Astronauts on the International Space Station may be at risk during long missions
THE WORSENING COSMIC RAY SITUATION: Cosmic rays are bad–and they’re getting worse. That’s the conclusion of a new paper just published in the research journal Space Weather. The authors, led by Prof. Nathan Schwadron of the University of New Hampshire, show that radiation from deep space is dangerous and intensifying faster than previously predicted.
The story begins four years ago when Schwadron and colleagues first sounded the alarm about cosmic rays. Analyzing data from the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) instrument onboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), they found that cosmic rays in the Earth-Moon system were peaking at levels never before seen in the Space Age. The worsening radiation environment, they pointed out, was a potential peril to astronauts, curtailing how long they could safely travel through space.
This figure from their original 2014 paper shows the number of days a 30-year old male astronaut flying in a spaceship with 10 g/cm2 of aluminum shielding could go before hitting NASA-mandated radiation limits:
Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are a mixture of high-energy photons and sub-atomic particles accelerated toward Earth by supernova explosions and other violent events in the cosmos. Our first line of defense is the sun: The sun’s magnetic field and solar wind combine to create a porous ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during Solar Maximum and weakest during Solar Minimum–hence the 11-year rhythm of the mission duration plot above.
The problem is, as the authors note in their new paper, the shield is weakening: “Over the last decade, the solar wind has exhibited low densities and magnetic field strengths, representing anomalous states that have never been observed during the Space Age. As a result of this remarkably weak solar activity, we have also observed the highest fluxes of cosmic rays.”
Back in 2014, Schwadron et al used a leading model of solar activity to predict how bad cosmic rays would become during the next Solar Minimum, now expected in 2019-2020. “Our previous work suggested a ~ 20% increase of dose rates from one solar minimum to the next,” says Schwadron. “In fact, we now see that actual dose rates observed by CRaTER in the last 4 years exceed the predictions by ~ 10%, showing that the radiation environment is worsening even more rapidly than we expected.” In this plot bright green data points show the recent excess:
The data Schwadron et al have been analyzing come from CRaTER on the LRO spacecraft in orbit around the Moon, which is point-blank exposed to any cosmic radiation the sun allows to pass. Here on Earth, we have two additional lines of defense: the magnetic field and atmosphere of our planet. Both mitigate cosmic rays.
But even on Earth the increase is being felt. Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus have been launching space weather balloons to the stratosphere almost weekly since 2015. Sensors onboard those balloons show a 13% increase in radiation (X-rays and gamma-rays) penetrating our planet’s atmosphere:
X-rays and gamma-rays detected by these balloons are “secondary cosmic rays,” produced by the crash of primary cosmic rays into Earth’s upper atmosphere. They trace radiation percolating down toward our planet’s surface. The energy range of the sensors, 10 keV to 20 MeV, is similar to that of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.
How does this affect us? Cosmic rays penetrate commercial airlines, dosing passengers and flight crews so much that pilots are classified by the International Commission on Radiological Protection as occupational radiation workers. Some research shows that cosmic rays can seed clouds and trigger lightning, potentially altering weather and climate. Furthermore, there are studies ( #1, #2, #3, #4) linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias in the general population.
Cosmic rays will intensify even more in the years ahead as the sun plunges toward what may be the deepest Solar Minimum in more than a century.
From NASA Spaceweather
Bad time to schedule a trip to Mars?
Nah.
Just put some tinfoil round the ship. And magnetise the hull.
Volunteers have been launching balloons for the past few years,
documenting the changes in GCMs in California. These records
don’t appear to be used by NASA, but they make a good supplement
to the NASA study.
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2018/02mar18/balloon_data_strip.png
Is the from the Earth to Sky Calculus group?
Or coat your spacecraft in water ice a meter thick.
Or just put the water tanks on the outer skin of your ship.
The price is going up due to the tariffs. I would suggest not waiting too long before stocking up.
Magnetize the hull?
Have you ever thought about angle of deflection from a relativistic proton when the hull is say only 2 cm thick Al and just a meter or so from human flesh?
Water freezes, then what? Use valuable electricity to keep it warm so that it is liquid and usable??
Gauss is your friend.
Actually water is an excellent insulator from harmful cosmic rays. Too bad it’s so heavy, but on the bright side they can produce it once they’re in space.
Did you read those levels of “tin foil”? Aluminum’s density is 2.7 g/cc. to get 10 g/cm2 the shielding would have to be 3.7 cm thick (almost 1.5″). Now that will account for multiple walls, however space craft walls are no where near that thick.
However, there are better lighter weight materials than aluminum, such as water and polyethylene. Yes, surround the cabin with your water supply and holding tanks.
External ice shells will offer another means of protection against micro-meteoroid orbital debris damage (MMOD). Maybe a good place to freeze the waste?
Until we invent deflector shields we’ll have to get by with what we know.
That doesn’t work
Cosmic rays will intensify even more in the years ahead as the sun plunges toward what may be the deepest Solar Minimum in more than a century
We just had that one. Cycle 25 looks to be a bit stronger than 24 so the hyped ‘warning’ may be a bit premature.
http://www.leif.org/research/Super-Synoptic-Maps-and-Polar-Fields.pdf
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
One things for sure, winter severity correlates well with increased cosmic ray intensity:
The last time we had an extreme winter even close to this one, we had very high cosmic ray intensities.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-extreme-was-the-winter-of/26257
It is probably not a coincidence that we have seen alarming low temperatures and snow events in areas that normally do experience events such as this winter without some reason behind it.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
So, to cool the global climate, we build giant accelerators on the moon, and irradiate the atmosphere of earth?
There’s some carbon off-sets for you.
So cool.
To combat this and it”s deleterious affects, those who feel they are subject to the effects should make hats out of aluminum foil to ward off the cosmic rays and help others to be aware of this danger!
Question If the barometric pressure,humidity, location and time of year are exactly the same and there is a cloudless sky should the temperature also be very similar except of course for the level of solar iradiance which could be easy to calculate? Finally if this is the case shouldn’t a higher level of c02 also have a warming impact where these conditions are the same? Am I missing something with this question?
Is there nothing that man-made CO2 is not capable of!?!
No, nothing.
Including dental caries…just saying.
i am sure the problem with cosmic rays can be solved with more windmills and solar panels to reflect them back into space ,so just more of the same and we will be fine 😉
Don’t be giving any of the crazies any more crazy ideas.
I thought the point here is that this proves CO2 is not capable of anything.
I’d like to know why high CO2 in the interglacials does not seem to stymie a steepish plunge into the next glacial cycle.
Pretty sure an actual global greenhouse (a real one that is) wouldn’t tend not to do that.
So logically, the CO2 would have to drop rapidly FIRST, for the greenhouse to vanish.
Yeah-but, no-but, yeah-but … the TEMP drops FIRST, … and THEN the greenhouse glass breaks.
Now that’s just a little bit sus.
Falsified?
I thought your goal was to make sense?
CO2 does do a lot of good things.
Isn’t that pretty much what we would EXPECT, those of us who have suspected that we’re in for an extended “Dalton Minimum” type cooling? The Sun is entering a quiescent phase, and solar activity is decreasing, and the solar wind is less able to block galactic cosmic rays.
I can’t even pretend to be surprised by this finding; perhaps the Warmists will suddenly face the reality of a COOLING climate for a while.
how do cosmic rays cause cooling?
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/12/19/Scientists-claim-cosmic-rays-influence-cloud-cover-climate-change/2251513690392/
“Finally, we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth,” researcher Henrik Svensmark said.
“As cosmic rays rain down from space, they increase the number of ions in Earth’s atmosphere, which, according to scientists at the Technical University of Denmark, encourages the formation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei.“
“how do cosmic rays cause cooling?”
Oh my! A newbie!
Simple answer: More atmospheric ions, more clouds, higher albedo.
Hendrik Svenmark is a good place to start.
Just because both happen in sync doesn’t mean one must cause the other. There are other logical possibilities. Think about it.
And which ion species?
Presumably not free electrons?
That’s testable btw.
If you could make and inject the correct ions in the the right places, you’d have an effective global thermostatic knob.
Do they use knobs anymore?
Whatever, an app then, I’m flexible.
Fron what i have read, cosmic rays cause cooling by seeding clouds. Increased high altitude cloud cover increases albedo and reflects more sunlight back into space. While low-level cloud cover can insulate from heat loss during night time high level cloud cover is not as effective and results in a net heat loss.
Richard: Correct that correlation does not equal causation, however, CERN has done some experiments that seem to indicate that Hendrik Svenmark’s theories are correct.
David Paul Zimmerman, my understanding is that high, wispy. cirrus clouds are thought to have a warming effect because they are made of ice crystals, which makes them much more nearly opaque to outgoing longwave infrared than to incoming visible and near-IR solar radiation. Lower clouds, which are made of liquid water droplets, have a strong cooling effect in daytime, but a warming effect at night.
I have quite a few links to information about the work of Svensmark, Kirkby et al, here:
https://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#solar
(especially the last 4-5 paragraphs)
CO2 must be to blame… at least partly. Too good an opportunity to miss.
Is the prospect of a lunar colony now limited to robots? How far underground do cosmic rays penetrate?
