goose chase to examine a piece of uncited unscientific junk that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Next time, don’t bother.

    Don’t know if that fully answers your question, but it’ll do for a start …

    w.

  112. lsvalgaard
    The cosmic ray-cloud hypothesis is based on sound physics but observational validation is lacking, so far. To quote Jeffrey Pierce, an aerosol scientist:

    “we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/

  113. Dr. Strangelove says:
    April 10, 2014 at 11:47 pm
    The cosmic ray-cloud hypothesis is based on sound physics but observational validation is lacking, so far.
    Well, if it is not observed, it is clearly not an important factor, regardless of the sound physics

  114. Mike Jonas says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    To dismiss Svensmark’s theory because there isn’t a linear correlation in what is acknowledged to be a complex coupled non-linear system strikes me as being a large step too far.
    Svensmark himself claimed there were such a linear correlation.

  115. Willis most of your questions are answered in the original Steinhilber paper and supporting data which was linked to in the post on my site.
    “Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

    As to the temperature you failed ( somewhat surprisingly) to catch the significance of the letters OWSMD on the figs These correlate the cosmic ray intensities peaks to the well documented temperature minima in the last 1000 years.
    These also correlate quite well with the temperature minima seen in Fig 3 of the same link.

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

    I wonder why you are so resistant to accepting the significance of these correlations connecting solar activity to temperature.- at least as a perfectly reasonable useful working hypothesis.

  116. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 11, 2014 at 6:13 am
    These correlate the cosmic ray intensities peaks to the well documented temperature minima in the last 1000 years.
    Apart from the correlation not being very good [e.g. slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf ], there is now a growing acceptance of the fact that the cosmic ray record is contaminated by the climate. You see, most of the 10Be in ice cores was not formed over the ice, but at lower latitudes and then by atmospheric circulation brought up to high latitudes for deposition.

  117. lsvalgaard wrote, “It is not up to us to disprove his ‘theory’ [Mother Nature did that already], but to him to prove it, and there he has failed. That some people still think that the theory is good sounds more like wishful thinking to me.”

    With respect to wishful thinking, I thought the same after reading your PPT, “Has the Sun’s Output Really Changed Significantly Since the Little Ice Age”. There seemed to be some wishful thinking that the sun’s output could not be responsible for changes in temperature. Especially the first conclusion on page 21 of the PPT, “Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of ten too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age … ” I think your conclusion based only on TSI (if error range were added ) is fairly robust. But you don’t account for the impact of variation in ultra-violet radiation or changes in cosmic rays. This is part of solar output. In your assumption about temperature changes,you don’t account for the fact that there are short term changes in climate driven by such things as the PDO, NAO and etc. that are not necessarily correlated with solar changes at least in the short term. There are also short term impact of volcanoes. Which means that it would be expected that there would be quite a bit of short term variation between the solar changes and temperatures but long term, if the hypothesis of Svensmark is correct, then longer term trends in temperature would be impacted.

  118. BobG says:
    April 11, 2014 at 9:43 am
    With respect to wishful thinking, I thought the same after reading your PPT, “Has the Sun’s Output Really Changed Significantly Since the Little Ice Age”.

    I go with what the data shows, not with what I believe must be happening. And have no dog in the race. I would be delighted if it could be shown that the Sun is a major driver as that would make my work [and funding] much more relevant. After having studied this hard for 40 years, I, unfortunately, cannot with my integrity intact pretend to my funding agencies that my work is of major relevance for the Climate.

    The ultraviolet radiation we have a good record of back to 1722 [when its impact on the ionosphere was discovered] and neither that nor the cosmic ray record support the notion that solar activity is important. This does not mean that there is no impact. There MUST be simply because of the 0.1% of TSI, namely to the tune of 0.1 degrees, which many people claim can actually be seen in the temperature record, albeit with difficulty as the noise is large.

  119. In respond to name calling:

    lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    (See above comment for name calling.)

    William:
    Name calling is not a substitute for observational data and logic to support your position.

    There is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. (Fact, both poles see paper below that notes there is cyclic warming and cooling in the Southern hemisphere in the same region that warmed in the last 70 years) The cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes. (Fact)

    As you note, the solar magnetic cycle has suddenly and unexpectedly changed. There is now unexplained cooling of the planet both poles based on increased sea ice. (Fact)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

  120. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm “We are discussing the Svensmark mechanism, and Svensmark does not invoke any ‘lag’ or delay. His effect in (is) immediate.”

    Where I live, when the sun comes up in the morning it warms up, when it goes down the temperature cools. It has an immediate affect. :) Where I live, when a cloud passes between me and the sun, it immediately is cooler. …but that’s where I live. Not sure why there is all the discussion that seems to suggest the sun has no affect on climate or climate change. Get real.

  121. I let the record show that we are globally cooling

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    So, as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

    So why would I need Svensmark’s theory if pure practical physics can do the same job?

  122. Lsvalgaard, Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your responses are always very illuminating.

  123. Our global simulations

    You quote a simulation study as new knowledge? You surprise me.

  124. stevek says:
    April 11, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Since stratospheric ozone is mostly produced by short-wave ultraviolet rays (UVC band), natural variation in UV is largely under solar control.

  125. William Astley says:
    April 11, 2014 at 11:51 am
    Name calling is not a substitute for observational data and logic to support your position.
    One must a spade a spade. I don’t need to support my position as opposed to yours. Everyone of your ideas is wrong. We have been down every one of the roads and you have learned nothing, so as I said “enjoy your fantasy ride”.

    Mike Jonas says:
    April 11, 2014 at 4:36 pm
    Leif – Link?
    To what?

  126. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:11 pm
    noloctd says:
    April 10, 2014 at 6:39 pm
    Dr Svalgard’s posts often make me think of this quote; “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” – Arthur C. Clarke
    And when he says “show me your evidence”, what do then think?

    I think he should stroll out into the Sun on a hot summer day and feel the “evidence”. Then he should hold up an umbrella and feel the lack of the “evidence”.

  127. Looking more and more like the interaction of GCR’s will also be found in Earths global electric circuit. Article about GCR ionization processes in Earth’s atmosphere..
    Started looking for a somewhat laminar horizontal ionization layer for GCR somewhere in Earth’s atmosphere and found instead a vertical ionization cluster.. me and clusters lately..

    In situ detection of electrified aerosols in the upper troposphere and
    stratosphere
    J.-B. Renard1, S. N. Tripathi2, M. Michael2, A. Rawal2, G. Berthet1, M. Fullekrug3,
    R. G. Harrison4, C. Robert1, M. Tagger1, and B. Gaubicher1
    Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys.
    Revised: 17 August 2013 – Accepted: 16 October 2013 – Published: 18 November 2013

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11187/2013/acp-13-11187-2013.pdf

    Abstract. ..Electrified aerosols have been observed in the
    lower troposphere and in the mesosphere, but have never
    been detected in the stratosphere and upper troposphere. We
    present measurements of aerosols obtained during a balloon
    flight to an altitude of 24 km…

    .Model calculations have been used to quantify the electrification
    of the aerosols with a stratospheric ion–aerosol model in
    the altitude range of 5–24 km. The ion clusters are produced
    mainly in the atmosphere by the interaction of
    Galactic CosmicRays (GCR)
    with the atmospheric gases, especially in the dense
    regions of the planetary atmospheres where the solar extreme
    ultraviolet radiation is absent (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003).
    A significant fraction of the cosmic ray energy flux is typically
    carried by high-energy particles of kinetic energy of at
    least 1 GeV. The ion production rate by this process peaks at
    altitudes between 14 and 17 km (Rawal et al., 2013), and the
    most abundant ion clusters produced by this process are SO−4 and NH+4 .
    This ion pair production rate is calculated using the statistical
    model of O’Brien (2005) with the major ions considered
    here being SO2−4 and NH+4 . Electrons are not included..

