There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:
The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:
The new paper suggest that changes in the quantity of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are caused by changes in the cosmic ray flux:
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The wider variation in CCNs makes the Svenmark’s hypothesis more plausible since the effect on clouds would also be proportionately larger.
They conclude:
The measured 0.1% level of the longterm TSI variations on Earth’s climate (i.e., solar direct climatic effect) is too small to account for the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes, and several mechanisms amplifying the solar variation impacts have been proposed in the literature.
Here we seek to assess how much solar variation may affect CCN abundance through the impacts of GCR and temperature changes on new particle formation, using a global aerosol model (GEOSChem/APM) optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. Based on the GEOSChem/ APM simulations, a decrease in ionization rate associated with GCR flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces global mean nucleation rates CN3, CN10, CCN0.8, CCN0.4, and CCN0.2 in the lower troposphere (0–3 km) by 6.8%, 1.91%, 1.36%, 0.74%, 0.54%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of the impact of 0.2 C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%.
The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger than in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere and about a factor of two larger during the corresponding summer seasons. The average solar cycle signals are stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed. The regions and seasons of stronger solar signals are associated with the higher concentrations of precursor gases which increase the growth rate of nucleated particles and the probability of these nucleated particles to become CCN. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude. Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate. To study the impacts of a 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle on cloud albedo, precipitation, cloud lifetime, and cloud cover, a global climate model considering robust aerosol–cloud interaction processes is needed. It should be noted that 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle shown here only considers the effect of ionization rate and temperature change on new particle formation. During a solar cycle, changes of other parameters such as UV and TSI flux may also impact chemistry and microphysics, which may influence the magnitude of the solar indirect forcing. Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.
Note the bold in the last paragraph.
WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer pointed out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
The paper at ERL:
Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei
Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2 °C temperature increase enhances the CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 [cloud condensation nuclei] based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf/1748-9326_9_4_045004.pdf
h/t to The Hockey Schtick and Bishop Hill
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:11 pm
noloctd says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Dr Svalgard’s posts often make me think of this quote; “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” – Arthur C. Clarke
And when he says “show me your evidence”, what do then think?
I think he should stroll out into the Sun on a hot summer day and feel the “evidence”. Then he should hold up an umbrella and feel the lack of the “evidence”.
Looking more and more like the interaction of GCR’s will also be found in Earths global electric circuit. Article about GCR ionization processes in Earth’s atmosphere..
Started looking for a somewhat laminar horizontal ionization layer for GCR somewhere in Earth’s atmosphere and found instead a vertical ionization cluster.. me and clusters lately..
In situ detection of electrified aerosols in the upper troposphere and
stratosphere
J.-B. Renard1, S. N. Tripathi2, M. Michael2, A. Rawal2, G. Berthet1, M. Fullekrug3,
R. G. Harrison4, C. Robert1, M. Tagger1, and B. Gaubicher1
Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys.
Revised: 17 August 2013 – Accepted: 16 October 2013 – Published: 18 November 2013
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11187/2013/acp-13-11187-2013.pdf
Abstract. ..Electrified aerosols have been observed in the
lower troposphere and in the mesosphere, but have never
been detected in the stratosphere and upper troposphere. We
present measurements of aerosols obtained during a balloon
flight to an altitude of 24 km…
.Model calculations have been used to quantify the electrification
of the aerosols with a stratospheric ion–aerosol model in
the altitude range of 5–24 km. The ion clusters are produced
mainly in the atmosphere by the interaction of
Galactic CosmicRays (GCR)
with the atmospheric gases, especially in the dense
regions of the planetary atmospheres where the solar extreme
ultraviolet radiation is absent (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003).
A significant fraction of the cosmic ray energy flux is typically
carried by high-energy particles of kinetic energy of at
least 1 GeV. The ion production rate by this process peaks at
altitudes between 14 and 17 km (Rawal et al., 2013), and the
most abundant ion clusters produced by this process are SO−4 and NH+4 .
This ion pair production rate is calculated using the statistical
model of O’Brien (2005) with the major ions considered
here being SO2−4 and NH+4 . Electrons are not included..
