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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:11 am
tallbloke says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:51 am
I stand by my assessment that your one word negative reply and your selective quote was highly misleading.
The authors’s own conclusion:
“In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data.”
Go tell them that their conclusion was highly misleading.
I’ve seen many papers where the money quote contradicts the main findings, and so have you. So I don’t need to go and harrass them for doing what they had to do in the current scientific situation of the gatekeepers and guardians of the AGW hegemony forcing authors to contradict the rest of their conclusions before allowing the paper to be published. The only failure here was that they didn’t keep the paper behind a paywall. I notice you only linked to the abstract rather than the freely available full paper though.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf
Again, the conclusions in the same paper that Leif chose not to mention:
– Cloud droplet size has a rather large negative correlation
with GCR, in agreement with a possible GCR-CCNcloud
coupling. In one of the domains studied (off the
coast of SW Africa), that correlation was statistically
significant.
– The six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude
show on average slightly stronger indications of a
cosmic ray signal in the cloud parameters than the average
of the other cases, with 16 out of 24 explored correlations
having the expected sign, but only 4 of these
have correlations above 0.5 in absolute value. Due to
the limited number of cases studied, the significance of
this result is difficult to evaluate.
– One of the domains studied (mid-Atlantic) showed correlations
which for all four cloud parameters have signs
that are consistent with a cosmic ray induced CCN formation.
In this rather small domain cloud susceptibility
is large, implying a potentially large impact on cloud
albedo. A more detailed analysis of this domain revealed
high correlations between GCR and the properties
of high clouds in general and low clouds of intermediate
optical depth.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:48 am
tb
Yes, but here is the big BUT
…
Thanks Vuk, good observations. I think there are all sorts of interesting possibilites around the Svensmark hypothesis, including the possibility that the effect might be one of warming in some places and times of year and cooling in others.
Quite a lot of GCR’s will make it into the lower atmosphere south of the ice too. Worth finding out what the net effect is I’d say.
There is a new petition on the UK government website: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/15656
I would urge everyone in the UK to sign. It reads:
Take seriously the risk of more extreme winters
Following a succession of cold winters and cool summers (like the notorious BBQ summer), we now have corroboration by the CERN physics institute of the work of Svensmark and others which clearly indicates a link between climate and solar activity. Other scientists suggest that the recent drop in solar activity may herald a new Maunder minimum which was a period of low solar activity, few sunspots and extremely cold weather. In light of this evidence, we ask the government to ensure it is prepared for a sustained period of extreme cold and ask it to urgently undertake research to understand the effects of solar activity.
tallbloke says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:41 am
I’ve seen many papers where the money quote contradicts the main findings
The authors state their main findings as follows:
“The overall conclusion, built on a series of independent statistical tests, is that no clear cosmic ray signal associated with Forbush decrease events is found in highly susceptible marine low clouds over the southern hemisphere oceans. […] For the ongoing global warming, however, the role of galactic cosmic rays would be expected to be negligible, considering the fact that the cosmic ray flux has not changed over the last few decades – apart from the 11-year cycle”.
The elephant in the room (Earth’s variable, natural, long and short term climate variations) is always shoved to the back when the Sun and CO2 are discussed. Why is that? Does the obvious not interest people who want only to find needles in the haystack?
Pamela Gray says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:51 am
The elephant in the room (Earth’s variable, natural, long and short term climate variations) is always shoved to the back when the Sun and CO2 are discussed. Why is that? Does the obvious not interest people who want only to find needles in the haystack?
Because the adherents of each religion only want to hear the teachings of their own prophet, and reality does not enter the preaching.
I was amused at how Gavin responded when one of his faithful hinted that Svensmark may be on to something.
I agree that this is not the slam dunk proof that the denialists claim it is. But it does lend support to Svensmark’s theories. At the very least, it doesn’t disprove them. In the text you provide additional steps that would be needed to show the correlation, so, you clearly are not dismissing the possibility that cosmic rays influence on cloud formation could be a much more significant contribution to global temperature change that previously thought.
