Indirect Solar Forcing of Climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate

By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD (reprinted from his blog with permission)

UPDATE (12:35 p.m. CDT 19 May 2011): revised corrections of CERES data for El Nino/La Nina effects.

While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.

I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.

If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.

BACKGROUND

The single most frequently asked question I get after I give my talks is, “Why didn’t you mention the sun?” I usually answer that I’m skeptical of the “cosmic ray gun” theory of cloud changes controlling climate. But I point out that Svensmark’s theory of natural cloud variations causing climate change is actually pretty close to what I preach — only the mechanism causing the cloud change is different.

Then, I found last year’s paper by Laken et al. which was especially interesting since it showed satellite-observed cloud changes following changes in cosmic ray activity. Even though the ISCCP satellite data they used are not exactly state of the art, the study was limited to the mid-latitudes, and the time scales involved were days rather than years, the results gave compelling quantitative evidence of a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover.

With the rapid-fire stream of publications and reports now coming out on the subject, I decided to go back and spend some time analyzing ground-based galactic cosmic ray (GCR) data to see whether there is a connection between GCR variations and variations in the global radiative energy balance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy, taken from the NASA CERES radiative budget instruments on the Terra satellite, available since March 2000.

After all, that is ultimately what we are interested in: How do various forcings affect the radiative energy budget of the Earth? The results, I must admit, are enough for me to now place at least one foot solidly in the cosmic ray theory camp.

THE DATA

The nice thing about using CERES Earth radiative budget data is that we can get a quantitative estimate in Watts per sq. meter for the radiative forcing due to cosmic ray changes. This is the language the climate modelers speak, since these radiative forcings (externally imposed global energy imbalances) can be used to help calculate global temperature changes in the ocean & atmosphere based upon simple energy conservation. They can then also be compared to the estimates of forcing from increasing carbon dioxide, currently the most fashionable cause of climate change.

From the global radiative budget measurements we also get to see if there is a change in high clouds (inferred from the outgoing infrared measurements) as well as low clouds (inferred from reflected shortwave [visible sunlight] measurements) associated with cosmic ray activity.

I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow, since it is the first station I found which includes a complete monthly archive for the same period we have global radiative energy budget data from CERES (March 2000 through June 2010). I’m sure there are other stations, too…all of this is preliminary anyway. Me sifting through the myriad solar-terrestrial datasets is just as confusing to me as most of you sifting through the various climate datasets that I’m reasonably comfortable with.

THE RESULTS

The following plot (black curve) shows the monthly GCR data from Moscow for this period, as well as a detrended version with 1-2-1 averaging (red curve) to match the smoothing I will use in the CERES measurements to reduce noise.

Detrending the data isolates the month-to-month and year-to-year variability as the signal to match, since trends (or a lack of trends) in the global radiative budget data can be caused by a combination of many things. (Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.)

The monthly cosmic ray data at Moscow will be compared to global monthly anomalies the NASA Terra satellite CERES (SSF 2.5 dataset) radiative flux data,

which shows the variations in global average reflected sunlight (SW), emitted infrared (LW), and Net (which is the estimated imbalances in total absorbed energy by the climate system, after adjustment for variations in total solar irradiance, TSI). Note I have plotted the variations in the negative of Net, which is approximately equal to variations in (LW+SW)

Then, since the primary source of variability in the CERES data is associated with El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, I subtracted out an estimate of the average ENSO influence using running regressions between running 5-month averages of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and the CERES fluxes. I used the MEI index along with those regression coefficients in each month to correct the CERES fluxes 4 months later, since that time lag had the strongest correlation.

Finally, I performed regressions at various leads and lags between the GCR time series and the LW, SW, and -Net radiative flux time series, the results of which are shown next.

The yearly average relationships noted in the previous plot come from this relationship in the reflected solar (SW) data,

while the -Net flux (Net is absorbed solar minus emitted infrared, corrected for the change in solar irradiance during the period) results look like this:

It is that last plot that gives us the final estimate of how a change in cosmic ray flux at Moscow is related to changes in Earth’s radiative energy balance.

SUMMARY

What the above three plots show is that for a 1,000 count increase in GCR activity as measured at Moscow (which is somewhat less than the increase between Solar Max and Solar Min), there appears to be:

(1) an increase in reflected sunlight (SW) of 0.64 Watts per sq. meter, probably mostly due to an increase in low cloud cover;

(2) virtually no change in emitted infrared (LW) of +0.02 Watts per sq. meter;

(3) a Net (reflected sunlight plus emitted infrared) effect of 0.55 Watts per sq. meter loss in radiant energy by the global climate system.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?

Assuming these signatures are anywhere close to being real, what do they mean quantitatively in terms of the potential effect of cosmic ray activity on climate?

Well, just like any other forcing, a resulting temperature change depends not only upon the size of the forcing, but also the sensitivity of the climate system to forcing. But we CAN compare the cosmic ray forcing to OTHER “known” forcings, which could have a huge influence on our understanding of the role of humans in climate change.

For example, if warming observed in the last century is (say) 50% natural and 50% anthropogenic, then this implies the climate system is only one-half as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions (or aerosol pollution) than if the warming was 100% anthropogenic in origin (which is pretty close to what we are told the supposed “scientific consensus” is).

First, let’s compare the cosmic ray forcing to the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) during 2000-2010. The orange curve in following plot is the change in direct solar (TSI) forcing between 2000 and 2010, which with the help of Danny Braswell’s analytical skills I backed out from the CERES Net, LW, and SW data. It is the only kind of solar forcing the IPCC (apparently) believes exists, and it is quite weak:

Also shown is the estimated cosmic ray forcing resulting from the month-to-month changes in the original Moscow cosmic ray time series, computed by multiplying those monthly changes by 0.55 Watts per sq. meter per 1,000 cosmic ray counts change.

Finally, I fitted the trend lines to get an estimate of the relative magnitudes of these two sources of forcing: the cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing. This means the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe.

One obvious question this begs is whether the lack of recent warming, since about 2004 for the 0-700 meter layer of the ocean, is due to the cosmic ray effect on cloud cover canceling out the warming from increasing carbon dioxide.

If the situation really was that simple (which I doubt it is), this would mean that with Solar Max rapidly approaching, warming should resume in the coming months. Of course, other natural cycles could be in play (my favorite is the Pacific Decadal oscillation), so predicting what will happen next is (in my view) more of an exercise in faith than in science.

In the bigger picture, this is just one more piece of evidence that the IPCC scientists should be investigating, one which suggests a much larger role for Mother Nature in climate change than the IPCC has been willing to admit. And, again I emphasize, the greater the role of Nature in causing past climate change, the smaller the role humans must have had, which could then have a profound impact on future projections of human-caused global warming.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
419 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dewald
May 20, 2011 10:18 am

You should have a look at Piers Corbyn’s work.

Neo
May 20, 2011 10:26 am

I decided to go back and spend some time analyzing ground-based galactic cosmic ray (GCR) data to see whether there is a connection between GCR variations and variations in the global radiative energy balance …
Are GCR emissions relative uniform over an area the size of the Earth ? .. or are the effects of GCR global or could GCR have a relatively localized effect ?

bikermailman
May 20, 2011 10:30 am

Many thanks to you, Dr. Spencer, for all the work you do to keep us ‘deniers’ informed.

Jeremy
May 20, 2011 10:45 am

For those who want to know about the theory of Henrik Svensmark – please read the excellent and compelling book by Nigel Calder – “The Chilling Stars”.
If this latest chapter on unraveling our understanding of climate change turns out to be valid, Jasper Kirby and Svensmark will go down in history and deserve the Nobel Prize a lot more than the con artists that got the last Climate Change related Nobel Award.
However, on second thoughts, since the Nobel prize may have lost all credibility, perhaps Jasper and Henrik don’t deserve such an ignominious prize. And besides, I expect these gentlemen are not of the sort to even desire such recognition. They do real science because they are passionate about it not for some agenda.
…of course, the jury is still out and the GCR theory is yet unproven so perhaps I am a little hasty in my suggested praise. Nevertheless, if you have been procrastinating buying “The Chilling Stars”, now would be a good time to order it.

ej
May 20, 2011 10:48 am

So why is it that factors like this aren’t considered more? I understand the political bias in the AGW dynamics, but why don’t more “mainstream” people look at these things?

May 20, 2011 10:49 am

Nice pictures, funny. =)

jack morrow
May 20, 2011 10:50 am

It seems from all reports including this one, that there are several things that contribute to earth’s climate. PDO, Vukcevic’s magnetism charts and explanations, co2, aerosols, the ending glacial age , earth and solar orbits, Mr Wilde’s jet stream information and numerous other theories are just a few. All said-co2 and man seems to me to have only an extremely small role in causing a change if any in the Earth’s climate. Other forcings are much larger I think.

May 20, 2011 11:16 am

ej writes “So why is it that factors like this aren’t considered more? I understand the political bias in the AGW dynamics, but why don’t more “mainstream” people look at these things?”
That is the 64 trillion dollar question. I am at a loss to understand why organizations like the Royal Society and the American Physical Society can continue to ignore the evidence that is pouring in, supporting Henrik Svensmark’s theory. In 2 or 3 months we are supposed to get a report on Project CLOUD. How much longer can these ostriches keep their heads buried in the sand?

Ray
May 20, 2011 11:23 am

The effects of cosmic rays on Earth’s climate might explain certain anomalies of past climates… like snowball earth and the out-of-nowhere ice ages that don’t fit the orbital theory. Maybe our solar system pass through galactic particle clouds, dense enough to counteract the solar winds and amplified if the sun was in a low activity cycle.

Don B
May 20, 2011 11:24 am

If enough articles such as this one in Physics World keep showing up, surely the media will notice, won’t they?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45982

May 20, 2011 11:28 am

Which do you think is more cruel?
To take all these new papers that are coming out and storm the warmist bunker at Wikipedia
or … to do nothing at all …. and see how long they can stand the ridicule before they eat humble pie and change it themselves?

R. Gates
May 20, 2011 11:41 am

One obvious question this begs is whether the lack of recent warming, since about 2004 for the 0-700 meter layer of the ocean, is due to the cosmic ray effect on cloud cover canceling out the warming from increasing carbon dioxide.
If the situation really was that simple (which I doubt it is), this would mean that with Solar Max rapidly approaching, warming should resume in the coming months. Of course, other natural cycles could be in play (my favorite is the Pacific Decadal oscillation), so predicting what will happen next is (in my view) more of an exercise in faith than in science
______
I think your analysis is getting close to the truth. In particular, I do feel that the deep solar minimum with the resultant increase in GCR’s and increase in global cloud cover during the 2008-2009 period did have a bigger impact on climate than perhaps some were willing to admit. Also, as you’ve pointed out, we can’t factor out the role of the cool phase of the PDO and other ocean cycles. But that leads to a follow-up question, how might the modulation of cloud cover by GCR’s affect the longer-term ocean cycles?
I think with the GCR/Cloud cover connect becoming more quantified, we’ll indeed see this connnection incorporated into global climate models in the years to come.
On the larger point however, of the role of antropogenic factors in causing global climate change, I think even at the extreme end of the role of GCR’s and cloud cover, you are still giving far too little credit for the 40% increase in CO2 and other GHG’s since the 1750’s. Even with the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009, we saw no appreciable recovery of the arctic sea ice to previoius longer-term levels. As the Arctic is the place to look for the early signs of AGW, the the fact that the Arctic continues warmer than it’s long term average and the sea ice is still in a long-term downtrend all corraborate the fact that generally the global climate models are correct about the influence of anthropogenic GHG’s, and the addition of the GCR/cloud connect will add only a minor modulation of the general trend to higher global temps over the coming decades due to anthropogenic GHG’s.

richard telford
May 20, 2011 11:49 am

Can you trust the relationship between annual SW inbalance and cosmic ray count when 2003 is such an influential observation? If this point is omitted, is the relationship still statistically significant?
And how can cosmic be important when there is no trend since the 1950s?

wermet
May 20, 2011 11:54 am

ej says: May 20, 2011 at 10:48 am
So why is it that factors like this aren’t considered more? I understand the political bias in the AGW dynamics, but why don’t more “mainstream” people look at these things?
Remember the Climategate emails? The “team” was working to control what was published in the journals. Only those who were “team” members get to publish. All other work, regardless of how worthy, are peer reviewed out of the process. And even if non-“team” work did get published, they worked to get the accepting editors sacked.
Also, most scientists don’t work for free. It usually takes funding in order to generate a publishable paper. Funding from sourced which at the time (and now) that assume AGW is a problem. It you aren’t working to “solve” the problem, you get no funding.

Doug in Seattle
May 20, 2011 11:57 am

Looks like the hockey team and the IPCC may need to get knee pads and a few crow recipes.
I , like Dr. Spencer, was a bit reluctant at first to attach too much to the Svensmark GCR/Cloud mechanism. I Thought he was on to something, but that his link was weakly proven. I was also thinking that it was just too simple and obvious for so many to have missed it.
I think there may be a few more scientific hurdles to overcome, but I suspect these will be trivial compared to fight we can expect from the IPCC “consensus”.
BTW, thanks Dr. Spencer for doing the back of the envelope work here. I hope the CLOUDS group can supply us a more refined estimate of the numbers.

Hoser
May 20, 2011 12:15 pm

Ray says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:23 am
The effects of cosmic rays on Earth’s climate might explain certain anomalies of past climates… like snowball earth and the out-of-nowhere ice ages that don’t fit the orbital theory. Maybe our solar system pass through galactic particle clouds, dense enough to counteract the solar winds and amplified if the sun was in a low activity cycle.
_____________________
Yes, the 10Be data from the Greenland ice cores seem to show a very strong signal through the ice age and another peak for the Younger Dryas that are far larger than the wiggles in 10Be seen during the Little Ice Age. This very large difference suggests that there are rather large changes in GCR flux that cannot be accounted for by solar activity. The Antarctic ice cores do not show a similar Younger Dryas peak, but GCRs are known to be anisotropic, and not showing a comparable 10Be peak on the opposite side of the Earth should not be surprising. It seems these large changes in 10Be level are far too large to be accounted for by changing snowfall amounts.

May 20, 2011 12:33 pm

I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow
Which is unfortunate because Moscow does not have very good control of the absolute values. They have numerous ‘glitches’ and ‘jumps’ which are instrumental. Hermanus is better, or Kiel, or just about any other station.

David Corcoran
May 20, 2011 12:37 pm

Thank you, Dr. Spencer.
At first the alarmists will simply deny this and vituperously attack every scientist who confirms this, no matter how overwhelming and obvious the science is. It’s exactly what they’ve done up until now… they don’t change direction easily. I expect them to attack CERN and every researcher associated with it when the CLOUD papers are published, even as they have Dr. Spencer. Post-normal science is all about “Saving the planet”, creating an eco-marxist “utopia”, and being in the “smart crowd”; not a search for truth. Their cause is so noble that every sacrifice born by others is worth it: Bio-fuel induced bouts of starvation in the third world, the poor who die of cold because of artificially expensive fuel, and those jobless because global warming policies have so damaged industries. Let us not foget the research papers blocked, good scientists driven from their positions, and the data modified to fit CAGW theories.
Alarmist reputations will be lost or badly damaged in the months to come. It’s deserved and long overdue.
All that aside, I have a question: How long does the increase in cloud cover last? Once water vapor has coalesced into mist, how long does the mist linger?

coaldust
May 20, 2011 12:39 pm

R. Gates says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:41 am
“As the Arctic is the place to look for the early signs of AGW, the the fact that the Arctic continues warmer than it’s long term average and the sea ice is still in a long-term downtrend all corraborate the fact that generally the global climate models are correct about the influence of anthropogenic GHG’s”
The sea ice is just a lagging indicator of global temperature. It takes a long time for warmer water from the past warm period to circulate to the poles. It will take a while before the arctic ice recovers because that warmer water will be melting ice or preventing ice formation. The sea ice is not a good indicator of current energy budget.

May 20, 2011 12:59 pm

Now, how to combine oceanic cycles with the Sun. Looks like theory of relativity and quantum theory.

FrankK
May 20, 2011 1:01 pm

Jim Cripwell says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:16 am
How much longer can these ostriches keep their heads buried in the sand?
_________________________________________________________
As long as the gravy train funding keeps rolling in.

Theo Goodwin
May 20, 2011 1:10 pm

Scottish Sceptic says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:28 am
“Which do you think is more cruel?
To take all these new papers that are coming out and storm the warmist bunker at Wikipedia…”
Speaking as one, honest academics must tell their students that Wikipedia is useful for fun only. It has no credibility for serious research.

Editor
May 20, 2011 1:11 pm

R Gates
To refer to increasing co2 levels since 1750 is a little misleading in as much the amounts are so trivial that IF they make a difference at so low a concentration it effectively means that man can’t live on this planet without fundamentally altering its atmosphere. Are you suggesting that?
Perhaps you-or someone else- can confirm if this cosmic ray effect can be regional and sporadic, because it seems clear that we can date a general warming from 1700 ( I would date it to 1607) but on the other hand approximately 30% of stations show a cooling trend. How can this be?
tonyb

Theo Goodwin
May 20, 2011 1:14 pm

Thanks so much for your preliminary results. They are very interesting. The fact that you are interested in Svensmark’s hypotheses is interesting in itself. I hope that part of your interest is that Svensmark’s work provides us all with an impeccable example of scientific method.

Mac the Knife
May 20, 2011 1:25 pm

Sincerely, “Thank You!” Dr. Spencer! Your preliminary analysis provides a first glimpse of independent correlation of atmospheric impingement of cosmic rays with earthly warming and cooling. Curiouser and curiouser……..
Thanks a bunch!

Jimbo
May 20, 2011 1:40 pm

R. Gates says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:41 am
As the Arctic is the place to look for the early signs of AGW, the the fact that the Arctic continues warmer than it’s long term average and the sea ice is still in a long-term downtrend

Is it only air / water temperature that causes reduced Arctic ice extent?
Have you considered soot?

