General AGW debate thread

[tacoman25]

I do resent the deniers being lumped in as 'skeptics' - because the word skeptic to me invokes a sense of intellectual honesty that simple denial doesn't have.

A true skeptic would find something like this possibly interesting, but demand that there be a mechanism.

And it is also ignorant to lump all skeptics together as "deniers", which is what many people do.

[WeatherRusty]

Does degrading the word skeptisism provide you with some sort of cover for your insecurities? Do you EVER challange scientific conclusions, or do you weaken science by just accepting all that is "concluded" for you??

Your recent behavior is VERY typical of someone who might be beginning to have internal struggles with their own beliefs. It can be a hard fall......but we're here for you.

The skeptics of AGW are in large part not interested in the science. Their so called skepticism is based in pure ideology and politics. If AGW where not to imply political and economic corrective measures I dare say the number of AGW skeptics would virtually disappear outside the science research community and there are not many there to begin with..

I am not a climate researcher so what I think is irrelevant to the science. I learn from those who do the science. I have no input whatsoever. Whether I believe AGW or not is irrelevant. It should not matter to anyone what you or I think, we don't influence the science one little bit.

What makes you think I don't challenge scientific conclusions? I don't doubt AGW for the simple reason I have been convinced the science is sound, just as do most climate scientists. That does not mean I fail to understand the uncertainties which still remain in our understanding. AGW is a serious threat, ignoring or denying that threat is foolish when the best science we have is telling us we could be on the verge of anywhere from mild to severe consequences if we do nothing.

BTW, analyze this...I am an agnostic, both in the religious sense and in terms of how I view the physical world and indeed scientific research. I don't believe we can know anything with absolute certainty. What we experience as our physical reality is a type of illusion, the product of our limited perspective on things.

So actually I question everything. That's probably why I am so interested in science as the methodology best suited to aid in our understanding of the natural world.

[skierinvermont]

Woa now, Mr Hypocrite,

Great way to start off a discussion with a new poster who made a straightforward friendly factual post. Call them childish names. This type of response is completely uncalled for. This is why you should have been banned from this forum ages ago like you were on EUSWX.

[WeatherRusty]

And it is also ignorant to lump all skeptics together as "deniers", which is what many people do.

What would you like to be called? You probably don't want to labeled at all. Neither do I appreciate being called an alarmist all the time just because I follow the science of climate change and am not a skeptic or denier or contrarian or whatever.

[tacoman25]

What would you like to be called? You probably don't want to labeled at all. Neither do I appreciate being called an alarmist all the time just because I follow the science of climate change and am not a skeptic or denier or contrarian or whatever.

I can distinguish between AGW proponents who are mainly concerned with the science and it's possible implications for the earth, and those who act like Chicken Little. It's one thing to be concerned, it's quite another to leap to conclusions and trumpet worst case scenarios as "WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!!!". Some AGW people are alarmists, plain and simple. And some skeptics are in denial of the science. But there are also plenty who acknowledge the science behind AGW theory, yet also believe there are some unproven ideas, especially involving climate feedbacks.

In addition, there are skeptics who have a "wait and see" approach because they want to see if the climate system is really responding as modeled. Because if there is one thing we know for sure, it's that computer models are far from infallible. It's a difficult thing, because those who put a lot of faith in the models are freaked out by inaction...yet history has proven that rushing to judgement with limited evidence is rarely a good idea.

[Mencken_Fan]

The typical skeptical argument is not designed to demonstrate causality. With few exceptions, such as galactic cosmic rays affecting global cloud amount, their arguments seek only to cast doubt on the role anthropogenic interference plays in climate change. Skeptics rarely do any original research, they merely attack the mainstream science and it's practitioners.

Curious isn't it?

[tacoman25]

Curious isn't it?

From a scientific/academic viewpoint, it's a lot easier to get funding if you aren't a skeptic. I say this because I (and others on here) have actually spoken with people with scientific careers, and they have told us how the vast majority of funding in climate science goes towards strongly AGW-oriented research. This is because it is such a hot-button topic. AGW is a real "cash cow" for many researchers right now.

[Mencken_Fan]

From a scientific/academic viewpoint, it's a lot easier to get funding if you aren't a skeptic. I say this because I (and others on here) have actually spoken with people with scientific careers, and they have told us how the vast majority of funding in climate science goes towards strongly AGW-oriented research. This is because it is such a hot-button topic. AGW is a real "cash cow" for many researchers right now.

Sour grapes perhaps? Or do applications for funding always include a section for "expected results"? Does a researcher need check a box for "Pro-AGW" or "Anti-AGW"? If a researcher thought his or her views were paramount in getting financed might one fib a little bit?

I'm not in a place to know any of the above but I will say that excuses like that generate red flags at my end.

