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
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:40 pm
———————————-
Not such a big deal, William’s magnetic brain is more sensitive than is yours..polar seesaw is interesting in itself..looking at the Earth Wind Map using temp and wind funcition the other day at 2.174miles hPa..could see more cooler airs in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere..some of them cooler airs headed northward for mixing it up.. no, no, southern hemisphere helping to cool planet.. by forcing more cooler airs northward.. giving a presumable warming temporary..but just a transition to overall cooling pattern.. hmm
Someone else recently mentioned a security warning concerning WUWT and WordPress.
This warning I just received while logging in.
“””There is a problem with this website’s security certificate.
The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website’s address.
Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.
We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website. “”””
Dr Norman Page says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:54 am
My forecasts from several years ago are more or less on track.
Your first point is:
“Continued modest cooling until a more significant temperature drop at about 2016-17”.
I take it that if that drop doesn’t happen the rest of your forecast is invalidated and you’ll fold up your tent and go home. Now, you, wisely, do not quantify what a ‘more significant drop’ is, so you can call just about anything ‘significant’ as you please. Unless you quantify there is little meat on your forecast.
William Astley says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:50 am
My impression is that Heinrich Events only occur during glacial phases. Maybe as with proposed Bond Cycles (during interglacials) v. D-O Cycles (during glacials), the underlying cause of HEs still happens in interglacials, but at about one tenth the strength.
What difference a mile can make..
Planetary Boundary High 700hPa (3500 m. 2.17mi.) wind and temp
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/equirectangular
Planetary Boundary Low 850hPa 1500 m. wind and temp
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/equirectangular
Leif Here is what Steinhilber says about his cosmic ray intensities
“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”
I choose to believe him with regard to transport and deposition processes
Re my forecasts . In my latest post a
t http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
I conclude.
“How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.
Dr Norman Page says:
April 12, 2014 at 9:01 am
Would that drop be relative to the running 30 year anomaly of 1985 to 2014 or mean for the three years 2012 to 2014?
Dr Norman Page says:
April 12, 2014 at 9:01 am
Leif Here is what Steinhilber says about his cosmic ray intensities
I choose to believe him with regard to transport and deposition processes
So, picking what you consider to be a ‘good cherry’.
And regardless, they still get the data for 1880-1900 wrong. In any case all this is a straw man as you do not address the lack of correlation between temperature and 10Be. If there is none why whine about 10Be?
If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.
SST – Sea Surface Temp?
Another cherry pick… “Re-evalute”? the correct word is that you have been falsified.
Norman Page says
If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate
Henry says@ur momisugly dr Page
I admire you and the things you have posted here
as it shows you have the guts of your conviction
Please don’t let yourself be intimidated by the comments by dr S and Willis
As always, they certainly do disappoint me
I did an independent investigation into the issue of global warming and found that we are currently globally cooling.
All three of my tables show that we have started to cool globally since around the new millennium.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Even if dr S and Willis do not believe me, they can also look at the 4 major global data sets and they would have to agree with me that the trend is now downwards,
i.e. we are globally cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 87-88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
An 87 year and 208 year cycle has been confirmed by a number of leading skeptics, e.g.
Gleissberg??? (any paper from him seems missing from official records) and see here
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
or here
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.
end quote
so, we don’t need the Be observations, really
Note that the results of my plot (for maxima) suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 as far as energy-in is concerned and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
Yes -a good cherry- exactly.
SST yes sea surface temperature.
Falsified ? maybe – could be amended . The biggest uncertainty in my forecast is the timing of the peak in the 1000 year quasi periodicity. The period might vary by some decades. Scafetta – approaching the problem by curve fitting suggests the peak could be about 2060 or thereabout. Right now I obviously favour my view that the recent temperature peak was a peak in both the 60 and the 1000 year quasi-periodicities. see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Time will tell.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:36 am
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.
