![cosmic_rays_hit_earth[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/cosmic_rays_hit_earth1.jpg?quality=83)
From the paper in PNAS:(h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT,” they write. “However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed.” This “secular trend” is the warming widely believed to be caused by excess carbon in the atmosphere, an effect the researchers accounted for by first-differencing. “We show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability,
While they might simply be trading one effect for another with that sort of language, or they might simply be latching on the to Forbush decrease signal, it seems to me that they set out to prove that CR’s aren’t affecting trend. The fact that they show a link at suggests there’s at least some merit to Svenmark’s cosmic ray theory.
Significance
Here we use newly available methods to examine the dynamical association between cosmic rays (CR) and global temperature (GT) in the 20th-century observational record. We find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend; however, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect of CR on short-term, year-to-year variability in GT. Thus, although CR clearly do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales, providing another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability.
Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature
- Anastasios A. Tsonis
- Ethan R. Deyle
- Robert M. May
- George Sugihara
- Kyle Swanson
- Joshua D. Verbeten
- Geli Wangd
Abstract
As early as 1959, it was hypothesized that an indirect link between solar activity and climate could be mediated by mechanisms controlling the flux of galactic cosmic rays (CR) [Ney ER (1959) Nature 183:451–452]. Although the connection between CR and climate remains controversial, a significant body of laboratory evidence has emerged at the European Organization for Nuclear Research [Duplissy J, et al. (2010) Atmos Chem Phys 10:1635–1647; Kirkby J, et al. (2011) Nature 476(7361):429–433] and elsewhere [Svensmark H, Pedersen JOP, Marsh ND, Enghoff MB, Uggerhøj UI (2007) Proc R Soc A 463:385–396; Enghoff MB, Pedersen JOP, Uggerhoj UI, Paling SM, Svensmark H (2011) Geophys Res Lett 38:L09805], demonstrating the theoretical mechanism of this link. In this article, we present an analysis based on convergent cross mapping, which uses observational time series data to directly examine the causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales.
The full paper is available here (PDF)
The fact that they show a link at suggests there’s at least some merit to Svenmark’s cosmic ray theory
This is why, among other reasons, I appreciate Dr. S’ comments here. A real scientist is happy to draw attention to valid work which doesn’t support his own position.
Long may he wave & why aren’t there more of his ilk?
sorry to disappoint you a bit.
forgot my comment:
The aa-index is not a very good proxy for GCRs. It could also be a proxy for the magnetic field or TSI or just about any other solar variable you could think of. So that there is a [weak] relationship between aa and delta GT does not mean that GCRs are involved. It could very well be TSI, as we indeed would expect such a relationship.
What, if anything, would you consider a better proxy for GCR’s?
The heliospheric magnetic field, Figure 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
Leif
Could you give a 1-10 score on how significant this paper is? Does it break any ground or add to the debate in terms of the sun’s effect on climate?
Based on your comments, the implication is not much new and not adding to argument for the sun’s effect.
Give it a 2. [10 is high]. A weakness of the paper is the assumption that it is GCRs that are [weakly] active as the aa-index correlates with just about all other solar indices, so could any of those others, e.g. TSI.
Hmm, seems a far cry from this recent paper which according to the paper: “proves that cosmic rays play an essential role in climate change and main part of climate variations can be explained by [the] mechanism of action of CRs …” http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0273117714005286
[REPLY: is link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714005286 ? -ModE ]
Could you explain the large difference?
The paper does not claim to ‘prove’ anything.
Actually, the paper your crummy link points to does say “prove”, so sorry about that, but a paper that claims to ‘prove’ anything is hardly science.
Why the need to denigrate the man’s request ?
When you post a link, you should try out first that it works. There is a need to re-enforce that, don’t you agree?
[We usually check the links, but we can’t get to all of them. .mod]
Agreed, drawing the posters attention the the link not working is more appropriate … calling the link “crummy” does not do this, it implies that the material is beneath your contempt … that may be so but it doesn’t take much effort to be polite.
The crumminess is a reflection on the poster’s laziness and is quite appropriate.
This might come as a surprise to you, but it is not appropriate in the English language.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I say that it was crummy, meaning ‘of poor quality’ as that it was, indeed. What you read in this is your own problem
I read what you write, you write “crummy”.
and crummy it was, not to care enough to make sure the link would work. Now, I cared enough to go and look for the paper without using the crummy link, so, contrary to your accusation, I thouight enough of the paper to actually find it.
About the “crummy link”. Some people may not know how to post a link correctly and fail. Assuming laziness with no evidence is not usually considered polite. I have tested links that worked for me, but failed when posted. ‘Crummy’ implies a bit of derisiveness along with the poor quality you mention. All you needed to say was that the link to the paper did not work and ask if he checked the link before posting. This gives the poster the information he needs along with a reminder to check links without putting him on the defensive with an accusation of laziness. You then come across as helpful and supportive.
The link was crummy. It forced extra work on the interested reader. I did that extra work, demonstrating that I was interested in what he had to say, so no derisiveness. Some people are quick to make unfounded assumptions about ill intent. Perhaps some derisiveness should be directed their way.
Well, I prefer ‘crumby’. But that’s just me, picking at little bits.
================
Apologies for the broken link, it’s odd that happened, I copied the url directly from the paper. I do however find myself left confused by the response from Dr.S. While I understand the frustration at dealing with a broken link, and I thank him for bothering to find and read the paper in question – there is only raving about the link, and no discussion of the paper, none of my concerns were dealt with. The only thing stated to deal with the paper is an ad hominem that: “but a paper that claims to ‘prove’ anything is hardly science.”.
