General AGW debate thread

[BethesdaWX]

The point is you were completely wrong about most of the energy being transferred to earth "electrically." The amount of energy transferred to earth electrically by the solar wind is tiny. Which is why 1) the correlation doesn't work out that well at all and 2) there is no causative mechanism.

Unlike the CO2.

Solar Flares/CME's are not the Magnetic Solar Constant, and there is a distinct difference between the Direct Impact of the CME/solar wind itself, and the feedbacks it sparks/relates in the upper atmosphere, Global Cloud Cover, and how a weakening Magnetic Field will tie into those correlations.

That is what the "uncertainty" comes from, otherwise there would be no problem. Notice I'm not discussing GCRs at all here yet, those are also poorly understood.

http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

[BethesdaWX]

I think you may have change the post I was responding to. There was a comparison between the warming effects of UV versus IR due to the respective depth of ocean penetration.

As conceded above, this factor you are discussing may have an impact on things. The Sun has added to our global warming over the past 150 years. You are applying some good science here, you are learning as you go. I'm a few steps ahead of you and notice some mistakes in your presentation. That's OK. UV is not influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. Photons are electrically neutral.

I didn't change the post, I tried to explain I mis-worded the post, and that is my fault. I apologize.

When I type very fast, my thoughts tend to rush and I lose focus...f**k A.D.D

[VAwxman]

Do you do private forecasting?

Agreed, this is percisely the problem we as humans run into. We're just not capable of explaining much of how our climate system works, in detail, and its not just the Sun. Our own planet's weakening Magnetic Field, GCR's, and many complex feedbacks and inter-correlations, and their effects on the climate, are also poorly understood. And if we cannot figure out how the correlation is achieved, well, its considered voodoo science to predict based off of it.

It is pretty much impossible at this point to gauge exactly how much the Sun truly influences our atmosphere/climate, when we're likely missing several important aspects.

I'd be thrilled to see research in the Field of Solar increase dramatically...It could benefit us in a big way.

Yeah I work in the energy sector, which is great because I get the chance to do a lot of research on how different factors may or may not be tied together, and then apply that to forecasting. For me, it's much more exciting that your typical 1-7 day forecasting that most mets do, mostly because there are still so many unknowns, so it's like putting together a very complex puzzle.

I do think we will see an increase in solar studies in the next few years, and hopefully we will uncover something. There are definitely a lot of interesting correlations between geo mag / solar flares and atmospheric patterns... just need to get behind the physics of it all. This winter will help because hardly anyone thought we'd see all the blocking we had from late Nov through Jan. It simply doesn't happen with a solid nina / +QBO / warm IO combo, yet it did, and many think the solar stuff probably played some role since low geo mag activity actually correlates better with the NAO than a lot of indices that are commonly used to try and forecast it.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah I work in the energy sector, which is great because I get the chance to do a lot of research on how different factors may or may not be tied together, and then apply that to forecasting. For me, it's much more exciting that your typical 1-7 day forecasting that most mets do, mostly because there are still so many unknowns, so it's like putting together a very complex puzzle.

I do think we will see an increase in solar studies in the next few years, and hopefully we will uncover something. There are definitely a lot of interesting correlations between geo mag / solar flares and atmospheric patterns... just need to get behind the physics of it all. This winter will help because hardly anyone thought we'd see all the blocking we had from late Nov through Jan. It simply doesn't happen with a solid nina / +QBO / warm IO combo, yet it did, and many think the solar stuff probably played some role since low geo mag activity actually correlates better with the NAO than a lot of indices that are commonly used to try and forecast it.

Ah, that nice, man if I could pass Caculus, I'd probably end up doing something similar to what you're doing.

And yeah, I believe this is the first time in our records that we have the strong -NAO occuring in a Westerly QBO/Strong Nina? I feel the climate-solar relationship is simply too complicated to understand at this poiint, so saying it "correlates", but that its a "coincidence", doesn't rest well with me.

