The WUWT Hot Sheet for August 22nd, 2013

WUWT_hot_sheet5

I don’t think that headline means what they think it means:

Separating Science From Spin on the Global-Warming ‘Pause’

What’s causing a temporary slowdown in planetary warming, and why should anyone worry that more warming is coming?

Blame the volcanoes

While greenhouse gases are trapping heat, volcanoes are doing their best to block it out.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/separating-science-from-spin-on-the-global-warming-pause-20130821

===========================================================

Analysis: Foes of Obama climate policy prepare battle over cost of carbon

(Reuters) – Three months ago, the Obama administration made a little-noticed but potentially pivotal move in the stepped-up fight against climate change: it boosted the U.S. government’s official estimate of the future economic damage caused by carbon pollution.

After its first review, a panel of technical experts from 11 government agencies raised the so-called “social cost of carbon,” known as SCC. The measure is used by many arms of the U.S. government to determine the financial benefits of new regulations since 2010.

The new 2020 forecast of $43 a ton was a 58 percent jump from the previous estimate, made in 2010. The issue is to be reviewed biannually.

===========================================================

The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures

The New York Times feverishly reported on August 10 that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to issue another scary climate report. Dismissing the recent 17 years or so of flat global temperatures, the IPCC will assert that: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

==============================================================

Ten Year Anniversary of the Climate Change Paradigm Shift

By Howard Richman & Raymond Richman

Science advances by paradigm shifts. My one-time co-researcher, Nobel Prize winning economist Herb Simon, once explained it to me. The new paradigm begins with a new overall curve. Further research builds upon that curve by mapping the phenomena responsible for fluctuations from the curve. That’s the normal scientific process. But establishing a new big curve requires a paradigm shift.

Such a paradigm shift started a decade ago, when Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer published the ground-breaking study that laid out the chief long-term cause of climate change — cosmic rays. The graph below shows the curve that they discovered. The original is found and explained on Nir Shaviv’s blog at http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages:

Shaviv had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half of the above graph). What they found is that ice ages occurred when the Earth traveled through the spiral arms of our galaxy, periods when the Earth must have been experiencing high levels of cosmic ray inflow.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/ten_year_anniversary_of_the_climate_change_paradigm_shift.html

=============================================================

Brian H writes:

Mann, Jones et al, in a nutshell. From Judith Curry:

Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.

Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

================================================================

Temperatures too cold in the south for Cotton….

http://photos.al.com/huntsville-times/2013/08/cool_temperatures_chill_cotton_4.html#incart_photo

================================================================

Maybe this is why:

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps From July 24 to August 19

RecordEvents-21Aug13

http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/2899-record-cold-temps-667-record-warm-temps/

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “The WUWT Hot Sheet for August 22nd, 2013

  1. Al Gore works in climate, like Al Sharpton works in society, to be certain that failed policies stay in force and hurt as many Americans as possible. Both make their careers and lavish lifestyles off of this. Even as the science moves away from the apocalyptic sales pitch of Gore, the government lumbers on in the direction of more and more destructive, wrong minded ‘carbon policies’.

  2. Ten Year Anniversary of the Climate Change Paradigm Shift
    By Howard Richman & Raymond Richman
    ‘Shaviv had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half of the above graph).’
    Really?

  3. Mike McMillan says:
    August 22, 2013 at 4:58 am
    > Is there a difference between the Shaviv/Veizer and the Svensmark theories?
    Yes, at least 499.5 billion years.
    Also, IIRC, Shaviv/Veizer don’t go into the mechanism of how cosmic rays affect weather, whereas that’s a central part of Svensmark’s hypothesis. I’d say the two efforts complement each other.

  4. “(Reuters) – Three months ago, the Obama administration made a little-noticed but potentially pivotal move in the stepped-up fight against climate change”
    I don’t think Obama matters anymore. His boys are losing Egypt and Syria.

