All things Solar

[WeatherRusty]

WeatherRusty,

Actually the physics of relative humidity constraints is more complicated than you make it out to be, especially in the upper troposphere. Keep in mind that Clausius-Clapeyron only provides an upper bound on water vapor (i.e., the saturation vapor pressure) but it really says nothing about the degree to which the atmosphere can remain unsaturated. That inevitably involves fluid dynamics and consideration of the large-scale circulation. There are more developed theories that lead to convincing justification that RH won't change a whole lot on a global scale (Paul O'Gorman and Tapio Schneider have some good papers on this, Pierrehumbert et al. 2007 on Relative Humidity is a must-read, and there are others). Any developed theory must consider water vapor transport and its interaction with convection (see also, Sherwood, S.C., Roca, R., Weckwerth, T.M. and Andronova, N.G. 2010. Tropospheric water vapor, convection, and climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG2001). There's no good reason RH can't increase or decrease a bit, especially over a broader range of parameter space than is relevant for 21st century global warming, but these changes are typically quite small relative to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Thus, even if RH is decreasing, the water vapor feedback is strongly positive. Note that the above paper by Snowlover is only for one region (North America) and is talking about a half a percent relative humidity decline per decade....that is fairly small (I've also only looked at the abstract, so I don't know what heights they are looking at, but I have little faith anyone can reliably capture trends over this time period in the upper troposphere with radiosondes. Even lower down radiosondes aren't very good for water vapor trends). Your skepticism toward the observations is well-justified, which is why the better studies of upper level water vapor trends are satellite based. Other radiosonde-based studies show results not consistent with the Paltridge piece (e.g., McCarthy, Mark P., P. W. Thorne, H. A. Titchner, 2009: An Analysis of Tropospheric Humidity Trends from Radiosondes. J. Climate, 22, 5820–5838). Other observational analyses of the inter-annual variation in water vapor (e.g., Dessler et al. 2008; Dessler and Wong 2009) and satellites (Gettelman and Fu 2008), in additon to the longer time-frame Soden et al (2005) paper supports the notion that the models are behaving well in approximately conserving relative humidity on a global scale.

In short, the conclusions by Snowlover are untenable and have no basis in physics or observed reality. He is now appealing to out of the park wingnut papers like Miskolczi, and showing his failure to grasp elementary logic (the sun caused climate change in the past! Therefore, these studies show it isn't CO2 now! This all means he is being spoon-fed from WUWT and similar sources).

Thanks so much for your contributions. You are a very well read asset to these discussions.

Most everyone with strong opinions is being 'spoon fed' from somewhere. I would say existing biases lead us to where we choose to obtain our knowledge. For most of us, the safe ground for scientific information is to be found in the peer-reviewed literature and the second hand sources which explain that literature in comprehensive and/or layman's terms.

Others choose to acquire their information and derived viewpoint from sources on the fringes of scientific knowledge, and to afford that information unwarranted weight in establishing their opinions. Still others, gain their knowledge from unscientific sources such as news/opinion reporters, political think tanks and industry scientists.

-------------

I still can't understand why, for all practical purposes, the physics which has brought the world to an average global temperature of 15C, would suddenly be different at 16C to 20C for instance. This includes the expectation of 'relatively constant" RH. If lapse rate feedback were to go positive, this would would further destabilize the troposphere leading to increased convection and a restoration of upper air humidity.

While local and regional variation is the norm, on a global scale how can this balancing act between lapse rates, convection, temperature, evaporation, condensation and humidity be significantly altered by a change in just a few degrees on a world with 70% of it's surface exposing liquid water to the atmosphere?

[Snow_Miser]

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-337.pdf

“An increase in the atmospheric moist content has been generally assumed when the lower-tropospheric temperature (Tcol) increases, with relative humidity holding steady. Rather than using simple linear regression, we propose a more rigorous trend detection method that considers time series memory. The autoregressive moving-average (ARMA) parameters for the time series of Tcol, precipitable water vapor (PWAV), and total precipitable water content (PWAT) from the North American Regional Reanalysis data were first computed. We then applied the Monte Carlo method to replicate the ARMA time series samples to estimate the variances of their Ordinary Least Square trends. Student.s t tests showed that Tcol from 1979 to 2006 increased significantly; however, PWAVand PWAT did not. This suggests that atmospheric temperature and water vapor trends do not follow the conjecture of constant relative humidity over North America. We thus urge further evaluations of Tcol, PWAV, and PWAT trends for the globe.”

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2267.1?prevSearch=%5Ball%3A+Tropical+Water+Vapor+and+Cloud+Feedbacks+in+Climate+Models%5D&searchHistoryKey=

"extended calculation using coupled runs confirms the earlier inference from the AMIP runs that underestimating the negative feedback from cloud albedo and overestimating the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical Pacific during ENSO is a prevalent problem of climate models.”

[Snow_Miser]

Total Water Vapor content according to the Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is roughly unchanged, suggesting a neutral water vapor feedback.

[WeatherRusty]

Allow me to explain my argument.

The mid to upper troposphere warming the fastest is predicted because of the positive water vapor feedback in the tropics. However, the area in the mid to upper troposphere predicted to warm the fastest, has not warmed at all. This means that the climate might be more insensitive than what the models have projected, which matches up with results from Lindzen and Choi that show that the amount of energy being radiated out to the TOA VS. The temperature change in observations significantly deviates from the modeled projections. This conclusion can be reached because the positive water vapor feedback the models have are not present in reality.

This also matches up with Paltridge et. al 2009 which shows a decrease in RH everywhere at every atltitude, except the Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere at 925 mb, where RH values have been relatively stable.

The abstract reads:

Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.

With this in mind, if the climate system is indeed more sensitive than climate models have modeled, then CO2 alone is not enough to nearly account for the warming observed. A larger factor is needed.

The scatter plot above shows the temperature anomaly plotted over the energy imbalances as measured by CERES over 2000-2007. The plot above also shows two patterns: Linear Striations and Radiative Spirals. The radiative spirals act to reduce the slope of the line, thus obscuring the true feedback and making the climate system appear to be more sensitive than it actually is (Spencer and Braswell 2008). The true feedback can be calculated by the slopes of the linear striations, which according to Spencer and Braswell is during a time when non-radiative forcings are the strongest, so the slopes of these lines are not contaminated by the radiative spirals (primarily from the Cloud Forcing). The slope of the striations is 8.3 w/m^2/Degree C, meaning that it would take 8.3 w/m^2 to warm the Earth's temperature up by 1 Degree C. This indicates significant negative feedback, since no feedback would correspond to a slope of approxmately 3.3 w/m^2/Degree C.

The senstiivty for a CO2 doubling as measured by CERES is approximately 0.44 Degrees C. This means that CO2 could have contributed to approximately 0.17 Degrees C of the long term warming trend observed so far.

A larger factor is needed to explain the warming observed, and the sun is an ample candidate for such a factor, since it has so many ways in which it can impact climate and the atmospheric parameters on Earth.

This is not meant to be representative of long term climate sensitivity. Also, it was employed by Dr. Spencer as part of an effort to demonstrate the PDO influence on cloudiness, rather than to imply anything about a solar connection.

