This offers renewed hope for Svensmark’s theory of cosmic ray modulation of earth’s cloud cover. Here is an interesting correlation published just yesterday in GRL.
Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere
Watch the video animation here (MPEG video will play in your media player)
Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UK’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles – being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions.
Working in collaboration with a major U.S.-led particle physics experiment called MINOS (managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory), the scientists analysed a four-year record of cosmic-ray data detected in a disused iron-mine in the U.S. state of Minnesota. What they observed was a strikingly close relationship between the cosmic-rays and stratospheric temperature – this they could understand: the cosmic-rays, known as muons are produced following the decay of other cosmic rays, known as mesons. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere expands the atmosphere so that fewer mesons are destroyed on impact with air, leaving more to decay naturally to muons. Consequently, if temperature increases so does the number of muons detected.
What did surprise the scientists, however, were the intermittent and sudden increases observed in the levels of muons during the winter months. These jumps in the data occurred over just a few days. On investigation, they found these changes coincided with very sudden increases in the temperature of the stratosphere (by up to 40 oC in places!). Looking more closely at supporting meteorological data, they realised they were observing a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. On average, these occur every other year and are notoriously unpredictable. This study has shown, for the first time, that cosmic-ray data can be used effectively to identify these events.
Lead scientist for the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Dr Scott Osprey said: “Up until now we have relied on weather balloons and satellite data to provide information about these major weather events. Now we can potentially use records of cosmic-ray data dating back 50 years to give us a pretty accurate idea of what was happening to the temperature in the stratosphere over this time. Looking forward, data being collected by other large underground detectors around the world, can also be used to study this phenomenon.”
Dr Giles Barr, co-author of the study from the University of Oxford added: “It’s fun sitting half a mile underground doing particle physics. It’s even better to know that from down there, we can also monitor a part of the atmosphere that is otherwise quite tricky to measure”.
Interestingly, the muon cosmic-ray dataset used in this study was collected as a by-product of the MINOS experiment, which is designed to investigate properties of neutrinos, but which also measures muons originating high up in the atmosphere, as background noise in the detector. Having access to these data has led to the production of a valuable dataset of benefit to climate researchers.
Professor Jenny Thomas, deputy spokesperson for MINOS from University College London said “The question we set out to answer at MINOS is to do with the basic properties of fundamental particles called neutrinos which is a crucial ingredient in our current model of the Universe, but as is often the way, by keeping an open mind about the data collected, the science team has been able to find another, unanticipated benefit that aids our understanding of weather and climate phenomena.”
Dr Osprey commented: “This study is a great example of what can be done through international partnerships and cross-disciplinary research. One can only guess what other secrets are waiting to be revealed.”
h/t to Ron de Haan
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The best independent real world verifications of Svensmark and the rest of the cosmic crowd include Shaviv & Veizer (2003) who, one working astrophysics and the other geochemistry, found they’d independently produced the same basic graph, but one was for temperatures over the Phanerozoic and the other for galactic cosmic ray flux.
Jan Veizer has stated on camera (the Danish documentary Klimamysteriet) that he was expecting good correlation with CO2 and was about to abandon that line of research. His measurement of temperature by oxygen isotope chemical analysis wasn’t making sense in light of CO2 variability, which he, like most folk, including Shaviv, had thought was the cause of warming in the 20th century.
If great correlation over 550 million years doesn’t do it for you, there was published research that took British weather observations and compared it to cosmic ray flux, and noticed something like a 17% higher probability for overcast skies on high flux days over low flux days.
Svensmark, Kirkby and others might not yet have the mechanisms correct, but I take their models to be much more compelling than the handwaving of the science and ad hominems from IPCC partisans.
foinavon:
If your best shot is flogging us with Lockwood, Froelich 2007 you’re putting me to sleep, like a Roger Korman film. Lies, damned lies, statistics and statistics founded on landbased data.
foinavon = Gavin as joyned WuWT . Congratulations Anthony.
REPLY: No this is a UK address, not the same person. – Anthony
Foinavon,
throw out the model data and most of your referenced studies are gutted.
