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.
Bill January 2, 2018 at 9:06 pm
You are indeed mistaken about Svensmark, which is why the things you say DO need support. Here, from the mouth of the man himself …
So no, it’s not a strawman argument as you foolishly try to assert without providing a scrap of evidence … but of course, I suspect that even that direct quote from Svensmark himself isn’t enough to pry an apology out of you for your unpleasant and untrue strawman allegation … although I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Next, I’d asked what evidence you had for your claim that the variations in global temperature were caused by “ocean oscillations” … to which you replied:
Really? You expect to get traction for your theories by saying that they are “clearly a climate phenomena”? That assertion, plus you being too lazy to defend them, is supposed to convince someone? Seriously?
Finally, you say:
“Viola” indeed … on the other hand, the recent strong sunspot cycles peaked in ~ 1959 and have weakened ever since … so where is the cooling we should have seen since then due to the solar cycles weakening?
w.
As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark)
the sun’s magnetic field did not double in strength during the 20th century. It increased until mid-century and then decreased so that by end [and a bit] of the century it was back to what it was at the beginning of the century. Cycle 24 was on par with Cycle 14.
Willis, last I checked a century was about 9 or 10 solar cycles. You are reinforcing my argument that your post’s argument is a strawman. Obviously you must have seen that coming.
Ocean oscillations are not central to my argument. I brought in ocean oscillations as but one example of how it would be possible to override the cooling effect of GCRs for multiple decades. The ability of the oceans to sequester heat far exceeds the ability of the atmosphere.
As a result oceans represent by far the largest heat sink on the planet. Heat sinks are the most important feature of a passive solar climate control system in architecture. They are specifically deployed to produce a delayed environmental climate response.
Its simply my opinion that you cannot handwave deep ocean temperatures away in the climate debate. The ocean turnover rate (in excess of 1,500 years for a complete turnover, anybody’s guess as to an average turnover rate). As long as you cannot eliminate or even limit the period of time ocean heat sink influence on climate, you always have to entertain that possibility. Especially when your argument is argumentum ad ignorantiam by attempting to prove a negative.
That does not mean your argument serves no purpose. It does serve to help establish that there are climate effect delays if Svensmark’s theory is correct.
I pointed out previously that the papers on the PDO address the number one concern of climate change, namely, the effects on biota. Additionally these effects have been strongly linked to surface ocean temperatures and feature species of fish that either spawn in river systems or on the ocean surface. What is missing is the cause of the PDO oscillations and how long the surface effect is delayed from the beginning of its cause. In the words of Dr. Syun Akasofu, paraphrased, we need to understand how climate works before we can start attributing portions of it to individual causes.
Fact is we have nothing that even approaches a real time climate observation system. In fact in recent years that became the primary argument against the pause. About a half dozen subsequent adjustments to the historical observation record later they are gradually moving away from it. Just in time perhaps for round 2.
We don’t even know how many years or centuries the observation system we do have is out of time. Opinions seem to widely differ (the playing out of feedbacks) as to how far out of time the system is. So your strawman argument to be effective against Svensmark’s theory must first solve that problem.
I can actually detect an immediate response to hot solar cycles, perhaps I will create a post on that. But my search for an immediate response to cold solar cycles breaks down. There is a potential explanation for that. Ocean convection will tend to wipe out an immediate cooling ocean response but an immediate warming response is convection stable. Likewise, cloud extent is a poor measure of the effect on climate of clouds. Any outdoorsman knows that you may or may not get a sunburn under 100% cloud cover. It depends upon cloud volume and perhaps water saturation in the clouds themselves. Last I heard we were unable to measure that accurately.
Bill January 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm
Bill, last time I checked I’d asked people to QUOTE THE WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. I have no clue what your quote above is referring to. Not the slightest. And no, I’m not going to re-read the thread to determine what you are babbling about
Same problem. Don’t know where you pointed it out, didn’t notice it at the time, couldn’t care less. You obviously think people pay attention when you uncap your electronic pen. We don’t. QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO!!!
Nonsense. We can find correlations and cycles without understanding how the climate works.
Bill, I’ve looked for the ~11 year signal in everything from the Parana River flow to lake levels in Africa to tidal records from Sweden. The idea that these are not “real time” is a joke.
My argument is not a “strawman” in any sense. Svensmark said that cosmic rays, which are regulated by the solar magnetic field, have an effect on the climate down here at the surface. I went looking for evidence in dozens and dozens of places, all kinds of records. Cloud records. Rainfall records. You name it, I’ve likely looked at it.
Just because you can find no fault in my work and you don’t like my results doesn’t make it a “strawman argument”. That’s just your feeble attempt to destroy by allegations and handwaving what you cannot find any scientific problems with.
