new paper in GRL confirms link between sun and clouds on global scale [Archive]

Wagmc

Aug6-09, 08:34 AM

@ sky

Oceans hold a lot of heat. It is expected that changes in cloud cover will take 7-15 years to manifest themselves as atmospheric temperature changes.

And even though we are currently in an unusually deep and prolonged minimum, keep in mind that overall solar activity is still at a grand maximum compared to the previous 1,000 years. The five strongest solar cycles ever recorded have occurred in the last ~50 years. It is no surprise that temperatures remain high.

The fact that cycles 22 and 23 were less active than 21 - and that global temperatures have stabilized or probably cooled - should give one pause when considering CO2 as the main driver of global temperatures. 24 will tell this tale, no?

@Xnn

The importance of this paper is that is provides evidence of a direct, observable and measureable link between solar magnetic activity and cloud cover. That solar magnetic activity varies in conjunction with other solar parameters (TSI) is well established. It is also clear that long-term variations in global cloud cover vary in time with these magnetic changes. What has been missing is a causal mechanism. This paper is an important step in tht direction.

You seem to hold to the belief that whatever the IPCC says is written in stone and not subject to debate? That this study disagrees with the IPCC conclusion is irrelevant. New information invalidates old information. Observations always trump models. Whatever the IPCC said has now been shown to be incorrect.

Some other interesting reading. Many of these were not considered by the IPCC There are dozens more:

Shaviv, N. J., ( 2005). "On Climate Response to Changes in the Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative Budget", JGR-Space, vol. 110, A08105.’

Scafetta, N., West, B.J. (2006). Phenomenological Solar Signature in 400 years of Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record”, GRL.

SOLANKI,S. K. and Fligge, M. 1998. Solar irradiance since 1874 revisited. Geophysical Research Letters, 25: 341-344.

SOLANKI, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J. 2005. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature 436: 174 (14 July 2005) doi: 10.1038/436174b

Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006. Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and earth's magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10-12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch). Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya 46: 123-134.

Lockwood, M., and R. Stamper, 1999: Long-term drift of the coronal source magnetic flux and the total solar irradiance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2461-2464.

Perry, C.A., Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.079

Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375.
Concludes: Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV? Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover, numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation.

CRGreathouse

Aug6-09, 09:38 AM

The five strongest solar cycles ever recorded have occurred in the last ~50 years. It is no surprise that temperatures remain high.

Give us some numbers to play with. How much heat do you attribute to a solar cycle -- say from the median to the most extreme of those five?

Skyhunter

Aug6-09, 08:36 PM

It is expected that changes in cloud cover will take 7-15 years to manifest themselves as atmospheric temperature changes.
Where is this 7-15 year lag in the Svensmark's other claims to the GCR climate connextion?

Give me 8 years of leeway and I could find a correllation to almost anything.

As for the paper itself... 5 events and 26 data points???

Here is a more complete paper (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/13265/2008/acpd-8-13265-2008.html) that finds no correlation.

Abstract. The response of clouds to sudden decreases in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (Forbush decrease events) has been investigated using cloud products from the space-borne MODIS instrument, which has been in operation since 2000. By focusing on pristine Southern Hemisphere ocean regions we examine areas which are particularly susceptible to changes in cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations, and where a cosmic ray signal should be easier to detect than elsewhere. While previous studies on the subject have mainly considered cloud cover, the high spatial and spectral resolution of MODIS allows for a more thorough study of microphysical parameters such as cloud droplet size, cloud water content and cloud optical depth, in addition to cloud cover. Averaging the results from the 13 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no systematic correlation was found between any of the four cloud parameters and galactic cosmic radiation, with a seemingly random distribution of positive and negative correlations. When only the three Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude are studied, the correlations fit the hypothesis better, with 8 out of 12 correlations having the expected sign. Splitting the area of study into several sub-regions, one sub-region in the Atlantic Ocean showed statistically significant correlations compatible with a cosmic ray-induced enhancement of CCN and cloud droplet number concentrations. However, the lack of correlation in any of the other 5 sub-regions suggests that this may be a statistical co-incidence. Introducing a time lag of a few days for clouds to respond to the cosmic ray signal did not change the overall results. Singling out low clouds of intermediate optical depth with large susceptibility did not lead to higher correlations. In conclusion, no response to variations in cosmic rays associated with Forbush decrease events was found in marine low clouds in remote regions using MODIS data.

Xnn

Aug6-09, 09:19 PM

It is also clear that long-term variations in global cloud cover vary in time with these magnetic changes.

WRONG AGAIN!

Cloud cover has been increasing because increased levels of GHGs allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture. This has been the long term trend over the last 50 years.

Solar activity is currently at a 50 year minimum. If anything, the lack of solar activity should lead to less cloud cover. However, we are observing just the opposite. These solar theories have been shown repeatedly to lack significance.

Regarding the IPCC, if you take the time to actually read the report, you'll find that there are many areas of climate science where the level of understanding is low.

Wagmac; what you are proposing doesn't make sense or even agree with observations.

Wagmc

Aug6-09, 10:37 PM

@Xnn: Solar activity is at a 50 year minimum, after a 1,000 year grand maximum. And you will note that temps are falling.

So you admit that cloud feedbacks from warming have been observed to be a net negative feedback. As opposed to positive feedbacks claimed by IPCC? But, I digress...

However, thank you for making my point. You have the solar influence exactly backward. A less active sun produces less magnetic protection, allowing more GCR to strike earth. More GCR means more clouds. Exactly what you say is occurring. Thus, the link is confirmed. Thank you.

In light of at least 35 studies in the last 5 years citing observation and measurement of a significant solar influence on climate, it is the CO2 driven warming theories that are demonstrating a lack of significance.

@Sky: Wigley (1988) found a 3-5 year lag. Hoyt & Schatten (2005) found the highest correlation with a 3 year lag. Scafetta & West (2003) put it at 6-12 years.

Again, Sky, you don't bother to even read the study. Svensmark references the flaws in Kristjnsson et al. directly. I won't even bother to address this further.

@ Greathouse:

Scafetta & West (2006) put the solar impact at least 50% of observed warming.

Pinker (2005) and Wild (2005) quantify changes in radiation reaching earth's surface as increasing by 2.7 W/m2 and 4.4 W/m2 respectively, compared with the IPCC's estimate of greenhouse forcing of 2.4 W/m2. This puts the change in solar radiation at at least 50% of warming.

Beer (2000) puts it at 40%. Still almost half.

Scafetta & West (2008) ups their estimate to 70% solar.

And ALL these studies rely only on measures of TSI. NONE of them address indirect (magnetic) effects as studied by Svensmark. This will only serve to increase the amount of warming attiributable to solar changes.

Skyhunter

Aug7-09, 12:13 PM

@Xnn: Solar activity is at a 50 year minimum, after a 1,000 year grand maximum. And you will note that temps are falling.

Please note that temps are not falling. The last decade is the warmest decade in the instumental record, and last month was the second warmest June on record, with SSTs being the warmest ever recorded for the month of June.

@Sky: Wigley (1988) found a 3-5 year lag. Hoyt & Schatten (2005) found the highest correlation with a 3 year lag. Scafetta & West (2003) put it at 6-12 years.

A 3 year lag, a 6-12 year lag or a 7-15 year lag. Such a huge disparity brings all the estimates into question. But since TSI peaked in 1960, none of them explain the 59+ years warming trend.

Again, Sky, you don't bother to even read the study. Svensmark references the flaws in Kristjnsson et al. directly. I won't even bother to address this further.

No need to cast aspersions against me. I did read the eight page study you linked. They mention Kristjnsson once on page three to acknowledge that Kristjnsson did not find a correlation. How you can interpret that as addressing flaws is beyond me.

The paper is very short on details or explanations. It appears that they looked for, and found a correlation to fit their argument with little to no explanation as to why these are the expected results. They do not go into detail as to why the filtering they used provides a robust analysis or why the lag between FD and CWC, or how these tiny aerosols become CCN. Since a clouds lifetime is measured in hours I fail to see how these FD events can be linked to CWC a week later, especially wihout considering the weather patterns during the 7 day interval.

It is an interesting paper, but very short on details. It is only a confirmation of the cloud GCR link to one who already has a bias in need of confirmation.

Pinker (2005) and Wild (2005) quantify changes in radiation reaching earth's surface as increasing by 2.7 W/m2 and 4.4 W/m2 respectively, compared with the IPCC's estimate of greenhouse forcing of 2.4 W/m2. This puts the change in solar radiation at at least 50% of warming.

Apples and oranges. Surface flux is more a function of aerosols and related more to atmospheric composition than solar flux. You are misapplying these papers to make claims the authors do not.

And ALL these studies rely only on measures of TSI. NONE of them address indirect (magnetic) effects as studied by Svensmark. This will only serve to increase the amount of warming attiributable to solar changes.

As I pointed out Pinker and Wild are not measuring TSI, they are measuring surface flux not radiative forcing, so we can right away discard those studies as supporting your premise.

The change in TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the Modern Maximum is ~.2%. So (340Wm2 x 0.02 = 0.68Wm2) It is impossible for such small fluctuations in the solar constant alone to account for the warming of the last 50 years.

Andre

Aug7-09, 01:38 PM

last month was the second warmest June on record, ...

That may not be the general impression (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GPEA_nlDE302DE304&q=global+temperature+june+2009)

Xnn

Aug7-09, 03:12 PM

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest on record in June, behind 2005, and tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period. The global ocean had the warmest June on record. The ranks found in the tables below are based on records that began in 1880.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

Oceans temperatures were at all time highs for the Month of June with 2005 as the second warmest.

Land temps were the 6th warmest; the warmest being June 2005.

Saul

Aug7-09, 11:32 PM

WRONG AGAIN!

Cloud cover has been increasing because increased levels of GHGs allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture. This has been the long term trend over the last 50 years.

Solar activity is currently at a 50 year minimum. If anything, the lack of solar activity should lead to less cloud cover. However, we are observing just the opposite. These solar theories have been shown repeatedly to lack significance.

Regarding the IPCC, if you take the time to actually read the report, you'll find that there are many areas of climate science where the level of understanding is low.

Wagmac; what you are proposing doesn't make sense or even agree with observations.

Cloud cover has been decreasing in the later part of the 20th century not increasing based on observations, not GHG models. This finding is supportive of Palle's papers on earthshine and satellite based planetary cloud cover analysis.

As the solar magnetic cycle appears to be interrupted (GCR is now increasing and I would assume as there are blue spots in the ocean surface temperature data, there is in response to increasing GCR, increasing cloud cover over the ocean which is ion poor.) we will be able to determine by observation how much of the 20th century warming was due to decreased cloud cover and how much was due to GHG.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html

Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000

All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

Skyhunter

Aug8-09, 12:44 PM

That may not be the general impression (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GPEA_nlDE302DE304&q=global+temperature+june+2009)

This is science not politics. Perception is not reality.

Andre

Aug8-09, 12:55 PM

look again (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&rlz=1W1GPEA_nl&q=global+temperatures+june+2009+0.00&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en)

Wagmc

Aug8-09, 01:29 PM

Skyhunter

Aug8-09, 04:01 PM

look again (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&rlz=1W1GPEA_nl&q=global+temperatures+june+2009+0.00&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en)

Look at what? A bunch of blogs?

No thanks. I will stick with NOAA, (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global) where real science is conducted.

Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.

Andre

Aug8-09, 04:45 PM

Cloud cover has been decreasing in the later part of the 20th century not increasing based on observations, not GHG models. This finding is supportive of Palle's papers on earthshine and satellite based planetary cloud cover analysis.

Here is one of those papers (http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_etal_EOS_2006.pdf).

http://i32.tinypic.com/fk9ser.jpg

here are figs. one and two respectively showing the global cloud cover and the correlation with the albedo fluctuation measured on the reflection of the dark side of the moon.

They note the trend reversal around 1998-1999 and hence wonder...

Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together?

as obviously the higher the albedo the more visible light is reflected and the lower the temperatures. They do some proposals however they fail to do the obvious and that is to compare the albedo trend with the actual global temperature trend (http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&rlz=1W1GPEA_nl&um=1&sa=1&q=rss+global+temperature&btnG=Afbeeldingen+zoeken&aq=f&oq=). That would have revealed that the temperature trend also changed in the same period and I bet we would find a very nice correlation between actual temperatures and actual measured albedo if it was allowed here to show some own work.

and temperatures corrolating with global albedo would again take some explaining away from other factors like greenhouse effect for instance.

Skyhunter

Aug8-09, 05:34 PM

GISS is the only measure that reports still increasing temperatures. It has been well established that their land measurements are contaminated by UHI. GISS is the outlier.

Reading any of the other three major temperature measures gives a completely different picture.

Where do you get your information from?

GISS ranks June number two. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)

Hadley ranks it number one. (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt)

And NOAA, my original source ranks it number two. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global)

And UHI contamination is not "well established", it is a specious argument propagated on denier blogs, completely unsupported by any credible source that is allowed on this forum.

You are free to publish a rebuttal.

Is this how you address arguments you cannot rebut? Are you afraid to address the disparity?

You are making a strawman argument. I provided a list of studies that present measures of changes in solar activity related to changes in global temperature. "What" a particular study is measuring is less relevant than the fact that continued observations indicate that yes, solar activity does change and, yes, it is a major driver of global temperatures.

I am doing no such thing. I simply pointed out that surface flux is not radiaive forcing and therefore does not support your premise.

Since prior to 1940 the ONLY source of changes in global temperature were these "small fluctuations," it would appear on first examination that your claim of "impossiblity" is incorrect.

Are you suggesting that volcanic eruptions, land use changes, continental drift, orbital oscillations and the thermal structure of the atmosphere have no effect?

I offered a simple equation that supports my argument that fluctuations in the solar constant alone can not account for large variations in radiative equillibrium.

There could be no other cause, therefore these small changes MUST influence temperature.

That is a bit narrow minded of you. I am sure that every scientist you quote would disagree with that statement.

Second, the studies previously referenced present evidence that contradicts you.

Your opinion. And your opinion unsupported by evidence or argument is just your opinion.

Third, you continue to ignore that UV varies as much as 6% and has recently implicated in ozone destruction (an exothermic process).

How can I ignore it if you don't present it in your argument?

Likewise, TSI does not measure indirect, magnetic effects, which was the subject of the OP. These indirect effects will be in addition to changes in TSI.

It was not the OP, but it was the subject of your latest premise. I addressed the OP and you ignored my rebuttal.

The continued increase in temps since the solar peak "50 years ago" is another strawman. You will note that the relatively weak cycle 20 was associated with "the cooling 70's." It was followed by three of the five strongest cycles ever recorded. That temperatures continued to rise is no surprise. If you turn the burner to high, and then turn it down to medium the pan will continue to warm if it had not reached equilibrium before you turned down the heat. physics 101.

I am ignoring nothing. I have addressed every point you made.

And your argument is internally contradictory. If the cooling during the 70's was a response to cycle 20... then by implication the climate reached equillibrium in the 70's. And since most researchers agree that the cooling in the 70's was a direct result of increased aerosols from human activity... well what can I say. You seem to ignore everything that contradicts your belief.

I guess this is why you need to have a climate response to solar forcing of 3 to however many years it takes to confirm your bias.

sylas

Aug8-09, 09:22 PM

Why do you have to lie?

I want to make this a public comment, as a kind of friendly fire.

This is a really contentious topic area, and there are going to be inevitably some strong comments made. It's also a very hard area for our mentors to work with. Let's make their job easier for them.

Direct personal attacks like this on a fellow contributor to the forums is going to be a problem. There are all kinds of reasons one might have the wrong idea -- and I agree with you completely that the comment on temperature tends was false, and easily seen to be false by looking at available temperature records.

But there is one heck of a lot of really atrocious information out there. And there is a difference between saying an individual is <pejorative descriptor> and saying an idea is <pejorative descriptor>. It's possible to repeat bad information without being a liar. This is common in this debate topic. I don't generally know precisely HOW people come to various ideas here, either good or bad. So let's just stick to what is wrong with the ideas themselves, as far as possible.

If you have a strong case that someone is actually lying, or disruptive, or whatever -- and this can happen -- then I suggest we report it and let the mentors manage it. Or else perhaps just ignore for the first couple of times.

Sorry to single you out -- I do it because I'm so obviously on "your side" on pretty much everything else, so you hopefully won't mind. I want to this go public as a comment from a non-mentor working through how to engage most constructively.

Cheers -- sylas

Skyhunter

Aug8-09, 10:32 PM

You are correct Sylas. I edited my post.

I do know however that wagmc has made this claim before and been shown that it is false, yet he continues make it without any supporting evidence. Just like the claim that the land record is invalid because of UHI effect.

Wagmc

Aug10-09, 08:22 AM

There are three global measures, not contaminated by UHI, that present an opposite conclusion. You stick with NOAA because it supports your beliefs. That's not science.

Skyhunter

Aug10-09, 02:46 PM

There are three global measures, not contaminated by UHI, that present an opposite conclusion. You stick with NOAA because it supports your beliefs. That's not science.

I am not excluding any surface temperature record. They all are statistically the same.

You are the one who wants to discard first order evidence (the instumental record) based on a specious argument drummed up on denier blogs.

Before you throw up UAH and RSS, remember this;

Tropospheric temperatures are not surface temperatures.
The OP paper in the last thread you started found a 7 month lag in surface to troposphere anomalies.

Wagmc

Aug11-09, 08:27 AM

NOAA:

August 10, 2009

The July 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

So that makes it like the...uh...12th warmest in 30 years?

My oh my what would temperatures be without un-adjusted UHI?

Meanwhile, Global SST anomalies dropped slightly in July to +0.28 deg C, so the oceans are cooling.

And this during northern hemisphere summer, when the planet generally warms due to most of the landmass located in the north. While the southern oceans shed heat during winter.

Skyhunter

Aug11-09, 03:34 PM

Wagmc

Aug12-09, 11:05 AM

sylas

Aug12-09, 09:55 PM

But the US is >20% of landmass at our latitude band.

And the US represents 50% of temperature sensors. And if our "best in the world" sensors are affected by UHI, imagine what the rest of the world is like.

I'll admit confirmation bias when you do... you continue to ignore alternate temperature measures that refute GISS. Even HadCrut is cooler, and it measures surface, not satellites.

Differences between HadCRUT and GISS are very small, and completely negligible over the USA. You would have to calculate that for yourself from the grid datasets, but it is entirely possible. You are simply wrong here.

In fact, the USA is a good test case for testing how Urban Heat Island effects are managed, because there are so many available stations. The impact of heat island effects is small, and compensations are explicit in both the GISS and the HadCRUT analysis. Most of the temperature sensors used for these datasets are not in significant heat islands; and it is also entirely possible to repeat the whole USA analysis using only rural stations. I've done it myself, as an exercise, and I think it has been done professionally as well, though I am away from home at present and have not taken the time to chase up the references. The result of this analysis is that you get pretty much exactly the same result when you use only rural stations over the continental USA.

There are differences between HadCRUT and GISS over the whole globe; the reason for this has nothing to do with heat islands; it is mainly to do with how the two datasets extrapolate to regions with low coverage, especially the Arctic.... where you don't have any heat island effect. Ironically, it turns out that the higher results from GISS that you mention are almost entirely because GISS is using more information from regions with NO heat island effect!

Both GISS and HadCRUT measure the surface, using surface temperature records.

Such differences that exist are small, and tend to cancel out over longer time periods of several decades.

You have given no reason to suggest Skyhunter is ignoring anything. He's the one who has cited more temperature records, and he's correct that they give similar results, within the published error bars.

Cheers -- sylas

Wagmc

Aug12-09, 11:21 PM

First, to completely ignore a set of data (satellite temperature records) that present a different conclusion than surface records is not how true science is done. The difference needs to be explained. Sky cites land based records. He simply ignores satellite records.

Differences between HADCrut and GISS over the globe are not insignificant, and are increasing.