[BethesdaWX]

The skeptics of AGW are in large part not interested in the science. Their so called skepticism is based in pure ideology and politics. If AGW where not to imply political and economic corrective measures I dare say the number of AGW skeptics would virtually disappear outside the science research community and there are not many there to begin with..

Stop making blatant BS assumption regarding skeptics, seriously, you're beginning to irk me. Do you see me bashing anyone except Jim Hansen? I am in this 100% for the science, and when I am able to obtain my PHD, I'll do all I can to spread objectivity, and rock the scientific field in massive tremors.

You need to provide examples to your grand claims, stating "skeptics aren't in it for the science". Guess what? If that is true, than Warmists aren't in it for the science either.

Propanaga and Endless Busting of Forecasts is turning off the public eye. The IPCC has not been able to correctly modulate Global temperatures even 5 years out, we're outside of their "cone of confidence...more in the range of expectations at this point regarding Geomagnetic Interctions between the Earth & Sun's respective fields, GCR's, & Ocean Cycles.

I just posted a long passage on The huge amount of evidence behind the between Geomagnetic Solar Flux & Global Temperature, and it has been completely ignored. The statements I posted/linked are not refutable.

[nzucker]

Both sides have been less than scientific in recent times...warmists claiming massive hurricanes and deadly heat waves, skeptics claiming global cooling and cherrypicking data to fit their views. The actual physics is on the side of those who believe in AGW, but it's anyone's guess if we have the feedback loops and natural cycles modeled correctly given our nascent understanding of the Earth's climate.

[BethesdaWX]

Both sides have been less than scientific in recent times...warmists claiming massive hurricanes and deadly heat waves, skeptics claiming global cooling and cherrypicking data to fit their views. The actual physics is on the side of those who believe in AGW, but it's anyone's guess if we have the feedback loops and natural cycles modeled correctly given our nascent understanding of the Earth's climate.

I'm sure everyone believes there is at least a small amount of AGW going on.

Right now, physics and OBS combined are pointing towards the "slight" AGW, actually little to none over the past decade.

[WeatherRusty]

Stop making blatant BS assumption regarding skeptics, seriously, you're beginning to irk me. Do you see me bashing anyone except Jim Hansen? I am in this 100% for the science, and when I am able to obtain my PHD, I'll do all I can to spread objectivity, and rock the scientific field in massive tremors.

You need to provide examples to your grand claims, stating "skeptics aren't in it for the science". Guess what? If that is true, than Warmists aren't in it for the science either.

Propanaga and Endless Busting of Forecasts is turning off the public eye. The IPCC has not been able to correctly modulate Global temperatures even 5 years out, we're outside of their "cone of confidence...more in the range of expectations at this point regarding Geomagnetic Interctions between the Earth & Sun's respective fields, GCR's, & Ocean Cycles.

I just posted a long passage on The huge amount of evidence behind the between Geomagnetic Solar Flux & Global Temperature, and it has been completely ignored. The statements I posted/linked are not refutable.

If you're in for the science then good. My statements then do not apply to you. They very, very likely do not apply to anyone else here either.

There does exist a disinformation campaign bought and paid for by industry and commercial interests and implemented by conservative think tanks. Their goal is to confuse people and it is clear they have gotten to you. You have separated yourself from most posters here as a denier of the science rather than an honest skeptic. I'm not suggesting you are not honest, only that you have bought into the higher ups plan.

The so called warmist are the science. The disinformation campaign is in response to the science on political grounds.

What you claim is propaganda or exaggeration is in fact a possibility given the science. That does not mean the catastrophic scenarios are the most likely, but they are within the range of real possibility.

I will take Geomagnetic Solar Flux seriously when peer-reviewed literature demonstrates a high likelihood of there being a well defined causative mechanism involved.

[WeatherRusty]

Both sides have been less than scientific in recent times...warmists claiming massive hurricanes and deadly heat waves, skeptics claiming global cooling and cherrypicking data to fit their views. The actual physics is on the side of those who believe in AGW, but it's anyone's guess if we have the feedback loops and natural cycles modeled correctly given our nascent understanding of the Earth's climate.

An the uncertainty in the feedback process is evident in the most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity lying in the range of 2 to 4.5C per doubling of CO2 or its equivalent in positive radiative forcing from anything.That range is assessed not just from modeling of climate but also from study of the sensitivity noted from past climate changes.

[BethesdaWX]

If your in for the science then good. My statements then do not apply to you. They very, very likely do not apply to anyone else here either.

There does exist a disinformation campaign bought and paid for by industry and commercial interests and implemented by conservative think tanks. Their goal is to confuse people and it is clear they have gotten to you. You have separated yourself from most posters here as a denier of the science rather than an honest skeptic. I'm not suggesting you are not honest, only that you have bought into the higher ups plan.

The so called warmist are the science. The disinformation campaign is in response to the science on political grounds.

What you claim is propaganda or exaggeration is in fact a possibility given the science. That does not mean the catastrophic scenarios are the most likely, but they are within the range of real possibility.