Hansen et al.
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos [PNAS]
November 4, 2003
“Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost.”
…………………..
We suggest that soot contributes to near worldwide melting of ice that is usually attributed solely to global warming. Measurements in the Alps reveal BC concentrations as large as 100 ppbw (34, 35), enough to reduce the visible albedo by ~10% and double absorption of sunlight (21).”
………………..
“The soot albedo effect operates in concert with regional warming in most of the world, hindering empirical distinction of climate and soot contributions. However, there has been little warming in China, including Tibet, over the past 120 years (Fig. 3), yet glaciers there are retreating rapidly (37).”
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.long

Ramanathan et al 2007
“We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent……………….We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html

May 20, 2011 1:56 pm

I have not seen any correlation data for GCR and the global temperatures.
On the other hand there is 280 years long R^2 >0.7 correlation between CET (the world’s longest available temperature record) and the rate of change of the geomagnetic field in the North Atlantic.
Correlation of R^2 >0.7 for any climatic set of data (for a even much shorter period) is unprecedented. More details will be in a forthcoming article (email request will be considered) .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/dBz.htm

Britannic-no-see-um
May 20, 2011 2:01 pm

Worth a visit to Nigel Calder’s blog, (former editor of New Scientist, co-author with Svensmark of ‘Chilling Stars’), and associated comments, for tracking the latest on this topic.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/

Doug Proctor
May 20, 2011 2:28 pm

The temperature and OHC records have large variations away from the general rise, while the IPCC “projections”, for all their complexity and needing Brainiac computation, are fairly smooth. If this work gives the variations that observation finds, then the correlation to sun and cosmic rays will be better than to the linear, very smooth rise of CO2.
Good work. Looking forward to incorporation of other stations and their data. So NASA hasn’t done this? Hmmmmmm.

Dave Wendt
May 20, 2011 3:03 pm

Dr. Spencer
A very interesting and suggestive attempt, but I would note one fairly glaring omission. You forgot to include the mandatory final paragraph where you point out the urgent need for more research funding to cover further explorations of this topic. I know you’ve been at this a lot longer than many of our current crop climate geniuses, but you really do need to bring yourself up to date with the evolved goals of modern climatology i.e. “Show me the money!”

May 20, 2011 3:05 pm

R=0.6 and R=0.64 is quoted in the graphs above. I would expect Dr. Spencer to quote more customary R^2, but this for above values would give much lower and disappointing R^2 =0.36 and R^0.41, which would be considered ‘not worth the bother’.

DirkH
May 20, 2011 3:31 pm

Dave Wendt says:
May 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm
“[…]but you really do need to bring yourself up to date with the evolved goals of modern climatology i.e. “Show me the money!”
He also needs to smuggle in a “worse than we thought”…

DirkH
May 20, 2011 3:35 pm

richard telford says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:49 am
“And how can cosmic be important when there is no trend since the 1950s?”
The Beast sequals; Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf! We only now enter a prolonged solar minimum. The knowledge of the sun’s influence MUST be suppressed!

Marcoinpanama
May 20, 2011 3:53 pm

So I just went to Amazon to download a copy of Chilling Stars for my iPad, because hey, we live in Panama and don’t need to ship dead trees to add yet more to GW. But not so! Not available on Kindle! Nigel, tell your publisher to get with the program or get a new publisher! Sheesh – even my friend Nick who self-published a book about his sorry-a**ed childhood has it on Kindle and has sold at least ten copies.
Maybe if everyone on this blog sends a nastygram to the publisher we can get more distribution (worldwide) for this important book.

William
May 20, 2011 3:54 pm

Total planetary cloud cover closely tracks GCR up until 1994. Post 1994 there is an increase in solar wind bursts that create a space charge differential in the ionosphere and which removes cloud forming ions.
See this review paper by Eric Palle.
(See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1994.)
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
The second process, considered by Tinsley and Yu (2003), namely electroscavenging, depends on the action of the global electrical circuit (see review by Rycroft et al. (2000)). The transport of charge by rapidly rising convective currents in the tropics and over continental land masses leads to a 200 kV positive charge of the ionosphere compared to Earth. This large voltage difference, in turn, necessitates a return current which must pass through the regions of the atmosphere where clouds are formed. As cosmic rays are the principal agent of ionization in the atmosphere above 1 km altitude, any modulation of the GCR flux due to solar activity is likely to affect the transport of charge to complete the global electrical circuit. Tinsley and Yu (2003) discuss how the build up of electrostatic charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds could affect the scavenging of ice forming nuclei (IFN) and cloud The solar wind bursts have abated and GCR is high however there is a third mechanism that is removing cloud forming ions.
..condensation nuclei (CCN) by droplets, and how this can lead to greater rates of precipitation and a reduction in cloud cover. They find that the electroscavenging process is likely to be more important over oceanic rather than continental regions and that it leads to a positive correlation between clouds and cosmic rays at higher latitudes and a negative correlation at low latitudes. Thus the electroscavenging process can explain several of the most striking features of Fig. 5, namely: (1) the peak in significant positive correlations at latitudes around 50 degrees North and South (Fig. 5a); (2) the tendency for a less significant but nonetheless evident trend to negative correlation coefficients at low latitudes (Fig. 5a); and (3) the location of the peak in correlation over one of the principal oceans, namely over the North and South Atlantic (Fig. 5c).
Once again about global warming and solar activity
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

oneuniverse
May 20, 2011 4:04 pm

Dr. Spencer: I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow
Dr. Svalgaard: Which is unfortunate because Moscow does not have very good control of the absolute values. They have numerous ‘glitches’ and ‘jumps’ which are instrumental. Hermanus is better, or Kiel, or just about any other station.
A comparison of the Moscow data with that from the Hermanus and Haleakala neutron monitors doesn’t reveal any ‘glitches’ or ‘jumps’ – plots of the three datasets show a remarkably similar profile.
Anyone who is interested can verify for himself :
Moscow Neutron Monitor (Russia)
Haleakala Neutron Monitor
Hermanus Neutron Monitor
For all three plots, please select “27-days” for the resolution, to match the Dr. Spencer’s monthly plot, and the “Corrected for Pressure” option from the “Type of Data” drop-down menu. For the date ranges, please select 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Jan-01 (since the Haleakala and Moscow data only goes to the start of 2007 for some reason at this website).
You’ll see that the plots are almost identical in shape. The y-axis on the Haleakala plot shows that the % swings are smaller than for Moscow and Hermanus – the Haleakala monitor has a 13.4 GeV cut-off, compared to Moscow’s 2.43 GeV, and 4.6 GeV for Hermanus, and therefore the bulk of the cosmis rays it is recording are of higher energy.
The Hermanus data at the Izmiran website above does extend to the full range considered by Dr. Spencer, and it matches the Moscow plot presented here very well.
Dr. Svalgaard also suggests comparing to the Kiel neutron monitor.
This can be done at the NMDB website.
Please choose the MOSC and KIEL stations (and I suggest one other eg. OULU, otherwise the 2 plots don’t all fit on the graph, and the ‘zoom out’ option doesn’t seem to work). The date range can be the full 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Aug-01 used by Dr. Spencer.
Again, it can be seen that the two plots are in excellent agreement.
The Moscow monitor does appear to exhibit a jump in 2010 August, but this is outside the period used by Dr. Spencer. So Dr. Svalgaard is correct about the presence of glitches (and not just for the Moscow monitor), but he is wrong to dismiss Dr. Spencer’s analysis since no glitches or jumps appear to be present in the data used by Dr. Spencer.

oneuniverse
May 20, 2011 4:14 pm

[One more try to post this]
Dr. Spencer: I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow
Dr. Svalgaard: Which is unfortunate because Moscow does not have very good control of the absolute values. They have numerous ‘glitches’ and ‘jumps’ which are instrumental. Hermanus is better, or Kiel, or just about any other station.
A comparison of the Moscow data with that from the Hermanus and Haleakala neutron monitors doesn’t reveal any ‘glitches’ or ‘jumps’ – plots of the three datasets show a remarkably similar profile.
Anyone who is interested can verify for himself :
Moscow Neutron Monitor (Russia)
Haleakala Neutron Monitor
Hermanus Neutron Monitor
For all three plots, please select “27-days” for the resolution, to match the Dr. Spencer’s monthly plot, and the “Corrected for Pressure” option from the “Type of Data” drop-down menu. For the date ranges, please select 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Jan-01 (since the Haleakala and Moscow data only goes to the start of 2007 for some reason at this website).
You’ll see that the plots are almost identical in shape. The y-axis on the Haleakala plot shows that the % swings are smaller than for Moscow and Hermanus – the Haleakala monitor has a 13.4 GeV cut-off, compared to Moscow’s 2.43 GeV, and 4.6 GeV for Hermanus, and therefore the bulk of the cosmis rays it is recording are of higher energy.
The Hermanus data at the Izmiran website above does extend to the full range considered by Dr. Spencer, and it matches the Moscow plot presented here very well.
Dr. Svalgaard also suggests comparing to the Kiel neutron monitor. This can be done at the NMDB website :
Please choose the MOSC and KIEL stations (and I suggest one other eg. OULU, otherwise the 2 plots don’t all fit on the graph, and the ‘zoom out’ option doesn’t seem to work). The date range can be the full 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Aug-01 used by Dr. Spencer.
Again, it can be seen that the two plots are in excellent agreement.
The Moscow monitor does appear to exhibit a jump in 2010 August, but this is outside the period used by Dr. Spencer. So Dr. Svalgaard is correct about the presence of glitches (and not just for the Moscow monitor), but he is wrong to dismiss Dr. Spencer’s analysis since no glitches or jumps appear to be present in the data used by Dr. Spencer.

oneuniverse
May 20, 2011 4:17 pm

My post seems to be disappearing, not even going into moderation. I’ll try a shorter one:
Dr. Spencer: I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow
Dr. Svalgaard: Which is unfortunate because Moscow does not have very good control of the absolute values. They have numerous ‘glitches’ and ‘jumps’ which are instrumental. Hermanus is better, or Kiel, or just about any other station.
The Moscow, Hermanus and Kiel data can be plotted at izmirran dot rssi dot ru website (for the first two), and at the NMDB dot eu website for Moscow and Kiel.
There don’t appear to be any glitches or jumps – all three stations are in good agreement for the period considered by Dr. Spencer (although the % swings vary due to the different cut-off rigidities). The Moscow station does appear to exhibit a jump just after the period, in August 2010.

rbateman
May 20, 2011 4:18 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 20, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Moscow’s Monitor seems to be a bit ahead of the others, timewise.
I don’t know why this is, but thier data preceeds the rest of the stations.

a.m.r.
May 20, 2011 4:25 pm

Dr. Spencer: I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow
Dr. Svalgaard: Which is unfortunate because Moscow does not have very good control of the absolute values. They have numerous ‘glitches’ and ‘jumps’ which are instrumental. Hermanus is better, or Kiel, or just about any other station.
A comparison of the Moscow data with that from the Hermanus and Haleakala neutron monitors doesn’t reveal any ‘glitches’ or ‘jumps’ – plots of the three datasets show a remarkably similar profile.
Anyone who is interested can verify for himself :
Moscow Neutron Monitor (Russia)
Haleakala Neutron Monitor
Hermanus Neutron Monitor
For all three plots, please select “27-days” for the resolution, to match the Dr. Spencer’s monthly plot, and the “Corrected for Pressure” option from the “Type of Data” drop-down menu. For the date ranges, please select 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Jan-01 (since the Haleakala and Moscow data only goes to the start of 2007 for some reason at this website).
You’ll see that the plots are almost identical in shape. The y-axis on the Haleakala plot shows that the % swings are smaller than for Moscow and Hermanus – the Haleakala monitor has a 13.4 GeV cut-off, compared to Moscow’s 2.43 GeV, and 4.6 GeV for Hermanus, and therefore the bulk of the cosmis rays it is recording are of higher energy.
The Hermanus data at the Izmiran website above does extend to the full range considered by Dr. Spencer, and it matches the Moscow plot presented here very well.
Dr. Svalgaard also suggests comparing to the Kiel neutron monitor. This can be done at the NMDB website :
Please choose the MOSC and KIEL stations (and I suggest one other eg. OULU, otherwise the 2 plots don’t all fit on the graph, and the ‘zoom out’ option doesn’t seem to work). The date range can be the full 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Aug-01 used by Dr. Spencer.
Again, it can be seen that the two plots are in excellent agreement.
The Moscow monitor does appear to exhibit a jump in 2010 August, but this is outside the period used by Dr. Spencer. So Dr. Svalgaard is correct about the presence of glitches (and not just for the Moscow monitor), but he is too hasty to dismiss Dr. Spencer’s analysis, since no glitches or jumps appear to be present in the data used by Dr. Spencer.

Bruce of Newcastle
May 20, 2011 4:25 pm

Nice analysis Dr Spencer. I might add this is consistent with the correlation of previous solar cycle length and long term temperature (eg. see Butler & Johnston 1996).

R. Gates
May 20, 2011 4:36 pm

TonyB.,
Of course we can’t live on earth without altering the atmosphere as that is what plants and amimals do. Now certainly if there were only a few million humans living in some primitive or low energy usage our impact would be far less.
The real divide comes down to those who are convinced that the science is robust enough to strongly suggest that the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way

a.m.r.
May 20, 2011 4:41 pm

Sorry, a correction to my comment @ May 20, 2011 at 4:25 pm:
The date range can be the full 2000-Jan-01 to 2007-Aug-01 used by Dr. Spencer.
That should’ve been “to 2010-Aug-01”.

kwik
May 20, 2011 4:42 pm

Don B says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:24 am
“If enough articles such as this one in Physics World keep showing up, surely the media will notice, won’t they?”
All imortant news-media has editorial staff-meetings where they decide to ignore it.
The BBC for example. They notice, but they have decided to ignore it.
It is just like with Israel. All positive news from Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, is ignored. All negative news are enhanced. WUWT?

May 20, 2011 6:06 pm

Gates says:
“…the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way.”
There is no evidence to support that statement.

Crispin in Waterloo
May 20, 2011 6:13 pm

@R Gates
“The real divide comes down to those who are convinced that the science is robust enough to strongly suggest that the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way”
++++++
There is no published or blogged science strongly suggesting that a 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way. The vastly dominant GHG is water vapour and there is no indication that the level of it has increased at all. The article above clearly shows that not even cloud cover is changed by water vapour, it is mediated by the prevalence of cloud condensation nuclei even as the water vapour level stays the same.
In your first post above you mention that the Arctic is melting, or has not recovered. NASA says the ice loss was due to it blowing out of the Arctic Ocean and provides a photographic animation to prove it. It was not caused by GHG’s nor was the ice melted in the Arctic.

Jim Clarke
May 20, 2011 6:20 pm

The GCR theory goes a long way to explaining climate change on this planet at all time scales and now has experimental evidence to support it. Combined with other natural factors, like ocean cycles, we seem to have a pretty good working model of the Earth’s climate throughout history!
The CO2 theory of climate change, consisting largely of positive feedbacks, has no such supporting experimental evidence and only seems to fit the last 50 years or so, and only then if you ignore all other natural factors outside of volcanoes and the tiny changes in solar insolation.
The cognitive dissidence the warmest’s must live with seems overwhelming to me.
I have never met a climate change skeptic. Those of us who did not buy into the man-made climate change theory have always recognized that climate changes, but believed it was mostly natural and that the human impact was small, and certainly not a crisis! We have taken a more holistic view of climate change, believing that there are many factors to consider, and humanity is only a small part of the equation. The evidence is now overwhelming that this is the more accurate view of climate change (and actually, always has been).
The warmest’s are the only true ‘denialists’ in the debate. They are denying natural climate change exists. They hold the untenable argument that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and, therefore, all evidence of climate change before the mid-20th century is invalid. That is a lot of denial-ism, right there! I would put it right up there with the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
I guess my point is that I want to shout this GCR news from the roof tops. I want CNN to do non-stop coverage. I want cities across the planet to plan ‘Natural Climate Change Days’ and celebrate our freedom from impending doom! I want Roy Spencer to be a bit more excited and not so darn cautious and qualifying. But that is not going to happen, is it.
The climate crisis is going to die a slow and agonizing death. Remnants of the ‘crisis that never was’ will linger for many, many decades, just like the tax we Americans still pay to finance the Spanish/American war! Only this time, the bureaucratic damage is on a global scale. We will never know the true cost of this climate change debacle, but there is a chance that we may learn from it. At least, we can hope.

Jimbo
May 20, 2011 6:24 pm

R. Gates has the irritating behaviour of generally not initially revealing his references.

Jimbo
May 20, 2011 6:28 pm

Smokey says:

May 20, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Gates says:

“…the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way.”

There is no evidence to support that statement.

Well spotted. And even when he produces such ‘evidence’ it may come up for debate. R. Gates, please back up all your claims. Even the IPCC avoids claiming statistically significant man-made AGW before 1950. Get a grip!

R. Gates
May 20, 2011 6:47 pm

Smokey says:
May 20, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Gates says:
“…the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way.”
There is no evidence to support that statement.
———-
Then about any time now the arctic sea ice should be returning to it’s long-term average…something it has not seen since 2004, and the permafrost should begin to freeze up again. The dramatic changes being seen across the arctic would say that you are quite wrong, and that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the GCM’s are correct in showing that anthrogenic GHG’s are affecting climate.

rbateman
May 20, 2011 7:24 pm

R. Gates says:
May 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Quantify what you are talking about:
The real divide comes down to those who are convinced that the science is robust enough to strongly suggest that the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way
A 40% increase in a trace gas measured in a few hundreds of parts per million is still a trace gas as far as Earth’s atmosphere goes.
Let me know when we are talking about significant amounts of CO2, like 10,000 parts per million or more. At present, the change from .025% to .04% is still trace amounts.
Further, CO2 is known in industry to directly displace oxygen, so if you had a 21% O2 content previously, that O2 content is now 20.85%.

May 20, 2011 7:38 pm

Gates,
GCMs are not evidence, and there is no empirical evidence that anthrogenic (sic) emissions are causing Arctic ice cover to decline. If CO2 was the cause the exact same thing would be happening in the Antarctic.
The natural, cyclical decline in Arctic ice has happened before, and it will happen again. It is coincidental with the rise of a very minor trace gas. Every other CO2=CAGW prediction has failed.
Arctic ice is currently declining, and you believe it is due to CO2, which comprises only 0.00039 of the atmosphere. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only a small handful of humanity are not going straight to hell. I’m not going to change their minds, nor yours.