  5. Judith Curry’s remarks, as usual, are dead on the money. Here’s an almost perfectly analogous problem: CNN recently completely reversed its editorial policy and now calls for the legalization of Marijuana. Sanjay Gupta, its “resident physician editorialist”, who had previously somewhat vigorously led this opposition from the scientific point of view completely reversed his own position, and explained why in considerable detail both in text and in online video.
    Historically, marijuana was both legal and considered to be a useful medicine all the way up through the beginning of the twentieth century. At that point, William Randolph Hearst had invested heavily in pine forests in Mexico, intending to sell them to his own newspapers to make newsprint. The Dupont family were discovering petrochemicals including plastic and oil-derived pharmaceuticals. A machine was invented that was the equivalent of a “cotton gin” for hemp — it mechanically stripped down the hemp plant and turned it into useful fiber, oil, and vegetable waste that could be used as an animal fodder (yes, we can imagine some very happy cows, can’t we?:-). One of many uses for the now inexpensive hemp fiber was to make equally inexpensive newsprint paper that was clearly superior in quality and cost to wood pulp paper. Another was that the oils and fiber could be used to synthesize various chemical products. Both Dupont and Hearst were suddenly hundreds of millions of dollars at risk.
    They turned to Harry Anslinger, who happened to be Hearst’s brother in law. Anslinger was a suddenly idle ex-prohibitionist working for the FBI, and he created a propaganda campaign that portrayed hemp as literally maddening those that actually smoked it, leading them to commit acts of rape and robbery and moral turpitude. At the same time, political revolutions in Mexico (funded and fought by a private army belonging to Hearst) and a negative portrayal of blacks and mexicans as common users of hemp for recreation purposes added a useful racist hook. Between these, congress outlawed hemp.
    So matters remained until the Viet Nam war and the 1960s and early 70s. As part of the quiet “revolution” against what many perceived as a military-industrial complex with a life of its own that was fighting a series of expensive and pointless wars, pot had become “the” recreational drug of choice among young hippies and freaks as well as the military draftees who fought the war. Its use was so prevalent that Texas dropped the question about cannabis use from its entrance exam to police academy, because “asking a vet of they had ever smoked pot was like asking them if they smoked Camels”. Suddenly a large fraction of an entire generation of U.S. citizens had smoked pot and discovered that no, it does not turn you into a crazed rapist, and usually does not make you insane unless you are most of the way there on your own already. They also discovered that it is neither physically addictive nor dangerous in the sense that it is literally impossible to overdose on marijuana — it is literally one of the safest compounds we know of, with no meaningful fatal dose.
    However, Ronald Reagan took office in the 80’s, an immediately declared a “War on Drugs”. Marijuana was reclassified as a schedule 1 narcotic by the federal government, trumping communities that had already begun to experiment with decriminalization or even legalization. This once again gave law enforcement agencies lots of useful work (helpful if you are trying to build a police state), gave cops everywhere the ability to selectively enforce drug laws and thereby control the populace, and caused us to rather suddenly need to build enormous numbers of prisons because it rapidly turned out that by making marijuana trafficking a felony and putting even mere users in jail (just like heroin, cocaine, and actually dangerous drugs) somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all prison sentences were being handed down for low grade drug offenses. Our expenditure on controlling pot went from next to nothing to tens of billions of dollars a year. Obviously, many profited from this, including (as usual) the money launderers and organized criminals that made fortunes providing marijuana on the black market, and the politicians and bankers that provided well-paid-for top cover.
    And now to the interesting bit (although I think all of the above is interesting:-). One of the reasons given for making marijuana a schedule 1 felony class drug was that we didn’t know about the harm it might cause, and there was no known medical benefit. Yes, it had been used as a medicine for centuries, the founding fathers literally “mandated” the growing of hemp on American farms because it was so useful a plant both industrially and medicinally, but we had entered the era of double blind placebo controlled drug trials, and there were now enormous pharmaceutical companies whose billion-dollar products were at risk, dwarfing even the Duponts’ complaint back in the 30’s. Its risks were similarly unstudied.
    A period of research then ensued. If you wanted to study pot, you had to both get funded and get the experimental marijuana from a single, small farm in Mississippi that grew “legal” pot for this purpose. The government itself was in complete control, in other words of what research got conducted, because even if you could find outside funding, you couldn’t get legal pot to do the research with without approval.
    Gupta initially opposed marijuana legalization because a review of the medical literature showed him that 96% of all published articles found some sort of negative effect of marijuana, and almost no articles showed a benefit, especially compared to existing approved medications. However, a couple of anecdotal cases coming out of the states that had legalized medicinal marijuana in SPITE of the federal governments laws caused him to go back and reexamine the funding model. In retrospect it shouldn’t have been surprising, but he learned that 96% of all funded research was to look for negative effects of marijuana, and that to get funded and permission to get government grown pot was so difficult that there simply weren’t all that many papers in the first place. In well over thirty years of intensive examination, all of the examination was literally preselected to find problems, almost none to find benefits, and one had to walk on water and push much paper to do either one (and relatively few scientists had bothered).
    That caused him to examine the body of emerging, still anecdotal, evidence from the states that had legalized medical marijuana. They showed that — again unsurprisingly — marijuana is a rich pharmacopeia with multiple legitimate medical uses that could survived double blind placebo controlled investigation, while at the same time having minimal side effects and no known lethal dose. Perhaps he came to realize that its negative effects might, conceivably, have been a bit exaggerated or might arise from confounding uncontrolled elements. Confirmation bias is, after all, the bete noir of science.
    This situation almost perfectly matches the evolution of “climate science”. Nobody cared about it for decades, but suddenly a group of individuals emerged that all benefited from the demonization of carbon. This included environmental groups, that hated civilization itself and the burning of anything (as long, of course, as their own lifestyle was preserved), energy producers that saw in this the opportunity to triple or quadruple their profits by creating artificial scarcity of a plentiful resource, politicians that saw in this the opportunity to raise taxes, get elected on a world-saving “issue”, and perhaps line their own pockets along the way, and a United Nations that saw an opportunity to transform it into a way to tax the rich nations and transfer money to developing nations (while again lining various pockets along the way). The role of Anslinger was admirably met by one James Hansen, a True Believer who never stinted and does not stint today in exaggerating the data and claims of disaster (five meter sea level rise! temperatures like that on Venus!). And suddenly, quite literally all funded research was on how burning carbon was bad for the climate.
    Even completely ethical scientists have to eat, and if the only way they can eat is to get funded, and the only way they can get funded is to submit proposals that seek to prove that CO_2 is bad, guess what they will propose to study? And if they want to get funded AGAIN, guess what they will find? Climate science has been effectively corrupted beyond any hope of objectivity.
    On the good side of things, scientists are actually usually pretty ethical. Also, in the end data talks, bullshit walks. The hypothesis of CAGW or CACC could, in fact, be true (across a wide spectrum of the meaning of “true”, in fact). However, recent data is not in good correspondence with the theories that have predicted it, and many good scientists are in the process of reassessing their conclusions. As is the almost simultaneous case with regard to marijuana, the confounding evidence is starting to overwhelm to narrowly funded and directed arguments to date. We will see where the future takes us, in both cases.
    rgb

