Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Last week, Anthony highlighted a study by Svensmark, Shaviv et al. in a post entitled New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth. While some were enthusiastic about their claims, Leif Svalgaard and I were much more restrained in our opinions.
As a result, I was interested in an analysis of the Svensmark et al. paper by Ari Jokimäki over at his always interesting blog, The AGW Observer. I’ve shamelessly stolen his text and graphics, which I reproduce below. I trust Ari won’t mind since I’ve quoted him in full and provided the links to his website.
Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on December 22, 2017
The hypothesis of significant effect of cosmic-rays to climate has been shown wrong many times. This is a pet hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark, who continues to push papers on the subject to scientific journals. A few days ago, the journal Nature Communications published a paper of Svensmark (& co-workers). I checked out its reference list because I think that some indicators of the quality of a paper can be found simply by checking the reference list, and how references are used.
S17 reference list – first impressionsI immediately noticed a few things about S17 reference list. I made some tweets (@AGWobserver) where I mention them:
The Kulmala et al. paper I mention there is this one: “Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation”. It shows results against Svensmark’s hypothesis, but it is not cited by S17. The mentioned paper list in my tweets is this one: “Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate”.
One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are mentioned only in their reference list in the title of Eichkorn et al. (2002) paper, and Laakso et al. refer to it in this context: “Ion mass spectrometers have been used successfully in the studies of new particle formation in the upper atmosphere (Eichkorn et al., 2002).” Furthermore, as Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis relies on ion induced nucleation, it is noteworthy that one of Laakso et al. conclusions is this: “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.” To me it seems that either S17 is citing a wrong paper here, or then the cosmic ray ion production thing is implicitly in Laakso et al. results and I just don’t see it.
S17 reference list – comparison with other paper
I decided to look S17 reference list further. I chose a comparison paper, Gordon et al. (2017, “G17”), which is a research paper on the same issue than S17. Both papers have been published and submitted to their journals during 2017, S17 in May 10 and G17 in March 24, so S17 is a bit newer in that sense. S17 was published in December 19 and G17 in August 24, so also in that sense S17 is newer. I emphasize newer here because it suggests that references in S17 reference list should be as new or newer as references in G17 reference list.
The reference list of S17 contains 39 entries while the reference list of G17 contains 85 entries. As the papers are on the same subject, it seems that S17 reference list is a little short. However, scope of G17 seems to be somewhat broader, so reference list length doesn’t necessarily tell anything.
I also compared the temporal distributions of papers in the reference lists of these two papers. Result can be seen in this graph:
It is quite clear from the graph that S17 reference list focuses on older papers than G17 reference list. highest peak of temporal distribution of S17 is 2005-2009, while corresponding highest peak of G17 is 2010-2014. Also, G17 distribution is rather sharply concentrated on the more recent times, while S17 distribution is more spread out in time, and it almost seems as if the most recent research is being avoided in S17 reference list (the share of 2015-2017 papers is very low in S17 compared to G17).
[UPDATE]: An alert reader in the comments notes that he has retracted his claim about the one reference, viz:
(Note added December 27, 2017: This paragraph is incorrect – S17 cites two Laakso et al. papers and I somehow got them mixed.) One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are mentioned only in their reference list in the title of Eichkorn et al. (2002) paper, and Laakso et al. refer to it in this context: “Ion mass spectrometers have been used successfully in the studies of new particle formation in the upper atmosphere (Eichkorn et al., 2002).” Furthermore, as Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis relies on ion induced nucleation, it is noteworthy that one of Laakso et al. conclusions is this: “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.” To me it seems that either S17 is citing a wrong paper here, or then the cosmic ray ion production thing is implicitly in Laakso et al. results and I just don’t see it.
I love seeing this, that when a mistake is made it is acknowledged and clearly corrected. His second point still stands … as does his point about Laakso saying that “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.”
[END UPDATE]
Short and filled with information, typical of Ari’s good work … you can go to the post to see the (3) comments, part of the reason I thought it deserved wider circulation. In addition, I’ve grabbed and reposted below the list of papers that he linked to above that show no effect of cosmic rays on the climate. In that regard, my own research agrees with those papers, although I went about it a different way. I looked for the signature of the ~ 11-year cycles in sunspots. This, of course, would detect such an influence whether or not it was from cosmic rays. Here’s Ari’s list:
Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on August 31, 2009
This list contains papers which show that cosmic rays don’t have significant role in recent climate change, so this list doesn’t contain the papers from Svensmark et al. or other papers symphatetic to the strong role for cosmic rays, but such papers and issues are discussed in papers below (see also Anti-AGW papers debunked section for some Svensmark et al. papers). The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.
LATEST UPDATE (December 25, 2012): Laken et al. (2012) added.
A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations – Laken et al. (2012) “Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch-superpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray flux known as Forbush decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.” Benjamin A. Laken, Enric Pallé, Jaša Čalogović and Eimear M. Dunne, J. Space Weather Space Clim. 2 (2012) A18, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012018. [http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120049.pdf”>Full text]
Solar irradiance, cosmic rays and cloudiness over daily timescales – Laken & Čalogović (2011) “Although over centennial and greater timescales solar variability may be one of the most influential climate forcing agents, the extent to which solar activity influences climate over shorter time periods is poorly understood. If a link exists between solar activity and climate, it is likely via a mechanism connected to one (or a combination) of the following parameters: total solar irradiance (TSI), ultraviolet (UV) spectral irradiance, or the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. We present an analysis based around a superposed epoch (composite) approach focusing on the largest TSI increases and decreases (the latter occurring in both the presence and absence of appreciable GCR reductions) over daily timescales. Using these composites we test for the presence of a robust link between solar activity and cloud cover over large areas of the globe using rigorous statistical techniques. We find no evidence that widespread variations in cloud cover at any tropospheric level are significantly associated with changes in the TSI, GCR or UV flux, and further conclude that TSI or UV changes occurring during reductions in the GCR flux are not masking a solar-cloud response. However, we note the detectability of any potential links is strongly constrained by cloud variability.” Laken, B. A. and J. Čalogović(2011), Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L24811, doi:10.1029/2011GL049764. [Full text]
Relationship of Lower Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective – Agee et al. (2011) “An updated assessment has been made of the proposed hypothesis that “galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are positively correlated with lower troposphere global cloudiness.” A brief review of the many conflicting studies that attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is also presented. It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period (QP) between solar cycles 23–24 has led to a record high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record low level of lower troposphere global cloudiness. This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR-Cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.” Ernest M. Agee, Kandace Kiefer and Emily Cornett, Journal of Climate 2011, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1.
The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming – Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) “A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.” T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.07.013. [Full text]
Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change – Erlykin et al. (2011)“A survey is made of the evidence for and against the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence cloud cover. The analysis is made principally for the troposphere. It is concluded that for the troposphere there is only a very small overall value for the fraction of cloud attributable to cosmic rays (CR); if there is linearity between CR change and cloud change, the value is probably ~1% for clouds below ~6.5km, but less overall. The apparently higher value for low cloud is an artifact. The contribution of CR to ’climate change’ is quite negligible.” A.D. Erlykin, B.A. Laken and A.W. Wolfendale, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.03.001.
Cosmic rays and global warming – Erlykin et al. (2010) A brief review article. “Is global warming man made or is it caused by the effects of solar activity on cosmic rays as claimed by some? Here we describe our search for evidence to distinguish between these claims. … In our view the jury is back and the verdict is that cosmic rays and solar irradiance are not guilty for most of the Global Warming. Nevertheless, they could be responsible for a contribution and we look forward to future experiments such as CLOUD at CERN which should be able to quantify to what extent ionization plays a part in the production of aerosols, the precursors of cloud formation.”[Full text]
Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover – Calogovic et al. (2010)“Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC-hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so-called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”[Full text]
Cosmic ray decreases and changes in the liquid water cloud fraction over the oceans – Laken et al. (2009)“Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently claimed that strong galactic cosmic ray (GCR) decreases during ‘Forbush Decrease (FD) events’ are followed by decreases in both the global liquid water cloud fraction (LCF) and other closely correlated atmospheric parameters. To test the validity of these findings we have concentrated on just one property, the MODIS LCF and examined two aspects: 1) The statistical chance that the decrease observed in the LCF is abnormal. 2) The likelihood of the observed delay (∼5 to 9 days) being physically connected to the FD events. On both counts we conclude that LCF variations are unrelated to FD events: Both the pattern and timing of observed LCF changes are irreconcilable with current theoretical pathways. Additionally, a zonal analysis of LCF variations also offers no support to the claimed relationship, as the observed anomaly is not found to vary latitudinally in conjunction with cosmic ray intensity.”[Full text]
Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment – Duplissy et al. (2009)“During a 4-week run in October–November 2006, a pilot experiment was performed at the CERN Proton Synchrotron in preparation for the CLOUD1 experiment, whose aim is to study the possible influence of cosmic rays on clouds. … Overall, the exploratory measurements provide suggestive evidence for ion-induced nucleation or ion-ion recombination as sources of aerosol particles. … In conclusion, therefore, the experimental variables were not well enough controlled to exclude the presence of ion-induced nucleation on the basis of Fig. 7; it merely does not support the presence of strong contributions from this source.”[Full text]
On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover – Erlykin et al. (2009)“Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analyzed. Most features of this connection viz. an altitude dependence of the absolute values of CC and CR intensity, no evidence for the correlation between the ionization of the atmosphere and cloudiness, the absence of correlations in short-term low cloud cover (LCC) and CR variations indicate that there is no direct causal connection between LCC and CR in spite of the evident long-term correlation between them. … The most significant argument against causal connection of CR and LCC is the anticorrelation between LCC and the medium cloud cover (MCC).”[Full text]
Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation – Kulmala et al. (2009)“More than a decade ago, variations in galactic cosmic rays were suggested to closely correlate with variations in atmospheric cloud cover and therefore constitute a driving force behind aerosol-cloud-climate interactions. Later, the enhancement of atmospheric aerosol particle formation by ions generated from cosmic rays was proposed as a physical mechanism explaining this correlation. Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation.”[Full text]
Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? – Pierce & Adams (2009)“In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”
On the possible connection between cosmic rays and clouds – Erlykin et al. (2009)“Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analysed. We argue that the anticorrelation between the temporal behaviour of low (LCC) and middle (MCC) clouds evidences against causal connection between them and CR. Nevertheless, if a part of low clouds (LCC) is connected and varies with CR, then its most likely value averaged over the Globe should not exceed 20% at the two standard deviation level.”[Full text]
Solar activity and the mean global temperature – Erlykin et al. (2009) This study finds that the changes in the cosmic ray rate lags the changes in temperature. “The cyclic variation in the cosmic ray rate is observed to be delayed by 2–4 years relative to the temperature, the solar irradiance and daily sun spot variations suggesting that the origin of the correlation is more likely to be direct solar activity than cosmic rays. Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity, we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is ~<14% of the observed global warming.”[Full text]
Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment using MODIS data – Kristjánsson et al. (2008)“Averaging the results from the 22 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR, when autocorrelations were taken into account.”[Full text]
Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover – Sloan & Wolfendale (2008)“A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays. “[Full text]
Cosmic Rays and The Climate – Sloan (2008) Summarizes different views on the issue. “A number of papers and posters were presented at the ECRS on the subject of the relationship between cosmic rays (CR) and both the climate and the weather. I was asked by the organisers to attempt to summarise them.”[Full text]
Cosmic Rays and Global Warming – Sloan & Wolfendale (2007)“It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with `the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great. We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.”[Full text]
Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate – an update – Kristjánsson et al. (2004)“Eighteen years of monthly averaged low cloud cover data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project are correlated with both total solar irradiance and galactic cosmic ray flux from neutron monitors. When globally averaged low cloud cover is considered, consistently higher correlations (but with opposite sign) are found between low cloud variations and solar irradiance variations than between variations in cosmic ray flux and low cloud cover.”[Full text]
Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data – Damon & Laut (2004)“Links have been made between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and northern hemisphere land temperatures. … Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played a major role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solar hypotheses shows that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data.”[Full text]
Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations – Laut (2003)“The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data.”[Full text]
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate – Carslaw et al. (2002) A review paper. “It has been proposed that Earth’s climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth’s average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño.”[Full text]
A new look at possible connections between solar activity, clouds and climate – Kristjánsson et al. (2002)“We present a re-evaluation of the hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds and climate. We have used two independent estimates of low cloud cover from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, covering 16.5 years of data. The cloud cover data are used in conjunction with estimates of galactic cosmic ray flux and measurements of solar irradiance. It is found that solar irradiance correlates better and more consistently with low cloud cover than cosmic ray flux does. The correlations are considerably lower when multichannel retrievals during daytime are used than retrievals using IR-channels only.”[Full text]
Some results relevant to the discussion of a possible link between cosmic rays and the Earth’s climate – Wagner et al. (2001)“However, the smoothed combined flux of 10Be and 36Cl at Summit, Greenland, from 20–60 kyr B.P. (proportional to the geomagnetically modulated cosmic ray flux) is unrelated to the corresponding δ18O and CH4 data (interpreted as supraregional climate proxies). (3) Furthermore, although a comparison of the incoming neutron flux with cloud cover in Switzerland over the last 5 decades shows a significant correlation at times during the 1980s and 1990s, this does not occur during the rest of the period.”[Full text]
Sunshine records from Ireland: cloud factors and possible links to solar activity and cosmic rays – Pallé & Butler (2001)“The importance of cosmic rays as a link between solar activity and climate was assessed from a study of the ISCCP-D2 satellite cloud factors and Irish sunshine data. Whilst these results confirmed the strong correlation between total cloud factor and cosmic rays over non-tropical oceans between 1984 and 1991 previously reported, it was found that this correlation did not hold in the subsequent period 1991-1994. Other work has established a link through specifically low cloud. Indirect evidence of cloud formation by cosmic rays from a variation in the sunshine factor following Forbush decreases, and over the sunspot cycle, was mostly negative. Although a dip at seven years past sunspot minimum is evident in the sunshine factor for all four sites and in most seasons, it is of marginal statistical significance.”[Full text]
Cloud cover variations over the United States: An influence of cosmic rays or solar variability? – Udelhofen & Cess (2001)“To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. … The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR.”
Is there a cosmic ray signal in recent variations in global cloudiness and cloud radiative forcing? – Kristjánsson et al. (2000)“In order to evaluate a recent hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds, and climate we have investigated temporal variations in global cloudiness and radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. … When the results are related to temporal variations in cosmic ray activity, we do not find support for a coupling between cosmic rays, total cloudiness, and radiative forcing of climate. … The net radiative effect of clouds during the period 1985–1989 shows an enhanced cooling effect despite a reduction in both total and low cloud cover. This contradicts the simple relationship between cloud cover and radiation assumed in the cosmic-ray-cloud-climate hypothesis.”
Are Cosmic Rays Influencing Oceanic Cloud Coverage – Or Is It Only El Niño? – Farrar (2000)“The monthly average (C2) cloud coverage data produced by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) for the period of July 1986–June 1991 show strong global and regional cloud coverage variations associated with the El Niño of 1986–1987. The Pacific Ocean, in particular, shows strong regional variations in cloud coverage. These agree well with contemporaneous satellite observations of broadband shortwave infrared cloud forcing measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) noted a similarity between the shape of the timeseries curve of average cloud coverage fraction for mid- to low-latitude ocean-areas and the time series curve of cosmic ray flux intensity. They proposed a causal relationship – a `missing link’ for solar cycle influence on Earth climate. Further spatial and temporal analysis of the same ISCCP C2 data in this paper indicates that the cloud coverage variation patterns are those to be expected for the atmospheric circulation changes characteristic of El Niño, weakening the case for cosmic rays as a climatic forcing factor.”
Closely related
Testing the link between terrestrial climate change and Galactic spiral arm transit – Overholt et al. (2009) Tests the correlation of climate changes and Earth’s passage through spiral arms of the Milky Way. Possible climate effects largely relate to cosmic rays. “We re-examine past suggestions of a close link between terrestrial climate change and the Sun’s transit of spiral arms in its path through the Milky Way galaxy. These links produced concrete fits, deriving the unknown spiral pattern speed from terrestrial climate correlations. We test these fits against new data on spiral structure based on CO data that do not make simplifying assumptions about symmetry and circular rotation. If we compare the times of these transits with changes in the climate of Earth, the claimed correlations not only disappear, but we also find that they cannot be resurrected for any reasonable pattern speed.”[Full text]
Toward Direct Measurement of Atmospheric Nucleation – Kulmala et al. (2007) A paper on the results of SMEAR project which (among other activities) provides direct measurements of atmospheric nucleation. They find that ion-induced nucleation is not very important (ion-induced nucleation fraction is only 10 % of total nucleation at best). “We introduce an instrumental setup to measure atmospheric concentrations of both neutral and charged nanometer-sized clusters. By applying the instruments in the field, we come to three important conclusions: … (iii) neutral nucleation dominates over the ion-induced mechanism, at least in boreal forest conditions.”
For those interested in the SMEAR project results, see the presentation of Markku Kulmala in “Climate Change – Man Made?” seminar in Stockholm (2009) (click the “cosmic rays and climate change”, Kulmala’s presentation starts after Svensmark’s, about at 00:34:15).
There are plenty of papers which deal with this cosmic ray issue while concentrating solar forcing as a whole (for example a string of papers from Lockwood & Fröhlich). Many of those papers would belong to the list above, but I shall make a separate entry on them, and add link to that post here when I have made it (separate post is already on the works). UPDATE (September 3, 2009): Here is the link to the post about the Sun’s role.
Original claims of Svensmark et al. were based on the apparent correlation between the cosmic rays and an observed decreasing trend in ISCCP cloud cover data, but it has been found out that ISCCP trend was an artifact of satellite viewing geometry, so it seems that there is no observational basis for the original claim. [UPDATE (March 17, 2010): I have recently discussed about this here.] There are few papers discussing this, and I will give one of them below.
Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts – Evan et al. (2007)“Here we show that trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere. Our results suggest that in its current form, the ISCCP data may not be appropriate for certain long-term global studies, especially those focused on trends.”[Full text]
UPDATE (September 10, 2009): As it has been suggested that cosmic rays affect by changing the cloud cover, this is relevant here:
Finally, here are my own researches into the same question. Remember, the question is NOT “Does the sun affect the climate?” The answer to that one is clearly “Yes“, because without a sun we wouldn’t have a climate.
The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”. All the research I’ve done says the answer is no, which was a huge surprise to me. Having read about wheat prices and sunspots when I was a kid, I thought it would be easy to find modern data to substantiate those centuries-old claims … man, was I surprised. Here are my findings:
Congenital Cyclomania Redux 2013-07-23
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
Cycles Without The Mania 2013-07-29
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Sunspots and Sea Level 2014-01-21
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Riding A Mathemagical Solarcycle 2014-01-22
Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers for…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River 2014-01-25
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots 2014-02-22
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Solar Periodicity 2014-04-10
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium 2014-04-13
In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the amount of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive type…
The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid! 2014-05-24
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature 2014-06-06
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima 2014-06-23
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Changes in Total Solar Irradiance 2014-10-25
Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an…
Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01
So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,…
Volcanoes and Sunspots 2015-02-09
I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: …. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase…
Early Sunspots and Volcanoes 2015-02-10
Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored … I wanted to respond to Michele Casati’s claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s, it’s clear that volcanoes with a…
Sunspots and Norwegian Child Mortality 2015-03-07
In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled “Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norway”, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s the solar activity at birth affected a child’s survival chances. As you might imagine, this…
The New Sunspot Data And Satellite Sea Levels 2015-08-13
[UPDATE:”Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate…
My Thanks Apologies And Reply To Dr Nir Shaviv 2015-08-17
Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shaviv” August 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the o…
The Missing 11 Year Signal 2015-08-19
Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I don’t think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one I’d not seen used before. One of the more sensitive …
Is The Signal Detectable 2015-08-19
[UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shaviv’s harmonic solar component was a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimetres, it is actually a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millime…
23 New Papers 2015-09-22
Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 “Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!…
So I’ve found nothing to date, despite lots of looking …
On a more personal note, after a two-day trip featuring lost luggage, a missed connection, and a definite need for two-fella Panadol, I’m finally back home from the Solomon Islands, and I’m once again with my gorgeous ex-fiancee in our lovely and peaceful home that I built here on our hillside with a tiny view of the sea … heaven.
I was surprised to note that I wrote 19 posts during the four weeks I was there … well, actually 17 plus re-posting a couple of relevant stories I’d written earlier. They’re all available here, as a category of my blog, Skating Under The Ice. Scroll down to the post called “Feasting” at the bottom and read up, they’ll make more sense in chronological order.
My very best Christmas, New Years, and Holiday Of Your Politically Correct Choice wishes to everyone.
w.
AND AS ALWAYS: My polite request, which is that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. This lets us all understand what it is that you are talking about, as well as who wrote the words, and what the context of the statement was.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of this request. I am unwilling, as the poet put it, “… to hear the truth you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.”
Not interested, thanks.
More importantly, however, if you wish to refute what someone said, the starting point must and has to be what someone said. You must first quote their actual words that you claim are wrong. Not what you think their words mean; you can get to that, but you have to begin the refutation with what they actually said. Without their exact words as a starting point, you are just flailing at the air, attacking a straw man of your own creation.
Now, the request is polite … but if you ignore it my response may not be polite. I’m tired of people accusing me of anything and everything based on something they wrongly think I said somewhere sometime long ago in a distant galaxy … too boring. If you’re lucky I’ll just ignore such accusations and claims; otherwise, I am likely to point out your failure as regards quoting, and perhaps your associated shortcomings, using inventive and unusual but generally less than laudatory terms … don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Thanks, w.
Svensmark will eventually receive the Nobel prize. Guaranteed.
Well My only comment would be that I am unable to comment because I am unable to unravel from this post just who said what or who referenced whomelse, let alone comment on the validity of whatever it was that whomever it was, said.
G
I agree. This was kind of an appeal to multiple so call authorities and a tally of people against the theory… but nothing much about the science behind the theory. Perhaps I am wrong because I started skimming after abuot 25% of the way though it.
Correct. Neither Ari nor Willis can raise any substantive objections to Svensmark, Shaviv, et al. Nothing but appeals to consensus authority in papers which themselves can raise no valid objections. Just the consensus carbonari circling the wagons. No actual observational or experimental science allowed.
err you miss the point.
Svensmark continues to ignore negative results.
Willis did his own work. He got the data and looked.
FOUND NOTHING
I wasted about a month of my life looking
best cloud data… AIRS every pressure level.
I looked glbally, looked at individual cells, looked at every pressure level.
I lost track of how many ways I cut the data.