Should we blame the same coal miners who killed all the penguins in Iceland?
You mean “the Great Auks”? Otherwise I will have to upgrade to a new fact: penguins in the northern hemisphere. That’s like polar bears in Antarctica. Plenty to eat, but how do we get them there?
Yes the original Penguins, Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis), after which the southern ones were named.
Name possibly derived from the welsh, Pen Gwyn (white head).
From Wikipedia:
The rocks were covered with blackbirds [referring to Guillemots] and there were the Geirfugles [Great Auk]… They walked slowly. Jón Brandsson crept up with his arms open. The bird that Jón got went into a corner but [mine] was going to the edge of the cliff. It walked like a man … but moved its feet quickly. caught it close to the edge – a precipice many fathoms deep. Its wings lay close to the sides – not hanging out. I took him by the neck and he flapped his wings. He made no cry. I strangled him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk#Extinction
He is correct – there are no penguins in Iceland. It must have been the coal miners.
Personally, in Iowa, I put a banana in my ear to keep away the alligators. Works really well.
Here are a couple of encouraging approaches to help mankind do Moon and Mars colonies…
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-developing-a-magnetic-shield-to-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-radiation
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/we-might-have-figured-out-how-to-make-ourselves-resistant-to-space-radiation
Thanks for the link. Tardigrades are so impressive.
JF
Since any lunar colony is just a staging stop for a trip to Mars, and since Mars is a one-way ticket, I suppose the cosmic ray exposure will only perhaps shorten the colonists’ viability marginally. In the grand scheme, it matters little if they survive twenty years or two.
Until that certainly eventual solar CME blast sends a truly horrendous blast of high energy solar protons at them.
They get a blast of ~5-10 Grays of radiation in a few hours…. then it’s all over…. except for their last day or so of vomiting up blood in their pressurized space helmets and aspirating and choking on their own vomit, while gasping for air.. 100 million miles from Earth.
With nuclear powered rockets, Mars need not be a ‘one way trip’.
J Mac
March 5, 2018 at 9:27 pm
With nuclear powered rockets, Mars need not be a ‘one way trip’.
I like Polywell Fusion.
J Mac,
We can’t build nuclear powered anything here in the US anymore, unless it is a Top Secret nuclear submarine.
“With nuclear powered rockets, Mars need not be a ‘one way trip’.”
We need to get Clint Eastward to liberate one from the rooskies.
Why should a trip to Mars be a ‘one-way ticket’?
With Buzz Aldrin’s “Mars Cyclers”, Mars need not be a ‘one way trip.
https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/aldrin-mars-cycler/
Water ice one meter thick can be used to shield the habitat area from lethal radiation.
Michael,
An underground (sub-lunar) colony on the Moon? Really?
What would be the point then of such a massive expenditure of Earthly resources to establish such a thing?
The Moon’s crust is made of the same stuff as Earth’s crust. Why not just dig a mine here on Earth, stuff some naive people in it, seal it off except for radio comms, and just call it a lunar colony?
Because solar power collection on the moon is not subject to atmospheric losses or environmental concerns. Read Heinlein’s “The Moon is a harsh Mistress” for other ideas.
I am not saying the moon would be cost effective unless space elevator and or catapult launch systems were developed first.
Joel,
They have documented volcanic tubes on the Moon. Some of these tubes are huge. All one has to do is seal off the ends of the tube and you have an underground livable space requiring much less effort or materials than building structures on the surface. That’s the plan at least.
Unless you build your moon base at the poles the 14 day lunar night means you are not gathering solar energy for 14 days. Better to bring a small nuke plant to keep things running all 29.5 days of the lunar “month”
The main reason for establishing a base on the Moon is to mine the water ice that is there. The water ice can be used to make rocket fuel/oxidizer which will be used to develop the Earth-Moon-Mars system further. It’s a lot cheaper to supply this from the Moon than from the Earth.
An alternative for powering a Moonbase would be to use Solar Power Satellites (SPS) to collect the energy in orbit and beam it via microwaves to the Moon or to locations in the Earth/Moon system.
An SPS could also be used to accelerate small probes to great speeds and use the probes to make a relatively quick survey of many interesting objects in the solar system.
I think the 1 g gravity would give it away.
RS: We aren’t talking about the brightest of bulbs here.
As far as the volcanic tubes go… Yes, I’ve read about them. And how some folks have proposed using them as already made caves to build habitats in.
First, from a practical safety standpoint, how structurally sound are those lava tubes to vibrations that human construction and development would surely bring? Collapses, cave-ins? Safety would have to be the highest priority on any lunar mission, as there is no hope of timely rescues or an ability to bring in heavy equipment to dig people out as we do here on Earth after an Earthquake.
Even at 1/6 g, a thousand metric tonnes of rock is still gonna hurt bad when it falls on you. Remember, the moon has no tectonic activity to shake things up. Those lava tubes could be utterly fragile, with collapses waiting from even the slightest vibrations to bring ceiling debris crashing down. There has been the occasional meteor strike. But the period of heavy bombardment has long ago ceased, and it was that bombardment that help drive magmatic activity that created the lava plains on the surface and those tubes. Those all ended billions of years ago.
Finally, you have to have a justifiable reason to expend the vast amount of Earthly resources needed to even start such an endeavor. What would be the point? Yes, even assuming it could be done, the Why question has to be asked. It is not to return minerals to Earth, as everything in Lunar crust is also in our Terran crust. Operating a telescope or astronomical observatory complex, that can be robotics and AI remotely operated by humans safely in Earth’s cocoon.
Have you ever been in a lava tube? I ventured into a few in Iceland. (Dollan Lavacave)
My experience is that they are not stable. The discussion of ‘skylights’ on the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube) is due to cave-ins. Cave-ins seem to be the norm in Lava Tubes, I suspect that any industrial type development would require substantial structural enhancements.
Shackleton crater on the south pole of the moon has a peak on its rim we call the “Peak of Perpetual Sunshine” as the sun never sets on this peak. As the moon rotates through its day/night cycle (14 days on/14 off) this peak always sees the sun. It is a great spot for a solar base because there is no lunar atmosphere to cause obliquity issues.
” It is not to return minerals to Earth, as everything in Lunar crust is also in our Terran crust.”
There is a lot of Helium-3 on the Moon. The Chinese are thinking about mining it.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/197784-china-is-going-to-mine-the-moon-for-helium-3-fusion-fuel
Another problem with operating on the Moon is the Moon dust. It gets into everything and clings to everything.
Joel,
As mentioned by David Paul, Heinlein conceived of a penal colony on the moon. Australia was such but is no longer, so there is no way to keep the trouble makers in Australia anymore. The are constantly leaving and infesting the rest of the world, or just promulgating/colluding in stupid governance with the UN … a lunar penal colony could serve as a solution to the infestation by shipping the obnoxious portion (primarily the governing class) of the Australian citizenry to the moon.
From a cost/benefit analysis it definitely pencils out. And it would not have to be limited to only to Australians….
TA: “There is a lot of Helium-3 on the Moon.”
…
a lot??? concentrations between 1.4 and 15 ppb in sunlit areas…….. PPB ! The “trace gas” CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is measured in ppm, but this He3 is PPB.
…
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/2175.pdf
.
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.cl/2010/12/change-1-maps-moons-helium-3-inventory.html
1) That’s a lot more than is on the Earth
2) You don’t need to collect a lot of it.
3) Over the entire surface of the moon, even parts per billion add up.
What is the point of anything in life? There are a great many people, including people with great wealth, who think that settling the moon, and later elsewhere, eg. Mars, should be part of the great human adventure. Since time immemorial, adventurers have chosen ventures that produce not wealth but greatness of experience. Perhaps having an Alexis in your home, or a turbo on your Porsche is what turns you on. For many, even a day on the surface of the Moon would be a day of greatness. As human wealth rises in general, the cost of space flight and colonies on Moon, Mars, etc will fall, relatively.
And there is the Stephen Hawking argument that the only protection of our species from a planet-killer asteroid is having a bolt hole elsewhere, the moon being most convenient.
About 18 to 24 inches of regolith heaped on top of structures will suffice, such as in sand bags. 2 ft of sand bags doesn’t weigh much on the moon. Tunneling will work well too.
The down side to metallic structures is that they tend to absorb the radiation and remain “hot”.
Solar radiation on moon is a bigger issue.
Don’t these cosmic rays trigger water droplets to form? Increasing cosmic rays -> more clouds -> cooling earth, yes?
No. see the latest CLOUD results.
no clouds.
Steven , your reply is so dogmatic that it must surely have a heavy weight of evidence behind it , which we would all appreciate , if only your reply was not also so enigmatic, providing no references (a hanging offence when I was a student).
By CLOUD do you mean the ISCCP ?
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
If so , the role of clouds is put , I think, quite well in this part of the introduction:
-“The net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5°C (9°F). One can calculate that a higher surface temperature would result from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the consequent slowing of heat radiation from the surface, provided nothing else changes. But what happens to the radiation balance if, as part of the climatic response, the clouds themselves change?