One reason for the increasing difference between the surface and satellite temperature trends may be that one of them is incorrect. It is certainly the simplest answer.

There have been several published studies that indicate that UHI is real, is significant, is not properly being adjusted for, and is creating an artificial warming trend in the surface record.

A spurious warming introduced into the surface temperature trend from UHI that occurs in most of the places where land-surface air temperature measurements are made has been observed. There is a substantial scientific basis that refutes your claim that UHI is insignificant.

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) make a strong argument when they regress surface temps in 93 countries and find that GISS data are significantly correlated with economic growth activity (like building factories and airports, which all contribute to UHI)

Delaat (2004) and again in (2006) likewise found that high growth areas have greater warming than low growth areas.

Might also want to read up on Kalnay (2003) and Gallo (1999)

Andre

Aug13-09, 04:49 AM

Hadley ranks it number one. (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt)

Are you sure?

1996 0.067 0.244 0.125 0.095 0.176 0.161 0.178 0.176 0.092 0.087 0.080 0.175 0.138
1996 83 83 83 80 79 80 80 80 81 80 80 82
1997 0.157 0.244 0.260 0.198 0.255 0.365 0.373 0.404 0.455 0.482 0.448 0.527 0.347
1997 82 82 82 81 81 80 80 81 80 79 80 81
1998 0.484 0.732 0.519 0.602 0.567 0.576 0.650 0.612 0.399 0.406 0.343 0.426 0.526
1998 81 81 81 79 80 78 79 79 78 79 79 80
1999 0.363 0.534 0.286 0.318 0.246 0.266 0.281 0.251 0.274 0.239 0.223 0.341 0.302
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.212 0.361 0.332 0.445 0.267 0.249 0.260 0.337 0.310 0.210 0.159 0.183 0.277
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 78 78 79
2001 0.329 0.289 0.474 0.426 0.399 0.416 0.453 0.498 0.403 0.376 0.489 0.323 0.406
2001 79 80 80 78 77 78 78 80 78 78 79 80
2002 0.570 0.594 0.586 0.443 0.432 0.458 0.462 0.412 0.412 0.362 0.398 0.327 0.455
2002 79 81 81 79 79 77 78 79 78 79 81 80
2003 0.515 0.424 0.415 0.404 0.437 0.435 0.454 0.511 0.497 0.549 0.418 0.517 0.465
2003 80 80 80 79 78 79 79 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.496 0.560 0.500 0.484 0.322 0.350 0.381 0.420 0.443 0.467 0.520 0.382 0.444
2004 81 82 80 79 79 79 78 79 79 78 79 81
2005 0.452 0.360 0.489 0.532 0.474 0.506 0.531 0.498 0.494 0.501 0.489 0.369 0.475
2005 80 81 80 78 78 79 80 81 81 80 81 82
2006 0.298 0.431 0.384 0.364 0.349 0.447 0.446 0.478 0.421 0.473 0.435 0.529 0.421
2006 81 82 83 81 80 81 81 81 82 82 81 82
2007 0.622 0.509 0.437 0.467 0.372 0.373 0.392 0.362 0.401 0.361 0.263 0.230 0.399
2007 81 81 81 81 80 81 81 82 82 81 81 82
2008 0.050 0.199 0.478 0.285 0.282 0.312 0.405 0.403 0.370 0.446 0.398 0.335 0.330
2008 82 83 84 83 82 82 82 83 83 83 82 82
2009 0.371 0.361 0.364 0.391 0.392 0.494 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.395
2009 81 82 81 78 79 79 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wagmc

Aug13-09, 03:13 PM

another new paper in GJR today directly addresses UHI contamination of surface measures.

http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/jd/2009JD011841-pip.pdf

concludes:

We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature datasets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface datasets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower tropospheric datasets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures (e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006; 2008, Connolley, 2008). The differences between surface and satellite datasets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination due to various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Lin et al., 2007; Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009].

We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometer-estimated surface warming over land areas have been larger than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satellites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by the first possible explanation offered by Santer et al. [2005]. Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the datasets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radiosonde observations.

Skyhunter

Aug16-09, 06:19 PM

My mistake Andre.

I missed the 0.5##'s. Maybe I should not try and decipher charts on a laptop under daylight conditions.

My point is still valid however, since all three records are within small margins of one another.

Wagmc,

I have always admitted a confirmation bias. It is a natural human instinct to be biased, we naturally want our beliefs to be true. It is only through recognition of our own bias that we can expand our knowledge.

Tropospheric temperatures lag surface temperatures. You yourself have cited literature that suggests the lag is 7 monthes. I recall that earlier research suggested 3-5 monthes, but I don't remember where I read it. I'll try and find a reference. My point is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not necessarily indicative of surface temperatures. Primarily because the temperature of the troposphere by itself is not a first order measure of atmospheric energy content. The atmosphere expands as it warms, increasing the height of radiative equillibrium. In other words it is not the temperature itself, but the height at which thermal emission equals absorption. The surface temperature can be calculated by the lapse rate. The higher this equllibrium is achieved, the warmer the surface.

Xnn

Aug16-09, 08:47 PM

IPCC The Physical Science Basis

Chapter 3; Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

Page 275-277 Section 3.4.3 Clouds

As noted in the TAR and extended with more recent studies,
surface observations suggest increased total cloud cover since
the middle of the last century over many continental regions
including the USA (Sun, 2003; Groisman et al., 2004; Dai et
al., 2006), the former USSR (Sun and Groisman, 2000; Sun et
al., 2001), Western Europe, mid-latitude Canada, and Australia
(Henderson-Sellers, 1992). This increasing cloudiness since
1950 is consistent with an increase in precipitation and a
reduction in DTR (Dai et al., 2006). However, decreasing
cloudiness over this period has been reported over China
(Kaiser, 1998), Italy (Maugeri et al., 2001) and over central
Europe (Auer et al.,2007). If the analyses are restricted to after
about 1971, changes in continental cloud cover become less
coherent. For example, using a worldwide analysis of cloud
data (Hahn and Warren, 2003; Minnis et al., 2004) regional
reductions were found since the early 1970s over western Asia
and Europe but increases over the USA.

In summary, while there is some consistency between
ISCCP, ERBS, SAGE II and surface observations of a reduction
in high cloud cover during the 1990s relative to the 1980s, there
are substantial uncertainties in decadal trends in all data sets
and at present there is no clear consensus on changes in total
cloudiness over decadal time scales.

Xnn

Aug16-09, 08:58 PM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. The July ocean surface temperature departure from the long-term average equals June 2009 value, which was also a record.

June and July were both record high ocean temperatures!

Skyhunter

Aug17-09, 12:49 PM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

June and July were both record high ocean temperatures!

The lower and mid troposphere (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global#tropo) is also beginning to warm.

UAH ranks the lower troposphere second warmest, while RSS ranks it third.

Both rank the mid troposphere second warmest with the University of Washington's analysis to remove stratospheric influence.

With the developing El Nino, 2009 could very well set a new global record.

If El Niño conditions continue to mature, as now projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to exceed previous record highs.

Xnn

Aug17-09, 09:05 PM

Here is a listing of monthly ocean temperature anomalies from the NCDC.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Please Note: Anomalies are provided as departures from the 20th century average (1901-2000).

1997 1 0.2577
1997 2 0.3093
1997 3 0.3585
1997 4 0.3391
1997 5 0.4152
1997 6 0.4887
1997 7 0.4885
1997 8 0.5023
1997 9 0.5528
1997 10 0.5603
1997 11 0.5481
1997 12 0.5776
1998 1 0.5613
1998 2 0.5616
1998 3 0.5493
1998 4 0.5569
1998 5 0.5603
1998 6 0.5775
1998 7 0.5761
1998 8 0.5632
1998 9 0.4368
1998 10 0.3901
1998 11 0.4149
1998 12 0.3560

Now compare that to this year:

2009 1 0.3580
2009 2 0.3442
2009 3 0.3817
2009 4 0.4293
2009 5 0.4760
2009 6 0.5695
2009 7 0.5924

First, June 2009 wasn't exactly a record compared to 1998.
However, they just changed their methods, so maybe it was a record by the old methods, but isn't exactly a record any longer. Either way, it was the warmest month for the global ocean for several years.

Also, the 97/98 El Nino started about the same time of year in 1997.
It was unusually strong and got even warmer in 1998.
Of course, no way to know if this latest El Nino will be as long and strong or not.
If it is, then 2010 may well be a record year as well.

Xnn

Aug17-09, 09:23 PM

Notice: No UHI for the Ocean Temperatures!

dorlomin

Aug18-09, 08:07 AM

And even though we are currently in an unusually deep and prolonged minimum, keep in mind that overall solar activity is still at a grand maximum compared to the previous 1,000 yearsWe are also at the weakest values for solar insolation in the far nothern lattitudes for several thousand years. Orbital forcing suggests that we should be experiancing the furthest extents of the arctic ice pack and summer snow pack for millenia, this should be reflecting energy and giving us the lowest temperatures since before the holocene climate optimum.

The five strongest solar cycles ever recorded have occurred in the last ~50 years. It is no surprise that temperatures remain high.The strongest in terms of sunspots was in the late 50s. Yet the 60s and 70s seen a slight drop in temperatures.

dorlomin

Aug18-09, 08:13 AM

One more question how does this theory tie in with the drop in pan evaporation rates since the mid 20th centuary at least and its slight reversal since the 90s. Is this not the opposite of what should happen?

Wagmc

Aug18-09, 10:56 AM

dorlomin

Aug18-09, 03:21 PM

"weakest values for solar insolation" is not consistent with grand maximum of solar activity. If you are referring to orbital influences, it could be that increased solar activity is more than sufficient to offset the minor insolation change. And that when (not if) solar activity declines, we will be in for additional cooling, no? Can you provide references for insolation changes from orbital variation?

You can try here for the data
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/huybers2006b/huybers2006b.html

But graphs here
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/dorlomin/enviroment/Milankovitch_Variations.png

And here
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/dorlomin/enviroment/ins-5-2.png

Its anything but insignificant.

"Yet the 60s and 70s seen a slight drop in temperatures"

Yes, and you will note that cycle 20 was less active than cycle 19.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/dorlomin/enviroment/untitled.jpg

This is the HADCRUT 3 temperature data set.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/annual.png

The 40s were warmer than the 50s. The 50s had the strongest sun cycle of the century but you would not guess that from the temperature data.

Xnn

Aug18-09, 09:54 PM

Skyhunter

Sep30-09, 11:36 AM

Saul

Sep30-09, 09:13 PM

If the GCR/climate connection were as strong as posited by Svensmark, then we should be experiencing a dramatic drop in global temperatures as GCR is 19% higher than during the Modern Solar Maximum.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm

Skyhunter,

You do not understand the mechanisms by which solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover.

Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by a process that is called "electroscavenging". GCR is high currently however solar wind bursts are also three times higher than normal. The solar wind burst are removing the cloud forming ions. The solar wind bursts are also removing magnetic flux from the sun which will weaken the next cycle.

The solar wind bursts are now starting to abate, so we should and are seeing increased colder weather in both hemispheres.

See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper that explains how solar wind bursts increases in the global electric circuit hence removing cloud forming ions. Somewhat interesting solar wind burst increased by a factor of 2.5 in the later part of the 20th century in a manner that directly correlates with the warming and cooling of the later part of the 20th century.

The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

Saul

Sep30-09, 09:27 PM

Great post dorlomin;

Monthly sunspot numbers can be found here:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

Currently we are looking at 19 consecutive months where the number of sunspots have been less than 10. In some months it has been less than 1.

The sun hasn't been this quiet since around 1912/1913. While global temperatures were unusually cool during that period, the same can't be said for the present!

Xnn,

See my comment to Skyhunter. You also do not understand the mechanisms by which the sun modulates planetary cloud cover.

This is scientific forum. You must first understand the competing mechanism before disagreeing with the mechanism.

I found the same problem at Real Climate. The writers and those people posting there did and do not understand electroscavenging.

Electroscavenging is the name for the process by which solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. (See my comment above that has a link to Tinsley and Yu review paper of the science of cloud formation.) I note the GCM do not model clouds and the IPCC report notes modeling clouds is the greatest uncertainty in the GCM.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

Saul

Sep30-09, 09:30 PM

Incidentally, Solar Activity in the 20th century was the highest in 8,000 years.

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

GCR reduced by a factor of 7 and 9 in the 20th century. Lowest in 1100 years.

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sspvse/oral/Ken_McCracken/wintergreen1.pdf

Doubling Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field in Last 100 years

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../399437a0.html

The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.

Skyhunter

Oct1-09, 02:51 PM

Skyhunter,

You do not understand the mechanisms by which solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover.

No one understands if or how solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover, but it is a moot point since the solar wind is at it's lowest levels in 50 years. (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html)

The solar wind is flagging. "Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft show that solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low"

Solar wind inflates the solar magnetic field that shields the Earth from GCR. If the wind were 3 times normal, then GCR flux would be low... not ~20% above normal.

The GCR/cloud connection is still an unproven hypothesis. Scientists are unsure it even exists and if it does, what if any climate impact it would have. The paper you cite offers what the authors call, "possible explanations." However they rely on Svensmark 1997 for their measure of total cloud cover. As Peter Laut pointed out in his critique, (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf) Svensmark confused total cloud cover with water clouds only. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical of their results since they show correlation based on a flawed set of physical parameters.

It is fine to have a pet theory, just don't get worked up when others are skeptical of implausible claims.

Saul

Oct1-09, 10:00 PM

No one understands if or how solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover, but it is a moot point since the solar wind is at it's lowest levels in 50 years. (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html)

Solar wind inflates the solar magnetic field that shields the Earth from GCR. If the wind were 3 times normal, then GCR flux would be low... not ~20% above normal.

It is fine to have a pet theory, just don't get worked up when others are skeptical of implausible claims.

Skyhunter,

I am sorry there is something incorrect with the AWG hypothesis, as global warming is preferable to abrupt cooling. The solar wind bursts are abating GCR has increased by a 19% and the magnitude of the strongest GCR has increased by a factor of 5.

GCR also removes high altitude clouds which results in record cold temperatures at high latitudes. The record cold is required to thicken the sea ice such that it will not melt in the summer. I see a record low has been set on the Greenland Ice sheet for September., 2009. This would be interesting if I did not live at high latitudes in a Mountainous region.

You are looking at this problem emotionally rather than as a science problem.

Try reading this paper by Nir Shaviv.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0409123

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget by Nir J. Shaviv

We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, Phi_CR, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, we find that the sensitivity to CRF variations is consistently fitted with mu := -Phi_0 (dT_global/ d Phi_CR) = 6.5 +/- 2.5 K (where Phi_0 is the CR energy flux today). Additionally, the sensitivity to radiative forcing changes is lambda := dT_global/ dF_0 = 0.35 +/- 0.09 K/(W/m^2), at the current temperature, while its temperature derivative is negligible with d lambda / dT_0 = 0.01 +/- 0.03 1/(W/m^2). If the observed CRF/climate link is ignored, the best sensitivity obtained is lambda = 0.54 +/- 0.12 K/(W/m^2) and d lambda / dT_0 = -0.02 +/- 0.05 1/(W/m^2). The CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.37+/-0.13 K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16+/-0.04 K.

Saul

Oct1-09, 10:26 PM

No one understands if or how solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover, but it is a moot point since the solar wind is at it's lowest levels in 50 years. (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html)
Solar wind inflates the solar magnetic field that shields the Earth from GCR. If the wind were 3 times normal, then GCR flux would be low... not ~20% above normal.

The GCR/cloud connection is still an unproven hypothesis. Scientists are unsure it even exists and if it does, what if any climate impact it would have. The paper you cite offers what the authors call, "possible explanations." However they rely on Svensmark 1997 for their measure of total cloud cover. As Peter Laut pointed out in his critique, (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf) Svensmark confused total cloud cover with water clouds only. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical of their results since they show correlation based on a flawed set of physical parameters.

Here are some more papers. The rebuttals are also interesting.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate. Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. Both drivers are presently discussed in the context of daily to millennial variations, although they should also operate over geological time scales. Here we analyze the reconstructed seawater paleotemperature record for the Phanerozoic (past 545 m.y.), and compare it with the variable CRF reaching Earth and with the reconstructed partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 (pCO2). We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReplyReply.pdf

Further response to “Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate” by Rahmstorf et al.

Detailed Response to Royer et al.’s letter “CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic Climate”

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RoyerReply.pdf

WhoWee

Oct1-09, 10:52 PM

look again (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&rlz=1W1GPEA_nl&q=global+temperatures+june+2009+0.00&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en)

This 2000 year temperature chart is interesting - but is the measuring technique valid?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

ViewsofMars

Oct1-09, 11:57 PM

I found this to be interesting.

NASA - Global Climate Change - Uncertainties - Unresolved questions about Earth's climate
[snip]
Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) image of the sun with a huge, handle-shaped prominence, taken in 1999. While there is no evidence of a change trend in solar output over the past half century, long-term changes in solar output are not well-understood.

[snip]

1. Solar Irradiance. The sun has a well-known eleven-year irradiance cycle that produces a .08% variation in output.1 Solar irradiance has been measured by satellite daily since the late 1970s, and this known solar cycle is incorporated into climate models. There is some evidence from proxy measurements-sunspot counts going back centuries, measurements from ancient trees, and others-that solar output varies over longer periods of time, too. While there is currently no evidence of a trend in solar output over the past half century, because there are no direct observations of solar output prior to the 1970s, climate scientists do not have much confidence that they understand longer-term solar changes. A number of U.S. and international spacecraft study the sun.

[snip]
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

sylas

Oct2-09, 12:46 AM

This 2000 year temperature chart is interesting - but is the measuring technique valid?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

This thread is full of sloppy writing and bad referencing, by a number of contributors. People -- it is worth taking five minutes to give a clear reference, and it really helps. A URL needs some additional text describing what you link to. We should not have to click on a link to find out what is being linked. I like to use a conventional citation, with title, author, date and journal.

Andre's link you quote is to a google search for heavens sake! With no comment but "look again". This is completely unhelpful. A lot of others in the thread are nearly as bad.

Your url is not a valid reference for the forum. It is a personal site for Roy Spencer, who is a climate scientist; but a real oddity in several ways -- not just climate. That is, of course, ad hominem. If you want to use his peer reviewed research (which is mostly reasonable at least to the extent of being worthy of consideration; which is what peer review is intended to check) then we can consider it on its own merits. But his web page is not a suitable reference.

To avoid wasting time on nonsense, or on sorting out what is nonsense and what isn't; a basic forum requirement is that we use material which has at least passed this first hurdle of scientific peer review.

It's not at all clear what 2000 year temperature chart you mean... but according to the strict meaning of "valid", there's no such thing as a "valid" chart for 2000 years. All such charts are estimates, and subject to errors and uncertainties. Some, however, are much better than others. There is now an extensive body of peer reviewed research, using many different proxies and methods which give a roughly similar picture for the last 2000 years. These results are not all identical, and though they have succeeded in giving us a useful and scientifically well founded insight into the past, they are not strictly "valid" in the proper sense of the word. I don't see much of that work being described here.

There is a diagram in the link you provide... but that is still unsuitable for the forum! It is a temperature reconstruction that is published, but in a highly dubious journal (Energy and Environment) that does not have proper scientific peer review.

Energy and Environment doesn't show up in the recognized ranking systems and impact factors for scientific publications, anymore than OMNI or Readers Digest. The founder and main editor has a background in geography, politics and policy – not science. This magazine has become a clearing house for easy publication of low grade material that can't get into a real science journal. It has a superficial appearance of a real science journal, and is widely cited in blogs, pundits, second rate congressional submissions, etc, etc… but it has very little circulation in university libraries. It has been specifically identified by form mentors as an invalid reference. See msg #6 by Monique in the thread "Sources and Sinks of CO2" (now locked).

