EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:03 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy, I do not see anything from you in the second post above, did you mean to reply?


Yeah... not sure what happened there... :shock:


If you search or move to a new screen and return to a reply that reply is automatically set to the initial quote and any replies are lost. That may have been what happened to you.



I think that is what happened to me. I'll try and be more cautious next time! 8)

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The data would be more supportive if the GCR were proven to be the primary cause of cloud formation, which has not been proven and we know there are many other causes of cloud formation.


Nothing can truely ever be 100% proven in science. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that points to GCRs as the primary driver of Cloud Cover changes, but it is not 100% certain. However, what is 100% certain is that GCRs have an effect on Cloud Cover through aerosol changes as these scientists discovered.

Quote:
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”


Their paper that they published can be viewed here.

We can then ask ourselves, if an increase in temperature, instead of the GCRs are driving Cloud Cover. Through this analysis, we can see that it is not.

First off, if the cause of the decline in Cloud Cover was rising temperatures, we would see that Cloud Cover would lag temperature changes. However, this is not the case. Cloud Cover usually leads temperature changes.

Image

The amount of Cloud Cover can be changed through ENSO, but you can see that there is a clear cause and effect. When Cloud Cover decreased, Temperatures followed.

This is an indicator that something else other than Temperature is driving the decrease in temperatures.

Could it be Cosmic Rays?

If the decrease in Cloud Cover was due to temperature, (according to the CAGW Theory) we would notice an increase in Water Vapour, since less and less of the water vapour is able to condense into Clouds, and there would be excess Water Vapour.

This is not the case.

Image

Overall, a slight decrease in Water Vapour has occured. This is an indicator that an external factor is driving the Cloud Cover.

The aerosol decrease correlates quite nicely with the GCR decrease, as stated by this paper. Aerosoles are the "seedlings" for Cloud Cover, as they are the particles that water vapour condenses onto to create clouds. A decrease in aerosoles therefore means a decrease in Cloud Cover.

Quote:
Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.


Quote:
A link to the original paper's graphic would be better in this case. It would also give the mechanism by which the could height and denisty were determined for this graph.


The graph comes from this paper.

Quote:
Again the original data link would be useful since this is low cloud only and from the information there is quite a bit more variation in the cloud cover than is indicated in the CGR.


Keep in mind that ENSO plays a significant role in changing Global Cloud Cover, so the yearly fluctuations seen in the graph are probably due to ENSO changes.

The graph comes from this paper.

Quote:
Temperture would be tied to increased/decreased solar activity as it would increase/decrease energy input to the system. The original data might give a some insight as to why this would be tied to GCR.


I think that TSI changes have some influence, but it is weak in comparison to the Cloud Forcing.

The image comes from this paper- Beer et. al 2000:

The role of the sun in climate forcing”, J. Beer, W. Mende, R. Stellmacher, Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Switzerland and Institute of Meteorology, Germany, Quaternary Science Reviews, 2000

Quote:
Again the original paper would be best, but there is an indication of the "fit" which gives a clue to the source. If I am correct in the original source the reconstructed GCR graph was "adjusted" to fit the temperature track. That adjustment involved movement by several MILLION years to get the "fit". Not a very good proof in that case.


The red line was the only line on the graph that was fine tuned, and they state this in the paper with good reasoning as well. This all comes from this paper. Proxy Resolutions and the timeframe correlations are never perfect, so the trend needs to be adjusted. The similarities of the two trends are also extremely similar, which indicates that GCRs are the primary driver of the Climate, by influencing clouds on a geological timescale.

Quote:
The cosmic ray flux (Φ) and tropical
temperature anomaly (ΔT) variations over the
Phanerozoic. The upper curves describe the
reconstructed CRF using iron meteorite exposure age
data (Shaviv, 2002b). The blue line depicts the
nominal CRF, while the yellow shading delineates
the allowed error range. The two dashed curves are
additional CRF reconstructions that fit within the
acceptable range (together with the blue line, these
three curves denote the three CRF reconstructions
used in the model simulations). The red curve
describes the nominal CRF reconstruction after its
period was fine tuned to best fit the low-latitude
temperature anomaly (i.e., it is the “blue”
reconstruction, after the exact CRF periodicity was
fine tuned, within the CRF reconstruction error). The
bottom black curve depicts the 10/50 m.y. (see Fig.
1) smoothed temperature anomaly (ΔT) from Veizer
et al. (2000). The red line is the predicted ΔTmodel for
the red curve above, taking into account also the
secular long-term linear contribution (term B × t in
equation 1). The green line is the residual. The largest
residual is at 250 m.y. B.P., where only a few
measurements of δ18O exist due to the dearth of
fossils subsequent to the largest extinction event in
Earth history. The top blue bars are as in Figure 1.


Quote:
That is the hypothesis, but I believe there is still more uncertainty as to the level of impact than you present.


That's fine if you are skeptical of the theory. However, tremendous amounts of data suggest that Cloud Cover, driven by GCRs which is driven by changes in Solar Activity are largely to blame for Global Warming.

Quote:
And the data on the earthshine method is supported where? The very crude approximation is correct and far from a proof.


Their data matches the earthshine data. This indicates a horrible coincidence, or that they are correct. I am willing to go with that the latter is more likely correct.

Quote:
there is no reference to how the dtermination was made nor over what period of time.


I forgot to include this PDFwhich has one of the authors (E Palle) explaining that the cloud albedo changes were over a 21 year timeframe.