If the radiative cooling effect of clouds increases more than the heating effect does, the clouds would reduce the magnitude of the eventual warming. The same result could come about if both effects decrease, but the cooling decreases less than the heating does. On the other hand, if the cooling increases less (or decreases more) than the heating, the cloud changes would boost the magnitude of eventual warming. It is also possible for the two effects to go in opposite directions, which would give rise to outcomes similar to the ones already mentioned, but much stronger. In any event, what matters is the difference between the cooling and the heating effects of clouds. For a more detailed and technical discussion, see
Rossow, W.B., and A.A. Lacis, 1990: Global, seasonal cloud variations from satellite radiance measurements. Part II: Cloud properties and radiative effects. J. Climate, 3, 1204-1253.
Rossow, W.B., and Y.-C. Zhang, 1995: Calculation of surface and top of atmosp here radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP datasets, 2. Validation and first results. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 1167-1197.
and the references therein.”-
Admittedly those refs are old , so what new data are you referring to? There is a lot of information on that website , could you help steer our ways through it by pointing out the data that confirms your assertion?
Might be possible to protect astronauts with an artificial magnetic field – some research suggests a very compact magnet would make a lot of difference.
https://physicsworld.com/a/magnetic-shield-could-protect-spacecraft/
If we ever get high temperature super conductors, coating the craft with a layer of that would work as well.
Why high-temp super conductor? You could just use a low-temp super conductor and space-gap (as opposed to air gap) insulate it, from sunlight and internal heat.
Most current super conductors have operating temperatures just a few degrees above absolute zero.
That would require active cooling.
Magnetic fields protect against charged particles. Now what do you do about neutral particles, all the way from stray neutrons to heavy atoms/molecules?
There are not many [any?] of them and they don’t get accelerated to near light-speed.
10-20 g/cm^2 of Al. This is exactly what you don’t want. The high energy cosmic rays hit the Al and scatter into much more absorptive rays (same number of rads, much more rems). For high energy shield you either want a lot or none.
That and the essence of this study is things are much worse now because of a trivial amount of radiation might (as in really don’t know put it’s kind of possible) may cause cancer decades in the future. While the real risk of solar flares is significantly lower. Real being in the sense that if that radiation hits you, you’ll definitely be sick or dead in 30 days, no doubt about it.
Chicken little syndrome all they way.
Yes.
Cosmic rays produce damage by depositing energy as they pass through. An energetic cosmic ray will go through the human body and only deposit a minor portion of its energy. If a moderate amount of shielding is used, say a thickened metal skin, the cosmic ray will splinter and produce many different particles of lower energy. Those particles will deposit a much higher fraction of their total energy in the body, causing more damage.
An average cosmic ray proton can produce energetic particles a meter deep in rock (observed in returned lunar samples). So to really stop their effect would require considerable shielding — say an underground base on the Moon or Mars.
So … according to this data, and the cosmic-ray/climate connection theory of Svensmark, the world should have been cooling since the 1950s … riiiight …
w.
Well, the 40’s were hotter than the 50’s. And in fig. 3 I see a low in the 70’s (ice age scare) and a new low forming now (new mini ice age coming). Svensmark’s theory is still my favorite compared to ANYTHING else coming from climate science. Also like the related theory of Shaviv, of climate effects of passage through the galaxy’s spiral arms. A cosmic climate we have. No doubt in my mind.
My bet is that Svensmark will receive a Nobel Prize in climate science within ten years.
AndyE March 5, 2018 at 5:17 pm
I’m totally up for that bet. A thousand bucks. Even odds. Anthony can hold the stakes. Ten years from today.
You in, or is this just your mouth writing a check that you are unwilling to stand behind?
w.
It should be noted that the above post has zero to do with Earthly climate and/or Svensmarks hypothesis on cloud-albedo feedback effects.
It is simply about Space Weather and the enhanced hazardous environment for humans created during solar minimums.
So let’s stop the hyperventilating about a hypothesis that is likely wrong and not even the subject at hand.
Willis E……… – I’ve got the money – but, alas, I haven’t got the time!!
Yup.
Willis maybe you can answer my question. If the barometric pressure,humidity, location and time of year are exactly the same and there is a cloudless sky should the temperature also be very similar except of course for the level of solar iradiance which could be easy to calculate? Finally if this is the case shouldn’t a higher level of c02 also have a warming impact where these conditions are the same? Am I missing something with this question?
If that theory ignores reduced aerosols and dust and other pollution as input parameters, then yes … right.
Does that theory ignore all other potential parameters/inputs and treat GCRs as the sole contributor to CCN?
Willis
While I appreciate your hint, I don’t read anywhere how GCRs and ‘controlling the climate’ exclusively. That they have an influence on cloud formation is, I conclude, indisputable as replicable experiments have demonstrated, falsifying the notion that they don’t.
If cloud cover does exert an influence on the climate and temperature, then so does the GCR flux, via the proposed and observed mechanism.
When it comes to ‘global temperature’ of the atmosphere (the metric of choice of the spreaders of alarm) their theory is all wet. Using temperature instead of enthalpy is like calculating inertia by considering speed, but not mass as well.
Your comment accidently buys into their error. How do we know whether or not the GCR flux cools or warms the system? No one is reporting the changes in enthalpy, only the changes in temperature. Only when Trenberth was up against the wall on temperature did he seek to know the enthalpy of the oceans. Necessity is a mother.
You have pointed out the spatial hopelessness of the effort to calculate the heat content of the oceans. I have commented on the inaccuracy and imprecision of their results.
We can’t make sound claims about the GCR link using only temperature as the metric for the energy content of the system. That is like reporting the inertia of a variable mass by looking only at its variations in velocity. There’s a piece missing.
If GCR’s trigger lighting and lightning triggers rain drop formation and rain reduces cloudiness, we have yet another level of complexity to incorporate into our Earth System model.
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Naryn March 5, 2018 at 4:55 pm
Exclusivity is not the issue. The issue is real-world effects.
While replicable experiments have shown that CRs COULD have a significant effect on cloud formation, to date I know of no studies showing that they DO have such a significant effect. In fact, I can’t find even an insignificant effect from CRs on clouds.
If they did affect the clouds, then as the data above shows, we should see a strong 11-year cycle in total cloud amount … but we don’t see that.
w.
See my post “Splicing Clouds” for one such analysis …
Willis
“If they did affect the clouds, then as the data above shows, we should see a strong 11-year cycle in total cloud amount … but we don’t see that.”
I do not see why the effect has to be ‘strong’. The effect could be ‘just enough’. I appreciate your effort – I read the article and all the cloud ones.
There is one aspect you didn’t check, which is whether the scatter in your cloudiness analysis together with GCRs gives a tighter line than the one you produced ‘alone’. Where there is a clear effect from clouds and sea surface temperature, there may be a clearer effect, a sharper effect, when a mechanism that is known to affect clouds, is included.
You might find, for example, that cloudiness decreased when GCRs increased, which would disprove the claim that the increase cloudiness created by sea surface temperatures. To have a statistically significant effect, GCR’s cannot be examined on their own, they have to be examined in conjunction with sea surface temperature because we know that the sea surface temperature strongly affects cloudiness. If you subtracted the sea surface effect, is there then some clear relationship that evaded your first investigation? Rather like removing a trend.
It seems to me that before anyone claims not to have detected something, the known contributions to the same effect have to be mathematically accommodated.
Cheers
Willis Eschenbach you stated: “While replicable experiments have shown that CRs COULD have a significant effect on cloud formation, to date I know of no studies showing that they DO have such a significant effect.”
Have you studied the impact of Forbush events on clouds? See:
Svensmark, J., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, H. The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 121, 8152–8181 (2016). Posted at:
http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/126609957/Svensmark_et_al_2016_Journal_of_Geophysical_Research_Space_Physics.pdf
This is summarized in:
Svensmark H, Enghoff MB, Shaviv NJ, Svensmark J. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. Nature communications. 2017 Dec 19;8(1):2199. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 They review citing ref 7 above:
“On rare occasions the Sun ejects solar plasma (coronal mass ejections) that may pass Earth, with the effect that the cosmic ray flux decreases suddenly and stays low for a week or two. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic rays flux, are called Forbush decreases, and can be used to test the link between cosmic ray ionization and clouds. A recent comprehensive study identified the strongest Forbush decreases, ranked them according to strength, and disussed some of the controversies that have surrounded this subject7. Atmospheric data consisted of three independent cloud satellite data sets and one data set for aerosols. A clear response to the five strongest Forbush decreases was seen in both aerosols and all low cloud data7. The global average response time from the change in ionization to the change in clouds was ~7 days7, consistent with the above growth rate of ~0.4 nm h−1. The five strongest Forbush decreases (with ionization changes comparable to those observed over a solar cycle) exhibited inferred aerosol changes and cloud micro-physics changes of the order ~2%7. The range of ion production in the atmosphere varies between 2 and 35 ions pairs s−1 cm−337 and from Fig. 1b it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during Forbush decreases7. “
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Naryn March 5, 2018 at 4:55 pm:
Enthalpy: Hell yes. I agree with what you just explained. Looking at only temperature tells you nothing conclusive. The arguments are strawen in nature. I get into these debates with people presenting data without appreciation of the complexity you’ve just described. Thank you for your post.
That’s bullshit. Solar cycle 20, which was relatively weak, coincided with the impending ice age scare of the seventies, The following three solar cycles were stronger and coincided with a warming climate and the
global warming hoax. This current cycle 24 is much weaker and lo! The Earth is presently cooling.