I will take Geomagnetic Solar Flux seriously when peer-reviewed literature demonstrates a high likelihood of there being a well defined causative mechanism involved.

1) What disinformation campaign do you speak of? Both sides have kooks, AGW science is no more "proven"or "likely to be correct" than Skeptical Science. Believe me, I can decipher a bad Skeptic Site from a Good one....same goes for the warmist sites. Scientists as well....all of the "Senator Inhofe, Gore, Hansen, etc, are example of Bad Politics and Science mixing.

2) I am a believer in "slight" AGW... but Its becoming very obvious we've over-estimated the sensitivity of our atmosphere to CO2 & under-estimated the sun, as I posted on the previous page.

3) CO2 is indeed "highly likely" to cause warming.....not cause "significant warming". Solar flux has ACUTAL evidence, in the MWP, LIA, and RWP....even beforehand! CO2 levels are at the highest in over 1 million years, yet temps in the Holocene have shown no jump, in fact, we're below the holocene mean.

Look what the solar has done to global temps before....none of the Jumps of over 3C were CO2 caused...they were solar caused.

It matches the high solar flux right now too...current day...gives it more merit.

[BethesdaWX]

An the uncertainty in the feedback process is evident in the most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity lying in the range of 2 to 4.5C per doubling of CO2 or its equivalent in positive radiative forcing from anything.That range is assessed not just from modeling of climate but also from study of the sensitivity noted from past climate changes.

Past Climate Changes? Jumps of over 3C, you can see the MWP, RWP, and larger Jumps relating to solar activity.

None of that was CO2 caused/related.

[BethesdaWX]

Great way to start off a discussion with a new poster who made a straightforward friendly factual post. Call them childish names. This type of response is completely uncalled for. This is why you should have been banned from this forum ages ago like you were on EUSWX.

I'll tell you, it was a bad choice of words on my part, and for that I apologize...however, I was never "banned"...I could go into all sorts of things you've said to me.

Everyone knows you want me banned, no need to re-state it once a month.

[valkhorn]

Past Climate Changes? Jumps of over 3C, you can see the MWP, RWP, and larger Jumps relating to solar activity.

None of that was CO2 caused/related.

No climate scientist that I know of argues that CO2 is the only cause of warming, or that warming in the past could have been from other sources. In fact, we have seen in the past warming started by other factors, but accelerated once higher levels of CO2 were released into the atmosphere.

Arguments like yours cloud the actual facts, which are that the atmosphere is actually very thin, and gives us a natural greenhouse effect. To change the climate of a planet you can change the input from the sun, or change how the planet reacts to the solar input - in other words a change of atmospheric content.

Yes, there can be many other initial causes to warming or cooling, but the fact remains that ceterus parabus (all other things being equal) CO2 will have a net warming effect on a planet's climate. Can CO2 be a cause to warming? Of course it can - and to suggest otherwise goes against 120+ years of empirical data showing CO2 as a potent greenhouse gas.

The problem with arguments like yours is that it clouds the debate with flotsam and oversimplifies climate. Since climate is a myriad of factors where global temperatures can accelerate in both directions, it is quite silly to point to one chart and say that it is proof positive that CO2 can't cause warming, just like it would be silly to point to one chart to say CO2 can.

That's why Climate Scientists DON'T DO THIS.

In case you haven't noticed, or aren't aware, correlation again does not equal causation. If I were to tell you that A caused B, I couldn't just show you correlating data. I would have to show you an actual mechanism for how it could work. A classic example of this is the old satirical argument that the number of pirates has gone down along with an increase in global temperatures - then saying that it is inversely proportional. There would be no mechanism for pirates to cause global warming, yet this is the exact same argument that uses ANY similar data over time to show ANY correlation.

Fortunately, the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures is much more fundamental, and there IS a mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming of an atmosphere. This is the major difference between the 'geomagnetic' argument posted earlier, or the 'cosmic ray' argument that I've heard some people point to.

It's also silly to say that because climate has changed in the past without humans that humans cannot cause it. Humans 50,000,000 years ago didn't cause lakes to go dry - so by your logic humans can't cause lakes to go dry now. Yet, we can see with poor irrigation practices humans can do that. A rock could certainly get heated up by lava or the sun 50,000,000 years ago, so by your logic humans can't possibly heat up a rock - yet it's pretty simple to do.

[valkhorn]

Stop making blatant BS assumption regarding skeptics, seriously, you're beginning to irk me. Do you see me bashing anyone except Jim Hansen? I am in this 100% for the science, and when I am able to obtain my PHD, I'll do all I can to spread objectivity, and rock the scientific field in massive tremors.

You need to provide examples to your grand claims, stating "skeptics aren't in it for the science". Guess what? If that is true, than Warmists aren't in it for the science either.