Quote:
You could get the average forcing over that period of time,


Yep, this is what I am looking for. The average forcing over the 21 year period, compated to the average forcing that clouds had over that 21 year period.

Quote:
Yes, and the warming associated with the increase in energy is what exactly?


The decrease in Cloud Cover produces increased ISR reaching Earth's surface. Since clouds reflect more ISR than they trap OLR, this would produce warming. And according to Goode and Palle, the additional energy that cloud albedo changes have added to Earth's Energy Budget is around 7 w/m^2.

Quote:
Not according to your link.


I think you misconcepted about what I said. This data is not for just one year. It is the forcing for if Clouds covered 100% of the Earth. It was collected over a timeframe, that is true, but it does not represent data for just one year. It represents a hypothetical situation if there was 100% GCC on Earth. And the data from the ERBE satellite that they have collected indicates that if all clouds were to be removed, an extra 13-21 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget.

Hopefully I explained the above more clearly this time. 8)

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The data would be more supportive if the GCR were proven to be the primary cause of cloud formation, which has not been proven and we know there are many other causes of cloud formation.


Nothing can truely ever be 100% proven in science. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that points to GCRs as the primary driver of Cloud Cover changes, but it is not 100% certain.


A tremendous amount? No, there is evidence to show a correlation between the two, but there is not a tremendous amount of anything given the short period of time GCRs have been considered.

Quote:
However, what is 100% certain is that GCRs have an effect on Cloud Cover, as these scientists discovered.


An effect yes, but that is a far cry from it being "the" primary driver of climate change.

Quote:
Quote:
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”


Their paper that they published can be viewed here.


The results have yet to be verified and no knowledge of the level of effect, yet you are certain this is the primary driver when the scientists actually doing the research do not?


Quote:
We can then ask ourselves, if an increase in temperature, instead of the GCRs are driving Cloud Cover. Through this analysis, we can see that it is not.

First off, if the cause of the decline in Cloud Cover was rising temperatures, we would see that Cloud Cover would lag temperature changes. However, this is not the case. Cloud Cover usually leads temperature changes.

Image


Again no source for the data? No indication of what the lines are supposed to be, how they were determined or even if they are from anything other than a random assertion.

Quote:
The amount of Cloud Cover can be changed through ENSO, but you can see that there is a clear cause and effect. When Cloud Cover decreased, Temperatures followed.


The cloud cover can be changed through many different means and the mechanisms are just now being studied relating to the GCRs.

Quote:
This is an indicator that something else other than Temperature is driving the decrease in temperatures.


Huh? :eh:

Quote:
Could it be Cosmic Rays?

If the decrease in Cloud Cover was due to temperature, (according to the CAGW Theory) we would notice an increase in Water Vapour, since less and less of the water vapour is able to condense into Clouds, and there would be excess Water Vapour.


Why would we see an increase in water vapor at height since there would not be any increase in temperature thoughout the entire atmosphere? The convection of water vapor is different at the different levels for just this reason.

Quote:
This is not the case.

Image

Overall, a slight decrease in Water Vapour has occured. This is an indicator that an external factor is driving the Cloud Cover.


I see you have forgotten all about staitstics when makin gclaims of trends. I suspect there is no sginficance to the total water trend, but the lower level trend may be another matter. That would mean the lower level may have a decreasing trend while the total may not, but without any data there is no way to tell with just this graph.

Quote:
A link to the original paper's graphic would be better in this case. It would also give the mechanism by which the could height and denisty were determined for this graph.


Quote:
The graph comes from this paper.


You mean where the authors state the correlation is not statistically significant? That is why the original source is always helpful. To take the data from the original auther and draw a significantly different conclusion takes something more than wishful thinking.

4. Summary and conclusions

The purpose of this study was to investigate recent suggestions of couplings between solar activity and low cloud cover using the most updated data sources available. This was done mainly through an updated statistical analysis, but also by a consideration of some of the
possible physical mechanisms. Broadly speaking, the analysis has confirmed a previous suggestion of a large negative correlation between globally averaged low cloud cover and total solar irradiance. However, we do not find this correlation to be statistically significant. The correlation between low cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays is much weaker than that for solar irradiance and low clouds, although detrending of the cloud cover data substantially increases the correlation. It was argued that spatial correlation patterns are more meaningful than correlations using globally averaged fields. An analysis of spatial correlations between TSI and low cloud cover revealed patterns over the Pacific Ocean similar to those previously found for SST and surface pressure. One possible interpretation, pursued here, is that it represents an interaction between a solar signal, as explained by Haigh (1996), and coupled atmosphere–ocean variability modes, as evidenced by, e.g., the PDO.



Quote:
Again the original data link would be useful since this is low cloud only and from the information there is quite a bit more variation in the cloud cover than is indicated in the CGR.


Quote:
Keep in mind that ENSO plays a significant role in changing Global Cloud Cover, so the yearly fluctuations seen in the graph are probably due to ENSO changes.

The graph comes from this paper.


So the graph is of a small portion of the world and not of any global measurments.


Fig. 3. Variability of the low cloud amount [36] (upper curves, left axis) and cosmic ray-induced ionization at about 3-km altitude [80] (lower curve, right axis), averaged over the West European region (30–70N, 10W–15E). The grey curve depicts the annual mean of the cloud data.

And where the author concludes:

We have reviewed the experimental evidence and theoretical models relating cosmic ray variations to the terrestrial climate changes. On a short time scale of a few days, there exists much evidence that CR changes may affect the process of cyclogenesis via the changing transparency and pressure, particularly in the North Atlantic during cold
seasons. Although each individual piece of evidence is barely significant, in aggregate, they suggest that the relation can be real.