Nothing.
Willis gets to announce his negative results.
me too.
and the scientific literature is filled with them.
Svensmark avoids the brutal truth of published negative results
george e. smith December 26, 2017 at 2:23 pm
Mario Lento December 26, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Gabro December 26, 2017 at 4:26 pm
Seems you guys missed a few things … like this:
Comments?
Then there’s this:
In other words, a paper that Svensmark cites and relies on doesn’t say what he claims, and what it says specifically contradicts his claims … did you quote or comment on those clear objections?
Nooo … you’d rather whine that I posted and linked to TOO MANY PAPERS DISAGREEING WITH YOUR HYPOTHESIS, which is clearly a huge crime on whatever planet you live on …
I’m sorry, but on this planet, pointing out that your opponent has listed and cited a lot of references that support their case doesn’t disqualify their claims … the references may indeed be wrong, but you haven’t engaged with that question at all.
Note that I am NOT claiming consensus. I’m simply saying that there are a number of cogent objections to the idea that sunspots roolz, OK … however, you’re free to mock them all you want. Just note that mocking them does not rebut them.
Finally, all of you so-called experts out there so ready to criticise my analyses, where are your analyses of the data?
Unlike you, I have actually gone to the trouble to read up on the subject and to obtain and analyze surface dataset after surface dataset looking for the elusive 11-year cycle … I’ve looked at everything from rainfall in Fortaleza to clouds in the US, and found nothing. I’ve asked people to send me their best data, and still found nothing. And in response do you quote my analysis and show where it’s wrong?
Nooo … you just wave your hands and claim I’m doing it all wrong and you know so much better than I do … so how come you’re not QUOTING MY WORDS and then SHOWING US ALL WHAT I’VE DONE WRONG? Nothing but baseless, unsupported, and often unpleasant accusations … pathetic.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the evidence may be out there … so where are your own analyses that you’ve done that show that it exists?
w.
Like I said, I may have missed some things. This still sounds like nitpicking, and good nitpicking by the way. I know you put a ton of work into your analyses, Willis, so I should have been more polite.
I could not read more than that, because what I am more interested in hearing about the theory than trying to decipher something tangible out of different scientists saying things like,“During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.”
That just sounds like argument between scientists’. Rhetorically, What is “relatively small”, how small is negligible and who is the authority on what is negligible? I am not asking you to answer these questions by the way.
I get the impression from multiple authors that they object to Svensmark pursuing his initial broad hypothesis. In other words, they have investigated and found nothing, or nothing substantial, therefore he should stop looking because they stopped.
Is that how the ENIAC was developed?
Geez…lighten up.
I did see a single reference to the work of Prof Lu from Waterloo which is also dependent on the CR effect in the Antarctic atmosphere, something I figure is very closely related, for which there is a validated chemical path, physical replication, a sound physical theory and decent support from satellite data.
If Svensmark is completely wrong (which I understand is the consensus of multiple authors) then Lu is also completely wrong because his hypothesis relies on exactly the same CR modulation. The two hypotheses are quite different on their temperature control mechanisms, but have a common cause. To refute a CR-temperature link, one must refute all possible mechanisms.
I conclude it is premature to conclude that CRs and GCRs have no effect on the global temperature. That’s baby+bathwater-tossing stuff.
Cloud formation from charged particles is very well understood (cloud chambers) and the conditions have to be right or nothing happens. Because most of the atmosphere is not in the right pre-condition most of the time does not mean nothing ever happens. I hear a lot of, ‘I cannot locate a meaningful effect therefore the proposed mechanism doesn’t exist’. Why would Svensmark cite papers that conclude the effect he and CERN are replicating in the lab doesn’t exist?
Instead we get this kind of stuff:
“Cosmic rays and global warming – Erlykin et al. (2010) A brief review article. “Is global warming man made or is it caused by the effects of solar activity on cosmic rays as claimed by some? ”
As if there are only two possibilities, with the latter having only one variation. Is ‘natural variation’ found in that short list? Is the null hypothesis dealt into the game? Svensmark and Lu have competing CR-based ideas. It is far too soon to rule anything out. Physicists are a patient lot.
Willis, here you demonstrate, or enact?, the patience of Job.
Willis sez:
” … I’ve looked at everything
from rainfall in Fortaleza
to clouds in the US,
and found nothing.”
My comment:
You got it backwards !
You should have looked
at rainfall in the US,
and clouds in Fortaleza !
But seriously now,
Willis provided a list
of studies to read.
I expected people to
read one of the studies,
and give it a thumbs up,
or “throw mud” on it.
It seems like most people,
skipped the reading,
and just threw mud at Willis !
I’ve read a few studies
in the past week,
and cosmic rays are
still not in my top five
most likely causes
of climate change:
(1) sun,
(2) oceans,
(3) clouds,
(4) CO2, and
(5) measurement error / bias
I hadn’t found a logical reason,
to care much about cosmic rays,
in my first 20 years,
of climate change reading,
and still don’t care much.
Science usually advances,
from one scientist,
‘fighting the consensus’,
but I’m not convinced,
Svensmark is the one.
This post should reopen the discussion, where further facts seen to not move several participants positions very much at all. I started reading this site with the belief that there was good support for the proposition that sunspots and climate were very much related. I no longer believe that.
The Maunder Minimum and the coldest interval of the LIA just a coincidence, then?
And the cold periods during the Oort, Wolf, Spoerer and Dalton Minima, ditto?
And conversely, the Modern Warm Period during solar maxima?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
The Maunder minimum and such is why I formerly was of the opinion there was a strong relationship. What I currently conclude is that climate does not track all the variations in sunspots. It is closer to agnosticism.
Maybe not annual changes in sunspots, but IMO the evidence for the effect of grand solar minima and lesser minima is abundant and takes true belief to d@ny.
That is the rub isn’t it? Exactly what do we make of the Maunder minimum? If it is planetary influences on the sun(Barycenter), then by what mechanism does it influence the earth?
Boarder,
The lack of sunspots during the Maunder GM and lowered numbers thereof in lesser minima are simply a proxy for solar magnetic flux. Your question seems to be what causes these solar fluctuations, rather than by what means they affect climate on earth. Please correct me if wrong.
The proposed mechanism for affecting terrestrial climate, and that of other planets and bodies with atmospheres, is the ability of stronger magnetic fields to block the galactic cosmic rays which have been shown both by observation and experiment to promote the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs).
The solar magnetic field is one part of the overall variability of our favorite variable star, the sun. I suspect that when all is said and done, it will be shown that no single effect such as cosmic rays explain everything. The record of C14 is fairly easy to get and so the coupling of the timing of low magnetic fields and cold temperatures is easy to extract. Not so easy to extract are the other things that go with a solar minimum that would occur at the same time. I will just note that the tsI varies by 0.15% over a solar cycle and that a 1 degree C temperature variation is only 0.3% enthalpy change. Too many people are anchoring on the normal temperatures experienced during their lives. I would love to see a survey of what most folks think the percentage change is when the temperature goes up or down by a degree. I suspect it would come back in multiple percent, but I could be wrong.
I will leave this food fight to those who are in the cafeteria. Again, I suspect that there is a lot more than just cosmic rays that modify the earth’s albedo and warm it to a lower degree.
Shr.
Of course there are other solar effects on climate besides magnetic flux.
While TSI varies little, its UV component varies enormously. This higher energy range of the spectrum has a qualitatively different effect than visible and IR light upon such climatically important phenomena as ozone and seawater penetration.
The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick is tacked on to the end of this graph. The trend goes straight up until it tops all previous temperature highs. Just like the Climate Change Charlatans wanted it to look.
In order to study this graph properly you must know that the last little portion of it is a BIG LIE.
TA,
I know that, but the past century or 150 years has indeed warmed relative to the LIA, if not to the same degree as shown in the copied graph. The observed warming is totally explained by natural fluctuations, without recourse to human CO2.
TA, that isn’t a temperature chart.
Thanks, Archer. How embarrasing! I guess I I see Hockey Stick temperature charts everywhere.
Never mind.
The relationship between Earth climate and GCRs has been known for a long time, but it is a matter of which one influences the other, or perhaps they both influence each other.
http://inspirehep.net/record/1225770?ln=en
The “dismiss out of hand” crowd is so hell bent on Svensmark being wrong that they d-nye there is a relationship at all even though it has been observed in thousands of studies using proxy data. This mere dismissal is similar to how many d-nye the gravitational potential energy and it’s retention of heat within the atmosphere.
The major flaw in the criticisms I’ve seen is that they for some reason expect a direct linear relationship from GCRs and climate. Of course anyone seriously studying climate doesn’t expect the fast acting variables, i.e. GCR flux, to manifest itself on the slow variable, e.g. global temperature, instantly.
https://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/431/2010/npg-17-431-2010.pdf
On what basis is global temperature a “slow variable”? Please define this term. Temperature changes very quickly in response to the the day/night and seasonal cycle, and in response to changes in the weather. There really isn’t much thermal inertia in the atmosphere which is where we measure temperature. If we were talking about the deep oceans maybe – but we are not.
Temperature reacts plenty quick to clouds. And that is the rub because the proposed mechanism is a change in cloud formation. How can local temperature react immediately to the presence of clouds but global temperature react only slowly.
Global temperature, exactly what it is, an average temperature of the planet’s surface — as far as I know the planet doesn’t have a day and a night, that’s just an illusion from the Earth spinning round. In this sense, it is slow variable because the response is lagged and dampened by water’s heat capacity and latent heat.
This mechanism that the paper explains is a mechanism that a lot of people don’t seem to take into account. It occurs all over in nature. I.e. this fall the Mississippi went extremely low (basically no discharge at all) from the Ohio river to just south of Memphis for a few days and tides went extremely low in Brazil and Uruguay. You can’t point to one thing for the cause, it was “multiple equilibria” of several variables.
Earth’s average temperature only varies about 10 degrees but most of the time stays within a few degrees over long periods. Larger changes occur due to stochastic resonance, in essence the noise variables create a punctuated large change when in they happen to all be in equilibrium along with a more important variable. After just one relatively weak solar cycle following nine stronger ones, you shouldn’t be surprised if temperature and the solar variables don’t correlate, especially when it’s considered noise.
We’ll see after a few more solar cycles won’t we?
ShrNfr: I will just note that the tsI varies by 0.15% over a solar cycle and that a 1 degree C temperature variation is only 0.3% enthalpy change.
Other people have made this point, including me in the context of statistical power. People trying to investigate the effects of solar changes on climate changes are attempting to investigate the cause of a tiny fluctuation (or weak signal) among a set of much larger autocorrelated fluctuations (or large noise); they are seeking this in a set of factors whose influences, if real, are tiny compared to other known influences. These are studies with very low statistical power: even if the Svensmark Hypothesis were true, most studies of the mechanism would produce results supporting the null hypothesis instead of rejecting it. That is the result that Willis Eschenbach has presented here: perhaps as few as 25% of relevant studies produce results that reject the hypothesis that climate is actually influenced by cosmic rays.
What should we expect? Well, suppose for the sake of argument that the studies have a common power of about 25%: if the Svensmark hypothesis be false, only about 5% of papers should reject the null hypothesis of independence, at the common significance level of 5%; if instead the Svensmark Hypothesis be true, then about 25% of a large number of independent but relevant studies should reject the null hypothesis, at the common significance level of 5%. That is approximately the result that Willis Eschenbach has presented here (perhaps a poor approximation, because I have not tallied the exact number of relevant statistical results that are statistically significant.)
There isn’t much that climate scientists can do to increase the statistical power of their investigations: really good measures are available only for short epochs; most relevant variables have to be approximated for past time through the use of proxies, which have inadequacies even if it be true that the relation of the proxy to the estimand is constant for thousands of years.
An example of studies with low power were the sequence of studies of trials of aspirin in heart disease. Amidst a host of other factors, aspirin has a tiny effect, and many epidemiological studies. A review of a large number of studies, a meta-analysis, showed that overall the results were consistent with a tiny but non-negligible effect of aspirin (a half tablet per day) in reducing heart attack risk. (you can start in on Richard Peto here: https://royalsociety.org/people/richard-peto-12088/).
Back to Svensmark’s Hypothesis: whether it is true or false will not be demonstrated with reasonable reliability until much more research has been completed. If it is true, most observational studies will continue fail to reject the null hypothesis at the conventional level of 5%. If it is false, and there is no publication bias), then only 5% of relevant studies will reject the null hypothesis at the conventional 5% level.
Solar activity drives temperatures up and surprise, shock and horror down too.
Sunspots create warming cycles at 11 year periodicity, but CMEs via geomagnetic storms obliterate must of the effect. However, geomagnetic index Ap contains the same component as the CET coldest month anomaly with a periodicity of about 34 years, but since there is no such periodicity in the sunspot data, hence strong cooling component in the CET data.
For more see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/26/another-positive-feature-of-global-warming-less-record-breaking-cold/#comment-2701800
One of the three comments at AGW Observer is by Ari, himself, replying to a comment on the critical importance of GCRs in cloud formation on Uranus. The other comment is cryptic, quoting Ari without any actual commentary.
Willis, what’s the relationship between wheat prices and sunspots? There are economic factors that strongly influence wheat prices and those factors have little or nothing to do with sunspots. That’s a poor start to evaluating Svensmark’s research.
He’s harking back to the origins of sunspot-climate research, by Sir William Herschel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel#Sunspots,_climate,_and_wheat_yields
The vagaries of weather and climate affected wheat yield more in 1779-1818 than in 1978-2017. The PDO flip year of 1977 however did have a big effect on wheat production in the Pacific NW, at least, as I well recall.
BTW, it’s not just Svensmark and his co-authors, but a host of other scientists who find overwhelming evidence of the role in climate of GCRs modulated by solar magnetic flux. To include experimentalists at CERN and Harvard and astrophysicists at SLAC, Dr. Svalgaard’s colleagues.
SLAC did however take down its Web page on the topic some years ago, under intense pressure from the Consensus Carbonari.
Stumbled upon this paper – just now – not sure it helps or hinders the debate!
Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature.” PNAS 2015DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1420291112
“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. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.abstract
That agree with what I suspect- CR affects weather.
Perhaps more that doubling CO2 effects weather.
Unfortunately, both the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 doubling and CR flux propagating CCN are not yet proven to have been observed in the wild, only under controlled conditions. They are both equally believable from that standpoint.
gbaikie December 27, 2017 at 12:49 pm
Anybody using the Global Temperaturedata in any theoretical study is kidding themselves whether the get a correlation or not.
It is a total artifact of Adjustments and is totally useless for serious research purposes.
I made the same point to Jo Nova on David’s Notch papers.
“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”
Yes…. IMHO 🙂 …A tiny bit! We (humans) have a tendency for our comfort and the range of this climate zone is narrow. Human induced AWG promoters claim 2deg temp raise soon… shok’n horror.
Since the industrial revolution is about 0.5degC … oh my. /sarc
But this is the wrong way to look at this…
The tiny variation in Solar is a very tiny temp variation too…. in Kelvin.
300K or 300.5K …. big deal. There is your ‘tiny’ TSI effect 🙂 (IMHO off course!)
(please forgive the not so perfect English… spell-check has trouble with me accent)
Nir Shaviv commented on some of this long ago on his blog.
EXPERT CREDIBILITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE?
. . . Since the AGW protagonists have the tendency to block the publication of papers that don’t follow their party line (and if you think otherwise, read the climategate emails), it is way easier for the AGW protagonists to have any paper get published. . . . But any paper my colleagues and I try to publish gets such a hostile confrontation that it is simply very hard to publish at all. The bottom line is more papers for the AGW protagonists and less papers for those who are more critical. . . . .
Since there are more protagonist papers around, they cite each other more and violà, you get that the more numerous group has more papers per person and more citations per paper. You don’t need to be Einstein . . .
Willis, I’m disappointed.
To start your comment highlighting a friend who obviously has a dog in the hunt and who focuses on the references rather than the substance of the paper is not your normal style and frankly is beneath you.
I don’t know Ari, I don’t know if the paper has substance, but it was dismissed with an ad hominem rather than a substantive evaluation.
I basically agree with this sentiment. This whole, “I have more papers that agree with me than you do” argument falls short of a real analysis for me. And I do have to take issue, Willis, with your assertion that Dr. Svalgaard was “restrained” in his criticisms of Svensmark’s new paper: he simply dismissed it out of hand. That’s a pretty big slap down in my book.
etudiant December 26, 2017 at 3:10 pm
First, I don’t know Ari. I do know his site is one of the more balanced sites around.
Next, seems you missed a few things. There’s this:
Point out how this is an “ad hominem”?
Then there’s this:
Furthermore, as Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis relies on ion induced nucleation, it is noteworthy that one of Laakso et al. conclusions is this: “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.”
In other words, a paper that Svensmark cites and relies on doesn’t say what he claims, and what it says specifically contradicts his claims … surely you don’t think that is an ad hominem? It goes to the heart of Svensmark’s claims.
Sorry, amigo, but you need to read the post again. You missed a lot …
w.
” “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.”
[Willis] In other words, a paper that Svensmark cites and relies on doesn’t say what he claims, and what it says specifically contradicts his claims … surely you don’t think that is an ad hominem? It goes to the heart of Svensmark”
It does not ‘specifically contradict his claims’. Which claims? He confirms there is a proposed mechanism and that it exists and that it is, based on his investigation, not very large. Laasko does no claim there is no effect. Clearly they disagree as to the magnitude of the effect. More specifically, they disagree as to the detectability of the magnitude of the effect.
It does not ‘go to the heart of Svensmark’. It is a quibble over the detection of, and therefore the impact of, the effect. I appreciate your enthusiasm but Laasko does not say there is no effect.
Willis, please update your post to include updates from the copied source. See ‘latest update December 27’
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/some-curious-things-about-svensmark-et-al-reference-list/
Spare us personal commentary by the self inflated wandering albatross. This isn’t Opera. It’s supposed to be a science blog.
Willis has not actually conducted any “research” as he claims. He has read some papers while ignoring all those hundreds of which which he can’t find reasons to fault, however spurious. Typically, he rejects papers he doesn’t like before even bothering to read them.
His method is the polar opposite of the scientific method.
Are you ever going to substantiate your per rectum assertion about variations in 14C record, Willis??
For years you’ve been desperately trying to revise the past to fit your agenda.
Sorry, could not crawl through all that while in holiday mode. On skim through it seems the main complaint is that there is no direct correlation with measured cosmic rays strength and climate temperature records over the last 30 year warm period. I don’t recall Svensmark ever claiming that there was a direct correlation, only that his experiments had conclusively proven that cosmic rays seed cloud generation. Obviously it is just another factor is a semi chaotic system, but is does seem to explain medium to long term cycles better than any other theory. As we are all aware there are so many issues with climate data collection and collation over the last 30 years I would not ever expect to find a single correlating factor. Lack of short term correlation never seemed to worry the carbon dioxide debate crowd.
Thanks,
Dean
Having glided up (unwillingly) into several clouds, I find it difficult to believe that when the humidity hits 100 percent, cloud may not form.
Has anyone located parts of the earths atmosphere where the humidity level is above 100 percent, and there is no cloud?
Peter,
Even at 100% humidity, you still need CCNs for clouds to form. Without them, the water vapor, though saturated for that temperature, will remain gaseous and not condense to form droplets of liquid water.
A droplet of water (the kind that make rainbows possible) has an internal pressure that is greater than the ambient air pressure where that droplet of water floats, perhaps in a cloud. The same thing is true inside a bubble of water vapor inside a body of water, perhaps as it approaches boiling.
The internal excess pressure differential is trivially calculated using the principle of virtual work. You imagine a change in radius of the bubble or droplet (say delta (r) ) and you compute the work done by that pressure differential acting on the whole surface area of the bubble, while moving the surface out by that delta(r). Then you calculate the (virtual) work done by the surface tension of the droplet or bubble surface while decreasing the area of that surface (or increasing). Then you equate the two since the radius has not changed, and you will find that the internal excess pressure is simply delta(p) =2t/r where t is the surface tension in newton per meter, and delta (p) is the pressure differential in newton per m^2.and r is the bubble or droplet radius in meters.
Well I see there’s a big OOoops! there. Well actually it’s a little oops, because as r >0, we find delta(p) goes to infinity.
So bubbles in water and droplets of water, just will not tolerate being at zero or near zero radius, they just come apart at the seams.
That’s why you need a substrate of greater than zero radius of curvature somewhere for the water molecules to attach themselves to. That minimum radius needs to be bigger than a water molecule, but even a microbe is plenty big enough to act as a substrate.
But where I would query the Svensmark theory, is that I am not aware of any rate dependency on the growth rate of droplets.
One would imagine that Maxwell-Boltzmann energetic tail end Charlie molecules would evaporate from the surface, while surrounding vapor molecules would collide with the surface and adhere.
From a flat surface of large extent one can calculate the exchange rates for various Temperatures (izzat the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, or related?), but I don’t know how to determine a coming or going rate from a sphericaloidal droplet.
In any case, I don’t see any problem in ANY water droplet, from growing without any help from any GCMs once it has gotten started. It’s the getting started where the skunk is hiding in the wood pile.
G
George,
Svensmark, Shaviv, et al have shown that GCRs facilitate the formation of CCNs via ionic attractions and other mechanisms. The same has been demonstrated experimentally at CERN and SLAC.
Willis ignores all scientific evidence to adhere to his faith-based belief in no solar magnetic or UV affect on climate.
Glaciers?
The cloud chamber is exactly the conditions you describe. It detects subatomic particles by condensation…
I’m not sure that your question has really been answered. The phenomenon you’re interested in is Supersaturation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersaturation My GUESS is that atmospheric water vapor can and does supersaturate if no nuclei are available for the water to condense out of the vapor phase. But maybe there’s some reason that can’t happen with water. There may well be some kitchen experiment you can do to create supersaturated (humidity 100+) air then cause it to condense by throwing in some suitable nuclei. I didn’t look for one.
Interesting to see that a host of cloud cover studies are finding little correlation with GCR. Would like to see if there are any studies looking specifically for the solar-magnetic effects on jet stream position that Stephen Wilde has long theorized about, where the uv shift has an effect on ozone levels that makes the polar jet more zonal/ less meriodonal when solar activity is high, shortening storm tracks and reducing cloud cover.
Joanna Haigh and other IPCC consensoids have modeled such effects as an explanation for the cold experienced by Europe during the little Ice Age but they assume that such affects would be regional rather than global and would only redistribute heat, when the mechanism is obviously capable of secular effects as well (Wilde’s theory).
Thanks Alec.
Joanna Haigh is aware of my hypothesis.