[BethesdaWX]

You're right, in my mind since they didn't mention geomagnetic flux, I assumed they were supporting the case that there wasn't a mechanism.

I couldn't find any paper showing a mechanism between geomagnetic flux and climate, so that was the best I could do I'm afraid.

I'm no expert in climate science, I make mistakes, and so that's why I'm quick to side with the consensus.

The problem is, it correlates well, but we don't know how or why it correlates....as you said, we do not know of any mechanism at this point that could allow for such a correlation.

Its not that there is no mechanism in existance. Our understanding if the Sun-Earth relationship is Poor, at best.

Another issue are the much larger effects, not from the CME's/Geo Flux Themselves, but the feedbacks and changes the create throughout the atmosphere.

This is really as far as we can go regarding the doubling of the suns Geo MagF in the past 100yrs.......... http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html And it still doesn't explain everything.

[valkhorn]

The problem is, it correlates well, but we don't know how or why it correlates....as you said, we do not know of any mechanism at this point that could allow for such a correlation.

Its not that there is no mechanism in existance. Our understanding if the Sun-Earth relationship is Poor, at best.

Another issue are the much larger effects, not from the CME's/Geo Flux Themselves, but the feedbacks and changes the create throughout the atmosphere.

This is really as far as we can go regarding the doubling of the suns Geo MagF in the past 100yrs.......... http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html And it still doesn't explain everything.

There's your problem. You can't just correlate anything you want because they fit together. Yes, sometimes, they actually do relate, but often times they do not.

How many times have you seen patterns in clouds? Does that mean that there are faces/angels/cows/people in clouds? No.

[BethesdaWX]

There's your problem. You can't just correlate anything you want because they fit together. Yes, sometimes, they actually do relate, but often times they do not.

How many times have you seen patterns in clouds? Does that mean that there are faces/angels/cows/people in clouds? No.

This makes Zero sense regarding my previous post.

[skierinvermont]

The problem is, it correlates well, but we don't know how or why it correlates....as you said, we do not know of any mechanism at this point that could allow for such a correlation.

Its not that there is no mechanism in existance. Our understanding if the Sun-Earth relationship is Poor, at best.

Another issue are the much larger effects, not from the CME's/Geo Flux Themselves, but the feedbacks and changes the create throughout the atmosphere.

This is really as far as we can go regarding the doubling of the suns Geo MagF in the past 100yrs.......... http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html And it still doesn't explain everything.

Well for one thing Bethesda, the correlation really isn't that good as I pointed out. Geomag aa got quite high in the 60s no effect on temps. And then geomag aa has dropped off a cliff recently... down to lowest values in 200+ years. And yet temps are high. The chart you showed tries to paint it as a pretty correlation.. but if you look closely and extend the chart another 10 years to present, the correlation is not that good at all. That and the fact that there's no causative mechanism... it's probably just chance.

This is what I'm talking about.. divergence in the 1960s.. and again this decade. Geomag ap index is at recrod low values currently. Where is the cooling? If the correlation is so good, as this chart tries to show, then we should shortly be returning to 1900-1910 temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

Well for one thing Bethesda, the correlation really isn't that good as I pointed out. Geomag aa got quite high in the 60s no effect on temps. And then geomag aa has dropped off a cliff recently... down to lowest values in 200+ years. And yet temps are high. The chart you showed tries to paint it as a pretty correlation.. but if you look closely and extend the chart another 10 years to present, the correlation is not that good at all. That and the fact that there's no causative mechanism... it's probably just chance.

Yes I do see that.

The -PDO (& Aerosols?) perhaps broke the correlation in the 1960's? +PDO exagerrates the warming from 1976-2006, although we began flatlining in 2002 (+AMO/+IOD add a little extra through the present.)

But yes, after another peak in Geo-Flux in the early 2000's in SC23, it fell off in the solar Minimum.