I think what this paper most significantly shows is that the science is definitely not settled.
[Response: This idea far predates Svensmark – going back to Ney in the 1950s or Dickinson in the 1970s. What people have objected to in Svensmark’s work is not the idea that there are potential connections between GCR fluxes and climate, but rather the ridiculous overselling of their results, the inappropriate manipulation of data, and the lack of predictability of any of their proposed correlations when new data arrives. There are many issues in climate that are worth more study and this is certainly one of them, regardless of the previous overwrought hyperbole. – gavin
DCA says:
September 2, 2011 at 7:17 am
I was amused at how Gavin responded when one of his faithful hinted that Svensmark may be on to something.
To the faithful on both sides, the science doesn’t matter.
Sensor operator says:
September 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
“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.”
And of course you leave out that the only thing underpinning the CO2 narrative is that climate models can’t reproduce observations without adding CO2 forcing and water vapor amplificaiton thereof into the model and they don’t of any other forcing agency to add instead of CO2.
So the whole CO2 premise is based on logical fallacy called argument from ignorance i.e. we are ignorant of anything other than CO2 which could be the cause ergo CO2 is the cause.
Well, now here’s another possible cause… GCR variability.
It’s important to note that GCR variability was hypothesized by Svensmark 15 years ago and it took 15 years to get an experiment funded to test the hypothesis. That’s because the climate boffins and political machinery we’re out to blame CO2 and weren’t interested in finding other possible explanations. They not only aren’t interested but pointedly impede testing of alternative explanations.
The most important thing the CLOUD experiment did was it didn’t falsify the GCR hypothesis but rather confirmed that GCRs do indeed increase the amount of small particulates which can go on to agglomerate into particles large enough to form condensation nuclei. Now further experimentation is called for to determine if the GCR effect in vivo is operational in situ. One wonders how many more years the CO2 conspiracists will delay further experimentation around the GCR hypothesis.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:06 am
“The overall conclusion, built on a series of independent statistical tests, is that no clear cosmic ray signal associated with Forbush decrease events is found in highly susceptible marine low clouds over the southern hemisphere oceans. […] For the ongoing global warming, however, the role of galactic cosmic rays would be expected to be negligible, considering the fact that the cosmic ray flux has not changed over the last few decades – apart from the 11-year cycle”.
Yes but the flux (via sunspot proxy) for past 50 years has been at the highest sustained level in the 400-year history of sunspot counts. There’s huge heat sink called the global ocean that can keep on storing additional energy over that entire 50 year cycle. This should be intuitive to the author who wrote the above paragraph because every dumbass knows that when you put a flame under a pot of water it doesn’t start boiling instantly but, as long as the flame remains, it will continue to get warmer until it does start to boil. GCRs would presumably work the same way – turn up the heat and leave it on the higher setting for 50 years and climate slowly but surely gets warmer. Like duh.
tallbloke says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:41 am
“The authors’s own conclusion:
“In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data.””
Author’s conclusion is just his interpretation of the data. Others may interpret the same data differently. There’s a great degree of data ownership issues prevalent in bandwagon science. Whoever actually obtained the data feel’s he’s the only one who can interpret the data as well. That ain’t the case. The data belongs to everyone. The interpretations belong to individuals. There’s a tremendous degree of resentment when someone who didn’t do the work of obtaining the data uses it to reach different conclusions. It’s understandable of course “I worked for the data so it’s mine and mine alone to interpret” but science isn’t supposed to work that way. The data is supposed to be as available to critics as it is to supporters. Instead of this we’re seeing FOI laws being employed by potential critics to obtain the original data upon which conclusions were built. Even you should realize that isn’t right. That’s bandwagon science and hoarding the data is a defense strategy to protect the bandwagon conclusions i.e. circling the wagons around the data so the savages can’t get at it.
Of course the Sun affects the Earth and the Earth’s climate, but not the way the ‘exclusive knowledge’ whish or want to understand it.