The particular reconstruction illustrated in your link is much less valid than what you will find in the legitimate scientific literature. You can find its errors explained online by working scientific experts, but not in the scientific literature. Why would they bother?

As a quick aside: Saul's material is more interesting and valid for consideration. It HAS been considered and problems with Shaviv's hypothesis have been properly identified and discussed as part of normal scientific debate in the proper channels.

Felicitations -- sylas

Xnn

Oct2-09, 09:57 PM

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

See page 30 to 31:

The estimated direct radiative forcing due to
changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to
+0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate
given in the TAR, with a low level of scientifi c
understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate
comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in
solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum)
based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar
magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic,
cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of
recent solar variations and their relationship to physical
processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sunlike
stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level
of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR
to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large
because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete
understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long
time scales. {2.7, 6.6}

Empirical associations have been reported
between solar-modulated cosmic ray ionization of the
atmosphere and global average low-level cloud cover
but evidence for a systematic indirect solar effect
remains ambiguous. It has been suggested that galactic
cosmic rays with sufficient energy to reach the troposphere
could alter the population of cloud condensation nuclei
and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet
number and concentration), inducing changes in cloud
processes analogous to the indirect cloud albedo effect
of tropospheric aerosols and thus causing an indirect
solar forcing of climate. Studies have probed various
correlations with clouds in particular regions or using
limited cloud types or limited time periods; however, the
cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to
global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level
cloud cover after 1994. Together with the lack of a proven
physical mechanism and the plausibility of other causal
factors affecting changes in cloud cover, this makes the
association between galactic cosmic ray-induced changes
in aerosol and cloud formation controversial. {2.7}

Saul

Oct2-09, 11:41 PM

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

See page 30 to 31:

Xnn,

The IPCC authors and the RealClimate authors appear to have not read the Palle or Tinsley papers on electroscavenging. This is only one of a set of papers.

As noted in this paper, depending on the sensitivity assumed for the planet's response to forcing due to a change in planetary cloud cover by both increased GCR and by solar wind bursts that remove ions via the process of electroscavenging, solar changes to cloud cover can account for 50% to 75% of the 20th century warming.

Now as the IPCC models have no solar modulation of planetary cloud cover, there is obviously a fundamental problem in the base GCM. Understanding what the fundamental error is and following the process of its discovery will be interesting.

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds by E. Palle, C.J. Butler, K. O’Brien

We use a simple model to calculate the climatic impact should the correlation be confirmed. We show that, under the most favorable conditions, a reduction in low cloud cover since the late 19th century, combined with the direct forcing by solar irradiance can explain a significant part of the global warming over the past century, but not all. However, this computation assumes that there is no feedback or changes in cloud at other levels.

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

The second process, considered by Tinsley and Yu (2003), namely electroscavenging, depends on the action of the global electrical circuit (see review by Rycroft et al. (2000)). The transport of charge by rapidly rising convective currents in the tropics and over continental land masses leads to a 200 kV positive charge of the ionosphere compared to Earth.

sylas

Oct3-09, 01:04 AM

General note: please limit the size of images. Very large images don't fit on the page and break the normal sizing of posts.

The IPCC authors and the RealClimate authors appear to have not read the Palle or Tinsley papers on electroscavenging. This is only one of a set of papers.

Realclimate authors are certainly aware of the electroscavenging hypothesis, and have mentioned it a couple of times, with reference to Palle and to Tinsley. But realclimate is not a valid source for the forum. It is, however, usually well referenced and you can use it as a way to identify possiblity relevant primary literature, which is okay for use in PF. The IPCC 4AR does describe this briefly but indirectly, with reference to other articles. The magnitude of the effect is still mostly hypothetical, and not well established as a significant factor.

It's worth emphasizing something about publication in scientific literature. It does NOT mean that the research therein has been found to be correct. It means it has been found to be worthy of consideration.

I'm thinking of putting together a better review of the relevant research; point and counter point, with a summary of claims and counter claims. By and large, the GCR linkage is still being argued, but has more problems than success. It may have a role in some cases. There's some indication of that, but the case is incomplete at best. The case for a role in the strong warming since the latter half of the twentieth century is weak at best. The electro-scavenging notion is a hypothesis for a possible way to get an effect, and not well established as a major factor as yet.

It's legitimate research for an unusual idea and the electroscavenging hypothesis is an open question; neither confirmed nor refuted, and with the extent of the linkage between GCR and the proposed electroscavenging process also unclear.

Xnn

Oct3-09, 08:16 AM

Saul;

Notice:

Studies have probed various
correlations with clouds in particular regions or using
limited cloud types or limited time periods; however, the
cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to
global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level
cloud cover after 1994.

It's not enough to simply show that cosmic rays are going up or down.
Cosmic rays impart very little energy to the earth.
Since the proposed mechanism is that they somehow alter cloud cover,
then one ought to be able to find multiple peer reviewed
articles in reputable journals that show this on a global level.
The problem with limiting studies to particular region is
that it smacks of cherry picking.

We know that changes in total solar radiance has a small
effect, but by my calculations it's equivalent to about 3-5 years
of changes in CO2 levels. Global warming is expected to continue
at about 0.015C/year with significant variations due to El Nino an La Nina.
Long term, once the oceans stop absorbing 90% of the energy, we will
experience even greater warming and CO2 levels are expected to accelerate
since the oceans won't be absorbing CO2 either.

Saul

Oct3-09, 10:00 AM

Saul;

Notice:

It's not enough to simply show that cosmic rays are going up or down. Cosmic rays impart very little energy to the earth. Since the proposed mechanism is that they somehow alter cloud cover, then one ought to be able to find multiple peer reviewed articles in reputable journals that show this on a global level. The problem with limiting studies to particular region is that it smacks of cherry picking.

Xnn,

The Palle paper looked at planetary cloud cover for the entire planet.

You and the writers at Real Climate talk only about higher or low GCR. Actually you only talk about TSI. The GCM do not model planetary cloud cover. The IPCC reports states that modeling planetary cloud cover is the largest uncertainty in the AWG hypothesis and the GCM.

Modulation of planetary cloud cover is how solar changes and large changes to the geomagnetic field intensity cause the planet to warm and to cool.

You do not understand electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. That process is called electroscavenging. If GCR is high, for example at the end of the solar cycle, and there are solar wind bursts then the solar wind bursts remove the ions and there is less clouds not more clouds.

The solar wind bursts have increased by a factor of 4 at the end of the 20th century.

I see articles in Real Climate claiming the sun does not effect planetary temperature that talk about sunspot number or GCR which state that planetary temperature is not correlated with GCR. The debating technique is to create an incorrect strawman and then disprove the incorrect strawman hypothesis.

Svensmark's and Marshall's actual data shows planetary temperature is highly correlated with GCR up until around 1996 at which time there is a massive increase in the number of solar wind bursts. From 1996 on there is a reduction in planetary cloud cover particular over the tropics which results in a calculated increase in planetary forcing of 2.5 watts/m^2.

You and those writing at Real Climate appear to not understand the significance of that statement. Solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period measured in the last 50 years. The planet is about to abruptly cool.

Based on the AWG hypothesis the planet cannot abruptly cool. The 20th century warming is asserted to have been due to the 30% increase in CO2, rather than due to an decrease in planetary clouds due to electroscavenging.

The GCM models assert that CO2 has caused an increase in forcing of 2.7 watts/m^2. That cannot be correct if the planet abruptly cools. If the planetary temperatures abruptly cools there must be something fundamental incorrect with GCM and the CO2 hypothesis. The CO2 hypothesis has CO2 increasing planetary temperature 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The CO2 mechanism is logarithmic. The first 30% increase in CO2 causes 73% of the temperature increase which does not match observations.

I can make that statement as abrupt cooling has happened before and there are concurrent cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the abrupt climate changes. There is paleoclimatic data that supports the mechanism. There is 20th Century data that supports the mechanism.

This paper shows the 20th century planetary changes are highly correlated with the geomagnetic index Ak which changes in response to solar wind bursts.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

Figure 2 demonstrates that the speed of the solar wind originating from CHs is much higher than of the solar wind associated with (Coronal mass ejections) CMEs and MCs. The yearly averaged speed of solar wind from CHs and MCs are comparable around sunspot maximum, and higher than the speed of CMEs, and everywhere outside sunspot maximum the fastest solar wind originates from CHs (Figure 3). Similarly, the average geo-effectiveness of solar wind from CHs is highest outside sunspot maximum (Figure 4) while around sunspot maximum the most geo-effective solar driver are MCs.

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

sylas

Oct3-09, 10:52 AM

Based on the AWG hypothesis the planet cannot abruptly cool. The 20th century warming is asserted to have been due to the 30% increase in CO2, rather than due to an decrease in planetary clouds due to electroscavenging.

The GCM models assert that CO2 has caused an increase in forcing of 2.7 watts/m^2. That cannot be correct if the planet abruptly cools. If the planetary temperatures abruptly cools there must be something fundamental incorrect with GCM and the CO2 hypothesis. The CO2 hypothesis has CO2 increasing planetary temperature 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The CO2 mechanism is logarithmic. The first 30% increase in CO2 causes 73% of the temperature increase which does not match observations.

You pack a large number of basic errors into a small space.

It is not GCM models that give the forcing for CO2. The forcing is determined by basic radiative and thermodynamic physics, entirely independent of the models. This is known to about 10% accuracy and with very high confidence. It's basic physics. I gave the references in thread Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature. See especially Myhre et al., (1998).

You've got the forcing wrong in any case. The CO2 forcing is about 1.7 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. You appear to be thinking of the total greenhouse forcing, including a whole pile of other gases, which is about 2.63. The other main contributors are CH4, N2O, and halocarbons. Numbers can be found in the IPCC 4th AR, for the forcing from 1750-2005, in table 2.12 on page 204. Note that there are also a whole pile of other non-greenhouse forcings as well, which are generally much less well known.

The CO2 forcing is used by skeptics and supporters of AGW alike. I am speaking here of scientifically literate skeptics of the AGW hypothesis.

The major uncertainty is not the forcing, but the response, or climate sensitivity -- also discussed in that thread. There is also uncertainty about OTHER forcings, especially those relating to cloud. The role of GCR in this is still speculative and not at all confirmed. It is not possible to calculate a GCR forcing from basic physics at this point, and measurements are ambiguous. The notion of electroscavenging has some good support, but it is also not well understood as yet -- and it is not exclusively about GCR in any case. The effect of GCR on electroscavenging processes is not well confirmed. Some time I'd like to put together a proper literature review on this interesting proposal.

As has been pointed out to you before, your 24 hours a day 7 days a week remark is a strawman. AGW does not rule out the normal natural variation which proceeds all the time, nor does it rule out all kinds of forcings beyond CO2 and greenhouse effects. Indeed, "anthropogenic" covers quite a range of different forcings. You repeated invocation of this "continuity" stawman is absurd. You are inventing it out of the whole cloth. You'll never find anything so silly in the scientific literature.

Your basic algebra is also incorrect. An increase from 280 to 380 ppm would be log2(380/280) = 0.44 of a doubling. The first 30% of this rise would be from 280 to 310 ppm, which is log2(310/280) = 0.15 of a doubling... or about 33.3% of the forcing. Not 73%.

Your stuff on GCR is interesting, though you are not presenting any of the literature that looks at the problems with this hypothesis. You should.

Your claims with respect to anthropogenic forcings and greenhouse forcings are completely incorrect.

Cheers -- sylas

Xnn

Oct3-09, 12:09 PM

Saul;

Here's the conclusion from the Palle paper:

The correlation between annual mean low cloud and
the ionization level at 2 km altitude exceeds the 99%
significance level over mid-latitude oceans and globally
over the period 1983–1994. However, globally, it
drops to non-significant values if the full available
cloud dataset (1983–2001) is taken into account
although some data adjustment such as detrending
can restore the correlation significance to 99.5% or
greater. Nonetheless, the correlation is significant over
several large areas of the earth.

In other words, if they focus on just part of the data, they can find a correlation.
But when they include more data, the correlation falls apart.
That is just cherry picking.

Looking at figure 8 in their report, it becomes even more apparent
just how much the correlation has fallen apart since the mid 80's.
They predicted flat to falling temperatures since then, while
the globe and oceans have continued to warm.

and then there is this statement...

There is relatively good agreement between the observed
anomaly and the combined curves for the period
1870–1910, but increasing divergence from 1910 onward.
By the 1990s, the difference is of the order one
third to one half of the global warming since the late
19th century.

Got that?

Good agreement from 1870 to 1910; progressively worse since then.
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Xnn

Oct3-09, 12:14 PM

I should probably add that while greenhouse gases have been on a steady rise for a long time, it's only been the last 60 years that they have clearly become dominate.

Skyhunter

Oct3-09, 01:23 PM

Saul,

For a little better understanding of the problems with Shaviv 2003 I suggest Rahmstorf 2004. (http://es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Rahmstorf_etal_2004.pdf)

Shaviv's reply (http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReplyReply.pdf)to Rahmstorf's critique does not address the fundamental errors. They simply argue that they can employ their statistical method to low resolution proxies and arrive at a robust conclusion.

The GCR/cloud hypothesis is still highly speculative. If there is a connection, and I believe there is, it's effect is as yet undetermined. Since most of the warming is already accounted for by known physical processes, the amount of forcing, if any, will be small compared to anthropogenic forcings.

Saul

Oct3-09, 09:48 PM

I note Rahmstorf did not reply to Shaviv's reply to Rahmstorf et al criticism. The RealClimate blog comment by Rahmstorf also did not respond to Shaviv's comments. Shaviv's analysis shows there is correlation of all of the past ice epochs with high GCR as the solar system passed through the galaxy's spiral arms. There is also a mechanism by which high GCR increases planetary cloud cover and cools the planet.

This is only the comments of the analysis of the iron meteoroids and passage of the the solar system through the galactic arms. The RealClimate blog stated the solar system could not have passed through the galaxy's spiral arms. I provided a link to an independent Astronomical paper that supported Shaviv's analysis.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmstorfDebate.pdf

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html

Detailed Response to “Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate” by Rahmstorf et al.

It is certainly true that the complete meteoritic data includes clusters of meteorites of the same type, and that such clusters are most likely the result of a single parent body breaking up into many small pieces, but this is totally irrelevant. As detailed in Shaviv [2002] and Shaviv [2003], in order to neutralize this effect, a modified meteoritic data set is generated (using 80 K-dated Iron Meteorites) where clusters of meteorites of the same Iron group classification are replaced with one having an average age. Thus, the clustering can either be because of a variable CRF, or, simply because parent bodies tend to break up more often periodically. However, it is not likely that single bodies generated each of the clusters, since each cluster is now comprised of meteorites that are all of different Iron group classification. ….

Irrespective, even if the CRF were constant, and even if the origin of the clusters were single heterogeneous asteroids, each giving rise to a heterogeneous cluster, we still find that the periodic pattern in the “celestial” signal correlates with the pattern in the terrestrial one! Moreover, independent evidence in the Iron meteorite data, based on comparison of different exposure dating methods, clearly shows that the CRF over the past 10 Ma must have been 30% higher than was the average over the past 1000 Ma [Lavielle et al. 1999]. If it was variable recently, it is unlikely that it was constant before. Plus, the astronomical understanding of the origin and diffusion of cosmic rays in the galaxy predicts that the CRF should be variable. It is therefore not surprising that it is observed, as predicted, in the meteoritic data. The periodicity in the exposure ages of meteorites, which includes now also exposure ages based on 36Cl, is described in figure 1. As clearly evident from the figure, the meteorites cluster periodically. This is highly unlikely to be a random fluke.

Last, a periodicity in CRF is predicted also by the current astronomical theory. Summing up, we did not use only 20 meteorites to reconstruct the CRF. We used all K-dated meteorites (80 reduced to 50 “heterogeneous” ones) to obtain the most accurate signal possible (147 ± 10 Ma) in order to compare it with climate variations. The fact that just the subset of meteorites with ages less than 520 Ma reveals the same clustering (albeit with reduced statistics), implies that it is valid to assume that the periodic signal obtained for 0-1000 Ma is valid also for just the 0-520 Ma period.

Another problem of the CRF reconstruction is the presumption of “periodicity” of the clusters. The time spans between the clusters’ gaps, which correspond to high CRF in their theory, are roughly 90, 90, 140, 130, 190, 140 Myr (Fig. 4 of [Shaviv, 2003]). The claim that these data support a periodicity of 143 ± 10 Myr seems not obvious. See figure 1, which vividly demonstrates the periodicity.

Together with the 36Cl exposure dating, the fit is now even better, with a periodicity of 147 ± 6 Ma. The passage through the four galactic arms should be a regular process; the high variability of the age gaps is not addressed. If Rahmstorf et al. would have taken the time to study Shaviv [2003], which they obviously did not, they would have found Table 2 in Shaviv [2003] which addresses the theoretical uncertainty in the prediction of the spiral arm passages and the uncertainly in the paleoclimatic data determining the peak of the cold periods. In addition, there is an intrinsic measurement error when estimating the difference between two adjacent spiral arm crossings when using the meteiritic data. If one looks at the bottom panel of fig 4 in Shaviv [2003], where the clusters are seen by eye, one can measure by hand that the differences between the mid-points of the clusters, these are: 80, 115, 155, 150, 150, 135 Ma. The width of each cluster is about 70 Ma. Therefore, the error in the determination of a single difference is about (70 Ma/2)p2 = 50 Ma. Compounded to that, one has to add the natural ‘jitter’ in the spiral arm passage (due to the solar system’s epicyclic motion, orbital parameter diffusion and internal structure of the spiral arms, [Shaviv, 2003]). Thus, one finds that the differences are all consistent with their average.

The CRF model is based on the assumption that cosmic ray density should be concentrated in the Galactic spiral arms, with a time lag of peak CRF of about 15 Myr behind the spiral arm passage. CRF is computed by a simple diffusion model with several free parameters. These parameters are constrained by ‘observational constraints’, including the meteorite data. These constraints are very weak; the crucial cosmic ray diffusion coefficient can only be constrained to within two orders of magnitude. Whether the Astronomical data form weak constraints or not is a vague definition. The astronomical constraints alone do indicate that the CRF should have been variable, that the period should be 135 ± 25 Ma, that the CRF should peak at 31 ± 8 Ma after the spiral arm passage, that the last passage was at about 50 Ma before present, that the CRF had amplitude variations between a factor of 2 to 10. Clearly they are not trivial. Thus, perhaps with the exception of the total amplitude of the variations, the astronomical data does place meaningful constraints on the CRF variability. Mreover, even the best-fit CRF model does not fit the meteorite data well. For the time span analysed in SV03, the cluster gaps are located near 100 Myr, 190 Myr, 280 Myr and 420 Myr BP (Fig. 4 of [Shaviv, 2003]); they are supposed to coincide with CRF maxima which the best fit’ model locates at about 30 Myr, 170 Myr, 360 Myr and 470 Myr BP. This is hardly a good agreement, with an r.m.s. deviation of 60 Myr. Agreement of the three CRF minima (at 80 Myr, 250 Myr, 420 Myr BP) with the age clusters (at 140 Myr, 250 Myr, 360 Myr BP) is hardly better, with two of the three clusters off by almost half a period.

A careful study of the Shaviv [2003] paper would have revealed that indeed the meteoritic ages are supposed to cluster around epochs with a lower CRF. However, the “time” axis is the K exposure age and not the real age. In other words, Rahmstorf et al. failed to understand that they were comparing K-ages of the clusters to the real ages of geologically warm periods. Since there could be a distortion of up to half a period (depending on the phase of the current epoch) between the K-age and a real age, it is wrong to compare the exposure ages directly to the occurrence of ice-age epochs or to the reconstructed CRF in “real time”. This is the reason why the histogram of exposure ages was predicted based on the geological periodicity and compared with the data (i.e., all done in K-CRF exposure time), in which case all the clusters’ Kage peak exactly as predicted, within the measurement (i.e., dating) and physical (e.g., epicyclic motion) errors. Moreover, the largest discrepancy is with the first cluster, but this arises because Voshage & Feldman [1979] excluded from their data base young meteorites, because their method did not date them well enough. Once more meteorites are included (using the 36Cl data) there is no statistically significant discrepancy between any of the clusters and their predicted location.

