New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth

Last week I hinted at this upcoming paper, which was embargoed until this morning. I noted then something Dr. Roy Spencer said in his book about clouds: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists and how this new paper could be the “holy grail” of climate science, if it is true. 

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

Today, we have news of something that modulates cloud cover in a new paper by Henrik Svensmark in Nature Communications.

PRESS RELEASE:  DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark

A breakthrough in the understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth´s cloud cover and thereby climate is published today in the journal Nature Communications. The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei – the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of Solar energy reaching the surface of Earth the implications can be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for a future climate changes.

Illustration of cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere. A proton with energy of 100 GeV interact at the top of the
atmosphere and produces a cascade of secondary particles who ionize molecules when traveling through the air. One 100 GeV proton hits every square meter at the top of the atmosphere every second.

Cloud condensation nuclei can be formed by the growth of small molecular clusters called aerosols. It has until now been assumed that additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this. The new results reveal, both theoretically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei. It gives a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity plays a role in variations in Earth’s climate. For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000 AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 AD both fits with changes in Solar activity.

“Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by Solar activity or by super nova activity can change climate.”

says Henrik Svensmark, from DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark, lead author of the study. Co- authors are senior researcher Martin Bødker Enghoff (DTU Space), Professor Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Jacob Svensmark, (University of Copenhagen).


The new study

The fundamental new idea in the study is to include a contribution to growth of aerosols by the mass of the ions. Although the ions are not the most numerous constituents in the atmosphere the electro-magnetic interactions between ions and aerosols compensate for the scarcity and make fusion between ions and aerosols much more likely. Even at low ionization levels about 5% of the growth rate of aerosols is due to ions. In the case of a nearby super nova the effect can be more than 50% of the growth rate, which will have an impact on the clouds and the Earth’s temperature.

To achieve the results a theoretical description of the interactions between ions and aerosols was formulated along with an expression for the growth rate of the aerosols. The ideas were then tested experimentally in a large cloud chamber. Due to experimental constraints caused by the presence of chamber walls, the change in growth rate that had to be measured was of the order 1%, which poses a high demand on stability during the experiments, and experiments were repeated up to 100 times in order to obtain a good signal relative to unwanted fluctuations. Data was taken over a period of 2 years with total 3100 hours of data sampling. The results of the experiments agreed with the theoretical predictions.

The hypothesis in a nutshell

  • Cosmic rays, high-energy particles raining down from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions, that is, positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere.
  • The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation. This process is called nucleation. The small aerosols need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on clouds.
  • The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.
  • Low clouds made with liquid water droplets cool the Earth’s surface.
  • Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.
  • When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
  • When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.
  • The implications of the study suggests that the mechanism can have affected:
  • The climate changes observed during the 20th century
  • The coolings and warmings of around 2°C that have occurred repeatedly over the past 10,000 years, as the Sun’s activity and the cosmic ray influx have varied.
  • The much larger variations of up to 10°C occurring as the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars.

The authors

  • Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).
  • Senior Resercher Martin Andres Bødker Enghoff, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).
  • Professor Nir Shaviv, Physics Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
  • Ph.D. student Jacob Svensmark, Dark Cosmology Center, University of Copenhagen.

Full journal reference

H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2

The paper is here


Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei

H. Svensmark 1, M.B. Enghoff 1, N.J. Shaviv2 & J. Svensmark1,3

Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under present atmospheric conditions the growth rate from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth rate. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.

From the discussion section of the paper:

This suggests that there are vast regions where conditions are such that the proposed mechanism could be important, i.e., where aerosols are nucleated in Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone and moved to regions where relative large variations ionization can be found. Here the aerosols could grow faster under the influence of ion condensation, and the perturbed growth rate will influence the survivability of the aerosols and thereby the resulting CCN density. Finally the aerosols are brought down and entrained into the marine boundary layer, where clouds properties are sensitive to the CCN density2.

Although the above is on its own speculative, there are observations to further support the idea. On rare occasions the Sun ejects solar plasma (coronal mass ejections) that may pass Earth, with the effect that the cosmic ray flux decreases suddenly and stays low for a week or two. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic rays flux, are called Forbush decreases, and can be used to test the link between cosmic ray ionization and clouds. A recent comprehensive study identified the strongest Forbush decreases, ranked them according to strength, and discussed some of the controversies that have surrounded this subject.

Atmospheric data consisted of three independent cloud satellite data sets and one data set for aerosols. A clear response to the five strongest Forbush decreases was seen in both aerosols and all low cloud data. The global average response time from the change in ionization to the change in clouds was ~7 days, consistent with the above growth rate of ~0.4 nm h−1. The five strongest Forbush decreases (with ionization changes comparable to those observed over a solar cycle) exhibited inferred aerosol changes and cloud micro-physics changes of the order ~2%7. The range of ion production in the atmosphere varies between 2 and 35 ions pairs s−1 cm−337 and from Fig. 1b it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during Forbush decreases.

It should be stressed that there is not just one effect of CCN on clouds, but that the impact will depend on regional differences and cloud types. In regions with a relative high number of CCN the presented effect will be small, in addition the effect on convective clouds and on ice clouds is expected to be negligible. Additional CCNs can even result in fewer clouds. Since the ion condensation effect is largest for low SA concentrations and aerosol densities, the impact is believed to be largest in marine stratus clouds.

Further reading:


Henrik Svensmark  – DOI: 10.1051/epn/2015204

National Space Institute – Technical University of Denmark – Elektrovej, Bygning 328, 2800 Kgs – Lyngby, Denmark

The most profound questions with the most surprising answers are often the simplest to ask. One is: Why is the climate always changing? Historical and archaeological evidence of global warming and cooling that occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, require natural explanations.

Link to the PDF: SvensmarkEPN_46-2-2_2015

From that article:

Red curve is the variation in the local supernova rate, and therefore also the variation in cosmic ray flux during the last 500 Myr. The colored band indicates climatic periods: warm periods (red), cold periods (blue), glacial periods (white and blue hatched bars) and finally peak glaciations (black and white hatched bars). The proportions of carbon-13 in sediments (d13C in parts per mill) over the past 500 Myr, shown in the scattered points, reflect changes in the carbon cycle. d13C carries information on the burial of organic material in sediments, and is therefore a record of bio-productivity. Blue dashed curve is smoothed d13C. Circles are d13C from marine carbonates, open circles with a star symbol, Jurassic to Neogene, are a carbon isotopic record of organic matter. Note that there are three brief gaps in the d13C data (end-Silurian, mid-Carboniferous and mid Jurassic). Abbreviations for geological periods are Cm –Cambrian, O – Ordovician, S – Silurian, D – Devonian, C – Carboniferous, P – Permian, Tr – Triassic, J – Jurassic, K – Cretaceous, Pg –Palaeogene, Ng – Neogene.

Further Reading:

The Chilling Stars

Scientists agree that the earth has become hotter over the last century. But on the causes, despite what looks to the public mind like a consensus, there are dissenting voices. Based on Henrik Svensmark’s research at the Danish National Space Center, this book outlines a brilliant and daring new theory that has already provoked fresh thinking on global warming. As prize-winning science writer Nigel Calder and Svensmark himself explain, an interplay of the sun and cosmic rays – sub-atomic particles from exploded stars – seem to have more effect on the climate than man-made carbon dioxide. For anyone interested in the real science behind our climate, this book is a must-read.


I asked prominent solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard his opinion on the paper (and sent him the advance full copy). He had this to say:

Think about this:

TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.

The battle over this paper will soon be waged in press and peer-review.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 19, 2017 2:17 am

I’m reminded of the good Dr. Svalgaard when he wrote this:

Getting a bit ahead of yourself aren’t you? I recall when you said years ago Henrik Svensmark’s work was so bad it would never be published.

How would you like your crow served this time?

Willis Eschenbach(@weschenbach)
Reply to  DR
December 19, 2017 3:55 am

Jeez, dude, chill out. There’s no need for nasty personal attacks.


John Silver
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 7:03 am

Are you referring to DR or Svalgaard?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 7:10 am

The term “dismissed out of hand” is a nasty personal attack.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 8:38 am

dude, chill out

Still on the beach W?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 8:43 am

“If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.”

How is that a personal attack?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 9:31 am


I’m all for peace and goodwill too, but you’ve been guilty of nasty personal attacks yourself. And Dr, Svalgaard’s “out of hand dismissal” is arrogant.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 9:48 am

ScottM Asks how is that a personal attack.
In common English parlance when a person dismisses someone or something “out of hand” it is the equivalent of saying, you or this is not worthy of my time or thought. Example, wattsupwiththat is quoted, so the true believer states “oh, that came from there so we can dismiss it out of hand”. Or “he’s a D word so we can dismiss that out of hand”
Defintion “•without taking time to think”
Out of hand is often used in a derogatory way. But, he was speaking to the paper not person.

Now to be fair, he did give a reason, to which I could reply Dr. Isvalgaard’s reply can be rejected out of hand since he did not factor in other feed backs and chaotic effects. Which frankly sounds kind of insulting because I dismiss him and make assumptions with a statement like that.

I would prefer to instead ask, Dr. Isvalgaard you have a good point about no temperature signal that can be found that matches the solar cycle to the degree implied in the paper. Do you think the chaotic nature of climate could drown out any “temperature” signal that should be a result of this? I put temperature in quotes because the sun outputs energy and not “temperature”; temperature being neither a form nor a measurement of energy.

To that question I hope he replies because I do like to hear both sides.

Reply to  ironargonaut
December 19, 2017 9:55 am

good point about no temperature signal that can be found that matches the solar cycle to the degree implied in the paper.
People have been looking for that for centuries and no such effect has been reported. Without going to far into the literature suffice it to refer to Willis’ attempts right here on WUWT.

If an effect of the magnitude touted by Shaviv [and repeated by Svensmark] would exist, there would be no debate.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 11:19 am

Referring to someone’s work as needing to be dismissed out of hand is pretty nasty.

george e. smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 11:33 am

What fraction of cosmic rays are 100 GEV ?? Why was that number used for the CR energy ??

I’m sure that both solar charged particles and GCRs can do the Cloud Chamber thing, which after all has been practically demonstrated in the lab.

But does that mean that is a significant effect.

For me, THE cloud effect is simply : Less clouds over the oceans; more ocean water evaporation. More ocean water evaporation; more clouds, and less solar spectrum photons reaching the oceans to be converted to deep ocean heat.


Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2017 2:37 pm

What fraction of cosmic rays are 100 GEV ?? Why was that number used for the CR energy ??
Almost none. The solar cycle modulation is of GCRs with energy less than 15 GeV [and is only strong for much lower energies].

Peter Sable
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 8:45 pm

And the case of Evolution (the grand origins story kind, not mere evolution in the “natural selection” sense), I submit . . Which, I believe, paved the way for “the debate is over” style unquestionable bully science we are now being subjected to with the CAGW.

The sequencing of DNA independently confirmed the theory of evolution that was originally developed from phenotype and geological evidence. DNA sequencing in fact it modified some of the details, which is a clear signal of confirmation, just like Einstein refined Newton.

Nobody has done something similar with climate. In fact the climate prognosticators (I hesitate to call it science) are constantly either being falsified or are “not even wrong”.

Stop comparing the theory of evolution to the hypothesis of CAGW.


Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 20, 2017 6:28 pm

Mr. Eschenbach,

Do you consider the following a persona attack:
“Half of the American public believes the Earth and the Universe is only 6000 years old.”

– Leif Svalgaard September 11, 2009 at 5:20 am

(I have a lot of respect for Leif but don’t care for these kind of broad brush ‘scientific’ generalizations from him).

Reply to  kramer
December 20, 2017 6:41 pm

Now, Mr. Kramer, what do you think the age is?

Reply to  kramer
December 20, 2017 6:55 pm

Perhaps you like this failed prediction [from your link] better:
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark [in 2009]”.

Ric Werme(@ricwerme)
Reply to  DR
December 19, 2017 6:04 am

Leif Svalgaard’s contributions to this blog exceeds DR’s.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 7:11 am


Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 7:33 am

Take it easy, folks. In a complex system(do we know how many “forcings” and interactions between them that are affecting the climate?) any physical measure we take has a complex series of events behind it. Variations in periodicity can affect or even contribute to others. Think Moire patterns with 10,000 different fabrics coming from 100,000 looms overlapping at every angle from 0-90deg. All sorts of interference patterns can emerge that appear to be semi-regular patterns. Galactic Cosmic Rays certainly have enough energy to have significant effects on the atmosphere, and probably even the sun(we know even less about the sun than we do about the earth). The background noise is the result of all those unkown interactions.

South River Independent
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 10:00 am

Philo makes an important point. This is another case of lab results obtained under controlled conditions that cannot be observed in the climate system (i.e., the real world that we live in). This has always been a major obstacle for science and the scientific method. Scientists make assumptions all of the time that “beg the question.” An example is the theory of inertia. The theory says that an object at rest or one in motion continues to stay at rest or in motion unless affected by other forces. This may or may not be true.

No one has ever observed an object that is not subject to other forces. Not to mention that “at rest” is itself an artificial concept. How do you determine if something is at rest? So the theory of inertia is just a label for an assumed property of matter that cannot be proven. In addition, if it is true, the theory provides no answer to the question of what keeps an object at rest or in motion. Arguing that the property of inertia keeps an object at rest or in motion is not an explanation of why that is the case. Only one of many major limitations of science.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 10:03 am

“Leif Svalgaard’s contributions to this blog exceeds DR’s.”
So what? Dr Svalgaard makes valuable contributions but the ONLY system for evaluating competing hypotheses is the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method cares not a whit about the number of blog posts anyone contributes to. The only metric is the ability of a hypothesis to match observed and predicted reality.

Your approach is not only wrong, it is anti-scientific. We judge everything based on observed reality alone.

Dr Svensmark and Shaviv are no fools. Through Forbush Decrease events we do know the effect cosmic rays have on water vapor, and we know that changes in water vapor concentration is the dominant effect on climate (even the major effect of the UN IPCC AGW hypothesis is based on this).