Propanaga and Endless Busting of Forecasts is turning off the public eye. The IPCC has not been able to correctly modulate Global temperatures even 5 years out, we're outside of their "cone of confidence...more in the range of expectations at this point regarding Geomagnetic Interctions between the Earth & Sun's respective fields, GCR's, & Ocean Cycles.

I just posted a long passage on The huge amount of evidence behind the between Geomagnetic Solar Flux & Global Temperature, and it has been completely ignored. The statements I posted/linked are not refutable.

All you did was try to show correlation after correlation - but you showed absolutely zero mechanism on how it could possibly happen.

Svensmark also attempted this with Cosmic Rays, remember? Unfortunately for him, the correlation ended in 1995 and we haven't discovered any correlation between cosmic rays and climate yet.

As far as your post, I still want to know SUCCINCTLY what mechanism geophysical magnetic fields could have on climate. I also would like to know where you get the idea that the earth's climate has been cooling lately, since all data shows that it is not.

Again, I ask for two things:

1) A brief explanation on the mechanism between geomagnetic flux and climate (how can they be linked)

2) Data from multiple independent and scholarly sources showing that climate has been cooling lately

Also, it seems to me that you are selectively pulling in sources to make a claim - the difference is that on the internet it is not being peer-reviewed by experts in the field, so it's really sort of wasting time making an argument against an established scientific consensus on an internet forum.

I encourage you, if you're really convinced of your arguments, to go into the field of climate science and get published and get scrutinized. That way, if you are right, the experts will take notice and you can change consensus. Until then, you're just going to be bashing your head against the wall and we're just going to get annoyed.

[valkhorn]

The statements I posted/linked are not refutable.

Then you have no idea how science works. EVERYTHING in science is refutable or falsifiable. There always has to be a way for ideas to change, to adapt, and to become more accurate over time. Even the equation F = MA is refuteable in theory because all you would have to do is show one instance of Force not equaling mass * acceleration. There could very well be an instance of this that we've not yet discovered, and so that's why it is science, because it is falsifiable.

Even if we did find out one or two examples where Force does not equal Mass * Acceleration, then it wouldn't throw out the law, either. We would have to explain WHY that doesn't work in particular circumstances, but does in others.

It's abundantly clear to me that you have no interest in anything that could change how you think, because you are automatically right before you do any further research. When you state that you are 'not refutable' then it means that you are simply intellectually dishonest and aren't interested in any falsifiability with your claims.

If you are to 'rock the science world' - then you need to learn a bit of humility, diplomacy, and realize that there's always the chance that you are wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

No climate scientist that I know of argues that CO2 is the only cause of warming, or that warming in the past could have been from other sources. In fact, we have seen in the past warming started by other factors, but accelerated once higher levels of CO2 were released into the atmosphere.

Arguments like yours cloud the actual facts, which are that the atmosphere is actually very thin, and gives us a natural greenhouse effect. To change the climate of a planet you can change the input from the sun, or change how the planet reacts to the solar input - in other words a change of atmospheric content.

Yes, there can be many other initial causes to warming or cooling, but the fact remains that ceterus parabus (all other things being equal) CO2 will have a net warming effect on a planet's climate. Can CO2 be a cause to warming? Of course it can - and to suggest otherwise goes against 120+ years of empirical data showing CO2 as a potent greenhouse gas.

The problem with arguments like yours is that it clouds the debate with flotsam and oversimplifies climate. Since climate is a myriad of factors where global temperatures can accelerate in both directions, it is quite silly to point to one chart and say that it is proof positive that CO2 can't cause warming, just like it would be silly to point to one chart to say CO2 can.

That's why Climate Scientists DON'T DO THIS.

In case you haven't noticed, or aren't aware, correlation again does not equal causation. If I were to tell you that A caused B, I couldn't just show you correlating data. I would have to show you an actual mechanism for how it could work. A classic example of this is the old satirical argument that the number of pirates has gone down along with an increase in global temperatures - then saying that it is inversely proportional. There would be no mechanism for pirates to cause global warming, yet this is the exact same argument that uses ANY similar data over time to show ANY correlation.

Fortunately, the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures is much more fundamental, and there IS a mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming of an atmosphere. This is the major difference between the 'geomagnetic' argument posted earlier, or the 'cosmic ray' argument that I've heard some people point to.

It's also silly to say that because climate has changed in the past without humans that humans cannot cause it. Humans 50,000,000 years ago didn't cause lakes to go dry - so by your logic humans can't cause lakes to go dry now. Yet, we can see with poor irrigation practices humans can do that. A rock could certainly get heated up by lava or the sun 50,000,000 years ago, so by your logic humans can't possibly heat up a rock - yet it's pretty simple to do.

huh?

I don't understand how this relates to my post. Did you read my response 2 pages back on the Solar Flux? I'm not arguing whether or not CO2 induces warming, or how much.