That’s it? It’s hardly science simply because you don’t like it’s language? Do you have any actual criticisms of the methodology? Can you explain how this paper can show an extremely strong correlation between global temperature variations in connection with evolution of Dst index and CR variations, while your paper claims that there is no effect of CR’s on climate?
Cole Pritchard March 10, 2015 at 12:06 pm:
Apologies for the broken link…there is only raving about the link, and no discussion of the paper, none of my concerns were dealt with.
Note that the holier than thou raving was by other self-righteous people.
I was the only one who actually went to the trouble to find the paper and read it carefully. And my comment that “a paper that claims to ‘prove’ anything is hardly science.” stands. Pointing out that the authors grossly overstate their case is a proper admonishment directed squarely at them. So I agree that this was ad hominem, but a well deserved one.
Do you have any actual criticisms of the methodology?
Yes, I could indulge in specific criticism, but the paper is so poor although it might impress the gullible, it simply does not hold water In my considered opinion.
Whose saying it is ‘crummy’? Well spell it right, crumby.
[The mods are not sure to misspell crummy with an Ozzie accent. .mod]
Dr.S
“Yes, I could indulge in specific criticism, but the paper is so poor although it might impress the gullible, it simply does not hold water In my considered opinion.”
Your statement that you “…could indulge in specific criticism” is a bare assertion. You state that you could criticize it, yet you offer no example. Am I simply to believe the paper is that poor, even though you will not state why? Your next comment “although it might impress the gullible” is clearly designed to chase people off of the subject, lest they be seen as gullible. I’m afraid your reply is only making me more skeptical of your motives, as you appear to be stooping to political tactics, instead of simply explaining what you think is actually wrong with the paper.
This is easy enough for you to resolve, if you’ll simply back up your assertions.
There are things worth doing, and there are things that are not. Commenting on this paper is one of the latter. If you disagree, perhaps you should back up your disagreement with your own comments on why you think the paper is so great.
didn’t Willy soon say it was all due to the sun too?
oh wait…
http://www.realclimate.org/images/soon_update.jpg
Yes, as is well-documented Soon was wrong too. But it is a prerogative of a scientist to be wrong.
Here’s Kopp’s 20 Feb 2014 reconstruction, without the artistic scaling to minimise the 20th century peaks.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.jpg
Taking ocean oscillations across a multicentennial time scale results in the temperature graph often being out of phase with solar changes.
Solar variations influence the amount of energy entering the oceans to drive the climate system by altering global cloudiness via changes in jet stream zonality / meridionality.
You’re cherry picking by referencing the arctic and ignoring the antarctic.
Bevan, the paper was written in 2005 and not 2015. He didn’t cherry pick. Did you notice the difference in temperature anomaly plots? Newer is not always better.
The Hoyt & Schatten reconstruction was already obsolete in 2005
it is a prerogative of a scientist to be wrong.
THANK you. The more we hear that, the better off for the science and the worse off for the polemics.
Before Copenhagen 2009 Arctic was as warm or warmer in the 1930s. Then they change the data set and the 1930s warm period was gone. To find any correlation, but AGW, is impossible?
GISTEMP is a pack of lies.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/#sthash.EOxE7Fej.dpbs
GISS simply fabricates Arctic temps…no coverage, missing data, altered stations…..Steven Goddard also covers these issues extensively
Soon should’ve just picked appropriate calibration and verification periods along with a “novel” PC-method…fit would’ve looked great.
Nice comment.
dont know why they used hadcrut3 either. and aa?
weird
The paper is based on many assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong the science is wrong. CR’s will have a greater effect if the assumptions are ignored.
[Try posting without labeling people “deniers”. ~mod.]
As usual, the concept of “secular trend” is left largely ill-defined.
=Separate from religion, ie saying that δG is independent of the level of CO2 is heretical.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/mean:12/offset:-315/scale:0.012/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/mean:60/derivative/scale:100/offset:0.2
Why should the derivative be there? Wtf is a crude tool, but I fixed it for you.
/note I think CO2 forcing does not have as big effect as IPCC gives on its upper bound, so I’m not an alarmist. I just don’t like so much the random graphs pretending to show a point.
(The relationship of CO2 and SST is not expected to so that WTF could actually compare them on equivalent scales.)
1sky1,
I suppose that depends on the definition of “largely” …
Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales.
… or perhaps the definition of the beginning of the 20th century. Which is 1901 according to my understanding of the calendar.
Other than that, yes, “secular trend” can be anything one wishes, which means it is best practice to define it when using it. I can be lazy about that myself.
Secular just means time.
It’s the sun stupid.
Read the paper before living up to your characterization.
It still the Sun..
Stupid
Know thyself.
How about ‘The sun is still stupid’? It knows less about us than we do about it.
===================
Don’t you know that the Sun only affects our planet during cold spells? Never has an influence on the climate the rest of the time. Makes sense, doesn’t it……….
Paper also here: been there a while…
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1420291112.full.pdf+html
Check out supporting info and movies here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1420291112/suppl/DCSupplemental
Does anyone else feel nauseated by this sort of rubbish in a pseudo-scientific paper “…a trend that the consensus attributes …” ?
It’s not rubbish. It is like the near-compulsory Lenin quotation in scientific papers in the Soviet Union, the price you have to pay to be published.
