New paper in GRL confirms link between sun and clouds on global scale

[Xnn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Skyhunter]

Feedbacks are decidedly positive, especially water vapor and albedo.

 

[Andre]

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]

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]

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 receive about 49% of the insolation (the poles beyond the Arctic circles receive 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 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]

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]

In the standard black body model, it can be calculated that the tropics as defined between the both tropics of Capricorn and Cancer should receive about 49% of the insolation (the poles beyond the Arctic circles receive 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 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]

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]

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.

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]

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 difference 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]

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.

[edit]

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. [/edit]

 

[Saul]

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]

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 Earth's 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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[/URL][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles[/url][QUOTE]100,000-year problem

[B]The 100,000-year problem[/B] 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][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]The 400,000-year problem[/B] 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.[/QUOTE][QUOTE][B]The stage 5 problem[/B] 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. [B]This is also referred to as the causality problem.[/B] Effect exceeds cause 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]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).

[B]The unsplit peak problem[/B] 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.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B] The transition problem[/B]

[B]The transition problem[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

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.

 

[Xnn]

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]

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

Saul, those links are not to valid sources. Some even say that they are made by the person from other sources. Since we can't validate every graph that every person puts together, we have to insist on only the original data.

 

[Saul]

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.

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.