Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Last week, Anthony highlighted a study by Svensmark, Shaviv et al. in a post entitled New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth. While some were enthusiastic about their claims, Leif Svalgaard and I were much more restrained in our opinions.
As a result, I was interested in an analysis of the Svensmark et al. paper by Ari Jokimäki over at his always interesting blog, The AGW Observer. I’ve shamelessly stolen his text and graphics, which I reproduce below. I trust Ari won’t mind since I’ve quoted him in full and provided the links to his website.
Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on December 22, 2017
The hypothesis of significant effect of cosmic-rays to climate has been shown wrong many times. This is a pet hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark, who continues to push papers on the subject to scientific journals. A few days ago, the journal Nature Communications published a paper of Svensmark (& co-workers). I checked out its reference list because I think that some indicators of the quality of a paper can be found simply by checking the reference list, and how references are used.
S17 reference list – first impressionsI immediately noticed a few things about S17 reference list. I made some tweets (@AGWobserver) where I mention them:
The Kulmala et al. paper I mention there is this one: “Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation”. It shows results against Svensmark’s hypothesis, but it is not cited by S17. The mentioned paper list in my tweets is this one: “Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate”.
One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are mentioned only in their reference list in the title of Eichkorn et al. (2002) paper, and Laakso et al. refer to it in this context: “Ion mass spectrometers have been used successfully in the studies of new particle formation in the upper atmosphere (Eichkorn et al., 2002).” Furthermore, as Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis relies on ion induced nucleation, it is noteworthy that one of Laakso et al. conclusions is this: “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.” To me it seems that either S17 is citing a wrong paper here, or then the cosmic ray ion production thing is implicitly in Laakso et al. results and I just don’t see it.
S17 reference list – comparison with other paper
I decided to look S17 reference list further. I chose a comparison paper, Gordon et al. (2017, “G17”), which is a research paper on the same issue than S17. Both papers have been published and submitted to their journals during 2017, S17 in May 10 and G17 in March 24, so S17 is a bit newer in that sense. S17 was published in December 19 and G17 in August 24, so also in that sense S17 is newer. I emphasize newer here because it suggests that references in S17 reference list should be as new or newer as references in G17 reference list.
The reference list of S17 contains 39 entries while the reference list of G17 contains 85 entries. As the papers are on the same subject, it seems that S17 reference list is a little short. However, scope of G17 seems to be somewhat broader, so reference list length doesn’t necessarily tell anything.
I also compared the temporal distributions of papers in the reference lists of these two papers. Result can be seen in this graph:
It is quite clear from the graph that S17 reference list focuses on older papers than G17 reference list. highest peak of temporal distribution of S17 is 2005-2009, while corresponding highest peak of G17 is 2010-2014. Also, G17 distribution is rather sharply concentrated on the more recent times, while S17 distribution is more spread out in time, and it almost seems as if the most recent research is being avoided in S17 reference list (the share of 2015-2017 papers is very low in S17 compared to G17).
[UPDATE]: An alert reader in the comments notes that he has retracted his claim about the one reference, viz:
(Note added December 27, 2017: This paragraph is incorrect – S17 cites two Laakso et al. papers and I somehow got them mixed.) One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are mentioned only in their reference list in the title of Eichkorn et al. (2002) paper, and Laakso et al. refer to it in this context: “Ion mass spectrometers have been used successfully in the studies of new particle formation in the upper atmosphere (Eichkorn et al., 2002).” Furthermore, as Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis relies on ion induced nucleation, it is noteworthy that one of Laakso et al. conclusions is this: “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.” To me it seems that either S17 is citing a wrong paper here, or then the cosmic ray ion production thing is implicitly in Laakso et al. results and I just don’t see it.
I love seeing this, that when a mistake is made it is acknowledged and clearly corrected. His second point still stands … as does his point about Laakso saying that “During a large fraction of days considered here, the contribution of ion-induced nucleation to the total nucleation rate was either negligible or relatively small.”
[END UPDATE]
Short and filled with information, typical of Ari’s good work … you can go to the post to see the (3) comments, part of the reason I thought it deserved wider circulation. In addition, I’ve grabbed and reposted below the list of papers that he linked to above that show no effect of cosmic rays on the climate. In that regard, my own research agrees with those papers, although I went about it a different way. I looked for the signature of the ~ 11-year cycles in sunspots. This, of course, would detect such an influence whether or not it was from cosmic rays. Here’s Ari’s list:
Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on August 31, 2009
This list contains papers which show that cosmic rays don’t have significant role in recent climate change, so this list doesn’t contain the papers from Svensmark et al. or other papers symphatetic to the strong role for cosmic rays, but such papers and issues are discussed in papers below (see also Anti-AGW papers debunked section for some Svensmark et al. papers). The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.
LATEST UPDATE (December 25, 2012): Laken et al. (2012) added.
A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations – Laken et al. (2012) “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 (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. 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.” Benjamin A. Laken, Enric Pallé, Jaša Čalogović and Eimear M. Dunne, J. Space Weather Space Clim. 2 (2012) A18, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012018. [http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120049.pdf”>Full text]
Solar irradiance, cosmic rays and cloudiness over daily timescales – Laken & Čalogović (2011) “Although over centennial and greater timescales solar variability may be one of the most influential climate forcing agents, the extent to which solar activity influences climate over shorter time periods is poorly understood. If a link exists between solar activity and climate, it is likely via a mechanism connected to one (or a combination) of the following parameters: total solar irradiance (TSI), ultraviolet (UV) spectral irradiance, or the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. We present an analysis based around a superposed epoch (composite) approach focusing on the largest TSI increases and decreases (the latter occurring in both the presence and absence of appreciable GCR reductions) over daily timescales. Using these composites we test for the presence of a robust link between solar activity and cloud cover over large areas of the globe using rigorous statistical techniques. We find no evidence that widespread variations in cloud cover at any tropospheric level are significantly associated with changes in the TSI, GCR or UV flux, and further conclude that TSI or UV changes occurring during reductions in the GCR flux are not masking a solar-cloud response. However, we note the detectability of any potential links is strongly constrained by cloud variability.” Laken, B. A. and J. Čalogović(2011), Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L24811, doi:10.1029/2011GL049764. [Full text]
Relationship of Lower Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective – Agee et al. (2011) “An updated assessment has been made of the proposed hypothesis that “galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are positively correlated with lower troposphere global cloudiness.” A brief review of the many conflicting studies that attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is also presented. It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period (QP) between solar cycles 23–24 has led to a record high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record low level of lower troposphere global cloudiness. This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR-Cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.” Ernest M. Agee, Kandace Kiefer and Emily Cornett, Journal of Climate 2011, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1.
The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming – Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) “A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.” T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.07.013. [Full text]
Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change – Erlykin et al. (2011)“A survey is made of the evidence for and against the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence cloud cover. The analysis is made principally for the troposphere. It is concluded that for the troposphere there is only a very small overall value for the fraction of cloud attributable to cosmic rays (CR); if there is linearity between CR change and cloud change, the value is probably ~1% for clouds below ~6.5km, but less overall. The apparently higher value for low cloud is an artifact. The contribution of CR to ’climate change’ is quite negligible.” A.D. Erlykin, B.A. Laken and A.W. Wolfendale, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.03.001.
