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!…
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 @ur momisugly 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”.
@ur momisugly 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?