Also, one thing to note, the Geo-AA index in itself (alone) Lags about 6 years, which is what I was was confusing before

\

http://plasmaresourc...Temperature.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Here is a map fo the Geo Flux updated

I saw your Map, should point out there was another Flux Peak in 2007/08

[BethesdaWX]

oops, the image above is the Geo-AA Index constant, not the Geo Flux

One sec, let me fix that.

[skierinvermont]

Landscheidt uses some pretty poor statistical techniques in there. He also predicted cooling this decade based off the drop in geomag aa. Instead we have warmed .05C/decade (UAH) or .12C/decade (GISS).

Geomag aa has really fallen off a cliff since 1990. The 2003 peak was lower and much shorter lasting than the 1990 peak. And then since then we have reached record low values. This basically completely destroys the correlation. His hypothesis was that geomag aa and temp followed each other quite closely... and that correlation has completely fallen apart.

[BethesdaWX]

The Geomagnetic AA Index isn't the same thing as the Geomagnetic Flux standalone.

The Geomagnetic AA index increased through 2006 or so, the Geo Flux indeed dropped off.

One thing though, these do not include feedbacks and interactions between the Earths Magnetic Feld Upper Atmosphere, which can effect the way the atmosphere reacts.

Also, remember to superimpose the PDO, ENSO, AMO, IOD, Global SST, onto the temp trend. Unfortunately, we do not know enough to superimpose GCC changes onto the graph, as you explained to me a little while back Thanks for not being so hard on me about that.

[skierinvermont]

oops, the image above is the Geo-AA Index constant, not the Geo Flux

One sec, let me fix that.

I think they are basically the same thing no?

Regardless, Landscheidt used geomag aa index.. and he said temps this decade would drop because geomag aa dropped from 1990-2000 a lot. And after a weaker peak around 2003 it has really fallen off a cliff.

So his prediction was totally wrong.. we've continued to warm at .08C/decade (UAH) .05C/decade (RSS) and .12C/decade (GISS) since 1998.

[skierinvermont]

The Geomagnetic AA Index isn't the same thing as the Geomagnetic Flux standalone.

The Geomagnetic AA index increased through 2006 or so, the Geo Flux indeed dropped off.

Well regardless.. Landscheidt used geomagnetic aa to say we would see cooling this decade.. and we haven't.. see my post above.

Geomag aa/ap has also fallen off a cliff.. it peaked in 2003 not 2007. Here's plain 'magnetic flux' in WbX10^14.. you can see it's really dropped off.. the correlation with temperature has totally fallen apart. The second chart is Geomag aa/ap which held on a little bit longer but has also fallen off a cliff.

[skierinvermont]

Maybe there is some small effect... but it's pretty clear to me that the tight correlation that he postulated has completely fallen apart.

Not to mention the lack of evidence for a causative mechanism.

[BethesdaWX]

I think they are basically the same thing no?

Regardless, Landscheidt used geomag aa index.. and he said temps this decade would drop because geomag aa dropped from 1990-2000 a lot. And after a weaker peak around 2003 it has really fallen off a cliff.

So his prediction was totally wrong.. we've continued to warm at .08C/decade (UAH) .05C/decade (RSS) and .12C/decade (GISS) since 1998.

One thing about Landscheidt's method, he is assuming the trend in temperatures then were completely related to the Geo-Flux, so yes, a very bad method, that is what created his forecast bust,, not the the 6 year lag that goes along with AA index.

2002 would be a better starting point for the flatlining than 1998?

[BethesdaWX]

The one thing that Bothers me, we do not know enough about the Geomagnetic AA Index/Flux to prove it has anything to do with global temperatures, and yet, there is not enough research being done on it. And if we cannot find any Mechanism as to how the Geomagnetic Flux can affect global temperatures, it cannot me applied to any forecasting/formulating, even relation, to global temperatures.

