You’ve probably all heard of Svensmark and the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) to cloud cover modulation theory by now. Lot’s of warmists say it is “discredited”. However, CERN in Switzerland isn’t following that thinking, and after getting some encouraging results in the CLOUD06 experiment, they have funded a much larger and more comprehensive CLOUD09 experiment. I figure if it is “discredited”, a bunch of smart guys and gals like CERN wouldn’t be ramping up the investigation. There’s also word now of a new correlation:
I get so many tips now it is hard to choose, but this one is a gem. If you look at nothing else this month, please take the time to download the slide show from CERN’s Jasper Kirkby at the end of this article.
He does a superb job of tying it all together. I found Kirkby’s slide show quite interesting, and I’ve grabbed some slides for our WUWT readers. He proposes a GCR to cloud droplet mechanism, which to me, makes sense meteorologically. He also touches on the possibility that the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) may have been shifted due to GCR modulation during the LIA/Maunder Minimum. This ties in with Willis Eschenbach’s theories of the ITCZ being a “thermostatic mechanism” for the planet with some amplification effects. – Anthony
Norm Potter writes in Tips and Notes for WUWT with this-
The end is near for the warmists, I suspect. This month, Jasper Kirkby of CERN explained the Centre’s CLOUD experiment, which is moving forward:
“The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established.
“Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.”
I found this side on page 29 to be plausible from a meteorological standpoint:
Here is a slide showing the ITCZ shift he’s proposing:
And here is the data and some conjectures, obviously more data is needed. However what is seen so far certainly seems far from “discredited” as some warmists say.
In the conclusions of his slide show, Kirkby outlines the state of knowledge and areas of investigation:
• Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood – especially on the 100 year timescalerelevant for today’s climate change
• Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate
• CLOUD at CERN aims to study and quantify the cosmic raycloud mechanism in a controlled laboratory experiment
• The question of whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change
More info, see: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ – the CERN Colloquium
Download Kirkby’s Slide show (Large 7.8 MB PDF, be patient)
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
Backup Copy on WUWT server: Kirkby_CERN_slideshow09
Konrad (18:33:45) :
But I still believe Svensmark is doing the right thing by performing a physical experiment.
Of course he is doing the right thing and so are the people trying to model the climate. From their collective failures we shall learn something. This is the only way.
Meanwhile the drought worsens in Cali and some farmers must face the grim reality that $3 billion worth of crops aren’t going to market because the tap was turned off. Imagine they did have to consult a graph with a bunch of noise and fitted curves!
Dr Reese
http://DrReese.wordpress.com
Dr. Reese,
My pants came out of the dryer wrinkled and it’s totally gonna ruin my game tonight. Imagine the horror.
And…
I’M IN CALIFORNIA!
Leif Svalgaard (17:09:39):
This is a common problem in such comparisons and has a common solution: one ’scales’ one graph to match the variation in the other graph. The scale factor is the unit conversion. Since the curves [whatever their physical merit is] match for the majority of the time [from 1250 to 1850] that interval essentially fixes the scale factor and NOW it makes sense to talk about ‘above’ and ‘below’. Which simply means that the scale factor for the 1st part of the curve is not the same as for the last little bit.
Not really. “Above” and “below” assume an additive (arithmetic) relationship. One could plot the Y-axes so that the lines never crossed using the exact same data (no vertical switcheroo). Visual line crossing is an artifact of the graphical artistry, not the data. Again, you can’t add apples and oranges any more than you can subtract them.
Using the scales as drawn, one could infer (visually, without doing the math) some sort of ratio (multiplicative) relationship. That visual leap of inference could be deeply incorrect. What’s more, there is no reason to assume that the relationship (if any) is a simple ratio. It could be (hypothetically) a power ratio of some kind.
Using 2 y-axes on the same plot for intrinsically different physical phenomena is a good way to lie with graphs. The visual display of quantitative information is more than an art; it is science and should be done using scientific principles.
We learn nothing from the graph above. It would be better to suss out the relationship mathematically (statistically, with quantified variance) and then display that information on a plot with a single y-axis.
Leif Svalgaard (19:06:09) :
“Of course he is doing the right thing and so are the people trying to model the climate. From their collective failures we shall learn something. This is the only way.”
My prayer: “Lord, please make me as brilliant as Dr. Svalgaard, give me his confidence and passion…. but can I perhaps, please, have a bit more humility… just in case?”
Dr. Svalgaard, don’t change. Your observations always make me think, inform me and keep me humble.
Leif Svalgaard (19:06:09) :
It might be worth noting that Svensmark is not part of the CERN team. Maybe someone should investigate why?