“…the consensus…” is a term our great-grandkids will read in future history books in chapters about science’ greatest blunders. Lysenkoism, Eugenics, Global Warming…
To paraphrase an old Jewish joke:
Consensus, nonsensus! What does it matter!
As long as all the experts are in agreement.
Not only that, but the term “From the paper in PNAS” now has a certain taint akin to discovering that an investment offer was mailed by Bernie Madoff from his prison cell.
So there is a causal relationship on annual GT fluctuations:
I am curious about the dGT, and how it varies, if the extra sunlight is absorbed by land or water. When a low level of CR leads to less clouds, and extra sunlight, hitting the ground, and the ocean. Some is converted to a increase in dGT, rapidly, and some is absorbed in the water, and released over a greater time period than the former. It could take years of all of the extra energy that was absorbed by the ocean, to find its way back to dGT. And some of it could get released in a short time (El Nino) that increased dGT, but was unrelated to the current level of CR.
I don’t have an answer for this question, so I am hoping someone else does.
The most interesting part of the paper to me was the use of a new method (apparently developed largely by Sugihara at Scripps in the 90s) of detecting causality for nonlinear systems. I would love to see the method applied to the temperature and CO2 time series from the ice core over the last 400,000 years. Would it find CO2 causes temperatures to rise 800 years earlier?
They could then move on and apply the method to CO2 and temperature in the last 100 years. I doubt that they could get the funding for that, however.
It is neither TSI nor GCRs but, rather, solar induced cloudiness changes related to jet stream zonality / meridionality.
“induced” by what? and how?
Hi, Leif.
See here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
The Sun affects the ozone layer through changes in UV or charged particles
Charged particles to not penetrate to the ozone layer, so you can scrap that. UV simply follows the sunspot number, c.f. http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf
but the climate does not, so you can scrap that one too.
EUV flux changes? That’s what we were hoping you’d figure out for us Leif 😉
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
EUV flux changes: see http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf
“Charged particles to not penetrate to the ozone layer, so you can scrap that. UV simply follows the sunspot number, ”
Charged particles affect ozone above 45km and towards the poles.
“In October 2014 a paper by Andersson et al suggests another layer of action, again on ozone. Described as the missing driver in the Sun-Earth connection, energetic electron precipitation (EEP) dramatically affects ozone – but above the poles, not the equator”
and recent findings do show an apparently anomalous increase in ozone above 45km whilst the sun has been less active.
No, Stephen, charged particles do not affect the ozone layer. And you are sufficiently vague that your statement is void. Cosmic Rays are charged particles and they [or at least their secondaries] penetrate to the ground, but that is not what you claim.
Electrons are charged particles and may affect climate:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/14676/
The minuscule electron fluxes were measured by the POES satellites at an altitude above 800 km and are hardly representative for the ozone layer of interest. They penetrate into the thermosphere and mesosphere. The paper says ‘may influence the climate’ but do not actually show that it does. We can reconstruct the flux way back to the 19th century: http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf
It simply correlates with geomagnetic activity so is now back to where it was a century ago. The climate is not.
“They penetrate into the thermosphere and mesosphere.”
The polar vortices allow air to descend from the mesosphere and into the stratosphere so as to change the temperature of the stratosphere and thereby alter tropopause height beneath the descending column.
The density of air in the mesosphere is a thousand times smaller than that of the stratosphere, so not much hot air to do any heating…Try mixing one ounce of water at 20C with 30 liters of water at 15C and see what you get.
It isn’t a matter of the air in the mesosphere doing any heating.
It is a matter of the air above 45km or towards the poles being relatively ozone rich (quiet sun) or ozone poor (active sun). The amount of ozone available determines the temperature of the stratosphere because incoming sunlight is absorbed by the ozone which, in turn, affects tropopause height.
This is all covered in my hypothesis and in the sources referred to but you are just not thinking it through.
“it seems to me that they set out to prove that CR’s aren’t affecting trend”
Not sure what indicates that. Tsonis/Swanson are not famous for climate orthodoxy.
Interesting appearance of Baron May of Oxford. A local lad from here who became president of the Royal Society.
But not a very good one.
I am reminded of a Graphic………….
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ionosphere-Thermosphere_Processes.jpg
Dr. Svalgaard, does a dataset exist that measures down (or up welling) millimeter wave activity that can be referenced to one of the heliosphere references you have mentioned?
I’m sure it does, but will let others look for it.
Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) creates ions in the atmosphere. The amount of ions in the atmosphere changes cloud properties and cloud duration.
The complication is solar wind bursts (primarily from coronal) holes create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions for 5 to 10 days which causes a reduction in cloud cover in high latitude regions and a change in cloud properties in the tropical region. Solar wind bursts can hence inhibit the effect of high GCR. The solar wind bursts are primarily caused by coronal holes on the sun, not sunspots. One of the confusions in solving how the sun causes the planet to cyclically warm and cool is coronal holes have appeared anomalously on the surface of the sun in low latitude positions, late in the solar cycle, therefore even though solar heliosphere is weak with results in high GCR, the planet does not cool, as the solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions.
The number and magnitude of solar wind bursts is primarily due to coronal holes and location of the coronal hole on the surface of the sun (low latitude coronal holes have the greatest effect) and is hence almost independent of the sunspot number.