Basically it is a non-factor until we prove it.

[skierinvermont]

One thing about Landscheidt's method, he is assuming the trend in temperatures then were completely related to the Geo-Flux, so yes, a very bad method, that is what created his forecast bust,, not the the 6 year lag that goes along with AA index.

2002 would be a better starting point for the flatlining than 1998?

Well the peak in Geo-aa was 1990 .. using an 8 year lag that gives peak temps in 1998.. so that's why I picked 1998. He actually says more like 6 year lag .. so really we should be starting in 1996. Since 1996 there's been lots of warming.

The recent trends make a lot more sense relative to TSI using a 1-2 year lag than they do using geo-aa and a 6 year lag.

TSI w/ a 1 year lag perfectly predicts the very hot period 1998-2005.. and then the lack of warming 2005-present. TSI peaked around 2002... since then we have not seen much warming even after correcting for ENSO. But we saw a ton of warming 1995-2002 as TSI ramped up.

I'm glad you figured out where you were getting the 6-yr lag numbers from. TSI is definitely more like 1-2 years... and the correlation and causation are much better.

[BethesdaWX]

Well the peak in Geo-aa was 1990 .. using an 8 year lag that gives peak temps in 1998.. so that's why I picked 1998. He actually says more like 6 year lag .. so really we should be starting in 1996. Since 1996 there's been lots of warming.

The recent trends make a lot more sense relative to TSI using a 1-2 year lag than they do using geo-aa and a 6 year lag.

TSI w/ a 1 year lag perfectly predicts the very hot period 1998-2005.. and then the lack of warming 2005-present. TSI peaked around 2002... since then we have not seen much warming even after correcting for ENSO. But we saw a ton of warming 1995-2002 as TSI ramped up.

I'm glad you figured out where you were getting the 6-yr lag numbers from. TSI is definitely more like 1-2 years... and the correlation and causation are much better.

Geo-AA Index peak was in 2006 actually, (as seen below), the Geo-Flux Standalone did plummet after 1990 as you said. The issue is that the Magnetic infleunce as a Whole is sourced from several influences.

TSI is something that really has never really correlated to Global Temperatures on a Decadal Scale, but more on a scale of Centuries. The Largest impacts from the Sun, temperature wise, occur not from the CME/Geo-flux themselves,but their impacts on other aspects of out atmosphere that will take time to manifest.

Geo Flux Standalone was around 1990.

[skierinvermont]

Geo-AA Index peak was in 2006 actually, (as seen below), the Geo-Flux Standalone did plummet after 1990 as you said. The issue is that the Magnetic infleunce as a Whole is sourced from several influences.

TSI is something that really has never really correlated to Global Temperatures on a Decadal Scale, but more on a scale of Centuries. The Largest impacts from the Sun, temperature wise, occur not from the CME/Geo-flux themselves,but their impacts on other aspects of out atmosphere that will take time to manifest.

Geo Flux Standalone was around 1990.

I don't think that graph is very accurate... this graph shows it peaking in 2003/2004 time frame (the graph ends in 2007 but it kept falling after that). I think the axes on your graph are slightly skewed. It looks like your graph ends in 2008, but I believe it actually ends in 2005 or 2006.

Also TSI does correlate quite well on decadal timescales.. better than geo-aa. Look at the second graph. TSI correlates to TSI.

[skierinvermont]

Yep I figured it out Bethesda... your graph of Geo-aa ends in 2005.. not 2008. It looks like it ends in 2008... but use a piece of paper and measure the distance between 1968-1988.. then slide over on your screen... it doesn't end in 2008.

You can also tell because the TSI peak was in the year 2000... and it only shows 5 years of data after that.

Details details

[BethesdaWX]

I don't think that graph is very accurate... this graph shows it peaking in 2003/2004 time frame (the graph ends in 2007 but it kept falling after that). I think the axes on your graph are slightly skewed. It looks like your graph ends in 2008, but I believe it actually ends in 2005 or 2006.