William:
You continue to be in denial. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling has started. How long can the warmists ignore the sudden increase in sea ice both poles? Any comments?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling is caused by the recent change to the solar magnetic cycle. I am waiting with interest to hear the warmists’ attempts to explain away global cooling as opposed to a lack in warming. Where, oh where have the sunspots gone? (Song to sung at the end of this year).
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
I provided a link to 240,000 years of proxy temperature data that supports the assertion that the earth’s climate (both hemisphere) cyclically warms and cool, with a cycle of 1500 years and 400 years. In my comment to Willis, I provided data and analysis that shows the latitudinal pattern of warming observed in the last 70 years does not match the signature of CO2 forcing (CO2 forcing should warm the tropical region more than high latitude regions, that is not what is observed) and does match the pattern of warming observed in the 342 cycles observed in the proxy data.
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.”
William Astley says:
April 12, 2014 at 10:33 am
You continue to be in denial.
Indeed, I deny that your flights of fancy have any validity.
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling has started.
No evidence for that. An the D-O events are not due to the sun in the first place as I have shown you many times.
William Astley
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling has started.
Henry says
generally I like your (skeptical) comments here
but I am puzzled as to why you would reject the Gleissberg (87 years) and de Vries/Suess (208 years) weather cycles for which there is clear evidence in the holocene
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/more-support-for-svensmarks-cosmic-ray-modulation-of-earths-climate-hypothesis/#comment-1611712
Dr Norman Page says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:31 am
Dr. Page, I make it a practice to avoid, not evade but avoid, people who accuse me of evasion.
However, I am avoiding you for several reasons. The first one is that to date, I haven’t figured out what your point is. Is it that cosmic rays may influence slow long-term processes? I find that possible, but if so, why don’t the effects vary with the 11-year cycle of cosmic rays? Why would big variations be ignored and small variations slavishly followed. Or is your issue that my analysis is wrong? I can’t make heads or tails of your position, and frankly, i grow less interested by the moment in trying to figure it out. I don’t have a clue just what is your point, because your writing is frustratingly opaque.
The second reason I avoid you is that interactions with you are unpleasant. You are continually attacking people personally, for instance accusing me of “evading the issue”. Truth is, Doc, I don’t care in the slightest about your thoughts and claims. I’m not evading them, I just find them pathetic, and in addition you often layer them with the petty and the personal.
Third, you don’t own up to what you’ve done. You sent me to view a graph which had lots and lots of missing information. When I pointed that out, you say
Look, fool, you just sent me on a wild-goose chase to a singleton graph which was useless due to lack of supporting information.
But now, I’m the one that’s wrong because I didn’t realize that all the answers to my questions are on your site? That’s your apology for my wild goose chase, that I should have know where the answer were? Dude, that’s taking passive aggression to a new level.
But heck, I’m a reasonable guy. I’m willing to reset the clock and forget the past, as long as you can put a cork in the personal attacks.
Then, how about you QUOTE WHERE YOU THINK I’M WRONG, instead of endlessly going on about your site and your graph and and how dumb I was to not notice the letters OWSMD and how I “surprisingly” failed to understand something or other.
If you do that, then we can see just what it is that has you breathing so hard … and if it’s a scientific issue, I’m more than happy to discuss it.
w.
William Astley says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:50 am
Is there some part of my asking you to “quote exactly what Leif said that you think is wrong” that was difficult to understand? Are we to be treated to endless complaints about what a bad man Lief is without a single detail?
And as to you assuming that I “read Davis and Taylor and had read Svensmark’s book and papers”, that’s a foolish move. Why on earth would you assume that? I’m a self-taught generalist, not a solar specialist, but in any case assuming you know what someone’s read that you’ve never met is not a good plan.
As to whether I’ll read “Svensmark’s book”, I understand his claim in great detail, which is that cosmic rays affect the temperature by affecting the rate of cloud formation, and that they are modified by the heliomagnetic field.
And perhaps they do … but all I can do is investigate the question and present my results. My results show that IF cosmic rays or anything else modulated or associated with the sunspot cycle are affecting the temperature, the effect is so small as to be lost among the weeds.