Saul

Oct3-09, 09:56 PM

The other explanation for the 20th century warming is a decrease in planetary clouds rather than AWG, in particular CO2.

The observations do not show a steady increase in the base line planetary temperature about which planetary temperature oscillates. Planetary temperature has in fact cooled slightly post 1998.

If the 20th century warming was due to a decrease in planetary clouds then it is reversible, if there is a sudden increase in planetary clouds.

The competing hypothesis is increased AWG will cause a 1000 years of warming. Obviously the CO2 warming if that hypothesis were correct could not be reversed in a couple of years.

We do not need to argue which hypothesis is correct as observational data can be used to decide.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2009.8/normalise

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/uah-global-temperature-down-in-august-181%C2%B0c-sh-sees-biggest-drop-of-0-4%C2%B0c/

As I noted further up in the this thread planetary temperature in the 20th century has strongly correlated with geomagnetic field change measured by the parameter Ak that is in turn modulated by solar wind bursts. The solar wind burst remove cloud forming ions by a process called electroscavenging. The sudden warming events in planetary temperature records and the longer term warming and cooling trends correlate with Ak.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/172...1721-2005.html

Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000

All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090819/sc_mcclatchy/3295216

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?
Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling , chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

Saul

Oct3-09, 10:24 PM

This paper is interesting as it is in reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich and it provides 30 years of data that supports the assertion that GCR is causing the polar see-saw.

As most are aware the recent finding that there is not a great ocean conveyor system, rules out the the competing hypothesis that ocean currents were somehow causing the arctic to warm when the antarctic ice sheet cools cyclically.

It should be noted that change is simultaneously which ocean current mechanism could not explain as there is a delay of roughly a 1000 years for one hemisphere to affect the other. Another problem with the ocean hypothesis is the is no mechanism to change the ocean currents cyclically. It should be noted Gerald Bond found evidence of 30 cycles of cosmogenic isotope changes which correlate with the planetary temperature changes.

The GCR mechanism has an increase in GCR which causes an increase in planetary cloud cover at high latitudes both hemisphere. In the antarctic because the albedo of ice is higher than the clouds an increase in clouds causes the antarctic ice sheet to warm when the arctic cools. The antarctic ice sheet is isolated by the southern hemisphere polar circular winds which the arctic is not and is hence significantly affected by the temperature of the surrounding oceans.

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich –The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing by Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/RwUBcAiox4I/AAAAAAAAAIw/nysaWGBykKk/s1600-h/svensmark-correl.JPG

This is Svensmark's overview of the GCR research and cosmological climatology. It should be noted that Svensmark's Sky experiment proved the GCR mechanism in a laboratory setting.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/larsil/SDOC2681.pdf

These papers were deleted as I inadvertently posted a image that was too large. There are both good papers and germane to this discussion.

Nir Shaviv Faint Sun

Attached are additional two papers by Nir Shaviv:

The first provides an explanation for the faint sun paradox (Solar irradiation was roughly 30% less for a young sun. A reduction in irradiation of 30%, would have, all else being the same as current planetary conditions, meant all liquid water on the planet would have been frozen.) Shaviv’s hypothesis is the younger, faster rotating younger sun had a stronger solar wind and that the stronger solar wind shielded the earth from galactic cosmic rays, which other researchers in addition to Shaviv have shown affect the amount of low level clouds. Less clouds, warmer planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306477

The second paper by Shaviv provides data from examining iron meteoroids to determine the long term changes in GCR as the solar system moved in an out of the galactic arms. Shaviv makes a case that the ice epochs, correlate with GCR changes, and that the ice epochs were caused by changes in GCR.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0209252

Xnn

Oct4-09, 09:34 AM

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

Saul;

The Palle paper, a link that you originally provided shows that
extraterrestrial influences have become progressively less
important since 1910!

There is relatively good agreement between the observed
anomaly and the combined curves for the period
1870–1910, but increasing divergence from 1910 onward.
By the 1990s, the difference is of the order one
third to one half of the global warming since the late
19th century.

My impression is that they are being extremely kind to themselves.

Figure 8 from the report shows just how poor the correlation really is.
They totally missed the warming of the 1930-40's. Instead they predicted
it for the late 1960's. Also the 2 re-searchers (Leon and Lockwood) have divergent
predictions for the 1990's. One thought it'd warm while the other predicted a flat response.

The reality is that the climate has continued to gradually warm from GHG's
(2005 is the warmest instrumented year on record) while La Nina/El Nino
provides significant short term random cooling/warming pulses.
Sunspots and GCR's was a factor in the past that has become
progressively less important since 1910.

Saul

Oct4-09, 10:53 AM

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

Saul;

The Palle paper, a link that you originally provided shows that extraterrestrial influences have become progressively less important since 1910!

My impression is that they are being extremely kind to themselves.

Figure 8 from the report shows just how poor the correlation really is.They totally missed the warming of the 1930-40's. Instead they predicted it for the late 1960's. Also the 2 re-searchers (Leon and Lockwood) have divergent predictions for the 1990's. One thought it'd warm while the other predicted a flat response.

The reality is that the climate has continued to gradually warm from GHG's (2005 is the warmest instrumented year on record) while La Nina/El Nino provides significant short term random cooling/warming pulses. Sunspots and GCR's was a factor in the past that has become progressively less important since 1910.

Xnn,

Did you miss this paragraph in Palle's paper?

Comment:
I will move the conversation concerning GHG to another thread so we can concentrate on the problem of GWG theory vs observations. Do to the hype around that topic there was been very little critical examination of both the GHG predictions (What is scientific basis for the predicted magnitude of the planetary temperature rise for CO2 increases? i.e. Scientific is not just a statement in a report that has only been peer reviewed by the report writers and that does not consider data that disproves the magnitude of the increase predicted.) and the observations.

Do you agree with this statement?: If the solar modulation of planetary cloud theory is correct then there should be significant drop in planetary temperature due to the current solar change. That is not possible based on the GHG theory and the assertions that GCR and electroscavenging do not affect planetary temperature. You cannot have your cake (the assertion that GCR is not a first order climate forcing function) and eat it to (You need an explanation for the sudden abrupt cooling). We likely need a thread to discuss current planetary temperature measurements.

Did you miss the paper (see my comments above) that shows an decrease in tropical cloud reflected sunlight? Less sunlight reflected into space warmer planet. Warmer planet due to clouds however rather than GHG.

The point is the tropical reflected sunlight paper used a direct measurement to determine the amount and frequency of the reflected sunlight. There is ample evidence that planetary temperature correlates with solar wind bursts and GCR changes. The problem explaining why. Measuring clouds using satellites is difficult which is why there is still scientific discussion concerning this issue.

What it appears is higher GCR decreases high altitude cloud and increases lower level clouds. The GCR mechanism has a greater effect at high latitudes and over oceans which are are ion and particle poor.

The electroscavenging mechanism effects both high and low latitudes. See the paper I have linked above Once More About Solar and Global warming that shows there is high correlation of the geomagnetic field variations caused by solar wind bursts and planetary temperature.

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

From the above computations we estimate that the effect of a low cloud-ionization connection would be around 0.2 C warming during the 20th century; a slightly lower value than the previous estimate of 0.27 C (Palle´ and Butler, 2000) using a much simpler approximation based on the data from 1983 to 1994 only.

Due to the Earth’s magnetic field, the flux of galactic cosmic rays is reduced at lower latitudes and reaches its maximum over the magnetic poles. If cosmic rays affect clouds we would expect the effect to be strongest in polar regions and weakest at the equator. This latitudinal effect was first corroborated by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) for the total cloud cover. However, later work has shown that the correlation of total cloud cover and cosmic rays was not maintained with later (post-1991) satellite data, whereas that for low cloud was (Palle´ and Butler, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002). Palle´ and Butler (2000) found that the correlation for low clouds was stronger in mid-latitude and equatorial belts and weaker in the polar regions.

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

IMN involves the promotion of the formation of condensation nuclei (CN) via the intermediary action of sulphuric acid and ionized particles in the atmosphere. The rate at which CN form is dependent on both the H2SO4 concentration and the ionization rate by cosmic rays Yu and Turco (2000), both of which are dependent on ambient conditions and altitude. Yu (2002) has computed the efficiency of the formation of CN with radii greater than 3 nm as a function of altitude and has shown that the peak efficiency occurs between 3 and 4 km altitude, that is near to the altitude of low clouds.

Yu (2002) finds that a 20% change in ionization produces an approximate 10% change in IMN at 2 km. In this case, the relative changes in low cloud amount, in areas where the GCR-low cloud correlation is strong, would be expected to be not larger than about half of the relative change in ionization. In Fig. 6, lower panels, we note that some boxes where a significant correlation occurs in Fig. 4, have a percentage change in low cloud of the same order as the percentage change in ionization. This is larger than would be expected from Yu’s results. However, this discrepancy is most conspicuous in Antarctica where the low cloud cover is in any case very low and more difficult to measure. The low cloud trend shown in Fig. 2 could probably also explain why the amplitude changes for 1986/8–1991/3 are larger than for the 1991/3–1996/9 period if a correlation with GCR is present.

Saul

Oct4-09, 11:07 AM

This is a good review paper of the science of Cosmic Rays and Climate by Jasper Kirkby. Kirkby is involved in the CERN experiment to understand the GCR mechanism.

As the sun appears to be moving to a deep magnetic minimum there will in addition to the CERN experiment be planetary observations that should help to validate or invalidate the GCR mechanism.

In the past the cyclic abrupt climate changes have correlated with cosmogenic isotopes changes and abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field.

Scientific breakthroughs occur when a connection is made to observations and theory discrepancies. (i.e. There is no explanation for the cyclic abrupt climate changes.)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

Cosmic Rays and Climate by Jasper Kirkby CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Although this remains a mystery, observations suggest that cloud cover may be influenced by cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind and, on longer time scales, by the geomagnetic field and by the galactic environment of Earth. Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect cosmic rays with clouds: firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes. Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate. However, a concerted effort is now required to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.

2 SOLAR/COSMIC RAY-CLIMATE VARIABILITY
2.1 Last millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1 The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.2 Intertropical Convergence Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3 Solar and cosmic ray changes since the Little Ice Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Holocene; last 10 ky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 Ice-rafted debris in the North Atlantic Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 Indian Ocean monsoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Quaternary; last 3 My . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 Stalagmite growth in Oman and Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 Laschamp event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Phanerozoic; last 550 My . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1 Celestial cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.2 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skyhunter

Oct4-09, 11:34 AM

Saul

Oct4-09, 02:35 PM

Saul,

Shaviv 2003 is a joke.

Their correlation is based on several arbitrary adjustments to the CRF data. (Rahmstorf et al 2004) (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.pdf) Their periodicity for the spiral arm crossing is an outlier (Merrifield 1992) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1552M)

And they also fail miserably in their attempt to disprove the CO2 as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and paleoclimate data. (Royer et al 2004) (http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf)

The reason that Rahmstorf did not address their response to their critique is because they could not get it published. In other words, their response to Rahmstorf et al 2004 could not pass the peer review process.

And please stick to the forum guidelines and stop citing denier blogs as legitimate sources!

Skyhunter,

Your above statement is not correct. Shaviv's response was published. It appears based on the tone of your comment, that your mind is made up. It appears you do not want to discuss the subject of cosmic ray climatology or solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. You want me to stop discussing the subject.

Shaviv's meteoroid analysis supports his assertion that the solar system passed through the spiral arms of the galaxy. I have a recent astronomical paper that supports Shaviv assertion that the solar system passed through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Shaviv provides a detailed analysis supporting his meteoroid analysis refuting Rahmstorf criticism. You did not respond to the detailed meteoroid analysis, nor did Rahmstorf, nor did the discussion in RealClimate. The discussion there were a one sided diatribe that made astronomical assertions that were not correct. As I said, I responded in RealClimate with a link to a recent astronomical paper that supports Shaviv.

You did not read Kirby's published review paper (that includes a long listed of published papers) because your mind is made up. I am following Kirkby's line of reasoning. That is science. Comparing one scientific hypothesis to another.

As I said if the solar modulation of planetary cloud hypothesis is correct, we should see significant planetary cooling as the solar wind bursts have abated and GCR is 19% higher than anytime in the last 40 years.

Let's wait until there is more data.

Saul

Oct4-09, 04:09 PM

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/626/2/844/61945.web.pdf?request-id=456de547-63dc-4761-aec0-890d75249de5

Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s path through the galaxy by D. R. Gies and J. W. Helsel
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy, Georgia State University

We present a calculation of the Sun’s motion through the MilkyWay over the last 500 million yr. The integration is based on estimates of the Sun’s current position and speed from measurements with Hipparcos and on a realistic model for the Galactic gravitational potential. We estimate the times of the Sun’s past spiral arm crossings for a range of assumed values of the spiral pattern angular speed. We find that for a difference between the mean solar and pattern speed of (Angular speed solar system – angular speed galaxy) the Sun has traversed four spiral arms at times that appear to correspond well with long-duration cold periods on Earth. This supports the idea that extended exposure to the higher cosmic-ray flux associated with spiral arms can lead to increased cloud cover and long ice age epochs on Earth.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

Kirkby’s published review paper includes a reference list of 167 published papers that he discusses in the review paper. Kirkby's paper is scientific (Provides reference papers that support the hypothesis and discusses papers that challenge the hypothesis such as the Laschamp magnetic minimum by providing new data and logic to refute the challenge.), no name calling or sarcasm.

The comment(s) that the data that indicates GCR changes and solar changes are a first order climate forcing function is from denier blogs is not accurate.

I would be interested in debating or better yet discussing Kirkby's review paper in a scientific manner. If that is not possible we can wait for new observational data and papers.

Xnn

Oct4-09, 07:07 PM

Saul;

From the above computations we estimate that the
effect of a low cloud-ionization connection would be
around 0.2 C warming during the 20th century;

Notice that this is approximately the same amount of warming that Long Lived Greenhouse gases have caused during the 20th century. However, the differance is that solar/galatic ray cloud ionization is cyclic, while CO2 emissions (a long lived greenhouse gas) are accelerating.

This is why the paper also states that the connection between solar cycles and global temperatures has gradually become less correlated since 1910.

Last I checked, we have been in something of a solar minimum for about 2 years. In fact, it appears to be the deepest solar minimum since about 1913. Of course we also experienced a recent La Nina too, but the point is that all that this has done is temporarily mask the warming from CO2 emissions. In response, global temperatures are just below record levels and over the long term, global temperatures are going to continue to rise to new records.

Saul

Oct4-09, 09:37 PM

Saul;

Notice that this is approximately the same amount of warming that Long Lived Greenhouse gases have caused during the 20th century. However, the differance is that solar/galatic ray cloud ionization is cyclic, while CO2 emissions (a long lived greenhouse gas) are accelerating.

This is why the paper also states that the connection between solar cycles and global temperatures has gradually become less correlated since 1910.

Last I checked, we have been in something of a solar minimum for about 2 years. In fact, it appears to be the deepest solar minimum since about 1913. Of course we also experienced a recent La Nina too, but the point is that all that this has done is temporarily mask the warming from CO2 emissions. In response, global temperatures are just below record levels and over the long term, global temperatures are going to continue to rise to new records.

This is no fun. You do not understand the mechanisms or the nuances of the solar papers.

Try reading Kirkby's paper. Kirkby summarizes the data that shows evidence of the mechanism affecting planetary temperature over the last 100 years, the last 1000 years, the last 100,000 years, the last 600,000 years, the last 500 million years. Kirkby includes 167 papers to support the mechanism.

In the 20th century planetary temperature is highly correlated with Ak which is changed by solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by electroscavenging which inhibits the GCR increase at the end of each solar cycle from increasing cloud cover and cooling the planet. In the 1900 and 1800 century there were no solar wind bursts. (The geomagnetic index has been monitored for roughly 200 years. It is clearly evident in the data.) At that time there was significant planetary cooling at the end of each solar cycle. It was noted that the price of wheat followed the solar magnetic cycle.

If your mind is made up, do not comment. The sun is rapidly moving toward a deep minimum. Based on what has happened before (See Kirkby and his referenced 167 papers), the planet is about to abruptly cool.

Come back when you have some evidence the planet is warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/cycle-24-spotless-days-keeps-moving-up-the-hill-now-competitive-with-the-baby-grand-minimum/

If you are not interested in a scientific discussion find a different thread. I have provided links to dozens of papers. I have read and understood the papers.

You repeat your mantra about AWG. Please start your own thread and supply scientific data to support that assertion.

The sun was at its highest activity level in 10,000 years during later half of the 20th century.

Palle's paper was based only on satellite measurement of planetary clouds. He then calculates the effect on planetary temperature based on that measurement. The satellite measurement of planetary clouds does not measure the entire effect. The radiation measurements (see the paper I linked to above on radiation reflected from the tropics.) show significant drop in short wave reflected energy from the tropics. (i.e. Reduction in planetary cloud cover.)

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

Xnn

Oct5-09, 11:11 AM

Saul;

Here is what Kirby concluded:

Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out.

In other words, Kirby can't really say whether or to what extent the climate is influenced by solar and comsic ray variability. No place in the paper does he quantify what the impact may be and for good reason since warming/cooling the oceans leads to more/less CO2 and we know what that does.

Palle suggested that there is a small influence, but had to admit that it has gradually become less and less important since 1910. I see nothing in Kirby's work to suggest other wise.

I'm not doubting that solar and maybe even cosmic rays have played a role in the past. However, going ahead it will continue to become less important than it was in the past since CO2 levels are rising independantly.

Finally, a correction. Earlier I stated that global warming from long lived greenhouse gas was comparable to the (generous) 0.2C value cited by Palle for Solar and Cosmic ray influence on globla temperatures. I went back and have found that greenhouse gases have contributed closer to 0.4C of warming. So, the value is actually twice as much and accelerating.

Wagmc

Oct5-09, 11:12 AM

If you put forth the claim that a recent PDO cool shift and recent decline in solar activity are "masking" the warming from CO2, you imply acceptance that the PDO warm shift (1977) and modern grand (1,000 year) solar maximum are responsible for at least part of observed warming.

And the more warming attributable to "natural" factors, the less warming attributable to CO2.

There is a significant body of work indicating that GCR is related to global temperatures on long time scales. Likewise, it is well established that GCR affects cloud cover on global scales. The only doubt remains on the physics of the mechanism, which was the point of the OP. And a modulation of as little as 2% in global cloud cover will account for all observed warming without invoking CO2.

Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006. Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and earth's magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10-12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch). Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya 46: 123-134.

Perry, C.A., Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.079

Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375.
Concludes: Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV? Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover, numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation.

Xnn

Oct5-09, 08:16 PM

Wagmc;

Notice that Kirby is asking a question in your quotation.
Some of what he has found could be just a proxy.
In other words, a result not a cause.
Until a physical mechanism can be discovered for GCR, its impact remains speculative.

If a mechanism were discovered, then it'd be possible to quantify the direct impact.
However, I don't think we would see this distract from the warming due to Greenhouse
gases. Instead, we would probably see a change to the cloud albedo or ozone forcings.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

Review page 32 of the above link.

Notice that the cloud albedo affect has a low level of scientific understanding
and it's attributed to aerosals.
If GCR have an impact on the climate it's probably by changes in cloud cover.
So, what would probably happen if there was a positive forcing for GCR's
is that the aerosal effect would become more negative (but better understood).