I believe Dr Svalgaard is making a serious error in dismissing the paper out of hand without apparently even reading it. This shows that Dr Svalgaard follows Scott Adams’ observation of our species, “We are all irrational all the time”. The illusion is that we are rational, and those that feel the most rational are in the greatest denial (as a PhD in physic it was hard for me to accept this truth, but it does fit all the data).

Let us heard the comments once we’ve all read the Svensmark et al. paper. And let us stop using anti-scientific criteria such as “blog post number density” as a substitute metric for competence in a specific topic.

Reply to  Moa
December 19, 2017 10:06 am

without apparently even reading it
how do you reach that [wrong] conclusion?

South River Independent
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 10:44 am

Moa – The Scientific Method does not care what is true (or false) only in what is useful for making predictions (or getting grant money for research). If predictions cannot be made to be verified or if the predictions that can be made are falsified, then the proposed theory is useless and will be abandoned (except in the case of AGW).

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 11:42 am


“Scott Adams’ observation of our species, “We are all irrational all the time”.”

Except Scott Adams, in the moment he made that “observation” ? . . ?

(And you, when you rationalized it? ; )

I shudder to think smart folks are reduced to taking such hyperbolic self-contradictory declarations seriously . . (which I feel is only mostly true, most of the time ; )

george e. smith
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 11:48 am

It seems obvious to me that THE basic cloud feedback is simply that more clouds, reduces solar spectrum radiation from reaching the deep oceans and converted to heat; and less clouds means more surface solar spectrum insolation, and more evaporation which eventually becomes more clouds.
This paper talks about a tweak in the more water vapor becoming more clouds, which would have to be a minor effect. Any dust or even microbes can nucleate water droplets, as can charged particles, but the availability of atmospheric water molecules is what is being modulated.

See: “How much more rain will global Warming Bring ?” Wentz et al I believe SCIENCE July 13th 2007. Well you googlers can look it up.
I think any papers reporting real effects (if demonstrable) is interesting but I don’t think this paper is any Rosetta Stone.


Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 12:01 pm


“If predictions cannot be made to be verified or if the predictions that can be made are falsified, then the proposed theory is useless and will be abandoned (except in the case of AGW).”

And the case of Evolution (the grand origins story kind, not mere evolution in the “natural selection” sense), I submit . . Which, I believe, paved the way for “the debate is over” style unquestionable bully science we are now being subjected to with the CAGW.

george e. smith
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 4:35 pm

The paper purports to provide evidence of an effect which clinches the deal over chaotic climate scatter.
I believe Dr S. simply pointed out that NO data of that magnitude has ever been obtained , ie no change of that size whether chaotic or not. So an explanation for observations that have never been made.

Seems to qualify for early exit from contention to me, so I wouldn’t classify Leif’s “out of hand” as derogatory.
I’m not disinterested in the possible effects of external high energy charged particles whether solar or GCMs. But I still think that the major feedback is the modulation of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere itself, rather than in the secondary process of converting that vapor into cloud droplets.
The cosmic rays can’t make clouds out of non-existing atmospheric water vapor.
Wentz et al provided data on the evaporation rate, the atmospheric water rate, and the precipitation rates, data which the GCMs don’t match.
The Svensmark tweak has no effect on either evaporation rates or atmospheric water content, only on eventual precipitation rates, which ultimately have to match evaporation rates.


South River Independent
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 19, 2017 8:04 pm

JohnKnight – Evolution is misunderstood and misrepresented as a proof that there is no cause and effect involved in the origin and development of life on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science can neither confirm nor deny the truth that God is responsible for everything we see, as well as everything that exists that we do not see. Only metaphysics can do that.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 20, 2017 1:25 pm


“Science can neither confirm nor deny … Only metaphysics can do that.”

Not sure about that only . . but another Only springs to mind ; )

My point is basically a logical one; If one theory can be “synthetically” elevated to an unquestionable truth status, another could have been as well.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 22, 2017 8:31 am

Svalgaard’s comments make this website better.

He appears to be an old-school skeptical scientist
that I wish we had more of.

I looked him up, and found an excellent paper from 2015,
that I highly recommend as the best climate paper I read in 2017
(I’m always a few years behind!)

I did not see any copyright notices on the paper,
so here are some quotes:

He discusses:
“Climate Variables and Models
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”

The only fault I find with the nine item list
is that I think “Measurement Error and Bias”
which is discussed in the paper,
should have been the number (10),
… ‘everyone’ knows you’re supposed
to have a Top Ten, not nine!

All the infilling, and repeated “adjustments”,
by scientists who predicted a lot of warming,
and want to see their predictions come true,
and they are in charge of the temperature “actuals”,
and global average compilations,
which I see as a conflict of interest,
which could, at the least,
lead to confirmation bias,
and at the most, to climate “science” fraud.
(My own opinion, based on how bad the
government bureaucrat science is,
is that there IS deliberate fraud
to show more global warming,
than has actually happened.)

Their goobermint bureaucrat “scientist” salaries,
depend on them NOT understanding climate change,
because they HAVE to blame humans and CO2,
if they want to keep their jobs,
and that causes their fake (junk) science,
of wild guess confuser models,
making wrong average temperature predictions,
for 30 years … so far !

… and here is about two-thirds
of Svalgaard’s conclusion:

“Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, just to mention some of the (increasingly scary) monikers that are being deployed these days have become a divisive political issue, seemingly divorced from scientific discourse. If it were not for the high- jacking of the subject by politicians, environmental pressure groups, and plain wishful eco-thinking, one would conclude from the present overview that Climate Science is a vigorous field with healthy debate and exciting interdisciplinary facets rather than a moribund body of ‘Settled Science’ without prospects for further progress,”

If the Svalgaard paper is too complicated for you,
my free climate change blog,
which includes ‘climate politics’,
may interest you:

Reply to  DR
December 19, 2017 8:33 pm

At least there is a 10-11 years up/downswing in the temperature of about 0.25 °C.

Of course, the temperature swing is not parallel to the sunspots ors Total Solar Irradiation, but we have learned in the article, that ionisation depends on the magnectic field of the sun.

As Dr David Evans explained, there could be a delay of about 10-14 years between TSI and Force X, possibly the magnetic field.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
December 19, 2017 8:35 pm

Plus, there are other signals in the temperature graph, as ENSO and Vulcanoes.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  DR
December 19, 2017 9:38 pm

Leif will be linking and quoting himself all over the place on this one.

george e. smith
Reply to  DR
December 20, 2017 12:05 pm

Thank you Dr. S.

I know that some really fancy GCRs have been observed, at totally astronomical energies. I remember from 60 or so years ago a photograph of a GCR track in a stack of photographic plates, that seemed like it was almost a foot thick, that some courageous team of individuals, had laboriously studied to identify (if they could) each and every daughter and grand-daughter tracklet, as to its particle species, and its energy, which they then totaled up to some huge energy in the 10^22 to 10^24 eV total proto-particle energy.
I used to joke that that giga-giga track was a half inch bolt that fell off some spaceship passing by earth, at near light speed.

I have always felt that local (earth and sun) magnetic fields could influence lower energy charged particles mostly from the sun, and steer them towards some more polar final destinations, but that a lot of GCRs were just too energetic to be budged much by local magnetic fields, but I wouldn’t have picked 100GeV for a typical GCR.

As I recall, such GCR photographic plate stacks were (are ??) exposed while in controlled electric and magnetic fields, so that individual tracklets could curve here and there depending on the charge and velocity of that particular particle that left it. Of course sometimes an intermediate particle is uncharged, and the track just vanishes, to be recommenced at some other place, which might be hard to identify.
Those plate surveyors must have (had) some enormous patience.


Reply to  george e. smith
December 20, 2017 1:18 pm

Extremely high-energy cosmic rays exist but may not come from our galaxy and are extremely rare so play no role in regulating the climate.

December 19, 2017 2:23 am

Indeed very promising (and provoking) about the possible missing link of climate change: Climate change is more related to the sun and sub-atomic particles from exploded stars, i.e. cosmic rays, than to greenhouse gases/CO2. Seems like new empirical evidence (plasma data/sun explosions 2016) is in strong support of Svensmark theory.

Reply to  Telehiv
December 19, 2017 2:36 am

A short history of GCR’s and their influence on weather and climate.

Thank you Henrik Svensmark for your decades of dedication to your work and to Nir Shaviv for his supportive papers written years ago that opened the door further letting the light in.

December 19, 2017 2:23 am

This can be very important in periods of La Niña. Then the clouds reach from the north to the south. This can increase the albedo of the Earth.

December 19, 2017 2:38 am

Judging by the sea temperature drop in the south, it can be assumed that low clouds are important in cooling the sea surface.

george e. smith
Reply to  ren
December 19, 2017 11:55 am

Why only low clouds ?? Seems like ANY cloud passing in front of the sun reduces solar spectrum radiation at the surface, and hence reduces ocean evaporation, as well as deep ocean solar energy storage (as heat).

Any tine I see the adjective ” low ” with reference to clouds, I have visions of people claiming that high clouds heat the surface, and the higher the clouds the greater the surface heating (by those clouds).

Ergo it’s those stratospheric noctilucent clouds that are responsible for global warming.

Well I think that’s baloney.


Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2017 12:05 pm
Bryan A
Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2017 12:23 pm

I beieve it is that Low clouds (cumulus, cumulonimbus) tend to be thicker and shortwave IR blocking (IR can’t get in) while High Clouds (Cirrus, cirrostratus, cirrocumulus) tend to be thinner, allowing shortwave IR to enter but blocking longwave IR from leaving and reflecting it back to the surface

Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2017 2:40 pm

Why only low clouds ??
Because not even Svensmark himself could find any correlation with the other types of cloud.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2017 4:51 pm

So cumulonimbus are low clouds ??

I never would have guessed that.

It still gets instantly cooler with those thinner clouds in front of the sun, and those thinner wispy clouds are just full of holes that LWIR can get out of.

It’s the blockage of incoming that reduces the surface energy (or not).

And the low thick clouds (those thunderheads) also do a good job of reflecting LWIR, so why doesn’t it get warmer.
Well they don’t actually reflect it; they absorb it, and then they re-radiate it isotropically, so about half of it is directed outwards; not inwards.


Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2017 9:47 pm
David A
Reply to  george e. smith
December 20, 2017 5:03 am

George E, as always interesting comments on clouds and their affect at the surface, particularly with regard to ocean absorption of SWR.

Regarding Leaf S comment…”TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.”

A couple of criticisms; the . 05 to .10 degree variation is not a scientific statement or observation. It is only a calculation of the total solar energy input difference over the earth’s area. This is a description of only one aspect of the input amount and it ignores the WL flux of that input, and where on earth that input is absorbed, atmosphere, ocean depths, and land.
If one takes raw input alone one can say that a huge increase of 90 watts per square meter cools the planet every SH summer. ( As this annual increase in solar isolation annually results in a cooler atmosphere)
Both statements ignore the residence time and absorption location of the input flux. ( Is the energy reflecting before the surface, thereby leaving almost instantly, or entering the oceans for up to a thousand years where a change in flux can accumulate for up to a thousand years)

Due to the same factors, and many other causes of climate change, one would not expect the slightly larger change in this paper to be instantly recorded in GAT. ( As the much larger annual flux produces a negative correlation in GAT)

December 19, 2017 2:41 am

The next step is to show how variations in the density of the local interstellar cloud (LIC) could produce variations in the density of terrestrial cloud condensation nuclei.(CCN)

The ionized solar wind interacts directly with the interstellar neutrals which flow into the heliosphere. Richardson, et al 2008. Determining the LIC H density from the solar wind slowdown

What would be conclusive would be to determine that the LIC has structure, wavelike or otherwise, and that structure is consistent with variations in density of cloud condensation nuclei.

Nir Shaviv might be willing to assess the prospects of linking the LIC to terrestrial CCNs.

Chris Wright
December 19, 2017 2:55 am

I have the highest regard for Svensmark, and I wish him well. But is he right? Perhaps, but time will tell. But his theory is far better than AGW, which may not have made a single prediction that came true, despite the billions squandered on it. And if he is right, and the future climate proves he is right, then, if there is any justice in the world, he will receive the Nobel prize. I would love to see that day!

“Today, we news of something that….”
I suspect there’s a missing word.

Reply to  Chris Wright
December 19, 2017 2:33 pm

“…if there is any justice in the world, he will receive the Nobel prize.”

A real Nobel Prize, not the one that comes in a Crackerjack box.

December 19, 2017 2:56 am

“that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle”

Only if 70% of the Earth’s surface wasn’t water, with a HUGE buffering effect.

Reply to  AndyG55
December 19, 2017 7:52 am

It seems to me that Svalgaard is being a bit sulky here. He cannot have it both ways.

If the “official” climate view is that the known effect (allegedly) of CO2 is a 1.2°C increase for doubling the concentration but that this can be increased to 3,4,or even 5° by various forcings that have been calculated but not, as yet, observed there is no reason why cosmic radiation should not work to affect the atmosphere in ways we are not yet sure of.

To dismiss cosmic ray hypotheses out of hand while accepting the (increasingly questionable?) hypotheses surrounding CO2 as near-gospel doesn’t seem very scientific. At least not to this layman. We know clouds are still a puzzle. Svensmark may have found one of the missing pieces. We should surely welcome this research even if it turns out to be wrong.

Reply to  Newminster
December 19, 2017 7:54 am

To dismiss cosmic ray hypotheses out of hand while accepting the (increasingly questionable?) hypotheses surrounding CO2 as near-gospel doesn’t seem very scientific.
Who said that I do that? Get your facts straight before putting foot in mouth.

Reply to  Newminster
December 19, 2017 8:25 am

You apparently don’t know much about Dr. Svalgaard’s scientifically informed views on climate change.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Newminster
December 19, 2017 9:59 am

Newminster – December 19, 2017 at 7:52 am

If the “official” climate view is that the known effect (allegedly) of CO2 is a 1.2°C increase for doubling the concentration ……

To dismiss cosmic ray hypotheses out of hand while accepting the (increasingly questionable?) hypotheses surrounding CO2 as near-gospel doesn’t seem very scientific.