Peculiarly during the anomalous solar cycle 24 the density of the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere is the name for the tenuous gas and pieces of magnetic flux that is thrown off of the sun. The solar heliosphere extends well past the orbit of Pluto. The solar heliosphere blocks and deflects the high speed mostly cosmic protons which are called GCR or CRF. GCR/CRF are the principal cause of ion formation in the atmosphere. The amount of ions in the atmosphere affects cloud formation, cloud albedo, drop size, and cloud lifetimes all of which affect planetary temperature.
This paper explains the mechanisms.
http://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/GEC-Solar%20Effects%20on%20Global%20Electric%20Circuit%20on%20clouds%20and%20climate%20Tinsley%202007.pdf
This paper notes planetary temperature changes correlate with the magnitude and number of solar wind bursts (the affect lasts 5 to 10 days).
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
Recently the solar heliosphere density has reduced 40%. Due to the reduction in the density solar heliosphere the rise time of solar wind bursts is reduced. This anomalous change was discussed at during the 2013 AGU meeting and is discussed in this paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0252
Hi William
Just thought you mite be interested in these links.
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electricity_throughout_the_Universe Leif doesn’t like this understanding
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/wallach.html I wonder what else that solar reflector on the space station is used for.
http://weathermodification.org/Park%20City%20Presentations/Ions_WMA_110413.pdf If cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere to form clouds then what about from the ground up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law
I don’t see anything new in this paper and see sub-standard methods leading to unsubstantiated and non-robust conclusions. That the aa-index proxy was used to reflect cosmic rays seems to be a bias on the part of the researchers. Leif has pointed out that this proxy also can be used for TSI, among other things. The paper fails to say why these other solar outputs are not the forcing. The proper strategy is to rule out other solar forcings before pointing to cosmic rays.
” The proper strategy is to rule out other solar forcings before pointing to cosmic rays.” This is nonsense. There are so many potential variables in action here why would one rule out one set prior to another, other than to input their own bias?
If TSI equally fits the scenario (as it would since the aa-index is also a proxy for TSI), then you cannot rule it out. Normal variation in TSI is well known to force a change in incoming irradiation. The authors were bound to rule that out. They did not. Therefore there is no paradigm shift here. The null hypothesis stands in this case. When internal/CO2 forcings and their trends (I say that because some say the trend is CO2 forced and some say the trend is ENSO forced) are removed, TSI is the probable forcing.
Please bone up on how to rule out the null hypothesis. This study does not even mention it. Once internal/anthropogenic forcings are removed from the trend, you MUST rule out normal TSI variation. Because they used the aa-index, they did not rule out the well known TSI variation.
Let’s see… The Little Ice Age began in 1280 and ended in 1850, which corresponds well to the four Grand Solar Minima (GSM): Wolf GSM (1280~1350), Sporer GSM (1450~1550), Maunder GSM (1645~1715) and the Dalton GSM (1790~1820).
The Modern Warming Period (1850~1998) also fits well with the strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years. When this strong string of solar cycles ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend, despite 30% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over just the last 19 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise
Solar Cycle #24 is now in steep decline, until Solar Cycle #25 starts around 2022, which is expected to be the weakest solar cycle since the Maunder Minimum ended in 1715…. There is also a chance that SC #25 could be the beginning of another Grand Solar Minimum, if the Umbral Magnetic Field (UMF-the force that holds sunspots together) continues to decline. It is hypothesized that once the UMF falls below 1500 gauss, sunspots disappear almost entirely.
As record CO2 emissions continue unabated with absolutely NO global warming trend to show for it in almost 19 years, it is becoming increasingly evident CO2’s global warming greenhouse effect is much less than CAGW hypothesized. Already RSS temps are 2 standard deviations off from CMIP5 model projections.
The PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2005~08, so global temps will likely decline for at least another 20 years just from the cool PDO. Moreover, a 30-yr AMO cool cycle around 2020 and if you combine these with the weak and falling solar cycle we’re currently in, and that the next solar cycle could be the weakest in 300 years, global temps may well be off by at least 3 standard deviations by 2020 and a 25-yr flat/falling trend could be observed.
Dr. Lindzen’s ECS estimate of 0.5C by 2100 seems to be spot on, and CAGW’s ECS estimate of 3~4.5C by 2100 seems to be completely absurd at this point.
It’s the sun and natural variation, stupid….not CO2…
The Modern Warming Period (1850~1998) also fits well with the strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years.
There is good evidence that this is a [well-worn] myth, c.f. http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
“by the mid 18th century, solar activity had already returned to levels equivalent to those observed in recent solar cycles in the 20th century”, so no GRAND maximum [greatest in 11,400 years].
and
http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number-LWS.pdf
Slide 4: “there is no long-term trend over the past three hundred years, i.e. no Modern Grand Maximum”
and just how long do you think it takes for the cosmic winds to get up to speed and the climate to respond?
as I used to shoot while getting mercilessly killed playing quake 2 on dial up back in the day….
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isvalgaard– The Svensmark Effect isn’t about TSI flux, it concerns sunspot activity/solar wind flux/Galactic Cosmic Ray (CGR) flux and its impact on cloud formation/Earth’s Albedo.
CERN’s CLOUD experiment showed GCRs are capable of nucleating inorganic compounds, which form cloud seeds and increased cloud formation.
During high sunspot activity, solar winds become stronger which block GCRs leading to less cloud cover, a lower albedo and warmer global temps. During low sunspot activity, solar winds decrease allowing more GCRs to hit Earth, causing increased cloud cover, increased albedo and cooler global temps. TSI has nothing to do with the Svensmark Effect.