I am awaiting up to date data as regards the temperature of the lower stratosphere above 45 km since 2004. If any reader has a relevant link I would be pleased to look at it. For the seven years prior to 2004 that region was warming contrary to standard climatology which predicted cooling with the quiet sun through the entire vertical column.
My hypothesis requires warming above 45 km when the sun is quiet and cooling above 45km when the sun is active.
Stephen, the trouble is that measuring at a set height can be awkward
As the atmospheric temperature pulses from ocean events and cycles, the tropopause would move up and down slightly, thus affecting the temperature at a set height in the stratosphere.
Be careful how you look at the data.
I haven’t read any of those papers but I wonder if the effect of GCRs would necessarily be global, but more likely seen at the poles. And also wonder if there is any difference between night time cloud cover and day time cloud cover.
More likely to be seen at the poles
http://www.realclimate.org/images/jp_fig2.jpg
Jasper Kirby iirc did a pretty persuasive YouTube video showing that GCRs influence climate.
More than one! Here’s one:
A more recent (2011 v 2009), over hour-long one:
I don’t see any scales, or even information as to the flow of time; forwards or backwards.
Climate history is commonly plotted in either direction depending on the illusion the drafter is trying to convey.
But my un-calibrated eyeball sees a steep upward slope going left to right (or coming) for about 40% of the horizontal axis followed (or preceded) by no significant change at all for 60% of the axis whichever way it is coming or going.
G
you tube is not science
“Climate Science” is not science in the generally accepted sense.
CERN is not doing science because it is uploaded in youtube lol
Willis,
I don’t think that cosmic rays are the main driver of the sun on climate, but another part of the sun’s 11-year cycle.
The link you gave about the Pirañha river and the sun cycle may not be the best example, but there are many links that connect rain and river discharges with the sun cycle.
The origin as I have read many years ago (the link to that paper is long gone now) is in the UV part: that changes with about 10% over a full cycle, influencing the ozone production and the temperature of the lower stratosphere, increasing the equator-pole temperature difference at that height and pushing the jet streams polewards, including companying cloud and rain patterns.
Of course other natural cycles, like an El Niño, also influence rain patterns and may overwhelm the influence of a solar cycle, but in many (mid-latitude?) riversheds the influence is remarkable. Here a few:
The Nile river (Egypt):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD007462/full
The Po river (Italy):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD009157/pdf
The rivers in Portugal:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023787/abstract
The Mississippi:
https://arizonaenergy.org/AirEnergy/A%20Regression%20Model%20for%20Annual%20Streamflow%20in%20the%20Upper%20Mississippi%20River%20Basin%20Based%20on%20Solar%20Irradiance.htm
Rivers in South Africa (22 years cycle?):
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
Seems something to explore further?
The conundrum seems to be that TSI, which encompasses all electromagnetic radiation (including UV) from the sun seems to have a floor; but 14C production does not seem to have a ceiling. Our notion is that the host of aligning solar influences during maxima, mostly as proxies for solar field strength, protect the earth from nasty galactic radiation thought to create 14C.
Perhaps 14C is also produced by other means more closely related to climate than solar minima.
Ferdinand, I grabbed your first paper, viz:
It looked familiar, and a bit of searching found this:
Willis Eschenbach January 22, 2014 at 10:21 am
Look, am I the only one around here who actually analyzes this stuff? You all have exactly the same access to the data that I have … but nooo, everyone thinks every solar study is wonderful without even taking a look at the data.
Somehow, we’ve gotten the name of “sceptics” when I’ve never seen a bunch of people more credulous than people who insist that sunspots roolz without ever having seriously analyzed even one single paper. Me, every paper I’ve looked at so far has giant holes, like your recommended paper on the Nile only having one-sigma significance … dude, that’s pathetic! One sigma significance, and they can’t even read the times off of their own graphs? Do you understand what trying to pass this excrement off as science does to your reputation?
Doesn’t mean a valid paper won’t show up tomorrow … I’m just saying that out of all the papers where I’ve examined the data, I haven’t found one that is anywhere near significant.
And by God, for all the abuse heaped on me, I would wager that I’ve looked longer and harder at more solar papers than any of the people trying to bite my ankles … where are all of their analyses showing that the papers are right? Where are their quotations of where they claim I went wrong in my studies with their analyses showing why and how I went wrong?
Crickets …
97.3% of their objections boil down to “but I really, really know that you’re wrong, Willis, because I just don’t think you’re right” … sorry, but I follow the science.
w.
I would say that cosmic rays aren’t the control knob, nor is CO2 levels.
The control knob of Earth’s average temperature is ocean surface temperature which is
controlled by the average temperature of volume of the ocean.
We are in ice box climate because we have ocean [in it’s entirety] which is cold – somewhere
around 4 C.
If ocean warmer than say 12 C, we would be approaching an hot house climate- which we have not had for millions of years. What controls average global temperature in terms of years, decades is ocean surface temperature- which have an average temperature of about 17 C, currently. And due to the simple fact that ocean surface covers 70% of planet and total land average temperature is about 10 C, the ocean controls global air temperature..
If we believe that the Oceans are the Earths heat sink ad hold vast quantity of heat and the thermohaline circulation is in the order of 1000 years or so, we may be on a fools errand to try and detect an 11 year signal in a system with this great amount of inertia.
And yet the signal is there everywhere we look. You name the climatic phenomenon. The solar cycle is there, at a high level of statistical significance.
Or, finding the 11yr cycle in the temp record would be like finding 60 Hz in a pot of water heating on an electric stove.
As for Willis’ failure to find a “signature of the ~ 11-year cycles in sunspots,” I do not see this as inconsistent with any modest solar-magnetic driver of climate change. It seems to be well established that the dominant driver of short term fluctuations in global temperature is ocean oscillations, which can move temperature a half a degree in one year while also seeming to be responsible for multi-decadal trends. Without a good explanatory/predictive model for ocean oscillations these larger temperature fluctuations cannot be corrected for, making it pretty much impossible to discern a much smaller solar magnetic signal.
Maybe with enough data, if ocean oscillations maintain a consistent randomness, the larger random fluctuation could be controlled for well enough to reveal a smaller solar effect, but that would seem to require much longer time series than what we have for these variables. So I can’t read much into the failure to find an 11 year solar signal. It could be as regular as clockwork and still be undetectable in the presence of far larger random fluctuations that we are unable to control for.
Willis has not mounted a valid search. He simply ignores the hundreds, if not thousands, of papers finding the solar cycle in climatic phenomena, and raises bogus objections to the few papers he actually has read.
Prime example is his rejection out of hand of the Fortaleza, Brazil rainfall record, and other phenomena published by Dr. Reddy (not the pharmacist). In typical antiscientific fashion, Willis rejected the paper without even reading it, arguing that the record there couldn’t be long enough. When it was pointed lout to the true believer that the record was continuous from 1849, he still refused even to look at Dr. Reddy’s work there or on any other observation of the climate system.
Gabro December 26, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Oh, not true at all. I did indeed look at the Fortaleza record. Here’s my comment from the time.
Since no one enquired further I left it at that. However, now that you bring it up, I’ll do a full CEEMD analysis of it and see what I find.
Stay tuned …
w.
PS—When I investigate a single record, people say stuff like “But there’s 23 new papers which say there is a solar signal.”
When I send an equivalent list of papers which say there is NO solar signal, people say stuff like “I expected to find a single study firmly establishing the case” …
… can’t win for losing on the solar question, I guess. …
Willis,
Your so-called “analysis” wasn’t. Just like all your statistically illiterate garbage.
Real scientists who did real statistical analysis found Reddy’s results repeatable and highly significant.
Your amateur and special pleading effort, not so much.
That is, once you were forced to admit that the record was long enough, which you initially d@nied, without having bothered to read the paper.
OK, Gabro, here’s the analysis that I did at the time. Fortunately I’m a squirrel so I saved it up. When I looked at the records I saw I’d done both a Fourier analysis and a CEEMD analysis of the data. I’ll start with the raw record:
Here’s the periodogram. It does NOT show the 52-year cycle discussed by Reddy.
You can see a cycle at about 13 years, and another at 26 years but nothing at 52 years.
Then I did a CEEMD analysis. Here are the periodograms of the empirical modes:
This shows the same cycles as in the periodogram. Finally, here are the intrinsic modes themselves.
Here, you can see the problem. There is a 70-year mode, but no 52-year mode, and the 70-year mode is both weak and irregular.
Now, your unsourced accusation was that I ignored contrary evidence, viz:
I did no such thing. I said I didn’t think there was a 150-year record. When it was pointed out that the record amazingly exists, I ANALYZED IT. I did all of those graphs shown above at that time. I looked at all of that, went back to the thread in question, and reported my results. I said I found no evidence of a 52-year record, viz:
I even gave a link to the data, the first link to the data in the thread, so wonderful individuals like yourself could do your own analysis. You’re welcome …
Subsequently, nobody asked for my graphs or calculations. I had plenty of other research and issues. And the world moved on to other questions.
AS YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN IF YOU’D BOTHERED TO QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS ON THE SUBJECT, YOU ANONYMOUS HOCKEY PUCK!!!
As I said, I’ve had it with ugly false unsourced and uncited accusations like yours. I’ve done my best to do my work honestly and tell the truth about it, and charming fellows like yourself hide behind an alias to accuse me of things I never did.
Next time do your damn homework before you uncap your electronic poison pen and you won’t look so unutterably foolish when the truth comes out …
w.
Willis,
I’ve repeatedly showed you the infinitely superior analyses of the same data by competent statisticians, which of course you aren’t.
Your false allegations are totally typical of your MO.
Willis,
I don\t know if your low level of statistical education will even permit you to understand all that is wrong with your pathetic, amateurish gibberish, but here is a text which could help further your education. Not that I would expect a puffed up poseur who pompously fancies himself a “polymath” in the absence of any actual academic attainment is support of that baseless assertion to bother with furthering his obviously sorely lacking mathematical education.
https://books.google.cl/books?id=W1wFi9S7m80C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=fortaleza+reddy&source=bl&ots=o0vYdofBeg&sig=XlwweS1kpRTloAQZGDQrgWh9eZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjokP6kmqnYAhWBfZAKHfo7B-EQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=fortaleza%20reddy&f=false
Svensmark said that the full chain of events between GCR and cloud formation is long, with significant elements unknown until recently, so it is not surprising that he has long trail of his own papers on this. So now it necessary to show whether this modulation is significant.
Also, we only have satellite records for the period when solar activity was strong. Now that we are entering a weak period, many theories will either be validated or invalidated.
I am of the opinion the sufficiently long records of climate show multiple periodicties. The effect of any one might get washed out in once cycle if multiple other cycles are in the opposite direction. The counter to this is the one true tree that distinguished prof. Mann found showing otherwise, except when it doesn’t.
So what are the drivers of each periodicity? Place your bets!
Humidity has something to do with clouds….wonder if the humidity decreasing has anything to do with it?
…or just a sign that they’ve screwed with the temp reconstructions too much…and temps a falling along with humidity
Except for UAH satellite and balloon observations, the so-called “surface data sets” are works of anti-science fantasy. Humidity data are less likely to be cooked books.
Then there goes another global warming theory….not only is humidity going down….it’s not even where it’s supposed to be
Humidity just determines the altitude of the clouds. They tend to START forming at the altitude where the humidity gets up to 100% which I guess is the dew point or close enough because the air is seldom clean enough to be free of suitable substrates.
I remember spending a good several hours while fishing in the Sea of Cortez, on the west side of an offshore island (Isla Carmen off Loreto). That part of the Baja peninsula South of Loreto has a range of quite high mountains that make that coast unreachable by road. In any case, any breath of wind, either brings Pacific air over from the west of Cortez air heading to the west, and either one has to make it over those mountains which send the air skywards.
So while we fished the Isla Western shore, I watched the cloudlets form over the peninsular mountains, as if like beads of dew forming on the lawn. Little tiny isolated specks of cloud, all appearing out of nothing at exactly the same altitude (by eyeball) and right over the mountain ridge near the peninsula Eastern shore. The tops of the cloudlets could be used to support a straight edge, demonstrating that the air was fairly static, and of uniform temperature and humidity. From my vantage point, I could see perhaps 40 miles in N-S extent of that line of beads. It was noonish when it started, so lunch took over from fly casting, giving me time to observe.
Once a speck of cloud appeared out of nowhere, it started to grow downwards, a sign that the mid July sun was being partly blocked by that proto-cloud, thus allowing the air on the underside of the cloud to cool a little and immediately start precipitating its own moisture, and growing the cloud even faster. The sunny side of the cloudlet reflected sunlight away (actually scattered) from the cloud allowing the air there to cool so the cloud started spreading out as well.
By 1PM when we headed for the barn; excuse me, I meant the bar, the cloudlets had started merging into a broken 40 + miles of cloud, that terminated on the north end, by absence of the mountains, and vanished to the south from visual blockage by those same mountains, and by that time those specks of cloudlets, had built up into a substantially thick vertical cloud bank, which none-the-less was still localized over those hot Baja desert ridges.
I don’t see why there would be much hesitation in cloud formation at the dew point over a hot dusty desert landscape, where dust devils happen all day to aerate plenty of water droplet substrates.
G
While attempting to find solar correlations on the surface data seem to be a pointless attempt, the upper atmosphere appears to be cooling in step with solar output.
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/global.gif
Correlations of solar activity with surface temperature, rainfall, air pressure, wind, storms, you name it, abound.
As Willis has been repeatedly shown, but continues to ignore the inconvenient truth.
Please show me one.
George,
You’re kidding, right?
There are literally at least hundreds. Here’s a recent one (Dec 2014), on the Indian monsoon. It doesn’t find the cycle in rainfall, however. but many other studies of precipitation do:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001370
Solar cycle effects on Indian summer monsoon dynamics
You could easily find at least dozens, with the least little bit of effort applied to searching.
The fact that the solar cycle shows up in climatic phenomenon is not the least bit controversial. It’s a repeatedly found scientific fact, d@nied only by true believers like Willis.
For dozens more, please search for O.M. Raspopov, et al. For example:
The role of solar forcing upon climate change
https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/6657175/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
But it’s obviously not just Russians.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2.gif
~graph of dr. spencer. detrended data, smoothed three years to cancel out el ninos and la ninas, with early nineties pinatubo cooling removed.
Rob,
For every correlation between solar activity and climate, there are demonstrable causes, as I’ve repeatedly shown.
Besides, please explain why you imagine the correlations to be spurious or coincidental.
Thanks.
Gabro, sorry, I am not kidding. But you are. Your first reference is paywalled. Your second reference has nothing to do with solar cycles. Please show me which of “surface temperature, rainfall, air pressure, wind, storms, you name it” exhibit a 11-year cycle. Just one, not “too many to show”.
Rob,
As noted, I’ve showed it over and over again.
GCR flux is modulated by solar magnetism. The causation is obvious and well supported. Same with UV flux and ozone.
George,
I’m not kidding, but you obviously are just wasting time.
For me the first isn’t paywalled and the second most certainly does refer to solar cycles. I’m guessing that if I post a thousand references, you won’t like any of them. Just like Willis.
But here are some of Dr. Reddy’s findings, a real scientist whom Willis disses and ignores. This is the paper which Willis first dissed, then refused even to read, after his idiotic, lying diss was exposed.
CLIMATIC FLUCTUATIONS AND HOMOGENIZATION OF NORTHEAST BRAZIL USING PRECIPITATION DATA
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1016.9561&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Clearly, your moniker is a misnomer. You in fact aren’t the least bit curious, or you’d already have found hundreds of solar cycle-climate papers.
It’s hardly just Dr. Reddy:
The Indian summer monsoon during peaks in the 11 year sunspot cycle
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051977/abstract
Meehl is even a usual climate consensus suspect.
Rob, what are you suggesting? (that the temperature of the earth affects the solar cycle?)
Rob,
You might be new here, so not exposed to the abundant evidence of effects onsolar magnetism and EM flux on climate.
As for magnetism, I’ve already cited the strength of the solar magnetic field in shielding earth and other planets from GCR flux, with concomitant effect on CCNs. I’ve also mentioned here, without going into the great detail as in other comments, on the effects of UV variation on climate via ozone and seawater penetration. Ozone alone has profound effects not only on solar EM penetration, but upon atmospheric pressure and hence winds.
Lots of studies are available should you wish to educate yourself further on these topics.
Rob,
I’ve already showed that the record high solar activity of recent decades caused global warming since AD 1850 and that record low solar activity caused the depths of the Little Ice Age Cold Period.
Well, Rob, can we deduce anything from correlation? Either the sun is causing temp change, or the earth is causing the solar cycle, or something is causing them both. Any other options here? (spurious, sure, but could an eleven year cycle be coincidental on both the earth and the sun?)
Rob,
The fact that the 11 year cycle shows up in every climatic phenomenon is so trivial that no Nobel could possibly be awarded for it.
No matter how many studies I provide (hundreds already), your and Willis’ religious faith won’t accept them.
For instance, rainfall:
Rainfall, drought and the solar cycle
https://www.nature.com/articles/251594a0
The solar cycle and Indian rainfall
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00867947
Solar cycle effects on Indian summer monsoon dynamics
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001370
Influence of the solar activity on the Indian Monsoon rainfall
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107604000739
As you easily could have found for yourself, had you the least interest in the truth. But facts are anathema to you, Willis, and all other enemies of reality and humanity.
Rob,
Seriously?
Clearly, you’ve never studied climatology. Nothing could be simpler than showing the repeatedly demonstrated connection between the solar cycle and temperature:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
Gabro, you say:
“Nothing could be simpler than showing the repeatedly demonstrated connection between the solar cycle and temperature”
But the link you provide refutes you. Discussing correlation b/w temperature and solar activity, it states:
“when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity”
Perhaps you have a case of only seeing evidence that supports your position?
“AND AS ALWAYS: My polite request, which is that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.”
I prefer to refer to the words that are missing from this commentary, that is, the 2016 results from the CERN CLOUD experiment.
The CERN website reported on November 11. 2016 the discovery “…that aerosol particles can form in the atmosphere purely from organic vapours produced naturally by the biosphere. … By raising the baseline aerosol state, this process significantly reduces the estimated aerosol radiative forcing from anthropogenic activities and, in turn, reduces modelled climate sensitivities…” (CERN Courier, Nov 11, 2016, CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions.)
The CERN 2009 results are mentioned in passing. If the CERN experiments are important to this commentary, why are not the most recent results discussed? Most of the comments above address thinking more than 5 years old.
Dr. Roy Spencer, already in 2010, sliced HadCRUT3 according to the 11-year solar cycle, and after detrending it, calculated the effect of the solar cycle on global surface temperature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/low-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-the-11-year-cycle-in-total-solar-irradiance/
I guess Willis Eschenbach, despite writing dozens of articles on the lack of solar effect on climate, hasn’t read it yet. Too much writing and too little reading never result in good science.
Especially when the little reading is totally ignored.
Willis’ idea of “research” is reading as few as possible of studies on the solar effects on climate, while ignoring all results he doesn’t like.
Javier, Dr Roy also smoothed the data three years to cancel out ENSO. There were two very large el ninos in the temperature series that he used that occured at solar minimums. (’73-’74 & ’97-’98) Had he just taken them out altogether, the temp change would be even higher than .12C…
Also, Willis has read the piece. See solar periodicity in the list of his own posts. (he starts with dr roy and then goes into fourier analysis)…
If the ‘year’ refers to year within the 11-yr cycle with 1 being the beginning of the cycle [at minimum], 4 or 5 being the maximum of the cycle and 11 being the end of the cycle [and the beginning of the next cycle, then the TSI-graph is completely wrong as the maximum in TSI should be at the time of sunspot maximum [at year 4 or 5]. Graphs like this are cause for ‘dismissal out of hand’ and very hurtful for the credibility of anybody who runs with and pushes the Graphs.
Svalgaard, Spencer was constrained by the data in the study that he was critiquing. 1 started with the first year of the data. Regardless of which year numbers are used, they make the same point anyway. (.12C warming from min to max)…
According to Spencer, the data goes from 1959 on, so the year 1 might refer to 1959, 1959+11, and so on. Your “dismissal out of hand” on grounds you haven’t even checked if true is very telling of your bias.
Javier December 26, 2017 at 5:26 pm
Nope, I hadn’t seen it. But I’m happy to take a look at it. However, you attempting to diss me for not having already read every single study ever written?
That’s just ugly. Based on your past posts, I had thought better of you.
Yes, I’ve written up my own studies, and not only have I read stacks of other studies, I’ve invited people to point out the ones they though were good. To my knowledge, this is the first time I’ve heard of it.
So I’ll do what I always do. I’ll take a look at the study and report back on what I find. And in the meantime, piss off with your ugly accusations. I am an honest and honorable man doing my honest and honorable best. You may not be acquainted with my brand of humans. We don’t appreciate ugly untrue attacks by people like you who don’t have the balls to sign your own name to your own words. I don’t mind people using an alias.
I do mind when they hide behind the alias to throw mud and launch vile attacks. As I said, I’d thought better of you in the past, and I might in the future. But that was beneath you.
w.
OK, javier, a quick look at Dr. Roy’s post finds the following.
First, I was shocked that Dr. Roy only used data since 1959 … when both of his datasets go back a hundred and fifty years, that sure seems like cherry picking. He appears to have done it to match the study he was discussing, but that hardly qualifies as a valid reason in general. In particular, that means that there are only 4.5 solar cycles during that time, far too short a number.
Second, I don’t see how Dr. Roy is doing this part:
Since the sunspot cycle is only approximately 11 years long, and historically has ranged from 9 to 15 years, how do you shoehorn that into an 11-year cycle? Not only that but times between sunspot peaks are different from times between troughs. Hang on … OK here are the peak-to-peak times:
11.0, 11.3, 9.9, and 10.8 years
And here are the succeeding trough-to-trough times
11.3, 10.2, 10.2, and 12.4 years
I truly don’t understand how one would make a “composite 11-year cycle in TSI” from cycles whose lengths range from 9.9 to 12.4 years. But since you are recommending the study, I’m sure you can explain how it is done.
And if you can’t explain how it’s done … why on earth would you recommend it?
Next, HadCRUT data. He is using HadCRUT3 data, which is now deprecated in favor of HadCRUT4 data. However, I doubt if that makes much difference. So … is there a regular 11-year cycle in the HadCRUT data?
All I can say is, I can’t find one, even in the cherry-picked region from 1959 to 2004. I took that HadCRUT data and repeated it on an 11-year cycle … the results look nothing like Dr. Roy’s.
Next, he says:
Yep, I did that, although it’s totally against my principles to use smoothed datasets as input to a comparison. Still didn’t get what he shows.