From Dr. Spencer:

[NOTE: This feedback estimate does not necessarily represent long-term climate sensitivity (which in this case would be very low, 0.44 deg. C for a doubling of CO2); it is instead the feedback occurring on intraseasonal and interannual time scales which is merely being removed to isolate the forcing signal. This is the same technique employed by Forster and Taylor (2006) to isolate the signal of radiative forcing in 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC.]

[Snow_Miser]

This is not meant to be representative of long term climate sensitivity. Also, it was employed by Dr. Spencer as part of an effort to demonstrate the PDO influence on cloudiness, rather than to imply anything about a solar connection.

From Dr. Spencer:

[NOTE: This feedback estimate does not necessarily represent long-term climate sensitivity (which in this case would be very low, 0.44 deg. C for a doubling of CO2); it is instead the feedback occurring on intraseasonal and interannual time scales which is merely being removed to isolate the forcing signal. This is the same technique employed by Forster and Taylor (2006) to isolate the signal of radiative forcing in 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC.]

In Dr. Spencer's book, "The Great Global Warming Blunder" he uses data from climate models that have distinct feedback stripes, associated with non-radiative forcing. What he found was that the slope of the feedback stripes matched the slope of the long term diagnosed feedback in those models that were diagnosed by Forster and Taylor 2006.

So the feedback stripes may be indicative of the long term feedback in the climate system, and if this is the case, then CO2 can not explain the 20th Century warming trend.

[cmc0605]

GaWx,

Thanks for your comment.

My comment about the sun is that we know it can influence climate. However, its changes are usually too small or too slow to be a signficant driver of climate change. What is "significant" of course depends on who you ask, but I tend to think about climate from the viewpoint of a geologist or a planetary scientist.

There is not a single event that we know of in Earth's history, that is comparable in magnitude to that of a doubling of CO2, that has been attributed to direct changes in solar output.

Solar does contribute to some of the signal seen in the first half of the 20th century, and also during the last millennia (though volcanic influences probably have a stronger role, even during the Little Ice Age, see e.g., <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050168.shtml">Miller et al (2012, GRL)</a>) but these sort of fluctuations are very small compared to glacial-interglacial cycles, 2xCO2, 3xCO2, 4xCO2, etc. Even a return to Maunder Minimum solar conditions could only offset the greenhouse gas influence for a decade or so. So it's useful to think of solar changes as a transient and small amplifier/dampener that is superimposed on a greenhouse-induced trend. Other phenomena such as Milankovitch cycles that occur on Earth or Mars modify the geographic or seasonal distribution of solar radiation, due to long-term changes in the orbit, but have nothing to do with the sun itself.

There are a number of hypothesized "fine tuning knobs" that are caused by indirect solar effects, such as how UV absorption might impact stratospheric dynamics, or whether solar changes leave an imprint on natural "modes" of variability like the NAO. There is a link, for example, to the 11-year solar cycle in certain climate variables (<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009RG000282.shtml">Gray et al (2010), Rev. Geophys.)</a> is a great review). For example, the 11 year cycle results in upper atmospheric temperature anomalies (~1–2 K near the equatorial stratopause, virtually nothing at the surface), and this might have a link to zonal wind patterns. These phenomena are often not that well understood, but they are very interesting. Some of the indirect mechanisms are speculative, some are pretty robust. What is interesting to an atmospheric scientist however might be some subtle impact on stratospheric dynamics or planetary wave propogation. These phenomena and their uncertainties however, have very small imprints on global mean temperature and have virtually nothing to do with estimates of future warming that is on the order of many degrees Kelvin.

On the other hand, on geologic timescales, we know that the sun is brightening at a rate of ~7% per billion years. This is based on very fundamental stellar evolution theory (involving the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the core) and supported by comparisons with solar-like stars. This is extremely important for people interested in atmospheric evolution or planetary habitability. Within roughly a billion years, Earth will no longer be able to sustain a cold tropopause and the escape of hydrogen (that resulted from the breakdown of molecular H2O) will increase rapidly and result in the loss of Earth's oceans to space. Eventually the Earth will undergo a runaway greenhouse effect. This argument is virtually independent of the CO2 concentration, and in fact CO2 is expected to plummet to well below glacial values in this limit, possibly terminating photosynthesis in many types of plants.

So when talking about the effects of the sun on climate change, it's important to consider the perspective we're interested in (i.e., timescale of interest, what type of impact we consider to be "important," and precisely what it is we are trying to communicate). People who argue that the sun is driving the long-term trend in global temperatures during the last 50 years, or can offset the impacts of increased GHGs in the next century, are fighting an absurd battle that relies on solar sensitivties being inflated by a factor of 10-20 and is based on speculative mechanisms. However, there is no debate that the sun can play a role for people interested in decadal-scale (short term) climate prediction, for people interested in small imprints of different forcings on regional climate change, for certain phenomena is paleoclimate, for people interested in stratospheric dynamics, etc. The people who exaggerate these effects to make up whatever hypothesis they want about the sun, however, are not engaging in science.

[Snow_Miser]

CMC is not correct with asserting that the Solar Influence suddenly was not there in the later part of the 20th Century.

To quote some of my earlier posts:

GaWx is right on the money here. It is the sun whose activity is modulated by the changes in the PDO and AMO that can easily replicate temperature anomalies over the last 150 years.

Cliver et. al 1998

Cliver et. al 1998 also used the Geomagnetic AA Index to estimate the solar contribution to climate change.

Above figure: From Cliver et. al 1998. The AA Index is the dotted line, and the solid line are the temperature anomalies.

They found that 50-100% of the warming could be due to the sun, but it should be noted that this analysis does not include other factors like volcanic activity and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions when estimating the total contribution. Nonetheless, this study also shows that other studies which do include these factors are only at the lower end of the 50-100% range for the solar contribution over the last 100-150 years. It also supports other studies with a larger solar contribution to climate change because of the remarkable correlation with the AA Index and temperatures.

Scafetta and West 2008

Scafetta and West 2008 adresses the uncertainty raised in the first paper. If a TSI curve that shows an upward trend from Solar Cycle 21 to 22 is used from the ACRIM TSI composite rather than the flat PMOD TSI composite, then a higher contribution from the sun would be needed. The authors find that up to 69% of the variances in temperatures can be explained by solar activity.

The image above from Scafetta and West 2008 shows the divergence between the PMOD and ACRIM TSI datasets, which makes attribution to past climate change even harder. The red curve is the ACRIM TSI composite, the blue curve is the PMOD TSI Composite, and the black curve and green line are the Global Temperature anomalies.

Kilcik et. al 2010

By applying multitaper methods and Pearson test on the surface air temperature and flare index used as a proxy data for possible solar sources of climate-forcing, we investigated the signature of these variables on middle and high latitudes of the Atlantic–Eurasian region (Turkey, Finland, Romania, Ukraine, Cyprus, Israel, Lithuania, and European part of Russia). We considered the temperature and flare index data for the period ranging from January 1975 to the end of December 2005, which covers almost three solar cycles, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd.

We found significant correlations between solar activity and surface air temperature over the 50–60° and 60–70° zones for cycle 22, and for cycle 23, over the 30–40°, 40–50°, and 50–60° zones.