You only have to look at the historical record to see it staring you in the face. See the past. See the future.
The earth is “presently cooling”??? Citation, please.
w.
Wilis, some things have more than one cause. Perhaps the anthropogenic warming caused by farming — increased dissolved silica run-off, albedo change, Haber process nitrogen fixation which may/have/will alter the planktonic makeup of the oceans — has been offsetting the cooling effect of the cosmic rays. Or… Or… etc.
Now, about that ‘oil sheen suppresses aerosol production’ theory….
JF
Thanks, Julian. My assertion is that IF the cosmic ray flux affects the temperature or the clouds, we’d see an ~ 11-year modulation in the temperature or the clouds. We don’t find that, which to me means that if the flux has an effect it is too small to be measured.
w.
Willis: “which to me means that if the flux has an effect it is too small to be measured.” No it does not mean that. It means you cannot find a correlation. The heat is not temperature. And there are complex latencies and thermal capacitance.
Mario Lento March 7, 2018 at 11:36 pm
Data?
Evidence?
I’m sorry, Mario, but unlike you and most talking heads here on WUWT, I’ve actually done the analysis and reported on it in detail. If you find errors in my work, let me know, and if you want to claim I missed something, then it is up to you to DEMONSTRATE, not just claim but DEMONSTRATE, that what I missed is there and is significant.
Handwaving about “complex latencies and thermal capacitance” is MEANINGLESS on Planet Science …
w.
Willis wrote:
“Evidence?
I’m sorry, Mario, but unlike you and most talking heads here on WUWT, I’ve actually done the analysis and reported on it in detail. If you find errors in my work, let me know, and if you want to claim I missed something, then it is up to you to DEMONSTRATE, not just claim but DEMONSTRATE, that what I missed is there and is significant.
Handwaving about “complex latencies and thermal capacitance” is MEANINGLESS on Planet Science …”
Please stay nice Willis, the ad hominems are not needed here.
If you believe as you say, “latency, and thermal capacitance are meaningless on Planet Science”, then I understand how you come to your conclusions. However, that you choose to ignor these fundamental principles, there is nothing more that needs to be said.
Mario Lento March 8, 2018 at 9:22 am Edit
Thanks, Mario, but I did NOT say that latency and thermal capacitance are meaningless. I said HANDWAVING ABOUT THEM is meaningless. You merely mention them as if they were a shibboleth to quell objections …
Nor do I “ignore these fundamental principles” as you claim, I’ve blogged about them at length … unlike you. See, e.g., here and here.
w.
Willis ==>
Just wondering aloud but maybe it does explains the Pan Evaporation Paradox though!
i.e. “If climate is warming, a more energetic hydrologic cycle is expected implying an increase in evaporation. However, observations of pan evaporation across the U.S. and the globe show a decreasing trend in pan evaporation. – J.A. Ramirez, Colorado State University”
For 50 years(1950-2000) the trend was sharply down!*
So, more cloud formation but not caused by the usual suspects but rather; by extra nucleation!
*Before a slight recovery 2000-2010 but sharply down again since then(Back to the near lowest levels of 1993).
Re: “cloud formation” above. Cloud as in light reducing atmospheric haze, where it might not be noticed or expected. i.e. Induced atmospheric dimming in smog or fogs etc.
There have been studies (At least one I read here on WUWT) that sighted the “qualities” of the initial nucleation had an important impact on the light reflecting characteristics of clouds.
So it may not be the amount of cloud cover per-se but its particular reflectivity (And emissivity?).
Here is the latest
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD027475/full
The Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment was created to systematically test the link between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and climate, specifically, the connection of ions from GCR to aerosol nucleation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), the particles on which cloud droplets form. The CLOUD experiment subsequently unlocked many of the mysteries of nucleation and growth in our atmosphere, and it has improved our understanding of human influences on climate. Their most recent publication (Gordon et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026844) provides their first estimate of the GCR-CCN connection, and they show that CCN respond too weakly to changes in GCR to yield a significant influence on clouds and climate.
Of course none of this will change people who already believe that GCR cause more clouds.
They dont.
There is no evidence that they do, but
A) Most readers ( unlike you and me willis) will never actually look at cloud data and GCR data and temperture.
B) Most readers will skip or dismiss the publications that also show no effect.
C) Most readers dont want to give up the hope that it “something else” will explain the warming
Consequently most readers won’t listen to you, or leif, or (god forbid ) me. They wont check for themselves. They wont read for themselves, they wont listen to voices they trust ( like you or leif), they will just stubbornlly and unskeptically cling to the belief that ‘it might be GCRs’. Anything BUT GHGs..
Closed minds are curious things
I don’t care what the so-called evidence says, I believe more and more cosmic rays are about to plunge us deeper into cooling which is much, much worse than warming. Look at Mars for example.
Mosh, you had me…they had me, until this line:
“..and it has improved our understanding of human influences on climate.”
How to destroy all allusions to impartiality in two words!
I’ll read it though, as I am diligent, if a little belligerent 😉
The link of cosmic rays to climate or even weather is hard to establish with so many other factors at play. But experiments by Svensmark and CERN showed that ions induces clustering of water vapor, biogenic, H2SO4 molecules. The first step to CCN production. Other things affect CCN but without the first step there won’t be any CCN and without CCN, no clouds. Ions and free electrons are produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere.
I started reading and the first paragraph begins:
“The team made two computer simulations…”
And that is the beginning of the end for me!*
*So, they took CERN’s simulation and then simulated “atmospherics”, to come to a definitive conclusion; OMG. I’m completely convinced…NOT! 😉
Mosh, you have left out one very important consideration when it comes to CCN and GCRs which is where they have an effect because that affects how long it takes to work through the system.
Prof Lu from Waterloo has created the hypothesis, conducted the experiments to show it is correct, and shown from satellite measurements over Antarctica that there is a strong enough effect by all GCRs on ozone formation and destruction (which modulates heat loss from the Southern region) to, in his words, “explain all the global temperature changes in the past 50 years”.
This is a very different story from those coming from you and Willis. CO2 explains just about nothing useful concerning global temperatures. Clouds in the tropics explains a lot about the moderation and maintenance of the stable tropical temperature profile. Prof Lu’s proposed mechanism not only exists, it ‘works’. I hope you have time to read Prof Lu’s entertaining take-down of Eli Rabbet on the latter’s blog when he decided to attack Lu’s claims for satellite confirmation of his proposed mechanism. Perhaps Schmidt assigned him to tackle Lu to see what he was made of.
The GCR flux is inhomogeneously distributed so why should we expect to find effects outside its region of influence which might be swamped by, for example, oceanic flywheels. Having a weak influence in real time does not mean no influence, or no influence in the long run. A simplistic proposal cannot be used to refute (or confirm) a complex system.
I do not have a dog in this fight, I am just watching. The denial that solar variation could have an influence was addressed when the important influence of UV was discovered. With GCRs it looks like deja vu all over again. Svensmark makes a couple of good points, and so does Lu with his (largely natural) CFC, chlorine and bromine argument in favour of a significant role for GCRs.
Steven Mosher – March 6, 2018 3:03 am:
“Most readers…”
Just curious. How on earth do you know about “most readers” to make such categorical statements about them?
Most readers just keep their mouth shut. Maybe because they are in the process of trying to find out things for themselves, who knows…
You pretend to know something you cannot. That is not a healthy mental habit. It is also a very bad and impolite way of arguing towards others.
I guess you would appreciate it when “most readers” do take your words seriously. Well, one of them just did.
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Naryn March 6, 2018 at 5:07 am
Why is it so hard for people to CITE AND LINK TO THEIR EVIDENCE! I’m not going fishing for anyone. If you wish for me to comment on a piece of research CITE THE DAMN THING!
Sheesh …
w.
zazove March 6, 2018 at 3:44 am
And here is the problem with science education in our schools, displayed in full living color …
w.
That diatribe was well written. Nothing, will change your mind. However, when you read something that confirms your bias, that is what you choose to believe. If only you would consider taking your own advice.
Willis Eschenbach March 6, 2018 at 7:55 am: You posted:
“zazove March 6, 2018 at 3:44 am
I don’t care what the so-called evidence says, I believe more and more cosmic rays are about to plunge us deeper into cooling which is much, much worse than warming. Look at Mars for example.
And here is the problem with science education in our schools, displayed in full living color … w.”
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Mario
Didn’t Svensmark warn us this would happen? Or is it nothing to do with solar physics and is it all our fault?
But the predictions were based on a “leading model” of solar activity. So, the question is: is the unexpected increase in dose rates due to a change in the effectiveness of solar wind shielding, or is it merely a glitch (underpredicting) by the model?
But it was already well-known that solar cycle 24 was steadily weakening since 2015, which would cause a predictable reduction in the effectiveness of solar wind shielding. Again the question is: is the quoted “13% increase” greater than expected? Or merely the result of a well-known phenomenon?
The tone of the article suggests the authors may be engaging in “alarmist” fear-mongering.