Also TSI does correlate quite well on decadal timescales.. better than geo-aa. Look at the second graph. TSI correlates to TSI.

Thanks for keeping it Civil.

I hesitate to use TSI, I don't think its a good way to corralate to Global temps because unecessary energies/"rays" of no Correlation to GT are included....only certain aspects of the Sun will affect global temperatures...........those that interact with the Earths Magnetic Field. All sorts of "rays", etc, included in the TSI have little to no impact on Global Temps, and have been Declining for 30 years, thus we see the TSI and Global Temps Diverge significantly.

The aspects of the sun that bombard in the Magnetic Field, such as the Geo Flux, GME Constant, resulting 10/BE concentrations, etc, are where we find Correlations, but unfortunately, we have No Mechanism to prove their impact on global temps ( ) other than they correlate, so there is no evidence otherwise. And Yes You're Right, I misread the axis on my graph, it only goes through 2005. So the timeframe of the "peak" of the Geo-AA index was in 2003-04, not 2006. My bad. I have 20-45 vision lol, its terrible But the numbers are correct.

[Mencken_Fan]

Okay: it's time for me to contribute something useful.....(and hopefully original.)

I came across a 4-part essay from THEGREENGROK at Duke University that is particularly level-headed. It covers most of what is discussed here.

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/solarvariation

I recommend reading it all the way through (it won't take long) before jumping up with knee-jerk reactions or nitpicking. The value is in the overall picture and the rationality of the author.

[BethesdaWX]

Okay: it's time for me to contribute something useful.....(and hopefully original.)

I came across a 4-part essay from THEGREENGROK at Duke University that is particularly level-headed. It covers most of what is discussed here.

http://www.nicholas..../solarvariation

I recommend reading it all the way through (it won't take long) before jumping up with knee-jerk reactions or nitpicking. The value is in the overall picture and the rationality of the author.

Yes I've read that, but again it implies that TSI should correlate to Global Temps. TSI includes many energies that may not correlate to global temps, (UV rays/Radio Waves/Xrays/Gamma Rays/Micro waves, etc). The Correlation is found in the Rays that interact with the Earths Magnetic Field, so putting them together will blur the issue and ruin the correlation.

So its not the best way to correlate.

[Mencken_Fan]

Yes I've read that, but again it implies that TSI should correlate to Global Temps. TSI includes many energies that may not correlate to global temps, (UV rays/Radio Waves/Xrays/Gamma Rays/Micro waves, etc). The Correlation is found in the Rays that interact with the Earths Magnetic Field, so putting them together will blur the issue and ruin the correlation.

So its not the best way to correlate.

Okay......now let me ask you this:

1.) From what I've read and seen in charts displaying the level of forcing from a variety of agents it appears solar is itself a minor player - but for the sake of discussion, let's promote it to a medium player or even major if you prefer.

2.) Let x = TSI, and y = your favorite group of rays.

3.) How significant is the difference between x and y (20%, 60%, orders of magnitude?)

4.) Is the difference fairly uniform over time or does it change significantly? (If so, how much?)

5.) On the grand scheme of things (combining every known climate forcing factor) would a person using x come up with a different temperature profile than one using z?

6.) Would a person using x instead of z be thrown so far off course as to come up with a completely different answer to the grand climate equation?

[BethesdaWX]

Okay......now let me ask you this:

1.) From what I've read and seen in charts displaying the level of forcing from a variety of agents it appears solar is itself a minor player - but for the sake of discussion, let's promote it to a medium player or even major if you prefer.

2.) Let x = TSI, and y = your favorite group of rays.

3.) How significant is the difference between x and y (20%, 60%, orders of magnitude?)

4.) Is the difference fairly uniform over time or does it change significantly? (If so, how much?)

5.) On the grand scheme of things (combining every known climate forcing factor) would a person using x come up with a different temperature profile than one using z?