Newminster, are you having a “bad hair” day, ….. had too many Vodka martinis before breakfast ……. or just simply forgot what news forum or blog you were “posting” to?

I honestly don’t believe there is anyone posting their opinions in this conversation that your above two (2) comments would apply to.

HA, iffen Vodka martinis was the culprit, ……. then it is possible that you were responding to your own thoughts and beliefs.

george e. smith
Reply to  Newminster
December 19, 2017 12:11 pm

Clouds are only a puzzle if you believe that more clouds will warm the surface. The meteorology text books teach that the higher the clouds, the more they heat the surface; so I guess we blame it on the noctilucents.

But as only one experimenter, I can personally assert that in all of my years of observations, I have NEVER EVER had ANY cloud, at ANY height pass between me and the sun, and have the Temperature (in the shadow zone) GO UP.
It ALWAYS gets colder in the shadow zone, no matter how low or high the cloud is.

So more clouds do not mean more global warming.

BUT ! it is true that when clouds start to form in the sky towards the end of a hot muggy day, those clouds do tend to form at a higher altitude, because the dew point altitude moves up when the surface is hotter. But the cause was the HOT day before hand; which causes both the high cloud, and the warmer night; but that warmer night will still be colder than it was during the day.

It does NOT heat up at night because clouds formed in late afternoon or after sundown; it WILL cool down after sunset, no matter how high those clouds are.


Reply to  Newminster
December 19, 2017 10:15 pm

In my many lonely all night vigils at my Central Florida plant nursery back in the 1984-1006 years, I had the experience of high clouds raising the temperature by several degrees within minutes.
During radiational cooling events, which are/were the bane of growing, on a commercial scale, tropical plants outside of the tropics, when the sky was clear and the winds at the surface were very light, the temperature will drop to the dew point, particularly in a what is known as a cold pocket which, as it turns out, the area south of Brooksville Florida happens to be.
On these nights, if the dew point was below freezing, or even near that level (the dew point can drop when fog and frost form, plus air can become supersaturated) I was up all night, and there were hundreds of such nights in those years…many every year, from October until April it could happen.
Anyway…that is the backstory.
The relevant point is that I observed directly on many occasions that is and when a streak of cirrostratus or cirrus would materialize over us, riding the jet stream from southwest to northeast, the two to three degree per hour or more drop in temp would not just stop, but the temp would suddenly (and I mean in like a minute or two) jump back upward.
Sometimes it was a short respite, and the high clouds would blow on by, or the streak would move too far north or south, but many other times it would save a whole bunch of money and hassle, although with the limited access to data we had back in those days, I just had to keep an eye out. But at least I could sit inside and just check every ten minutes of so.
Sitting outside all night and turning on irrigation lines and synchronizing a hundred times and zones valves is no fun at all. But it sure beat having our plants die or get damaged.

High clouds (and I suppose low ones too) will not just keep the temp from dropping at night, it will raise it back up when all else remains the same.
I had/have no way to tell exactly where the energy was coming from, I just know what happens when high clouds streak overhead and you are watching the thermometers closely.

Reply to  Newminster
December 19, 2017 10:19 pm

Sorry about the typos, but you get the idea.
That date spread should read 1984 to 1996.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Newminster
December 20, 2017 5:19 am

menicholas – December 19, 2017 at 10:15 pm

In my many lonely all night vigils at my Central Florida plant nursery back in the 1984-1006 years, I had the experience of high clouds raising the temperature by several degrees within minutes.

High clouds will not just keep the temp from dropping at night, it will raise it back up when all else remains the same.

I had/have no way to tell exactly where the energy was coming from, I just know what happens when high clouds streak overhead and you are watching the thermometers closely.

Menicholas, I am sure that what you describe above ……. is pretty much exactly what you thought and truly believed you were observing, …….. but sorry bout that, ….. because that was not what was happening even though it appeared to you that it was.

Menicholas, along with your “trusty” thermometer, …. you should have also kept handy an anemometer ….. and a “wet finger” …… so that you could determine the “wind speed” and the “direction” from which it was blowing.

“YUP”, the blowing in of that “warm air” that your thermometer was detecting.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A rising air column in one locale will create a partial vacuum at the surface (low pressure) and the near-surface air from adjacent locales will rush in (wind) to fill the “void”.

Reply to  Newminster
December 20, 2017 7:51 am

“Menicholas, I am sure that what you describe above ……. is pretty much exactly what you thought and truly believed you were observing, …….. but sorry bout that, ….. because that was not what was happening even though it appeared to you that it was.”

Not only did he believe it … but it also very likely happened.

“High clouds will not just keep the temp from dropping at night, it will raise it back up when all else remains the same.”

I spent countless hous on duty as a meteorologist with the UKMO observing that very thing.
High ice-cloud does indeed raise a surface temp. However it needs to interrupt the steady-state of a temperature flux in order for the temp to rise, otherwise it will just reduce it’s rate of cooling to space.
In my case I talk of road temperatures. In that case the ground depth temps can and often are, higher than the radiating surface. So the flux (warm below>cool above) will raise the temp of the surface when an increase of back-radiated LWIR slows it’s cooling. And Ci cloud does. Sorry it just does. UKMO algorithms have it as a variable in the prediction of overnight RST’s…. because it does.

In Mencholas case also, then there was also a heat flux that flowed (warm to cold) up from the below the surface (and I’m assuming because of the location the, Delta T into the ground was substantial).

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Newminster
December 21, 2017 5:14 am

Toneb – December 20, 2017 at 7:51 am

Not only did he believe it … but it also very likely happened.

Toneb, the lack of good reading comprehension skills causes lots of disagreements and problems on news forums and blogs, especially if the subject is of a scientific nature.

So I implore you Toneb, …….. re-read what Menicholas posted ….. and interpret it as specifically stated, to wit:

[quoting Menicholas] “In my many lonely all night vigils……… I had the experience of high clouds raising the temperature by several degrees within minutes.

Toneb, … high clouds, especially at nighttime, do not contain sufficient thermal energy to be radiating part of it toward the earth, ….. to a concentrated locale (a small patch of ground at a Central Florida plant nursery), ….. to increase the near-surface air temperature 0.001 degree F, let alone several degrees F.

[quoting Menicholas] I just know what happens when high clouds streak overhead and you are watching the thermometers closely.

HA, ….. so, high clouds streaking overhead, …… HUH?

Which tells me there is a “wind” that is blowing the air around and those clouds are just going along for the ride.

Toneb, please re-read george e. smith’s above post.

george e. smith
Reply to  Newminster
December 21, 2017 3:40 pm

When talking about the influence of clouds there is an implied assumption that we are talking about a stationary column of the atmosphere, into which solar radiant energy is admitted from time to time, and from which LWIR and other band EM radiations emerge.
There is NO heat flow into or out of such a column (from adjacent columns).

So the appearance of clouds in a column means they either formed in that column or they moved in from some adjacent column.

So any heat content of the cloud itself that may enter a column, is of course removed from the adjacent column, so there is no change in net heat in the atmosphere as a consequence of the cloud movement.
So when clouds form in a column, presumably at say no more than 10km altitude (low clouds) any outgoing LWIR from the surface is intercepted by the cloud within about 33.3 microseconds after leaving the emitting (hot) surface , and any reflected component, would be received back on the surface within another 33.3 micro-seconds. But water droplets and ice crystals (in clouds) are very strong absorbers of LWIR radiation so most of the surface emission that reaches the cloud is in fact absorbed in just a few microns of water thickness. It is subsequently re-radiated isotropically and at a near BB Temperature equal to the cloud water Temperature, and no more than half of it is directed (diffusely) back towards the surface.
So there is no way that the return to earth of some outbound LWIR radiant energy can replace the amount of surface emission LWIR radiation that was the source of the cloud return.
So there is no way that cloud returned LWIR radiant energy can stop the exit of such radiation, so it cannot stop the inexorably drop in Temperature over night.

It will cool down after sunset, and it will be colder in the next morning.

Any observed Temperature rise after sunset, can only be due to the import of heat energy from neighboring air columns, and such heat energy cannot be in both places at the same time, so if it enters our column it must have left some other coumn, so there can be no net heating of the surface by the movement of such clouds, no matter what their altitude.
The gulf stream warms northern coastal Europe, by convecting excess heat from the tropics, and if it should be short circuited by fresh water from land melt, that heat will remain in the tropics. And the higher the temperatures in the tropics the faster they cool the earth surface.


Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Newminster
December 22, 2017 5:37 am

Thanks, George e., …….. and a “happy” start of Winter 2017 to you.

And don’t be fergettin, …. the Southern Hemisphere ocean waters are getting even warmer and warmer after the Winter solstice …… and their outgassing of CO2 is still accumulating in the atmosphere.

Reply to  Newminster
December 24, 2017 9:27 am

Re George e smith: “But as only one experimenter, I can personally assert that in all of my years of observations, I have NEVER EVER had ANY cloud, at ANY height pass between me and the sun . . .”

As another experimenter I can personally assert that (due to circumstances beyond my control) I have stood outside all through a clear Winter night and watched a basin of water freeze over. Then, between 4am and 5am some clouds came over and the ice melted. (The latitude was 52.3N.)

Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
December 24, 2017 12:33 pm

I have observed similarly that clouds make a change of a few degrees C on minimum T here on a winter night. So, essentially, it is or must be because of clouds being made of GH gas.

Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
December 24, 2017 12:37 pm

Merry Christmas!

Mike Maguire
Reply to  AndyG55
December 19, 2017 9:56 am

“Only if 70% of the Earth’s surface wasn’t water, with a HUGE buffering effect.”

The oceans have 1,000 times more stored heat than the atmosphere. Heat that went into the oceans last century may still be coming out today.

When the temperature of a key area of the tropical Pacific ocean goes up, it warms up the entire global atmosphere……… example of how powerful this effect is from heat belching out of the oceans.

The main source for ocean heating is solar radiation. Can an increase in cosmic rays result in a big enough increase in clouds to cut solar radiation to make a significant difference in the amount of heat going into the oceans? It’s plausible.

What we would not likely see is some immediate, easy to measure thermal response in the atmosphere that is in phase with the change in cloudiness.

The oceans are constantly moving, mixing, circulating. Warm blobs pops up with no explanation. El Nino’s and La Nina’s emerge from pockets of warm/cool with no long term predictability.

We have longer term/decadal oscillations PDO, AMO, for instance that repeat with unique temperature profiles in certain parts of the oceans but since the sun is providing the ocean with most of its heat, what solar cycle do these correlate to?

So one would also not expect to see the increase in GCR’s from the recently weak sun(only the previous cycle was significantly weaker than the previous ones) and the increase in clouds/reduction in solar radiation, if that was the response to just jump out with an obvious short term finger print that provides the smoking gun metric.

If this effect is significant, it should takes decades to gradually reverse the net heat gains of the ocean from last century to heat losses this century.

How many decades? Probably not a high number but certainly more than 1, possibly as few as 2 but thats a wild guess……………even if this effect is significant.
If we are accumulating heat from greenhouse gas warming at the same time and can’t separate this effect from the theoretical effects of GCR’s, nobody can say the warming slow down was caused by the increasing GCR’s or not………..or whether some of last century’s warming was in part from less GCR’s.

The above discussion is not from somebody that “wants to believe” in the GCR theory. It’s just factual statements regarding the physics of the oceans/atmosphere and knowing enough to know that those who claim they know the GCR theory is invalid because they don’t see the smoking gun……….can’t possibly know………even if it was Albert Einstein making that statement.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 10:03 am

who claim they know the GCR theory is invalid because they don’t see the smoking gun
The issue is to what degree the GCR hypothesis explains the climate change we actually observe today. If the effect is hidden [no smoking gun] and may not show up for decades, centuries, or more, it is less relevant to the current climate debate.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 12:26 pm

If the effect is hidden [no smoking gun] and may not show up for decades, centuries, or more, it is less relevant to the current climate debate.”

This is a good point. As a “lukewarmer” I don’t want to sound like I’m defending a belief is something that might not be there.

However, the effect(if there is one) would not be showing up now from the “slightly” weaker cycles late last century as the difference could just have been less of a contribution towards heating(if there was one).

It’s only with the last cycle that GCR’s plunged enough to make more of a difference(if there is one).
I would guess that if global warming continues at the current rate during this next cycle, then its clear any GCR effect from the previously weak cycle is, like you stated, less relevant to the current climate debate.

We do know that global warming accelerated in the 1980’s/90’s, then slowed down for almost 20 years. What caused this?
We heard that all the extra heat was being stored in the deep oceans. Actually, this is consistent with my position on the oceans having 99.9% of the heat stored in the ocean/atmosphere system.

Maybe this also means we don’t have to worry as much about the atmosphere warming up from increasing CO2 if the oceans, with 1,000 times more heat capacity can gobble it up.

Even measuring an increase/decrease in clouds from GCR’s is not a clear indicator. Warmer oceans increase water vapor……….another greenhouse gas and a warmer ocean with a warmer atmosphere effects cloud cover……….and how that effects global temps depends on the latitude and height of the clouds, for low clouds(high latitude=warming, low latitude=cooling).
One would think that we could see some sort of change in global cloud cover over the course of a solar cycle that repeats in tandem with higher and lower amounts of GCR’s.

Some regions are effected more than others and this correlates with latitude when it comes to greenhouse gas warming. The same is true with changes in regional cloud cover with global warming and the same might be true with the effects of GCR’s on regional cloud cover………..if there is much of an effect.