They forget [or omit…] that at every other sunspot minimum [e.g. between cycles 22 and 23, and between cycles 24 and 25] the cosmic ray intensity is lower than during the previous minimum [e.g. between 23 and 24]. What is more important is that the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening [causing GCRs that arrive at the surface to increase], but this is not a problem for long-distance spaceflight.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is sitting on a ton of radiation data from the many Mars orbiter and lander transits of the last 20 years. They put radiation monitors on those spacecraft to assess the danger to manned-spaceflight.
Going to Mars is likely a suicide mission. Even if (Big IF) the astronauts make it back to Earth alive, their bodies (stem-cell compartments in the heart and brain leading to early death, and/or hematologic malignancies) will be so radiation damaged they will be walking dead.
joelobryan March 5, 2018 at 8:51 pm Edit
Joel,
The trip to mars will take about seven months one way. The longest time spent in space was by Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space. That’s about thirty months, or about two round trips to Mars.
So how come Gennady isn’t dead?
Google is your friend …
w.
Oh please Willis,
Low Earth orbit (LEO) is within the Earth’s magneto-sheath.
Soyuz, Space Station and ISS are all LEO.
Beyond 600 miles is the Van Allen Radiation Belts to about 1200 miles, then beyond that is …. well a long long way to Mars. And there it is GCR’s and solar protons which are a genuine hazard that Gennady never faced.
The Apollo astronauts reported seeing light flashes when their eyes were closed when they were on their lunar cruse phase, that is beyond LEO. And the early 70’s Apollo’s were during a strong solar magnetic maximum. What were those light flashes? They were GCR or solar protons energietic cascades of charged particles ripping through their retinas…. and every chromosome and cell in their body,
They were in a place that no Earthly life form had ever been, and had never evolved to adapt to.
And then there’s Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert… well here’s Wikipedia…
The Apollo 13 astronauts were subjected to higher radiation levels because they had to spend 4 days in the thin-skinned (un-shielded) Lunar lander module, after the command module had an oxygen tank rupture. And that was during a solar max.
Beyond LEO, man-space flight needs significant radiation shielding. And light weight shielding is an oxymoron. It takes mass. Lots of mass (or lots of magnetic field strength) to shield from relativistic protons.
We are blessed on this blue ball with a magnetic shield and a thick atmosphere and gigantic water reservoir.
joelobryan March 5, 2018 at 10:45 pm:
“What were those light flashes? They were GCR or solar protons energietic cascades of charged particles ripping through their retinas….”
My graduate advisor did some of the early research on this.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Ionizing_radiation_neural_function_and_b.html?id=GdtqAAAAMAAJ
Retinal cells are nerve tissue, which repair slowly if at all. So all those high energy particles will leave skid marks on retinas. Over a long space voyage, retinas will gradually collect more skid marks than a bad intersection. NASA inquired about this situation. My graduate advisor said, “You can send your astronauts to the stars, but they will come back blind.” No NASA research grants for him.
The post states:
Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are a mixture of high-energy photons and sub-atomic particles
No, they are protons and other atomic particles [e.g. helium].
I always thought protons were sub-atomic particles. Electrons, neutrons, protons, and all those other little even tinier bits.
read it carefully: protons not photons…
High-energy photons? I’ll believe it when I can stick a fork in one.
I always thought protons were sub-atomic particles.
A proton is an ionized hydrogen atom.
Helium nuclei, not helium atoms. Two protons plus some neutrons depending on whichnhelium isotope, 3 or the dreaded 4 (Mouse that Roared quattrium joke there).
jeez, that was understood. Who would have thought anyone needed to nit-pick on that?
lawyers nit pic. Ruds a lawyer
A person with very low self esteem, trying to “prove” themselves intelligent would nit pick such mundane details.
Those who nit-pick over procedures are usually seeking leadership (positions). Offering nit-picking corrections of mistaken published content is helpful consultation. The article contains mistakes. So do some comments.
There may be readers who did not know what GCR’s are. Let the corrections come. A shared understanding is more important than who contributed to which portion of it.
It seems eminently possible to me that rivstan was simply explaining/elaborating . . but hey, don’t let that potential interfere with your high self esteem ; )
Classic Movie that was…”The Mouse that Roared”.
High energy photons, such as gamma rays perhaps?
No, no rays of any kind.
Correct
No, cosmic rays are not rays, but particles
Let’s get this straight. A proton is a sub-atomic particle, no? Makes up nuclei, along with neutrons, with electrons orbiting. So protons, neutrons, and electrons are sub-atomic particles. I know that photons are not protons. I thought that Lief was differentiating protons from sub-atomic particles, and just wanted to be clear.
I’ve found references to gamma rays as photons and particles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Leif,
“No rays at all”. After cosmic ray collision with atmospheric matter secondary xrays and sometimes gamma rays do result. A nit pick for you.
Regards,
JimG1
Those do not penetrate deeper into the atmosphere, and are not Cosmic Rays.
A result of cosmic rays though.
many things are results of cosmic rays, but are not relevant for the discussion.
Invest in California tin foil futures!
So do the hats work? Or do we need lead in them?
“But even on Earth the increase is being felt. Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus have been launching space weather balloons to the stratosphere almost weekly since 2015. Sensors onboard those balloons show a 13% increase in radiation (X-rays and gamma-rays) penetrating our planet’s atmosphere”
So is there a 13 percent increase in Earth’s cloud cover as a result?
Nope. As pointed out elsewhere, there are natural/biological cloud nucleators that far outweigh any GCR contribution. Svem
Svensmark’s nucleating mechanism is experimentally correct, but his atmospheric proportions are not.
Wouldn’t any increase have an impact? Why does it have to be the only influence to have any affect?
The one issue left for me is where and when the cloud is formed or generated.
Incoming and outgoing radiation per Km2 varies massively from equator to pole and from day to night obviously so is the resolution of the cloud measurement good enough to catch all this.
We all know the chilling impact of a black cloud when sitting outside in the sun in Autumn if the actual cloud cover were altered even just in time the result could be significant.
My issue with all this is that we have a poor understanding of the LIA and its drivers yet I think a most of the world has little interest in returning to it.
“Is there a 13% increase…”
If there was, it would be proof there is only one mechanism for cloud formation. There are many, so what we should look for are changes larger than the natural and or anthropogenic noise. Not finding it doesn’t prove it isn’t there, just that the signal is ‘in the mud’ as we HAMS say.
Does the Earth’s weakening magnetic field have any part in this?
This might well be a serious thing worth investigating, but one’s faith in Science has been so weakened over the last 30 years owing to Global Warming fraud, Ozone Hole, Sea Rise etc. that one tends to let it slip back into the cellar of the MInd.
The Earth’s magnetic field has been gradually getting weaker over the last century or so.
Definitely need to refresh the page before I start posting.
Way to go NASA! You’re catching on. Well done! And yes, we are headed for a Dalton minimum.
There also seems to be a correlation between grand solar minimums and increased volcanic and seismic
activity. And any major eruption will exacerbate global cooling.
What cooling?
Well, the solution is easy. Just launch a bunch of Neodymium magnet into orbit.
Not sure in the post what Anthony wrote and what was from NASA. But it does point in the same direction as the Svensmark theory, which does have detractors here. For those who don’t know the status of the theory, here is a link:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/the-cosmoclimatology-theory/
i’m going to wear my tin foil hat from now on.
By “tin” foil, do you mean Aluminum or some other thing. ’cause I have Al foil, very thin, and could make a hat of a single layer or many. I’ve got no Tin. If it must be Tin, now is the time to buy futures or stocks.
At one time, the foil used in most kitchens was tin. Somewhere along the line, aluminum became cheaper, but the original name stuck.
Look, I’m not going along with this until Nick Stokes produces average cosmic ray anamalies around the cosmic ray average 1980-2010 and shows its all down to CO2.
Jim…
be careful what you wish for…
Speaking of clouds, these look very likely to head into the coast line of Northern California and Oregon. This system has a higher water content than earlier storms. Given its configuration it may have the potential for strong flooding in areas, imo. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-135.39,37.69,936/loc=-135.540,37.566
Here is a view from 500hPa. The cold spot caught my attention. All alone sitting out in the Pacific, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-127.34,51.28,671/loc=-141.716,37.037
It’s -24 C at both Alert and Resolute.. Kinda cold for early March.
I think that the cold is going to linger on into the spring, from the picture I am seeing. A temp site in the mountains of Hawaii was recording record low temps for several weeks. The cold is in many locations. More than that though is the change in surface wind flows at key spots around the globe, This is one of the key spots, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-99.29,-22.07,672/loc=-76.669,-31.006
goldminor,
I think you are watching the Ides of March. A little soon to be sure.
Here is another interestiing development taking place in the mid Atlantic. There is a back flow of surface winds carrying very good water content into North Africa. This entire surface wind pattern in the Atlantic is a major change happeneing in front of our eyes. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-11.13,39.62,672/loc=-8.534,31.285
This pattern means that Europe will remain cold, and surface winds will bring flowers and full water wells for North Africa. How long will this hold is the question.
This pattern has also cut off moisture flows heading into Central America. Note how dry the air is south of Cuba and to the west. This should also mean less moisture heading north into the center of the US off of the Gulf of Mexico. There are other consequences of this shift in surface wind patterns.
It’s the usual ‘worse than we previously thought’.