  128. In reply to more rhetoric and name calling
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 11, 2014 at 5:01 pm
    William Astley says:
    April 11, 2014 at 11:51 am
    Name calling is not a substitute for observational data and logic to support your position.
    One must a spade a spade. I don’t need to support my position as opposed to yours.

    William:
    Please what is your ‘position’? If the planet cools will you admit that what you have stated in this forum is absolutely incorrect or is it impossible for you to change your mind? Is there any observational data that could change your mind?

    The planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past (see proxy data below that shows both the Northern and Southern hemisphere have cyclically warmed and cooled).
    The solar magnetic cycle has suddenly and unexpectedly changed. There is now unexplained cooling of the planet both poles based on increased sea ice.

    CO2 was not the forcing agend.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

  129. illiam Astley says:
    April 11, 2014 at 5:52 pm
    If the planet cools will you admit that what you have stated in this forum is absolutely incorrect or is it impossible for you to change your mind?
    The planet can cool [and it hasn't yet] for many reasons

    Is there any observational data that could change your mind?
    Since we have centuries of ‘observational’ data that does not support your fancy, it is hard to see how that could change in the future

  130. Leif – to your assertion that Svensmark himself claimed a linear correlation. [Apologies for the brevity of my question - I was under extreme time pressure].

  131. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 11, 2014 at 6:13 am

    Willis most of your questions are answered in the original Steinhilber paper and supporting data which was linked to in the post on my site.

    Sorry, Doc, but you blew your chance when you sent me to that bogus graph and asked “what’s not to like”, when the list of things not to like was very, very long.

    After that unpleasant experience, the chance that I want to look at your site is zero. I don’t have time for drilling dry holes. Better luck with the next fellow … my advice? Don’t send people on wild goose chases. Fool me once, your fault … no way I’ll go for it twice.

    w.

  132. Richard says:
    April 11, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    … I think he should stroll out into the Sun on a hot summer day and feel the “evidence”. Then he should hold up an umbrella and feel the lack of the “evidence”.

    I tried that, and in neither case did the sun change my core temperature, so I couldn’t feel any “evidence” at all … what am I doing wrong?

    w.

    PS—Yes, the answer is that my core temperature is thermally regulated … but I hold (and have produced lots of confirmatory evidence) that the climate is thermally regulated as well.

    The simple answer is that simple physics and simple examples such as yours do very poorly when applied to a complex system …

  133. William Astley says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    William, it seems that you are firmly convinced that something that Leif said is wrong … but at this point I haven’t a clue what you’re objecting to. Perhaps (as I request frequently) you could quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong, and let us know where you think he went off the rails … because reading your long posts has gotten me nowhere.

    For example, you have quoted Davis and Taylor no less than three times, using the exact same long and confusing paragraph … why? What are you trying to prove, and why are you citing the exact same thing in three different comments? I just gave up reading on the second time you quoted it, and busted out loud laughing when I read the third … and I doubt if that’s the response you’re trying to evoke.

    Just sayin’ …

    w.

  134. Willis the link I posted relative to the questions you asked and to the cosmic ray – temperature connection was not back to my site but to Steinhilbers paper especially his fig 3CD which you choose to characterize as a bogus graph for no good reason and after clearly not being knowledgeable enough to even understand it at first glance. Seems an odd way to proceed – much like the cardinals who didn’t want to look down Galileos telescope because they were already certain they knew the truth.

  135. Willis I’ve just remembered – I think Leif might have been one of the referees of the Steinhilber paper before publication . He might care to comment on his view of the Fig 3CD we are talking about..

  136. Mike Jonas says:
    April 11, 2014 at 7:55 pm
    Leif – to your assertion that Svensmark himself claimed a linear correlation.
    e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/0005072-Svensmark-GCR-Climate.pdf Figure 1C.
    Whenever you plot two quantities on the same plot to show they match [by their curves overlapping] you are claiming a linear correlation. The linear relationship that follows from the Figure is 10% change in cosmic rays corresponds to 2.15 degrees temperature anomaly. In any case when the chances are small enough, all relationships are linear.

  137. I wrote to Dr. Kirkby about his “Cloud” research at CERN, since I was very interested in findings that certain airborne/cloudborne bacteria may increase the cloud nuclei generation. He replied:

    Dear Charles,

    There is a lot of current interest in the ice-forming properties of bacteria and spores that are found in clouds. Ice is important since most of precipitation from clouds is initiated by ice via the Bergeron-Findeisen process. Ice-forming nuclei are rare in the atmosphere so there is a large amount of supercooled liquid water in clouds. Biological material seems to be among the most efficient ice nuclei known and can lead to rapid rainout of a supercooled cloud, hence their importance.

    Best regards, Jasper

    Fascinating stuff! Since anthropogenic methane formation from agricultural operations (enteric fermentation, manure ponding etc.) is rising, I’d expect increasing concentrations of the important ammonia compound that combines with acids to stimulate cloud nuclei.

  138. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 11, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    Willis the link I posted relative to the questions you asked and to the cosmic ray – temperature connection was not back to my site but to Steinhilbers paper especially his fig 3CD which you choose to characterize as a bogus graph for no good reason and after clearly not being knowledgeable enough to even understand it at first glance. Seems an odd way to proceed – much like the cardinals who didn’t want to look down Galileos telescope because they were already certain they knew the truth.

    Hogwash. Here is the comment to which I was responding:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:58 am

    West Highlander, Leif, Willis I just repeat part of my earlier comment- For the connection between cosmic rays and temperature over the last 1000 years see
    “For the connection between cosmic ray flux and climate see Fig8 at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html


    What’s not to like?

    So I responded to the graph and your question. I saw nothing in there that linked to your post. I see a claim that I can gain understanding of the connection between cosmic rays and temperature by looking at a certain graph. I went, I looked, I regretted going, and I learned not to follow your links … what’s not to like?

    As to “not being knowledgeable enough to even understand it at first glance”, let me repeat again what I didn’t like:

    I don’t like the total absence of any source for the neutron count. I don’t like the lack of units for the neutron count. I don’t like the lack of a source for the 9,000 year reconstruction of the “Geomagnetic Dipole Field”. I don’t like the fact that the dipole field is different than the dipole moment, which is what I suspect they are actually measuring. I don’t like the fact that they are appearing to try to establish a correlation between cosmic rays and sunspots, but they don’t provide any correlation analysis. I don’t like that there is no provenance for the sunspot data. I don’t like the fact that they don’t give any source for the graph itself.

    I don’t like the fact that you claim that figure 8 shows what you call the “connection between cosmic rays and temperature” when Figure 8 says nothing about temperature at all.

    And finally, I don’t like going on a wild goose chase to examine a piece of uncited unscientific junk that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Next time, don’t bother.

    Further to that, I know of no one who is “knowledgeable enough” to answer those questions I posed. Is someone supposed to somehow intuit which sunspot data you used, and guess about the correlation coefficient? And how, when you show a graph of cosmic rays with no mention of temperature, is the knowledgeable person supposed to come to some conclusion about the relationship between the two?

    Now, if you’d actually had the blanquillos to ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS that I raised, I’d have been very happy. That’s what I and most folks do when I post something and people don’t understand it. I answer the issues they raised. So that’s what I’d expected you to do when I pointed out the numerous things not to like. Respond to the issues I raised.

    But noooo … instead of going “Oops, I did leave a few things out of that graph like the temperature and the provenance and the units”, your response is to just accuse me of being too ignorant to understand your brilliant wisdom … yeah, that’s the ticket, I’m too dumb to get it.

    So like I said, Doc … you burnt your bridges with me. Go play with the other kids, I’m not interested.

    w.

    PS—Your claim that in this story you represent Galileo, and I represent some ignorant hidebound churchman, was just too precious … I’m not sure which one is more unlikely.

  139. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Duster says:
    April 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm
    The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene.
    That is because the Earth’s magnetic field which much more strongly that the Sun screen us from cosmic rays has been changing. …

    Thanks for the link. I’ll be studying it for a bit.