Granted, during weak sunspot activity, TSI and UV radiation does decrease, but this simply exacerbates the cooling effects from increased cloud cover/albedo.
Anyway, we’re currently experiencing the weakest sunspot activity since 1906, and from 2022, we may experience the weakest sunspot activity since 1715… Should global temps continue to fall or flatten over the next 5~7 years, while CO2 emissions break records, the Svensmark Effect hypothesis will become a more viable, while the CAGW hypothesis will pushed closer to the trash bin.
We’ll see soon enough…
My comment was not about Svensmark but about your claim that solar activity has come down from its highest level in 11,400 years.
Thank you Leif for enjoining the discussions. I have recently felt like the only voice of reason and I know so little.
SAMURI says:
“It’s the sun and natural variation, stupid….not CO2…”
so why, at the peak of the lowest solar cycle in over 100 years, with more coal being burned by China than in all of the western world in the last 100 years, with the PDO in a negative phase, are we experiencing the warmest year on record?
And what, in God’s name, will you do when we are in an El Nino Year, and China reduces their aerosol emissions by 50% and the PDO goes positive and the solar cycle returns to normal???
What will you do then? what will your children do?
Live better, more fruitful lives with more food, fodder, fuel, farms, and fertilizer than now! More plant growth – it’s already exceeding previous levels by 12% – 27% due to man’s release of CO2 back into the atmosphere! – and more areas available to farm in more northern areas with warmer, more productive growing seasons.
What’s not to like? More people living better, healthier lives!
oh. Wait. yeah. You want more people to die. Many millions to die earlier.
Jai Mitchell— Ah, yes…. “the children”… I wonder what motivates leftists to always bring up “the children”…
Anyway…, “the children” will ironically benefit from higher crop yields and increased forest growth from higher CO2 levels, leading to cheaper food and wood. If we do experience a Grand Solar Minimum, the tiny amount of CO2 warming (perhaps 0.3C since 1850) will slightly offset the negative aspects of a cooling planet from decreased sunspot activity…
As an added benefit, higher CO2 levels decrease plants’ water requirements so this will also help crops do better during falling precipitation and shortened growing seasons which occur during global cooling periods….
BTW, during the Wolf GSM (1280~1350) about 25% of Europe’s population was wiped out from brutal winters, shortened growing seasons and famine. Had CO2 levels been 400 ppm back in the 13th and 14th century, perhaps millions of children could have been saved from starvation from the effects of a cooling planet…. Oh, the irony.
It is absolutely not the warmest year on record, even by the grossly maladjusted surface temperature record. It is one of the last eighteen warmest years. Surprise, surprise. As Leif has been at great pains to explain, solar cycle (in the strict sense) is lunch money, the PDO (not to mention the somewhat stronger AMO) is evidently able to cancel whatever “forcing” you attribute to your supernatural gas, I totally don’t buy the aerosol thing because why would temperatures have accelerated so strikingly in the late seventies and early eighties when WE were producing aerosols that blanketed our big cities like nuclear winter. Nino is a subset of PDO.
Samurai has the correct rhetorical response to all Warmista fear mongering. A warm planet is a happy planet!
What year was the warmest on record? I must have missed it!
The question is: what are you motivated to do today to protect against your imagined future?
Troll alert! No surprise then about the blasphemy. How’s the Rutgers reverse entropy arctic effect getting on? Brett
Wait. PDO in a negative phase. I thought it was in a positive phase: cool western Pacific, warm eastern Pacific north of 20N:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/sst/sst.daily.anom.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/oisst/navy-anom-bb.gif
Svensmark et al, claimed they was no LAAAAAAAAGGGGGG: http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5027
This appears possible, but the affect on T may have a lag. Consider that the SH winter the earth receives an immense 90 watts per sq meter increase in TOA insolation. Yet the atmosphere cools. This water planet is a mostly SW selective variable receptive surface, and clearly ocean cycles drive GAT. The ocean does have lag times to SW radiation, up to 800 years.
Take it up with Svensmark…
The input into the atmosphere may have no more lag then the SH summer increase in insolation, which is instant, but the atmosphere still cools. It appears the study should be looking for cloud variation, and surface SW insolation changes, not the often confusing GAAT (Global atmospheric atmosphere Temperature)
The many drivers of climate are all like dozens of teeter-totters lined up on the same axis, blue on the same side for cooling, red on the same other side for warming. Some take multiple millennium to move from red to blue (Mackintosh cycles, solar changes, continental drift changes) some centuries, (deep ocean overturning, solar cycles; consistent pattern of multiple weak or strong sun cycles, some decades, (disparate ENSO cycles, lunar cycles, sun cycles, jet stream patterns, cloud formation changes) some annual, (seasons, etc)
some weeks, jet stream sort term changes and cloud cover changes, and even rapid SST changes, some days, I.E. weather, some instant. There are multiple overlaps and major shifts likely happen when major influences align to the cold or warm, with the exact mixture of influences never repeating. (Of course many factors not mentioned above, and our understanding of these many different factors is often poor)
Due to this divergence, there is not consistent reading from one cause. Major long term drivers eventually have adequate support of other, disparate length drivers, aligning together to cause a major climate shift, but until then all influences may appear contrary, just as the instant increase in insolation appears within the atmosphere when the earth moves closer to the sun in the SH summer, but the atmosphere cools despite the immense and instant 90 watt per sq. meter increase in insolation.
