Link between Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Temperature found

cosmic_rays_hit_earth[1]From the paper in PNAS:(h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT,” they write. “However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed.” This “secular trend” is the warming widely believed to be caused by excess carbon in the atmosphere, an effect the researchers accounted for by first-differencing. “We show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability,

While they might simply be trading one effect for another with that sort of language, or they might simply be latching on the to Forbush decrease signal, it seems to me that they set out to prove that CR’s aren’t affecting trend. The fact that they show a link at suggests there’s at least some merit to Svenmark’s cosmic ray theory.

Significance

Here we use newly available methods to examine the dynamical association between cosmic rays (CR) and global temperature (GT) in the 20th-century observational record. We find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend; however, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect of CR on short-term, year-to-year variability in GT. Thus, although CR clearly do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales, providing another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability.

Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature

  1. Anastasios A. Tsonis
  2. Ethan R. Deyle
  3. Robert M. May
  4. George Sugihara
  5. Kyle Swanson
  6. Joshua D. Verbeten
  7. Geli Wangd

Abstract

As early as 1959, it was hypothesized that an indirect link between solar activity and climate could be mediated by mechanisms controlling the flux of galactic cosmic rays (CR) [Ney ER (1959) Nature 183:451–452]. Although the connection between CR and climate remains controversial, a significant body of laboratory evidence has emerged at the European Organization for Nuclear Research [Duplissy J, et al. (2010) Atmos Chem Phys 10:1635–1647; Kirkby J, et al. (2011) Nature 476(7361):429–433] and elsewhere [Svensmark H, Pedersen JOP, Marsh ND, Enghoff MB, Uggerhøj UI (2007) Proc R Soc A 463:385–396; Enghoff MB, Pedersen JOP, Uggerhoj UI, Paling SM, Svensmark H (2011) Geophys Res Lett 38:L09805], demonstrating the theoretical mechanism of this link. In this article, we present an analysis based on convergent cross mapping, which uses observational time series data to directly examine the causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales.

The full paper is available here (PDF)

Advertisements

254 thoughts on “Link between Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Temperature found

    • This is why, among other reasons, I appreciate Dr. S’ comments here. A real scientist is happy to draw attention to valid work which doesn’t support his own position.
      Long may he wave & why aren’t there more of his ilk?

    • forgot my comment:
      The aa-index is not a very good proxy for GCRs. It could also be a proxy for the magnetic field or TSI or just about any other solar variable you could think of. So that there is a [weak] relationship between aa and delta GT does not mean that GCRs are involved. It could very well be TSI, as we indeed would expect such a relationship.

      • Leif
        Could you give a 1-10 score on how significant this paper is? Does it break any ground or add to the debate in terms of the sun’s effect on climate?
        Based on your comments, the implication is not much new and not adding to argument for the sun’s effect.

        • Give it a 2. [10 is high]. A weakness of the paper is the assumption that it is GCRs that are [weakly] active as the aa-index correlates with just about all other solar indices, so could any of those others, e.g. TSI.

      • Actually, the paper your crummy link points to does say “prove”, so sorry about that, but a paper that claims to ‘prove’ anything is hardly science.

        • When you post a link, you should try out first that it works. There is a need to re-enforce that, don’t you agree?
          [We usually check the links, but we can’t get to all of them. .mod]

          • Agreed, drawing the posters attention the the link not working is more appropriate … calling the link “crummy” does not do this, it implies that the material is beneath your contempt … that may be so but it doesn’t take much effort to be polite.

          • This might come as a surprise to you, but it is not appropriate in the English language.

          • Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I say that it was crummy, meaning ‘of poor quality’ as that it was, indeed. What you read in this is your own problem

          • and crummy it was, not to care enough to make sure the link would work. Now, I cared enough to go and look for the paper without using the crummy link, so, contrary to your accusation, I thouight enough of the paper to actually find it.

      • About the “crummy link”. Some people may not know how to post a link correctly and fail. Assuming laziness with no evidence is not usually considered polite. I have tested links that worked for me, but failed when posted. ‘Crummy’ implies a bit of derisiveness along with the poor quality you mention. All you needed to say was that the link to the paper did not work and ask if he checked the link before posting. This gives the poster the information he needs along with a reminder to check links without putting him on the defensive with an accusation of laziness. You then come across as helpful and supportive.

        • The link was crummy. It forced extra work on the interested reader. I did that extra work, demonstrating that I was interested in what he had to say, so no derisiveness. Some people are quick to make unfounded assumptions about ill intent. Perhaps some derisiveness should be directed their way.

      • Apologies for the broken link, it’s odd that happened, I copied the url directly from the paper. I do however find myself left confused by the response from Dr.S. While I understand the frustration at dealing with a broken link, and I thank him for bothering to find and read the paper in question – there is only raving about the link, and no discussion of the paper, none of my concerns were dealt with. The only thing stated to deal with the paper is an ad hominem that: “but a paper that claims to ‘prove’ anything is hardly science.”.
        That’s it? It’s hardly science simply because you don’t like it’s language? Do you have any actual criticisms of the methodology? Can you explain how this paper can show an extremely strong correlation between global temperature variations in connection with evolution of Dst index and CR variations, while your paper claims that there is no effect of CR’s on climate?

      • Cole Pritchard March 10, 2015 at 12:06 pm:
        Apologies for the broken link…there is only raving about the link, and no discussion of the paper, none of my concerns were dealt with.
        Note that the holier than thou raving was by other self-righteous people.
        I was the only one who actually went to the trouble to find the paper and read it carefully. And my comment that “a paper that claims to ‘prove’ anything is hardly science.” stands. Pointing out that the authors grossly overstate their case is a proper admonishment directed squarely at them. So I agree that this was ad hominem, but a well deserved one.
        Do you have any actual criticisms of the methodology?
        Yes, I could indulge in specific criticism, but the paper is so poor although it might impress the gullible, it simply does not hold water In my considered opinion.

      • Whose saying it is ‘crummy’? Well spell it right, crumby.
        [The mods are not sure to misspell crummy with an Ozzie accent. .mod]

      • Dr.S
        “Yes, I could indulge in specific criticism, but the paper is so poor although it might impress the gullible, it simply does not hold water In my considered opinion.”
        Your statement that you “…could indulge in specific criticism” is a bare assertion. You state that you could criticize it, yet you offer no example. Am I simply to believe the paper is that poor, even though you will not state why? Your next comment “although it might impress the gullible” is clearly designed to chase people off of the subject, lest they be seen as gullible. I’m afraid your reply is only making me more skeptical of your motives, as you appear to be stooping to political tactics, instead of simply explaining what you think is actually wrong with the paper.
        This is easy enough for you to resolve, if you’ll simply back up your assertions.

        • There are things worth doing, and there are things that are not. Commenting on this paper is one of the latter. If you disagree, perhaps you should back up your disagreement with your own comments on why you think the paper is so great.

    • The paper is based on many assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong the science is wrong. CR’s will have a greater effect if the assumptions are ignored.

      • Separate from religion, ie saying that δG is independent of the level of CO2 is heretical.

        Why should the derivative be there? Wtf is a crude tool, but I fixed it for you.
        /note I think CO2 forcing does not have as big effect as IPCC gives on its upper bound, so I’m not an alarmist. I just don’t like so much the random graphs pretending to show a point.

      • (The relationship of CO2 and SST is not expected to so that WTF could actually compare them on equivalent scales.)

    • 1sky1,

      As usual, the concept of “secular trend” is left largely ill-defined.

      I suppose that depends on the definition of “largely” …
      Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales.
      … or perhaps the definition of the beginning of the 20th century. Which is 1901 according to my understanding of the calendar.
      Other than that, yes, “secular trend” can be anything one wishes, which means it is best practice to define it when using it. I can be lazy about that myself.

  1. Does anyone else feel nauseated by this sort of rubbish in a pseudo-scientific paper “…a trend that the consensus attributes …” ?

    • It’s not rubbish. It is like the near-compulsory Lenin quotation in scientific papers in the Soviet Union, the price you have to pay to be published.

    • “…the consensus…” is a term our great-grandkids will read in future history books in chapters about science’ greatest blunders. Lysenkoism, Eugenics, Global Warming…

      • To paraphrase an old Jewish joke:
        Consensus, nonsensus! What does it matter!
        As long as all the experts are in agreement.

      • Not only that, but the term “From the paper in PNAS” now has a certain taint akin to discovering that an investment offer was mailed by Bernie Madoff from his prison cell.

    • So there is a causal relationship on annual GT fluctuations:

      However, cross mapping from ΔGT to CR
      succeeds. We observe convergence as L increases, indicating that
      information about CR is recoverable in the ΔGT record. Thus,
      CCM shows that there is a modest causal effect of CR on annual
      GT fluctuations.

