Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv posted a guest essay at Luboš Motl The Reference Frame titled: The CLOUD is clearing
In a nutshell he’s saying that cosmic ray flux modulated by solar variability has a strong place right alongside CO2, and may in fact be a larger forcing.
He writes:
The results are very beautiful and they demonstrate, yet again, how cosmic rays (which govern the amount of atmospheric ionization) can in principle have an effect on climate.
What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an amplification mechanism must be operating.
…
As a consequence, anyone trying to understand past (and future) climate change must consider the whole effect that the sun has on climate, not just the relatively small variations in the total irradiance (which is the only solar influence most modelers consider). This in turn implies, that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun, and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg increase per CO2 doubling)
Read the entire essay here
h/t to Dr. Indur Goklany
Also, William Briggs has an excellent summary as well.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The cosmic rays albedo negative feedback is about same magnitude as CO2 positive feedback, both negligible.
All one has to do to confirm the sun is the primary driver of the climate is look at all the historic records going back hundreds and in some cases, many thousands of years. As for CO2, the historical record shows little impact on climate from changing levels.
So what gives? Politics, bias, narrow thinking, wishful thinking, or a mix thereof.
Those who dislike my colorful backgrounds and numerous gadgets should start with a super-minimalistic template here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/nir-shaviv-cloud-is-clearing.html?m=1
Though Judith Curry has not yet made her official CLOUD post, there is a video of Shaviv’s talk at the ACS meeting: http: //judithcurry.com/2011/08/29/acs-webinar-on-climate-change-part-ii/. Scroll down.
Shaviv’s work will draw attention to the work of Svensmark and Kirkby. The importance of these three scientists is found mainly in the fact that each of them practices entirely within the confines of scientific method. The contrast with the practice of Warmista is stark.
Dr. Nir Shaviv,
A lucid article. Thank you.
Yes, we can see IPCC vested scientists downplaying the evidence showing the significance of solar modulation of GCR on climate.
Keep spreading the word. AR5 is coming.
John
Of course, Dr. Shaviv leaves out one important statement from the lead author everyone seems afaid to accept: “[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”
Rather than just copying what is very well explained elsewhere, try looking at:
http://skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html
The explanation includes numerous journaled papers and reviews explaining why GCR have some influence on cloud behavior (a potential mechanism for cloud formation but does not indicate GCRs significantly promote cloud formation in the real world), but they are not responsible for significant climate change now or in the geologic past.
This confirmation comes on the heels of the revelation that measured terrestrial heat radiation is about twice as much as climate modellers had assumed and incorporated into their calculations. Entirely consistent with the CERN findings. Instead of modelling CO2 climate interactions, I suggest someone use the sunspot,heliosphere,cosmic radiation, PDO, and NAO data for the last 30 years and project temperature out another 10 or so. I think we will find very little room for a measurable CO2 effect.
I wonder if there are any other energetic modulators to climate?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1462.html
and
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/artificial-rain-laser/
Sensor operator says:
September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
I always wonder why people show up to assign homework. If you have an argument to make, and you can make it in your own words, please do so.
I really do recommend the following video to everyone. Then once you have watched it please do pass it on to a few others.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&w=560&h=345%5D
That should have been :
@Sensor operator says: September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
I think Dr. Shaviv is not afraid.
septicalscience.con is a hack science site, why would any one click on a link with a lie in its name ?
Will we start hearing the term “Sun-Climate Skeptics” with increasing frequency?
Thank you, Luboš! You just moved up my list of bookmarks, it seems to work for your site in general, what a difference… now I am going to read that entry 🙂
>> Sensor operator says:
September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
Rather than just copying what is very well explained elsewhere, try looking at: <<
Ah yes, SkepticalScience.com. Doesn't it give you pause to refer to a website who's name itself is a lie?
Sensor Operator,
Have you read the book Chilling Stars, if not then you should.
The links you give are just BS modeling papers. Until further actual experiments are performed, the GCR to clouds hypothesis remains a plausible hypothesis. The initial CERN results SUPPORT the theory that GCRs induce ionization that can form particles. Although the link to seeding clouds (small particles to bigger ones) has NOT been tested, the basis for the theory appears to be on very solid ground – rather than struck out it has got to first base (using a sporting analogy). The initial results ARE encouraging and your disingenuous attempts to downplay the GCR hypothesis simply reflect the pre-conceived opinions of yourself and others that nothing affects climate in meaningful way except CO2. Intelligent people will accept that it is much much more likely that a great many things can and do affect climate and that GCRs are just another of many untested possible variables. Possibilities that NEED to be investigated experimentally rather than “modeled”! As an engineer, I know all to well how useless models are in the face of complex systems. If we understood everything we would not need scale models, experimental mock ups, extensive prototyping and test pilots to test commercial versions.