Pompous Git
May 20, 2011 8:21 pm

Marcoinpanama said @ May 20, 2011 at 3:53 pm
“So I just went to Amazon to download a copy of Chilling Stars for my iPad, because hey, we live in Panama and don’t need to ship dead trees to add yet more to GW.”
So purchase a 2nd hand copy. I managed that in Tasmania and we are even further away from “civilisation” than Panama 🙂

Harold Pierce Jr
May 20, 2011 8:21 pm

ATTN: R. Gates
RE: Cyroconite
See the article “Melt Zone” in June issue of Nat Geo which explains how the mineral dust cryoconite greatly accelerates the melting the ice in Greenland and the Arctic.

Robert of Ottawa
May 20, 2011 8:33 pm

Dr. Spencer,
You have here back-of-envelope science …. but it is pretty compelling. Like you, I was a GCR skeptic, but certainly there appears to be more and more EXPERIMENTAL and OBSERVATIONAL data to support a strong GCR amplification of TSI upon the Earth’s “temperature”.
Enter Leif??????
What will be the AGWers’ reply? Probably denial of publication, denialof funding, denial of results.
Who, pray tell, are the deniers here?

Paul Vaughan
May 20, 2011 8:57 pm

vukcevic wrote (May 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm):
“R=0.6 and R=0.64 is quoted in the graphs above. I would expect Dr. Spencer to quote more customary R^2, but this for above values would give much lower and disappointing R^2 =0.36 and R^0.41, which would be considered ‘not worth the bother’.”

According to conventional mainstream wisdom, significance is assessed not by r^2 but rather by the p-value. Say you get p<.05, then you would conclude that 36% or 41% of the variation is associated with (some might try to say caused by) whatever. That's a LOT — certainly not something you'd want to ignore. Of course the problem is that the assumptions underpinning the models are so often patently untenable for the variables we usually discuss at WUWT (which brings p-values & confidence intervals into question).

Paul Vaughan
May 20, 2011 9:06 pm

Since the 11 year pattern is semi-annual and Earth is N-S asymmetrical, a whole-globe approach doesn’t seem to be the best way to go, but it can probably be a place to start a needed discussion. Also, I certainly wouldn’t assume multidecadal terrestrial variations to be independent of solar cycle acceleration.

May 20, 2011 10:28 pm

a.m.r. says:
May 20, 2011 at 4:25 pm
So Dr. Svalgaard is correct about the presence of glitches (and not just for the Moscow monitor), but he is too hasty to dismiss Dr. Spencer’s analysis, since no glitches or jumps appear to be present in the data used by Dr. Spencer.
I’m not dismissing anything, just pointing out that Moscow in general is not so good. Neither is Oulu, BTW. If I have some criticism then it would be that the cosmic ray data should not be detrended as Svensmark’s hypothesis works with the actual count of the particles. Twice as many, gives twice as many ions, etc.

savethesharks
May 20, 2011 10:31 pm

R. Gates says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:41 am
As the Arctic is the place to look for the early signs of AGW, the the fact that the Arctic continues warmer than it’s long term average and the sea ice is still in a long-term downtrend all corraborate the fact that generally the global climate models are correct about the influence of anthropogenic GHG’s, and the addition of the GCR/cloud connect will add only a minor modulation of the general trend to higher global temps over the coming decades due to anthropogenic GHG’s.
=============================
Blah blah blah.
Anybody can make their **** not have a stink by couching it with the right words.
And if you look at R’s comments on the “global climate models”….you would see that his pronouncement of the same just a year ago….was the “AGW models.”
Disqualified!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Cirrius Man
May 20, 2011 10:39 pm

I’m wondering how the pro-AGW scientists such as Gavin Schmidt will view these findings ? Will comprehensive research, supported by real world evidence be met with denial ?
If so, how would one descibe such a person ?

savethesharks
May 20, 2011 10:45 pm

R. Gates says:
Then about any time now the arctic sea ice should be returning to it’s long-term average…something it has not seen since 2004, and the permafrost should begin to freeze up again. The dramatic changes being seen across the arctic would say that you are quite wrong, and that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the GCM’s are correct in showing that anthrogenic GHG’s are affecting climate.
===================
What “long-term average”?
And re: “since 2004″….based upon what goalposts???
Beginning 1979????
OMG….the LONG TERM AVERAGE since the 1970s.
OK so let me rephrase this question: In any semblance of a geological time scale, WHAT “long term average”???
Thought so.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks
May 20, 2011 10:54 pm

R. Gates says:
May 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm
The real divide comes down to those who are convinced that the science is robust enough to strongly suggest that the 40% increase in co2 and large increases in other GH gases since about 1750 is large enough to change the climate in a significant way.
===========================
No.
The real divide comes down to those who are delusional either from junk science or cognitive dissonance…as opposed to those who work at no cost, to find the truth.
You can’t have it both ways….and the truth hurts.
Don’t create any fake or false divides, R.
Those divides only exist in your (and others like you) catastrophically inflexible and hardwired CAGW brain…nowhere else.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

May 20, 2011 11:25 pm

Smokey
“If CO2 was the cause the exact same thing would be happening in the Antarctic.”
there is one nice difference between the arctic and antarctic. What’s underneath the ice in the arctic?
In a warming world ( WHATEVER THE CAUSE) you would not suspect the EXACT same thing to happen in at both poles.

May 20, 2011 11:28 pm

Smokey
“Arctic ice is currently declining, and you believe it is due to CO2, which comprises only 0.00039 of the atmosphere.”
ask what percentage of the atmosphere is GCRs.. really really tiny.
how could the change in the really really tiny pcentage of GCR have any effect.
Please stop with the trace gas argument, ESPECIALLY if you believe in the trace GCR argument

May 20, 2011 11:46 pm

The link with GCR quantities looks increasingly tempting but we need to be sure that it is a direct causative factor and not a mere proxy for the level of solar activity generally with in another solar linked process being the causative factor.
As I said in another thread:
“A change in cloud quantities can occur in more than one way.
My main problem with the Svensmark hypothesis is that there is no shortage of the necessary aerosols in the first place so more of them does not necessarily result in more clouds.
The Svansmark idea suggests that the extra aerosols being added would have a pretty even effect on cloudiness across the globe with perhaps a slight bias towards the polar regions where some charged particles are directed in along the magnetic field lines.
However we don’t see changes in cloudiness occurring in a pattern which would comply with that proposition.
Instead we see changes in the surface pressure distribution affecting the size and positions of the various blocks of polar and equatorial air masses as they ebb and flow and interact with one another around the world all the time.
Where those air masses interact we see more clouds and the solar effect seems to work by causing more (or less) meridional jets, more (or less) air mass mixing and therefore longer (or shorter) lines of air mass interaction across the globe resulting in more (or less) clouds.
So generally we see zonal jets and less clouds (warming) when the sun is active and meridional jets and more clouds (cooling) when the sun is less active.
The recent combination of a very quiet sun and a record negative Arctic Oscillation with increasing global albedo in contrast to the late 20th century active sun with a weak Arctic Oscillation and decreasing global albedo is an example in point.
Also the Svensmark idea would require the creation of more clouds first then some sort of reorganisation process over time as the additional clouds became incorporated into the background weather patterns. The clouds would have to come first and then the weather patterns would change.
In reality we see the weather patterns change first by way of a change in the meridionality/zzonality of the jets then the cloud quantity changes follow.
To get that change in meridionality/zonality we first need a change in the atmospheric heights and as far as I know Svensmark’s idea does not deal with that.
Thus we are back to solar induced ozone linked chemical reactions in the atmospheric column altering the heights in line with the level of solar activity.”
I don’t pretend to actually know the answer for certain and at this point I can offer no proof but from real world observations over more than half a century I suspect the GCR quantities to be merely a proxy.

May 20, 2011 11:56 pm

Some time ago I published a paper in Energy & Environment showing a remarkable correlation between the drift of the magnetic poles and global temperatures, but I struggled to find a cause. I looked for a connection between space weather and terrestrial weather but couldn’t find it. If the drift of the poles does cause a shift in cosmic radiation to more or less temperature sensitive areas of the Earth, would this have any bearing?
http://www.akk.me.uk

James Sexton
May 21, 2011 12:00 am

R. Gates says:
May 20, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Then about any time now the arctic sea ice should be returning to it’s long-term average…something it has not seen since 2004, and the permafrost should begin to freeze up again. ………..
===========================================
Patience…..its getting there. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/minimum-ice-extent/
Couple more years or so……..

May 21, 2011 12:36 am

“For example, if warming observed in the last century is (say) 50% natural and 50% anthropogenic, then this implies the climate system is only one-half as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions (or aerosol pollution) than if the warming was 100% anthropogenic in origin (which is pretty close to what we are told the supposed “scientific consensus” is).”
My own statistical analysis of a number of stations around the world suggest that the mean temperature on earth is pushed up by heat coming from outside, not from the inside. Not even a share comes from the heat from earth , unless perhaps volcanic (like I found on on Hawaii).
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Love to hear some comments!
(you don’t want to know how much work this little compilation was)

John Finn
May 21, 2011 1:12 am

Stephen Wilde says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm
….
I don’t pretend to actually know the answer for certain and at this point I can offer no proof but from real world observations over more than half a century I suspect the GCR quantities to be merely a proxy.

Quite. There is a strong possibility that this is the case. There is also a strong possibility that the solar activity (GCRs or whatever) is simply having a slight moderating effect. It doesn’t look to be the dominant driver otherwise temperatures would much lower than they currently are. UAH temperatures during the recent La Nina have been as high as those during the 1986/87 El Nino.

See - owe to Rich
May 21, 2011 1:27 am

Steven Mosher: there is one nice difference between the arctic and antarctic. What’s underneath the ice in the arctic? In a warming world ( WHATEVER THE CAUSE) you would not suspect the EXACT same thing to happen in at both poles.
ask what percentage of the atmosphere is GCRs.. really really tiny.
how could the change in the really really tiny pcentage of GCR have any effect.

Steven, you usually talk a lot of sense, but neither of your two comments above made much sense to me.
The Antarctic: yes, there is land below it, but the ice cap extends vast distances from the land. The Antarctic continent can affect the circulation of the Southern Ocean, but it is still ocean. It seems that that ocean cannot be warming significantly, when it continues to allow similar or increasing areas of ice to form there in the australis winter.
As for GCRs, Galctic Cosmic Rays, these are not a constituent of the atmosphere, they are hitting it from outer space. So what does a “tiny percentage of GCR” mean? Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Rich.

John Marshall
May 21, 2011 2:02 am

‘Solar input seems to have more influence on climate than humans’. Or words to that effect Dr Spencer.
What caused the climate changes before we arrived on the scene then?
Climate Change has been a fact of life for this planet for the last 4.6 Bya. The only source of sufficient heat to drive the climate is the sun and previous changes in climate have been more sudden than anything we have experienced in the past 500 years. The evidence is in the geological record!
Dr. Spencer is still paying too much attention to human input and that discredited theory of GHG’s. Hopefully Svensmarks theory will become scientific fact because it fits with observation, though not the models.

May 21, 2011 3:18 am

Mr. Gates
Talks about rise of CO2 since 1700, global and the Arctic temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-dBz.htm
Mr. Gates is an intelligent man, but either has a very strange of humour or is rattling well known AGW nonsense for a reason known to him but not to the rest of us.

May 21, 2011 6:47 am

John Marshall says: May 21, 2011 at 2:02 am
Hopefully Svensmarks theory will become scientific fact…
Svensmark’s theory is scientific fact, so is CO2 positive feedback, but effect of either is not as large or important as many have suggested.

May 21, 2011 6:47 am

Just put “The Cloud Mystery 1/6” into your search engine and click go.!
Then watch the videos –and you’ll know what it is all about. You need not be able to speak Danish as where Danish is spoken there are also “Sub Titles”

May 21, 2011 6:55 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm
If I have some criticism then it would be that the cosmic ray data should not be detrended as Svensmark’s hypothesis works with the actual count of the particles. Twice as many, gives twice as many ions, etc.

As I understand it, Roy de-trends the GCR data to enable the comparison with the CERES data, then ‘re-trends it’ using the following technique:
“the estimated cosmic ray forcing resulting from the month-to-month changes in the original Moscow cosmic ray time series, computed by multiplying those monthly changes by 0.55 Watts per sq. meter per 1,000 cosmic ray counts change.”
So as far as I can tell, he is taking account of the absolute values, but modelling them by multiplying up the detranded data using the factor he determined.
If you take Roy’s summary graph and invert it, and compare it to the raw Moscow data, it matches after appropriately scaling the ‘y’ axis.
So I don’t think your criticism amounts to anything devastating for Roy’s analysis.

May 21, 2011 7:18 am

John Finn says:
May 21, 2011 at 1:12 am
It doesn’t look to be the dominant driver otherwise temperatures would much lower than they currently are. UAH temperatures during the recent La Nina have been as high as those during the 1986/87 El Nino.

Still banging the same old drum John?
You are not considering how the climatic effect of the Svensmark Hypothesis works. By reducing cloud cover during the high solar cycles of the later C20th, more sunlight gets absorbed into the ocean. This warms the ocean. A couple of decades later, the run of big el ninos starts, creating the step changes in surface temp so neatly demonstrated by Bob Tisdale.
Given the obviously large thermal inertia of the ocean, why would you expect the temps to drop as soon as the sun goes quiet? If it took a couple of decades after the high solar cycle of the late 1950’s for the warming to get going, it’ll probably take a couple of decades after the end of the run of high solar cycles before the cooling ocean finishes burping out accumulated heat and lowers surface temps too.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 7:33 am

Stephen Wilde wrote (May 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm):
“Where those air masses interact we see more clouds and the solar effect seems to work by causing more (or less) meridional jets, more (or less) air mass mixing and therefore longer (or shorter) lines of air mass interaction across the globe resulting in more (or less) clouds.”

Can Bill Illis, Dr. Spencer, or someone else suggest a time series that quantifies this length-to-surface-area ratio or fractal dimension that Stephen often writes about?

May 21, 2011 7:41 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 6:55 am
So as far as I can tell, he is taking account of the absolute values, but modelling them by multiplying up the detrended data using the factor he determined.
This is where it is wrong. Why should the forcing be calculated using the detrended data?

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 7:57 am

Stephen Wilde wrote (May 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm):
“To get that change in meridionality/zonality we first need a change in the atmospheric heights and as far as I know Svensmark’s idea does not deal with that.”

I suggest that someone (colleague or journalist conducting interview to be publicized) ask Svensmark directly about this.

Where Stephen’s exposition can improve dramatically:
Emphasize that the variation is semi-annual. The decadal-scale changes are in the amplitude of the semi-annual wave. See Leroux (1993) for some helpful pictures and Sidorenkov (2005) for words that fit on a single page to go with Leroux’s pictures. North-south terrestrial asymmetry canNOT be dismissed as irrelevant.

May 21, 2011 8:07 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:41 am
Why should the forcing be calculated using the detrended data?

Because climate is complicated and the Earth is a noisy laboratory.
Roy Spencer says:
Detrending the data isolates the month-to-month and year-to-year variability as the signal to match, since trends (or a lack of trends) in the global radiative budget data can be caused by a combination of many things. (Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.)

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 8:10 am

tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 7:18 am):
“Given the obviously large thermal inertia of the ocean, why would you expect the temps to drop as soon as the sun goes quiet? If it took a couple of decades after the high solar cycle of the late 1950′s for the warming to get going, it’ll probably take a couple of decades after the end of the run of high solar cycles before the cooling ocean finishes burping out accumulated heat and lowers surface temps too.”

The dynamics occur at the semi-annual timescale. There’s no multidecadal lag. The multidecadal variations come from north-south terrestrial asymmetry.

May 21, 2011 8:28 am

Tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:07 am
Because climate is complicated and the Earth is a noisy laboratory.
Whole generally true, the claim is that the solar [GCR] influence is the MAJOR [SOLE – ONE AND ONLY] driver in which case the noise is the signal. Now if you concede that the solar [GCR] influence is minor, hard-to-detect, almost drowning in the noise, you might use the ‘noisy laboratory’ excuse.
In any event, one might expect that Spencer did a correct analysis. However, trying to reproduce his graph shows that the wiggles do not match, especially after 2006 [where the amplitudes of his wiggles are too large – leading to artificially enhanced forcing]. Here is following his recipe: http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011.png.
This is also directly visible by eye-balling his graphs.

Pamela Gray
May 21, 2011 8:29 am

The mechanisms of ice decline are fully explained each and every yearly cycle by atmospheric and oceanic circulation pattern variations. Therefore, a warmer’s only recourse is to then explain how the increasing anthropogenic CO2, and only just that portion, has had enough energy potential to change the atmospheric and oceanic circulation pattern variations that have led to the recent decline.
I have certainly not yet seen a mathematical proof of this anthropogenic CO2-atmospheric/oceanic pattern connection mechanism, nor have I seen a plausible mechanism without a maths proof.
Gates, you are stating nothing more than speculative conjecture.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 8:30 am

Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 21, 2011 at 7:41 am)
“Why should the forcing be calculated using the detrended data?”
tallbloke replied (May 21, 2011 at 8:07 am)
“Because climate is complicated and the Earth is a noisy laboratory.
Roy Spencer says: Detrending the data isolates the month-to-month and year-to-year variability as the signal to match, since trends (or a lack of trends) in the global radiative budget data can be caused by a combination of many things. (Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.)”

It’ll become more interesting when Dr. Spencer finds time to step beyond the linear approach (or maybe money to pay a grad student or postdoc to do it). Cross-correlation, while informative, is patently insufficient for unearthing the full nature of complex [as in complex numbers, not as in complicated] relations.

Nic L
May 21, 2011 8:31 am

This one sentence;
“While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore.”
tells me more about Dr Spencer’s honesty and integrity than any other source. Is it not the statement of a true scientist ?

May 21, 2011 8:37 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:28 am
Tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:07 am
Because climate is complicated and the Earth is a noisy laboratory.
Whole generally true, the claim is that the solar [GCR] influence is the MAJOR [SOLE – ONE AND ONLY] driver in which case the noise is the signal.