I can confirm that the reconstruction by Svalgaard – Cliver of the HMF has a good resonance (well almost) in the North Atlantic, and from then on in events like the Atlantic Multidecadal and the North Atlantic Oscillations as contained in the data of the relevant indices.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm
Hey doc, I did offer the NAP data a year ago, still not interested?
John Marshall says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:23 am
“1 degree C increase with doubling of CO2.
Still the mantra. So please explain how, during the Ordovician period with CO2 atmospheric content of 8000ppmv, we had an ice age? And a severe and prolonged one at that.”
The Ordovician is a sole exception to the rule. Given it was 500 million years ago there is not precisely measurable alignment between evidence of glaciation and evidence of atmospheric CO2. I posted an article on another thread in the past couple of weeks where further research showed a mistaken alignment of a 50,000 years and the CO2 level was indeed very low at the beginning of Ordovican ice age and the gradual build-up of CO2 led to its ending.
The story about CO2 level not aligning with past ice ages is pure urban legend based on exactly one ice age that appeared to be an exception to the rule and new evidence indicates it was mistaken dating of the geologic column rather than an exception to the rule.
Dave Springer says:
September 2, 2011 at 9:17 am
Yes but the flux (via sunspot proxy) for past 50 years has been at the highest sustained level in the 400-year history of sunspot counts.
Actually not [apart from the flux going inverse with the sunspot numbers]. The sunspot numbers were highest in the late 18th century.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 2, 2011 at 9:33 am
Hey doc, I did offer the NAP data a year ago, still not interested?
No, as the data is made up. And without an explanation of what it is, is useless.
Leif Svalgaard says:
No, as the data is made up.
I didn’t think Cliver and you made up you data, but of course we know that the McCracken’s data is a bit of fantasy (pre 1970).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V.htm
You can verify the validity of the HMF back to 1870
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Atlantic-Essential.htm
(see the second graph) but before than agreement is only sporadic.
Dave Springer says:
September 2, 2011 at 9:17 am
“This should be intuitive to the author who wrote the above paragraph because every dumbass knows that when you put a flame under a pot of water it doesn’t start boiling instantly but, as long as the flame remains, it will continue to get warmer until it does start to boil.”
That is exactly the point to make when discussing global temps. The long term energy accumulation (for earth it is primarily sourced from the sun) is a function of how much and how long. The result is cooling or warming based on the influence.strength. After which we apply other influential effects short term and long term.
What matters is that we recognize individuals have an opinion on where climate is headed. Prepare for whatever direction you consider it to be headed. Just don’t force yourself interest onto others for the sake of ideology..
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Hoser says:
September 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Get out of the ivory tower, and get your hands dirty.
Like Jim Hansen………….
There’s your classic “I’m too important to do that” argument.
I see the same attitude with business people and politicians who can’t face the opposition in a true public arena. At least Hansen goes out and speaks to actual live humans. His message is wrong, but he’s busy convincing people of his position. He uses his credentials to lend weight to his arguments. Others with similar credentials need to step up.
If we want to counter the Left, we have to talk to people, that is, live humans. People want to have a chance to look you in the eye and hear your voice. Can you do that? Too uncomfortable? Well, that’s not the case with all of us. More of the opposition to Hansen need to get out in the real world and talk about what science really is, how climate hysteria is not science, and what we should be doing to keep people working, and improve the living conditions for more of us. Right now we are going in the wrong direction based on falsehoods.
At times, we must fulfill a duty to our fellow citizens in other ways besides just doing our regular jobs. There are serious issues affecting us, as I described previously. We may not have time to wait for pure science to solve problems, or for Nature to teach lessons. When government interferes, it affects all of us. When a company takes a risk, it only affects the shareholders and employees. We need to get government out of the science business, and stop corrupting the process to justify its designs for acquiring more power. There is a global effort to take control. We all need to oppose them now. The average person can’t do it without our help.
Even if all you do is speak to a group of undergraduates, you are helping.
Hoser says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:31 am
“Even if all you do is speak to a group of undergraduates, you are helping.”