You and your ilk are so narrow minded that you cannot see the woods for the trees. You are blinkered by your religion. I doubt we will fully solve the climate conundrum in my lifetime or my childrens lifetime. Over the next 100 years, I expect we will still be improving our knowledge or will have long given up trying to solve such an impossibly complex system. Time will tell if GCRs, like CO2, turn out to be a blind alley or a minor side street on our long journey of scientific discovery.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 1, 2011 at 9:01 am
The cosmic rays albedo negative feedback is about same magnitude as CO2 positive feedback, both negligible.
Odd, I remember Svensmark showing a cosmic relationship to the relative position of our solar system in our galaxy as a relationship to global temperatures AND a relationship of solar activity as well. I don’t see that with CO2. Correct me if I miss understood Svensmark’s work.
Sensor operator says:
September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
You might have an argument if the Milky Way was not a multi-armed spiral, but an elliptical instead.
You might have an argument if the Sun exhibited no variation, but it does.
You might have an argument if the CLOUD experiment failed to rise empirically, but it did.
Your steady-state Galaxy, Sun and Planet are not available to grow the runaway CO2 tracegas theory into a Godzilla tipping point. Global tracegas warming is not going to get us going in the 21st Century, and is not going to give rise to any skyscraping advances in knowlege and technology.
John Whitman says:
>…Yes, we can see IPCC vested scientists downplaying the evidence showing the significance of solar modulation of GCR on climate.
++++++
It appears that, as was the case with AR4, the conclusions were written some time ago. All that remains before launch is to fill in the gaps with sciencey paperwork. Upstart findings like CLOUD are a mere distraction to be examined perhaps in AR6 or 7 by which time a consensus can be forged.
CERN wants 5 years of big funding to continue ‘work’ to find out if CCN’s cause visible clouds. They can keep mentioning their discovery of the importance of the trace quantities of ammonia. Good for them. Press on. Go for it. Maybe they too will find out how CCN’s form clouds and publish it in a textbook on Atmospherics. Oh wait…
In the meantime, why wait for AR5’s launch date? Release the conclusions now so the sciencey papers can be properly selected to support its truthiness. No sense letting people waste research money between now and then on
contradictoryunscientific investigations./sarc-faceit
But methinks the future of CAGW is going to get CLOUDier by the week.
Is there a correlation between lightening strikes and the levels of cosmic rays entering low Earth atmosphere?
Large buildings, like the Empire State, might have strike trackers and allow us to know the rate of lightening strikes. An ionized trail could possibly form a track for an electrical discharge.
Crispin in Waterloo says: September 1, 2011 at 11:08 am
CERN wants 5 years of big funding to continue ‘work’
Translation: CERN want 5 more years on the gravy train during which they will bury this research so there is an excuse not to give any funds to any laboratory with the honesty to do it properly …. in the (totally vane) hope from “community” that within 5 years the world is going to be a flaming ball of fire with hundreds of meters of sea level swamping the planet (except the bit where Al Gore has a condo on the sea front) …. OR at least those on the gravy train can retire on a good pension and spend their ill gotten gains.
At least that’s what my translator comes up with, or is it broken?
First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate.
If this is ‘well known’ then why all the discussion. The fact is that it is not established, and in particular, the variation of cosmic rays the past 60 years is not at all like that of climate. Application of the ‘scientific method’ that some cling to, now requires one to drop the hypothesis, or, at least, as Kirkby et al. admits to note that the CLOUD results say nothing about the climate link.
And whilst we’re on the subject of CERN, what is the point of CERN? I remember they were a prestigious research institute back in the 1980s, but what have they done since then? Are they still looking of the “god” particle or the “unified theory of how to get research funding” or whatever it was? I assume they haven’t found nuclear fusion which would be useful.
And, what do you do with a god particle?
Seriously, what is the economic justification for CERN?
It is misleading to put the cosmic ray effect alongside CO2. More like cosmic rays should be placed well above CO2 as a climate factor as, beyond the first 10s of CO2 ppm, its efect drops off quite rapidly, a la Beer’s Law.
Placing them side by side gives the warmists hope—all they have to do is discount cosmic rays and claim CO2 ascendancy again. If CO2 is well below CO2, all is lost.
highflight56433 says:
September 1, 2011 at 10:41 am
……………………
The problem is that the GCRs count that gets through the Earth’s magnetic field is far too low to make any difference.
There are apparently numerous correlations from the solar ‘barycentre properties’, Hale cycle, cosmic rays etc.
I myself have produced some:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Atlantic-Essential.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm
and more relating to climate, sunspot cycles, the solar magnetic field etc, so you may be forgiven if you assume I do have an obsession with correlations.
I do not think that solar variability of the TSI is sufficient enough to explain MWP, LIA or current warming. Without mechanism with the energy required to move the oceans temperatures it’s just a speculation.
My simple view is the Sun is constant (within reason) the ocean currents are not, the acquired heat from Equator to about 35+ degrees latitude is partially re-radiated and partially moved towards the poles. How much goes towards to poles depends on the strength of the ocean currents. Stronger currents more heat is transported (with related consequences), and vice versa, etc., etc.