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

[Saul]

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/normalisehttp://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]

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/_4ruQ7t4zr...AAIw/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]

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]

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]

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]

Saul,

Shaviv 2003 is a joke.

Their correlation is based on several arbitrary adjustments to the CRF data. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.pdf"

And they also fail miserably in their attempt to disprove the CO₂ as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and paleoclimate data. 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!

 

[Saul]

Saul,

Shaviv 2003 is a joke.

Their correlation is based on several arbitrary adjustments to the CRF data. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.pdf"

And they also fail miserably in their attempt to disprove the CO₂ as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and paleoclimate data. 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]

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]

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 difference 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]

Saul;
Notice that this is approximately the same amount of warming that Long Lived Greenhouse gases have caused during the 20th century. However, the difference 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/...-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]

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.