And he says:
This seems totally bogus, as the cooling after 1991 is in no sense remarkable … however, even when I do that I STILL don’t get Dr. Roy’s nice results. But you must know how to Dr. Roy did it, since you say the study is valid.
My main objection, however, is the cherry picking and the crazy analysis, stuffing a variable length cycle into an 11-year straitjacket. Why not just LOOK AT THE CYCLES IN HADCRUT?!? I mean, that’s why we have scatterplots and Fourier and CEEMD analysis … and while we’re at it, let’s not restrict ourselves to 45 years of the record.
A scatterplot of the overlap in the two datasets, which goes from 1850 to mid 2016, shows no relationship between temperature and sunspots. A periodogram shows no peak at 11 years. A CEEMD analysis also shows no peak at 11 years.
Now, I think Dr. Roy’s post was saying “If, as in this study over here, we restrict ourselves to less than a third of the temperature record, we can sorta kinda get a result like theirs”. Not sure how serious he was regarding any generalization of that very limited result.
I say that because when we look at the full temperature record, or even just the record since 1900 when data is likely better, there is no sunspot related cycle. Fourier says none. Scatterplot sunspots vs temperature says none. CEEMD analysis says none.
So now, the ball is back in your court. Perhaps you can explain how Dr. Roy jams a variable-length cycle into a regular 11-year cycle. Perhaps you can do the analysis of the HadCRUT data and get his results. I can do neither … and even if I could, the objections of cherry-picking and smoothing still stand.
I fear it’s not Dr. Roy’s best work, which is generally very good …
w.
Willis Eschenbach: You said, “A scatterplot of the overlap in the two datasets, which goes from 1850 to mid 2016, shows no relationship between temperature and sunspots.” Did you detrend global temperature? Did you try a scatterplot of global temperature vs. sunspot abundance a year earlier? Did you use monthly or annual (or what?) figures in the data? I expect a low correlation due to lots of short term noise when sampling periods are short, and better correlation if sampling periods are at least a year, better still with the 3-year smoothing that Dr. Roy Spencer did at least on global temperature.
Something else: Global temperature (especially according to HadCRUT) has a roughly 65 year cycle. This seems to be from any or any combination of the AMO, ENSO smoothed by a decade or two, the longer period component of PDO, and/or the Gleissberg cycle (which should be checked for influencing Earth’s multidecadal oscillations). (I expect that if solar cycles affect global temperature, longer period ones would have more effect than shorter period ones because the ocean mass above the thermocline takes decades to have its temperature achieve most of its response to a forcing.) A strong ~65 year cycle could cause a scatterplot to show low correlation between global temperature and sunspots, because the ~11-year cycle only affects land and the uppermost ocean and has an appropriate lag of a year or two, and if the Gleissberg cycle affects weather/climate then the lag from it is longer due to a thicker layer of the upper ocean being affected. I suspect global temperature (smoothed by 3 years) might correlate better with the (3-year-smoothed) sunspot count one ~11-year cycle plus one year before, than with the (smoothed) sunspot count one year before.
Another thing I think is worth trying: Smoothing by only one year, but removing from global temperature the part of it that correlates with ENSO 3 months previously (or whatever the lag is).
Donald L. Klipstein December 26, 2017 at 10:06 pm
Yes.
Nope. That’s the slow method. Instead I did a cross-correlation analysis, which shows a maximum correlation of 0.04 with a lag of about 26 months. Not anywhere near significant.
Monthly.
I, on the other hand, side with Matt Briggs on the question of using smoothed data as input to an analysis. In particular, “boxcar” smoothing is horrible as it easily turns peaks into valleys and vice versa.
In addition, the Hurst exponent of smoothed data gets higher and higher. So as you increase correlation with smoothed data, you also increase the p-value of the results … so smoothing actually doesn’t help although it appears to.
See my post on data smoothing and spurious correlation … in addition, google the Slutsky-Yule effect:
In other words, smoothing causes spurious results.
However, hang on … OK, I just did a cross-correlation analysis with the annual data … max correlation is 0.08 with a ridiculous lag of 13 years. Not significant.
Sorry, amigo, still no correlation at any lag with either monthly or annual data.
w.
I don’t understand what mud and vile attacks you refer to. Perhaps you can quote my exact words where I do that. You have yourself manifested multiple times that you don’t want to read the articles where the evidence is discussed, but you just want to do your own statistical analysis of the data discussed. Your lack of interest on previous published research is well known and contrary to well established scientific principles.
I don’t see how you can feel insulted by my pointing out of what you yourself manifest. Perhaps by adding my opinion that lack of reading is a poor scientific practice.
I had said to Javier:
I then went on to point out the flaws in the science of the post that you cited. Rather than reply to my scientific objections, you now continue focusing on the trivial;
I already quoted your exact words when I made the statement, Javier, but I’m glad to do it twice, as this is important.
Now, that is a personal attack that has NOTHING to do with my science. It is a claim that because I hadn’t read a random blog post, not even a random study in a scientific journal but a random blog post, that my work could “never result in good science”.
That’s not objecting to my scientific claims about the sunspot cycle. Instead, it is an ugly ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the quality of my or anyone’s science. I call that kind of an attack “throwing mud”, because you are attempting to smear my name rather than attack my scientific claims.
And while that is bad enough, what makes it vile is that you don’t even have the balls to sign your own name to your attack. That’s dirty and underhanded. I don’t mind people posting scientific claims or objections under an alias. I do object to people using an alias to hide behind while launching personal attacks, as you did.
Gabro, of course, followed your lead and jumped right in on your unpleasant and unscientific bandwagon in the first comment on your ad hominem claim;
Gabro December 26, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Note that now we have another person without the courage to sign his own words who is attacking me instead of disputing my science. That’s what you are encouraging, Javier, personal attacks by cowards who won’t sign their own words instead of scientifically based attacks on my sunspot claims, and that’s why such an attack is vile.
Finally, in response to your comment I did a quick analysis of the scientific faults in Dr. Roy’s blog post, the main one being that it doesn’t have enough information to replicate his results. I commented that no doubt, since you saw his blog post as being so critical to understanding the field, that you could explain to us all how to duplicate Dr. Roy’s results.
Perhaps your reply to my scientific objections to his blog post got lost in the mail …
Hope this helps,
w.
It is your own recognition that you don’t read the existing bibliography on what you write, and it has to do EVERYTHING with your amateurish takes on science. If you take it as a personal attack that’s up to you, but it is a fact.
Before writing left and right that the 11-year solar cycle has no effect on climate you should read what others have done about it. As you don’t do that your contributions are both wrong and irrelevant. You think you are doing science. You are not.
Roy Spencer is not the first or the only one to claim (and show) that the 11-year cycle has an effect on tropospheric temperatures. This is so known and accepted that it is non controversial and it is also shown by climate models. Ask your friend Leif, he knows. But of course you don’t know that because you don’t run searches about what you write and don’t read scientific articles about what you write. Worse to you.
Camp, C. D., & Tung, K. K. (2007). Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(14).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030207/full
By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.
Zhou, J., & Tung, K. K. (2013). Observed tropospheric temperature response to 11-yr solar cycle and what it reveals about mechanisms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 70(1), 9-14.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0214.1
Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere.
Oh boomer. You are wrong. Once more.
Your Tung paper claims of their tiny effect:
The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time
This flies in the phase of your claim that there are hundreds of papers that have already shown such a connection…
Uhh, what are we talking about? Climate or surface temperatures? Cause I don’t remember saying that hundreds of papers have shown a connection between the solar cycle and surface temperatures. Perhaps you can refresh my memory when did I say that.
Climate or surface temperatures?
Climate as measured by surface temperatures. Perhaps you now claim that climate and surface temperatures have nothing to do with each other?
Well, they ain’t the same. Places with similar average temperatures can have very different climate. And I have never said that there are hundreds of articles on the effect of the solar cycle on surface temperatures. I think you are misquoting not only what was said, but also who said it, and you are referring to something Gabro said above.
Places with similar average temperatures can have very different climate.
That is why we compute global temperature anomalies. But, OK, so now you claim that there is no correlation between said anomalies and the climate defined by them. And therefore, no correlation between solar activity [as Tung et al. found] and climate defined by the global temperature anomalies. Fair enough, people claim so many things.
The claims are in the articles, Leif. I just agree with some and disagree with others. I disagree with Svensmark and I agree with Tung. That the solar cycle affects the global average temperature by 0.1-0.2°K is well known and non-controversial. Willis is obviously wrong on that.
I just agree with some and disagree with others.
Called cherry-picking…
That the solar cycle affects the global average temperature by 0.1-0.2°K is well known and non-controversial.
Buit, as you also claimed, global temperatures are not indicators of global climate. this seems at variance with the commonly accepted wisdom.
Willis is obviously wrong on that.
The Tung claim is vague [less than 0.2 C] and is controversial as the statistics is poor [high auto-correlation] and is anyway at the noise level and is not much different from the expected TSI-effect [0.1 C], so can hardly be taken as showing that solar activity is a dominant player in climate variation over the period Tung et al. investigated.
Willis is quite right that it is very difficult to dig a strong [or even just convincing] solar effect out of the noise.
Nope. Scientific articles often disagree with each other. It is called having an opinion.
Temperature is just one variable. Precipitation, humidity, wind strength and direction, cloud cover, pressure, temperature gradient, albedo. Climate is composed of many variables. Perhaps that commonly accepted wisdom is not so wise.
The question was if the solar cycle effect on climate is discernible, not if it is dominant. Do not raise strawman arguments. It is discernible if you know where to look and how to look.
No he is not. You just have to know where to look.
30 mbar temperature over the North Pole segregated by QBO phase.
Nope. Scientific articles often disagree with each other. It is called having an opinion
Opinions are not science. It is more correctly called confirmation bias.
Temperature is just one variable. Precipitation, humidity, wind strength and direction, cloud cover, pressure, temperature gradient, albedo. Climate is composed of many variables.
Global climate is usually described by global temperature determined by incoming solar radiation [TSI] averaged over the globe. All the other things derive from that. And with so many things to pick from you can always find some spurious correlations somewhere.
The question was if the solar cycle effect on climate is discernible, not if it is dominant
The great climate debate is whether it is dominant. If not, it is not of interest.
You just have to know where to look. 30 mbar temperature over the North Pole segregated by QBO phase
More cherry-picking. Looking for what you want to find and you will find it somewhere.
There are many papers that show that the QBO is not of solar origin.
Javier said:
Javier, thanks for the graphs of the 30 mbar temperatures above the North Pole. I can’t think of a part of the atmosphere that we know less about but what the heck. You do realize that what they are looking at is an altitude of about 22,000 meters, right?
In addition, your graph shows the authors selected two out of the possible twelve months of those rarely measured temperatures at the 30 mbar level.
And when I look at the original document I find no mention of any Bonferroni correction or correction for autocorrelation in their assessment of statistical significance.
In any case, you seem to have misunderstood my request. I’m a licensed ham radio operator, so of course I know about the sunspot cycle’s influence on the outermost layers of the atmosphere.
What I have NOT been able to find evidence of is an equivalent influence on any surface datasets. And that is what I’ve requested … so I fear your discussion of what happens 22 kilometers above the North Pole is not responsive to my request.
Still waiting,
w.
PS—Next time cite the provenance of your graph. I had to find it on the web. Wasted time. Next time I won’t even bother, I’ll just ignore whatever it is.
Javier
3 hours ago
From the Tung paper …
You claim that the effect is “well known and non-controversial” … the Tung paper you cite says it’s brand new, never seen before, this is the first time it’s been shown to be significant …
More to the point, the Tung paper says:
You appear to have not noticed that they are NOT comparing sunspots with observations made here in reality.
Instead, they are comparing them to the output of a computer climate model which is supposed to emulate reality. You know, the kind of model where when they don’t have temperatures, they make up temperatures.
Now, these climate models are known to have a host of problems. I’m sure you’ve seen their poor showing over the last couple of decades. You likely don’t trust their output … well, except when it agrees with your theories. Then, I guess, computer models are just fine …
There is a worse problem, however. These models have been shown have outputs that are just scaled, lagged linear transforms of their inputs. So whatever you put in as input will be reflected in the output. Note that this is NOT true in the real world. The interactions of the actual Earth systems of land, ocean, atmosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere are far too dissipative, things simply get lost in the overwhelming noise of reality.
And since in your whiz-bang computer model the inputs necessarily appear in the outputs, and they use solar variations as inputs, if you are surprised to find traces of the solar inputs in the outputs, it either means you’re not a computer programmer or you haven’t thought this all the way through …
And as a result, finding such traces of solar inputs in the entrails of a computer climate model’s output is as meaningless as finding them in the entrails of a chicken …
w.
You guys aren’t playing by the rules. You have to include direct quotes before you can call it crap.
The direct quote is everything Willis driveled.
Appreciate your input, Gabro. I am probably like most who accept that GCR’s can increase cloud condensating nuclei but am skeptical of their influence, as it may be in the same league as CO2’s effect on atmospheric water vapor, which appears to me to be inconsequential.
Chad,
Except that big climate swings are correlated with solar minima and maxima, and well supported mechanisms explain them.
Unlike CO2.
You really need to tone it down Gabro.
Gabro December 26, 2017 at 5:12 pm
Gabro, you really should actually read the study you are recommending. In this case, it’s not a study of Indian monsoon data. Instead, it is a study of the output of a climate model set up to emulate the Indian monsoon. Do you believe in the mysterious power of climate models? Because I assure you, I don’t …
Among other inputs to that climate model are solar variations. And since (unlike natural systems) the climate model is linear, we are almost guaranteed to see solar in the output. So frickin’ what?
If you believe that studying a climate model’s output is a good way of establishing a solar signal, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that’s up for sale …
w.
PS—Yes, there are lots of studies like this one that claim to show the solar signal in some surface dataset … and I haven’t found one yet that holds water. I’ve made this offer before, I’ll make it again. Give me two links, one to what you think is the best study showing sunspot-related effects on any surface dataset, and the other to the data used in the analysis, and I’ll take a look at it.
I’ve already taken a look at your best shot, Gabro, and it doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Studying the output of a climate model is one step away from studying chicken entrails, and I’m not sure whether it is a step up or a step down.
Willis,
It’s pointless to provide you more studies, because your pathetically amateur statistical “analyses” always find them wanting. But real scientists have repeatedly found in hundreds of studies what you claim never to have found in looking at a few.
You’re a sad joke. A careerless poseur desperately trying at the end of your pointless, miserable existence to grasp meaningfulness. And failing.
[???? .mod]
Gabro:
And your opinion about Willis’ methods and writings matters because of ?
Gabro December 26, 2017 at 7:11 pm
As I said, you cannot refute someone without quoting them. If you don’t quote them, you’re just offering an unsubstantiated and in your case nasty piece of your mind rather than any valid scientific objection.
Thanks, I’ll pass … not interested in any part of your cranial contents, they’re far too unpleasant. If you have a valid scientific objection to my statements, I’m happy to listen.
But you spitting and fuming like a frustrated six-year-old?
Sorry, but that’s not worth the electrons you used to write it …
w.
Gabro, you are becoming belligerent and insulting, I’m putting you on moderation until you cool down and learn to behave in a courteous manner.
Willis, I suggest you read the book, The Chilling Stars, by Svensmark and Calder, if you have not read it yet. It discusses their theory and answers the issues raised by critics.
Most, if not all of the papers, on cosmic ray theory analyze empirical data and invent theories to explain the data. My approach is mathematical. I start with fundamental equations of chemistry, particle physics and kinetic molecular theory, and rule out those claims and theories that violate basic principles such as the conservation of kinetic energy and momentum. It is a sort of mathematical proof (or disproof) of theories.
I recently wrote a letter to Svensmark and will be writing soon part two of the letter. I will send Anthony copy of the letters. It’s too long to post here in comment section.
I look forward to that, Doc. I say that in part because it’s not clear to me that anything that Svensmark says contravenes any known physics … he just hasn’t shown that it makes a measurable difference in the real world.
w.
Willis makes a strong argument against correlation of cosmic ray incidence and global cloud cover during recent times and argues that the Swensmark hypothesis isn’t valid. His analysis of data and data in references he discusses seem quite convincing. I have no argument with his conclusions about recent data.
However, I wonder if the same can be said about long-term data. I’ve spent a lot of time looking into the relationship of global temperature, sunspots, solar irradiance, cosmic rays, radiocarbon and berylium production rates, and cloud cover over periods of hundreds to thousands of years. What I found was an astonishing, excellent correlation between these factors, well beyond any possibility of random coincidence. Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but the exceptional correlation of these factors demands rational explanation. Some of these data have been published in “Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays, and Radiocarbon and Berylium Production Rates, 2016, Evidence-based climate science, Elsevier, p. 249-266.
Global temperature changes show excellent correlations with sunspots, total solar irradiance, 14C and 10Be production in the upper atmosphere, and cosmic ray incidence. Periods of global cooling coincided with these changes during the Oort, Wolf, Maunder, Dalton, 1880–1915, and 1945–1977 Solar Minimums. Increased 14C and 10Be production during times of increased cosmic radiation serves as a proxy for solar activity. Global cooling coincided with changes in sunspot activity, TSI, solar flux, cosmic ray incidence, and rates of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere during the Oort, Wolf, Maunder, Dalton, 1880–1915, and 1945–1977 Solar Minimums. Increased 14C and 10Be production during times of increased cosmic radiation serve as a proxy for solar activity.
So the question is, what is the cause of these remarkable correlations? The Svensmark hypothesis offers one explanation, but are there other possibilities? Why is there disagreement between the geologic record and Willis’s objections? Both seem to be reasonable. If weakening of the sun’s magnetic field allows greater incidence of cosmic radiation and increased cloudiness over hundreds to thousands of years, why does it not show up in recent data? Do we have enough recent global cloud data to work with? Lots to think about!
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. So I foolishly weigh in after a delightful seafood dinner at Shooters on the intercoastal in Fort Lauderdale with Charles the Moderater. An inspiration.
I have looked at all the papers and all the blog arguments here and elsewhere on this topic over the past 6 years. When I say, all, I mean a good faith best efforts attempt, probably not literally all. I reach three conclusions after 6 years of part time study.
First, the definition of the Maunder Minimum related to the LIA onset is at best sketchy. Lots of time slippage. Limited patchy records from long ago at the very beginning of teleoscopy? Error bars enormous if such can even be ascribed at all. So faith in this is mostly just that, faith—not reliable replicable science.
Second, Svensmark has adequately demonstrated an experimental and theoretical relatiinship between cosmic rays and cloud condensate nucleators. No doubt anout that IMO.
Third, what Svensmark has emphatically not done is show that his cosmic ray CCN effect is a major contributor to climate as he claims. As posted previously, there are massive other natural (biological) CCNs such as turpenes, isoprenes, dimethylsulfides,…and he has not parsed his GCR contribution from the rest. To support his claims, that is his missing to do.
As said on previous threads, Svalgard and Eschenbach have the better of this debate by far, so far.
On first point, evolution is also not replicable science. Is it a matter of faith?
On third point, I will show in my part two letter to Svensmark that the theory of biological CCNs violates basic physical principles. The theory must be modified to make sense. Cosmic rays play a crucial role even in formation of biological CCNs
Your first point is false because it misdefines replicability. Evolution is not a matter of faith, unlike intelligent design. See the discussion of the evolution of the eye (three separate ways, an example of convergent evolution) in ebook The Arts of Truth. Paleontology has innumerable examples from the fossil past, trilobites being one notable example of speciation over hundreds of millions of years. For some groupings of current or recently extinct species, we also have DNA evidence, especially mitichondrial dna. Neaderthals, Denisovians, and homo floriensis are examples.
Replicability – under the same operating conditions you get the same results. Unfortunately you cannot replicate the evolution of life on Earth. Philosophers of science will argue evolution is not falsifiable. But as Richard Feynman said, the philosophy of science is important to scientists as ornithology is important to birds.
Willis-san:
I always find your work interesting, informative and compelling, however, I simply have to disagree with your opinion on the efficacy of the Svensmark Effect.
There is a strong multi-century correlation between the Little Ice Age (LIA) and four GSM events: Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton (1280~1820).
I also find it compelling that the strongest 63-year string of solar cycle (1933~1996) in 11,400 years corresponds nicely with the 20th Century warming, and when these strong solar cycles ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend (excluding the 2015/16 Super El Nino spike), despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just these 19 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/plot/uah6/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/normalise
When these GSMs started, so did the LIA and when they ended, so did the LIA.
Granted, the Svensmark Effect is just one climatic phenomenon out of literally hundreds, and other climatic phenomena (Especially ENSO and PDO/AMO 30-year warm/cool cycles) may obscure the Svensmark Effect, but over decadal time scales, the Svensmark Effect does seem to play a significant role on Earth’s climate.
We’ll soon be able to observe the climatic impact of the Svensmark Effect from 2021, when the weakest solar since the Dalton GSM begins, and even more so from 2032 when the weakest solar cycle since the Maunder GSM starts.
We’ll see soon enough.
Cheers, Willis! I wish you all the best in the New Year!
SAMURAI December 26, 2017 at 8:32 pm
Sensei, first, thanks for your kind words, and best of the Holidays to you too.
However, I don’t understand your claim about the sunspots. Annual maximum sunspot numbers peaked in 1959 and have been decreasing ever since … so why has the temperature not followed the decrease in sunspots?
w.
Willis-san:
The average Smoothed Sunspot Number (SSN) for the 6 solar cycles between 1933~1996 is 151, which is more than twice the 12,000-year SSN average of 72.
It’s interesting to note that during this 20th century Grand Solar Maximum event (1933~1996) the strongest solar cycle (SC19: May 1959~March 1964/SSN=201.3) had a warming trend of 0.25C/decade (the highest warming trend of any 20th century solar cycle, and occurred during a 30-year PDO cool cycle), and during the 2nd and 3rd back-to-back strongest solar cycles (SC21 & SC22: May 1996~June 1996: SSN=164.5,158.5 respectively) the trend was 0.14C/decade (HADCRUT4 data).
When these strong solar cycles ended in June 1996, the global warming trend fell to 0.008C/decade (June 1996~June 2015, excluding the 2015/16 Super El Nino spike).
You’re correct that during the Modern Grand Solar Maximum, SSNs peaked during SC19 at 201.3, but overall, SSNs were still over twice the 12,000-year average SSN of 72.
Solar cycles have been collapsing since June 1996, however, the SSN for the current SC24 is 82, which is still above the 12,000-year average SSN of 72.