A link between low clouds and CR appears statistically significant on the interannual time scale since 1984 in limited geographical regions, the largest being North Atlantic + Europe and South Atlantic. We note that many reconstructions of the past climate are based on European data, where the CR–cloud relation is the most pronounced. Extension of this relation to the global scale may be misleading.


The significance of the effect seems to be on the borderline scale.

Quote:
Quote:
Temperture would be tied to increased/decreased solar activity as it would increase/decrease energy input to the system. The original data might give a some insight as to why this would be tied to GCR.


I think that TSI changes have some influence, but it is weak in comparison to the Cloud Forcing.

The image comes from this paper- Beer et. al 2000:

The role of the sun in climate forcing”, J. Beer, W. Mende, R. Stellmacher, Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Switzerland and Institute of Meteorology, Germany, Quaternary Science Reviews, 2000


The label for the graph puts it more into perspective as to the coverage. Some of the same temperature reconstructions we have seen slammed are now more acceptable.

Fig. 8. Comparison of the 10Be concentration in the Dye 3 ice core from Greenland (Beer et al., 1994a) as a proxy of solar activity with a combined filtered temperature record of the northern hemisphere (Groveman and Landsberg, 1979a; Jones et al., 1986).


Quote:
Quote:
Again the original paper would be best, but there is an indication of the "fit" which gives a clue to the source. If I am correct in the original source the reconstructed GCR graph was "adjusted" to fit the temperature track. That adjustment involved movement by several MILLION years to get the "fit". Not a very good proof in that case.


The red line was the only line on the graph that was fine tuned, and they state this in the paper with good reasoning as well. This all comes from this paper. Proxy Resolutions and the timeframe correlations are never perfect, so the trend needs to be adjusted. The similarities of the two trends are also extremely similar, which indicates that GCRs are the primary driver of the Climate, by influencing clouds on a geological timescale.


When the "fit" is made artificially by moving one or the other by millions of years, you cannot honestly claim one drives the other. The CO2 v temperature graphs were not adjusted is such a fashion because the data was taken at face value with the known error bars. This attempt greated even larger error bars in the attempt to force a correlation. I would not trust such an action from anyone.

Quote:
The cosmic ray flux (Φ) and tropical
temperature anomaly (ΔT) variations over the
Phanerozoic. The upper curves describe the
reconstructed CRF using iron meteorite exposure age
data (Shaviv, 2002b). The blue line depicts the
nominal CRF, while the yellow shading delineates
the allowed error range. The two dashed curves are
additional CRF reconstructions that fit within the
acceptable range (together with the blue line, these
three curves denote the three CRF reconstructions
used in the model simulations). The red curve
describes the nominal CRF reconstruction after its
period was fine tuned to best fit the low-latitude
temperature anomaly (i.e., it is the “blue”
reconstruction, after the exact CRF periodicity was
fine tuned, within the CRF reconstruction error). The
bottom black curve depicts the 10/50 m.y. (see Fig.
1) smoothed temperature anomaly (ΔT) from Veizer
et al. (2000). The red line is the predicted ΔTmodel for
the red curve above, taking into account also the
secular long-term linear contribution (term B × t in
equation 1). The green line is the residual. The largest
residual is at 250 m.y. B.P., where only a few
measurements of δ18O exist due to the dearth of
fossils subsequent to the largest extinction event in
Earth history. The top blue bars are as in Figure 1.


Quote:
Quote:
That is the hypothesis, but I believe there is still more uncertainty as to the level of impact than you present.


That's fine if you are skeptical of the theory. However, tremendous amounts of data suggest that Cloud Cover, driven by GCRs which is driven by changes in Solar Activity are largely to blame for Global Warming.


There is not tremendous amounts of data compared to the other climate research because there have been few who have studied this possiblity for any length of time. There may be an impact quantified, but even the papers you provided as part of this tremendous amout of data indicated the lack of significance of the correlation of the data.

Quote:
Quote:
And the data on the earthshine method is supported where? The very crude approximation is correct and far from a proof.


Their data matches the earthshine data. This indicates a horrible coincidence, or that they are correct. I am willing to go with that the latter is more likely correct.


They SAY it matches the earthshine data, but that seems to be all you need, right? The real method would be to find what the earthshine results were and how they were determined BEFORE leaping to such a conclusion.

Quote:
Quote:
there is no reference to how the determination was made nor over what period of time.


I forgot to include this PDFwhich has one of the authors (E Palle) explaining that the cloud albedo changes were over a 21 year timeframe.


No, the earthshine data covers a much smaller time frame and it even states the older data is less reliable.

Earthshine data: December 1998 –present


Quote:
Quote:
You could get the average forcing over that period of time,


Yep, this is what I am looking for. The average forcing over the 21 year period, compated to the average forcing that clouds had over that 21 year period.


That would require a source for that time period and not the calcualtion you tried. I do not know of a short term data set for such a calculation.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, and the warming associated with the increase in energy is what exactly?


The decrease in Cloud Cover produces increased ISR reaching Earth's surface. Since clouds reflect more ISR than they trap OLR, this would produce warming. And according to Goode and Palle, the additional energy that cloud albedo changes have added to Earth's Energy Budget is around 7 w/m^2.


I know that, but you claimed the warming was totally the result of the 7 w/m^2, which would have to be converted to a global temperature to be taken into consideration. You do not have that temperature conversion to support your claim.

Quote:
Quote:
Not according to your link.


