General AGW debate thread

[skierinvermont]

Really?

Well he's technically correct... if you start a trend line Jan 2002 end in Feb 2011 the slope is negative... however that's because the ENSO trend is extremely negative.

Since 2002, The ENSO corrected UAH trend is +.06C/decade and the ENSO corrected GISS trend is .11C/decade, according to some statistical models I've posted in other threads.

But that's what people like Bethesda do.. they toy with start and end dates to get extreme negative ENSO trends and then claim we're cooling. The popular thing to do before the 2010 Nino was to start in 1998 (a strong Nino) and end in 2008-2009 (very Nina period) and claim there was cooling. Of course that doesn't work anymore now... so the new cool thing to do is start in 2002 so they can still get a negative ENSO trend.

[valkhorn]

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

Have you taken a course in statistics?

[BethesdaWX]

Several studies will comeup with different results obviously, but the aspect is the same.

Solar Cycle Length and Temperature at Armagh

The following figure compares United States annual mean temperatures with the solar cycle length. [http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/intellicast.essay.pdf]

Solar Cycle Length and US Mean Temperature

The following figure is from a 2004 study “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, S.K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler, and J. Beer, (Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Germany, Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, Finland, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Germany, Department of Surface Waters, Switzerland) -- Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004) [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html] in which the authors state “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”

Sunspot Reconstruction for Past 11,000 Years (blue) With Recent Measured Sunspot (red)

A 2005 study of the effects of solar irradiance on Arctic temperatures (Soon, W.H., "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005 [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml] showed that there is a much stronger correlation between temperatures and solar irradiance than with CO2, as shown in the following figure

Correlation of Arctic Temperatures With Solar Irradiance (left) and CO2 (right

The following figure is from a recent study: “Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection” (Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 34, 2007)

[http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf] showing a strong correlation between solar irradiance and temperature. The authors state: “the observed correlation of the spatially filtered surface temperature with the 11-year solar cycle is statistically significant at 99.8% confidence level”. The next right-hand figure compares the global CO2 measurements (center) with the left-hand figure, illustrating the relative lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Magnetic Field

David Archibald has written an analysis of recent sunspot cycles describing the relationship between the solar cycles and the influence on the interplanetary magnetic field and temperatures on Earth. He also provides an analysis of the inverse correlations between the solar cycle length and temperatures at various climate stations. See www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf for more details on the expected solar cycle 24 cooling. The figures below show the interplanetary magnetic field (left) and the relationship between solar cycle length and temperature for Hanover NH (right).

A paper by El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib called “Can we use the aa geomagnetic activity index to predict partially the variability in global mean temperatures?” (International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 1 (2), pp. 067-074, October, 2006 [http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS/PDF/Pdf2006/Oct/El-Borie%20and%20Al-Thoyaib.pdf] states: “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the aa geomagnetic activity index, have displayed good correlations with global temperature (Landscheidt, 2000). Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C. In addition, the solar energetic eruptions, which dragged out or/and organized by the observed variations in the solar wind, are closely correlated with the near-Earth environment (El-Borie, 2003a;. Comparison of the aa geomagnetic with the solar wind, post-1965, showed a fairly good match, indicating that the aa variations were mostly due to similar variations in the solar wind, which must have their origin in solar physical processes (Feynman, 1982; Kane, 1997; El-Borie, 2003a;.”

For more details on the aa index see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AAIndex.htm

A 2003 PhD thesis (Palmara: “Solar Activity and Recent Climate Change: Evaluating the Impact of Geomagnetic Activity on Atmospheric Circulation”, University of Wollongong [http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/uploads/approved/adt-NWU20040924.142821/public/01Front.pdf]) stated: “Solar-modulated geomagnetic activity is therefore an important forcing mechanism for recent climate change. Specifically, many of the unexplained aspects of the recent changes in northern hemisphere climate, including the climate regime shift of the early 1960s, can be attributed to the effects of geomagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere. Interannual variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation should no longer be considered as ‘climatic noise’, while the strong positive trend and decadal variations evident since the 1960s can be attributed, in part, to solar forcing.”