Nit Pickers …How about wave particle duality??
These are all phenomena we knew NOTHING about before. No doubt many major climate changes happened while we were unaware of them. The climate activists take this to mean that there was NO change at all until humans started putting CO2 out – upon which all these phenomena started happening….
just a wee question:
Are the ‘radiation levels’ mentioned, based on the Linear No Threshold ratings, or the Hormesis approach to ‘safe’ levels???
This would have seemed to be better news back when comic book writers posited that cosmic rays could turn you into a superhero.
Replying to myself as Willis’s comment is too far down the tree…
Genuine question: is a cloud signal big enough to alter the climate big enough to show in the data? I can imagine it would be pretty damped in terms of temperature, but cloud amounts should respond quicker. However, the change you are looking for is a couple of percent in albedo, IIRC, and do we have data that chops that finely? Satellites possibly?
Then there’s the fact that different cloud layers affect temperature differently. The ones that do the heavy lifting are in the two to three thousand feet boundary layer above the oceans, low level stratus and stratocumulus. Maybe the amount of cloud at different levels responds differently to different stimuli. Can we detect changes in three-dimensional cloud structure? I’m well out of date, but I recall the met officer (USian) at Goose Bay reporting something like ‘three tenths at two thousand feet, eight tenths at ten thousand feet,no precipitation’ while outside the snow drifted silently down and the base was wel socked in. The RAF met man at home used to stick his head out of the window, glance around and report the sky in octas (oktas?), probably with only a little more accuracy.
The albedo change we are looking for is tiny, so much so that when there was a proposal to alter low level cloud albedo by seeding aerosols the engineers knew they would have to produce a much greater effect than necessary to convince the politicians (not many scientists among politicians in the UK) that it was working.
So would it show?
While I’m here… Oil sheen. Aerosols. Reduced boundary layer cloud. Is the data good enough to show a 2% of less effect?
JF
(I’m not a natural nagger, in spite of the training at home, but I’ll get the hang of it eventually….)
Julian, there is data on global dimming and brightening due to fluctuating cloud cover and aerosol concentrations. ETH Zurich leads research in this. Overview and links here:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/natures-sunscreen/
Observed changes in surface solar radiation
Ron, thank you, it’s fascinating stuff and I’ll have to think about it.
quote
The spatially-averaged NSWR over the whole Mediterranean Basin was found to increase in MERRA by +0.36 Wm⁻² per decade, with higher rates over the western Mediterranean (+0.82 Wm⁻² per decade), and especially during spring (March-April-May; +1.3 Wm⁻² per decade). However, statistically significant trends in NSWR either for all-sky or clean-sky conditions are observed only in May. The increasing trends in NSWR are mostly associated with decreasing ones in cloud optical depth (COD), especially for the low (<700 hPa) clouds.
unquote
I've flown over the Med and we go to Spain every year so I have seen how polluted the surface is. My contention is that oil pollution is suppressing wave formation and hence the production of salt aerosols — fewer and less dense low level stratocu. Surface albedo would also be lowered. It's amazing how little oil is needed to smooth the waves — I've seen a small bay in Ibiza smoothed by just the sun tan oil on the bathers. The drift of oil sheen would tend to concentrate it at the Western end, but that's just me predicting after the event.
I have suggested that closed bodies of water exposed to city run-off etc will show anomalously high warming.
https://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_oil_pollution.html
When your use of this info takes you eventually to the presentation in Oslo, will you invite me along? We won't invite Willis, he's had his chance.
JF
Cosmic Climate Change. As it has always done.
Jasper Kirby of CERN
To prove or disprove the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation, put your cloud chamber in a deep mine that cosmic rays cannot penetrate. Without ions and charged particles in your chamber, try to make clouds. I predict you will need lower than saturation temperature of water vapor to make clouds.
New study: Driving cars causes increased attacks from outer space!
Well, there was this young reporterette who asked if Global Warming was causing more asteroids and comets to hit the earth.
David L. Hagen March 6, 2018 at 10:50 am
Sorry, David, but that link doesn’t work for me despite repeated attempts … however, I did find the following:
This is in opposition to Svensmark in a couple of ways. Svensmark claims the effects take a full seven days to be seen … but this makes no sense, as the effect of the cosmic rays is immediate, as Harrison and Ambaum found.
They also cannot find any significant effect from larger or smaller Forbush events … not reassuring.
Next, I get very nervous when someone says something like this in the Svensmark abstract:
This reeks, REEKS of data sniffing, particularly given the extremely rare nature of large Forbush events.
Svensmark also says:
While I understand and use Monte Carlo tests, they are very, very tricky. You have to be able to generate pseudodata that corresponds to all of the statistical properties of real data, including the Hurst exponent, which is not always an easy task.
If you have a link to the study that actually works, I’d like to read it, but the abstract does NOT inspire confidence …
w.
PS—I also get very nervous when Dr. Nir Shaviv is an author of a paper, because he sees nothing wrong with claiming he’s found a solar-ocean connection in a paper without one scrap of solar data or measurements … see here for details.
PS—Finally got the link to work on the fifth try … go figure. More comments to follow.
w.
First comment: they do not adjust their statistical results for autocorrelation … I’m sorry, but that alone disqualifies the study.
Second comment: their SSMI data indeed shows a decrease in liquid water content … but in all of their graphs it starts dropping five to ten days BEFORE the Forbush Decrease. Time travel?
Third comment: the same is true for the ISCCP cloud data, it also starts dropping before the FD …
Fourth comment: the same is true for three of the four ISCCP cloud fraction datasets, it starts dropping before the FD …
Fifth comment: they’ve averaged the results from 3 to 13 days after the FD for their analysis … cherry picking, anyone? Why not 2-8 days, or any other choice?
Sixth comment: their PC analysis also starts dropping a few days before the FD. Are all of these involving time travel?
Sorry, amigo, but color me totally unimpressed with Svensmark’s FD analysis. Bad statistics plus time travel plus cherry picked time intervals doesn’t equal validation …
w.
Hmm, a progressive process, with monotonically dysfunctional results? Maybe, in a limited frame of reference. Maybe in the far-domain, but that is prophecy.
Must be from the ‘it came from outer space’ dept…
Bad and getting worse?
We’re doomed!
Cosmic Ray App (Google it) is written by me, runs on iPhones and iPads and detects cosmic rays! So now you can see them too. Take part in the cosmic ray observer project. http://cosmicrayapp.com
adrian smits March 6, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Unfortunately, there are a couple problems with the question.
First, your question assumes that there is absolutely no interaction between say temperature and clouds. However, in fact, there is a complex interrelationship between the two that cannot be simply teased apart.
Second, your question assumes cause and effect … there’s a Sufi story of interest here.
As the Mulla used to say, “Anyone looking for both cause and effect in the same story is a fool …”
Next, although it’s very easy to say things like “all other things being equal”, or the Latin equivalent “ceteris paribus”, in the real world all other things are NEVER equal.
Finally …
Sorry if this is less than satisfactory, but I fear that your question is simply not answerable in its current form.
w.
lsvalgaard March 5, 2018 at 3:51 pm
They forget [or omit…]
———————————-
As reported by, http://www.spaceweather.com/ today.
“”THE SUN IS BLANK: Sunspots are becoming scarce. So far in 2018, the sun has been blank–that is, without sunspots–for 33 days. That’s fully half of the time. Inspect the face of today’s sun:
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2018/08mar18/hmi200.gif
Could you find any dark cores? Answer: No. The last time the sun was blank more than 50% of the time was in 2009, near the end of the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now the sun is entering a new Solar Minimum, and it is shaping up to be even deeper than before.
Periods of spotlessness are a normal part of the 11-year solar cycle. However, the current Solar Minimum may be remarkable as the ambient solar wind and its magnetic field are weakening to low levels never before seen in the Space Age. The flagging pressure of the solar wind, in turn, is allowing more cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system. These rays are being detected not only by NASA spacecraft in the Earth-Moon system, but also by space weather balloons in Earth’s atmosphere. Scroll down to the news item “The Worsening Cosmic Ray Situation” to read more about this phenomenon.””
Seems they might be omitting a few things. Or, is something up with this.
My bold, for emphasis.
Mario Lento March 7, 2018 at 11:32 pm
Mario, I can’t tell you how many people I’ve seen make this claim about enthalpy … but I can tell you how many of them I’ve seen back it up with actual analysis.
None … including you.
I’ve done the analysis. What it showed was that overall, enthalpy moves in lockstep with temperature and there was no gain by including it in calculations.
Your move …
w.
Willis,
I do believe you have done an analysis of “entropy”. That is irrelavent to what I wrote about enthalpy, which is related to heat in a system. My claim is that “temperature is not heat.” Further, various measurements of earth’s temperature alone at the timescales measure do not tell you how much heat there is, where it went and where it is stored.
In summary Willis, my claim does not need proving, as it is a fundamentally understood principle.
My bad, Mario, writing too fast and wrote “entropy” in place of “enthalpy”. Fixed now, and my point remains.
w.
Thx Willis: Stalemate or Checkmate, depending on our perspective. My statement, which I think needs no proof is that heat is not temperature. Are you saying you have proven that by measuring temperature, you can account for all the heat?