  140. Isvalgaard
    “Well, if it is not observed, it is clearly not an important factor, regardless of the sound physics”

    That is only true if cosmic ray is the only important factor. There are other factors that can cancel its effect. But it will not cancel all the time. The factors may be chaotic. Sometimes they cancel, sometimes they reinforce each other. So don’t jump into conclusions until after enough observations and experiments.

  141. Dr. Strangelove says:
    April 12, 2014 at 1:48 am
    So don’t jump into conclusions until after enough observations and experiments.
    Go tell that to Svensmark and followers

  142. Leif – I don’t accept your argument. Their Fig.1 is a graph of actual cloud data and actual GCR data over a period of just 10 years. The claim is simply that the correlation over this (short) period is unlikely to occur by chance. The paper does not claim that the relationship is precise, or that it will apply over longer periods, or that it is free of other possible causes. eg. “Figure 1 indicates that a 2-3 % change in low cloud cover correlates with GCR over the whole period, while the middle and high clouds do not [...] However, at these time scales GCR ionisation is not the only mechanism affecting low clouds, there are of course many other decadal processes in the climate system which are important. [..] What is surprising is that despite these limitations a signal of solar variability in low cloud cover is dominant at time-scales longer than 1 year. Svensmark argued that there is a better agreement with GCR rather than solar irradiance for total cloud cover. This is also true for the low cloud cover in Figure 1c, which suggests that low cloud cover is responding to cosmic ray ionisation in the atmosphere rather than direct changes in solar irradiance. [..] Based on the ISCCP D2 IR cloud data there is a clear correlation between GCR and properties of low clouds in contrast to middle and high clouds. Since the correlation is seen both in low cloud cover and low cloud top temperature, the case for solar induced variability of low clouds is strengthened. Observations of atmospheric parameters from TOVS do not support a solar-cloud mechanism through tropospheric dynamics influenced by UV absorption in the stratosphere. Instead, it is argued that a mechanism involving solar modulated GCR is possible”
    and
    “The influence of solar variability on climate is currently uncertain. Recent observations have
    indicated a possible mechanism via the influence of solar modulated cosmic rays on global cloud cover. Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds (≤3km), which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionisation due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the Heliosphere is important for climate on Earth.”.

    Your statement “Svensmark himself claimed there were such a linear correlation.” looks like the setting up of a strawman.

  143. Willis You continue to evade the issue. Here is the part of my 6.13 post which dealt with the questions you asked .
    ” Willis most of your questions are answered in the original Steinhilber paper and supporting data which was linked to in the post on my site.
    “Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

    As to the temperature you failed ( somewhat surprisingly) to catch the significance of the letters OWSMD on the figs These correlate the cosmic ray intensities peaks to the well documented temperature minima in the last 1000 years.”
    The link above is not a reference to my blog but to the peer reviewed Steihilber paper and especially the Fig 3CD which does refer GCR peaks to Temperature lows even though you failed to notice that. If that figure is correct it is highly relevant to this entire thread,The Galileo reference is certainly not personal to me just a general statement that it is better to look at the data ( in this case not mine but Steinhilbers) rather than assume you know it is not worth while and are therefore not interested.
    Leif also refuses to comment on the specific Steinhilber Fig 3CD in question- because it would, he says, take too long. At least he doesn’t call it bogus which is something I suppose.

  144. In reply to:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    April 11, 2014 at 8:40 pm
    William Astley says:
    April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
    William, it seems that you are firmly convinced that something that Leif said is wrong … but at this point I haven’t a clue what you’re objecting to. Perhaps (as I request frequently) you could quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong, and let us know where you think he went off the rails … because reading your long posts has gotten me nowhere.
    For example, you have quoted Davis and Taylor no less than three times, using the exact same long and confusing paragraph … why?
    William:
    Leif’s comments are limited to name calling and rhetoric (i.e. no information content). Leif appears to be in capable at this point in his life of reading and understanding papers that disprove his fundamental beliefs concerning the solar magnetic cycle and how the solar magnetic cycle affects planetary climate.
    Willis, sorry I had assumed you had read Davis and Taylor and had read Svensmark’s book and papers. Please read Svensmark’s attached paper which explains the essence of the issue and then ask questions until you understand the observations and their implications.
    There is unequivocal observational evidence and analysis results to support the assertions that the planet (both hemispheres) warms and cools cyclically, that the warming and cooling is caused by solar magnetic cycle changes, that more than 70% of the warming in the last years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes, and that the planet has now started to cool. We are going to first experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, followed it appears by we are going to experience a Heinrich event. (The mechanism that causes a Heinrich event is what terminates interglacial periods. Let’s park the Heinrich event mechanism discussion until there is public discussion of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling.)
    Note Davis and Taylor’s paper is entitled: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle” that is a hint that their data concern the fundamental issue of the climate wars. Did CO2 cause the majority of the warming in the last 70 years or not?
    Davis and Taylor found 342 natural warming events, that were all followed by cooling ‘events’ by analyzing ice cores from the Antarctic peninsula. Mulvaney et al analyzed the same Antarctic Peninsula ice core data, warming and cooling cycle in the Antarctic Peninsula has a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years, which is the same periodicity of the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming and cooling cycle in the Northern hemisphere.
    As Svensmark notes, there is no internal forcing function that can simultaneously affect both hemispheres. (See Svensmark’s paper that discusses the so called polar see-saw.)
    Note Davis and Taylor and Mulvaney’s analysis is of Antarctic Peninsula ice core data, not ice core data from the Antarctic ice sheet. The Antarctic Peninsula extends far enough that is not affected by the Antarctic vortex. The Antarctic Peninsula temperature follows the Southern sea temperature rather than the Antarctic ice sheet. During the last 40 years (period for which there is direct temperature measurement), the Antarctic Peninsula warmed (second highest amount of warming on the planet, the Greenland Ice sheet had the most amount of warming, question to ask why did these two ice sheets warm the most?) and the Antarctic Ice sheet cooled.
    The fact that when the Greenland Ice sheet warms the Antarctic Ice sheet cools (simultaneously based on the analysis of direct temperature measurements of the ice cores –the ice sheet insulates so direct temperature measure of the ice core in situ (cut a hole in the ice, place temperature probes in the ice, cover the hole with an insulated cover, wait until temperature reaches equilibrium, and then finally measure the temperature of the ice sheet in situ.) is called the polar see-saw. Svensmark’s paper explains the polar see-saw which proves his mechanism.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
    Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years ….

    … authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (Nature, 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD (William: sic they should have written years) and another around 400 AD (William: sic they should have written years), measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica.

    William: The point of linking to Richard Alley’s data is there is cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland ice sheet also. Svensmark’s analysis showed the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet are simultaneously changing temperature.
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

  145. Mike Jonas says:
    April 12, 2014 at 4:59 am
    Leif – I don’t accept your argument.
    I’m not arguing, just showing that the relationship is linear over the range of solar activity at that time, which basically covers the range observed at all other times. the last 400 years.

    William Astley says:
    April 12, 2014 at 6:50 am
    Leif’s comments are limited to name calling and rhetoric (i.e. no information content). Leif appears to be in capable at this point in his life of reading and understanding papers that disprove his fundamental beliefs concerning the solar magnetic cycle and how the solar magnetic cycle affects planetary climate.
    Your latest regurgitation of papers does not add anything to the table. I have in the past extensively explained what is wrong with your ideas, but to no avail. I am tired of repeating myself.

    Dr Norman Page says:
    April 12, 2014 at 6:31 am
    Leif also refuses to comment on the specific Steinhilber Fig 3CD in question- because it would, he says, take too long. At least he doesn’t call it bogus which is something I suppose.
    In addition, it is irrelevant as I showed that there is hardly any correlation between temperature and Steinhilber’s data. So why spend time on his Figure, which does have issues. For instance there is good evidence that the 10Be data is contaminated by climate itself.