      I am curious about the dGT, and how it varies, if the extra sunlight is absorbed by land or water. When a low level of CR leads to less clouds, and extra sunlight, hitting the ground, and the ocean. Some is converted to a increase in dGT, rapidly, and some is absorbed in the water, and released over a greater time period than the former. It could take years of all of the extra energy that was absorbed by the ocean, to find its way back to dGT. And some of it could get released in a short time (El Nino) that increased dGT, but was unrelated to the current level of CR.
      I don’t have an answer for this question, so I am hoping someone else does.

  2. The most interesting part of the paper to me was the use of a new method (apparently developed largely by Sugihara at Scripps in the 90s) of detecting causality for nonlinear systems. I would love to see the method applied to the temperature and CO2 time series from the ice core over the last 400,000 years. Would it find CO2 causes temperatures to rise 800 years earlier?
    They could then move on and apply the method to CO2 and temperature in the last 100 years. I doubt that they could get the funding for that, however.

  3. “it seems to me that they set out to prove that CR’s aren’t affecting trend”
    Not sure what indicates that. Tsonis/Swanson are not famous for climate orthodoxy.
    Interesting appearance of Baron May of Oxford. A local lad from here who became president of the Royal Society.

  4. Dr. Svalgaard, does a dataset exist that measures down (or up welling) millimeter wave activity that can be referenced to one of the heliosphere references you have mentioned?

  5. Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) creates ions in the atmosphere. The amount of ions in the atmosphere changes cloud properties and cloud duration.
    The complication is solar wind bursts (primarily from coronal) holes create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions for 5 to 10 days which causes a reduction in cloud cover in high latitude regions and a change in cloud properties in the tropical region. Solar wind bursts can hence inhibit the effect of high GCR. The solar wind bursts are primarily caused by coronal holes on the sun, not sunspots. One of the confusions in solving how the sun causes the planet to cyclically warm and cool is coronal holes have appeared anomalously on the surface of the sun in low latitude positions, late in the solar cycle, therefore even though solar heliosphere is weak with results in high GCR, the planet does not cool, as the solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions.
    The number and magnitude of solar wind bursts is primarily due to coronal holes and location of the coronal hole on the surface of the sun (low latitude coronal holes have the greatest effect) and is hence almost independent of the sunspot number.
    Peculiarly during the anomalous solar cycle 24 the density of the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere is the name for the tenuous gas and pieces of magnetic flux that is thrown off of the sun. The solar heliosphere extends well past the orbit of Pluto. The solar heliosphere blocks and deflects the high speed mostly cosmic protons which are called GCR or CRF. GCR/CRF are the principal cause of ion formation in the atmosphere. The amount of ions in the atmosphere affects cloud formation, cloud albedo, drop size, and cloud lifetimes all of which affect planetary temperature.
    This paper explains the mechanisms.
    http://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/GEC-Solar%20Effects%20on%20Global%20Electric%20Circuit%20on%20clouds%20and%20climate%20Tinsley%202007.pdf

    The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate

    This paper notes planetary temperature changes correlate with the magnitude and number of solar wind bursts (the affect lasts 5 to 10 days).
    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity
    Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity (William: Closed magnetic field) and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity (William: Short term abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field caused by solar wind bursts, which are measured by the short term geomagnetic field change parameter Ak. Note the parameter is Ak rather than the month average with Leif provides a graph for. The effect is determined by the number of short term wind bursts. A single very large event has less affect than a number of events. As Coronal holes can persist for months and years and as the solar wind burst affect lasts for roughly week, a coronal hole has a significant effect on planetary temperature) which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. ….

    Recently the solar heliosphere density has reduced 40%. Due to the reduction in the density solar heliosphere the rise time of solar wind bursts is reduced. This anomalous change was discussed at during the 2013 AGU meeting and is discussed in this paper.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0252

  6. I don’t see anything new in this paper and see sub-standard methods leading to unsubstantiated and non-robust conclusions. That the aa-index proxy was used to reflect cosmic rays seems to be a bias on the part of the researchers. Leif has pointed out that this proxy also can be used for TSI, among other things. The paper fails to say why these other solar outputs are not the forcing. The proper strategy is to rule out other solar forcings before pointing to cosmic rays.

    • ” The proper strategy is to rule out other solar forcings before pointing to cosmic rays.” This is nonsense. There are so many potential variables in action here why would one rule out one set prior to another, other than to input their own bias?

      • If TSI equally fits the scenario (as it would since the aa-index is also a proxy for TSI), then you cannot rule it out. Normal variation in TSI is well known to force a change in incoming irradiation. The authors were bound to rule that out. They did not. Therefore there is no paradigm shift here. The null hypothesis stands in this case. When internal/CO2 forcings and their trends (I say that because some say the trend is CO2 forced and some say the trend is ENSO forced) are removed, TSI is the probable forcing.
        Please bone up on how to rule out the null hypothesis. This study does not even mention it. Once internal/anthropogenic forcings are removed from the trend, you MUST rule out normal TSI variation. Because they used the aa-index, they did not rule out the well known TSI variation.

  7. Let’s see… The Little Ice Age began in 1280 and ended in 1850, which corresponds well to the four Grand Solar Minima (GSM): Wolf GSM (1280~1350), Sporer GSM (1450~1550), Maunder GSM (1645~1715) and the Dalton GSM (1790~1820).
    The Modern Warming Period (1850~1998) also fits well with the strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years. When this strong string of solar cycles ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend, despite 30% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over just the last 19 years:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise
    Solar Cycle #24 is now in steep decline, until Solar Cycle #25 starts around 2022, which is expected to be the weakest solar cycle since the Maunder Minimum ended in 1715…. There is also a chance that SC #25 could be the beginning of another Grand Solar Minimum, if the Umbral Magnetic Field (UMF-the force that holds sunspots together) continues to decline. It is hypothesized that once the UMF falls below 1500 gauss, sunspots disappear almost entirely.
    As record CO2 emissions continue unabated with absolutely NO global warming trend to show for it in almost 19 years, it is becoming increasingly evident CO2’s global warming greenhouse effect is much less than CAGW hypothesized. Already RSS temps are 2 standard deviations off from CMIP5 model projections.
    The PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2005~08, so global temps will likely decline for at least another 20 years just from the cool PDO. Moreover, a 30-yr AMO cool cycle around 2020 and if you combine these with the weak and falling solar cycle we’re currently in, and that the next solar cycle could be the weakest in 300 years, global temps may well be off by at least 3 standard deviations by 2020 and a 25-yr flat/falling trend could be observed.
    Dr. Lindzen’s ECS estimate of 0.5C by 2100 seems to be spot on, and CAGW’s ECS estimate of 3~4.5C by 2100 seems to be completely absurd at this point.
    It’s the sun and natural variation, stupid….not CO2…

    • The Modern Warming Period (1850~1998) also fits well with the strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years.
      There is good evidence that this is a [well-worn] myth, c.f. http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
      “by the mid 18th century, solar activity had already returned to levels equivalent to those observed in recent solar cycles in the 20th century”, so no GRAND maximum [greatest in 11,400 years].
      and
      http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number-LWS.pdf
      Slide 4: “there is no long-term trend over the past three hundred years, i.e. no Modern Grand Maximum”

      • and just how long do you think it takes for the cosmic winds to get up to speed and the climate to respond?
        as I used to shoot while getting mercilessly killed playing quake 2 on dial up back in the day….
        LAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Isvalgaard– The Svensmark Effect isn’t about TSI flux, it concerns sunspot activity/solar wind flux/Galactic Cosmic Ray (CGR) flux and its impact on cloud formation/Earth’s Albedo.
        CERN’s CLOUD experiment showed GCRs are capable of nucleating inorganic compounds, which form cloud seeds and increased cloud formation.
        During high sunspot activity, solar winds become stronger which block GCRs leading to less cloud cover, a lower albedo and warmer global temps. During low sunspot activity, solar winds decrease allowing more GCRs to hit Earth, causing increased cloud cover, increased albedo and cooler global temps. TSI has nothing to do with the Svensmark Effect.
        Granted, during weak sunspot activity, TSI and UV radiation does decrease, but this simply exacerbates the cooling effects from increased cloud cover/albedo.
        Anyway, we’re currently experiencing the weakest sunspot activity since 1906, and from 2022, we may experience the weakest sunspot activity since 1715… Should global temps continue to fall or flatten over the next 5~7 years, while CO2 emissions break records, the Svensmark Effect hypothesis will become a more viable, while the CAGW hypothesis will pushed closer to the trash bin.
        We’ll see soon enough…

      • Thank you Leif for enjoining the discussions. I have recently felt like the only voice of reason and I know so little.

    • so why, at the peak of the lowest solar cycle in over 100 years, with more coal being burned by China than in all of the western world in the last 100 years, with the PDO in a negative phase, are we experiencing the warmest year on record?
      And what, in God’s name, will you do when we are in an El Nino Year, and China reduces their aerosol emissions by 50% and the PDO goes positive and the solar cycle returns to normal???
      What will you do then? what will your children do?

