I read yesterday that someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather. So I went to look it up. The study is called Cloud cover anomalies at middle latitudes: links to troposphere dynamics and solar variability, by S. Veretenenkoa and M. Ogurtsova, paywalled here. Let’s look at this one backwards, first the data and then their explanation of the data. Here’s their money graph, showing the relationship between the low cloud anomaly (LCA) and the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) for the period June 1983 – December 2009:
Figure 1. ORIGINAL CAPTION: Time variations of LCA [low cloud anomaly] and GCR [galactic cosmic ray] fluxes (detrended monthly values) in the Northern (a) and Southern (b) hemispheres. Thick lines show 12-month running averages of LCA; c) correlation coefficients between yearly values of LCA and GCR fluxes for sliding 11-yr intervals in the Northern (solid line) and Southern (dashed line) hemispheres. Dotted lines show the significance levels: 0.95 (curves 1) and 0.99 (curve 3) for the Northern hemisphere; 0.99 (curve 2) for the Southern hemisphere.
Now, my interpretation of this data is that we see very little correlation between the two datasets. There is a period of common increase from about 1990 to 1997, but other than that the correlation is poor.
In addition, galactic cosmic rays vary basically in synchrony with the solar magnetic field, which like sunspots has an approximately 11 year cycle. Their data is 26.5 years long, a bit more than two cycles. This is far, far, far too short to establish any kind of correlation.
So looking at their data, I wouldn’t even begin to make any claims of anything. The data is too short, the correlations are too sketchy, and there are no common cycles in the two datasets.
Having seen that, here is their interpretation of the results as given in their abstract, from the above link:
Highlights
• Cloud cover at extratropical latitudes is closely related to cyclonic processes.
• Links between cloud cover and solar activity phenomena/galactic cosmic rays observed on the decadal tome scale are indirect and realized through changes in cyclonic activity.
• Effects of solar activity phenomena/galactic cosmic rays on troposphere dynamics at middle latitudes may vary depending on the state of the polar vortex.
Abstract
In this work we study links between low cloud anomalies (LCA) at middle latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations used as a proxy of solar variability on the decadal time scale. It was shown that these links are not direct, but realized through GCR/solar activity phenomena influence on the development of extratropical baric systems (cyclones and troughs) which form cloud field.
Let me stop here and discuss the first problem with the study, which is bad statistics. They have divided the clouds into low, middle and high clouds. These occur in low, middle and high latitudes in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This gives us no less than eighteen possible places to look for the putative effect.
The problem is that the more places you look, the more likely you are to find oddities. For example, they say regarding mid-latitude low clouds:
It is seen that a rather high positive correlation significant at the levels 0.95 (the Northern hemisphere) and 0.99 (the Southern hemisphere) was observed from the middle 1980s to the late 1990s.
Now, that would be meaningful IF they only looked in one place. But if you are looking in eighteen places (three cloud levels times three latitude zones time two hemispheres), your chances of finding something “significant” at the 0.95 level are better than fifty-fifty, meaning their finding is neither unusual nor significant in any manner.
To handle this you can use the “Bonferroni Correction”. For this we need the “p-value” they are using, which is one minus their significance level of 0.95, or 0.05. The Bonferroni Correction states that you divide that p-value by the number of trials, and the result is the p-value you need to find in order to actually be statistically significant at the 0.95 level. This means that for any of their findings to be significant, they need to have a p-value of 0.05 / 18 = 0.003. This is a significance level of 0.997, and none of their results have that level of significance.
Anyhow, that’s their bad statistics … moving on, you remember how over the short 26-year length of the record the two datasets were in agreement for only a brief period, and went totally out of phase after that? Here is their description of that same situation:
The violation of a positive correlation between LCA and GCR intensity which was observed in the 1980s–1990s occurred simultaneously in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in the early 2000s and coincided with the sign reversal of GCR effects on troposphere circulation.
I gotta confess, that is one stupendous piece of writing. Me, I would say something like “the two records agreed for a short while, but after that they diverged badly”.
Not the authors. They say that there is a pre-existing “positive correlation” that is “violated” in the early 2000s, followed by a “sign reversal of GCR effects” … say what? Sign reversal? Positive correlation violation? It is a ridiculously short record and even in that time the two datasets (LCA and GCR) diverge badly. You cannot draw any conclusions from that. Must say, though, I particularly admired their describing when the correlation totally falls apart as a time of “sign reversal of effects” …
Anyhow, the data is far too short, the two datasets disagree, their description is special pleading, and their statistics are bad. I cannot justify going any further than that, I try not to dig in dry holes.
Finally, do cosmic rays affect the weather? That’s a good question. I started out thinking they did, but I’ve been unable to find any significant 11-year cycles in any surface datasets. However, cosmic rays certainly might have some effect somewhere/ All I can say is despite looking in a lot of places, I’ve not seen any data to support that claim. The studies are like this one, they fall apart when examined closely.
Now, if you think differently, if you think there are valid studies showing that cosmic rays DO affect weather down here at the surface, then send me TWO LINKS, one to what in your opinion is the most solid study you know of, and one to the data used in that study. Don’t bother sending one link. I can’t analyze the purported claims without a link to both the study AND the data. And please don’t send me a data dump of fifty studies, I’m only one guy, no assistants, I can’t examine them all. I only want to know what you think is the one best shining example of a study that shows that GCRs are affecting surface weather, AND the data underlying that study.
My best to everyone. Here the rains have returned, and outside my window clouds thread themselves between the redwood trees on the far hillside, while a lethargic cat and I regard them through the glass … and I wish for all of you whatever in your world corresponds to watching it storm outside from a warm dry place.
w.
My Usual Request: Confusion is a huge stumbling block in written communication, so if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.
My Other Request: If you believe that e.g. I’m using the wrong method or the wrong dataset, please educate me and others by demonstrating the proper use of the right method or the right dataset. Simply claiming I’m wrong doesn’t advance the discussion.
Previous Posts Looking For The 11-Year Cycle:
I actually wrote about looking for the 11-year sunspots / solar magnetic field / solar wind / cosmic ray cycle in cloud data some time ago, viz:
Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01
So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature …
I also have posted a number of analyses of other solar studies and solar claims:
Congenital Cyclomania Redux 2013-07-23
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
Cycles Without The Mania 2013-07-29
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Sunspots and Sea Level 2014-01-21
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Riding A Mathemagical Solarcycle 2014-01-22
Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers for…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River 2014-01-25
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots 2014-02-22
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Solar Periodicity 2014-04-10
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium 2014-04-13
In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the amount of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive type…
The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid! 2014-05-24
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature 2014-06-06
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima 2014-06-23
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Volcanoes and Sunspots 2015-02-09
I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: …. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase…
Early Sunspots and Volcanoes 2015-02-10
Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored … I wanted to respond to Michele Casati’s claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s, it’s clear that volcanoes with a…
Sunspots and Norwegian Child Mortality 2015-03-07
In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled “Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norway”, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s the solar activity at birth affected a child’s survival chances. As you might imagine, this…
Changes in Total Solar Irradiance 2014-10-25
Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an…
The New Sunspot Data And Satellite Sea Levels 2015-08-13
[UPDATE:”Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate…
My Thanks Apologies And Reply To Dr Nir Shaviv 2015-08-17
Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shaviv” August 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the o…
The Missing 11 Year Signal 2015-08-19
Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I don’t think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one I’d not seen used before. One of the more sensitive …
Is The Signal Detectable 2015-08-19
[UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shaviv’s harmonic solar component was a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimetres, it is actually a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millime…
23 New Papers 2015-09-22
Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 “Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!…
Well, here when there’s aurora borealis, gets overcast. But I think that’s my luck only
Damn. . . I am prejudiced in favor of the suppostion that solar variability affects climate, and there is apparently no good evidence one way or the other.
There is superabundant evidence that solar variability, especially UV, is the dominant forcing in the climate of earth and other planets. Orbital and rotational mechanics are also a factor, however.
“There is superabundant evidence that solar variability, especially UV, is the dominant forcing in the climate of earth and other planets.”
Correct. In the last 27 months, there have been well over 200 peer-reviewed papers published that link solar variability to climate changes, including variations in cloud cover (linked to cosmic rays) that allow more SSR to heat the Earth’s surface (oceans) via shortwave cloud forcing.
2014: 93 papers:
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.CuJLOZMV.dpbs
2015: 95 papers:
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.zcsugBRr.dpbs
2016: 27 papers:
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#sthash.ke8huy7d.dpbs
kennethrichards April 9, 2016 at 11:36 pm
Yes, and I’m sure that this piece of trash currently under discussion will soon join the others on Pierre Gosselin’s 2016 list over at notrickszone.com … color me totally unimpressed. These days there is more garbage being published than real science.
In any case, did you miss the part about me being uninterested in a data dump of 200 papers? Let me repeat it for you:
Sorry, Kenneth, but I’m totally uninterested in lists of studies regardless how many studies they contain. That is not support for a solar effect, that is just handwaving. Heck, if you look at my posts above, the final one is about Pierre Gosselin’s notrickszone list, been there, done that …
w.
You were not the intended recipient of that post, Willis, as it was duly noted that you are uninterested in the consideration of scientific papers that solar forcing factors to climate changes. The 200+ scientific papers linking solar factors to climate changes published in the last 27 months were intended to be considered as resources for those who don’t agree with your perspective, and who instead are persuaded by the position that there “is superabudant evidence that solar variability, especially UV, is the dominant forcing in the climate of earth and other planets.” Hence the reply to Gloateus Maximus’ comment – and not to your post.
That said, do you disagree with the scientific evidence for radiation budget changes to being largely influenced by changes in cloud cover?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016128/full
As in the prior studies, which were restricted to lower latitudes, there is a significant increase in the TOA outgoing longwave radiation during the period 1985 to 1999 together with an increase in solar (shortwave) radiation absorbed by the climate system. It is suggested that these changes are related to an observed reduction in cloud cover.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf
Even a small change in the cloud cover modifies the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and affects the amount of absorbed solar radiation, even with no changes in the solar irradiance. Since the flux of CR is modulated by the solar magnetic activity, this provides a link between solar variability and climate
>>Kenneth
>>Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are
>>caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.
I think you forget, Ken, that Willis has written a paper saying that exact same thing – that cloud albedo has a measurable effect on climate. (Peer reviewed now??)**
Eschenbach, W. (2010)
The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis: How Clouds Control the Earth’s Temperature
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/4/201.abstract
.
However, the point being made here is: are those clouds modulated by sunspots and cosmic rays? The evidence presented thus far seems to show … ‘not a lot’. Not enough to show up clearly in the climate record.
R
** Willis, perhaps you should try Royal Society Open Science, they are very open to new ideas there that do not involve CO2. /sarc
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org
The authors of the paper in question write this:
“Thus, the cloud-GCR correlations remain a rather controversial question. Svensmark et al.
(2009) found significant changes of cloud water and aerosol content associated with strong Forbush
decreases of GCRs. Effects of short-term GCR variations on clouds were detected by Todd and
Kniveton (2001, 2004), Laken et al. (2010). However, no cloud response to GCR Forbush decreases
was reported by other researchers (Calogovic et al., 2010; Krissansen‐Totton and Davies, 2013).
Kristjanson et al. (2002, 2004) concluded that on the decadal time scale low clouds correlate better
with solar irradiance than with GCR fluxes. On the other hand, the correlations between clouds and
GCRs, as well as UV radiation seem to reveal regional and altitudinal dependences (Voiculescu et
al., 2006). In the work by Voiculescu and Usoskin (2012) the regions of positive and negative
correlations between low clouds and GCR variations were detected. The areas of significant
correlations with GCRs and UV radiation were also detected for middle and high clouds. The
interplanetary electric fields were found to be also of importance for cloud formation (Voiculescu et
al., 2013). Thus, the results mentioned above show that links between cloud cover variations and
GCRs, as well as other agents related to solar activity (SA) seem to be rather complicated and have
not been well understood yet.”
In my opinion, this paper does not deserve to be characterized as “a piece of trash” or “garbage” – especially if one has not read the entire paper before leaping to that conclusion.
Additionally, many of the 200+ papers linking the Sun to climate changes published in the last 27 months involve solar activity associations with precipitation, ENSO, etc, which, of course, affect regional weather. Temperature is just one aspect of climate.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140604/srep05159/full/srep05159.html
Discussion: The persistent presence of these solar cycles and their connections with monsoon records over a wide range of regions highlight the dominated solar control of the monsoon at centennial timescales. The persistence of these different periodicities also indicates that the influence of the low-frequency solar activity on the AM [Asian Monsoon cycle] is independent of other climate backgrounds, such as ice volumes, orbital configurations, and concentrations of major greenhouse gases.
Physical mechanisms of solar forcing on the Earth’s climate involve: 1) direct heating of the Earth by the TSI, 2) solar ultraviolet radiation mechanism through stratosphere–troposphere interaction, and 3) galactic cosmic rays mechanism via feedbacks of cloud formation. Generally, an increase of cosmic ray flux could increase the global low cloud amount and therefore decrease atmospheric temperature and moisture, and the monsoon intensity. Alternatively, if the variation in cloud cover is greater at higher latitudes, the cloud influence on the AM is likely also associated with the ocean circulation, because the high sensitivity of the sea ice at high latitudes to the Earth’s radiation budget is influenced by the cloud cover. The link between cosmic rays, cloud and climate in East Asia is further supported by a tree-ring δ18O record in Japan during the Maunder Minimum, which shows that minima of decadal solar cycles correlate to increase in relative humidity in East Asia, rapid cooling in Greenland and decrease in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature.
Kenneth, though I don’t think cosmic rays and solar effects on UV are the dominant effect on climate (though the latter seems like it could be a significant contributor), I agree with you far more than with Mr. Eschenbach, and I don’t think this paper should be regarded as “garbage”. How would it have passed peer-review if it was as bad as he says?
In any event, there is, as Tsonis et al. 2015 note,
And by the way, there are definitely papers in favor of solar influences on climate on all of those lists. Here are a few:
From the 2014 list there is this paper, which states:
From the 2015 list there is this paper, which states:
From the 2016 list there is this paper, which states:
So, while I definitely think that there is some type of influence of cosmic rays on clouds, I, for one, can’t be sure what that means for climate and the 20th century warming we’ve seen.
kennethrichards April 10, 2016 at 1:04 am
Say what? How dare you say I’m not interested in papers linking solar forcing to climate change after I have SPECIFICALLY ASKED PEOPLE TO SEND ME LINKS TO SUCH PAPERS AND THEIR DATASETS?!?!? That is a nasty, untrue accusation that you should be ashamed of.
There’s a missing word in the last sentence, but I think I got the question. Sure, radiation budget changes are influenced by changes in cloud cover. They are also influenced by changes in surface cover, changes in aerosol amounts, changes in cloud color, changes in CAPE, changes in abundance of cloud nucleating seeds, and a dozen other things … so what?
Finally, you say:
Well, that gives us all a good idea of the value of your opinion.
You see, a paper attempting to find 11-year natural cycles in 26 years of data is a joke. A paper attempting such a task when the two datasets involved diverge wildly halfway through the 26 years is a sick joke. A paper that claims said divergence is just a “reversal of effect” is simply making things up, spinning a tale to try to convince people that white is black.
And anyone who thinks that such a paper has any scientific merit at all is not a fan of science.
w.
PS—Of course I read the paper through to the conclusion, whatever makes you think I didn’t? That’s just more of your misrepresentation. I discussed only the data and the abstract because that was all that was necessary to falsify the study.
I think this is especially true considering there is an acknowledgement by the authors of a lack of strong correlation for a large part of the period studied and that the understanding of the “complicated” nature of cosmic rays and clouds/climate is still under construction.
In the original version of this 2014 paper, the abstract stated this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714005286
“We demonstrate that the detrended annual means of global surface air temperature in 1965–2012 show the maxima during CRs [Cosmic Rays] and Dst index [of the solar wind] minima. It proves that CRs [Cosmic Rays] play essential role in climate change and main part of climate variations can be explained by Pudovkin and Raspopov’s (1992) mechanism of action CRs [Cosmic Rays] modulated by the solar activity on the state of lower atmosphere and meteorological parameters.”
The emboldened part was subsequently removed in a later version – probably because using a word like “proves” is far too strong for a scientific paper.
In my view, it’s at least worth considering recently published peer-reviewed papers that provide support to links between the Sun and climate – even when one disagrees with the premise.
Willis:
Again, my original reply was to affirm Gloateus Maximus’ comment that “there is superabundant evidence that solar variability, especially UV, is the dominant forcing in the climate of earth and other planets.” It wasn’t intended for your consideration.
So why did you write that you are “totally uninterested” in lists of studies (linking direct and indirect solar factors to climate change) if you have specifically asked for people to send you links to such papers? Is it the large volume (200+ papers in the last 27 months) that’s the problem? How else does one interpret this comment:
And my apologies regarding the presumption re: reading the entire paper. The link provided above is, as you noted, paywalled, and you had stated that your comments were in reference to what was stated in the abstract. So it was my (wrong) assumption that you did not have access to the entire paper.
Additionally, Willis, when you wrote this about the 200+ Sun-Climate Influence papers published since 2014…
…it was my interpretation that you were essentially characterizing 200+ Sun-Climate Influence papers published since 2014 as “garbage” – as you were presuming that they are just as much a “piece of trash” as this particular paper. Is that not the correct interpretation?
How many of the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers advocating CAWG are not garbage?
Kenneth,
Thanks. Yes, that’s a little of what I had in mind.
I have no idea how many “garbage” ones there are on CAGW, but this one seems to qualify:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”
Michael E. Mann and four others published the peer-reviewed paper “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth” in Nature: Scientific Reports (DOI: 10.1038/srep19831). I shall call this authors of this paper “Mann” for ease. Mann concludes (emphasis original):
“We find that individual record years and the observed runs of record-setting temperatures were extremely unlikely to have occurred in the absence of human-caused climate change, though not nearly as unlikely as press reports have suggested. These same record temperatures were, by contrast, quite likely to have occurred in the presence of anthropogenic climate forcing.”
This is confused and, in part, in error, as I show below. I am anxious people understand that Mann’s errors are in no way unique or rare; indeed, they are banal and ubiquitous. I therefore hope this article serves as a primer in how not to analyze time series.
You seem to have a problem accepting that most of the solar-climate papers are garbage. You seem to suggest that if there are many peer-reviewed papers on a subject [e.g. sun-climate] that the majority of them are not garbage, so one mat infer that a similar acceptance of the CAWG papers… Is this correct, or do you, a priory, think that the ‘garbage-ratio’ is different? Or do you dodge the question by saying that you don’t know?
..Sorry Willis, I usually agree with all of what you post, BUT, in this case, you just seem to be whining. That’s just my humble opinion of course, so it doesn’t carry much weight !
Well, obviously, that’s your opinion, Leif. I don’t think your opinion carries more weight than the scientists who disagree with your opinions and who publish papers in peer-reviewed journals documenting a link between solar factors (direct and indirect) and the hydrological cycle, monsoon patterns, ENSO/AMO/PDO, albedo changes, SSTs, OHC…and thus climate. As someone who is open-minded, though, I’m always willing to at least consider opinions that run contrary to my current points of view.
Again, I have no idea what the “garbage-ratio” is for most papers on climate that make their way into peer-reviewed journals, CAGW or otherwise. I won’t even hazard a guess. If you consider it a “dodge” to admit that I don’t have an answer to your question, then so be it. I am not persuaded by your opinion that I should “accept” that papers that document a Sun-Climate association are “garbage.”
By the way, I believe you mean CAGW, not CAWG (you’ve written it that way twice now), assuming you are referring to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and not warming global.
Actually, the graph shown is not statistics at all, it is a PowerPoint overlay. To show a correlation, you have to graph the cosmic ray value versus the cloud value, and do a regression. From that, you do a correlation coefficient. When correlations cannot be found or the R2 value is poor, people resort to scaling two different things and overlaying them. Overlaid times series is not evidence of a statistical correlation. For example, you don’t overlay CO2 with time and global mean temp with time. You graph CO2 in x and some database of global or regional mean temp in y. For UAH lower tropopause lower 48 US states, the correlation is thus 0.03, random noise. This settles the correlation of CO2 and US lower atmosphere temperature.
‘you seem to have a problem accepting that most solar climate papers are garbage’. Does that include yours as well, Lord Kelvin????
“Let me stop here and discuss the first problem with the study, which is bad statistics. They have divided the clouds into low, middle and high clouds. These occur in low, middle and high latitudes in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This gives us no less than eighteen possible places to look for the putative effect.”
A while back I pulled out the cloud data from AIRS. And using Forbush events I started looking for the effect. I looked high and low ( every fricking Hpa not just three levels) I looked in the northern hemisphere, southern, over land, over water, In every grid cell. Only in those grid cells that were clear sky before the event.. etc etc etc
And As I sat there looking at slice after slice.. This little Willis jumped up on my shoulder. And whispered in my ear… if you look long enough you’ll always find something.
I looked in way more than 18 places.. I think I found one grid cell with the effect.
Steven, that doesn’t surprise me. Well, perhaps a bit, that you didn’t find it a few more places, but in my opinion if the effect is there it is very weak.
w.
Bravo! Both of you – for showing the world how skeptical science is supposed to be practiced.It was for this old fan of solar influence of climate to accept, but I’ll take disappointing facts over faithfull belief any day. Dr. Svalgaard’s statements make more sense to me now with my fantasy exposed to me.
Sorry, meant to say “hard to accept”
A Mosher post that we do not have to decypher !
Thanks, most informative. May the trend continue…
R
Not a scientist or ‘citizen scientist’ and I don’t really know exactly what you did looking for effects in Forbush Events, but, As I understand it (in my limited way) Forbush events are limited in time (2-3 days) and only have the effect of decreasing Galactic Cosmic Rays (abruptly followed by a gradual return to previous levels). If that is correct, I wouldn’t expect to find any effect in grid cells that were already ‘clear skies’ because a decrease in GCR, according to Svensmark’s Theory, would have the effect of decreasing cloud formation. I don’t know if Svensmark’s general theory about overall cloud patterns following GCR patterns is valid, but wasn’t the mechanism of cloud seed formation via GCR validated in CERN’s CLOUD experiment a few years ago?
See dougs comments for the other approach to using forbush events. I didn’t limit my looking to that either. But as Willis notes the time series length is short.
I like the Willis approach. Show me the data. Tell me what to look for. And I will look for it..
Here is my twist. If I don’t find it.. You pay me for my time. I’ll give you the code I write.
I will bet no solar fan boy will put their money on the line
Let’s remember Shaviv & Veizer 2003 found GCR very well correlated with about a 5C peak to peak *ocean* temperature variation over geologic time (in other words, a link between GCR and climate has been found) and Svensmark’s 2009 Forbush paper found a marked decrease in cloud moisture content a week after the larger events (it takes about a week for a cloud condensation nucleus to form), on the order of 7%.