  6. the cosmic ray stuff is bull…but there does seem to be a 30 year cycle…at least in the last century…before that we go into tree rings and similar nonsense…cooling in the last three years since 2010…expect more till about 2040

  7. why do i say the cosmic ray stuff is bull…the sun has a 11 year cycle…which modulates the cosmic ray flux…no 11 year cycle observed..QED

  8. rgbatduke says:
    August 22, 2013 at 5:44 am
    “Historically, marijuana was both legal and considered to be a useful medicine all the way up through the beginning of the twentieth century. At that point, William Randolph Hearst had invested”
    Thanks! Most interesting; I like those bits of forgotten history. Will look a little more into Hearst.

  9. For gopalpanicker:
    The first sentence of Wikipedia’s article on cosmic rays is, “Cosmic rays are very high-energy particles, mainly originating outside the Solar System.” In other words, the Sun’s cycle would have little to do with cosmic ray flux, while the Solar System’s passage through the galaxy and the galaxy’s rotation likely would. No wonder there’s not an 11-year cycle.

  10. lurker, passing through laughing says:
    August 22, 2013 at 6:06 am
    > Severely off topi[c] and far too long.
    But fascinating! A good collection of stuff I’ve read as various snippets.

  11. gopal panicker says:
    August 22, 2013 at 5:56 am
    “why do i say the cosmic ray stuff is bull…the sun has a 11 year cycle…which modulates the cosmic ray flux…no 11 year cycle observed..QED”
    Except in historic records of the freezings of the Rhine, the level of the Nile, and the occasions on which the Dutch Elfstedentocht happened…

  12. Chris Marrou says:
    August 22, 2013 at 6:15 am
    “The first sentence of Wikipedia’s article on cosmic rays is, “Cosmic rays are very high-energy particles, mainly originating outside the Solar System.” In other words, the Sun’s cycle would have little to do with cosmic ray flux, while the Solar System’s passage through the galaxy and the galaxy’s rotation likely would. No wonder there’s not an 11-year cycle.”
    Look into Oulo netron count records. There is a clear 11 year cycle as the solar magnetic field induces the Earths magnetic field which is a partial shield. As the intensity of the shield fluctuates so does the neutron count.
    Read about Svensmark’s theory, read stuff from Nir Shaviv, watch lectures by Kirkby at CERN.