      • And what, in God’s name, will you do when we are in an El Nino Year, and China reduces their aerosol emissions by 50% and the PDO goes positive and the solar cycle returns to normal???
        What will you do then? what will your children do?

        Live better, more fruitful lives with more food, fodder, fuel, farms, and fertilizer than now! More plant growth – it’s already exceeding previous levels by 12% – 27% due to man’s release of CO2 back into the atmosphere! – and more areas available to farm in more northern areas with warmer, more productive growing seasons.
        What’s not to like? More people living better, healthier lives!
        oh. Wait. yeah. You want more people to die. Many millions to die earlier.

      • Jai Mitchell— Ah, yes…. “the children”… I wonder what motivates leftists to always bring up “the children”…
        Anyway…, “the children” will ironically benefit from higher crop yields and increased forest growth from higher CO2 levels, leading to cheaper food and wood. If we do experience a Grand Solar Minimum, the tiny amount of CO2 warming (perhaps 0.3C since 1850) will slightly offset the negative aspects of a cooling planet from decreased sunspot activity…
        As an added benefit, higher CO2 levels decrease plants’ water requirements so this will also help crops do better during falling precipitation and shortened growing seasons which occur during global cooling periods….
        BTW, during the Wolf GSM (1280~1350) about 25% of Europe’s population was wiped out from brutal winters, shortened growing seasons and famine. Had CO2 levels been 400 ppm back in the 13th and 14th century, perhaps millions of children could have been saved from starvation from the effects of a cooling planet…. Oh, the irony.

      • It is absolutely not the warmest year on record, even by the grossly maladjusted surface temperature record. It is one of the last eighteen warmest years. Surprise, surprise. As Leif has been at great pains to explain, solar cycle (in the strict sense) is lunch money, the PDO (not to mention the somewhat stronger AMO) is evidently able to cancel whatever “forcing” you attribute to your supernatural gas, I totally don’t buy the aerosol thing because why would temperatures have accelerated so strikingly in the late seventies and early eighties when WE were producing aerosols that blanketed our big cities like nuclear winter. Nino is a subset of PDO.

      • Samurai has the correct rhetorical response to all Warmista fear mongering. A warm planet is a happy planet!

      • The question is: what are you motivated to do today to protect against your imagined future?

      • Troll alert! No surprise then about the blasphemy. How’s the Rutgers reverse entropy arctic effect getting on? Brett

    • This appears possible, but the affect on T may have a lag. Consider that the SH winter the earth receives an immense 90 watts per sq meter increase in TOA insolation. Yet the atmosphere cools. This water planet is a mostly SW selective variable receptive surface, and clearly ocean cycles drive GAT. The ocean does have lag times to SW radiation, up to 800 years.

      • The input into the atmosphere may have no more lag then the SH summer increase in insolation, which is instant, but the atmosphere still cools. It appears the study should be looking for cloud variation, and surface SW insolation changes, not the often confusing GAAT (Global atmospheric atmosphere Temperature)
        The many drivers of climate are all like dozens of teeter-totters lined up on the same axis, blue on the same side for cooling, red on the same other side for warming. Some take multiple millennium to move from red to blue (Mackintosh cycles, solar changes, continental drift changes) some centuries, (deep ocean overturning, solar cycles; consistent pattern of multiple weak or strong sun cycles, some decades, (disparate ENSO cycles, lunar cycles, sun cycles, jet stream patterns, cloud formation changes) some annual, (seasons, etc)
        some weeks, jet stream sort term changes and cloud cover changes, and even rapid SST changes, some days, I.E. weather, some instant. There are multiple overlaps and major shifts likely happen when major influences align to the cold or warm, with the exact mixture of influences never repeating. (Of course many factors not mentioned above, and our understanding of these many different factors is often poor)
        Due to this divergence, there is not consistent reading from one cause. Major long term drivers eventually have adequate support of other, disparate length drivers, aligning together to cause a major climate shift, but until then all influences may appear contrary, just as the instant increase in insolation appears within the atmosphere when the earth moves closer to the sun in the SH summer, but the atmosphere cools despite the immense and instant 90 watt per sq. meter increase in insolation.

  8. “Link between Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Temperature found”
    Not possible, since there is no global temperature.

  9. Is the last thrown in as the usual ‘I love GW because I want to keep my grants’ or real? We can’t tell. Because we need to know whether they are using the adjusted temperature or thermometer readings. The latter being real.

    • Give Lief a chance. He will reconstruct those for you too. I thought reconstruction in the south after the civil war was bad. Welcome to modern science.

      • David, must you reveal your level of intellectual reasoning in such an open manner? If you have critically read the history of this monumental endeavor (calibrating the SSN errors of the past), you would get it. Since you seem to have not, I leave judgment up to the obvious.

      • Dr Svalgaard, lsvalgaard
        I asked this a few days ago on the “solar impact on cool climate” thread, but you were evidenctly distracted with many other readers, righters, and writers and wrongers.
        Let me ask it again, please.
        Pamela Gray linked to your presentation on TSI chnages at the solar conference, showing a powerpoint slide show exported to a single pdf file. Page nbrs are the slide numbers in that powerpoint.
        I did not understand two points in your presentation.
        1. Sheet 9 of 17. The spoken words during your presentation at the symposium in 2010 perhaps made this slide clear, but it certainly is not clear to me now without further explanation. “Aa-index and Method Wrong” means what? One of the two graphs is wrong? Both are wrong? Both show an old way of calculating solar energy that is not supposed to be used now?
        2. The last ten years of SORCE measurements show that TSI (at average distance of earth-sun) is slightly under 1362 watts//m^2. The graphic on page 4 shows that successive TSI measurements by different systems also all go down over time, but the result is a current TSI = 1362 watts/m^2. But page 9 shows ALL “reconstructions” of TSI over time going up towards a TSI = to the “old value” of 1366 to 1372 watts/m^2.
        How can page 4, page 9 and page 12 be reconciled to a single steady TSI value between AD 1500 (before the LIA in 1650) and 2015 if all three show TSI variations from 1361 to 1372 in just 12 years of measurements? Or are the slides (the graphics) settling towards different values somehow that the text does not make clear?
        Or, as I understand you’ve said before, the earlier instruments were indicating a 1370 TSI, but the actual TSI was equal to what today’s instreuments are measuring (1361 watt/m^2). But if that were the case, then should not the earlier studies be re-caalibrated down to 1362, not the later ones be pulled up to 1370?

  10. Seems to me that Svalgaard has pointed out this paper to Anthony so he can ride his usual hobby-horse for scoffing any ideas that the Sun has a role in increased warming of the atmosphere over the last 300 years by, lets face it, probably not more than about 1 deg C. Well he may be right (although I personally doubt it) or he maybe wrong. That’s what science is all about.
    The book “Brilliant Blunders.” by Mario Livio puts up some interesting and convincing examples and discussion, that often the views of well-known brilliant scientists are wrong, or as he puts it the “ Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists that Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe” that he has as part of the book title. I particularly like the Chapter “Certainty Generally is Illusion”.
    Go read the book and you’ll find some similarities in the “expert” being adamant that his view is correct and all others are rubbish, as we often see here at WUWT.

  11. The way, the change in CR’s, change the annual temps, is the key to determining if there is further information, to be gleaned from this. If a statistical guru, were to take the annual temps and separate the NH summer months from the SH summer months, the change in cloud cover could be teased out of the data. The NH summer would respond to less cloud cover more rapidly, with an increase in dGT. The SH summer would not, and it may look, more like the response from the global anomaly. They are SH summer, and global anomaly, are both somewhat independent of changes in CR, because they are both absorbing sunlight, more than rapidly turning it into IR. I haven’t done stats, since grad school, so it not something I can devote the time to now, or I would. But a tightly coupled response in the NH summer, would be an interesting result.

    • nope.
      I sliced cloud data every way. every Hpa, by hemisphere, by grid cell by every which way. night, day..
      every which way..
      NO relationship between CR and the secular trend
      I did not look at inter-annual..

      • Yep. Mosher and I agree. Cosmic rays do not correspond to cloud data. The trade winds do regarding the equatorial band, but apparently that is too obvious for solar enthusiasts.
        Note: Mosher and I disagree on CO2 forcing.

    • Sorry for my garbled ramblings. It was late, and I was tired.
      What I was trying to indicate, is a method to deduce the cloud cover, from the change in the temps. Additional sunlight reaching the ground (as opposed to water surface), should have a faster change in the global temp. Since the Northern Hemisphere, has greater land surface area, then the signal for “change in cloud cover”, would show up in dGT.
      It is another way to determine if this is due to a “change in cloud cover”, or some other unknown causal factor.
      And it makes sense from what they found in the paper. A dynamic coupling with “annual variations”, but none with longer timescale variations.

