From the “science is still settling” department, the question still seems up in the air to me.
On one hand we have Dr. Jasper Kirkby, Head of the CLOUD Experiment, CERN Geneva giving a thorough review showing strong correlations between cosmic rays, solar cycles and earth’s climate. He projects a possible mini ice age by 2015 similar to the Dalton or Maunder minimum.
On the other hand, we have RealClimate fanboy Rasmus Benestad with a new paper that says “no, absolutely not, except maybe Northern Europe, but I don’t know why, more study is needed”.
First Jasper Kirkby:
Then we have Rasmus:
An analysis of more than 50 years’ worth of climate data has found scant evidence for a controversial theory that attempts to link cosmic rays and global warming. The theory suggests that solar variations can affect the number of cosmic rays reaching the Earth, which in turn influences climate by impacting on cloud formation. The latest study was done by Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and he concludes that changes to the Sun cannot explain global warming.
Benestad compared variations in the 1951–2006 annual mean galactic cosmic-ray-flux data with annual variations in temperature, mean sea-level barometric pressure and precipitation. The cosmic-ray data were obtained using a high-altitude neutron monitor located in Climax, Colorado.
He looked for meteorological responses to cosmic rays over timescales of more than a year, and for “fingerprint” patterns in both time and space. He also checked for responses to greenhouse-gas concentrations and the El Niño Southern Oscillation.
Little evidence
“The significance of the findings was that the results were negative – I found little evidence of the cosmic rays having a discernible affect on a range of common meteorological elements: temperature, the barometric pressure or precipitation,” says Benestad. “Not for the global mean at least. One possible exception may have been for parts of Europe, however.”
The galactic cosmic-ray flux was associated with lower temperatures in parts of Eastern Europe. Benestad is intrigued whether these results were a coincidence or do indeed show a connection between cosmic rays and both temperature and sea-level pressure. He plans to investigate further. “Why would a solar effect be seen only in a limited region?” he wonders. “This region is affected by the North Atlantic Oscillation, and this phenomenon is a bit special – a variation in the sea-level pressure over timescales of up to several years. The persistence in these variations may match the variations in the Sun by accident, but it could also be sensitive to variations in the Sun.” If there is a real connection between changes to the Sun and the North Atlantic Oscillation, Benestad believes that this knowledge could benefit decadal predictions.
On a larger scale, the analysis indicated that the weak global mean-temperature response associated with cosmic-ray flux could easily be down to chance. What is more, there has been no long-term trend in cosmic-ray flux. “Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links galactic cosmic-ray flux to recent global warming,” wrote Benestad in Environmental Research Letters.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/nov/05/comprehensive-study-shows-cosmic-rays-are-not-causing-global-warming
==============================================================
It is unfortunate that this was published by Rasmus Benestad, I’d give more credence to sombody not joined at the hip with James Hansen, Mick Mann, and Gavin Schmidt.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given the way they play, yes it should. Remember what happened to the Black Sox.
I would like to draw attention to Roy Spencer’s estimate of the relative radiative effects of the GCR flux compared with TSI changes , It turns out that changes caused by changes in CRF are 2.8 times that of TSI changes. See the last Fig in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
In my cooling forecast at 6/1:56 pm above I use these relations in conjunction with a 12 year delay in the first three cooling forecasts ie
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
For the complete post see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/04/global-cooling-methods-and-testable.html
Alec Rawls wrote:
“Ignore that late 20th century solar activity was some of the highest on record, Benestad is saying. It was steadily high so that couldn’t have caused warming. I believe this is a self-conscious deception. Nobody could be that stupid.”
Your main point about trends is fine, but Dr. Leif Svalgaard had posted his work here on a few occasions showing that the supposed elevated 20th Century TSI is a measurement artifact. Maybe its not right, but it is solid work. You need to accept it or refute it with an equal amount of countervailing evidence.
Matt Skaggs says:November 7, 2013 at 7:20 am
Matt, I am familiar with Leif’s position on TSI, but read Dr. Spencer’s post linked by Dr. Norman Page at 6:22 am. He gives a coarse estimate of GCR’s influence as 3.8X that of TSI variation. Interesting.