On the other hand, another possible change would be tropospheric ozone.
Notice, it has just a medium level of understanding.
So, I'd say it's possible that any GCR effect could be mixed up somehow with ozone.
Maybe some ozone change are really changes of GCRs.
So, maybe they'd narrow the error bars and attribute some of that forcing to GCRs.

The PDO and El Nino/La Nina are not global forcings.
They are short term fluctuations and may be temporarily masking or
enhancing long term climate changes.

Wagmc

Oct5-09, 11:16 PM

Skyhunter

Oct5-09, 11:51 PM

Feedbacks are decidedly positive, especially water vapor and albedo.

Andre

Oct6-09, 01:49 AM

No, there is evidence that the total of all feedbacks is negative.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/ISPM-app2f.pdf

but we knew that for some time:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf

Skyhunter

Oct6-09, 11:50 AM

No, there is evidence that the total of all feedbacks is negative.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

This study focuses on the tropics. The authors do not identify the feedbacks, instead they analyze ERBE data to suggest that climate sensitivity is lower than suggested by the IPCC.

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/ISPM-app2f.pdf

This is not an acceptable citation for this forum.

but we knew that for some time:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf

Karner has revised his opinion from that publication. Also he is describing a statistical model, not a physical one.

The water vapor and albedo feedbacks are positive. Statistical models and tropical studies of radiation budgets do not alter the fact that when the air warms it holds more water vapor, a positive feedback, and when the snow and ice melt albedo is lower, also a positive feedback.

Andre

Oct6-09, 01:16 PM

This study focuses on the tropics. The authors do not identify the feedbacks, instead they analyze ERBE data to suggest that climate sensitivity is lower than suggested by the IPCC.

In the standard black body model, it can be calculated that the tropics as defined between the both tropics of Capricorn and Cancer should recieve about 49% of the insolation (the poles beyond the Arctic circles recieve about 4%), if I'm correct. It would be pretty hard to explain how much the area outside the tropics can add to turn this negative feedback into such a strong positive feedback to satisfy the desired climate sensitivity

Testing hypotheses is not about offering alternatives. The study is not about speculations what could cause feedbacks and such, it is just about observing the total effect of all feedbacks. it's just step 4 of the scientific method: test the claims and predictions.

Karner has revised his opinion from that publication.

Maybe a reference to back to that claim? The only thing I can think of that he had to use the available satellite datasets at that time, which were revised later. To see if his observations were still valid, he tested just about all available datasets as can be seen here (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/).

Also he is describing a statistical model, not a physical one.

What is the problem with applying statistics (to test actual data sets), aren't statistics anywhere else in climatology? karner just finds that the random walk behavior of the datasets is showing the characterisks of negative feedback (antipersistence), which are distinctly different from positive feedback (persistence) and his series are more than long enough to ensure a robust statistical relevance.

The water vapor and albedo feedbacks are positive. Statistical models and tropical studies of radiation budgets do not alter the fact that when the air warms it holds more water vapor, a positive feedback, and when the snow and ice melt albedo is lower, also a positive feedback.

There is no doubt that there are positive feedbacks, but that does not alter the fact a overall total negative feedback is found using two totally different methods. Maybe some feedbacks have been overlooked, like perhaps the increase in rate of (latent) energy transport in the water cycle as well as albedo changes, which could be hinted by the results of Lindzen et al 2009.

Wagmc

Oct6-09, 02:42 PM

when the air warms it holds more water vapor, a positive feedback, and when the snow and ice melt albedo is lower, also a positive feedback.

and your simple model does not alter the fact that as air warms, it rises, where condensation releases heat at altitude where it radiates away, forms clouds that increase albedo, and rain that cools the ground. Hurricanes are a good example of this convective heat transport.

clouds are powerful sun shields. this is why a trivial 2% change in cloud cover accounts for as much warming or cooling as CO2.

Skyhunter

Oct6-09, 02:55 PM

In the standard black body model, it can be calculated that the tropics as defined between the both tropics of Capricorn and Cancer should recieve about 49% of the insolation (the poles beyond the Arctic circles recieve about 4%), if I'm correct. It would be pretty hard to explain how much the area outside the tropics can add to turn this negative feedback into such a strong positive feedback to satisfy the desired climate sensitivity

I find it quite easy, since the majority of the warming is taking place not in the tropics but in the higher latitudes. If I were going to make a case for low feedback I could not think of a better area to study than the tropics to find confirmation for my favorite conclusion.

Testing hypotheses is not about offering alternatives. The study is not about speculations what could cause feedbacks and such, it is just about observing the total effect of all feedbacks. it's just step 4 of the scientific method: test the claims and predictions.

Then why cherry pick the tropics for study and extrapolate the results for global conditions?

Maybe a reference to back to that claim? The only thing I can think of that he had to use the available satellite datasets at that time, which were revised later. To see if his observations were still valid, he tested just about all available datasets as can be seen here (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/).

Here he backs off his claim that the IPCC conclusions are not supported by the data.

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

And this is still just a statistical model with no physical model or description to verify his results.

What is the problem with applying statistics (to test actual data sets), aren't statistics anywhere else in climatology? karner just finds that the random walk behavior of the datasets is showing the characterisks of negative feedback (antipersistence), which are distinctly different from positive feedback (persistence) and his series are more than long enough to ensure a robust statistical relevance.

Nothing at all wrong with using statistical analysis to test an hypothesis. However, I don't need a statistical analysis to know that the Earth is warming, specific humidity is increasing, and the ice is melting. When someone tries to convince me otherwise with statistics, well I am reminded of the cliche, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

There is no doubt that there are positive feedbacks, but that does not alter the fact a overall total negative feedback is found using two totally different methods. Maybe some feedbacks have been overlooked, like perhaps the increase in rate of (latent) energy transport in the water cycle as well as albedo changes, which could be hinted by the results of Lindzen et al 2009.

When considering radiative forcing from increased GHG the tropics is where one would go to find a low sensitivity.

There are probably many feedbacks that are missed in the current climate models, but they are not going to significantly alter what we already know. The more we learn the shorter the error bars. All in all, with what is known, climate sensitivity is 2.0C - 4.5C. The albedo and WV feedbacks dominate, making the net feedbacks positive not negative.

Skyhunter

Oct6-09, 02:59 PM

and your simple model does not alter the fact that as air warms, it rises, where condensation releases heat at altitude where it radiates away, forms clouds that increase albedo, and rain that cools the ground. Hurricanes are a good example of this convective heat transport.

clouds are powerful sun shields. this is why a trivial 2% change in cloud cover accounts for as much warming or cooling as CO2.

Convection is an integral component of the lapse rate. Even the simplest models account for it.

Andre

Oct6-09, 05:43 PM

Here he backs off his claim that the IPCC conclusions are not supported by the data.

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

Can't seem to find the passage where it says that. I can find:

From the growth rate of the structure function in the time interval between 32 and 4096 days it follows that the variability of the series represents an anti-persistent (AP) behavior. This property in turn shows a domination of negative feedback in the physical system generating the lower tropospheric temperature variability.

And this is still just a statistical model with no physical model or description to verify his results.

Have you tried? It's after all a peer reviewed study, and the data and methods should be available.

Maybe I should try and tell what I think what Karner means with antipersistency and negative feedback. I made a small spreadsheet that claims to be nothing except the illustration of what I try to say.

The black line is a monte carlo one dimensional random walk that changes after each unit with a value anywhere between -x and +x, due to noise factors. This could be the forcing function a climate signal, detrended to make the average stationary value at zero.

If the value of the forcing at any moment is other than zero, a feedback signal is generated, which is added to the forcing function after the delay of that same unit. After all, feedback is generated after the process of input and output.

In case of positive feedback the added step is further away from the average balance zero, while the random noise signal can be either away or towards the balance position, statistically however, the forcing plus feedback will tend to persist moving away further. The persistence means also that reversals of the signal are more difficult and hence less than the statistical 50% of the noise. See the red line.

In case of negative feedback the added step is back towards the average balance zero, while again, the random noise signal can be either away or towards the balance position, statistically however, the forcing plus feedback will tend to return to the balance and NOT persist moving away further. The anti-persistence means also that reversals of the signal are easier and hence more than the statistical 50% of the noise.
See the blue line.

http://i33.tinypic.com/vngm5c.jpg

In the excel spreadsheet it shows that the original monte carlo random walk of 999 steps at this run had 493 reversals (should be 50% statistically) while the red positive feedback output had 363 reversals, the blue negative feedback output had 651 reversals.

Again this is only to illustrate that the behaviour of an signal can be judged on type of feedback, basically on any time constant, by comparing the number of reversals of the signal with the time constant

Note The graph shows the first 100 steps,

Note that the xls sheet recalculates everytime and the graph changes all the time but the principle remains the same.

Xnn

Oct6-09, 08:29 PM

I disagree. Follow me here.

It is well established that CO2 alone cannot account for all observed warming.

IPCC discounts indirect (magnetic) effects, even though there is significant observational evidence that something is modulating cloud cover over long time scales. This cannot simply be ignored - just because the understanding is "low."

Absent "other" forcings, IPCC and GCM's in general have assumed positive feedbacks to account for all observed warming. Unfortunately, observed feedbacks tend to be negative. So where's the extra warming coming from?

Well, a physical mechanism has been proposed, and studies are underway. Perhaps we'll soon know.

You think that a change in forcing attributed to GCR would be subtracted from aerosols? I think that it should be subtracted from feedbacks (which have been observed to be significantly less positive than modeled) thus attributing less warming to CO2.

Regarding ozone, it has been recently reported that polar ozone is destroyed by incoming UV, which has varied by up to 6%. I believe this process is exothermic, which could be a significant contributor to warming.

Wagmc;

What jumps out to me about the IPCC chart (pg32)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

is that they don't break out water vapor. They have buried it most likely by including it in with the forcing for each of the greenhouse gases. We know that water vapor levels have increased, but are you suggesting that the increase should be credited to cosmic rays? My impression is that most cosmic ray theorist have thought that they somehow modulate clouds.

Also, I've noticed that you have repeatedly stated that 2% albedo shift could accout for global warming. However, notice that the cloud/albedo forcing is negative. This impresses me as another significant hurdle for cosmic ray believers. That is even if a physical mechanism could be found for cloud modulation, then the increase in clouds/albedo is going the wrong way anyways for warming. So, while a 2% albedo shift "could" account for the warming, the info so far is that cloud/albedo shift has actually cooled the planet.

The more I think about it, the solar ozone link makes sense with respect to a physical mechanism.
Notice, there is a differance between stratsopheric and tropospheric ozone.
Not many people pay attention to it and as I've pointed out, the level of understanding is medium and it's actually been credited as a significant positive forcing.

Ozone is produced by UV radiation and UV levels vary significantly during the solar cycle,
so at least there is the start of a physical mechanism.

Skyhunter

Oct6-09, 10:41 PM

Andre,

Your chart looks nothing like the temperature record. I don't question that Karner knows what he is doing. I just think he is drawing broad unfounded conclusions. The Earth has warmed and is continuing to warm consistent with CO2 forcing with associated feedbacks.

Karner analyzes satellite data using the UAH extrapolation that was known to be in error. I wonder why he only used UAH when RSS was also available? That probably won't change his overall results, but I don't believe that his results, in error or not alter anything. Negative feedbacks could easily dominate. That doesn't change the physical reality. Karner fails to provide a physical mechanism to explain his conclusion that climate sensitivity is lower than observed.

It is just my opinion, but I see no reason to latch onto Karner's theory simply because of the patterns he detects in the temperature data and his interpretation. The pattern that I find important is the one that shows a strongly positive long term warming trend.

The primary short term feedback is radiative equilibration, radiation escaping into space. So Karner is probably correct in his analysis of the data, he just seems to not understand the physical mechanism that results in the statistical conclusion.

Saul

Oct6-09, 11:49 PM

You do not understand how to analysis a scientific problem. Assume there is or could be something incorrect with the AWG hypothesis. (Amount of forcing or amount of feedback.).

Stop debating for a moment.

Look at Kirkby's paper as a story of what has happened before. There are cyclic abrupt warming and abrupt cooling periods in the paleoclimatic record. Kirkby provides data from 167 referenced papers which shows the cosmogenic isotope changes correlate with past planetary temperature changes.

Now logically analyze the observations to predict could be about happen. Then look for new observations to validate or invalidate the prediction.

Let's assume a significant portion of the 20th planetary warming was due to solar wind bursts removing cloud forming ions. (See K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov attached below. Planetary temperature changes (increases and decreases) do correlate with solar wind bursts. Also see quiet sun ringing planet, which explains why even though GCR has increased there has been no significant planetary cooling.)

Now the solar wind bursts have abated, but GCR has increased by 19% above the highest measured GCR in last 40 years. Theoretical calculations indicated GCR can increase another 11%, if the solar minimum continues.

Now what to look for to validate or invalidate the hypothesis.

The GCR low level cloud effect is greatest for North and Southern Latitudes 40 to 60 degrees and over the ocean. There should be over the next few months a cooling of the ocean, however, the time lag for the upper 150m of the ocean to cool is around 5 years, so the cooling will not all be seen in one year.

The GCR effect on low level clouds continues to increase in polar regions but there is less water vapor at higher latitudes to form clouds. Over the antarctic ice sheet the albedo of the ice is greater than clouds so an increase in low level clouds causes an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet temperature.

I have also read about increasing GCR causing a reduction in high altitude clouds. I do not understand the mechanism for the formation of high altitude clouds or how increasing GCR is hypothesized to cause a reduction in high altitude cloud, however, there is record cold temperatures during periods of high GCR in high latitudes. If GCR does reduce high level cloud cover it is expected there would be record cold temperatures particularly at night.

The atmosphere over land can cool very rapidly. Very cold land temperatures creates the conditions for a 1970's sever blizzard where extreme cold northern air mixes with warm gulf air creating a blizzard with hurricane force winds. There was the same phenomena in the 1800's. Sever blizzards this winter with hurricane force winds might be an indication that the planet is cooling.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

2 SOLAR/COSMIC RAY-CLIMATE VARIABILITY
2.1 Last millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1 The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.2 Intertropical Convergence Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3 Solar and cosmic ray changes since the Little Ice Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Holocene; last 10 ky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 Ice-rafted debris in the North Atlantic Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 Indian Ocean monsoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Quaternary; last 3 My . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 Stalagmite growth in Oman and Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 Laschamp event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Phanerozoic; last 550 My . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1 Celestial cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.2 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

Xnn

Oct7-09, 12:01 PM

Saul;

Please notice that Kirby stated that indications of GCR flucuations could be just a proxiy for other solar activity. In other words, GCR flucuations could be coincidental with something like the change in the UV spectrum. UV radiation generates ozone in the atomsphere, which is a greenhouse gas. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. So, there is a chance that changes in total solar irradiance impact the earths climate affecting the levels of greenhouse gas as well as the direct change in solar heating.

Anyhow, GCR affect on clouds is considered controversial since there is no demonstrated mechanism and besides cloud cover has actually increased over the recent past which has actually contributed to a negative forcing of the climate.

Furthermore, Palle has shown that solar influences on the climate have become progressively less important since 1910; and we should all understand why that is.

Saul

Oct7-09, 09:54 PM

Saul;

Furthermore, Palle has shown that solar influences on the climate have become progressively less important since 1910; and we should all understand why that is.

Xnn,

You must be reading a different Palle paper. Perhaps you can provide a link and the full quote.

You are confused concerning what Palle is stating in the paper. In the 20th century solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions which means TSI, GCR, and cloud modulation are no longer synchronized. In the 19th century there were no solar wind bursts to remove cloud forming ions late in the solar cycle.

Your comments seem to be denial on the basis that if the solar modulation of clouds caused say 50% of the 20th century warming then something is incorrect with the GWG hypothesis (say magnitude of the GWG forcing is less or planetary feedback is less or negative rather than positive.).

There appears to be no scientific discussion about the papers in this thread.

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

The Palle paper I linked to states that conservatively 50% of the 20th century warming can be attributed to solar modulation of planetary cloud cover.

The "Once again about global warming and solar activity" paper by K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov shows there is 85% correlation of planetary temperatures changes and solar wind bursts over a two decade period.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

The Kirkby paper shows that the past cold planetary periods correlate with periods of high GCR and with periods when the geomagnetic field intensity is low over the last 1000 years, 10000 years, 3 million years, and 550 million years. (The geomagnetic field and solar heliosphere help to shield the planet from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)).

We use a simple model to calculate the climatic impact should the correlation be confirmed. We show that, under the most favorable conditions, a reduction in low cloud cover since the late 19th century, combined with the direct forcing by solar irradiance can explain a significant part of the global warming over the past century, but not all. However, this computation assumes that there is no feedback or changes in cloud at other levels.

From the above computations we estimate that the effect of a low cloud-ionization connection would be around 0.2 C warming during the 20th century; a slightly lower value than the previous estimate of 0.27 C (Palle´ and Butler, 2000) using a much simpler approximation based on the data from 1983 to 1994 only.

Xnn

Oct8-09, 07:18 PM

Saul;

Here is the exact quote from Palle:
There is relatively good agreement between the observed
anomaly and the combined curves for the period
1870–1910, but increasing divergence from 1910 onward.

The combined curves refer to figure 8 where the contributions of
the combined solar direct (irradiance) plus indirect (low cloud) forcing
are compared to the instrumental record. Here's a link to the paper:

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

Notice how the curves progressively diverge from 1910 onward.

Also, notice how pathetic the correlation is from 1980 to the present.
There has been significant global warming since 1980 and yet that is where
the correlation is at it's worst. So, it should be no surprise that credible
climate scientist don't consider GCR a significant factor for the near future.

Actually, looking at the figure, there wasn't much of a correlation before 1910.
It appears that they just forced it to fit around 1910.

In his own words "arbitrarily scaled." Think about it!

Saul

Oct8-09, 11:12 PM

Saul;

Here is the exact quote from Palle:

The combined curves refer to figure 8 where the contributions of
the combined solar direct (irradiance) plus indirect (low cloud) forcing
are compared to the instrumental record. Here's a link to the paper:

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

Notice how the curves progressively diverge from 1910 onward.

Also, notice how pathetic the correlation is from 1980 to the present.
There has been significant global warming since 1980 and yet that is where
the correlation is at it's worst. So, it should be no surprise that credible
climate scientist don't consider GCR a significant factor for the near future.

Actually, looking at the figure, there wasn't much of a correlation before 1910.
It appears that they just forced it to fit around 1910.

In his own words "arbitrarily scaled." Think about it!

Did anyone notice Heliospheric Magnetic field strength is the lowest in 173 years!!!!

Is the lowest heliospheric magnetic field strength in 173 years going to affect planetary climate???

Let's see if there is any indication of planetary cooling!!!!

Will there be a change in planetary cloud cover???

http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09.pdf

The Heliospheric Magnetic Field Strength 1835-2009

Xnn,
You need to finish reading each paragraph in the paper or someone will accuse you of misquoting papers.

http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

The following is the entire paragraph in question.

global temperature anomaly of Jones et al. (2001). There is relatively good agreement between the observed anomaly and the combined curves for the period 1870–1910, but increasing divergence from 1910 onward. By the 1990s, the difference is of the order one third to one half of the global warming since the late 19th century. Thus it appears that, provided further satellite cloud data confirms the cosmic ray flux low cloud seeding hypothesis, and no other factors were involved over the past 150 years (e.g., variability of other cloud layers) then there is a potential for solar activity induced changes in cloudiness and irradiance to account for a significant part of the global warming experienced during the 20th century, with the possible exception of the last two decades.

Furthermore there is a trend in ISCCP total and low cloud cover during the period 1983–2001, which in principle, will act to accentuate the forcing described in this section. Neither have we considered in this paper the climatic impact of changes in greenhouse gasses concentration in the atmosphere, the role of volcanic activity, the role of atmospheric aerosols or the internal variability of the climate system. Thus, the climate forcing described in this section is but one of the several parameters contributing to climate change. Not until we have reliable long-term measurements of cloud at all heights, can we draw any really firm conclusions as to the long-term changes in cloud radiative forcing.