In reply to more rhetoric and name calling
lsvalgaard says:
April 11, 2014 at 5:01 pm
William Astley says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:51 am
Name calling is not a substitute for observational data and logic to support your position.
One must a spade a spade. I don’t need to support my position as opposed to yours.
William:
Please what is your ‘position’? If the planet cools will you admit that what you have stated in this forum is absolutely incorrect or is it impossible for you to change your mind? Is there any observational data that could change your mind?
The planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past (see proxy data below that shows both the Northern and Southern hemisphere have cyclically warmed and cooled).
The solar magnetic cycle has suddenly and unexpectedly changed. There is now unexplained cooling of the planet both poles based on increased sea ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
CO2 was not the forcing agend.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
illiam Astley says:
April 11, 2014 at 5:52 pm
If the planet cools will you admit that what you have stated in this forum is absolutely incorrect or is it impossible for you to change your mind?
The planet can cool [and it hasn’t yet] for many reasons
Is there any observational data that could change your mind?
Since we have centuries of ‘observational’ data that does not support your fancy, it is hard to see how that could change in the future
Leif – to your assertion that Svensmark himself claimed a linear correlation. [Apologies for the brevity of my question – I was under extreme time pressure].
Dr Norman Page says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:13 am
Sorry, Doc, but you blew your chance when you sent me to that bogus graph and asked “what’s not to like”, when the list of things not to like was very, very long.
After that unpleasant experience, the chance that I want to look at your site is zero. I don’t have time for drilling dry holes. Better luck with the next fellow … my advice? Don’t send people on wild goose chases. Fool me once, your fault … no way I’ll go for it twice.
w.
Richard says:
April 11, 2014 at 5:42 pm
I tried that, and in neither case did the sun change my core temperature, so I couldn’t feel any “evidence” at all … what am I doing wrong?
w.
PS—Yes, the answer is that my core temperature is thermally regulated … but I hold (and have produced lots of confirmatory evidence) that the climate is thermally regulated as well.
The simple answer is that simple physics and simple examples such as yours do very poorly when applied to a complex system …
William Astley says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
William, it seems that you are firmly convinced that something that Leif said is wrong … but at this point I haven’t a clue what you’re objecting to. Perhaps (as I request frequently) you could quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong, and let us know where you think he went off the rails … because reading your long posts has gotten me nowhere.
For example, you have quoted Davis and Taylor no less than three times, using the exact same long and confusing paragraph … why? What are you trying to prove, and why are you citing the exact same thing in three different comments? I just gave up reading on the second time you quoted it, and busted out loud laughing when I read the third … and I doubt if that’s the response you’re trying to evoke.
Just sayin’ …
w.
Willis the link I posted relative to the questions you asked and to the cosmic ray – temperature connection was not back to my site but to Steinhilbers paper especially his fig 3CD which you choose to characterize as a bogus graph for no good reason and after clearly not being knowledgeable enough to even understand it at first glance. Seems an odd way to proceed – much like the cardinals who didn’t want to look down Galileos telescope because they were already certain they knew the truth.
Willis I’ve just remembered – I think Leif might have been one of the referees of the Steinhilber paper before publication . He might care to comment on his view of the Fig 3CD we are talking about..
Mike Jonas says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:55 pm
Leif – to your assertion that Svensmark himself claimed a linear correlation.
e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/0005072-Svensmark-GCR-Climate.pdf Figure 1C.
Whenever you plot two quantities on the same plot to show they match [by their curves overlapping] you are claiming a linear correlation. The linear relationship that follows from the Figure is 10% change in cosmic rays corresponds to 2.15 degrees temperature anomaly. In any case when the chances are small enough, all relationships are linear.
Dr Norman Page says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:13 pm
He might care to comment on his view of the Fig 3CD we are talking about..
That would be a very long comment. And for what? suffice it to say that there is very little correlation [if any] between temperature and Steinhilber’s data, see Slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
I wrote to Dr. Kirkby about his “Cloud” research at CERN, since I was very interested in findings that certain airborne/cloudborne bacteria may increase the cloud nuclei generation. He replied:
Fascinating stuff! Since anthropogenic methane formation from agricultural operations (enteric fermentation, manure ponding etc.) is rising, I’d expect increasing concentrations of the important ammonia compound that combines with acids to stimulate cloud nuclei.