So looking at “global” cloud cover changes for the evidence of an effect of GCR’s is a good place to search and a good reason to be skeptical of how powerful the effect might be………but still not conclusive evidence.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 2:50 pm

It’s only with the last cycle that GCR’s plunged enough to make more of a difference(
First of all you have it backwards. Low solar activity means higher GCRs, so no ‘plunge’.
Second, the cosmic ray intensity varies just like [albeit inverted] the sunspot number and the last cycle is not all that special. Here is a ‘best guess’ at the GCR intensity over the past 300 years:
Slides 54-56 of

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 6:52 pm

“It’s only with the last cycle that GCR’s plunged enough to make more of a difference(
First of all you have it backwards. Low solar activity means higher GCRs, so no ‘plunge’.”

Whoops, of course I know this. Sorry for the slip…..was thinking sunspots when that got typed. Thanks for the correction.

“Second, the cosmic ray intensity varies just like [albeit inverted] the sunspot number and the last cycle is not all that special. Here is a ‘best guess’ at the GCR intensity over the past 300 years”

Thanks for the link. I am very surprised that your interpretation is that the last cycle in not all that special.
I look at charts and graphs all day(commodity/futures) and think the last solar cycle does clearly stand out as having the least amount of sunspots and the most GCR’s in a century. The current one looks to follow the same path(but you are the expert).

Maybe by not being special you mean out of the last 300 years but then, most of the global warming has occurred in the last century.
200 and 300 years ago, we also had a cooler planet.

I agree with you, that this last(weak) cycle is similar(not special) compared to weak solar cycles from 100, 200 and 300 years ago. Just looking at your graphs and others, it appears that weak solar cycles occur every 100 years or so.

Do you agree with this?

Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 7:07 pm

In the big scheme of things the current cycle is not all that special, and there does seem to be a quasi-cycle of about 100 years. I don’t think that is a ‘real’ cycle in the sense that it has its own special driving force [and memory reside inside the sun or in the position of the planets]. Instead it is probably just a random occurrence [like getting three heads in a row when tossing a coin].

Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 8:52 pm

At least, there is a 0.2°C swing in the temperature record, with about the leng of a solar cycle, but not parallel with it.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 8:53 pm
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 20, 2017 11:38 am

Thanks for sharing so much Dr. Isvalgaard.

I also see your point on the weak solar cycles occurring around every century going back the last several hundred years “possibly” being just random variation with no dependent variable or driving force.

That’s where your expertise comes in handy. We all look for recognizable patterns in data measuring things around us to use for predictive value.

I trade commodities for a living. Just about every trader uses price charts and graphs to interpret trends and patterns, especially repeating type patterns…….to try to predict where the price is going next.

Sometimes patterns repeat and/or predictions are full filled because thousands of humans looking at the same charts and graphs all see the same thing and have the same expectations and act the same way…………a self full filling prophesy.

The sun (and things in the physical world) doesn’t care what we see in a graph because of a unusual statistical anomaly that shows up independent of a cause.

I will give your response/explanation about the weak solar cycles every 100 years recently more weight than anything else.

Reply to  AndyG55
December 19, 2017 2:36 pm

That was my first thought as well when reading that bit. Imo, the oceans are primary in that which comprises climate shifts. After that is cyclic solar behavior, cyclical lunar effects in relation to the ocean, and surface winds.

george e. smith
Reply to  goldminor
December 20, 2017 12:59 pm

Well I was going to start staying up all night to see if I could experience the Menicholas sudden jumps up in Temperature when a cloud passed in front of the (well forget the sun), so what did it pass in front of and then move away so the Temperature went up and then down when the cloud moved away from in front of whatever it was that it was in front of.

I of course omitted from my descriptions of my experience, the effect of actual warm air movements into or out of a region; ie convective flow of heat. I was limiting myself to observations where only EM radiation could be involved, such as if I was inside a microbe proof tent out in the middle of a Antarctic glacier measuring CO2 in the ice.

Now after one of those red hot and humid days, when it gets close to sunset, and the actual air temperature does start to go down, in late afternoon-early evening, even before the sun sets, I have found that the road out in front of my house has already cooled down to almost body temperature, whereas I couldn’t touch it two hours earlier.

So the air temperature starts to go down, and for some reason, that seems to cause the relative humidity to go up, so that even though the air temperature is lower that it was in mid afternoon, the relative humidity is now decidedly higher so it is even more muggy now than it was earlier, but the temperature as measured by a thermometer reading the air, and not the radiation, is still going down. Of course if the relative humidity is going up at the surface and stopping me from perspiring to cool myself, the altitude dependent lapse rate is causing the air higher up to be even cooler than where I am, so the relative humidity up there is even higher than where I am.
Eventually there will be some height where the lapse rate has brought the Temperature down to the dew point, and the relative humidity will be 100%.

At that point, a 100 GeV proton will come along and turn the whole area into a big cloud, that is ready to start raining.

Well eventually, down where I am, the Temperature will also eventually drop to the dew point at my altitude, and it will start depositing dew on any available cool surface, even the blades of grass in my front lawn, so that by tomorrow morning, the lawn will be all wet, and when I go outside to do my morning pre-sunrise calisthenics, I will be bloody cold, as my 37 deg. C body temperature comes into contact with that cold 100% relative humidity air, which sucks 590 calories per gram of heat out of my skin to warm the saturated air by re-evaporating some of that proto dew.

All of that changes, the instant the sun appears over those valley hills around me, and I get hit instantaneously by 0.7 to 1.5 micron photons from the sun, which the salt water inside me soaks up immediately and eliminates the 100% humidity chill I was experiencing up till then.

And it’s not any 240W/m^2 candle that is hitting me, not is it the 1,000 W/m^2 it will soon become, because the sun’s zenith distance may be 70 degrees so it would be circa 300 W/m^2, but eventually much higher. So instead of the temperature heading for 255K or even to 288K, the sun is trying to bring it up to about sqrt(2) or 1.4 times that which is over 400K.

Luckily for all of us, including me, the sun will go down again before it ever gets close to 400 kelvin, and it starts to cool off for another interesting evening.


Reply to  george e. smith
December 23, 2017 3:18 pm

I live approximately 100 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Last night around 7 pm temps were sitting around 38 F according to local weather.That was 8 degrees warmer than the previous 2 nights at the same hour. Looking at radar showed why. Clouds had moved in off of the ocean. Last nights low was 32 F as compared to 28 F the night before and 25 F prior to that.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  AndyG55
December 20, 2017 10:26 am

Yes. Furthermore, there’s something else being forgotten – the Sun’s activity modulates the amount of incoming GCRs that enter the Earth’s atmosphere, but the AMOUNT OF such incoming GCRs is not a “constant,” so the “modulation” will not necessarily be seen as a direct temperature effect, and/or may not be in the expected amount.

For example, if the Sun’s magnetic activity increases and the incoming GCR flux (i.e., outside the Earth’s atmosphere) *also* increases at the same time, the net effect on the Earth’s cloud cover may be unchanged, or even increased as opposed to reduced; if the Sun’s magnetic activity decreases and the incoming GCR flux also decreases at the same time, the net effect on the Earth’s cloud cover may be unchanged, or even decreased as opposed to increased. So the effect can be masked (by the amount of GCR flux available to be “affected” by the Sun’s magnetic activity) as well as “time-shifted” by the oceans.

Combine those two things with all other climate influences, which we have most certainly not identified, observed, measured, etc. over any meaningful time period, and dismissing GCR as a climate factor out of hand by pointing to a missing, instant temperature effect is a bit premature.

December 19, 2017 2:57 am

As skeptics have always said, what matters most is what the IPCC and GIGO modelers ignore, ie clouds.

The best they can do is “parameterize” clouds, ie assign a fudge factor which they pick out of thin air, all the better to support their erroneous assumption that CO2 matters more than solar activity. Same as they base their models on unphysical assumptions about feedback effects, not in evidence.

Consensus climate science is a thoroughly corrupt fr@ud from start to finish, including not just the worse than worthless models but the cooked book “data sets”. The charlatans who have intentionally perpetrated this criminal c0nspiracy, costing the world tens of millions of lives and tens of trillions in treasure, should be behind bars for the rest of their miserable existences.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Gabro
December 20, 2017 7:49 am

Agreed. a their argument essentially boils down to “we can’t otherwise explain the (recent) warming, so it must be CO2 (since we’ve got a theory about THAT).” Pure rubbish/argument based on ignorance, and ignores inconvenient portions of the Earth’s climate history where high (and increasing) CO2 levels could not prevent the climate from plummeting into a full-blown glaciation. Paleoclimate data shows that CO2 level has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature on geologic time scales (no correlation, and with significant episodes of REVERSE correlation), and on shorter time scales, that temperature drives the CO2 level – NOT the other way around.

A C Osborn
Reply to  AGW is not Science
December 20, 2017 9:50 am

Well they are chipping away that “history” just like the Temps, the Ice and the Sea Levels.
Now they are saying the Ice Core Samples are corrupted by Bacteria, se the latest post on here.
They will re-write histroy as many times as it takes to make their story hold water.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  AGW is not Science
December 20, 2017 12:37 pm

Ugh. The “Ministry of Truth” lives.

December 19, 2017 2:58 am

The battle over this paper will soon be waged in press and peer-review.
Cook is already at it , claiming this ‘proves ‘ the main claim of climate ‘deniers ‘ is all lies .
What ever else he gets for Christmas , he going to need lots of fresh straw to make up all he has used in creating industrial levels of straw dummy arguments over this paper.

December 19, 2017 3:08 am

Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.

Thanks for the report. It makes sense to me in a way that it also make sense to me to believe that the trails left by aeroplanes can send radiation back to space and might not be so innocent as we think.
Let us also not again confuse the issue here of high solar activity (i.e. high SSN) and the sun’s magnetic activity. High SSN corresponds with low solar polar magnetic field strengths when looking at the absolute values of that parameter, i.e. [….] (always positive)
From my own data set I have been able to correlate the solar polar magnetic field strength with that of incoming heat; the proxy I used for that is maximum temperature. I found similar results when I used minimum temperature as the proxy. In this respect I cannot fault the report.

There is a 43 or 43.5 year period of declining solar polar magnetic field strengths followed by a 43 or 43.5 year period inclining solar polar magnetic field strength. I am not sure of the writers of the report have already picked up on that as well.

Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 3:26 am

So weaker solar activity makes for more clouds and drives surface cooling. That’s one hell of a positive feedback, I don’t believe it for one moment.

Keith J
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 3:43 am

Exactly. The flaw in the logic is assumption that the elements are positive or negative Feedbacks. This is chaos, they can be BOTH. Until you make a model where Feedbacks are sign neutral, GIGO.

Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 4:13 am

Feedback? Cause and effect you mean?

For feedback you have to be at the IPCC, which needs large positive (!) feedback to create their alarming warming.

Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 7:04 am


Not a feedback effect, but a cause and effect. What this result adds is the effect of GCR-induced ions on aerosol growth.

That increasing aerosols and CCNs enhances cloudiness and albedo is not in doubt. It has not only been achieved experimentally in the lab but directly observed in nature, in this case with drones:

Simultaneous observations of aerosol–cloud–albedo interactions with three stacked unmanned aerial vehicles


Aerosol impacts on climate change are still poorly understood, in part, because the few observations and methods for detecting their effects are not well established. For the first time, the enhancement in cloud albedo is directly measured on a cloud-by-cloud basis and linked to increasing aerosol concentrations by using multiple autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles to simultaneously observe the cloud microphysics, vertical aerosol distribution, and associated solar radiative fluxes. In the presence of long-range transport of dust and anthropogenic pollution, the trade cumuli have higher droplet concentrations and are on average brighter. Our observations suggest a higher sensitivity of radiative forcing by trade cumuli to increases in cloud droplet concentrations than previously reported owing to a constrained droplet radius such that increases in droplet concentrations also increase cloud liquid water content. This aerosol-cloud forcing efficiency is as much as −60 W m−2 per 100% percent cloud fraction for a doubling of droplet concentrations and associated increase of liquid water content. Finally, we develop a strategy for detecting aerosol–cloud interactions based on a nondimensional scaling analysis that relates the contribution of single clouds to albedo measurements and illustrates the significance of characterizing cloud morphology in resolving radiometric measurements. This study demonstrates that aerosol–cloud–albedo interactions can be directly observed by simultaneous observations below, in, and above the clouds.

Steve Ta
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 7:29 am

For this to be a feedback, the clouds would need to drive the sun cooler – so clearly this is NOT a feedback.

Reply to  Steve Ta
December 19, 2017 9:14 am

Feedback is based on result, not on cause. So this IS feedback.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 8:07 am

A directly amplified effect then. But with weaker solar we see a warmer AMO, that’s a powerful negative feedback, which isn’t being driven by changes in cloud cover.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 10:57 am

Yogi Bear – December 19, 2017 at 3:26 am

So weaker solar activity makes for more clouds and drives surface cooling. That’s one hell of a positive feedback, I don’t believe it for one moment

Shur nuff, ….. Yogi Bear, ….. that is what the hypothesis claims, …… but not EXACTLY the way you stated it.

What you should have stated, …. to disagree with, ….. was that “a weaker solar activity PERMITS more clouds to form which in turn drives surface cooling”.

And the way that is theorized to work is:

1. as the magnetic activity of the sun decreases, the influx of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) into the earth’s atmosphere increases;

2. the influx of cosmic rays, which are high-energy particles from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules, thus producing ions, which are positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere;

3. the role of ions in the atmosphere accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds;

4. and the more cloud cover there is, ….. the lesser solar irradiance striking the surface there is, ….. and the more condensation (rain & snow) there is, …… with the result being the cooler the earth becomes.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 19, 2017 1:13 pm

But solar magnetic activity has weakened since the mid 1990’s in the same time frame that tropical cloud has reduced. That’s a negative feedback.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 20, 2017 4:11 am

Yogi Bear – December 19, 2017 at 1:13 pm

But solar magnetic activity has weakened since the mid 1990’s in the same time frame that tropical cloud has reduced. That’s a negative feedback.

YUP, but the “tropical cloud cover” they were tracking/measuring resided totally within the bounds of
latitude 15N to 15S of the Equator as denoted on your cited graph.