A 2004 study (Ponyavin: “Solar Cycle Signal in Geomagnetic Activity and Climate”, Solar Physics Journal 2004, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/v14nq055046v20u8/]) states: “Historical geomagnetic and climate records were analyzed to study long-term trends and relationships with solar activity. … It is shown that the solar cycle signal is more pronounced in climatic data during the last 60 years.”

A 2005 study (Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov: “Once Again About Global Warming and Solar Activity”, Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana, Vol 76, 2005 [http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf]) states: “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.” The study examined the geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections (CME) separated into two types – magnetic cloud (MC) and non-MC CMEs (CME), and coronal holes (CH). The following figures are from their study. Their conclusion: “the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming”

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.” This “unusually large number of magnetic clouds” may have been the trigger of the significant 1997-98 El Nino.

A 2008 study at the University of Naples, Italy (“Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth’s Rotation and Climate”, Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008) found that there is a strong correlation between the following providing the solar connection: the external geomagnetic activity index (aa) -> the integrated zonal wind (IZI) -> Earth length of day (LOD) -> sea surface temperatures (SST). The conclusion states: “A large portion of global warming was explained here in terms of turbulence of solar wind, atmospheric circulation and Earth’s rotation. At the basis of the model is the idea of a coherent whole with an integrated mechanism encompassing the whole Earth-atmosphere-Sun system. If the solar corpuscular activity behaves in the same way in the future as in the past, its 60-yr cycle might suggest a forecast estimate for a gradual cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere in this decade.” [http://www.meteo.unina.it/download/solar_forcing.pdf]

The following figures show the global average temperature from 1850 – 2008 (left) [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/], and (right) the total solar magnetic flux (black line bounding grey shading and blue line) along with the annual sunspot number (shaded purple). The solar figure is from M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild: “A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years”, Nature Vol. 399, 3 June 1999 [http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html]) which states: “The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.”

[valkhorn]

Well he's technically correct... if you start a trend line Jan 2002 end in Feb 2011 the slope is negative... however that's because the ENSO trend is extremely negative.

The ENSO corrected UAH trend is +.06C/decade and the ENSO corrected GISS trend is .11C/decade since 2002, according to some statistical models I've posted in other threads.

But that's what people like Bethesda do.. they toy with start and end dates to get extreme negative ENSO trends and then claim we're cooling. The popular thing to do before the 2010 Nino was to start in 1998 (a strong Nino) and end in 2008-2009 (very Nina period) and claim there was cooling. Of course that doesn't work anymore now... so the new cool thing to do is start in 2002 so they can still get a negative ENSO trend.

That's why I asked if he has ever taken a course in statistics. Anyone can pick out two points to produce whatever slope they want, but you have to look at long term trends and not anomalies.

[skierinvermont]

Ok I think you've copied and pasted the exact same thing enough times. I might try to take a look at it in a bit later.. but it's not peer-reviewed so I'm not that interested.

[valkhorn]

Copypasta

Explains nothing about the recent warming trend that has diverged from any other natural explanation...

I am not sure you read what you posted because it doesn't fully support your argument anyway. I think you just thought about copying and pasting, hoping nobody would actually read it, including yourself.

[BethesdaWX]

Well he's technically correct... if you start a trend line Jan 2002 end in Feb 2011 the slope is negative... however that's because the ENSO trend is extremely negative.

Since 2002, The ENSO corrected UAH trend is +.06C/decade and the ENSO corrected GISS trend is .11C/decade, according to some statistical models I've posted in other threads.

But that's what people like Bethesda do.. they toy with start and end dates to get extreme negative ENSO trends and then claim we're cooling. The popular thing to do before the 2010 Nino was to start in 1998 (a strong Nino) and end in 2008-2009 (very Nina period) and claim there was cooling. Of course that doesn't work anymore now... so the new cool thing to do is start in 2002 so they can still get a negative ENSO trend.

Yes the ENSO trend is very much negative since 2002, the 2010 El Nino Helped to subdue that a bit, but there is still clearly the -ENSO trend.