I’d be overjoyed to see that, I’ve been looking for such evidence for some years now.
So cloud extent is a bad indicator? Cloud extent is something that Svensmark’s hypothesis says will change due to cosmic ray variations, and many investigators have looked at it in a vain attempt to find any correlation … but you don’t like it because you can get sunburnt through the clouds?
Say what?!?
w.
PS—As a life-long surfer, sailor, and scuba diver I can assure you that a day of overcast leads to a cooler ocean, and that a week of overcast leads to a much cooler ocean. So I totally reject your claim that “Ocean convection will tend to wipe out an immediate cooling ocean response”. It does no such thing.
In addition, you seem to be totally unaware that the uppermost layer of the ocean overturns every night, mixing the surface water down into the “mixed layer”, which is usually the top 30 metres more or less.
And as a result of that overturning, no, the warming response is NOT “convection stable” as you claim. You really should spend more time actually out on the water before putting forward your fantasies about how the ocean works.
Willis the thesis of you post was: “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?”.”
Perhaps you can point out in your Svensmark quote exactly where that is. ““When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. … As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark)
And in my Akasofu comment you responded with another strawman. Akasofu did not say you could not find correlations or quasi-cycles, or pseudo-cycles. His point was that before attributing causes for those observed cycles you need to know how the climate works.
You say: “PS—As a life-long surfer, sailor, and scuba diver I can assure you that a day of overcast leads to a cooler ocean, and that a week of overcast leads to a much cooler ocean. So I totally reject your claim that “Ocean convection will tend to wipe out an immediate cooling ocean response”. It does no such thing.
“In addition, you seem to be totally unaware that the uppermost layer of the ocean overturns every night, mixing the surface water down into the “mixed layer”, which is usually the top 30 metres more or less.”
“And as a result of that overturning, no, the warming response is NOT “convection stable” as you claim. You really should spend more time actually out on the water before putting forward your fantasies about how the ocean works.”
There you go again having an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about! I would probably detail my ocean experience but it’s more fun let you remain the ignorant buffoon you are.
As to your comments about convection they are just flat wrong. Convection is not a factor in the surfing, snorkeling, and tropical atoll zones. Convection stable in these zones is only conceptual (being a physical law) as its not measurable . Wind, waves and tidal currents dominate completely in the nearshore zone. But this is a very small portion of the ocean.
For the sake of temperature records the overnight overturning you talk about is both convective and averaged into the temperature record. Overnight overturning is a primary process in establishing the depth of the mixing zone. The diurnal processes in the ocean are simply averaged into the monthly average SST.
Seasonal and monthly ocean thermocline graphs will show the variations in the mixing zone between cold months when the ocean is cooling and warm months when it is warming. Graphs obtained from sources like diving buoys show the impacts of convection on the mixing layer by deepening it in the cold months and making it shallower when warm water is pooling on the surface in the warm months. Since the heat in about 2.5 meters of ocean is the equivalent of all the heat above in the atmosphere and the variation in the mixing layer can exceed 200 meters from summer to winter. That’s only about 80 atmospheres of heat convected down into the mixing zone. yep never happen, not a factor, I am a pleasure surfer, sailor, and snorkeler and know better!
Bill January 3, 2018 at 10:51 pm, starts out with …
I give up. Here was our previous discussion:
Bill January 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm
I’ve asked you twice to back up your claims with quotes. I’ve also asked you to explain what you were rabbiting on about.
Instead of responding to any of my questions or requests, you have just blown me off entirely and are haring off after some totally different matter. Nothing about the “9 or 10 solar cycles”. Nothing about the “papers on the PDO”. Instead, you’ve taken up some totally new cudgel that you think you can beleaguer me with.
Sorry, not interested. I’ve asked twice for you to quote where I said something about a century and 9 or 10 cycles. I’ve asked you to explain what you were talking about. No reply to either one. Clearly, you are not interested in having a discussion. You want a monologue.
Fine. You’ve got it. The floor is yours. I have no time for people who just blow off my requests and questions. I’m interested in a discussion. You want something different. Wonderful. Go for it.
But don’t expect me to respond to your claims and ideas. Fool me twice, my fault … not gonna happen three times.
w.
Fine Willis. If you don’t care to reread what you post I will try one more time and perhaps you will follow what I am saying.
My claim is your post is a strawman that Svensmark did not argue your “real question” – making it by definition a strawman.
Your question was: “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?”.”
Arguing that your post was not a strawman you said: “So no, it’s not a strawman argument as you foolishly try to assert without providing a scrap of evidence … but of course, I suspect that even that direct quote from Svensmark himself isn’t enough to pry an apology out of you for your unpleasant and untrue strawman allegation … although I’m happy to be proven wrong.”