I think you misconcepted about what I said. This data is not for just one year. It is the forcing for if Clouds covered 100% of the Earth. It was collected over a timeframe, that is true, but it does not represent data for just one year. It represents a hypothetical situation if there was 100% GCC on Earth. And the data from the ERBE satellite that they have collected indicates that if all clouds were to be removed, an extra 13-21 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget.

Hopefully I explained the above more clearly this time. 8)


As I said, that is not what the link indicated. The link indicated the mean average of the monthy cloudless data set was compared to the mean average of the data set containing only cloudy days and the difference was given as a seasonal range. There was no mention of the hypothetical 100% cloud coverage, whcih should not have such a variable seasonal component.

A major research problem addressed with the ERBE program was how clouds affect the radiative energy balance of the planet, and thereby climate change. The cloud-radiative forcing is simply the difference between the clear-sky and cloudy-sky radiative energy gains. To make this determination, ERBE had to separate clear-sky scenes from all others.


Loop of Monthly Mean Clear-sky Albedo(January; February; March; April; May; June; July; August; September; October; November; December)
Loop of Monthly Mean Clear-sky OLR(January; February; March; April; May; June; July; August; September; October; November; December)
Loop of Monthly Mean Clear-sky Net Radiation(January; February; March; April; May; June; July; August; September; October; November; December)
Loop of Monthly Mean Net Radiative Cloud Forcing(January; February; March; April; May; June; July; August; September; October; November; December)

The solar and terrestrial properties of clouds have offsetting effects in terms of the energy balance of the planet. In the longwave, clouds generally reduce the radiation emission to space and thus result in a heating of the planet. While in the solar (or shortwave), clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation, due to a generally higher albedo than the underlying surface, and thus result in a cooling of the planet. View the maps of cloud forcing given above. Does the presence of low level clouds over oceans heat or cool the planet? What about the convective clouds over the oceans?

The latest results from ERBE indicate that in the global mean, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet. This cooling is a function of season and ranges from approximately -13 to -21 Wm-2. While these values may seem small, they should be compared with the 4 Wm-2 heating predicted by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration.

In terms of hemispheric averages, the longwave and shortwave cloud forcing tend to balance each other in the winter hemisphere. In the summer hemisphere, the negative shortwave cloud forcing dominates the positive longwave cloud forcing, and the clouds result in a cooling. For deep convection the solar and longwave effects also cancel.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:43 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

A tremendous amount? No, there is evidence to show a correlation between the two, but there is not a tremendous amount of anything given the short period of time GCRs have been considered.



And there is all of this evidence in the form of peer-reviewed papers in addition to the correlation of temperature and GCRs in recent years and on a geological scale.

(From the 900+ Peer Reviewed Papers List.)

Cosmic Radiation and the Weather
(Nature, Volume 183, Number 4659, pp. 451-452, February 1959)
- Edward P. Ney

Solar Variability and the Lower Atmosphere
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 56, Issue 12, pp. 1240-1248, December 1975)
- Robert E. Dickinson

Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
- Brian A, Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer

Apparent Tropospheric Response to MeV-GeV Particle Flux Variations: A Connection Via Electrofreezing of Supercooled Water in High-Level Clouds?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Issue D12, pp. 22283-22296, December 1991)
- Brian A. Tinsley, Glen W. Deen

Atmospheric transparency variations associated with geomagnetic disturbances
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp. 1135-1138, September 1992)
- M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Babushkina

Atmospheric transparency variations caused by cosmic rays
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 251-253, August 1994)
- V. K. Roldugin, E. V. Vashenyuk

Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp. 335-341, May 1995)
- Y. I. Stozhkov et al.

Variations of Total Cloudiness during Solar Cosmic Ray Events
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 36, Number 1, pp. 108–111, May 1995)
- S. V. Veretenenko, M. I. Pudovkin

Cloudiness decreases associated with Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 11, pp. 1349-1355, September 1995)
- M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Veretenenko

Cosmic ray variation effects in the temperature of the high-latitudinal atmosphere
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp. 165-168, 1996)
- M. I. Pudovkin et al.

Variations of the cosmic rays as one of the possible links between the solar activity and the lower atmosphere
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp. 161-164, 1996)
- M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Veretenenko

Enhancement of stratospheric aerosols after solar proton event (PDF)
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp. 1119-1123, November 1996)
- O. I. Shumilov et al.

Meteorological characteristic changes in the high-latitudinal atmosphere associated with Forbush decreases of the galactic cosmic rays
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp. 1169-1172, 1997)
- M. I. Pudovkin et al.

Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 59, Number 11, pp. 1225-1232, July 1997)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen

- Reply to comments on "Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage - a missing link in solar-climate relationships" (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp. 79-80, January 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen

Effects of the galactic cosmic ray variations on the solar radiation input in the lower atmosphere
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 59, Issue 14, pp. 1739-1746, September 1997)
- S. V. Veretenenko, M. I. Pudovkin

Effects of the galactic cosmic ray variations on the solar radiation input in the lower atmosphere
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 59, Issue 14, pp. 1739-1746, September 1997)
- S. V. Veretenenko, M. I. Pudovkin

Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030, November 1998)
- Henrik Svensmark

Modulation of cosmic ray precipitation related to climate (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 26, Issue 14, pp. 2057-2060, July 1999)
- J. Feynman, A. Ruzmaikin

Impact of Cosmic Ray Flux Variations Caused by Changes in the Geomagnetic Dipole Moment on Climate Variability
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 40, Number 1, pp. 97–108, 2000)
- O. M. Raspopov et al.