Yes, yes and yes. If you live and work in a bubble then engage others at the grocery store line, etc. The Gorophyte Deo is grasping its last breath.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:06 am
tallbloke says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:41 am
I’ve seen many papers where the money quote contradicts the main findings
The authors state their main findings as follows:
“The overall conclusion,…”.
You’ve missed out the main findings in the conclusions section of the paper which confirm the link between GCR’s and clouds. Here they are again for easy reference:
– Cloud droplet size has a rather large negative correlation
with GCR, in agreement with a possible GCR-CCNcloud
coupling. In one of the domains studied (off the
coast of SW Africa), that correlation was statistically
significant.
– The six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude
show on average slightly stronger indications of a
cosmic ray signal in the cloud parameters than the average
of the other cases, with 16 out of 24 explored correlations
having the expected sign, but only 4 of these
have correlations above 0.5 in absolute value. Due to
the limited number of cases studied, the significance of
this result is difficult to evaluate.
– One of the domains studied (mid-Atlantic) showed correlations
which for all four cloud parameters have signs
that are consistent with a cosmic ray induced CCN formation.
In this rather small domain cloud susceptibility
is large, implying a potentially large impact on cloud
albedo. A more detailed analysis of this domain revealed
high correlations between GCR and the properties
of high clouds in general and low clouds of intermediate
optical depth.
Hoser says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:31 am
If we want to counter the Left
This is not about contering the Left, but about Science. You should never let your political goals determine the outcome of scientific investigation.
tallbloke says:
September 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm
The authors state their main findings as follows:
“The overall conclusion,…”.
You’ve missed out the main findings in the conclusions section of the paper which confirm the link between GCR’s and clouds.
The authors are very clear on what their findings are. With random data you can always find wiggles that match anything. It is the ‘overall conclusion’ that matters. The authors state clearly that they do no confirm any such link. In addition, Kristjansson is one of Svensmarks sharpest critics, so is not trying to confirm the climate link ‘under the radar’. Perhaps I should also refer to Sloan and Wolfendale http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001 or Pierce and Adams, or …
Even Kirkby admits that the CERN result has nothing to do with the climate link.
Dave Springer says:
September 2, 2011 at 9:36 am
John Marshall says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:23 am
“1 degree C increase with doubling of CO2.
Still the mantra. So please explain how, during the Ordovician period with CO2 atmospheric content of 8000ppmv, we had an ice age? And a severe and prolonged one at that.”
The Ordovician is a sole exception to the rule. Given it was 500 million years ago there is not precisely measurable alignment between evidence of glaciation and evidence of atmospheric CO2. I posted an article on another thread in the past couple of weeks where further research showed a mistaken alignment of a 50,000 years and the CO2 level was indeed very low at the beginning of Ordovican ice age and the gradual build-up of CO2 led to its ending.
The story about CO2 level not aligning with past ice ages is pure urban legend based on exactly one ice age that appeared to be an exception to the rule and new evidence indicates it was mistaken dating of the geologic column rather than an exception to the rule.
The Ordovician is not a sole exception, it is one of many “exceptions” to an absurdly fictitious rule. Here are some more:
Marinoan ice age, 670-630 mYa, atmospheric CO2 >10,000ppm
Sturtian ice age 750-700 mYa, atmospheric CO2 >10,000ppm
Huronian ice age, about 2 billion years ago, CO2 probably >20%
Co2 exerts no effect whatsoever on global temperature. What is your problem with this obvious fact?
Since many regions of earth are devoid of natural sources for CCNs (e.g. dust),
——-
Thus seems to be an odd thing to say since we have just had a big discussion about soot deposits in the arctic.
Until cosmic ray nucleation can be shown to be a more powerful effect than all the other sources of cloud nucleation there is no proof. There is only conjecture at this stage.
Review of:
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/
The huge difference to CLOUD experiment (in my view):
“In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course
of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the
small droplets the clouds consist of.”
This is a clear omission by CLOUD, where they only give it 30 minutes to 2
hours at max.
LazyTeenager says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:33 pm
“There is only conjecture at this stage.”
That argument is a double edged sword. It applies to both sides.