  13. To Chris Marrou:
    I’m not at this point a fan of the cosmic ray theory, I just don’t have the competence to judge the science on both sides of the debate about their effect.
    However, the sun does affect cosmic rays as they impact the earth, via the solar wind, in short time frames. A strong solar wind reduces the amounts that impact the earth, a weak solar wind increases them. The Svensmark theory is that a weak solar wind increases the number of cosmic rays entering the lower atmosphere, which creates more cloud condensation nuclei, which creates more clouds, which produce more cooling by reflecting away more sunlight. That happens, according to Svensmark, in short periods — for instance, this mechanism might be the cause of the Little Ice Age, when the sun was so weak that the astronomers of the time couldn’t find sunspots for 70 years (the Maunder Minimum). Scientists who doubt this theory say that there hasn’t yet been shown a correlation between cosmic ray numbers and amounts of low to mid level tropospheric clouds, the ones that would create cooling.
    That is from memory, perhaps Leif has a correction.

  14. Regarding the Richman/Richman graphic of cosmic ray fluxes:
    The time period is in millions of years, not billions? Because if it is meant to show cosmic ray fluctuations with the ice ages, it would have to be millions.

  15. At least there is an admission that global warming has stopped. Now “they” are looking into why: (1) volcanic activity; (2) oceans stock-piling the heat (LOL!); (3) cosmic rays. There is therefore an indirect admission that maybe, just maybe, nature has umpteen different factors affecting climate other that CO2. When “they” get to the point to directly admit that CO2 is a an extremely insignificant factor for influencing climate, then we have our scientists back. Until then, let them walk about in their CO2 haze.

  16. RE The National story on volcanoes and warming pause.
    The comments there are essentially all skeptics. I scrolled down through many and did not come across a single warmer defending the nonsense.
    Is there a Hockey Stick trend (in all publications with comments) of comments being dominated with skeptics and mockers of AGW?

  17. rgb,
    Excellent comment. And not off topic, IMO, as you tied it right into the climate science fiasco of bastardized and corrupted science. I also agree it’s worth it’s own post, particularly if fleshed out with some references.
    Another thing about Gupta that I found amusing. He said he trusted and relied on the DEA and FDA (I think I got that right; but in any case, the fed govt), believing their guidance on pot. He’s a scientist who was blinded by his pro-govt bias and was totally credulous and un-skeptical of what came out of govt agencies. What I wonder is if he learned his lesson from that. Something tells me that he probably didn’t learn not to trust govt, but I’d love to be proven wrong on that.

  18. The quantity of cosmic rays Earth encounters is affected by its position in the galaxy, which produces them. (Shaviv). The quantity reaching the atmosphere depends on the Earth’s ionosphere. The strength of Earth’s ionosphere is affected by the quantity of ‘solar wind’ providing the charged particles trapped by the Earth’s magnetosphere that creates it. (Svensmark).
    The hypotheses are deeply related, on different time scales. And CERN plus other cloud chamber experiments have shown that ionizing cosmic rays in the atmosphere do indeed produce cloud nucleating condensates the equivalent of more common aerosols. The cosmic ray induced cloud/ albedo change appears to be stronger in higher latitudes for reasons not yet clear. There are obviously different schools of thought on how significant this is as part of natural variability on multidecadal time scales.
    Is discussed briefly in my chapter illustrating the arts of truth (sarcasm) used in CAGW.

  19. Regarding the cosmic ray theory…

    “…Shaviv had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half of the above graph)…”

     
    Confusing assumptions about the cosmic ray theory.
     
    From Sciencedaily:

    “…The fact that the Milky Way divides the night sky into two roughly equal hemispheres indicates that the solar system lies close to the galactic plane.
     
    The main disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light-years in diameter, about 250,000 to 300,000 light-years in circumference, and outside the Galactic core, about 1,000 light-years in thickness…>

     
    Since the earth is near the outer rotation perimeter, it takes the earth a very long time to attain a full ‘orbit’ with old sol around the Milky Way; perhaps 220 million years, perhaps more, perhaps less.
     
