Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

[longview]

You might want to invest some armchair energy into why your conclusions don’t seem to align with the experts.

Because when you insist you alone understand the concept... that pretty much sounds like religion to me.

I am good with going where the data leads, that you think the experts are entirely in disagreement
with me, only means you do not have a good grasp on the science.

 

[Visbek]

As you can see, warming did indeed stop. After an El Nino spike in 2016, temperature is headed back down in 2017.

"Headed back down?" lol

2017 may be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record. The idea that one incomplete year makes a trend is simply absurd.

Anomalies, 1880 to 2017 YTD:



5-year trend is pretty much straight up:


Neither result seems to correlate well to the CERES data, by the way. I wonder why...?

 

[Dittohead not!]

I am good with going where the data leads, that you think the experts are entirely in disagreement
with me, only means you do not have a good grasp on the science.

Then, you might want to cash in on that sixty grand as well, but beware! Better check Surface Detail's post first.

 

[Threegoofs]

I am good with going where the data leads, that you think the experts are entirely in disagreement
with me, only means you do not have a good grasp on the science.

Entirely?

No.

Just like a homeopath might not be entirely in disagreement with me about patient care, his conclusions will generally be crappy, no matter how much math he does in his armchair.

 

[Visbek]

Svensmark's work will displace CO2 from the center of climate science.

lol... Riiiight

Because, y'know, it's not like this theory has been kicked around for years, and rejected based on the evidence.

Temperature since 1880 is not a topic addressed in the new paper. You're in luck though, because one of the co-authors, Nir Shaviv, addressed that some time ago.

Yaay, another Heartlander! With his own blog, no less.

Of course, there is the teeny issue that there is not actually a strong correlation between CR and long-term changes in global temperatures; it seems to, at best, have a modest effect on short-term scales. Ooops.
Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature

Other researchers think it's around 10%:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/
Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate - IOPscience

Sloan & Wolfdale wrote another article on this
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

...and another paper finds no significant correlation, when looking at 13 years of MISR data
Investigation of cosmic ray?cloud connections using MISR - Krissansen-Totton - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

But... but... Paradigm shift! WUWT! Heads exploding!!! Right? Right.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your graph reminds me a lot of a mountain road, lot of ups and downs, but generally trending upward. Are you ready to say definitively that the road is now on a general downward trend, and that we will wind up at a lower elevation at the end?

This despite the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest on record?

If so, you might want to invest sixty grand in a bet with Bill Nye:



Could be easy money for you, if you're right.

source

I never wager. And Nye may well be right that this decade will be the warmest on record. That does not mean that 2017 through 2020 cannot exhibit progressive cooling.

 

[Jack Hays]

lol... Riiiight

Because, y'know, it's not like this theory has been kicked around for years, and rejected based on the evidence.



Yaay, another Heartlander! With his own blog, no less.

Of course, there is the teeny issue that there is not actually a strong correlation between CR and long-term changes in global temperatures; it seems to, at best, have a modest effect on short-term scales. Ooops.
Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature

Other researchers think it's around 10%:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/
Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate - IOPscience

Sloan & Wolfdale wrote another article on this
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

...and another paper finds no significant correlation, when looking at 13 years of MISR data
Investigation of cosmic ray?cloud connections using MISR - Krissansen-Totton - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

But... but... Paradigm shift! WUWT! Heads exploding!!! Right? Right.

I suggest you review #104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 to understand why your citations are now out of date.

From the text in #105:

". . . The fact that the ocean sea level changes with solar activity (see Box 1 above) clearly demonstratesthat there is a link between solar activity climate, but it can be used to quantify the solar climate link and show that it is very large. In fact, this “calorimetric” measurement of the solar radiative forcing is about 1 to 1.5 W/m2 over the solar cycle, compared with the 0.1-0.2 W/m2 change expected from just changes in the solar irradiance. This means that a mechanism amplifying solar activity should be operating—the sun has a much larger effect on climate than can be naively expected from just changes in the solar output. . . ."

 

[Jack Hays]

"Headed back down?" lol

2017 may be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record. The idea that one incomplete year makes a trend is simply absurd.

Anomalies, 1880 to 2017 YTD:
View attachment 67226337


5-year trend is pretty much straight up:
View attachment 67226338

Neither result seems to correlate well to the CERES data, by the way. I wonder why...?

I did not use the word "trend" but I noted the apogee has been passed. That is simply true.