The most pronounced power peaks for surface air temperature found by multitaper method are around 1.2, 1.7, and 2.5 years which were reported earlier for some solar activity indicators. These results support the suggestion that there is signature of solar activity effect on surface air temperature of mid-latitudes.

Mufti and Shah 2011

The abstract and key points read:

A long uninterrupted homogeneous data set on the annual mean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly records as a representative of the Earth's climatic parameter has been analyzed in conjunction with 158 year long time series on the annual sunspot indices, Rz and geomagnetic activity indices, aa for the period 1850–2007. The 11-year and 23-year overlapping means of global (δtg) as well as northern (δtn) and southern (δts) hemispheric SST anomalies reveal significant positive correlation with both Rz and aa indices. Rz, aa and δtg depict a similar trend in their long-term variation and both seem to be on increase after attaining a minimum in the early 20th century (∼1905). Whereas the results on the power spectrum analysis by the Multi-Taper Method (MTM) on δtg, Rz and aa reveal periodicities of ∼79–80 years (Gleissberg's cycle) and ∼9–11 years (Schwabe solar cycle) consistent with earlier findings, MTM spectrum analysis also reveals fast cycles of 3–5 years. A period of ∼4.2 years in aa at 99% confidence level appears recorded in δtg at ∼4.3 years at 90% confidence level. A period of ∼3.6–3.7 years at 99% confidence level found in δtg is correlating with a similar periodic variation in sector structure of Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF). This fast cycle parallelism is new and is supportive of a possible link between the solar-modulated geomagnetic activity and Earth's climatic parameter i.e. SST.

Raspopov et. al 2007 Found that long term trends in solar activity can create SIGNIFICANT temperature changes. A substantial lag can also occur with the sun and the temperature on the Earth, which would refute your earlier logic that just because the sun's irradiance according to PMOD has flatlined, does not bmean that it has not contributed to the recent warming. They also find that recent warming from 1945-2003 matches with expected predictions from a long term increase in solar activity.

From the abstract:

The influence of ∼200-year solar activity variations (de Vries cyclicity) on climatic parameters has been analyzed. Analysis of palaeoclimatic data from different regions of the Earth for the last millennium has shown that ∼200-year variations in solar activity give rise to a pronounced climatic response. Owing to a nonlinear character of the processes in the atmosphere–ocean system and the inertia of this system, the climatic response to the global influence of solar activity variations has been found to have a regional character. The regions where the climatic response to long-term solar activity variations is stable and the regions where the climatic response is unstable, both in time and space, have been revealed. It has also been found that a considerable lag of the climatic response and reversal of its sign with respect to the solar signal can occur. Comparison of the obtained results with the simulation predictions of the atmosphere–ocean system response to long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) has shown that there is a good agreement between experimental and simulation results.

Wrong on all counts.

Whether there has been an increase or decrease in TSI over the last 50 years is still currently open for debate.

There has been a decrease in Cosmic Rays, and an increase in all other solar variables, other than TSI.

This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

The SSN is a poor indicator to use for quantifying the solar impact, since it does not include all of the aspects of the geomagnetic activity from the sun.

Using the geomagnetic AA Index instead of the SSN gives a better approximation of solar activity than the SSN, since it accounts for all of the sun's magnetic activity changes.

When you do so, the Global temperature is highly correlated (r^2=0.85) to temperature changes.

"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."

Urbanization can primarily be responsible (as well as warming oceans) for the negative trend in the DTR observed in most weather stations.

Fall et. al 2011 finds that in the CRN 5 weather stations, there is a significant decrease in the DTR range. Keep in mind that the CRN 5 stations are the worst quality stations, with many of them being impacted by urbanization.

The graph above shows the trends in the diurnal temperature range for each type of weather station. There is no statistically significant trend in the diurnal temperature range for the best quality stations, wheras in the urbanized stations there is a statistically significant decrease in the DTR. What does this mean? It means that urbanization could account for most or all of the decrease in the DTR for most of the weather stations, since the highest quality weather stations do not display a trend in the DTR.

This also means that CO2 is not the driver of climate change in the best quality weather stations, or else we still would have observed a statistically significant decrease in the DTR in these non-urbanized weather stations, since there is no urban effect to contaminate the trends in the DTR in the best quality weather stations.

Stratospheric Cooling is entirely consistent with the sun theory. Shall I explain why?

I'll debunk each of your claims one by one.

Your first claim is a widely debunked claim that all AGW advocates seem to post about on various forums.

I take it that the record LOW in GCRs in 1992 does not count as a decrease in GCRs, or the fact that the GCR cycle ending in 1992 featured the shortest GCR cycle on record, leading to the least amounts of the cumulative GCR Counts on record in that cycle during any cycle over the last 150 years?

Or the fact that there has been a long term decrease in GCRs over the last 150 years, as according to Carslaw et. al 2002? Once again, the record low occured in 1992, suggesting an increase in solar activity over the last 50 years.

You are aware that the graph in Dorman 2012 comes from Svensmark 2000, right? If you had opened up the paper and read that, you would have clearly seen that. The fact that GCRs can explain most to all of the warming up to 1994 is pretty telling, considering later, when the GCR Flux increased, temperatures started to flatline.

A long term trend in solar activity as found by Raspopov et. al and Mufti and Shah can easily cause all of the warming observed, since each study found that long term trends upward in solar activity leadto a profound response.

The Love et. al paper shows an AA increase until about 1996, when it starts to decline. Assuming a few year lag, this matches up pretty nicely with global temperatures.

I will leave you with a few more studies which point to a large influence of solar activity on climate change in recent decades.

Soon et. al 2011:

(From the abstract:)

The 20th century surface air temperature (SAT) records of China from various sources are analyzed using data which include the recently released Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project dataset. Two key features of the Chinese records are confirmed: (1) significant 1920s and 1940s warming in the temperature records, and (2) evidence for a persistent multidecadal modulation of the Chinese surface temperature records in co-variations with both incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere as well as the modulated solar radiation reaching ground surface. New evidence is presented for this Sun–climate link for the instrumental record from 1880 to 2002. Additionally, two non-local physical aspects of solar radiation-induced modulation of the Chinese SAT record are documented and discussed.

Teleconnections that provide a persistent and systematic modulation of the temperature response of the Tibetan Plateau and/or the tropospheric air column above the Eurasian continent (e.g., 30°N–70°N; 0°–120°E) are described. These teleconnections may originate from the solar irradiance-Arctic–North Atlantic overturning circulation mechanism proposed by Soon (2009). Also considered is the modulation of large-scale land–sea thermal contrasts both in terms of meridional and zonal gradients between the subtropical western Pacific and mid-latitude North Pacific and the continental landmass of China. The Circum-global teleconnection (CGT) pattern of summer circulation of Ding and Wang (2005) provides a physical framework for study of the Sun–climate connection over East Asia. Our results highlight the importance of solar radiation reaching the ground and the concomitant importance of changes in atmospheric transparency or cloudiness or both in motivating a true physical explanation of any Sun–climate connection. We conclude that ground surface solar radiation is an important modulating factor for Chinese SAT changes on multidecadal to centennial timescales. Therefore, a comprehensive view of local and remote factors of climate change in China must take account of this as well as other natural and anthropogenic forcings.