I think there is compelling evidence for the Svensmark Effect, and anticipate a global cooling trend to develop once a Grand Solar Minimum starts from SC25 in 2021, and expect a very significant cooling trend to develop from 2032 when SC26’s SSN approaches zero (as during the Maunder GSM).
We’ll see soon enough, my friend.
Cheers, mate!
SAMURAI December 26, 2017 at 10:59 pm Edit
Thanks, Sensei, but the 12,000-year sunspot number average? Say what? I got no further than that. My rule is, if modern data doesn’t support your theory, heading to deep time is just desperation. I’m sorry, and I’m happy to be shown wrong, but claiming that we know the sunspot average 11,000 years ago doesn’t pass the laugh test with me.
Onwards …
w.
The hypothesis is supported both by modern and ancient data. The hypothesis is very simple:
Multidecadal periods of below average solar activity manifest in global cooling. Multidecadal periods of above average solar activity manifest in global warming. The intensity of the solar caused global warming or cooling is proportional to the multidecadal deviation in solar activity from its long term average. Other factors also affect global temperatures and might affect the final result, including intense volcanic activity and changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Solar activity went below average in 2006. The reduction in warming rate that took place from 2003 is due to the 60-year oceanic cycle being synchronized to the centennial solar cycle. Below average solar activity has become multidecadal starting in 2016. The reduction in multidecadal solar activity is not very high. Activity is higher than during the Gleissberg minimum of 1900’s. Solar hypothesis predicts a slight cooling until at least 2035 when solar activity is predicted to become above average again.
The solar hypothesis does not depend on GCR having an effect on climate. Svensmark being wrong doesn’t detract from the solar hypothesis. Personally I don’t think the evidence is on the side of Svensmark, as I have said several times. The main factor in determining the arrival of GCR to the Earth is not the Sun, but the Geomagnetic field.
Solar hypothesis prediction of slight cooling until 2035 is in stark contrast to CO₂ hypothesis that predicts increasing warming for as long as atmospheric CO₂ does not decrease. Solar hypothesis is not derived from theory or our imperfect knowledge of climate, but from 11,700 years of data. Over almost 12,000 years the coincidence of long periods of very low average solar activity, known as Solar Grand Minima, and periods of climate worsening is a smoking gun.
Javier, in response to your claim that grand solar minima lead to temperature minima, let me point you to one of my posts cited up above, one that you clearly didn’t read.
It addresses this exact claim, that times of low solar equal times of cold climates, and it finds that claim hard aground on an ugly reef of data.
It’s called “Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima” although it covers more minima than that.
If you can find something wrong with my analysis, kindly quote the exact words where you think I go off the rails, and tell us what I’m doing wrong.
And if you (or anyone else) can’t find something wrong with that analysis, can we let go of the idea that “grand solar minima” have some kind of strong effect on climate?
w.
Willis,
I haven’t read all your articles, and of those I read I have mostly forgotten, even if I participated in the comments. Upon reading this one I find it superficial and misguided, but this is a general critique, so no exact quote can be provided.
The use of England winter severity index either by Eddy or you is clearly inappropriate. Local and regional climate is far more variable than hemispheric or global climate. The same applies to CET.
The use of thermometric data (BEST in this case) is even worse, as so ancient data is simply unsuited for the task and can’t be trusted.
Simply you cannot conclude either way from that kind of data.
To reconstruct past climate the best approach is a properly done multi-proxy reconstruction when available. When not available your best bet is through a few carefully chosen proxies, as representative as possible. It is not unusual for proxies to disagree as they represent local conditions and are affected by other factors not always properly accounted for, like a variable sedimentation rate for example. Ideally proxies should cover completely independent variables that respond to climate, like marine isotopic segregation, glacier extension, tree-rings, speleothems, ice cores, and so on.
When you do that this is what you get:
For the Little Ice Age (Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, Dalton minima):
The last panel shows why Spörer didn’t show Alpine glacier advance. It was a very dry period in Central Europe.
For the Homer minimum of 2800 BP:
For the Summerian SGM cluster of 5200 BP:
For the Boreal/Atlantic transition (Jericho SGM cluster):
For the Boreal Oscillation 10,300 BP:
Prolonged low solar activity is consistently associated with periods of climate worsening. The scientific literature is very clear on this, but of course you don’t know/don’t care what the scientific literature says. Playing with some data may satisfy you, but it won’t advance our knowledge.
That is impressive! The three coldest periods in Central England were each during a solar minimum, Maunder, Dalton, and one Willis calls the ‘Ulric’ minimum in the late 1800’s.
How about we consider the number of volcanic stratospheric aerosol events through the period of the LIA especially after the great Samalas one of 1257. And possible ice/albedo feedback on the climate…..
http://www.historicalclimatology.com/uploads/4/5/1/4/4514421/screen-shot-2017-11-30-at-7-51-24-am_orig.png
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
” Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that
explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feed-backs long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our
results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feed-backs during a hemispheric summer
insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.”
Except that everything we have measured from volcanic eruptions is short term. 2-3 years at most.
The drop in temperature following large volcanic eruptions has been identified as an important component of natural climate variability. However, due to the limited number of large eruptions that occurred during the period of instrumental observations, the precise amplitude of post-volcanic cooling is not well constrained. Here we present new evidence on summer temperature cooling over Europe in years following volcanic eruptions. We compile and analyze an updated network of tree-ring maximum latewood density chronologies, spanning the past nine centuries, and compare cooling signatures in this network with exceptionally long instrumental station records and state-of-the-art general circulation models. Results indicate post-volcanic June–August cooling is strongest in Northern Europe 2 years after an eruption (−0.52 ± 0.05 °C), whereas in Central Europe the temperature response is smaller and occurs 1 year after an eruption (−0.18 ± 0.07 °C). We validate these estimates by comparison with the shorter instrumental network and evaluate the statistical significance of post-volcanic summer temperature cooling in the context of natural climate variability over the past nine centuries. Finding no significant post-volcanic temperature cooling lasting longer than 2 years, our results question the ability of large eruptions to initiate long-term temperature changes through feedback mechanisms in the climate system.
Esper, Jan, et al. “European summer temperature response to annually dated volcanic eruptions over the past nine centuries.” Bulletin of volcanology 75.7 (2013): 736.
Another case of models against evidence. What will it be?
“Finding no significant post-volcanic temperature cooling lasting longer than 2 years, our results question the ability of large eruptions to initiate long-term temperature changes through feedback mechanisms in the climate system.”
Javier:
At least some parts of Earth were cooler during the LIA (BTW not an Ice Age in England anyway else the coldest DJF on record in the CET- 1683/4 would not have been followed 2 yeas later by the 8th warmest – 1685/6).
Seems to me that te 1257 eruption ceratiainly did not help, eh?
Also when are you going to accept that stratospheric PV disruption due to solar influence only moves the troposphere around, and is therefor a stirring of heat within it (NH only). That Europe and N America are prone to such cold plunges is a function of topological driving of the PJS.
No W/m^2 of any consequence are removed … as Leif says.
There is a huge assumption in your reasoning. As Scotese has shown, the climate of the Earth depends critically on the latitudinal temperature gradient. Not only the tropical input in W/m² is important, but also the polar output is determinant. The solar induced stratospheric and tropospheric changes alter the amount of energy that gets out of the planet.
A perfect example is this winter, during solar minimum conditions and eastward QBO at 30 hPa. A disorganized polar vortex allows masses of cold air to invade Eurasia and North America. This cold polar air is substituted by warmer air over the pole. This warmer air produces increased snow over Greenland and radiates more IR to space. As a consequence more heat is lost to space and the balance of energy is displaced. Only a little this year. But add year after year and you have a colder hemisphere and a colder world.
A simple accounting of TSI will not give you the answer.
Regarding this about the Gleissberg cycle: “However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.”: I think this cycle has a period that is not constant.
Thanks, Donald. If the so-called “Gleissberg cycle” wandered above and below some average value, that might make sense … but there’s no common average length like that around the 80-year length claimed for the Gleissberg cycle. Here is the periodogram of the CEEMD analysis
There is a broad weak peak at around 90 years. However, when we look at the actual sizes of these cycles, we find this:
Note that the 90-year cycle, which is shown in empirical mode C6 in both graphs, only has two distinct peaks and one distinct trough … which is why it is so weak and so broad.
So I fear that the sunspot record doesn’t show much power at any frequency near the 80 years generally claimed for the “Gleissberg cycle” … there’s a very weak peak at 90 years, but a look at the actual cycle in C6 shows that there is only the barest trace of a cycle.
Best regards, thanks for the quotation and your comments on said quotation, much appreciated.
w.
Willis, I usually find your posts informative ( and entertaining if they are on general subjects), but you disappoint me in this rather negative approach. It is on par with “97% of scientists agree on global warming” (or whatever the number was). This is statistics of references and papers to refute a new paper..
This is not the way science advances. 99.99 of publications at the time believed the luminiferous aether was a reality. The Michelson Morley experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment ) destroyed the statistical significance.. Data trumps models.
The Svensmark paper is based on a new experiment that shows a connection in the laboratory of ions and aerosols in generating nuclei for condensation. I pointed out the argument of Leif in the original post here:,
” Think about this:
TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.”
at the blog of Lubos Motl ( https://motls.blogspot.gr/2017/12/svensmarks-enghoff-shaviv-publish.html) on the same subject , and one of the author’s replied that TSI measured using the oceans as calorimeters does show an increase :
“hsv anna v • 3 days ago
The first sentence in the above is not correct. TSI changes over a solar cycle (~11 year), which enters the oceans is of the order 0.1 W/m2 (amplitude). This gives an expected temperature response of the order 0.01 deg. However the observed response in the oceans is of the order 0.05-0.10 deg., i.e. in agreement with an amplification of 5-7 times. For a full explanation see, Shaviv, N. J. “Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.) 113, 11101 (2008).”
Climate is much more complex and chaotic than electromagnetism and the luminipherous aether, but it is not with statistics that one refutes a new scientific proposal, but arguing point by point in the data and the models.
The first sentence in the above is not correct. TSI changes over a solar cycle (~11 year), which enters the oceans is of the order 0.1 W/m2 (amplitude). This gives an expected temperature response of the order 0.01 deg
No, TSI changes by 0.1% which gives a temperature change of order 0.1 K.
Hi, Leif. You also mean in the ocean, yes? so he is quoting a conflicting measurement in the ocean’s response?
I mean that the change in TSI is 0.1%. SB-Law says that dTSI/TSI = 4 dT/T, so that dTSI of 0.1% means a dT of 0.025% [of 288 K = 0.07 K]. The effect of albedo and GHG are already in the 288 K temperature.
So clouds are constant. Got it.
DR December 27, 2017 at 12:30 pm
So clouds are constant. Got it.
Frankly, my dear, I don’t think you did. Your attempt of stupidity was a success, though.
lsvalgaard December 27, 2017 at 9:45 am
Thanks.for the clarification.. Seems to me a terminology misuse on their part , but I would have to read their paper to get at the bottom of it, and I have stopped getting too much into the subject the past years. I find the questions and answers site for general physics at physics.stackexchange more satisfying 🙂
Thanks Willis. This is one I have to read so my readers don’t have to. I’m not going to share with them. Inappropriate nastiness and arrogance is not well received. Keep your tough skin. Welcome back, by the way, and have another good year.
The coldest winters in the UK are clustered around solar minimums so I think this could be accurate.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-could-face-mini-ice-age-by-2030/ar-BBHolru?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=wispr
The most fascinating thing about this debate to me, is that Svensmark is making pretty much the same argument for cosmic rays as the IPCC is making for CO2. I have to admire Willis on this, because he is consistent in looking at both theories, for evidence that they may have some skill, and honestly reporting that he can find none.
When the CO2 supporters attack Svensmark, they are attacking basically that same argument that they use for their own position: “It must be true, because we have a known mechanism, and we can’t explain it any other way!” Of course, both sides ignore the fact that their known mechanism doesn’t explain the observations either. outside of very small time periods where the curves briefly fit. Both Svensmark and the IPCC are ignoring the majority of the data that does not support their idea, at least not as a significant or dominant driver.
Here is how I see the arguments:
IPCC: We are the rightful rulers because we wear beautiful red robes!
Svensmark: I am the rightful ruler because I wear beautiful red robes!
IPCC: Svensmark is an idiot because he thinks wearing red robes makes one a ruler, but here are all the reasons why that is clearly not true, and, as the rightful rulers for wearing red robes, we are infallible!
Willis: (scratching head) Um…neither of you are wearing anything!
“When the CO2 supporters attack Svensmark, they are attacking basically that same argument that they use for their own position: “It must be true, because we have a known mechanism, and we can’t explain it any other way!”
It’s not “attacking”.
It’s pointing out that we have not found “his” effect in the real world.
Whereas we know CO2 warms atmospheres.
Sorry, it just does.
Sky-dragon slayers not-with-standing.
We have the known mechanism and the correlation.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
Also CO2 warming is not cyclic.
Any solar based influence is.
I am not denying that CO2 has an impact. I am not denying that cosmic rays have an impact, perhaps in a more subtle, long term way. I am simply pointing out that neither explains the climate change that has been observed; not by themselves or in any significant way.
Global warming has been happening (this time) for 200 years. CO2 has been significantly increasing for about 75 years. And there has been cooling or no warming for more than half of those 75 years. Over millennial time scales and longer, any correlation with CO2 and temperature is insignificant, and indicates that temperature was driving the CO2 concentration during the periodic glaciations, not the other way around.
There is a lot more happening that we don’t understand. There are definitely solar cycles, but that does not mean that everything the sun does is cyclical. Nor does it mean that we are aware of all of the solar cycles that exist; not by a long shot. There are ocean cycles that are not understood or even identified. The same is probably true for atmospheric cycles and processes, especially around clouds. The evidence indicates that we have very little understanding of climate change, but it does clearly show that CO2 and cosmic rays are not primary, or even significant drivers of what we are observing. There is clearly much more that we do not know.
“It’s pointing out that we have not found “his” effect in the real world.”
Isn’t that precisely what CAGW skeptics have been doing for the last 30 years with CO2, and isn’t that exactly what crisis supporters have been ignoring, sometimes with threats and personnel vindictiveness, for the last 30 years? Both Svensmark and the IPCC have apparently conflated the power of their pet process without sufficient evidence. I just find it amusing when climate crisis supporters are so quick to point out the flaws of Svensmark, when their own argument has the same, clairing flaws.
This tendency in humans has been around for a long time! “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3
In case anyone hasn’t read the paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
“Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei”
“In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally.”
Is this, the main part of the paper, to be dismissed out of hand? Is the effect real or not? in the lab? in nature? Note: This is only about aerosols, not climate.
Everyone seems to have skipped ahead to the Climate Science part, which does talk about the “coulds” and “mights”…
“The possible relevance of the presented theory in Earth’s atmosphere will now be discussed.”
“Forbush decreases […] can be used to test the link between cosmic ray ionization and clouds.”
“It is conjectured that this mechanism could be the explanation for the observed correlations between past climate variations and cosmic rays, modulated by either solar activity13,14,15,16,17 or supernova activity in the solar neighborhood on very long time scales18,19,20. “
Climate is complex. Any one thing trying to change it is probably countered by many other things trying to keep it stable. This effect may or may not be real. This effect may or may not affect the climate. Two different things.
Just saying. I will try to keep out of the crossfire.
The strongest ionization as a result of the GCR takes place in the ozone zone above a height of 10 km.
he NAIRAS model predicts atmospheric radiation exposure from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP) events. GCR particles are propagated from local interstellar space to Earth using an extension of the Badhwar and O’Neill model, where the solar modulation has been parameterized using high-latitude real-time neutron monitor measurements at Oulu, Thule, Lomnicky, and Moscow. During radiation storms, the SEP spectrum is derived using ion flux measurements taken from the NOAA/GOES and NASA/ACE satellites. The cosmic ray particles – GCR and SEP – are transported through the magnetosphere using the CISM-Dartmouth particle trajectory geomagnetic cutoff rigidity code, driven by real-time solar wind parameters and interplanetary magnetic field data measured by the NASA/ACE satellite. Cosmic ray transport through the neutral atmosphere is based on analytical solutions of coupled Boltzmann transport equations obtained from NASA Langley Research Center’s HZETRN transport code. Global distributions of atmospheric density are derived from the NCEP Global Forecasting System (GFS) meteorological data.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
The forming Aurora
This picture shows the flowing of particles into and out of the auroral zone, as Field-Aligned currents (FAC’s) take at short-cut through the atmosphere.
Some of the particles entering the auroral zone will collide with particles from the atmosphere and create the aurora. After the collision, these particles leave the magnetosphere and become part of the atmosphere.
The impacts of these particles can have a significant effect on the atmosphere as a whole, causing it to wobble for hours.
The Effect of Aurora on the Atmosphere
This figure shows the effect of the aurora on the atmosphere. When FAC’s enter the atmosphere and create the aurora, they heat the atmosphere suddenly and abruptly. This creates an impulse which travels throughout the atmosphere and reverberates for a long time, as shown here.
Thus, the creation of the aurora helps to transfer energy from the solar wind, through the magnetosphere, to the atmosphere.
The energy of the solar wind that hits the magnetosphere [and thus is the maximum amount that can possibly be transferred to the atmosphere is a 1/10,000 of the energy of the sunlight that hits the atmosphere. Of that tiny amount only about 1% [that is about one millionth of the sunlight] actually goes into auroral and ionospheric effects, so there is not much to get from the solar wind. Totally negligible.
Sorry.
https://www.windows2universe.org/glossary/aurora_atm_impulse.html
Aurora has a very important feature – in winter it operates within the polar vortex.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Supersonic_plasma_jets_discovered
The waves that appear in the mesosphere and the stratosphere during the winter should be appreciated.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
Strefowy wiatr słabnie, gdy wiatr słoneczny słabnie. Now the polar vortex is weakened.
Sorry.
The zonal wind weakens when the solar wind weakens.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2017.png
The kinetic energy of typical cosmic ray is one billion electronvolts. Kinetic energy of typical solar wind is 3000 electronvolts. Solar wind doesn’t reach the troposphere where clouds and weather occur.
Dr. Strangelove
“The kinetic energy of typical cosmic ray is one billion electronvolts. Kinetic energy of typical solar wind is 3000 electronvolts. Solar wind doesn’t reach the troposphere where clouds and weather occur.”
It is enough for the solar wind energy to reach the mesosphere and the stratospheric polar vortex in winter. Will you deny it?
In winter, the air circulation in high latitudes depends on the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex.
Time-height cross section of zonal mean zonal wind averaged over 60°N – 90°N (top) and time-series representation of vertical components of E-P flux averaged over 30°N – 90°N at the 100-hPa level (bottom).
The gray shading on the bottom denotes the vertical components of E-P flux for whole zonal wave numbers, and the red, blue and green lines denote the vertical components of E-P flux for zonal wavenumbers 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The unit for the vertical component of E-P flux is m2/s2.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/jikei_uep_nh.gif
Does galactic radiation and the Earth’s magnetic field influence the distribution of ozone in the mesosphere? I think so. Below is the distribution of ozone at the top of the stratosphere.
Is cosmic radiation affects the polar vortex pattern? I think so. This is currently experienced by North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00953/cq5zhfz9e8n5.png
ren,
I’m not convinced that cosmic rays per se significantly affect ozone. In contrast it is clear that various solar wavelengths and particles do affect the ozone balance and they vary with solar activity similarly to the level of cosmic rays.
In winter over the polar circle and in the period of low solar activity, the importance of galactic radiation increases. In my opinion, GCR breaks down the ozone particles.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582172-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_large.jpg
Magnetic field in the Arctic regions.
The dipole field is symmetrical around the magnetic poles.
Lines of inclination form circles around the magnetic poles.
The strength of a dipole field is maximum at the magnetic poles. The strength at the poles is twice the strength of the field at the equator.
Magnetic meridians converge radially on the north magnetic pole; in other words, a compass needle will point directly at the north magnetic pole.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
ren,
You are proposing that GCRs reduce ozone in the stratosphere over the poles when the sun is less active?
That would cool the stratosphere, allow the polar tropopause to rise and induce more zonal, poleward jet stream tracks wouldn’t it ?
That is the opposite of what we actually observe.
Incursions of surface level cold air into middle latitudes often follow periods of stratospheric warming which push tropopause height down so that the air below flows outward. Thus one needs a warmer lower stratosphere over the poles with a quiet sun to achieve a similar effect.
That is why the 2004 observation of warming of the stratosphere above 45km at a time of quiet sun was so important.
Stephen Wilde
The stratospheric polar vortex is a phenomenon typical of winter.
Latitude-height cross section of zonal mean zonal wind in the Southern Hemisphere
The contour interval is 5 m/s.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
Latitude-height cross section of zonal mean zonal wind in the Northern Hemisphere
The contour interval is 5 m/s.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
CHANGES IN STRENGTH OF EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2016/05/Changes_in_strength_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
At the end of the article it is stated:
“The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”
In my opinion, the real question is whether a whole sunspot cycle with weak magnetic activity (or rather a series of weak solar cycles like it happened during the Maunder minimum) makes a difference. In other words one should not look at tiny changes during one cycle but compare a period of several decennia of low magnetic activity with a multidecennial period of prolonged high solar activity like we had during much of the last century.
Has this question ever been analyzed properly?
I miss the aerosols in the cloud discussion.
Sulfor dioxide is less present today the 30 Years ago-in western countries.
Svensmark showed how aerosols and cosmic rays combined formed cloud seeds particles.
And we have seen this happening:http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
There is little doubt in my mind that normally any solar effect on climate on the single solar cycle timescale is obscured by the 60 year ocean cycles that we observe.
Sometimes the 11 year cycle might show up if the oceans are essentially neutral during a single cycle but that would be rare.
For about 30 years at a time El Nino dominates over La Nina and we see slight warming and then for another 30 years the reverse is true.
The solar effect really only shows up for periods of 60 years or longer and even then the only sign we will see is a slight shift between the relative strengths of El Ninos and La Ninas.
Thus a period of several active solar cycles will gradually inject more solar energy into the oceans so that from one warm 30 year ocean cycle to the next 30 year ocean cycle the power of El Ninos will increase slightly relative to La Ninas so that Earth’s temperature will rise slightly from one warm ocean cycle to the next. We see upward steps of that nature in the historical record..
The opposite for a period of several inactive solar cycles.
A key short term diagnostic indicator is the level of global cloudiness which results from the degree of zonality or meridionality of the jet stream tracks.
Several quiet solar cycles with increased meridionality and increased global cloudiness will eventually show up as a downward step in global temperatures from one cool 30 year ocean cycle to the next.
It is a pity that it will take so long to prove my point.
aprox 18% self reference bad, > 50% self eefeeence good, lol
That said, I find your take on the cosmuc rays/solar cycles very intriguing.