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 93, Numbers 1-2, pp. 175-185, July 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark

The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp. 4.18-4.22, August 2000)
- E. Palle, C. J. Butler

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2, pp. 215-230, November 2000)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

Solar Variability and Clouds
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2, pp.397-409, November 2000)
- Jasper Kirkby, Ari Laaksonen

Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 85, Issue 23, pp. 5004-5007, December 2000)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 8, pp. 1527–1530, April 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton, Martin C. Todd

Shielded by the wind: the influence of the interstellar medium on the environment of Earth
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 64, Issue 7, pp. 795-804, May 2002)
- K. Scherer, H. Fichtner, O. Stawicki

Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue A7, pp. SIA 8-1, July 2002)
- Fangqun Yu

Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 5, July 2002)
- Nir J. Shaviv

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (PDF)
(Science, Volume 298, Number 5599, pp. 1732-1737, November 2002)
- K. S. Carslaw, R. G. Harrison, J. Kirkby

The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (PDF)
(New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv

Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 108, Number D6, pp. AAC 6-1, March 2003)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

Solar Influence on Earth's Climate
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 107, Numbers 1-2, pp. 317-325, April 2003)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

The role of cosmic rays in the atmospheric processes
(Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, Volume 29, Number 5, pp. 913-923, May 2003)
- Y. I. Stozhkov

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer

On the link between northern fennoscandian climate and length of the quasi-eleven-year cycle in galactic cosmic-ray flux (PDF)
(Solar Physics, Volume 218, Numbers 1-2, pp. 345-357, December 2003)
- M. G. Ogurtsov et al.

Toward a solution to the early faint Sun paradox: A lower cosmic ray flux from a stronger solar wind (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 108, Number A12, pp. SSH 3-1, December 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv

Evidence for a link between the flux of galactic cosmic rays and Earth's climate during the past 200,000 years
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issues 3-4, pp. 313-322, February-March 2004)
- M. Christl et al.

Effects of energetic solar proton events on the cyclone development in the North Atlantic (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 5, pp. 393-405, March 2004)
- S. V. Veretenenko, P. Thejll

Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 16, August 2004)
- Ilya G. Usoskin, N. Marsh, G. A. Kovaltsov, K. Mursula, O. G. Gladysheva

Atmospheric transparency changes associated with solar wind-induced atmospheric electricity variations
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issues 13-14, pp. 1143-1149, September 2004)
- V. C. Roldugin, B. A. Tinsley

External forcing of the geomagnetic field? Implications for the cosmic ray flux—climate variability (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issues 13-14, pp. 1195-1203, September 2004)
- Jens Wendler

Precipitation, cloud cover and Forbush decreases in galactic cosmic rays
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issues 13-14, pp. 1135-1142, September 2004)
- D. R. Kniveton

Long-Term Modulation of Cosmic Rays in the Heliosphere and its Influence at Earth
(Solar Physics, Volume 224, Numbers 1-2, pp. 305-316, October 2004)
- K. Scherer et al.

The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate
(Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 6, Number 5, October 2004)
- V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel

Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp.1037-1062, November 2004)
- F. Yu

The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 18, pp. 1779-1790, December 2004)
- E. Palle, C. J. Butler, K. O'Brien

Possible influence of cosmic rays on climate through thunderstorm clouds
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 476-483, 2005)
- Lev I. Dorman, Irena V. Dorman

Estimation of long-term cosmic ray intensity variation in near future and prediction of their contribution in expected global climate change
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 496-503, 2005)
- Lev I. Dorman

Prediction of expected global climate change by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based on solar magnetic field data (PDF)
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 491-495, 2005)
- A. V. Belov et al.

Increase in the Aerosol Content of the Lower Atmosphere after the Solar Proton Flares in January and August 2002 according to Data of Lidar Observations in Europe
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 45, Number 2, pp. 221-226, March-April 2005)
- I. A. Mironova, M. I. Pudovkin

Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 484-490, May 2005)
- S. V. Veretenenko, V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriyev

Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy (PDF)
(The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005)
- D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, Issue A8, August 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv

Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth's temperature: A millennium-scale comparison (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, Issue A10, October 2005)
- Ilya G. Usoskin et al.

Link Between Cosmic Rays and Clouds on Different Time Scales (PDF)
(Advances in Geosciences, Volume 2, pp. 321-331, 2006)
- Ilya G. Usoskin et al.

Long-term cosmic ray intensity variation and part of global climate change, controlled by solar activity through cosmic rays
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp. 1621-1628, 2006)
- Lev I. Dorman

Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and earth’s magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10–12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch)
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 46, Number 1, pp. 118-128, January 2006)
- V. A. Dergachev et al.

Atmospheric Aerosol and Cloud Condensation Nuclei Formation: A Possible Influence of Cosmic Rays?
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Numbers 1-4, pp. 169-186, August 2006)
- F. Arnold

Initial results of a global circuit model with variable stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue D16, August 2006)
- Brian A. Tinsley, Limin Zhou

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 462, Issue 2068, pp. 1221-1233, April 2006)
- R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson

Variations of Galactic Cosmic Rays and the Earth's Climate
(Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Volume 338, pp. 349-397, September 2006)
- Jasper Kirkby, Kenneth S. Carslaw

Cosmic rays and the biosphere over 4 billion years (PDF)
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 871, October 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark

Different response of clouds to solar input (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 21, November 2006)
- Mirela Voiculescu, Ilya G. Usoskin, Kalevi Mursula

Interstellar-Terrestrial Relations: Variable Cosmic Environments, The Dynamic Heliosphere, and Their Imprints on Terrestrial Archives and Climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 127, Numbers 1-4, pp. 327-465, December 2006)
- K. Scherer et al.