Mike D. (19:26:54) :
Not really. “Above” and “below” assume an additive (arithmetic) relationship. One could plot the Y-axes so that the lines never crossed using the exact same data (no vertical switcheroo). Visual line crossing is an artifact of the graphical artistry, not the data. Again, you can’t add apples and oranges any more than you can subtract them.
Suppose you have two nearby weather stations near the Canadian-US border. They will measure nearly the same temperature, but they are expressed in different units [C and F] and the F-curve is generally above the C curve [except when below -40] and it would be quite meaningless to plot the two curves on the same plot. But if we scale one to the other, e.g convert the US from F to C, then everything makes sense and they can be plotted together and above and below each other make sense. Suppose that you did not know the conversion formula between F and C you could still accomplish the comparison. You would correlate the two series and find a slope [~1.8] and an offset [32] that would allow you to do the scaling. Now, this was a case where we had two temperature series, but that is not really important. It works with any quantities no matter what their units or physical definition is. Solar activity can be measured in ‘sunspot numbers’ SSN which is a count of spots and has no units or as sunspot area SA which has a unit of area (expressed as millionth of the solar disk). On average the two are related like this SSN = 0.35 * SA^0.775. I can scale SA, say, to an equivalent SSN using the formula and plot it on the same graph as SSN. The former apples [SSN] and oranges [SA] can now be compared and it has meaning to talk about above and below. If SSN is, say, above the scaled SSN calculated from the formula, then we can deduce that the person who did the counting has a different method or perhaps a better telescope than the one who produced the SSN on which the above formula was based. So, this is perfectly doable and similar graphs are done every day by multitudes of people.
hubris = excessive pride or arrogance.
I struggle to find any relevant discussion or articles supporting AGW. The only sources that I find with a credible scientific discussion dispute AGW as a primary cause of warming or as not a factor.
However, scientific issues have alternative points of view with well thought arguments supported with data. I would like to find the names of persons or reports who have factually based arguments for AGW. The best I can find is “see IPCC”. Most discussions are if you believe AGW or your are a “flat earther”. No discussion, just ad hominen attacks. But, science has alternative points of view supported with logical arguments based on data.
I would welcome suggestions on where to look to find relevant pro AGW arguments.
Leif Svalgaard (20:01:48) :
Dr. Svalgaard, thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about. I’m going to be nagging my students to death this fall about apples and oranges comparisons… (we do that a lot in the social sciences.. “… this is an apple, this is your brain on pineapple juice…”) now what do we gotta do to extract knowledge from the data….. I’ll work on this. The things a sociologist can learn from a solar physicist…
RE: Having it both ways. Instantaneous vs 30 year “cycles”. Lag.
I recently finished one of Colleen McCullough’s great books on the Roman empire – The October Horse. In or around 43 to 42 BC the nilometer for 2 growing seasons read only up to the cubits of despair. The entire “world” ran out of grain. The world was a much smaller place then, and the impact on the Empire was one for the history books. It got me interested in Egyptian history and learning more about their Nilometers, said to have recorded the water levels of the nile for over 5000 years. Further reading, particularly from the turn of the millenium, suggested a strong correlation between SST, ENSO, and the avearge flow of the nile. It was also extrapolated that the change from cooler to warmer SST, and subsequent change from La Nina to El Nino should be a warning bell about potential for drought. I cite Eltahir and Wang (1999) as an example.
http://web.mit.edu/eltahir/www/nile_floods.html
In this paper they show a correlation statistic they felt predicts the change in rainfall and river flow 6 months post change to a warm phase of the SST (and we just had such a change last month).
As far as the use of the Nilometer as a proxy for SST and ENSO patterns for the last 5000 years, I have a few comments. From http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/cairo/
the following graph of the nilometer records form 622AD to 1284AD can be studied
http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/cairo/cairo5.png
To the laymen, I can’t see a 30 year signal in this 600 year chronology. What I can see is an average, some periods of averageness, some long periods above and below averageness, and some wild year to year fluctuations.
If anyone finds a full 5,000 year record constructed, I would love to see it. Haven’t found it yet.
Leif Svalgaard (19:06:09) :
“Of course he is doing the right thing and so are the people trying to model the climate. From their collective failures we shall learn something. This is the only way.”
I think that almost all of us agree that substantial expenditures to study and model all aspects of our climate system are currently justified. However, based on all of the information you have reviewed to date, do you think that there is currently sufficient scientific basis to justify aggressive (1% of world GDP) ongoing expenditures in order to attempt to limit anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions?
gLENN-
Glenn-
You are right about CO2 concentration. It is 0.038%, not 0.0038% as was written a few times. I might have got this notice in earlier but a couple of hours of TV were more enticing.