Benstad’s study seems rather pointless. Any study that looks for correlation based on a single signal is pointless over a 55 year period. It can only be done by taking into account the other factors of natural variability over such a period. It also seems strange that he would not start his study at 1900 since there was a strong climb in solar cycle strength in the first half of the century and it would make it easier to isolate the signal.
Steve What Spencer says precisely is
“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.”
Dr Norman Page says:
November 6, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Sun Spot GCR incidence with the atmosphere is not unpredictable it varies approximately inversely with the sunspot cycle and the solar magnetic field strength.
Respectfully,
How can Super Nova and other Galactic sources of GCR’s that may be 1 or 100 years from earths door step be anything but an unknown ?
For climate purposes the GCR flux from the galaxy is constant – The flux at earth is dependent on the changing solar magnetic field strength and strength of the solar wind.
The free neutron counters count relatively low energy CRs which do not
interact particularly in the way required to seed cloud formation. Hence
the idea that CR’s don’t affect climate.
It’s the muons, the very high energy CRs, which are alleged to interfere with
cloud formation. There must be muon databases around …
sophocles says:
November 7, 2013 at 10:26 am
CERN has a muon data base.
“””””……
Mike Borgelt says:
November 6, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Right there is Benestad’s problem – the high altitude neutron monitor. It is my understanding that the high energy cosmic rays that penetrate to low altitudes are the ones of interest as it is the low altitude clouds that cause cooling. IIRC Mike Lockwood made the same “mistake”. You can get any result you want if you carefully choose the experiment, especially if you choose the wrong one…….”””””
Well right there is another problem;…..the high altitude neutron monitor……
I infer, from the “the”, that there is only one of these things (in the context of this study), and it is in Colorado. So this is another “yamal Christmas tree”. Does anybody ever pay attention to the Nyquist sampling theorem, when studying climate data ? We have a single point (location) piece of data; for the entire globe.
Part of the GCR-Solar-climate thesis, is that it is magnetic field variations, near earth, perhaps due to solar changes, that REDISTRIBUTES CRs arriving at earth, because charged particles tend to spiral around field lines, and end up near the magnetic pole regions. To the extent that such field variations can steer charged particles to or from tropical places, with plenty of atmospheric water vapor, from or to polar places, with much less atmospheric water vapor, the formation of clouds in high sun areas will be modulated by such effects. How much? I don’t know; but that is part of the GCR notion (or solar charged particles arriving at earth.
So a single site neutron monitor, is not going to reveal any global pattern of CR activity.
It’s like drilling a hole in the La Brea tar pits, in LA, and then using that core to describe the entire geology of North America.
Re the hypothesised connection between GCRs and climate, and Rasmus Benestad’s attempt to find it:
Forbush Decreases provide an opportunity to do real-world experiments. Attempts to find a connection between Forbush Decreases and temperature failed (like Benestad’s effort here) for a while, but the connection with clouds was established and eventually with temperature via the diurnal range. (sorry no link but I can find it if needed).
To my mind, if there is an established short term (Forbush) connection between GCRs and clouds &/or temperature then there is very likely to be a longer term connection between GCRs and climate.
William Astley’s comment here gives more information : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/cosmic-rays-and-climate-to-be-or-not-to-be/#comment-1467794
It seems to me that if you use the historically observed European temp data and then the Mann’s Hockey Stick proxy data, it’s not at all surprising that a Cosmic Ray/Temperature correlation wouldn’t exist in both. The Hockey Stick is, after all, the source of the idea that the MWP was a localized event.
Dr Norman Page says:
November 7, 2013 at 10:25 am
For climate purposes the GCR flux from the galaxy is constant – The flux at earth is dependent on the changing solar magnetic field strength and strength of the solar wind.
___
Excuse me, but variation in Earth’s magnetic field strength also plays an important role in the propagation of GCR and ACR into the Earth system. Earths magnetic field over the last 4oo years has declined considerably and radially outward from the SAMA. Also over the period there is a westward drift of SAMA and a northward movement of the magnetic equator. Now throw in the movement of the magnetic poles of which the north recently around 2009 stopped accelerating latitudinally, slowed down and is moving longitudinally. I think Dr. S. has said we have no record of ACR.. All of which would affect the deposition of ..