The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate (PDF)
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1126-1139, 2007)
- Brian A. Tinsley et al.

Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields, and climate changes. Part 2: The time interval from ∼10000 to ∼100000 years ago
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 47, Number 1, pp. 109-117, February 2007)
- V. A. Dergachev et al.

Secular variation in aerosol transparency of the atmosphere as the possible link between long-term variations in solar activity and climate
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 47, Number 1, pp. 118-128, February 2007)
- M. G. Ogurtsov

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark

Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp. 353-364, February 2007)
- Charles A. Perrya

Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 463, Number 2078, pp. 385-396, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark et al.

200-year variations in cosmic rays modulated by solar activity and their climatic response
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July 2007)
- O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev

Effect of solar activity and cosmic-ray variations on the position of the Arctic front in the North Atlantic
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, pp. 1010-1013, July 2007)
- S. V. Veretenenko, V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev

On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July 2007)
- M. G. Ogurtsov

Cosmic Rays and Climate (PDF)
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 28, Numbers 5-6, pp. 333-375, November 2007)
- Jasper Kirkby

Natural hazards for the Earth's civilization from space, 1. Cosmic ray influence on atmospheric processes (PDF)
(Advances in Geosciences, Volume 14, pp. 281-286, April 2008)
- Lev I. Dorman

Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 441-450, July 2008)
- Ilya G. Usoskina, Gennady A. Kovaltsovb

Variations in the cosmic ray fluxes, modulated by the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields, and climate changes. Part 3: A time interval of 1.5 Myr, including the pleistocene
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 1, pp. 1-13, February 2009)
- V. A. Dergachev et al.

Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 102, Issue 11, March 2009)
- Qing-Bin Lu

Effect of long-term variability of galactic cosmic ray fluxes on climatic parameters
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 73, Number 3, pp. 375-377, March 2009)
- O. M. Raspopov et al.

Influence of cosmic rays and cosmic dust on the atmosphere and Earth's climate
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 73, Number 3, pp. 416-418, March 2009)
- V. I. Ermakov et al.

Evidence for climate variations induced by the 11-year solar and cosmic rays cycles
(Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, Volume 5, pp. 446-448, April 2009)
- William Bruckman, Elio Ramos

Influence of the Schwabe/Hale solar cycles on climate change during the Maunder Minimum
(Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, Volume 5, pp. 427-433, April 2009)
- Hiroko Miyahara

Solar activity and cosmic rays: Influence on cloudiness and processes in the lower atmosphere
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp. 137-145, April 2009)
- O. M. Raspopov, S. V. Veretenenko

The impact of cosmic dust on the Earth’s climate
(Moscow University Physics Bulletin, Volume 64, Number 2, pp. 214-217, April 2009)
- V. I. Ermakov et al.

Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux
(International Journal of Global Warming, Volume 1, Numbers 1-2, pp. 57-65, July 2009)
- A. Heitor Reis, Claudia Serrano

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 15, August 2009)
- Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark

A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings
(New Phytologist, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp. 545-551, September 2009)
- Sigrid Dengel, Dominik Aeby, John Grace

The Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Flux: Its Importance for Climate (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Issue 44, pp. 397-398, November 2009)
- Michael Ram, Michael R. Stolz, Brian A. Tinsley

Regional millennial trend in the cosmic ray induced ionization of the troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 19-25, January 2010)
- Ilya G. Usoskina et al.

Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays and solar irradiation over the Earth
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 2-3, pp. 151-156, February 2010)
- A. D. Erlykina, T. Sloanb, A. W. Wolfendale

Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
(Physics Reports, Volume 487, Issue 5, pp. 141-167, February 2010)
- Qing-Bin Lu

Solar rhythms in the characteristics of the Arctic frontal zone in the North Atlantic
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp. 391-397, February 2010)
- S. V. Veretenenko, V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriyev

Galactic cosmic rays-clouds effect and bifurcation model of the Earth global climate. Part 1. Theory
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 5-6, pp. 398-408, April 2010)
- Vitaliy D. Rusov et al

Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes (PDF)
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 10, Number 22, pp. 10941-10948, November 2010)
- B. A. Laken, D. R. Kniveton, M. R. Frogley

Quote:
An effect yes, but that is a far cry from it being "the" primary driver of climate change.


Yes, that is what we are currently debating at this moment. The significance of the GCRs on Climate. There is so much evidence that GCRs are the primary driver of the cloud cover, which is the primary driver of the Climate. From the correlations recently, to on a geological timeframe, to the Water Vapour showing no trend, or a statistically insignificant drop, the fact that it has been proven that GCRs produce increased cloud cover, and the fact that aerosoles, seedlings for Cloud Formation have also been decreasing, consistent with decreasing GCRs.

Quote:
The results have yet to be verified and no knowledge of the level of effect, yet you are certain this is the primary driver when the scientists actually doing the research do not?


The link to all of those scientists and their experiment was proof that there is no doubt that GCRs are impacting Cloud Cover, which is impacting Climate. The scientists do not state if this is the primary driver or not.

And if there is great uncertainty associated with the impact GCRs have on temperature, then one can not say that CO2 is the primary driver of the temperatures.

Quote:
Again no source for the data? No indication of what the lines are supposed to be, how they were determined or even if they are from anything other than a random assertion.