Cosmic rays and global warming – Erlykin et al. (2010) A brief review article. “Is global warming man made or is it caused by the effects of solar activity on cosmic rays as claimed by some? Here we describe our search for evidence to distinguish between these claims. … In our view the jury is back and the verdict is that cosmic rays and solar irradiance are not guilty for most of the Global Warming. Nevertheless, they could be responsible for a contribution and we look forward to future experiments such as CLOUD at CERN which should be able to quantify to what extent ionization plays a part in the production of aerosols, the precursors of cloud formation.”[Full text]
Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover – Calogovic et al. (2010)“Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC-hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so-called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”[Full text]
Cosmic ray decreases and changes in the liquid water cloud fraction over the oceans – Laken et al. (2009)“Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently claimed that strong galactic cosmic ray (GCR) decreases during ‘Forbush Decrease (FD) events’ are followed by decreases in both the global liquid water cloud fraction (LCF) and other closely correlated atmospheric parameters. To test the validity of these findings we have concentrated on just one property, the MODIS LCF and examined two aspects: 1) The statistical chance that the decrease observed in the LCF is abnormal. 2) The likelihood of the observed delay (∼5 to 9 days) being physically connected to the FD events. On both counts we conclude that LCF variations are unrelated to FD events: Both the pattern and timing of observed LCF changes are irreconcilable with current theoretical pathways. Additionally, a zonal analysis of LCF variations also offers no support to the claimed relationship, as the observed anomaly is not found to vary latitudinally in conjunction with cosmic ray intensity.”[Full text]
Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment – Duplissy et al. (2009)“During a 4-week run in October–November 2006, a pilot experiment was performed at the CERN Proton Synchrotron in preparation for the CLOUD1 experiment, whose aim is to study the possible influence of cosmic rays on clouds. … Overall, the exploratory measurements provide suggestive evidence for ion-induced nucleation or ion-ion recombination as sources of aerosol particles. … In conclusion, therefore, the experimental variables were not well enough controlled to exclude the presence of ion-induced nucleation on the basis of Fig. 7; it merely does not support the presence of strong contributions from this source.”[Full text]
On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover – Erlykin et al. (2009)“Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analyzed. Most features of this connection viz. an altitude dependence of the absolute values of CC and CR intensity, no evidence for the correlation between the ionization of the atmosphere and cloudiness, the absence of correlations in short-term low cloud cover (LCC) and CR variations indicate that there is no direct causal connection between LCC and CR in spite of the evident long-term correlation between them. … The most significant argument against causal connection of CR and LCC is the anticorrelation between LCC and the medium cloud cover (MCC).”[Full text]
Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation – Kulmala et al. (2009)“More than a decade ago, variations in galactic cosmic rays were suggested to closely correlate with variations in atmospheric cloud cover and therefore constitute a driving force behind aerosol-cloud-climate interactions. Later, the enhancement of atmospheric aerosol particle formation by ions generated from cosmic rays was proposed as a physical mechanism explaining this correlation. Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation.”[Full text]
Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? – Pierce & Adams (2009)“In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”
On the possible connection between cosmic rays and clouds – Erlykin et al. (2009)“Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analysed. We argue that the anticorrelation between the temporal behaviour of low (LCC) and middle (MCC) clouds evidences against causal connection between them and CR. Nevertheless, if a part of low clouds (LCC) is connected and varies with CR, then its most likely value averaged over the Globe should not exceed 20% at the two standard deviation level.”[Full text]
Solar activity and the mean global temperature – Erlykin et al. (2009) This study finds that the changes in the cosmic ray rate lags the changes in temperature. “The cyclic variation in the cosmic ray rate is observed to be delayed by 2–4 years relative to the temperature, the solar irradiance and daily sun spot variations suggesting that the origin of the correlation is more likely to be direct solar activity than cosmic rays. Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity, we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is ~<14% of the observed global warming.”[Full text]
Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment using MODIS data – Kristjánsson et al. (2008)“Averaging the results from the 22 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR, when autocorrelations were taken into account.”[Full text]
Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover – Sloan & Wolfendale (2008)“A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays. “[Full text]
Cosmic Rays and The Climate – Sloan (2008) Summarizes different views on the issue. “A number of papers and posters were presented at the ECRS on the subject of the relationship between cosmic rays (CR) and both the climate and the weather. I was asked by the organisers to attempt to summarise them.”[Full text]
Cosmic Rays and Global Warming – Sloan & Wolfendale (2007)“It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with `the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great. We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.”[Full text]
Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate – an update – Kristjánsson et al. (2004)“Eighteen years of monthly averaged low cloud cover data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project are correlated with both total solar irradiance and galactic cosmic ray flux from neutron monitors. When globally averaged low cloud cover is considered, consistently higher correlations (but with opposite sign) are found between low cloud variations and solar irradiance variations than between variations in cosmic ray flux and low cloud cover.”[Full text]
Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data – Damon & Laut (2004)“Links have been made between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and northern hemisphere land temperatures. … Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played a major role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solar hypotheses shows that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data.”[Full text]
Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations – Laut (2003)“The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data.”[Full text]
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate – Carslaw et al. (2002) A review paper. “It has been proposed that Earth’s climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth’s average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño.”[Full text]
A new look at possible connections between solar activity, clouds and climate – Kristjánsson et al. (2002)“We present a re-evaluation of the hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds and climate. We have used two independent estimates of low cloud cover from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, covering 16.5 years of data. The cloud cover data are used in conjunction with estimates of galactic cosmic ray flux and measurements of solar irradiance. It is found that solar irradiance correlates better and more consistently with low cloud cover than cosmic ray flux does. The correlations are considerably lower when multichannel retrievals during daytime are used than retrievals using IR-channels only.”[Full text]
Some results relevant to the discussion of a possible link between cosmic rays and the Earth’s climate – Wagner et al. (2001)“However, the smoothed combined flux of 10Be and 36Cl at Summit, Greenland, from 20–60 kyr B.P. (proportional to the geomagnetically modulated cosmic ray flux) is unrelated to the corresponding δ18O and CH4 data (interpreted as supraregional climate proxies). (3) Furthermore, although a comparison of the incoming neutron flux with cloud cover in Switzerland over the last 5 decades shows a significant correlation at times during the 1980s and 1990s, this does not occur during the rest of the period.”[Full text]
Sunshine records from Ireland: cloud factors and possible links to solar activity and cosmic rays – Pallé & Butler (2001)“The importance of cosmic rays as a link between solar activity and climate was assessed from a study of the ISCCP-D2 satellite cloud factors and Irish sunshine data. Whilst these results confirmed the strong correlation between total cloud factor and cosmic rays over non-tropical oceans between 1984 and 1991 previously reported, it was found that this correlation did not hold in the subsequent period 1991-1994. Other work has established a link through specifically low cloud. Indirect evidence of cloud formation by cosmic rays from a variation in the sunshine factor following Forbush decreases, and over the sunspot cycle, was mostly negative. Although a dip at seven years past sunspot minimum is evident in the sunshine factor for all four sites and in most seasons, it is of marginal statistical significance.”[Full text]
Cloud cover variations over the United States: An influence of cosmic rays or solar variability? – Udelhofen & Cess (2001)“To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. … The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR.”
Is there a cosmic ray signal in recent variations in global cloudiness and cloud radiative forcing? – Kristjánsson et al. (2000)“In order to evaluate a recent hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds, and climate we have investigated temporal variations in global cloudiness and radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. … When the results are related to temporal variations in cosmic ray activity, we do not find support for a coupling between cosmic rays, total cloudiness, and radiative forcing of climate. … The net radiative effect of clouds during the period 1985–1989 shows an enhanced cooling effect despite a reduction in both total and low cloud cover. This contradicts the simple relationship between cloud cover and radiation assumed in the cosmic-ray-cloud-climate hypothesis.”
Are Cosmic Rays Influencing Oceanic Cloud Coverage – Or Is It Only El Niño? – Farrar (2000)“The monthly average (C2) cloud coverage data produced by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) for the period of July 1986–June 1991 show strong global and regional cloud coverage variations associated with the El Niño of 1986–1987. The Pacific Ocean, in particular, shows strong regional variations in cloud coverage. These agree well with contemporaneous satellite observations of broadband shortwave infrared cloud forcing measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) noted a similarity between the shape of the timeseries curve of average cloud coverage fraction for mid- to low-latitude ocean-areas and the time series curve of cosmic ray flux intensity. They proposed a causal relationship – a `missing link’ for solar cycle influence on Earth climate. Further spatial and temporal analysis of the same ISCCP C2 data in this paper indicates that the cloud coverage variation patterns are those to be expected for the atmospheric circulation changes characteristic of El Niño, weakening the case for cosmic rays as a climatic forcing factor.”