Welcome back from your tropical journeys!
One correction you need to make to your post Willis is, you say:
“One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays.”
Actually reference 21 is to Laakso et al. 2004 and it says in section 1: “Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are the primary ionization source above the oceans. The intensity of the cosmic rays in the atmosphere is modulated by the 11-year solar cycle. This modulation increases as a function of height (Larsen,1993).”
Laakso et al. 2007 is reference 23. Not 21.
Hi Willis, Thanks for the interesting posts I always enjoy them. Personally, I “believe” there are deeper interactions between the sun and the earth.
One piece I can’t get my head around is the complexity of the sun’s numerous activities and interactions effecting so many other complex earthly activities and processes, or not, or at variable levels. Even a short layman’s list for the sun includes flares, sunspots, CMEs, TSI, and magnetic variations. For the earth, we have potentially seasons, oceanic currents, volcanic eruptions, various gas compositions, cities and agricultural areas, meteor impacts, thunderstorms, hurricanes, etc. Still, there are the pesky issues around consistent measurement techniques and the use of proxies for longer term historic information.
Given all of that, I struggle to understand how much we can pull a meaningful signal out of any data. In the end, I struggle to support either point of view.
Other than it’s sunny and warm, and that is probably good for a walk along the Isar. Of course, that recently led to me getting my backside covered in snow, sleet and rain, all at the same time.
Can anyone clarify how any relatively straightforward analysis could be effective in such a complex situation?
The abstract of the recent Uranus paper (Solar-Driven Variation in the Atmosphere of Uranus) says:
The statistics show that 24% of the variance in reflectivity fluctuations at 472 nm is explained by GCR ion-induced nucleation, compared to 22% for a UV-only mechanism. Similar GCR-related variability exists in Neptune’s atmosphere; hence, the effects found at Uranus provide the first example of common variability in two planetary atmospheres driven through energetic particle modulation by their host star.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075374/abstract
Ari says: ‘The hypothesis of significant effect of cosmic-rays to climate has been shown wrong many times.’
Can these two statements both be correct?
I would say yes. The Uranus paper shows that both a UV-mechanism and a GCR-mechanism have similar explanation power. So the UV-mechanism could be right, the GCR-mechanism (Svensmark’s hypothesis) wrong and the Uranus data could still be explained by solar variability.
But we now have data that Neptune and Uranus reflectivity show in-phase solar cycle variability well above TSI variability. Solar System climate variability appears a possibility. Some people also reported on Mars having a parallel global warming to Earth while still on martian pre-industrial CO₂ levels.
There seems to be evidence of EUV variation on the solar cycle timescale.
http://www.uksolphys.org/uksp-nugget/65-euv-irradiances-across-a-solar-cycle/
Yes the sun effects the climate and yes galactic cosmic rays are part of the puzzle.
Again threshold levels are needed as well as duration of time which is why the solar/climate correlations are hard to detect unless the sun enters extreme periods of activity or lack of activity.
“The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?””
Changes in the solar wind are far from being tiny, and do not regularly follow each sunspot cycle either, as the poloidal and toroidal solar magnetic fields shift in and out of phase.
Yogi Bear December 27, 2017 at 4:47 am
Thanks, Yogi. I just went and took a look. The only strong cycle in the solar wind data from here is at about 10.5 years … so I would dispute your claim that they don’t follow the sunspot cycle. It’s not as slavish a following of the sunspots as say TSI, but the sunspot cycle is the strongest cycle inherent in the solar wind data.
And as a result, IF the solar wind were changing any surface climate variables, once again we should see the familiar ~ 11-year cycle in the climate variables … but that’s what I’ve been unable to find.
As to the size of the changes, monthly plasma flow speed varies about the mean with a standard deviation of about ±12% of the mean. Not tiny, but not anywhere near the changes in the sunspot numbers themselves, which vary with a standard deviation of about ± 75% of the mean value. However, the solar wind changes are much larger than say the changes in TSI, which vary only by tenths of a percent.
Regards,
w.
“but the sunspot cycle is the strongest cycle inherent in the solar wind data”
Drivel, the solar wind is sometimes in phase with sunspot cycles, and at other times anti-phase with sunspot cycles. Which is why it is ridiculous to look for such a regular cyclicity within it, and why it cannot regularly follow ~11 year sunspot cycles.
“And as a result, IF the solar wind were changing any surface climate variables, once again we should see the familiar ~ 11-year cycle in the climate variables …”
No chance, because of the phase changes between the poloidal and toroidal solar magnetic fields. You are talking around the point of my original comment as if it didn’t exist.
“As to the size of the changes, monthly plasma flow speed varies about the mean with a standard deviation of about ±12% of the mean.”
Rubbish, it varies far more than that.
“Not tiny, but not anywhere near the changes in the sunspot numbers themselves, which vary with a standard deviation of about ± 75% of the mean value.”
What a thoroughly pointless statement.
Always plot ALL the data
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-B-V-R.png
Leif says “Always plot ALL the data”
Of course as we should also include plasma density and pressure so we can see the phase change better.
Yogi Bear
a day ago
Thanks, Yogi. I was unaware that saying “drivel” had become a way to refute scientific facts.
What I based my statement on is my CEEMD analysis of some solar wind data. It shows little regularity at most frequencies. However, the strongest peak is at about ten and a half years. Now, you may not like that fact. And it is not what I’d call a dominant cycle. However, what I said was true. In fact, that cycle is the strongest cycle inherent in the solar wind data.
So … if you have a corresponding analysis that shows a stronger signal in the solar wind data from something else, now would be the time to break it out …
w.
Willis says:
“It shows little regularity at most frequencies. However, the strongest peak is at about ten and a half years. Now, you may not like that fact. And it is not what I’d call a dominant cycle. However, what I said was true. In fact, that cycle is the strongest cycle inherent in the solar wind data.”
If you look at the graphed data, it is well apparent that the major low in the solar wind strength can be around a year after sunspot minimum, or at sunspot maximum, it changes with the phase reversals. That’s why it’s not a dominant cycle. The major high also shifts according to the phase. Moreover, the overall geometry of the solar wind with respect to sunspot cycles inverts as the toroidal and poloidal fields change respective phase.
So your original claim that:
“And as a result, IF the solar wind were changing any surface climate variables, once again we should see the familiar ~ 11-year cycle in the climate variables …”
is missing the point entirely, as you’re only looking at a small part of the signal which is quasi-regular, and neglecting the bulk of the signal that the climate should be following, but which is sometimes in phase with sunspot cycles, and sometimes anti-phase with sunspot cycles.
“So … if you have a corresponding analysis that shows a stronger signal in the solar wind data from something else, now would be the time to break it out …”
There should not be a stronger signal, because of the phase reversals.
Th solar wind speed [what you call the ‘strength’] is not the important parameter for cosmic rays, which is the magnetic field strength that does show an 11-yr variation.
Here is how the average solar wind parameters vary over the cycle:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Climatology.png
“Th solar wind speed [what you call the ‘strength’] is not the important parameter for cosmic rays..”
Yes Leif I already know that thanks, it is an additional reason why I don’t support Svensmark’s ideas, the main one being that cloud cover has reduced while GCR;s have increased.
Monthly plasma flow speed reached around 575 km/s mid 2003. and around 335 km/s late 2009, that’s over +/- 20% variability about the mean.
And daily to weekly plasma flow speeds vary even more.
Willis,
My attention-getters sound off when I read statements about trying to match cloud cover and CR flux. The elephant in the woodpile is albedo change, not gross cloud amounts measured, if my experience is anything to go by, by a met man wandering outside his office and staring vaguely at the sky. I’d bet a small pint on the data being insufficiently accurate to make any sense of a signal which would only need 2% change to be sufficient to explain the (NotNeccesarilyA)GW signal. We have the technology to measure changes in albedo and have had for years but the online graphs don’t seem very detailed.
While I’m here… You have sailed a lot and must have seen oil/surfactant smooths. Can you explain a huge smooth I saw from 40,000ft while flying down to Madeira? It was well over 100 miles wide and hundreds of miles long, sufficiently robust to resist a force 4 wind, suppressing wave action inside the huge, meandering smoothed areas while outside the waves were breaking as would be expected. No waves, no salt aerosols… Most smooths can be blamed on river run-off etc, but not this one. I was wondering if there might be some geological explanation.
RGB at Duke wrote to me that there weren’t any smooths where he sailed, so I sent him a nice image from the web showing perfectly obvious ones visible from his office window*. Have a brief look, these things are everywhere.
JF
*He declined to repeat Benjamin Franklin’s Clapham Pond experiment.
Julian, always good to hear from you.
You are correct that the question is albedo change. However, we have very few albedo datasets. which makes it hard.
And what makes it even harder is that in the all-important tropics, where the majority of the energy enters the system, albedo is highly correlated with temperature.
Having said that, IF the sunspot cycles are indeed affecting the climate, we should see eleven year cycles somewhere. And to date, I’ve looked everywhere I can think of, including clouds, and not found anything.
As to the other question regarding the origin of a large slick, the first two possibilities that come to my mind are either submarine oil from either drilling or natural seeps … or more likely in my mind given the large area covered, oils or other surfactants produced by plankton. Let me take a look … yeah, I find this along with much more:
So a slick like that could easily be the result of a large phytoplankton bloom. It might be possible to find data on that, because the satellites inter alia measure the chlorophyll in the ocean and can see such blooms from space …
Best regards,
w.
PS—Thanks for the hint about Ben Franklin and the Clapham Pond experiment. Despite being aware of the effect of oil on the ocean waves from being a mariner, I was unaware of his experiments entirely. Fascinating.
Could the ‘smooth’ you saw have been the Canary Current (cold upwelling) in combination with a wind from the north? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Current
Let me add the sun effects the climate when in a prolonged minimum state by causing a slight increase in the earth’s albedo through an increase in major volcanic activity, overall cloud /snow coverage increases.
It also effects the climate by lowering the overall sea surface temperatures which is happening now.
Salvatore del Prete December 27, 2017 at 4:53 am
Salvatore, I listed my previous analyses up in the head post to try to head off just your kind of untrue claims … but then you didn’t read them, did you. Perhaps it’s because I hid it under a clever name, “Volcanoes and Sunspots” …
Give that a read, and if you can find errors in it, quote the part you think is in error and tell us why I’m wrong.
And if you can’t find errors, then could you admit that according to the evidence, sunspots do NOT affect volcanic eruptions? Or is that too much to ask?
w.
If I understand correctly, Svensmark does empirical research and posits conclusions about climate that are clearly identified as such. And what follows is dismissal of the whole process “out of hand,”. Yep. It’s the climate “debate.”
Coach Springer December 27, 2017 at 4:55 am Edit
Coach, I’m certainly not dismissing Svensmark “out of hand”. I’m saying that despite looking at twenty or more surface datasets, I can find no evidence that what Svensmark has shown in the lab has any measurable effect on the climate here at the planetary surface.
My negative findings are backed up by the twenty or so studies for which I’ve provided titles, links, and abstracts in the head post.
So, unless on your planet “dismissed out-of-hand” means “dismissed on the basis of a large number of unsuccessful attempts to find real-world evidence for his hypothesis”, no … he’s not being dismissed out-of-hand.
And sadly, your incorrect snap judgment analysis of the situation as “dismissal … out of hand” doesn’t help the discussion … before criticizing what you call the “climate ‘debate'”, you might profitably consider what some guy with the street name of “Luke” reported someone as having said back in the day … “medice, cura te ipsum” …
In hopes that you take a deeper look at the lack of evidence, I remain,
Yr. obt. svt.,
w.
Ari Jokimäki might be a little bit biased since he belongs to the Skeptical Science Team. How credible is the site?
esalil, what Ari does is post up research on a given aspect of climate science by giving the title, the abstract, and a link to the post. Occasionally he comments on a particular piece of research. I like the site because it gives a great overview of the current state of play in the scientific journals.
As to “credible”, not sure how posting links to studies along with their abstracts would not be credible … but take a look at the site and judge for yourself.
Thanks,
w.
What I see in these types of discussions are displays of confirmation bias. In this instance there are those that agree with Svensmark. Those adherents see all evidence as supporting their belief that cosmic rays influences climate even if the evidence is nothing more that coincidence. Even after Willis dumps tons of contrary information ignored by Svensmark, those who support the GCR theory basically hold the belief that people who disagree with them are taking crazy pills.
So,,,,, how many sources of Cosmic Rays are there? How does a 2 billion year old Super Nova 2,000,000,000 light years away impact things right now?
When cosmic rays hit Earth’s atmosphere, they crash into atoms and molecules of gas. That usually makes even more cosmic ray particles! Since there are more particles, the energy from the cosmic ray from space is spread out. The new cosmic ray particles often hit other gas molecules. That makes still more cosmic rays, but with lower energies. The collisions between cosmic rays and gases in the atmosphere can happen many times. In the end, there might be thousands or millions of “secondary” cosmic rays. This is called an “air shower” of cosmic rays.
Earth doesn’t always get hit by the same number of cosmic rays. Strangely, cosmic rays are less of a problem when the Sun is most active. Sometimes there are more solar flares and other “space weather storms”; sometimes there are fewer. The Sun has a cycle that is 11 years long. At “solar max” the Sun is very active; at “solar min” there are very few “storms” on the Sun. Since some cosmic rays come from the Sun, you might think that there is more danger from cosmic rays when the Sun is active. Good guess; but wrong! When the Sun is active, it “puffs up” its heliosphere. Like Earth’s magnetic field, the Sun’s magnetic field helps shield us from galactic and extragalactic cosmic rays. So an active Sun means better shielding! So, if you’re an astronaut, the best time to be going on a long trip in space is when the Sun is most active.
Have you ever hear of carbon-14 dating? It’s something archeologists use to help figure out how old things are. Living things have small amounts of radioactive carbon in them. The radioactive carbon comes from carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere. The radioactive type of carbon is a special type of carbon, called an isotope, named carbon-14 (or 14C for short). How does radioactive carbon get into our atmosphere? You guessed it – cosmic rays! Sometimes when cosmic rays hit nitrogen, the most common gas in our atmosphere, they change the nitrogen atoms into radioactive 14C atoms. Later, that 14C ends up in living creatures.
What else do cosmic rays do? Scientist aren’t completely sure, but they think they might help set off some lightning strikes. They also might help cause clouds to form. Scientists aren’t quite sure whether cosmic rays help cause lightning or help produce clouds, but they might. The scientists are still studying this part of the cosmic ray story.
https://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/cosmic_rays.html
Can we evaluate the GCR hypothesis solely on cloud formation and not worry about climate?
Crispin in Waterloo on December 27, 2017 at 4:59 am
Crispin: yours is the best comment I have ever read on GCRs and climate. Indeed, you need ideal conditions, ie 100% r.humidity tending to supersaturation, to get the effect. I’ve usually commented on the Wilson Cloud chamber in such threads just in case many readers hadn’t heard of this Nobel Prize winning experiment of a century ago , just to affirm that the phenomenon is real.
Maybe trying to attribute a GCR effect in the middle of an electric thunder storm isn’t easy. I’m sure the storm itself is ionizing like blazes and confounding the picture. We’ve only recently had a satellite that measures the number of lightning strikes at any one time. Maybe there is data in that set. Yes, pre-conditions are essential. Without sub-100%H, the GCRs go about breaking up atoms in the atmosphere without accompanying nucleation and cloud formation. Maybe is it is a 1-2% issue.
Perhaps even Svensmark, his supporters and detractors need to be reminded of this.
Amen Gary ….. and hat tip to crisper
When I think of the GCR hypothesis … I don’t for a second think that GCRs are the MAIN driver of cloud formation, but rather a subtle influence. … and that influence is dependent on a lot of other stuff. As crisper and you said …. no humidity, no clouds …. doesn’t matter about GCRs. But …. the real comparison would be cloud formation under similar conditions with high or low GCRs. I seriously doubt there is enough real time data to make such an analysis. Thus, just because we don’t likely have the data, or the computer power to analyze it, doesn’t mean that the hypothesis is junk and should be abandoned.
Crispin in Waterloo December 27, 2017 at 4:59 am
Crispin, from my reading I don’t find people saying that Svensmark is “completely wrong” or that he should stop his researches. Instead, what I find people saying is what I found in my own research, which I would summarize as follows:
As shown in lab experiments, cosmic rays assuredly can affect the rate of creation of potential cloud nucleation ions and molecules.
HOWEVER, given the almost complete lack of evidence of this phenomenon in any relevant dataset, it appears that the effect on the actual climate is either negligibly small or zero.
Now, I don’t like my conclusion. I started out thinking that Svensmark’s hypothesis was valid and would explain a lot of things about recent changes in climate, and would also shed light on longer-time-span temperature changes from going into and out of the galactic arms.
However, that’s not what I and a bunch of other authors found … and importantly, if I liked every scientific conclusion that I was forced to accept because of the facts on the ground, I wouldn’t be doing science then, would I?
Heck, Svensmark et al. themselves say that at best it MIGHT make a couple percent change in cloud cover nuclei, and even then, that tiny change MIGHT happen only in certain selected parts of the planet … hardly a ringing endorsement of the theory.
Best regards,
w.
My belief all along has been that the Svensmark GCR cloud connection is only going to show a trend in areas of the atmosphere where CCN density is the limiting factor on cloud formation. Don’t ask me where those areas are, as I don’t have the atmospheric expertise to know. So the problem in evaluating for his hypothesized effect in the real world is first identifying areas where there is consistently a dearth of CCN to form clouds in an atmosphere otherwise primed for cloud formation. Then you have to have a dataset of cloud cover/density that ONLY covers that geographic area and zone of the atmosphere that is sufficiently long to compare against multiple solar cycles to look for impacts.
As far as the comparisons of GCR against an 11 year solar cycle using global temperature sets, forget about it. The impact will be too small, in a localized area, to show up in the global temperature set against all of the other noise in a typical cycle. It is very likely I believe that the effect is strongest over the ocean, far from land-based sources of CCN, and the impact of changing cloud cover will likely show up not in global temperature data, but in ocean temperature datasets, particularly those measuring intermediate depths. And again, looking for an 11 year cycle is probably a fools errand. If you are looking for a very small percentage change over that short of a time, it will likely be swamped by other variances. It takes time for heat absorbed at depth to distribute to places where it will be measured in climate datasets, so it would probably take the statistics skills of somebody like Steve McIntyre to tease out a signal due to the lag and distribution potentially far from the source.
If there is a significant GCR effect on climate, it is going to likely be a very long-term process operating over a slow timeframe, not the nearly instantaneous clear response in the global temperature data that people seem to be looking to use as proof that Svensmark is wrong.
Javier December 27, 2017 at 5:42 am
In other words, Javier, you can’t find a single thing I wrote that you can actually quote and refute, not one thing that you can point to and say “Willis, you went wrong here for these reasons”, so you’re going to ignore my work entirely.
Fine. I’ll return the favor.
Bye …
w.
Willis and his AGW balanced buddy seem to have missed a few references in their “research”.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Cosmic
Willis, a couple things regarding Dr Roy’s plot. (posted down here, don’t want it to get lost in the shuffle) Although he only used 4 1/2 cycles, the pattern has continue up until present. With max of SC23 temps were high. Min between SC23 & 24 temps were low save ’10 nino. (not unlike mins w/ ninos in ’98 & ’74) And then temps have been high through SC24 max and now poised to take a dive. We don’t even need to detrend to see it as there hasn’t even been a trend since the end of the series that Dr S used. (continued in another comment, don’t want length to trigger SPAM)…
Why Spencer was able to get the temp difference between min & max (which seems a fairly basic thing to do) and you are not is, well, a mystery! i might head over there and ask him about it. Is there anything that you might want me to say to him to help resolve the mystery? (let me know)…
Secondly, your point about cycles being of differing lengths. Regardless of what Spencer did, his mins and maxes, if compromised, can only produce higher solar min temperatures and lower solar max temps. If he were able to calculate using all the exact mins and maxes, then he would get the maximum amount of temp difference over the course of the cycle. If not, then he’d end up with a slightly lower temp difference. (as averaging can only compromise mins higher and maxes lower)…
afonzarelli, I can’t understand his method. How does he cram a sunspot cycle that varies from 9 to twelve years, with different intervals between the peaks and between the troughs, be crammed into an 11 year cycle?
In addition, I was unable to replicate his claim that if you fold the HadCRUT data on an 11-year basis and average it, you get a sine wave. I tried doing exactly that just as he described (or at least how I understood it) and couldn’t get anything near his results.
So … how about you post the data and the code that you used to replicate his results, so I can at least understand how he got his results and why I’m unable to replicate them? Once we have that in hand, we can discuss whether “the pattern has continued” or not, as well as whether the claimed pattern even exists …
Thanks, I await your explanation of his method,
w.
afonzarelli December 27, 2017 at 12:33 pm Edit
Sorry, I wrote my comment above without seeing this. By all means ask him to post his data and code (or spreadsheets) so we can all understand what he did to both the sunspot and the HadCRUT data.
Depends on how you do the analysis. For example, he may just divide the distance from trough to trough in each cycle of the daily sunspot data into 11 parts and average them, which wouldn’t affect the height of the peaks. Or he might do the same to the peaks. But no matter how he does it, it does NOT reflect the reality, so comparing that to some dataset can only be misleading.
Regards and thanks, let us know what Dr. Roy says,
w.
Willis, i’m going to reproduce your second paragraph (begins with In addition, ) for Dr Spencer because i think it will add some clarity. i’ll also mention that you smoothed 3 years & removed pinatubo like he did and still couldn’t get his sine wave. We’ll see what he has to say…
Again about the cycle lengths, even if he averages them the result will be a lower temperature difference, not a higher one. Using averaging, the highs will be less than the actual highs and the lows will be greater than the actual lows. (so we can actually say, based on his analysis, that the temperature difference from min to max is at least .12C) i guess what i’m trying to say is that the issue you have raised here is a moot point…
~Lastly (but not leastly), you actually have read Spencer’s post before. (see your own post entitled Solar Periodicity dated 4/10/14)…
Ah! Willis, looks like we’re playing computer tag here! (time to pour me a drink… ☺)
afonzarelli December 27, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Sounds great, thanks for making the effort.
Thanks, afonzarelli. As you noted we were playing computer tag. However, I still don’t see how cramming a variable-length cycle into some Procrustean 11-year straitjacket can show us anything about the sun’s effect on the real world …
Yes, I noticed that late last night as I was re-reading some of my posts, and I cracked up. In the last eight years I’ve written well over five hundred posts for WUWT, and yes, I have definitely forgotten some of them. I found it funny that here I was getting busted in an unpleasant manner for not doing something that I’d actually done … and I hadn’t even remembered doing it.