  146. In reply to:
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 11, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    William:
    Your ignorance concerning the paleo climatic record and the analysis concerning the current planetary temperature change anomaly is astonishing.

    William: Said: If the planet cools will you [Leif] admit that what you have stated in this forum is absolutely incorrect or is it impossible for you to change your mind? Is there any observational data that could change your mind?

    William: Leif’s reply is that there are centuries of data (no data or analysis provided) that prove that what I assert is incorrect.

    I provided a link to Davis and Taylor’s paper that provides 240,000 years of data which shows if combined with Svensmark paper’s data and results that the solar magnetic cycle changes causes the planet (both hemispheres) to cyclically warm and cool with most of the warming and cooling occurring at high latitude regions. It is interesting to note that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years has been in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. The IPCC’s general circulation models predicted that the majority of the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should have been in the tropics, as CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere and the amount of CO2 forcing due to the increase in CO2 is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in region before the increase in CO2.
    That is not what is observed as shown in Bob Tisdale graph. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertion that latitudinal pattern of warming does not match the pattern of warming as predicted by the IPCC’s general circulation models and does not hence have the signature/pattern if CO2 was the cause of the warming.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    “These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
    “These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Curiously the polar warming has abruptly and suddenly reversed. There was a 50% increase in summer sea ice in the Arctic and there is now two sigma record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year. Atmospheric CO2 has not changed. Something must have changed to cause the sudden cooling of both poles. (Hint the sun.) Another curious observation is the sudden inhibiting of the La Niña / El Niño cycle. Changes in observations require a physical explanation.

    It is obvious that you have not read Svensmark’s paper. See and read my comments concerning the polar see-saw to Willis. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

  147. William Astley says:
    April 12, 2014 at 7:29 am
    William: Leif’s reply is that there are centuries of data (no data or analysis provided) that prove that what I assert is incorrect.
    Yep, as we have discussed many times before.

  148. Leif Everyone involved knows that the 10 Be data is affected by the regional location of the ice core in relation to the climate at the time of deposition. This is not news. When using the ice core 10 Be data this certainly needs to be taken into consideration. However all natural time series are “contaminated ” by the other processes going on at the time and all need to be interpreted with the broadest possible knowledge of other considerations.
    To put it very shortly – all data is inevitably cherry picked. The key is the ability and experience of the cherry picker to know which cherries to pick. Time will tell in this regard. So far the IPCC cherry pickers aren’t doing too well .My forecasts from several years ago are more or less on track.

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html

  149. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 12, 2014 at 7:54 am
    Leif Everyone involved knows that the 10 Be data is affected by the regional location of the ice core in relation to the climate at the time of deposition. This is not news. When using the ice core 10 Be data this certainly needs to be taken into consideration.
    I didn’t see you doing that. And how would you do that? But again you are evading the issue namely that there is hardly any correlation [and what little there is may be just the contamination due to climate] between cosmic rays [Steinhilber] and temperature [Loehle].

  150. Willis Eschenbach says:

    April 11, 2014 at 8:40 pm
    ———————————-
    Not such a big deal, William’s magnetic brain is more sensitive than is yours..polar seesaw is interesting in itself..looking at the Earth Wind Map using temp and wind funcition the other day at 2.174miles hPa..could see more cooler airs in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere..some of them cooler airs headed northward for mixing it up.. no, no, southern hemisphere helping to cool planet.. by forcing more cooler airs northward.. giving a presumable warming temporary..but just a transition to overall cooling pattern.. hmm

    Someone else recently mentioned a security warning concerning WUWT and WordPress.

    This warning I just received while logging in.

    “””There is a problem with this website’s security certificate.
    The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website’s address.
    Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.
    We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website. “”””

  151. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 12, 2014 at 7:54 am
    My forecasts from several years ago are more or less on track.
    Your first point is:
    “Continued modest cooling until a more significant temperature drop at about 2016-17″.
    I take it that if that drop doesn’t happen the rest of your forecast is invalidated and you’ll fold up your tent and go home. Now, you, wisely, do not quantify what a ‘more significant drop’ is, so you can call just about anything ‘significant’ as you please. Unless you quantify there is little meat on your forecast.

  152. William Astley says:
    April 12, 2014 at 6:50 am

    My impression is that Heinrich Events only occur during glacial phases. Maybe as with proposed Bond Cycles (during interglacials) v. D-O Cycles (during glacials), the underlying cause of HEs still happens in interglacials, but at about one tenth the strength.

  153. Leif Here is what Steinhilber says about his cosmic ray intensities
    “We combined a new 10Be record from Dronning Maud Land,
    Antarctica, comprising more than 1,800 data points with several
    other already existing radionuclide records (14C from tree rings
    and 10Be analyzed in polar ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica)
    covering the Holocene. Using principal component analysis,
    we separated the common radionuclide production signal due to
    solar and geomagnetic activity from the system effects signal due
    to the different transport and deposition processes. The common
    signal represents a low-noise record of cosmic radiation, particularly
    for high frequencies, compared to earlier reconstructions,
    which are only based on single radionuclide records”
    I choose to believe him with regard to transport and deposition processes
    Re my forecasts . In my latest post a
    t http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    I conclude.
    “How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.

  154. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 12, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Would that drop be relative to the running 30 year anomaly of 1985 to 2014 or mean for the three years 2012 to 2014?

  155. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 12, 2014 at 9:01 am
    Leif Here is what Steinhilber says about his cosmic ray intensities
    I choose to believe him with regard to transport and deposition processes

    So, picking what you consider to be a ‘good cherry’.
    And regardless, they still get the data for 1880-1900 wrong. In any case all this is a straw man as you do not address the lack of correlation between temperature and 10Be. If there is none why whine about 10Be?

    If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.
    SST – Sea Surface Temp?
    Another cherry pick… “Re-evalute”? the correct word is that you have been falsified.

  156. Norman Page says
    If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate
    Henry says@ dr Page
    I admire you and the things you have posted here
    as it shows you have the guts of your conviction
    Please don’t let yourself be intimidated by the comments by dr S and Willis
    As always, they certainly do disappoint me

    I did an independent investigation into the issue of global warming and found that we are currently globally cooling.
    All three of my tables show that we have started to cool globally since around the new millennium.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    Even if dr S and Willis do not believe me, they can also look at the 4 major global data sets and they would have to agree with me that the trend is now downwards,
    i.e. we are globally cooling.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 87-88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.

    An 87 year and 208 year cycle has been confirmed by a number of leading skeptics, e.g.
    Gleissberg??? (any paper from him seems missing from official records) and see here

    http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html

    or here

    Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

    Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
    Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
    Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.

    end quote

    so, we don’t need the Be observations, really

    Note that the results of my plot (for maxima) suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 as far as energy-in is concerned and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…

  157. Yes -a good cherry- exactly.
    SST yes sea surface temperature.
    Falsified ? maybe – could be amended . The biggest uncertainty in my forecast is the timing of the peak in the 1000 year quasi periodicity. The period might vary by some decades. Scafetta – approaching the problem by curve fitting suggests the peak could be about 2060 or thereabout. Right now I obviously favour my view that the recent temperature peak was a peak in both the 60 and the 1000 year quasi-periodicities. see

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

    Time will tell.

  158. In reply to:
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 12, 2014 at 7:36 am
    William Astley says:
    April 12, 2014 at 7:29 am
    William: Leif’s reply is that there are centuries of data (no data or analysis provided) that prove that what I assert is incorrect.
    Yep, as we have discussed many times before.
    William:
    You continue to be in denial. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling has started. How long can the warmists ignore the sudden increase in sea ice both poles? Any comments?

    The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling is caused by the recent change to the solar magnetic cycle. I am waiting with interest to hear the warmists’ attempts to explain away global cooling as opposed to a lack in warming. Where, oh where have the sunspots gone? (Song to sung at the end of this year).