 

[Surface Detail]

I did not use the word "trend" but I noted the apogee has been passed. That is simply true.

The apogee of last year's El Nino has indeed been passed, just as everyone expected. But the underlying trend is still upwards.

 

[Jack Hays]

The apogee of last year's El Nino has indeed been passed, just as everyone expected. But the underlying trend is still upwards.

We shall see.

 

[Visbek]

I suggest you review #104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 to understand why your citations are now out of date.

lol

104 literally just points to the new article.

Posts 105-110 are just repeating Shaviv's summary of the article, from his own blog.

This suggests you don't understand the nature of the objections. The new article says "this is the mechanism by which cosmic rays could influence the climate." It is, in Shaviv's own words, the "missing piece of the puzzle" explaining how CRs might impact cloud formation.

However, the objections are that when we look at the evidence, we see poor correlations between cosmic rays and variations in climate. The mechanism by which this could happen is not relevant -- because at a time when Svensmark and Shaviv predicted that temperatures should have fallen, they rose instead.

Thanks for not reading.

 

[Jack Hays]

lol

104 literally just points to the new article.

Posts 105-110 are just repeating Shaviv's summary of the article, from his own blog.

This suggests you don't understand the nature of the objections. The new article says "this is the mechanism by which cosmic rays could influence the climate." It is, in Shaviv's own words, the "missing piece of the puzzle" explaining how CRs might impact cloud formation.

However, the objections are that when we look at the evidence, we see poor correlations between cosmic rays and variations in climate. The mechanism by which this could happen is not relevant -- because at a time when Svensmark and Shaviv predicted that temperatures should have fallen, they rose instead.

Thanks for not reading.

The blog post is jointly authored by Svensmark and Shaviv. Your use of the phrase "at a time when" suggests you assume a naive immediate effect from the cause. What has been established is that solar influence on climate is many times the IPCC assumption. What has been established is the physical mechanism by which this happens. What has not been established is the timeline by which this happens. So don't waste everyone's time by pretending to refute a point that has not been made.

 

[Visbek]

The blog post is jointly authored by Svensmark and Shaviv. Your use of the phrase "at a time when" suggests you assume a naive immediate effect from the cause.

lol

So not only did you fail to read the criticisms, you failed to read the work you're defending and quoted extensively. Nice.

Shaviv's blog post points out that they are, in fact, talking about very short time frames. E.g. A Forbush decrease is when there are higher rates of coronal ejections from the sun, which strengthens the cosmic wind, and deflects more cosmic rays. Shaviv claims that within 5 days of a Forbush decrease, there is a small reduction in cloud formation.

Thus, it is entirely reasonable that if he is were correct, then we should easily detect (for example) changes in temperature that correlate well to the normal 11-year cycles, as well as more gradual and longer-term reductions in solar activity over the past ~100 years. And yet, we don't.

Better yet, I'm not the one setting any time frames. It is S&S who are doing that. Svensmark started predicting a decline in global temperatures in 2009; it hasn't happened yet. Shaviv apparently used the incorrect claim about a "pause" to support his theory for many years -- whoops! In his latest blog post, he is now saying that "half of warming is due to solar activity" and "we'll see less warming in the 21st century." Of course, we've seen temperatures rise at faster rates, so it probably won't take long for his prediction to fail. We'll just have to see how he reacts when that happens.

What has been established is that solar influence on climate is many times the IPCC assumption. What has been established is the physical mechanism by which this happens. What has not been established is the timeline by which this happens. So don't waste everyone's time by pretending to refute a point that has not been made.

lol

No, this paper has not in any way proven that the IPCC is wrong. What it's done is done a lab experiment which presents a possible mechanism. It has not in any way addressed the correlation issues raised by the responses to their work. Somewhat amusingly, their claims about a correlation precede those papers -- they were written between 1976 and 2008, whereas the responses were written in 2013 and 2014. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Jack Hays]

lol

So not only did you fail to read the criticisms, you failed to read the work you're defending and quoted extensively. Nice.

Shaviv's blog post points out that they are, in fact, talking about very short time frames. E.g. A Forbush decrease is when there are higher rates of coronal ejections from the sun, which strengthens the cosmic wind, and deflects more cosmic rays. Shaviv claims that within 5 days of a Forbush decrease, there is a small reduction in cloud formation.