Closely related
Testing the link between terrestrial climate change and Galactic spiral arm transit – Overholt et al. (2009) Tests the correlation of climate changes and Earth’s passage through spiral arms of the Milky Way. Possible climate effects largely relate to cosmic rays. “We re-examine past suggestions of a close link between terrestrial climate change and the Sun’s transit of spiral arms in its path through the Milky Way galaxy. These links produced concrete fits, deriving the unknown spiral pattern speed from terrestrial climate correlations. We test these fits against new data on spiral structure based on CO data that do not make simplifying assumptions about symmetry and circular rotation. If we compare the times of these transits with changes in the climate of Earth, the claimed correlations not only disappear, but we also find that they cannot be resurrected for any reasonable pattern speed.”[Full text]
Toward Direct Measurement of Atmospheric Nucleation – Kulmala et al. (2007) A paper on the results of SMEAR project which (among other activities) provides direct measurements of atmospheric nucleation. They find that ion-induced nucleation is not very important (ion-induced nucleation fraction is only 10 % of total nucleation at best). “We introduce an instrumental setup to measure atmospheric concentrations of both neutral and charged nanometer-sized clusters. By applying the instruments in the field, we come to three important conclusions: … (iii) neutral nucleation dominates over the ion-induced mechanism, at least in boreal forest conditions.”
For those interested in the SMEAR project results, see the presentation of Markku Kulmala in “Climate Change – Man Made?” seminar in Stockholm (2009) (click the “cosmic rays and climate change”, Kulmala’s presentation starts after Svensmark’s, about at 00:34:15).
There are plenty of papers which deal with this cosmic ray issue while concentrating solar forcing as a whole (for example a string of papers from Lockwood & Fröhlich). Many of those papers would belong to the list above, but I shall make a separate entry on them, and add link to that post here when I have made it (separate post is already on the works). UPDATE (September 3, 2009): Here is the link to the post about the Sun’s role.
Original claims of Svensmark et al. were based on the apparent correlation between the cosmic rays and an observed decreasing trend in ISCCP cloud cover data, but it has been found out that ISCCP trend was an artifact of satellite viewing geometry, so it seems that there is no observational basis for the original claim. [UPDATE (March 17, 2010): I have recently discussed about this here.] There are few papers discussing this, and I will give one of them below.
Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts – Evan et al. (2007)“Here we show that trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere. Our results suggest that in its current form, the ISCCP data may not be appropriate for certain long-term global studies, especially those focused on trends.”[Full text]
UPDATE (September 10, 2009): As it has been suggested that cosmic rays affect by changing the cloud cover, this is relevant here:
Finally, here are my own researches into the same question. Remember, the question is NOT “Does the sun affect the climate?” The answer to that one is clearly “Yes“, because without a sun we wouldn’t have a climate.
The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”. All the research I’ve done says the answer is no, which was a huge surprise to me. Having read about wheat prices and sunspots when I was a kid, I thought it would be easy to find modern data to substantiate those centuries-old claims … man, was I surprised. Here are my findings:
Congenital Cyclomania Redux 2013-07-23
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
Cycles Without The Mania 2013-07-29
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Sunspots and Sea Level 2014-01-21
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Riding A Mathemagical Solarcycle 2014-01-22
Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers for…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River 2014-01-25
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots 2014-02-22
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Solar Periodicity 2014-04-10
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium 2014-04-13
In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the amount of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive type…
The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid! 2014-05-24
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature 2014-06-06
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima 2014-06-23
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Changes in Total Solar Irradiance 2014-10-25
Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an…
Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01
So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,…
Volcanoes and Sunspots 2015-02-09
I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: …. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase…
Early Sunspots and Volcanoes 2015-02-10
Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored … I wanted to respond to Michele Casati’s claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s, it’s clear that volcanoes with a…
Sunspots and Norwegian Child Mortality 2015-03-07
In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled “Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norway”, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s the solar activity at birth affected a child’s survival chances. As you might imagine, this…
The New Sunspot Data And Satellite Sea Levels 2015-08-13
[UPDATE:”Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate…
My Thanks Apologies And Reply To Dr Nir Shaviv 2015-08-17
Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shaviv” August 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the o…
The Missing 11 Year Signal 2015-08-19
Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I don’t think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one I’d not seen used before. One of the more sensitive …
Is The Signal Detectable 2015-08-19
[UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shaviv’s harmonic solar component was a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimetres, it is actually a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millime…
23 New Papers 2015-09-22
Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 “Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!…
So I’ve found nothing to date, despite lots of looking …
On a more personal note, after a two-day trip featuring lost luggage, a missed connection, and a definite need for two-fella Panadol, I’m finally back home from the Solomon Islands, and I’m once again with my gorgeous ex-fiancee in our lovely and peaceful home that I built here on our hillside with a tiny view of the sea … heaven.
I was surprised to note that I wrote 19 posts during the four weeks I was there … well, actually 17 plus re-posting a couple of relevant stories I’d written earlier. They’re all available here, as a category of my blog, Skating Under The Ice. Scroll down to the post called “Feasting” at the bottom and read up, they’ll make more sense in chronological order.
My very best Christmas, New Years, and Holiday Of Your Politically Correct Choice wishes to everyone.
w.
AND AS ALWAYS: My polite request, which is that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. This lets us all understand what it is that you are talking about, as well as who wrote the words, and what the context of the statement was.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of this request. I am unwilling, as the poet put it, “… to hear the truth you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.”
Not interested, thanks.
More importantly, however, if you wish to refute what someone said, the starting point must and has to be what someone said. You must first quote their actual words that you claim are wrong. Not what you think their words mean; you can get to that, but you have to begin the refutation with what they actually said. Without their exact words as a starting point, you are just flailing at the air, attacking a straw man of your own creation.
Now, the request is polite … but if you ignore it my response may not be polite. I’m tired of people accusing me of anything and everything based on something they wrongly think I said somewhere sometime long ago in a distant galaxy … too boring. If you’re lucky I’ll just ignore such accusations and claims; otherwise, I am likely to point out your failure as regards quoting, and perhaps your associated shortcomings, using inventive and unusual but generally less than laudatory terms … don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Thanks, w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let me add the sun effects the climate when in a prolonged minimum state by causing a slight increase in the earth’s albedo through an increase in major volcanic activity, overall cloud /snow coverage increases.
It also effects the climate by lowering the overall sea surface temperatures which is happening now.
Salvatore del Prete December 27, 2017 at 4:53 am
Salvatore, I listed my previous analyses up in the head post to try to head off just your kind of untrue claims … but then you didn’t read them, did you. Perhaps it’s because I hid it under a clever name, “Volcanoes and Sunspots” …
Give that a read, and if you can find errors in it, quote the part you think is in error and tell us why I’m wrong.
And if you can’t find errors, then could you admit that according to the evidence, sunspots do NOT affect volcanic eruptions? Or is that too much to ask?
w.
If I understand correctly, Svensmark does empirical research and posits conclusions about climate that are clearly identified as such. And what follows is dismissal of the whole process “out of hand,”. Yep. It’s the climate “debate.”
Coach Springer December 27, 2017 at 4:55 am Edit
Coach, I’m certainly not dismissing Svensmark “out of hand”. I’m saying that despite looking at twenty or more surface datasets, I can find no evidence that what Svensmark has shown in the lab has any measurable effect on the climate here at the planetary surface.
My negative findings are backed up by the twenty or so studies for which I’ve provided titles, links, and abstracts in the head post.
So, unless on your planet “dismissed out-of-hand” means “dismissed on the basis of a large number of unsuccessful attempts to find real-world evidence for his hypothesis”, no … he’s not being dismissed out-of-hand.