Dr Norman Page says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:09 pm
Hogwash. Here is the comment to which I was responding:
Dr Norman Page says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:58 am
So I responded to the graph and your question. I saw nothing in there that linked to your post. I see a claim that I can gain understanding of the connection between cosmic rays and temperature by looking at a certain graph. I went, I looked, I regretted going, and I learned not to follow your links … what’s not to like?
As to “not being knowledgeable enough to even understand it at first glance”, let me repeat again what I didn’t like:
Further to that, I know of no one who is “knowledgeable enough” to answer those questions I posed. Is someone supposed to somehow intuit which sunspot data you used, and guess about the correlation coefficient? And how, when you show a graph of cosmic rays with no mention of temperature, is the knowledgeable person supposed to come to some conclusion about the relationship between the two?
Now, if you’d actually had the blanquillos to ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS that I raised, I’d have been very happy. That’s what I and most folks do when I post something and people don’t understand it. I answer the issues they raised. So that’s what I’d expected you to do when I pointed out the numerous things not to like. Respond to the issues I raised.
But noooo … instead of going “Oops, I did leave a few things out of that graph like the temperature and the provenance and the units”, your response is to just accuse me of being too ignorant to understand your brilliant wisdom … yeah, that’s the ticket, I’m too dumb to get it.
So like I said, Doc … you burnt your bridges with me. Go play with the other kids, I’m not interested.
w.
PS—Your claim that in this story you represent Galileo, and I represent some ignorant hidebound churchman, was just too precious … I’m not sure which one is more unlikely.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Duster says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm
The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene.
That is because the Earth’s magnetic field which much more strongly that the Sun screen us from cosmic rays has been changing. …
Thanks for the link. I’ll be studying it for a bit.
Isvalgaard
“Well, if it is not observed, it is clearly not an important factor, regardless of the sound physics”
That is only true if cosmic ray is the only important factor. There are other factors that can cancel its effect. But it will not cancel all the time. The factors may be chaotic. Sometimes they cancel, sometimes they reinforce each other. So don’t jump into conclusions until after enough observations and experiments.
Dr. Strangelove says:
April 12, 2014 at 1:48 am
So don’t jump into conclusions until after enough observations and experiments.
Go tell that to Svensmark and followers
Leif – I don’t accept your argument. Their Fig.1 is a graph of actual cloud data and actual GCR data over a period of just 10 years. The claim is simply that the correlation over this (short) period is unlikely to occur by chance. The paper does not claim that the relationship is precise, or that it will apply over longer periods, or that it is free of other possible causes. eg. “Figure 1 indicates that a 2-3 % change in low cloud cover correlates with GCR over the whole period, while the middle and high clouds do not […] However, at these time scales GCR ionisation is not the only mechanism affecting low clouds, there are of course many other decadal processes in the climate system which are important. [..] What is surprising is that despite these limitations a signal of solar variability in low cloud cover is dominant at time-scales longer than 1 year. Svensmark argued that there is a better agreement with GCR rather than solar irradiance for total cloud cover. This is also true for the low cloud cover in Figure 1c, which suggests that low cloud cover is responding to cosmic ray ionisation in the atmosphere rather than direct changes in solar irradiance. [..] Based on the ISCCP D2 IR cloud data there is a clear correlation between GCR and properties of low clouds in contrast to middle and high clouds. Since the correlation is seen both in low cloud cover and low cloud top temperature, the case for solar induced variability of low clouds is strengthened. Observations of atmospheric parameters from TOVS do not support a solar-cloud mechanism through tropospheric dynamics influenced by UV absorption in the stratosphere. Instead, it is argued that a mechanism involving solar modulated GCR is possible”
and
“The influence of solar variability on climate is currently uncertain. Recent observations have
indicated a possible mechanism via the influence of solar modulated cosmic rays on global cloud cover. Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds (≤3km), which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionisation due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the Heliosphere is important for climate on Earth.”.
Your statement “Svensmark himself claimed there were such a linear correlation.” looks like the setting up of a strawman.