    • Jai Mitchel– The dotted line at zero in your posted graph accurately represents global warming trend since 2000… That should tell you something is seriously wrong with the CAGW hypothesis….
      Actually since the end of 2000, the global temp trend has been falling:
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.8/plot/rss/from:2000.8/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise
      That should tell you something, too….

    • As I pointed out to Dan, his presumption is that CO2 photons can be distinguished from H2O photons on the basis of the linear vs exponential intensity increases from supposed “self” pressure broadening of CO2 are far from certain. He has not responded…

        • Hi Dan,
          Thanks for the explanation. I gather that you are looking at the P and R branch differentials to the saturated nu-2, essentially using the pressure broadening effect to gauge the CO2 contribution. An interesting approach. As you know, this can be tricky if the inputs from other gasses in the mix to the “pressure” are not carefully controlled.
          I eagerly await your paper which will undoubtedly answer many other questions such as the altitude profile and the measured H2O content and forcing.
          Thanks again,
          Gordon
          From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:drfeldman@lbl.gov]
          Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:54 AM
          To: Gordon Lehman
          Subject: Re: spectral CO2
          Hi Gordon.
          Thanks for your interest in my paper.
          As you probably know, H2O is the most important greenhouse gas following by CO2. Around wavelengths of 15 um, CO2 has extremely strong absorption features associated with the fundamental bending mode of that molecule (sometimes spectroscopists refer to it as the nu-2 band). H2O has relatively weak absorption around 15 um, which is why CO2 is as important a greenhouse gas as it is. Since there are a large number of lines associated with the CO2 bending mode, due to rotational transitions , referred to as the P- and R-branches, which are weaker than the fundamental and thus change more quickly with rising CO2, adding 22 ppm to the atmosphere in a decade leads to a change in transmission in those features and thus an increased greenhouse effect.
          The overlap of H2O and CO2 features is important and something that we consider, but I should note that even if features overlap, that can both contribute to a greenhouse effect. Where lines are unsaturated, the effect is approximately linear, and where they are saturated, the effect is approximately logarithmic. If you have a chance, check out Goody and Yung 1989 … it’s pretty mathematical but it does describe the basics of how this all fits together.
          Cheers,
          Dan
          On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Gordon Lehman wrote:
          Dear Dr. Feldman,
          I was very interested in the media reports of your recent paper “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. Unfortunately, the media reporting seems unsupported by even an abstract in Google Scholar or similar engines. I am a subscriber to “Nature News Alerts” and the most recent had no mention either.
          It is my understanding that there are no earth spectral bands in which CO2 resonates that water does not also resonate. It is my understanding that there is a unique CO2 band in the near IR incoming solar spectrum which seems lunch money in total intensity.
          My specific question is that since you “measure thermal infrared energy”, and “Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor “ exactly which bands do you use to distinguish photons emitted by the molecules H20 and CO2?
          Regards,
          Gordon

      • Did not respond to the question, which was put very specifically.
        I have a question, if someone would be so kind as to provide an answer: both CO2 and H2O absorb @ approximately 15 microns wv. CO2 is much stronger.
        Has the absorbency of the two been compared in a quantified way? That is, can H2O absorbency be expressed as a fraction of the CO2 strength, say, percentage-wise?

        • The short answer is no. Dan Feldman’s approach is likely the best so far. The following is redundant in the thread but contains the entire email conversation. Still figuring out how this chat thing works…
          Hi Dan,
          Thanks for the explanation. I gather that you are looking at the P and R branch differentials to the saturated nu-2, essentially using the pressure broadening effect to gauge the CO2 contribution. An interesting approach. As you know, this can be tricky if the inputs from other gasses in the mix to the “pressure” are not carefully controlled.
          I eagerly await your paper which will undoubtedly answer many other questions such as the altitude profile and the measured H2O content and forcing.
          Thanks again,
          Gordon
          From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:drfeldman@lbl.gov]
          Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:54 AM
          To: Gordon Lehman
          Subject: Re: spectral CO2
          Hi Gordon.
          Thanks for your interest in my paper.
          As you probably know, H2O is the most important greenhouse gas following by CO2. Around wavelengths of 15 um, CO2 has extremely strong absorption features associated with the fundamental bending mode of that molecule (sometimes spectroscopists refer to it as the nu-2 band). H2O has relatively weak absorption around 15 um, which is why CO2 is as important a greenhouse gas as it is. Since there are a large number of lines associated with the CO2 bending mode, due to rotational transitions , referred to as the P- and R-branches, which are weaker than the fundamental and thus change more quickly with rising CO2, adding 22 ppm to the atmosphere in a decade leads to a change in transmission in those features and thus an increased greenhouse effect.
          The overlap of H2O and CO2 features is important and something that we consider, but I should note that even if features overlap, that can both contribute to a greenhouse effect. Where lines are unsaturated, the effect is approximately linear, and where they are saturated, the effect is approximately logarithmic. If you have a chance, check out Goody and Yung 1989 … it’s pretty mathematical but it does describe the basics of how this all fits together.
          Cheers,
          Dan
          On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Gordon Lehman wrote:
          Dear Dr. Feldman,
          I was very interested in the media reports of your recent paper “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. Unfortunately, the media reporting seems unsupported by even an abstract in Google Scholar or similar engines. I am a subscriber to “Nature News Alerts” and the most recent had no mention either.
          It is my understanding that there are no earth spectral bands in which CO2 resonates that water does not also resonate. It is my understanding that there is a unique CO2 band in the near IR incoming solar spectrum which seems lunch money in total intensity.
          My specific question is that since you “measure thermal infrared energy”, and “Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor “ exactly which bands do you use to distinguish photons emitted by the molecules H20 and CO2?
          Regards,
          Gordon

  12. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, …

    Love the certainty of the “CR do not contribute to GW” statement. Leif said they don’t claim to prove anything, but they actually claim to prove a negative.
    And they do it as the obligatory kow tow to global warming hegemony, in the middle of a paper that tosses out the formerly just as strongly blustered-for claim that cosmic rays had no measurable climate effect whatsoever.
    The baby toddles on. Kicking and screaming the whole way, but yet he takes the steps.

      • They claim to have proven the negative:
        “Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, …”
        Don’t quibble semantics. It is not beneath you, but it is annoying.

      • Yep. You accept or reject your stated null hypothesis. Rather simple if you narrow you topic. Research 101.

      • This is not semantics. In science you NEVER prove anything. If you make a claim that you do, it is not science.

        So when they make the absolutely unqualified statement of proof:
        “Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, …:”
        They should be incurring the wrath of the Leif blower for having done so … instead you play semantics and let them off with a throw-away dodge: “They don’t say ‘prove’.”
        Clue: When someone prefaces an unqualified statement of a firm conclusion with the word “Thus”, in reference to a previously stated inferential, they are claiming proof whether they use that word or not.
        Thus, you are playing semantics.
        And yes, I have proved that.

        • as a practicing scientist I’ll clarify my point. Every statement a scientist utters is implicitly preceded by “as far as we know”, thus every statement is always qualified. It is tedious to repeat that for every statement, so it goes unsaid, but certainly not unheeded. If you adopt this view the fog is lifted and one can make progress, otherwise it is just words.

    • It’s conventional when surrounding text with quotation marks that the text is actually what the author said! Doing what you did makes the rest of your comments worthless.
      [Or, the writer is using irony, sarcasm, or a deliberate “exaggeration” of the words. .mod]

      • [Or, the writer is using irony, sarcasm, or a deliberate “exaggeration” of the words. .mod]
        Don’t you love it when people who make the “Your punctuation renders your argument worthless” argument do not themselves understand the fundamentals of punctuation?
        Hey Phil – Next time why don’t you try saying “Ewe mispelled a werd, so everything yew sed is rong.”
        [Raw text is always difficult to expand into the regular conventions of regular conversations. .mod]

      • I use quotes. Period. If it’s in quotes, someone else said it (and I always say who said it unless I have had one two many glasses of ale). Without quotes, it comes from my Irish red-headed mouth.