LOL!!!
“Link between Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Temperature found”
Not possible, since there is no global temperature.
Axiomatic.
Priceless! And hi Mac!
Is the last thrown in as the usual ‘I love GW because I want to keep my grants’ or real? We can’t tell. Because we need to know whether they are using the adjusted temperature or thermometer readings. The latter being real.
Does recounting sunspots change the C14 record?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/800px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png
If it does, the creationists are right about carbon dating.
Give Lief a chance. He will reconstruct those for you too. I thought reconstruction in the south after the civil war was bad. Welcome to modern science.
Yep, that is the plan. We are actually now getting to the point where the various proxies can be calibrated consistently.
David, must you reveal your level of intellectual reasoning in such an open manner? If you have critically read the history of this monumental endeavor (calibrating the SSN errors of the past), you would get it. Since you seem to have not, I leave judgment up to the obvious.
The 14C record is contaminated by climate and the calibration relies, in part, on the old sunspot record. Here are various determinations of the solar cosmic ray modulation, based on 14C, 10Be, and sunspots:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Modulation-Function.png
Dr Svalgaard, lsvalgaard
I asked this a few days ago on the “solar impact on cool climate” thread, but you were evidenctly distracted with many other readers, righters, and writers and wrongers.
Let me ask it again, please.
Pamela Gray linked to your presentation on TSI chnages at the solar conference, showing a powerpoint slide show exported to a single pdf file. Page nbrs are the slide numbers in that powerpoint.
I did not understand two points in your presentation.
1. Sheet 9 of 17. The spoken words during your presentation at the symposium in 2010 perhaps made this slide clear, but it certainly is not clear to me now without further explanation. “Aa-index and Method Wrong” means what? One of the two graphs is wrong? Both are wrong? Both show an old way of calculating solar energy that is not supposed to be used now?
2. The last ten years of SORCE measurements show that TSI (at average distance of earth-sun) is slightly under 1362 watts//m^2. The graphic on page 4 shows that successive TSI measurements by different systems also all go down over time, but the result is a current TSI = 1362 watts/m^2. But page 9 shows ALL “reconstructions” of TSI over time going up towards a TSI = to the “old value” of 1366 to 1372 watts/m^2.
How can page 4, page 9 and page 12 be reconciled to a single steady TSI value between AD 1500 (before the LIA in 1650) and 2015 if all three show TSI variations from 1361 to 1372 in just 12 years of measurements? Or are the slides (the graphics) settling towards different values somehow that the text does not make clear?
Or, as I understand you’ve said before, the earlier instruments were indicating a 1370 TSI, but the actual TSI was equal to what today’s instreuments are measuring (1361 watt/m^2). But if that were the case, then should not the earlier studies be re-caalibrated down to 1362, not the later ones be pulled up to 1370?
Your first question: which presentation are you referring to?
Second one: All the old measurements of TSI had systematic errors, recalibrations converge to 1362 W/m2: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf
Dr Svalgaard.
1. Understood. Thank you for the reference.
2. This was Pamela’s original link to your presentation.
http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
The Figure is from http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
We have shown [and Lockwood now concedes] that the aa-index is wrongly calibrated before 1957 [too low] and that the method Lockwood used to infer the open magnetic flux does not work.
Seems to me that Svalgaard has pointed out this paper to Anthony so he can ride his usual hobby-horse for scoffing any ideas that the Sun has a role in increased warming of the atmosphere over the last 300 years by, lets face it, probably not more than about 1 deg C. Well he may be right (although I personally doubt it) or he maybe wrong. That’s what science is all about.
The book “Brilliant Blunders.” by Mario Livio puts up some interesting and convincing examples and discussion, that often the views of well-known brilliant scientists are wrong, or as he puts it the “ Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists that Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe” that he has as part of the book title. I particularly like the Chapter “Certainty Generally is Illusion”.
Go read the book and you’ll find some similarities in the “expert” being adamant that his view is correct and all others are rubbish, as we often see here at WUWT.
“hobby-horse” “scoffing”
FrankKarrvv…
How about this…
Roger Bacon, the inventor of science (a monk) in his Opus Majus of AD 1267, wrote:
“Now there are four chief obstacles in grasping truth, which hinder every man, however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to learning, namely,
1) submission to faulty and unworthy authority,
2) influence of custom,
3) popular prejudice, and
4) concealment of our own ignorance accompanied by an ostentatious display of our knowledge.”
That was 748 years ago.
Tisk tisk.. Some things never change.
Page 157 of your referenced book, “The Big Bang” was suppressed for 40 years. Now everybody refers to it like it is common knowledge.
Indeed Paul W.
Always refreshing to see there are others (Lee and Parkb) with alternative views:
New paper finds correlation between solar activity, temperature, & East Asian Monsoon over past 1300 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/
Cheers.
The inventor of science? That’s generous. I would attribute that to a different Bacon and not for a few hundred more years. If we are going to get sloppy with what is and is not science we may as well call Aristotle the father of science.
IMO neither Bacon invented science. Copernicus and Vesalius had both published their seminal works 18 years before Francis was born.
Roger Bacon lived 1214 to 1292.