You are assuming wiggles are only caused by drivers. What about rebounding oscillations within the terrestrial system?

May 21, 2011 8:45 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:30 am
It’ll become more interesting when Dr. Spencer finds time to step beyond the linear approach (or maybe money to pay a grad student or postdoc to do it). Cross-correlation, while informative, is patently insufficient for unearthing the full nature of complex [as in complex numbers, not as in complicated] relations.

Roy Spencer says:
May 20, 2011 at 5:25 AM
No one really knows what causes natural cycles in the climate system like the PDO. It could be natural oscillations in the thermohaline circulation of the ocean. Your question is a little like asking, “what causes chaos?”. There are nonlinearities in the climate system on a wide variety of timescales that are too complex for us to predict, let alone understand.
And as he drily noted in response to a critic on his blog:
Roy Spencer says:
May 13, 2011 at 5:26 AM
So, when IPCC-related studies assume linear feedbacks, it’s ok, but when I do, it’s not OK? Hmmm.

May 21, 2011 8:46 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:30 am
Cross-correlation, while informative, is patently insufficient for unearthing the full nature of complex [as in complex numbers, not as in complicated] relations.
But is often patently sufficient for deluding statisticians into seeing things that aren’t there.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 8:53 am

Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm):
“If I have some criticism then it would be that the cosmic ray data should not be detrended as Svensmark’s hypothesis works with the actual count of the particles. Twice as many, gives twice as many ions, etc.”

The atmosphere is FLUID. If something external DRUMS on it, it changes spatially in SHAPE (not in absolute size). If one thrusts a rod of semi-infinite length into a pool, the moment of greatest change for the pool is the initial contact of the blunt finite end.
It doesn’t matter if Svensmark is right or wrong or if it’s GCR or something confounded with GCR or if one correlated station is better than another; what matters is the coherence THAT IS OBSERVED. Suggestion: Physicists can best help out via efforts to explain what is observed.
Schwing, F.B.; Jiang, J.; & Mendelssohn, R. (2003). Coherency of multi-scale abrupt changes between the NAO, NPI, and PDO. Geophysical Research Letters 30(7), 1406. doi:10.1029/2002GL016535.

May 21, 2011 8:55 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:37 am
You are assuming wiggles are only caused by drivers. What about rebounding oscillations within the terrestrial system?
Spencer is assuming that [‘forcings’]. But, what about your oscillations? But a number on them, a theory, and a mechanism, and come back for a discussion about the science.

May 21, 2011 8:57 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:10 am
The dynamics occur at the semi-annual timescale. There’s no multidecadal lag. The multidecadal variations come from north-south terrestrial asymmetry.

And that asymmetry (and LOD changes on the multi-decadal scale) causes the oceans to shift large amounts of energy around. And up and down. Leading to longish lags between solar input and climate response.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 9:01 am

tallbloke addressing Svalgaard (May 21, 2011 at 8:37 am):
“You are assuming wiggles are only caused by drivers. What about rebounding oscillations within the terrestrial system?”

Excellent question. The level of discussion has elevated.

May 21, 2011 9:05 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:53 am
It doesn’t matter if Svensmark is right or wrong or if it’s GCR or something confounded with GCR or if one correlated station is better than another; what matters is the coherence THAT IS OBSERVED.
Coherency of multi-scale abrupt changes between the NAO, NPI, and PDO.

Everybody claiming a correlation [no matter which] claims it is OBSERVED. In any event your examples are just climate vs. climate. No external forcings. So, not relevant for the topic at hand.

May 21, 2011 9:08 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:01 am
“What about rebounding oscillations within the terrestrial system?”
Excellent question. The level of discussion has elevated.

The wiggles were taken as evidence for external direct driven forcing, so the level has dropped considerably.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 9:08 am

tallbloke, there’s no lag looking at solar cycle deceleration (instead of TSI or sunspot numbers or whatever else someone might have in mind). Excessive reliance on “anomalies” has blinded some to higher frequency oscillations. The ocean can lose heat in 3 months. It doesn’t need decades. The highest variance is OVERWHELMINGLY at high frequencies; there is no escaping this observation.

May 21, 2011 9:12 am

You are getting there chaps.
Solar forcings from above (external) modulated over time by oceanic forcings (internal) from below.
The outcome of that struggle at any given moment being reflected in the surface pressure distribution (especially the position and behaviour of the midlatitude jets) which has an effect on the size and position of the various climate zones.
The regions that see most in the way of climate changes are those situated at or near a climate zone boundary so that as the surface pressure changes vary those regions cross from one side to another of those boundaries for variable lengths of time.

May 21, 2011 9:16 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:08 am
tallbloke, there’s no lag
Paul, I think you missing an important element of the lags. Invoking unknown [even variable] lags of several decades are an efficient shield against falsification.

May 21, 2011 9:16 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:55 am
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:37 am
You are assuming wiggles are only caused by drivers. What about rebounding oscillations within the terrestrial system?
Spencer is assuming that [‘forcings’]. But, what about your oscillations? But a number on them, a theory, and a mechanism, and come back for a discussion about the science.

See the quote from Roy above about chaos. The fact that he has managed to tease out some signal from the noise is great, and note that he states it is a preliminary finding, and the accuracy is not well constrained due exactly to the noise problems we are discussing.
It’s still progress though, and at least he’s willing to work on the problem because he can no longer ignore the evidence. Unlike some who are still in denial.

May 21, 2011 9:23 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:16 am
and the accuracy is not well constrained due exactly to the noise problems we are discussing.
Even more to his deficient analysis. What he plots is not what he says he plotted as I just showed.
It’s still progress though, and at least he’s willing to work on the problem because he can no longer ignore the evidence. Unlike some who are still in denial.
Unlike some who have looked at this in detail [not preliminary and not with deficient data analysis] and found it wanting and the evidence unconvincing.

May 21, 2011 9:25 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:08 am
tallbloke, there’s no lag looking at solar cycle deceleration (instead of TSI or sunspot numbers or whatever else someone might have in mind). Excessive reliance on “anomalies” has blinded some to higher frequency oscillations. The ocean can lose heat in 3 months. It doesn’t need decades. The highest variance is OVERWHELMINGLY at high frequencies; there is no escaping this observation.

I’m not sure what you mean by solar cycle deceleration. Cycle lengths getting longer? If so, Archibald posted about a scandinavian whose study showed an approx one cycle lag between solar activity change and surface temp change.
“The ocean can lose heat in 3 months. It doesn’t need decades. ”
The top 30m of the ocean can lose heat in 3 months, but that is a small proportion of the thermal mass of the ocean. The shifting of the courses of large undersea rivers of water mixes down energy due to the coriolis effect and tidal action. The stored energy can be held or released over long timescales, and the variation is much greater than the higher frequency annual variation. The shallow ocean was several degrees warmer all the way to the bottom some millions of years ago.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 9:35 am

tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 9:25 am) “the variation is much greater than the higher frequency annual variation.”
This can’t be right.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 9:39 am

Stephen Wilde wrote (May 21, 2011 at 9:12 am):
“The outcome of that struggle at any given moment being reflected in the surface pressure distribution (especially the position and behaviour of the midlatitude jets) which has an effect on the size and position of the various climate zones.
The regions that see most in the way of climate changes are those situated at or near a climate zone boundary so that as the surface pressure changes vary those regions cross from one side to another of those boundaries for variable lengths of time.”

The level of discussion is elevating.
[Next, if we could just get people to stop ignoring seasons…]

May 21, 2011 9:40 am

Leif Svalgaard said:
“Paul, I think you missing an important element of the lags. Invoking unknown [even variable] lags of several decades are an efficient shield against falsification.”
No, they do however make verification more difficult.
Is it denied that variable lags exist ?
Leif is a proponent of the idea that ALL climate variability is internally generated.
Does he really propose such an all powerful internal system variability as that AND deny the existence of variable lags despite the fluid nature of the oceans with their complex internal structure ?
Lets see what Leif is proposing:
i) Solar effects limited to 0.1C from cycle to cycle and no significant solar effect from changes in the level of solar activity over centuries such as from LIA to date.
ii) No significant variable internal system lags despite deep oceans with a complex and largely unknown internal thermal structure and behaviour.
Effectively Leif is excluding both sun AND oceans as potential climate forcing agents over multidecadal periods of time.
Very helpful to the AGW lobby but not to anyone else.
Leif, if the sun doesn’t do it and there are no multidecadal variable lags generated internally then what would be your next logical step in explaining multidecadal climate variability ?
Haven’t you painted yourself into a corner ?

May 21, 2011 9:46 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:23 am
What he plots is not what he says he plotted as I just showed.

We can see in Roy’s excellent graphs what he plotted. We don’t need your mischaracterisation of what they show.
Unlike some who have looked at this in detail [not preliminary and not with deficient data analysis] and found it wanting and the evidence unconvincing.
Hah! We’ll see. CLOUD will have more results soon, and the Aahus results are looking very good too.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation/
The days of your pooh-poohing Svensmark are numbered. Enjoy them while you can.

May 21, 2011 9:56 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:35 am
tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 9:25 am) “the variation is much greater than the higher frequency annual variation.”
This can’t be right.

I mean the variation in ocean heat content (to, say, 700m), not surface temperature.

May 21, 2011 9:58 am

“[Next, if we could just get people to stop ignoring seasons…]”
I had assumed that everyone knew that I was referring to shifts beyond normal seasonal variation.
Such as :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/
and more recently:
http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/earth-wobble-jet-stream

May 21, 2011 10:00 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:46 am
We can see in Roy’s excellent graphs what he plotted. We don’t need your mischaracterisation of what they show.
But unless you redo what he said he did, you won’t see that what he plotted is not what he said he plotted. Here is an overlay: http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-compare.png to help you over your denial.
I really wish that there was a link between solar activity and climate. That would make my field all that more relevant [help improve funding too], but, alas, 400 years [almost 150,000 days] of claims have not gotten us any closer. One may hope that the number of days until my field becomes the foundation of climate science is indeed small.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 10:02 am

tallbloke, LINEAR cross-correlation UNDERestimates (SEVERELY) the strength of relations among interannual terrestrial oscillations …and it also invites nonsensical MISinterpretations of lags [including interannual & multidecadal ones].
Additionally, basing LINEAR decompositions on ENSO causes related estimation problems ….for one truly simple example, even the interannual component of AMO LINEARLY correlates more strongly with global surface T than does ENSO – should be a nobrainer to climate discussion enthusiasts who understand the role of high-amplitude regional variance in global summaries, but we see clearly in these discussions that it is not.
Upshot: Complex numbers are needed in the study of phase relations.

May 21, 2011 10:04 am

As regards my post of 9.58 a m I do not share the idea that there is an Earth ‘wobble’ or a pending pole shift. The link is merely to demonstrate the extent of the recent jetstream shifting whilst solar activity was low.

May 21, 2011 10:08 am

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:39 am
[Next, if we could just get people to stop ignoring seasons…]

The seasonal changes in insolation and the resulting north-south differentials are a vital aspect of the heat pump which drives the mixing of solar energy in the oceans.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 10:08 am

tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 9:56 am) “I mean the variation in ocean heat content (to, say, 700m), not surface temperature.”
Still can’t be right. Let’s just efficiently call it a “misunderstanding” and move on to more productive pursuits than protracted exchanges (that no sensible person bothers to read under normal circumstances).

May 21, 2011 10:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:00 am
Here is an overlay: http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-compare.png to help you over your denial.

Looks pretty similar to your green curve.
I really wish that there was a link between solar activity and climate. That would make my field all that more relevant [help improve funding too], but, alas, 400 years [almost 150,000 days] of claims have not gotten us any closer.
Dear Leif, I hope you are still around when our theory is fully developed and accepted. Even though your own efforts are aimed at preventing this happening.
One may hope that the number of days until my field becomes the foundation of climate science is indeed small.
Hurrah! 🙂

May 21, 2011 10:18 am

Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2011 at 9:40 am
Leif, if the sun doesn’t do it and there are no multidecadal variable lags generated internally then what would be your next logical step in explaining multidecadal climate variability ?
I don’t know about any internal lags, just fluctuations. I don’t think there are any lags, but none are needed. There are large internal fluctuations [and by internal I include volcanoes – I don’t see the effect of Pinatubo showing up twenty years down the road]. So, you propose that there is some change in the ocean heat content and that as a result the climate changes several decades later.
‘Lags’ are but a convenient rug to shove things under.

May 21, 2011 10:24 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:17 am
Looks pretty similar to your green curve.
Is not the point. In this business there must be an exact match. I take the same data, detrend, smooth the prescribed way 1-2-1, and get a different result. So what is he not telling?
Dear Leif, I hope you are still around when our theory is fully developed and accepted.
It has failed so far for more than 150 years, so perhaps none of us will be around.

May 21, 2011 10:25 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:18 am
So, you propose that there is some change in the ocean heat content and that as a result the climate changes several decades later.

About one decade later. As you and I discussed on Climate Audit nearly 3 years ago.

May 21, 2011 10:30 am

“I don’t know about any internal lags, just fluctuations.”
Then we are agreed because to my mind internal system fluctuations must result in a lagged system response to solar input.
The climate doesn’t just ‘change several decades later’. One fluctuation segues into the next in a constant process and the solar and oceanic fluctuations modulate each other.
At the surface and in the short term random chaotic variability does the rest.

May 21, 2011 10:31 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:25 am
About one decade later.
So, the ocean heat content changes [that is: the oceans have already heated up] and then ten years later the atmosphere [the ‘climate’] changes? apart from ‘climate’ being a 30-yr thing [but let that slide].

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 10:37 am

tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 10:08 am):
“The seasonal changes in insolation and the resulting north-south differentials are a vital aspect of the heat pump which drives the mixing of solar energy in the oceans.”

Explicit acknowledgement that the oceans don’t produce their own heat. This is progress.
Mention of “insolation” in the same sentence as “oceans”. A welcome development.
(Neither sarcasm nor disrespect intended.)
Stephen Wilde wrote (May 21, 2011 at 9:58 am):
“I had assumed that everyone knew that I was referring to shifts beyond normal seasonal variation.”

This is what I’m getting at – and it’s FUNDAMENTALLY important:
a) Exposition of p. 433 [pdf p.10]:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
b) Figures 8, 11, 13, & 15:
Leroux, Marcel (1993). The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes. Global and Planetary Change 7, 69-93.
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

Until people take the time to conceptually understand (a) & (b) in concert with north-south continental-maritime asymmetry, they’ll likely not understand the following:
1) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png
2) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png
3) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/vaughn_lod_amo_sc.png
4) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_northpacificsst.png
5) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_0-90n.png
…where SCL’ = rate of change of solar cycle length = solar cycle deceleration ….not to be confused with solar cycle length, which has a correlation of almost zero with SCL’ (…which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who understands complex [as in complex numbers, not as in complicated] phase relations).

Pamela Gray
May 21, 2011 10:43 am

I tend towards Leif’s view of fluctuations being the rule, rather than the exception. Trade winds have a near immediate affect on sea surface temperature. The sea surface temperature has a near immediate affect on incoming weather systems. Weather pressure systems have a near immediate affect on temperature variations, humidity, and so on.
Overriding these day to day, week to week, month to month, and year to year variations are oscillations one sees in oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns. I can only guess that the “lags” people talk about are somehow involved in these oscillations as they switch from one mode to the other. It would take a powerful driver to do that, if what you seek is an external driver.
However, it seems to me that instead of “flipping” or being driven from one mode to the other, I see more a petering out of the energy needed to sustain one mode as it fades into the alternate mode.

John Finn
May 21, 2011 10:45 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:18 am

John Finn says:
May 21, 2011 at 1:12 am
It doesn’t look to be the dominant driver otherwise temperatures would much lower than they currently are. UAH temperatures during the recent La Nina have been as high as those during the 1986/87 El Nino. </blockquote)
Still banging the same old drum John?
You are not considering how the climatic effect of the Svensmark Hypothesis works. By reducing cloud cover during the high solar cycles of the later C20th, more sunlight gets absorbed into the ocean. This warms the ocean. A couple of decades later, the run of big el ninos starts, creating the step changes in surface temp so neatly demonstrated by Bob Tisdale.

Ok – so I assume, since the late 1700s had high solar activity, the Dalton Minimun period (1790-1820) was warm – or perhaps the Svensmark effect only affects the late 20th century climate?

May 21, 2011 10:52 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:31 am
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:25 am
About one decade later.
So, the ocean heat content changes [that is: the oceans have already heated up] and then ten years later the atmosphere [the ‘climate’] changes? apart from ‘climate’ being a 30-yr thing [but let that slide].

What happens is when the sun gets active, the oceans go into ‘mixing down’ mode. Ten years later when the solar cycle is just past minimum, the oceans go into ‘heat release’ mode and that’s when big el nino’s occur that cause upward step changes in surface temperature which persist during positive phases of oceanic cycles. Then after the oceanic cycle peaks and the solar cycles are getting smaller the reverse happens. The big la nina we have just been through hasn’t caused a big downshift in surface temperature, because it followed on the heels of a big El nino, but the next one will. 2013 onwards will see things getting chillier. A decade after the sun started getting quiet in 2003.
Wait and see if I’m wrong.

May 21, 2011 10:54 am

Ignoring all the oscilliations I simply did a linear regression of the temperatures recorded on a mumner of weather stations from all over the world since 1974. Here are my results:
MAXIMA: rising at a speed of 0.04 degrees C per annum
MEANS : increasing at a speed of 0.02 degrees C per annum
MINIMA: no change at 0.00 degrees C per annum
HUMIDITY: decreasing at a rate of -0.02% per annum
PRECIPITATION: decreasing at a rate of -0.11 mm /month /year
This means that, on my pool table, the global warming that is observed on earth is simply coming from outside and is not caused by an increase in greenhouse gases or any human influences.
Not so?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

May 21, 2011 10:58 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:25 am
About one decade later.
As so clearly seen here: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Solar-Lag.png ?

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 11:02 am

Stephen Wilde asked (May 21, 2011 at 9:40 am):
“Is it denied that variable lags exist ?”