Got any real “science” to back up your Alice-in-Wonderland theories??
Chris V. (07:34:37)
“The paleoclimate studies normally compare time periods when temperatures, CO2, and other forcings were relatively stable (i.e., at equilibrium). They then compare the difference in forcings (CO2, albedo…) between those two time periods to determine the sensitivity.”
And here enters the march of the paradox’s.
As Michael Ghil explains
As the relatively new science of climate dynamics evolved through the 1980s and 1990s, it became quite clear from observational data, both instrumental and paleoclimatic, as well as model studies that Earth’s climate never was and is unlikely to ever be in equilibrium….
…The difficulty in narrowing the range of estimates for either equilibrium sensitivity of climate or for end-of-the-century temperatures is clearly connected to the complexity of the climate system, the multiplicity and nonlinearity of the processes and feedbacks it contains, and the obstacles to a faithful representation of these processes and feedbacks in GCMs. The practice of the science and engineering of GCMs over several decades has amply demonstrated that any addition or change in the model’s parametrizations” i.e., of the representation of subgrid-scale processes in terms of the model’s explicit, large-scale variables may result in noticeable changes in the model solutions’ behavior.
The divergence from reality(from unknown quantities of ‘natural variation”) at present bringing a significant level of uncertainty.
Mathematical physics tells us why.Eg Nicolis and Prigogine
“Abstract
The theory of fluctuations is extended to nonlinear systems far from equilibrium. Systems whose evolution involves two separate time scales, e.g., chemically reacting mixtures near a local equilibrium regime, are studied in detail. It is shown that the usual stochastic description of chemical kinetics based on a “birth and death” model is inadequate and has to be replaced by a more detailed phase-space description. This enables one to develop for such systems a plausible mechanism for the emergence of instabilities, in which the departure from the steady state is governed by large fluctuations of macroscopic size, while small thermal fluctuations are still described by a generalization of Einstein’s equilibrium theory. On the other hand, far from a local equilibrium regime, infinitesimal fluctuations may increase and attain macroscopic values. In this case the system evolves to a state of “generalized turbulence”, in which the distinction between macroscopic averages and fluctuations becomes meaningless. ”
http://de.scientificcommons.org/19226239
An in Paleoclimate studies we see the Milankovitch “forcings” introduce a paradox,that there is an additional mechanism for amplification(attenuation) present.
EG Nicolis and Noolis.
The oxygen isotope record of the last million years, as provided by a deep sea core sediment, is analyzed by a method recently developed in the theory of dynamical systems. The analysis suggests that climatic variability is the manifestation of a chaotic dynamics described by an attractor of fractal dimensionality. A quantitative measure of the limited predictability of the climatic system is provided by the evaluation of the time-correlation function and the largest positive Lyapounov exponent of the system.
http://www.pnas.org/content/83/3/536
Hence the conundrum or paradox eg as Nalimov explains
1. A thing, in fact becomes a manifold when, unable to remain
self-centered, it flows outward and by that dissipation takes extension:
utterly losing unity it becomes a manifold, since there is nothing
to bind part to part; when, with all this overflowing, it becomes
something definite, there is a magnitude.
3. Whatever is an actual existence is by that very fact determined
numerically . . . approach the thing as a unit and you find it
manifold; call it a manifold, and again you falsify, for when the
single thing is not a unity neither is the total a manifold . . . Thus it is
not true to speak of it [matter, the unlimited] as being solely in flux.
7. It is inevitably necessary to think of all as contained within one
nature; one nature must hold and encompass all; . . . But within the
unity There, the several entities have each its own distinct existence.
10. When it takes lot with multiplicity, Being becomes Number
by the fact of awakening to manifoldness;
13. If, then, unity is more pronounced in the continuous, and
more again where there is no separation by part, this is clearly because
there exists, in real existence, something which is a Nature or
Principle of Unity.
14. . . . while continuous quantity exists, discrete quantity does
not-and this though continuous quantity is measured by the
discrete.