I was interested to note that I made the same objection then as I made now, regarding the problem with stuffing solar data into an 11-year rigid frame. However, back then I just stopped looking at Dr. Roy’s work once I saw that. I made no attempt to replicate his HadCRUT results as I did this time, and as a result, the overall majority of the post was about something totally different.
To illustrate the problem, here’s the annual sunspot data and the 11-year average …
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how analyzing the correlation of the red line with whatever you might choose has anything to do with sunspots … check what happens with the average around 1780, where the peaks in the 11-year average coincide with the troughs in the sunspot data and vice versa. How can that show anything about the sunspots?
Best regards,
w.
Javier’s argument is “catcall” that your article he “found superficial and misguided” but provides zero evidence to support his view. Willis you have won the argument. Javier is operating under cognitive dissonance. A condition of mind in which the evidence so conflicts with his worldview that he is spontaneously generating a hallucination to try and rationalize the incongruity between the lack of evidence and his belief in something that does not exist in the real world.
Willis is a comedian by saying the website he’s using to bash Svensmark is “balanced”. You’re a real hoot Willis. There’s a tab at the top of his website dedicated to “ANTI-AGW PAPERS DEBUNKED”. I can’t seem to find the tab “AGW PAPERS DEBUNKED”. Would you point out the balanced parts for us?
DR December 27, 2017 at 11:30 am
Sure. The parts I quoted in the head post. I gave his analysis of Svensmark’s work, which seemed balanced to me.
And I listed the titles, abstracts, and links to a whole host of folks saying what I’ve said, which is that they can’t find any trace of the 11-year signal in surface datasets.
Is that “unbalanced”? No, it is their results. I’m sorry you don’t like them, and you likely don’t like my results either for the same reason, but that doesn’t make my results “unbalanced”. I just report what I find, that’s science …
w.
I’d like to remind readers of Steve McIntyre’s road blocks put in front of him when he attempted to enter the AGW arena with Michael Mann and the gang at RealClimate. For his sin to question the “consensus” it took a Congressional hearing to corner the lying snakes, and years fighting the system to finally break the hockey stick.
Remember the Ben Santer saga? How about Steve’s adventures with Gavin Schmidt, Tamino and many more dozens I’m sure. You know, the AGW “balanced side”. Recall it took Steve M and Ross McKitrick 18 months to get their paper published debunking Santer because it was “anti-AGW”. It took a court order to get Santer to release the data he used. And on and on.
Willis, did you research these references as well or simply rely on your buddy’s “objectivity”?
http://1clickurls.com/ktxWYpA
Oh, that’s cute, DR. You link to a list of just the titles, no abstracts, of 1350 papers and ask me:
I have no idea who my “buddy” is supposed to be. It’s certainly not Ari, never met the man.
In any case, no, I haven’t reviewed the 1350 titles with no abstracts you linked to. And without abstracts, I have no idea what they’re about, so I’m not going to review them.
But then … neither have you …
I will make you the same offer I make everybody. Pick what you think is the best one of your 1350 recommended studies, the one that convinced you that Svensmark is onto something real that actually affects us down here on the surface, and post up two links—one to the study and one to the data. I’ll be glad to take a look at it.
I will not be surprised if I don’t get a response to my offer … when it comes to actually putting their links where their mouth is, people advancing solar theories grow strangely shy of the limelight …
w.
I have not read all the comments but I see a common error in analyzing the evidence of a proposed theory. In this case the theory is that the global temperature depends on the Sun activity changes amplified by cosmic rays. IPCC thinks that it is GH gases only. Both of these mechanisms have their effects but that is not good enough. These two theories cannot explain the temperature peak of 30s and 2000s. The third theory is needed and it is the Astronomical Harmonic Resonances (AHR) with 60 years cycling effects. The SUN & GCR theory works through cloudiness changes as well as the AHR theory. That is why, it is impossible to find a good and solid evidence though measurements for one of these theories, because there is another mechanism acting at the same time.
Here is figure from my paper including all three theories (hopefully it comes right):
My view is that the oceans are a giant heat sink. The climate has many chaotic aspects to it. Thus, something like a ~11 year sunspot cycle is difficult to see in the data. It does not mean it is not there. But if it can’t be seen in most data sets, than the impact is small.
I have also spent time analyzing various data sets of temperature and climate versus sun spot data. My results were inconclusive.
My thought is by summer global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means.
The climate test is on.
Global overall sea surface temperatures now +.170c down from summer readings in a range from +.27c to +.37c or so.
DR December 27, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Thanks for the heads-up, DR, done.
w.
Is there a solar signal in the global temperature? If, then it’s somehow hidden.
I made a 60 years smoothing in the SST data, to surpress the AMO. Now we are missing 30 years on the front and at the rear. It looks like this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:720/detrend:0.3/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1830/normalise/mean:720
The Problem: The temperature is leading, sunspot numbers are following. Impossible. The earth doesn’t command the sun. Maybe the solution lies in the explanation of Dr. David Evans, (husband of Joanne Nova). The sunspots are showing something, which has (after a delay of 10 -14 years , about a half of a 22 years sun cycle, one time switching the sun’s poles) – an influence on the earths temperature. He calls it force X.
So the earth temperature is following force X, which has an influence about 11 years after the SSN are seen. If this is the case, it could not be discerned by normal statistical means. It would also mean, that the SSN are showing something which will be happening about 11 years later. We could look into the future.
After smoothing the global temperature with a 3 years and an one year filter, we see the 11 years cycle – somehow. Still it may be distorted by El Ninos and Vulcanos – but often ist is clearly visible, with a signal of about 0.2°C:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:13/normalise/from:1950/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:40/mean:13/detrend:0.3/from:1950
Even here we see sometimes the temperature is leading – which can only be explained with the force X theory.
I suggest you seek a correlation between cosmic ray flux on the ground vs. cloud cover and temperature changes. Svensmark and Calder said it is not all cosmic rays that influence cloud formation but the high-energy cosmic rays reaching the low troposphere that form low-level clouds that affect climate.
And the solar modulation of the high-energy GCRs is very small
“The temperature is leading, sunspot numbers are following” I must be missing something the green line appears to be leading.
Suppressing the AMO is the worst thing that you could do, as that is where the linkage is most obvious. Note the phase reversals, that means the driver is the solar wind variability and not sunspot cycles.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/normalise
Johannes Herbst: wrong! The sunspots are leading by approx. 25 years In the upper graph. And they show maximum at approx. year 1980. So, in the lower graph the temperature should reach maximum at approx. year 2005 which seems to be the case, more or less.
Johannes H: In your upper graph the sunspots are leading by approx. 25 years reaching maximum on approx. 1980. So, in the lower graph the temperature max should be around 2005, which seems more or less to be the case.
Willis a correction you need to make to your post is, you say:
“One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays.”
Actually reference 21 is to Laakso et al. 2004 and it says in section 1: “Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are the primary ionization source above the oceans. The intensity of the cosmic rays in the atmosphere is modulated by the 11-year solar cycle. This modulation increases as a function of height (Larsen,1993).”
Laakso et al. 2007 is reference 23. Not 21.
I believe I covered that in my earlier update to the post, Bill. Thanks for the note.
w.
No problem. Thanks for fixing it. I posted this a second time because I put up the previous post at around 2am PST and you had replied to a lot of posts after that but no change had been made yet. I thought you might have missed the post.
The force of the solar wind drops and the pressure over the polar wheel increases. I warn against the temperature drop in the northern hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2017.png
A very interesting press release about a new paper on the various cycles and a new model that predicts cooling to come. This was actually reported on Sky news.
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
It is obviously a bit more complex than Willis presumed (which many folk have been pointing out):
“There are several cycles with different periods and properties, while the 11-year cycle, the 90-year cycle are the best known of them. The 11-year cycle appears as a cyclical reduction in stains on the surface of the Sun every 11 years. Its 90-year variation is associated with periodic reduction in the number of spots in the 11-year cycle in the 50-25%.”
Unlike CO2 which can only be (at most) a heating amplifier, this mechanism works for cooling too:
“The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. The increase in the volcanic activity comes after the Ice Age and it leads to the greenhouse gas emissions. The magnetic field of the Sun grows, what means that the flux of cosmic rays decreases, increasing the number of clouds and leading to the warming again. Next comes the reverse process, where the magnetic field of the Sun decreases, the intensity of cosmic ray rises, reducing the clouds and making the atmosphere cool again. This process comes with some delay.”
Unlike GCM’s their model can predict previous climatic maxima and minima.
So while skepticism about the amplification required is certainly justified, pattern-matching is not the issue that Willis pretends and is certainly better than any putative CO2-climate link. This post is a worthless collection of he-said/they-said verbiage.
what means that the flux of cosmic rays decreases, increasing the number of clouds
Svensmark claims the opposite effect…
JasG December 28, 2017 at 3:30 am
Wonderful. Up pops another charming fellow who is too pusillanimous to sign his own name, but despite that who accuses me of something without quoting anything I said.
Jas, you don’t want to do that. It does your reputation damage.
I politely asked above that if you disagree, please quote what you disagree with so we can understand what you are referring to … but noooo, JasG is anonymous!. You can piss on these polite requests, you don’t care what you say, you can walk away and change your name while I’m (correctly and properly) held responsible for every word I write.
Last chance before I cancel your vote on my planet—WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS NOT COMPLEX, AND WHAT DID I SAY?
Look, I don’t mind you being anonymous, that’s no problem for me, although it damages your credibility because you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own claims. However, if you want to be less credible, that’s your business, not mine.
What I do mind is you using an alias to hide behind while you launch unsupported accusations. That’s not on. That’s cowardly.
I ask for a quote because I don’t recall saying it was simple or that it was not complex, and I don’t believe I did say anything like that.
So how about you and I start over, OK? I’ve had all the uncited, unreferenced accusations from charming folks like you that I can stand.
Either back your words up with a quote of me saying “it” wasn’t complex (whatever “it” might refer to, which is totally unclear), or start over, or go bother someone else. Enough handwaving and unsupported allegations.
In hopes of a brighter future,
w.
Ok
“My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature, such as cosmic rays, the solar wind, changes in heliomagnetism, changes in extreme ultraviolet (EUV), or changes in total solar irradiation (TSI), all vary in phase with the sunspots. As a result, if there is no sunspot cycle visible in the terrestrial surface weather datasets, then we can assume that none of those phenomena are affecting the dataset.”
So you think this ‘simple’ reasoning reflects sufficient complexity? Well I certainly don’t! At least Dr Svaalgard gave a succinct and telling point. You added just more verbiage. No solar scientist really disputes afaik that you can find good correlations with solar activity and that there is good historical data to say there must be an amplification somewhere. The issue is only how and whether it may counteract the putative manmade effect! I’m anonymous only on this hot topic because I’m still working in nuclear power which has taken on the CO2 scare as a last lifeline. Though my email is simple enough to identify me privately. My expertise is in computer modeling. IMO Svensmark and Shaviv and all the others deserve a lot more respect than you give them. Do I really need to quote your own snidey remarks back at you? If you are sick and tired of commenters then just b#gger off since you do not lend CO2 skepticism any favourable light by stumbling around in the dark and presenting half-baked snidey conclusions. Why not just presume these solar scientists actually know more than you about solar effects and give it a rest.
jasg: No solar scientist really disputes afaik that you can find good correlations with solar activity and that there is good historical data to say there must be an amplification somewhere.
That may be so, but are all solar scientists really careful in their statistical inferences? When Willis Eschenbach follows up published papers with careful analyses of the cited data, “good” correlations with solar activity turn out to be “poor” correlations with solar activity. Can you provide some examples of published papers with “good” correlations?
I claim elsewhere that only “poor” correlations are to be expected, given the expected sizes of the causal mechanisms and their effects. If you have some references that substantiate “good” correlations, we would all be interested to read them.
What causes grand solar minima or maxima?
What causes grand solar minima or maxima?
The solar cycle has two phases: (1) magnetic flux from the current cycle is transported by plasma flows to the poles of the sun, and (2) the polar fields are then transported [also by plasma flows] into the sun where it is amplified by the solar dynamo. The amplified flux rises to surface to form sunspots and all the phenomena that we associate with the solar cycle.
If a cycle is large, there is more magnetic flux moving towards the poles and hence more flux to amplify resulting in a larger next cycle. Conversely, if the cycle is small, there is less magnetic flux to transport and the next cycle will be small. So statistically, a large cycle gives birth to another large next cycle, and a small cycle gives birth to another small cycle. Thus cycles tend to occur in groups of several large cycles or groups of several small cycles. However, the polar flux is but a very small part of the total flux [equivalent to about four good sized sunspots of which the cycle has thousands] so could easily by pure chance fluctuate [like you can easily get several heads in a row when tossing a coin] and thus break the rule that a large cycle is followed by another large cycle. Thus we end up with alternating groups of large and small cycles. We call some of those Grand Maxima and Grand Minima. But it is all just about chance occurrences and have no special physical significance.
Now, the above is one explanation [that I think is likely]. Some people think that there are mysterious forces [external or internal to the sun] that control the occurrence of such cycles of grand maximum and minima. People tend to see cycles in everything.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, which sounds quite plausible to me. I saw a paper some time ago that claimed a gravitational effect from an alignment of the heavier planets but I suspect that would produce a signature that could be verified or disproved over time.
Your explanation is quite elegant in the way that it deals with the cluster effect. I suspect that you considered other influences but rejected them for lack of evidence. Are there any that remain possibilities that you would care to mention?
Are there any that remain possibilities that you would care to mention?
None that seems worth to pursue. Our understanding of the solar cycle is improving, so perhaps in some decades we might dispel some of the uncertainty.
There is lot of statistical uncertainty with the Babcock–Leighton dynamo ‘theory’ as described by Dr. S above, since involves only 1-2 % of the SC(x) magnetic field building the next SC(x+1) cycle.
The 100 years plunge in the amplitude is unlikely to be produced by the B-L explanation, but there are others unlikely to be created by chance, e.g. as this one
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNp.gif
(click on the image to see in detail)
the red box is a mirror image of the green box (admittedly with some deviations).
since involves only 1-2 % of the SC(x) magnetic field building the next SC(x+1) cycle.
It is precisely that feature that is the strongest support for the B-L model of the solar dynamo, as it explains the variation of size from cycle to cycle as a result of semi-random build-up of the polar fields. There is by now general acceptance of the B-L dynamo model; to the point that it now only comes down to predicting [or measuring] the polar fields in order to forecast the size of the next cycle. BTW, the polar fields now exceed those of the previous minimum signalling that SC25 will be larger than SC24. See e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-and-Prediction-of-Solar-Cycle-25.pdf
Hi Doc
For sake of the argument I will agree with you that the B-L theory is accurate.
a) Let’s assume that SC25 peak as calculated from the polar field turns to be as you predict, which going by the recent cycles history may not be much of a surprise.
b) If SC25 doesn’t turn out to be as predicted than you might be wrong, also casting serious doubt about the B-L theory validity.
Let’s take another look at that SILSO diagram http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNp1.gif
In case of a) the mirror image symmetricity of boxes C & D is extended to SC25, noting that there is a similar mirror image symmetricity of boxes A & B.
In that case the science has to question this apparent solar cycles ‘oddity’ since it is unlikely that sun has some kind of a ‘mirror image symmetricity memory’.
So what might be happening here?
I would assume some kind of solar Rossby wave operating in the solar plasma, whereby the meandering ‘jet stream’ initially is driving sunspots magnetic field in the equatorial direction, and the ‘un-neutralised’ remnants at a later stage pole-wards. The ‘wave’ might be purely local or alternatively, synchronised externally which would contradict the current understanding.
Prediction good or bad you have bit of problem to resolve:
– if bad your B-L based prediction method doesn’t always work
– if good then extension of the ‘mirror image symmetricity’ (on multi-decadal to a centenary scale) can not be a simple statistical coincidence.
As usual time will tell.
If the prediction works, the B-L mechanism gains further support. The mechanism can be used in reverse to infer the polar fields for past cycles:
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/LS_f2.png
from http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
An integral aspect of the B-L dynamo is that the cycle is memory-less and that the build-up of the polar fields is a semi-random process that involves only a handful of independent flux events.
Your ‘mirror images’ are pseudo science. The sun doesn’t work that way.
lsvalgaard: from http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
Thank you for the link.
lsvalgaard: http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-and-Prediction-of-Solar-Cycle-25.pdf
Thank you for that link also.
Thanks for the last link, haven’t seen it before.
Maybe wrong, but no harm in probing, even if wrong there is a positive side to it, how else would ‘matthewrmarler’ know about some of the stuff you do.
Happy new year to both of you and the rest of the WUWT crowd.
lsvalgaard December 28, 2017 at 9:17 am
Leif, let me take this New Year opportunity to thank you as always for both your willingness`to answer questions, and the clarity of your answers. Would that other scientists were as willing to explain and defend their ideas as you are.
Nor is that the only reason that I’m always happy to see you commenting on my work. I figure that anyone who has a solar effect named after them, the Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect, is worth listening to on the subject of the sun.
So you have my thanks for everything up to and including your most recent and most interesting link, viz:
Onwards!
w.
the Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect,
A little historical note: when I first [in 1968] proposed the effect and wrote a paper on it, that paper was roundly rejected [by JGR] as ‘physically impossible’. Luckily, John Wilcox [at that time at UCB] thought otherwise and I joined him when he moved to Stanford in 1972.
Willis Eschenbach, thank you again for a good contribution, and for responses to comments by others.
I was looking for the genesis of the C-14 chart and found this. Not the genesis, but interesting nonetheless.
“After the “Medieval Warm Period” of 1000 years ago, the world entered the “Little Ice Age”, followed by a rise in temperatures in the 20’th century [ref]. Below it is a chart of the solar cycle for the past 1,100 years, based on Carbon-14 isotope measurements. The varying temperatue of the sun is probably one of the causes of climate change during this time. But note that the Medieveal Warm period identified on the temperature chart lags that in the solar chart by a century. We can see that the present period of global warming coincides with a high point in the solar cycle. There may have been some solar impact on the warming in the first half of the 20th century, but there has been no significant change in solar radiation in the second half when the human caused global warming signal becomes apparent.:”
http://www.oocities.org/marie.mitchell%40rogers.com/PaleoClimate.html
“The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”.”
NOAA used to feature a correlation of solar activity to global temperatures. If I recall correctly it used 60 year smoothing on the global average temperature to smooth out multi-decadal and shorter period ocean oscillations. Within the fully smoothed data the correlation appeared very good. It was widely criticized because of temperatures climbing post 1985 when solar activity peaked to the end of the data. But in this non-correlating period smoothing was far from complete.
Dr. Svaalgard here is discussing how changes of 1 to 2% of solar surface magnetic flux precedes dramatic changes in solar climate. Seems Dr. Svaalgard has his chaos theory for the sun and Willis has his unconnected chaos theory for climate. But where you have chaos you probably have butterflies. Astro-meteorologists seem to believe these solar climate changes are caused by gravitational pull primarily of the larger planets and in turn affects the earth’s climate. It’s also possible that the ocean oscillations are affected by this same mechanism but the astro-meteorologists I know haven’t been doing any better than NOAA in predicting ENSO and nobody has been aware of ocean oscillations long enough to have a track record on that.
The old NOAA solar/earth average surface temperature correlation was produced by removing the ocean oscillation signal along with shorter ones like ENSO. It makes perfect sense to me that trying to judge a solar/climate connection by observing climate changes during 11 year solar cycles might be fruitless as they may be overwhelmed by these shorter term possibly independent influences. We tend to get locked into ideas of singular influences on climate. NOAAs chart would not have needed temperature smoothing if only one variable was being looked at. These ocean oscillations both in the early and late 20th centuries produced about .7degC warming surges in 33 years while the entire Industrial Age warming linear trend is only slightly more than that. Anything you see in a solar cycle is most likely going to be jibberish and not informing of an answer. You might even get the CAGW folks to agree since there is no argument that CO2 causes ocean oscillations. Your only problem with signing them on is due to the fact they used the most recent ocean oscillation as the blade of their hockey stick and they attributed the previous one to bad observations since they couldn’t replicate it.
So no I don’t think that is the “real question”. It seems more akin to a strawman question. I will give Willis credit for doing a bangup job on it though. . . .it does look exactly like a strawman that just got scattered far and wide by a huge kaleidoscope of butterflies.
Bill December 30, 2017 at 4:50 am
So your evidence to the contrary is some graph that wasn’t all that good, but in any case is no longer available? That’s the best you’ve got?
“Ocean oscillations” produced the temperature changes? And you know this how?
I have no idea what this means.
So … you’ve not provided one scrap of actual scientific data, no math, no references, no grapics, no logical arguments, just empty claims that things you don’t like are “jibberish” and “not informing” and “strawman questions” …
Surely you don’t expect us to do more than point and laugh at such a farrago of empty claims, I hope …
w.
Ari Jokimaki has remained strongly oppositional to Svensmark from the first day that Svensmark presented his observations and hypothesis several years ago…… I am surprised that Ari continues his aggressive stance in spite of the more recent experimentations performed by CERN…… They found Svensmark’s work worthy of more intense investigation and have since determined cosmic radiation played a key role in the earth’s heavier than normal cloud coverage for a lengthy period prior to the industrial revolution.
earth’s heavier than normal cloud coverage for a lengthy period prior to the industrial revolution.
And what carefully measured cloud coverage is available ‘prior to the industrial revolution’ [about 1760] to base such a claim on?
dryscottdale January 2, 2018 at 9:30 am
I don’t understand. Why is this a problem?
On the other hand, unlike Ari, I supported the Svensmark hypothesis on the first day that he presented it. However, after searching fruitlessly for any real-world evidence to back it up, and after Svensmark himself not presenting any real-world evidence to back it up, I’ve become much more skeptical that it actually is a player in the climate arena.
Does that make my opinion more valuable than Ari’s, since I changed my mind and he didn’t have to?
You continue:
I’m sorry, but laboratory verification that an effect exists is very, very different from showing that it actually affects the climate down here where we live. Real world effects are the issue here, not lab results. I don’t think anyone, including myself and Ari (although I can’t speak for him), thinks the CERN results and the lab experiments are wrong.
However, many people, including myself, are funny about these things. We prefer to wait until someone presents EVIDENCE that their hypothesis actually makes a difference … and that’s exactly what we don’t have with Svensmark’s hypothesis. We have no evidence that his phenomenon makes any difference in the real world down here at the surface where we live.
Best regards,
w.