The black line is the HadCrut data for 30 years, and the blue line is Tropical Cloud Cover inverted over 30 years. Plotting the data gets you this graph:

Image

If you overlay Temperature on inverted Cloud Cover, you get the stunning correlation between temperature and Cloud Cover. Cloud Cover comes before the temperature changes most of the time. This is an indicator that Cloud Cover is driving temperature, and not the other way around.

The correlation is not perfect, due to modulations from ENSO, but it's evident.

Quote:
The cloud cover can be changed through many different means and the mechanisms are just now being studied relating to the GCRs.


One of the only other mechanisms to change Cloud Cover is temperature changes. Looking at the Water Vapour data, we can clearly see that it has not increased, so an external forcing is acting on Cloud Cover.

Quote:
Why would we see an increase in water vapor at height since there would not be any increase in temperature thoughout the entire atmosphere? The convection of water vapor is different at the different levels for just this reason.


Unless there is an ocean in the stratosphere, which would cause water vapour to decrease, overall Water Vapour would increase in all parts of Earth's Atmosphere, if temperature has been driving Cloud Cover. This has not been the case.

Quote:
I see you have forgotten all about staitstics when makin gclaims of trends. I suspect there is no sginficance to the total water trend,


I should have been more clear: A statistically insignificant decrease in Water Vapour. Certainly not the increase in Water Vapour that one would want, if they want to blame temperature changes for GCC decrease.

Quote:
Huh?


As in GCRs driving the Clouds, instead of temperature.

Quote:
You mean where the authors state the correlation is not statistically significant? That is why the original source is always helpful. To take the data from the original auther and draw a significantly different conclusion takes something more than wishful thinking.


That particular paper is very interesting in the sense that it blames solar activity modulating ocean temperatures as the primary driver for Cloud Cover changes. However, you did miss this one key detail from the section you quoted:

Quote:

However, we do not find this correlation to be statistically significant. The correlation between low cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays is much weaker than that for solar irradiance and low clouds, although detrending of the cloud cover data substantially increases the correlation.

This is due to the fact that ENSO modulates Cloud Cover changes and they have not been removed. They state this in the abstract of their paper.

Quote:
...it
should be noted that non-solar effects such as El Ni~no and volcanic eruptions have not been removed.


Quote:
So the graph is of a small portion of the world and not of any global measurments.


The graph is for western Europe, yes. They also state this in the Abstract:

Quote:
The
cosmic ray–climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver
which effectively operates on different time scales, but its exact
mechanism and relative importance still remain open questions.


And here are the conclusions in its entirety:

Quote:
We have reviewed the experimental evidence and
theoretical models relating cosmic ray variations to the
terrestrial climate changes.
On a short time scale of a few days, there exists much
evidence that CR changes may affect the process of
cyclogenesis via the changing transparency and
pressure, particularly in the North Atlantic during cold
seasons
. Although each individual piece of evidence is
barely significant, in aggregate, they suggest that the
relation can be real.
A link between low clouds and CR appears
statistically significant on the interannual time scale
since 1984 in limited geographical regions, the largest
being North Atlantic + Europe and South Atlantic.
We
note that many reconstructions of the past climate are
based on European data, where the CR–cloud relation is
the most pronounced. Extension of this relation to the
global scale may be misleading.
A relation between the geomagnetic field changes
and climatic variations provides evidence favouring the
possible CR influence on climate.
A study of regional
climate variations in relation to the geomagnetic dipole
axis migration over the last millennium is also
promising.
There is an indication of the climate changes
synchronously with the CR flux on Myr time scales,
but this result is not straightforward to interpret.
Large
uncertainties make it only indicative.
Essential progress has been recently achieved in
theoretical modelling of both ionizing effect of CR and
physical mechanisms relating CRII to cloud variations,
but the link between micro- and macro-physics is still
missing. A new experimental evidence, obtained by the
SKYexperiment team, confirm that enhanced ionization
notably facilitates the production of small ion clusters in
realistic atmospheric conditions.
In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a
plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
statistical studies and existing theoretical models.
However, further studies, in particular a clear case
study as well as improved model development, are
foreseen to improve our understanding of the link
between cosmic rays and the climate on Earth.


Quote:
The label for the graph puts it more into perspective as to the coverage. Some of the same temperature reconstructions we have seen slammed are now more acceptable.


Yes, Proxy data is obviously not a Total Global Measurement, so it would be confined to one or two locations or so. This is why there are such huge error bars in the Proxy Data. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph shows the error margins increase quite nicely, as you go back further and further back in time.

Quote:
When the "fit" is made artificially by moving one or the other by millions of years, you cannot honestly claim one drives the other.


The fit was moved for visual purposes only. The slopes were very similar, and were statistically significant.

Quote:
That would require a source for that time period and not the calcualtion you tried. I do not know of a short term data set for such a calculation.


:eh:

Quote:
I know that, but you claimed the warming was totally the result of the 7 w/m^2, which would have to be converted to a global temperature to be taken into consideration. You do not have that temperature conversion to support your claim.


You don't have to convert energy into temperature in order to find how much of the warming CO2 has caused. According to my calculations, over the 21 year timeframe, (again, just hypothetically assuming Clouds and CO2) 7.28 w/m^2 has been added to the Energy Budget. The .28 w/m^2 coming from the CO2 forcing over that timeframe.

Earth has warmed about .35 Degrees C since 1979.

Since according to my calculations, CO2 has caused about 4% of the warming, we can multiply .35 by .04 and we get .014 Degrees C which is hardly noticeable.