So what are we saying here?.That reasonable questions can be asked about the level of natural variation of climate “states” We can ask this say for example in the question of say “solar-gcr coupling by correctly posing the questions eg.GCR.
Q1) Do GCR change the state of the earths atmosphere and hence climate state?
A1) Yes,this is not controversial attribute eg Crutzen 1975, Reid 1978.This is a well developed theory.
Q2) Where would one expect to see the “signature” of GCR forcing ?
A2) In the stratosphere , and in the Polar regions.
Q3) why to A2 ?
A3) There are two limiting qualities
A3.1)the atmospheric cutoff (where the density of the atmosphere precludes lower energy GCR from penetrating EG Dorfman 2004.
A3.2)The Geomagnetic cutoff EG Stormer
Q4) Is there any observable trend in GCR from the Neutron monitors(and distinguishable from solar cycle modulation?.
A4) No.
Q5) Is there any observable trend in GCR flux from other instruments?
A6) Yes.
Q7) Where ?
A7) In the stratosphere eg Bazilevskaya and Svirzhevskaya, 1998 On the stratospheric measurements of cosmic rays, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 31-521. Stozhkov et al., 2000; cf Ahluwalia, 2000
Over a 30-year period the solar minimum value of the stratospheric flux decreases by ~2.5%
Bieber 2007 notes
A long-term decline has also been reported in the >95 MeV proton rate measured aboard the IMP 7 and IMP 8 satellites [Ahluwalia and Lopate, 2001].
Hence the conundrum.Real climate like to tell the world that there is no “trend”in gcr (and if one only uses the NM) one could say ok.However if we use other observables we can falsify that.
tallbloke (07:28:53) :
“Ron de Haan (23:57:09) :
Anthony, I think you are the fastest publisher on earth.
And the worst name speller too. 😉
I posted an excerpt from wikipedia in response to your post on the Ross Hays letter thread.
One reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur in the Northern hemisphere is because orography and land-sea temperature contrasts are responsible for the generation of long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, producing the warming by decelerating the mean flow. This is the reason that major warmings are only observed in the northern-hemisphere, with one exception. In 2002 a southern-hemisphere major warming was observed. This event to date is not fully understood.
So maybe the conventional wisdom is that the sudden stratospheric warming is caused by rossby waves and the QBO, which is caused by gravity waves.”
Tallbloke:
I am not in a position to judge your “conventional wisdom” in regard to the cause of sudden stratospheric warming.
I was caught however by the response of Nasif Nahle (21:43:27) who stated:
“In 2005, I found a direct correlation between interstellar cosmic rays and the oscillations of temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. I could corroborate that the ICR warms the Earth’s atmosphere. The measurements of the intensity of the ICR were obtained by the Voyagers I and II in the Shock Bow of the Solar System. Calculating an average speed of 213 Km/s and the distance from the Shock Bow to our planet, the ICR nucleons and subatomic particles would delay about 14 months on reaching the Earth. Considering that the supersonic nucleons which have overcome upstream the Solar Wind could carry Energy up to 70 MeV or higher, their effect on the Stratosphere’s temperature is persistent and intense. The article from the Journal of Geophysical Research explains the mechanism which I couldn’t explain in its moment.
My report was published here: http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html
I detest to promulgate my own articles, but I think now it could be relevant.
Nasif”,
I have read all the articles related to his link which provides not only the elimination of the AGW doctrine but also firm support for the Svensmark Theory.
With the ap index as low as it gets and a current tropospheric heating event taking place we now have the opportunity to observe what processes are at work and collect further proof for Nasif’s theory.
Dear Ron de Haan,
Thanks a lot! I’ve tried to answer your questions. I’ve numbered my answers:
A. Is it possible to update the graph in the articles to our current day and time.
1- Yes, it is possible, as long as NASA releases the database obtained from Voyagers I and II after the period indicated in my article, or at least for the next 14 months. It seems a new article on the matter is in preparation and perhaps it has been an impediment for us, outside NASA, to have access to those databases.