No, it’s just not a concept with practical utility for sensibly assessing phase relations (worse than that, it invites naive nonsensical misinterpretation). Linear methods are patently insufficient. If one switches one’s conceptualization of phase relations to the eminently more equipped complex plane then (a) lags vanish and (b) correlations go up dramatically. Additionally, everything becomes simple instead of complicated.

May 21, 2011 11:02 am

John Finn says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:45 am
Ok – so I assume, since the late 1700s had high solar activity, the Dalton Minimun period (1790-1820) was warm – or perhaps the Svensmark effect only affects the late 20th century climate?

Your dating of the Dalton minimum is in error.
We know there were some cold winters in Northern Europe after 1804 We don’t know much about the rest of the world at that time. Multidecadal north-south oscillations play a part too. We’ll have to go on periods for which we have sufficiently useful data.
Having said that, Jasper’s comparison of north atlantic surface temps and Be10 deposition in Greenland is pretty convincing. I won’t bother trying to convince you though.

May 21, 2011 11:03 am

Leif Svalgaard says: May 21, 2011 at 10:00 am
I really wish that there was a link between solar activity and climate. That would make my field all that more relevant [help improve funding too], but, alas, 400 years [almost 150,000 days] of claims have not gotten us any closer.
O yes, there is, but it is not TSI (including UV) or GCR or any of the feeble kind.
Here is a short graphic summary for you.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD2.htm

May 21, 2011 11:06 am

“Ok – so I assume, since the late 1700s had high solar activity, the Dalton Minimun period (1790-1820) was warm – or perhaps the Svensmark effect only affects the late 20th century climate?”
The warmth of the high solar activity from cycles 4 and 5 (which peaked about 1790) provided the starting point for the decline into the Dalton Minimum which lasted until 1830. A ten year or so lag is entirely consistent with those dates. There was a gradual decline in tropospheric temperatures as the ocean heat content from cycles 4 and 5 was vented to space over the subsequent 40 year period.

May 21, 2011 11:07 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:02 am
Having said that, Jasper’s comparison of north atlantic surface temps and Be10 deposition in Greenland is pretty convincing. I won’t bother trying to convince you though.
Perhaps reading these might educate you a bit: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+webber+higbie/0/1/0/all/0/1
but “I won’t bother trying to convince you though”.

May 21, 2011 11:12 am

vukcevic says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:03 am
:I really wish that there was a link between solar activity and climate. ”
O yes, there is

Unfortunately, that will not convince anybody.

May 21, 2011 11:16 am

Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:06 am
The warmth of the high solar activity from cycles 4 and 5
cycle 5 was one of the smallest cycles ‘measured’…

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 11:19 am

Leif Svalgaard asked (May 21, 2011 at 10:24 am):
“I take the same data, detrend, smooth the prescribed way 1-2-1, and get a different result. So what is he not telling?”

Better questions would be:
1) What are you falsely assuming or misinterpreting?
2) What practical value is there in protracted hairsplitting?
Practical suggestion:
Move on to more productive (& less frivolously disruptive) pursuits than wasting informal volunteers’ limited time on the difference between the green curve and the red curve in this plot [ http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-compare.png ]. Leave such hairsplitting to paid gravy train riders and show some respect for the limited time of informal volunteers.

May 21, 2011 11:29 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:07 am
Perhaps reading these might educate you a bit: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+webber+higbie/0/1/0/all/0/1

Thanks Leif, I have already acquainted myself with various papers on the subject. There is without a doubt a variance introduced by multi-decadal oceanic cycles. However, on the longer timescale (thousands of years) and with appropriate data handling the problem is not so severe as you might think.
The correlation Jasper found between 10Be and the proxy he used for atlantic sst is excellent, and there will be a reason for that.

May 21, 2011 11:32 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:12 am
Unfortunately, that will not convince anybody.
‘That’ as a scientist you need to be far more specific for your opinion to have any weight.

May 21, 2011 11:37 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:29 am
Thanks Leif, I have already acquainted myself with various papers on the subject.
It doesn’t show at all. You should then be aware that “this implies that more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!”
The correlation Jasper found between 10Be and the proxy he used for atlantic sst is excellent, and there will be a reason for that.
It is called ‘confirmation bias’

Ian W
May 21, 2011 11:44 am

ej says:
May 20, 2011 at 10:48 am
So why is it that factors like this aren’t considered more? I understand the political bias in the AGW dynamics, but why don’t more “mainstream” people look at these things?

Politicians cannot tax their constituents on galactic cosmic rays. They _can_ tax them on the basis of the energy they use – glibly converted to a ‘carbon’ tax.
Politicians fund the researchers who provide the answers the politicians want and defund the researchers that provide information that is contrary to what the politicians want.
The days of the altruistic researcher working in a lonely garret are long gone. Research is a big multi-million dollar industry. It is what gets masters grads their PhDs and their professors tenure. This leads to an entirely venal approach to research and particularly research results. Research grants now quite often specify the result of the research to be delivered – if the research does not provide the results the funding politicians want and then funding ceases.
Unfortunately, academia has risen to the bait; so factors like GCR effects aren’t considered more because that is not what the funding politicians want to hear. Research at universities is no longer about finding the truth – it is about securing next year’s research funding.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 11:55 am

I see some discussion of this:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
These guys are using linear methods where complex methods are needed. The variation is semi-annual. This means the decadal correlations can flip sign. How on Earth are people missing this? It’s so simple.

May 21, 2011 12:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:37 am
‘confirmation bias’

Yeah Leif. “Whatever”.

May 21, 2011 12:09 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:19 am
2) What practical value is there in protracted hairsplitting?

The disruption and derailment of fruitful conversation regarding discoveries about the natural world which imperil the consensus view.

May 21, 2011 12:15 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:55 am
I see some discussion of this:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
These guys are using linear methods where complex methods are needed. The variation is semi-annual. This means the decadal correlations can flip sign. How on Earth are people missing this? It’s so simple.

Thanks Paul. Have you demonstrated that graphically?

John Finn
May 21, 2011 12:18 pm

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:02 am

John Finn says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:45 am
Ok – so I assume, since the late 1700s had high solar activity, the Dalton Minimun period (1790-1820) was warm – or perhaps the Svensmark effect only affects the late 20th century climate?


Your dating of the Dalton minimum is in error.
That doesn’t help your argument.
We know there were some cold winters in Northern Europe after 1804 We don’t know much about the rest of the world at that time. Multidecadal north-south oscillations play a part too. We’ll have to go on periods for which we have sufficiently useful data.
Such as?

May 21, 2011 12:22 pm

“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:16 am
Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:06 am
The warmth of the high solar activity from cycles 4 and 5
cycle 5 was one of the smallest cycles ‘measured’…”
With respect I think that is merely a cynical diversionary strategy. Someone of your experience and knowledge should see immediately why that is so. We already agree that cycle ‘size’ is not the issue. What matters is the effect on the atmosphere of the changes in wavelength and particle quantities in relation to preceding and subsequent cycles in order to induce a warming or a cooling trend for the system as a whole.
Thus cycle 5 was about the median size (out of 23 measured, not one of the smallest so that is a subtle deceit) because it was near the beginning of a multicentury trend towards larger cycles culminating in those of the late 20th century.
However cycles 4 and 5 were larger than cycles 1,2 and 3 which appears to have been enough to speed up the recovery from the LIA for a while.
Then cycles 6,7 and 8 were smaller than 4 and 5 which was enough to induce the Dalton Minimum.
And so it went, right up to today when again there has been a tropospheric temperature effect (cessation of warming and possible commencement of cooling) during the ten years or so following the peak of cycle 23 and a deep and extended minimum at the start of cycle 24.
During the period of years after the sun started to fall from the peak of cycle 23 the AO collapsed to a record negative, the stratosphere stopped cooling, the troposphere stopped warming, ocean heat content stopped rising, the jets became more meridional, cloudiness increased and so did global albedo.
And contrary to expectations Jo Haigh has admitted that despite the quieter sun the atmosphere above 45km gained in ozone (thus warming) which led her to suggest that the consensus might have got the sign wrong for the solar effect on at least part of the atmosphere.

May 21, 2011 12:23 pm

vukcevic says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:32 am
‘That’ as a scientist you need to be far more specific for your opinion to have any weight.
All I need to do is the submit your opinion to the funding agencies and ask them to supply me with the necessary funds to build on your work, alas, I don’t think it would do me any good. Perhaps you could do that yourself.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 12:24 pm

tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 12:09 pm):
“The disruption and derailment of fruitful conversation regarding discoveries about the natural world which imperil the consensus view.”

In the future I would like to see a blog policy addressing harassment of informal volunteers by gravy train riders. Impractical frivolity & volunteer-hour robbery need not be tolerated indefinitely. An organized response is merited.

May 21, 2011 12:28 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:19 am
wasting informal volunteers’ limited time on the difference between the green curve and the red curve in this plot
You are hereby invited to stop wasting your time.
The importance of the difference between the curves is that the red curve is used to calibrate the forcing and if a red wiggle is twice as big as a green wiggle, the calibration is off by a factor of two.

May 21, 2011 12:29 pm

Paul
tallbloke
10Be Greenland’s ice core records, as a proxy for anything solar, are the walk down the blind alley (cul-de-sac) of science.

May 21, 2011 12:35 pm

John Finn says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:02 am
Your dating of the Dalton minimum is in error.
That doesn’t help your argument.

I don’t need or want an argument.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 12:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 21, 2011 at 12:28 pm):
“The importance of the difference between the curves is that the red curve is used to calibrate the forcing and if a red wiggle is twice as big as a green wiggle, the calibration is off by a factor of two.”

This is a moot point since assumptions underpinning linear calibration are patently untenable.

May 21, 2011 12:46 pm

Vuk:
Solar activity modulation, geomagnetic variation, ocean oscillations, are all phenomena with a common underlying causation. That’s why Greenland 10Be correlates well with proxies for North Atlantic SST. Seen from that perspective, the difficulty in disentangling the relative effects is less important than understanding the bigger picture.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 12:48 pm

vukcevic wrote (May 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm):
“10Be Greenland’s ice core records, as a proxy for anything solar, are the walk down the blind alley (cul-de-sac) of science.”

vukcevic, rather than continue beating a dead horse on the theme of what 10Be doesn’t represent, I can suggest more focus on identifying what it does represent. If you have insights to share on that front, please do.

May 21, 2011 12:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:28 pm
if a red wiggle is twice as big as a green wiggle, the calibration is off by a factor of two.

Your graph doesn’t show any red wiggles bigger than green wiggles.
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-compare.png
You need your windows wiping.
And you owe Roy Spencer an apology.

May 21, 2011 1:04 pm

tallbloke says: May 21, 2011 at 12:46 pm
……….
10Be are some sort of a proxy for precipitations in Greenland, and not much else. Once instrument records came in 1960s onward, the existing correlation disappeared.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm

May 21, 2011 1:05 pm

Here’s Jasper Kirby’s correlation between ice rafted debris (proxy for SST) and 10Be (proxy for galactic cosmic rays) that Leif wants to dismiss as confirmation bias.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jasper-10be-ice.jpg

May 21, 2011 1:15 pm

Vuk:
As you can see, although there are periods in Jaspers graph where the correlation isn’t so good for quite a time, the long term correlation is excellent. So it doesn’t worry me that the modern instrumental record shows a breakdown in the link between CET and 10Be.
Try to take an overall perspective rather than being put off by short term anomalies.

May 21, 2011 1:39 pm

Shaviv comes to similar conclusions:

Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the
CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced
CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19 K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04 K.

Shaviv, N. J. (2005), On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A08105, doi:10.1029/2004JA010866.
Note the ratio total to luminosity alone is about 2.9, similar to Spencer’s 3.5 above.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 1:40 pm

vukcevic wrote (May 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm):
“Once instrument records came in 1960s onward, the existing correlation disappeared. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm

No, the phase relations changed. (Are you using insufficient linear methods to assess relations? If you take a phase-aware view in the complex plane your correlations will go up and your imagined lags [& any notions of variable lags] will vanish.)
There are accepted simple reasons for such changes (what Tomas Milanovic calls “spatiotemporal chaos” at Dr. Judith Curry’s blog Climate Etc.)
Tangible example:
NPI temporarily reversed its interannual phase relations with AO & NAO in the late 1980s. Something similar happened around 1970.
See here for a “simplified layman’s view”:
1902-1954: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/vaughn_npp_image6.png
1954-2006: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/vaughn_npp_image7.png
On a multiscale complex correlation color-contour plot based on empirical wavelet embeddings, ~’70 & ~late ’80s show up as yellow (fire) on a blue (ice) background, objectively indicating a reversal in phase relations (based on RAW data, since the algorithm doesn’t have the data visualization & perception issues some human minds have with raw data).

David Corcoran
May 21, 2011 2:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:37 am
It is called ‘confirmation bias’

Dr. Svalgaard, I have respected your scientific work for years, and recommended your work to others. I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds. Especially if you have anything debunking Dr. Kirkby’s past papers.
The reputations of every researcher associated with the CERN CLOUD project is on the line, Leif, not just Dr. Kirkby. You’re mocking them in advance of full publication. Doesn’t that weaken your position?

May 21, 2011 3:13 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Thus cycle 5 was about the median size (out of 23 measured, not one of the smallest so that is a subtle deceit)
1 May 1755 Jun 1761 Aug 1766 6,8 90,4 73 62 135
2 Aug 1766 Oct 1769 Jun 1775 9,6 125,3 38 68 106
3 Jun 1775 May 1778 May 1784 7,0 161,8 35 72 107
4 May 1784 Nov 1787 Jun 1798 9,1 143,4 42 127 169
5 Jun 1798 Dec 1804 Jul 1810 2,8 52,5 78 67 145
6 Jul 1810 Mar 1816 Apr 1823 0,0 50,8 68 85 153
7 Apr 1823 Jun 1829 Aug 1833 0,1 71,5 74 50 124
8 Aug 1833 Feb 1837 Jul 1843 7,4 152,8 42 77 119
9 Jul 1843 Nov 1847 Jan 1856 10,7 131,3 52 98 150
10 Jan 1856 Jul 1860 Apr 1867 3,3 98,5 54 81 135
11 Apr 1867 Jul 1870 Dec 1878 4,3 144,8 39 101 140
12 Dec 1878 Jan 1884 Feb 1890 2,0 78,1 61 73 134
13 Feb 1890 Aug 1893 Sep 1901 4,0 89,5 42 97 139
14 Sep 1901 Oct 1905 Jun 1913 2,8 63,9 49 92 141
15 Jun 1913 Aug 1917 Apr 1923 1,1 112,1 50 68 118
16 Apr 1923 Jun 1928 Sep 1933 5,6 82,0 62 63 125
17 Sep 1933 May 1937 Apr 1944 2,9 119,8 44 83 127
18 Apr 1944 Jul 1947 Apr 1954 6,5 161,2 39 81 120
19 Apr 1954 Nov 1957 Aug 1964 3,2 208,4 43 81 124
20 Aug 1964 Feb 1969 Mar 1976 8,5 111,6 54 85 139
21 Mar 1976 Nov 1979 Sep 1986 12,4 167,1 44 82 126
22 Sep 1986 Oct 1989 May 1996 12,8 162,1 37 79 116
23 May 1996 Jun 2000 Dec 2008 7,9 125,6 49 102 151
24 Dec 2008 – – 1,7
Only cycle 6 was a tiny bit smaller….
However cycles 4 and 5 were larger than cycles 1,2 and 3 which appears to have been enough to speed up the recovery from the LIA for a while.
see above table.
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Your graph doesn’t show any red wiggles bigger than green wiggles.
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-wiggle.png for one
David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds. Especially if you have anything debunking Dr. Kirkby’s past papers.
Solar activity [as measured by the sun’s magnetic field in the heliosphere, which most people think controls the entry of cosmic rays into the solar system] in the past 50 years has not been markedly higher than 150-years ago, e.g. Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf The climate has been rather different though. This is to me a simple refutation that the GCR flux cannot be a major player in the climate debate.
You’re mocking them in advance of full publication. Doesn’t that weaken your position?
The above point stands regardless of what they publish. If there are anybody to mock it are the wild-eyed ‘enthusiasts’ that have here tried to defend the link even while disagreeing amongst themselves.

Paul Vaughan
May 21, 2011 4:31 pm

tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm):
“Thanks Paul. Have you demonstrated that graphically?”

Not labeled as such, but see the links I provided above (on SCL’ etc.)
Current investigations:
1) Role of north-south continental-maritime terrestrial asymmetry & decadally-varying semi-annual amplitude in multidecadal terrestrial oscillations (in the context of synchronized interannual terrestrial oscillations with spatiotemporally variable phase relations, which throw off linear methods).
2) Rate of change of solar rotation (as perceived from Earth).