Willis, since I did not say anything that needs support my post will not have any math in it. I am not advancing an alternative theory, nor am I attacking any theory. The only thing I am commenting on the relevancy and logic of offered arguments. If successful we should be back to really knowing very little about climate change.
The point was and is that the solar cycle has never been observed to have a warming or cooling cycle of significance; therefore, its an insignificant argument to say finding nothing in a solar cycle is proof that GCRs do not impact climate. Your argument begs the question. An example of a “begging the question” fallacy is: “Global warming does not exist because the earth is not getting warmer”.
The definition of a strawman argument is: “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”
I could be mistaken but to my knowledge Svensmark has not made the argument that claims effects of the solar cycle affect temperatures, at a minimum I did not see that claim of his being made anywhere in your article, yet you made that the centerpiece of your argument. That by definition is a strawman argument.
So to be clear I am not advocating a method by which climate is controlled. I can only note that of all mechanisms I am aware of claimed by anybody, including yourself, the GCR argument is a bit ahead of the rest because at a minimum they have proven a physical link between clouds and GCRs with all that remains to be proven is whether that link is intensive enough to influence climate on earth. No other theory including CO2 has been experimentally verified as having such a physical connection, it is only argued to be logical that it does. In fact, for CO2 to my knowledge has had every attempted experiment, without obvious design flaws, fail completely. Kirkby’s “chamber” made extensive effort to avoid contamination of the results. I have seen no such effort by the advocates of any other theory go anywhere near to such pains. Seems warmists would like you to just accept the logical argument and give up on experimentally verifying the greenhouse effect to operate as defined. Perhaps that’s because they have a different agenda or because they know it can’t be done, or because none of them have the imagination to carefully design such an experiment that neither introduces a secondary heat source to keep the IR barrier warm nor uses materials with different insulation values.
The ocean oscillations are clearly a climate phenomena. I have been working in related areas for decades. How much of the warming is due to these oscillations and how much might be due to another source remains conjecture. This comment I will leave without support because I am too lazy to defend it other than to note many papers exist as to the climate nature of the oscillations including the original 1996 paper that laid out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation effects and gave the PDO its name. Personally I see it as noncontroversial. It only seems controversial to those that would claim the effects for their theory without any proof.
Decades of experience investigating and either accepting or rejecting such claims or advancing a claim in litigation support suggests that recognizing problems when they first start seldom captures the entire degree of the problem. It can be very difficult to convince people of their mistakes so “projecting” the limits of the problem are typically understated.
It may prove that the ocean oscillations are completely internally influenced for example by some kind of emergent phenomena. OTOH, it may be some external forcing, like magnetic disturbance caused by solar changes directly or indirectly by possibly affecting GCRs. Or thirdly the ocean oscillations could influenced by climate change itself despite the source causing it variously over grow and over contract.
Fact is dominant ocean current systems are controlled by the Coriolis Effect. The primary currents in the world’s largest oceans is to circulate in the direction influenced by the Coriolis Effect. Mathematics itself alone does not make for evidence. One can simply argue that the mathematics looks random but that does not rule out the possibility of an effect with a real cause looking random.
I gave you good marks on your work destroying the strawman argument and I am sure the article was useful for those who do believe in a single solar cycle impact. I even allowed your own pet theory of emergent weather systems as possibly being the cause, captured in my comment about being destroyed by a kaleidoscope of butterflies.
It should be common sense that a solar minimum that lasts maybe 2 to 4 years should only reveal a climate change of about 15 to 30 thousandths of a degree (based upon the long term linear trend over the last 140 years). It’s pretty easy to see the possibility of a Dr. Syun Akasofu explanation for recent “climate” change that was published in this forum a number of years ago.
We transitioned over the past 300 years from a “grand solar minimum” to a “grand solar maximum”. And viola there is evidence that warming pretty much occurred over that period of time. Throw in some albedo feedbacks of transitioning from advancing glaciers in general to retreating glaciers in general during the 19th century provides a logical explanation for why the warming was not consistent over the entire period for many decades. And of course one cannot dispute a long term warming because of the lack of evidence for short term warming.
And finally the idea that solar changes of a solar cycle do not control short term climate has been known for decades. I have the greatest respect for NOAA rank and file scientists, they do good work. They certainly would not have only graphed long term, smoothed correlations to solar activity if they had more to show. In fact one does not resort to data smoothing except to eliminate something like short term noise.
Bill January 2, 2018 at 9:06 pm
You are indeed mistaken about Svensmark, which is why the things you say DO need support. Here, from the mouth of the man himself …
So no, it’s not a strawman argument as you foolishly try to assert without providing a scrap of evidence … but of course, I suspect that even that direct quote from Svensmark himself isn’t enough to pry an apology out of you for your unpleasant and untrue strawman allegation … although I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Next, I’d asked what evidence you had for your claim that the variations in global temperature were caused by “ocean oscillations” … to which you replied:
Really? You expect to get traction for your theories by saying that they are “clearly a climate phenomena”? That assertion, plus you being too lazy to defend them, is supposed to convince someone? Seriously?
Finally, you say:
“Viola” indeed … on the other hand, the recent strong sunspot cycles peaked in ~ 1959 and have weakened ever since … so where is the cooling we should have seen since then due to the solar cycles weakening?
w.
As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark)
the sun’s magnetic field did not double in strength during the 20th century. It increased until mid-century and then decreased so that by end [and a bit] of the century it was back to what it was at the beginning of the century. Cycle 24 was on par with Cycle 14.
Willis, last I checked a century was about 9 or 10 solar cycles. You are reinforcing my argument that your post’s argument is a strawman. Obviously you must have seen that coming.
Ocean oscillations are not central to my argument. I brought in ocean oscillations as but one example of how it would be possible to override the cooling effect of GCRs for multiple decades. The ability of the oceans to sequester heat far exceeds the ability of the atmosphere.
As a result oceans represent by far the largest heat sink on the planet. Heat sinks are the most important feature of a passive solar climate control system in architecture. They are specifically deployed to produce a delayed environmental climate response.
Its simply my opinion that you cannot handwave deep ocean temperatures away in the climate debate. The ocean turnover rate (in excess of 1,500 years for a complete turnover, anybody’s guess as to an average turnover rate). As long as you cannot eliminate or even limit the period of time ocean heat sink influence on climate, you always have to entertain that possibility. Especially when your argument is argumentum ad ignorantiam by attempting to prove a negative.
That does not mean your argument serves no purpose. It does serve to help establish that there are climate effect delays if Svensmark’s theory is correct.
I pointed out previously that the papers on the PDO address the number one concern of climate change, namely, the effects on biota. Additionally these effects have been strongly linked to surface ocean temperatures and feature species of fish that either spawn in river systems or on the ocean surface. What is missing is the cause of the PDO oscillations and how long the surface effect is delayed from the beginning of its cause. In the words of Dr. Syun Akasofu, paraphrased, we need to understand how climate works before we can start attributing portions of it to individual causes.
Fact is we have nothing that even approaches a real time climate observation system. In fact in recent years that became the primary argument against the pause. About a half dozen subsequent adjustments to the historical observation record later they are gradually moving away from it. Just in time perhaps for round 2.
We don’t even know how many years or centuries the observation system we do have is out of time. Opinions seem to widely differ (the playing out of feedbacks) as to how far out of time the system is. So your strawman argument to be effective against Svensmark’s theory must first solve that problem.
I can actually detect an immediate response to hot solar cycles, perhaps I will create a post on that. But my search for an immediate response to cold solar cycles breaks down. There is a potential explanation for that. Ocean convection will tend to wipe out an immediate cooling ocean response but an immediate warming response is convection stable. Likewise, cloud extent is a poor measure of the effect on climate of clouds. Any outdoorsman knows that you may or may not get a sunburn under 100% cloud cover. It depends upon cloud volume and perhaps water saturation in the clouds themselves. Last I heard we were unable to measure that accurately.
Bill January 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm
Bill, last time I checked I’d asked people to QUOTE THE WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. I have no clue what your quote above is referring to. Not the slightest. And no, I’m not going to re-read the thread to determine what you are babbling about
Same problem. Don’t know where you pointed it out, didn’t notice it at the time, couldn’t care less. You obviously think people pay attention when you uncap your electronic pen. We don’t. QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO!!!
Nonsense. We can find correlations and cycles without understanding how the climate works.
Bill, I’ve looked for the ~11 year signal in everything from the Parana River flow to lake levels in Africa to tidal records from Sweden. The idea that these are not “real time” is a joke.
My argument is not a “strawman” in any sense. Svensmark said that cosmic rays, which are regulated by the solar magnetic field, have an effect on the climate down here at the surface. I went looking for evidence in dozens and dozens of places, all kinds of records. Cloud records. Rainfall records. You name it, I’ve likely looked at it.
Just because you can find no fault in my work and you don’t like my results doesn’t make it a “strawman argument”. That’s just your feeble attempt to destroy by allegations and handwaving what you cannot find any scientific problems with.
I’d be overjoyed to see that, I’ve been looking for such evidence for some years now.
So cloud extent is a bad indicator? Cloud extent is something that Svensmark’s hypothesis says will change due to cosmic ray variations, and many investigators have looked at it in a vain attempt to find any correlation … but you don’t like it because you can get sunburnt through the clouds?
Say what?!?
w.
PS—As a life-long surfer, sailor, and scuba diver I can assure you that a day of overcast leads to a cooler ocean, and that a week of overcast leads to a much cooler ocean. So I totally reject your claim that “Ocean convection will tend to wipe out an immediate cooling ocean response”. It does no such thing.
In addition, you seem to be totally unaware that the uppermost layer of the ocean overturns every night, mixing the surface water down into the “mixed layer”, which is usually the top 30 metres more or less.
And as a result of that overturning, no, the warming response is NOT “convection stable” as you claim. You really should spend more time actually out on the water before putting forward your fantasies about how the ocean works.
Willis the thesis of you post was: “The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”.”
Perhaps you can point out in your Svensmark quote exactly where that is. ““When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. … As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark)
And in my Akasofu comment you responded with another strawman. Akasofu did not say you could not find correlations or quasi-cycles, or pseudo-cycles. His point was that before attributing causes for those observed cycles you need to know how the climate works.
You say: “PS—As a life-long surfer, sailor, and scuba diver I can assure you that a day of overcast leads to a cooler ocean, and that a week of overcast leads to a much cooler ocean. So I totally reject your claim that “Ocean convection will tend to wipe out an immediate cooling ocean response”. It does no such thing.
“In addition, you seem to be totally unaware that the uppermost layer of the ocean overturns every night, mixing the surface water down into the “mixed layer”, which is usually the top 30 metres more or less.”
“And as a result of that overturning, no, the warming response is NOT “convection stable” as you claim. You really should spend more time actually out on the water before putting forward your fantasies about how the ocean works.”
There you go again having an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about! I would probably detail my ocean experience but it’s more fun let you remain the ignorant buffoon you are.
As to your comments about convection they are just flat wrong. Convection is not a factor in the surfing, snorkeling, and tropical atoll zones. Convection stable in these zones is only conceptual (being a physical law) as its not measurable . Wind, waves and tidal currents dominate completely in the nearshore zone. But this is a very small portion of the ocean.
For the sake of temperature records the overnight overturning you talk about is both convective and averaged into the temperature record. Overnight overturning is a primary process in establishing the depth of the mixing zone. The diurnal processes in the ocean are simply averaged into the monthly average SST.
Seasonal and monthly ocean thermocline graphs will show the variations in the mixing zone between cold months when the ocean is cooling and warm months when it is warming. Graphs obtained from sources like diving buoys show the impacts of convection on the mixing layer by deepening it in the cold months and making it shallower when warm water is pooling on the surface in the warm months. Since the heat in about 2.5 meters of ocean is the equivalent of all the heat above in the atmosphere and the variation in the mixing layer can exceed 200 meters from summer to winter. That’s only about 80 atmospheres of heat convected down into the mixing zone. yep never happen, not a factor, I am a pleasure surfer, sailor, and snorkeler and know better!
Bill January 3, 2018 at 10:51 pm, starts out with …
I give up. Here was our previous discussion:
Bill January 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm
I’ve asked you twice to back up your claims with quotes. I’ve also asked you to explain what you were rabbiting on about.
Instead of responding to any of my questions or requests, you have just blown me off entirely and are haring off after some totally different matter. Nothing about the “9 or 10 solar cycles”. Nothing about the “papers on the PDO”. Instead, you’ve taken up some totally new cudgel that you think you can beleaguer me with.
Sorry, not interested. I’ve asked twice for you to quote where I said something about a century and 9 or 10 cycles. I’ve asked you to explain what you were talking about. No reply to either one. Clearly, you are not interested in having a discussion. You want a monologue.
Fine. You’ve got it. The floor is yours. I have no time for people who just blow off my requests and questions. I’m interested in a discussion. You want something different. Wonderful. Go for it.
But don’t expect me to respond to your claims and ideas. Fool me twice, my fault … not gonna happen three times.
w.
Fine Willis. If you don’t care to reread what you post I will try one more time and perhaps you will follow what I am saying.
My claim is your post is a strawman that Svensmark did not argue your “real question” – making it by definition a strawman.
Your question was: “The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”.”
Arguing that your post was not a strawman you said: “So no, it’s not a strawman argument as you foolishly try to assert without providing a scrap of evidence … but of course, I suspect that even that direct quote from Svensmark himself isn’t enough to pry an apology out of you for your unpleasant and untrue strawman allegation … although I’m happy to be proven wrong.”
You offered the following Svensmark quote is support of your post not being a strawman:
“When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. … As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark)
I responded that I did not see anywhere in that Svensmark quote an argument addressing your “real question” Svensmark is talking about a century of warming. I would take that to mean essentially the entire industrial age warming, not some warming over a 11 year solar cycle. To wit: my quote: “Willis, last I checked a century was about 9 or 10 solar cycles. You are reinforcing my argument that your post’s argument is a strawman.”
That would be true whether your argument is correct or not. Its fair to argue a strawman if your strawman actually proves the other party wrong. But I haven’t seen anything of that nature in your post. All I can see is I can’t find any reliable evidence one way or the other in the solar cycles.
You seem a bit ultra sensitive to challenges to your argument. I gave you credit for potentially helping people understand the complexity of the climate debate in that short term observations are not reliable in explaining long term phenomena. You see all the time: “its the weather stupid!” Its not like you are not in good company the entire climate science community has been shooting themselves in the foot on this issue from Ben Santer’s 17 year hockey stick blade to Michael Mann’s 150 year hockey stick blade. Warmists can’t even get on the same page regarding practically anything except that CO2 is a threat.
Svensmark is talking about a century of warming
You should actually read some of Svensmark’s papers. He claims [and claimed all along] that the11-year cycle in cosmic rays was directly mirrored in the amount of [low] cloud cover which again is directly [so it is said] reflected in global temperature [no lag or smoothing] so the time scale here was one year at most. Not century.
“You should actually read some of Svensmark’s papers. He claims [and claimed all along] that the11-year cycle in cosmic rays was directly mirrored in the amount of [low] cloud cover which again is directly [so it is said] reflected in global temperature [no lag or smoothing] so the time scale here was one year at most. Not century.”
1. Seems to me the thesis of this post is to address “New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth.” I am not going to read the entire body of Svensmark’s scientific works to discuss the topic. Boiling it down was the job Willis accepted.
(funny though how it is only himself he exempts from having to reread what he wrote). My discussion and contribution is to discuss Willis’ criticism of the paper. After reading the above post I was unable to find any real criticism and I dared to suggest the Emperor has No Clothes.
2. Not only was it difficult to see how Willis addressed either Svensmark’s paper or his apparent strawman question, the link to the “new study” that Willis provided goes to a blank page. I can only guess that you and Willis induced Anthony to delete it as I even tried searching the forum for it incase Willis botched the link. So recognizing that in my first comments I asked Willis to produce what I may have missed. If he could, that would have at least provided the necessary context.
3. I would assume most scientists would attribute multiple causes for variations in cloud cover. Often data noise makes it difficult to tease out a weak signal.
A great example of that is the variations in global warming that induced one global warming scientist to manufacture a hockey stick whose bend occurred in the 19th century and planted it on the cover of an IPCC report while another head author in the same report did a “fingerprinting” statistical study that had the hockey stick blade being formed in 1979.
The only explanation for that inconsistency is another forcing since CO2 isn’t starting, stopping, and restarting and since zero work was done to characterize the other forcing, other than data adjustments being applied to minimize the issue, the problem remains leaving an unexplained 100 year gap between the two hockey stick bends.
But the science community being unable to untie the Gordian Knot would like to pretend their theory is beyond criticism while taking on all competing theories by strangling them with the problem they themselves ignored. The Golden Rule gets trampled as a result. Such behavior is guaranteed to create fallacies. Fallacies that are all too well understood by the non-inculcated.
Bottom line in all this is the masses are not stupid. They may be ignorant and uneducated. However, they remain sharp enough to identify a con and the inconsistencies constantly being bandied about.
The public is not fooled while the people offering up these inconsistencies in inconsistent ways are fooled or they don’t care.
I am not going to read the entire body of Svensmark’s scientific works to discuss the topic.
That entire body is not very big. A handful of papers. Have you even read a single one? [which one?].
You state with conviction that Svensmark is talking about centuries. He is not, so you whole argument falls apart.
Bill, is something wrong with your ability to read? Here’s what I said:
You’ve burnt your bridges with me.
w.
The Kulmala et al. paper I mention there is this one: “Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation”.
You had tested an effect that works at the equator, at a measuring station in Finland. Are you sure Finland is at the equator?
“You state with conviction that Svensmark is talking about centuries. He is not, so you whole argument falls apart.”
I think what I said was Willis only mentions Svensmark referring to “a century”. Willis characterizes his post as a discussion of Svensmark’s “new study”. But it’s becoming clearer every minute that it is no such thing and that its instead an opportunity to dig up and resurface dirt on the whole theory that has been floating around the web for years.
If he had been honest in his endeavor, I would have passed on reading it. From your comment above, I have to assume you haven’t actually addressed what the new study introduces either.
Peter Ole Kvint brings up that the Svensmark paper found that ions work better over pristine marine waters well away from continents. In response to that Willis is gushing over a Jokimäki listed study conducted in Finland.
I wasn’t even planning on getting into this my list is longer than your list thing until I saw Peter’s comment.
Another Jokimäki provided study listed by Willis is even worse. Its a 2006 paper reporting on Cloud 1 results. It states the experiment failed to detect a presence of strong contributions to ion-induced nucleation. However, Cloud 1 was the pilot project built to learn how to design an ion chamber, not to conclude the conclusion Willis is gushing over. It was Cloud 9 that demonstrated that ion-induced nucleation works.
Maybe the reason Willis can’t find any support for Svensmark is because Jokimäki doesn’t want him too. Even the list is titled: “Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate” Seems Jokimäki himself is terribly impressed with papers trying to prove a negative. One would think he might have an agenda.
“You state with conviction that Svensmark is talking about centuries. He is not, so you whole argument falls apart.”
I think what I said was Willis only mentions Svensmark referring to “a century”.
As Willis always says: “quote the exact words, etc”.
My comment stands. You claimed that Svensmark’s ‘effect’ was over centuries, not over 11 years or one year. You did not say that you have even read a single one of his papers [which one?]. The latest anti-Svensmark paper under discussion.is but one of many. What you assume has no weight. What the facts are is important.
So: your whole argument has fallen apart.
For the love of Mike! There ought to be rules against drunken postings.
To recap:
1. I noted on December 30, 2017 at 4:50 am that Willis’ “real question” on detectability during solar cycles seemed to be more of a strawman than anything else.
Then after a couple of exchanges noting what a “strawman” was:
2. Willis on January 2, 2018 at 10:05 pm
offered up a Svensmark quote from the paper he was reviewing as support for his “real question” not being a strawman. That quote was: “When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. … As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark).
3. 8 minutes later you quoted the exact words apparently worried that somebody would not correctly interpret Svensmark’s quote, namely that the doubling had subsequently diminished by the end of the year.
4. on January 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm I noted to Willis that his response was about a century not a solar cycle.
5. On January 3, 2018 at 5:24 pm Willis asked me to quote the exact words my response referred to (considering that he apparently can remember what he posts from one day to the next. Or he doesn’t know the difference between a century and a solar cycle.
6. On January 3, 2018 at 10:51 pm I quoted Willis’ exact words (Svensmark’s quote) that were both in his original article and in his January 2 response to my comments about his “real question” being a strawman.
7. On January 4, 2018 at 12:05 am. Willis again asked for the exact words.
8. January 4, 2018 at 2:16 pm in attempt to help Willis organize his thoughts I quoted the exact words again.
9. On January 5, 2018 at 8:57 am You post: “”I think what I said was Willis only mentions Svensmark referring to “a century””.
“As Willis always says: “quote the exact words, etc”.
My comment stands. You claimed that Svensmark’s ‘effect’ was over centuries, not over 11 years or one year.”
So don’t ask me again for the exact words. Ask Willis instead why he offered up Svensmark’s “century” comment as his defense against the charge that his “real question” was a strawman. I did and he ran away.
What is your problem?
You claimed that there would not be a solar cycle effect in the Svensmark hypothesis because it takes centuries for the effect to show. I pointed out that Svensmark has always claimed that the effct was on clouds and immediate, so there should be a solar cycle visible. There is not.
This is very simple and does not require a long diatribe about who said what at what exact time. All you have to say that you were wrong about why there would not be solar cycle effect [as there is not].
“What is your problem?
You claimed that there would not be a solar cycle effect in the Svensmark hypothesis because it takes centuries for the effect to show. I pointed out that Svensmark has always claimed that the effct was on clouds and immediate, so there should be a solar cycle visible. There is not.”
First of all you claim I claimed: “there would not be a solar cycle effect in the Svensmark hypothesis because it takes centuries for the effect to show.” Thats patently false. I never said that.
I mentioned the possibility that the effect might not be observed over the period of a solar cycle because some other climate phenomena overriding it and that if that phenomena were short lived it could explain why effects are not consistently or even often found in a particular solar cycle or location. We know clouds are strongly affected by winds and geography, certainly a lot stronger than any GCR effect.
I also recall crossing over into some minor discussion about detection of the accumulated climate effects (e.g. surface temperature). It might take more than a solar cycle to detect the temperature affect because of the ocean buffering climate change. Thats fundamentally and dramatically different that what you characterize what I said.
If you disagree with that characterization then I will have to ask you to quote the exact words I used. I will gladly recant if I was a sloppy author and said something I never ever believed to be true. How about I apologize if I inadvertently made the claim you say I made and you confess to utilizing a strawman argument against me if I didn’t, whether you are doing it advertently or inadvertently.