Remember to correlate the PDO itself, which Warmed steadily through 2006, then dropped in 2007, 2008,and 2009, Spiked during the 2010 El Nino, the went back Negative, the AMO/IOD (works better together than seperate due to the more minor effect that have),and Global SST's, which have no trend, but have had an impact.

[valkhorn]

Yes the ENSO trend is very much negative since 2002, the 2010 El Nino Helped to subdue that a bit, but there is still clearly the -ENSO trend.

Remember to correlate the PDO itself, which Warmed steadily through 2006, then dropped in 2007, 2008,and 2009, Spiked during the 2010 El Nino, the went back Negative, the AMO/IOD (works better together than seperate due to the more minor effect that have),and Global SST's, which have no trend, but have had an impact.

Do you know why anomalies are called anomalies and why they are anomalous? That's why you look at a long term trend.

I do find it funny how you ignore a trend over 50 years in favor of a possible trend over the last month.

[BethesdaWX]

Explains nothing about the recent warming trend that has diverged from any other natural explanation...

I am not sure you read what you posted because it doesn't fully support your argument anyway. I think you just thought about copying and pasting, hoping nobody would actually read it, including yourself.

Warming has not diverged from anything unless you use GISS, there has been no real warming since the late 1990's using better sources like UAH/RSS.

You cannot Use TSI to compare solar since it includes excess energies that do NOT correlate.

1) Example FYI...............................The Earth's Magnetic Field Has Decreased 10-15% since 1850, and is still doing so. Do you know what happens when the Magnetic Field weakens? Earth's atmosphere is more vunerable to solar influence.

Do you now the difference between Intra-cycle solar minimum, and an Extended solar Minimum?

Dude, you realize that ENSO is a factor of the PDO...also changes in the AMO/IOD/PDO/GSST/GCC correlate to the GTA?

You fail to understand this...

[BethesdaWX]

Ok I think you've copied and pasted the exact same thing enough times. I might try to take a look at it in a bit later.. but it's not peer-reviewed so I'm not that interested.

I've copied and pasted 4 different studies now, peer reviewed data used as well. I don't think he understand what I'm saying regarding TSI.

I'm doing my best to keep it civil, but I'm not perfect. I originally felt bad for using "Mr. Hypocrite", but not so much anymore.

Heres a 5th.

A paper by El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib called “Can we use the aa geomagnetic activity index to predict partially the variability in global mean temperatures?” (International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 1 (2), pp. 067-074, October, 2006 [http://www.academicj...0Al-Thoyaib.pdf] states: “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the aa geomagnetic activity index, have displayed good correlations with global temperature (Landscheidt, 2000). Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C. In addition, the solar energetic eruptions, which dragged out or/and organized by the observed variations in the solar wind, are closely correlated with the near-Earth environment (El-Borie, 2003a;. Comparison of the aa geomagnetic with the solar wind, post-1965, showed a fairly good match, indicating that the aa variations were mostly due to similar variations in the solar wind, which must have their origin in solar physical processes (Feynman, 1982; Kane, 1997; El-Borie, 2003a;.”

For more details on the aa index see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AAIndex.htm

A 2003 PhD thesis (Palmara: “Solar Activity and Recent Climate Change: Evaluating the Impact of Geomagnetic Activity on Atmospheric Circulation”, University of Wollongong [http://www.library.u...lic/01Front.pdf]) stated: “Solar-modulated geomagnetic activity is therefore an important forcing mechanism for recent climate change. Specifically, many of the unexplained aspects of the recent changes in northern hemisphere climate, including the climate regime shift of the early 1960s, can be attributed to the effects of geomagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere. Interannual variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation should no longer be considered as ‘climatic noise’, while the strong positive trend and decadal variations evident since the 1960s can be attributed, in part, to solar forcing.”

A 2004 study (Ponyavin: “Solar Cycle Signal in Geomagnetic Activity and Climate”, Solar Physics Journal 2004, [http://www.springerl...4nq055046v20u8/]) states: “Historical geomagnetic and climate records were analyzed to study long-term trends and relationships with solar activity. … It is shown that the solar cycle signal is more pronounced in climatic data during the last 60 years.”