And that inclusively cited 30 degrees of the earth’s surface is not a very large area compared to the total surface area of the earth ……. as you can surely see via this factual graphic.
comment image

YB, cloud cover over the remaining 150 degrees of the earth’s surface can prevent a lot of “warming”, or conversely, can permit a lot of “cooling”.

History records horrendous rain events, tremendous flooding events and ten-of-thousands of human deaths in northern Europe, due to said flooding during the years of the LIA.

Read the section titled ….. Frequency of Storms at this site, to wit:

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 20, 2017 7:13 am
Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 20, 2017 7:15 am

More sunshine hours since 1995 means less cloud cover.comment image

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 21, 2017 5:27 am

More sunshine hours since 1995 means less cloud cover.

YUP, and conversely, ……. less sunshine hours usually means more cloud cover.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 21, 2017 1:07 pm

Well obviously, but the reverse has happened since solar weakened.

December 19, 2017 3:39 am

This paper needs to be thoroughly peer reviewed and then the theory rigorously tested. Unlike the AGW crowd, we want the theories we support to be critically tested.

Lance Wallace
Reply to  ggm
December 19, 2017 8:43 am

You can read the full set of peer reviews, responses by the author, and further exchanges by looking at Supplemental Information. As opposed to the rapid (and useless) responses by some posters here, the reviews are knowledgeable, detailed, focused, and objective, and the responses were to the point. The process resulted in a better paper,

Reply to  Lance Wallace
December 19, 2017 3:09 pm

Apropos comment.

Peter B
December 19, 2017 3:43 am

I have asked various physicists on the problems/various success rates of cloud seeding strategies for supposedly similar conditions if they ever took into account varying cosmic ray levels. It was never mentioned in CSIRO reports on Cloud Seeding; has anyone seen such a reference? If not a study matching cosmic ray flux with tens of thousands of Cloud Seeding Ops/experiments world wide should throw up some clues.

Reply to  Peter B
December 19, 2017 6:48 am

Also, what about field experiments conducted at both poles? What do they show? Since the South Pole has the galactic centre in constant view and the North Pole never has it in view, there should surely be a difference in the cosmic ray flux being funnelled down the Earth’s magnetic field at each pole. The South Pole would receive a greater flux because a much greater proportion of the galactic mass is in permanently in view.

It would then follow that there should be a greater production of aerosols over the South Pole at all times, regardless of the underlying ups and downs in solar activity (but see caveat in the last two paragraphs, below). In other words, both North and South Pole would experience ups and downs in aerosol production, in step with solar activity, but the South Pole production rate would always be higher.

This may also apply to N Hemisphere/ S hemisphere differences but I’m focussing on the poles because of the magnetic funnelling aspect and I know NASA sends up balloons to measure the cosmic ray flux over Antarctica.

The galactic centre, as defined by Sagittarius A* is at Declination -29 so the latitude line of 29° south rotates under it and all areas above 61°N are in the galactic centre shadow (but not in the shadow of the whole disc extended beyond and either side of the galactic centre). There should still be a significant difference though.*

But I’ve never heard of such a difference in cosmic ray flux at the poles. Moreover, if there is no disparity between nucleation/ aerosol formation between the poles (with or without an active sun) it may cast doubt on the theory.

But Antarctica is a highly elevated land mass and the Arctic Ocean is a variable-coverage ice sheet at sea level. So the atmospheric dynamics are different to start with, eg vertical pressure profile, precipitation. Antarctica is especially dry and windless at its centre, hence hosting a remote telescope that monitors the galactic centre- it’s the clearest place in the world for astronomical observations (see Ridge A on Wiki).

Perhaps such atmospheric differences would smudge any disparity signal due to a lack of available water vapour. Also, Earth’s axial tilt means the South Pole is titled towards the sun in December (along with 6% enhanced TSI due to perihelion passage) and the North Pole gets its sunward tilt in June. That might introduce the potential for an annual smudging of the sweeping action of the sun’s magnetic field and confounding any hypothesised polar flux difference.

Reply to  Scute
December 19, 2017 9:56 am

You answered your own question, no water = no clouds.

Reply to  Scute
December 19, 2017 10:59 am

The south pole figures exists thanks to icecube, lets show an interesting calibration of the observatory

That is the moon shadow moving across the detector blocking the cosmic rays measured and produces a 6 sigma variation 🙂

Reply to  Scute
December 19, 2017 11:04 am

If you want one from tibet ARGO-YBJ also has the same calibration

December 19, 2017 4:06 am

Leif Svalgaard’s argument is certainly relevant, but not decisive. If the observed temperature changes are smaller than would be expected from Svensmark’s theory, then it is possible that another, as yet unknown effect that occurs downstream of or in parallel to it could partially cancel Svensmark’s mechanism.

Pierre DM
Reply to  Michael Palmer
December 19, 2017 6:44 am

Svensmark’s mechanism is believed to be “strongest in tropical marine stratus clouds” according to the above article. That would mean the mechanism is strongest at preventing short wave energy absorption by the ocean, not the atmosphere so, much of the effect would be smoothed and lagged on the atmospheric temperature over land where most data on temperatures are compiled. The temperature changes in the ocean would be far harder to pick up and assess. It’s still, the oceans at the heat and my homework.

December 19, 2017 4:06 am

Thank you, Dr. Svensmark and Prof. Shaviv, for your great efforts
This study will be the final nail in the coffin for AGW.

Nobel prize material.

S. Geiger
Reply to  Scarface
December 19, 2017 6:01 am

Really? How many studies discussed on this site were the ‘final nail’? 🙂

Gary Pearse.
Reply to  S. Geiger
December 19, 2017 8:36 am

IPCC scientists pooh-poohed natural variation in climate as insignificant until the most recent report. Sceptics had been presenting the variety of notable variations without much appreciation until the terrible “Pause” in temperatures (also a “discovery” of sceptics) of two decades during which time CO2 rose 35% could only be explained by natural variation that easily overwhelmed CO2 effect. The CO2 mechanism would, perforce, therefore be proved to be weaker than thought. This battleground wasn’t going to be surrendered by warming proponents too graciously.

They already had had to cede ground on the possibility of multiple celsius degrees of warming per century and switched strategies to bemoan the terrible effects of 1.5C increase when it was as clear that nothing more than this was even possible after all.

The big crunch would be a return to a lengthening Pause or decline after the 2016 El Nino (another of the nat variations) which would further erode the possible contribution of CO2 as a game changer: click on this graphic for the status of ENSO and reflect on the heating effect FROM the El Nino 2016 and what a protracted La Nina could do to temperatures ahead!

Reply to  S. Geiger
December 19, 2017 8:50 am

So, how is that peace prize working for you? Gore is discredited, Pauchari too. In the mean time Mann, who faked winning it, lost it completely. Thanks for the reminder. Svensmark will be laughing last.

John Peter
December 19, 2017 4:12 am

I seem to remember an article postulating that most outdoor paintings made during the Maunder Minimum had dark clouds as a background.

Brian McCain
Reply to  John Peter
December 19, 2017 5:51 am

There was also an article on this site about how clouds didn’t exist until after the Industrial Revolution because Medieval paintings didn’t have clouds in the sky.

Reply to  Brian McCain
December 19, 2017 3:22 pm

“Woods Hole” need to be differentiated. There are three “Woods Hole” entities. There is the village of Woods Hole, MA. There is the fairly well-respected, mainstream* “Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.” And there is the relatively new “Woods Hole Research Center,” often confused with the latter, which I suspect was the objective, to ride on the reputation of WHOI. WHRC may be privately funded; I’m unsure to what extent.

* I believe they may have sipped the KoolAid, but not gargled it, as does WHRC.

Willis Eschenbach(@weschenbach)
December 19, 2017 4:12 am

I don’t really understand the claimed importance of this new paper. I too saw an embargoed copy, and I came to the same conclusion as Dr. Leif. Here was my comment when I read it a couple of days ago.

I don’t doubt that that is the case [that they saw an effect in the lab]. I do doubt that it has a measurable effect on earths clouds. From the paper they say that it is on the order of “several percent”, which is likely lost in the noise.

They say it MIGHT cause an effect, viz:

The mechanism of ion-induced condensation may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions, and able to influence the formation of CCN.

That’s the best they’ve got? It may be relevant? Interesting, but …

I have the same problem with this paper as with a whole host of other studies—where’s the beef? IF this were actually a significant factor in climate we would see ~11-year cycles in something—tropical clouds, the marine layer, rainfall levels … but they don’t point to anything like that.

I did an analysis a while back to see if sunspot-related phenomena had any effect on clouds over the US. I found nothing. Doesn’t mean there isn’t something, just means it’s not visible in the US cloud data.

So, the search continues. Me, I’m not much on theory, I’m a data man. Many a beautiful theory has wrecked on the reef of observations. If you think that cosmic rays are having an effect on some given dataset, post up a link to the dataset, I’m happy to take a look.

But so far … bupkis …


Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 5:58 am

[quote] IF this were actually a significant factor in climate we would see ~11-year cycles in something—tropical clouds, the marine layer, rainfall levels … but they don’t point to anything like that. [/quote] We normally have a big ice-skating event during the solar dips in the Netherlands.

Reply to  R2D2
December 19, 2017 6:00 am
Reply to  R2D2
December 19, 2017 11:53 am

Hah! Been there, done that! During my Fulbright year at T U Delft, ’62-’63, gang from the Lab skated to a canal-side tavern to tip a few. Great fun! Returned by car.

Reply to  R2D2
December 19, 2017 4:59 pm

We do see closely coupled solar activity and water level in at least one body of water: Lake Victoria in East Africa. See this WUWT piece:

I went looking for the solar cycle effect causing this in the stations around Lake Victoria, and like Mr Essenbach in his fruitless search of cloud cover in the US, couldn’t find it. But the phenomenon exists. And it is big. Bigger than big, stronger than strong. And given that it works at Lake Victoria it is probably everywhere to at least some extent, just masked by local variability.

Reply to  archibaldperth
December 19, 2017 5:04 pm

Especially, as you said: “If we take out the period of non-correlation…”.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 6:21 am

Self-Styled Data Man,

Why are you so averse to data?

You refuse even to read any of the hundreds if not thousands of papers by real scientists finding the effects on lower atmospheric and oceanic phenomena of solar cycles, which have been well established over the past two hundred years of observations.

Here are dozens of references from Russian and Western scientists and the citations of their studies, reviewed in “Solar activity and cosmic rays: Influence on cloudiness and processes in the lower atmosphere (in memory and on the 75th anniversary of M.I. Pudovkin)”:

You can’t learn all that has been discovered about the effects of solar activity on climate if you’re afraid to do even the most elementary literature search. You can assert there is no evidence all you want, but don’t expect anyone to credit your claims until you actually educate yourself, since you never studied atmospheric physics or any other relevant discipline formally in school.

Gary Pearse.
Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 8:43 am

Easy, Gabro, taking the field of study may not be a good suggestion these days!

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 10:02 am


Basic physics, chemistry, geology, biology, oceanography,even meteorology, are still valid in most schools, despite CACA infection.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 11:02 am

Are you really looking for a proof in literature, not in measured data?

David A
Reply to  Gabro
December 20, 2017 5:22 am

I agree. As to observations of GAT over short periods, well this is my basic response to Leif S simple objection…

Reply to  Gabro
December 20, 2017 7:01 am

Curious George
December 19, 2017 at 11:02 am

Apparently you are unaware that the term “scientific literature” refers to the whole body of scientific papers on a subject or discipline. I hope that you are kidding.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 12:53 pm


I remember your work in searching for Solar Cycles, in fact you inspired me to set about on my own quest. So I took the RSS binary satellite data and ran a spectral analysis on longitude bands from 1978 to Mid November 2017 and the Solar Cycles clearly show up in certain latitudes in the Lower Stratosphere and much to my surprise show up in the Lower Troposphere (with the exception of Cycle 21). One could argue that 38 years (456 Samples) of data lacks enough samples to localize a 10+ year cycle, but I feel pretty comfortable with the dataset. I have used far less samples in Spectral Decomposition applications to help people find lots of oil and gas.

Peter Sable
Reply to  LT
December 19, 2017 8:58 pm

38 years (456 Samples) of data lacks enough samples to localize a 10+ year cycle,

People get sampling wrong all the time at low frequencies and limited window lengths, because it is not covered well in the literature.

You do not have 456 samples. You have 38/10 = 3.8 samples. Not statistically significant. You typically need 5 samples to resolve anything (especially nearby cycles), partly due to the the low frequency corollary of Nyquist (you can’t make a perfect window filter).

Window length matters. A LOT.

I’ll be interested in solar variations versus various latitude temperatures when we have 55 years of satellite date (2034), if I’m still around. If I can make it to 5 times the PDO (5*70 = 350, or Year 2329 AD), I’ll be interested to see the various multi-decadal oscillations and how they interact.

How’s that longevity research going? I bet if we put trillions into that, instead of climate crap, we could actually collect enough data to know something about the climate.

Somehow, Dr. Spencer needs to be made semi-immortal.


Reply to  LT
December 20, 2017 5:03 am


A piece of a low frequency sign wave still has a correlation coefficient that stands out above the noise. There is plenty of data, I can make any synthetic dataset with an embedded low frequency component in it and under sample it and the spectral features will still exist. 38 years of data sampled every month is more than enough data to see an 11 year cycle, as my data clearly shows, I think you need a refresher course.

Reply to  LT
December 20, 2017 6:51 am


The problem with all data is that there is always some disruptive natural cycle, for instance the Stratosphere lacks the interference of ENSO cycles, but still has massive interference from El Chichon and Pinatubo which happen to be around a decade apart. Which will make any correlation with any amount of data be suspicious. The surface data has so much ENSO related interference as well as volcanic episodes that I doubt any amount of data will ever allow an accurate determination of any solar induced perturbations. You may be right, it is a pointless endeavor that’s energy would be better served attempting to solve other problems.

Reply to  LT
December 20, 2017 7:03 am

Solar cycles have been found in data over thousands of years, if not longer.

Peter Sable
Reply to  LT
December 21, 2017 8:20 pm

A piece of a low frequency sign wave still has a correlation coefficient that stands out above the noise.