May 21, 2011 4:52 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm
This is a moot point since assumptions underpinning linear calibration are patently untenable.
Those were Spencer’s and you have to demonstrate that in this particular instance they are patently untenable. They are not ALWAYS untenable; many, if not most, times they are quite adequate.
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Your graph doesn’t show any red wiggles bigger than green wiggles.
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-compare.png

Several, in fact, here are some:
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-wiggle.png
David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds.
In http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf we demonstrate [see e.g. Figure 10] that solar activity [as measured by the heliospheric magnetic field that most people agree control the flux of GCRs] the past 50 years was not markedly different from what it was 150 years earlier. This conclusion was once controversial, but no longer: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..11604109L . The climate 150 years ago was not similar to today’s, showing that the GCR intensity is not a major player.
The reputations of every researcher associated with the CERN CLOUD project is on the line, Leif, not just Dr. Kirkby.
Not at all, they are just reporting on the fact that ions cause clouds, something Wilson got the Nobel Prize for in 1927. My point above stands regardless of what they publish.
You’re mocking them in advance of full publication.
If there are someone to mock it is the wild-eyed enthusiasts here that can’t even agree among themselves, and ignore the evidence [see point above] before them.

savethesharks
May 21, 2011 6:57 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Current investigations:
1) Role of north-south continental-maritime terrestrial asymmetry & decadally-varying semi-annual amplitude in multidecadal terrestrial oscillations (in the context of synchronized interannual terrestrial oscillations with spatiotemporally variable phase relations, which throw off linear methods).
===================
Hi Paul….would you mind please translating that one for me? Not being sarcastic…I am serious.
Many thanks,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks
May 21, 2011 7:25 pm

David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
The reputations of every researcher associated with the CERN CLOUD project is on the line, Leif, not just Dr. Kirkby. You’re mocking them in advance of full publication. Doesn’t that weaken your position?
============================
It certainly does.
Especially in light of the fact that the published response [TWICE now] is some sort of red herring, a real live royal bloody subject-changer about WHOM just to mock:
You know, those ‘wild-eyed “enthusiasts” who don’t even agree amongst themselves.’
Hmmm….I thought disagreement [and sometimes heated], was the essence of scientific induction?
Would the mocker rather have a bunch of bland ‘yes men’ nodding and blindly agreeing on everything??
Regardless, such ‘mocking’…is obstreperous sandbox child play…and has no place in science…and is an attempt to wrest control by the APPEAL TO FORCE logical fallacy.
Whatever happened to induction??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

May 21, 2011 8:14 pm

I like to follow Nir Shaviv’s blog on the cosmic ray issue as well… very interesting data on cosmic ray influences on geological time scales.
http://www.sciencebits.com/
I remember looking through some of the cosmic ray data way back when. As I recall, there are different types of cosmic ray detectors, some that detect both lower energy and high energy cosmic rays (I think these would most commonly be neutron monitors), and some that detect predominantly only the very high energy cosmic rays (e.g. ion chambers that detect particles > 10 GeV). Shaviv says it should be only these high energy > 10 GeV particles that have the energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere while still being able to seed clouds at those altitudes, the lower altitude clouds being the clouds that more likely to have an overall cooling effect.
Is the Moscow cosmic ray detector an ion chamber detector or some other type of detector? What energies of particles does it detect?
I have thought about this issue. It seems to me there may be more complexity to assessing the climate effects of cosmic rays. The current theory, is that in long periods of high solar wind, high energy cosmic rays are blocked from forming cloud condensation nuclei in lower atmosphere, and therefore there are fewer / less dense low altitude clouds, resulting in warming.
However, in addition to this effect, reduced low altitude cloud cover and high albedo could have the effect of increasing the diffusion of water vapor into upper parts of the atmosphere over the oceans (because the water never condenses at low altitudes), thereby actually possibly enhancing the greenhouse effect of increased atmospheric water vapor, and increasing the greenhouse effect of high altitude cloud cover (because the water vapor is able to reach higher elevations before condensing on cloud condensation nuclei formed by the lower energy cosmic rays).
Conversely, I would think it possible that the effects of increased high energy cosmic may be two-fold:
(1) Increased low-altitude cloud coverage, resulting in cooling.
(2) Decreased high-altitude cloud coverage and decreased overall atmospheric water vapor, resulting in cooling.
I am curious if anyone has been able to compare long term changes in high energy cosmic ray flux with long term changes in high altitude cloud cover and / or water vapor. Is there an inverse relationship, opposite to the effect of high energy cosmic rays on low altitude cloud coverage?

May 21, 2011 8:22 pm

savethesharks says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Hmmm….I thought disagreement [and sometimes heated], was the essence of scientific induction?
Induction? Scientific disagreements when well founded are the lifeblood of progress, but that is not what is displayed here.
My ‘position’ can only be strengthened or weakened by data, not by opinion. Corcoran is the one that brought down the discussion to the plane of mocking. You seem to be comfortable down there. But nobody is mocking the CERN people, and their reputation is not on the line, because all they are talking about is the almost century-old knowledge that ions can create clouds. Finally even if they are wrong that would not hurt their reputation. Scientists are wrong all the time. You do an experiment and let the data speak.

May 21, 2011 8:33 pm

Julian Droms says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Is the Moscow cosmic ray detector an ion chamber detector or some other type of detector? What energies of particles does it detect?
It detect neutrons generated in the atmosphere by protons with energy larger than 2.42 GeV. About neutron monitors: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//listen/main.html

May 21, 2011 9:00 pm

Julian Droms says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Shaviv says it should be only these high energy > 10 GeV particles that have the energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere while still being able to seed clouds at those altitudes
At such high energies, the solar modulation of GCRs is actually very small. Look at the lower right-hand curves on Figure 1 of http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/bibliography/ICRC2005/usa-wiedenbeck-M-abs3-sh34-poster.pdf

savethesharks
May 21, 2011 10:11 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm
savethesharks says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Induction? Scientific disagreements when well founded are the lifeblood of progress, but that is not what is displayed here.
=======================
Using your ‘against the man’ and also [continued] ‘appeal to force’ techniques in the following paragraph following your quote above…
…I would concur that your part of the the ‘disagreement’ is not a ‘scientific disagreement when well founded in the lifeblood of progress’.
It is not a scientific disagreement at all. It is an emotional one.
Meanwhile….Svensmark and others like him sail along, a little less agitated.
Clouds have a cooling effect. Ahhhh…..that feels good. Enjoy it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

May 21, 2011 10:26 pm

savethesharks says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:11 pm
It is not a scientific disagreement at all. It is an emotional one.
You certainly sound very emotional about it.
Ahhhh…..that feels good. Enjoy it.
Some more emotion…
There are three strikes against the cosmic ray theory [which, BTW, did not originate with Svensmark].
1) the sun’s magnetic field that controls the amount of cosmic rays arriving at Earth is the same now as 150 years ago. Climate is not.
2) the amount of nucleation derived from GCRs is two orders of magnitude too small to have any affect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P
3) the cosmic ray intensity has varied the past several years much more than the solar modulation and the climate has not varied with it, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
This is science, your denial of this is emotion.

May 21, 2011 11:20 pm

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/cosmos/solarwind/Sunspot%20Cycles%20&%20Human%20History.pdf
There seems to be some discrepancy between Leif’s report of the relative sizes of individual sunspot cycles and other sources.

May 21, 2011 11:22 pm

Leif, I’d like to know from you…please
It appears from my own statistical analyses that it is the increasing maximum temperature that drove up the mean temperature on earth. (over the past 35 years)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?

May 21, 2011 11:23 pm

Note that in the above link I am referring only to the sunspot cycle chart. I do not go along with all the interpretations set out in the narrative.

May 21, 2011 11:46 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:26 pm
There are three strikes against the cosmic ray theory [which, BTW, did not originate with Svensmark].
1) the sun’s magnetic field that controls the amount of cosmic rays arriving at Earth is the same now as 150 years ago. Climate is not.

Very deceptive. The sun’s activity has suddenly dropped in the last few years from very high to very low levels. The implied assumption that climate should immediately follow suit if the sun is the main driver is part of the climate lie endlessly repeated by co2 driven theorists.
2) the amount of nucleation derived from GCRs is two orders of magnitude too small to have any affect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P
From the abstract:
“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.”
Aerosol microphysics is an area of knowledge being developed further by the people whose theory you are trying to demolish among others. To pretend that it is already sufficiently well understood to be used as a disproof of the Svensmark effect on the basis of a GCM and inadequate aerosol microphysics theory is laughable.
3) the cosmic ray intensity has varied the past several years much more than the solar modulation and the climate has not varied with it, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
Graybill tree rings? Blimey Leif you are getting desperate.
As Jasper Kirkby’s graph of ice rafted debris vs Be10 I linked above shows, there can be longish periods (decades) where the relationship isn’t as tight, but over thousands of years, the correlation is firm. Your dismissal of that graph as “confirmation bias” demonstrates your unbalanced, lopsided and unscientific approach to the Svensmark hypothesis and the CLOUD experiment nicely. It is a reflection of the unbalanced, lopsided and unscientific approach to the study of climate of the institution you reside at.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jasper-10be-ice.jpg
wild-eyed ‘enthusiasts’
Reactionary old goat.

May 22, 2011 12:09 am

Furthermore I seem to recall Leif previously telling me that the sun was as active in the 1780s as it was in the late 20th Century yet the atmospheric temperatures were not the same.
Now he says that cycle 5 peaking in 1790 was one of the smallest !!!

May 22, 2011 12:21 am

HenryP says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm
It appears from my own statistical analyses that it is the increasing maximum temperature that drove up the mean temperature on earth. (over the past 35 years)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?

Nice work and a fair question.

May 22, 2011 12:26 am

Stephen Wilde says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:09 am
Furthermore I seem to recall Leif previously telling me that the sun was as active in the 1780s as it was in the late 20th Century yet the atmospheric temperatures were not the same.

Stephen, it’s just more of the same old guff that the ocean will within months lose all the heat it gains from the sun. It’s the biggest lie in climatology, propagated by those who are desperate to maintain the illusion that the atmosphere is the driver of surface temperature. It’s easily disproved by observation of the lag of atmospheric temperature several months behind sea surface tempreature, but hey, theory trumps observation in this looking glass world of co2 driven anti-science.

May 22, 2011 1:29 am

Leif Svalgaard says: May 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm
All I need to do is the submit your opinion to the funding agencies and ask them to supply me with the necessary funds to build on your work, alas, I don’t think it would do me any good. Perhaps you could do that yourself.
Now back to sanity:
Sun-Oceans-ocean currents.
Yes sir.
Here are some quotes from my article, now half finished.
Deep cold ocean waters upwell in the high latitudes of North Pacific, and as surface currents moving across equatorial regions of the world oceans, absorb large amount of energy. Due to water’s high heat capacity, world oceans contain huge amount of stored latent heat. The energy is carried by the great oceans conveyor belt spanning the globe. Some of the energy stored is released into atmosphere in the North Atlantic and the Nordic Seas.
N. hemisphere’s winter temperatures show rising trend approaching 0.4C/century while summer’ of only 0.05C/century (last 300 years trends).
Obvious implication is that if the natural sources are causing the climate change, than the ‘winter effect’ is likely to be the most important one.
Dominant features of the North Hemisphere’s winter weather patterns are two sub-polar semi-permanent low pressure systems.
Aleutian Low is a semi-permanent area of low pressure most active during winter months. During the summer, it is considerably weaker becoming often almost nonexistent.
Icelandic Low is strongest during winter and early spring, when is located over Iceland and southern Greenland. In the summer months it is less intense, when the ‘Azores High’ becomes the weather driver in the North Atlantic.
Both Icelandic and Aleutian lows are at geographic latitudes ( 50 – 60 deg N) with direct effect on the air circulation in the ‘polar cell’ of the polar jet-stream, consequently having critical influence on the weather systems of the Northern Hemisphere.
Subpolar gyre circulates anticlockwise between 50° and 65°N and contains strong boundary currents, it is a critical in formation of the Icelandic low. The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current is source of the heat energy release. In combination with the Arctic cold currents it creates Labrador Sea current; this tightly governs the strength of the subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean. It is a region of intense interaction between ocean and atmosphere: the winter’s cold winds remove heat at rates of several hundred watts per square meter, resulting in deep sea convection reaching as far as 2500 m below the surface.
“Observations of sea surface height reveal that substantial changes have occurred during 1990’s in the mid- to high-latitude North Atlantic Ocean. TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data show that the geostrophic velocity derived from altimeter data exhibits declining subpolar gyre circulation. Combining the data from earlier satellites, we find that the subpolar circulation may have been weaker in the late 1990s than in the late 1970s and 1980s.”
Etc. etc….
CO2 and GCR are only minor players in this Nordic Saga of the natural climate change story.

John Finn
May 22, 2011 2:27 am

Stephen Wilde says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:09 am
Furthermore I seem to recall Leif previously telling me that the sun was as active in the 1780s as it was in the late 20th Century yet the atmospheric temperatures were not the same.
Now he says that cycle 5 peaking in 1790 was one of the smallest !!

SC 5 didn’t begin until ~1798.

May 22, 2011 2:33 am

For TonyB.
Data before 1650 are sporadic, difficult to make any definitive conclusions.
However Loehle reconstruction indeed shows that the early years of 17th century (1600-1615) were the coldest on record.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Your supposition that the coolest point in the LIA was 1607 appear to be correct.

lgl
May 22, 2011 2:39 am

Clearly ENSO has not been adjusted for sufficiently. 2007-2010 there is no correlation between GCR and reflected SW.

May 22, 2011 2:48 am

Vuk:
The ocean currents and gyres are the primary energy transportation mechanism for the Terrestrial heat engine. That heat engine is driven by the Sun’s energy, and the amount of solar energy entering the ocean is modulated by changing amounts of cloud cover.
Roy Spencer and Nir Shaviv find from empirical observation that the Sun’s TSI variation is amplified at Earth’s surface. The ISCCP and earthshine folks find from empirical observation that cloud cover was lower in the warming period, and increased after the 1998 el nino, since which event, warming has been negligible.
Leif Svalgaard can twitter about GCM’s and aerosol theory if that is what floats his boat, but I’ll go with observed reality every time.

May 22, 2011 2:55 am

Correction:
It should be Loehle reconstruction

May 22, 2011 3:16 am

tallbloke says: May 22, 2011 at 2:48 am
…………………
Ocean conveyor belt has large thermal inertia and hysteresis.
In a system with hysteresis, is not possible to predict the system’s output at an instant in time given only its input at that instant in time.
The output depends in part on the internal state of system and not only on its input. There is no way to predict the system’s output without looking at the history of the input, i.e. to determine the path that the input followed before it reached its current state or knowing accurately the internal state of the system.
Hence TSI and cloud variability which should produce an immediate heating/cooling effect, are averaged during long periods. Ocean conveyor belt collects heat for decades and even centuries in the equatorial areas before it reaches Nordic seas; it takes more than 1500 years to complete a single cycle, for that purpose, the short term variability of the solar output is smoothed out to a degree where idea of constancy is a plausible starting point.

May 22, 2011 5:01 am

David L. Hagen says:
May 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm (Edit)
Shaviv comes to similar conclusions:
Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the
CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced
CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19 K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04 K.
Shaviv, N. J. (2005), On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A08105, doi:10.1029/2004JA010866.
Note the ratio total to luminosity alone is about 2.9, similar to Spencer’s 3.5 above.

Thanks David. That paper is an interesting read. Particularly for the clear laying out of uncertainties and assumptions involved in estimating climate sensitivity.

May 22, 2011 5:11 am

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 3:16 am
Ocean conveyor belt collects heat for decades and even centuries in the equatorial areas before it reaches Nordic seas; it takes more than 1500 years to complete a single cycle, for that purpose, the short term variability of the solar output is smoothed out to a degree where idea of constancy is a plausible starting point.

It is the short term variability which introduces the hiccups and lumps in the long term flows and cycles, e.g. the changes in the sub-polar gyre you mentioned.
Oceanic heat retention and release is happening at all timescales from days to geological timescales. Within that spread of timescales it is possible to identify and postulate causes (or at least the underlying cause of several confounded mechanisms) through correlated periodicities because of the long timescales on which the ocean maintains thermal boundaries in layers and flows.

May 22, 2011 5:14 am

lgl says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:39 am (Edit)
Clearly ENSO has not been adjusted for sufficiently. 2007-2010 there is no correlation between GCR and reflected SW.

Correct. Nir Shaviv explicitly states in the paper David Hagen linked that ENSO is assumed to average out. Given what Bob Tisdale has discovered, this means we shouldn’t expect good correlations on periods less than 60 years or so.

May 22, 2011 5:17 am

John Finn says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:27 am
SC 5 didn’t begin until ~1798.

Yet you asserted that the Dalton Minimum started in 1790, at the peak of a high cycle?
BTW Stephen, a small confusion has arisen because the cycle ending in 1755 is numbered zero not one.

May 22, 2011 5:51 am

tallbloke says: May 22, 2011 at 5:11 am
It is the short term variability which introduces the hiccups and lumps in the long term flows and cycles, e.g. the changes in the sub-polar gyre you mentioned.
Wouldn’t think so, subpolar gyre is far too strong for any of those, btw. it takes more than 20 years to complete one cycle. It controls atmospheric low above it, which in turn diverts polar jet-stream, controlling short and long term weather patterns in the north Atlantic. Similar with Aleutian low in North Pacific. All recent talk of Atlantic-Pacific teleconnection is another climate change blind alley.
Anyone using a decade or so to determine long term change in the climate patters is starting from a wrong premise, there were number of those 1750-1900, 150 years of decadal oscillations, but no long term change on the century scale.

May 22, 2011 5:59 am

Nigel Calder takes an upbeat view on Spencers article:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/roll-up-roll-up-for-the-paradigm-shift/

May 22, 2011 6:11 am

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 5:51 am
Wouldn’t think so, subpolar gyre is far too strong for any of those, btw. it takes more than 20 years to complete one cycle.

Maybe were talking at cross purposes. As I understand it, gyres are a product of the coriolis effect acting on the poleward motion of ocean currents. The principle forces involved are planetary rotation and solar radiation absorbed mostly in the equatorial region.
Do we agree so far?

May 22, 2011 6:27 am

Partially. The spg is specific, its strength is determined by ratio of cold currents across the Greenland-Scotland ridge, and the branch of the NA drift current.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/accp/ma97/fig1_mike.jpg
I’m off line now.

May 22, 2011 7:08 am

tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Very deceptive. The sun’s activity has suddenly dropped in the last few years from very high to very low levels.
See my reply to Corcoran:
David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
“I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds. ”
Solar activity [as measured by the sun’s magnetic field in the heliosphere, which most people think controls the entry of cosmic rays into the solar system] in the past 50 years has not been markedly higher than 150-years ago, e.g. Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf The climate has been rather different though. This is to me a simple refutation that the GCR flux cannot be a major player in the climate debate.
To pretend that it is already sufficiently well understood to be used as a disproof of the Svensmark effect on the basis of a GCM and inadequate aerosol microphysics theory is laughable.
It is not about aerosol microphysics, but about how cloud microphysics. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.A11H..02L
Graybill tree rings?
Carbon 14 is used to assess the cosmic ray intensity in the past. Here is how it works: http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html
Go educate yourself
Stephen Wilde says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:09 am
Now he says that cycle 5 peaking in 1790 was one of the smallest !!!
Solar cycle 5 started in June 1798 and ended in July 1810 having a maximum of SSN=52.5, the second smallest on record.
HenryP says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?
You are very likely correct. Climate changes all the time. There is no single cause on short time scales. Over thousands of year orbital changes, over millions of years distribution of land and sea, and over billions of years solar luminosity become dominant causes.
vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 1:29 am
Here are some quotes from my article, now half finished.
None of this has any bearing on solar activity

May 22, 2011 7:28 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 7:08 am
Solar activity [as measured by the sun’s magnetic field in the heliosphere, which most people think controls the entry of cosmic rays into the solar system] in the past 50 years has not been markedly higher than 150-years ago, e.g. Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf The climate has been rather different though.

