![cosmic_rays_hit_earth[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/cosmic_rays_hit_earth1.jpg?quality=83)
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
- Anastasios A. Tsonis
- Ethan R. Deyle
- Robert M. May
- George Sugihara
- Kyle Swanson
- Joshua D. Verbeten
- 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)
http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/03/doe-scientists-confirm-natural-climate-change-past-warmer-than-modern-era-global-warming-fabricate.html
This ties all the various methods of obtaining data for the historical temperature record for the globe. .
Thanks for this, Salvatore!
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/10/the-ipccs-ar5-expert-uncovers-absurd-cherry-picking-climate-science-in-latest-report.html
Antarctic Ice Core gives pretty much the same climate picture as it’s northern counterpart.
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/
Here is the entire link showing graph after graph of historical climatic trends all conforming to one another.
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”.
GCR dose dependence of the solar wind at a height of 12 km.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/28wh5x2.jpg
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/docs/NAIRAS_HQBrief_Nov2010.pdf
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.
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?
GCR ionization depending on the latitude.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/at3ic.jpg
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/docs/NAIRAS_HQBrief_Nov2010.pdf
.
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/
Below from Phil.
Resting your case with data which is wrongly dated and which you’ve been told before is wrongly dated, doesn’t help your case.
MY REPLY -Phil see the link above why don’t you go about discrediting all of that data while you are at it which verifies all of the original data I had sent which you refer to?
For those that are truly interested these books free from Google are a must read .
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ichps-NC8agC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=electrons+and+albedo&source=bl&ots=PvKW8R5Psv&sig=EumX3sN3MLkQYX39fAJanqu5XdM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i2H_VOCyBoab8QWWpICICw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=electrons%20and%20albedo&f=false
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mKLv68WBu5kC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=electrons+and+albedo&source=bl&ots=cq0-fatQgt&sig=ZlMXv_IeuF1P6geRGnEy378uXw4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i2H_VOCyBoab8QWWpICICw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=electrons%20and%20albedo&f=false
The Earth, 1: The Upper Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and Magnetosphere
edited by Charlotte W. Gordon, Vittorio Canuto, W. Ian Axford
http://oi60.tinypic.com/11hdvev.jpg
http://oi61.tinypic.com/10endpg.jpg
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
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.
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!
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?
Care to know what made me suspect that this study was sketchy? It was the following statement:
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.
But pretty damn good related to sunspots, thus TSI.
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.
I was a referee on a earlier version of this paper; here is my review:
“The paper is deeply flawed. I have in an attachment described the problems. I do not think that publication with subsequent public rebuttal will be a reasonable solution. That will just create ‘bad blood’ with no benefit for anybody. The fundamental problem is that one cannot use an auroral zone station for long-term assessment of global geomagnetic activity caused by solar wind interaction and thereby learn something about the Sun [which I assume was the purpose of the special issue]. The zone moves in response to solar activity and indices thus reflect more the dynamics of the oval than of the solar wind and cannot really be compared to other [more direct] solar wind proxies. This is made worse by the changes in the Earth’s main
field [movement of the magnetic pole] so that the result is a convolution of solar wind changes and main field changes. In theory one might deconvolve these two effects suing many stations [and not just one, SOD], but it is a lot simpler to use indices like IHV and Am that do not suffer from the moving zone syndrome. This has already been done, e.g. by Cliver and myself and Lockwood et al. You can of course overrule me, in which case a rebuttal might follow [although I think it is a bad idea]. Alternatively, one might simply ignore the paper, but my experience with the debacle about aa and Lockwood suggests that other people will then waste their time on the paper.”
There problem is that one cannot use auroral zone stations for this. However the whole issue is moot because both I and Lockwood now agree that there was no such ‘centennial’ trend, c.f. slide 19 of http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-2014-Sapporo.pdf
The reason is explained in section A5 of http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
You may also consult http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
especially Figure 1
There was no ‘centennial rise’. Instead there is 100-yr wave low around 1900 and 2008 with a maximum in mid-century. The wave continues back into the 19 th century.
Thank you for your reply, Dr. Svalgaard.
Is seems that the only point of contention is whether geomagnetic activity was at a high mid century or at the end of the century.
.
The less contentious Kp geomagnetic index is available since 1965, according to paper Solar cycle effects in planetary geomagnetic activity: Analysis of 36-year long OMNI dataset by Papitashvili et al.[2000] concerning the OMNI satellite data set.
For the period 1996-2010, Attribution of interminima changes in the global thermosphere and ionosphere by Emmert et al.[2013], attributes a portion of the recent EUV anomaly to the decline in geomagnetic activity, as indicated by the Kp geomagnetic index.
This is not contentious, regardless of the poor Martini paper. The linear version of Kp is called Ap, and it is possible to construct ap all the way back into the 1840s:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png
Yes, Dr. Svalgaard, measurements taken from the OMNI satellites (optically) match your own.
Is there a document that includes your graph?
What is the significance of “SWPC,” for example?
Thank you
Slide 30 of http://www.leif.org/research/What-Geomagnetism-can-Tell-Us-about-the-Solar-Cycle.pdf
Kp and Ap [and other geomagnetic indices] can be calculated with precision from solar wind data, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Coupling-Function-AMS93.pdf
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard, appreciate the links.
Answered my own question.
SWPC stands for the Space Weather Prediction Center.
Solar wind measurements taken from the OMNI satellite are correlated with the terrestrial Kp index in the paper by Papitashvili et al.[2000]
The Kp and Ap indices are maintained by German Research Centre for Geosciences. See Explanation Geomagnetic Kp Index
So you’re saying that solar activity has no effect on the position of the polar vortex?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_nh_f120.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2015.gif
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.]
Hi willis Would you agree that to be a good modeller you have to be a good data collector ?
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.
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.
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.