    I provided a link to 240,000 years of proxy temperature data that supports the assertion that the earth’s climate (both hemisphere) cyclically warms and cool, with a cycle of 1500 years and 400 years. In my comment to Willis, I provided data and analysis that shows the latitudinal pattern of warming observed in the last 70 years does not match the signature of CO2 forcing (CO2 forcing should warm the tropical region more than high latitude regions, that is not what is observed) and does match the pattern of warming observed in the 342 cycles observed in the proxy data.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    “These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
    “These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

  159. William Astley says:
    April 12, 2014 at 10:33 am
    You continue to be in denial.
    Indeed, I deny that your flights of fancy have any validity.

    The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling has started.
    No evidence for that. An the D-O events are not due to the sun in the first place as I have shown you many times.

  160. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 12, 2014 at 6:31 am

    Willis You continue to evade the issue. Here is the part of my 6.13 post which dealt with the questions you asked .

    ” Willis most of your questions are answered in the original Steinhilber paper and supporting data which was linked to in the post on my site.
    “Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

    As to the temperature you failed ( somewhat surprisingly) to catch the significance of the letters OWSMD on the figs These correlate the cosmic ray intensities peaks to the well documented temperature minima in the last 1000 years.”

    Dr. Page, I make it a practice to avoid, not evade but avoid, people who accuse me of evasion.

    However, I am avoiding you for several reasons. The first one is that to date, I haven’t figured out what your point is. Is it that cosmic rays may influence slow long-term processes? I find that possible, but if so, why don’t the effects vary with the 11-year cycle of cosmic rays? Why would big variations be ignored and small variations slavishly followed. Or is your issue that my analysis is wrong? I can’t make heads or tails of your position, and frankly, i grow less interested by the moment in trying to figure it out. I don’t have a clue just what is your point, because your writing is frustratingly opaque.

    The second reason I avoid you is that interactions with you are unpleasant. You are continually attacking people personally, for instance accusing me of “evading the issue”. Truth is, Doc, I don’t care in the slightest about your thoughts and claims. I’m not evading them, I just find them pathetic, and in addition you often layer them with the petty and the personal.

    Third, you don’t own up to what you’ve done. You sent me to view a graph which had lots and lots of missing information. When I pointed that out, you say

    Willis most of your questions are answered in the original Steinhilber paper and supporting data which was linked to in the post on my site

    Look, fool, you just sent me on a wild-goose chase to a singleton graph which was useless due to lack of supporting information.

    But now, I’m the one that’s wrong because I didn’t realize that all the answers to my questions are on your site? That’s your apology for my wild goose chase, that I should have know where the answer were? Dude, that’s taking passive aggression to a new level.

    But heck, I’m a reasonable guy. I’m willing to reset the clock and forget the past, as long as you can put a cork in the personal attacks.

    Then, how about you QUOTE WHERE YOU THINK I’M WRONG, instead of endlessly going on about your site and your graph and and how dumb I was to not notice the letters OWSMD and how I “surprisingly” failed to understand something or other.

    If you do that, then we can see just what it is that has you breathing so hard … and if it’s a scientific issue, I’m more than happy to discuss it.

    w.

  161. William Astley says:
    April 12, 2014 at 6:50 am

    In reply to:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    April 11, 2014 at 8:40 pm

    William, it seems that you are firmly convinced that something that Leif said is wrong … but at this point I haven’t a clue what you’re objecting to. Perhaps (as I request frequently) you could quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong, and let us know where you think he went off the rails … because reading your long posts has gotten me nowhere.
    For example, you have quoted Davis and Taylor no less than three times, using the exact same long and confusing paragraph … why?

    William:
    Leif’s comments are limited to name calling and rhetoric (i.e. no information content). Leif appears to be in capable at this point in his life of reading and understanding papers that disprove his fundamental beliefs concerning the solar magnetic cycle and how the solar magnetic cycle affects planetary climate.
    Willis, sorry I had assumed you had read Davis and Taylor and had read Svensmark’s book and papers. Please read Svensmark’s attached paper which explains the essence of the issue and then ask questions until you understand the observations and their implications.

    Is there some part of my asking you to “quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong” that was difficult to understand? Are we to be treated to endless complaints about what a bad man Lief is without a single detail?

    And as to you assuming that I “read Davis and Taylor and had read Svensmark’s book and papers”, that’s a foolish move. Why on earth would you assume that? I’m a self-taught generalist, not a solar specialist, but in any case assuming you know what someone’s read that you’ve never met is not a good plan.

    As to whether I’ll read “Svensmark’s book”, I understand his claim in great detail, which is that cosmic rays affect the temperature by affecting the rate of cloud formation, and that they are modified by the heliomagnetic field.

    And perhaps they do … but all I can do is investigate the question and present my results. My results show that IF cosmic rays or anything else modulated or associated with the sunspot cycle are affecting the temperature, the effect is so small as to be lost among the weeds.

    Now, I’ve asked others, so I’ll ask you—what is the mechanism whereby small changes in cosmic rays have a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, but large changes in cosmic rays DON’T affect the temperature on decadal scales.

    Since you seem to be an expert on Svensmark, how does he explain that? And if he doesn’t explain that, why should I read his book? That’s been the puzzle all along.

    w.

  162. Leif – In the paper to which you provided a link, the period covered was a decade. It does not cover, is not in the paper claimed to cover, and surely cannot be seen to cover, 400 years. I think you are reading far too much into it.
    [re argument / arguing - English is a strange language at times. You can put an argument (as you did) without having an argument (as we weren't). When I first used the word "argument" I meant the former. Apologies if you interpreted it as the latter.]

  163. Mike Jonas says:
    April 12, 2014 at 6:08 pm
    Leif – In the paper to which you provided a link, the period covered was a decade. It does not cover, is not in the paper claimed to cover, and surely cannot be seen to cover, 400 years.
    It covers the range of solar activity [and hence of cosmic ray modulation] seen over known 400 years, what more is there to say without just speculating on something we don’t know.

  164. Willis – I think you ask the essential question with your “Now, I’ve asked others, so I’ll ask you—what is the mechanism whereby small changes in cosmic rays have a controlling influence [on] the temperature on centennial scales, but large changes in cosmic rays DON’T affect the temperature on decadal scales.“. I don’t claim to have the answer, but if you remove “cosmic rays” from your question it is still the essential question. ie, major centennial-scale changes have been found in the past, and none of the hypothesised causes for changes on decadal scales could have caused them. So, to generalise your original question: What mechanism could have had a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, yet not measurably affect the temperature on decadal scales?
    An answer to that question will advance climate science immensely.

  165. Willis says
    Look, fool, you just sent me on a wild-goose chase to a singleton graph which was useless due to lack of supporting information.

    Henry says
    You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill;
    and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that
    everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; who-
    ever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says
    “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire.

    Christianity. Matthew 5.21-22

  166. Henry Thanks for your support..I am not one to be intimidated by anyone. My general approach on my blog is to post what I think is key data or figures from peer reviewed papers or data sources so that readers can judge for themselves whether my forecasts have merit.In this particular case Willis misunderstood the Fig8 and for some reason didn’t or decided that he wouldn’t check the original paper to which I had provided a link.
    Leif also didn’t respond to the specific figure in question. But in his case , I’m sure that as usual,he was already familiar with the original paper so that his comments were pertinent. and by the end of a reasonable exchange we agreed to disagree on the accuracy and significance of Stenhilbers results.I think they represent a good “cherry” he apparently doesn’t.
    The question under discussion was the connection between cosmic rays and climate and I would urge interested parties to read and digest the Steinhilber paper linked to at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

  167. In reply to:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    April 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    William:
    Perhaps if you could focus on how the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate and what to expect next, rather than a discussion of Leif’s comments which are a distraction. (i.e. Ask me to provide the more than a dozen independent logical pillars (observations and analysis for the logical pillars are all from peer reviewed papers) I have to support the assertion that more than 70% of the warming in the last 70 years was cause by solar magnetic cycle changes.