  13. Theoretical analysis is very limited (can never converge on the truth, goes in circles) if there are multiple fundamental errors in the models/mechanisms/theory.
    For example if the sun is fundamental different than assumed (there are more than 100 cosmological observations to support the assertion that the sun and stars are ‘different’ than assumed), it would be quite difficult (impossible) to solve the theoretical/mechanisms puzzle: How does the sun modulate planetary temperature and what will happen next to both the sun and to planetary temperature.
    We know that planetary temperature has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past at a 1400 year period cycle with beats of plus or minus 400 years. We know solar ‘changes’ correlate with the period of time of the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet.
    We know atmospheric CO2 did not change during or after the 1400 year with beats of plus or minus 400 years cyclic warming and cooling of the planet and hence cannot be the cause of what is observed. We know that the same cyclic warming and cooling occurs in both the northern and southern hemisphere. We know the pattern/regions that warm and then cool (mechanism reverses) are the same as the regions that have warmed in the last 150 years.
    We know that roughly every 8000 to 10,000 years there is an abrupt cooling change to planetary climate which it appears is the reason why the interglacial periods end abruptly.
    All of the above comments, are believed to be observational facts from the analysis of multiple proxies in hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed papers published over the last two decades, not a theory. We also know there must be a physical explanation for what happened in the past. There are no magic wands.
    We know the sun is almost spotless which is anomalous as it appears there will be a very sharp drop in sunspot number (The sharp drop in sunspot number has started and was predicted by Livingston and Penn to occur in 2015 based on a simple extrapolation of the fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots was decaying linearly and there are no sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength less than around 1500 gauss), Due to weaken of the solar magnetic cycle, GCR is currently the highest ever recorded at a solar maximum, and we know the solar heliosphere density has declined 40% which is reducing the effect of solar wind bursts on the modulation of planetary clouds in high latitude regions and in the tropics.
    The solar large scale magnetic field is the lowest ever recorded for this period of a solar cycle. The intensity of the solar large scale magnetic field is one of the best predictors of the strength of the next solar magnetic cycle. Based on current observations of solar cycle 24 it is almost certain that cycle 25 will be a very, very weak cycle, if it occurs at all.
    http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
    http://www.solen.info/solar/
    We know in the past when there was a sudden increase in solar cycle length there was a delay in cooling in high latitude Arctic regions of roughly one solar cycle, 11 years.
    Observational evidence that climate forcing changes are underway, is patterns of planetary temperature change that have never occurred in the recorded past. The new patterns developing appear to support the assertion that there will be global cooling rather than global warming. As atmospheric CO2 has not as yet declined, we know changes in atmospheric CO2 cannot be the cause of the observed start of what appears to be planetary cooling.
    Significant unabashed global cooling would be both a climate war and theoretical game changer. It appears we will be able to resolve the question how much of the warming in the last 150 years was due to increases in atmospheric CO2 and how much was due to solar changes (more complicate than just solar magnetic cycle changes if I understand the mechanisms.), by observations.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    Ocean surface temperature January 1, 2015
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.1.1.2015.gif
    Current Ocean surface temperature March 9, 2015
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.3.9.2015.gif

  14. I find it interesting that the sun accounts for the demontrable variation but not the rise that is most likely adjustments anyway… just saying…

      • The UAH trend is quite flat. 2014 and 2010 are both significantly (about .3 degrees) below the 1998 high.

      • David A March 10, 2015 at 5:48 am
        The UAH trend is quite flat.

        The UAH trend since 1979 is 0.14 deg per decade; The GISS trend since 1998 is 0.077 deg per decade
        The UAH trend since 1990 is 0.165 deg per decade; The GISS trend since 1990 is 0.15 deg per decade
        The UAH trend since 1998 is 0.070 deg per decade; The GISS trend since 1998 is 0.077 deg per decade
        1998 is an outlier – a 3+ sigma event – for the UAH record. Even so it only makes a small difference to trends.

        2014 and 2010 are both significantly (about .3 degrees) below the 1998 high.

        The mean temperature for 2010 was about 0.02 degrees below the mean for 1998. The mean for 2014 was about 0.14 degrees below 1998.
        However, as I have already shown if the 1981-2010 baseline is used, the 2014 anomalies for GISS and UAH are almost exactly the same. UAH anomalies for 1998 and 2010 are MUCH higher than the GISS anomalies. Like I said, LT temperatures are very sensitive to ENSO.

      • Sorry (re:previous post) this
        “The UAH trend since 1979 is 0.14 deg per decade; The GISS trend since 1998 is 0.077 deg per decade”
        should be
        The UAH trend since 1979 is 0.14 deg per decade; The GISS trend since 1998 is 0.156 deg per decade
        i.e. Less than 2 hundredths of a degree difference in the trends since 1979.

  15. “On 24 August 2011, preliminary research published in the journal Nature showed there was a connection between Cosmic Rays and aerosol nucleation. Kirkby went on to say in the definitive CERN press Release “Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

  16. “But the flux of cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere is affected by the solar wind and Earth’s own magnetic field. The solar wind, particularly at the region between the sun’s termination shock and the heliopause, acts as a barrier to cosmic rays and decreases the flux of low-energy cosmic radiation. Earth’s magnetic field deflects cosmic rays toward the poles, which produces the aurorae observed at certain latitudes. Therefore, researchers have theorized that the extent to which cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate depends on this combination of factors.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

  17. Next solar maximum may be safest time for manned missions to Mars.
    The two main sources of radiation are the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) from supernova explosions in the far-off corners of the galaxy that send galactic cosmic rays rocketing towards our solar system at nearly the speed of light, and the Solar Energetic Particles (SEPs) emitted from our own Sun. Cosmic rays are the most energetic particles in the universe, and remain a significant and worsening factor that limits mission durations.
    “The high energy of GCRs allows these particles to penetrate nearly every material known to man, including shielding on space craft; when the cosmic rays penetrate that shielding, secondary particles are produced that can damage organs and lead to cancer,” said Schwadron.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1420291112

  18. Evidence for large century time-scale changes in solar activity in the past 32 Kyr, based on in-situ cosmogenic 14C in ice at Summit, Greenland
    Abstract
    We present results of estimates of cosmic ray flux in Greenland at the Summit (3200 m.a.s.l, 72.6°N, 38.5°W), during the past 32 Kyr. We derive these estimates based on concentrations of in-situ cosmogenic 14C produced in ice crystals. Based on the secular equilibrium concentration of in-situ produced 14C in quartz in terrestrial rocks, we find that on century time-scales, the cosmic ray production rate of 14C at the Summit was close to its estimated long-term average production rate, except during 3 periods: (i) during 8500–9500 yr B.P. and 27,000–32,000 yr B.P, when the production rate was higher by about a factor of 2, and (ii) during 12,000–16,000 yr B.P, when the production rate was lower by a factor of ∼ 1.5. The observed variation in cosmic ray flux at the polar site is best attributed to changes in solar activity resulting in variable modulation of terrestrial cosmic ray flux. Changes in the geomagnetic field in the past do not affect the cosmic ray flux at polar latitudes. Likewise, climate changes do not affect the in-situ 14C record in ice.
    During the first two epochs, the solar activity must have been very low, as during Maunder Minimum (virtually no sunspots), resulting in essentially no modulation of the cosmic ray flux by the solar plasma. During the low cosmic ray flux epoch, 12,000–16,000 yr B.P., the observed decrease in cosmic ray flux corresponds to high solar activity as seen in 1958 (sun-spot number ∼ 190).
    We discuss the proxy evidence from tree ring and sediment based records of atmospheric 14C/12C ratios during the three epochs. These records have been used as a measure of changes in cosmic ray flux, and solar activity in the past. However, since they are also appreciably affected by climatic changes, a comparison of the two records is potentially valuable for delineating the nature of past changes in solar activity, and large-scale ocean circulation and air–sea exchange.
    [Note: the polar ice is assumed to be free of solar activity interference.]
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05001135

    • “Specific features of the vortex location and a possible mechanism of solar-climate links:
      The data presented above suggest that the polar vortex plays an important part in the mechanism of solaratmospheric links. Indeed, its location seems to be rather favourable for different mechanisms of solar
      activity influence on the lower atmosphere circulation. In particular, the data in Fig.3a shows that the area of
      the vortex formation is characterized by low values of geomagnetic cutoff rigidity. So GCR particles with a
      broad energy range may precipitate in this area including the low energy component strongly modulated by
      solar activity and ion production rate is higher than at middle and low latitudes.”
      http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  19. No change, then, from the current mainstream climate science understanding:
    “There is still no evidence suggesting that the GCR influence our climate in significant ways.”
    “….while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change.”