Really? I missed the part in your article where you did a Monte Carlo simulation to actually establish the noise floor for the 9-13 year period.

Here’s an article that goes into detail about how to determine whether a natural signal rises about the noise floor. They definitively show that in certain SST latitudes the El Nino cycle is statistically significant.

Said El Nino signal, I note, is missing in the Stratosphere data. I’m curious as to why.

You’ll note the lower the frequency the higher the noise floor.

I also note your wrote custom code, and didn’t release it.

The classic frequency analysis mistake (second only to “never start a land war in Asia”) is to forget to window your data. (right Willis? 🙂 I can’t determine whether you did so. If you did not then the signal levels are so low that they are probably masked by the ringing from the resulting beginning-end discontinuity that you get when you don’t window your data.

Furthermore, you’ve got about 3000 grid squares. 180 in each vertical column. Your data set is so small that a large part of the signals you see are just random variation. With 3000 grid squares auto-correlated data is going to give you a lot of patterns that look significant but in fact are just random.

It would help to have a mechanistic description of why some latitudes are strongly correlated with the solar cycle and some are not correlated at all. Why’s that?


Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2017 5:24 pm

Yes, we all know you are a “data man” , Willis. And we like for that. Well the data here show that so much unknown business is going on on the atomic level in gases (and perhaps also in fluids?), with the varying influx of cosmic rays and the consequent huge variation in ionisation levels.. That to me is the most interesting part of this paper. It reminds me of Leeuwenhoek’s discovery in the 17th century : here was something nobody had ever known about before. This added a dimension to science which revolutionised it. Are we now on the threshold of some similar revolution?

Reply to  AndyE
December 19, 2017 6:19 pm

Even as a kid in the late 70’s I knew that the solar cycle had a significant effect on Earths atmosphere.

“An unexpected rise in the number of CMEs and other radiation slamming into Earth heated our atmosphere so much that it expanded. This increased the drag on Skylab and began to pull it out of orbit faster than Nasa had reckoned.”

Lance Wallace
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 22, 2017 2:24 pm


The 11-year cycle (of brightness) has been observed on Uranus and Neptune and attributed in part to induced ion-enabled nucleation due to increased cosmic rays at low solar activity.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
December 22, 2017 2:29 pm

The evidence is very weak. Here are the actual data:

Lloyd Martin Hendaye
December 19, 2017 4:15 am

Cosmic rays cancelled or reinforced by semi-millennial solar cycles (TSI) are geophysically episodic, short-term oscillations, marginally germane to 102-kiloyear (KY) Pleistocene glaciations, climate cycles interspersed with 10 – 15 KY interstadial remissions.

Astrophysical factors aside, long-term plate tectonic continental dispositions rule: Since the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) Boundary some 65 million years ago, Earth’s mountain-chain Oligocene orogenies have linked North and South American landmasses to wall off Eastern from Western Hemispheric atmospheric-oceanic circulation patterns.

Self-evidently, this process has produced periodic Pleistocene ice-times due to persist another 15 – 35+ million years before Wegener’s “continental drift” opens global channels once again. The fact that this phenomenon has not occurred since pre-Cambrian eras near 1,000-million years ago appears indicative.

Reply to  Lloyd Martin Hendaye
December 19, 2017 10:15 am

+100 . Geographic, topographic, tectonic and orbital mechanics

Reply to  Lloyd Martin Hendaye
December 20, 2017 7:06 am

There have been other ice ages of various lengths during the Phanerozoic Eon, such as the relatively brief Ordovician/Silurian and long Carboniferous/Permian ice houses.

Dodgy Geezer
December 19, 2017 4:20 am

..TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand….
Dr. Leif Svalgaard

Modelled climate sensitivities of 2 or more due to CO2 would translate to a temperature increase of 0.2 – 0.3 C per decade, which is simply not observed, hence the models can be dismissed out of hand…
Dodgy Geezer

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 19, 2017 4:42 am


Ian W
Reply to  JJ
December 19, 2017 5:02 am

It does raise the issue of the different levels of ‘proof’ (falsification). An unobserved ‘green house gas’ effect – is believed to the level of expenditure of trillions of dollars; yet Svensmark’s hypothesis is held to a totally different level of ‘proof’.

One could almost be persuaded that the expenditure already made and to come makes the falsification more difficult to accept.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 19, 2017 7:12 am

My thought, exactly. I still find GCR’s more compelling and logical than CO2, at explaining aspects of global climate change. If climate change was actually science, we would either dismiss both GCR’s and CO2 out of hand, or admit we are clueless and keep looking everywhere for answers. Either way, it is abundantly clear that CO2 is not, and never has been, the primary driver of climate change.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 19, 2017 8:52 am

Actually, a sensitivity of 2 K per doubling, with a doubling every 140 years (based on current rate of increase), gives a response of .14 K per decade. We are seeing a *transient* response of about that magnitude; the equilibrium sensitivity would have to be higher. So a sensitivity of 2 K is likely to be on the low side.

Reply to  ScottM
December 19, 2017 12:27 pm

That assumes that the only thing that impacts temperature is CO2. An assumption that has been proven faulty.
Secondly, to get that high an increase you have to end with the most recent El Nino.
Dodgy science at best.

Glenn yancey
Reply to  ScottM
December 19, 2017 2:41 pm

Response to CO2 is logarithmic. All potential temperature is just about done, meaning that another doubling will only produce 1/2 the effect.

tony mcleod
Reply to  ScottM
December 19, 2017 4:20 pm

Glenn yancey December 19, 2017 at 2:41 pm
Response to CO2 is logarithmic. All potential temperature is just about done, meaning that another doubling will only produce 1/2 the effect.

That assumes CO2 concentration rising linearly – its rising exponentially.

Peter Sable
Reply to  ScottM
December 19, 2017 9:02 pm

That assumes CO2 concentration rising linearly – its rising exponentially.

You assume infinite carbon based fuel resources.

We do not have enough carbon based fuel to get us much past 1000ppm, assuming no negative feedback (such as plant growth or other carbon fixation).

So basically, only 1.5 doubling left.


Reply to  ScottM
December 20, 2017 4:49 am

“tony mcleod
December 19, 2017 at 4:20 pm

That assumes CO2 concentration rising linearly – its rising exponentially.”

An increase of 2 ppm per year during the last 20 years is linearely:

A C Osborn
Reply to  ScottM
December 20, 2017 9:53 am

Peter Sable December 19, 2017 at 9:02 pm
That depends on whether or not you class “Methane Hydrates” as Fossil Fuel.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ScottM
December 20, 2017 10:02 am

Read “Chill” by Peter Taylor (an environmentalist) – more than half of the supposedly observed warming can be traced to solar influences alone, according to his references (as of 2009). Since that would be only *known* solar influences (and I sincerely doubt we have adequately studied the complete influence of the Sun directly and indirectly, on our climate), and since the “data” is such utter crap, the remainder can probably be attributed to a combination of (1) unknown/unquantified natural influences and (2) data errors and/or manipulation, leaving *nothing* to “attribute,” without any empirical evidence in support, to CO2 levels.

Reply to  ScottM
December 20, 2017 3:35 pm

“That assumes CO2 concentration rising linearly – its rising exponentially.”

In which case it is very unlikely that it is anthropogenic emissions that are the cause of that exponential rise.

Global Carbon Emissions Are Rising Again after 3 Flat Years

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 20, 2017 9:50 am

I’d agree with that 100%. And paleoclimate records showing NO correlation between CO2 and temperature on geologic time scales, and which include episodes of REVERSE correlation, also tell us that the models, and the theory that higher CO2 levels will necessarily lead to higher temperatures to be similarly dismissed out of hand.

If we want to pile on, the ice core data consistently show CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, up AND down, not the other way around – and for those who buy into the BS explanation delivered with a straight face by the Eco-Fascists (i.e., that AFTER the ~800 year time lag is “made up,” that CO2 “contributes” to the warming), there is (a) no increase in the rate of warming shown after the lag has been “made up” and both temperature AND CO2 are rising, and (even if one could argue that the scale of the graph can’t show enough detail to “see” the “contribution”) furthermore temperature starts FALLING (1) when CO2 is at its HIGHEST level, and (2) WHILE CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO RISE, which shows with complete clarity that CO2 level is MEANINGLESS to the Earth’s temperature, and CAGW (and for that matter, ANY AGW) can be dismissed out of hand.

As I like to say, “Observation TRUMPS theory.” ;-D

A C Osborn
Reply to  AGW is not Science
December 21, 2017 3:25 am


December 19, 2017 4:37 am


Areas of importance which are neglected in large part are the solar wind speed ,the global electrical circuit, and galactic cosmic rays . Actually they are all tied to one another.

When the solar wind decreases the intensities of galactic cosmic rays (GCR)that are allowed to enter the atmosphere will increase and this this in turn intensifies the global electrical circuit.

It has been shown through actual data on a short term basis (days) through the monitoring of Forbush decreases and SEP events which stands for solar particle events both of which originate from the sun , that the electrical circuit decreases following a Forbush decrease which is a lessening of galactic cosmic rays ,while it increases following an SEP event.

This has big implications for solar /climate relationships on a longer term basis because it has been shown through these day to day events that when a FORBUSH DECREASE take place the global electrical circuit decreases which results in a decrease in global cloud coverage and cyclonic systems weakening while the opposite follows an SEP event.

This then can be applied to what happens to global cloud coverage and cyclonic systems over a long term basis when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum period of activity which lowers the solar wind allowing more GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS to enter the earth’s atmosphere which increases the strength of the global electrical circuit which has been shown on a short term basis(through actual data ) to increase cloud coverage and strengthen cyclonic systems.


350km/sec or lower is needed for the solar wind speed in order to get GCR counts high enough( at least 6500 units) which then will impact the global electrical circuit through strengthening it on a long term basis which then would promote greater global cloud coverage and strengthen cyclonic systems. Higher albedo for sure /and perhaps more precipitation.

In the meantime EUV(100 units or less) /UV light is on the decrease which will effect the atmospheric circulation(more meridional) and sea surface temperatures respectively.

All this is going to lead to global cooling.

Getting back to the solar wind and it’s effects upon the climate these two values are needed in my opinion which are again a solar wind speed sustained over months of less then 350km/sec and a resultant AP index over months of 5 or lower.

Solar irradiance will not be a major player in the changing of the climate it may drop by .15% which would only contribute a .1c to maybe .2c to global cooling.


Will this persist and become more common place as we move forward? I say yes and this should in turn effect the climate by cooling it.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 19, 2017 1:31 pm

Thanks I am going to be on my very best behavior. Merry Christmas!

December 19, 2017 4:37 am

Their analysis does not explain the observed reduction in stratospheric ozone above the poles when the sun is active and the more zonal jet stream tracks at such times.

The change in global cloudiness is more likely a result of changes in the waviness of the jets rather than any changes in condensation nuclei. There seems to be no shortage of such nuclei in any event.

Accordingly, this is a more comprehensive proposition:

Ian W
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 19, 2017 5:34 am

So with a weak Sun when the Hadley cells are weakest in their convection the tropopause (the top of convective movement) rises? This seems counter-intuitive. Similarly, with a strong sun with very active Hadley cells the tropopause falling seems counter-intuitive.

The phrase ‘allowing the tropopause up’ in the referenced post on needs some explanation. Is the effect of increase in ozone that you postulate to increase the temperature of the stratosphere thus changing the lapse rate and therefore inhibiting convection and vice versa with less ozone? Perhaps you should use the lapse rate change as the explanation for the change in tropopause as that would provide the mechanism.

Jerome Lurtz(@jlurtz)
Reply to  Ian W
December 19, 2017 5:50 am

Stephen Wilde
December 19, 2017 at 4:37 am

Check out this picture of the Ozone over the Arctic. My thoughts are that thick Ozone creates a high pressure area, and thin Ozone a low pressure area. High pressure area cold descending, low pressure area warmth rising. What do you think?

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Ian W
December 19, 2017 9:40 am


The referenced post refers primarily to the regions above the poles and not the Hadley Cells.

More ozone in the stratosphere when the sun is less active causes a warmer stratosphere which pushes the tropopause down:

“a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”

from here:

To get the jets to move more towards the equator and so increase global cloudiness one needs a lower tropopause above the poles which occurs when the sun is less active.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Ian W
December 19, 2017 9:43 am


You need to distinguish between the convection in the tropopause and convection in the stratosphere. The latter is what affects tropopause heights over the poles. You can have warmer air in the stratosphere pushing the tropopause down but you could have either high or low pressure cells in the troposphere beneath it.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Ian W
December 19, 2017 4:17 pm

Let’s look at the southern Ozone hole, just two months after the hole peaked.

Oops, it is now higher than every else in the southern hemisphere. In 2 months, it went from scary “hole” to huge “excess”??? Its called making something big out of nothing or out of the normal seasonal cycles.

And the Arctic now has absolutely record ozone levels when it is supposed to be weakened like the south is just not as much. Its called … Fake News or something like that.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 19, 2017 11:17 am

You have been stating this for many years now. I find this very intriguing. Decreasing the horizontal/meridional temperature gradient from the greatest warming occurring in the higher latitudes does effect/weaken the polar jet stream(s).
Greenhouse gas warming, by itself could explain this effect………..or, there could be other natural factors that play a role.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
December 19, 2017 12:10 pm

How does the greenhouse gas in the stratosphere work?

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 19, 2017 9:37 pm

Well, there was this crazy paper (EOS 2015 Kalifarska), which for all its other faults, came up with the interesting idea that galactic cosmic radiation creates ozone…plausible to me. Ozone is a much overlooked greenhouse gas. Go to Modtran tropical. Zero out stratospheric ozone. Upward flux at 70km increases 3.45 W/m2. Next, zero out tropical surface ozone as well. You gain another 2.13.

Of course, ozone does not completely go away when the cosmic rays wane.
comment image

But if you are looking for an effect of cosmic radiation, and clouds aren’t working for you…

December 19, 2017 4:37 am

Any theory that includes Einstein’s Relativity and helps explain the current Ice Age and it’s cycles is simply a very cool theory (pun intended).