    An observation to support the assertion that 70% of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes would be the sudden cooling of the planet were the cooling is primarily at high latitude regions and a suppression of the number and magnitude of El Niño events.
    It does appear that the mechanism that was inhibiting Svensmark’s mechanism for the last 12 years is starting to abate. There is now observational evidence of cooling of both poles. It should be noted that solar wind bursts also modulate planetary cloud cover (high latitude regions and equatorial regions). The recent change in the solar magnetic cycle is reducing the magnitude of the solar wind bursts (the density of the solar heliosphere has dropped by 40% causing the magnetic field intensity of the solar wind bursts to drop). The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions from high latitudinal regions and the equator (this mechanism is called electroscavenging and was discovered by Tinsley and Yu). In the tropics the higher or lower number of ions changes the droplet size in the clouds that form (not the amount of cloud cover) which changes the amount of long wave radiation that can pass through the cloud.

    The fundamental observations when viewed as a group fit together as pieces of a puzzle, eliminating the paradoxes and explaining the observations (past, present, and future) in detail. The trick/method (Faraday’s method, write out the observations with the objective of systematically following the different logical trees absolutely without prejudice looking for their implications, to find and eliminate fundamental theory errors) to solve a complex holistic problem where one or more fundamental beliefs are or may be incorrect (for example the belief that the CO2 mechanism does not saturate in the upper atmosphere for some physical reason, assume it does saturate then there must be a physical reason why it does saturate and there must be another physical reason why the planet warmed in the last 70 years). An example of logical fundamental logical issue that must be addressed is as follows: Gavin Schmidt and others have argued again and again that if the planet’s atmosphere does not amplify warming due to an increase in water vapor then the paleoclimatologists cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycle as the forcing changes due to insolation changes is roughly an order of magnitude too small to explain what is observed.
    The observation fact that there has been 17 years of no warming supports the assertion that the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. If the planet resists forcing changes by an increase in planetary clouds in the tropics then there must be a very strong forcing change to cause the glacial/interglacial cycle and to cause the cyclic warming and cooling of both hemispheres.

    I keep repeating Davis and Taylor’s paper as something caused the cyclic warming and cooling in the past and the cyclic warming and cooling is at high latitudes which is the same as the warming in the last 70 years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years ….
    Something in the past caused the 342 warming events (both hemispheres see data in Svensmark’s paper the Polar Anomaly.) where the regions that warmed are the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years.

    I keep repeating this link to Svensmark’s paper as it includes data to confirm there is simultaneous change in temperature of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet which means there is a forcing function that affects both poles. Note the direction of temperature change is opposite. That is very odd and is explained by a cloud based mechanism.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    I keep repeating this paper that explains the latitudinal of warming in the last 70 years does not match the pattern of warming that would have occurred if the warming was caused by the increase in CO2. Do you understand why that is so?

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    “These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
    “These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

  168. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 13, 2014 at 8:32 am
    The question under discussion was the connection between cosmic rays and climate
    It makes little sense to discuss variables that are not correlated. Steinhilber’s 10Be is not bad in general. It does have problems for low solar activity, but that doesn’t matter as it is not correlated enough with climate in the first place, so keep harping on the Steinhilber data does not serve any purpose. My comment is not ‘intimidation’, but education.

  169. Henry says
    can I ask where my reply to Mike Jonas went?

    [Nothing in the queue. Mod]
    henry
    That cannot be true
    because when I re-post, the system keeps telling me that a duplicate document is detected?
    I wonder what is your story, Mod? I guess you are angry for some reason because of what I commented?

  170. my reply to Mike Jonas included an explanation as to why Svensmark theory is not needed (anymore) which would also be a reply from me to dr. Page.

  171. Mike Jonas asks
    What mechanism could have had a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, yet not measurably affect the temperature on decadal scales?
    An answer to that question will advance climate science immensely.

    Henry
    I have all those things figured out
    pity that nobody is interested…

    a few things to help you on the way
    this is assuming that my best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    is correct, which actually determines where we are exactly within the Gleissberg cycle.
    (2016 is the deep end of the cooling curve)

    1)
    You don’t need svensmark to show there is more deflection by clouds (in a cooling period).

    Namely, as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

    2)
    the ozone is increasing again, causing more back radiation to space

    I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the E-UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
    The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV.
    Also, the solar polar field strengths have weakened and will continue to be weak for the next two years, at least. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 43-44 year, affecting this change in the sun’s behavior. How? That was the question.

    3)
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

    So come 2016, we will see something special happening on the sun. I will admit that I don’t know exactly what – I am not an expert on the sun – but my guess is that the poles will switch over again and we will start our (slow) drive up the hill again.

  172. Mike Jonas asks
    What mechanism could have had a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, yet not measurably affect the temperature on decadal scales?
    An answer to that question will advance climate science immensely.

    Henry says
    I have all those things figured out
    pity that nobody is interested…

    a few things to help you on the way
    this is assuming that my best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    is correct, which actually determines where we are exactly within the Gleissberg cycle.
    (2016 is the deep end of the cooling curve)

    1)
    You don’t need svensmark to show there is more deflection by clouds (in a cooling period).

    Namely, as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

  173. @Mike Jonas cont.
    2)
    the ozone is increasing again, causing more back radiation to space

    I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the E-UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
    The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV.
    Also, the solar polar field strengths have weakened and will continue to be weak for the next two years, at least. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 43-44 year, affecting this change in the sun’s behavior. How? That was the question.

  174. @Mike Jonas cont.
    3)
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

    So come 2016, we will see something special happening on the sun. I will admit that I don’t know exactly what – I am not an expert on the sun – but my guess is that the poles will switch over again and we will start our (slow) drive up the hill again.

  175. HenryP says:
    April 13, 2014 at 10:22 am
    I have all those things figured out
    pity that nobody is interested…

    Perhaps you might consider that you have not figured it all out…

  176. @Mike Jonas cont.
    3)
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.
    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
    1927, 1972, 2016
    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
    1919, 1965, 2009,
    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  177. @Mike Jonas cont.
    3)
    go back to look at the stars
    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.
    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
    1927, 1972, 2016
    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
    1919, 1965, 2009,
    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  178. )
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  179. @Mike Jonas
    I am trying to get the third part of my answer in but it seems I am completely blocked now here by the moderator

    [Nothing pending. Mod]

  180. 3)
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  181. @Mike Jonas
    3)
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  182. @Mike Jonas (third part)
    3)
    go back to look at the stars

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  183. @Mike Jonas (third part)
    3)

    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

    [Multiple copies of this in the "Spam/Pending folder. Were there multiple submittals? Mod]

  184. So come 2016, we will see something special happening on the sun. I will admit that I don’t know exactly what – I am not an expert on the sun – but my guess is that the poles will switch over again and we will start our (slow) drive up the hill again.

  185. 3)
    I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.

    Observe from my a-c curves:
    a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)

    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039

    b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points

    1927, 1972, 2016

    Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:

    a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)

    1897, 1942, 1988, 2032

    b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus

    1919, 1965, 2009,

    In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
    In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

  186. HenryP says:
    April 13, 2014 at 7:07 am

    Willis says

    Look, fool, you just sent me on a wild-goose chase to a singleton graph which was useless due to lack of supporting information.

    Henry says

    You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill;
    and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that
    everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; who-
    ever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says
    “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire.

    Christianity. Matthew 5.21-22

    I seem to recall somebody taking a damn whip and whipping a bunch of people out of the temple. The same guy also cursed a poor fig tree that never did anything to anybody.

    Once you’ve preached that man out of his anger with your meddlesome interference with other people’s lives, then and only then you can come and talk to me, OK? Until you cure him, you’re not qualified to cure anyone else.

    w.