The GCR flux from the galaxy is constant, excuse me? For climate purposes. Ok that makes me tired of climate stuff again.
Carla Yes you are quite right re earths magnetic field and the CRF in the atmosphere . My earlier comment was in the context of what was reaching the solar system from the galaxy. and the 12 year solar cycle. To see the relationship between the CRF and the earths dipole field over the last 9000 years check Fig 8 A and B at the last post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Does the current global warming signal reflect a recurrent natural cycle and that is caused by solar magnetic cycles changes? William: Yes, solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm and to cool cyclically. There are multiple mechanisms, two of which, cause the planet to warm when cosmic ray flux is high thereby making is it appear that increases in cosmic ray flux do not cause cooling. The planet has started to cool due to the most rapid decline in solar magnetic cycle activity in 8000 years. There are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes (planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is active and cools when the solar cycle goes into a Maunder minimum) with a periodicity of 1500 years and 500 years.
Does the Current Global Warming Signal Reflect a Recurrent Natural Cycle?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341045/
9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings by Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
We combined a new 10Be record from Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, comprising more than 1,800 data points with several other already existing radionuclide records (14C from tree rings and 10Be analyzed in polar ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica) covering the Holocene. Using principal component analysis, we separated the common radionuclide production signal due to solar and geomagnetic activity from the system effects signal due to the different transport and deposition processes. The common signal represents a low-noise record of cosmic radiation, particularly for high frequencies, compared to earlier reconstructions, which are only based on single radionuclide records. On the basis of this record, we then derived a reconstruction of total solar irradiance for the Holocene, which overall agrees well with two existing records but shows less high-frequency noise. A comparison of the derived solar activity with a record of Asian climate derived from δ18O in a Chinese stalagmite reveals a significant correlation. The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.
Mechanism where Changes in Solar Activity Affects Planetary Cloud Cover
1) Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
Increases in the suns large scale magnetic field and increased solar wind reduces the magnitude of GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
2) Increase in the Global Electric Circuit
Starting around 1993, GCR and low level cloud cover no longer correlate. (There is a linear reduction in cloud cover.) The linear reduction in cloud cover does correlate with an increase in high latitude solar coronal holes, particularly at the end of to the solar cycle, which cause high speed solar winds. The high speed solar winds cause a potential difference between earth and the ionosphere. The increase in potential difference removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere through the process “electro scavenging”.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
“Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.” …. “As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process. (William: There is a third mechanism.)”
@ur momisugly Dr Norman Page
it seems the results of my investigations and your investigations gave the same conclusions, especially the estimate of the global cooling,
but I doubt the influence of cosmic rays.
Quote
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
end quote
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
All very simple, is it not? Don’t need any difficult GCR theories>
HenryP and William Astley My approach is not to work from the physical processes up, but to look for the actual quasi repetitive cycles in the temperature and driver data, Thus as to the timing see Figs 3 and 4 for the 1000 year cycle and 5 for the 60 year cycle whose peaks coincide early in this century .
( see the last post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
reposted on WUWT 10/29)
As to the cosmic rays I say
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
henry@Dale Rainwater page
it seems to me you are missing the most obvious cycle,
which can be easily picked up by looking at the drop in maximum temperatures
and which affects the means on centennial basis.
Hence it will only start warming again in 2038 or 2039 + add about 5 years due to a delay.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
there is a simple mechanism that causes this cycle. It must be the change in E-UV coming from the sun that affects the production of ozone and peroxides and n-oxides TOA.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
All I can say to Scafetta, Svensmark et al, is keep at it until you are proved either demonstrably wrong, or your models produce better fits than a limp hockey stick in the cleft of Gaia.
CO2 as an answer to everything isn’t working. Whether or not we need to know what does, is perhaps another issue. In the meantime I find the above gentlemen’s output far far more interesting than the outpourings of a political spin machine.
I have discovered a mechanism — that apparently no one has yet considered — for how the Sun can modulate Earth temperature (evidently there is plenty of evidence of correlation but not a compelling description of a mechanism with sufficient leverage to explain that linkage).