I have every confidence in Eschenbach’s ability to not find a GCR link given his obvious desire not to find one. Assuming an effect is very large is a time-honored strategy to not find small effects… think of it this way… in the Veizer oxygen isotope ratio dataset, on the order of 30 billion days pass from ocean temps peak to trough. That integrates out solar variations, Milankovich cycles, glacials and interglacials. Perhaps just a bit too subtle an effect for some people.
For the climate debate, all the GCR effect needs to account for in the current debate is the theorized heat due to the assumed positive feedbacks acting on CO2 perturbations… during the unusually energetic solar cycles of the mid to late 20th century. I think it of a similar order of magnitude and that makes all the doomsday scenarios go away.
in other words, a link between GCR and climate has been found
To be precise: a link between the deposition of isotopes generated by GCRs and climate has been found. If that deposition is [even partly] controlled by climate, it is not surprising to find a link that it is…
Greg Goodknight April 12, 2016 at 10:32 am
Actually, we should remember Shaviv & Veizer 2003 claimed to find the exposure times of fifty iron meteorites were very well correlated with about a 5C peak to peak *ocean* temperature variation over geologic time. For a less adulatory view of the many problems in their study, see here.
Hogwash. I started this whole thing out as a true believer that small solar variations were visible in the climate. I’d believed that since I read about Herschel and wheat prices when I was a kid, and I thought it would be easy to find the data to back that up.
But no matter where I’ve looked, I haven’t found supporting data. I would still love to find some, but it hasn’t happened … not for lack of looking, though.
Not only that, but as in your case, nobody’s giving me two links to the good study and the data as used. Heck, you didn’t even give a link to the study, just some line about what they “found” … the Shaviv/Veizer study is here, sorry, no data available, just handwaving, read’m and weep.
w.
Here is an elegantly simple indication that cosmic rays do induce cloud formation: In the days after a Forbush event (a sudden decrease in cosmic rays), the range between daytime high temperatures and night time lows increases. The cause is assumed to be due to clearer skies.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/serbian-evidence-for-cosmoclimatology.html
TSI plus volcanoes comes close enough to reconstructed GASTA that any other factor can be effectively eliminated:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
Willis
This piece helped me a bit focus where one should look for the effect
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/
and also why it will be hard to find
Thanks, Mosh, that’s a very interesting link. After all of the looking I’ve done, my conclusion is that if there is an effect it is vanishingly small. I say this because if the effect were strong, it would have been nailed down by now chapter and verse.
w.
When you look at all the conditions that have to met you can begin to understand why it would be tough to find. For example, if you are looking at cloud cover and withoutT high CGR you have 100% cloud cover, its dang hard to get more cover than that.
Trusting science performed by people who didn’t understand the question is a great way to be mislead. Cosmic rays don’t cause clouds, they cause haze.
Increased cosmic rays won’t form a cloud over the Sahara in July regardless, but they may increase cloud mass.
If an overcast is reported its thickness and amount of water in the clouds are not in the historical record. All the records show is there was an overcast that day. The same with cumulus. Only their presence and percent of sky cover (partly cloudy, mostly cloudy). You have no idea the size of the cloud and water content.
Maybe you should be looking at amount of water condensed, not the presence.
brilliant
thanks
sample period too short
point well made
The problem is the rays don’t produce clouds, they produce haze. The assumption that they somehow go to one location and cluster is ludicrous.
There are day-to-day variations in the specular reflection of the sun that can only be explained by something akin to the word “haze.”
from NASA EPIC, or “Gore-sat”
(Himawari-8 provides superior multi-channel images of my side of the planet every 10 minutes. It might be a good resource for those trying to establish connections.)
“something akin to the word ‘haze'”
I’m not coming from any informed point of view, but perhaps sea surface conditions come into play? Choppy on the top left image reflecting sunlight away from the observer vs flat calm in the bottom right image. That effect is basically a function of local wind speed.
Just speculation on my part.
>>The rays don’t produce clouds, they produce haze.
Quite often we fly though miriads of ice crystals at 36,000 ft. Probably invisible from the ground, but certainly reflecting some insolation. And they do not seem to be the remains of thunderstorms or contraiIs (although can be sometimes).
Not sure if they can be created by cosmic rays, and not sure how much they increase the atmospheric albedo, but they are there.
R
As with the discussion of correlation of temp. with Maunder, Dalton etc. minimums… Multiple, additive (&/or subtractive!?) confounding factors…. Complex systems are… complex…. I suspect that there are significant contributions of Solar activity to Earth’s climate, but agree that finding the various needles in haystacks is not easy… Michael Crichton sums it up well re’ complex systems and inappropriateness of trying to apply simplistic analyses (not that I’m inferring that is what you are trying to do by any means… (:-)). I only came across this and other “Michael Crichton videos” today… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOP6JnaZgw
Would be interested in your opinion of S.Fred Singer and his works/opinions – how do you rate him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
It looks like there is a greater similarity between the patters during solar cycle 23, but not the preceding nor following. Maybe the polarity of the solar magnetic field matters. Also, the time delay is less for increasing strength than for decreasing — perhaps when the solar field weakens, the effect persists until the weakened field propagates outward a certain distance.
“the time delay is less for increasing strength than for decreasing”
yes, quite a bit less on average
this is what i found in the data 1818-2015
also, perhaps the randomness in the solar cycle may not be fully appreciated
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288826889_THE_HURST_EXPONENT_OF_SUNSPOT_COUNTS_A_NOTE
No Willis, you failing to see the potential in this line of argument. AGW works very much the same way.
It does not correlate in the early 20th c rise in temps; it anti-correlates from 1950-1975; there is a strong correlation from 1975-1997 and it fails to correlate from 1997 onwards during highest levels of CO2 since the creation event !!
The mid-century anti-correlation was just one more example of the “sign reversal” of the effect.
You really must get up to speed. Your slavish insistence on logic and statistics is soooo 20th century. 😉
Next you will be suggesting that fact that 30 y of climatology and five IPCC reports that have focused on a limited period where the correlation works means the results and conclusions are not valid.
WTF? If they are looking for a correlation between two variables why on earth would they be messing around with the data. Does it correlate or not? I don’t know which way it was “trending” before they messed with it.
There’s probably more chance of linking this Mt Pinatubo than GCR.
This is boiler plate climatology. Calculate ‘anomalies’ ; distort it a bit more with a crappy running mean “filter” ; detrend it to remove the assumed linear trend that all data has because of AGW….. then and only then, start to analyse the data.
(1) Wiggle-matching
(2) Plenty of autocorrelation
(3) Short period
Doesn’t look promising.
“I read yesterday that someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather.”
As Svensmark and others discovered, the association between cosmic rays and cloud is complex. As I recall, they claim thane association is with (low level) stratocumulus clouds.
You might find interesting the following references to Earth’s albedo, clods, and cosmic rays. As you know, albedo is a critical parameter in estimating radioactive energy reflected back into space, and it is the least precisely known.
1. SUNSHINE, CLOUDS AND COSMIC RAYS. E. Palle Bago and C.J. Butler.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PalleBago.pdf
The graphs printed may be more relevant to your investigation of the link between clods and cosmic rays.
2. Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance. P.R. Goode, E. Pallet
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.377.4049&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“A major change in albedo occurred between the early earthshine measurements and the more recent ones (Fig. 4). For the 1994/1995 period, Palle´ et al. (2003) obtained a mean albedo of 0.310 +/-0004, while for the more recent period, 1999/2001, the albedo is 0.295 +/-0.002 (with a 0.6% precision in the determination). The combined difference in the mean A between the former and latter periods is of 0:015 +/-0:005, assuming the 1994/1995 and 1999/ 2001 uncertainties are independent. This corresponds to a 5% 1+/-:7% decrease in the albedo between the two periods.”
End of quote
A 5% change in albedo means about 2.5% change in incoming radioactive energy,(240 W m-2) equivalent to about 6 W m- radioactive imbalance.. As the authors point out, a decline in albedo of this magnitude would be sufficient to account for one degree Celsius warming.
Compare this with James Hansen’s estimate of net radioactive imbalance of 0.58 W m-2. In 2011 Hansen and others revised their 2005 estimate of global energy imbalance from 0.85 Wm-2 to 0.58 Wm-2 based on later data.
Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.
The observed net cloud forcing is about four times larger than that expected from a doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere (Ramanathan et al., 1989, pg. 57). The SW and LW components individually are approximately 10 times as large as the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus anything increasing the cloud cover, such as a decrease in the air-earth electrical field produced by a cosmic-ray flux increase resulting from a weaker solar wind (Tinsley, 1996, 1997) may have an effect on the earth’s climate that is much greater than expected from the initial change in TSI. A variation in cloud cover of 3% during an average 11-year solar cycle produces an effect of approximately 0.8 to 1.7 W/m-2 (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997). Significantly, this amount is similar to the total radiative forcing of 1.56 W/m-2 estimated for the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (Lakeman, 1995). – Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change (AAPG Studies in Geology) , pg. 28, 29
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cloud%20radiative%20forcing.pdf
“Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. ..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.”
Willis,
“…..This is far, far, far too short to establish any kind of correlation.”
You shoulda just stopped there. End of post. Enough said. I’ll buy the bridge. Bah-da-boom.
Personally, I found Svensmark’s suggestions that there are correlations between Earth’s very long term climate and the Solar system’s position w.r.t. the spiral arms of our galaxy intriguing. I don’t have any references to published studies on that one…I only remember reading that in Svensmark’s book (something about “The Chilling Stars”, I think).
And just to be fair…you ask us to limit references to just a couple of articles but then you list something like 23 different posts we should read. Sorry, but I’m just one guy here and don’t have the time to read all those references either. 😉
i believe that is primarily the idea of Dr Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University, Inst for Adv Study) – see his wiki entry
The idea goes back to Ney:
“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].”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html#jCp
Lsvalgaard – fascinating – thanks
lsvalgaard
April 10, 2016 at 12:33 pm
“The idea goes back to Ney:
“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)”
Surely the idea properly goes back to C.T.R. Wilson (Wilson’s cloud chamber, perfected in 1911) who showed that charged particles including CR left a cloud trace in their passage through his apparatus. He won the Nobel Prize for it. He conceived of the idea when he saw the “spectre of the Brocken” in haze on Ben Nevis in Scotland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocken_spectre
He developed the cloud chamber specifically to investigate ionizing particles that caused condensation in trails (clouds). A baker’s dozen of scientists also got Nobel Prizes using the cloud chamber over the following 30-40 years to study fundamental particles.
Why doesn’t anyone mention this remarkable guy? Yes the effect appears to be small, but one would have to say it is there, perhaps as haze.
Willis: as usual thanks for your yeoman service in cleaning up the scientific chaff blowing around in the literature on climate. I used to think that a herculean effort would have to be mounted to shrink the awful scientific literature of this mannic period in history when it fizzles out. But, I see one could lop of 10s of thousands of papers in short order just by looking at the number of cycles of ‘data’ that was used, or the number of parameters, or those based on convoluted statistical methods to tease out an ugly correlation. Hell, if you have to do what most of these authors do with suspect data to get a correlation, it should never have been accepted for publication in the first place. The depressing part is the seemingly large number of people with scientific knowledge who come here to champion this kind of drek.
One thing I would mention, though, is the Svensmark idea can’t be dismissed yet. There are so many other variables affecting clouds that rise and recede over time that there may be a correlation that appears and then gets inundated by other effects that press upon the scene. This of course supports the notion that any effect must be relatively small.
As I said:
lsvalgaard April 11, 2016 at 12:03 am
Key elements of Svensmark’s hypothesis (not his alone) have recently been confirmed, by experiments at CERN and observations of nature
That is much too generous. That ions can serve as condensation nuclei has been known for a century [Wilson’s cloud chambers]. The CERN experiment just confirms that, but also shows that the effect is much too small to account for climate change [e.g. papers by Sloan and Wolfendale]. The recent climate data also falsify the hypothesis.
——-
the Svensmark idea can’t be dismissed yet.
Nobody is dismissing it, only the notion that it is the dominant [or even significant] driver.
Gary Pearse
April 11, 2016 at 8:36 am
lsvalgaard
April 10, 2016 at 12:33 pm
———————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks for this historical info…
Willis,
The increase in solar wind bursts due to solar coronal holes overrides an increase in GCR due to a weakening of the solar heliosphere.
To prove or disprove assertion the assertion solar cycle changes modulates planetary cover in high latitude regions it is first necessary to understand that there are three mechanisms by which solar cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover.
Are I moving too fast for you? Do you understand what is a solar coronal hole, what is a solar wind burst, what is the solar heliosphere, and what is the electroscavenging mechanism. I believe this is the third time you have made the same assertion that GCR increases do not cause an increase in high latitude cloud cover by quoting a paper that only looks at GCR and ignores the solar wind burst due to coronal holes.
You have also plotted sunspots vs planetary temperature and have ignored solar wind burst caused by coronal holes.
For some unexplained reason persistent long lasting coronal holes have been appearing on the surface of the sun late in the solar cycle when the number of sunspots on the surface of sun is low or zero and GCR is high.
The increase in solar wind bursts makes it appear if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account that an increase in GCR due to a weakening of the solar heliosphere does not cause an increase in high latitude cloud cover.
P.S.
The planet is about to abruptly cool. The cult of CAGW were able to continue to push their propaganda ignoring the fact that there has been an 18 year plateau of no warming by hand waving the 18 year period of no warming as opposed to providing a physical explanation as to why global warming stopped and why the CAGW theory is completely incorrect. The cult of CAGW’s paradigm will fall apart when there is in your face global cooling.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar cycle changes, the solar cycle has been interrupted, it appears we are going to experience a Henrich event.
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
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
The following is a review paper that discusses some of the mechanisms by which solar changes modulate planetary climate.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Note there are dozens and dozens of peer reviewed papers that note there is a correlation of solar cycle changes and planetary temperature changes. The question is not if solar cycle changes modulate planetary temperature but rather how.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PersistentSolarInfluence.pdf
The same cycle of warming and cooling (with the same periodicity of cycle) is found in the Southern hemisphere which supports the assertion that cycle is caused by solar cycle changes which are periodic and affect both hemisphere as opposed unidentifiable internal climate changes which are chaotic.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html
Does anyone notice a pattern in cooling of the planet? High latitude regions?
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.4.7.2016.gif
The largest increase in Southern ice cover in recorded history was an indication of what will happen next. There was a mechanism in the Northern hemisphere which was inhibiting the cooling in the Northern hemisphere.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
the solar cycle has been interrupted
No, Wiiliam. It has not [apart from the vague notion of ‘interrupted’]. It is about the 100th time you repeat that mantra. Increasing that number does not make that notion true.
You and the cult of CAGW are on the incorrect side of a scientific argument that will be settled by observations. Significant global cooling is going to be a paradigm changing event.
The public and media are going to require an explanation for sudden in your face abrupt high latitude cooling of the planet. There will be record sea ice both hemispheres with the most amount of cooling occurring in the Northern hemisphere. (Same as has occurred in the past, when there was an interruption to the solar cycle.)
The madness of crowds and the power of political correctness (no one wants be labeled a denier and everyone wants to advance their academic career) is truly amazing. Try to imagine the public’s and media’s response to unequivocal cooling as the details of the paleo record becomes known.
What will the cult of CAGW’s response be to in your face high latitude planetary cooling? We forgot that there are cycles of high latitude warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar cycle changes? We did not notice that there was the largest increase in southern sea ice in recorded history? We did not notice that was an abrupt change to the solar cycle as we were so busy pushing CAGW.
People mindless plug observations into incorrect theories ignoring the paradoxes and anomalies that are created. The correct mechanisms/theory makes all of the anomalies and paradoxes go away. The trick is not to guess, use the observations as the primary guide and to ignore incorrect theories that are not supported by observations.
Big surprise, cyclic warming and cooling and cyclic abrupt cooling that occurred in the past (is observed in both hemispheres in the paleo record) happened for a physical reason. Cyclic abrupt large changes in climate require a cyclic large forcing function. The forcing function is the sun.
Solar cycle changes caused what happened in the past as the sun is significantly different than the standard model.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf
You and the cult of CAGW are on the incorrect side of a scientific argument
You have not made any scientific arguments, and you don’t understand that CAGW needs the solar connection in order to explain climate change before SUVs.
William Astley April 10, 2016 at 12:51 am
No … but you are moving far too vaguely, too speculatively, and too unpleasantly for me.
Regards and regrets,
w.
William Astley 12:51 says: “The planet is about to abruptly cool.”
Please provide brief explanations for: 1. about, 2. abruptly, and 3. cool.
I think I know what ‘planet’ means, so I guess you mean 1, 2, & 3 will be global.
As a reader, I don’t want to just make stuff up, although I can – such as
about = April 12;
abruptly = -0.2 C. degrees per day;
cool = – 4 degrees lower by May 1.
Your turn.
John,
“… I think I know what ‘planet’ means …”
We all thought we did until they changed their minds about Pluto.
….Oh FFS, it’s snowing in Southern Ontario AGAIN !!! America, please share some of your Glo.Bull Warming with Canada, we are your neighbors ya know !! Dang Glo.Bull Warming hogs…Sheesh !!
And why weren’t these offensive remarks by Marcus censored???? {;)
..What, Oh, For Freddy’s Sake ?? LOL
Being on Canada’s southern coast — it snowed in northern Ohio too!
Yes tell me about it, nothing like a El Nino to make some crazy weather. Our winter has been milder than usual, but this been an intense spring.
http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.jastp.2016.04.003
tear down the wall.
yarr!
Very few people seem to read Svensmark’s papers at all carefully. His research is concerned with just one type of Cosmic Ray, not just Cosmic Rays in general. CRs arrive with all possible energies. It is the very high energy ones which are necessary to create the specific cosmic ray Svensmark’s hypotheses requires, which is muons. Yes, muons are Secondary Cosmic Rays. Muons are a secondary CR formed by very high energy collisions at the ToA (Top of Atmosphere)
It’s quite possible that the numbers of muons do not correlate at all well with the number of lower (?) energy CRs whose concentration is measured by counting free neutrons.
There is a muon `observatory’ or counter at the Mawson Research Station in Antarctica. It might be possible to access their data base and use it for looking at cloud cover variability.
I haven’t read the paper yet, but if they have chased CRs other than muons, then it’s not going to correlate CRs with cloud cover at all well.
Willis: you can make your own muon telescope relatively easily and cheaply. If we all did and made a daily count along with cloud cover measturements for our own locations over say five or ten years, that could form a useful database.
Here’s another one .
Note: muons which contribute to cloud cover (if this is what they do) are consumed, so they will never be counted.
Leif’s colleagues at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) used to have a good Web site showing how muons lead to CCNs, but it was apparently deemed too un-PC, so was taken down some years ago.
But SLAC is still in the muon detection biz, and now there is a space-based GCR instrument.
But then anyone with a smartphone can download an app to turn his or her device into a GCR detector:
http://www.iflscience.com/space/your-phone-already-cosmic-ray-detector
Willis,
Is there a strong annual variability in the LCA (low cloud anomaly) graphs that you presented? Does it peak in January (perihelion(?
Simply eyeballing the graphs, the first thing that caught my eye was that the Cosmic Ray peaks were high, then slightly lower, then slightly higher.
The Cloud Anomaly peaks were lower, then higher, then negative. And that’s only if you interpret the wiggles as being peaks – if you looked at the Cloud Anomaly on its own you would say that it was a flat graph with a hump in the middle, while the Cosmic Rays show a distinct periodicity.
Too little data, of course – but also Spurious Correlations… http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Isn’t what matters the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the earth and oceans? Isn’t that the most important factor? Why don’t we have photometers all over the earth along with thermometers? IMHO this focus on solar cycles, solar output and other phenomenon are barking up the wrong tree. W shouldn’t be looking at the sun, we should be looking at the earth, and how much of that sunlight actually reaches the earth. Trying to measure cloud layers is impossible. Measuring the luminescence/irradiance at the earth surface is easy. Why complicate matters? IMHO, the whole key is simply measuring the amount of radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and then calculating out its relationship to temperature. Visible light is what is causing the warming, not trapping outgoing radiation.
I was highly skeptical of any effect of solar variability on climate change, since solar variability is so small. Until a few months ago a used to agree completely with Leif Svalgaard and Willis Eisenbach that no clear effect has been found after looking really hard, and that most of the scientific articles that defend there is one, like the one analyzed here, are terrible.
And I still think that the state of the science has not changed on that. What has changed for me was that I checked by myself every temperature reconstruction for the past 11,500 years and several reconstructions of solar activity based on cosmogenic isotopes. I used to think that the coincidence of low solar activity during the Maunder minimum and low temperatures during that period only made one instance and thus had no statistical value. However almost every period of very low solar activity in the past is accompanied by a significant cooling. This is specially true for the lows in the ~2500 years Hallstatt cycle of solar activity. The literature is full of proxy registries that link very low solar activity with strong climate change like this one below:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Figure%2050_zpsfbmhmdbn.png
So it is not only the Maunder minimum. It has happened time and again for as long as we have decent proxies. Very low solar activity is strongly linked to significant cooling. So it is not a question of asking if solar variability has a strong influence on climate. The system is telling us it does. We simply don’t know how it does it, but our ignorance of the mechanism should not lead us to reject something that is real. The ancient Greeks didn’t know what the lightning was or what caused it, but they had very little doubt that it was something real. Not knowing the explanation for something doesn’t make it less real.
A problem is that ‘solar activity’ measured by cosmic ray proxies are contaminated by climate effect. Some estimates suggest that more than half of the flux is related to climate [changes in circulation, etc]. E.g.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based.”
I find this article reminiscent of the serious team endeavor you have been involved in to uncover artifacts and uncertainties in what was the generally accepted “observed solar SSN data” that turned out to be not so much observed, but adjusted at one time or another. The difference is that so far there is no team willing to examine the ice core narrative in the dispassionate way that the solar team has so far accomplished. Could it be that the backlash the solar team has had to deal with would be many times greater for an ice core team?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
Very likely, as the ice-core/tree-ring proxies are closer to the climate ‘debate’ and hence more directly related to climate effects [in both directions !]
Leif, I agree that the climatic contamination of the cosmogenic proxies is a serious problem to quantify the effect. However that contamination cannot be used to dismiss the strong link between very low solar activity and serious cooling.