Tinsley et. al 2009 find that the CRF (Cosmic Ray Forcing) is a likely climate driver, and find that it needs to be represented in the models, since it has a very important role in climate change.

Belov et. al 2005

A method of prediction of expected part of global climate change caused by cosmic ray (CR) by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based on solar activity data prediction and determined parameters of convection-diffusion and drift mechanisms is presented. This gave possibility to make prediction of expected part of global climate change, caused by long-term cosmic ray intensity variation. In this paper, we use the model of cosmic ray modulation in the Heliosphere, which considers a relation between long-term cosmic ray variations with parameters of the solar magnetic field. The later now can be predicted with good accuracy. By using this prediction, the expected cosmic ray variations in the near Earth space also can be estimated with a good accuracy. It is shown that there are two possibilities: (1) to predict cosmic ray intensity for 1–6 months by using a delay of long-term cosmic ray variations relatively to effects of the solar activity and (2) to predict cosmic ray intensity for the next solar cycle. For the second case, the prediction of the global solar magnetic field characteristics is crucial. For both cases, reliable long-term cosmic ray and solar activity data as well as solar magnetic field are necessary. For solar magnetic field, we used results of two magnetographs (from Stanford and Kitt Peak Observatories). The obtained forecasting of long-term cosmic ray intensity variation we use for estimation of the part of global climate change caused by cosmic ray intensity changing (influenced on global cloudiness covering).

Borie and Thoyaib 2006.

The abstract reads:

Data for geomagnetic activity index aa and solar sunspot number Rz for 1868-2004 were subjected to

correlation analysis with the global surface temperature (GST). The annual-means GT show that it had

two warming phases and one cooling period. Observations of the Earth's near-surface temperature

showed a global-mean temperature increase of approximately 1.1° C since 1877, occurred from 1887 to

1940 and from 1970 to the 1998. The temperature change over the past 35 years (1970-2004) is unlikely

to be entirely due to internal climate variability. Attribution of the warming early in the century has

proved more elusive. The correlation analysis between the variation of global temperature and both aa

geomagnetics and solar activity are +0.5 ± 0.05, for any lag or lead, indicating a significant role in such

variation. All graphs have illustrated strong correlations between the solar activity and geomagnetics

and surface global temperature. Our results do not, by any means, rule out the existence of important

links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Our results displayed that the present changes in aa

geomagnetics may reflect partially some future changes in the global surface temperatures.

From the conclusions:

The excess of aa geomagnetics led to excess

solar energy which stored and accumulated for few future

years in the near-Earth system, leading to the global

temperature variability. The running coefficients for the

late years (1873-1930) displayed only negative

remarkable role of solar activity or/and aa geomagnetic in

global temperature change (Figure 5b). On contrast, the

aa index and the sunspot number played, direct or

indirect, a great role in global cooling temperature

throughout four decades from 1931 to 1970. During the

period 1971-1998, the correlation between Rz and

temperature persisted positively. So, the sensitivity of

global temperature to aa geomagnetics is significant and

may be real.

Blanter et. al 2008

Blanter et. al 2008 found that temperatures correlated remarkably well for all periods between the solar activity indicies and the observed temperatures for stations in Europe and the United States during the 20th Century. They used a finding from a previous study that the temperatures at weather stations correlated remarkably well if they were up to a 1000 km distance from each other. They also state in the abstract that these changes can "possibly" be extended onto a Global scale. Being that they found that solar activity can account for all temperature changes over the 20th Century, I reduced the range slightly from 100% to somwhere in the 90-100% range to account for the anthropogenic forcings.

http://www.pnas.org/...7/23/12433.full

Current global warming commonly is attributed to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (3). However, geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model. The current warm period is thought to have not reached the level of warmth of the previous warm period (A.D. 800-1200), when the Vikings raised wheat and livestock in Greenland. Therefore, the magnitude of the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable. The contribution of solar-output variations to climate change may be significant.

http://rspa.royalsoc... ... /1221.full

Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) changes have been suggested to affect weather and climate, and new evidence is presented here directly linking GCRs with clouds. Clouds increase the diffuse solar radiation, measured continuously at UK surface meteorological sites since 1947. The ratio of diffuse to total solar radiation—the diffuse fraction (DF)—is used to infer cloud, and is compared with the daily mean neutron count rate measured at Climax, Colorado from 1951–2000, which provides a globally representative indicator of cosmic rays. Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600×102 neutron counts h−1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (i) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19±4) %, and (ii) the diffuse fraction increases by (2±0.3) %. During sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction. The diffuse radiation changes are, therefore, unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.

CMC,

You claim that you are an atmospheric student. I am also looking to be an atmospheric/climate dynamics student. How can you say that,

ionization is most likely too weak to influence global-scale cloud cover and influence climate in any significant way.

When you also claim that there are a number of conflicting peer-reviewed publications on the matter.

What is your basis for the bolded portion of your post that I quoted? CERN has found an impact, though the magnitude of this impact is still uncertain, and there are many lines of evidence that point to a large GCR-influence on cloud cover and climate.

Yuri Stozhkov (who was also one of the authors in the CERN paper) et. al found that during large Forbush Decreases, there are precipitation decreases observed, suggesting that this is a cause from a sudden decrease in Cloud Cover.

Dragic et. al 2011 found that with Forbush Decreases exceeding a GCR decrease of 7%, a noticeable increase with the DTR was observed. This can only be explained through cloud cover decreases, since clouds reduce the DTR range, and a decrease in cloud cover would create an increase in the Diurnal Temperature Range.

Svensmark et. al 2009 used 17 Forbush Decreases (large and sudden decreases in Cosmic Rays after a Coronal Mass Ejection) after 1998 (since this is when AERONET started) that were above a 7% decrease, and compared these changes in GCRs to corresponding changes in aerosol particles. Aerosoles are the "seeds" to cloud formation. Without these, water vapor droplets would not be able to condense onto a physical substance to form a cloud. Svensmark et. al found that for each FD event analyzed, a sudden decrease in aerosoles was also observed. This indicates a significant GCR impact on the atmospheric composition.

Kniveton and Todd 2001

This paper evaluates whether there is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that solar variability is linked to the Earth's climate through the modulation of atmospheric precipitation processes. Using global data from 1979–1999, we find evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux (CRF), precipitation (P) and precipitation efficiency (PE) over ocean surfaces at mid to high latitudes. Both P and PE are shown to vary by 7–9% during the solar cycle of the 1980s over the latitude band 45–90°S. Alternative explanations of the variation in these atmospheric parameters by changes in tropospheric aerosol content and ENSO show poorer statistical relationships with P and PE. Variations in P and PE potentially caused by changes in CRF have implications for the understanding of cloud and water vapour feedbacks.

Shaviv 2005

Regardless of if it is Cosmic Rays or not, CMC, (though there is much evidence for a GCR-climate connection), an amplifying mechanism is needed for the sun-climate connection.

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise

to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different

mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a

possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as

a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.

This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux

into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over

the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can

be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative

forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just

those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification

mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

=================================================

So on what basis are you going with that the ionization from GCRs globally have a small impact on cloud cover formation? The CERN paper concluded that the ionization from GCRs could be quite large when averaged across the global troposphere.