Mario Lento March 8, 2018 at 9:41 am
No. I’m saying that in measurements of natural climate variations, in general, enthalpy moves in very close synchrony with temperature. As a result, using total enthalpy in place of temperature does little except for making the calculations much more complex.
This makes physical sense, of course, because in general evaporation, and thus latent heat, is some function of temperature. As a result, the enthalpy calculation reduces to some function in the form of f(T, g(T)) …
My suggestion to you is to do what I did—find a location with measurements of both temperature and humidity, calculate total enthalpy, and see how well it tracks the temperature. I found that they generally move in lockstep, although of course YMMV … I used the formulas here, although there are others.
Best regards,
w.
Thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding of what you meant earlier regarding “latency and thermal capacitance are meaningless”. You clearly did not mean that.
As a skeptic, I do think you do great work, and as a scientist, which I consider you to be in the way you act and do work, I respect your work. I am not a scientist, but work in process control of many areas of science and physical systems. I think there are too many subtle nuances including imperfect data, and assumptions (related to this Planet) of what the imperfect data tells us. My skeptical side and understanding of how processes work, forces me to feel the need to point out principles which I see as significant issues. To measure heat, we need to know things that are not captured in the data, so to me temperature being used to track heat is, in my opinion, “almost” futile.
temperature being used to track heat is, in my opinion, “almost” futile.
Heat is measured by the change in temperature, so using changing temperature to track heat is very sensible
Leif wrote: “temperature being used to track heat is, in my opinion, “almost” futile.
Heat is measured by the change in temperature, so using changing temperature to track heat is very sensible”
That is an incomplete strawman argument. Heat is not temperature as you know. Of course your statement alone is a general reasonable statement, but is sidetracks from my correct statement. We need to know other things to calculate heat. I submit, to hold those other things as constant and known, as you posited in prior posts, proves my point. They are neither constant or known in the timescales needed. This is circular reasoning.
“The quantification of heat via the temperature change of a body is called calorimetry, and is widely used in practice.”
Heat is not a property of a body but is indicated by the change of temperature, which then is a very good measure of heat. When you have a fever, how do you measure that? with a thermometer. That is the way it is done, and there are no subtle aspects about this.
Come on Leif: In your example, you need to take the temperature while your mouth is closed, to prevent the cooling causes by your open mouth cooling in response to the latent heat energy changing due to evaporation and heat transfer from cool air entering your mouth. That measurement is a controlled process. We can not do that with the atmosphere. In your example, you can tell the temperature of the exhaust in a combustion engine by measuring the the water temperature in the cooling system. No mechanic would agree that it is possible to know the exhaust temperature by measuring the water temperature.
For the atmosphere, the temperature is a good measure, because other variables change so little when averaged over 30 years. Now, your contention is that temperature is useless, so measure the enthalpy [or whatever] and use that as an indicator for global warming, if you can, and show a figure with the result. People that measure heat content [be careful: heat content (a bodily property) is not the same as heat (not a property)] use temperature to do that. Nothing wrong with that, perfectly fine.
By the way ‘heat transfer’ is meaningless, as heat IS the transfer. Perhaps you meant ‘energy transfer’, but heat and energy are not the same.
I am not suggesting we should measure something like enthalpy, I am saying because of the reality that temperature is not heat. Further that temperature measurements in discrete points of time (which is the topic of discussion) cannot be used to show a net increase or decrease in heat of the planet without knowing where the heat went.
Heat is a form or energy, and yes I meant heat changing forms of energy such that at a given temperature, the amount of energy in a system can vary wildly by up to 2 orders of magnitude.
Heat is a form of energy,
No, not at all. Heat is the transfer of energy. Even wikipedia knows that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Some cause of confusion may be that ‘heat’ in English is often [and perhaps wrongly] used for both heat-content [i.e. energy] and energy transfer [i.e. heat]. In most other languages that confusion does not arise as two different words are used: one for the heat content and another one for heating [the process of transferring energy]
I always learn something from brilliant minds, and so thank you!. I meant Heat as in the total energy of molecular motion in a substance, while temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a substance.
Heat as in the total energy of molecular motion in a substance,
It is hard to be precise. What is meant by ‘molecular motion’. If I drop a stone the molecules in it certainly moves [down to the ground], but that is not heat [until the stone hits the ground]. So you mean the random motion, but the molecules can also vibrate, and in the end all those motions make up the internal energy of the substance, which happens to be proportional to its absolute temperature [via Boltzmann’s constant]. So temperature is very useful: that is what we can actually measure.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstate_(statistical_mechanics)
Yes, and thank you Leif! The amount of energy in the stone is proportion to the average temperature of that stone and the heat capacity of the material. With air it’s more complex, since it depends on the state of the components. water droplets at a temperature hold a vastly different amount of energy than water in gaseous state at the same temperature. So knowing the temperature depends on what (including its state) and how much of that is being measured. Am I wrong here?
In other words, temperature alone does not tell you how much energy there is in what is measured.
Am I wrong here?
I think so, because the various gases are in thermal equilibrium because of collisions. There are not different temperatures for the Nitrogen, the Oxygen, the Argon, the Dihydrogenoxide, and the CarbonDioxide.
Makes sense, just water is the one hole in this. Water depends. And the subject here is that of changes in state of water. If there is a net change in water state due to GCR, then that might be measurable and might lead to some interesting science.
Water is a bit special, but it really doesn’t matter. The water in your pipes freezes at 32F regardless of the humidity of the air. The various properties of water in the end still determine its contribution to the air temperature, which is the macrostate property we are interesed in. Temperature is a simple, and useful, measure of all that.
But the make up of clouds is not known based on temperature. What is the state… little ice crystals or water vapor, or water droplets.
But where and when they form is very dependent of temperature and in turn influences the temperature. There is also a good correlation between temperature and clouds both ways [I think that Willis looked into that]. If you make any claims about this, you must be specific, not just wave you hands and think it is ‘interesting’ science. There is no correlation between cloudiness and GCRs. Lots of cliams, but nothing believable or compelling.
I recall reading years ago, Willis’ excellent following of clouds as regulating temperature into space. Reminded me, somewhat at the time, of the Iris Effect by Lindzen… but different.
If there is no delta cloud cover related to GCRs then OK. I thought that there was some work done to show effect on how and where clouds form as related to GCRs. Thank you for engaging with my hand waving, which is what I do.
Just FYI…
(Copying below (in parts to try to avoid the spam bin –grr), with a few edits, a comment I made in October, 2014, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/17/climate-dialogue-about-the-sun/#comment-1766295 )
I. Model Simulations re: Solar Radiation and UV Are Largely Inconclusive
Comment: {thus, anyone asserting that he or she knows that UV does NOT affect climate significantly is not in line with current science}
[Source: Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3945–3977, p. 1 (Abstract) (2013) –
emphasis mine
Link: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf CITED IN: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/solar-spectral-irradiance-uv-and-declining-solar-activity/%5D ]
(continued – 2)
II. UV Photochemistry – Atmospheric Chemistry – Climate Implications
A. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD009391/abstract;jsessionid=F260393BA633AC61CE096310650A8316.f04t03
Comment:
I could not locate the above paper where it was offered for free (only made a quick attempt to search online). TO DO: See if Gray (or other co-author) posted it on a personal research site such as Leif S. does on his. – Note: Apparently (as of paper’s date of 2008), NO one has evidence, i.e., data/experiments, that proves UV-ozone – climate mechanism. That is: at this point, there are ONLY MODELS, programmed with accurate but inadequate variables (too little known to establish cause-effect).
*************************************************
B. Source: Gray et al. 2010
Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes, U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G.A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, and W. White, 2010: Solar influence on climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_etal_1.pdf
1. Abstract – with my edits — (this paper IS available – I summarize it below, with emphases, the abstract)
(continued – 3)
2. Paper (via the above-linked .pdf) Summarized (with my comments)
Introduction
UV – Ozone
1) … UV … has a relatively large 11 year SC variation, as shown in Figure 3 (bottom). Variations of up to 6% are present near 200 nm where oxygen dissociation and ozone production occur and up to 4% in the region 240–320 nm where absorption by stratospheric ozone is prevalent. [Gray, et. al., at 4]
************************************
2) At stratospheric heights Figure 3 shows a variation of ∼6% at UV wavelengths over the SC. This region of the atmosphere has the potential to affect the troposphere immediately below it and hence the surface climate. … The direct effect of irradiance variations is amplified by an important feedback mechanism involving ozone production, which is an additional source of heating… [Haigh, 1994; see also Gray et al., 2009].’ [Id. at 5]
Comment: Questions: 1. What is the evidence that establishes: (1) the nature of; and (2) the significance to climate of the UV-ozone mechanism? 2. What EVIDENCE refutes the hypothesis that UV significantly affects climate?
****************************************
3) … we acknowledge the possibility that short‐term processes which occur repeatedly may lead to an integrated longer‐term effect. [Id. at 6]
Comment: Q’s: Any evidence of long-term effect? Any evidence DIS-proving long-term effect?