0.3 Ky BP Little Ice Age – Wolf/Spører/Maunder/Dalton group of grand minima
1.3 Ky BP Early Medieval Cooling – Roman grand minimum
2.8 Ky BP Greek Dark Ages cooling – Homer grand minimum
5.5-5.2 Ky BP Start of Neoglacial cooling – Sumer group of grand minima
7.5 Ky BP Cooling – Jericho group of grand minima
8.4-8.2 Ky BP Cooling event – Sahel group of grand minima
10.2 Ky BP Bond 7 event cooling – Boreal 1 grand minimum
11.2 Ky BP Bond 8 event cooling – Preboreal grand minimum
All of the great cooling events of the Holocene are associated with coincidental grand solar minima. So unless you can show that there is no data that supports that those grand minima did exist, I will continue thinking that the association can hardly be due to chance. Even if 50% of the cosmogenic isotopes measured is climate contamination, those grand minima would continue being grand minima.
Several of those cooling events follow a periodicity. There is a ~2.5 Ky periodicity (10.2 – 7.5 – 5.2 – 2.8 – 0.3) and a ~1 Ky periodicity (11.2 – 10.2 / 8.4 – 7.5 / 1.3 – 0.3). Those periodicities are also found in frequency analysis of cosmogenic isotopes.
We might not know how clusters of grand solar minima are able to cause so much cooling, but the evidence is pretty strong that they do.
Academic hand waving. If you had real evidence other than F.U.D. you’d have presented it. Javier’s right, this kind of overlap is legendary in it’s regularity.
The only people who don’t believe the fire warming a rock determines how warm the rock gets, have on their side the assertion the laws of chemistry can’t calculate the temperature of air without resort to magic.
40 years ago when I began studying solar astronomy it was clear to me the assertion of solar activity, and earth temperature being combined, are real.
Later when I worked in several scientifically relevant fields it became even more sure, since the laws of physics say: when a rock is warmed by a fire,
the fire affects how warm the rock gets.
Only buffoons try to deny it and don’t realize how intellectually stunted they have to be to stand in public and try to claim otherwise.
The world is full of self professing zealots who try to deny reality, the proof is all over the world. Those of us who have worked in science many years, realize how disconnected the amateurs and academics are, from predictable, perfectly reliable, thermodynamics, when the chips come down, and the truth is spread out before their faces.
If you had real evidence other than F.U.D.
It is always a good idea to consult the original data, so here is the 10Be contents as a function of age at Taylor Dome in Antarctica:
http://leif.org/research/Taylor-Dome-10Be.png
Shows very clearly that this cosmic ray proxy is controlled more strongly by the climate [note the glaciation] than by ‘solar activity’.
So 10Be is a temperature proxy?
10Be is influenced both by solar activity and climate [not necessarily temperature].
One should not be dogmatic and claim it is only solar activity. On a short time scale, solar activity has a clear 11-year signature in the 10Be record.
Not such a bad temperature proxy…
Showing how temperature controls the 10Be deposition…
Just as I said.
Yes, I had just never heard that before.
There is always a first time 🙂
Leif,
The argument does not rest on 10Be being an accurate proxy for solar activity. Grand solar minima were first identified in 14C records. They have less resolution but are less sensitive to climate conditions.
14C records. They have less resolution but are less sensitive to climate conditions.
So it is claimed, but the evidence is weak. The claims are strong, as is usual: the weaker the evidence, the stronger the claim…
So Leif, do you not believe that the Roman, Homer, Sumer, Jericho, Sahel, Boreal 1 and Preboreal solar grand minima did took place as indicated by cosmogenic records?
I mean we do know that grand solar minima take place from time to time and we do know that production of cosmogenic isotopes is greatly increased during grand solar minima. We do find that signature in the cosmogenic record. I would think that the reality of those solar minima is not argued very much in the scientific literature.
What can be argued is not so much the solar record, but whether is accurately reflects global temperature and/or precipitation, e.g.:
http://www.leif.org/research/Temperature-vs-10Be-14C.png
When we get down to the bottom of the argument, you evade the answer, because if those solar minima are real as almost every scientist believes, and if they coincide with periods of great cooling as indicated by an assortment of proxies, then low solar activity and severe cooling take place simultaneously many times during the past 12,000 years and this suggest there is a link between both. A link you are not willing to accept even when presented with the evidence.
But OK, I accept that you will not recognize that grand solar minima of the past 12,000 years and significant cooling periods of the past 12,000 years have taken place simultaneously even if both are clearly accepted by mainstream science and appear regularly on the literature. You are not ready to accept something that contradicts your views.
I also accept to play your graphic game:
There is a clear correspondence between the lows in solar activity and the lows in temperature within the uncertainty of the proxy reconstructions. As temperature is also influenced by other factors, like volcanic emissions, one should not expect a 100% correspondence.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/NotFlimsyTempTSI_zps1xdzheln.png
those solar minima are real as almost every scientist believes
What you consider to be the ‘solar record’ is by a large measure contaminated by climate, so you are just correlating climate wiggles with climate wiggles.
There are enough wiggles to go around that you can find line-ups wherever you want.
What is real is the concentrations of 10Be and 14C found. What is speculation is how much is climate and how much is solar.
if both are clearly accepted by mainstream science
just like CAGW…
You are not ready to accept something that contradicts your views.
My view is dictated by the evidence brought to bear. Long ago, I was a member of a group of scientists credited with reviving the whole [then discredited] field of sun-weather-climate relations. Some of my papers on this are among the highest cited ones of my record:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ
Unfortunately, the early optimism of 40 years ago has wilted in the face of improved data.
..Leif is a ” Solar D’nyer ” !!!
And perhaps the Maunder Minimum was not really a Grand minimum…
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf
“the solar activity from 1609 to 1723 was not dramatically different from that over the past 300 yr. Our findings suggest that the MM can be an ordinary secular minimum.”
Lots of uncertainty and doubt.
Leif, I accept that you know a lot more about this than almost anybody and that you have reached your position on this matter after a lot of study and thought, but I only base my opinion on evidence, and not on authority.
If the cosmogenic record, mainly 14C, does not represent in a significant way past solar activity, then I am obviously wrong together with anybody using it for anything solar related.
But if the cosmogenic record does mainly represent solar activity, then its long term lowest values correspond to grand solar minima, no matter how contaminated it is by climate. If that is the case then the link between grand solar minima and periods of severe cooling is strong. This link only depends on the coincidence of those lows with grand solar minima not on the overall wiggling of the record.
As I haven’t read anything that demonstrates that the 14C cosmogenic record cannot be used to identify grand solar minima of the past, and several authors do exactly that, I will continue assuming that it is reliable enough for that task and therefore will go from that.
You will have to decide what type of evidence would make you review your position on this issue. Perhaps you are setting the bar too high if the coincidence of every major cooling period of the Holocene with one or a cluster of grand solar minima would not be enough to convince you. To me it is pretty convincing, because either as you say the cosmogenic record is completely f****d up or such coincidence of cool periods and low solar activity is too much to be due to random alone.
I only base my opinion on evidence, and not on authority
I would say that invoking what mainstream science claims, is the ultimate reliance on authority…
Your bar for accepting authority seems to be much lower than mine.
Here is an un-orthodox view: since sunspots reduce TSI, the solar irradiance during the MM should be higher than today. We know that the solar cycle continued during the MM so the solar dynamo was still producing magnetic fields [increasing TSI] and there was still a solar wind [comet tails and aurorae], but no dark spots to drag TSI down…
Leif,
You keep rebutting arguments that I have not raised. For the sake of my argument it is not relevant if variations in cosmic rays or solar irradiation have an impact on climate or not, or if the sunspots were properly counted during the Maunder Minimum. Not even on whether sunspots increase or decrease TSI or if the Maunder Minimum had a higher irradiation that today.
The argument is only that the periods of highest 14C production coincide with the periods of highest cooling during the past 12,000 years so much that it cannot be explained by chance.
http://www.mailmagazine24.com/environment-and-climate/03-2012/dynamic-solar-system-the-actual-effects-of-climate-change113.JPG
If this is true, and you have not presented evidence, nor am I aware of evidence that contradicts it, the most likely explanation is that the highest reductions in solar activity during the past 12,000 years are responsible for the great cooling periods. This can be true even if at present we do not know of any mechanism by which a strong reduction of solar activity can cause such a big cooling.
This is based only on evidence. No assumption is made except that the main cause for the increase in 14C is not the climate cooling itself, which is congruent with everything we know about 14C production.
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch14/Ch14-1.htm
the periods of highest 14C production coincide with the periods of highest cooling during the past 12,000 years so much that it cannot be explained by chance.
Here are the 14C deviations for the last 50,000 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL13.png
The different climate during the glaciation completely controls the record. Very little [if any] solar influence.
BTW, it looks to me that your timing is off by 50 years. The sharp change in 14C did not begin in ~1900 but after 1950 (atomic bombs). This mars your coincidences.
Leif, you seem to have changed your opinion on this matter. Previously you thought it was magnetic, not climate:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-425055
Leif Svalgaard: “the Earth’s magnetic field controls the flux of cosmic rays that reaches the Earth. The geomagnetic effect is much larger than the solar modulated, but can be compensated for in different ways.
For 14C it looks like this:
The tiny wiggles are the solar modulation. Another one is here:
The blue curve shows what is thought to be the solar part after subtracting the geomagnetic part [black curve].
How come it changed from magnetic to climate since 2010?
“BTW, it looks to me that your timing is off by 50 years. The sharp change in 14C did not begin in ~1900 but after 1950 (atomic bombs). This mars your coincidences.
That graph is not inverted. There is no 14C increase at the end because the data after 1950 is not included, so there is no contamination from nuclear bombs 14C.
That graph is not made by me. It is from the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy, Katlenburg-Lindau., through the European Institute for Climate and Energy:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/teil-5-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/
I think you might be taking your criticism too far to the point of rejecting a graph produced by a scientific institution showing current knowledge just because you don’t like what it shows.
Leif, you seem to have changed your opinion on this matter. Previously you thought it was magnetic, not climate:
On short time scales [centuries] it is the sun.
On medium time scales [millenea] it is the Earth’s magnetic field.
On long time scales [glaciations] it is the climate
On very long time scales, it is geology
On extremely long time scales [billions of years], it is the sun.
All these factors weigh in at all times, but to varying degree.
Javier April 11, 2016 at 2:32 pm
My first question would be, the black curve looks to me like a gaussian or a loess average of the 14C data. What makes you think it is the “geomagnetic part”? I note that in the earlier data you showed, instead of claiming it was the “geomagnetic part”, they simply removed a sine wave curve from the data.
My second question is, according to the 14C data you show, the overall slow 10,000+ year change in cosmic rays is on the order of ten times as large as the annual variations. Here’s your graph again:
The resulting temperature change from the cosmic rays, presumably, would be ten times the size of the corresponding cosmic-ray induced temperature change over the 11-year period … which people claim is easily detectable.
Now, IF cosmic rays are causing global cooling by increasing cloud cover, then the 14C data says that the earth should be much warmer now than it was 11,000 years ago. Not only that, but again IF cosmic rays cause cooling, then the earth should have been steadily cooling for the last 1,00 years or so.
But as far as we know, neither one of those are true … near as we can tell, the world has not warmed over the period 11,000 – 1,000 years ago, it has cooled. And as near as we can tell, the planet has not suddenly started cooling over the last millennium …
All of which makes it hard for me to believe that cosmic rays are the secret control knob for the climate, or even have a detectable effect on the climate.
Best regards, and thanks for the graphs,
w.
People forget one important thing: IF cosmic rays are the driver, then it must be the actual flux observed in the atmosphere that should be used, i.e. the red curve [not corrected for changes of the geomagnetic field], not the blue curve. If you want to estimate the solar part, the usual trick is the subtract the long-term [e.g. 200-yr] mean assuming it to be related to the Earth.
Hi Willis,
I was quoting Dr. Leif Svalgaard as shown by the italics, from the link at the beginning of the comment. So those questions have to be addressed to him. He is also the provider of the figures shown in that comment.
Regarding the last part, I do not believe the cosmic rays are responsible for climate cooling. I believe the lower solar activity is probably responsible for the cooling. The reasoning is as follows: We know that geomagnetic excursions like the Laschamps event as a result produce a huge increase of cosmic rays arriving to Earth, yet we do not see a significant cooling coincident with the Laschamps event. Ergo cosmic rays probably have a very small effect on climate if any. Increase in cosmic rays appears to only coincide with significant cooling when the increase is due to lower solar activity.
I do not believe the cosmic rays are responsible for climate cooling. I believe the lower solar activity is probably responsible for the cooling.
I will agree with you that cosmic rays are not responsible for climate cooling.
Lower solar activity will have an effect of the order of 0.1 K.
Timothy April 10, 2016 at 10:05 am
Thanks for the thoughts, Timothy. Let me suggest that you are conflating two questions, viz:
1. Does the sun warm the earth?, and
2. Are there effects of the ~ 11-year sunspot related variations in solar output which are visible in the climate record?
As you point out, the fire warms the rock, so sure, the answer to question 1 is yes, just as you say.
The other question is the one we are investigating, and it is far, far more difficult to answer. In part this is because the variations in the energy that the sun puts out are so small. The total luminosity of the sun varies by one part in about 1360, which is only about seven hundredths of one measly percent.
To get around this, it has been hypothesized that the real effect is coming from the solar-modified cosmic ray variations affecting the clouds. However, I looked at this question in my post “Splicing Clouds” listed above, and found nothing significant … which is exactly what the authors of the study under discussion showed, once we properly apply the Bonferroni Correction. Not one of their results is significant.
Now, can we conclude from all of these negative results that the ~ 11-year solar cycles have no effect on the surface weather, or that cosmic rays don’t affect the weather? By no means, because you can’t prove a negative. The definitive dataset might still be out there, which is why I persist in asking people for two links, to the study they think is best and to the data as used in the study—I would love to be able to identify some actual evidence that the effect is real … but so far, nil.
All I can say is that I have looked for the elusive ~ 11-year solar cycle in literally dozens of datasets of climate variables of all types, from clouds to river flows to lake levels to sea levels to temperatures and many more, and have been unable to find it anywhere.
My best to you,
w.
Javier April 11, 2016 at 3:42 pm
Thanks, Javier, you are right, my bad. However, the questions are really for everyone.
w.
Leif,
Lower solar activity will have an effect of the order of 0.1 K.
That is the bottom up calculation from TSI changes. The top down evidence from the climate system shows a 0.3-0.5°K (LIA is calculated as a 0.5°K drop of the global average). This disparity is probably a reflection of our low level of understanding of the effects of solar variability on climate. Perhaps if we get to observe a period of low solar activity with modern instrumentation at the time we measure the atmospheric and oceanic response we might start to understand it.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Figure%2034b_zpskqf0m6ud.png
The top down evidence from the climate system shows a 0.3-0.5°K (LIA is calculated as a 0.5°K drop of the global average).
That is on the [unjustified] assumption that the LIA is due entirely to TSI. There is good evidence that the solar output during the MM was comparable to what it is at modern minima, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”
Your Figure seems to place emphasis on Bond Events [the shared bars]. Here is what Gerald Bond said in his seminal paper”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Bond-Events.pdf
“the results of our study implicate ocean circulation as a major factor in forcing the climate signal and in amplifying it during the last glaciation. We know too little thus far to identify the origin of the 1470-year cycle. Its constant pacing across major stage boundaries, especially the last glacial termination, almost certainly rules out any origin linked to ice sheet oscillations. Rather, the close correlation of shifts in ocean surface circulation with changes in atmospheric circulation above Greenland is consistent with a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. Coupled ocean-atmosphere modes of variability on decadal scales have been inferred from observational records in the North Atlantic (37), but those records are too short to assess longer, millennial-scale phenomena. Millennial-scale climate cycles may arise from harmonics and combination tones of the orbital periodicities, but cycles currently thought to fall within those bands are longer than the cycle we have identified (38). Forcing of millennial-scale climate variability by changes in solar output has also been suggested, but that mechanism is highly controversial, and no evidence has been found of a solar cycle in the range of 1400 to 1500 years (39).”
Willis,
If the questions are for everyone, then the climate system should be answering them:
1. It is clear that the climate system does not respond very much to changes in cosmic rays as manifested by lack of major response from the climate system to long term changes due to geomagnetic variations. Therefore even if clouds respond somehow to cosmic rays, the response has to be really minor and thus Svensmark’s theory is probably largely wrong.
2. You are correct that the 11 or 22.3 years solar cycles do not elicit a significant response from the climate system. We have only found minor effects like regional changes in precipitation that correlate well with that cycle.
3. However the climate system responds noticeably to the de Vries solar cycle of 208 years.
“The 208-yr period (the de Vries cycle, also known as Suess cycle) has been observed in the Δ14C spectrum and 10Be record of the North Atlantic and has been attributed to solar modulation of Δ14C production. The maxima of the de Vries cycle in the Δ14C data coincide with the Spörer (1420–1540 AD) and Maunder (1645–1715 AD) sun spot minima, suggesting that solar forcing evidently played a major role in producing the 208-yr cycle. This solar cycle has been reported in climate proxies from different archives of monsoon variability, suggesting a strong link between changing solar activity and monsoon on time scales of centuries to millenniums.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep02753
http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2013/130925/srep02753/images_hires/w926/srep02753-f3.jpg
4. And the climate system responds even more strongly to the 2500 yr Hallstatzei cycle whose lows every ~2500 years are known to coincide with glacier advances globally.
Mayewski, P.A. et al. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research Vol. 62 pp. 243–255.
O’Brien, S.R. et al. 1995. Complexity of Holocene Climate as Reconstructed from a Greenland Ice Core. Science 270 1962-1964.
http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/images/02fig2.gif
How do we reconcile these answers that the climate system is giving us? Clearly the climate system delays and averages the solar variability signal in such a way that only changes that take place over periods longer than 22 years can affect the climate significantly. If we want to determine the connexion between solar variability and climate variability we should do it on the centennial to millennial scale. We will be wasting our time looking for evidence from the 11-22 years solar cycle. Also if we want to see any effect of solar changes on recent climate we must be aware that we should expect a delay of several decades which is the time that the climate system takes to integrate the solar variability signal and respond to it.
If we understand the solar signal correctly from Holocene records, we should not expect any significant cooling from low solar variability for the next centuries, but since from cycle 23 solar variability is lower than previous average we should not expect any contribution from the sun towards global warming and this would mean that for the next decades global warming is probably going to stall revealing the true strength of the natural causes contributing to the recent global warming.
To understand the effects of solar variability on the climate we should be looking at the changes in the atmosphere and the oceans that are taking place since solar cycle 22 ended. In a couple of decades we might see that compared with the 80’s to 00’s the 10’s to 30’s might show that ocean warming has stopped or very much reduced.
Is the recent reduction in solar activity contributing to the pause? It might very well be the case. If true the rate of warming should continue being low until solar activity recovers, perhaps at solar cycle 26 or 27.
The maxima of the de Vries cycle in the Δ14C data coincide with the Spörer (1420–1540 AD) and Maunder (1645–1715 AD) sun spot minima,
Some care must be exercised here. There is no sunspot data from the Spörer [or earlier] minimum, so if Δ14C is influenced by climate, you’ll be correlating climate with climate.
The 200-yr cycle in Delta14C is not very impressive, if there at all:
http://www.leif.org/research/Delta14C-FFT.png
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_origins_of_DeVries_200_year_and_Gleissberg_83_year_solar_cycles
“First off, I think it’s a misnomer to call the DeVries or Suess cycle a solar process as there is no evidence for it in the sunspot record. It is only seen in cosmogenic radioisotopes measurements. Cosmogenic radioisotopes are formed when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere and the flux of cosmic rays is anti-correlated with solar magnetic activity, however it is possible that these cycles may be the result of another non-solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux or due to some sort of climate process that changes the way these isotopes are deposited in ice or sediment cores where they can be measured. Of course we only have about 400 years of sunspot data, so it is possible this cycle is really driven by the Sun, but for now we really don’t have any evidence of that.”
Leif,
“That is on the [unjustified] assumption that the LIA is due entirely to TSI. There is good evidence that the solar output during the MM was comparable to what it is at modern minima”
Modern minima are followed by modern maxima, while MM minima was followed by MM maxima. Average solar output during MM was significantly lower than today’s and for a very extended period of time.
The assumption is that LIA was largely due to lower solar output. Other factors contributed without doubt. But LIA belongs to the ~2500 years lows in the Hallstatzei cycle of solar activity.
Average solar output during MM was significantly lower than today’s and for a very extended period of time.
How do you know?
Personally, I think TSI was higher back then than now…
Leif,
“Your Figure seems to place emphasis on Bond Events [the shared bars]. Here is what Gerald Bond said in his seminal paper”
The evidence does not rely only on hematite stained grains deposited on the North Atlantic as studied by Bond. You can see also marine salts deposited in ice cores (in this case K+), that constitute the PCI of Arctic atmospheric circulation studied by O’Brien and Mayewski. There is a lot more evidence coming from other climate proxies. This is not a case of a single match between two records.
There are cold events during the Holocene that seem not to respond to a solar origin, but those with a ~2500 and ~1000 years periodicities coincide with periods of high 14C production that suggest low solar activity as their cause.
Gerard Bond’s opinion is interesting but in no way changes what the evidence shows. Some of the Bond peaks represent cooling events that have a solar origin and others don’t. The Bond series records cooling events not their causes.
The Bond Events are real, but their relation to solar event is dubious at best.
Leif,
“The 200-yr cycle in Delta14C is not very impressive, if there at all”
Probably you know about the de Vries cycle a lot more than I do. You must know that its amplitude is dependent on being close to the ~2500 years cycle lows. It is clearly seen by eye in the records for the last 1000 years.
And it is more clearly seen in the record by wavelet analysis that clearly show its intermittent nature.
“First off, I think it’s a misnomer to call the DeVries or Suess cycle a solar process as there is no evidence for it in the sunspot record. It is only seen in cosmogenic radioisotopes measurements… Of course we only have about 400 years of sunspot data, so it is possible this cycle is really driven by the Sun, but for now we really don’t have any evidence of that.”
Nicholas Nelson is asking for too much if he wants to see more than two occurrences of a 208 years cycle in just 400 years of sunspots data. The next occurrence around 2100 AD.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Scafetta2_zpsa4hcvfi3.png
None of that shows that the ‘cycle’ is solar. Personally, I’m not a fan of cyclomania, but it is possible that both ‘cycles’ [if there at all] are connected and actually are climate cycles modulating the radionuclei deposition . There are even people who claim that they [and other cycles, e.g. a 1000-yr one – I see that you seem to advocate that one too] are planetary cycles caused by mysterious influences from Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus and related to the movements of the solar system barycenter, or Jupiter shine or some such. I guess that once you get bitten by that bug there is little hope for you.
Leif,
“Average solar output during MM was significantly lower than today’s and for a very extended period of time.
How do you know?
Personally, I think TSI was higher back then than now…”
Hempelmann seems to think that the sunspot number correlates (non-linearly) with solar irradiance and insolation.