I don’t think we have sufficiently good data to say much about global climate in 1860, apart from to say it was near the peak of a upswing (like now), along the course of a general recovery from the little ice age (a function of OHC accumulation).
David Hagen linked a good paper by Nir Shaviv which quantifies possible GCR effects at different time periods and time scales :
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/2004JA010866.pdf
“Go educate yourself”, yourself.

May 22, 2011 7:43 am

The GHG models all predict a tropical hot spot. This has never been observed. In any other branch of science this would constitute falsification of the greenhouse theory.
People want to believe that humans are responsible for climate change, because then something can be done. Sacrifices can be made. Dances can be danced.
The idea that climate change is natural and there is nothing we can do about it. That is something that people don’t want to believe. It means there is nothing we can do.
Someone comes along and say “do as I say and I will fix the weather”. People WANT to believe and there are plenty of people that will take advantage of this.
Convince a healthy person they have cancer and they will pay you every penny they have to “cure” them. Give us your money and you will be saved. Sound familiar?
IPCC = snake oil salesman to the world.

May 22, 2011 7:44 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 7:28 am
I don’t think we have sufficiently good data to say much about global climate in 1860
If the data doesn’t fit, you declare the data no good. Fair enough, one can always do that.
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png shows Loehle’s reconstruction of temperatures.
The Nir Shaviv paper which quantifies possible GCR […] is based on obsolete data such as Solanki and Fligge [1998], Hoyt and Schatten [1993], and Lean et al. [1995].
But, of course, if the [obsolete] data fits, you declare the data good.

May 22, 2011 8:02 am

“Solar activity [as measured by the sun’s magnetic field in the heliosphere, which most people think controls the entry of cosmic rays into the solar system] ”
the conclusion I read is:
proxy (GCR) climate
proxy(magnetic fields) climate
therefore
proxy(magnetic fields) proxy(GCR)
this would not be the first time that “which most people think” turns out to be wrong.

May 22, 2011 8:06 am

aargh. html
proxy (GCR) –correlate– climate
proxy(magnetic fields) –not correlate– climate
therefore
proxy(magnetic fields) –not– proxy(GCR)

May 22, 2011 8:12 am

“is based on obsolete data”
the age of the data is irrelevant. the question is:
1. Was the data collected using appropriate controls to prevent experimenter contamination?
2. Has the data been independently recreated and validated?
By that criteria a lot of recent climate data is worthless. It was collected in such a fashion that the experimenter was in a position to influence the results and the results have not been independently confirmed.

May 22, 2011 8:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 7:44 am
The Nir Shaviv paper which quantifies possible GCR […] is based on obsolete data such as Solanki and Fligge [1998], Hoyt and Schatten [1993], and Lean et al. [1995].
But, of course, if the [obsolete] data fits, you declare the data good.

I know those values are bracketed by estimates which are higher and lower, such as those from Shapiro and yourself. As such, I regard them as averagely plausible, though as always, I keep an eye on developments, and maintain a healthy skepticism regarding those who stridently claim they are right and everyone else is wrong.

May 22, 2011 8:18 am

Tall bloke says:
HenryP says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm
It appears from my own statistical analyses that it is the increasing maximum temperature that drove up the mean temperature on earth. (over the past 35 years)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?
Nice work and a fair question.
HenryP
thanks
Leif Svalgaard says:
HenryP says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?
You are very likely correct. Climate changes all the time. There is no single cause on short time scales. Over thousands of year orbital changes, over millions of years distribution of land and sea, and over billions of years solar luminosity become dominant causes.
HenryP
Thanks Leif. I could not look at longer timescales going back because I don’t trust the data. In fact I suspect that even since the time that I peeked (from 1974), equipment could have already improved which may have had an affect on the results. Never mind all of that, even if a large % of the observed increases is simply due to error (which would probably affect higher temps. more than lower temps.), the fact would then still remain that it is maximum temperatures that have driven up the average global temperatures during the past 35 years…
The work I did was relatively simple. Anyone who did Statistics 1 can do it. And he/she should be able to repeat it, if you take your samples randomly. The point I want to make is that the largest increase in CO2 was exactlty during these past 35 years. So should we not be reading in the newspapers soon that modern warming was and is not caused by an increase in GHG’s?
You tall guys have to fight it out between you as to what did cause warming or what is still causing it. All I am saying that it was not the increase in carbon dioxide that did it.
Are you with me?

May 22, 2011 8:24 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:17 am
I keep an eye on developments, and maintain a healthy skepticism regarding those who stridently claim they are right and everyone else is wrong.
then you should welcome a development where everyone now begin to agree:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..11604109L
“Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux…”

May 22, 2011 8:39 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
then you should welcome a development where everyone now begin to agree:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..11604109L

Everyone?
Everyone you think matters obviously. 😉
Being the sceptic I am, I’m not convinced by a consensus of the limited subset of funded scientists who agree. Especially when they are funded by an establishment hell bent on removing the sun from the playing field of significant climate drivers for non scientific reasons. But in any case, my methodology can cope with pretty much any reconstruction no matter how much it squashes solar variability, just so long as you don’t manage to build a consensus which reduces it to zero.

May 22, 2011 8:44 am

HenryP says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:18 am
Are you with me?
http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
ferd berple says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:12 am
“is based on obsolete data”
the age of the data is irrelevant. the question is…

‘obsolete’ did not mean ‘old’, but that new data has invalidated the older data.
ferd berple says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:06 am
proxy(magnetic fields) –not– proxy(GCR)
You misunderstand the nature of a ‘proxy’. A measurement is normally not considered a proxy. If you read a thermometer, the number you get is not considered a ‘proxy’ for the temperature. We measure the magnetic field in space using the Earth as the instrument. The sun’s magnetic field impacts the Earth’s magnetosphere and generates an electric current in direct proportion to the field. An electric current has a magnetic field of its own. We usually measure a current by its magnetic field [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammeter ]. The magnetic field of the current in space can be measured on the Earth [the Earth is an Ammeter]. We have such measurements [not proxies] going back almost two hundred years.

May 22, 2011 8:47 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:39 am
Everyone you think matters obviously.
Everyone who have seriously studied this and know what they are talking about.

May 22, 2011 9:03 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:44 am
We measure the magnetic field in space using the Earth as the instrument. The sun’s magnetic field impacts the Earth’s magnetosphere and generates an electric current in direct proportion to the field.

That would rest on the assumption that the Earth’s magnetic field is constant.
It isn’t.
So ‘corrections’ are applied using heuristic algorithms which we hope accurately model what has gone on in the past.
The ‘Ammeter’ is constantly being recalibrated using models.
This is where ‘confirmation bias’ has crept in, and is the reason past solar variability has been repeatedly squashed during the age of co2 driven climate science.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
But the Sun itself is now proving the models wrong. Which is why Leif’s ‘floor threshold’ of 4nT is now out of the window.

May 22, 2011 9:06 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:39 am
I’m not convinced by a consensus
The derivation of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field is so straightforward that it can be followed and understood by persons who are not specialists [and only average faculties required]:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf and its follow up http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf

May 22, 2011 9:27 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 9:03 am
So ‘corrections’ are applied using heuristic algorithms which we hope accurately model what has gone on in the past.
The ‘Ammeter’ is constantly being recalibrated using models.

Just shows that you have not even read the papers. There is no constant recalibration or ‘corrections’. We even say explicitly “(We expect only a very weak influence in the basic response of the Ring Current (see section 2.1.5) to the change of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment (as per Glassmeier et al. [2004]) over the interval in question, and so have not attempted to correct for this.)”

May 22, 2011 10:05 am

OK, I have read the papers again now.
So the ‘model’ is that changes in the Earth’s magnetic dipole over the last 200 years are assumed to have negligible effect on the inference of the IMF from IDV, which also filters out solar magnetic storms.
However, it is fluctuations caused by these storms which rapidly, and non-linearly increase the reconnection rate. I’m not convinced that disregarding the possible effects of that on GCR modulation is such a good idea.
Plus the shifting of the relative strength of the magnetic north poles situated in northern Canada and Northern Russia may have affected 10Be deposition in Greenland?

May 22, 2011 10:11 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
None of this has any bearing on solar activity.
Correct but solar activity has bearing on it.
L.S @ tb
then you should welcome a development where everyone now begin to agree:
Even my calculations derived from the North Atlantic currents show similar results
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AllvsVuk.htm
a bit closer to Svalgaard & Cliver than Lockwood.
tb. Take note, this is consensus of science, not science of consensus!

May 22, 2011 10:14 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 9:03 am
So ‘corrections’ are applied using heuristic algorithms which we hope accurately model what has gone on in the past.
No such ‘corrections’ need be applied [and we don’t]. We don’t expect any to be needed: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AnGeo..22.3669G [Glassmeier]
“we find that ring current perturbations do not increase with decreasing dipole moment”
These perturbations form the basis for assessing the Heliospheric Magnetic Field.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 10:22 am

Leif Svalgaard asserted (May 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm):
“[…] you have to demonstrate that in this particular instance they are patently untenable.”

I’m a volunteer Leif. I don’t “have” to do anything, including take orders from gravy train riders. I volunteer what genuinely interests me when I have time for it. What others choose to do with it is their choice, not yours. You don’t have any authority whatsoever to set the terms of volunteer engagement.

May 22, 2011 10:28 am

http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
AGU type cherry picking
HIDE THE DECLINE !
1950-1980 negative correlation not included!

May 22, 2011 10:28 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:05 am
OK, I have read the papers again now.
So the ‘model’ is that changes in the Earth’s magnetic dipole over the last 200 years are assumed to have negligible effect on the inference of the IMF from IDV, which also filters out solar magnetic storms.

It should be stated thus: there is no evidence [theoretical or observational] that the changes in the dipole have any effect, so we don’t apply any corrections. The ‘filter out’ I don’t understand. IDV measures the strength of solar magnetic storms.
However, it is fluctuations caused by these storms which rapidly, and non-linearly increase the reconnection rate.
You have this a bit backwards. It is the reconnection that causes the storm and the size of the storm is linear with the magnetic field. Physically, the electric field is speed times magnetic field [E = – V x B], so the currents etc scales with the field.
I’m not convinced that disregarding the possible effects of that on GCR modulation is such a good idea.
The modulation of GCR is caused by GCRs scattered by the irregularities in the field, which scale with the field. To be convinced or not, requires some knowledge of the subject. Now, the modulation is not just a simple relationship and is not well understood, but unless you can show that the modulation 150 years ago was not governed by the same rules as today, you have to go with the null-hypothesis that it was.

May 22, 2011 10:35 am

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:11 am
Correct but solar activity has bearing on it.
That you didn’t show.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:22 am
I don’t “have” to do anything
In normal human discourse there are several things one ‘has’ to do: be civil [your gravy-train thing is inappropriate], not waste people’s time with unsupported claims, not waste bandwidth, not be overly opaque, etc.

May 22, 2011 10:41 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:05 am
Plus the shifting of the relative strength of the magnetic north poles situated in northern Canada and Northern Russia may have affected 10Be deposition in Greenland?
The cosmic rays coming from afar do not ‘see’ the local anomalies of the field. Only the dipole component. The 10Be in Greenland was not generated in Greenland, but all over the Earth. During the more than one year residence time of 10Be it is moved around by atmospheric circulation. In fact, climate itself is a significant factor in determining the 10Be deposition, so to some extent [perhaps more than 50%] there is a circular argument here.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 10:47 am

savethesharks requested (May 21, 2011 at 6:57 pm) a “translation”.
Hi Chris,
Please see my upthread response (May 21, 2011 at 10:37 am) to tallbloke & Stephen Wilde in conjunction with Appendix C here [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/15/interannual-terrestrial-oscillations/ ]. There’s no soundbite explanation and there never will be, but those who invest in developing conceptual understanding (via Leroux & Sidorenkov in particular) will easily see that Morner’s conceptualization is fundamentally flawed.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 11:05 am

Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 21, 2011 at 10:26 pm)
“There are three strikes against the cosmic ray theory [which, BTW, did not originate with Svensmark].
1) the sun’s magnetic field that controls the amount of cosmic rays arriving at Earth is the same now as 150 years ago. Climate is not.
2) the amount of nucleation derived from GCRs is two orders of magnitude too small to have any affect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P
3) the cosmic ray intensity has varied the past several years much more than the solar modulation and the climate has not varied with it, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg

(1) & (3) are based on fundamentally flawed conceptualization. The ~11 year pattern is in the amplitude of semi-annual variations. The discussion cannot advance until people make the effort needed to wrap their heads around this.

May 22, 2011 11:06 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:28 am
The ‘filter out’ I don’t understand. IDV measures the strength of solar magnetic storms.

I was referring to this passage in the first paper (1.5)
“[5] Van Dijk [1935] criticized the u measure because it
failed to register the very high activity in 1930, resulting
from extensive recurrent storms and clearly shown in the
daily character figure, the Ci
index [see Feynman, 1980].
This problem was so severe that Bartels (after some
struggle [Bartels, 1950]) abandoned the u measure and
went on to invent the very successful K index [Bartels et
al., 1939] that we use to this day. As we shall see, the lack
of sensitivity of the u index to recurrent activity caused by
high-speed streams (also noted by Nevanlinna [2004])
from coronal holes [e.g., Neupert and Pizzo, 1974; see
also Crooker and Cliver, 1994] is an unexpected advantage of the index.”
But the only ‘advantage’ I see being referred to is that your IDV index also fails to register the storms and so correlates well with Bartels u index. Or did I miss something? (always possible).

May 22, 2011 11:07 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:35 am
vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:11 am
Correct but solar activity has bearing on it.
That you didn’t show.
I offered it to you some time ago as a go-between to the Stanford climate department. You declined. Since I found exactly same effect in the Pacific currents, this time modulating PDO & ENSO.
Now you have to wait for the article. I am not in any hurry, once completed then I have to find another ‘a no go area correlation’ to irritate pompous world of academia.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 11:15 am

vukcevic, Consider acknowledging wind’s role driving ocean currents.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 11:21 am

lgl wrote (May 22, 2011 at 2:39 am)
“Clearly ENSO has not been adjusted for sufficiently.”

The mistake (a fundamentally serious one) is assuming that interannual variations in global surface T are just ENSO. ENSO sometimes goes 180 degrees out of phase with interannual global surface T. Cross-correlation is linear; it seriously misleads people.

May 22, 2011 11:35 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:06 am
I was referring to this passage in the first paper (1.5)
“[5] Van Dijk [1935] criticized the u measure because it failed to register the very high activity in 1930

This failure is the critical element that makes IDV so useful. There are two sets of currents generated in the magnetosphere: 1) the ring-current and 2) the auroral zone electrojets. The perturbations seen on the ground are a mixture of the two and it has taken a long time for researchers to realize that fact [there is a third set of currents which is generated by UV from the sun – just to make it extra hard; and a fourth set controlling the convection of plasma across the polar caps, see below].
The electrojets are controlled by reconnection and depends on the product of IMF magnetic field B and solar wind speed V: Activity ~ BV^2 and can be measured by the aa, Kp, and IHV indices. The ring current is a measure of the particle energy in the Van Allan radiation belts and is influenced by B only. Indices like Dst and u and IDV pick out the radiation belt energy, so IDV ~B. So, having two indices that respond differently to B and V allows us to determine both B and V. This is the breakthrough that Ed Cliver and myself realized about 10 years ago, and which is now generally accepted, providing a way forward, rather than getting stuck in nit picking. It took 10 years of fight to make people see this [there are deniers everywhere :-), you know the tune: ‘I’m not convinced etc…”], but that is behind us [and ‘everybody’ else] now. The polar cap current [ http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf ] depends on B times V, so if we can determine B from IDV, V from IHV, we can form the product B times V and see if it matches what the polar cap current gives. And it does, see Figure 12 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
This gives us confidence in the reconstruction.

May 22, 2011 11:38 am

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:06 am
But the only ‘advantage’ I see being referred to is that your IDV index also fails to register the storms and so correlates well with Bartels u index. Or did I miss something? (always possible).

Is the ‘advantage’ that by being insensitive to high speed streams from coronal holes, the IDV and u indices are capable of being extrapolated to provide a reconstruction of sunspot numbers?
If so, how well is that working at the moment, with the sun in a quiet state?

May 22, 2011 11:38 am

Paul Vaughan says: May 22, 2011 at 11:15 am
vukcevic, Consider acknowledging wind’s role driving ocean currents.
Energy- temperature gradient – atmospheric circulation (wind) – temperature gradient- atmospheric pressure gradient etc, until energy runs out, which of course never does.
Source of energy is the controlling factor; quote from my post:
(Subpolar gyre) “It is a region of intense interaction between ocean and atmosphere: the winter’s cold winds remove heat at rates of several hundred watts per square meter, resulting in deep sea convection reaching as far as 2500 m below the surface.”

May 22, 2011 11:50 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:35 am
This failure is the critical element that makes IDV so useful. There are two sets of currents generated in the magnetosphere: 1) the ring-current and 2) the auroral zone electrojets. The perturbations seen on the ground are a mixture of the two and it has taken a long time for researchers to realize that fact [there is a third set of currents which is generated by UV from the sun – just to make it extra hard; and a fourth set controlling the convection of plasma across the polar caps, see below]…

Good stuff, and all very interesting. So does this mean you can also reconstruct Earthward solar wind speed and density back to 1835 and by subtracting out the activity due to sunspots, get a residual which shows us what was emanating from coronal holes and flares?