You offered the following Svensmark quote is support of your post not being a strawman:
“When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. … As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark)
I responded that I did not see anywhere in that Svensmark quote an argument addressing your “real question” Svensmark is talking about a century of warming. I would take that to mean essentially the entire industrial age warming, not some warming over a 11 year solar cycle. To wit: my quote: “Willis, last I checked a century was about 9 or 10 solar cycles. You are reinforcing my argument that your post’s argument is a strawman.”
That would be true whether your argument is correct or not. Its fair to argue a strawman if your strawman actually proves the other party wrong. But I haven’t seen anything of that nature in your post. All I can see is I can’t find any reliable evidence one way or the other in the solar cycles.
You seem a bit ultra sensitive to challenges to your argument. I gave you credit for potentially helping people understand the complexity of the climate debate in that short term observations are not reliable in explaining long term phenomena. You see all the time: “its the weather stupid!” Its not like you are not in good company the entire climate science community has been shooting themselves in the foot on this issue from Ben Santer’s 17 year hockey stick blade to Michael Mann’s 150 year hockey stick blade. Warmists can’t even get on the same page regarding practically anything except that CO2 is a threat.
Svensmark is talking about a century of warming
You should actually read some of Svensmark’s papers. He claims [and claimed all along] that the11-year cycle in cosmic rays was directly mirrored in the amount of [low] cloud cover which again is directly [so it is said] reflected in global temperature [no lag or smoothing] so the time scale here was one year at most. Not century.
“You should actually read some of Svensmark’s papers. He claims [and claimed all along] that the11-year cycle in cosmic rays was directly mirrored in the amount of [low] cloud cover which again is directly [so it is said] reflected in global temperature [no lag or smoothing] so the time scale here was one year at most. Not century.”
1. Seems to me the thesis of this post is to address “New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth.” I am not going to read the entire body of Svensmark’s scientific works to discuss the topic. Boiling it down was the job Willis accepted.
(funny though how it is only himself he exempts from having to reread what he wrote). My discussion and contribution is to discuss Willis’ criticism of the paper. After reading the above post I was unable to find any real criticism and I dared to suggest the Emperor has No Clothes.
2. Not only was it difficult to see how Willis addressed either Svensmark’s paper or his apparent strawman question, the link to the “new study” that Willis provided goes to a blank page. I can only guess that you and Willis induced Anthony to delete it as I even tried searching the forum for it incase Willis botched the link. So recognizing that in my first comments I asked Willis to produce what I may have missed. If he could, that would have at least provided the necessary context.
3. I would assume most scientists would attribute multiple causes for variations in cloud cover. Often data noise makes it difficult to tease out a weak signal.
A great example of that is the variations in global warming that induced one global warming scientist to manufacture a hockey stick whose bend occurred in the 19th century and planted it on the cover of an IPCC report while another head author in the same report did a “fingerprinting” statistical study that had the hockey stick blade being formed in 1979.
The only explanation for that inconsistency is another forcing since CO2 isn’t starting, stopping, and restarting and since zero work was done to characterize the other forcing, other than data adjustments being applied to minimize the issue, the problem remains leaving an unexplained 100 year gap between the two hockey stick bends.
But the science community being unable to untie the Gordian Knot would like to pretend their theory is beyond criticism while taking on all competing theories by strangling them with the problem they themselves ignored. The Golden Rule gets trampled as a result. Such behavior is guaranteed to create fallacies. Fallacies that are all too well understood by the non-inculcated.
Bottom line in all this is the masses are not stupid. They may be ignorant and uneducated. However, they remain sharp enough to identify a con and the inconsistencies constantly being bandied about.
The public is not fooled while the people offering up these inconsistencies in inconsistent ways are fooled or they don’t care.
I am not going to read the entire body of Svensmark’s scientific works to discuss the topic.
That entire body is not very big. A handful of papers. Have you even read a single one? [which one?].
You state with conviction that Svensmark is talking about centuries. He is not, so you whole argument falls apart.
Bill, is something wrong with your ability to read? Here’s what I said:
You’ve burnt your bridges with me.
w.
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”.
You had tested an effect that works at the equator, at a measuring station in Finland. Are you sure Finland is at the equator?
“You state with conviction that Svensmark is talking about centuries. He is not, so you whole argument falls apart.”
I think what I said was Willis only mentions Svensmark referring to “a century”. Willis characterizes his post as a discussion of Svensmark’s “new study”. But it’s becoming clearer every minute that it is no such thing and that its instead an opportunity to dig up and resurface dirt on the whole theory that has been floating around the web for years.
If he had been honest in his endeavor, I would have passed on reading it. From your comment above, I have to assume you haven’t actually addressed what the new study introduces either.