And sadly, your incorrect snap judgment analysis of the situation as “dismissal … out of hand” doesn’t help the discussion … before criticizing what you call the “climate ‘debate'”, you might profitably consider what some guy with the street name of “Luke” reported someone as having said back in the day … “medice, cura te ipsum” …
In hopes that you take a deeper look at the lack of evidence, I remain,
Yr. obt. svt.,
w.
Ari Jokimäki might be a little bit biased since he belongs to the Skeptical Science Team. How credible is the site?
esalil, what Ari does is post up research on a given aspect of climate science by giving the title, the abstract, and a link to the post. Occasionally he comments on a particular piece of research. I like the site because it gives a great overview of the current state of play in the scientific journals.
As to “credible”, not sure how posting links to studies along with their abstracts would not be credible … but take a look at the site and judge for yourself.
Thanks,
w.
What I see in these types of discussions are displays of confirmation bias. In this instance there are those that agree with Svensmark. Those adherents see all evidence as supporting their belief that cosmic rays influences climate even if the evidence is nothing more that coincidence. Even after Willis dumps tons of contrary information ignored by Svensmark, those who support the GCR theory basically hold the belief that people who disagree with them are taking crazy pills.
So,,,,, how many sources of Cosmic Rays are there? How does a 2 billion year old Super Nova 2,000,000,000 light years away impact things right now?
When cosmic rays hit Earth’s atmosphere, they crash into atoms and molecules of gas. That usually makes even more cosmic ray particles! Since there are more particles, the energy from the cosmic ray from space is spread out. The new cosmic ray particles often hit other gas molecules. That makes still more cosmic rays, but with lower energies. The collisions between cosmic rays and gases in the atmosphere can happen many times. In the end, there might be thousands or millions of “secondary” cosmic rays. This is called an “air shower” of cosmic rays.
Earth doesn’t always get hit by the same number of cosmic rays. Strangely, cosmic rays are less of a problem when the Sun is most active. Sometimes there are more solar flares and other “space weather storms”; sometimes there are fewer. The Sun has a cycle that is 11 years long. At “solar max” the Sun is very active; at “solar min” there are very few “storms” on the Sun. Since some cosmic rays come from the Sun, you might think that there is more danger from cosmic rays when the Sun is active. Good guess; but wrong! When the Sun is active, it “puffs up” its heliosphere. Like Earth’s magnetic field, the Sun’s magnetic field helps shield us from galactic and extragalactic cosmic rays. So an active Sun means better shielding! So, if you’re an astronaut, the best time to be going on a long trip in space is when the Sun is most active.
Have you ever hear of carbon-14 dating? It’s something archeologists use to help figure out how old things are. Living things have small amounts of radioactive carbon in them. The radioactive carbon comes from carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere. The radioactive type of carbon is a special type of carbon, called an isotope, named carbon-14 (or 14C for short). How does radioactive carbon get into our atmosphere? You guessed it – cosmic rays! Sometimes when cosmic rays hit nitrogen, the most common gas in our atmosphere, they change the nitrogen atoms into radioactive 14C atoms. Later, that 14C ends up in living creatures.
What else do cosmic rays do? Scientist aren’t completely sure, but they think they might help set off some lightning strikes. They also might help cause clouds to form. Scientists aren’t quite sure whether cosmic rays help cause lightning or help produce clouds, but they might. The scientists are still studying this part of the cosmic ray story.
https://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/cosmic_rays.html
Can we evaluate the GCR hypothesis solely on cloud formation and not worry about climate?
Crispin in Waterloo on December 27, 2017 at 4:59 am
Crispin: yours is the best comment I have ever read on GCRs and climate. Indeed, you need ideal conditions, ie 100% r.humidity tending to supersaturation, to get the effect. I’ve usually commented on the Wilson Cloud chamber in such threads just in case many readers hadn’t heard of this Nobel Prize winning experiment of a century ago , just to affirm that the phenomenon is real.
Maybe trying to attribute a GCR effect in the middle of an electric thunder storm isn’t easy. I’m sure the storm itself is ionizing like blazes and confounding the picture. We’ve only recently had a satellite that measures the number of lightning strikes at any one time. Maybe there is data in that set. Yes, pre-conditions are essential. Without sub-100%H, the GCRs go about breaking up atoms in the atmosphere without accompanying nucleation and cloud formation. Maybe is it is a 1-2% issue.
Perhaps even Svensmark, his supporters and detractors need to be reminded of this.
Amen Gary ….. and hat tip to crisper
When I think of the GCR hypothesis … I don’t for a second think that GCRs are the MAIN driver of cloud formation, but rather a subtle influence. … and that influence is dependent on a lot of other stuff. As crisper and you said …. no humidity, no clouds …. doesn’t matter about GCRs. But …. the real comparison would be cloud formation under similar conditions with high or low GCRs. I seriously doubt there is enough real time data to make such an analysis. Thus, just because we don’t likely have the data, or the computer power to analyze it, doesn’t mean that the hypothesis is junk and should be abandoned.
Crispin in Waterloo December 27, 2017 at 4:59 am
Crispin, from my reading I don’t find people saying that Svensmark is “completely wrong” or that he should stop his researches. Instead, what I find people saying is what I found in my own research, which I would summarize as follows:
As shown in lab experiments, cosmic rays assuredly can affect the rate of creation of potential cloud nucleation ions and molecules.
HOWEVER, given the almost complete lack of evidence of this phenomenon in any relevant dataset, it appears that the effect on the actual climate is either negligibly small or zero.
Now, I don’t like my conclusion. I started out thinking that Svensmark’s hypothesis was valid and would explain a lot of things about recent changes in climate, and would also shed light on longer-time-span temperature changes from going into and out of the galactic arms.
However, that’s not what I and a bunch of other authors found … and importantly, if I liked every scientific conclusion that I was forced to accept because of the facts on the ground, I wouldn’t be doing science then, would I?
Heck, Svensmark et al. themselves say that at best it MIGHT make a couple percent change in cloud cover nuclei, and even then, that tiny change MIGHT happen only in certain selected parts of the planet … hardly a ringing endorsement of the theory.
Best regards,
w.
My belief all along has been that the Svensmark GCR cloud connection is only going to show a trend in areas of the atmosphere where CCN density is the limiting factor on cloud formation. Don’t ask me where those areas are, as I don’t have the atmospheric expertise to know. So the problem in evaluating for his hypothesized effect in the real world is first identifying areas where there is consistently a dearth of CCN to form clouds in an atmosphere otherwise primed for cloud formation. Then you have to have a dataset of cloud cover/density that ONLY covers that geographic area and zone of the atmosphere that is sufficiently long to compare against multiple solar cycles to look for impacts.
As far as the comparisons of GCR against an 11 year solar cycle using global temperature sets, forget about it. The impact will be too small, in a localized area, to show up in the global temperature set against all of the other noise in a typical cycle. It is very likely I believe that the effect is strongest over the ocean, far from land-based sources of CCN, and the impact of changing cloud cover will likely show up not in global temperature data, but in ocean temperature datasets, particularly those measuring intermediate depths. And again, looking for an 11 year cycle is probably a fools errand. If you are looking for a very small percentage change over that short of a time, it will likely be swamped by other variances. It takes time for heat absorbed at depth to distribute to places where it will be measured in climate datasets, so it would probably take the statistics skills of somebody like Steve McIntyre to tease out a signal due to the lag and distribution potentially far from the source.
If there is a significant GCR effect on climate, it is going to likely be a very long-term process operating over a slow timeframe, not the nearly instantaneous clear response in the global temperature data that people seem to be looking to use as proof that Svensmark is wrong.
Javier December 27, 2017 at 5:42 am
In other words, Javier, you can’t find a single thing I wrote that you can actually quote and refute, not one thing that you can point to and say “Willis, you went wrong here for these reasons”, so you’re going to ignore my work entirely.
Fine. I’ll return the favor.