  20. New research suggests that the sun’s magnetic field controls the large-scale shape of the heliosphere “much more than had been previously thought,” says Merav Opher, associate professor of astronomy and director of the Center for Space Physics at Boston University (BU). In the new model, the magnetic field squeezes the solar wind along the sun’s North and South axes, producing two jets that are then dragged downstream by the flow of the interstellar medium through which the heliosphere moves.
    The model indicates that the heliospheric tail doesn’t extend to large distances but is split into two by the two jets, and that the format of the jets is similar to that of astrophysical jets observed in many other stars and around black holes.
    “Most researchers don’t believe in the importance of the solar magnetic field, because the magnetic pressure on the solar wind’s particles is far lower than the thermal pressure of the particles,” says Opher, lead author on a paper appearing today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. However, the model shows that tension of the magnetic field controls what happens to the solar wind in the tail.
    Picture a tube of toothpaste with rubber bands wrapped around it, suggests co-author James Drake, professor of physics and director of the Joint Space-Science Institute at the University of Maryland. In this case, the toothpaste is the jet’s plasma, and the rubber bands are the rings of the solar magnetic field. “Magnetic fields have tension just like rubber bands, and these rings squeeze in,” he says. “So imagine you wrap your toothpaste tube very tightly with a lot of rubber bands, and they will squeeze the toothpaste out the end of your tube.”
    “Jets are really important in astrophysics,” Drake adds. “And from what we can tell, the mechanism that’s driving these heliospheric jets is basically the same as it is in, for example, the Crab Nebula. Yet this is really close by. If we’re right about all of this, it gives us a local test bed for exploring some very important physics.”
    “It’s also exciting that these jets are very turbulent, and will be very good particle accelerators,” says Opher. The jets might, for example, play a role in the acceleration of so-called anomalous cosmic rays “We don’t know where these particles are accelerated; it’s a bit of a puzzle,” she says.
    Solving such puzzles will be important for space travel. The heliosphere acts as “a cocoon to protect us, by filtering galactic cosmic rays,” she says. “Understanding the physical phenomena that govern the shape of the heliosphere will help us understand the filter.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-view-solar-astrophysical-jets-driven.html

  21. Interesting articles. Its too bad that anyone from the “alarmist” side will not even consider a single word written in any of them, b/c of the sources (Fox News, Heartland, this “paid misinformation site”, forbes, etc).

  22. Re: WUWT CR flux & GAST 150309
    Cole Pritchard provides a link that doesn’t work, and the moderator suggests it might be a paper behind the paywall. 3/9/15 @ 4:38 pm. Readers are supposed to pay $35.95 just to see if Biktash correlates with what Pritchard asked. Science for sale.
    lsvalgaard rags on the Pritchard (4:54 pm) then has to walk it back, stepping on the third rail of civility (crummy link, 4:59 pm, et seq.), which, undeterred, he defends tooth and nail.
    At the same time, Leif shows he has access to the paper (confirmed later at 10:19 pm), quoting one word from it. But Leif doesn’t bother to fix the citation. And no one bothers to quote from it.
    Leif and the moderator say,
    When you post a link, you should try out first that it works. There is a need to re-enforce that, don’t you agree? [We usually check the links, but we can’t get to all of them. .mod] 7:53 pm.
    Too bad the only way to proof a comment is after it is indelibly committed to a post.
    Now comes Bevan with an anonymous screenshot. 4:36 pm. It turns out to be from The Soon fallacy, by Gavin Schmidt (!), realclimate.org (!), 2/24/15.
    To which lsvalgaard says,
    Yes, as is well-documented Soon was wrong too.
    What and where exactly is the documentation that Soon was wrong? What does it mean to be well-documented?
    Besides, has it not been shown that the Sun is indeed the cause of the measured GAST? (Click on my name to see SGW.) That validates Soon’s results, if not his model.
    Now comes Eric Worrall with a link to Kopp’s 2014 TSI construction, again with neither a link nor a substantive comment. In fact, Kopp’s model was the topic of Historical and present Total Solar Irradiance has been tinkered with again on WUWT, 2/10/2014. Be sure to see Tony’s comparison of three TSI estimates, labeled LEIF2007 (the weakest), WANG2005 (slightly stronger), and LEAN2000 (extremely strong) along with Kopp’s pair. In fact, the Wang estimate may be the one preferred by IPCC in AR4, identified as Wang, et al. 2005. AR4 ¶2.7.1.2.1.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance, p. 190, Figure 2.17. Wang, et al. 2005 is the model that predicts HadCRUT3 with a realizable transfer function to almost the same accuracy as IPCC’s unrealizable smoothed estimator, and that transfer function fits the physics of ocean circulation.
    Leif ambiguously criticized “the model used” (the paper discusses 5) suggesting four citations at leif.org, apparently his own work. To be sure, he adds, My own assessment is that there [is] no evidence for a secular upward trending background. WUWT on tinkering, 2/10/2014, 6:57 pm. Is this what Leif means by well-documented? Is Leif’s nullification of the rising background the reason he thinks Soon’s work is wrong, notwithstanding that it has been validated? Is Leif rising to defend realclimate.org (The Soon fallacy, the house organ for IPCC climatologists and their failed model?
    Unfortunately tweeting cannot produce a meaningful dialog on a scientific question.
    So, with all this crummy stuff out of the way, let me turn to the substantive matter, the Link between Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Temperature found. The post, down through the first 121 comments available to this writing, never mentions the mechanism in Svensmark’s failing hypothesis. Nobody mentions the link between GCRs and cloud cover through new CCNs created from atmospheric aerosols by GCR radiation. That mechanism is of singular importance, because it is part of the explanation for the failure of Svensmark’s hypothesis.
    The problem is that the atmosphere almost always and especially in the most important places (where Earth mostly absorbs solar radiation), has a superabundance of CCNs. After all, there must be a superabundance of either water vapor or CCNs because the probability of an exact balance must be zero. And if there were a superabundance of humidity, the atmosphere would act like a cloud chamber to incoming particles that turn aerosols into CCNs. Instead, clouds are reliably created every night and burned-off every morning. Evaporation from the ocean provides a continuous source for both water vapor and CCNs. Additional CCNs hypothetically created by GCRs are a small signal variation on top of the perpetual superabundance of CCNs.
    So even if Svensmark’s model, seems, like the Callendar Effect (now the greenhouse effect), to have a basis in physics, neither actually works, and both for the same problem. Cloud cover, the strongest feedback in climate, positive WRT to the Sun and negative WRT to ocean warming from any cause, depends primarily on surface temperature (the Clausius-Clapeyron effect), and not on either Galactic Cosmic Rays or man’s CO2 emissions. The GCR effects on clouds is lost in the perpetual abundance of CCNs from other sources. Man’s CO2 emissions are lost in the natural CO2 flux and the effects, instantaneous on much less than climate scales, of the temperature-dependent solubility of CO2 in water.
    The greenhouse effect and Svensmark’s GCR hypothesis are not wrong, they’re just too small to be measured. In the state-of-the-art of measurements, neither rises to the level of a scientific fact.

      • Very civil. Speaking for everyone, thank you.
        You’ve added a sixth TSI reconstruction into the mix. I’m a little curious how it compares the others, but it’s not worth the research. If the climate model doesn’t allow for cloud cover feedback, and here the more important aspect is its amplification of TSI, then refining the TSI model is, to use the trite analogy, like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. (That needs updating, too.)

        • Before one discusses what influence TSI has on the climate one should have a plausible series of TSI values, so getting TSI right is well worth doing.

      • A conventional wisdom in one particularly school of exercise physiology in the pay of sports drinks is that thirst is a poor indicator of dehydration. The question put to these physiologists that they couldn’t answer is how do they know whether thirst is a good signal? How do they measure dehydration anyway?
        This seems quite analogous to getting TSI right. How would you ever know? TSI can’t predict itself, for if it could it would account for Cycle 24 falling off the bottom of the charts. If the TSI estimate doesn’t yield a climate model with predictive power, all evidence of its value is missing. The estimator might be useful in some political sense, like getting more funds or banning more technology, but scientifically it doesn’t matter whether it is right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, unless it yields a valid model.

        • Since variations in TSI are tied to the magnetic field of the Sun, we can know that we have TSI right by seeing how well the measurements and proxies we have for the magnetic field [extending back almost 200 years] account for TSI. I don’t think the value of TSI should be determined by the mediocre climate models we have now.

      • Why is this such a difficult concept to accept given all the documented evidence (SSN reconstruction errors and miss-calculations)? It reminds me of the time when men resolutely said that sperm had a little baby in the head and women were just the oven. It is long past the day when that has been proven wrong. The old reconstructions are like the sperm filled with a little baby in the body of the organism. Word to the wise: Let it go!
        There. Maybe that will wake up the commentators. Or, on the other hand, I will be burned at the stake as a leprechaun witch.

    • What is wrong is the claim that either The greenhouse effect and Svensmark’s GCR hypothesis are major driver of climate. If their effects are trivially small and cannot be measured there is nothing to discuss.

      • Re: Lsvalgaard 3/10/15 @ 8:41 pm
        What is wrong is the claim that either The greenhouse effect and Svensmark’s GCR hypothesis are major driver of climate. If their effects are trivially small and cannot be measured there is nothing to discuss.
        Perhaps we might profitably discuss what went wrong (i.e., can’t predict) with climatology and the GCMs. We might discuss how to scrap IPCC’s goal of scaring Policymakers, and how to insert the scientific goal of finding the causes of climate. We might discuss the epistemological problem of how to bring objectivity back into the physical sciences of academia. We might discuss how to restore science to the professional journals, which by and large have turned into gatekeepers for the dogma of the day; replace publish or perish — the spirit Of academia, By academia, and For academia — with models of the real world with predictive power.
        Our plate is full.