    Also from Sciencedaily:

    “…Scientists at the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology built a computer model of our solar system’s movement and found that it “bounces” up and down through the plane of the galaxy. As we pass through the densest part of the plane, gravitational forces from the surrounding giant gas and dust clouds dislodge comets from their paths. The comets plunge into the solar system, some of them colliding with the earth.
     
    The Cardiff team found that we pass through the galactic plane every 35 to 40 million years…”

     
    Earth’s path through space is similar to a corkscrew as it circles a moving sun orbiting the Milky Way while the sun also oscillates within our personal arm of the Milky Way. The current estimates are that earth follows the sun in a sine wave from less dense to more dense space and that every 35-40 million years we are in the dense portion.
     
    I don’t quite see major cosmic ray differences between a dense or less dense portion of the galaxy’s arm (technically earth and sol are in the Orion arm of our galaxy.
     
    Neither of Earth’s major orbiting relations to our galaxy have a cycle that matches the cosmic ray charts in the article nor to their ice ages estimate.
     
    I don’t remember seeing a verified history of ice ages spanning 500 billion or even 500 million years. I’ve seen some rough estimates, but none with a clear cycle.
     
    I don’t disagree that cosmic rays influence our weather and our climate; I just disagree with the above version of a cosmic ray theory.

  20. gopal panicker says:
    August 22, 2013 at 5:56 am
    why do i say the cosmic ray stuff is bull…the sun has a 11 year cycle…which modulates the cosmic ray flux…no 11 year cycle observed..QED
    If the climate does not respond in 11 years, you won’t see it. Think of it as a low pass filter. This does not mean that you will not see on a longer time frame.

  21. Let’s see. US carbon emissions 2012 were about 5.2. billion metric tons. Roughly 30% of electricity generation can be considered non-emitting and we’ll be generous and not split up things along the lines of home heating, electricity generation etc and just assume that 70% of total energy generation emitted those 5.2 btons. US GDP for 2012 is estimated at 16.62 trillion dollars. 70% of those were created by emitting 5.2 btons of CO2. This values a ton of CO2 at a net positive of $3196, not a net negative of $43.
    But let’s not be picky. If we assign an additional price on CO2 of $43 per ton, that means the GDP shrinks by $223 billion. Roll that around in your mouth for a minute. $223 billion. That’s 1.3% of GDP or nearly 2/3 of the total growth of the US economy in all of 2012. And Obama plans to shave that off the economy and throw it down a chute of inefficient renewables, imploding green companies and foreign climate change aid.

  22. re: rgbatduke’s extended history at August 22, 2013 at 5:44 am:
    One correction – Nixon is the moron who declared a “War on Drugs”. Congress made marijuana into a Schedule I narcotic in 1970. Pres Reagan may be guilty of a lot but he is innocent of that particular charge above.

  23. Here is My “…official estimate of the future economic damage caused by carbon pollution…”. Prediction: that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, agricultural output will go up. By what twisted logic is that “economic damage”? FACE studies show a 30% increase in productivity with an increase from 400 PPM CO2 to 500 PPM CO2.

  24. I think a lot of people have missed the subtle admission by the IPCC in the leaked statement:
    “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
    The use of “more than half” is actually a big departure from AR4 where they attributed 93% of warming to humans. Now the number is arguably 50-55%. If it were higher wouldn’t they have said something stronger? The warming over the stated period is around 6.2C according to Hadcrut4. If human are responsible for just over half of that total then that limits our impact to around 3.2C in 60 years or .053C/decade. If we extrapolate that out to 2100 it is less than .5C. That will essentially destroy any claims of extreme warming.
    Now, I suspect the IPCC will claim the warming will accelerate, but this statement in and of itself could be used by skeptics to attack the alarmists.

  25. Mike McMillan says:
    August 22, 2013 at 4:58 am
    Is there a difference between the Shaviv/Veizer and the Svensmark theories?
    =============================================================
    No. They collaborated on some significant research, including Svensmark;s SKY
    experiment. (sky means cloud in Danish)
    The CERN CLOUD experiment in 2010 confirmed the SKY experiment’s findings.
    It’s larger scale, though, uncovered the catalytic role played by the tiny quantities
    of ammonia in the atmosphere.

  26. The author of the americanthinker article made a mistake, possibly a typo,
    in writing ‘500 billion’ years. The universe just isn’t that old. It’s about 13 billion.
    Svensmark’s papers all deal with 500 MILLION, which is about the time it takes
    for the Solar System to complete 2 orbits of the galaxy.
    For more information on this, you can check Nigel Calder’s blog at
    calderup.wordpress.com. It’s very informative.