Bye …
w.
Willis and his AGW balanced buddy seem to have missed a few references in their “research”.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Cosmic
Willis, a couple things regarding Dr Roy’s plot. (posted down here, don’t want it to get lost in the shuffle) Although he only used 4 1/2 cycles, the pattern has continue up until present. With max of SC23 temps were high. Min between SC23 & 24 temps were low save ’10 nino. (not unlike mins w/ ninos in ’98 & ’74) And then temps have been high through SC24 max and now poised to take a dive. We don’t even need to detrend to see it as there hasn’t even been a trend since the end of the series that Dr S used. (continued in another comment, don’t want length to trigger SPAM)…
Why Spencer was able to get the temp difference between min & max (which seems a fairly basic thing to do) and you are not is, well, a mystery! i might head over there and ask him about it. Is there anything that you might want me to say to him to help resolve the mystery? (let me know)…
Secondly, your point about cycles being of differing lengths. Regardless of what Spencer did, his mins and maxes, if compromised, can only produce higher solar min temperatures and lower solar max temps. If he were able to calculate using all the exact mins and maxes, then he would get the maximum amount of temp difference over the course of the cycle. If not, then he’d end up with a slightly lower temp difference. (as averaging can only compromise mins higher and maxes lower)…
afonzarelli, I can’t understand his method. How does he cram a sunspot cycle that varies from 9 to twelve years, with different intervals between the peaks and between the troughs, be crammed into an 11 year cycle?
In addition, I was unable to replicate his claim that if you fold the HadCRUT data on an 11-year basis and average it, you get a sine wave. I tried doing exactly that just as he described (or at least how I understood it) and couldn’t get anything near his results.
So … how about you post the data and the code that you used to replicate his results, so I can at least understand how he got his results and why I’m unable to replicate them? Once we have that in hand, we can discuss whether “the pattern has continued” or not, as well as whether the claimed pattern even exists …
Thanks, I await your explanation of his method,
w.
afonzarelli December 27, 2017 at 12:33 pm Edit
Sorry, I wrote my comment above without seeing this. By all means ask him to post his data and code (or spreadsheets) so we can all understand what he did to both the sunspot and the HadCRUT data.
Depends on how you do the analysis. For example, he may just divide the distance from trough to trough in each cycle of the daily sunspot data into 11 parts and average them, which wouldn’t affect the height of the peaks. Or he might do the same to the peaks. But no matter how he does it, it does NOT reflect the reality, so comparing that to some dataset can only be misleading.
Regards and thanks, let us know what Dr. Roy says,
w.
Willis, i’m going to reproduce your second paragraph (begins with In addition, ) for Dr Spencer because i think it will add some clarity. i’ll also mention that you smoothed 3 years & removed pinatubo like he did and still couldn’t get his sine wave. We’ll see what he has to say…
Again about the cycle lengths, even if he averages them the result will be a lower temperature difference, not a higher one. Using averaging, the highs will be less than the actual highs and the lows will be greater than the actual lows. (so we can actually say, based on his analysis, that the temperature difference from min to max is at least .12C) i guess what i’m trying to say is that the issue you have raised here is a moot point…
~Lastly (but not leastly), you actually have read Spencer’s post before. (see your own post entitled Solar Periodicity dated 4/10/14)…
Ah! Willis, looks like we’re playing computer tag here! (time to pour me a drink… ☺)
afonzarelli December 27, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Sounds great, thanks for making the effort.
Thanks, afonzarelli. As you noted we were playing computer tag. However, I still don’t see how cramming a variable-length cycle into some Procrustean 11-year straitjacket can show us anything about the sun’s effect on the real world …
Yes, I noticed that late last night as I was re-reading some of my posts, and I cracked up. In the last eight years I’ve written well over five hundred posts for WUWT, and yes, I have definitely forgotten some of them. I found it funny that here I was getting busted in an unpleasant manner for not doing something that I’d actually done … and I hadn’t even remembered doing it.
I was interested to note that I made the same objection then as I made now, regarding the problem with stuffing solar data into an 11-year rigid frame. However, back then I just stopped looking at Dr. Roy’s work once I saw that. I made no attempt to replicate his HadCRUT results as I did this time, and as a result, the overall majority of the post was about something totally different.
To illustrate the problem, here’s the annual sunspot data and the 11-year average …
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how analyzing the correlation of the red line with whatever you might choose has anything to do with sunspots … check what happens with the average around 1780, where the peaks in the 11-year average coincide with the troughs in the sunspot data and vice versa. How can that show anything about the sunspots?
Best regards,
w.
Javier’s argument is “catcall” that your article he “found superficial and misguided” but provides zero evidence to support his view. Willis you have won the argument. Javier is operating under cognitive dissonance. A condition of mind in which the evidence so conflicts with his worldview that he is spontaneously generating a hallucination to try and rationalize the incongruity between the lack of evidence and his belief in something that does not exist in the real world.
Willis is a comedian by saying the website he’s using to bash Svensmark is “balanced”. You’re a real hoot Willis. There’s a tab at the top of his website dedicated to “ANTI-AGW PAPERS DEBUNKED”. I can’t seem to find the tab “AGW PAPERS DEBUNKED”. Would you point out the balanced parts for us?
DR December 27, 2017 at 11:30 am
Sure. The parts I quoted in the head post. I gave his analysis of Svensmark’s work, which seemed balanced to me.
And I listed the titles, abstracts, and links to a whole host of folks saying what I’ve said, which is that they can’t find any trace of the 11-year signal in surface datasets.
Is that “unbalanced”? No, it is their results. I’m sorry you don’t like them, and you likely don’t like my results either for the same reason, but that doesn’t make my results “unbalanced”. I just report what I find, that’s science …
w.
I’d like to remind readers of Steve McIntyre’s road blocks put in front of him when he attempted to enter the AGW arena with Michael Mann and the gang at RealClimate. For his sin to question the “consensus” it took a Congressional hearing to corner the lying snakes, and years fighting the system to finally break the hockey stick.
Remember the Ben Santer saga? How about Steve’s adventures with Gavin Schmidt, Tamino and many more dozens I’m sure. You know, the AGW “balanced side”. Recall it took Steve M and Ross McKitrick 18 months to get their paper published debunking Santer because it was “anti-AGW”. It took a court order to get Santer to release the data he used. And on and on.
Willis, did you research these references as well or simply rely on your buddy’s “objectivity”?
http://1clickurls.com/ktxWYpA
Oh, that’s cute, DR. You link to a list of just the titles, no abstracts, of 1350 papers and ask me:
I have no idea who my “buddy” is supposed to be. It’s certainly not Ari, never met the man.
In any case, no, I haven’t reviewed the 1350 titles with no abstracts you linked to. And without abstracts, I have no idea what they’re about, so I’m not going to review them.
But then … neither have you …
I will make you the same offer I make everybody. Pick what you think is the best one of your 1350 recommended studies, the one that convinced you that Svensmark is onto something real that actually affects us down here on the surface, and post up two links—one to the study and one to the data. I’ll be glad to take a look at it.
I will not be surprised if I don’t get a response to my offer … when it comes to actually putting their links where their mouth is, people advancing solar theories grow strangely shy of the limelight …
w.
I have not read all the comments but I see a common error in analyzing the evidence of a proposed theory. In this case the theory is that the global temperature depends on the Sun activity changes amplified by cosmic rays. IPCC thinks that it is GH gases only. Both of these mechanisms have their effects but that is not good enough. These two theories cannot explain the temperature peak of 30s and 2000s. The third theory is needed and it is the Astronomical Harmonic Resonances (AHR) with 60 years cycling effects. The SUN & GCR theory works through cloudiness changes as well as the AHR theory. That is why, it is impossible to find a good and solid evidence though measurements for one of these theories, because there is another mechanism acting at the same time.