A 2005 study (Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov: “Once Again About Global Warming and Solar Activity”, Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana, Vol 76, 2005 [http://sait.oat.ts.a...I..76..969G.pdf]) states: “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.” The study examined the geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections (CME) separated into two types – magnetic cloud (MC) and non-MC CMEs (CME), and coronal holes (CH). The following figures are from their study. Their conclusion: “the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming”

[valkhorn]

copy pasta

Why are you repeatedly copying and pasting the exact same thing? Do you realize if you ever become a science and publish things you won't be able to do this?

[BethesdaWX]

Why are you repeatedly copying and pasting the exact same thing? Do you realize if you ever become a science and publish things you won't be able to do this?

???

I've copied and pasted/linked 5 different things now,nd you won't read the peer-reviewed literature involved....ANSWERING your questions.

Above will answer your questions regarding the Geomagnetic AA Index, Earths Magnetic Field Decrease, and resulting changes in GCR/10/BE changes.

[valkhorn]

Warming has not diverged from anything unless you use GISS, there has been no real warming since the late 1990's using better sources like UAH/RSS.

You cannot Use TSI to compare solar since it includes excess energies that do NOT correlate.

1) Example FYI...............................The Earth's Magnetic Field Has Decreased 10-15% since 1850, and is still doing so. Do you know what happens when the Magnetic Field weakens? Earth's atmosphere is more vunerable to solar influence.

Do you now the difference between Intra-cycle solar minimum, and an Extended solar Minimum?

Dude, you realize that ENSO is a factor of the PDO...also changes in the AMO/IOD/PDO/GSST/GCC correlate to the GTA?

You fail to understand this...

1) I showed you the data from UAH showing that it shows a clear upward trend. You are not looking at the trend. You are picking and choosing two points, not computing a trend.

2)

From:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Other studies on solar influence on climate

This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

• Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
• Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
• Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
• Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
• Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
• Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
• Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
• Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
• Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
• Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
• Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
• Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
• Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
• Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
• Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
• Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
• Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

[BethesdaWX]

1) I showed you the data from UAH showing that it shows a clear upward trend. You are not looking at the trend. You are picking and choosing two points, not computing a trend.

2)

From:

http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

DUDE

You showed me a trend starting in the 1980's, what the heck? I'm picking and choosing trends because they correlate to Shifts in the PDO,AMO, IOD, and SOlar GMF.

They correlate perfectly because thats what is behind the warming.

WHY are you posting on the TSI???? I'm speaking of CMA/ Geomagnetic AA-index activity, resulting changes in GCR/ 10BE concentrations, The Decrease in earth's Magnetic Field Amplifying solar influence!

Again....READ THIS Peer reviewed literature!

paper by El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib called “Can we use the aa geomagnetic activity index to predict partially the variability in global mean temperatures?” (International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 1 (2), pp. 067-074, October, 2006 [http://www.academicj...0Al-Thoyaib.pdf] states: “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the aa geomagnetic activity index, have displayed good correlations with global temperature (Landscheidt, 2000). Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C. In addition, the solar energetic eruptions, which dragged out or/and organized by the observed variations in the solar wind, are closely correlated with the near-Earth environment (El-Borie, 2003a;. Comparison of the aa geomagnetic with the solar wind, post-1965, showed a fairly good match, indicating that the aa variations were mostly due to similar variations in the solar wind, which must have their origin in solar physical processes (Feynman, 1982; Kane, 1997; El-Borie, 2003a;.”

For more details on the aa index see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AAIndex.htm

A 2003 PhD thesis (Palmara: “Solar Activity and Recent Climate Change: Evaluating the Impact of Geomagnetic Activity on Atmospheric Circulation”, University of Wollongong [http://www.library.u...lic/01Front.pdf]) stated: “Solar-modulated geomagnetic activity is therefore an important forcing mechanism for recent climate change. Specifically, many of the unexplained aspects of the recent changes in northern hemisphere climate, including the climate regime shift of the early 1960s, can be attributed to the effects of geomagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere. Interannual variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation should no longer be considered as ‘climatic noise’, while the strong positive trend and decadal variations evident since the 1960s can be attributed, in part, to solar forcing.”