Willis You continue to evade the issue. Here is the part of my 6.13 post which dealt with the questions you asked .
” Willis most of your questions are answered in the original Steinhilber paper and supporting data which was linked to in the post on my site.
“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
As to the temperature you failed ( somewhat surprisingly) to catch the significance of the letters OWSMD on the figs These correlate the cosmic ray intensities peaks to the well documented temperature minima in the last 1000 years.”
The link above is not a reference to my blog but to the peer reviewed Steihilber paper and especially the Fig 3CD which does refer GCR peaks to Temperature lows even though you failed to notice that. If that figure is correct it is highly relevant to this entire thread,The Galileo reference is certainly not personal to me just a general statement that it is better to look at the data ( in this case not mine but Steinhilbers) rather than assume you know it is not worth while and are therefore not interested.
Leif also refuses to comment on the specific Steinhilber Fig 3CD in question- because it would, he says, take too long. At least he doesn’t call it bogus which is something I suppose.
In reply to:
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:40 pm
William Astley says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
William, it seems that you are firmly convinced that something that Leif said is wrong … but at this point I haven’t a clue what you’re objecting to. Perhaps (as I request frequently) you could quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong, and let us know where you think he went off the rails … because reading your long posts has gotten me nowhere.
For example, you have quoted Davis and Taylor no less than three times, using the exact same long and confusing paragraph … why?
William:
Leif’s comments are limited to name calling and rhetoric (i.e. no information content). Leif appears to be in capable at this point in his life of reading and understanding papers that disprove his fundamental beliefs concerning the solar magnetic cycle and how the solar magnetic cycle affects planetary climate.
Willis, sorry I had assumed you had read Davis and Taylor and had read Svensmark’s book and papers. Please read Svensmark’s attached paper which explains the essence of the issue and then ask questions until you understand the observations and their implications.
There is unequivocal observational evidence and analysis results to support the assertions that the planet (both hemispheres) warms and cools cyclically, that the warming and cooling is caused by solar magnetic cycle changes, that more than 70% of the warming in the last years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes, and that the planet has now started to cool. We are going to first experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, followed it appears by we are going to experience a Heinrich event. (The mechanism that causes a Heinrich event is what terminates interglacial periods. Let’s park the Heinrich event mechanism discussion until there is public discussion of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling.)
Note Davis and Taylor’s paper is entitled: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle” that is a hint that their data concern the fundamental issue of the climate wars. Did CO2 cause the majority of the warming in the last 70 years or not?
Davis and Taylor found 342 natural warming events, that were all followed by cooling ‘events’ by analyzing ice cores from the Antarctic peninsula. Mulvaney et al analyzed the same Antarctic Peninsula ice core data, warming and cooling cycle in the Antarctic Peninsula has a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years, which is the same periodicity of the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming and cooling cycle in the Northern hemisphere.
As Svensmark notes, there is no internal forcing function that can simultaneously affect both hemispheres. (See Svensmark’s paper that discusses the so called polar see-saw.)
Note Davis and Taylor and Mulvaney’s analysis is of Antarctic Peninsula ice core data, not ice core data from the Antarctic ice sheet. The Antarctic Peninsula extends far enough that is not affected by the Antarctic vortex. The Antarctic Peninsula temperature follows the Southern sea temperature rather than the Antarctic ice sheet. During the last 40 years (period for which there is direct temperature measurement), the Antarctic Peninsula warmed (second highest amount of warming on the planet, the Greenland Ice sheet had the most amount of warming, question to ask why did these two ice sheets warm the most?) and the Antarctic Ice sheet cooled.
The fact that when the Greenland Ice sheet warms the Antarctic Ice sheet cools (simultaneously based on the analysis of direct temperature measurements of the ice cores –the ice sheet insulates so direct temperature measure of the ice core in situ (cut a hole in the ice, place temperature probes in the ice, cover the hole with an insulated cover, wait until temperature reaches equilibrium, and then finally measure the temperature of the ice sheet in situ.) is called the polar see-saw. Svensmark’s paper explains the polar see-saw which proves his mechanism.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years ….
… authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (Nature, 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD (William: sic they should have written years) and another around 400 AD (William: sic they should have written years), measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica.
William: The point of linking to Richard Alley’s data is there is cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland ice sheet also. Svensmark’s analysis showed the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet are simultaneously changing temperature.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Mike Jonas says:
April 12, 2014 at 4:59 am
Leif – I don’t accept your argument.
I’m not arguing, just showing that the relationship is linear over the range of solar activity at that time, which basically covers the range observed at all other times. the last 400 years.
William Astley says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:50 am
Leif’s comments are limited to name calling and rhetoric (i.e. no information content). Leif appears to be in capable at this point in his life of reading and understanding papers that disprove his fundamental beliefs concerning the solar magnetic cycle and how the solar magnetic cycle affects planetary climate.
Your latest regurgitation of papers does not add anything to the table. I have in the past extensively explained what is wrong with your ideas, but to no avail. I am tired of repeating myself.
Dr Norman Page says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:31 am
Leif also refuses to comment on the specific Steinhilber Fig 3CD in question- because it would, he says, take too long. At least he doesn’t call it bogus which is something I suppose.
In addition, it is irrelevant as I showed that there is hardly any correlation between temperature and Steinhilber’s data. So why spend time on his Figure, which does have issues. For instance there is good evidence that the 10Be data is contaminated by climate itself.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:13 pm
William:
Your ignorance concerning the paleo climatic record and the analysis concerning the current planetary temperature change anomaly is astonishing.
William: Said: If the planet cools will you [Leif] admit that what you have stated in this forum is absolutely incorrect or is it impossible for you to change your mind? Is there any observational data that could change your mind?
William: Leif’s reply is that there are centuries of data (no data or analysis provided) that prove that what I assert is incorrect.
I provided a link to Davis and Taylor’s paper that provides 240,000 years of data which shows if combined with Svensmark paper’s data and results that the solar magnetic cycle changes causes the planet (both hemispheres) to cyclically warm and cool with most of the warming and cooling occurring at high latitude regions. It is interesting to note that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years has been in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. The IPCC’s general circulation models predicted that the majority of the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should have been in the tropics, as CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere and the amount of CO2 forcing due to the increase in CO2 is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in region before the increase in CO2.
That is not what is observed as shown in Bob Tisdale graph. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertion that latitudinal pattern of warming does not match the pattern of warming as predicted by the IPCC’s general circulation models and does not hence have the signature/pattern if CO2 was the cause of the warming.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Curiously the polar warming has abruptly and suddenly reversed. There was a 50% increase in summer sea ice in the Arctic and there is now two sigma record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year. Atmospheric CO2 has not changed. Something must have changed to cause the sudden cooling of both poles. (Hint the sun.) Another curious observation is the sudden inhibiting of the La Niña / El Niño cycle. Changes in observations require a physical explanation.
It is obvious that you have not read Svensmark’s paper. See and read my comments concerning the polar see-saw to Willis. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
William Astley says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:29 am
William: Leif’s reply is that there are centuries of data (no data or analysis provided) that prove that what I assert is incorrect.
Yep, as we have discussed many times before.
Leif Everyone involved knows that the 10 Be data is affected by the regional location of the ice core in relation to the climate at the time of deposition. This is not news. When using the ice core 10 Be data this certainly needs to be taken into consideration. However all natural time series are “contaminated ” by the other processes going on at the time and all need to be interpreted with the broadest possible knowledge of other considerations.
To put it very shortly – all data is inevitably cherry picked. The key is the ability and experience of the cherry picker to know which cherries to pick. Time will tell in this regard. So far the IPCC cherry pickers aren’t doing too well .My forecasts from several years ago are more or less on track.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html
Dr Norman Page says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:54 am
Leif Everyone involved knows that the 10 Be data is affected by the regional location of the ice core in relation to the climate at the time of deposition. This is not news. When using the ice core 10 Be data this certainly needs to be taken into consideration.
I didn’t see you doing that. And how would you do that? But again you are evading the issue namely that there is hardly any correlation [and what little there is may be just the contamination due to climate] between cosmic rays [Steinhilber] and temperature [Loehle].