B. Does the position of the shock Bow vary with the strength of the Earths Magnetic field and the current Solar Minimum?
If this is the case what would be its current position and what would be the implementation for the travel time of the IIGC to reach Earth
2- The subject is still not clear. The present calculation proposes a distance of 80 to 84 AU, which is the distance that we could consider it’s the shortest distance from the Earth to the Shock Bow, taking into account that under conditions of solar maxima the distance would be about 95 UA, on condition that the intensity of the currents of interstellar plasma are “normal”. All we can give for sure is that Voyagers encountered something massive and anomalous out there, at a distance of 84-90 AU from Earth, and that, as the solar wind weakens, the intensity of the interstellar plasma, which could hit on planets, increases. This would be valid for highly energized particles because when the solar wind is strong, the weakly energized particles are those which overcome the trajectory of the solar wind in crosscurrent.
C. Is our solar system currently effected by the gas cloud mentioned in the 1978 article to dominate our climate for the next 10.000 years, confirmed by Voyager I and II measurements?
3- Definitely, yes, it is; although we could conjecture that we would be barely clearing the border of the cosmic cloud and that few decades stay ahead for our Solar System gets inside the center of the cosmic cloud. I wrote a note in red in my article in reference to some criticisms made on Vidal Madjaar’s observations; what satellites are corroborating currently is a verification of Madjaar’s predictions.
D. What could be the consequence of this cloud for life on Earth?
4- I think it would not be of severe consequences for life on Earth. Our Solar System has crossed many cosmic clouds many times and nothing “weird” has happened. My speculation would be most on the kind of species which would survive to the increased radiation and Earth”s electrodynamic changes and which ones would evolve favorably or would perish.
E. Perhaps off topic:
Last year German Scientists found evidence of a sudden shift in the Earth’s climate
into a Glaciations Fase within a period of 1 year caused by a radical shift of the jet streams and wind patterns.
Is there any evidence that the found mechanism could trigger such an event?
5- I don’t know, but it could be possible if the geomagnetic field affects to the jet streams and wind patterns. Something very interestingly new and that could be related with the German scientists’ finding is the discovery of a “mysterious” electric charge in the Moon dust and an increase of Moon’s magnetism. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/21nov_abbas.htm and http://www.astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1949&theme=Printer
F. Joe D’Aleo just posted a response stating that at this moment in time a major warming of the Stratosphere is taking place.
Is it possible to simulate this event based on your theory?
6- Of course it is possible; however, I have not the complete database, as I have said in # 1. I will be insisting on the issue until someone at NASA has mercy and send me the complete database.
Nasif,
Thank you for your quick answers and the NASA link.
Maybe you could ask Leif Svalgaard for support to get this data.
I really think this is the ground breaking science which provides us with the insights that make us understand what influences and controls our climate.
I hop that more people visiting the WUWT site will read your findings and fuel a good discussion.
Thank you very much.
As time goes by the emergence of studies that claim causes for warming other than CO2 will eradicate the AGW Doctrine.
This is another example:
A European Study claims that the clean air in Europe is responsible for 10-20% of the day time warming in Western Europe and 50% of the day time warming in Eastern Europe. Combine this effect with the ICR effects, an objective presentation of the temps statistics and tell me what’s left of AGW?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo414.html
Syl (10:06:39)
Since this thread is about cosmic rays and the “Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) -cloud/climate” connection has been alluded to in the top article and introdced specifically by JamesG, one may as well consider the evidence for it!
Unfortunately there is precious little of any substance/relevance. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However the web-site article James brought to our attention provides zero evidence for this connection and in fact demonstrates that it’s completely irrelevant for contemporary warming.
That’s one of those airy sentences that sounds like it should be rather meaningful, but on reflection clearly isn’t! “What’s happening on our real planet” is being explored by scientific investigation and described in publications “on paper”. Svensmark’s notions are described “on paper”. The fact that what we learn and know is compliled and written down in print or electronically isn’t really the point is it! It’s science and therefore it’s all about the evidence. We’d like to see the evidence that might give us confidence in taking the CRF-climate link seriously.
Greg Goodknight (14:35:48) :
The evidence for that “correlation” is rather contrived unfortunately Greg. We could discuss that if you like.