Here is figure from my paper including all three theories (hopefully it comes right):
My view is that the oceans are a giant heat sink. The climate has many chaotic aspects to it. Thus, something like a ~11 year sunspot cycle is difficult to see in the data. It does not mean it is not there. But if it can’t be seen in most data sets, than the impact is small.
I have also spent time analyzing various data sets of temperature and climate versus sun spot data. My results were inconclusive.
My thought is by summer global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means.
The climate test is on.
Global overall sea surface temperatures now +.170c down from summer readings in a range from +.27c to +.37c or so.
DR December 27, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Thanks for the heads-up, DR, done.
w.
Is there a solar signal in the global temperature? If, then it’s somehow hidden.
I made a 60 years smoothing in the SST data, to surpress the AMO. Now we are missing 30 years on the front and at the rear. It looks like this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:720/detrend:0.3/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1830/normalise/mean:720
The Problem: The temperature is leading, sunspot numbers are following. Impossible. The earth doesn’t command the sun. Maybe the solution lies in the explanation of Dr. David Evans, (husband of Joanne Nova). The sunspots are showing something, which has (after a delay of 10 -14 years , about a half of a 22 years sun cycle, one time switching the sun’s poles) – an influence on the earths temperature. He calls it force X.
So the earth temperature is following force X, which has an influence about 11 years after the SSN are seen. If this is the case, it could not be discerned by normal statistical means. It would also mean, that the SSN are showing something which will be happening about 11 years later. We could look into the future.
After smoothing the global temperature with a 3 years and an one year filter, we see the 11 years cycle – somehow. Still it may be distorted by El Ninos and Vulcanos – but often ist is clearly visible, with a signal of about 0.2°C:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:13/normalise/from:1950/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:40/mean:13/detrend:0.3/from:1950
Even here we see sometimes the temperature is leading – which can only be explained with the force X theory.
I suggest you seek a correlation between cosmic ray flux on the ground vs. cloud cover and temperature changes. Svensmark and Calder said it is not all cosmic rays that influence cloud formation but the high-energy cosmic rays reaching the low troposphere that form low-level clouds that affect climate.
And the solar modulation of the high-energy GCRs is very small
“The temperature is leading, sunspot numbers are following” I must be missing something the green line appears to be leading.
Suppressing the AMO is the worst thing that you could do, as that is where the linkage is most obvious. Note the phase reversals, that means the driver is the solar wind variability and not sunspot cycles.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/normalise
Johannes Herbst: wrong! The sunspots are leading by approx. 25 years In the upper graph. And they show maximum at approx. year 1980. So, in the lower graph the temperature should reach maximum at approx. year 2005 which seems to be the case, more or less.
Johannes H: In your upper graph the sunspots are leading by approx. 25 years reaching maximum on approx. 1980. So, in the lower graph the temperature max should be around 2005, which seems more or less to be the case.
Willis a correction you need to make to your post is, you say:
“One Kulmala team paper S17 cites is “Detecting charging state of ultra-fine particles: instrumental development and ambient measurements” (Laakso et al. 2007). S17 uses it in this context: “Cosmic rays are the main producers of ions in Earth’s lower atmosphere21.” (21 is the S17 reference list number for the Laakso et al. paper.) This is strange because Laakso et al. don’t say anything about cosmic rays.”
Actually reference 21 is to Laakso et al. 2004 and it says in section 1: “Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are the primary ionization source above the oceans. The intensity of the cosmic rays in the atmosphere is modulated by the 11-year solar cycle. This modulation increases as a function of height (Larsen,1993).”
Laakso et al. 2007 is reference 23. Not 21.
I believe I covered that in my earlier update to the post, Bill. Thanks for the note.
w.
No problem. Thanks for fixing it. I posted this a second time because I put up the previous post at around 2am PST and you had replied to a lot of posts after that but no change had been made yet. I thought you might have missed the post.
The force of the solar wind drops and the pressure over the polar wheel increases. I warn against the temperature drop in the northern hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2017.png
A very interesting press release about a new paper on the various cycles and a new model that predicts cooling to come. This was actually reported on Sky news.
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
It is obviously a bit more complex than Willis presumed (which many folk have been pointing out):
“There are several cycles with different periods and properties, while the 11-year cycle, the 90-year cycle are the best known of them. The 11-year cycle appears as a cyclical reduction in stains on the surface of the Sun every 11 years. Its 90-year variation is associated with periodic reduction in the number of spots in the 11-year cycle in the 50-25%.”
Unlike CO2 which can only be (at most) a heating amplifier, this mechanism works for cooling too:
“The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. The increase in the volcanic activity comes after the Ice Age and it leads to the greenhouse gas emissions. The magnetic field of the Sun grows, what means that the flux of cosmic rays decreases, increasing the number of clouds and leading to the warming again. Next comes the reverse process, where the magnetic field of the Sun decreases, the intensity of cosmic ray rises, reducing the clouds and making the atmosphere cool again. This process comes with some delay.”
Unlike GCM’s their model can predict previous climatic maxima and minima.
So while skepticism about the amplification required is certainly justified, pattern-matching is not the issue that Willis pretends and is certainly better than any putative CO2-climate link. This post is a worthless collection of he-said/they-said verbiage.
what means that the flux of cosmic rays decreases, increasing the number of clouds
Svensmark claims the opposite effect…
JasG December 28, 2017 at 3:30 am
Wonderful. Up pops another charming fellow who is too pusillanimous to sign his own name, but despite that who accuses me of something without quoting anything I said.
Jas, you don’t want to do that. It does your reputation damage.
I politely asked above that if you disagree, please quote what you disagree with so we can understand what you are referring to … but noooo, JasG is anonymous!. You can piss on these polite requests, you don’t care what you say, you can walk away and change your name while I’m (correctly and properly) held responsible for every word I write.
Last chance before I cancel your vote on my planet—WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS NOT COMPLEX, AND WHAT DID I SAY?
Look, I don’t mind you being anonymous, that’s no problem for me, although it damages your credibility because you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own claims. However, if you want to be less credible, that’s your business, not mine.
What I do mind is you using an alias to hide behind while you launch unsupported accusations. That’s not on. That’s cowardly.
I ask for a quote because I don’t recall saying it was simple or that it was not complex, and I don’t believe I did say anything like that.
So how about you and I start over, OK? I’ve had all the uncited, unreferenced accusations from charming folks like you that I can stand.
Either back your words up with a quote of me saying “it” wasn’t complex (whatever “it” might refer to, which is totally unclear), or start over, or go bother someone else. Enough handwaving and unsupported allegations.
In hopes of a brighter future,
w.
Ok
“My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature, such as cosmic rays, the solar wind, changes in heliomagnetism, changes in extreme ultraviolet (EUV), or changes in total solar irradiation (TSI), all vary in phase with the sunspots. As a result, if there is no sunspot cycle visible in the terrestrial surface weather datasets, then we can assume that none of those phenomena are affecting the dataset.”
So you think this ‘simple’ reasoning reflects sufficient complexity? Well I certainly don’t! At least Dr Svaalgard gave a succinct and telling point. You added just more verbiage. No solar scientist really disputes afaik that you can find good correlations with solar activity and that there is good historical data to say there must be an amplification somewhere. The issue is only how and whether it may counteract the putative manmade effect! I’m anonymous only on this hot topic because I’m still working in nuclear power which has taken on the CO2 scare as a last lifeline. Though my email is simple enough to identify me privately. My expertise is in computer modeling. IMO Svensmark and Shaviv and all the others deserve a lot more respect than you give them. Do I really need to quote your own snidey remarks back at you? If you are sick and tired of commenters then just b#gger off since you do not lend CO2 skepticism any favourable light by stumbling around in the dark and presenting half-baked snidey conclusions. Why not just presume these solar scientists actually know more than you about solar effects and give it a rest.
jasg: No solar scientist really disputes afaik that you can find good correlations with solar activity and that there is good historical data to say there must be an amplification somewhere.