And the lay lurker should note that CMC has NOT replied to any of this at all, has NOT replied to my question to show prood that most of the climate change observed is anthropogenic, and has NOT provided any evidence to back up his viewpoints that the sun is not a significant contributing factor to recent climate change.

Unfortunately, that's because there is no evidence to back that up, hence why he has not provided any such evidence for his claims.

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.springerl...3812301/?MUD=MP

Such high-resolution indirect data on solar activity as the ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be cosmogenic isotopes have been considered. The long-term solar activity cyclicity during the last millennium with periods of approximately 90 and 210 years, which can be related to substantial climatic warming and cooling events in this millennium, has been established based on an analysis of these data. It has been indicated that long-term recent climate warming can result from the effect of the ∼90- and ∼210-year solar cycles on the climatic system, which is characterized by the nonlinear dynamics.

http://www.sciencedi...364682605002828

It is a clear fact that the Earth's climate has been changing since the pre-industrial era, especially during the last three decades. This change is generally attributed to three main factors: greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols, and solar activity changes. However, these factors are not all-independent. Furthermore, contributions of the above-mentioned factors are still disputed.

We sought whether a parallelism between the solar activity variations and the changes in the Earth's climate can be established. For this, we compared the solar irradiance model data reconstructed by J. Lean to surface air temperature variations of two countries: USA and Japan. Comparison was carried out in two categories: correlations and periodicities. We utilized data from a total of 60 stations, 18 in USA and 42 in Japan. USA data range from 1900 to 1995, while Japan data range from 1900 to 1990.

Our analyses yielded a 42 per cent correlation for USA and a 79 per cent for Japan between the temperature and solar irradiance. Moreover, both data sets showed similar periodicities. Hence, our results indicate marked influence of solar activity variations on the Earth's climate.

The 11-year sunspot cycle (SSC) strongly affects the lower stratosphere. However, in order to detect the solar signal it is necessary to group the data according to the phase of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Although this is valid throughout the year the effect of the SSC and the QBO on the stratosphere was largest during the northern winters (January/February). As the stratosphere can affect weather at the ground, the SSC effect on the lower stratosphere might provide a mechanism for solar-climate links. Here we analyse an extended, 65-year long data set of solar variability, QBO, and lower stratospheric dynamics. The results fully confirm earlier findings and suggest a significant effect of the SSC on the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex and on the mean meridional circulation.

http://www.springerl...t02g8858038650/

In this work, we analyze the long term variability of rainfall and temperature (1912–2008) of Santa Maria (29°S, 53°W) and its possible connection with natural influences such as solar activity and ENSO. Temperature and rainfall present similar frequencies as revealed by spectral analyses. This analysis shows a large number of short periods between 2–8 years and periods of 11.8–12.3, 19.1–21.0, and 64.3–82.5 years. The cross correlation for rainfall and temperature versus Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) have higher cross-power around 2–8 yr. Rainfall and temperature versus sunspot number (Rz) showed higher cross-power around the 11-yr solar cycle period. A high and continuous cross correlation was observed for Rz-22 yr versus rainfall and temperature. Furthermore, the power between 22-yr solar cycle and meteorological parameters was higher than that obtained with the 11-yr solar cycle, suggesting that the effect of Hale cycle on climate may be stronger than the Schwabe cycle effect. These results indicate that the variability of rainfall and temperature is closely related to the variation of the Southern Oscillation Index and solar activity, and that the El Nino Southern Oscillation and solar activity probably play an important role in the climate system over Southern Brazil.In this work, we analyze the long term variability of rainfall and temperature (1912–2008) of Santa Maria (29°S, 53°W) and its possible connection with natural influences such as solar activity and ENSO. Temperature and rainfall present similar frequencies as revealed by spectral analyses. This analysis shows a large number of short periods between 2–8 years and periods of 11.8–12.3, 19.1–21.0, and 64.3–82.5 years. The cross correlation for rainfall and temperature versus Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) have higher cross-power around 2–8 yr. Rainfall and temperature versus sunspot number (Rz) showed higher cross-power around the 11-yr solar cycle period. A high and continuous cross correlation was observed for Rz-22 yr versus rainfall and temperature. Furthermore, the power between 22-yr solar cycle and meteorological parameters was higher than that obtained with the 11-yr solar cycle, suggesting that the effect of Hale cycle on climate may be stronger than the Schwabe cycle effect. These results indicate that the variability of rainfall and temperature is closely related to the variation of the Southern Oscillation Index and solar activity, and that the El Nino Southern Oscillation and solar activity probably play an important role in the climate system over Southern Brazil.

http://www.sciencedi...364682611003452

It is simply absurd to claim that the sun can not be contributing, when it can influence the atmospheric parameters of the Earth in so many different ways.

[cmc0605]

Snowlover,

I understand that your style is to list dozens of abstracts/graphs at once, supplemented with your own bolded contributions. Unfortunately, it is irritating on my eyes and I don't really have the time or will to respond to why I think the majority of them are irrelevant, and in some cases flawed analyses that have been "replaced" with later literature. Really, I'm not convinced you have read any of them, based on what appears to often be fundamental misunderstandings of what they even studied or what conclusions they came to.

Personally, if I am going to engage in a discussion, it should be with you and not your ability to copy and paste papers. It might "look impressive" but to me it's flinging buckets of mud against a wall and expecting me to clean it up, while hoping one of your arguments actually sticks to the wall. Why bring up Miskolczi for example if you actually read it? It's on the same level of "the moon is made of blue cheese."

Read the papers you cite. Read some of the later papers that cite them. Read the replies to them. (This is why I have mainly referenced review papers and assessment reports on this stuff, since it's tough to do the subject justice in a forum post). Avoid highly controversial and long-debunked nonsense from people like Scafetta or Soon. I'm sorry if you find this an avoidant or undesirable method of dialogue, but I'm not here to play games of "respond to 50 arguments/papers at once," especially with someone who receives an irritatingly disproportionate amount of information from very dubious sources (and can't recognize that this is the case). I'm also sorry if my request seems unreasonable, but you're the one arguing against the mainstream scientific community and decades of research on these topics.

It is the same for "evidence of AGW." The burden of proof is not on me to defend an idea that is simply a consequence of physics, and has emerged as a fundamental building block of atmospheric science for decades, and which there are countless papers/books/assessment reports on. How would you go about "defending" all the evidence for gravity or evolution or cell theory in a forum post? Rather, you need to come up with alternative model that surpasses "AGW" in explanatory and predictive ability, and which is consistent with observed trends in variables (e.g., cosmic rays, Martian galactic rays, or whatever idea you propose). Moreover, should you find a mechanism that is tenable, then it is up to you to quantify it and put it next to other well-established forcings that have already been quantified...one forcing does not simply "replace" another because it works or because you want to wish the other one away.