    PS—I also seem to recall something about how only the guy without sin can throw the first stone … are you seriously claiming that that guy is you?

  187. William Astley says:
    April 13, 2014 at 8:39 am

    In reply to:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    April 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    William [says]:
    Perhaps if you could focus on how the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate and what to expect next, rather than a discussion of Leif’s comments which are a distraction.

    Oh, my goodness. Another charming fellow who thinks we should all discuss what HE wants to discuss … sorry, William, I have no interest in “HOW the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate”.

    Why not? Well, mainly because I’m busy discussing IF the 11-year solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate at all on another thread … short answer is, I can’t find a scrap of evidence that it modulates the climate in any way.

    So I’ve thrown the question open, and I pass it on to you. Find me some kind of climate-related temperature dataset that shows power in the ~ 11-year cycle. Nobody’s come up with one yet.

    (i.e. Ask me to provide the more than a dozen independent logical pillars (observations and analysis for the logical pillars are all from peer reviewed papers)

    Sorry, no interest in logical pillars. I’m looking for some dataset, any dataset, that shows the imprint of the 11-year sunspot cycle. That’s what I’m asking for. Perhaps peer-reviewed papers impress you. I’ve torn too many to shreds to think that peer review is anything but a rubber-stamp trap for the unwary.

    Instead of pathetic peer-reviewed predigested pabulum, I’m interested in facts. Observations. Data. My guide in these matters is the noted scientist, Robert A. Heinlein, who said:

    “What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

    So here’s your big chance, William—bring in the facts. Find the dataset with the 11-year cycle, and I’ll be glad to discuss it.

    w.

  188. Mod.
    Multiple copies of this in the “Spam/Pending folder. Were there multiple submittals? Mod]

    Henry says
    yes
    clearly the length of reply was not sanctioned?

    [There are a number of "key words and tricky phrases" that trigger a "Pending" (Wait for Moderator) status, plus a few criteria such as multiple links, length of submittal, ratio of links to words, where the links hook to, etc. that route a submittal into the "Spam and Advertising" folder. Best is not to re-submit many times - since without editing or changes, you will merely trigger the same filter and get the same response, but alert the mods that a particular long (or multi-linked) submittal has been pushed into the queue or has been popped over to Spam by the robo-de-spammer. Mod]

  189. Willis says
    PS—I also seem to recall something about how only the guy without sin can throw the first stone … are you seriously claiming that that guy is you?

    Henry says
    I hope that means that you too want to have a seat at the table of grace…

    Otherwise, Christianity is not the only religion forbidding anger:

    http://origin.org/ucs/ws/theme130.cfm

    please try and control it

  190. HenryP says:
    April 13, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    You only have to worry abt that if you don’t want to sit at the table of grace?
    I cannot imagine anything more boring than sitting at the table of grace [or any table for that matter] for eternity, so no thanks.

  191. Willis Eschenbach says:
    April 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Where did you get the idea that Svensmark doesn’t think that cosmic rays affect climate on the scale of decades? He surely does:

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

    You & Leif might not like data sets used by Svensmark & his colleagues or their statistical handling (such as smoothing) thereof, but I don’t know how you could have missed the existence of the correlations which they allege, regardless of what you think of the validity of the correlations which they claim.

    “lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Tilo says:
    April 10, 2014 at 10:07 am
    This ignores a buffered or delayed effect.
    Svensmark in his various papers claim a direct effect with no delay….”

    In the paper linked above, he does indeed claim a delay in sea surface temperature response.

  192. John Tillman says:
    April 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm
    In the paper linked above, he does indeed claim a delay in sea surface temperature response.
    No, he does not. The word ‘sea’ occurs exactly once in the text with no mention of any delay.
    It is people like you that makes this so hard, by making false claims, or linking to the wrong paper, or whatever other reason you have to be economical with the truth.

  193. lsvalgaard says:
    April 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    From the linked paper:

    “One problem with this interpretation was that the SST is highly influenced by the thermal inertia of the oceans which may imply a considerable delay in the temperature response. That this is the case was demonstrated by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) who demonstrated that the smoothed land surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere preceded both the smoothed sunspot number and the smoothed SST curve by nearly twenty years. If a causal relationship between solar activity variations and temperature was to be maintained, the smoothed sunspot number could not be an appropriate representation of solar activity. Instead they pointed at another fundamental solar activity parameter, namely the length of the sunspot cycle. On the average the period is about 11 years, but it is known that it does vary from cycle to cycle. It had been demonstrated that the length of the sunspot cycle is usually shorter during strong activity cycles than during low activity cycles. Since the sunspot cycle is related to the varying solar surface magnetic fields it was not quite inconceivable that the period length contained information about some, still not well understood, processes on the surface related to the energy output of the Sun. In fact a comparison with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature during the last 130 years did show a remarkably good correlation with the smoothed curve of the varying solar cycle length (see Figure 1) indicating that this parameter was possibly a better indicator of a solar activity variations that could affect the Earth’s climate (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991).”

    I look forward to your apology.

  194. milodonharlani says:
    April 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm
    Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) who demonstrated that the smoothed land surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere preceded both the smoothed sunspot number and the smoothed SST curve by nearly twenty years
    Ok, I overlooked the SST, but now it is even worse: If the land temps precede BOTH the sunspot number AND the SST, then the sunspot number and the SST must correlate with no delay. And it it seems hard to believe that the land temps knows what the sun is up to 20 years in advance. Still terrible.

  195. milodonharlani says:
    April 13, 2014 at 3:02 pm
    Of course you’re correct that there should be little delay in cloud formation in the prompt response. However Svensmark does appear, on the basis of the linked graph comparison, to envision a lag on the scale of up to hundreds of millions of years.
    A lag of hundreds of millions of years? you must be kidding. Anyway, the graph is so uncertain that nothing can be stated about lags of any lengths.

  196. Leif Apr 12 6:12pm – What more to say? Not much. Just that “It covers the range of solar activity [and hence of cosmic ray modulation] seen over known 400 years ” is only fully relevant if what we are talking about is a linear effect.

    Henryp Henryp Henryp – [Sorry, I couldn't resist that. BTW I understand that WUWT is now passively moderated, so any delay in posting comes from an automated filter. Thus many comments show immediately while others, like yours, have to wait for a moderator.]. I have read your comments (one of each) and while I think your argument for the last century or so has some merit, it doesn’t cover the LIA, MWP, etc. Until we have a mechanism that causes those centennial changes, we can’t fully know what is causing our decadal changes.

  197. milodonharlani Apr 13 3:0 pm – I see no “lag on the scale of up to hundreds of millions of years“. Just two curves that correlate reasonably well, given the obvious unknowns/inaccuracies in value and time.

  198. In reply to:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    April 13, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Oh, my goodness. Another charming fellow who thinks we should all discuss what HE wants to discuss … sorry, William, I have no interest in “HOW the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate”.
    So here’s your big chance, William—bring in the facts. Find the dataset with the 11-year cycle, and I’ll be glad to discuss it.

    William:
    What we are experiencing now has happened again and again (see Davis and Taylor’s paper, 342 warming and cooling cycles in the last 240,000 years). What happened in the past happened for physical reasons. It is silly, irrational to ignore what has happened in the past and to ignore the fact that same regions of the planet warmed in the past as have warmed in recent times. Also it is relevant that signature of warming (regions that warmed in recent times) does not match CO2 forcing.

    If you understood how the magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate you would understand why climate does not follow the solar 11-year magnetic cycle (parameters which you are plotting) for the period in which you are looking. You irrationally pick one approach to solve a problem (plotting different solar parameters for a short period) and then when that approach does not work, assert there is no solution to the problem or plead that someone else must pick the same irrational approach to solve the problem. I have solved the problem using Faraday’s method, I know what is happening and what will happen next.

    There are four different mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate.

    The mechanism that inhibited all ion type modulation of clouds is abating. The planet will is now cooling, due to an increased of low level clouds at high latitudes and a reduction in cirrus clouds.