Hempelmann, A., and W. Weber. “Correlation between the sunspot number, the total solar irradiance, and the terrestrial insolation.” Solar Physics 277.2 (2012): 417-430.
If he is right the lower number of sunspots during the MM would imply a lower solar output. The 14C record agrees with this interpretation. But I would like to know why you think that TSI was higher during the MM than now.
It is generally thought [all evidence we have points to it] that the observed variations in TSI are caused by actions of the sun’s surface magnetic field. The magnetic field is observed to be concentrated in vertical bundles of ‘field lines’ [makes sense in a plasma], sometimes called ‘flux tubes’. Most of these [called faculae] are small [perhaps 100 km across] and warmer than the surrounding non-magnetic material and thus look brighter as they allow us to see a bit deeper into the sun. Occasionally, the flux tubes [by a process that is observed, but poorly understood] assemble or coalesce into large objects called pores and sunspots, where the magnetic field becomes stronger and able to suppress some of the convection bringing heat up from the interior, thus forming areas that are cooler and darker. The brighter faculae increase TSI, the darker spots decrease TSI as is directly observed. The magnetic field originates by a dynamo process in the solar interior having an 11-yr cycle. The faculae brightening contribution is about twice the sunspot darkening, hence the variation of TSI with the solar cycle. Where there is no magnetic field, the temperature of the photosphere is observed to be constant, and hence the emission from such areas would be constant. So far so good. There is little disagreement about this scheme being approximately correct, although there is [as always] debate about details [e.g. how deep does the dynamo work, and what is the role of plasma circulations].
Now we can imagine two scenarios: 1) the magnetic field becomes so weak [at sunspot minimum] that there are no observable faculae and sunspots. This happens in every cycle, so TSI at minimum is approximately constant at every minimum, and one would expect that to hold also during the MM. As the dynamo cranks out magnetic flux further in the cycle, faculae and spots appear and we get the observed solar cycle variation of TSI. This is the generally believed scenario. If the cycles were very weak [as most people believe] during the MM, the solar cycle variation of TSI [sitting on top of the ordinary 99.9% that is simply thermal radiation because the sun is hot] would be smaller than the 0.1% of recent cycles, and TSI during the MM would vary not 0.1%, but perhaps only 0.01%, so the Global Temperature, T, would not vary 0.1K with solar activity, but only by 0.01K, so T would generally be about 0.1K lower. To this you can add all the hypothetical ‘feedbacks’ and ‘amplifications’ and whatnot that people rave about; the result is still only a minor climate impact. 2) Since there was a solar wind [shown by comet tails] and cosmic ray cycle modulation during the MM [and at modern minima too], the magnetic field did not go away during the MM so the dynamo would still produce flux tubes which are bright [and thus increase TSI], but as no dark spots are observed [so people claim] the flux tubes [for some reason] would not have assembled into cooler spots [which would decrease TSI] so TSI would be higher than if spots were present, and hence T would be higher than for periods where there were spots. In any event TSI and T would not sink lower than at every solar minimum and could well be higher.
The above hinges on the assumption that the process that makes dark sunspots worked less efficiently during the MM. From that the rest would seem to follow. There is observational evidence that the number of sunspots were lower during the MM and that the temperature of the non-magnetic part of the sun is constant on timescales we care about.
All of this is [well-founded] speculation, but in my view not more speculative than what people usually come up with.
” April 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm – …forgot to add: that heater in the room analogy …”
Frederik Michiels – good analogy! And the complexity/variability of the “system” and ability to detect any “cycles” will also depend on the makeup of the house; how many windows, doors and other potential openings and their position in the house x the design of the house (layout/shape x materials eg. double brick walls vs….., windows double glazed vs…..etc.), and depending on what types of heating and cooling (gas, wood fire, reverse cycle refrigerative A/C, evaporative A/C, ceiling fans…..). No doubt many more factors…. Interesting also to think that the house system including the different “forcings” in the house could parallel that of the planet… Which would correspond to “CO2” GHG emissions? Perhaps a faulty Air Con unit needing progressively more gassing to maintain good control over the internal temperature of the house? But then (like our planet) the major influence over whether we are going to get really hot or not (and the upper limit of how hot, how fast it will get hot etc.) is still going to be the external forcings of external temperature (like our planet) – eg. a hot day in summer. Perhaps emergent phenomena that Willis discusses are analogous to a hot househusband (ooops – almost said housewife… not very PC of me!? (:-)) opening windows, turning on the ceiling fans etc. in response (feedback) to the increase? Not sure how analogous it really is, but an interesting one to visualize that most people can relate to perhaps?
lsvalgaard (or anyone else) – do we know anything (reliable) re’ the Earth’s distance from the Sun (&/or any orbital/Milankovich type factors) during Maunder (or any other) minimum and if there is any observed (or claimed) correlation?
Yes, we know the distance VERY accurately, to a few kilometers.
lsvalgaard commented on Cosmic Disconnections.
in response to llydon2015:
lsvalgaard (or anyone else) – do we know anything (reliable) re’ the Earth’s distance from the Sun (&/or any orbital/Milankovich type factors) during Maunder (or any other) minimum and if there is any observed (or claimed) correlation?
Yes, we know the distance VERY accurately, to a few kilometers.
So, sorry if obtuse but any correlations with global temperature records?
No.
lsvalgaard commented on Cosmic Disconnections.
in response to llydon2015:
lsvalgaard commented on Cosmic Disconnections. in response to llydon2015: lsvalgaard (or anyone else) – do we know anything (reliable) re’ the Earth’s distance from the Sun (&/or any orbital/Milankovich type factors) during Maunder (or any other) minimum and if there is any observed (or claimed) correlation? Yes, we know the distance VERY accurately, to a […]
No.
Thanks for that, one last (?) query – could you please share what you believe to the be dominant influencing factor/s in global temperature fluctuation? (eg. what would be causing difference between MWPeriod and LIAge….)?
That is a big and unsolved question. My [admittedly biased] view is this http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
lsvalgaard commented on Cosmic Disconnections.
in response to llydon2015:
lsvalgaard commented on Cosmic Disconnections. in response to llydon2015: lsvalgaard commented on Cosmic Disconnections. in response to llydon2015: lsvalgaard (or anyone else) – do we know anything (reliable) re’ the Earth’s distance from the Sun (&/or any orbital/Milankovich type factors) during Maunder (or any other) minimum and if there is any observed (or claimed) correlation? […]
That is a big and unsolved question. My [admittedly biased] view is this http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
(I’m going to have to figure out how to edit these comments properly one day – currently haven’t found how to alter fonts and Paste stuff like lots of others seem to do at will… Maybe my Browser?).
Thanks for the link, really enjoyed working through all your points and discussion – I’ve made some comments and queries below – I’d appreciate it if you have time to address any of it…
You wrote – “We should note that the Earth currently is in an ice age with periodic glaciations caused by changing orbital parameters (due to perturbations mainly by the planets Jupiter and Saturn) combined with suitable location of the land masses and ocean circulation, and that the Earth historically typically has been 5-10°C warmer than today”.
I write – Bl00dy GR8 to read this…. & the graphs illustrating “best available” temperature approximations over various timescales… Puts it into beautiful perspective…. Nobody much seems to take into account the actions of the various “heavenly bodies”…
You wrote – The oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and have a heat capacity several orders of magnitude higher than air and so contain (store) most of the heat received from the Sun for some period of time and are thus an important actor in climate change.
I write – “Thumbs up” re’ comparative “Source Sink” power of Ocean vs. Air, but this also makes me think – how much greater again must be the “rest of it” (eg. Land surface + crust + Magma + all the other layers of this “not so muddy” ball). According to below source, the Ocean is but a fraction of total “weight/mass”….
“Earth’s ocean is made up of more than 20 seas and four oceans: Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Pacific, the oldest and the largest. The ocean accounts for 0.022 percent of the total weight of earth, weighing an estimated 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 short tons (1 short ton = 2,000lbs).
Ocean Facts – See-The-Sea.org
see-the-sea.org/facts/facts-body.htm”
I recall seeing comments on WUWT blogs from a few people mentioning the influence of “internal factors” on climate….
I would think that the “Source/Sink power” (capacity for gaining or releasing energy – exchange between layers above and layers below) or each successive layer of the planet is going to vary, as will its effect (magnitude and timing) on the surface climate that we worry about… (ie. the bit we care about, though the planet doesn’t (:-)). The deeper you go the greater the “heat capacity” (to a point) but the more insulated from the Surface & the slower the transfer rate too, though no doubt factors such as the “thinness of the crust” have an effect (up to and including negatives such as Volcanoes and other vents to the surface) & material type (different land types will vary in their insulating and heat exchange properties, which are of course different again to the Oceans….) will influence the “buffering”. Similar to your analysis of Temp. at Ocean depths, the Amplitude will vary with depth…
I can imagine there must be a lot of “heat exchange” going on between the Antarctic continent and the underlying layers….. And I think that the Poles are the major losers/emitters of heat to space vs. the Equatorial regions which are the biggest receivers, correct?
(1) Alkenone undersaturation & (2) foraminifera Mg/Ca as indicators of sea surface temperature – are these widely accepted by the “Scientific community” as accurate proxies? Do you yourself agree with the Ocean2K High Res data in your Fig11 and thus the discrepancy with the instrument data?
You wrote – “Berger and Loutre argue (Science, 297, 1287, 2002) that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun…”
Do you agree that the likely reason for the current warm climate is likely to be Orbital patterns? ( I asked you originally if there was any correlating evidence for this and it sounds like “no” is the go, but would be interested in your “best guess”…).
Love the Cherry Blossom proxy! (also the appropriate allusion to “Cherry picking” in Climate modelling in your next Chapter (:-)).
You wrote – “As far as we know there are the following parameters or variables influencing our climate on time scales less than a million years (thus excluding the slow evolution of the Sun):
1) Earth orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation, ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use (cities, logging, crops, grazing…)
7) Regional differences
8) Stochastic variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Diverse unpredictable catastrophes”
Just to check – is this your personal current ranking in order of strongest to weakest of the main factors influencing climate? (It looks pretty d@mn reasonable to me BTW…).
You wrote – “There are plenty of oscillations and circulations to go around and complicate a modeler’s life”
!(:-)!
You wrote – “The PAGES 2k Consortium (Nature Geoscience, 6, 339, 2013) in their study of continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia came to the same conclusion that volcanic eruptions were the main driver of little ice age conditions and note the uncanny coincidence of volcanic and solar forcings, Figure #23:”
Do you believe that there is sound correlation between periods of volcanic activity (or inactivity) and solar activity?
& Nice conclusion!
Thanks for a great read – well balanced and thoughtful and I suspect as good as anything I have read on this subject….
Cheers
L
Many questions. I’ll respond to just this one:
“Do you believe that there is sound correlation between periods of volcanic activity (or inactivity) and solar activity?”.
No, I don’t think so, but it is possible that some of the indications of solar activity are contaminated by volcanic activity, e.g. around 1810 and 1882, but this is just speculation.
Thank you.
Dear lsvalgaard, Just watching the video of your presentation “What Physicists Do – September 8th, 2014” – great stuff thanks, very entertaining and informative… As you point out “Annual Variation (due to variation of solar distance) is 70 times larger than solar cycle variation;” – hence the “battle waging” (:-) in this blog over whether “small changes” in factors such as CR may cause “big influences” on such as cloud genesis & hence cooling…. However this pans out, it seems that we may need much stronger drivers than variation in the solar cycle to account for significant temperature fluctuations (eg. MWP vs. LIA). Orbital variation & hence solar distance seems a very likely candidate to me (as you suggest – think of difference between a winter minimum and summer maximum), so what could cause sufficient perturbations in the Earth’s orbit to account for that? Do we have records or can we calculate accurately enough solar distance in such past times? Your mention of the influence of Jupiter and Saturn in long term cycles is interesting. Do you see any possible scenario of “alignment of the heavenly bodies” (or near miss by large asteroid, comets or what have you) that could possibly account for relatively short term/acute changes in the solar distance & hence effect on global temperatures? If not, then maybe we are back to “local culprits” such as variations in tectonic &/or internal factors, Volcanic or ????? Volcanic influence is interesting, wrt causing cooling (“shade” from such events could logically have big influence – again, we just have to think of the magnitude of diurnal differences in insolation between an overnight low of 0C vs. a daily maximum of 40+C (possible to occur in the same day also! At least in South Australia in my lifetime and no doubt plenty of other sites). That could account for cooling periods, but what about warming (eg. MWP….), an “anti volcano” or “minimums of volcanic ash don’t really seem likely…. Anyway, if you have time for it I’d be interested in your opinion on potential strength of influence of variation in orbit of Solar System bodies on Earth orbit (eg. “when the planets align” or otherwise…), and whether this might possibly be able to affect solar distance enough to account for global temperature fluctuations?
whether this might possibly be able to affect solar distance enough to account for global temperature fluctuations
Averaged over a year, the distance does not vary. What varies is WHEN the distance is smallest. That happens today in early January and the distance is largest in early July. So, on January 4th we are closest to the Sun and gets the most heat from the Sun. That is why the winter in the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than average and is why we are currently not having a glaciation.
Leif,
Thank you very much for your explanation. It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to be informed by a world leading expert. Whatever our differences of opinion I have the outmost respect for you.
It is an interesting hypothesis that the evidence for a magnetic field should lead to an increase in TSI during a solar cycle with no sunspots. If the hypothesis is true then this effect should take place progressively as the number of sunspots of a cycle is lower and not wait for the last sunspot to disappear. Do you think this hypothetical effect could be behind the divergence between TSI and sunspots during cycle 24? If that is the case, as cycle sunspots become less, TSI should reduce proportionally less, but show a reduction after all, like between cycle 23 and 24.
If my interpretation of what you say and what the divergence shows is correct, cycles with very few sunspots (or none) should show a level of TSI higher at cycle maxima than at cycle minima, but still lower than maxima from cycles with average number of sunspots.
But in any case cosmic rays show an inverse relationship to solar activity. If cosmic ray 14C production is higher during grand solar minima we must infer a lower solar magnetic field, and thus a solar activity closer to basal levels. I understand as you say that luckily basal levels are still 99.9% of maximal levels.
99.9% should be enough for the climate and I would be happy to accept that we know enough to leave it at that if it wasn’t because the more we know about the cold periods of the past, the more we find a period of very high 14C production associated to most of them. So perhaps 99.9% is not enough for the climate.
Take for example the 8.2 Kyr cold event.
Rohling, E.J. & Pälike, H. 2005. Centennial-scale climate cooling with a sudden cold event around 8,200 years ago. Nature, 434 975-979.
http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2005-Rohling%20and%20Palike%208.2kaBP%20event%20Nature434-with%20supp.pdf
“Signal comparison between IRD records and the cosmogenic 14C and 10Be records suggests that the repeated Holocene climate deteriorations correspond to intervals of reduced solar output (23), corroborating similar inferences made previously (9,38,39). Although high-frequency variability in the Earth’s magnetic field might have some influence on cosmogenic isotope production (40), the solar variability hypothesis is gaining increasing support. 14C production rates (41,42) reveal a conspicuous 500-yr interval with a succession of three broad 14C production maxima (solar output minima) between 8.4 and 7.9 kyr BP (Fig. 1r). There is more than a passing resemblance with the succession of three 14C production peaks between 0.7 and 0.2 kyr BP that spans the Little Ice Age. The interval of 8.4–7.9 kyr BP agrees well with the timing and duration of the broad climate deterioration highlighted here. The internal three- peak structure may be reflected by internal variability within this broad anomaly, supporting previous reports of remarkable peak-to- peak signal similarities between 14C residuals and proxy records (31,32,34).”
If you are right, why is Nature (no pun intended) telling us that grand solar minima, specially when coming in clusters, are a big deal?
Do you think this hypothetical effect could be behind the divergence between TSI and sunspots during cycle 24?
This is a distinct possibility.
If you are right, why is Nature (no pun intended) telling us that grand solar minima, specially when coming in clusters, are a big deal?
I don’t think nature is telling us that. People are telling you that.
Leif,
“None of that shows that the ‘cycle’ is solar. Personally, I’m not a fan of cyclomania, but it is possible that both ‘cycles’ [if there at all] are connected and actually are climate cycles modulating the radionuclei deposition . There are even people who claim that they [and other cycles, e.g. a 1000-yr one – I see that you seem to advocate that one too] are planetary cycles caused by mysterious influences from Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus and related to the movements of the solar system barycenter, or Jupiter shine or some such. I guess that once you get bitten by that bug there is little hope for you.”
There is an intermittent 210 year high 14C production periodicity (shown by wavelet analysis) and there is a 210 year separation between two periods of lower sunspot numbers that are coincident in date. It certainly does look like a solar periodicity to me. It is rather difficult to propose that climate is causing a reduction in sunspot numbers.
I don’t care what other people claim. And I don’t care too much about hypothesis when we know so little. If we want to know the effect of solar variability in climate variability we have to focus on what the climate does when the Sun changes. And when the Sun shows a long period of lower activity the climate gets colder. That is clear. We will eventually learn why. Not from you. You are too invested in the position that solar variability has only a small effect on climate.
You are too invested in the position that solar variability has only a small effect on climate
You are very wrong on this. Once I was a great promoter of the solar connection, but the intervening 40 years have shown me that my optimism was misplaced. I really wish that the sun was a major driver [good for funding, vindicating my earlier papers, etc], but if I have to be honest, I cannot with good conscience jump on that bandwagon. The notion that I am too invested in any position looks like projection on your part. The fact is that I am not convinced by the [mostly shoddy] arguments people trot out. I have just seen too many bad papers.
Leif,
Sorry if I got you wrong, but you look very entrenched in your posture. If you are open minded on this issue then I apologize.
To sum up, if we are not arguing about the coincidence of most cold periods of the Holocene with high 14C production periods, and this is very easy to check by anybody, then there are only two possibilities:
1. Both cooling and high 14C production are caused by a reduction in solar activity.
2. High 14C production is caused by the cold climate, and thus is a climate contamination.
We can reject the possibility that cosmic rays are responsible for both high 14C production and cold climate since there is no correlation between cosmic rays and climate.
I would argue that we do not have any evidence that high 14C production is a product of climate contamination during the Holocene.
“The collision of cosmic-ray-produced thermal neutrons with nitrogen nuclei has a reasonable probability of generating radiocarbon by an n,p reaction. Oxidation to carbon dioxide follows rapidly, and this radioactive CO2 joins the carbon cycle. It may be absorbed photosynthetically by plants, or may exchange with CO2 in water and ultimately be deposited as carbonate.”
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch14/Ch14-1.htm
14C is not precipitated. As CO2 it reaches equilibrium globally within 2-3 years in the atmosphere, it is taken up by the trees and permanently fixed as cellulose in the annual ring in the proportion present in the atmosphere at the time the ring grows. From that time it slowly decays, allowing for 14C dating.
As 14C is so rare, 14C generation by cosmic rays is the main mechanism by which it increases and then it decreases as it is taken out by long term sinks in carbonates or buried. It is difficult to imagine how the climate can increase 14C levels above average as no selective mechanism by which 14C can be released differentially from 12C is known.
Furthermore, we know of periods of cooling that we think we can identify the cause. One of this periods is between 536 and 560 AD when several very strong volcanic eruptions coincide with (and likely were responsible for) a very severe cooling.
M. Sigl, et al. Timing and climate forcing of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14565
When we check the level of 14C during this period we see that it is not elevated, but actually below average.
So we have no evidence that cold climate can produce an increase in 14C. We therefore have to conclude that the most likely explanation is that both cooling and high 14C production are caused by a reduction in solar activity.
In this business once mind must be rather closed as well to dogma as to flights of fancy [and not so open that your brain falls out].
Your arguments are old, worn, and biased.
As far as we know, the sun cannot be less active than when there is no activity at all [such as in 2008]. It seems that you did not take the trouble to read [and understand] this important paper by the foremost solar physicists of our time http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf [I agree with them]:
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.”
This translates into a temperature change of less than 0.1 degree. So, whatever causes the 14C variations, it ain’t the magnetic sun. As energy takes hundreds of thousands of years to percolate out from the energy-producing core, it seems hard to invoke changes there on the time scales of interest.
Hey Everyone. I have read that Carbon dating and other dating methods have improved but there is still some uncertainty, especially before 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. People make some very “strong” claims that I find hard to believe because of our lack of knowledge. I really enjoy reading all you guys except I don’t like the denigrating/logical fallacies used by a few of the people. Very Childish. Some claim that the earths atmosphere was significantly different before the last ice age, which could drastically affect the dating methods. An interesting topic none the less. Allegedly, higher levels of oxygen caused the flora and fauna to grow more rapidly and thus larger. Big lizards, etc. Lol
Leif,
“Your arguments are old, worn, and biased.”
I understand that this is an old discussion with old arguments that you have been repeating for decades, so I thank you for your patience.
You are looking at the Sun and you are not finding enough variability there. This has been clear to me for years and I do not question the evidence you show. It is a powerful argument that had me convinced for years that the Sun had little influence on the climate.
However when I look at the Earth I see climate proxies saying that cold periods correlate well with greatly increased 14C production. You say it must be the climate because it is not the Sun, but we have no evidence for that.
Your referenced paper is very clear that if the MM was similar to the 2009 minimum but much longer, the decrease in TSI would be very small, like 250 ± 110 ppm compared to a previous minimum during 1996.
However for the aspect that we are discussing, 14C, that very tiny 0.02% difference in TSI between 1996 and 2009 translated into a 5% increase in cosmic ray detection on Earth. In fact during the 2009 minimum the solar community was surprised by the anomalous behavior of cosmic rays, as the relationship between anomalous cosmic rays and galactic cosmic rays broke down.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/images/acenews136.jpg
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews136.html
So while it looks dubious that the climate is responsible for the increase in 14C, it seems clear that small changes in solar activity can be responsible for large changes in the number of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. The increase in Oulu neutron count between the 1990 maximum and the 2009 minimum was 30% from 5250 to 6850.
I am no expert, but I would think that this changes are probably of the right order of magnitude to explain the increase in 14C during the LIA.
So I would say that the Sun has a good alibi for the cold periods of Earth, but his fingerprints are on the crime scene. The case is not closed.
it seems clear that small changes in solar activity can be responsible for large changes in the number of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth.
The solar cycle change in cosmic rays is not really due to solar activity per se, but to the solar cycle change in the geometry of the heliosphere [as I showed way back in 1976: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf and elaborated here http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
You show the heliospheric ’tilt angle’ [BTW the heliosphere is not ’tilted’ at all, but warped] varying between 10 and 70 degrees. It will always do that, regardless of the size of the cycle. The purported ‘all-time high’ at Oulu is a problem mainly with low-energy particles at Oulu, other stations do not show that, see e.g. Hermanus:
http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-nm/SRU%20Neutron%20Monitors%20Monthly%20Graphs.pdf
And Newark too, not just Oulu. The low-energy cosmic rays [and the even lower-energy anomalous cosmic rays] below 500 MeV are not the ones responsible for 14C. For that you need the more energetic ones above 1 GeV.