A 2004 study (Ponyavin: “Solar Cycle Signal in Geomagnetic Activity and Climate”, Solar Physics Journal 2004, [http://www.springerl...4nq055046v20u8/]) states: “Historical geomagnetic and climate records were analyzed to study long-term trends and relationships with solar activity. … It is shown that the solar cycle signal is more pronounced in climatic data during the last 60 years.”

A 2005 study (Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov: “Once Again About Global Warming and Solar Activity”, Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana, Vol 76, 2005 [http://sait.oat.ts.a...I..76..969G.pdf]) states: “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.” The study examined the geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections (CME) separated into two types – magnetic cloud (MC) and non-MC CMEs (CME), and coronal holes (CH). The following figures are from their study. Their conclusion: “the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming”

[valkhorn]

???

I've copied and pasted/linked 5 different things now,nd you won't read the peer-reviewed literature involved....ANSWERING your questions.

Above will answer your questions regarding the Geomagnetic AA Index, Earths Magnetic Field Decrease, and resulting changes in GCR/10/BE changes.

This is what you are doing: you are selectively picking out things that side with you and then pasting them without really producing a real coherent argument. It's pretty much a patchwork of cutting and pasting, with absolutely nothing tying them together. It kind of makes me wonder if there is a website you are pulling this from or you have this saved somewhere so you don't have to re-type anything.

Additionally, some of your sources are not peer-reviewed.

I think we could circumvent all of your cutting and pasting by asking you one simple question:

What would convince you that man is causing the current warming?

If you answer that there's nothing that could convince you or that it's impossible or in other words you are not falsifiable, then it is pointless discussing anything with you.

[valkhorn]

WHY are you posting on the TSI???? I'm speaking of CMA/ Geomagnetic AA-index activity, resulting changes in GCR/ 10BE concentrations, The Decrease in earth's Magnetic Field Amplifying solar influence!

You don't selectively choose whatever you want to make a point. This isn't a political debate. I include UAH, GISS, and all global temperature data. It's called being honest.

It's rather odd that you are trying to pull every straw in the world to explain climate change just to get around accepting any possibility that man is involved.

I'm going to cut and paste too since you do nothing but that.

From:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

1. Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
2. Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
3. Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
4. Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

Solar magnetic field

Solar magnetic field strength correlates strongly with other solar activity, such as solar irradiance and sunspot number. As is the case with these other solar attributes, solar magnetic field has not changed appreciably over the past three decades (Lockwood 2001).

Figure 1: Solar Magnetic Flux from 1967 to 2009 (Vieira and Solanki 2010)

Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux

Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period.

Figure 2: Cosmic Ray Intensity (blue) and Sunspot Number (green) from 1951 to 2006 (University of New Hampshire)

In fact cosmic ray flux has lagged behind the global temperature change since approximately 1970 (Krivova 2003).

"between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase"

Figure 3: Reconstructed cosmic radiation (solid line before 1952) and directly observed cosmic radiation (solid line after 1952) compared to global temperature (dotted line). All curves have been smoothed by an 11 year running mean (Krivova 2003).

And since 1990, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased - "the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). In fact, cosmic ray on flux recently reached record levels. According to Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, "In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years."

Figure 4: Record cosmic ray flux observed in 2009 by the Advanced Composition Explorer (NASA)

Despite this record high GCR flux which we would expect to increase cloud cover and cause cooling, 2009 was tied for the second-hottest year on record, and the 12-month running mean global surface temperature record was broken 3 times in 2010 (NASA GISS).

GCR Cloud Seeding

In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must achieve the following three steps.

1. GCRs must induce aerosol formation
2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently (through the condesation of gases in the atmosphere) to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation.