Citations by historians who attribute the birth of modern empirical science to him:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48177/Roger-Bacon
http://www.rogerbaconacademy.net/leadership/who-is-roger-bacon/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/roger-bacon/
http://www.ee.umd.edu/~taylor/optics2.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bTABAAAQBAJ&pg=PT7&lpg=PT7&dq=roger+bacon+inventor+of+science&source=bl&ots=5YoAmwJD_J&sig=bnz6Le1T1dkM9QRlqbpmwURKmi4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dkj_VJPoFsjVggSIsYKABQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=roger%20bacon%20inventor%20of%20science&f=false
etc etc…
One may quibble over who then, other than Bacon, usher in modern science, but those same few people cannot dismiss Bacon as a possible candidate.
In any case, my assertion has foundation, and is justified.
Robert Grosseteste was cited to me as the father of the modern scientific approach, when I was an undergrad.
Paul Westhaver March 10, 2015 at 12:44 pm.
Ibn al-Haytham predates Roger Bacon by ~200 years and the Encyclopedia Britannica cites his influence on Bacon. As Lord Monckton has pointed out several times, Ibn al-Haytham invented the scientific method.
Good heavens. I think we should require critical thinking from the cradle. Because it seems to be lost on adults.
And to be clear, that critical thinking applies to any research, including Leif’s work. I comb it with a nit-comb. I have yet to find lice.
Good, then we’ll know who to blame.
The way, the change in CR’s, change the annual temps, is the key to determining if there is further information, to be gleaned from this. If a statistical guru, were to take the annual temps and separate the NH summer months from the SH summer months, the change in cloud cover could be teased out of the data. The NH summer would respond to less cloud cover more rapidly, with an increase in dGT. The SH summer would not, and it may look, more like the response from the global anomaly. They are SH summer, and global anomaly, are both somewhat independent of changes in CR, because they are both absorbing sunlight, more than rapidly turning it into IR. I haven’t done stats, since grad school, so it not something I can devote the time to now, or I would. But a tightly coupled response in the NH summer, would be an interesting result.
nope.
I sliced cloud data every way. every Hpa, by hemisphere, by grid cell by every which way. night, day..
every which way..
NO relationship between CR and the secular trend
I did not look at inter-annual..
How good was your cloud data?
==========
Yep. Mosher and I agree. Cosmic rays do not correspond to cloud data. The trade winds do regarding the equatorial band, but apparently that is too obvious for solar enthusiasts.
Note: Mosher and I disagree on CO2 forcing.
Sorry for my garbled ramblings. It was late, and I was tired.
What I was trying to indicate, is a method to deduce the cloud cover, from the change in the temps. Additional sunlight reaching the ground (as opposed to water surface), should have a faster change in the global temp. Since the Northern Hemisphere, has greater land surface area, then the signal for “change in cloud cover”, would show up in dGT.
It is another way to determine if this is due to a “change in cloud cover”, or some other unknown causal factor.
And it makes sense from what they found in the paper. A dynamic coupling with “annual variations”, but none with longer timescale variations.
This paper back in 1990 by Brian Tinsley explains CR better .
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96JD01990/pdf
compare to:
Jai Mitchel– The dotted line at zero in your posted graph accurately represents global warming trend since 2000… That should tell you something is seriously wrong with the CAGW hypothesis….
Actually since the end of 2000, the global temp trend has been falling:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.8/plot/rss/from:2000.8/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise
That should tell you something, too….
As I pointed out to Dan, his presumption is that CO2 photons can be distinguished from H2O photons on the basis of the linear vs exponential intensity increases from supposed “self” pressure broadening of CO2 are far from certain. He has not responded…
Link?
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the explanation. I gather that you are looking at the P and R branch differentials to the saturated nu-2, essentially using the pressure broadening effect to gauge the CO2 contribution. An interesting approach. As you know, this can be tricky if the inputs from other gasses in the mix to the “pressure” are not carefully controlled.
I eagerly await your paper which will undoubtedly answer many other questions such as the altitude profile and the measured H2O content and forcing.
Thanks again,
Gordon
From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:drfeldman@lbl.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:54 AM
To: Gordon Lehman
Subject: Re: spectral CO2
Hi Gordon.
Thanks for your interest in my paper.
As you probably know, H2O is the most important greenhouse gas following by CO2. Around wavelengths of 15 um, CO2 has extremely strong absorption features associated with the fundamental bending mode of that molecule (sometimes spectroscopists refer to it as the nu-2 band). H2O has relatively weak absorption around 15 um, which is why CO2 is as important a greenhouse gas as it is. Since there are a large number of lines associated with the CO2 bending mode, due to rotational transitions , referred to as the P- and R-branches, which are weaker than the fundamental and thus change more quickly with rising CO2, adding 22 ppm to the atmosphere in a decade leads to a change in transmission in those features and thus an increased greenhouse effect.
The overlap of H2O and CO2 features is important and something that we consider, but I should note that even if features overlap, that can both contribute to a greenhouse effect. Where lines are unsaturated, the effect is approximately linear, and where they are saturated, the effect is approximately logarithmic. If you have a chance, check out Goody and Yung 1989 … it’s pretty mathematical but it does describe the basics of how this all fits together.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Gordon Lehman wrote:
Dear Dr. Feldman,
I was very interested in the media reports of your recent paper “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. Unfortunately, the media reporting seems unsupported by even an abstract in Google Scholar or similar engines. I am a subscriber to “Nature News Alerts” and the most recent had no mention either.
It is my understanding that there are no earth spectral bands in which CO2 resonates that water does not also resonate. It is my understanding that there is a unique CO2 band in the near IR incoming solar spectrum which seems lunch money in total intensity.