  23. From the paper:
    “..the reduction in flux in CR in times of high solar activity is hypothesized to result in less cloud nucleation and fewer cloud condensation nuclei, and consequently, reduced low-level cloud amounts. This, in turn, leads to a higher solar radiation flux at the Earth’s surface, and warmer temperatures.”
    I suggest that faster solar wind will increase positive NAO/AO states giving a more northerly atmospheric circulation pattern, but will also increase La Nina conditions and cool the AMO, e.g. as in the mid 1970’s. Both the inter-annual and even the inter-decadal divergence between the aa index and the global mean surface T can be accounted for by better understanding of oceanic negative feedbacks. Of course this would imply a direct forcing from the solar wind and not from the GCR’s, which don’t follow the aa index well anyway.

  24. After reading the paper, one of the weaknesses is that the paper discusses the century warming trend but the new CCM method used for finding causality does not seem appropriate for finding non-linear dynamics that operate on long time scales. On the other hand, based on my short research on the method, I think it is appropriate for finding the shorter correlations. The paper does in part discuss this weakness with the comment that on page 3, column 1. “The results presented in Fig. 2 show that although CR and ΔGT both exhibit evidence for nonlinear dynamics, the raw GT time series does not. It is likely that evidence for nonlinearity is masked by the strong linear trend dominating the raw GT record over the course of the 20th century.”
    For temperature changes that occur fairly rapidly, the temperature record will represent those changes well. Therefore, CCM can be used. For longer term temperature changes, that are smaller in overall magnitude, the temperature record won’t necessarily reflect those changes very well if at all at the time that they occurred. And second, longer term changes in temperature have more potential variables that impact the change increasing the complexity.
    One way of deducing how poor the temperature record is is to look at the changes made over the last 10 years to that record by NOAA and the changes that they continue to make year over year. Some of the changes seem politically motivated and some are simply due to the low quality of the measurements.

  25. “Remember a few weeks ago when the weather on Mars was making the news? At the time, parts of the Red Planet was experiencing temperatures that were actually warmer than parts of the US. Naturally, there were quite a few skeptics. How could a planet with barely any atmosphere which is farther from the Sun actually be warmer than Earth?
    Well, according to recent data obtained by the Curiosity rover, temperatures in the Gale Crater reached a daytime high of -8 °C (17.6 °F) while cities like Chicago and Buffalo were experiencing lows of -16 to -20 °C (2 to -4 °F). As it turns out, this is due to a number of interesting quirks that allow for significant temperature variability on Mars, which at times allow some regions to get warmer than places here on Earth.
    It’s no secret that this past winter, we here in North America have been experiencing a bit of a record-breaking cold front. This was due to surges of cold air pushing in from Siberia and the North Pole into Canada, the Northern Plains and the Midwest. This resulted in many cities experiencing January-like weather conditions in November, and several cities hitting record-lows not seen in decades or longer.
    For instance, the morning of November 18th, 2014, was the coldest since 1976, with a national average temperature of -7 °C (19.4 °F). That same day, Detroit tied a record it had set in 1880, with a record low of -12 °C (11 °F).”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-mars-warmer-earth.html

  26. The data presented by the historical climatic record shows if one superimposes all of the items that I mention below they will fit in with the historical climatic temperature record.
    All arguments that try to claim otherwise (and we know who you all are) are in denial of the historical climatic temperature record and how the data applies or conforms to it.
    The problem is if you try to take one item that impacts the climate at a given time and do not evaluate it against the whole spectrum of items that impact the climate at that given time in conjunction with that item, the correlation which does exist could be obscured. This is the down fall of so many and is very OBVIOUS with many of the posters. They have the mentality on item cause and effect ,and it does not work that way.
    What fits the global temperature trend data the best since the Holocene Optimum- Present is what I suggest below.
    My thoughts on what drives the climate conform to what the data shows(present/past), unlike AGW theory which totally ignores the data both present and past.
    AGW theory wants the data to conform to what it suggest, not the other way around.
    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/md99-2275_jiang2015_1.png
    More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.
    My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles, (in addition to Land /Ocean Arrangements ,Land Mean Elevation, Mean Temperature Gradient (pole to equator),Initial State of The Climate(how far from glacial /inter-glacial threshold the climate is and or ice Dynamic) were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.
    To further refine and account for the historical climatic trend the phase of the PDO,AMO and ENSO, along with Volcanic Activity has to be superimposed upon the above.
    Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things. I am going to send just one more item of data and rest my case.
    http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg

    • Again, Greenland temperatures through the Holocene move inversely to the mid latitudes so the global trend would tend to be the reverse, as can be seen on the Vostok core proxy. And also the very warm period from around 2750 BC, from when the Minoan culture flourished, their final demise was around 1200 BC, along with many others:
      http://mclean.ch/climate/figures_2/Vostok_to_10Kybp.gif

    • The Vostok proxy does though indicate an increase in intensity of cold events through the last ~3000 years. It’s possible that the general slow rise previous to that could have been long term ocean heat accumulation.

    • I am going to send just one more item of data and rest my case.
      Resting your case with data which is wrongly dated and which you’ve been told before is wrongly dated, doesn’t help your case.

  27. The relationship between galactic cosmic ray flux and prolonged solar activity has shown up time and time again in the data.
    This move to fabricate and or change the data by some I simply ignore because that is garbage in and garbage out as some have said.

  28. There is a correlation, but no evidence of causation. How is that determined except to rule out every other correlation?

  29. More climate heresy (We KNOW it is ALL caused by the demon-gas CO2)
    Thanks to Albert Jacobs.
    No opinion – will read later.
    Best, Allan
    This is the title of two papers by David Douglas and Robert Knox in Physics Letters A
    The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures
    Physics Letters A
    Volume 379, Issue 9, 17 April 2015, Pages 830–834
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012213
    Abstract
    In part I, equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature index SST3.4 was found to have segments during 1990–2014 showing a phase-locked annual signal and phase-locked signals of 2- or 3-year periods. Phase locking is to an inferred solar forcing of 1.0 cycle/yr. Here the study extends to the global ocean, from surface to 700 and 2000 m. The same phase-locking phenomena are found. The El Niño/La Niña effect diffuses into the world oceans with a delay of about two months.
    Physics Letters A
    Volume 379, Issue 9, 17 April 2015, Pages 823–829
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012201
    The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures
    Abstract
    Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper). The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data. This is found to be significant for understanding the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon.

  30. Ulric says,
    The Vostok proxy does though indicate an increase in intensity of cold events through the last ~3000 years
    My reply
    This conforms to the GISP2 record. They both show an overall down trend in global temperature.

    • Or it could call into question the validity of the GISP proxy, especially the last 800yrs, it looks rather unrealistic that the temperature range is only 0.5°C through the whole period. From my frame of reference there should be warm spikes in GISP through the LIA in Europe.
      The coldest part of Maunder does show warmer on GISP, as does the coldest years of Dalton (1807-1817), and the equally cold 1836-1845 on CET. Warmer years in Maunder show colder on GISP (around 1666 & 1686), and the very sharp rise on CET from 1690 to the 1720’s, is a strong cooling on GISP. Previous cold years on GISP around the 1610’s and 1540 were very warm in Europe, and the known cooling from the 1560’s in Europe turns much warmer on GISP. Around 1740 also stands out as warm on GISP:
      http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
      http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

  31. I have a question. Leif, how would your reconstructed sunspot numbers effect the butterfly chart? And do you have the reconstructed numbers in a graph without the comparison to the current numbers?
    In general I think too much weight is placed on sunspot numbers, not all sunspots are geoeffective. Even TSI may not be able to measure the effects of the sun on the Earth or the effects of space when our magnetic shield shrinks. When the sun spits our way, the effect we see depends on where the Earth is in its rotation, orbit and wobble. We are trying to simplify a complex system down to two charts, sunspot and temp. And yet in my unscientific observation we are more likely to have wicked weather and nasty winds after the sun beans us, depending on when and where it beans us and the effect depends on if its from a coronal hole, sunspot or filament that does it. But that is weather manifested in our atmosphere… sunspot numbers don’t explain that. I am happy to see so much research going on in other realms of possibility. We have a quiet sun .. the data may prove to be less chaotic and not go unobserved.

    • Both the sunspot number and the butterfly chart depend on the observer [telescope, acuity, counting method, etc] so are affected rather much the same way. The sunspot number is a disk average proxy for the magnetic flux on the sun and on its average effect on the Earth. And a VERY good proxy at that. Now, it is customary for people who claim the Sun is the major driver of climate [not weather from day to day] to blame the sunspot number as not being a good measure when their pet theories are not quite confirmed by the sunspot correlation.
      See the contribution by noted solar physicist Jan Stenflo: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf
      “This example shows that the average unsigned vertical magnetic flux density has a remarkably tight correlation with the sunspot number”.

    • After 100 hours of flying at an altitude of 12 km above the Arctic Circle, the radiation dose exceeds 1 miliSv. Per year will receive a higher dose of radiation than nuclear power plant worker.