The first step is not controversial, and is being investigated by the CERN CLOUD experiment. However, the second step is often glossed over by those espousing the GCR warming theory. Freshly nucleated particles must grow by approximately a factor of 100,000 in mass before they can effectively scatter solar radiation or be activated into a cloud droplet (Verheggen 2009). Pierce and Adams (2009) investigated this second step by using a a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics in order to evaluate the growth rate of aerosols from changes in cosmic ray flux, and found that they are far too small to play a significant role in cloud formation or climate change.

"In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change."

Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step). Kazil et al. (2006) found:

"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:

"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

Although there was a correlation between GCRs and low-level cloud cover until about 1991, after that point the correlation broke down (Laut 2003) and cloud cover began to lag GCR trends by over 6 months, while cloud formation should occur within several days (Yu 2000).

Figure 5: Low cloud cover (blue line) versus cosmic ray intensity (red line) (Laut 2003).

Low-Level Cloud Cover

Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results. Norris et al. (2007) found

"Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record."

So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover.

Inability to explain other observations

In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory, the galactic cosmic ray theory cannot easily explain a number of observed fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect, such as the cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night than day.

Additionally, because cosmic radiation shows greater variation in high latitudes, we expect larger changes in cloud cover in polar regions if GCRs are succesfully influencing cloud cover. This is not observed. Furthermore, examining the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl, ionization from the radioactivity would be expected to have produced an increase in cloud cover. There is no evident increase in cloud cover following the accident (Sloan 2007).

Galactic cosmic rays can't explain global warming

In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased. In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a cooling effect over the past 20 years.

[nzucker]

One thing to remember about the solar vs temps debate is that the AGW argument of "Solar has leveled off, while temperatures continued to rise" isn't necessarily correct. Solar has been a constantly high level, and one can expect that high level to have a warming effect on the planet even if it is not actually increasing at the moment of study. Nature found that the 70-year period since 1930s had the highest solar activity in close to 10,000 years. I'm not saying it explains all the warming but is definitely something to keep in mind.

[valkhorn]

???

I've copied and pasted/linked 5 different things now,nd you won't read the peer-reviewed literature involved....ANSWERING your questions.

Above will answer your questions regarding the Geomagnetic AA Index, Earths Magnetic Field Decrease, and resulting changes in GCR/10/BE changes.

By the way, I showed 17 sources disagreeing with you in one of my posts, and another post had perhaps a dozen more. All of which were peer-reviewed.

So, that's about 30 peer-reviewed sources that completely disagree with you. I could easily find more but I'm getting tired.

[valkhorn]

One thing to remember about the solar vs temps debate is that the AGW argument of "Solar has leveled off, while temperatures continued to rise" isn't necessarily correct. Solar has been a constantly high level, and one can expect that high level to have a warming effect on the planet even if it is not actually increasing at the moment of study. Nature found that the 70-year period since 1930s had the highest solar activity in close to 10,000 years. I'm not saying it explains all the warming but is definitely something to keep in mind.

Not exactly:

[BethesdaWX]

This is what you are doing: you are selectively picking out things that side with you and then pasting them without really producing a real coherent argument. It's pretty much a patchwork of cutting and pasting, with absolutely nothing tying them together. It kind of makes me wonder if there is a website you are pulling this from or you have this saved somewhere so you don't have to re-type anything.

Additionally, some of your sources are not peer-reviewed.

I think we could circumvent all of your cutting and pasting by asking you one simple question:

If you answer that there's nothing that could convince you or that it's impossible or in other words you are not falsifiable, then it is pointless discussing anything with you.

I posted peer reviewed evidence refuting your claims.

You have no argument, you just say I'm nitpicking, then you go and post GISS and TSI graphs! Are freakin kidding me? Trends in UAH correlate with Changes in natural drivers...thats why I pick the points I do. Until 2006, we had the +PDO, +AMO, +IOD, El Nino Dominance, Solar max, and the lack of HLB. You cannot pick a random point on UAH, you need to see how it correlates.

You're giving me a great night though...thankyou. Try finding Any Paper having to do with CME dispersion, 10/BE changes resulting from changes in the Geomagnetic Solar Flux, The earths Magnetic field decrease of 10-15%, and the effects on Global temperature.