However a more serious problem with that hypothesis is that Veizer himself has reassessed the plaeotemperature and has shown (at least to his own satisfaction) that a full cycle of the supposed CRF-temperature link is dis-correlated (Veizer now shows that the early Silurian was very warm when the supposed CRF-temperature “correlation” predicts a cold period). In fact Veizer now considers that it’s atmospheric carbon dioxide that drives/amplifies increased global temperatures (see citation and abstract below). Again that doesn’t mean that the CRF-temperature hypothesis isn’t of potential interest. However it’s a hypothesis which doesn’t accord with real world evidence as shown by the proponents themselves (Veizer….Svensmark….see my posts above).
R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543–248 million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today1, 2, 3. Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era1. A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the 18O of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small4, suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the ‘carbonate clumped isotope’ method5—an approach that, unlike the 18O method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443–423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314–300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1, 6.
Earle Williams (17:45:27) :
“My understanding is that Rossby Wave propagation is east-west, and I’m having a hard time picturing the waves taking a right-angle turn to the vertical.”
I’m thinking of a Rossby wave like a long wavelength soundwave and a soundwave propagates in all directions to some degree. It’s not that it takes a right hand turn, because it has 3 directional components at formation.
Erl:
You are likely outstripping my awareness(in fact, 1-2 ought probably to be 2-3 degrees).
I did note the recent NASA release indicating(I gathered during minima) that the heretofore required IMF flipping south was incomplete; a more serious conduit of the charged particle streaming occurs with IMF north.
My intuition is that the direct heating of the (current cool and dense) Ionosphere is circumvented. This might lead to UV heating of lower layers, despite the low levels of this spectrum at minimum(no flares since Feb. 2007), as a higher percentage passes thru to them.
To foinavon.
Early Silurian (443Mya to 423Mya)
– CO2: 4,500 ppm to 5,500 ppm
– Temperatures: 5C to 7C warmer (perhaps as high as 10C)
– Implied CO2 sensitivity per doubling 1.5C to 1.8C
– (3.0C per doubling would have temps at 12C to 14C higher)
Quit quoting Nature studies without identifying the proper implications – A list of 10 Nature study titles tells us nothing – None of us have $500 to shell out to sign up for Science or Nature – and post links to free articles if they are available.
foinavon (02:15:09) :
R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202
from Berner (2001
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Monckton2.jpg
I do not see any correlation:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/gores_10_errors_old_and_new_scientific_mistakes_and_exaggerations_in_an_int/
Obviously is spoiled to change the discussion to a field that you know is a dominant characteristics.
But. I know that you will respond.
The paleoproxy data for contemporaneous CO2 and temperature data is reviewed in detail here:
D.L. Royer (2006) “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
Even more recent studies supplement the information in Royers compilation and cover additional periods with new data sets right through the past several hundreds of millions of years:
R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202
W. M. Kurschner et al (2008) “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453.
D. L. Royer (2008) “Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 407-408
Zachos JC (2008) “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283.
Doney SC et al (2007) “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.
Horton DE et al (2007) “Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets” Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708 (Oct. 11 2007).
B. J. Fletcher et al. (2008) “Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change” Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.
FM
Bill Illis (08:14:39)
Come on Bill, let’s address these issues properly.
The first point is that Greg Goodnight quite reasonably referred us to a paper in which Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer made a tentative proposal of a possible link between the CRF (Cosmic Ray Flux) and the archaic temperature evolution. The possible connect was rather tentative but a rough “correlation” could be teased out with a bit of massaging of the data.
Subsequently Veizer himself reassessed his own temperature data and concluded that this required reinterpretation in the light of data using a new proxy method. Now the tentative correlation between the CRF and paleotemperature doesn’t apply any more, at least for one full cycle of the putatuve correlation.
If we’re trying to claim a CRF-temperature correlation and one of the proposer himself considers that the relationship actually doesn’t apply very well, and in fact the temperature correlates rather well with paleoCO2 data, then that’s rather strong reason that we might not consider the CRF-temperature correlation very well supported!