One surmises that even after the next glaciation occurs, the pop media solar folks will dismiss it as not being relevant to global warming caused by humans.

December 19, 2017 4:51 am

It seems to me the study reported here (and do use the link direct to the research) completely undermines this.

Reply to  Griff
December 19, 2017 6:30 am


Your link refers to more than one study. You must not have bothered to read Nuccitelli’s drivel, for which I can’t blame you.

Please explain how analyses of climate models can possibly “undermine” actual observations and experiments. Thanks.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 9:20 am

Please explain how analyses of climate models can possibly “undermine” actual observations and experiments.
Thanks for the prod, but we all know that will never happen. Griff’s job is to throw out drivel and step away, never to engage, while a storm of lucid responses destroys his talking points.

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 3:41 pm

More Guardian non-science, Grifter?

What a silly little fool you are.

Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford for maliciously attempting to damage her professional standing.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 4:27 pm

Hmm, I got binned (and still being moderated) for way less than this and was assured “impugning” was not going to be tolerated.
Seems its really just about my point of view afterall.

Reply to  Griff
December 19, 2017 9:16 am

So grantologists are now claiming they can model what everyone agrees we cannot model. Sounds like settled science to me!

Doug MacKenzie
Reply to  Griff
December 19, 2017 10:34 am

Griff, I read that article . “Clouds amplify global warming”. I go hot under the collar. So I went outside and waited for a cloud to go over, it helped me cool down…..

December 19, 2017 4:52 am

I agree with Leif on this one, but for different reasons. Svensmark’s hypothesis doesn’t make sense.

Without making any assumptions, if he is correct then the amount of GCR that arrives to Earth is a big factor in climate change. Probably the most important factor outside Milankovitch orbital cycles. The evidence available does not support this. The Sun is only responsible for about 10-20% of the GCR variability. The amount of GCR that arrives to Earth is determined PRIMARILY by the geomagnetic field that is responsible for about 80-90% of GCR variability on a multi-millennial scale. If Svensmark is correct then the climate on Earth is determined by the geomagnetic field, and geomagnetic field variations don’t look at all like climate variations. They actually go in the opposite direction required by the hypothesis.
comment image
The green trend is due to Earth’s geomagnetic variations. Only the very minor wiggles are due to solar wind magnetic variations.

I have posted this in numerous occasions, and so far nobody has showed me why this should not be the case. Therefore I am highly skeptical of Svenmark’s hypothesis. For it to be correct the condensing nuclei would need to discriminate between GCR variation due to solar variability versus Earth geomagnetic variability.

Reply to  Javier
December 19, 2017 6:44 am


Had I seen your prior comments, I would have responded.

IMO it should be obvious that solar activity effects geomagnetism as well as GCR flux directly.

Here’s a good 2010 Review of Geophysics study on the topic, by Gray, et al.:



[1] Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability, solar-terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability are described, including solar irradiance variations on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation to galactic cosmic rays. Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation. A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles. Finally, the contributions of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.

[6] Going back farther in time, various other proxy solar information is available [Beer et al., 2006], as shown in Figure 2. The aa index is a measure of geomagnetic disturbance. It correlates well with both the neutron count rate and the irradiance and also shows good correspondence with the incidence of aurorae, as recorded by observers at middle magnetic latitudes [Pulkkinen et al., 2001]. Higher solar irradiance, lower cosmic ray fluxes, greater geomagnetic activity, and higher incidence of lower-latitude aurorae all occur when solar activity is greater. Cosmogenic isotopes such as 10Be are spallation products of GCRs impacting on atmospheric oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. The time series of 10Be abundance stored in reservoirs such as ice sheets and ocean sediments and of 14C from tree trunks show the 11 year cycle of the sunspot number. This makes sense physically since high sunspot numbers correspond to a strong solar magnetic field, which is the source of the field in the heliosphere that (by virtue of both its strength and its structure) shields the Earth from GCRs. However, geomagnetic activity, low-latitude aurorae, and cosmogenic isotopes all show additional variations that are not reflected by sunspot numbers. The reason for this is that at all minima of the solar cycle the sunspot number R returns close to zero, but the other indicators show that this does not mean the Sun returns to the same base level condition. As a result, there are drifts in solar activity on time scales of decades to centuries that, although reflected in the sunspot numbers at maxima of the solar cycle, are hardly seen in Smin sunspot numbers.

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 6:45 am

Sorry. Meant “affects”.

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 7:05 am

The reason for this is that at all minima of the solar cycle the sunspot number R returns close to zero, but the other indicators show that this does not mean the Sun returns to the same base level condition.
But it does. E.g. Slides 85, 90 of or

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 7:10 am


I have read the Gray et al., 2010 review and many other articles, and I am convinced on an important role of solar variability on climate change, just not through the effect of GCR on cloud formation.

This hypothesis has a similar problem to the CO₂ hypothesis. Throughout the Holocene, since the Climatic Optimum, the planet has been cooling. Over the same time, the Δ¹⁴C has been decreasing. Less ¹⁴C production means less GCR reaching the Earth, and according to Svensmark, less nucleation, less clouds and warming. The opposite to the observation. The LIA had a much lower Δ¹⁴C than the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Only when you consider the changes in Δ¹⁴C associated to solar variability there is a good correlation with climate.

To me it is the Sun, but not through GCR. This obviously doesn’t mean they don’t have any effect, just not a major one.

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 10:12 am


There are lots of studies like this from “The Holocene” journal, showing high correlation between colder climate with rapidly increasing 14C and 10Be ratios.

Changes in solar activity and Holocene climatic shifts derived from 14C wiggle-match dated peat deposits

Dmitri Mauquoy, Bas van Geel, Maarten Blaauw, …
First Published January 1, 2004 Research Article


Closely spaced sequences of accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) 14C dates of peat deposits display century-scale wiggles which can be fitted to the radiocarbon calibration curve. By wiggle-matching such sequences, high-precision calendar age chronologies can be generated which show that changes in mire surface wetness during the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition (c. 850 cal. BC) and the ‘Little Ice Age’ (Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima) occurred during periods of suddenly increasing atmospheric concentration of 14C. Replicate evidence from peat-based proxy climate indicators in northwest Europe suggest these changes in climate may have been driven by temporary declines of solar activity. Carbon-accumulation rates of two raised peat bogs in the UK and Denmark record low values during the ‘Little Ice Age’ which reflects reduced primary productivity of the peat-forming vegetation during these periods of climatic deterioration.

Reply to  Gabro
December 19, 2017 4:25 pm

Gabro, the cosmogenic isotope production rate inverse correlation with solar activity and climate conditions says nothing about whether GCRs are involved or not. Other possible mechanisms have better observational support.

All you are doing is building a case for a solar role on climate change, not GCRs.

December 19, 2017 4:55 am

Okay, then. Cosmic rays are posited to have an influence on cloud formation and –> precipitation levels.

At this point, the Sun is/has been dimming and shows reduced activity levels since its solar minimum in 2006.

However, this was left out of the proposal: the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening (prior to a magnetic pole swap), which allows space/cosmic radiation to erode or otherwise affect the atmosphere. Since there has not been a magnetic pole swap since the last one +/-780,000 years ago, we mere humans don’t know what will happen then. Will we have more volcanic activity? More long-term cold/ice age-style weather? The end of the world? That one didn’t happen last time, but geese and other migratory species may become confused.

Ergo, since this paper’s author proposes that cosmic rays affect precipitation, I’m left with that question: can we expect more rain, hail and snow? And why didn’t he take that into account?

Reply to  Sara
December 19, 2017 5:48 am

No, what goes up must come down, and precipitation requires evaporation. Cooler temperatures reduce evaporation, and so does reduced wind speeds.

Reply to  pochas94
December 19, 2017 8:47 am

“Cooler temps reduce evaporation” – maybe, maybe not so much. 11/27/2017: 30F, humidity: 88%; 12/1/2017 – 28F; humidity: 88%; 12/3/2017 – 29F; humidity: 92%; 12/9/17: 29F; humidity 92%; 12/12/17: 18F; 62% humidity; 12/14/17 – 19F; 80% humidity; 12/18/17: 40F; 96% humidity.
Some of those readings were during high wind speeds, too.

Precipitation in any area depends on where the moisture load is picked up and what volume was dumped before it reaches a specific area.

And besides that, I’m more interested in how much more UV radiation is going to reach the surface and increase rates of solar-related diseases like skin cancer – stuff like that.

I think the author of the paper means well, but his focus is far too narrow.

Reply to  pochas94
December 19, 2017 9:02 am

Quiet sun means less UV. But still, no more than 15 min on pale skin without sunblock.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  pochas94
December 19, 2017 9:32 am

As more precipitation is bound up as snow and ice in poleward latitudes, then lower latitudes experience drought. Consider the epochs of extreme glaciation.

Reply to  Sara
December 19, 2017 6:01 am

But, we may see a change in intensity of events, depending on how stable the wintertime polar vortex is. Time will tell.

Reply to  pochas94
December 19, 2017 9:02 am

Yes. I’m interested in how much effect this will have on wind speeds over populated areas, but I’m not referring to tornadoes. I’m interested in things like direct straight-line winds called derechos, because they ignore geography (and I live on a hill), and other such damaging winds, some of which come right off Lake Michigan. A good reference would be the February 2, 2011 blizzard which shut down Chicago’s northbound Lake Shore Drive during rush hour, and further north where I am left motorists stranded in snow drifting up to the window of their cars. Two people froze to death because of this blizzard’s snow volume and the wind that caused the drifting.

These events seem to be increasing in number, and the volume of snow and/or rain along with them. That’s my real concern, not whether clouds are seeded by cosmic radiation. We really do need to be prepared for these kinds of events instead of just being astonished when they happen. They seem to be happening more and more often, as you’ve indicated, pochas94.

Jim Heath
December 19, 2017 5:02 am

It’s the Sun stupid.

December 19, 2017 5:11 am

I’d like to see some discussion of space charge. If cloud condensation nuclei have a negative charge they will repel each other and resist raining out. But make the space charge negative and the repulsion is reduced. Tropical thunderstorm activity produces a negative space charge. A teleconnection? This would confound the data but not remove the Svensmark effect. The other thing is lag times, which Dr Svalgaard does not consider. With the oceans involved in the dynamics of climate, it may appear that a single solar cycle does not have an effect although several consecutive cycles will make their effect apparent.

December 19, 2017 5:15 am

Think about this:

Nobody knows how to model clouds. So Dr. Leif Svalgaard’s opinion on the paper can be dismissed out of hand.

December 19, 2017 5:22 am

So, this is a very measurable theory. Don’t we have satellites that measure Earth’s albedo? If the theory is true, we should be able to see the albedo go up as sunspots go down. Show me the data.

Mark - Helsinki
December 19, 2017 5:34 am

“Think about this:
TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.”

GCRs are not only dependent on the cycle though, are they. Unlike TSI, GCRs are dependent on their sources.

So based on that, no it should not be dismissed out of hand, and a poor counterpoint to boot

michael hart
December 19, 2017 5:39 am

The topic is also a good reminder of why climate models will probably always be wrong. Clouds form from air that is super-saturated with water vapor. I.e. it is severely out of equilibrium, with no way of consistently predicting when, if ever, it will return to an equilibrium state. A climate model that cannot predict when water will condense is not much use.

Reply to  michael hart
December 19, 2017 6:05 am

Yeahbut… if I want to know whether it will rain on Thursday, I read the weather forecast.

michael hart
Reply to  pochas94
December 19, 2017 7:42 am

…from weather systems that have already formed.

michael hart
Reply to  pochas94
December 19, 2017 8:00 am

and climate models have to concern themselves with radiation to space that takes place from (super)saturated air above the tropopause. There are lot of unknowns in the formation of cirrus clouds. Some have suggested they may partly be due to methane oxidation in the stratosphere.

Scottish Sceptic(@scottishsceptic)
December 19, 2017 5:51 am

The link has been pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind a even a bit of knowledge of the science for years even decades.

What is appalling is that something so simple has taken such a long time. And that has clearly resulted from the Climate mafia blocking Svensmark and each and every turn. So well done Svensmark for having the time and patience to get this through.

But I don’t. And like the solar link, it is pretty obvious to me that the 1970-2000 warming was regional and directly linked to the reduction in aerosol/cloud forming pollution. Link:

So well done Svensmark – it’s superb work, but what I mostly admire is to have the shear dogged determination to have finally got this through the Climate stazi.

Caligula Jones
December 19, 2017 6:21 am

I’m sure there is some movement today in the EU and other nations like Canada on how they are going to tax cosmic rays…

Reply to  Caligula Jones
December 19, 2017 7:47 am

Especially those cosmic rays that can be attributed to the U.S. portion of the stratosphere

Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 19, 2017 7:47 am


December 19, 2017 6:28 am

IMO: Toss the make-up of the atmosphere, ocean temps, TSI, cosmic rays, plate tectonics, precession, orbital mechanics, volcanoes, solar storms, abundance of flora, and a few unknowns into a pot, stir well, and the resulting climate/weather will have a poor correlation to any individual component.

December 19, 2017 6:30 am

We should see the cloud cover in satellite images if we look over a long enough period ? This should correlate to sunspots ?

December 19, 2017 6:31 am

Are supporters and detractors talking past each other? The time scale on the graph from the paper is in millions of years, evidence against is in decades.

Reply to  bobbyvalentine466921
December 19, 2017 6:57 pm

Yes, the graph from the paper.A good place to start.
OK, correlation is not causation.
But causation cannot be involved unless there is correlation, as is shown in the graph from the paper.
Physical experiment is used to show nidus formation in the atmosphere.