There is just as much, if not more evidence on the solar side. Solar correlates not only now, but has done so for a long time. CO2 barely correlates to todays flatlining temperatures.

1) I stated the intense temperature variations of over 3C in the recent past (holocene) were Solar Caused...again, before human emissions. The approximate 0.8C of warming since the mid 1850's is easily attributable to the Sun, Since Much warmer Temperatures have been seen frequently throughout the Holocene Era as a result of Solar Influence, the last burst of warming hit about 1000yrs ago. Our current warming over 150yrs of 0.8C is not much compared to 3C of warming in 350 yrs revealed in the volstok Ice Core 8000yrs ago. You can see examples of extreme solar influence as recently as 300 years ago, during the LIA...and before that, the MWP.

2) I've never argued the fact that increased CO2 will lead to some warming...whether it is Significant, or barely noticable, is the question. My post was more focused on the Significant impact of the Solar Flux.

3) I posted evidence on why the Earths Magnetic Field, and the Solar Geomagnetic Flux, are possibly the main factor in the warming seen since 1700, (the beginning of the warming trend). Nothing is ever certain, but there is very strong evidence on the side of solar.

[BethesdaWX]

Then you have no idea how science works. EVERYTHING in science is refutable or falsifiable. There always has to be a way for ideas to change, to adapt, and to become more accurate over time. Even the equation F = MA is refuteable in theory because all you would have to do is show one instance of Force not equaling mass * acceleration. There could very well be an instance of this that we've not yet discovered, and so that's why it is science, because it is falsifiable.

Even if we did find out one or two examples where Force does not equal Mass * Acceleration, then it wouldn't throw out the law, either. We would have to explain WHY that doesn't work in particular circumstances, but does in others.

It's abundantly clear to me that you have no interest in anything that could change how you think, because you are automatically right before you do any further research. When you state that you are 'not refutable' then it means that you are simply intellectually dishonest and aren't interested in any falsifiability with your claims.

If you are to 'rock the science world' - then you need to learn a bit of humility, diplomacy, and realize that there's always the chance that you are wrong.

Excuse me, I intended to add "At this time" afterwards.

The evidence is not refutable at this time, as in, there is currently no evidence to suggest these observations are incorrect.

[valkhorn]

3) I posted evidence on why the Earths Magnetic Field, and the Solar Geomagnetic Flux, are possibly the main factor in the warming seen since 1700, (the beginning of the warming trend). Nothing is ever certain, but there is very strong evidence on the side of solar.

Yet climate scientists completely disagree with you:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html

Sure, the sun could have been the cause before high CO2 levels were a major factor, but it isn't a cause now. Surprisingly enough, most climate scientists would side with me on this one.

Also, no climate scientists that I know argue that the sun isn't a major factor. It is. That's obvious and you don't have to go through a 30 page rigmarole to show it. What you'd have to do is explain how the data has diverged. You haven't done this, and you've pretty much ignored it.

[BethesdaWX]

Yet climate scientists completely disagree with you:

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

Sure, the sun could have been the cause before high CO2 levels were a major factor, but it isn't a cause now. Surprisingly enough, most climate scientists would side with me on this one.

Also, no climate scientists that I know argue that the sun isn't a major factor. It is. That's obvious and you don't have to go through a 30 page rigmarole to show it. What you'd have to do is explain how the data has diverged. You haven't done this, and you've pretty much ignored it.

1) You're Using GISS...try UAH.

2) You're comparing TSI, not the Geomagnetic Flux/10BE Concentrations to the relation of the Earths MagF & the effect on GCR's...

TSI includes unecessary energies that do NOT correlate

Think for a minute....it is Unproven that CO2 can cause significant AGW,, aka, the amount of warming predicted. Its also a FACT that SOlar Flux Does Cause or Contribute to Warming....AGW is also a Hypothesis...yet solar flux is somehow subject to other rules?

Look at the LIA, MWP, RWP....and tell me that solar has no Impact.

There is Greater evidence and correlation on the Solar side.

But......As you wish.

Everything is linked.

The following figure shows the correspondence between the changing magnetic field in the Arctic and Arctic temperatures. The magnetic field is shown for Hudson Bay (blue), Siberia (green) and the average (red) and compared with the Arctic average temperature anomalies (maroon). [http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif]

A recent paper (Daniel Johnston: “An Alternative View of Global Warming” May 2008 [http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Johnston_MagneticGW.pdf] provides the following figure. He developed a prediction model for predicting the temperature anomaly as a function of the magnetic field. Each frame shows the magnetic field strength at two stations (black and purple) along with the temperature anomaly for the latitude band (red) and the temperature predicted from the magnetic data for the two stations (light blue and dark blue). (Magnetic field strength data comes from http://www.wdc.bgs.ac.uk/)

A 2009 paper (Adrian Kerton: “Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection”, Energy & Environment, Vol 20, 2009 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00005] states: “Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate.” The following figure is from that paper, comparing normalized NMP location in terms of latitude and longitude with normalized northern hemisphere temperature anomalies.