Xnn

Oct9-09, 04:40 PM

Thus it appears that, provided further satellite cloud data confirms the cosmic ray flux low cloud seeding hypothesis, and no other factors were involved over the past 150 years (e.g., variability of other cloud layers) then there is a potential for solar activity induced changes in cloudiness and irradiance to account for a significant part of the global warming experienced during the 20th century, with the possible exception of the last two decades.

Saul;

Yes, that line was also in the paper and it's a beauty!

READ IT CAREFULLY!

Notice that he is assuming that further data confirms the cosmic ray hypothesis. And if that were to happen, then there is the "potential" that it could amount to something.

He is also recognizing my point, which is that the correlation has totally broken down over the last 20 years. In total, it is a preposterous statement and I'm not impressed with it.

Saul

Oct9-09, 05:43 PM

Xnn,

The correlation between GCR intensity and strength and planetary cloud cover appears to breaks down if solar wind bursts remove the ions via the process electroscavenging.

GCR increases and decreases due to the strength of the solar heliosphere. The solar wind bursts are produced by coronal holes that have formed at low latitudes on the solar surface such that the wind bursts that they produces strike the earth. The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. Less clouds warmer planet.

(The solar wind bursts cause the planetary index (blue line in the graph) in this link to move up.)

http://www.solen.info/solar/

Normally to coronal holes form at the solar poles at the end of the solar cycle.

Now as noted above the solar heliosphere is the weakest in 170 years. The continues, however, to coronal holes at low latitudes on the solar surface.

The coronal holes strip of the magnetic field from the sun and are hence getting weaker.

There is something else going on in terms of the mechanism. There is a noticeable difference from perihelion and aphelion. Perihelion occurs in January.

This new paper by Svensmark proves the GCR mechanism.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds by Henrik Svensmark et al.

Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm

Xnn

Oct9-09, 07:06 PM

Saul;

I don't think one can logically defend an excuse that applies for just the last 20 years.
It's funny to me that these guys think they are on to something while they admit
that it doesn't apply to the last 2 decades. Actually, it is getting to be hilarious.

Also, your link only goes back to July 2009.
It does not support any statements regarding the last 170 years.

You're more of an expert on this stuff than I am.
So, how much cooling are these guys predicting?

Xnn

Oct9-09, 08:08 PM

Here's a paper that refutes any link between GCR and recent climate change.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

New estimates of the solar cycle length are calculated from an up-to-date monthly sunspot record using a novel but mathematically rigorous method involving multiple regression, Fourier approximation, and analytical expressions for the first derivative based on calculus techniques. The sensitivity of the estimates to smoothing are examined and the analysis is used to identify possible systematic changes in the sun. The solar cycle length analysis indicates a pronounced change in the sun around 1900, before which the estimates fluctuate strongly and after which the estimates show little variability. There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.

Xnn

Oct9-09, 08:13 PM

And here's a paper that refutes a cosmic ray link to the most recent warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the presently 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.

Saul;

I think we are starting cycle 24.
That would make cycle 22 a while ago; correct?
I wonder what was found for cycle 23.

Xnn

Oct9-09, 08:21 PM

Here's another peer reviewed paper that concludes that correlation is not causation
when discussing Low Cloud Cover (LCC) and Cosmic Rays (CR).

Fancy that!

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3959v2.pdf

The simultaneous reduction of LCC and of CR intensity is not evidence
for a causal relationship between these two phenomena. They correlate due
to the presence of a common driving force:changes in solar activity.

Xnn

Oct9-09, 08:26 PM

And then there is this... Less than 14% of recent warming from solar activity changes.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

The variation with time from 1956-2002 of the globally averaged rate of ionization produced
by cosmic rays in the atmosphere is deduced and shown to have a cyclic component
of period roughly twice the 11 year solar cycle period. Long term variations in the global
average surface temperature as a function of time since 1956 are found to have a similar
cyclic component. The cyclic variations are also observed in the solar irradiance and in
the mean daily sun spot number. 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.

Saul

Oct9-09, 09:59 PM

Here's a paper that refutes any link between GCR and recent climate change.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

Xnn,
The paper you quote looks at solar cycle length and finds there is a period when there is no correlation. The mechanism we are discussing however is solar wind bursts that remove cloud forming ions.

Why does the author discuss solar length. What difference does it make if the length of solar cycle varies? You quote a paper that has nothing to do with solar wind bursts.

This is not religious studies where one can appeal to some sacred book that has a higher status or democratic where if 10 people agree with your statement and only 9 agree with what my statement, you win.

See the paper linked to below that specifically notes the earth is ringing!!! for cycle 24.

What is the point of a scientific forum if we do not discuss the topic scientifically. You must accept the mechanism I proposing that explains the hump warming followed by slight cooling. The shape of the warming is relevant to the discussion. That observation is a fact. Start a separate thread if you would like to explain the warming trend with AWG.

I have explained the mechanism. Solar wind bursts create a space charge that removes cloud forming ions.

If there are solar wind bursts it does not matter if GCR is high and is creating a large number of ions as the solar wind bursts will remove the ions.

In addition GCR has a greater effect on the latitude 40 Deg to 60 Deg, whereas the solar wind bursts (electroscavenging) affect lower tropical latitudes in addition to higher latitudes.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

Cycle 24, Cycle 24, Cycle 24 Why is the Earth Ringing. What do the words "ringing" mean in this context?

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

Comments:
We are discussing a physical process. There is a cycle of glacial/interglacial periods. Interglacial periods are very short (around 12 kyrs) Glacial periods are long, around 100 kyr. There is obviously some massive forcing function that forces the glacial period. Insolation at the so called 60 Degree North is exactly the same as the coldest period of the last glacial period.

Insolation is not driving the glacial/interglacial cycle. This massive forcing function that I am alluding to is forcing the planet's temperature. I look at the paleoclimatic data, I have specific knowledge about system modeling and stability. It is obvious there is some external semi periodic function that is forcing the planet's temperature.

The sun is in a very unusual state. What do we know about the range of past solar unusual events? What do we know about other stars that are the same as our sun?

Skyhunter

Oct10-09, 10:22 AM

Saul,

Why don't you read the papers Xnn linked, then you might be able to reply without ad hominem. You accuse others of not understanding and then demonstrate that you do not understand the paper you are commenting on.

The correlation to GCR and low cloud cover proves nothing. The reason that the solar cycle is being discussed is because GCR also correlates to the solar cycle. If ionization of particles was significant for cloud formation, there should also be a correlation with mid and high level clouds. What is found that mid level clouds decline while low clouds increase. Therefore the amount of clouds forming does not increase, only the level of the clouds.

Applying Occam's razor the authors determined that LCC correlation is due to cooler temperatures, due to lower solar irradiance. In other words the height of the clouds is what changes, not the amount, and that is more a function of convection than ionization.

Accusing others of religious fervor, while holding onto your fringe belief with vigorous zeal is quite telling.

Saul

Oct10-09, 10:24 AM

Science is the analysis of observation data to validate or invalidate hypotheses.

There is a significant solar event underway. How has the solar magnetic cycle changed?

Are there any unexplained climatic events or changes that correlate with the recent solar changes? Note the mechanism has solar wind bursts removing the ions that are hypothesized to increase planetary cloud cover, therefore the planet will not cool (planetary clouds increased due to high levels of GCR) until the the solar wind bursts abate and then stop.

As shown in the solar links below, the solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period in the last 40 years.

Ocean heat content is starting to trend down. Why?

edit: removed link

This set of links shows the progress of the solar magnetic cycle.

The sun is spotless for this day in 2004 however there is significant magnetic activity.

edit: removed links
The solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. There continues to be coronal holes in low latitude locations on the sun, however, the affect on the geomagnetic field is less and less as the coronal holes are stripping of the sun's magnetic flux and the solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. (See coronal hole CH382.)

Today. (See coronal hole CH382.)

edit:deleted links

Skyhunter

Oct10-09, 10:58 AM

Insolation at the so called 60 Degree North is exactly the same as the coldest period of the last glacial period.

No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm2 less than it is today.

Saul

Oct10-09, 12:12 PM

No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm2 less than it is today.

Insolation was not 20 W/m^2 less at 65N 20,000 years in the summer. (Note the summer insolation at 65N is supposedly important in Milankovitch's theory.) 20,000 years ago was the start of the current interglacial. 20,000 years ago perihelion (earth's closest approach to the sun) occurred in June. Therefore summers at 65N 20,000 years ago were significantly warmer (due to insolation) than they are today. (Planet was still cold 20,000 years ago as the massive ice sheets were starting to melt. Have you heard about the glacial/interglacial cycle?)

Currently the earth is farthest from the sun in June and closest to the sun in January. Therefore summers at 65N are colder due to insolation than they were 20,000 years ago. The insolation during summers at 65N is the same today as it was during the coldest part of the last glacial period.

Now the question all curious scientific minds want to ask is why does the planet get colder and colder, then at the coldest point in the glacial cycle the ice sheets melt for a short interglacial period and then suddenly there is abrupt cooling. What is the 100 kyr problem? (See link at end of this comment.)

Do you know anything about Milankovitch's flawed theory? Do please explain the mechanism. I am curious about your thoughts and knowledge of obvious flaws in Milankovitch's theory. Great theory if one ignores the paradoxes.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/milankovitchqsr2004.pdf

“Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change” by Carl Wunsch

“A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are re-examined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size and near-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods. At the least, the stochastic background‘‘noise’’ is likely to be of importance.”

Evidence that Milankovitch forcing ‘‘controls’’ the records, in particular the 100 ka glacial/interglacial, is very thin and some what implausible, given that most of the high frequency variability lies elsewhere.

www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Lecture14.pp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

100,000-year problem

The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively large 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[6] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[7][8]

The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100 ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400 ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved — in particular, the carbon cycle.

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun 10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem. Effect exceeds cause 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behaviour is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

The unsplit peak problem The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies [5], but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.

The transition problem

The transition problem refers to the change in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1-3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this changed to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity. No reason for this change has been established.

Skyhunter

Oct10-09, 05:33 PM

Xnn

Oct11-09, 05:06 PM

Xnn,
This is not religious studies where one can appeal to some sacred book that has a higher status or democratic where if 10 people agree with your statement and only 9 agree with what my statement, you win.

Saul;

The problem is that there are a number of quacks around when it comes to science.
The way to avoid being mislead, is to refer to reputable sources and journals that employ the peer review process. It not, then this may just as well be a political or religious belief forum.

I agree with you that the Sun is in an exceptional period which may continue. There has been very few sunspots for the last 2 years. It's about as big a lull and what occurred in 1910 to 1913. This means the solar forcing for the climate is about as low as it was way back then. However, last I checked, global surface and land temps are both near record highs. It's far warmer now than it was back then and I think we both know why.

Here's a link to the latest National Climate Data Center summary:

*The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for August 2009 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This is the second warmest such value on record, behind 1998. August 2009 was the 31st consecutive August with an average global surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last August with global temperatures below the 20th century average occurred in 1978.
*The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June-August 2009 was the third warmest on record for the season, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).
*The worldwide ocean surface temperature for August 2009 was the warmest on record for August, 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F).
*The seasonal (June-August 2009) worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the warmest on record, 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F).
*In the Southern Hemisphere, both the August 2009 average temperature for land areas, and the Hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest August on record.

Now, this does not mean we can not discuss the influence of the Sun on the climate. However, I'm not interested in being mislead by outrageous over hyped claims.

Evo

Oct11-09, 06:51 PM

Saul

Oct12-09, 10:02 AM

OK, Making eyeball guesstimates is not very accurate so let me get more exact numbers.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/insola/earth/online/index.php

65N summer insolation peaked 17,000 years ago.

http://www.imcce.fr/tmp/insola/insolaoutKWaaCo

The coldest point of the last glaciation was ~25,000 years ago and 65N 360L was about -6Wm2 less than the present.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

But there are other factors besides orbital forcings and NH summer insolation at any given period. I was not arguing that 65N insolation was the only forcing involved, I was simply pointing out your error. Since your argument was based on bad information, your conclusion is suspect.

"Skyhunter 1st Quote:"No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm2 less than it is today.

"Skyhunter 2nd quote:"65N summer insolation peaked 17,000 years ago.

The coldest point of the last glaciation was ~25,000 years ago and 65N 360L was about -6Wm2 less than the present.

Skyhunter,

You contradict yourself in the above quotes. No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm2 less than it is today.

This interglacial period began roughly 20,000 years ago. The past six interglacial periods have been around 15,000 years long. The glacial periods are 100,000 years long. Do we agree what has happened before? i.e. I am not stating a theory I am stating the what the paleoclimatic data indicates. i.e. The mechanism must explain what has happened before.

The current interglacial period started about 20,000 years ago. As you note the coldest period of the last glacial period was about 25,000 years ago. Solar insolation in the summer has become progressive less at the 65N. When the interglacial started 20,000 years ago the earth was closest to the sun in June. Now 20,000 years later the earth is closest to the sun in January, which makes summers colder now then they were 20,000 years ago.

We both agree and multi papers state something else besides solar insolation is abruptly forcing the planet's climate. When you look at the peculiar saw shaped glacial/interglacial cycle there is obviously some massive forcing function at work.

Suddenly in the middle the current warming "Holocene interglacial" 12,900 years ago, the planet abruptly returns to glacial cold for a 1000 years. (The abrupt cooling period is called the Younger Dryas cooling period named after an alpine flower that suddenly appears in the fossil record in mid latitudes in Europe.)

My point is the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event is one of a series of abrupt cooling events in the paleoclimatic record. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the abrupt cooling events. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by interruptions in the solar magnetic cycle and geomagnetic field changes which then causes a massive increase in GCR.

Saul

Oct12-09, 10:19 AM

As I said, there is a massive cosmogenic isotope change that is concurrent with a massive 1000 year abrupt cooling event which paleo climatologists have called the "Younger Dryas" cooling event.

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/2000QuatIntRenssen.pdf

Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?

The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9-11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997). During these events, icebergs were common in the N Atlantic Ocean, as evidenced by ice-rafted sediments found in ocean cores. The most prominent of these episodes with ice rafting are known as Heinrich events (e.g., Bond et al., 1992, 1993; Andrews, 1998). A Heinrich-like event (H-0) was simultaneous with the YD (Andrews et al., 1995). Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O'Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor a!ecting climate variations during the Holocene (see also Magny, 1993, 1995a), possibly operating together with oceanic forcing.

Evidence for solar variations in the geological past may be inferred from cosmogenic isotope records (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). The two most important of these isotopes are carbon-14 (14C) and beryllium-10 (10Be),... Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40-70 %/% within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30-60 %/% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50-80%/% in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70%/% in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.

There is evidence is the sun is moving to a complete solar magnetic cycle interruption, not a slow down.

The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been linearly decreasing with time. It is believed sunspots are created at interface of the convection zone and the radiative zone (the tachocline). The sunspot requires a minimum field strength of around 1500 gauss to avoid being torn to pieces as it moves up to the surface of the sun through the turbulent convection zone.

Sunspots from the previous cycle are believed to move back down to tachocline to form the seeds for the next cycle, which explains why there is some periodicity between every second cycle. (The period of the convection motion motion is 22 years.). An interesting and unanswered question is how does the solar magnetic cycle re-start after being interrupted?

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf

Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?

But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http:// users . telenet .be/ j . janssens/ Spotless/ Spotless .html). The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].

The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.

Yet although the Sun’s magnetic polarity has reversed and the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (see Figure 1); in fact, nearly all of these features are seen only on flux magnetograms and are difficult to detect on whitelight images.

Andre

Oct12-09, 10:20 AM

Saul

Oct12-09, 10:54 AM

The problem with the Younger Dryas is that if you really research it meticulously, checking out a couple of hundred studies on methodology, especially on dating calibration, the cold image crumbles. One example:

Björck et al 2002 (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/427)

Note that model speculations don't count as evidence.

Andre,

A melting ice in Greenland during the Younger Dryas does not mean the has not an abrupt cooling climatic climate change during the Younger Dryas that lasted a 1000 years.

If we understood the mechanism then interpreting the paleoclimatic record would be easier.

The Younger Dryas was the strongest climatic event in the Holocene, interglacial period. It was an abrupt climate event, not a gradual cooling. It lasted for 1000 years. During the Younger Dryas the North Atlantic froze each winter to a latitude of around mid-Spain.

There is a 6 fold increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during the Younger Dryas cold period which indicates a massive increase in desertification due to abrupt cooling. As noted below the ice sheet dust changes occurs in less than 10 layers of ice. There is cycles of the abrupt increases in the dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet.

Due to insolation, summers should have been warmer 12,900 years ago than now. Melt water in the Greenland region during the summer does not disprove an abrupt climatic cooling event occurred.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

The Younger Dryas (YD) was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. Previous ice core studies have focused on the abrupt termination of this event [ Dansgaard et al., 1989] because this transition marks the end of the last major climate reorganization during the deglaciation. Most recently the YD has been redated--using precision, subannually resolved, multivariate measurements from the GISP2 core--as an event of 1300 70 years duration that terminated abruptly, as evidenced by an 7 C rise in temperature and a twofold increase in accumulation rate, at 11.64 kyr BP [ Alley et al., 1993] (Figure 2). The transition into the Preboreal (PB), the PB/YD transition, and the YD/Holocene transition were all remarkably fast, each occurring over a period of a decade or so [ Alley et al., 1993]. Fluctuations in the electrical conductivity of GISP2 ice on the scale of <5-20 years have been used to reveal rapid changes in the dust content of the atmosphere during the same periods and throughout the last glacial [ Taylor et al., 1993b]. These rapid changes appear to reflect a type of ``flickering'' between preferred states of the atmosphere [ Taylor et al., 1993b], which provides a new view of climate change. Holocene climates are by comparison stable and warm.

High resolution (mean: 3.48 years/sample), continuous measurements of GISP2 major anions (chloride, sulfate and nitrate) and cations (sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium and ammonium) were used to reconstruct the paleoenvironment during the YD because these series record the history of the major soluble constituents transported in the atmosphere and deposited over central Greenland [ Mayewski et al., 1993c]. These multivariate glaciochemical records provide a robust indication of changes in the characteristics of the sources of these soluble components or changes in their transport paths, in response to climate change. A dramatic example is provided by the calcium series (Figure 2) covering the last 10-18 kyr BP. Prominent periods of increased dustiness have been observed in the record, peaking approximately every 500 years (see figures in Mayewski et al. [1993c]): during the early PB at 11.4 kyr BP; throughout the YD at 11.81, 12.22 and 12.64 kyr BP; during the Bolling/Allerod (B/A) at 13.18, 13.65, and 14.02 kyr BP; and during much of the Glacial. Such events have been attributed by Mayewski et al. [1993c] to changes in the size of the polar atmospheric cell and in source regions (e.g., growth and decay of continental biogenic and terrestrial source regions).

The climate change that accompanied the YD was not restricted to Greenland. The record of variations in the CH concentration of trapped gases in the GRIP ice core [ Chappellaz et al., 1993] shows that tropical and subtropical climates were colder and drier during the YD and also earlier cold events. The major natural source region of CH is low-latitude wetlands [ Chappellaz et al., 1993]; higher atmospheric concentrations are presumably due to the greater areal extent of tropical and subtropical wetlands [ Chappellaz et al., 1993].

Andre

Oct12-09, 11:33 AM

No Saul, the Bjorck et al paper is just an example.

Another example, starting with the A:

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/Ager2003QR.pdf

..A brief invasion of Populus (poplar, aspen) occurred ca.11,000–9500 14C yr B.P., overlapping with the Younger Dryas interval of dry, cooler(?) climate...

and in the discussion:

...At Zagoskin Lake, the time interval for the Populus-Salix assemblage overlaps with the Younger Dryas interval of colder, drier climate that has been documented in several areas of Alaska (e.g., Peteet and Mann, 1994). It is unclear why an interval of apparently colder, drier climate might favor the expansion of Populus and Salix populations, even into areas beyond the present day range of Populus trees...