[BethesdaWX]

Not exactly:

WHY ARE YOU POSTING TSI GRAPHS?

[valkhorn]

I posted peer reviewed evidence refuting your claims.

You have no argument, you just say I'm nitpicking, then you go and post GISS and TSI graphs! Are freakin kidding me? Trends in UAH correlate with Changes in natural drivers...thats why I pick the points I do. Until 2006, we had the +PDO, +AMO, +IOD, El Nino Dominance, Solar max, and the lack of HLB. You cannot pick a random point on UAH, you need to see how it correlates.

You're giving me a great night though...thankyou. Try finding Any Paper having to do with CME dispersion, 10/BE changes resulting from changes in the Geomagnetic Solar Flux, The earths Magnetic field decrease of 10-15%, and the effects on Global temperature.

I already did, and google can help you also. The bottom line is you don't want to find anything that counters your arguments because you aren't intellectually honest.

[BethesdaWX]

By the way, I showed 17 sources disagreeing with you in one of my posts, and another post had perhaps a dozen more. All of which were peer-reviewed.

So, that's about 30 peer-reviewed sources that completely disagree with you. I could easily find more but I'm getting tired.

Are You Crazy?

IM NOT DISCUSSING TSI.........again........Why.......are......you.......posting.......TSI?

Your peer reviewed papers are unrelated to mine.

Want me to post the "850 peer reviewed papers supporting AGW skepticism.

[valkhorn]

Your peer reviewed papers are unrelated to mine!

They are related to yours, it's not my fault you don't want to read them.

[BethesdaWX]

Why....Are.........You...............Posting.............on................the...............TSI?

TSI cannot be correlated to Global temperatures because it includes uncesessary energies. Your papers compare the TSI to global temps...that can not be correlated.

Again...Don't post TSI.

Remember what the earths Magnetic field weakening by 10-15% will do...

1) Solar Constant

CME/CH

Geomagnetic Flux vs Global temperatures....Perfect Match.

TSI....don't even bother with it.

[tacoman25]

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.

The main person I spoke with was not a skeptic. They were simply stating facts about the state of climate science funding. So no, not sour grapes.

[valkhorn]

More copypasta

I post TSI because it is relevant. You can't show any reason why it's not. The only reason you don't like it is because it goes against your ideas. That's why you dismiss it.

So, you try to grasp at some really strange straws, and of course we're back to the correlation argument without a real mechanism to link the two together.

I'll ask again - what would show you to be wrong? How could you be convinced man has a significant impact on climate? If you can't answer those, then to heck with discussing anything with you simply because you're not interested in honest discussion.

[skierinvermont]

Bethesda.. as I understand it TSI is TOTAL energy directed at the earth's atmosphere from the sun. Any changes in geomagnetic aa would be included in TSI if I understand it correctly.

I'm pretty convinced that TSI and cosmic rays have only a small effect and cannot explain our rapid warming. I'm not too familiar with geomagnetic aa. But few if any of your studies appear to be peer reviewed and they are definitely not accepted by most scientists. If these correlations and causative mechanisms are so obvious.. why does nobody else believe in them?

[skierinvermont]

One thing to remember about the solar vs temps debate is that the AGW argument of "Solar has leveled off, while temperatures continued to rise" isn't necessarily correct. Solar has been a constantly high level, and one can expect that high level to have a warming effect on the planet even if it is not actually increasing at the moment of study. Nature found that the 70-year period since 1930s had the highest solar activity in close to 10,000 years. I'm not saying it explains all the warming but is definitely something to keep in mind.

But no causative mechanisms for the sun would contain such a lag. If more energy is being directed at earth from the sun, then the earth's surface temperature would rise quite rapidly. And indeed, that is the exact phenomenon that is observed during the 11-year solar cycle.

[tacoman25]

That's why I asked if he has ever taken a course in statistics. Anyone can pick out two points to produce whatever slope they want, but you have to look at long term trends and not anomalies.

But there has been a distinct and noticable slowing of the warming since the early 2000s, and it is not due just to ENSO. Temp trends are running on the low end of model predictions.

Skiier will tell you the same thing.