Thus, it is entirely reasonable that if he is were correct, then we should easily detect (for example) changes in temperature that correlate well to the normal 11-year cycles, as well as more gradual and longer-term reductions in solar activity over the past ~100 years. And yet, we don't.

Better yet, I'm not the one setting any time frames. It is S&S who are doing that. Svensmark started predicting a decline in global temperatures in 2009; it hasn't happened yet. Shaviv apparently used the incorrect claim about a "pause" to support his theory for many years -- whoops! In his latest blog post, he is now saying that "half of warming is due to solar activity" and "we'll see less warming in the 21st century." Of course, we've seen temperatures rise at faster rates, so it probably won't take long for his prediction to fail. We'll just have to see how he reacts when that happens.



lol

No, this paper has not in any way proven that the IPCC is wrong. What it's done is done a lab experiment which presents a possible mechanism. It has not in any way addressed the correlation issues raised by the responses to their work. Somewhat amusingly, their claims about a correlation precede those papers -- they were written between 1976 and 2008, whereas the responses were written in 2013 and 2014. Hmmmmmm.

Forbush decreases are brief and powerful events. While they are certainly useful (as shown) in establishing the solar/climate linkage, I don't think any reasonable person would assume a Forbush timeline to be an approximation of a climate influence timeline. It is too soon to dismiss Svensmark's prediction of cooling, and the Pause was quite real. 2017 will be cooler than 2016, and I expect that direction to continue in 2018. The only time-related comment I have seen from the authors was Shaviv's conclusion that half the 20th century's warming was driven by the solar/GCR mechanism.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth

[FONT=&]Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth though changes in the cloud characteristics. [/FONT]In short, as small aerosols grow to become cloud condensation nuclei, they grow faster under higher background ionization rates. Consequently, they have a higher chance of surviving the growth without being eaten by larger aerosols. This effect was calculated theoretically and measured in a specially designed experiment conducted at the Danish Space Research Institute at the Danish Technical University, together with our colleagues Martin Andreas Bødker Enghoff and Jacob Svensmark.[FONT="][FONT=arial][U]Background[/U]: [/FONT]
[FONT=arial]It has long been known that solar variations appear to have a large effect on climate. This was already[URL="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1801.0015"] suggested by William Herschel[/URL] over 200 years ago. Over the past several decades, more empirical evidence have unequivocally demonstrated the existence of such a link, as exemplified in the examples in the box below.[/FONT] . . .
[/FONT]

Atmospheric ionization makes sense to be a prominent driver of change.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is not surprising that the deniers will react. I'm amused that the best this guy can do is say, "No it's not!" and cover his ears.

It isn't blessed in their bible (IPCC assesment reports) or by the bible supplements like RealClimate, Skeptical Science, etc.

 

[Jack Hays]

One of Svensmark's earlier efforts from the greatest hits collection:

[h=3]Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth - Svensmark ...[/h]onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/abstract

by H Svensmark - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 31 - ‎Related articles
Apr 24, 2012 - ABSTRACT. Observations of open star clusters in the solar neighbourhood are used to calculate local supernova (SN) rates for the past 510 Myr. Peaks in the SN rates match passages of the Sun through periods of locally increased cluster formation which could be caused by spiral arms of the Galaxy.



[h=3]Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...[/h]https://www.ras.org.uk/news.../2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

Apr 24, 2012 - Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out his novel work in a paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. ... According to HenrikSvensmark, the rate of nearby supernovae strongly influenced the diversity of such marine invertebrates. Credit: NASA ...

 

[Visbek]

Forbush decreases are brief and powerful events. While they are certainly useful (as shown) in establishing the solar/climate linkage, I don't think any reasonable person would assume a Forbush timeline to be an approximation of a climate influence timeline.

Uh huh

Funny thing, there is nothing in the documents which suggests, say, a 20 year delay in these effects. Shaviv, in addition to talking about Forbush decreases, indicates we should see the effects within solar cycles, which are 11 years long.

It is too soon to dismiss Svensmark's prediction of cooling

Actually, I feel pretty good about dismissing 8-14 years of dead-wrong predictions.

and the Pause was quite real.

bwahaha

Even charts that you yourself have posted showed there was no pause. Remember this, from post #69?

2017 will be cooler than 2016, and I expect that direction to continue in 2018.

Based on what? The Power of Wishful Thinking?