The mechanism at the point of the Earth is plasma laning disruptions. In the plasma surrounding Earth (especially in the ionosphere, but wherever there are charged particles circulating, either electrons or protons or ions) the negatively charged and positively charged particles “lane” past one another. This phenomena explains why more of them do not collide and accelerate nucleation, heating, et al.
But it appears there is a certain feature in the solar wind which will disrupt the “lanes”, so will accelerate ionization and nucleation. Like a field-effect transistor, or a vacuum tube, the rate of plasma laning disruptions is a subtle process that is driven by the Sun, but which has disproportionate (amplified) energetic effects with regard to the degree of solar energetic input to Earth’s climate, due to the Sun causing cloud nucleation in this subtle (plasma laning disruption) fashion.
This particular observation came as but one of several in my researching of the various phenomena and signatures related to a second solar cycle (in addition to the solar sunspot cycle) which was first discovered by Richard Feynman’s sister — Joan Feynman — and reported in 1982. The second cycle has primarily been studied with respect to predicting the strength of future solar sunspot cycles.
But there has been growing awareness that the second cycle is energetic in its own right far more than space physicists believed.
For one thing, space physicists admitted fairly recently to their DST Mistake (disturbance storm time index mistake), which led to a focus on phenomena CORRELATED to sunspot cycle — so diminishing investigations of CIR storms and other phenomena preferential to solar minimum.
The solar feature that can modulate Earth’s climate through plasma laning disruptions is one of these underinvestigated features/phenomena that is preferential to solar minimum, that has not received much study.
The surprising thing to me was discovering how many different phenomena were all ANTICORRELATED to sunspot cycle. From published empirical observations, that list includes the following common phenomena:
– sudden cardiac death (heart attacks)
– heart rate variability
– traffic accidents (nerve systems, too, which are triggered electromagnetically)
– earthquakes
– tsunamis
– tornadoes
– hurrricanes
– lightning
– tropical clouds
– cosmic rays
– dropped cell phone calls
– geomagnetically induced currents in the electric power grid
– geomagnetically induced currents in oil & gas pipelines
– geomagnetically induced currents in wired communications links
– satellite anomalies
– railway signaling anomalies
– low temperatures
Now one has to ask oneself. “If so many phenomena are ANTICORRELATED to sunspot cycle, shouldn’t there be a physical mechanism there to explain all these phenomena?”
That was what I asked myself, and my results are in a manuscript currently being circulated for review — please let me know if you have time to review the manuscript ( burkhart@alumni.caltech.edu ). There are several other even more interesting findings reported in the manuscript, but this note is already long for this venue.
Reed M. Burkhart
The solar magnetic cycle is experiencing the fastest decline in 8000 years. In the end global cooling will resolve the question what portion of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes as opposed to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
“It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe. The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions. I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/latest_512_45001.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/bbc-real-risk-of-a-maunder-minimum-little-ice-age/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
It is interesting to note the planet has started to cool, both poles.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
The warmists are having a problem, what are you going to believe warmists’ models or observations?
Temperature, mass, velocity, & chemistry are coupled.
Whenever cosmic rays come up for discussion, it becomes clear that almost no one‘s interpreting records sensibly.
Aggregation 101:
Climate doesn’t shift simultaneously at all latitudes.
Visualize the pulse of solar & lunisolar modulated terrestrial zonal total column ozone (a sensitive climate indicator).
Dickey & Keppenne exposed the DNA graphically (without going into unnecessary words) in 1997.
A series of public reminders began formally in 2010. For 3 years the reminders have been met by dark ignorance &/or deception.
Following the 3 years of dark ignorance &/or deception, Judy Curry & A Lacis were challenged to reproduce, extend, and sensibly interpret Dickey & Keppenne’s (1997) Figure 3(a&b) by the end of October 2013. They were then to be challenged to independently go the needed step further to realize the implications by the end of November.
A link to Dickey & Keppenne (1997) is given here.
There are still 3 weeks left in November.
http://imageshack.us/a/img440/2402/yms.png