My thoughts of the paper’s intent and finding.
The ‘butterfly’ Galactic Cosmic radiation from suprnovae points the direction of climate change, as a car is steered from the driver’s wheel. The car engine, like the heat engine of the earth’s atmosphere, modifies the energy.
The time scale of the GCR is greater than the satellite record.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 19, 2017 7:01 am

Nevertheless, Svensmark is right, let us not forget that the surface of the earth consists of 70 per cent of oceans, which serve as a buffer against such minor temperature fluctuations over an 11-year cycle. You could also say, just when it starts to cool down minimally, the sun turns up again. The situation is different in longer periods of time when the cosmic rays become stronger both in the minimum and in the maximum of the solar cycle. Let us just think of the different ups and downs of the warm and cold periods of the past millennia. It is clear that in cold weather the sun was weak, even though modern naysayers blame volcanic activity. Although their climatic impact took little longer than 3-4 years. But maybe it’s different too. It could also be that volcanic events in shallow solar times interact with the solar dysfunction and can increase cloud coverage for a longer period of time.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 19, 2017 7:30 am

Tell that to Svensmark. I think he missed the memo. He claims an immediate effect on clouds [which would also make sense physically if there is any effect at all]:

Unfortunately [as for all spurious correlations] the effect didn’t hold up when more data became available:

In addition, solar activity has been decreasing the past half-century [cosmic ray intensity increasing according to Svensmark et al. with more clouds and cooling as result] while temperatures have been rising. So, the evidence is against the GCR-Cloud-Temp idea.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 19, 2017 8:35 am

“while temperatures have been rising”…

well…….but there’s a fly in the soup
comment image

Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 19, 2017 8:43 am

In other words, it’s the integral of sunspot activity that matters more than the current value or the trend. The past 50 years have seen the highest activity in the historical record, despite being on a downtrend.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 19, 2017 5:27 pm

Dr Svalgaard is more than a little disingenuous by saying that solar activity has been in decline for the past 50 years. Cycles 21, 22 and 23 were all strong cycles. Much higher than the average over the last few thousand years.

Reply to  archibaldperth
December 19, 2017 5:45 pm

hat solar activity has been in decline for the past 50 years
Look and learn:

Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 20, 2017 6:34 am

solar activity has been decreasing the past half-century….

exactly like the unadjusted temps…

A C Osborn
Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 20, 2017 7:01 am

Latitude December 20, 2017 at 6:34 am
Also note that the 50 year fall is from the highest peak on that graph following 50 years of even steeper climb. Which is basically a repeat of the 1700s and 1800s, except their climbs were even steeper.
Like our climate that Solar activity is never “stable”, it is up and down like a YoYo.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 20, 2017 7:22 am

“solar activity has been decreasing the past half-century….
exactly like the unadjusted temps…”


Reply to  Toneb
December 20, 2017 7:39 am

NOAA is a pack of lies. Even its unadjusted “data” are bogus.

Al governments lie. Almost all the time.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Toneb
December 20, 2017 10:01 am

Gabro, I agree, that graph is NOT unadjusted, in fact it is not even the normal adjusted, it has the latest full set of adjustments.
!997/8 was warmer than any temperature since in the original NOAA data and it can still be found.
The 1998 anomaly at todays baseline would be at least 3.94C

December 19, 2017 6:35 am

What needs to be appreciated is that the effects on climate, of a change in cloud cover, are likely to be highly non-linear. Only a small proportion is likely to result in direct change in temperature. As I understand it, a substantial proportion of the sun’s radiation hitting the earth is absorbed deep within the oceans. Thus, if cloud cover is reduced a portion of the excess radiation will result in a direct increase in atmospheric temperature. However, a substantial portion of the excess energy will be absorbed deep within the oceans. Given the extremely high thermal mass of the oceans and the very long time constants for heat transfer processes within the oceans, this excess energy is unlikely to be transferred to the atmosphere for a period of years, if not decades. Could this be the mechanism behind the multi-decadal variation in ENSO that appears to be the most significant driver of atmospheric temperatures.

Reply to  dh-mtl
December 19, 2017 6:34 pm

I am a simple man. (Ask anyone.) If ocean cycles have periods of ~60 years, why doesn’t it follow that energy that entered it 60 years ago (at the height of the modern sunspot maximum, 1958) is only now being released to the atmosphere, or perhaps that it has been released in a continuous manner over that time period, where temperature gradients between ocean and atmosphere are the greatest?

Tari Péter
December 19, 2017 6:37 am

Nice post, maybe one mystery less, but I cannot agree with Dr. Roy Spencer that Mother Nature makes fool of the world’s top climate scientists. They make fools of themselves. Instead of observations, measurements and good scientific instinct they follow a political agenda. I wonder why they don’t realize it.

December 19, 2017 6:39 am

CCNs or CO2s? Clearly both have an effect. Both are merely catalysts for larger atmospheric changes through various feedback mechanisms. CO2 has the advantage of being attributable to man which seems to be a very attractive feature since it gets government and lots of funding involved. CCNs have the advantage of explaining how come climate change seems to have been around long before man came along and started spewing CO2. I think we’ve narrowed it down to the main two contenders. Let the games begin! CO2 advocates, explain how CO2 caused climate change without man around, especially for those times before man during which the CO2 was at 7000ppm. CCN advocates, explain the feedbacks that blow the cosmic ray effect up into an atmosphere mover. Peacemakers, combine the two into a believable theory.

December 19, 2017 6:46 am

Rather than worry about the secondary effects on climate, why don’t we focus on using this work to understand clouds. Then, whenever we can accurately measure climate globally and have an understanding of the latency involved with each driver or buffer, we evaluate the role of GCR driven cloud formation in climate.

Tom Halla
December 19, 2017 6:53 am

This will be interesting. As has been noted, models don’t do clouds very well, and Svensmark’s theory is about the effect on clouds. As types of clouds have differing effects, this should be a bear to sort out.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 19, 2017 9:06 am

Clouds and cloud formation follow chaos theory, not politics.

December 19, 2017 7:01 am

I’ve always felt this to be true. If global warming is a concern, I believe we already have the technology to increase cloud cover, and what a simple solution that would be.

Reply to  Skip Van Lenten
December 19, 2017 8:17 am

Just as long as nobody tries it at the wrong time.

Reply to  pochas94
December 20, 2017 4:45 am

A good time to use it would be on any politician making a speech promoting Global BS Warming as a political message. A highly localized rainfall duping about 10 gallons of water on a Greenbean politician (e.g., Brown of CA) at just the right moment would be an enormous kindness to the rest of us on Mother Nature’s part.

William Astley
December 19, 2017 7:06 am

If the climate wars were not on going this problem would have been solved decades ago.

It is a fact that planetary temperature changes cyclically and the cyclical change in the earth’s climate correlates with solar changes.

Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

This is one of more than a hundred papers that not there is correlation of past climate change with solar changes.

Surface winds and ocean hydrography in 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 the production rates of 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.

… during which drift ice and cooler surface waters in the Nordic and Labrador Seas were repeatedly advected southward and eastward, each time penetrating deep into the warmer strands of the subpolar circulation. The persistence of those rather dramatic events within a stable interglacial has been difficult to explain.

There is a 99.5% correlation of GCR level to planetary cloud cover 1974 to 1994.

Mechanism where Changes in Solar Activity Affects Planetary Cloud Cover
1) Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
Increases in the sun’s large scale magnetic field and increases in the solar wind speed reduces the magnitude of GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.

2) Increase in the Global Electric Circuit
Starting around 1993, GCR and low level cloud cover no longer correlate. (There is a linear reduction in cloud cover.) The linear reduction in cloud cover correlates in time with an increase in high latitude solar coronal holes which cause high speed solar winds. The high speed solar winds cause a potential difference between earth and the ionosphere. The increase in potential difference removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere through the process “electro scavenging”. Satellite data (See attached link to Palle’s paper) that confirms that there has been a reduction in cloud cover over the oceans (There is a lack of cloud forming ions over the oceans. There are more ions over the continents due to natural radioactivity of the continental crust that is not shielded from the atmosphere by water.)

As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process.

Analysis of the change in the earth’s albedo determined the change in albedo caused warming of 7.5 watts/m^2 as compared to the IPCC calculated warming due to CO2 of 2.5 watts/m^2.

The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements

“Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.

Still,whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight reaching the Earth would be very significant for the climate system.”

Reply to  William Astley
December 19, 2017 8:03 am

“There is a 99.5% correlation of GCR level to planetary cloud cover 1974 to 1994.”


“Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The
satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch superpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCPand MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timesca es. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.”

William Astley
Reply to  Toneb
December 19, 2017 11:19 am

You are confusing a fight that goes on for ever which is boring with a scientific discussion.

Are you interested in science?

There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record, which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles.

The past warming and cooling cycles must have a cause.

The 1470 year warming and cooling cycle (sometimes with abrupt cooling) is observed in both hemispheres which rules out earth causes as internal forcing mechanisms for the earth are chaotic, not periodic and in addition cannot cause the observed change in planetary temperature.

As each D-O cycle correlates with a solar cycle changes the question is not if the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the past observed D-O cycles but rather how. The 20th century warming matches the pattern of warming that was observed in other D-O cycles.

The sun is causing the changes.

of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause the warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

Reply to  Toneb
December 19, 2017 1:17 pm

“Are you interested in science?”

What a bizarre comment.
I posted links to some.

Oh, and yet again the deceptive “Alley” graph is posted here The that ends in 1855 and therefore does not include modern warming.

So, are you interested in science?

December 19, 2017 7:09 am

This paper virtually confirms my working hypothesis as published recently in Energy & Environment and which has been discussed for some years on several WUWT threads.

The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
Dr. Norman J. Page Email:
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
Energy& Environment
0(0) 1–18
(C )The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.
For an earlier discussion with supporting data and discussion see

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
December 19, 2017 7:43 am

Here is a neat example Fig11 fromcomment image
Fig.11 Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature (29)
The global millennial temperature rising trend seen in Fig11 (29) from 1984 to the peak and trend inversion point in the Hadcrut3 data at 2003/4 is the inverse correlative of the Tropical Cloud Cover fall from 1984 to the Millennial trend change at 2002. The lags in these trends from the solar activity peak at 1991-Fig 10 – are 12 and 11 years respectively. These correlations suggest possible teleconnections between the GCR flux, clouds and global temperatures.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
December 19, 2017 1:35 pm

That’s weaker solar causing a reduction in tropical cloud cover with very little lag.

December 19, 2017 7:23 am

The counterpoint is all I needed to read.

December 19, 2017 7:28 am

This is great science. Now we just need to include the oceans in the variable mix to complete the picture.

December 19, 2017 7:31 am

High ice dominated Ci/Cc clouds warm the Earth overall while water dominated low clouds cool.
So where do these GCR’s exert most influence, if any?

“Several authors have suggested that a link exists between the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and cloudiness. Here we review the evidence for such a connection from studies of cloud factors using both satellite and ground-based data. In particular, we search for evidence for the low cloud decrease predicted by the rising levels of solar activity and the low cloud-cosmic ray flux correlation indicated by satellite data. Sunshine and synoptic cloud records both indicate that the global total cloud cover has increased during the past century. This increase in total cloud cover argues against a dominating role by solar activity (via GCR) over cloud formation on centennial time scales. Either the predicted low cloud decrease has not occurred or the medium-high level cloud has increased to a greater extent than low cloud has decreased.
As there is no accurate long term data available on low cloud behaviour during the last century, we are not able to totally dismiss the link between GCR and cloudiness, but we list a number of arguments for and against the proposed cosmic ray-cloud connection.”

This study …..

“Atmospheric ions produced through solar-modulated galactic cosmic rays can promote both the nucleation and the growth of aerosols. The potential impact on the cloud cover is subject of current debates. The CAWSES project SAGACITY (SAtellite and model studies of GAlactic cosmic rays and Clouds modulated by solar activITY) focuses on the statistical analysis of this link, using MIPAS-E satellite data. The extinction data, the cloud occurrence frequency, and the cloud index data from MIPAS-E are correlated with the data from the Climax neutron monitor. A superposed epoch analysis of 6 selected Forbush decrease events yields several weak but statistically significant correlations with an excess of positive cloud-GCR correlations. The impact of a 15 % increase in the Climax neutron monitor data is estimated to result in a small decrease in cloud index (corresponding to an increase in cloud opacity) which is most pronounced at 9 km altitude (−9 % to +0.5 %).”

So which is it? Preferentially high or low cloud formation (if any) or perhaps both making for a zero sum.

Reply to  Toneb
December 19, 2017 8:12 am

Toneb See 7:43 AM post above.

Gary Pearse.
December 19, 2017 7:50 am

In discussions of GCR and cloud formation, I always interject the fact that Charles T. R. Wilson late 19th-early 20th Century won the Nobel Prize for his “Cloud Chamber” in which you can see the track of sub Atomic particles created by collision of GCR with atmospheric molecules as a streak of tiny clouds that condensed along the track.

I mention this for two reasons. First, because I never see attribution to Wilson for the very idea used by Svensmark. Second, without this information, the mechanism seems odd, contrived and fanciful to the lay sceptical reader. The assurance that this mechanism is real and observable and has resulted in the discovery of several subatomic particles generating more Nobel prizes for other scientists during the 20th C, would add more support to Svensmark’s theory. It may turn out that the effect is not strong, but the reader will at least find himself giving credence to the phenomenon. H.S. is unlikely to read this comment but a friend should advise him to heed it.

Reply to  Gary Pearse.
December 19, 2017 7:58 am

Back in 1959, Edward Ney suggested that variations in cosmic rays, which are charged particles mostly originating outside the solar system, could affect our weather

So it is not even Svensmark’s idea.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 19, 2017 9:02 am

I am not making a judgement about who is right or wrong, but the tone of your endless comments on this is of a very personal nature.

Reply to  jim
December 19, 2017 9:04 am

You must separate what you perceive as the ‘tone’ from the information content of the comments.

Olav Ankjær
Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 19, 2017 10:45 am

Grow up.

Glenn yancey
Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 19, 2017 11:51 am

Yes, and the Vikings discovered America, not Columbus. No wait evidence has surfaced that it was the Romans, no Chinese, no Egyptians…….