    Obviously there is sudden and unexplained change in sea ice both poles. There must be a physical reason for the sudden increases in sea ice both poles. (See Davis and Taylor’s paper).

  199. lsvalgaard says:
    April 13, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    The lag appears only to be on the orders of thousands to millions of years, with the cycles, if such they be, on tens to hundreds of millions. The whole graph covers ~500 million years, ie the Phanerozoic.

  200. milodonharlani – I don’t think you can read anything at “thousands to millions of years” from that graph. It simply doesn’t have that accuracy. ie, the lag is unknown/indeterminate and it isn’t even clear that there is any lag at all.

  201. Mike Jonas says:
    April 13, 2014 at 4:15 pm
    milodonharlani – I don’t think you can read anything at “thousands to millions of years” from that graph. It simply doesn’t have that accuracy. ie, the lag is unknown/indeterminate and it isn’t even clear that there is any lag at all.
    Hey, don’t ruin the day of a true believer :-)

  202. lsvalgaard says:
    April 13, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    I’m not a true believer in Svensmark’s hypothesis. However, in the present state of the evidence, it looks to me that faith lies more on the side of its skeptics than its proponents. To me, you sound downright miffed that evidence in its support keeps accumulating.

    Mike Jonas says:
    April 13, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    Since moves up & down by the red line precede those by the black line, it looks to me as if there’s a lag. You’re right that the resolution on the graph doesn’t allow for precise measurement of the lag (which is apparent to me if not to thee), but thousands to millions covers a lot of territory.

  203. milodonharlani says:
    April 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    To me, you sound downright miffed that evidence in its support keeps accumulating.
    The ‘evidence’ is not convincing, but it is a normal occurrence in science when it comes to dubious claims. Most scientists will see outright that the claim is weak and that there is little reason to keep pressing that point. In the meantime the claims keep coming, but who cares by now? Once in a blue moon compelling evidence shows up, and you find that most scientists will rapidly accept the [previously outrageous] hypothesis [plate tectonics is a good example, or dark matter, or evolution, or quantum mechanics, ...], but these are VERY rare.

    It is the same with the planetary hypothesis, homeopathy, etc.

  204. lsvalgaard says:
    April 13, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    OTOH, virtually every established theory in science was once heterodox. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler & Newton overthrew orthodoxies, & to some extent have since themselves been modified. The consensus of physicists, exemplified by Lord Kelvin, in the 19th century was that the earth could not be more than some tens of millions of years old. Then radioactivity was discovered.

    IMO the odds of Svensmark’s being right are perhaps no better than 50/50, but important parts of his hypothesis have been confirmed in the laboratory, which is more than can be said for CACA.

  205. milodonharlani says:
    April 13, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    OTOH, virtually every established theory in science was once heterodox.
    for every theory that turned out to be right there are hundreds that didn’t. Those are hard odds to beat.

    IMO the odds of Svensmark’s being right are perhaps no better than 50/50
    applying same argument: odds that I win the lottery is 50/50, either I do or I don’t.

    important parts of his hypothesis have been confirmed in the laboratory, which is more than can be said for CACA.
    That CO2 is a greenhouse case is also confirmed in the laboratory. In both cases the question is “how much?”, and in both cases the answer seems to be “not much”.

    and please, no more of the same old, tired arguments. We have all been there before.

  206. What all of this post and comments show, regardless of the conclusions drawn, is that as we learn more, hoping to solve the puzzle, we learn that there is even the more we need to learn to solve the puzzle..

  207. Here are a couple of references tying climate and the 11 year solar cycles.

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/447

    http://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp?itemId=escidoc:240535

    Here is the abstract of the second paper
    “Annually resolved terrestrial 10Be archives other than those in polar ice sheets are heretofore unexplored sources of information about past solar activity and climate. Until now, it has proven difficult to find natural archives that have captured and retained a 10Be production signal, and that allow for annual sampling and contain sufficient 10Be for AMS measurement. We report the first annually resolved record of 10Be in varved lake sediments. The record comes from Lake Lehmilampi, eastern Finland, which lies at 63°37′N, 29°06′E, 95.8 m a.s.l. The focus on the last 100 years provided an unprecedented opportunity to compare sediment 10Be data with annual ice core, neutron monitor and sunspot number data. Results indicate successful recovery of 10Be atoms from as little as 20 mg sediment. Sediment 10Be accumulation rates suggest control by solar activity, manifested as a reflection of the 11-year Schwabe solar cycle and its amplitude variations throughout the investigated period. These results open the possibility of using varved lake sediment 10Be records as a new proxy for solar activity, thus providing a new approach for synchronization of paleoclimate events worldwide.”
    Here is another one tying climate changes reflected in the sedimentary record to longer term solar cycles including the 1000 year cycle which I use in my forecasts.

    http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/eposters/eposter/pp33a-2077/

    From the abstract.
    ” Based on an already established age model the study covers about two millennia of Late Miocene time with a resolution of ~13.7 years per sample. No major ecological turnovers are expected in respect to this very short interval. Thus, the pollen record suggests rather stable wetland vegetation with a forested hinterland. Shifts in the spectra can be mainly attributed to variations in transport mechanism, represented by few phases of fluvial input but mainly by changes in wind intensity and probably also wind direction. Even within this short time span, dinoflagellates document rapid changes between oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions, which are frequently coupled with lake stratification and dysoxic bottom waters. These phases prevented ostracods and molluscs from settling and fostered the activity of sulfur bacteria. Several of the studied proxies reveal iterative patterns. To compare and detect these repetitive signals REDFIT spectra were generated and Gaussian filters were applied. The resulting cycles correspond to the lower and upper Gleissberg, the de Vries/Suess, the unnamed 500-year, 1000-year 1,500-year and the Hallstatt cycles. To test the solar-forcing-hypothesis, our data have been compared with those from a Holocene isotope dataset. Our data represent a first unequivocal detection of solar cycles in pre-Pleistocene sediments.

  208. Dr Page says (quoting 2nd paper)
    The resulting cycles correspond to the lower and upper Gleissberg, the de Vries/Suess, the unnamed 500-year, 1000-year 1,500-year and the Hallstatt cycles. To test the solar-forcing-hypothesis, our data have been compared with those from a Holocene isotope dataset. Our data represent a first unequivocal detection of solar cycles in pre-Pleistocene sediments.

    Henry@Mike Jonas
    The moderator was there, making remarks to me, e.g. claiming there was no cue etc., causing me to post and re-post
    We know what his name is….

    Anyway, we only know from my results (on the development of maximum temps.) where we are in the Gleissberg.
    We are two years away from reaching the bottom i.e. maximum speed of cooling.
    I have no idea where we are in the other cycles.
    My tables

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    clearly suggest that earth’s energy stores are getting to be depleted now,
    therefore,
    average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now.
    I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…

    However, during my investigations I did find strange differences,
    for example between Gibraltar and surrounding stations in Spain and Morocco
    I hear (on WUWT) something similar happened in Seattle
    These things made me start to avoid anglo saxon weather stations,
    It seems there is large scale fiddling going on with the data
    There is just too much money, even my own pension money, riding on this green (house) nonsense.
    I only trust my own results!!
    (we have already cooled -0.2 since 2000)

  209. lsvalgaard says
    HenryP says:
    April 13, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    You only have to worry abt that if you don’t want to sit at the table of grace?
    I cannot imagine anything more boring than sitting at the table of grace [or any table for that matter] for eternity, so no thanks.
    ol\e
    Henry says
    clearly your idea of eternity is limited

    supposing you were asked to create a whole new universe, complete with new “beings”

    the possibility (of a whole new universe in one brain), is there…

  210. Svensmark’s Cosmic ray contentions have already been confirmed by the Cloud Project at CERN. This latest development is simply a addition to his overall thesis on the subject..

Comments are closed.