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 11:59 am

Useful:
Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 22, 2011 at 10:28 am)
“The modulation of GCR is caused by GCRs scattered by the irregularities in the field, which scale with the field […] the modulation is not just a simple relationship and is not well understood […]”

May 22, 2011 12:04 pm

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 10:28 am
1950-1980 negative correlation not included!
The link was intended to show that the increases in temperature happen without CO2 being included. That there are negative correlations, even makes my point stronger. Thanks for supporting me fully on this.
vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:07 am
I offered it to you some time ago as a go-between to the Stanford climate department. You declined.
Declined because it did not satisfy even elementary demands on quality.
tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:38 am
Is the ‘advantage’ that by being insensitive to high speed streams from coronal holes, the IDV and u indices are capable of being extrapolated to provide a reconstruction of sunspot numbers?
u and IDV allows reconstruction of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field. We expect that the HMF should depend on the square root of the sunspot number and find that it does:
“The main sources of the equatorial components of the Sun’s large scale magnetic field are large active regions. If these active regions emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment will scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average IMF strength will tend to increase as RZ^1/2 (for a detailed discussion, see Wang and Sheeley [2003] and Wang et al. [2005]). We find, indeed, that there is a linear relation between B and the square root of the RZ as shown in Figure 8.”
If so, how well is that working at the moment, with the sun in a quiet state?
Since it is based on sound physics and understanding of the mechanism we would expect it to hold at all times. Naturally, we find that this has been borne out by all data since our 2005 paper up to the present time, including the recent solar minimum. http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-1963-now.png
As we said in http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf Our debate with Lockwood and colleagues on the long-term evolution of the coronal magnetic field and the solar wind may be resolved within the next few years if our prediction [Svalgaard et al., 2005] of a solar maximum with peak sunspot number comparable to that of cycle 14 bears out. If so, direct measurements of solar wind properties during conditions similar to those during the previous minimum of the Gleissberg cycle would take the estimates of IMF B out of the realm of extrapolation. It is noteworthy that the IDV index (and thus B, regardless of regression method) for 2006 (based on the first 7 months only, but expected to fall further as we approach solar minimum) is already the lowest in the last 94 years.”
This has, indeed, happened. We do the ‘quiet’ sun quite well.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 12:17 pm

vukcevic, on interannual timescales your “hysteresis” is what Milanovic calls “spatiotemporal chaos”, but I don’t see you acknowledging the dominant lagless role of external factors on ocean currents via wind.

May 22, 2011 12:18 pm

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:50 am
So does this mean you can also reconstruct Earthward solar wind speed and density back to 1835
In essence, yes. The details depend on finding and digitizing the early 19th century data [this is ongoing].
and by subtracting out the activity due to sunspots, get a residual which shows us what was emanating from coronal holes and flares?
Flares are generally part of ‘activity due to sunspots’, but we can separate what is due to solar UV and what is due to solar wind [coronal holes]. This is an active area of research. The main hurdle [the “I’m not convinced’ syndrome] is past us now and we can begin to make progress. A workshop is scheduled for next year about this. One of the remaining issues is what happened prior to the 19th century as far as the floor in B is concerned. The recent solar minimum B-value of 3.93 nT nicely fits our floor value of ~4 nT. Steinhilber’s suggestion that HMF B was substantially lower around 1900 is not substantiated by the geomagnetic data.

May 22, 2011 12:32 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm
vukcevic, …

I would think you’ll both be pretty interested by this article, fresh out a couple of days ago.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10013.html
Interannual atmospheric variability forced by the deep equatorial Atlantic Ocean
Peter Brandt, Andreas Funk, Verena Hormann, Marcus Dengler, Richard J. Greatbatch & John M. Toole
Climate variability in the tropical Atlantic Ocean is determined by large-scale ocean–atmosphere interactions, which particularly affect deep atmospheric convection over the ocean and surrounding continents1. Apart from influences from the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation2 and the North Atlantic Oscillation3, the tropical Atlantic variability is thought to be dominated by two distinct ocean–atmosphere coupled modes of variability that are characterized by meridional4, 5 and zonal6, 7 sea-surface-temperature gradients and are mainly active on decadal and interannual timescales, respectively8, 9. Here we report evidence that the intrinsic ocean dynamics of the deep equatorial Atlantic can also affect sea surface temperature, wind and rainfall in the tropical Atlantic region and constitutes a 4.5-yr climate cycle. Specifically, vertically alternating deep zonal jets of short vertical wavelength with a period of about 4.5 yr and amplitudes of more than 10 cm s−1 are observed, in the deep Atlantic, to propagate their energy upwards, towards the surface10, 11. They are linked, at the sea surface, to equatorial zonal current anomalies and eastern Atlantic temperature anomalies that have amplitudes of about 6 cm s−1 and 0.4 °C, respectively, and are associated with distinct wind and rainfall patterns. Although deep jets are also observed in the Pacific12 and Indian13 oceans, only the Atlantic deep jets seem to oscillate on interannual timescales. Our knowledge of the persistence and regularity of these jets is limited by the availability of high-quality data. Despite this caveat, the oscillatory behaviour can still be used to improve predictions of sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic. Deep-jet generation and upward energy transmission through the Equatorial Undercurrent warrant further theoretical study.

May 22, 2011 12:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: May 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Declined because it did not satisfy even elementary demands on quality.
That is nonsense.
You only saw the graph, no data file, no source of data, and even more importantly what the data represents.
Only a ‘pompous academic’ could glance at graph and say:
“ did not satisfy even elementary demands on quality”
Well have another look
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD2.htm
and specify which elementary QUALITY you are talking about, you often make demands of other posters, so follow your own form.
North Atlantic precursor has no dimension (it is just a number = ratio of two values expressed in same units) and normalised to scale of other relevant variables.

May 22, 2011 12:42 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
May 22, 2011 at 11:59 am
Useful: “the modulation is not just a simple relationship and is not well understood […]”
But that doesn’t mean it is not understood at all. Just that it is not understood as well as we would like. We do understand that [and how] the modulation is controlled by the latitudinal extent of the coronal streamer belt, that [and how] the modulation is influenced by the cosmic rays drifting in the large scale structure of the HMF, that [and how] the modulation arises from scattering from turbulent corotating interaction regions, and several other details [e.g. the dependence on particle energy]. A comprehensive, quantitative theory is still elusive, although some people claim their pet theories fit the bill.

May 22, 2011 1:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:18 pm
The details depend on finding and digitizing the early 19th century data [this is ongoing]…
One of the remaining issues is what happened prior to the 19th century as far as the floor in B is concerned.

What are the earliest usefully calibrate-able reading you are aware of? Is there still a massive amount of paper records in danger of being lost?

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 1:08 pm

Useful:
Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 22, 2011 at 10:28 am)
“The modulation of GCR is caused by GCRs scattered by the irregularities in the field, which scale with the field […] the modulation is not just a simple relationship and is not well understood […]”


To clarify: The most useful part is this part:
Leif Svalgaard wrote (May 22, 2011 at 10:28 am)
“The modulation of GCR is caused by GCRs scattered by the irregularities in the field, which scale with the field […]”

May 22, 2011 1:09 pm

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm
You only saw the graph, no data file, no source of data, and even more importantly what the data represents.
Undocumented stuff automatically goes in the circular bin.
But as I recall, you were plotting things upside down for periods when the phase was wrong to make it fit anyway. You could submit what you have on your own anywhere and at any time.
tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm
What are the earliest usefully calibrate-able reading you are aware of? Is there still a massive amount of paper records in danger of being lost?
Gauss’s data from ~1833 for IDV and IHV. For the UV, the 1740s. And yes, there is a massive amount of data in danger of being lost. We are attempting to halt that loss, but it is harder than one might think it should be.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 1:22 pm

Stephen Wilde wrote (May 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm):
“My main problem with the Svensmark hypothesis is that there is no shortage of the necessary aerosols in the first place so more of them does not necessarily result in more clouds.”

Kirkby points out that aerosol concentration affects droplet size in a manner that fundamentally alters reflection.

I’ve been hoping someone might be able to point to the article from which he got the right-hand graph-panel displayed from 35:40 to 35:50:
Anyone?
This immediately struck me as a key missing link (regardless of whether GCRs, something confounded, or whatever).

May 22, 2011 1:37 pm

Paul,
if you mean the CCN origination slide, the legend below the graphs reads
Merikanto et al, ACP, 2009

May 22, 2011 1:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2011 at 1:09 pm
yes, there is a massive amount of data in danger of being lost. We are attempting to halt that loss, but it is harder than one might think it should be.

I suppose some of the data has shifted around over the years, from closed down measuring stations, to libraries, to university faculty offices etc. Must be hard to track down. Sounds like it needs someone with some travel funding to do some dedicated running around.

John Finn
May 22, 2011 1:50 pm

tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 5:17 am

John Finn says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:27 am
SC 5 didn’t begin until ~1798.


Yet you asserted that the Dalton Minimum started in 1790, at the peak of a high cycle?
And as I pointed out it does not help your argument. On the contrary, it considerably weakens it. Could you now identify when the Dalton Minimum cooling began? If indeed there was such a thing.

May 22, 2011 2:10 pm

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm
and specify which elementary QUALITY you are talking about, you often make demands of other posters, so follow your own form.
For one, an 11-yr moving average should end 5.5 years from the limits of the data.

May 22, 2011 2:16 pm

> Leif Svalgaard says:
> May 21, 2011 at 9:00 pm
>> Julian Droms says:
>> May 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
>> Shaviv says it should be only these high energy > 10 GeV particles
>> that have the energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere while
>> still being able to seed clouds at those altitudes At such high
>> energies, the solar modulation of GCRs is actually very small. Look
>> at the lower right-hand curves on Figure 1 of
>> http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/bibliography/ICRC2005
>> /usa-wiedenbeck-M-abs3-sh34-poster.pdf
It looks to me like this paper looks at particles only from Li through Zn, and it has no actual data points above 1 GeV, much less 10 GeV (from the Advanced Composition Explorer) comparing different modulations, just extrapolations from lower energies. Also, I’m not sure how measurements on particle energies in orbit should correlate with energies in ground measurements, or whether that matters. It appears to be a poster and not a peer-reviewed article, which shouldn’t matter, if there were someone to explain in details how it relates to the current debate…

May 22, 2011 2:18 pm

John Finn says:
May 22, 2011 at 1:50 pm
tallbloke says:
May 22, 2011 at 5:17 am
John Finn says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:27 am
SC 5 didn’t begin until ~1798.
Yet you asserted that the Dalton Minimum started in 1790, at the peak of a high cycle?
And as I pointed out it does not help your argument. On the contrary, it considerably weakens it. Could you now identify when the Dalton Minimum cooling began? If indeed there was such a thing.

Yes, you immediately tried to shift attention away from your falsehood, and I obligingly said some colder winters were recorded after 1804. But this doesn’t change the fact that you won’t/can’t admit to falsely stating that the Dalton Minimum commenced in 1790. Perhaps at this second prompting, you will agree you are wrong about that?

May 22, 2011 2:36 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: May 22, 2011 at 1:09 pm
But as I recall, you were plotting things upside down for periods when the phase was wrong to make it fit anyway.
Another nonsense from your ‘make it up’ milling machine.
1.First nothing was plotted upside down.
2.North Atlantic precursor as:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD2.htm
is nothing to do with Leohle reconstruction as:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
with negative correlation for a fraction of time, which is just an (useful) exercise in pointing towards link of global temperature to the arctic magnetic field which may or may not have some role in climatic events.
3. I was not to disclose details directly to you (well known as a person who ridicules anything that may knot know much about or have no experience of) but was more than happy to give complete documentation to a conscientious climate scientist who would take an unbiased view.
Your above comment emphasise precisely why it is not advisable for anyone to take your opinion as a defining evaluation of a new and possibly controversial finding.
You could submit what you have on your own anywhere and at any time.
That I shall do; but what a chance for a ‘lamb’ in a den full of jackals.

May 22, 2011 2:52 pm

Julian Droms says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Also, I’m not sure how measurements on particle energies in orbit should correlate with energies in ground measurements, or whether that matters. It appears to be a poster and not a peer-reviewed article,
The paper was not intended to show any new result. It was just an example showing what has been known for decades for all sorts of particles. The energy outside the Earth determines if the cosmic ray even get to the ground.

May 22, 2011 3:02 pm

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm
with negative correlation for a fraction of time, which is just an (useful) exercise in pointing towards link of global temperature to the arctic magnetic field which may or may not have some role in climatic events […]
Perhaps part of your problem is not being upfront with what you claim. The drips that you occasionally let fly do not tell a coherent story. Based on the low quality of those, the chance that the secret paper is any better is slim.

May 22, 2011 3:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: May 22, 2011 at 2:10 pm
For one, an 11-yr moving average should end 5.5 years from the limits of the data.
Nothing wrong with my graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD2.htm
In this case it is shown as a cumulative process along 11 years
Y (n+11) = { Sum [(X(n) +X(n+1) +…. X(n+11)] }/11
rather than
Y (n+6) = { Sum [(X(n) +X(n+1) +…. X(n+11)] }/11

May 22, 2011 3:18 pm

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm
more than happy to give complete documentation to a conscientious climate scientist who would take an unbiased view.
A good vehicle for this would have been to present it here on WUWT for a free review by all the unbiased people with completely open and receptive minds

May 22, 2011 3:26 pm

vukcevic says:
May 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Nothing wrong with my graph
an 11-yr moving average should end 5.5 years from the limits of the data.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 4:09 pm

tallbloke wrote (May 22, 2011 at 1:37 pm)
“[…] the legend below the graphs reads Merikanto et al, ACP, 2009”

Yes, thanks tallbloke. Looks like Figure 9B (with a slightly different color scale) from:
Merikanto, J.; Spracklen, D.V.; Mann, G.W.; Pickering, S.J.; & Carslaw, K.S. (2009). Impact of nucleation on global CCN. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 9, 8601-8616.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/9/8601/2009/acp-9-8601-2009.pdf
Also resembles Figure 8B.

Paul Vaughan
May 22, 2011 4:23 pm

Leif Svalgaard hing vukcevic (May 22, 2011 at 3:02 pm):
“Perhaps part of your problem is not being upfront with what you claim.”

Leif’s predictable misinterpretation of 2 curves on any 1 graph:
“Claim”

savethesharks
May 22, 2011 8:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
There are three strikes against the cosmic ray theory [which, BTW, did not originate with Svensmark].
1) the sun’s magnetic field that controls the amount of cosmic rays arriving at Earth is the same now as 150 years ago. Climate is not.
2) the amount of nucleation derived from GCRs is two orders of magnitude too small to have any affect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P
3) the cosmic ray intensity has varied the past several years much more than the solar modulation and the climate has not varied with it, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
====================
Is this the best that you can do?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

May 22, 2011 8:36 pm

Julian Droms says:
>>>> Shaviv says it should be only these high energy > 10 GeV particles
>>>> that have the energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere while
>>>> still being able to seed clouds at those altitudes
Leif Svalgaard says:
>>> At such high energies, the solar modulation of GCRs is actually very
>>> small. Look at the lower right-hand curves on Figure 1 of
>>> http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/bibliography/ICRC2005
>>> /usa-wiedenbeck-M-abs3-sh34-poster.pdf
Julian Droms says:
>> It looks to me like this paper looks at particles only from Li through Zn,
>> and it has no actual data points above 1 GeV, much less 10 GeV (from the
>> Advanced Composition Explorer) comparing different modulations, just
>> extrapolations from lower energies.
Leif Svalgaard says:
> The paper was not intended to show any new result. It was just an
> example showing what has been known for decades for all sorts of
> particles. The energy outside the Earth determines if the cosmic ray
> even get to the ground.
Still, it looks to me like this poster looks at particles only from Li through Zn. If you read Wikipedia, it says that only about 1 % of cosmic rays are comprised of heavier elements, Li and above. About 99% are protons and helium nuclei. These have a much higher charge-to-mass ratio than the heavier particles and therefore I would think would be more strongly influenced by the solar wind and by the earth’s magnetosphere. Still, I don’t necessarily equate measuring 10 GeV in a satellite orbiting earth, with measuring 10 GeV at the Earth’s surface, which is what an ion chamber does. Then, there is the issue of the Earth’s magnetosphere deflecting high energy particles, which may occur at latitudes lower than the satellite in question. Doesn’t the solar wind affect the strength of currents in the Earth’s magnetosphere? I don’t know the physics really, I’m just asking….

May 22, 2011 9:01 pm

Well, maybe after these experiments (like SKY and the Danish one here) someone will pipe up and talk about what kind of energies and particles we are talking about here that are necessary to set up cloud nucleation so the appropriate data can be accessed of collected. I’ve never seen where Shaviv talks about or references how he comes up with this 10 GeV threshold though it may be on his website. Interesting, the current study is apparently using neutron monitors which as you say detect 2.4 GeV and above. There is only about a 20 % change in cosmic ray flux detected at Moscow over the time period analyzed, yet this seems to produce the correlations shown in the original post. Strange to me though, why one would need to detrend the cosmic ray flux data unless there was something wrong with the calibration of the instrument over time. I can see why you would detrend the radiation flux data to remove the ENSO signals and so forth. It’s not clear to me why you would need to detrend the Moscow cosmic ray flux data, but maybe I’m wrong on that. For > 10 GeV data Shaviv uses uses as cited from Ahluwalia (1997) here http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar though I have no idea if this is the best source. Would be interested to see how this or similar data comes out in a analysis like above in the original post.

upcountrywater
May 22, 2011 11:29 pm

Leif Svalgaard!
Bust open a bottle of Champagne
Here’s the deal Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD has given you credit on all of your hard work!
You are not on the fringe, any longer, you are main stream!!!
BTW ..What an incredible hostile consensus driven field you hang out in, but hay just keep whacking them with the facts…
★ ★ Excellent Job ★★

May 23, 2011 12:07 am

Julian Droms says:
May 22, 2011 at 8:36 pm
….I don’t know the physics really, I’m just asking….

Looks like you are asking some very smart questions to me Julian.
Over to Leif for some answers. Or maybe Prof Shaviv is the man to ask. Mind you, he’s never found the time to reply to the emails I’ve sent him. At least Leif is generous with his time, and forgiving of argumentative interlocutors.