Leif,
Thank you for the information on the heliosphere and cosmic rays. I have to do a lot of reading to keep up.
As I understand the mechanism of 14C production from cosmic rays is relatively well known and modelled taking into account their energies. And when the cosmic ray data is fed into this model, it produces average values that agree well with 14C measurements. The output of this model perhaps is fictitious but it is grounded on the known physics of the cosmic rays, and shows very large variations in the amount of 14C produced between cycle maxima and minima.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/14C%20Production%20rate_zpsjjkm8ecr.png
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/EPSL_2012.pdf
Kovaltsov, G.A. et al. 2012. A new model of cosmogenic production of radiocarbon 14 C in the atmosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 337, 114-120.
Stuivert already showed the good anti-correlation between 14C and sunspots over the 18th and 19th centuries
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch14/Ch14-1_files/image012.jpg
And apparently cosmogenic 44Ti activity in meteorites that is not affected by terrestrial processes largely confirms that cosmic ray activity calculated from 14C measurements is in the ballpark, and thus not greatly affected by climate contamination.
Usoskin, I. G., et al. “Long-term solar activity reconstructions: direct test by cosmogenic 44 Ti in meteorites.” A&A 457 (2006): L25-L28.
http://meetings.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/aktuelles/pressenotizen/pressenotiz_20060926/pressenotiz_20060926.pdf
I would think that available evidence supports that there is a large variation in galactic cosmic rays during the solar cycle and that it corresponds to a large variation in 14C generation that does not appear to be significantly affected by climate during the Holocene. So despite TSI changes being very small between MM and now, GCR changes and 14C generation changes appear to be large. Does this mean that we should expect that heliosphere changes should also be large? Do we understand how this amplification mechanism works?
There are basically two things in play: the geometry of the heliosphere [its shape] and the influence of transient solar storms. The former is usually dominant, although in large cycles the transients become important too. During the Maunder Minimum, the solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays was larger than today. The Ti44 data are very noisy and poorly constrained, but, as usual, the crappier the data, the more people believe in them. It is true that some people claim that they understand and can model the modulation very well, on the other hand, the theory behind that ‘understanding’ relies on the corona and heliosphere being spherical symmetric [which is most certainly is not], so things are not as clear-cut as some people claim.
The transient variations in cosmic rays are not caused by variations of TSI, so there is no simple amplification in play. There is often a wish to make things simpler than they are, because most people cannot [or will not] follow arguments that consist of a long chain [more than two links] of inferences.
Now, I understand that you can become wedded to a worldview, constraining your thoughts. As scientists we have the prerogative of being wrong [and most of the time we are], so it is part of the scientific process [and necessary for progress] to jettison views when they are found wanting. [Good] Scientists are used to that and there is little or no stigma associated with that.
I forgot a direct answer to your
Does this mean that we should expect that heliosphere changes should also be large?
My answer would be “No”, for the many reasons I have already given. Also let we show a Figure from Berggren et al [GRL, 2009] showing that the modulation was greater during the MM than today
http://www.leif.org/researck/GCR-Modulation-MM.png
The red curve is the sunspot number and the black 10Be. Both standardized, normalized, and otherwise tortured, as is usual in this business.
http://www.leif.org/research/GCR-Modulation-MM.png
Leif,
I am not spoused to any hypothesis. I have already changed my view once on the solar issue because I found the evidence compelling enough to do so, and I would not hesitate in changing it again for the same reason.
Some of the issues you are bringing are over my head at the moment, but I will not forget them and with enough reading and pondering I hope I will be able to understand the issues involved. At the very least I know that the root of the 14C argument lies in the changes to the modulation of GCRs by the heliosphere. Neutron detection is probably the place to start.
I didn’t think greatly of the 44Ti data given the huge error bars, but it is difficult to evaluate data from a different field so I generally accept published data unless it has been challenged. Most scientists are very careful with the data even if they let fly their imagination in the discussion. The 10Be data I do not trust because of the strong climate contamination that in my opinion has not been resolved satisfactorily. The 14C data looks more solid, however.
I would like to thank you for all the time and patience that you have put into this conversation. It is extremely kind of you that you would put so much effort with someone you don’t know that manifests opinions so contrarian to yours. To me it has been both educational and a pleasure and it is important that we agree on the evidence that we all trust so we can build from that and find the answers to questions that are still unresolved.
Javier,
Thanks!
I was convinced by Eddy back in 1976, following a trail blazed by Lamb in 1965. What a travesty the CRU, founded by Lamb, has become.
Leif says that Eddy recanted late in life, but, if anything, IMO there is more evidence now of the sun-climate link than 40 years ago, such as SORCE data showing great variation in high energy solar radiation, for instance. Our local star is variable.
Here’s an historical review of the connection:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
It was papers such as this that I found persuasive.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006264/full
Here we present an exceptionally well-dated marine sediment sequence in the eastern Norwegian Sea which records 1–2°C variations of temperature in northward flowing Atlantic waters that are robustly correlated with various estimates of solar activity spanning the last 1000 years. The temperature and solar proxy variations appear to be synchronous within dating errors, which, together with the large amplitude of the temperature signal and its correlation into central Europe, suggests strong coupling of the regional atmospheric and oceanic responses to the Sun. … Lowest isotope values (highest temperatures) of the last millennium are seen ∼1100–1300 A.D., during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and again after ∼1950 A.D. The largest and most sustained isotopic increases (coolings) are centered at ∼1500 A.D. and ∼1700 A.D., corresponding to the regional Little Ice Age. … The presence of medieval and 20th century warmth and Little Ice Age cooling in our records suggests a possible connection to known solar variations at these times (i.e., the Spører and Maunder minima and medieval and modern maxima, respectively). … For the period after 1500 A.D., during which we have greatest confidence in the sediment age model, correlations with the various solar proxies range from ∣R∣ = 0.71 to 0.87 (all significant at >99%). … On balance, the observed relationship of nSST [near sea surface temperatures] and solar proxies suggests a climate response to the Sun within the characteristic inertial timescale of the upper ocean, which is one to several decades. Recurrent, episodic volcanic forcing may also influence the ocean climate signal at this timescale, however, our results indicate that approximately 50–70% of the observed multidecadal to century-scale δ18O variation may be explained by solar forcing alone.
Conclusion: We have presented an oxygen isotopic proxy record of near-surface temperature of Atlantic waters from the area of their primary flow into the eastern Norwegian Sea and find that it is robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium. The associated decade- to century-scale variation of estimated nSST ranges from 1 to 2°C, significantly larger than expected based on thermodynamic considerations alone. We suggest that this is due to a solar influence on the regional modes of atmospheric variability which, in turn, control the poleward transport and temperature of warm Atlantic surface waters. Our findings beg the question of why such a clear connection has not been detected previously.
That’s a good one. There are many such.
As an amateur, Willis pleads not enough time to read topical papers, which I guess is one disadvantage of not being a professional scientist specializing in a few aspects of a discipline. But he manages to make time to read and comment upon those with which he finds fault.
It is for good reason that standard practice in writing scientific papers is to include a thorough relevant literature search as part of the process.
Gloateus Maximus April 10, 2016 at 6:12 pm
Oh, please. I have offered to read your “topical papers”, but neither you nor Kenneth Richards have offered even one example where you have linked to a study and the associated data that you think represents the best and most persuasive for your case. And now to cover your pathetic failure to offer even one example, you start accusing me of not doing my homework?? For shame.
As we used to say on the cattle ranch I grew up on, so far at least, you guys are “all hat and no cattle” …
w.
You grew up on a cattle ranch?
How then could you possibly be so divorced from objective reality?
What breed did you raise? How many head?
You ignore every paper that shows your unsubstantiated religious beliefs false. Do you really not have enough time to read CERN/s experimental results on cosmic rays and CCNs?
It was in all the papers and on TV. Have you even bothered to read Svensmark and his colleagues seminal papers? I thought not.
To be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method. Until you do, why should anyone bother to read a word you spew?
Here is one of those papers:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0005072-Svensmark-GCR-Climate.pdf
Needless to say, the correlation didn’t hold up after 1995, so Svensmark’s conclusion “If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the Heliosphere is important for climate on Earth” must be considered falsified as per Figure 1 of this post.
Leif,
As doubtless you are aware, part of the scientific method is to see what has been proposed previously and not yet falsified.
Key elements of Svensmark’s hypothesis (not his alone) have recently been confirmed, by experiments at CERN and observations of nature, but Willis hasn’t bothered to educate himself even to a lower undergrad level in these developments.
Key elements of Svensmark’s hypothesis (not his alone) have recently been confirmed, by experiments at CERN and observations of nature
That is much too generous. That ions can serve as condensation nuclei has been known for a century [Wilson’s cloud chambers]. The CERN experiment just confirms that, but also shows that the effect is much too small to account for climate change [e.g. papers by Sloan and Wolfendale]. The recent climate data also falsify the hypothesis.
Leif,
Perhaps I should clarify.
My objection to Willis’ approach is that he hasn’t surveyed the literature. That is quite a different situation from your position. You are intimately familiar with the literature, to include that which you find weak. But you haven’t dismissed out of hand the work of genuine scientists because you don’t like their results.
Indeed, your Web site is an excellent resource for positions pro and con any solar influence on climate. Maybe you agree with Willis that solar-climate connections are garbage, but one can fine opposing views on your valuable site.
I can well see how some here find Willis’ categorical assertions in the absence of exhaustive research to be Stalinist. He and you might well be right, but blanket assertion that every scientist who dares to disagree with the Willis the Great is a purveyor of Garbage has to grate on the ears of real scientists.
Re cattle ranch:
Yours is all BS.
I assure you that I have both the hat and the cattle.
I’m not a climate scientist, but a life scientist. You OTOH, are no kind of scientist at all.
This is exactly what those on the alarmist side do too. For example, they call papers that don’t support their views “garbage” or a “piece of trash,” or they say that “most” papers that link solar factors to climate changes are “garbage”, and then they proceed to tell others that if they don’t agree with their views (that papers linking solar factors to climate changes are “garbage”), it is evidence that they are “not a fan of science.” Either we accept their opinions as the final authority and ignore the scientists who disagree with them, or we get ad hommed. Sorry, but this is the most unpersuasive way to handle comments that challenge one’s views.
lsvalgaard
April 11, 2016 at 12:03 am
Please state which recent climate data you have in mind.
Thanks.
CERN’s CLOUD experiments IMO go beyond old cloud chamber results. Their discovery of the role of amines in CCN formation has important climatic implications, for instance. It helped me understand the apparently clear skies of the hottest part of the Cretaceous better. The oceans may have been too hot to produce sufficient biological CCNs.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/cern-experiment-finds-key-ingredient-for-cloud-droplets/
E.g. the plots shown in this post.
Kenneth,
Yup, sadly it appears that Willis shares the same anti-scientific attitude as the CACA spewers.
Leif,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
IMO there does seem to be a correlation between low cloud cover and GCRs, which broke down recently, ie the divergence commented upon by Willis. That doesn’t however mean that there is no causative connection at all. As you note, the isotopic proxy values are controlled by additional factors besides solar activity. Same is true of CCN formation. Sorting all that out makes it hard to determine whether the GCR role is significant or not.
It is not just the recent decades, but much longer than that. Solar activity and cosmic rays and geomagnetic activity [or any other ‘solar’ parameter you like] are presently down to the level of a century ago, but temperatures are not:
http://www.leif.org/research/Breakdown-Aa-dT.png
so it is clear to me that the solar drivers only play a minor role [if any].
I do recognize that my bar is perhaps higher than most people’s, but in this business setting the bar high seems to be preferable.
Leif,
IMO setting the bar high would require better T “data” than are on offer. I don’t know which series is in your graph, for which thanks, but I know of none in which I would place any trust.
It is probably warmer now than in 1916, assuming a global average can be divined, but not by anywhere near as much as in alleged GASTA sets. I doubt that it is warmer now than in the 1930s.
Lowering the bar is permissible if you have a good quantitative understanding of the process. If not, one is just fooling oneself. Lots of that going on, though.
In fact, I’ll grant that 1916 was colder than now in the Western US. The 1910s were cool. But the 1930s were hotter than now. IIRC, 1934 is still the warmest year in uncooked books for this region.
There is a solid relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays, this has been well established and understood, it is never made clear enough within these discussions from people that downplay the suns influence.
As for cosmic rays seeding clouds, the idea/theory is not evidence of a mechanism and I’m left unconvinced about cosmic rays and clouds to date, in my opinion any effect from cosmic rays would be just another minor piece of the much larger puzzle of earths natural climate variability.
There is lots of evidence for the link between GCRs and cloud CCNs. Here is one source of such evidence:
http://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud
That is my point. What matters isn’t what the sun puts out, it is how much radiation reaches the earth surface to warm it. If I’m in a room and draw the shade, the room cools no matter how bright the sun is outside. If I’m in the Desert and walk in a shadow it cools. I’m I’m on a beach and a cloud passes over it cools. Focus on the critical factor. Too many things can change the amount of radiation reaching the earth surface, regardless of the sun’s output.
i agree, it would be nice to find out why the north sea summer temps peaked 3 c below those of the previous year last summer. for me the shallow (relatively) seas of the world offer a real time insight into how much solar radiation that actually counts (that reaching the surface) varies over the course of a year.
This article, many other articles and many of the comments relating to them, suggest to me that we just don’t know many things about how the earths temperature is being affected. I don’t think we even know all the things that are affecting it much less which ones are affecting it the most or the least. I am sure glad there are some scientists out there that do not try to make sensationalist headlines to sell more of something like newspapers and research grants. Too bad so many people are still stuck in the proverbial matrix on this and many other issues. It is very hard to believe that there are so many others willing to deceive their fellow human beings for the almighty dollar so I can understand people’s gullibility. What I can’t understand, is how so many people are unable to see through the misinformation.
We are having another great day here in So. Florida with a temp range of between 68 and 78 today. Perfect for me. Going to the driving range to hit some balls before watching the final round of the Masters this afternoon. My thanks to all the commenters and the author.
This is my outsider’s view of how people in the climate field address this issue, and I’ll use a shooting range analogy.
I go to the shooting range with a 44 Magnum. I shoot at the target and a bird flies in front of the bullet, causing me to miss the target. I then shoot 5 more rounds and hit the target.
I see the dead bird and count that I hit 5/6. My conclusion would be that 5 bullets were dead on, and a bird stopped the one bullet from reaching the target. Simple common sense based upon the available evidence.
Climate scientists would be looking into what caliber gun I used, how much powder was in the load, what is a hollow point, solid point or full metal jacket, what the wind velocity was that day, what kind of bird it was, the density of the air, the visibility, the length of the barrel, the velocity of the bullet, the type of paper used in the target, the color of the ink used on the target, days since I last shot the gun, was the gun barrel clean, what brand of bullet was used, was it center or rim fired, is the lead environmentally safe, the size of the fire burst from the end of the barrel, the decibel level of the crack, the weight of the gun, the type of handle, did it have a scope, etc etc etc etc.
When building a model every additional factor introduces error to that model. The key to building any successful model is simplicity. Focus on the most significant variables with the greatest explanatory power. Great models are very very simple models when put into a formula, ie E=MC^2. You can explain the universe with 3 factors and simple math. So many of these posts demonstrate how climate scientists chase their tails. AGW is a lie. The people promoting AGW know it is a lie, they are creating it. That is why they violate so many commonly accepted scientific practices. They know what to violate because they know they are not playing by the rules. Trying to expose all their lies works to their favor. While we are distracted by their lies, they are signing contracts and making fortunes.
The best approach to this issue is a political approach where we force the warmists to provide answers to the smoking gun questions, how does 13 to 18µ warm the oceans? Demand transparency in the field of climate science, demand an open source climate reconstruction and climate model. Demand the warmist defend the results of the IPCC models. Demand accountability. Demand a review of how scientific grants are made. Demand a Department of Scientific Integrity, Validation and Conclusion Agency that use double blind tests like the FDA for determine the validity of the conclusion reached of grant funded research.
Lesson plans like applying the scientific method to ice core data should be in every classroom teaching real science.
[No, climate science activists would demand your arrest for killing that imaginary bird that flew in front of your imaginary but obviously deadly pistol. While building a billion-dollar reflecting mirage (mirror) in a formerly pristine desert that burns thousands of birds every year to death. .mod]
One consideration about models that the lay person forgets. The exploration of the Solar system is presently taking place. This is being done with rockets that are “programmed” to take a course to the desired target. That “program” is essentially a “Computer Model.” Consider the multi Billions of dollars designing, building and programming these “computer models” navigating the rockets. Every manned and un-manned trip to the Moon required “course correction” to achieve the desired target. The Manned flights even relied upon the 300+ year old Sextant to hit the target. Mirrors and a curved ruler (the scale of degrees arc) were better than the “Exalted Computer.” The rockets that travel for 5, 10, 20 years have all needed “corrected” to maintain course. And we are only dealing with 3, maybe 4 dimensions in these calculations. Even the self driving cars they are playing with today have more sensors providing and adjusting variable parameters than the “Climate Models” use for developing their prognostications. And, note that these self driving cars need real-time corrections! How long would you sit in a self driving car if ALL sensors were disabled and it simply followed its programmed “Google” maps track? Hint:look at where you vehicle icon is on your GPS as you drive. And that is derived from 5 to 12 satellites – plus WiFi HotSpots in the city.
Would any of the astute readers please explain how these Climate models can process several thousand known variables, an additional unknown (thousands) unknown variables including the fact that both know and unknown are chaotic and not associated to any of the past, present or future events. The chaotic events are simply random number generators generating random numbers and throwing random wrenches (bugs) into the random “Modeled” process.
If anyone has truly and accurately “modeled” Climate they deserve several Noble prizes. Math, Statistics, Science, Physics … As an Engineer that worked with computer models for several years I claim that it is still, presently, impossible. A climate model is much more, several orders of magnitude, difficult than the supercomputer models that take years to provide computer simulations (and low level simulations at that) of the”Universe.”
!(:-)! Spot on… As I said earlier….
llydon2015
April 9, 2016 at 10:30 pm
As with the discussion of correlation of temp. with Maunder, Dalton etc. minimums… Multiple, additive (&/or subtractive!?) confounding factors…. Complex systems are… complex…. I suspect that there are significant contributions of Solar activity to Earth’s climate, but agree that finding the various needles in haystacks is not easy… Michael Crichton sums it up well re’ complex systems and inappropriateness of trying to apply simplistic analyses (not that I’m inferring that is what you are trying to do by any means… (:-)). I only came across this and other “Michael Crichton videos” today… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOP6JnaZgw
The rockets that travel for 5, 10, 20 years have all needed “corrected” to maintain course
Your analogy is false. The reason corrections are needed is that we do not know precisely what the orbit parameters are at launch. Essentially, six numbers are needed: three for the position in X, Y, and Z, and three for the velocity components in the directions X, Y, and Z. These latter ones are not known very accurately, hence the need for corrections.
@lsvalgaard – So,I assume you will take up my offer to get in a self driving car with no control system other than “Google Maps? Even the “Survey Grade GPS would not work. Accurate enough – YES. Fast enough – NO,unless you plan on staying in exactly one spot for a few minutes and then moving a few yards/meters to the next spot. Will we ever have the capability – yes eventually.
I believe if you read your rebuttal a few times you will see that it supports my argument rather than refuting it. If they can not even “model” 6 variables, three known and three that they only know within less than a percent, then include the weather factors (atmospheric pressure, wind, etc) on launch, fuel efficiency, octane, power, gravity anomalies in the trajectory, affecting the velocity y causing the reason for the adjustments, Then Please, how can they model the entire “Global Climate?” All of the factors are known, or be measured, and can be included in the “program.” These rockets are NOT just corrected once, and only once, from here to the Moon. If that was the case your argument might be valid. And please do not tell me that they have no idea what the velocity components are within a very narrow range. Very close to if not less than one percent. I have specked out military components.
And please do not tell me that they have no idea what the velocity components are within a very narrow range. Very close to if not less than one percent.
They need to know the components to an accuracy of better than 16 significant digits…
or 0.000 000 000 000 01 percent. This is what we do know for the planets and other solar system bodies, so we know where the targets are, but we do not know precisely where are rockets are, hence the need for corrections from time to time.
@lsvalgaard – The rocket analogy was only used to describe the complexity of the problem. Your rebuttals continue to enforce the fact that modeling the climate is impossible.
So please tell me how many degrees of accuracy are needed to predict within just the 95% confidence level they are using in their prognostications how accurate they need to know the magnitude, affects, significant parameters/variables and direction (positive negative affect) of the thousands of variables, how they compensate for the chaotic, unknown effects – predicting 100 years in advance, with no knowledge of the unknowns and provide, with the 95% confidence level needed to justify spending 100’s of Trillions on this “theory?”
The rocket analogy: the problem is not complex, actually very simple, which explains why we can send rockets to Jupiter and beyond.
The climate is complex, which explains why so many people have no idea what they are talking about.
“The reason corrections are needed is that we do not know precisely what the orbit parameters are at launch.”
That’s not the only reason. We also do not precisely know the reflectivity of the vehicle, and hence the precise impact of solar radiation pressure on the trajectory. Nor, do we know precisely the distribution of heat radiating from the vehicle, which also imparts a delta-V (which is currently the best explanation available for the Pioneer anomaly). And, we do not precisely know center of pressure offsets to gauge how often, and in what direction, we will need to unload angular momentum, and hence precisely how much delta-V will be imparted by those events. Incorrect accounting of this latter effect is what doomed the Mars Climate Orbiter.
True, but all these effects are MUCH lower than the error arising from not knowing the velocity components precisely enough.
@lsvalgaard, @Bartemus – I agree and concede that the rocket analogy is “Too Simple.” The simple fact remains that we cannot even use these sophisticated ”Computer Models” to get to a designated spot on the Moon without the aid of periodic correction. How does that negate the fact that the Climate Models do not know; What to model, How to model, Where to model, What not to model, What they should model and How to account for the chaotic nature of many of the parameters they are modeling and claiming they are predicting EXACTLY what is going to happen in 100 years. This with a track record of not even predicting the last 20 years. Isvalgaard gave the accuracy needed for a rocket. I am still waiting for the accuracy to predict 100 years in advance. It only takes 7 to 9 iterations of a computer model to make the results not just wrong but worthless when the input is not accurate enough. Many of the early pocket calculators (e.g. HP-35) were worthless for statics and dynamics courses in college. Many of the calculations I performed required that I use my slide-rule rather than the HP-35, I quickly learned to verify all trig calcs with the slide rule.