AGW is not a "theory" but a consequence of well-established physics. It is a consequence of theory, and that theory has ab road range of application aside from modern global warming, and which is immensely morep woerful than whether cosmic rays can influence cloud cover. It's the same sort of physics that is used to develop heat-seeking missiles or to interpret the radiant spectra seen from Mars. It's the same physics that serves as the fundamental basis for modeling any planetary atmosphere, or which astrophysicists will use to understand exoplanets lightyears away. There are many predictions that emerge as a consequence of this well-established physics, such as changes in the energy budget of the planet, particularly in spectral bands relevant for CO2, stratospheric cooling, etc. The observed spatial-temporal evolution of these patterns is broadly consistent with our expectations, as is outlined in countless chapters and papers on detection and attribution. No one has successfully explained this as a consequence of changes in the sun. Scafetta tried and failed, and has now turned to astrology-based mechanisms.

Finally, I am not a cosmic ray physicist. I have learned only enough to follow where the evidence is leaning in terms of their climate impact. As such, I need to put my trust in reliable papers and to look at "the forest rather than the trees" and see where the majority of studies are converging toward. There are a number of cosmic ray specialists and a lot of papers on this, and while a few minority people like Shaviv or Svensmark think they are a first-order climate forcing, very few people seriously believe this is the case. There may be some wiggle room for them, but no one has yet established a working and robust mechanism for their total impact on cloud cover. Moreover, the lack of trend in the last 50 years makes it impossible for them to be responsible for the trend, even if such a mechanism exists. Paleoclimate evidence has also shown times when large changes in cosmic rays have taken place with no corresponding impact on climate. Most studies find that their impact is orders of magnituide too small to affect cloud cover and work its way onto Earth's radiative energy budget. CERN is a starting point to address these questions, but even they have publicly said their work so far does not address the cosmic ray-climate connection. To quote a paragraph from the upcoming IPCC AR5 report (which I should not be doing, but it's very short...),

"Studies that seek to establish a causal relationship between cosmic rays and aerosols/clouds by looking at correlations between the two quantities on timescales of days to decades indicate statistically significant correlations to support the hypothesis in some locations but in other cases contradictory results are found. There is no evidence that their effect is large enough to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle."

(by the way, they have an entire chapter devoted to clouds and aerosols, with detailed elaboration on the cosmic ray theory).

That to me is not a suitable starting point for an alternative physical mechanism. Sorry. That's my final word on the cosmic ray stuff. You can keep convincing yourself of it if you want, but it's weak (and that's being nice about it).

[Snow_Miser]

Snowlover,

I understand that your style is to list dozens of abstracts/graphs at once, supplemented with your own bolded contributions. Unfortunately, it is irritating on my eyes and I don't really have the time or will to respond to why I think the majority of them are irrelevant, and in some cases flawed analyses that have been "replaced" with later literature. Really, I'm not convinced you have read any of them, based on what appears to often be fundamental misunderstandings of what they even studied or what conclusions they came to.

Personally, if I am going to engage in a discussion, it should be with you and not your ability to copy and paste papers. It might "look impressive" but to me it's flinging buckets of mud against a wall and expecting me to clean it up, while hoping one of your arguments actually sticks to the wall. Why bring up Miskolczi for example if you actually read it? It's on the same level of "the moon is made of blue cheese."

Read the papers you cite. Read some of the later papers that cite them. Read the replies to them. (This is why I have mainly referenced review papers and assessment reports on this stuff, since it's tough to do the subject justice in a forum post). Avoid highly controversial and long-debunked nonsense from people like Scafetta or Soon. I'm sorry if you find this an avoidant or undesirable method of dialogue, but I'm not here to play games of "respond to 50 arguments/papers at once," especially with someone who receives an irritatingly disproportionate amount of information from very dubious sources (and can't recognize that this is the case). I'm also sorry if my request seems unreasonable, but you're the one arguing against the mainstream scientific community and decades of research on these topics.

It is the same for "evidence of AGW." The burden of proof is not on me to defend an idea that is simply a consequence of physics, and has emerged as a fundamental building block of atmospheric science for decades, and which there are countless papers/books/assessment reports on. How would you go about "defending" all the evidence for gravity or evolution or cell theory in a forum post? Rather, you need to come up with alternative model that surpasses "AGW" in explanatory and predictive ability, and which is consistent with observed trends in variables (e.g., cosmic rays, Martian galactic rays, or whatever idea you propose). Moreover, should you find a mechanism that is tenable, then it is up to you to quantify it and put it next to other well-established forcings that have already been quantified...one forcing does not simply "replace" another because it works or because you want to wish the other one away.

AGW is not a "theory" but a consequence of well-established physics. It is a consequence of theory, and that theory has ab road range of application aside from modern global warming, and which is immensely morep woerful than whether cosmic rays can influence cloud cover. It's the same sort of physics that is used to develop heat-seeking missiles or to interpret the radiant spectra seen from Mars. It's the same physics that serves as the fundamental basis for modeling any planetary atmosphere, or which astrophysicists will use to understand exoplanets lightyears away. There are many predictions that emerge as a consequence of this well-established physics, such as changes in the energy budget of the planet, particularly in spectral bands relevant for CO2, stratospheric cooling, etc. The observed spatial-temporal evolution of these patterns is broadly consistent with our expectations, as is outlined in countless chapters and papers on detection and attribution. No one has successfully explained this as a consequence of changes in the sun. Scafetta tried and failed, and has now turned to astrology-based mechanisms.

Finally, I am not a cosmic ray physicist. I have learned only enough to follow where the evidence is leaning in terms of their climate impact. As such, I need to put my trust in reliable papers and to look at "the forest rather than the trees" and see where the majority of studies are converging toward. There are a number of cosmic ray specialists and a lot of papers on this, and while a few minority people like Shaviv or Svensmark think they are a first-order climate forcing, very few people seriously believe this is the case. There may be some wiggle room for them, but no one has yet established a working and robust mechanism for their total impact on cloud cover. Moreover, the lack of trend in the last 50 years makes it impossible for them to be responsible for the trend, even if such a mechanism exists. Paleoclimate evidence has also shown times when large changes in cosmic rays have taken place with no corresponding impact on climate. Most studies find that their impact is orders of magnituide too small to affect cloud cover and work its way onto Earth's radiative energy budget. CERN is a starting point to address these questions, but even they have publicly said their work so far does not address the cosmic ray-climate connection. To quote a paragraph from the upcoming IPCC AR5 report (which I should not be doing, but it's very short...),

(by the way, they have an entire chapter devoted to clouds and aerosols, with detailed elaboration on the cosmic ray theory).

That to me is not a suitable starting point for an alternative physical mechanism. Sorry. That's my final word on the cosmic ray stuff. You can keep convincing yourself of it if you want, but it's weak (and that's being nice about it).

This does not address anything my posts raised and you still have not answered my question.

[TerryM]

This does not address anything my posts raised and you still have not answered my question.

If you haven't addressed anything in his posts, nor answered his questions, why would you expect him to do so for yours.

Just curious

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Why do most of the graphs end in the 90s

[cmc0605]

If you haven't addressed anything in his posts, nor answered his questions, why would you expect him to do so for yours.

Just curious

Terry

I think I have been entirely fair in addressing his posts, especially given the odd presentation of throwing around every scattered thought or irrelevant paper he could come up with, and his very odd selection of sources. It's a common theme for these people to keep saying "you haven't answered anything!" and "show me the evidence!" while posting irrelevant and fallacious junk. Not sure what he expects me to reply with...