  27. The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures
    And the New York Times has a very good reason for pushing the propaganda.

    New York Times has vested interest in climate alarmism
    … Their major investors profit from their climate doomstering….
    One of the mysteries about the New York Times is why a paper so dedicated to accuracy and objectivity has for many years thrown all pretence of ‘reporting’ to the winds in its efforts to stop global warming….

  28. Bloke down the pub says:
    August 22, 2013 at 4:13 am

    ‘Shaviv had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half of the above graph).’

    Really?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, see his sciencebits web site: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
    (Shaviv supports Svenmark)
    More:
    http://www.klimaatfraude.info/flitspost/de-invloed-van-zonne-intensiteit-op-de-oceaan_169719.html
    http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
    A listing of his articles on Cosmic Rays: http://www.sciencebits.com/search/node/cosmic

  29. gopal panicker says:
    August 22, 2013 at 5:56 am
    why do i say the cosmic ray stuff is bull…the sun has a 11 year cycle…which modulates the cosmic ray flux…no 11 year cycle observed..QED
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have just shown you can’t even bother to read what PHYSICISTS who know a lot more about the subject than you are saying.
    PEER REVIEWED PAPERS:
    As far as the sun goes:
    Solar-Climate Relationships in the Post-Pleistocene
    (Science, Volume 171, Number 3977, pp. 1242-1243, March 1971)
    – J. Roger Bray
    Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
    (Science, Volume 180, Number 4082, pp. 185-186, April 1973)
    – John M. Wilcox et al.
    Solar Radiation Changes and the Weather
    (Nature, Volume 245, Number 5426, pp. 443-446, October 1973)
    – J. W. King
    Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity
    (Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp. 581–588, March 1974)
    – John M. Wilcox et al.
    Sun-weather relationships
    (Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 13, pp. 10-19, April 1975)
    – J. W. King
    Seasonal variation and magnitude of the solar sector structure–atmospheric vorticity effect
    (Nature, Volume 255, Number 5509, pp. 539-540, June 1975)
    – John M. Wilcox et al.
    On the reality of a sun-weather effect (solar magnetic structure effect on vorticity)
    (Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 33, pp. 1113-1116, June 1976)
    – John M. Wilcox et al.
    Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
    (Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
    – J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton
    Climate and the changing sun
    (Climatic Change, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 173-190, June 1977)
    – John A. Eddy
    Variations in sunspot structure and climate
    (Climatic Change, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. 79-92, March 1979)
    – Douglas V. Hoyt
    Interplanetary Magnetic Field Polarity and the Size of Low-Pressure Troughs Near 180°W Longitude
    (Science, Volume 204, Number 4388, pp. 60-62, April 1979)
    – John M. Wilcox et al.
    Intensity of tropospheric circulation associated with solar magnetic sector boundary transits
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp. 657-659, June 1979)
    – John M. Wilcox et al.
    And over 50 more papers
    …..
    As far as Cosmic rays goes:

    Solar Variability and the Lower Atmosphere
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 56, Issue 12, pp. 1240-1248, December 1975)
    – Robert E. Dickinson
    Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
    – Brian A. Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer
    Apparent Tropospheric Response to MeV-GeV Particle Flux Variations: A Connection Via Electrofreezing of Supercooled Water in High-Level Clouds?
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Issue D12, pp. 22283-22296, December 1991)
    – Brian A. Tinsley, Glen W. Deen
    Atmospheric transparency variations associated with geomagnetic disturbances
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp. 1135-1138, September 1992)
    – M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Babushkina
    Atmospheric transparency variations caused by cosmic rays
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 251-253, August 1994)
    – V. K. Roldugin, E. V. Vashenyuk
    Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
    (Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp. 335-341, May 1995)
    – Y. I. Stozhkov et al.
    Variations of Total Cloudiness during Solar Cosmic Ray Events
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 36, Number 1, pp. 108–111, May 1995)
    – S. V. Veretenenko, M. I. Pudovkin
    Cloudiness decreases associated with Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 11, pp. 1349-1355, September 1995)
    – M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Veretenenko
    And over 50 more papers
    A listing of the additional papers with links HERE.

  30. rgbatduke says: @ August 22, 2013 at 5:44 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thank you for the information. A real KEEPER!

  31. Based on Gail’s note, I went back to read rgbatdue’s essay above. A close parallel indeed. Well worth the read.

Comments are closed.