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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2011 at 11:36 am
“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.”
But, its integral is.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“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.”
But, its integral is.
No, as you are not showing the integral of the cosmic intensity.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm
That argument is a double edged sword. It applies to both sides.
No, it does not. Not every conjecture is equal.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“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.”
But, its integral is.
Actually, the price of a US postage stamp is driving climate [especially the past 60 years] as this correlation clearly shows:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“No, it does not. Not every conjecture is equal.”
It doesn’t matter. They’re both, by your own words, still conjectures.
“No, as you are not showing the integral of the cosmic intensity.”
But, it is a valid proxy for it, as is demonstrated in the first link I gave,
And, here is Svensmark’s paper “Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate”. See Figure 3b.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm
It doesn’t matter. They’re both, by your own words, still conjectures.
It does matter, even if conjectures. Your argument is of the nature that my chances of winning the lottery must be 50% because either I win or I don’t.
“No, as you are not showing the integral of the cosmic intensity.”
But, it is a valid proxy for it, as is demonstrated in the first link I gave
Even if so, the notion of the integral in this connection is nonsense. The integral of a time series of random numbers will be increasing with time.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:19 pm
And, here is Svensmark’s paper “Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate”. See Figure 3b.
Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm
“Your argument is of the nature that my chances of winning the lottery must be 50% because either I win or I don’t.”
No. My argument is of the nature that we cannot revert to a preindustrial society to forestall an alleged catastrophe on the basis of a conjecture.
“The integral of a time series of random numbers [with a positive bias offset] will be increasing with time.”
Fixed. Now, what does that have to do with the integral of an anomaly from the mean?
“Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.”
You appear not to have read the description of the thick black line.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm
No. My argument is of the nature that we cannot revert to a preindustrial society to forestall an alleged catastrophe on the basis of a conjecture.
No, it was not stated that way. If you wanted to say what you just said, you should have said just that, instead of the nonsense you dished up.
“The integral of a time series of random numbers [with a positive bias offset] will be increasing with time.”
Fixed. Now, what does that have to do with the integral of an anomaly from the mean?
The cosmic ray variation is on top of a [large] positive bias.
“Note how the thin line is heading down and not up at the right hand part, providing direct evidence that Svensmark is wrong.”
You appear not to have read the description of the thick black line.
The thin line is the neutron flux with has an absolute calibration. The ion chamber data does not. You appear not to know much about cosmic rays and their measurements. Perhaps 3c is simpler to understand as it uses the [valid] sunspot number proxy. Note how the thin line does not match the dashed line.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Your first two counterpoints are either argumentative or confused. On the third:
Bart says:
September 4, 2011 at 12:58 am
Your first two counterpoints are either argumentative or confused.
The confusion is firmly on your part. Here is the integral of the cosmic ray intensity at Thule if you want to calculate it over the departure from the mean: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Cosmic-Ray-Integral.png any other station shows the same variation just with smaller amplitudes.
On the third:
Thus, the data to compare with would not have been with neutron monitor data but with ionization chambers which exhibit a much smaller latitudinal dependence.
The ionization chamber data do not have an absolute calibration and any long term trend is suspect. The latitudinal dependence is a red herring. Here you can see that the variation at Tsumeb [cutoff=9.2 Gev, close to the equator] is the same shape as at all other latitudes, but with much smaller amplitude as at higher latitudes: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
Any comment on figure 3c?
Bart says:
September 4, 2011 at 12:58 am
Thus, the data to compare with would not have been with neutron monitor data but with ionization chambers which exhibit a much smaller latitudinal dependence.
The latitudinal dependence is not of the neutron monitor data, but of the primary cosmic rays. If the particles possess energy, which is greater than the magnetic cut-off energy, they will cross through the magnetosphere and reach the upper layers of the atmosphere.
But if their energy is insufficient they will not. This means that the high energy [greater than 10-15 Gev] cosmic rays hits at all latitudes equally and are therefore the same part of the neutron monitor counts for all stations. That at higher latitudes there are many more additional cosmic rays with lower energies is irrelevant.
Dr. Svalgaard,
“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.”
Camp and Tung and separately Lean, both have established a signature of the solar cycle on the climate in the satellite data of the last 30 years. Since the cosmic rays vary with the cycle, they might account for some of the variation that Camp and Tung assume to merely be due to the sun’s variation in radiative forcing. Their model independent estimate of climate sensitivity from the signature would be inflated if some of it should have been attributed to the hypothesized cosmic ray effect instead. It was never valid in a nonlinear system to assume the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing was the same as that to solar variation.. A solar modulated cosmic ray effect would make the differences in their forcing more than just ozone generation and coupling vertically and horizontally to different parts of the climate system.