That may be so, but are all solar scientists really careful in their statistical inferences? When Willis Eschenbach follows up published papers with careful analyses of the cited data, “good” correlations with solar activity turn out to be “poor” correlations with solar activity. Can you provide some examples of published papers with “good” correlations?
I claim elsewhere that only “poor” correlations are to be expected, given the expected sizes of the causal mechanisms and their effects. If you have some references that substantiate “good” correlations, we would all be interested to read them.
What causes grand solar minima or maxima?
What causes grand solar minima or maxima?
The solar cycle has two phases: (1) magnetic flux from the current cycle is transported by plasma flows to the poles of the sun, and (2) the polar fields are then transported [also by plasma flows] into the sun where it is amplified by the solar dynamo. The amplified flux rises to surface to form sunspots and all the phenomena that we associate with the solar cycle.
If a cycle is large, there is more magnetic flux moving towards the poles and hence more flux to amplify resulting in a larger next cycle. Conversely, if the cycle is small, there is less magnetic flux to transport and the next cycle will be small. So statistically, a large cycle gives birth to another large next cycle, and a small cycle gives birth to another small cycle. Thus cycles tend to occur in groups of several large cycles or groups of several small cycles. However, the polar flux is but a very small part of the total flux [equivalent to about four good sized sunspots of which the cycle has thousands] so could easily by pure chance fluctuate [like you can easily get several heads in a row when tossing a coin] and thus break the rule that a large cycle is followed by another large cycle. Thus we end up with alternating groups of large and small cycles. We call some of those Grand Maxima and Grand Minima. But it is all just about chance occurrences and have no special physical significance.
Now, the above is one explanation [that I think is likely]. Some people think that there are mysterious forces [external or internal to the sun] that control the occurrence of such cycles of grand maximum and minima. People tend to see cycles in everything.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, which sounds quite plausible to me. I saw a paper some time ago that claimed a gravitational effect from an alignment of the heavier planets but I suspect that would produce a signature that could be verified or disproved over time.
Your explanation is quite elegant in the way that it deals with the cluster effect. I suspect that you considered other influences but rejected them for lack of evidence. Are there any that remain possibilities that you would care to mention?
Are there any that remain possibilities that you would care to mention?
None that seems worth to pursue. Our understanding of the solar cycle is improving, so perhaps in some decades we might dispel some of the uncertainty.
There is lot of statistical uncertainty with the Babcock–Leighton dynamo ‘theory’ as described by Dr. S above, since involves only 1-2 % of the SC(x) magnetic field building the next SC(x+1) cycle.
The 100 years plunge in the amplitude is unlikely to be produced by the B-L explanation, but there are others unlikely to be created by chance, e.g. as this one
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNp.gif
(click on the image to see in detail)
the red box is a mirror image of the green box (admittedly with some deviations).
since involves only 1-2 % of the SC(x) magnetic field building the next SC(x+1) cycle.
It is precisely that feature that is the strongest support for the B-L model of the solar dynamo, as it explains the variation of size from cycle to cycle as a result of semi-random build-up of the polar fields. There is by now general acceptance of the B-L dynamo model; to the point that it now only comes down to predicting [or measuring] the polar fields in order to forecast the size of the next cycle. BTW, the polar fields now exceed those of the previous minimum signalling that SC25 will be larger than SC24. See e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-and-Prediction-of-Solar-Cycle-25.pdf
Hi Doc
For sake of the argument I will agree with you that the B-L theory is accurate.
a) Let’s assume that SC25 peak as calculated from the polar field turns to be as you predict, which going by the recent cycles history may not be much of a surprise.
b) If SC25 doesn’t turn out to be as predicted than you might be wrong, also casting serious doubt about the B-L theory validity.
Let’s take another look at that SILSO diagram http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNp1.gif
In case of a) the mirror image symmetricity of boxes C & D is extended to SC25, noting that there is a similar mirror image symmetricity of boxes A & B.
In that case the science has to question this apparent solar cycles ‘oddity’ since it is unlikely that sun has some kind of a ‘mirror image symmetricity memory’.
So what might be happening here?
I would assume some kind of solar Rossby wave operating in the solar plasma, whereby the meandering ‘jet stream’ initially is driving sunspots magnetic field in the equatorial direction, and the ‘un-neutralised’ remnants at a later stage pole-wards. The ‘wave’ might be purely local or alternatively, synchronised externally which would contradict the current understanding.
Prediction good or bad you have bit of problem to resolve:
– if bad your B-L based prediction method doesn’t always work
– if good then extension of the ‘mirror image symmetricity’ (on multi-decadal to a centenary scale) can not be a simple statistical coincidence.
As usual time will tell.
If the prediction works, the B-L mechanism gains further support. The mechanism can be used in reverse to infer the polar fields for past cycles:
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/LS_f2.png
from http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
An integral aspect of the B-L dynamo is that the cycle is memory-less and that the build-up of the polar fields is a semi-random process that involves only a handful of independent flux events.
Your ‘mirror images’ are pseudo science. The sun doesn’t work that way.
lsvalgaard: from http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
Thank you for the link.
lsvalgaard: http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-and-Prediction-of-Solar-Cycle-25.pdf
Thank you for that link also.
Thanks for the last link, haven’t seen it before.
Maybe wrong, but no harm in probing, even if wrong there is a positive side to it, how else would ‘matthewrmarler’ know about some of the stuff you do.
Happy new year to both of you and the rest of the WUWT crowd.
lsvalgaard December 28, 2017 at 9:17 am
Leif, let me take this New Year opportunity to thank you as always for both your willingness`to answer questions, and the clarity of your answers. Would that other scientists were as willing to explain and defend their ideas as you are.
Nor is that the only reason that I’m always happy to see you commenting on my work. I figure that anyone who has a solar effect named after them, the Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect, is worth listening to on the subject of the sun.
So you have my thanks for everything up to and including your most recent and most interesting link, viz:
Onwards!
w.
the Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect,
A little historical note: when I first [in 1968] proposed the effect and wrote a paper on it, that paper was roundly rejected [by JGR] as ‘physically impossible’. Luckily, John Wilcox [at that time at UCB] thought otherwise and I joined him when he moved to Stanford in 1972.
Willis Eschenbach, thank you again for a good contribution, and for responses to comments by others.
I was looking for the genesis of the C-14 chart and found this. Not the genesis, but interesting nonetheless.
“After the “Medieval Warm Period” of 1000 years ago, the world entered the “Little Ice Age”, followed by a rise in temperatures in the 20’th century [ref]. Below it is a chart of the solar cycle for the past 1,100 years, based on Carbon-14 isotope measurements. The varying temperatue of the sun is probably one of the causes of climate change during this time. But note that the Medieveal Warm period identified on the temperature chart lags that in the solar chart by a century. We can see that the present period of global warming coincides with a high point in the solar cycle. There may have been some solar impact on the warming in the first half of the 20th century, but there has been no significant change in solar radiation in the second half when the human caused global warming signal becomes apparent.:”
http://www.oocities.org/marie.mitchell%40rogers.com/PaleoClimate.html
“The real question we’re all looking at is,“Do the tiny changes that we see in various kinds of solar output over a sunspot cycle affect the climate?”.”
NOAA used to feature a correlation of solar activity to global temperatures. If I recall correctly it used 60 year smoothing on the global average temperature to smooth out multi-decadal and shorter period ocean oscillations. Within the fully smoothed data the correlation appeared very good. It was widely criticized because of temperatures climbing post 1985 when solar activity peaked to the end of the data. But in this non-correlating period smoothing was far from complete.
Dr. Svaalgard here is discussing how changes of 1 to 2% of solar surface magnetic flux precedes dramatic changes in solar climate. Seems Dr. Svaalgard has his chaos theory for the sun and Willis has his unconnected chaos theory for climate. But where you have chaos you probably have butterflies. Astro-meteorologists seem to believe these solar climate changes are caused by gravitational pull primarily of the larger planets and in turn affects the earth’s climate. It’s also possible that the ocean oscillations are affected by this same mechanism but the astro-meteorologists I know haven’t been doing any better than NOAA in predicting ENSO and nobody has been aware of ocean oscillations long enough to have a track record on that.