6.) Would a person using x instead of z be thrown so far off course as to come up with a completely different answer to the grand climate equation?

Umm, what?

This isn't my "group of favs", not all aspects of solar correlate with climate changes, or are the causation behind them, so meshing everything together in TSI is misleading.

[skierinvermont]

Thanks for keeping it Civil.

I hesitate to use TSI, I don't think its a good way to corralate to Global temps because unecessary energies/"rays" of no Correlation to GT are included....only certain aspects of the Sun will affect global temperatures...........those that interact with the Earths Magnetic Field. All sorts of "rays", etc, included in the TSI have little to no impact on Global Temps, and have been Declining for 30 years, thus we see the TSI and Global Temps Diverge significantly.

The aspects of the sun that bombard in the Magnetic Field, such as the Geo Flux, GME Constant, resulting 10/BE concentrations, etc, are where we find Correlations, but unfortunately, we have No Mechanism to prove their impact on global temps ( ) other than they correlate, so there is no evidence otherwise. And Yes You're Right, I misread the axis on my graph, it only goes through 2005. So the timeframe of the "peak" of the Geo-AA index was in 2003-04, not 2006. My bad. I have 20-45 vision lol, its terrible But the numbers are correct.

The correlation and causation are both better for TSI. Why are you just assuming that all these other "rays" have no impact on global temps?

It makes perfect sense that when the total amount of energy (as measured by TSI) hitting earth increases or decreases, that temperatures will increase and decrease as well.

And the correlation works quite well.

[BethesdaWX]

The correlation and causation are both better for TSI. Why are you just assuming that all these other "rays" have no impact on global temps?

It makes perfect sense that when the total amount of energy (as measured by TSI) hitting earth increases or decreases, that temperatures will increase and decrease as well.

And the correlation works quite well.

I admittedly have some knowledge on this, but It might be safe to research this yourself too, since I might be missing a few aspects, I'm only 18 But TSI diverged from temps in the 1970's while Geo-AA did not.

So Anyway.....

In order to find out if X-rays, Gamma Rays, Microwaves, UV-A rays, Uv-B rays, Radio Waves, etc, correlate to Global Temperature without the Magnetic aspect of the TSI, you'd have to seperate them from the Magnetic portion of the TSI first, and then analyze them seperately in correlation based on Impact, which we really cannot do very percisely. If you can seperate them from the Magnetic Aspect, and still find a correlation, then we can say that Weakening TSI would Indeed have an impact on Global Temps.

But when we see the Magnetic Portion of the TSI correlate very well in the Geo-AA index, and the TSI Begin to Diverge from temps in the 1970's, we have to assume that the Divergence from Temps is caused by unecessary energies leveling off/dropping, since the Geo-AA index and Temps correlate fairly well, and TSI diverges in the 1970's.

The Geo-AA index Correlates quite well if you apply the PDO, ENSO, Global SST, etc, into the equation. Geo AA Index, 10/BE concentrations, Geomagnetic Flux, Magnetic Constant, etc, all show pretty good correlation, although NOT perfect by any means.

However, if we find that there is a small/moderate correlation between the earler formetioned aspects of radiation, there would be some leftover warming which would have to be caused by Either GCC, CO2/GHG emissions, or Both, unless we find that there is no/(or)/very slight correlation on the higher (shortwave) end of the Magnetic Spectrum. Longwave portion would be somewhat unecessary to measure already, since less energy is carried through the atmosphere, or "carried" in general.

One thing about the 10/BE, it also has a fantastic correlation to global temps, but more over a longer term scale rather than short term. 10/BE is driven with relation to GCR's (theres a distinction), so the GCR's may Not be influnecing GCC directly at all, but more indirectly if there is a relation between 10/BE meaurements/leftovers and GCR's, although I'll have to do research to find that out,if 10/BE correlates to GCC....so it wouldn't be a GCR to GCC value

Orignial Problem is, TSI Diverged from Global Temps in the 1970's, while the Magnetic Standalone Aspect of the Sun Did Not, so if we cannot find any correlation in the upper IR aspect of the Magnetic Spectrum, if there is a certain aspect of the TSI that is driving Global temps more than others, it would me a very interesting discussion. But that is waaay ahead of us as a Human race.