The models are based upon the same scientific knowledge, and lack of the needed knowledge, as used by a group of scientists that cannot even get the number of hurricanes or tornadoes/cyclones correct for the next 12 months, even the weather or temperature 10 days in advance. Farmer’s almanac has a better record. Add in the fact that random numbers around the average give a better prediction. Yet these worthless “Climate Change Models” are sold to our politicians and they are then used for justification for spending over $100 Trillion Dollars, destroying the US economy, the EU economy and distributing half of that money to corrupt dictators.
usurbrain @ April 10, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Yes, the point is well taken. However, the climate modelers decided that CO2 was such an overwhelming influence that, henceforward, it would be the dominant factor, and other perturbations would be relatively insignificant.
No unbiased, and reasonably intelligent, observer at this time could conclude anything other than that they were definitely wrong in the near term. Nor is there any basis upon which he or she can claim scientifically that they will be proved right in the long term.
I think the rocket analogy is apt. Leif says it isn’t because it depends mostly on initial conditions. But, that’s just the point. There is uncertainty in the system, sure. But, even if you knew the initial conditions perfectly, you wouldn’t get the right answer if you extrapolated them forward based, say, on an inverse cubic law of gravitation. You’ve got to have a reasonably good model to begin with, and the current climate models aren’t.
Moreover, not only does the error in the initial condition not tell you anything if you don’t have a good model for the evolution of the system, but other perturbations could be more significant, e.g., if someone had a solar sail on the space probe that you knew nothing about. Or if, unbeknownst to you, a fuel tank had ruptured in transit.
So, both a good model and a good handle on the relative impact of potential perturbations are essential to producing a reliable prediction. And, so far, climate science appears to have neither.
Bartemis April 10, 2016 at 3:54 pm
“The reason corrections are needed is that we do not know precisely what the orbit parameters are at launch.”
That’s not the only reason. We also do not precisely know the reflectivity of the vehicle, and hence the precise impact of solar radiation pressure on the trajectory. Nor, do we know precisely the distribution of heat radiating from the vehicle, which also imparts a delta-V (which is currently the best explanation available for the Pioneer anomaly). And, we do not precisely know center of pressure offsets to gauge how often, and in what direction, we will need to unload angular momentum, and hence precisely how much delta-V will be imparted by those events. Incorrect accounting of this latter effect is what doomed the Mars Climate Orbiter.
What doomed that mission was thinking a mile was a km!
Am I reading this right? ” galactic cosmic rays vary basically in synchrony with the solar magnetic field, which like sunspots has an approximately 11 year cycle.” You then use the sunspot cycle to disprove any causation.
How does that work? Does the galactic cosmic rays cause the sunspots? Not much of a cosmologist, but I don’t believe that the Sun causes galactic cosmic rays. I can see how the suns Magnetic field can affect the galactic cosmic rays impinging on the globe though. What happens all the way out to the Oort cloud during these periods of increased/decreased galactic cosmic rays? What cause the increase/decrease? What effect does the process that is causing the change in the numbers of galactic cosmic rays have on: 1. The Sun. 2. The Sun spots. 3. The magnetic field around the Earth that is protecting us from the galactic cosmic rays? What effect does the position of the other planets and their magnet field have on all of the before?
Some of the answers can be hinted at here: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Especially Slides 16-19 for the cosmic ray modulation.
More bafflegab from a government employee who hopes everybody will want to be like him, by calling himself something that’s nothing more than a way to turn a buck with minimal risk of getting fired or getting sore from real work.
The rest of the world is filled with scientists.
We’re the ones who do things like point out how ridiculous it is to claim the fire heating a rock in vacuum,
doesn’t affect how warm it gets.
Timothy
The sun flips polarity every Schwabe cycle (11 years). Solar cosmic rays can penetrate the terrestrial magnetic field more effectively during odd numbered cycles with solar magnetic field polarity anti-parallel to earth’s (Even-numbered cycles have a parallel polarity). It is the Hale cycle (21 years) that correlates and not the Schwabe cycle. Since there are only 1.5 Hale cycles in the sample, a correlation would not be detected. Correlations with the Hale cycle are observed in some (but not all) river basins. Example:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
Solar cosmic rays can penetrate the terrestrial magnetic field more effectively during odd numbered cycles
No this is incorrect and muddled. The modulation of galactic cosmic rays by the polarity of the solar polar fields [which is correct] changes at solar maximum when the polar field reverses and so is not related to even-odd cycles [which changes at minimum]. You are also confusing solar and galactic cosmic rays. In modern parlance ‘solar cosmic rays’ are called ‘solar energetic particles’ and are rare and of much lower energy that Galactic cosmic rays. And are not the particles that Svensmark at al. are talking about.
Leif, for those of us who prefer data to theory, what is a good source for long term counts of galactic cosmic rays?
Regards,
w.
http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13.htm
is a good source of [almost] raw data
More on the calibration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates
The data are the difference between the 14C-based age and the ‘real’, ‘true’ age and are thus an indication of the change of modulation, production, and deposition.
The important number is ‘delta14C’. Here is a graph of that quantity the last 50,000 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL13.png
“The Guilty Fell When No One Pursues.” Understand that proverb, and you understand climate science. The reason they don’t include error bars is because they are knowingly perpetrating a fraud. Error bars are a basic foundation of science and the scientific method. Everyone with a 1st grade education in science knows that. When a “scientist” doesn’t include an error bar they are knowingly violating a foundational principle of science. The fact that they are trying to obfuscate the issue pretty much proves they aren’t about the truth, they are about producing a desired result. Transparency and reproducibility are cornerstones to science. We need to demand climate science respects those principles. Demand open source temperature reconstructions and climate models. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for exposing the lies of the climate scientists. We don’t need to refute every nonsensical claim the climate scientists make, that will simply be chasing our tails, we simply have to force them to expose their practices to the public and we win. All it took was Toto to look behind the curtain and the Wizard suddenly became just a man. All it took was a little boy to state the obvious, that the emperor had no clothes.
This is how to defeat the Warmists. Shed sunlight on what they are doing.
Apply Sunlight.
State the obvious.
http://www.permaculturenews.org/images/gmo_emperor_no_clothes.jpg
This obsession with finding an 11 year signal is probably misplaced. First, it isn’t a true cycle, but varies from 9 to 13 years. Second, you’d need to account for multiple resonances, one for every ocean cycle, and one for every land mass.
RH April 10, 2016 at 7:56 am
The majority of the energy in the sunspot cycle is right around 11 years, so it is absolutely reasonable to look for that cycle. In addition, I use cross correlation to look for the match to the actual sunspot cycles.
As for “multiple resonances”, while that sounds all sciency, I fear you have provided no evidence that such things exist in a way that could affect the results of variations in sunshine. Do you see such “multiple resonances” in the results of the daily or monthly variations in solar energy? If so, please provide a link as I’d like to learn about them.
w.
“In addition, I use cross correlation to look for the match to the actual sunspot cycles.”
Then you should have found that the actual sunspot cycle correlated to temperature bumps at 15, 30, and 40 years. That’s in addition to the temperature increase that happens during the the solar peak.
Ah. Much like the two separately motorized windshield wipers on an old model school bus occasionally synced together.
RH April 11, 2016 at 4:09 am
Since this dataset is only 26 years long, I fail to understand how you could possibly get a correlation at forty years … which means you are talking about some unknown situation.
Now, how on earth do you expect me or anyone to respond to your claims regarding some totally unknown situation??
w.
Is it possible that what determines the Earth’s global mean temperature is as simple as what Svenmark claims? More of the sun’s radiation that reaches surface=higher temp, less radiation reaching surface=lower temp.
Weather is caused by the unequal heating of the surface. The atmosphere begins to move in an attempt to achieve thermal equalization. Since the Earth rotates, equalization is never achieved.
We recognize patterns in the movement of the atmosphere and these patterns determine climatic regions. If the pattern changes the climatic regions change.
This makes more sense to me than CO2 being in the drivers seat. I have read all the debates. I simply can not fathom how CO2 further warms the surface or slow the rate of cooling.
This is the better explanation:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
The amount of cloud is determined by the length of the lines of air mass mixing so that zonal airflows result in less clouds and meridional air flows result in more clouds.
Cosmic ray quantities are just a proxy for other processes such as the way changes in wavelengths and particles from the sun alter ozone chemistry in the stratosphere so as to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Changes in climate zone boundaries occur over multiple decades and so do not correlate with single solar cycles.
Both theories have clouds as the thermostat control and not CO2. Either one has more justification for further research than the CO2 theory since a correlation to CO2 levels and global temperature has never been established.
Akin to weighing fairies dancing on the head of a pin at different times, thus the combine weight being then measurable? Your theory is thus constructed, and is not mechanized in any way that can be modeled.
Trend variations in the relevant parameters can be observed. That is sufficient until we have better sensors in the right locations high in the atmosphere.
usurbrain April 10, 2016 at 7:13 am
Am I reading this right? ” galactic cosmic rays vary basically in synchrony with the solar magnetic field, which like sunspots has an approximately 11 year cycle.” You then use the sunspot cycle to disprove any causation.
How does that work? Does the galactic cosmic rays cause the sunspots?
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
GCR’s can be fun. lol
Sunspots go up, GCR go down. Coronal Mass Ejections (CME’s) blast them all around.
Some GCR gain energy from solar interactions and some begin a decline.
keV kilo electron Volt, meV mega electron Volt , teV tera electron Volt, peV peta electron Volt and higher.
Some GCR come in energy levels that do penetrate the sun. (above 500 meV I think.)
GCR gyrate around magnetic fields and have some long gyro radius in terms of 100’s of AU. Possible some over lap between the gyro radius regions of interstellar magnetic fields.
Couple that to the solar orbit through the galaxy.
CORRECTING THE RECORD ON THE ANALYSIS OF IBEX AND STEREO DATA REGARDING VARIATIONS IN THE NEUTRAL INTERSTELLAR WIND
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/61/meta#apj507712app3
P. C. Frisch1, M. Bzowski2, C. Drews3, T. Leonard4, G. Livadiotis5, D. J. McComas5,6, E. Möbius4, N. Schwadron4, and J. M. Sokół2
Published 2015 March 4
2. POSSIBLE SPATIAL INHOMOGENEITIES IN LIC
2.1. Turbulence and Edge Effects
The Sun moves through the surrounding interstellar cloud at a relative velocity of ~5 AU yr−1, so that the forty-year historical record of the interstellar wind velocity sampled interstellar scale lengths of ~200 AU. There is no ad hoc reason that the LIC should be homogeneous and isotropic over such small spatial scales. The mean free path of a thermal population of LIC atoms is ~330 AU, which is larger than the distance traveled through the LIC during the past 40 years. Collisional coupling between atoms will break down over scales smaller than the mean free path, allowing the formation of eddies that perturb the gas velocity over heliosphere scale-lengths. ………………………………..
wish Astley would include the dates of his article quotes.
Willis,
Here is a reference to my first publication on the climate change science. This is the link to the subpage of my website: http://www.climatexam.com/#!publications/c2ol
The title of my paper is “Changes in cosmic ray fluxes improve correlation to global warming”. There is a link to the original document and to the online material including the data for the figure below. The correlation r2 between the ion chamber data and the temperature is 0.925. Pretty good.
I do not make these comments frequently, so hopefully the links are working.
Up until 1991 maybe but there your paper shows considerable divergence after that. Also there are times when it appears – to me at least – that temperature leads the cosmic ray data.
John Finn,
Yes, the sunspots graph diverges from the temperature graph after 1981 but the sunspots are there only as a reference. My point has been to use the ion chamber data (blue line) and its correlation to the temperature; the r2 = 0.925 is between these two variables.
I wasn’t referring to the sunspots. I was referring to the aa-index/cosmic ray data. You fail to show the divergence in your comment but it is shown in you r paper.
and here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Breakdown-Aa-dT.png
Whose GASTA reconstruction did you use?
All the main ones are works of science fiction, to include NOAA, GISS, HadCRU and BEST, some more fictional than others.
I have used the HadCRU temperature data set. I think that the UAH MSU data set to be the most reliable but it was not applicable for the analysis starting from 1865.
My bad. I forgot to address Lief. But thanks for your reply anyway.
Yes. Too bad about the lack of satellite observations before the 1960s.
Maybe a reformed US federal climate community can produce at least a usefully reliable global land surface temperature set in the future. Now we can’t even trust the raw data anymore.
Just some additional information. I have used the average values for a solar cycle. I think that it is justified because a time period shorter than about 11 years, includes weather phenomenon effects like El Nino / La Nina. I checked that using the 11 years running average smoothing, the r2 = 0.9.
I think there is something to the Cosmic Rays Increase Cloud Formation idea, but I agree that the data set is too short and doesn’t show significant evidence of the effect. It does appear to work in the lab. Looking for the effect in the wild, however, is going to be difficult if you assume it’s the only major factor in the large chaotic system our atmosphere is. I believe it’s just a piece of the puzzle and there are a number of forcings, known and unknown, that compete for dominance. With a much longer data set, perhaps on a geologic scale, but at minimum thousands of years, we could glean the trends.
I know that doesn’t seem helpful, but I don’t believe the short term variations in climate are anything more than that, “short term variations.” The problem is there is so much alarm and hand wringing over a science that is in its infancy and, most likely, we have no power to do anything about except observe.
GCR gyrate around magnetic fields and have some long gyro radius in terms of 100’s of AU. Possible some over lap between the gyro radius regions of interstellar magnetic fields.
Oh noooooo
just had a mental punch in the chest…
How many overlaps, how many gaps and where do they occur.
Made me think of Vertigo
Afraid you are all barking up the wrong tree if you think this idea has legs when it comes major climate change. lts all coming across as trying to be too clever by half.
Am expecting there to be a noticeable cooling over the next year in the NH. This years trend of high pressure extending north/south is still ongoing. Leading to a large movement of air between north and south. lf this is still happening during the summer and yet it does not rise the mean Arctic temps in any noticeable way. Then this will confirm there is a cooling trend in palace. Also the ridging of high pressure up across NW America seems too becoming persistent. While this lasts this will be sending cold air down across NE America or the northern Atlantic. Which one it is depends on the the weather patterns across the rest of America.
taxed April 10, 2016 at 11:25 am
Am expecting there to be a noticeable cooling over the next year in the NH. This years trend of high pressure extending north/south is still ongoing
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Ooops I thought Am was angular momentum. Started to sound like changes in the coryoliosis effect. Which changes with Earth’s rotation…
Co·ri·o·lis ef·fect
ˌkôrēˈōləs iˌfekt/
nounPHYSICS
an effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the Coriolis force ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern and is important in the formation of cyclonic weather systems.
One thing that I found significant is that of the 18 combinations of latitude range, altitude and hemisphere, the 2 that had interesting results had the same latitude range and altitude. Also, they are impressively alike each other while being different from the other 16. I think it would be a good idea to determine the correlation coefficient between these 2.
One possibility to look into is that cosmic ray variation has greatest effect on clouds made of water droplets rather than ice crystals, or maybe even stratiform clouds made of water droplets instead of ice crystals. Notably stratiform clouds with water droplets are common in madlatitudes even in winter, because cloud droplets easily stay liquid well below freezing. In fact, snowflake development generally occurs in clouds composed mainly of supercooled water droplets – that is due to the difference in equilibrium pressure of H2O vapor over supercooled water and ice at the same temperature.
What may affect variation of cloud formation may be a specific cloud nucleation radiation whose variability and where clouds of an affected kind occur simultaneously. This may well be in a specific latitude and altitude zone. To confirm or rule this out requires repeat study, perhaps over multiple solar cycles, to the point of establishing positive correlation being respectively high enough or low enough to establish probability of correlation being from random chance respectively either less than 5% or greater than 95%.
As for positive correlation half the time: If this is true, then it may be due to what is known as either the Hale cycle or the Babcock–Leighton cycle, where the polarity of the sun’s polarity reverses once every ~11-year cycle, for a magnetic polarity cycle of ~22 years. A possible interaction of that with Earth’s magnetic field may affect some cloud-nucleating kind of radiation in a critical latitude and altitude zone. This is the hypothesis for the “Hale Winter”, which is the apparent or perceived pattern of particularly harsh winters in eastern North America, the British Isles and nearby parts of Europe in the solar minimum after an odd number solar maximum. Of course, it seems there is not yet sufficient evidence to establish statistically with 95% confidence that this either exists or does not.
Donald,
“One possibility to look into is that cosmic ray variation has greatest effect on clouds made of water droplets rather than ice crystals, or maybe even stratiform clouds made of water droplets instead of ice crystals.”
Yeah, I’m (nobody special) thinking it’s the “bi-pole” quality of water that would most likely be involved with such a Sol “field” influence . . and I just saw this today;
‘A single ion impacts a million water molecules’
http://actu.epfl.ch/news/a-single-ion-impacts-a-million-water-molecules/
Carla
l taken a keen interest in the weather for a number of years. So l do understand the way weather patterns look. The fact that l noticed this extending suggests its been a real trend this year, otherwise l would have not noticed it. Other thing that suggests its real is that it has only been happening in the NH. A very good example of what l mean is currently happening in the North Atlantic at the moment. lts this type of pattern that has been turning up more often just recently. This type of weather pattern has a important bearing on the climate as it allows a large movement of air to flow between the north and south. l will be looking towards the summer with interest, as to see what effects it has on the Arctic mean temps during the summer should this trend last. lf it has no noticeable effects on Arctic mean temps during the summer, Then that would suggest to me that the climate has moved into cooling.
..Well, considering that it is presently snowing heavily in London, Ontario, Canada…IN APRIL, I have to unhappily agree with your assessment !
Thank you.
I did notice a N to S difference this past winter as well. El Nino had the N. Polar Vortex pushed up over Greenland and not sitting in my lap, like the past 2 years. That same Nino really mucked up the southward flow of cold as it ‘mixed’ it up. Warm and cold and warm and cold in these parts, a mild winter for us until lately. Folks up on the U.S. east coast were shaking their heads this past week, winter returns for spring lol..
But….the Southern Polar Vortex is up and running ‘strong’ early?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-128.12,-97.60,451/loc=-36.110,-64.854
The best example that I know of for Galactic Cosmic Rays affecting climate is the Shaviv-Veizer (2003) paper (can be found here: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/shaviv-veizer-03.pdf).
There is a follow up paper by Royer et al (2004) (can be found here: http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf) that says – no it is CO2 that is most important, but they do admit: “Changes in cosmic ray flux may affect climate but they are not the dominant climate driver on a multimillion-year time scale.” They note a relationship between CO2 and temperature, but show no data/reason that CO2 leads temperature. My interpretation is that they seem to be saying that the Cosmic Rays starting the ball rolling, but CO2 took over and dominated the show.
As for the data, I don’t have it.
David in Texas April 10, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Lots of that going around in the solar world these days …
w.
Why don’t you read the paper? Afraid?
Easy to carp at real scientists, while in reality being a pysch BS grad from a third rate Cal State U trying to play a climatologist, or statistical analyst or whatever grandiosity you imagine yourself to be, on the Internet.
OK, Einstein was a patent clerk and Faraday a mechanic, but those guys you are not. Sorry.
Gloateus Maximus April 10, 2016 at 7:31 pm
Afraid? Nope. I didn’t read it because there is no link to the data used. Is there something about the following that was hard for you to understand?
Surely you noticed that only one link was provided … or perhaps you didn’t. Either way, please come back when you have read and understood what is going on.
Max Gloating, I am a self-taught amateur scientist with a half-dozen peer-reviewed publications in the scientific journals. These publications have garnered well over fifty citations from other scientists in the field. I am also one of the best-known climate bloggers on the web, with over a million page views of my work per year. Finally my work is carefully scrutinized, considered, and peer-reviewed by scientists from all over the world, right here on WUWT.
Not bad for a man whose only formal scientific education is a year each of college freshman chemistry and physics, wouldn’t you say? Shows you what thousands and thousands of hours of study can do.
You, on the other hand, are a random anonymous internet popup who is unwilling to sign his own name to the unpleasant words he utters. But hey, I can understand your actions, in your shoes I wouldn’t sign that kind of venom either …
Since I never claimed to be either of those gentlemen, I fear your shot has missed the mark.
w.
Willis,
Because I’m a scientist, I need to be anonymous. The academic scientists here who comment under their own names have my respect and admiration, but generally are emeritus or close to it. I’m not in the same position as, say, Lief or Dr. Brown. Call me a coward, but were you in academia, you might well likewise put career and supporting a family ahead of honesty, for want of a better word.
Despite papers in low rent journals and a letter in Nature, I don’t consider you a scientist because, as I said, you reject the scientific method.
If, for the sake of argument, I’m a popup who has never contributed to advancing the frontiers of knowledge, the fact that you’re not a scientist remains, regardless of your delusions of grandeur. Mann has published a lot more than you, but he isn’t a scientist either.
Regrettably, in your case, self-taught means not taught because you haven’t stood on the shoulders of giants, as per Newton. You imagine that you can create de novo brilliant insights, which, as your scientific betters like Roy Spencer have shown, are common places to those who have spent years and decades studying the phenomena to which you presume to be able make contributions without such education. You imagine contributions because you haven’t bothered to learn what has gone before.
[Reply: Let’s stop the bun fight. This is getting too personal. Anyone is free to submit an article here. You should try it. You will see that you can’t keep everyone happy. –mod]
Mod,
I’m not a climatologist nor do I play one on a blog. I could post an article on one of the few aspects of paleoclimatology with which I have experience, such as DNA dating to 400,000 and 800,000 years ago from Greenland on which I worked. But I prefer to write about topics in which I’m actually a leading expert, ie in a professional journal. Not being an expert on anything doesn’t seem to hobble Willis, however.
WUWT used to be a more general science blog. In those days I might have written a post on evolution or genetics. Since climate change skeptics are sadly too often anti=scientific creationists, such a post might have helped build scientific credibility. But the heading for this site has changed to be more specifically climate-oriented.
If I’ve been too personal, I apologize, however I don’t find my comments any more personal than those by others in this and other comment sections who take exception to Willis’ cavalier dismissal of work by real scientists, out of complete and total ignorance of their work.
Please feel free to censor me. I’m out of here. I’ve got real science to do rather than mud wrestle with pigs pretending they can fly.
Cosmic Disconnections
Posted by Willis Eschenbach
I read yesterday that someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather.
_________________
Willis
You got any aprove that
‘someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather.’
Please share.
my denglish | aprove -> approve
Cosmic Disconnections
Posted by Willis Eschenbach
I read yesterday that someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather.
_________________
Willis
You got any approve that
‘someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather.’ ??
Please share.
Willis,
You’re up into Stalinist ‘Fraktionskämpfe’.
Stop it Now.