Peter Ole Kvint brings up that the Svensmark paper found that ions work better over pristine marine waters well away from continents. In response to that Willis is gushing over a Jokimäki listed study conducted in Finland.
I wasn’t even planning on getting into this my list is longer than your list thing until I saw Peter’s comment.
Another Jokimäki provided study listed by Willis is even worse. Its a 2006 paper reporting on Cloud 1 results. It states the experiment failed to detect a presence of strong contributions to ion-induced nucleation. However, Cloud 1 was the pilot project built to learn how to design an ion chamber, not to conclude the conclusion Willis is gushing over. It was Cloud 9 that demonstrated that ion-induced nucleation works.
Maybe the reason Willis can’t find any support for Svensmark is because Jokimäki doesn’t want him too. Even the list is titled: “Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate” Seems Jokimäki himself is terribly impressed with papers trying to prove a negative. One would think he might have an agenda.
“You state with conviction that Svensmark is talking about centuries. He is not, so you whole argument falls apart.”
I think what I said was Willis only mentions Svensmark referring to “a century”.
As Willis always says: “quote the exact words, etc”.
My comment stands. You claimed that Svensmark’s ‘effect’ was over centuries, not over 11 years or one year. You did not say that you have even read a single one of his papers [which one?]. The latest anti-Svensmark paper under discussion.is but one of many. What you assume has no weight. What the facts are is important.
So: your whole argument has fallen apart.
For the love of Mike! There ought to be rules against drunken postings.
To recap:
1. I noted on December 30, 2017 at 4:50 am that Willis’ “real question” on detectability during solar cycles seemed to be more of a strawman than anything else.
Then after a couple of exchanges noting what a “strawman” was:
2. Willis on January 2, 2018 at 10:05 pm
offered up a Svensmark quote from the paper he was reviewing as support for his “real question” not being a strawman. That quote was: “When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. … As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.” (Henrik Svensmark).
3. 8 minutes later you quoted the exact words apparently worried that somebody would not correctly interpret Svensmark’s quote, namely that the doubling had subsequently diminished by the end of the year.
4. on January 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm I noted to Willis that his response was about a century not a solar cycle.
5. On January 3, 2018 at 5:24 pm Willis asked me to quote the exact words my response referred to (considering that he apparently can remember what he posts from one day to the next. Or he doesn’t know the difference between a century and a solar cycle.
6. On January 3, 2018 at 10:51 pm I quoted Willis’ exact words (Svensmark’s quote) that were both in his original article and in his January 2 response to my comments about his “real question” being a strawman.
7. On January 4, 2018 at 12:05 am. Willis again asked for the exact words.
8. January 4, 2018 at 2:16 pm in attempt to help Willis organize his thoughts I quoted the exact words again.
9. On January 5, 2018 at 8:57 am You post: “”I think what I said was Willis only mentions Svensmark referring to “a century””.
“As Willis always says: “quote the exact words, etc”.
My comment stands. You claimed that Svensmark’s ‘effect’ was over centuries, not over 11 years or one year.”
So don’t ask me again for the exact words. Ask Willis instead why he offered up Svensmark’s “century” comment as his defense against the charge that his “real question” was a strawman. I did and he ran away.
What is your problem?
You claimed that there would not be a solar cycle effect in the Svensmark hypothesis because it takes centuries for the effect to show. I pointed out that Svensmark has always claimed that the effct was on clouds and immediate, so there should be a solar cycle visible. There is not.
This is very simple and does not require a long diatribe about who said what at what exact time. All you have to say that you were wrong about why there would not be solar cycle effect [as there is not].
“What is your problem?
You claimed that there would not be a solar cycle effect in the Svensmark hypothesis because it takes centuries for the effect to show. I pointed out that Svensmark has always claimed that the effct was on clouds and immediate, so there should be a solar cycle visible. There is not.”
First of all you claim I claimed: “there would not be a solar cycle effect in the Svensmark hypothesis because it takes centuries for the effect to show.” Thats patently false. I never said that.
I mentioned the possibility that the effect might not be observed over the period of a solar cycle because some other climate phenomena overriding it and that if that phenomena were short lived it could explain why effects are not consistently or even often found in a particular solar cycle or location. We know clouds are strongly affected by winds and geography, certainly a lot stronger than any GCR effect.
I also recall crossing over into some minor discussion about detection of the accumulated climate effects (e.g. surface temperature). It might take more than a solar cycle to detect the temperature affect because of the ocean buffering climate change. Thats fundamentally and dramatically different that what you characterize what I said.
If you disagree with that characterization then I will have to ask you to quote the exact words I used. I will gladly recant if I was a sloppy author and said something I never ever believed to be true. How about I apologize if I inadvertently made the claim you say I made and you confess to utilizing a strawman argument against me if I didn’t, whether you are doing it advertently or inadvertently.