2017 will probably be the 2nd warmest year on record. The 70s did not warm as much as the 80s, did not warm as much as the 90s, which did not warm as much as the 00s, which so far did not warm as much as the 10s -- i.e. decades are getting hotter, a result that does not correlate with cosmic ray fluctuations.

The only time-related comment I have seen from the authors was Shaviv's conclusion that half the 20th century's warming was driven by the solar/GCR mechanism.

Meaning what -- they say that it has an effect, but they offer no time frame whatsoever as a valid period to evaluate their claims? So that you can arbitrarily change the time frame at will? Pass.

Oh hey, I found another paper which evaluates their claims. Maybe you should actually read this one.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3?null

 

[Jack Hays]

Uh huh

Funny thing, there is nothing in the documents which suggests, say, a 20 year delay in these effects. Shaviv, in addition to talking about Forbush decreases, indicates we should see the effects within solar cycles, which are 11 years long.



Actually, I feel pretty good about dismissing 8-14 years of dead-wrong predictions.



bwahaha

Even charts that you yourself have posted showed there was no pause. Remember this, from post #69?

Based on what? The Power of Wishful Thinking?

2017 will probably be the 2nd warmest year on record. The 70s did not warm as much as the 80s, did not warm as much as the 90s, which did not warm as much as the 00s, which so far did not warm as much as the 10s -- i.e. decades are getting hotter, a result that does not correlate with cosmic ray fluctuations.



Meaning what -- they say that it has an effect, but they offer no time frame whatsoever as a valid period to evaluate their claims? So that you can arbitrarily change the time frame at will? Pass.

Oh hey, I found another paper which evaluates their claims. Maybe you should actually read this one.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3?null

I actually have looked over them all. They seem uniformly to fail in the way Shaviv has described: their discussion of solar influence is confined to irradiance. As for the chart, it shows the Pause quite clearly. The 10's did not warm at all. I'm sorry you're impatient to discern the timeline for solar/GCR climate influence; that will come I'm sure.

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . The 70s did not warm as much as the 80s, did not warm as much as the 90s . . .

Here's the basis of that warming, from Shaviv's blog.

Figure 3: The 10Be production showing again, that the sun was particularly active in the latter half of the 20th century. The sunspot number is the "old" reconstructions without Clette's et al. corrections.


What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of this) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitivite to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here's the basis of that warming, from Shaviv's blog.

Figure 3: The 10Be production showing again, that the sun was particularly active in the latter half of the 20th century. The sunspot number is the "old" reconstructions without Clette's et al. corrections.


What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of this) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitivite to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates.

That large decline in Beryllium-10 concentrations is also a lagged measurement. It takes a few decades for the readings to reach ECS. That's why as the graph goes to around 2005 for SSN, the Beryllium-10 is around 20-30 years behind.

 

[Jack Hays]

In hindsight, it seems clear this paper was a precursor to the one at the center of this thread.

[h=3]The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases ...[/h]onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JA022689/abstract

by J Svensmark - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 9 - ‎Related articles
Sep 1, 2016 - Agu Publications. Back to Top. AGU Publications · AGU.org · AGU Membership · Author Resources · Contact AGU · Editor Searches · Librarian Resources · Media Kits · Publication Award · Publication Policies · Scientific Ethics · Submit a Paper · Usage Permissions ...

 

[Jack Hays]

This is the one that started it all.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765

by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 299 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - By 2005 we had found a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds (Svensmark et al. .... years have indeed followed the cosmic-ray variations, Beer and Muscheler were already co-authors of a paper arguing strongly that the cosmic rays were not the driver (Wagner et al.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I never wager. And Nye may well be right that this decade will be the warmest on record. That does not mean that 2017 through 2020 cannot exhibit progressive cooling.

and if it doesn't, if instead it continues to warm, then there will be yet another blogger claiming that global warming has ended. The "debate" about evolution has been going on now for about a century and a half with the young Earthers still unconvinced, so I expect the climate change "debate" will continue for at least that long, even though the signs are already unmistakable.

 

[Surface Detail]

This is the one that started it all.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765

by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 299 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - By 2005 we had found a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds (Svensmark et al. .... years have indeed followed the cosmic-ray variations, Beer and Muscheler were already co-authors of a paper arguing strongly that the cosmic rays were not the driver (Wagner et al.

With regard to the relative contribution of cosmic rays and solar activity to global warming:

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

"Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."