The global cooling over the past several years may be related to the recent decrease in the strength of the solar wind pressure. The following figure (left) shows global measurements of solar wind pressure by the Ulysses satellite (green curves - solar wind in 1992-1998, blue curves - solar winds in 2004-2008). [http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm] “The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s … the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn't decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense. The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to … That means less shielding against cosmic rays. Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s”

The following figure shows the sunspot cycles since 1880 [http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]. The sunspot cycle is approximately an 11-year cycle – the sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a reversal cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started). Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years (the 11 year cycle varies substantially). From the solar magnetic flux / sunspot plot shown above it can be seen that the rapid increase in magnetic flux occurs at the onset of the sunspot cycle, a couple of years after the solar minimum occurs.

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) global average temperature shown previously with the sunspot cycle since 1900 from above. Shifts in global temperature coincide with the onset of odd-numbered sunspot cycles (red vertical lines). In each case – approximately 1915, 1936, 1957, 1977, 1998 the onset of the odd-numbered cycle corresponds to an increase in global temperature. The onsets of even-numbered solar cycles (green vertical lines) are not as consistent.

A study of solar magnetic clouds during 1994 - 2002 by Wu, Lepping & Gopalswamy, “Solar Cycle Variations of Magnetic Clouds and CMEs” [http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Pap.pdf] states: “The average occurrence rate is 9 magnetic clouds per year for the overall period (68 events/7.6 years). It is found that some of the frequency of occurrence anomalies were during the early part of Cycle 23: 1. Only 4 magnetic clouds were observed in 1999, and 2. An unusually large number of magnetic clouds (16 events) were observed in 1997 in which the Sun was beginning the rising of Cycle 23”

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]

A 2007 study (Vovk, V.; Egorova, L., “Role of solar activity in formation of the anomalous El Nin'o current”, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 47, Number 1, February 2007 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/11478/2007/00000047/00000001/00001014]) found “a sharp decrease in the SOI indices, which corresponds to the beginning of El Nin'o (ENSO), is preceded one or two months before by a 20% increase in the monthly average Wolf numbers. In warm years of Southern Atmospheric Oscillation a linear relationship is observed between the SOI indices and the number of geoeffective solar flares with correlation coefficients p < −0.5. It is shown that in warm years a change in the general direction of the surface wind to anomalous at the above stations is preceded one or two days before by an increase in the daily average values of IMF Bz. An increase in the SOI indices is preceded one or two months before by a considerable increase in the monthly average values of the magnetic AE indices.”

A 2009 study (Knudsen and Riisager, “Is there a link between the Earth’s magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?”, Geology, v 37, January 2009 [http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/71]) states: “Some studies indicate that the solar modulation of galacticcosmic ray (GCR) particles has profound consequences for Earth'sclimate system. A corollary of the GCR-climate theory involvesa link between Earth's magnetic field and climate, since thegeomagnetic field also modulates the GCR flux reaching Earth'satmosphere. In this study, we explore this potential geomagnetic-climatelink by comparing a new reconstruction of the Holocene geomagneticdipole moment with high-resolution speleothem data from Chinaand Oman. The speleothem ¹⁸O data represent proxy records forpast precipitation in low-latitude regions, which is a climateparameter that is likely to have been sensitive to variationsin the GCR flux modulated by the dipole moment. Intriguingly,we observe a relatively good correlation between the high-resolutionspeleothem ¹⁸O records and the dipole moment, suggesting thatEarth's magnetic field to some degree influenced low-latitudeprecipitation in the past. In addition to supporting the notionthat variations in the geomagnetic field may have influencedEarth's climate in the past, our study also provides some degreeof support for the controversial link between GCR particles,cloud formation, and climate.”

A study published in 2008 (Robert Baker, “Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuations in Eastern Australia” Geophysical Research Papers, Vol. 46, 2008) [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121542494/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0] states: “There is growing interest in the role that the Sun's magnetic field has on weather and climatic parameters, particularly the ~11 year sunspot (Schwab) cycle, the ~22 yr magnetic field (Hale) cycle and the ~88 yr (Gleissberg) cycle. These cycles and the derivative harmonics are part of the peculiar periodic behaviour of the solar magnetic field. Using data from 1876 to the present, the exploratory analysis suggests that when the Sun's South Pole is positive in the Hale Cycle, the likelihood of strongly positive and negative Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values increase after certain phases in the cyclic ~22 yr solar magnetic field. The SOI is also shown to track the pairing of sunspot cycles in ~88 yr periods. This coupling of odd cycles, 23–15, 21–13 and 19–11, produces an apparently close charting in positive and negative SOI fluctuations for each grouping. This Gleissberg effect is also apparent for the southern hemisphere rainfall anomaly. Over the last decade, the SOI and rainfall fluctuations have been tracking similar values to that recorded in Cycle 15 (1914–1924). This discovery has important implications for future drought predictions in Australia and in countries in the northern and southern hemispheres which have been shown to be influenced by the sunspot cycle. Further, it provides a benchmark for long-term SOI behaviour.”