4) UV — Measurement
Work at present is aimed at improving our knowledge of the short UV wavelengths, which is required for accurate modeling of irradiance absorption in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere (see Figure 3). Improvements made to date suggest that UV irradiance during the Maunder Minimum was lower by as much as a factor of 2 … . However, this work is still in its infancy. The model estimates match observed spectra between 400 and 1300 nm very well but begin to fail below 220 nm… . [Id. at 9]
Comment: Thus, Mario, your measured “perhaps” and I believe there is likely to be – type language above is far more in line with the current state of the science than over-confident assertions that changes in UV almost certainly do NOT affect climate. We just don’t know. Your being curious and open is good and shows scientific integrity.
*******************************************
5) Ozone – Upper Stratosphere
Ozone is the main gas involved in radiative heating of the stratosphere. Solar‐induced
variations in ozone can therefore directly affect the radiative balance of the stratosphere with indirect effects on circulation. Solar‐induced ozone variations are possible through[:]
(1) … UV spectral solar irradiance, … modifies the ozone [Id. at 12] production rate through photolysis of molecular oxygen, primarily in the middle to upper stratosphere at low latitudes [Haigh, 1994][;]
(2) changes in the precipitation rate of energetic charged particles, which can indirectly modify ozone concentrations through changes in the abundance of trace species that catalytically destroy ozone, primarily at polar latitudes [e.g., Randall et al., 2007][; and
(3)]… transport‐induced changes in ozone … [from] indirect effects on circulation caused by the above two processes. … On the 11 year time scale, the mean irradiance near 200 nm has varied by ∼6%, over the past two solar cycles … [Id. at 13]
In the upper stratosphere where solar UV variations directly affect ozone production rates, a statistically significant response of 2% – 4% is evident. … The density‐weighted height integral of ozone at each latitude gives the “total column” ozone, and a clear decadal oscillation in phase with the 11 year solar cycle is evident in both satellite data … The ozone response in the lower stratosphere is believed to be the main cause of the total column ozone signal because of the high number densities at those levels. [Id.]
Comment: So far, only lower stratosphere shows evidence of significant ozone signal. Q: What evidence is there that this is ultimately propagated to Earth’s climate? And, again, what evidence is there that this is impossible or insignificant v. a v. climate?
***********************************************************
6) General Comment Re: Attributing Causation of Climate
… correlation coefficients, which suggest a link but are not sufficient to indicate any causal mechanism. In addition, there is substantial internal variability in the climate
system,… . [However s]ince the climate system may react in a nonlinear way the response function can be quite different from the forcing function… [Id. at 24]
(continued – 4)
7) Re: Models and UV – Ozone Mechanism (hypothesis)
(1) Atmospheric models that include a good representation of the stratosphere, including interactive ozone chemistry, are available, but they do not generally include a fully coupled ocean at present. The prime solar mechanism for influence in these models is therefore the change in stratospheric temperatures and winds due to changes in UV irradiance and ozone production, and the influence on the underlying troposphere and surface climate involves stratosphere‐ troposphere coupling processes. This mechanism is often referred to as the top‐down mechanism … .” [Id. at 24-25]
(2) … latent heat flux anomaly across the air‐sea interface of ∼0.5 W m−2, which was larger than the direct solar radiative forcing by a factor of ∼3 and also explained the correct phase of the response. This therefore represents a different kind of amplification of the 11 year solar cycle and is not associated with changes in trade wind strength or cloud cover since these did not have the correct magnitude or phase. This result implies a role for the top‐down influence of UV irradiance via the stratosphere. White et al. [2003] also noted [however] that time sequences of tropical tropospheric temperatures lead those in the lower stratosphere, which appears to argue against the top‐down influence. They suggest, however, that this should not be interpreted as a tropospheric signal forcing a stratospheric response because the stratospheric temperature response appears to be in radiative balance and hence is in phase with the 11 year solar cycle, while the troposphere responds to anomalous heating and advection which peaks during the period leading up to solar maximum and not at the maximum itself. This is a good example of the difficulties and dangers of interpreting observed signals from different parts of the atmosphere and especially in using their time response to try to infer cause and effect. [Id. at 26]
******************************************************************
8) Stratospheric — Tropospheric UV – Ozone Feedback Mechanism
… by imposing idealized ozone changes taken from simple 2‐D chemistry models … demonstrated that the SC signal extended down into the troposphere, primarily at subtropical latitudes… [Id. at 27] However, they did not reproduce other features, such as the observed poleward and downward propagation of the signal at polar latitudes [Matthes et al., 2003] or the secondary maximum in the equatorial lower stratosphere (20–30 km). There is general consensus that this latter feature results from transport processes [Ed. i.e., horizontal, such as tradewinds, I believe. J.M.] … . More recent improved models … simulat[e] an improved vertical structure of the annual mean ozone signal in the tropics, … However, it is still not clear to which factor (SSTs, time‐varying solar cycle, or inclusion of a QBO) the improvements can be ascribed. … despite these general improvements, there are many details that are not reproduced by models. Further studies, including fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere models with interactive chemistry, will be required to improve the simulated ozone signal and distinguish between
the various influences. [Id. at 27-28]
(continued – 5)
9) Stratosphere – Troposphere Coupling Mechanisms
… at equatorial latitudes Salby [HURRAH FOR SALBY — yes, he DESERVES a cheer! :)] and Callaghan [2005] identified an interaction between the stratospheric B‐D circulation and the tropospheric Hadley circulation … but again, this does not provide a chain of causality. [Id. at 29] There are many proposed mechanisms for a downward influence from the lower stratosphere into the troposphere … response in tropical vertical velocity was not uniformly distributed in longitude but was largest over the Indian and West Pacific oceans, … despite having imposed SSTs, suggesting that their tropospheric signal was a response to changes in the stratosphere and not to the bottom-up mechanism of TSI heating of the ocean surface … .
This would be consistent with the results of Salby and Callaghan [2005] (see Figure 25), whose analysis suggested that the stratosphere and troposphere are linked by a large‐scale transfer of mass across the tropopause resulting in a coupling of the B‐D circulation in the stratosphere and the tropical Hadley circulation in the troposphere.
[Id at 30]
Much work is still required to fully characterize the nature of these complicated interactions and hence to verify these mechanisms. …
Comment:
In a way… this is all just a BIG WASTE OF TIME – EXCEPT… it must be done to refute (even though they have not come even close to meeting the burden of proof which IS theirs) the AGWers. Unless humans are likely (LAUGH-OUT-LOUD) to produce even 10% of the net CO2 or aerosols or what-EVER hypothesis the Envirostalinists would seize upon to control the economies of the world, WHO CARES? We cannot do a THING to alter the course of the climate of the EARTH. Now, of course, to the extent that such research would help us plan aviation or aerospace or outer space ventures or would aid in planning shipping on the oceans or other practical applications, then, more power to all the hardworking, genuine, scientists. And no matter what, of course basic science is always good – but, when public (what is done with private funds is only the business of the owner of those funds) funding is involved, how about focusing on a few more important areas of study? E.g., nuclear power efficiencies or a cure for diabetes or cancer treatment…
10) UV –Ozone Mechanism v. ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation)
UV‐ozone feedback mechanism appears to cause enough heating near the tropical tropopause to significantly affect the tropical hydrologic cycle, with regional impacts on precipitation that are also broadly similar to those related to ENSO changes… . [Id. at 33]
Comment: It may be entirely ENSO which is the controlling forcing. Q: Is the relative strength of ENSO v. UV-solar precipitation forcing known?
*********************************************************************
End of Janice’s Summary of Gray, et. al. (and others above)
(from this October, 2014 comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/17/climate-dialogue-about-the-sun/#comment-1766295 )
I apparently was mistaken, Mr. Eschenbach. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I thought GCR’s and atmospheric chemistry (and some physics) were related topics vis a vis clouds and climate, etc..
I’m surprised to see you characterize my fairly well organized, orderly, summary of Gray, et al. as merely a “mish mash,” but, I take it that your key point is that my bringing Gray, et al. into the discussion here was unhelpful at best (and, apparently pretty irritating).
I apologize for the mistake.
Janice Moore March 8, 2018 at 5:56 pm
Janice, I have exactly zero idea what your point was in all of that. How about telling us in two or three sentences what you conclude from that total mish-mash of quotes and links and ???
Thanks,
w.
And (sigh) another mistake. My reply was mis-posted, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/05/nasa-cosmic-rays-hitting-earth-are-bad-and-getting-worse/comment-page-1/#comment-2760715
Janice Moore March 8, 2018 at 6:48 pm
Oh, please, get off your high horse. I said nothing of the sort.
One thing I’ve learned in writing for the web is that in general, the author is the WORST person for judging whether their writing is “well organized” or “orderly” … in this case, I’m sorry, but your comments were neither well organized nor orderly, and your main point(s), whatever they might have been, were buried so deeply I had and still have no idea what they were.
Really? I have the courtesy to ask you to summarize your ideas so we can all discuss them, and you think this is me saying you are unhelpful and irritating? Where did I say anything even remotely like that? If I were to think you were unhelpful and irritating, don’t worry, you’d know about it loud and clear—as you know I’m not a man to mince words … BUT I DIDN’T THINK THAT!
Cut the snark, it just makes you look vindictive and petty, and explain in simple terms what you are trying to get across. I’m interested … but the way you’re going, my interest is flagging fast …
w.