[TerryM]

I think I have been entirely fair in addressing his posts, especially given the odd presentation of throwing around every scattered thought or irrelevant paper he could come up with, and his very odd selection of sources. It's a common theme for these people to keep saying "you haven't answered anything!" and "show me the evidence!" while posting irrelevant and fallacious junk. Not sure what he expects me to reply with...

Total agreement - I see myself as one of the 'lay lurkers' on this subject, and frankly, while I certainly don't follow all of the arguments, you seem to have posted using far more reputable sources, even when you disagreed with my intuitive take on the matter.

Terry

[cmc0605]

Why do most of the graphs end in the 90s

See this graph and several papers (e.g., here, here, and Figure 1 and 2 here). There is no significant trend in cosmic rays since ~1950, so even if there were a solid mechanism to link it with changes in cloudiness (which there is not), and specifically low-level cloudiness (which dominates the albedo contribution, high clouds have more greenhouse influence), then it still has no predictive ability to explain the late 20th century temperature rise.

There is also no linkage between cosmic rays and ISCCP derived low-level cloud cover after the 1990s (discussed in the review by Gray et al 2010 which I cited before, contrary to Marsh and Svensmark 2003, though keep in mind there is controversy concerning how suitable trends can be established from the ISCCP data).

Correlations between cosmic rays and clouds do occur for limited geographic regions however, and it's easy to cite a number of papers showing this, but the climate connection simply has not been established. These correlations can arise for other reasons too. People tossing this hypothesis around as a robust explanation while being skeptical of the much more powerful physics that AGW rests on are not true skeptics, IMO.

[Snow_Miser]

If you haven't addressed anything in his posts, nor answered his questions, why would you expect him to do so for yours.

Just curious

Terry

It should not supposedly be that hard to provide an empirical proof that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming. Instead what he has provided is a proof that greenhouse gases are having an impact on the climate which is not under question. It does not answer my question regarding what is the dominant factor controlling recent climate change over the last 150 years.

That is where there is no evidence at all to back up his claims.

[Snow_Miser]

Why do most of the graphs end in the 90s

Some of the graphs do because they were published in the 1990s or have graphs adapted from papers published in the 1990s.

We have not warmed in the 2000s so I am not sure what your point is.

[Snow_Miser]

I think I have been entirely fair in addressing his posts, especially given the odd presentation of throwing around every scattered thought or irrelevant paper he could come up with, and his very odd selection of sources. It's a common theme for these people to keep saying "you haven't answered anything!" and "show me the evidence!" while posting irrelevant and fallacious junk. Not sure what he expects me to reply with...

I expect you to provide basic evidence to back up your claims.

Except there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming observed, which is why you have consistently evaded that question and have not addressed anything the papers I posted brought up with a scientific basis. All you have done is call them " fallacious junk," with that claim also not having any basis.

[Snow_Miser]

You seem to have posted using far more reputable sources, even when you disagreed with my intuitive take on the matter.

Terry

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

[Snow_Miser]

I am on my phone right now and I see that CMC has posted falsehoods about there being no trend in GCRs. I will address this later.

[TerryM]

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

No - as I stated, I have no knowledge of the subject. I am aware of the history of some of the people you were quoting, and in areas where I do claim at least a modicum of expertise they are not seen as credible. Soon, Spencer and Humlum have not restricted themselves to this topic, and I've found their positions less than convincing in other areas.

It's probably a logical fallacy, but when someone links to a site that I feel has been a source of disinformation in the past, I tend to give that argument much less credence than the side linking to someone that I have no information about. When BB started quoting Tallbloke, I was convinced that he was wrong - not because I understood the nuances of the argument, but because of guilt by association.

I doubt that you'll take any advice from me, but you mentioned persuading the lay person in an earlier post. Quoting, or linking to sites or persons known to be at best fringe dwellers damages your argument.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Some of the graphs do because they were published in the 1990s or have graphs adapted from papers published in the 1990s.

We have not warmed in the 2000s so I am not sure what your point is.

How sad.

I am out of this, you are making up these large scale fantasies that's to far.

You make this stuff up in the face of incredible over whelming facts this is just stupid.

[WeatherRusty]

I expect you to provide basic evidence to back up your claims.

Except there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming observed, which is why you have consistently evaded that question and have not addressed anything the papers I posted brought up with a scientific basis. All you have done is call them " fallacious junk," with that claim also not having any basis.

There is evidence. You are not convinced by that evidence.

First and foremost there is the physical basis for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The build up of atmospheric CO2 is the consequence of human activities. We know the radiative forcing given by a doubling of CO2 to be about 3.7W/m^2. The Planck response to a radiative forcing of that magnitude is a bit less than 1.2C in temperature at Earth's surface.

In order for the Sun to produce an equivalent radiative forcing it would have to increase it's output by about 22W/m^2.......just for the sake of comparison.

The Earth is shown to be in a positive energy imbalance where less radiative energy is being emitted to space than is being received from the Sun.

Spectral analysis from both satellite and the surface show absorption of wavelengths in the IR band at exactly those frequencies for CO2 increasing since the 1970's.

------------

Questions of climate sensitivity are beside the point. CO2 acts as a first order controller of climate, just as do intrinsic changes in the Sun, the orbital parameters, planetary albedo, the position of continental masses and ocean circulations, for reasons based in fundamental physics.

[Snow_Miser]

How sad.

I am out of this, you are making up these large scale fantasies that's to far.

You make this stuff up in the face of incredible over whelming facts this is just stupid.

What am I "making up" in the face of "overwhelming facts?"

No Friv I am not making up lines and data like you have.

[Snow_Miser]

No - as I stated, I have no knowledge of the subject. I am aware of the history of some of the people you were quoting, and in areas where I do claim at least a modicum of expertise they are not seen as credible. Soon, Spencer and Humlum have not restricted themselves to this topic, and I've found their positions less than convincing in other areas.

It's probably a logical fallacy, but when someone links to a site that I feel has been a source of disinformation in the past, I tend to give that argument much less credence than the side linking to someone that I have no information about. When BB started quoting Tallbloke, I was convinced that he was wrong - not because I understood the nuances of the argument, but because of guilt by association.

I doubt that you'll take any advice from me, but you mentioned persuading the lay person in an earlier post. Quoting, or linking to sites or persons known to be at best fringe dwellers damages your argument.

Terry

If you are going to make a claim that someone's sources are less reliable that others, you should have a justification to back that claim up.

The scientists whom CMC has cited are pretty much the Soon, Spencer and Humlum on the other side of the spectrum.

[Snow_Miser]

See this graph and several papers (e.g., here, here, and Figure 1 and 2 here). There is no significant trend in cosmic rays since ~1950, so even if there were a solid mechanism to link it with changes in cloudiness (which there is not), and specifically low-level cloudiness (which dominates the albedo contribution, high clouds have more greenhouse influence), then it still has no predictive ability to explain the late 20th century temperature rise.

There is also no linkage between cosmic rays and ISCCP derived low-level cloud cover after the 1990s (discussed in the review by Gray et al 2010 which I cited before, contrary to Marsh and Svensmark 2003, though keep in mind there is controversy concerning how suitable trends can be established from the ISCCP data).