Uncertainty in aerosol forcing has been shown to account for how models disagreeing by a factor of 3 in climate sensitivity can still “agree” on the 20th century temperature variation. Doubtless, such juggling of the aerosol figures could also explain the temperature variation of the last 60 years on their own. The cosmic ray hypothesis could explain the recent warming by giving more credibility to solar variation as the cause of the little ice age and climate commitment from the thernal inertia of the ocean would explain why we are still warming, and aerosols could perfect the fit for the last 60 years. If it doesn’t seem pretty to you, you shouldn’t like the “agreement” of the models with the climate and each other either.
So..if Earth’s magnetic field is the primary modulator of GCR here on Earth..why then don’t we establish a network of moniters within the weaker and stronger areas of the magnetic field to see where hotspots might be or what field strengths are more effective than other areas.
I’m trying to picture neutron moniters floating on platforms in the South Atlantic (anomaly)..lol somehow or bouyed balloons..
Earths magnetic field is not consistent in several areas, so larger weaker areas and tree ring data I have issue with. But blueberry pancakes and sausages sound good right now..
REPLY: The Earth’s magnetic field is too weak and small, it is the solar magnetic field which is modulating GCR’s – Anthony
Martin Lewitt says:
September 4, 2011 at 8:40 am
Camp and Tung and separately Lean, both have established a signature of the solar cycle on the climate in the satellite data of the last 30 years. Since the cosmic rays vary with the cycle, they might account for some of the variation that Camp and Tung assume to merely be due to the sun’s variation in radiative forcing.
There is a solar cycle effect, but it is small. From radiative forcing one would expect 0.07 C. The various claims center on an effect twice as large. This is usually ‘explained’ as due to ‘feedback’, but could as you note also be due to cosmic rays, so TSI gives 0.07 and cosmic rays some 0.08 C. But these as cyclic and the trend in TSI is downwards and in cosmic rays non-existent, so neither explains the much larger [10X the cycle effect] upwards trend in temperatures. The claims that TSI and/or GCRs are major players in the climate and that is what I say is not established. That there can be tiny, second order effects is not disputed.
I’m also having issue with Nir Shaviv theory on iceages and spiral arm crossings. Seems further out from the arms the cooler it would be. It is suggested that we are above the plane heading out in our galaxies nose side in its direction of travel, an are where we find Intergalactic Cosmic Rays. How’s that.. I could defer.. nah pancakes were good.
Carla says:
September 4, 2011 at 8:43 am
So..if Earth’s magnetic field is the primary modulator of GCR here on Earth..why then don’t we establish a network of moniters within the weaker and stronger areas of the magnetic field to see where hotspots might be or what field strengths are more effective than other areas.
We have such a network: see Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Neutron-Monitor-Network.pdf
REPLY: The Earth’s magnetic field is too weak and small, it is the solar magnetic field which is modulating GCR’s – Anthony
The Earth’s field is strong enough and varies enough to be the primary modulator on time scales of centuries and longer. On shorter time scales, the variation is too slow to be visible, so the tiny solar modulation of GCRs at energies thought to effective becomes observable.
Carla says:
September 4, 2011 at 10:10 am
where we find Intergalactic Cosmic Rays.
We are moving so slowly and the Galaxy is so big that any variation would take thousands of years to play out. When it comes to ultra-high energy cosmic rays we are already observing Intergalactic Cosmic Rays. Such are so rare that they have no measurable influence on anything.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2011 at 6:06 am
“The latitudinal dependence is not …”
IMO, Dr. Shaviv has answered this question satisfactorily.
Bart says:
September 4, 2011 at 11:53 am
IMO, Dr. Shaviv has answered this question satisfactorily.
Neither you nor Shaviv appear to know enough about cosmic rays to provide satisfactory answers. But, many people hold unfounded opinions, so why not you, too.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Some of them also think bald assertion and bluster form a foundation.
Bart says:
September 4, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Some of them also think bald assertion and bluster form a foundation.
So you are in good company, it appears.
Anthony & Dr. Svalgaard
Secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are not negligible on decadal scale (about order of an average magnetic storm ?), they are most prominent in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Further more they correlate well with long term temperature changes in the region. I would consider this to be effect of the ‘ocean currents – magnetic field’ bidirectional interaction rather then the impact of GCRs.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
September 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are not negligible on decadal scale (about order of an average magnetic storm ?),
They are negligible as the impact of any change has to be seen as the fraction of the change of the total. That fraction is of the order of 1/1000 per year or 1/100 per decade or 1/10 per century.
Your ocean current effect is much too small for anything, so any correlation you might think there is is spurious.
Bart says:
September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2011 at 11:36 am
“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.”
But, its integral is.
Same with sunspot number integration. Leif doesn’t like non-linear correlations though.