[skierinvermont]

I admittedly have some knowledge on this, but It might be safe to research this yourself too, since I might be missing a few aspects, I'm only 18 But TSI diverged from temps in the 1970's while Geo-AA did not.

So Anyway.....

In order to find out if X-rays, Gamma Rays, Microwaves, UV-A rays, Uv-B rays, Radio Waves, etc, correlate to Global Temperature without the Magnetic aspect of the TSI, you'd have to seperate them from the Magnetic portion of the TSI first, and then analyze them seperately in correlation based on Impact, which we really cannot do very percisely. If you can seperate them from the Magnetic Aspect, and still find a correlation, then we can say that Weakening TSI would Indeed have an impact on Global Temps.

But when we see the Magnetic Portion of the TSI correlate very well in the Geo-AA index, and the TSI Begin to Diverge from temps in the 1970's, we have to assume that the Divergence from Temps is caused by unecessary energies leveling off/dropping, since the Geo-AA index and Temps correlate fairly well, and TSI diverges in the 1970's.

The Geo-AA index Correlates quite well if you apply the PDO, ENSO, Global SST, etc, into the equation. Geo AA Index, 10/BE concentrations, Geomagnetic Flux, Magnetic Constant, etc, all show pretty good correlation, although NOT perfect by any means.

However, if we find that there is a small/moderate correlation between the earler formetioned aspects of radiation, there would be some leftover warming which would have to be caused by Either GCC, CO2/GHG emissions, or Both, unless we find that there is no/(or)/very slight correlation on the higher (shortwave) end of the Magnetic Spectrum. Longwave portion would be somewhat unecessary to measure already, since less energy is carried through the atmosphere, or "carried" in general.

One thing about the 10/BE, it also has a fantastic correlation to global temps, but more over a longer term scale rather than short term. 10/BE is driven with relation to GCR's (theres a distinction), so the GCR's may Not be influnecing GCC directly at all, but more indirectly if there is a relation between 10/BE meaurements/leftovers and GCR's, although I'll have to do research to find that out,if 10/BE correlates to GCC....so it wouldn't be a GCR to GCC value

Orignial Problem is, TSI Diverged from Global Temps in the 1970's, while the Magnetic Standalone Aspect of the Sun Did Not, so if we cannot find any correlation in the upper IR aspect of the Magnetic Spectrum, if there is a certain aspect of the TSI that is driving Global temps more than others, it would me a very interesting discussion. But that is waaay ahead of us as a Human race.

Well you are talking about a long term correlation.. I'm not. I'm talking about the intra-cycle effect. TSI correlates quite well intra-cycle. It's why we warmed rapidly in the late 90s as TSI ramped up.. and it's why there has been little warming since 2002 when TSI started crashing.

The reason some people have tried to use geomag aa is that it kept going up after the 1950s when TSI peaked. Even though sunspots and TSI haven't gone up (hence the divergence).. geomag aa kept going up so some people have thought that that could be related to the warming. I believe it's just chance, as there is no causative mechanism, and geomagnetic has since crashed but temps have stayed high.

I don't believe any aspect of the sun explains the long term warming. You seem to agree TSI doesn't because TSI plateaued 50+ years ago. But as for geomag aa I believe the correlation is just chance... the correlation has fallen apart the last 15 years (which is why Landscheidt's prediction failed), and there is no causative mechanism.

Meanwhile we have a very clear causal mechanism for CO2 that is empirically tested. The earth is in an energy imbalance which is directly attributable to CO2 through empirical observations.