Correlations between cosmic rays and clouds do occur for limited geographic regions however, and it's easy to cite a number of papers showing this, but the climate connection simply has not been established. These correlations can arise for other reasons too. People tossing this hypothesis around as a robust explanation while being skeptical of the much more powerful physics that AGW rests on are not true skeptics, IMO.

Your graph shows that Cosmic Rays DECREASED up until about 2000 when it started to increase again, which matches the flatline in Global Temperatures observed in recent years quite well.

Lockwood and Frolich has been thoroughly debunked by solar scientists both in the peer reviewed literature, and in the non-peer reviewed literature.

Svensmark and Friis Christensen 2007

The continuing rapid increase in carbon

dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has

apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the

temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a

high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity.

Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the

Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global

climate change.

Nir Shaviv at the Reference Frame

Cosmic Rays reached a record low in 1992, creating fewer clouds and more warming.

According to Ogurtsov et. al 2003, the cumulative GCR counts reached a record low in 1992:

The main increase in GCR counts from 1992-2002 probably is the increase in the minima of the GCR Flux in 2000. The Cosmic Ray Cycle Length in Solar Cycle 22 is still shorter than the lengths in the 1960s/1970s, which according to the paper could be the link between the solar cycle length and temperature.

Carslaw et. al 2002 also finds a decrease in GCRs with 1992, once again, being the record low during a long term trend downward in GCRs matching a long term increase in Global Temperatures.

So saying that Solar Activity peaked in 1985, when GCRs reached their all time lows in 1992, while contributing to the late-20th Century Warming, the statement by Lockwood and Frolich is simply false.

According to Dorman 2012, the Cosmic Ray Flux can explain much of the late-20th Century Global Warming.

And your statement that, "There is also no linkage between cosmic rays and ISCCP derived low-level cloud cover after the 1990s"

Is also false:

[Snow_Miser]

There is evidence. You are not convinced by that evidence.

First and foremost there is the physical basis for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The build up of atmospheric CO2 is the consequence of human activities. We know the radiative forcing given by a doubling of CO2 to be about 3.7W/m^2. The Planck response to a radiative forcing of that magnitude is a bit less than 1.2C in temperature at Earth's surface.

It's closer to about 1.1 Degrees C per Doubling without any feedbacks, since the rate at which Earth would normally radiate out to space per Degree C temperature change is 3.3 w/m^2.

This doesn't tell us anything about the sensitivity of the climate system, and how much of the recent warming is man made VS natural, which is open to debate.

In order for the Sun to produce an equivalent radiative forcing it would have to increase it's output by about 22W/m^2.......just for the sake of comparison.

And there is observational evidence that the sun has an amplifying mechanism, which means that this particular statement is misleading.

Shaviv 2005

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise

to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different

mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a

possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as

a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.

This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux

into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over

the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can

be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative

forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just

those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification

mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

The Earth is shown to be in a positive energy imbalance where less radiative energy is being emitted to space than is being received from the Sun.

And this would be expected with any positive energy imbalance, not just that with CO2.

Spectral analysis from both satellite and the surface show absorption of wavelengths in the IR band at exactly those frequencies for CO2 increasing since the 1970's.

Rebuttal to Harries et. al:

Raschke 2001

Several greenhouse gases, which are in part or entirely produced by human activities, have accumulated in the atmosphere since approximately the middle of the 19th century. They are assumed to have an additional greenhouse effect causing a further increase of atmospheric temperatures near the ground and a decrease in the layers above approximately 15 km altitude. The currently observed near-surface warming over nearly the entire globe is already considered by a large fraction of our society to be result of this additional greenhouse effect. Complete justification of this assumption is, however, not yet possible, because there are still too many unknowns in our knowledge of participating processes and in our modeling capabilities.

Certainly increased GHGs have had an influence, but it is uncertain whether the anthropogenic forcing can be identifyable in the observational datasets, wheras with the sun, there is clear evidence that it is being observed in the temperature record and in the atmospheric parameters over the last 30 years.

[WeatherRusty]

It's closer to about 1.1 Degrees C per Doubling without any feedbacks, since the rate at which Earth would normally radiate out to space per Degree C temperature change is 3.3 w/m^2.

This doesn't tell us anything about the sensitivity of the climate system, and how much of the recent warming is man made VS natural, which is open to debate.

And there is observational evidence that the sun has an amplifying mechanism, which means that this particular statement is misleading.

Shaviv 2005

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise

to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different

mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a

possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as

a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.

This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux

into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over

the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can

be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative

forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just

those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification

mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

And this would be expected with any positive energy imbalance, not just that with CO2.

Rebuttal to Harries et. al:

Raschke 2001

Several greenhouse gases, which are in part or entirely produced by human activities, have accumulated in the atmosphere since approximately the middle of the 19th century. They are assumed to have an additional greenhouse effect causing a further increase of atmospheric temperatures near the ground and a decrease in the layers above approximately 15 km altitude. The currently observed near-surface warming over nearly the entire globe is already considered by a large fraction of our society to be result of this additional greenhouse effect. Complete justification of this assumption is, however, not yet possible, because there are still too many unknowns in our knowledge of participating processes and in our modeling capabilities.

Certainly increased GHGs have had an influence, but it is uncertain whether the anthropogenic forcing can be identifyable in the observational datasets, wheras with the sun, there is clear evidence that it is being observed in the temperature record and in the atmospheric parameters over the last 30 years.

1.1C or 1.2C ? Close agreement with the difference representative of part of the range in uncertainty.

Sensitivity? How sensitive is the climate to a perturbation equaling 1.1C? The consensus of equilibrium climate sensitivity studies places the uncertainly most likely to fall between 2C and 4.5C.

So, whether by the Sun or greenhouse, a warming of 1.2C is expected to be amplified to between 2C and 4.5C by feedback within the climate system.

------------

Solar radiation over the 11 year cycle varies by a measured ~1.3 watts.

This produces a radiative forcing equaling 0.24 watts/meter squared and a Planck temperature response of 0.08C. As it happens about a 0.1C variance has been teased out of the surface temp record over the course of the 11 year cycle, thus confirming the physical expectation.

By comparison, a doubling of CO2 produces a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 (verses 0.24W/m^2 for solar) and the corresponding 1.1 - 1.2C of Planck response (versus 0.08C for solar).

Climate science contends that sensitivity is to the initial warming, rather than the source of that warming. The radiative forcing by CO2 is so much larger than that for solar variation and thus the Planck temperature response is many times greater.

The cause of significant warming over the past half century can not be due to intrinsic solar radiative forcing. It is likely due to the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases, just based on the numbers.

This is why the skeptical community is hell bent on proving a low cloud amount change, induced either by the PDO and other ocean cycles, or by solar magnetic field modulation of galactic cosmic rays. The radiative forcing produced by changing low cloud amount would certainly be more than sufficient to explain current climate change and appear to cast doubt on AGW.

[Snow_Miser]

And then there is this:

[GaWx]

And then there is this:

Snowlover or anyone,

Would it be reasonable to assume a lag period between a major change in the sun's output and a change in Earth's temperatures due to the high specific heat of the oceans? If so, does anyone have a feel for the general range for the length of the lag?