The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. As mentioned previously “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

[valkhorn]

umm, waaaaat? I posted everything for you.

CO2 has a warming Mechanism but Solar Doesn't? Are you friggin kidding me dude? Yeah, the Little Ice age and Mediaval Warm Period were not a result of solar activity, it was Aliens! I posted everything for you a few pages back, over 25 links, to both warmist and skeptic sites. Explained the mechanisms behind it all.

No you didn't. You didn't really show a mechanism for how geomagnetic flux changes, how it can effect climate to a larger degree than other more well-known and established factors, and you did not show how it accounts for the warming in the last 20 to 30 years.

If you can't take this kind of criticism - I wonder how you'll possibly stand peer-review by people much harsher than me.

[valkhorn]

Your post

Did you just cut and paste your entire post? Why couldn't you just link the silly thing....

[BethesdaWX]

No you didn't. You didn't really show a mechanism for how geomagnetic flux changes, how it can effect climate to a larger degree than other more well-known and established factors, and you did not show how it accounts for the warming in the last 20 to 30 years.

If you can't take this kind of criticism - I wonder how you'll possibly stand peer-review by people much harsher than me.

You know I'm laughing at you, right? You call this critisizm?

Are you questioning that the Magnetic Flux Changes? Why do you need a mechanism for that?

You say that "yes the sun is a significant factor", then "show me the mechanism for how the magnetic flux changes"......umm, what are you trying to say?

[valkhorn]

You know I'm laughing at you, right? You call this critisizm?

Are you questioning that the Magnetic Flux Changes? Why do you need a mechanism for that?

You say that "yes the sun is a significant factor", then "show me the mechanism for how the magnetic flux changes"......umm, what are you trying to say?

No. You aren't reading what I said.

I asked for you to show me a mechanism linking changes in geophysical magnetic flux to changes in climate.

Also, it would be nice if you could keep the discussion civil, otherwise there's no point talking to you.

[BethesdaWX]

No. You aren't reading what I said.

I asked for you to show me a mechanism linking changes in geophysical magnetic flux to changes in climate.

Also, it would be nice if you could keep the discussion civil, otherwise there's no point talking to you.

1) The Planet has been cooling since 2002 as of FEB2011 Via UAH.

Link explaining your question below.

http://www.friendsof...tml#Correlation

Recently, Tim Patterson, an adviser to the FOS, has studied high-resolution Holocene climate records from fjords and coastal lakes in British Columbia and demonstrates a link between temperature and solar cycles.

The spectral analysis shown here is from sediment cores obtained from Effingham Inlet, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The annually deposited laminations of the core are linked to the changing climate conditions. The analysis shows a strong correlation to the 11-year sunspot cycle.

See here for a powerpoint slide show by Tim Patterson.

N. Shaviv and J. Veiser using seashell thermometers shows a strong correlation between temperature and the cosmic ray flux over the last 520 million years.

Cosmic Ray Flux and Tropical Temperature Variation Over the Phanerozoic 520 million years

The upper curves describe the cosmic ray flux (CRF) using iron meteorite exposure age data. The blue line depicts the nominal CRF, while the yellow shading delineates the allowed error range. The two dashed curves are additional CRF reconstructions that fit within the acceptable range. The red curve describes the nominal CRF reconstruction after its period was fine-tuned to best fit the low-latitude temperature anomaly. The bottom black curve depicts the smoothed temperature change derived from calcitic shells over the Phanerozoic. The red line is the predicted temperature model for the red curve above. The green line is the residual. The top blue bars indicate ice ages.

Sun and Cosmic Rays

During the 20th century the Sun has continued to warm and may have contributed directly to a third of the warming over the last hundred years. The change in solar output is too small to directly account for most of the observed warming. However, the Sun-Cosmic Ray connection provides an amplification mechanism by which a small change in solar irradiance will have a large effect on climate.

A paper by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen of the Center for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cosmic rays highly correlate to low cloud formation. Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness.

A recent experiment in 2005 shows the effect of cosmic rays in a reaction chamber containing air and trace chemicals found over the oceans. Electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as a catalyst in making aerosols. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules, which are the building block for the cloud condensation nuclei.

Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and the Huancayo cosmic ray station shows a remarkable correlation between low clouds (below 3 km) and cosmic rays. There are more than enough cosmic rays at high altitudes, so changes in the cosmic rays do not effect high clouds. But fewer cosmic rays penetrate to the lower clouds, so they are sensitive to changes in cosmic rays.

Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds

The blue line shows variations in global cloud cover collated by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. The red line is the record of monthly variations in cosmic-ray counts at the Huancayo station.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)

Cosmic ray flux can be determined from radioactive isotopes such as beryllium-10, or the Sun’s open coronal magnetic field. The two independent cosmic ray proxies confirm that there has been a dramatic reduction in the cosmic ray flux during the 20th century as the Sun has gained intensity and the Sun's coronal magnetic field has doubled in strength.

Cosmic Ray Flux Since 1700

Changes in the flux of galactic cosmic rays since 1700 are here derived from two independent proxies, 10Be (light blue) and open solar coronal flux (dark blue) (Solanki and Fligge 1999). Low cloud amount (orange) is scaled and normalized to observational cosmic-ray data from Climax (red) for the period 1953 to 2005 (3 GeV cut-off). Both scales are inverted to correspond with rising temperatures. Note that high cosmic ray flux around 1700 is at the end of the Little Ice Age. Also note the increase in cosmic ray flux after 1780 at the time of the Dicken's Winters.

The graph below shows a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade.

The negative correlation between cosmic ray counts and troposphere temperatures is very strong, indicating that the Sun is the primary climate driver. H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen published the above graph in a paper October 2007 in response to a paper by M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich, in which they argue that the historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. However, the Lockwood paper had several deficiencies, including the problem that they used surface temperature data that is contaminated by the urban heat island effect (see below). They also fail to account for the large time lag between long-term solar intensity changes to the climate temperature response.

See the Svensmark rebuttal of the Lockwood paper here, and a critique by myself here.

Over the 20th century the Sun has increased activity and irradiance intensity, directly providing some warming. The graph below from here shows the rising solar flux during most of the twentieth century.

Open Solar Flux

When the Sun is active it has a higher number of sun spots and emits more solar wind - a continuous stream of very high-speed charged particles. The increased solar wind and magnetic field repels cosmic rays that otherwise would hit the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in less aerosols in the lower atmosphere thereby reducing low cloud formation. The low clouds have a high reflectivity and have a strong cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back into space.

In summary, the process is:

More active Sun --> more Sunspots --> more solar wind --> less cosmic ray --> less aerosols --> less low clouds --> more sun light to the surface --> global warming.

The theory of CO2 warming implies that the arctic and Antarctica should be warming about the same, and the polar regions should be warming more that the rest of the Earth. However, Antarctica has not warmed since 1975, which is a big problem for the CO2 theory. The ice covering Antarctica has even higher reflectivity than low clouds, so fewer low clouds cools Antarctica, while fewer low clouds warms the rest of the planet. (Greenland's ice sheet is much smaller and is not so reflective.) This Antarctica temperature trend is strong evidence that the Sun, not CO2, is the primary climate driver.

Antarctica and North America Temperature Trends

The top curve is the North American surface temperature and the bottom curve is the Antarctica (64 S - 90 S) surface temperature over the past 100 years. The Antarctic data have been averaged over 12 years to minimize the temperature fluctuations. The blue and red lines are fourth-order polynomial fits to the data. The curves are offset by 1 K for clarity, otherwise they would cross and re-cross three times.

The cosmic ray flux is not only influenced by the solar wind, it also varies with the position of the solar system in the galactic arms. The solar system passes through the arms of the Milky Way galaxy roughly every 140 million years. When the solar system is in the galactic arms the intensity of cosmic rays increases, as we are closer to more supernovas that give off powerful bursts of cosmic rays. The variations of the cosmic ray flux due to the solar system passing through four arms of the Milky Way galaxy during the last 550 million years is ten times greater than that caused by the Sun. The correlation between cosmic rays and temperatures over 520 million years by N. Shaviv and J. Veiser was shown previously. Below is a similar graph based on their work, but with the times of the galactic arm crossings shown.

Cosmic Ray Flux and Temperature Changes with Galactic Arm Crossings

Four switches from warm “hothouse” to cold “icehouse” conditions during the Phanerozoic are shown in variations of several degrees K in tropical sea-surface temperatures (red curve). They correspond with four encounters with spiral arms of the Milky Way and the resulting increases in the cosmic-ray flux (blue curve, scale inverted). (After Shaviv and Veizer 2003)

Temperature changes over this time range can not be explain by the CO2 theory.

CO2 Concentrations 500 Million Years

The graph shows CO2 concentration over the last 500 million years. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Note when CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times present levels about 175 million years ago and 440 million years ago, the Earth was in two very cold ice ages.

See here for a paper on CosmoClimatology by Henrik Svensmark.

See here for a discussion of the Shaviv and Veizer 2003 paper by Tim Patterson. See here for their paper.

[valkhorn]

1) The Planet has been cooling since 2002 as of FEB2011 Via UAH.

Really?

[BethesdaWX]

Really?

what the heck? Read! You didn't respond to the bulk of my post, and misread this too?

read, as of 2002, not over 30yrs.

I said "as of FEB2011 on UAH" that graoph is over 1 yr old anyway