Here’s the new Veizer paper again [***]
R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202
I think you’ll find that a proper assessment of the climate sensitivity of the full paleotemperature/paleoCO2 record yields a best fit to a climate sensitivity of 2.7 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2. That’s described here:
Royer DL et al. (2007) Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years Nature 446, 530-532
One of the things you need to be a little careful of in making simplisitc interpretations of climate sensitivty from paleodata from the very deep past is to factor in the weaker solar constant. The solar output was rather a lot weaker 400-500 million years ago, and considerably higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations (of the order of 1000 ppm) were required to maintain the earth in a non-glacial state. That’s described here for example:
D.L. Royer (2006) “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
It’s unfortuante that you choose not to make the effort to look at the scientific literature on these very interesting and important issues, since that’s where the science is described, archived, and discussed. Most people are within reasonable distance of a University library, and many good public libraries take Nature and Science. Likewise many papers are available on the web (all of NASA GISS papers and many other government-funded organizations), and can often be obtained via Google Scholar. Likewise one can email the authors for copies and so on..
Bill Illis (08:14:39) :
No those values are rather too high I think. The proxy CO2 data are in the range 3000 – 4000 ppm for this period, certainly for the later parts that overlap Veizer’s revised paleotemp data. One needs to go a bit futher back in time to get proxy CO2 data that goes up to 5000 ppm and above. Of course there is some uncertaintly in all of these data…
Again these data are compiled in Royer’s review of this subject:
D.L. Royer (2006) “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
Fernando (09:01:42) :
Are you sure you know what you’re looking at in that weird graph, Fernando? There is no CO2 data in that graph. It’s a model (Berners Geocarb model). The CO2 “data” is represented in the model with a 10 million time resolution. It’s a very nice model by the way…a very nice piece of work that models the likely CO2 concentration based on our knowledge of the movement of the continents, weathering rates and so on.
I don’t know where the temperature data comes from. Do you? We know it’s wrong though don’t we? After all the temperature hasn’t dropped steadily from 22 oC to 12 oC during the past 20 million years. Likewise the evidence indicates that the end-Ordovician glacial period lasted a very short time (it’s dated to 445.6-447.3 million years ago, which would be a very thin line on the graph indeed).
However, there is a more fundamental problem in the graph (which I suspect is designed to fool the unwary). One can only determine the relationship between paleotemperature and paleoCO2 where there is well-defined contemporaneous CO2 and temperature data. In other words you can’t take very sparse palaeodata points and just connect them up and presume that the temperature of CO2 levels are defined during intervening periods! So, for example, there isn’t a paleoCO2 proxy that is contemporaneous with the short end-Ordovician glacial period. So we don’t know what the relationship between CO2 and temperature was for that exact period, and we csan’t presume to know by interpolation from earlier and later proxies.
In general, where there is well-defined contemporaneous data points for CO2 and temperature, there is a pretty good relationship (low temp-low CO2/high temp-high CO2). That’s what Veizer found. I’ve cited a whole bunch of other data (you copied them into your post!) that assess contemporaneous CO2 and temperature proxies, so you can assess this yourself.
Question – Do such cosmic rays have variations in intensity depending on where they originate? For example, can we be more specific about where on the globe increases of cloud cover occur and correlate this information with the direction and intensity of these cosmics ray?
Two bits of wisdom gleaned / distilled in this thread for me
(1) Nasif Nahle I too saw your piece “flash out” and when I checked, it felt very right and it seemed the stats are there too. Any chance for rigorous statistical assessment of your (14-month adjusted) graphical correlation? It does feel like the outside, high-energy particles have GOT to be causative of the stratospheric warming. Is there any sign of regular periodicity in the cosmic flux / SSW? I heard “two years” way back on the thread but is this regular?
(2) Trolls… can blind lesser mortals with screeds of credible verbiage; they are also so skilled at pointing to others for carrying the very faults they themselves carry that, for a while, one believes… and this following can be enough to carry them to the next suckers’ project with “credentials”. I’m naming no names, it’s a phenomenon worthy of scientific psychological appraisal as we learn to wrestle with the likes of Madoff.
foinavon, I’m disappointed. My feelings are hurt. In my 11:11:52 post way upthread, after making various comments I asked you a simple question. You answered others’ queries, why not mine?