How many more shall I present?

Saul

Oct12-09, 12:02 PM

No Saul, the Bjorck et al paper is just an example.

Another example, starting with the A:

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/Ager2003QR.pdf

and in the discussion:

How many more shall I present?

Andre,

I am not sure what your point or mechanism is. The paper you quote above discusses a microclimatic region (Bering Straight) where the Pacific Ocean significantly moderates the climate. i.e. That area and similar microclimate regions could be less cold than the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

The Younger Dryas Greenland Ice sheet cooling occurred in less than a decade. Your paper does challenge the observation of rapid and extreme cooling on the Greenland Ice sheet.

The Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures dropped -15C as compared today. The Northern Atlantic ocean froze to the latitude of mid Spain. Why? What planetary or external change caused the planet to change.

As I note there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent to the planetary temperature changes.

There is a cycle of warming and abrupt cooling periods throughout the glacial and interglacial period which show evidences of an external forcing function. The forcing occurs regardless of surface events. Its effect (the external forcing function) depends on surface events at the time of the occurrence.

Saul

Oct12-09, 12:10 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

People have been silent on the list of paradoxes concerning Milankovitch's theory.

Milankovitch's theory does not explain the observations. There is evidence of abrupt warmings and coolings that do not correlate with any surface events.

The 100,000 year problem
The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively large 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[6] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[7][8]

The 400,000 year problem
The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100 ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400 ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved — in particular, the carbon cycle.

The Stage 5 Problem
The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun 10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem. Effect exceeds cause 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behaviour is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

The unsplit peak problem
The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies [5], but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.

The transition problem
The transition problem refers to the change in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1-3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this changed to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity. No reason for this change has been established.

Saul

Oct12-09, 04:01 PM

The following is additional evidence that indicates Milankovitch's theory is not correct and there is an external mechanism that is forcing the planet's temperature.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476

Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate In Synch Worldwide

An answer to the long-standing riddle of whether the Earth's ice ages occurred simultaneously in both the Southern and Northern hemispheres is emerging from the glacial deposits found in the high desert east of the Andes.

"The results are significant because they indicate that the whole Earth experiences major ice age cold periods at the same time, and thus, some climate forcing mechanism must homogenize the Earth's climate system during ice ages and, by inference, other periods," says Michael R. Kaplan, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Edinburgh who conducted the work in a postdoctoral position at UW-Madison

"During the last two times in Earth's history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods," says Kaplan.

"Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation," says Singer. "Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth."

This is evidence that the short term planetary temperature changes in this interglacial period are global and synchronous. The synchronicity rules out ocean current as a possible mechanism as the time for ocean currents changes in the Northern Hemisphere to affect the Southern Hemisphere is theoretically around 1000 years.

A second as serious issue with the ocean current mechanism (likely a show stopper) is the recently confirmed finding that the deep ocean conveyor does not exist. There is therefore no ocean current mechanism to teleconnect the two hemispheres even with a time delay.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/3/237

Evidence of early Holocene glacial advances in southern South America from cosmogenic surface-exposure dating

Cosmogenic nuclide surface-exposure dating reveals that glaciers in southern South America (46°S) advanced ca. 8.5 and 6.2 ka, likely as a result of a northward migration of the Southern Westerlies that caused an increase in precipitation and/or a decrease in temperature at this latitude. The older advance precedes the currently accepted initiation of Holocene glacial activity in southern South America by 3000 yr. Both of these advances are temporally synchronous with Holocene climate oscillations that occurred in Greenland and the rest of the world. If there are causal links between these events, then rapid climate changes appear to be either externally forced (e.g., solar variability) or are rapidly propagated around the globe (e.g., atmospheric processes).

Andre

Oct12-09, 05:04 PM

Andre,

I am not sure what your point or mechanism is. The paper you quote above discusses a microclimatic region (Bering Straight) where the Pacific Ocean significantly moderates the climate. i.e. That area and similar microclimate regions could be less cold than the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

The Younger Dryas Greenland Ice sheet cooling occurred in less than a decade. Your paper does challenge the observation of rapid and extreme cooling on the Greenland Ice sheet.

The Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures dropped -15C as compared today. The Northern Atlantic ocean froze to the latitude of mid Spain. Why? What planetary or external change caused the planet to change.

As I note there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent to the planetary temperature changes.

There is a cycle of warming and abrupt cooling periods throughout the glacial and interglacial period which show evidences of an external forcing function. The forcing occurs regardless of surface events. Its effect (the external forcing function) depends on surface events at the time of the occurrence.

I know, it's a bit weird to challenge the cold of the Younger Dryas and oppose all parties in the climatology, "warmers" and "deniers", but it's just the outcome of my years of research into that direction as I shall prove. There is no other option than to be absolutely accurate about the data before the suppositions can start and we are far away from that.

So, I'm afraid, it's all a bit different. and I still have dozens of "micro" climates on my sleeve. After the B of Bjorck, we now have the C for Columbia.

Van’t Veer R., G.A. Islebe, H. Hooghiemstra, 2000; Climate change during the Younger Dryas chron in Northern South America: a test of the evidence. Quartenary Science Review Vol 19 (2000) pp 1821 - 1835

Abstract

New AMS and palynological data are presented from the Colombian Andes to assess vegetational and climatic change during the Lateglacial-Holocene transition, with special emphasis on the Younger Dryas (YD) chronozone.

....From ca. 11,000 to ca. 10,500 14C yr BP there is a sharp increase of subparamo and paramo pollen, reflecting a relatively cool phase during the YD chronozone (zone Y1). After ca. 10,500 14C yr BP, a slight increase of arboreal pollen and the presence of Cactaceae (zone Z1) point toward a relatively milder but drier phase extending to ca. 9000 14C yr BP in the earliest Holocene....

The sharp boundary at 11,000 and 10,500 year 14C BP, carbon dated, convert to 12,920 and 12,600 calendar years BP using the INTCAL04 (http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04%20files/intcal04.14c) calibration table so that cooling period is mosty before the beginning of the Younger Dryas that started about 12680 "varve" counted years ago (Lucke and Bauer 2004 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-4CWBMMN-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F19%2F2004&_alid=1045205706&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5821&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=5&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=88acc331cfe014c99e4b2d3fa69e7c56))

So the warm period after 10,500 carbon years is actually in the middle of the Younger Dryas. Furthermore, peek at Lucke and Brauer again:

High lacustrine primary production was further favored by relatively warm YD summer temperatures.

so we have yet another micro climate here, but now in Germany, Europe.

So if you find all these discrepancies, are these all micro climates? or is something more seriously wrong with our interpretations?

Skyhunter

Oct12-09, 07:16 PM

Skyhunter,

You contradict yourself in the above quotes.

What part of:

OK, Making eyeball guesstimates is not very accurate so let me get more exact numbers.

didn't you understand?

Since my second post was specifically to offer more precise numbers... why are you accusing me of contradicting myself?

This interglacial period began roughly 20,000 years ago. The past six interglacial periods have been around 15,000 years long. The glacial periods are 100,000 years long. Do we agree what has happened before? i.e. I am not stating a theory I am stating the what the paleoclimatic data indicates. i.e. The mechanism must explain what has happened before.

The current interglacial period started about 20,000 years ago. As you note the coldest period of the last glacial period was about 25,000 years ago. Solar insolation in the summer has become progressive less at the 65N. When the interglacial started 20,000 years ago the earth was closest to the sun in June. Now 20,000 years later the earth is closest to the sun in January, which makes summers colder now then they were 20,000 years ago.

The current interglacial is known as the Holocene (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/hol.html) and it began ~10,000 years ago, not 20,000.

We both agree and multi papers state something else besides solar insolation is abruptly forcing the planet's climate. When you look at the peculiar saw shaped glacial/interglacial cycle there is obviously some massive forcing function at work.

Suddenly in the middle the current warming "Holocene interglacial" 12,900 years ago, the planet abruptly returns to glacial cold for a 1000 years. (The abrupt cooling period is called the Younger Dryas cooling period named after an alpine flower that suddenly appears in the fossil record in mid latitudes in Europe.)

My point is the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event is one of a series of abrupt cooling events in the paleoclimatic record. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the abrupt cooling events. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by interruptions in the solar magnetic cycle and geomagnetic field changes which then causes a massive increase in GCR.

The Younger-Dryas preceded the Holocene. One theory is that a comet struck the Laurentide ice sheet (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/94) and caused the abrupt cooling, but the more likely cause was a Dansgaard/Oeschger event. Here are two recent papers that synchronize the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.

Do you have a link showing the cosmogenic isotope proxies that coincide with the 100,000 year glaciations?

It is my understanding that they isotope proxies reveal a 2500 year cycle.

How does the GCR theory explain the tropical Earth and snowball Earth events?

How do you explain the anti-correlation with low clouds and medium altitude clouds?

Skyhunter

Oct12-09, 07:35 PM

Here is a comparison of the Delta 18O ice core records.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gripbyrd2.jpg?w=491&h=363

The Y-D event was not globally synchronous.

Saul

Oct12-09, 08:40 PM

Here is a comparison of the Delta 18O ice core records.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gripbyrd2.jpg?w=491&h=363

The Y-D event was not globally synchronous.

Skyhunter if you look at this graph there is abrupt interglacial warming that began 15,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago. The start of the warming is the start of the interglacial. Your comment is correct, the Holocene period is defined as the warming that occurs after the Younger Dryas event. Interglacial periods are typically 15,000 years long.

The Younger Dyras cooling affected the tropics in addition to the Northern Hemisphere. I believe there was cooling in the Southern Hemisphere however not a 1000 year cooling period as occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.

What is key (to explain in terms of mechanism) about the Younger Dryas event is the rapidity and magnitude of cooling event. Also note the North Hemisphere was cold for a 1000 years. Impacts to the planet or volcanic eruptions cool the planet for a few years. Those how appeal to impacts and volcanic eruptions cannot explain the duration of the cooling event. Insolation at 65N is at maximum during the Younger Dryas cooling event, the oceans will retain there heat and will not cool based on increased cloud cover for a couple of years.

Thinking in terms of mechanism what is required is a mechanism that can abrupt cool one hemisphere and regions in a hemisphere more than others in addition to a mechanism that can cool the entire planet.

The were other cooling events, as per my comments in links, that concurrently effected both hemispheres. Including the long term cooling glacial cycle for the last two glacial cycles.

The problem of course with the finding of long term glacial cooling occurring in both hemispheres at the same time is insolation can only cool one hemisphere based on insolation at 65 degree latitude. The other hemisphere is 180 degrees out of phase and will be receiving maximum insolation in the summer. If both hemispheres abruptly cool something else is forcing the planet's climate.

Everyone that is interested in Milankovitch's theory look closely at this link that shows how the planet's temperature has changed vs insolation for the last 800,000 years.

Look closely at this comparison of insolation at 65N Vs planetary temperature. Skyhunter, how do explain the planet becoming colder and colder over 100,000 years and then 15,000 years ago abruptly warming? Also if you look at insolation at 65N compared to past glacial/interglacial cycles, there is a lack of proportional change. Insolation is has become less and less in the last 15,000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

This also is interesting. Using ocean floor sediments this graph shows how planetary temperature has changed over the last 5 million years. You can see the evidence of the abrupt forcing function in the plot. What is confusing the researchers is they initially selected the incorrect mechanism.

As Jasper Kirkby notes in his review paper, the geomagnetic field intensity now peaks during the interglacial and is stronger in intensity than during normal periods. There is also a cycle of 41 kyrs in the geomagnetic field.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Saul

Oct12-09, 10:10 PM

What part of:

Do you have a link showing the cosmogenic isotope proxies that coincide with the 100,000 year glaciations?

This is the paper that shows there is 100,000 period for geomagnetic field intensity changes. (The geomagnetic field intensity is 5 to 6 times greater during the interglacial period. For the last 40 kyr lava flows can be used to determine geomagnetic field intensity quite precisely. All accept that the geomagnetic field intensity has increased 5 to 6 times from the cold glacial period to the warm interglacial period. Jasper Kirkby discusses the correlation of geomagnetic field intensity with planetary climate.) The GCR is modulate by the geomagnetic intensity in terms of the intensity of the GCR that strikes the planet and the latitudes the GCR can reach.

The 100kyr magnetic cycle paper's hypothesized mechanism for what is modulating the geomagnetic field intensity is not correct. The eccentricity of the planet's orbit changes how the periodic solar event affects the planet. The effect is greater when the orbital eccentricity is greater. The effect is also greater when the orbital tilt is greater. Based on the timing of abrupt cooling event the solar event occurs with periodicity of roughly 8000 to 12,000 years.

So if you have a solar event that is semi periodic and its effect on the geomagnetic field depends on the planetary orbital changes (tilt, timing of aphelion, and orbital eccentricity) and also on the amount of the planet's surface that is covered with ice sheets, a person is not going to understand what is happening (the observations) without a correct strawman mechanism. Picking an incorrect mechanism will force other assumptions to be incorrect in an attempt to try to match the paleo record. (Look at the paleo record of temperatures for the last 5 million years.)

http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/people/Hirokuni/Hiro2002a.pdf

Orbital Influence on Earth’s Magnetic Field: 100,000-Year Periodicity in Inclination

A continuous record of the inclination and intensity of Earth’s magnetic field, during the past 2.25 million years, was obtained from a marine sediment core of 42 meters in length. This record reveals the presence of 100,000-year periodicity in inclination and intensity, which suggests that the magnetic field is modulated by orbital eccentricity. The correlation between inclination and intensity shifted from antiphase to in-phase, corresponding to a magnetic polarity change from reversed to normal. To explain the observation, we propose a model in which the strength of the geocentric axial dipole field varies with 100,000-year periodicity, whereas persistent nondipole components do not.

Skyhunter

Oct13-09, 11:46 AM

Thanks I will try and read it today.

Skyhunter

Oct13-09, 05:06 PM

Saul

Oct13-09, 10:54 PM

I could find no validation for the intensity of the magnetic field intensity being 5-6 times stronger than during the last glaciation. In fact what I read offered evidence that overall it remains fairly constant over time, weakening during reversals.

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/ecp/pdf/EC0075.PDF

Check figure 9 and compare to paleoclimatic data.

Time Variations in the Geomagnetic Intensity

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000104.pdf

Figure 9. (a) Field variations during the past 75 kyr (North Atlantic paleointensity stack (NAPIS-75)) generated by stacking six independent records from the North Atlantic Ocean [Laj et al., 2000a] plotted with the most recent version of the Sint-200 database (error bars are drawn from the standard deviation around the mean value). These stacks are compared to the composite record of the volcanic database [Perrin and Shcherbakov, 1998] obtained after averaging VADMs within 500- and 1000-yr-long time intervals [Yang et al., 2000] for the past 45 kyr. (b)

The discovery of fast millennium spaced geomagnetic field intensity changes is fairly recent.

http://www.dstu.univ-montp2.fr/LGHF/equip/gaillot/PDF/6_EPSL184.PDF

Wavelet analysis of relative geomagnetic paleointensity at ODP Site 983

As I noted, it appears the solar magnetic field is periodically interrupted. When it restarts a series of massive coronal mass ejections occur. The region of the planet where these CME strike is dependent on planetary tilt and the timing of aphelion (I believe the seasonal timing of aphelion controls which hemisphere the strikes occur in.)

The effect is significantly amplified when the earth's orbit is more eccentric.

There appears to be a permanent charge difference from the solar core to solar surface. The sunspots help equalize the solar core charge build-up. Evidence to support this statement would be an increase in volcanic activity during solar minimums and super volcanic eruptions during deep solar minimums. What is happening is the planets also become charged and as there is a significant time delay for the planet's core to equalize with the surface of the planet.

When there is a deep solar magnetic cycle interruption, there is a change in the solar system charge balance at the orbit of each planet. As the charge balance on the surface of the planet has changed there is charge movement from the core to the planet's surface to try to equalize. There are multiple solar system observations to support this statement as well as many anomalous terrestrial observations.

Saul

Oct17-09, 10:53 PM

Something that I found interesting (see papers below) is the inverse relationship of sunspot number and volcanic eruptions. During Maunder and Dalton minimums there are significantly more and larger volcanic eruptions. When the sunspot activity is high there is less volcanic activity.

There is also correlation with earthquakes, however, the paleo earthquake data is difficult to data so the relationship has only been shown for human record history.

The paper at the end of this comment notes the volcanic eruptions are following a millennium periodicity. The paper provided above notes that geomagnetic field intensity also varies with a millennium periodicity.

The paper linked to above showed a set of volcanoes that do not share the same magna chamber yet that erupted within a sort period of time together and that all recorded a geomagnetic excursion when the lava cooled. This finding shows a link between what is causing the geomagnetic field excurion and what is causing a simultaneous volcanic eruption from a set of volcanoes that do not share the same magna chamber.

What it appears is happening is the solar magnetic cycle is interrupted and when it restarts there are very large coronal mass ejections. The CME create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which then creates a potential difference between the planet and the earth. There is a strike from the planet to the earth which disrupts the geomagnetic field. Depending on the hemisphere where the strike is the geomagnetic field is either strengthened or weakened.

As the core magnetic field time constant is around 3000 years, initially the strike always weakens the geomagnetic field in the region of the strike.

In paleo past the super volcanic eruptions have also correlate with deep solar minimums.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989JGR....9417371S

“Volcanic eruptions and solar activity” by Richard Stothers

The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980 is subjected to detailed time series analysis. In two weak but probably statistically significant periodicities of about 11 and 80 yr, the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland reveals several very long periods ranging from about 80 to about 350 yr which are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and C-14 records. Solar flares may cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth's spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which affect volcanism. (My comment. This mechanism guess is not correct.)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A

The Role of Explosive Volcanism During the Cool Maunder Minimum

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0° C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. The precise cause of the lower-than-average temperatures during this period is not well understood. Recent papers have suggested that a rise in volcanism was largely responsible for the cooling trend.[3]

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.full#otherarticles

Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony. Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrient-limited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano–climate system.

Saul

Oct18-09, 12:06 AM

The papers in the above comment show there is correlation with solar magnetic minimums with volcanic activity.

This is the paper that provides evidence of multiple volcanoes with different magma chambers all erupting in a short time period and all capturing a geomagnetic excursion.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml

Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field

Five monogenetic volcanoes within the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field are shown to have recorded a virtually identical but anomalous paleomagnetic direction (mean inclination and declination of 61.7° and 351.0°, respectively), consistent with the capture of a geomagnetic excursion. Based on documented rates of change of paleomagnetic field direction during excursions this implies that the volcanoes may have all formed within a period of only 50–100 years or less. These temporally linked volcanoes are widespread throughout the field and appear not to be structurally related. However, the general paradigm for the reawakening of monogenetic fields is that only a single new volcano or group of closely spaced vents is created, typically at intervals of several hundred years or more. Therefore, the results presented show that for any monogenetic field the impact of renewed eruptive activity may be significantly under-estimated, especially for potentially affected population centres and the siting of sensitive facilities.

Saul

Nov1-09, 07:08 AM

This is an interesting discussion concerning "Courtillot et al's paper: Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?"

The geomagnetic data indicates that something is forcing the geomagnetic field changing the tilt of the geomagnetic field in relationship with the earth's axis of rotation as well as modulating the intensity of the geomagnetic field. As the planet's core is conductive, currents are induced in the conductive core which work to return symmetry of the geomagnetic field and the earth's axis of rotation.

The geomagnetic field deflects galactic cosmic radiation (GCR). With strongest GCR deflection at 90 degrees to the magnetic field poles and the weakest GCR deflection at the magnetic poles.