IanM
Global Climate Chaos (20:34:22) :
I struggle to find any relevant discussion or articles supporting AGW.
That is because most of the arguments supporting are not at present directed toward a reasoned defense of the central tenets of AGW.
Right now their attention is entirely directed at influencing policy and fear is best salesman in that arena.
dennis ward (13:10:17) :
Please can somebody explain how GCRs were measured as far back as 1300?
The Vikings had only primitive means back then. They constructed cloud chambers from glass panels looted from Christian churches, used wine from Vinland instead of alcohol, and used glacial ice instead of dry ice to achieve the saturated atmosphere. Lodestones borrowed from longship navigators provided the magnetic field used to distinguish proton paths from electron paths. They of course recorded their findings on rune stones, which is why the data are so sparse, but the present retreat of the massive glaciers formed during the MWP is uncovering more and more of their data sets. With sufficient numbers are recovered, GISS will be able to homogenize them and definitively settle the science.
Just The Facts (20:44:50) :
However, based on all of the information you have reviewed to date, do you think that there is currently sufficient scientific basis to justify aggressive (1% of world GDP) ongoing expenditures in order to attempt to limit anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions?
Good heavens no. I like warm weather. Give me some more.
Mike McMillan (22:15:30) :
The Vikings had only primitive means back then.[…] When sufficient numbers are recovered, GISS will be able to homogenize them and definitively settle the science.
Not all the alcohol from Vinland was used for these experiments, some of it help create a fog within the heads of the experimenters that when zapped by a cosmic ray caused them to adjust the numbers upwards. This effect should be compensated for by a suitable automatic GISS-developed algorithm [that first must be tested, of course, by imbibing sufficient amounts of vine – I can volunteer to help, even being a namesake of one of the original experimenters].
>> George E. Smith (10:22:00) :
. . .
Annette; that 0.1% (roughly) is correct, that is about the extent of the peak to peak change in the “Solar Constant” of about 1366 Watts per square meter; Total Solar Incidence. If that radiation fell on a quite passive “black body”, the change in temperature of that body would only be 1/4 of that 0.1% or 0.025%. That is because the energy and the temperature are related by the Stefan-Boltzmann 4th Power Law; energy (absorbed or emitted) is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.
So for earth (which is NOT a passive black body), the mean temperature is allegedly about 15 deg C or about 288 Kelvins. 0.1% of that is 0.288 deg (C or K), and 1/4 of that is only 0.072 deg C. <<
Some people get the right answer (or nearly the right answer) for the wrong reasons. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a power law, so you really can’t divide by 4 when you should be taking the fourth root. Roots also have a different effect on a number–numbers below 1 get larger and numbers above 1 get smaller. (Negative and complex numbers produce answers in the complex plane.)
Let’s solve for the second temperature:
Stefen-Boltzmann law: J = s*T1^4 and J + delta_J = s*T2^4.
We subtract the first equation from the second: delta_J = s*T2^4 – s*T1^4.
Gathering terms and solving for T2 we get: T2 = (delta_J/s +T1^4)^0.25 .
s is the Stefan-Boltzman constant: 5.670400E-8 J/(sec-m^2-K^4);
delta_j = 0.1% * 1366 W/m^2 = 1.366 W/m^2; and T1 is 288K.
When we solve for T2 we get: 288.252K .
Off by a factor of 3, so you’re in the ball park considering that not all of the 1.366 W/m^2 will reach the surface. (That’s assuming I didn’t screw up the math. I’m sure someone will point out my errors forthwith.) If we assume an albedo of 0.31, then the surface will see about (1 – 0.31) * 1.366 W/m^2 = 0.943 W/m^2. Using this number, we get: 288.174K . That’s not too bad really.
Then there’s the effect caused by the Earth’s elliptical orbit, but that’s for another time.
Jim
Hank Hancock (14:58:12)
Since you ask, I’ve used the resistor/battery/capacitor concept for the oceanic influence on climate here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2581
and here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Balancing%20the%20Earths%20Energy%20Budget.pdf
Did somebody mention an experiment involving drinking alchohol? I’m in. Wasn’t that Tim Robbins movie about you, Leif? 😉
Mark
OT:
Steve in SC (11:09:47) :
What they discount and seemingly everybody else as well is the direct emmissions as a result of mans activities in the form of BTUs.