Now, I’ve asked others, so I’ll ask you—what is the mechanism whereby small changes in cosmic rays have a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, but large changes in cosmic rays DON’T affect the temperature on decadal scales.
Since you seem to be an expert on Svensmark, how does he explain that? And if he doesn’t explain that, why should I read his book? That’s been the puzzle all along.
w.
Leif – In the paper to which you provided a link, the period covered was a decade. It does not cover, is not in the paper claimed to cover, and surely cannot be seen to cover, 400 years. I think you are reading far too much into it.
[re argument / arguing – English is a strange language at times. You can put an argument (as you did) without having an argument (as we weren’t). When I first used the word “argument” I meant the former. Apologies if you interpreted it as the latter.]
Mike Jonas says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Leif – In the paper to which you provided a link, the period covered was a decade. It does not cover, is not in the paper claimed to cover, and surely cannot be seen to cover, 400 years.
It covers the range of solar activity [and hence of cosmic ray modulation] seen over known 400 years, what more is there to say without just speculating on something we don’t know.
Willis – I think you ask the essential question with your “Now, I’ve asked others, so I’ll ask you—what is the mechanism whereby small changes in cosmic rays have a controlling influence [on] the temperature on centennial scales, but large changes in cosmic rays DON’T affect the temperature on decadal scales.“. I don’t claim to have the answer, but if you remove “cosmic rays” from your question it is still the essential question. ie, major centennial-scale changes have been found in the past, and none of the hypothesised causes for changes on decadal scales could have caused them. So, to generalise your original question: What mechanism could have had a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, yet not measurably affect the temperature on decadal scales?
An answer to that question will advance climate science immensely.
Willis says
Look, fool, you just sent me on a wild-goose chase to a singleton graph which was useless due to lack of supporting information.
Henry says
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill;
and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that
everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; who-
ever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says
“You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Christianity. Matthew 5.21-22
can I ask where my reply to Mike Jonas went?
Henry
[Nothing in the queue. Mod]
Henry Thanks for your support..I am not one to be intimidated by anyone. My general approach on my blog is to post what I think is key data or figures from peer reviewed papers or data sources so that readers can judge for themselves whether my forecasts have merit.In this particular case Willis misunderstood the Fig8 and for some reason didn’t or decided that he wouldn’t check the original paper to which I had provided a link.
Leif also didn’t respond to the specific figure in question. But in his case , I’m sure that as usual,he was already familiar with the original paper so that his comments were pertinent. and by the end of a reasonable exchange we agreed to disagree on the accuracy and significance of Stenhilbers results.I think they represent a good “cherry” he apparently doesn’t.
The question under discussion was the connection between cosmic rays and climate and I would urge interested parties to read and digest the Steinhilber paper linked to at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
In reply to:
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm
William:
Perhaps if you could focus on how the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate and what to expect next, rather than a discussion of Leif’s comments which are a distraction. (i.e. Ask me to provide the more than a dozen independent logical pillars (observations and analysis for the logical pillars are all from peer reviewed papers) I have to support the assertion that more than 70% of the warming in the last 70 years was cause by solar magnetic cycle changes.
An observation to support the assertion that 70% of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes would be the sudden cooling of the planet were the cooling is primarily at high latitude regions and a suppression of the number and magnitude of El Niño events.