The old NOAA solar/earth average surface temperature correlation was produced by removing the ocean oscillation signal along with shorter ones like ENSO. It makes perfect sense to me that trying to judge a solar/climate connection by observing climate changes during 11 year solar cycles might be fruitless as they may be overwhelmed by these shorter term possibly independent influences. We tend to get locked into ideas of singular influences on climate. NOAAs chart would not have needed temperature smoothing if only one variable was being looked at. These ocean oscillations both in the early and late 20th centuries produced about .7degC warming surges in 33 years while the entire Industrial Age warming linear trend is only slightly more than that. Anything you see in a solar cycle is most likely going to be jibberish and not informing of an answer. You might even get the CAGW folks to agree since there is no argument that CO2 causes ocean oscillations. Your only problem with signing them on is due to the fact they used the most recent ocean oscillation as the blade of their hockey stick and they attributed the previous one to bad observations since they couldn’t replicate it.
So no I don’t think that is the “real question”. It seems more akin to a strawman question. I will give Willis credit for doing a bangup job on it though. . . .it does look exactly like a strawman that just got scattered far and wide by a huge kaleidoscope of butterflies.
Bill December 30, 2017 at 4:50 am
So your evidence to the contrary is some graph that wasn’t all that good, but in any case is no longer available? That’s the best you’ve got?
“Ocean oscillations” produced the temperature changes? And you know this how?
I have no idea what this means.
So … you’ve not provided one scrap of actual scientific data, no math, no references, no grapics, no logical arguments, just empty claims that things you don’t like are “jibberish” and “not informing” and “strawman questions” …
Surely you don’t expect us to do more than point and laugh at such a farrago of empty claims, I hope …
w.
Ari Jokimaki has remained strongly oppositional to Svensmark from the first day that Svensmark presented his observations and hypothesis several years ago…… I am surprised that Ari continues his aggressive stance in spite of the more recent experimentations performed by CERN…… They found Svensmark’s work worthy of more intense investigation and have since determined cosmic radiation played a key role in the earth’s heavier than normal cloud coverage for a lengthy period prior to the industrial revolution.
earth’s heavier than normal cloud coverage for a lengthy period prior to the industrial revolution.
And what carefully measured cloud coverage is available ‘prior to the industrial revolution’ [about 1760] to base such a claim on?
dryscottdale January 2, 2018 at 9:30 am
I don’t understand. Why is this a problem?
On the other hand, unlike Ari, I supported the Svensmark hypothesis on the first day that he presented it. However, after searching fruitlessly for any real-world evidence to back it up, and after Svensmark himself not presenting any real-world evidence to back it up, I’ve become much more skeptical that it actually is a player in the climate arena.
Does that make my opinion more valuable than Ari’s, since I changed my mind and he didn’t have to?
You continue:
I’m sorry, but laboratory verification that an effect exists is very, very different from showing that it actually affects the climate down here where we live. Real world effects are the issue here, not lab results. I don’t think anyone, including myself and Ari (although I can’t speak for him), thinks the CERN results and the lab experiments are wrong.
However, many people, including myself, are funny about these things. We prefer to wait until someone presents EVIDENCE that their hypothesis actually makes a difference … and that’s exactly what we don’t have with Svensmark’s hypothesis. We have no evidence that his phenomenon makes any difference in the real world down here at the surface where we live.
Best regards,
w.
Willis, since I did not say anything that needs support my post will not have any math in it. I am not advancing an alternative theory, nor am I attacking any theory. The only thing I am commenting on the relevancy and logic of offered arguments. If successful we should be back to really knowing very little about climate change.
The point was and is that the solar cycle has never been observed to have a warming or cooling cycle of significance; therefore, its an insignificant argument to say finding nothing in a solar cycle is proof that GCRs do not impact climate. Your argument begs the question. An example of a “begging the question” fallacy is: “Global warming does not exist because the earth is not getting warmer”.
The definition of a strawman argument is: “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”
I could be mistaken but to my knowledge Svensmark has not made the argument that claims effects of the solar cycle affect temperatures, at a minimum I did not see that claim of his being made anywhere in your article, yet you made that the centerpiece of your argument. That by definition is a strawman argument.
So to be clear I am not advocating a method by which climate is controlled. I can only note that of all mechanisms I am aware of claimed by anybody, including yourself, the GCR argument is a bit ahead of the rest because at a minimum they have proven a physical link between clouds and GCRs with all that remains to be proven is whether that link is intensive enough to influence climate on earth. No other theory including CO2 has been experimentally verified as having such a physical connection, it is only argued to be logical that it does. In fact, for CO2 to my knowledge has had every attempted experiment, without obvious design flaws, fail completely. Kirkby’s “chamber” made extensive effort to avoid contamination of the results. I have seen no such effort by the advocates of any other theory go anywhere near to such pains. Seems warmists would like you to just accept the logical argument and give up on experimentally verifying the greenhouse effect to operate as defined. Perhaps that’s because they have a different agenda or because they know it can’t be done, or because none of them have the imagination to carefully design such an experiment that neither introduces a secondary heat source to keep the IR barrier warm nor uses materials with different insulation values.
The ocean oscillations are clearly a climate phenomena. I have been working in related areas for decades. How much of the warming is due to these oscillations and how much might be due to another source remains conjecture. This comment I will leave without support because I am too lazy to defend it other than to note many papers exist as to the climate nature of the oscillations including the original 1996 paper that laid out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation effects and gave the PDO its name. Personally I see it as noncontroversial. It only seems controversial to those that would claim the effects for their theory without any proof.
Decades of experience investigating and either accepting or rejecting such claims or advancing a claim in litigation support suggests that recognizing problems when they first start seldom captures the entire degree of the problem. It can be very difficult to convince people of their mistakes so “projecting” the limits of the problem are typically understated.
It may prove that the ocean oscillations are completely internally influenced for example by some kind of emergent phenomena. OTOH, it may be some external forcing, like magnetic disturbance caused by solar changes directly or indirectly by possibly affecting GCRs. Or thirdly the ocean oscillations could influenced by climate change itself despite the source causing it variously over grow and over contract.
Fact is dominant ocean current systems are controlled by the Coriolis Effect. The primary currents in the world’s largest oceans is to circulate in the direction influenced by the Coriolis Effect. Mathematics itself alone does not make for evidence. One can simply argue that the mathematics looks random but that does not rule out the possibility of an effect with a real cause looking random.
I gave you good marks on your work destroying the strawman argument and I am sure the article was useful for those who do believe in a single solar cycle impact. I even allowed your own pet theory of emergent weather systems as possibly being the cause, captured in my comment about being destroyed by a kaleidoscope of butterflies.
It should be common sense that a solar minimum that lasts maybe 2 to 4 years should only reveal a climate change of about 15 to 30 thousandths of a degree (based upon the long term linear trend over the last 140 years). It’s pretty easy to see the possibility of a Dr. Syun Akasofu explanation for recent “climate” change that was published in this forum a number of years ago.
We transitioned over the past 300 years from a “grand solar minimum” to a “grand solar maximum”. And viola there is evidence that warming pretty much occurred over that period of time. Throw in some albedo feedbacks of transitioning from advancing glaciers in general to retreating glaciers in general during the 19th century provides a logical explanation for why the warming was not consistent over the entire period for many decades. And of course one cannot dispute a long term warming because of the lack of evidence for short term warming.
And finally the idea that solar changes of a solar cycle do not control short term climate has been known for decades. I have the greatest respect for NOAA rank and file scientists, they do good work. They certainly would not have only graphed long term, smoothed correlations to solar activity if they had more to show. In fact one does not resort to data smoothing except to eliminate something like short term noise.