Tilting the geomagnetic field and the creation of large geomagnetic field anomalies brings the magnetic pole down to lower latitudes where there is warmer moist air. GCR has been shown to increase planetary cover and increase rainfall. The increase in planetary cloud cover cools the planet.

The discussion explains both the mechanism and the periodicity of the forcing event. The forcing events vary in magnitude and correlate with solar magnetic cycle minimums. It appears the forcing event is related to the restart of the solar magnetic field mechanism. The paleoclimatic shows immediate cooling when the solar magnetic cycle is interrupted which creates a weak solar heliosphere. (The solar heliosphere also deflects GCR.)

Then when the solar magnetic cycle restarts there is this sudden geomagnetic forcing event that tilts the geomagnetic field and creates a geomagnetic field anomaly which is a region of stronger or weaker field. Whether the forcing event constructively or de-constructively reinforces the geomagnetic field depends on the orientation of the geomagnetic field at the time of event and the hemisphere where the strike occurs.

There is correlation of geomagnetic field intensity with both the amount of tilt of the planet and with eccentricity of the planet's orbit. So if you can imagine the strike event which is controlled by a solar process, its affect on the geomagnetic field depends on the earth sun distance (orbital eccentricity) and tilt of the planet.

The time constant of the geomagnetic field is 1000s of years, so the affects of a significant geomagnetic field forcing change can persist as opposed to the solar magnetic cycle minimum which is less than 100 years.

The paleoclimatic data shows evidence of multiple forcing events with varying magnitudes of temperature changes. The strongest events are called Henrich events which have a periodicity of 6000 years to 8000 years. There is also a strong cycle with a periodicity of the 1470 years. There is correlation of cosmogenic isotope changes with both the 1470 cycle and the Henrich events.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.

Point 4: We first reiterate the fact that the “claims” made in our paper regarding correlations between cooling periods and archeomagnetic jerks were actually put forward by Gallet et al (2005, 2006). We do note that the causal relationship between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover suggested by Marsh and Svensmark (2000) would result in a correlation opposite to the one we find if the field geometry were axial and dipolar and this is precisely why we propose a mechanism of dipole tilt or non dipole geometry to interpret our observations. Gallet et al (2005) write: “ Another hypothesis is to assume that the incoming charged particles are deflected towards the poles, where the overall low humidity level due to cold temperatures limits cloud formation. If archeomagnetic jerks indeed correspond to periods of strongly inclined dipole, then the charged particles would interact with more humid air from lower latitude environments, leading to significantly larger cloud production and cooling.” And if this happens, there is no need to “overcome the more direct effect", as (mis)understood by BD07 (who seem to understand that a growing axial dipole is superimposed on a tilted dipole, which is not the case).

It is therefore not surprising that the tuned curve should reveal the link between solar activity and O18. It is moreover interesting to note that this correlation, obtained on an Alpine stalagmite, and therefore evidence of the influence of solar variability on climate, is also found in proxies from other regions around the globe: correlation between times of solar minima and cold episodes in western Europe (Magny, 1993; Holzhauser et al, 2005), modulation of precipitation in the tropics in Northern South America and Yucatan (Haug et al, 2001), in Eastern Africa (Verschuren et al, 2000), and Arabia (Neff et al, 2001); influence on droughts in North America (Yu and Ito, 1999).

This is a link to the original paper.

Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf

Xnn

Nov1-09, 06:11 PM

About this paper:

It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent.

So, only greenhouse gases can explain the warming of the last 25 years.

mheslep

Nov1-09, 06:43 PM

About this paper:

So, only greenhouse gases can explain the warming of the last 25 years.
That does not logically follow from the statement in the Courtillot et al abstract you quoted.

Xnn

Nov2-09, 12:01 PM

There has been a lot of warming over the last 25 years.
However, the paper does not come up with a solar explanation for it.

We know that greenhouse gases have been rising steadily for over a hundred years.
Initially, the influence of rising greenhouse gases were small compared to short term fluctuations such as those from solar changes. However, over time, the influence of greenhouse gases have accumulated and are now dominating climate change. Short term fluctuations still exist, but the overall warming trend is unmistakable.

Solar influences are at nearly a 100 year minimum and should be leading to significant global cooling. However, the last 2 months have both been the 2nd warmest months (September & October) since 1880. So, again we see that solar theories cannot explain current climate change.

I'm open minded about solar theories, but nothing in this thread has shown that they could reasonably be used to dismiss the influence of greenhouse gases.

seycyrus

Nov2-09, 12:41 PM

Are you guys aware that the American Physical Society is now emailing its members to see how they feel about their official statement regarding AGW, and a proposed revised statement offered by some of its fellows?

Xnn

Nov2-09, 07:40 PM

No, but if this is the "Official" statement, then I can see why.
IMO, it's a stretch to state that security and human health will be impacted by climate change more so than from routine population increases or all the wars that we have.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Wagmc

Nov5-09, 10:12 AM

So, only greenhouse gases can explain the warming of the last 25 years.

TSI is not the only component of solar forcing. You continue to ignore indirect (magnetic) effects as well as the recent discovery that UV modulates ozone production over the poles, which is an exothermic reaction.

Astrophysical Journal (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/705/1/926/)

New study confirms that solar magnetic activity drives the solar wind, which, if Svensmark is correct (and we'll soon know) modulates cloud cover and earth temperatures.

And solar magnetic activity continues to decline even as cycle 24 ramps up.
NOAA observed AP index (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt)

Xnn

Nov5-09, 11:32 AM

Saul

Nov5-09, 11:12 PM

A significant portion of the 20th century warming is hypothesized to be caused by solar wind bursts. Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions and hence makes it appear increases in GCR does not cause an increase in planetary cloud cover.

The solar wind bursts were created by coronal holes that moved down to lower latitudes of the sun late in the cycle of cycles 22 and cycle 23. As noted below, although cycle 24 appears to be a rump or abrupt Maunder minimum, there are three times as many solar wind bursts being produced.

Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by a process that is called "electroscavenging".
This paper explains how GCR and solar magnetic cycle changes are hypothesized to change planetary climate.

See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper that explains how solar wind bursts increases in the global electric circuit hence removing cloud forming ions. Somewhat interesting solar wind burst increased by a factor of 2.5 in the later part of the 20th century in a manner that directly correlates with the warming and cooling of the later part of the 20th century.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

The solar wind bursts are now starting to abate, so we should and are seeing increased colder weather in both hemispheres.

The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals (Cycle 24 and Cycle 23/22)

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

Wagmc

Nov6-09, 08:21 AM

I haven't see a peer reviewed paper that quantifies it or an paper that quantifies any solar mechanism for the last 25 years of warming

I'll post you some references. There are several.

We are also about 2 years into the most significant solar minimum since 1912, and yet global temperatures are very near all time instrumented highs.

Only if you look at the contaminated surface record. Satellites don't show that "all time" high.

As for "where's the cooling?" Ha. Where's the warming? If CO2 is such a significant driver of temps, they why no warming since 2000?

This is a water planet. Lots of studies put the solar lag at 5 to 15 years due to the huge ocean sinks. Even as we speak a little el nino is transferring heat to air, where it will be convected away. The planet is cooling.

mheslep

Nov6-09, 11:29 AM

I'll post you some references. There are several.

Only if you look at the contaminated surface record. Satellites don't show that "all time" high.
1998 aside, sure they do, at least over the three decades of satellite records.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

Saul

Nov6-09, 11:35 AM

I'm not ignoring the other components of solar forcing. UV modulation of ozone does impress me as a plausable mechanism. However, I haven't see a peer reviewed paper that quantifies it or an paper that quantifies any solar mechanism for the last 25 years of warming.

We are also about 2 years into the most significant solar minimum since 1912, and yet global temperatures are very near all time instrumented highs.

Yes, however, as noted solar wind bursts continue to be produced by the sun even though the solar magnetic cycle is at a 100 year minimum.

(See Paper: If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals (Cycle 24 and Cycle 23/22)).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by the process of electroscavenging which results in a decrease in low level clouds and an increase in high level clouds. See Tinsley's paper below.

The solar wind bursts are starting to abate. Based on the mechanisms what should be observed now is an increase in low level clouds and a decrease in high level clouds due to the increased GCR, at latitudes from 40 degree to 60 degree both hemispheres.

The decrease in high level clouds will result in exceptionally cold nights in the higher latitude regions which should result in increased sea ice both hemispheres.

In addition as the global electric circuit will be reduced it is expect that there will be increased cloud cover in the tropics.

The cooling will be moderate by the El Nino event, so the full effect of the cooling may not be expected until the winter of 2010/2011.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

4b. Altitude and solar cycle dependencies

Ambient ions are continuously generated by galactic cosmic rays as noted earlier, with the magnitude of the ionization rate variations being a function of latitude and altitude. During a solar cycle, the values of Q vary by ~ 20 -25% in the upper troposphere and ~5-10% in the lower troposphere for high latitudes, and by ~4-7% in the upper troposphere and ~3-5% in the lower troposphere for low latitudes [Ney, 1959]. The effect of such systematic change in ionization rate on the altitude profile for the production of ultrafine particles has been studied by Yu [2002].

Figure 4.2 shows the total condensation nuclei bigger than 3nm (Nd>3 nm) after three hours of simulations at different altitudes. The line with open circles is for the baseline Q values while the line with filled circles is for Q values 20% over the corresponding baseline values. ….The neutralization by ion-ion recombination will make the growing charged clusters lose their growth advantage and the resulting neutral clusters may dissociate if smaller than the critical size. At typical [H2SO4] where significant nucleation has been observed, for very low Q most of the ion clusters have sufficient time to reach the larger stable sizes prior to recombination and the nucleation rate is limited by Q. As Q (or altitude) increases, ion concentration increases but the lifetime of ions decreases and hence the fraction of ions having sufficient time to grow to the stable sizes decreases. As a result, the total number of particles nucleated first increases rapidly but later on decreases as Q (or altitude) increases. The altitude of the turning point is around 4 km under the vertical profiles assumed in this study.

It is clear from Figure 4.2 that an increase in GCR ionization rate associated with solar activity leads to an increase in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ > 0) in the lower troposphere (as indicated by the arrows) but a decrease in the ultrafine production rate (i.e., dN/dQ < 0) in the upper troposphere (as indicated by the arrows). In the middle troposphere, dN/dQ changes sign and the average value of dN/dQ is small compared to that of lower and upper troposphere.

5. The Global Electric Circuit and Electroscavenging

5a. Modulation of Jz in the global circuit.

The global electric circuit was illustrated pictorially in Figure 3.1, and a schematic circuit diagram is given in Figure 5.1. General properties of the circuit have been reviewed by Bering et al. [1998[. Earlier comprehensive reviews have been given by NAS [1986] and Israël [1973]. The polar potential pattern is superimposed on the thunderstorm-generated potentials. In a given high latitude region the overhead ionospheric potential, Vi is the sum of the thunderstorm-generated potential and the superimposed magnetosphere-ionosphere generated potential for that geomagnetic latitude and geomagnetic local time. During magnetic storms the changes in Vi from the mean can be as high as 30% within regions extending up to 30km of latitude out from the geomagnetic poles [Tinsley et al.1998].

As indicated in Figure 5.1, horizontal potential differences of order 100 kV are generated, high on the dawn side and low on the dusk side, producing corresponding changes in Vi and Jz. The dawn-dusk potential difference has a strong dependency on the product of the solar wind velocity, vsw, and the Bz(GSM) north-south solar wind magnetic field component [Boyle et al., 1997].

mheslep

Nov6-09, 02:28 PM

...The solar wind bursts are now starting to abate, so we should and are seeing increased colder weather in both hemispheres....All else remaining the same, i.e., ONLY if all other forcings were to remain a net constant, which they never do.

Wagmc

Nov6-09, 05:17 PM

1998 aside, sure they do, at least over the three decades of satellite records.

Uhm...no. I see a plateau since 2000, and the most recent temps are NOT record highs.

Just because you read it in the news does not make it a fact.

This was in response to the statement:

We are also about 2 years into the most significant solar minimum since 1912, and yet global temperatures are very near all time instrumented highs.

your lovely chart makes my point nicely, although the clever use of scaling makes temps looks like...uhm...a hokey stick. Here's another view direct from UAH that puts it in a little better perspective.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_09.jpg

I'm still seeing a plateau after 2000. No record-breaking warming in the last two years. This in spite of continuing increases in CO2, but I digress...

mheslep

Nov6-09, 06:24 PM

Uhm...no. I see a plateau since 2000, and the most recent temps are NOT record highs.

Just because you read it in the news does not make it a fact.

[...]
your lovely chart
Its not mine.
makes my point nicely, although the clever use of scaling makes temps looks like...uhm...a hokey stick. The attitude doesn't help. Please check it at the door.
Here's another view direct from UAH that puts it in a little better perspective.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_09.jpgSame data. So what?

I'm still seeing a plateau after 2000. Yes temperatures are at plateau for the last few years. A HIGH plateau.
No record-breaking warming in the last two years.So? The statement was "temperatures are very near all time instrumented highs."Indeed they are. Nobody said new records. Please don't attribute that which was not said. A plateau maintains the highs.

Xnn

Nov7-09, 07:25 AM

http://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21606&stc=1&d=1257469597

The above image of Arctic temperatures over the last 2000 years is based on a very recent study.

Observe that over the fist 1900 years, there were indeed several ~100 year long periods of
warming and cooling that might be attributed to changes in solar forcing. There is also a
clear overall cooling trend attributed to changes in earths orbit (gradually lowering of solar
insolation at 65N; AKA Milankovitch theory).

If one looks closely, the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) is discernible. There is also the
Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1815), but I can't clearly pick it out in the temperature record.
However, what really sticks out is that there really are no good solar theories that can
explain the last 100 years and especially the last 25 years of warming.

I'm trying to be open minded here!

The source document is found at the following:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jsp

Saul

Nov7-09, 01:59 PM

The above image of Arctic temperatures over the last 2000 years is based on a very recent study.

Observe that over the fist 1900 years, there were indeed several ~100 year long periods of
warming and cooling that might be attributed to changes in solar forcing. There is also a
clear overall cooling trend attributed to changes in earths orbit (gradually lowering of solar
insolation at 65N; AKA Milankovitch theory).

If one looks closely, the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) is discernible. There is also the
Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1815), but I can't clearly pick it out in the temperature record.
However, what really sticks out is that there really are no good solar theories that can
explain the last 100 years and especially the last 25 years of warming.

I'm trying to be open minded here!

The source document is found at the following:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jsp

Xnn,
How did planetary temperature or temperature in the Northern Hemisphere change during the same period?

Why do you believe that graph corresponds to actual arctic temperatures. What proxy did the authors use to determine arctic temperatures for the period?

Saul

Nov7-09, 03:09 PM

If the GCR theory is correct, then the planet must start to cool, as GCR is 19% higher than past periods and the solar wind bursts are starting to abate.

There is starting to be some observational evidence that the planet is cooling such as the coldest US October in 110 years and the coldest New Zealand October in 45 years. When the current El Nina dissipates perhaps there will be more observational evidence. November appears to be warmer, however, the warmer November is likely El Nina.

A significant portion of the 20th century warming is hypothesized to be due to solar wind bursts removing cloud forming ions by the process called "electroscavenging". Even though GCR is high if the solar wind bursts remove the cloud forming ions then the affects of GCR will not be observed.

Planetary temperature is closed correlated with the parameter Ak which is a measure of the solar wind and solar wind bursts. (See my comments above for links to papers.)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals (Solar Cycle 24 compared to past solar cycles.)

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign. In response, geospace and upper atmospheric parameters continued to ring with the periodicities of the solar wind in a manner that was absent last cycle minimum, and the flux of relativistic electrons in the Earth's outer radiation belt was elevated to levels more than three times higher in WHI than in WSM.

mheslep

Nov7-09, 06:25 PM

If the GCR theory is correct, then the planet must start to cool, as GCR is 19% higher than past periods and the solar wind bursts are starting to abate.Saul, for that statement to hold, you'd have to show, at a minimum, what fraction GCR contributes to planetary energy budget. I have no idea, but if its impact is, say, 5% of albeto based radiation return to space then a 200% increase in GCR won't mean the planet as a whole will 'start to cool'.

There is starting to be some observational evidence that the planet is cooling such as the coldest US October in 110 years and the coldest New Zealand October in 45 years. When the current El Nina dissipates perhaps there will be more observational evidence. November appears to be warmer, however, the warmer November is likely El Nina.What's the point of saying, aha, there's some cooling (or warming) at some localized point on the planet, in isolation from the rest of planet?

Saul

Nov7-09, 10:09 PM

Saul, for that statement to hold, you'd have to show, at a minimum, what fraction GCR contributes to planetary energy budget. I have no idea, but if its impact is, say, 5% of albeto based radiation return to space then a 200% increase in GCR won't mean the planet as a whole will 'start to cool'.

What's the point of saying, aha, there's some cooling (or warming) at some localized point on the planet, in isolation from the rest of planet?

mheslep,
Based on the mechanisms and past cooling events the planet will overcome the current El Nina and start cooling this winter. The cooling will continue reaching the new equilibrium low in about 5 years.

The cloud data indicates as much as 75% of the planet's 20th century warming was due to solar wind bursts that created a space charge in the ionosphere that removed ions from the atmosphere by the mechanism that is called electroscavenging which resulted in less clouds which caused the planet to warm.

Electroscavenging was stopped (coronal holes are starting dissipate), the solar heliosphere is at its lowest level in almost 50 years, GCR has increased by 19% and based on past solar magnetic deep minimums, GCR will increase to around 30%.

So as there is both a cessation of electroscavenging and an increase in GCR there will be an increase in low level planetary cloud cover which will cause increase planetary low level planetary cloud cover and cooling.

Higher GCR also causes a reduction in high level cloud cover. High level clouds warm the planet particularly at high latitudes in the winter.

The net result will be record cold winter temperatures at high latitudes and more clouds over the oceans as the atmosphere over the oceans is ion poor.

The geomagnetic changes later, perhaps a number of decades later based on the paleoclimatic record.

I am saying the planet has in the past abruptly cooled when the sun went into a deep solar minimum. I have provided a series of paper that show there are abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field inclination and magnitude that correlate with the abrupt cooling event. The hypothesized mechanism is the sun goes into a deep solar magnetic cycle minimum. When the sun restarts there are a series of massive coronal mass ejections which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which cause a flash over from the ionosphere to the planet's surface.

The paper copied above shows evidence of 10 such events in the last 10,000 years. Geomagnetic specialists have coined the term archomagnetic jerks for the observations.

The paper I linked to above shows 5 New Zealand volcanoes that do not share the same magma chamber that suddenly erupted within a period of 100 years and that all capture in their magma flow evidence of a geomagnetic field direction excursion that occurs with in the period.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary

Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times,

Initial evidence from the GRIP ice core evidence (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Taylor et al. 1993) indicated that the Eemian (My comment last interglacial period) was punctuated by many short-lived cold events, as shown by variations in electrical conductivity (a proxy for windblown dust, with more dust indicating colder, more arid conditions) and stable oxygen isotopes (a proxy for air temperature) of the ice were used by these workers infer the climatic conditions during the Eemian. The cold events seemed to last a few thousand years, and the magnitude of cooling was similar to the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions; a very dramatic contrast in climate. Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html

The 8200 B.P. event, "lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia (Alley et al. 1997; Barber et al. 1999; Hu et al. 1999; Street-Perrot and Perrot 1990). This event is well-known from the GISP2 analyses, within which it is second only to the Younger Dryas in magnitude of some measurable variables (Alley et al. 1997; Figure 22). The pronounced West Asian signal for the 8200 B.P. event is present in Soreq Cave speleothem records (Bar-Matthews et al. 1999), Negev snail isotope variability (Goodfriend 1991, 1999), low Dead Sea levels (Frumkin et al. 1994), and the geochemistry of stage E to stage F transition at Lake Van (Lemcke and Sturm 1997). . . ."