Say what? I can’t tell if you are serious or not, but … huh?
w.
Willis, it’s me and I’m serious.
What about You?
But first of all – talk about Svensmark – ever heard of since?
Johann Wundersamer April 10, 2016 at 3:52 pm
Willis Eschenbach April 10, 2016 at 4:52 pm
Johann Wundersamer April 10, 2016 at 5:08 pm
No, Johann, first of all please tell me why you are accusing me of Stalinist factional fighting by saying:
I do not appreciate being accused of being like Stalin in any way. The man was a monster, one of the largest mass murderers in history, and I haven’t a clue what I’ve done to lead you to make that most unpleasant claim.
This is particularly true since I specifically asked that if you disagree with me, that you QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS … and you have not even attempted to do that.
Now, I’m happy if you walk out the door and come back in again, but this time without making nasty accusations. I’m willing to start this over. If you think I’m wrong, quote my words.
Or I’m happy if you walk out the door, period.
Other than that, I’m not interested in your opinions on cosmic rays, not when they come wrapped in such venom.
w.
kennethrichards April 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm Edit
So are you saying that I’m not free to comment on what you wrote? I’m not sure what your point is here.
Moving on, I’d said
I thought I was clear, but I guess I wasn’t, my bad.
I don’t want someone to give me a list of some stack of two hundred papers. Instead, I specifically asked for a link to the ONE study that you or anyone else thinks is the best, the solidest, the strongest study they know of, AND a second link to the data as used in the study. I can’t analyze the study without the data.
The requirement that the data be available rules out maybe 90% of all published studies of purported solar-climate connections … and that should tell you something right there. Look, it’s you guys that claim the connection is solid, but so far on this thread, not one person has taken me up on my offer to analyze the paper that they think is the solidest.
Including you.
No worries, I can see how it could be read that way. I got the paper through my underground source (thanks, amigo!), I could never pay for all the studies I’ve looked at.
Thanks and regards,
w.
Willis, I postulate that GCR has no influence on warming or cooling UNTIL it reaches upper and lower threshold levels. Interested in Svensmarks theory that GCR can influence small changes in cloud cover I used the neutron count data series from South Africa (beginning in the 1950s) and GISS temperature data set to come up with a threshold based temperature prediction algorithm for monthly change. I am just tracking this for fun and shared the resultant graph with friends here https://flic.kr/p/qDSnGf. If you want the spreadsheet let me know but I warn you its just a fun personal spreadsheet and is not formatted for others to follow easily!
“”I read yesterday that someone had supposedly provided evidence in support of Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays affect the weather. So I went to look it up.””
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
More info should be forth coming on this.
I did go through comments on this topic and noticed that we don’t seem to have a grip on another near Earth repository for GCRs. I think,.. a major player…
The Radiation belts.
Our modelling should be much improved with solar variation by now, anyone???
kennethrichards April 10, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Thanks, Kenneth. I fear your interpretation is wrong again, likely my fault. I have not looked at all 200 of them, so I did not characterize them. I was simply trying to point out that this paper, which is absolute rubbish, will soon be listed by Pierre among the 200+ papers … which clearly demonstrates that BEING ON THE LIST IS MEANINGLESS!
However, I did link in the head post to my look at the 23 of them that Pierre was highlighting … a sad bunch.
But heck, if you think there is a diamond in amongst the dross, if you think I’m overlooking some jewel of a study, please point it out AND give me a link to the data it used, and I’m happy to take a look at it.
w.
Wliis,
Did you notice that I have provided the paper and the data link in my comments above for the ion chamber data and the temperature? I have a pretty good correlation for a very simple data set. Any comments?
I have a pretty good correlation for a very simple data set
Which breaks down in 1995. So, not so good:
http://www.leif.org/research/Breakdown-Aa-dT.png
aveollila April 11, 2016 at 8:46 am
Thank for that data, aveollila, you were right, I hadn’t noticed it. Thanks for your perseverance.
I just downloaded your numbers. When adjusted for autocorrelation, the p-value of the relationship between your aa index data and your temperature data is 0.075, NOT statistically significant. In addition the R^2 is quite low, 0.17.
Next, as Leif Svalgaard pointed out, the correlation goes south very badly around 1985 … no surprise, there are lots of false correlations in nature that disappear when you look at a longer dataset.
Finally, the spectra of the two datasets are quite different. The aa index, as you would expect, has most of the power in the ~ 11-year range because it is related to the sunspot cycle … but the temperature dataset has virtually no power at all in that range.
In short, while I heartily commend you for doing the work, I fear you have not demonstrated what you think you have shown …
w.
And we are gathering some momentum. There were fewer Leap seconds added 2000-2010 than in in previous 2 decades of measurements. 2010-present even fewer leap seconds added…oh yeah solar cycle on the decline, so hold onto your hat.
Wonder at what rotational speed Earth would ‘start’ to pull into a more elliptical orbit. Mars is more elliptical in its orbit…
Mars’ orbit is made more elliptical by Jupiter’s powerful gravitational attraction. Earth’s orbit is more nearly circular.
So Svensmark’s 2007 paper with the “correlation” between the Forebush events and decrease in cloud cover (Forebush flares create a solar wind, equivalent to the peak during the solar cycle, but they are of limited duration) has not meaning or merit? (Yes, YES…correlation is NOT causation.)
Willis doesn’t read now classical climate literature by real scientists that might require rethinking long held religious beliefs.
Now, most of the literature [both pro and con] is crap and Willis is quite right in insisting that people produce THE paper [with data] that in their opinion best illustrate the issue. Very few people [if any] actually do so, perhaps because they haven’t read [or understood] the literature either. Just saying that 200+ papers support their view is not helpful. There are many more papers supporting CAGW, most of which are crap too.
Willis,
The scientific method requires that you first familiarize yourself with work that has gone before you before presuming to add to the corpus of knowledge. This you steadfastly and adamantly refuse to do, out of it would appear and excess of hubris.
Here’s a short course by a real scientist on what scientists have found, from which you would benefit before presuming to pontificate as to what is and isn’t garbage. Please stop insulting all of us who have made contributions to human understanding as our professions and try at least to gather a freshman understanding of the relevant disciplines before trashing us:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Gosh, Gloateus, that is sure the long way to announce that no, you still haven’t sent me a link to your favorite study with a link the associated data.
No surprise there, I guess. In any case, the balls in your court, not mine.
w.
o Gloateus Maximus says:
April 10, 2016 at 8:06 pm
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Cosmic Rays and Climate
By: Nir J. Shaviv
“As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an icehouse, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 108 to 109 yr time scale”.
Gloateus – Is this correct? That “external CR flux variation” is 10X that due to solar activity modulations? (Presume that is mapped and taken into account in the models – ie. Should all come out in the wash in the 14C & Be10 records?).
If correct re’ their relative magnitude, could such “external fluctuations” account for eg. MWP vs. LIA type temperature differences in (1) magnitude and (2) timeframe?? (ie. influence of solar activity alone may be too “weak” to explain the significant temp. variations but a much stronger fluctuation may do so?)
Also, do GCR in general vary in “type” (energy level etc.) and hence their influence on CCN? ie. Do some GCR “types” trigger more cloud formation than others?
Also,
“Moreover, Marsh and Svensmark (2003) later performed a more elaborate study and showed that there is both an el Niño signal in the clouds and a response correlated with the GCR. This was done by diagonalising the correlation matrix and finding the most dominating eigenmodes. Interestingly the largest eigenvalue is that of the GCR correlation, and the second largest eigenvalue that of the ENSO (and spatially located where one expects to find the el Niño signal). That is, there is a significant GCR-like signal in the cloud cover which cannot be explained away by the ENSO, and the opposite, that an ENSO signal is present, is true as well. These conclusions were also reached by Marsden and Lingenfelter (2003) in a separate analysis and somewhat different methodology”.
@ Gloateus – So is the ENSO causing confounding of the correlations with GCR that has been discussed here?
& while I’m at it, I may have missed something here in the whole scenario, in which case apologies, but won’t/shouldn’t satellite imagery of cloud cover (of recent past, present and near term future) all indicate increased cloud formation as a result of (1) the overall weaker solar cycle and (2) current minimum within it?
Jan. 19, 2016
NASA’s Van Allen Probes Revolutionize View of Radiation Belts
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-van-allen-probes-revolutionize-view-of-radiation-belts
…Rather than the classic picture of the radiation belts — small inner belt, empty slot region and larger outer belt — this new analysis reveals that the shape can vary from a single, continuous belt with no slot region, to a larger inner belt with a smaller outer belt, to no inner belt at all. Many of the differences are accounted for by considering electrons at different energy levels separately.
…The researchers found that the inner belt — the smaller belt in the classic picture of the belts — is much larger than the outer belt when observing electrons with low energies, while the outer belt is larger when observing electrons at higher energies. At the very highest energies, the inner belt structure is missing completely. So, depending on what one focuses on, the radiation belts can appear to have very different structures simultaneously.
These structures are further altered by geomagnetic storms. When fast-moving magnetic material from the sun — in the form of high-speed solar wind streams or coronal mass ejections — collide with Earth’s magnetic field, they send it oscillating, creating a geomagnetic storm. Geomagnetic storms can increase or decrease the number of energetic electrons in the radiation belts temporarily, though the belts return to their normal configuration after a time.
………………….But the higher-resolution Van Allen Probes data found that these lower-energy electrons circulate much closer to Earth than previously thought…………………………..
Published on Sep 23, 2013
In September 2012, NASA’s Van Allen Probes observed the radiation belts around Earth had settled into a new configuration, separating into three belts instead of two. Scientists think the unusual physics of ultra fast electrons within the belt helped cause the unusual shape. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Yet another factor to consider folks… How complex are these systems ehhh!? (:-) Maybe one day we’ll figure it all out, but for sure it will take models with many more parameters/variables than currently used…..
Carla, can these variable radiation belts affect GCR at all (type &/or magnitude)?
Willis,
good night, sleep tight.
You never knew what damons You’re wakening – You just wanted.
Nearly all of the ‘bottom up’ analyses of over 100 GCMs which run on super computers exhibit ‘epic failure’ to predict the average global temperature trend.
A simple ‘top down’ analysis run on a desk top computer calculates average global temperatures that are a 97% match to measured values since before 1900 even when the effect of CO2 is ignored. Accounting for CO2 increases the match by only 0.1%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
The Van Allen Belts Probe just taught me a new acronym containing the word LIGHTNING and the role the Radiation Belts play in this LIGHTNING…
World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN)
A statistical study of whistler waves observed by Van Allen Probes (RBSP) and lightning detected by WWLLN
Authors Hao Zheng, Robert H. Holzworth, James B. Brundell, Abram R. Jacobson,
John R. Wygant, George B. Hospodarsky, Forrest S. Mozer, John Bonnell
First published: 8 March 2016
Lightning-generated whistler waves are electromagnetic plasma waves in the very low frequency (VLF) band, which play an important role in the dynamics of radiation belt particles. In this paper, we statistically analyze simultaneous waveform data from the Van Allen Probes (Radiation Belt Storm Probes, RBSP) and global lightning data from the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN). Data were obtained between July to September 2013 and between March and April 2014. For each day during these periods, we predicted the most probable 10 min for which each of the two RBSP satellites would be magnetically conjugate to lightning producing regions. The prediction method uses integrated WWLLN stroke data for that day obtained during the three previous years. Using these predicted times for magnetic conjugacy to lightning activity regions, we recorded high time resolution, burst mode waveform data. Here we show that whistlers are observed by the satellites in more than 80% of downloaded waveform data. About 22.9% of the whistlers observed by RBSP are one-to-one coincident with source lightning strokes detected by WWLLN. About 40.1% more of whistlers are found to be one-to-one coincident with lightning if source regions are extended out 2000 km from the satellites footpoints. Lightning strokes with far-field radiated VLF energy larger than about 100 J are able to generate a detectable whistler wave in the inner magnetosphere. …
Variable ice on Mars would concur.
Bond Cycles and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate
Wrong answer, amateur. In real science there are principles. When someone purports to have violated those principles – their reputation as an intellect is done. It doesn’t matter how many Beer Review idiots help them publish a paper.
It’s the great thing about physics. If you try to make kook claims, even students can see the holes in your stories and simply rule you out as serious or intelligent at the first whiff of thermodynamic impropriety.
You’ve purported before the face of the world, you don’t believe the
fire
warming a rock in vacuum,
affects the temperature of the rock.
You can try desperate K-Mart class publicity stunts, you can roll around like a worm in hot ashes all you want, to try to get yourself some credibility.
But when you said you don’t think the temperature of a rock,
warmed by a fire,
depends on the fire,
your personal intellectual credibility as an intellectual is gone.
You’re not very intelligent Eisenbach. Your constant self-blowing is the proof nobody important cares about your wacko exploits in public.
Bombastic physics deniers are everywhere and you’re one of them.
Nobody has to ”prove” or ”present a paper” explaining to your stupid ass the fire warming a rock affects it’s temperature.
It’s just that simple. Stupid is as stupid does, and when you start talking about the temperature of air not being calculable without magic, and the amount of fire warming a rock not affecting it’s temperature, it’s k o o k v i l l e.
Furthermore – your claims of ”my reputation” are among the field so loaded with diseased intellects that most people WITH a reputation – refuse to even associate their name with anything you, or any of the rest of the
scientific sewerclimate kook field of today.Real scientists HIDE our names from having it even associated with you.
That’s why dozens of scientists are on the internet with their own websites, and Youtube has scores of films on whats wrong with
science sewerthe sewer known as climate pseudo science – but none of them want to have anything to do with the people – like you.It’s not that people clamor to have their names associated with you. We who HAVE scientific reputations to protect, HIDE from being associated with you.
Claiming you are able to get published in climate science is a confession you hardly have a brain in your head. Not that you’re some kind of genius.
You really need to face the fact that mere reference to you in papers means nothing. Probably half if not more of papers referring to you are debunking papers.
Furthermore modern climate science is scamville.
If you ever have something printed in a field that’s real – whose scientific leadership aren’t busted and confessed fakes – then – maybe – that’s maybe- it’ll be evidence you’ve got some kind of intellectual horsepower of note.
But in fact you’re one of the people probably more despised for your pseudo-scientific slop than respected for some great intellectual work you’ve done.
Remember again – real scientists HIDE to keep their name from being associated with you. They don’t even use their own real names, because they have real reputations to protect
in real fields where being wrong about thermodynamic fundamentals just once – is practically death to your reputation, because the laws are so simple and inviolable.
If you were a respected intellect in thermodynamics important people and even not important ones would constantly be referring to your work as important.
Instead, people refer to you personally as one of the numerous thermodynamically illiterates who flooded science when the scam daddies who fathered your movement – the AGW/GHG movement – cleared peer review of serious scientists,
and started promoting Bozo the Buffoon class wannabes, such as yourself.
Ignatz (real name? I doubt it),
Instead of hating on Willis, why don’t you cut and paste what you disagree with?
You’re just another jerk who’s got nothin’. If you had something you could argue, you would have.
shades of doug c .
R. Hawkins April 11, 2016 at 8:18 am
“Wrong answer” to what? And where did I “purport” what you speciously claim I said?
Not only are you being childishly unpleasant, it appears you have reading difficulties, so let me point you in the right direction by quoting what I said above:
If you still can’t understand that, I could write it again for you, and to assist you, next time I’ll write it real slow and in CAPITAL LETTERS …
w.
PS—For a man who claims to see “holes in my stories”, you have very carefully avoided pointing out even one of those holes … so far, you’re all mouth.
Usurbrain – Perhaps this is what you are looking for. A simple ‘top down’ analysis using only the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies and an approximation of the effect of ocean cycles achieves a 97% match (R^2 = 0.97+) with measured average global temperatures since before 1900. All of the minutia must find room in the unexplained 3%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
It is disturbing that so many scientists appear to not grasp that a forcing must be integrated (mathematically) to determine its effect on temperature.
As sunspots numbers are always positive the integral will always increase, unless you subtract a suitable offset. If that offset is the mean over the interval of your data, the integral is always zero, so you must find a better offset to subtract. That makes the offset a free parameter that you can set from the value that makes the best fit, so no physics here. Adding an empirical ocean term also helps the improve the fit. But all this is just numerological voodoo without any physical foundation. That is why so many scientists grasp that this approach is not meaningful.
Perhaps if you had understood or possibly even looked at the analysis you might have realized those things you say shouldn’t be done were not done.
The method allows predicting future temperatures from any time in the past using data up to that time. As shown at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com the predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013. The predicted trend still holds. That’s 25 years. The predicted trend is down.
The 97% match since before 1900 has already demonstrated that my approach is meaningful. The “epic fail” of the GCMs has demonstrated that that approach is not meaningful.
Thanks, Leif, you beat me to it.
Dan, while I acknowledge all the work you’ve done, I fear that you are just fitting a tuned-parameter model to the temperature. As many people have observed, you can do the same using 60-year and 20-year cycles, no need for any sunspots at all.
From examination, your tunable parameters are A, B, C, D, and F, plus the value you subtracted from the integral, plus the starting value, plus the frequency, phase, and amplitude of the sawtooth wave. That is a total of nine tunable parameters … let me strongly recommend that you give up curve fitting using tunable parameters as an analysis method. It doesn’t go anywhere.
Here’s advice on the subject from a much better scientist than I, Enrico Fermi. He says the same thing—tunable parameters don’t help. Fermi quoted Von Neumann as saying,
Sadly, since you are using no less than nine parameters, I fear your R^2 of 0.97 is MEANINGLESS … it would only be significant if you could NOT get a high R^2 using nine parameters.
Best regards,
w.
Apparently you did not look or, if you looked, did not grasp what was done. The only coefficient which was not otherwise at least roughly obvious is B which is the combined influence coefficient and proxy factor for the time-integral of the sunspot number anomalies.
Enrico was joking.
It’s a 22-year cycle they should be looking for in climate variability, since that’s the Sun’s magnetic cycle.
Ian,
That connection has repeatedly been found in weather and climate observations, but the sun also displays longer cycles. Here’s a classic 2001 paper on the subject:
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
Gerard Bond,1* Bernd Kromer,2 Juerg Beer,3
Raimund Muscheler,3 Michael N. Evans,4 William Showers,5
Sharon Hoffmann,1 Rusty Lotti-Bond,1 Irka Hajdas,6 Georges Bonani6
Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic
appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire
Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500-year” cycle. The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the solar signals and transmitting them globally.
From the same long ago fin de siecle period:
The Sun and Climate
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs…00/fs-0095-00.pdf
Good graph on the 200-year solar cycle.
Another golden oldie:
Letters to Nature
Nature 411, 290-293 (17 May 2001) | doi:10.1038/35077048; Received 14 September 2000; Accepted 26 March 2001
Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago
U. Neff1, S. J. Burns2,3, A. Mangini1, M. Mudelsee4, D. Fleitmann2 & A. Matter2
Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, Heidelberg, Germany D-69120
Geological Institute, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, Bern, Switzerland CH-3012
Institute of Meteorology, University of Leipzig, Stephanstrasse 3, Leipzig, Germany D-04103
Present address: Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA.
Correspondence to: S. J. Burns2,3 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.B. (e-mail: Email: sburns@geo.umass.edu).
Top of page
Abstract
Variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth are thought to influence climate, but the extent of this influence on timescales of millennia to decades is unclear. A number of climate records show correlations between solar cycles and climate1, but the absolute changes in solar intensity over the range of decades to millennia are small2 and the influence of solar flux on climate is not well established. The formation of stalagmites in northern Oman has recorded past northward shifts of the intertropical convergence zone3, whose northward migration stops near the southern shoreline of Arabia in the present climate4. Here we present a high-resolution record of oxygen isotope variations, for the period from 9.6 to 6.1 kyr before present, in a Th–U-dated stalagmite from Oman. The delta18O record from the stalagmite, which serves as a proxy for variations in the tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall, allows us to make a direct comparison of the delta18O record with the Delta14C record from tree rings5, which largely reflects changes in solar activity6, 7. The excellent correlation between the two records suggests that one of the primary controls on centennial- to decadal-scale changes in tropical rainfall and monsoon intensity during this time are variations in solar radiation.
Ian Ridpath April 11, 2016 at 1:18 pm
Yes, that is the sun’s magnetic cycle, but unfortunately for your lovely theory, the cosmic ray data doesn’t show a 22-year cycle … it shows an 11-year cycle, and has very little strength in the 22-year region. As usual, observations beat speculation.
Look, guys, I understand you all have your theories about this stuff … but how about y’all actually TEST YOUR THEORIES by looking at the evidence before presenting them as facts?
Thanks,
w.
PS—the temperature data also has very little power in the 22-year region.
justanotherpersonii April 10, 2016 at 10:20 am
Good heavens, Mr. Person, you must indeed be new to climate science. Peer review is generally useless in climate science. It serves more as a bar to any innovative ideas than as a guardian of the gates.
As to whether this paper is “garbage”, here’s the thing. If a study involves looking for correlations in multiple subsets of the data, you MUST use the Bonferroni Correction. If you do not do so, it can turn even a good study into garbage. And in this case, it has assuredly done so—not one of their results is statistically significant when you include the Bonferroni Correction. The study is only valuable as a demonstration that they failed to show what they thought they showed.
Now, I know that you may not understand the Bonferroni Correction; like most people on the planet you are probably not a statistician.
The problem is that it is also clear that the authors of the study in question also don’t understand the Bonferroni Correction.
Sadly, this ignorance of statistics is rife in the climate science field, including among those people who are doing the peer-reviews. Not only do most climate scientists not understand Bonferroni, they’ve never even had the thought that investigating multiple subsets of a larger dataset has crucial statistical implications.
This widespread ignorance of statistics, particularly the statistics of non-normal datasets, is particularly crippling in climate science for a strange reason. Climate science is the only physical science I know of where the field of study is not the physical objects themselves. Remember that “climate” is defined as the long-term (30+ year) AVERAGE of various physical variables, so we are studying averages, not objects, and our results are nothing but statistics … and despite that, statistical ignorance seems to be the rule rather than the exception among climate scientists.
That’s why I have to laugh at folks like Maximum Gloating and the others objecting to me calling a spade a spade, they’re just revealing their statistical ignorance … as in this case, if you do the statistics wrong, even the finest, best designed study is converted to garbage, and we’d be fools not to acknowledge that hard fact.
w.
Willis,
Your analysis here fails statistically, as commenters have tried to enlighten you, as well as scientifically. The paper isn’t the greatest, but it’s not garbage either. Neither are the hundreds of other papers which you called garbage without bothering to read any of them.
Gloateus Maximus April 11, 2016 at 4:19 pm
The only comment I’ve seen on the statistics is from 1sky1, who specializes in saying “red” every time I say “blue”, and “up” every time I say “down”. I pay no attention to such attention-whores, particularly bulbs as dim as his.