My specific question is that since you “measure thermal infrared energy”, and “Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor “ exactly which bands do you use to distinguish photons emitted by the molecules H20 and CO2?
Regards,
Gordon
Did not respond to the question, which was put very specifically.
I have a question, if someone would be so kind as to provide an answer: both CO2 and H2O absorb @ur momisugly approximately 15 microns wv. CO2 is much stronger.
Has the absorbency of the two been compared in a quantified way? That is, can H2O absorbency be expressed as a fraction of the CO2 strength, say, percentage-wise?
The short answer is no. Dan Feldman’s approach is likely the best so far. The following is redundant in the thread but contains the entire email conversation. Still figuring out how this chat thing works…
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the explanation. I gather that you are looking at the P and R branch differentials to the saturated nu-2, essentially using the pressure broadening effect to gauge the CO2 contribution. An interesting approach. As you know, this can be tricky if the inputs from other gasses in the mix to the “pressure” are not carefully controlled.
I eagerly await your paper which will undoubtedly answer many other questions such as the altitude profile and the measured H2O content and forcing.
Thanks again,
Gordon
From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:drfeldman@lbl.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:54 AM
To: Gordon Lehman
Subject: Re: spectral CO2
Hi Gordon.
Thanks for your interest in my paper.
As you probably know, H2O is the most important greenhouse gas following by CO2. Around wavelengths of 15 um, CO2 has extremely strong absorption features associated with the fundamental bending mode of that molecule (sometimes spectroscopists refer to it as the nu-2 band). H2O has relatively weak absorption around 15 um, which is why CO2 is as important a greenhouse gas as it is. Since there are a large number of lines associated with the CO2 bending mode, due to rotational transitions , referred to as the P- and R-branches, which are weaker than the fundamental and thus change more quickly with rising CO2, adding 22 ppm to the atmosphere in a decade leads to a change in transmission in those features and thus an increased greenhouse effect.
The overlap of H2O and CO2 features is important and something that we consider, but I should note that even if features overlap, that can both contribute to a greenhouse effect. Where lines are unsaturated, the effect is approximately linear, and where they are saturated, the effect is approximately logarithmic. If you have a chance, check out Goody and Yung 1989 … it’s pretty mathematical but it does describe the basics of how this all fits together.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Gordon Lehman wrote:
Dear Dr. Feldman,
I was very interested in the media reports of your recent paper “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. Unfortunately, the media reporting seems unsupported by even an abstract in Google Scholar or similar engines. I am a subscriber to “Nature News Alerts” and the most recent had no mention either.
It is my understanding that there are no earth spectral bands in which CO2 resonates that water does not also resonate. It is my understanding that there is a unique CO2 band in the near IR incoming solar spectrum which seems lunch money in total intensity.
My specific question is that since you “measure thermal infrared energy”, and “Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor “ exactly which bands do you use to distinguish photons emitted by the molecules H20 and CO2?
Regards,
Gordon
Love the certainty of the “CR do not contribute to GW” statement. Leif said they don’t claim to prove anything, but they actually claim to prove a negative.
And they do it as the obligatory kow tow to global warming hegemony, in the middle of a paper that tosses out the formerly just as strongly blustered-for claim that cosmic rays had no measurable climate effect whatsoever.
The baby toddles on. Kicking and screaming the whole way, but yet he takes the steps.
They don’t say ‘prove’
They claim to have proven the negative:
“Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, …”
Don’t quibble semantics. It is not beneath you, but it is annoying.
This is not semantics. In science you NEVER prove anything. If you make a claim that you do, it is not science.
Yep. You accept or reject your stated null hypothesis. Rather simple if you narrow you topic. Research 101.
So when they make the absolutely unqualified statement of proof:
“Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, …:”
They should be incurring the wrath of the Leif blower for having done so … instead you play semantics and let them off with a throw-away dodge: “They don’t say ‘prove’.”
Clue: When someone prefaces an unqualified statement of a firm conclusion with the word “Thus”, in reference to a previously stated inferential, they are claiming proof whether they use that word or not.
Thus, you are playing semantics.
And yes, I have proved that.
as a practicing scientist I’ll clarify my point. Every statement a scientist utters is implicitly preceded by “as far as we know”, thus every statement is always qualified. It is tedious to repeat that for every statement, so it goes unsaid, but certainly not unheeded. If you adopt this view the fog is lifted and one can make progress, otherwise it is just words.
It’s conventional when surrounding text with quotation marks that the text is actually what the author said! Doing what you did makes the rest of your comments worthless.
[Or, the writer is using irony, sarcasm, or a deliberate “exaggeration” of the words. .mod]
[Or, the writer is using irony, sarcasm, or a deliberate “exaggeration” of the words. .mod]
Don’t you love it when people who make the “Your punctuation renders your argument worthless” argument do not themselves understand the fundamentals of punctuation?
Hey Phil – Next time why don’t you try saying “Ewe mispelled a werd, so everything yew sed is rong.”
[Raw text is always difficult to expand into the regular conventions of regular conversations. .mod]
I use quotes. Period. If it’s in quotes, someone else said it (and I always say who said it unless I have had one two many glasses of ale). Without quotes, it comes from my Irish red-headed mouth.
Speculate to accumulate.
Speculate on the mechanism of climate to accumulate wild guesses in the form of “scientific” papers
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif
Entertaining thread.
Now that’s funny!!!!
Reblogged this on Aussiedlerbetreuung und Behinderten – Fragen and commented:
Glück, Auf, meine Heimat!