It does appear that the mechanism that was inhibiting Svensmark’s mechanism for the last 12 years is starting to abate. There is now observational evidence of cooling of both poles. It should be noted that solar wind bursts also modulate planetary cloud cover (high latitude regions and equatorial regions). The recent change in the solar magnetic cycle is reducing the magnitude of the solar wind bursts (the density of the solar heliosphere has dropped by 40% causing the magnetic field intensity of the solar wind bursts to drop). The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions from high latitudinal regions and the equator (this mechanism is called electroscavenging and was discovered by Tinsley and Yu). In the tropics the higher or lower number of ions changes the droplet size in the clouds that form (not the amount of cloud cover) which changes the amount of long wave radiation that can pass through the cloud.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
The fundamental observations when viewed as a group fit together as pieces of a puzzle, eliminating the paradoxes and explaining the observations (past, present, and future) in detail. The trick/method (Faraday’s method, write out the observations with the objective of systematically following the different logical trees absolutely without prejudice looking for their implications, to find and eliminate fundamental theory errors) to solve a complex holistic problem where one or more fundamental beliefs are or may be incorrect (for example the belief that the CO2 mechanism does not saturate in the upper atmosphere for some physical reason, assume it does saturate then there must be a physical reason why it does saturate and there must be another physical reason why the planet warmed in the last 70 years). An example of logical fundamental logical issue that must be addressed is as follows: Gavin Schmidt and others have argued again and again that if the planet’s atmosphere does not amplify warming due to an increase in water vapor then the paleoclimatologists cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycle as the forcing changes due to insolation changes is roughly an order of magnitude too small to explain what is observed.
The observation fact that there has been 17 years of no warming supports the assertion that the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. If the planet resists forcing changes by an increase in planetary clouds in the tropics then there must be a very strong forcing change to cause the glacial/interglacial cycle and to cause the cyclic warming and cooling of both hemispheres.
I keep repeating Davis and Taylor’s paper as something caused the cyclic warming and cooling in the past and the cyclic warming and cooling is at high latitudes which is the same as the warming in the last 70 years.
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 ….
Something in the past caused the 342 warming events (both hemispheres see data in Svensmark’s paper the Polar Anomaly.) where the regions that warmed are the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years.
I keep repeating this link to Svensmark’s paper as it includes data to confirm there is simultaneous change in temperature of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet which means there is a forcing function that affects both poles. Note the direction of temperature change is opposite. That is very odd and is explained by a cloud based mechanism.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
I keep repeating this paper that explains the latitudinal of warming in the last 70 years does not match the pattern of warming that would have occurred if the warming was caused by the increase in CO2. Do you understand why that is so?
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.”
Dr Norman Page says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:32 am
The question under discussion was the connection between cosmic rays and climate
It makes little sense to discuss variables that are not correlated. Steinhilber’s 10Be is not bad in general. It does have problems for low solar activity, but that doesn’t matter as it is not correlated enough with climate in the first place, so keep harping on the Steinhilber data does not serve any purpose. My comment is not ‘intimidation’, but education.
Henry says
can I ask where my reply to Mike Jonas went?
[Nothing in the queue. Mod]
henry
That cannot be true
because when I re-post, the system keeps telling me that a duplicate document is detected?
I wonder what is your story, Mod? I guess you are angry for some reason because of what I commented?
my reply to Mike Jonas included an explanation as to why Svensmark theory is not needed (anymore) which would also be a reply from me to dr. Page.
Mike Jonas asks
What mechanism could have had a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, yet not measurably affect the temperature on decadal scales?
An answer to that question will advance climate science immensely.
Henry
I have all those things figured out
pity that nobody is interested…
a few things to help you on the way
this is assuming that my best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
is correct, which actually determines where we are exactly within the Gleissberg cycle.
(2016 is the deep end of the cooling curve)
1)
You don’t need svensmark to show there is more deflection by clouds (in a cooling period).
Namely, 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 cooler and/or drier.
2)
the ozone is increasing again, causing more back radiation to space
I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the E-UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV.
Also, the solar polar field strengths have weakened and will continue to be weak for the next two years, at least. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 43-44 year, affecting this change in the sun’s behavior. How? That was the question.
3)
go back to look at the stars
I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. My graphs quote earlier represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.
Observe from my a-c curves:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
1927, 1972, 2016
Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
1919, 1965, 2009,
In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well, either shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
So come 2016, we will see something special happening on the sun. I will admit that I don’t know exactly what – I am not an expert on the sun – but my guess is that the poles will switch over again and we will start our (slow) drive up the hill again.