OK, so here it is again:
I also need to know if I should stock up on ice cubes; how many do I need, and when should I start?
Remember, no hedging! And no references to other links. I want to know if you believe we’re headed for catastrophe. To be a good sport about it, I’ll answer a question of yours.
What about the major stratospheric warming we are living now?
At 10hPa it is a new record. Its effect in the troposphere could be the developoment of a strong period of AO-, with a reversal of the mean zonal wind.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.gif
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/products/figs/ecmwf1/fluxes.gif
foinavon
I agree with you:
“Of course there is some uncertaintly in all of these data… ”
2008 …..is Palaeozoic era?
The rule of the game is this;
Structural uncertainty
Indicative examples of sources:
Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack
of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or
definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not
considered.
Typical approaches or considerations:
Specify assumptions and system definitions clearly, compare models with
observations for a range of conditions,assess maturity of the underlying science and degree to which understanding is based on fundamental concepts tested in other areas.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf
I can’t see how a tiny little thing like a 40C change in the
temperature of the stratosphere could have any noticeable
effect whatever on the production of muons, or mesons,
or any other many-MeV particle. The energy scales are
hopelessly wrong. The change in relative velocities of the
nuclei of air atoms that cosmic rays encounter will be
entirely negligable.
I suppose it is just barely possiible that the temperature
changes the local density, and that changes the particle
flux detected. But the temp effect is in the stratosphere and
the detector is underground. The total change in shielding
matter will be minute compared even to the amount of
atmosphere, never mind the ground that these particles
go through.
I think it’s much more likely that the causal chain is either
increased particle fux causes increased temperature, or
something else causes both.
Also:
From the NCAS page linked above:
> 1. Contacts:
> Dr Louisa Watts , National Centre for Atmospheric Science
> Science Communications Manager.
Any relation?
Dear Lucy Skywalker,
Thanks a lot for your comment. I’ll try to answer your question on the periodicity of the Flux of ICR, which could be the answer for Carlo’s question: In 2003, V.E. Timofeev and coworkers from the “Yuri Gagarin Shafer Institute of Cosmo-physical Research and Aeronomy” in Yakutsk, Russia studied the periodicity of the increasing intensity of Galactic Cosmic Rays and they found it is around 243 days (around eight months) due to an Interplanetary Magnetic Field cavity situated near Jupiter which acts like a magnetic bottleneck that traps most of the particles incoming from the interstellar medium. They also found that the Cosmic Rays do not flow in a parallel trajectory with respect to the Solar System equator, but directly perpendicular to the Solar System plane. I think the latter is due to the tilt of the Solar System with respect to the galactic plane, which is near to 90°. The evidence on the origin of the suprathermal and highly energetic particles populations resides on the intensity of the anisotropy of the Cosmic Rays detected by the Voyagers I and II, which is extremely high, for saying it in some way, while the anisotropy of the Solar Cosmic Rays decreases as they reach the termination shock and scatter in all directions as they cross the Termination Shock, especially during the high flux of a streaming away from the Sun. Nevertheless, I adopted the period of 14 months for not creating confusion with the highly energetic electrons towards the Sun emitted by Jupiter. On the other hand, the present encounter of the Solar System (SS) with the Cosmic Cloud could coincide with the orbital period of the SS around the galactic center, which is about 225 million years. Vidal-Madjar et al calculated the distance at which the cloud was in 1978 and concluded that it was at 0.03 ps (9.3 x 10^11 Km) away from the SS and moving towards the SS at a speed of 20 Km/s, which would represent a period of about 50 years. However, as the SS is moving also towards the cloud, the vectors sum offers a speed of 237 Km/s, which, as Alfred Vidal-Madjar pointed up in his article, has abridged the time of encounter to only four years, i.e. the encounter took place in 1982. Any correlation with the beginning of the hard period of global warming is mere coincidence (?)