I’m trying to assume that these BTU’s are not significant. However, it no longer seems safe to trust the things implied by Climate Science, such as that the “scientists” have indeed checked the surface station sitings and thermometers to see if they are in good enough shape to actually record reliable temperatures. I’d already read in the TAR’s section promising to talk about greenhouse gases that water vapor was ~”not considered/not going to be discussed”. Pretty odd omission here, eh, maybe even galling for the hopeful reader of alleged science?
I wondered about your BTU-heat point 30yrs. ago, got a little concerned, then decided to forget about the whole thing. At least it seems safe to conclude that even this effect is not significant enough to prevent the recent atmospheric cooling, which is what I’m more worried about now, at least in terms of the Earth’s actual climate. I’ll take the Tropics over the South Pole any day. And my particular locale’s Winters have been getting way too long already, not to mention that I’ve also been promised warming instead, which, I have to admit, additionally galls me about this thing known as “Climate Science”.
Now all I’m going to get out of it is taxed, and regressed to pre-Enlightenment times. “I hope he fails.”
Looks like there’s a nice correlation in the first figure between the isotope vs temperature trends. Oh, apart from the sudden mis-match in the last century of the graph, but that’s probably not important, right? Nothing new happened there to change things.
This confuses scale with depth. We are not an organ of Gaia just because Gaia is physically bigger. That is like claiming that the Nation State owns all its citizens and should dictate their life just because the state and society is bigger than the individual. An individual is capable of conscious awareness, which society is not. Humans can reason and think, which Gaia is not able to do. We may be smaller, we may for the time being rely on agriculture for food, but we are conscious intelligent beings, we have a depth of existence, which Gaia does not. We are not here to serve Gaia. That is a profound confusion, but it does explain the rather self-sacrifcial attitude of some greenies.
ginckgo (23:59:56)
If you read the funding proposal for the CLOUD experiment it should be clear why that temperature graph was used. The present rule of climate studies is “No b——t, no bucks.” To get funding for the experiment the proposal had to claim that only “some” of the recent warming may be due to solar forcing. If they use temperature graphs that reference only rural surface stations correctly sited with no station moves combined with recent satellite records, it may have appeared that they were indicating that most of the recent warming was due to solar forcing. “No b——t, no bucks.”
Leif Svalgaard (20:01:48):
Leif, let’s assume you have the data for SSN and SA, but do not know their relationship. Let’s also assume the data are in a time series (maybe month-by-month for three years). Further, let’s also assume that in Year 1 and Year 2 the SSN counts are small, say 1 to 4 per month. Then in Year 3 the SSN numbers jump to 15 to 20 per month.
Try graphing that with SSN on the first Y-axis, SA on the second Y-axis, and the time series of months on the X-axis.
What you will see is that SSN and SA track very closely for the first two years. Their values are almost identical. But in Year 3 the SSN numbers rise high above the SA numbers. The gap between the two lines becomes huge in the third year.
Remember, you don’t know that they are related by an exact equation. Just looking casually at the graph, you might assume that they are not related at all, or else were closely related in Years 1 and 2 and then all heck broke loose.
That could be the case with the solar/GCR graph. The relationship between cosmic rays and temperature could be a power ratio. There could be other feedback mechanisms (other variables) involved, which might be expressed only at certain ranges of cosmic rays. Or, as you noted, the indicators of cosmic rays (Be10 and C14) might be different at different latitudes (a conditional variable).
If some decent statistical modeling was done, it could be that a power ratio relationship with other correlated and conditional variables is tested and found to be a better model than might appear visually in a simple plot.
And, as I pointed out, some of the variables might be poorly measured, such as the Siberian ice core proxy for temperature. The temps appear to be annual averages, which may not be a reliable metric. Maybe the temp proxies from 1900 on are measured differently, such as with thermometers instead of ice proxies. You have noted a similar situation with sunspots, where they are more frequent today only because our ability to detect them has improved.
All those factor tend to reduce the inferential qualities of the simplistic graph above. More rigorous analysis than visual inspection is required. It could be that Svensmark has in fact done a more rigorous analysis than eyeballing raw data. I certainly hope so.
The CERN paper:
“Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds.”
I moved rather quickly through the 175 responses and finally Game to “George” before the Wilson Cloud Chamber was mentioned. I guess we don’t give a nod to the old masters these days.
arch stanton (08:10:03) : ‘However there is a chance that it does have some minor influence on the climate.”
Arch, I’m sure there is at least a chance that clouds have more than a minor influence on climate if CERN has taken an interest. Also I refer you to my first remark re Wilson’s quaint chamber.
As per Flannagan, Leif and some others re more rapid rise in temp than GCR forcing correlaton for 20thC. I’m sure some other posters must have suggested that the latest period temperatures have been in the care of AGWers, a bit like getting Colonel Sanders to take care of your chickens.