If you have other comments on statistics please link to them, I’m not doing your homework for you.
w.
Willis,
You should do your own homework. Such as reading the essential cosmoclimatological papers before presuming to categorize them all, the work of real scientists, as garbage. Svensmark and his colleagues, for instance, actually practice genuine science, complete with experimental tests of predictions. Shaviv and his collaborators also make predictions and test them with present and proxy data.
You, by contrast, crunch numbers, sometimes ineptly. Is 1sky1 right or wrong? Maybe he does always question your analytical procedures. Does that make him wrong?
You have contributed to the discussion by finding data sets, such as from the CA coastal buoys, that aren’t valid in one way or another, but science is more than that.
Dear Willis Eschenbach, I’ve been reading a lot of comment re what “isn’t” causing global temperature changes – could you please summarize what you believe are the major drivers? Tied in with that, do you have a reasonable “best guesstimate” for the proportion of increased warming attributable to increased CO2 (or whether it is more that increased global warming is causing the increased CO2)? Would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks for that, Cheers. Lewis
Thanks, Ilydon. For my ideas on the subject please see:
w.
Thanks w., much appreciated… Cheers. L
I completely disagree. It is a shame that you think that of peer-review, for though it is flawed and it can be biased, it is, in my opinion, the best system we have right now for scientific ideas. If you don’t like peer-review, could you tell me what is better? I mean, just look at the peer-review system for Elsevier journals! You think that if their paper was that bad it would’ve got caught in that huge process. That’s why it takes at least multiple months to get papers published, they have to get through that.
I do agree that this “correlation” is rather odd and it doesn’t seem like the correlation is good (if there is any at all), but this is just one of many papers supporting my position on this subject, and other papers have much better correlations than this one. Besides, these authors have proposed this theory in many other papers and it got past peer-review. See here, here, here, here, and here. So no, I still don’t think this paper is garbage, since this theory has already passed peer-review multiple times in multiple journals.
If ever you want some more papers on cosmic rays or Svensmark’s hypothesis I will be happy to oblige you (but don’t worry, I don’t think that they caused all or even most of the 20th century warming).
Inasmuch as it applies only to frequentist statistics used in testing multiple hypotheses–not to comparisons of signal characteristics in pairs of time-series–Invocation of the Bonferroni correction here is pseudo-erudite nonsense. Sadly, ignorance of conceptual analytic foundations of computational methods is rife among amateur data analysts.
That is absolute hogwash. The Bonferroni Correction is for multiple tests on subsets of data as well. See, e.g, Multiple significance tests and the Bonferroni correction, which discusses this exact situation in terms of medicine and looking at subsets of large groups.
w.
You responded to my question before the mods accepted my comment.
Gloateus Maximus April 11, 2016 at 6:01 pm
Since I’m responding to 1sky1, I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
w.
Equating hypothesis testing on frequentist statistics from subsets of medical data with establishing geophysical connections between pairs of time-series is complete amateurish rubbish! Once again, total lack of mathematical training leads to fundamental confusion about the tests and techniques that are appropriate in a particular problem. The basic mistakes made are so outlandishly wrong-headed that they are nowhere discussed in the literature, which presumes at least a modicum of competent comprehension. The worst part is that, without even comprehending the substantive issue, stark ignorance is projected in Trumpian fashion upon others.
1sky1 April 12, 2016 at 12:26 pm
The best part about discussing statistics with you, sky, is how you stay strictly to cited and supported logical mathematically based arguments, and you avoid sweeping emotion-laden personal subjective generalizations that have nothing to do with math or logic …
I leave it to the readers to decide if my citation is appropriate to the situation or not. Let me recap the bidding:
In our case we are looking for significance among subsets of cloud data (by latitude, cloud height, etc).
In the cited case, we are looking for significance among subsets of personal medical data (by sex, age, etc).
I say those are the same situation, statistically. For example, the authors say:
I fail to see the difference between that and our current situation. The authors of our study are doing significance testing regarding cosmic rays and clouds; if they “go on testing long enough [they] will find something which is `significant'”; and they find “no significant difference overall”, but they find significance in a “particular subset of subjects”, such as low clouds.
How is that situation different from the one that the citation discusses?
Regards to all,
w.
The intrinsic difference between the medical case and the one at hand is stark. In the former we are dealing with frequency-of-occurrence statistics from a large sample, which can be subsampled, which invites cherry-picking. In the present, geophysical case we are dealing with entire time-series–not just ordinate distributions–of two physical variables, GCR intensity and the global low-cloud anomaly LCA. While the record-length of these two variables will certainly effect the confidence intervals for the cross-spectral coherence, there is no subsampling of the variables themselves. That’s why you will not find Bonferroni corrections applied in bona fide system analysis; there’s only the degrees-of-freedom dependence for cross-spectral estimates.
there is one thing i do “see”
i do think that solar energy influences the climate, but that solar cycles are far too short of a signal to really be detectable, so looking for an 11 year cycle to prove or disprove solar influence and CR effects seems to be a bit looking in the noise of the real signal. To see, prove or disprove the correlation, the dataset is ways too short.
i also think the 11 year cycle is too short to see the difference. just two back to back el nino’s (or nina’s) in these 11 year cycles are enough to give a complete uncorrelated graph set. then we don’t include AMO PDO,…. in the set
so i believe that every paper that attempts to “prove or disprove the 11 year cycle” of solar variance is basicly “obolete”. the data would be too noisy to find a perfect correlation. your article proves this very clearly. you can find as many 11 year based correlation points as there are 11 year based uncorrelated points. But that’s imho losing sight of the bigger picture.
The papers that do somewhat prove solar influence are using more long term methods and proxy methods. Are these correct? Maybe. I leave that open to debate to the people like you Willis that are in it and follow the matter. Pro or contra get my equal attention.
however what i see is that those using proxies are showing bigger cycles. no 11 year ones.
i even see in those studies that you need at least 2 or more “maunder or Dalton like minima cycles” before the effects really kick in. Thus there is a lag between solar radiation changes and climate response. i do expect that this is also the case for CR and cloud cover. i do not expect a sudden CR zap of a month long to be visible as a spike in cloud cover graphs.
in short my personal thoughts are this:
– a lot of low cycles did correlate with the LIA
– when the sun got more active in the 1900’s the global temperature did rise
– an occasional hiccup of one solar cycle didn’t impact this rise
– cloud cover and cosmic rays were different during the LIA then they were now.
– does that implicate Cosmic rays do influence cloud cover? no variations in solar power output do this
– however a more active sun means less cosmic rays so it may SEEM as IF there is a correlation while in fact there can also be none, any correlation would be a resulting correlation not a causative correlation.
that last point is what i see as being overlooked in the very intense debates in the comments. a resulting correlation is not the same as a causative correlation…
forgot to add: a resulting correlation will always be less strong than a causative one, so a resulting correlation can have episodes where both diverge to do completely the opposite. resulting correlations are seen as “part of a larger picture, where the cause of this resulting correlation needs to be discovered.
by this addition i hope i somehow made some sense
Frederik, “Hear hear”, well said, probably the most sensible post I have read on this blog! The complexity of the system includes no doubt numerous conflicting, confounding and confusing effects working in synchrony, in opposition, laterally, vertically…. you name it… all different directions. And I think yours is the first (that I have read anyway) to mention lag… Again, in such complex systems lag phases are going to be interacting in all manner of directions! Every individual forcing effect will have its own inherent “lag” in addition to the inherent variability…. As with other spheres of scientific research, trying to nail down one or even a few “causal factors” in complex systems is like looking for a needle in a haystack. You’ve got to develop some really clever analysis to find that needle (akin to burning down the haystack and using a metal detector perhaps!? (:-)) I realize I haven’t said anything particularly profound here, but I think it accounts for 90+% of the “disagreements” on this blog (:-)
& yes, great point re resulting vs causative correlations, probably confusion over this accounts for majority of “bad science” in our history. eg. presence of cholesterol in arteries of people who have died of “stroke” does not mean that cholesterol “caused” the problem….
Frederik April 11, 2016 at 6:09 pm
Thanks Frederik, but I don’t understand this. We can see the effects of daily solar cycles, and yearly solar cycles … so why is an 11-year cycle suddenly “far too short” to be detectable?
Best regards,
w.
Willis, I guess a quick answer is the strength/magnitude of the effect….
llydon2015 April 11, 2016 at 7:02 pm
Thanlks, Ilydon, but I wanted to know what Frederik thought.
Best,
w.
LLyndon 2015 says it the strength magnitude is not as powerfull as a winter/summer effect or day/night effect. From what i understood of the solar cycles the difference between peak and valley is only 1 or 2 watts per square meter. (if it’s even that much, sorry i did read it but don’t know the exact figure by head)
compare it in an analogy with the heater in your room that you turn cyclically a tiny bit down and up in your room every 2 hours (= the solar cycle). while you randomly open and close the front door (= our climate)
the amplitude of the slight change in heat which could be found in a constant static closed environment (a lagged slight cooling or warming of the room in response to the turning down or up of the heater) is completely masked by the random opening and shutting of the door that lets amounts of outside air inside that do completely mask any significant correlation. (or how the randomness of our climate is to erratic to make this signal visible or significan)t. if you would do the same but with an interval of a week opening the door two or three times can just mask this “cycle” (you turn the heater up or down so that in a stable environment the room would just heat or cool 0.3°C)
in this same analogy i see the “bigger cycles” with the Dalton maunder minima and our modern maxima as bigger steps of turning the heater of the room up and down. ((lets say to have a 2 degrees C difference) Such bigger steps can then be big enough that they become visible/measurable even if the door opens and closes randomly a few times more or less.
hope that sheds a good light on how i see this 11 year cycle as “too weak to be able to be measured”?
forgot to add: that heater in the room analogy is the best way i could explain the term i used with “looking in the noise of the real signal”: the big multi century cycles are visible to some degree (=the real signal), but not every cycle is thus strong enough/lasts long enough to be seen. (= looking for these signals is looking in the noise)
so i hope willis that these additions do help a bit to give you the context of what i mean?
Dear w. Just read your Emergent Climate Phenomena 2013-02-07 post – thanks for that, great read… (1) I guess it is a lot about “buffering” of the system by emergent phenomena. (2) Doesn’t the emergent phenomena, once initiated become a feedback mechanism (I think that you are saying this but by definition I would think that they would qualify as such?)… (3) And so for a significant warming event (eg. MWP) or cooling period (LIA) I take it the forcing (or lack thereof) would have to be sustained in duration and significant in influence (and probably external?)?
Thanks, llydon. Per your questions:
1. Yes, the emergent phenomena keep the system from straying too far, in a buffering manner.
2. It’s Not About Feedback
3. The reasons for slow drift in the governed climate system are unclear. I speculated about them in my first post on the question, The Thermostat Hypothesis.
w.
To Willis,
Not looking for an argument here but, you say:
”’Let me stop here and discuss the first problem with the study, which is bad statistics. They have divided the clouds into low, middle and high clouds. These occur in low, middle and high latitudes in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This gives us no less than eighteen possible places to look for the putative effect.”’
But the Abstract says:
“””In this work we study links between low cloud anomalies (LCA) at middle latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations used as a proxy of solar variability on the decadal time scale.”””……….
Nothing in the abstract is stating, high clouds or middle clouds.
1. low cloud anomaly (LCA)
2. middle latitudes
3. N. hemi
4. S. hemi
And not sure about this reversal thingy here though goin on…
…”””The violation of a positive correlation between LCA and GCR intensity which was observed in the 1980s–1990s occurred simultaneously in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in the early 2000s and coincided with the sign reversal of GCR effects on troposphere circulation. It was suggested that a possible reason for the correlation reversal between cyclonic activity at middle latitudes and GCR fluxes is the change of the stratospheric polar vortex intensity which influences significantly the troposphere-stratosphere coupling…..”””
Javier April 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Javier, regarding a ~ 200-year cycle, your wavelet analysis shows that it exists for three short periods, around 5000, 3000, and 500 years ago. In each case the cycle lasted for 500 years or so, and died away entirely in between.
Next, rather than being a 200-year cycle, the cycles shown in the wavelets cover a frequency range from about 128 to 256 years.
In short, it is not a “200-year” cycle in any sense of the word. It is a rarely occurring (three times in 8000 years) group of related frequencies in the band from 128 to 256 years.
Finally, surely you must realize the absurdity of trying to tie that group of odd and occasional occurrences to the climate …
w.
From the Abstract
…”””The violation of a positive correlation between LCA and GCR intensity which was observed in the 1980s–1990s occurred simultaneously in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in the early 2000s and coincided with the sign reversal of GCR effects on troposphere circulation. It was suggested that a possible reason for the correlation reversal between cyclonic activity at middle latitudes and GCR fluxes is the change of the stratospheric polar vortex intensity which influences significantly the troposphere-stratosphere coupling…..”””
Propagation of GCR into the Earth system will change with solar magnetic cycle as we know.. but …
Modulation of anomalous and galactic cosmic rays
http://www.ieap.uni-kiel.de/et/ag-heber/english/ket/gcr_spatial.html
B. Heber, M.S. Potgieter, A. Burger, F. McDonald, H. Kunow, P. Ferrando, J. B. Blake, C. Paizis
Galactic cosmic rays are energetic particles entering the heliosphere from the interstellar medium. Anomalous cosmic rays are believed to be at the termination shock accelerated pickup ions with maximum energies of ~300 MV. These particles are modulated by the solar wind and the solar magnetic field carried out by the solar wind. The important processes describing particle propagation in the heliosphere are convection, diffusion, adiabatic deceleration, gradient and curvature drifts. Because of drift effects electrons and protons should be modulated differently. At solar minimum during an A>0-solar magnetic epoch like in the 1970’s and 1990’s protons are expected to drift in into the inner heliosphere over the poles and out along the heliospheric current sheet, while electrons should show the opposite trajectories (see right inlet of the 1st following figure.
http://www.ieap.uni-kiel.de/et/ag-heber/english/ket/gcr_spatial_html_1b9ab73d.png
http://www.ieap.uni-kiel.de/et/ag-heber/english/ket/habintro.png
OK …but then something happens during the unusual solar minimum
to follow next.
The minimum was not all that unusual. We have seen these things before, e.g. in 1901.
Anomalous cosmic rays are believed to be at the termination shock accelerated pickup ions with maximum energies of ~300 MV.
These are much too low-energy to have any effect. The people who believe climate is influenced by cosmic rays require energies 30 times as high, so forget about the Anomalous rays.
MODULATION OF GALACTIC COSMIC RAY PROTONS AND ELECTRONS DURING AN UNUSUAL SOLAR MINIMUM
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1956
B. Heber1, A. Kopp1, J. Gieseler1, R. Müller-Mellin1, H. Fichtner2, K. Scherer2, M. S. Potgieter3, and S. E. S. Ferreira3
Published 2009 June 26 • © 2009. The American Astronomical Society
Abstract
During the latest Ulysses out-of-ecliptic orbit the solar wind density, pressure, and magnetic field strength have been the lowest ever observed in the history of space exploration. Since cosmic ray particles respond to the heliospheric magnetic field in the expanding solar wind and its turbulence, the weak heliospheric magnetic field as well as the low plasma density and pressure are expected to cause the smallest modulation since the 1970s. In contrast to this expectation, the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) proton flux at 2.5 GV measured by Ulysses in 2008 does not exceed the one observed in the 1990s significantly, while the 2.5 GV GCR electron intensity exceeds the one measured during the 1990s by 30%-40%. At true solar minimum conditions, however, the intensities of both electrons and protons are expected to be the same.
Conclusions
…Although the sunspot number and the heliospheric magnetic field strength reached solar minimum values in 2008 the count rate of electrons exceeded the proton count rate by about 30%. During the 1980s, when first long-term charge-sign-dependent measurements became available, both electron and proton count rates reached the same level at solar minimum early 1987. In contrast to the period in 2008, the tilt angle, i.e., the maximum latitudinal extent of the HCS, was in 1986 below 10°. This leads us to the conclusion that curvature and gradients drifts, as predicted by Ferreira & Potgieter (2004), prevent the proton count rates to reach real solar minima level, because the particles have to drift into the heliosphere along the HCS, while the electrons already reached their solar minimum intensities. Therefore, the proton intensity is still lower than expected. Another important conclusion for the current solar cycle 23 minimum is that the proton intensity will increase by ~30% and will reach the highest intensities ever measured in heliospheric space, if the tilt angle will decrease below 10°. This work also shows the importance of simultaneous measurements of protons and electrons in order to understand the modulation of GCRs in the heliosphere….
wow this cycle has a proton shortage….gets its electrons though…sarc
The important statement is this
At true solar minimum conditions, however, the intensities of both electrons and protons are expected to be the same.
Hi Willis,
You did Title this:
Cosmic Disconnections
Willis Eschenbach / 3 days ago April 9, 2016
There was a cosmic disconnect Willis.
Their, as you called it, “money graph.”
Well here is the disconnect for the time period in the “money graph.”
Look at the top right box disconnect.
Look at the bottom right. Solar field and current sheet tilt.
MODULATION OF GALACTIC COSMIC RAY PROTONS AND ELECTRONS DURING AN UNUSUAL SOLAR MINIMUM
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1956
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0004-637X/699/2/1956/Full/apj306163f8_lr.jpg
Willis said,
They say that there is a pre-existing “positive correlation” that is “violated” in the early 2000s, followed by a “sign reversal of GCR effects” … say what? Sign reversal?
There was a change in the GCR that coincided with solar sign.
No, Carla. The minimum was not ‘unusual’ and the sun’s polar fields change sign in every cycle.
There really was a true disconnect.
BTW, the ’tilt angle’ is a highly artificial quantity. Due to the very large ‘pixel’ size for the WSO [1/11 of the solar diameter] the ’tilt angle’ always reaches 70 degrees at every solar maximum and always goes down to about 10 degrees at every minimum with a large error bar.
e.g. here http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf
lsvalgaard
April 12, 2016 at 7:02 pm
The important statement is this
At true solar minimum conditions, however, the intensities of both electrons and protons are expected to be the same.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks Dr. S.
I try not to get too involved in some of this climate debate stuff.
H. current sheet and tilt timing, with sectors and boundaries is fun. The timing of Earth bobbing up and down in it is another thing toooo..
All this was found out and understood almost half a century ago [mostly by me]
should have gone here.
see e.g. here http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf
lsvalgaard
April 13, 2016 at 1:29 pm
No, Carla. The minimum was not ‘unusual’ and the sun’s polar fields change sign in every cycle.
=========================================
Thanks Dr. S.
Perhaps the authors should have said, “most unusual of the space age.” Or, most unusual in the past 100 years or looking now like 200 years…
Yes, Dr. S., sun’s polar fields change sign in every cycle.
And hopefully will continue to do so.
Interesting times indeed.
No, only since about 1975. The ‘space age’ has been rather typical of solar activity the last 300 years.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maerz1.gif
Fig. 1: The current solar cycle 24 compared to the mean of all previous cycles (blue) and to solar cycle no. 1, 1755-1766, (black).
Svensmark and Christenson’s,
and the lightening guys who preceeded them, were game changers in atmospheric chemistry – explaining a BUNCH of things about the atmosphere people had wondered since forever.
Working in atmospheric radiation I’m always interested of course in weather since it affects what we do in communications radiation.
Some guys got their hands, on some spectra readings from I think, -it’s been thirty years -the U.S. but maybe a joint metrics program.
I think it happened by first the lightening guys, using the information on one spectrum of Cosmic Rays and discovering that a lot of lightening is directly caused by Cosmic Rays; and the chemistry of the whole thing was very clear when people went over what they said.
Like all atmospheric physics, it’s very simple, once you have the readings, because it’s gas: there’s nothing secret in the mechanics; it’s the simplest phase of matter. There aren’t unusual boundaries, there are very few bounds that limit other phases of matter so when you see effects, it’s very clear.
Turns out that a lot of what’s often referred to as ‘sheet lightening’ where entire sections of the sky light up in what’s obviously an event seeded over a large area at once- is caused by this spectrum of Cosmic Rays the lightening guys were studying.
And I think the Svensmark and Christenson guys just heard about their discovery and decided to take the rest of the spectra and apply their presence to various events. It turns out, that when another spectrum of Cosmic Rays impinge on the atmosphere, it provides free electrons that allow the water in the air to become ice crystals, en mass. And although there isn’t a lot of water at high altitude there’s always some; so sometimes, these tiny, tiny ice crystals, that are so thin that at times you can hardly see them – just *bang* pop out and form.
People had wondered about both these things forever; and it turned out that whenever they showed other chemists the questions they had, the high energy guys all said – looks to me, like – this is the proper chain of events.
Everybody was pretty happy to hear about that because the questions were both pretty much, free from hooterville fake atmospheric chemical scammers claiming magic is involved.
That story is probably under-told and it’s an example of some guys just finding out something very cool to know, through precisely the right steps, and it being obvious to pretty much everyone at the time, that the answer was correct; same thing for the lightening.
I don’t remember where I saw it said but you’d see people saying sort of ”around” – wherever people gathered to talk about stuff that – it’s amazing what you can find out if you simply go measure.
Thanks Dr. S. for the link below. (I see there is now another one)
Even a newbie who looks at Figure 1 (1f) pg. 2 reads the description,
http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf
Then looks at this image, will have a better understanding of what they are looking at.
http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/eclipse/Ecl1991a/Ecl1991wa_in04/Hr/Tse1991wa_in04.png
Heliospheric current sheet Neutral boundary and magnetic equator is still obscure for me.
gotta go
Heliospheric current sheet Neutral boundary and magnetic equator is still obscure for me.
This lecture may be useful:
lsvalgaard, have you seen this one? Not sure how “into” the life sciences you are but plenty of crossover with your field here also I think?
While Schumann Resonance is real, the connections alluded to look like coincidences to me.
lsvalgaard… Nice to put a face to a name (:-)
Thanks again for this link Dr. S.
This should work just fine.
I just need to buckle down and read it through. Start and stop, start and stop, get back to it weeks later and well, then you have to start over…
http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf
And … on how the interstellar background is not homogenous.
One of todays pictures on spaceweather.com
MARS AND SATURN: This weekend, if you wake up before sunrise, step outside and look south. Mars and Saturn are having a get together in the constellation Scorpius:
The two bright planets, one burnt-orange and the other golden-hued, are very bright and easy to see with the naked eye. A bit of extra exposure with a digital camera reveals the planets surrounded by the star-forming clouds of the Milky Way:
http://spaceweathergallery.com/full_image.php?image_name=Bill-Metallinos-Rho_5d_metallinos_1460717234.jpg
Until the next space weather/ solar topic, fare thee well…
on how the interstellar background is not homogeneous
It is, on the time and length scales of interest to us.