  32. Does anyone else find it mind boggling to contemplate that energy emitted from a star before mankind stood erect could have an effect upon today’s climate?

      • ren What I see is there’s no difference between comic rays and solar energetic particles except the solar wind arrives from the same direction were cosmic rays travel further and come from any direction .
        ” Cosmic rays are high energy charged particles, originating in outer space, that travel at nearly the speed of light and strike the Earth from all directions. Most cosmic rays are the nuclei of atoms, ranging from the lightest to the heaviest elements in the periodic table. Cosmic rays also include high energy electrons, positrons, and other subatomic particles. The term “cosmic rays” usually refers to galactic cosmic rays, which originate in sources outside the solar system, distributed throughout our Milky Way galaxy. However, this term has also come to include other classes of energetic particles in space, including nuclei and electrons accelerated in association with energetic events on the Sun (called solar energetic particles), and particles accelerated in interplanetary space” http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/rmewaldt/cos_encyc.html
        “Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the reactions results in ozone depletion. Cosmic rays are also responsible for the continuous production of a number of unstable isotopes in the Earth’s atmosphere, such as carbon-14, via the reaction” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
        The poles are were earth electromagnetic force fields is at it’s weakest to cosmic rays, as you have pointed out above. This proses exploits the same pathway, http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?topic=245.0 (spacequakes) and the sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energetic_particles

    • “Very High Energy Cosmic Rays: When high energy cosmic rays undergo collisions with atoms of the upper atmosphere, they produce a cascade of “secondary” particles that shower down through the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. Secondary cosmic rays include pions (which quickly decay to produce muons, neutrinos and gamma rays), as well as electrons and positrons produced by muon decay and gamma ray interactions with atmospheric atoms.”
      http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/rmewaldt/cos_encyc.html

  33. Thank you, thank you for your inquiring and logical mind. Only the particles GCR operate in the lower parts of the atmosphere. As you know, the primary radiation energy (protons) it enables them to.
    GCR may also increase ozone in the winter. Created to ozone must be smashed the particle O2. In the winter a UV on the polar circle does not work. Energy can come from cosmic radiation, as evidenced by a local increase in temperature over the Arctic Circle.

  34. Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light) and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light). The number of cosmic rays with energies beyond 1 GeV decreases by about a factor of 50 for every factor of 10 increase in energy. Over a wide energy range the number of particles per m2 per steradian per second with energy greater than E (measured in GeV) is given approximately by N(>E) = k(E + 1)-a, where k ~ 5000 per m2 per steradian per second and a ~1.6. The highest energy cosmic rays measured to date have had more than 1020 eV, equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball traveling at approximately 100 mph!

    • The highest energy cosmic rays measured to date have had more than 10^20 eV, equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball traveling at approximately 100 mph!

  35. So what they’re saying is that turning on the stove today makes it hot, but turning it on yesterday didn’t even though they didn’t have data confirming OR contradicting that the stove was on?

  36. Care to know what made me suspect that this study was sketchy? It was the following statement:

    For this analysis, we use the aa index (21) as the CR proxy. This index is a well-documented proxy that characterizes magnetic activity resulting from the interaction between solar wind and Earth’s magnetic field (stronger solar wind → stronger magnetic disturbances → higher aa index). The GT record we used is the HadCRUT3 set of the United Kingdom’s Met Office.

    Why did that make me suspicious? It was because it was science by assertion—they simply asserted that the aa index was a “well-documented proxy” for cosmic rays. When someone does that, when they simply claim that X is a good proxy for Y without any backup, my urbane legend detector starts going off. What’s an urbane legend? It’s like an urban legend, but it’s so smooth, so tempting, that even scientists believe it …
    In any case, I did what I do when I get suspicious. I got the data. The best measurement that I know of for cosmic rays is the neutron count. Here are the aa index, the neutron count, and the sunspot record.

    As you can see, the aa index is a very poor proxy for the cosmic rays. So whatever “modest” effect they are claiming to find … it has nothing to do with cosmic rays.
    w.

    • On the centennial trend estimates of geomagnetic activity indices
      D. Martini,¹ H.-J. Linthe,² V. S. Pandey, and D.-H. Lee¹
      Received 26 January 2012; revised 29 March 2012; accepted 27 April 2012; published 8 June 2012.
      Abstract
      [1] In this paper we reanalyze the centennial trend estimates of a number of selected geomagnetic indices. We show that the peculiar latitudinal ordering of century long trends is mainly an artifact related to different scales. Using a scaling method that takes into account the statistical dispersion of the variables alleviates most of the discrepancies associated with latitude dependence. We demonstrate that geomagnetic activity had a roughly homogenous increase over the Northern Hemisphere during 1901–2000 of about 23%, as registered by digital measures. On the other hand, midlatitude data are shown to possess a distinct disproportion dominantly around solar cycle 15. We also demonstrate that analog indices tend to consistently depict lower activity levels in the early decades, thus considerably larger overall increases of about 32% during the twentieth century. This is likely due to the typically conservative approach in quantifying irregular activity (the K value) in those early years with a large number of quiet days. The recently corrected aa index shows an increase on par with similarly analog but local measures at Niemegk and Sodankylä stations. These results show that after its vital calibration, the widely used aa index does quantify reasonably well the global centennial increase in geomagnetic activity.
      .
      .
      .
      [4] The centennial trends estimated by these indices led to more complex and somewhat puzzled picture, though. Svalgaard et al. [2004] found no (actually negligible) centennial increase in geomagnetic activity in 1900–2000, based on the compiled IHV index of one midlatitude station, FRD (Fredericksburg). Later on Mursula et al. [2004] and Mursula and Martini [2006] reanalyzed the long-term characteristic of geomagnetic activity as registered by the IHV index, using a number of stations (including FRD) from all major latitude regions of the northern hemisphere. It was found that typically during the second decade of the last century most stations changed their sampling from one measurement per hour to the proper hourly mean sampling. Naturally, the sampling change affected data variability, resulting significantly larger IHV values before the sampling change was applied. After correcting the indices to this effect the average activity level at all studied station was found to be higher at the end of the century than in the early decades. That is, clear centennial increase was observed in the average activity level.

  37. They say “We show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming [..]”. But then they say “We find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend; [..] Thus, although CR clearly do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend,[..]“.
    To my simple mind, they have no justification for leaping from We find no measurable evidence to CR clearly do not contribute measurably“. Failing to find something is a long way from showing specifically that it does not exist.
    [I have not read all the comments, so apologies if anyone has already pointed this out, but I note that Willis has recently done a neat destruction on different lines.]

    • Only if you want your model to be an accurate and reliable guide to reality … which isn’t all that common in climate modeling. But yes, to test your model it’s good to have data that’s more accurate than the model …
      w.

  38. http://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/
    The data presented by the historical climatic record shows if one superimposes all of the items that I mention below they will fit in with the historical climatic temperature record.
    .
    What fits the global temperature trend data the best since the Holocene Optimum- Present is what I suggest below.
    My thoughts on what drives the climate conform to what the data shows(present/past), unlike AGW theory which totally ignores the data both present and past.
    AGW theory wants the data to conform to what it suggest, not the other way around.
    The data shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend,, punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.
    My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles, (in addition to Land /Ocean Arrangements ,Land Mean Elevation, Mean Temperature Gradient (pole to equator),Initial State of The Climate(how far from glacial /inter-glacial threshold the climate is and or ice Dynamic) were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.
    To further refine and account for the historical climatic trend the phase of the PDO,AMO and ENSO, along with Volcanic Activity has to be superimposed upon the above.
    Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things. I am going to send just one more item of data and rest my case.

  39. I am being very naughty. When I hear the AGWers talking. (And it is amazing the number now admitting ‘they’ don’t really know what causes climate change’ – can you believe that?)
    I say kindly ‘Look up at the sky and note the color of the leaves on the deciduous trees’
    I’ve been on this blog for years. And no one who supports AGW will or never has convinced me that humans have any effect on the climate or weather. However, we have created pollution and land misuse and over exploitation. If humans cut down large areas of rain forest, yes, the precipitation patterns can change as was proved years ago by scientist employed to study this. The clouds grow at higher altitudes and it can effect rain patterns up to 200 km away. Now they are regrowing tracks of rain forest in between grazing areas. Might help. I heard in our New England region, some farmers were offered 40,000 dollars from the government to put in more dams, but grow native tree breaks and corridors. One farmer was very happy to do this, but she hoped the wild life would NOT eat the young trees before they had time to establish. Young trees must be watered or they will die off very quickly until they mature enough to just rely on rain.
    I know one thing, the sun’s orbit and galactic rays will influence the climate to a degree when there are active sun spots they will divert the rays from the Earth’s atmosphere where they meld with water molecules and create more clouds and hopefully rain.
    Watch for more storms during our change of seasons. It happens and we can’t change it.
    Cheers from Australia.

Comments are closed.