Another problem with the notion that one needs to convert energy into temperature in order to get accurate readings on the amount of warming CO2 has caused, is that there is no consensus on the Climate Sensitivity. CAGW Advocates claim that the Climate has High Sensitivity- that it only takes a little bit of energy in order to warm the Earth substantially.

Climate Skeptics claim the opposite. That it takes a lot of energy in order to warm the Earth a little bit.

The problem is, is that we don't know how much warming additional energy will cause.

Quote:
As I said, that is not what the link indicated. The link indicated the mean average of the monthy cloudless data set was compared to the mean average of the data set containing only cloudy days and the difference was given as a seasonal range.


The image is supposed to represent 100% Cloud Cover. Their data would obviously have to include clear skies if they want to separate the energy flows that a clear day has in one particular region, in comparison to a cloudy day. But the image itself is a hypothetical 100% Cloud Cover covering the entire Earth.

And if there was 100% Cloud Cover, 13-21 w/m^2 would be lost from Earth's Energy Budget, which is the bolded section in the second paragraph that you quoted.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:54 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

A tremendous amount? No, there is evidence to show a correlation between the two, but there is not a tremendous amount of anything given the short period of time GCRs have been considered.



And there is all of this evidence in the form of peer-reviewed papers in addition to the correlation of temperature and GCRs in recent years and on a geological scale.

(From the 900+ Peer Reviewed Papers List.)


Do you really want to get into a contest to see how many papers there are for the different drivers? The GHG papers go back over a century and will indeed be a tremendous number.
There is still no evidence of a significant impact on temperature outside of the solar output change.


Quote:
Quote:
An effect yes, but that is a far cry from it being "the" primary driver of climate change.


Yes, that is what we are currently debating at this moment. The significance of the GCRs on Climate.


Then why are you stating it is the major driver if it is still being debated with no basis for a mechanism yet?

Quote:
There is so much evidence that GCRs are the primary driver of the cloud cover, which is the primary driver of the Climate.


OK, what credible scientist has proven GCRs are the primary driver of cloud cover? Give us the name, peer-reviewed publication, and quote where that is stated.

Then give us the same for the proof that clouds are the primary driver of the climate. We can work form there.

You have already provided secondary links to charts that when the primary paper was reviewed the author did not support the claims being made supposedly using their data.

Quote:
From the correlations recently, to on a geological timeframe,


You mean the correlations which were made to fit?

Quote:
to the Water Vapour showing no trend, or a statistically insignificant drop,


There is no statisically insignificant drop. There can be a drop which is outside of the normally accepted range, but there is no insignificant drop. How exactly does no trend in a short time span prove the GCRs do anything to the climate?

Quote:
the fact that it has been proven that GCRs produce increased cloud cover,


They do? Where was this proven? I have only seen the recent publication indicating the possibility of GCRs causing the formation of aersols, which is still a few steps away from cloud formation and climate impact.

Quote:
and the fact that aerosoles, seedlings for Cloud Formation have also been decreasing, consistent with decreasing GCRs.


A correlation, which is not causation, with relation to another known and very significant driver called solar output.

Quote:
Quote:
The results have yet to be verified and no knowledge of the level of effect, yet you are certain this is the primary driver when the scientists actually doing the research do not?


The link to all of those scientists and their experiment was proof that there is no doubt that GCRs are impacting Cloud Cover, which is impacting Climate.


I agree GCRs are probably impacting the clouds, but there is NO PROOF of the level of the impact on clouds nor is there proof of the impact on cloud cover trends on the climate.


Quote:
The scientists do not state if this is the primary driver or not.


You just leaped to an unsupported conclusion all on your own? No, the blogosphere told you and you accepted it because that is what you want to do. Science leads us to the facts not what we want them to be.


Quote:
And if there is great uncertainty associated with the impact GCRs have on temperature, then one can not say that CO2 is the primary driver of the temperatures.


It is A primary driver. There are others, but at the moment we are not crewing those up by increasing components. The evidence relating GHGs and temperature is greater than the recent question on GCR impact.

Quote:
Again no source for the data? No indication of what the lines are supposed to be, how they were determined or even if they are from anything other than a random assertion.


Quote:
The black line is the HadCrut data for 30 years, and the blue line is Tropical Cloud Cover inverted over 30 years. Plotting the data gets you this graph:

Image


Sorry, but I did not find the cloud cover data even mentioned in the link much less the determiantion of the data.

Quote:
If you overlay Temperature on inverted Cloud Cover, you get the stunning correlation between temperature and Cloud Cover. Cloud Cover comes before the temperature changes most of the time. This is an indicator that Cloud Cover is driving temperature, and not the other way around.


So there are no other factors which would be worthy of consideration? You have claimed GCRs are the cause and when the solar output increases it causes a decrease in GCRs and cloud formation as part of the process. If the solar output also follows that pattern, how do you separate the driving of the sun from the driving of the clouds?

Quote:
The correlation is not perfect, due to modulations from ENSO, but it's evident.


And nothing else has an impact?

Quote:
Quote:
The cloud cover can be changed through many different means and the mechanisms are just now being studied relating to the GCRs.


One of the only other mechanisms to change Cloud Cover is temperature changes. Looking at the Water Vapour data, we can clearly see that it has not increased, so an external forcing is acting on Cloud Cover.


Not exactly, the correct way to determine what is going on with the water vapor would be to extend the timeframe until a statistically significant trend could be determined. That would tell us the direction of trending. There seems to be a disconnect there, as you claim the temperature could not cause the decreased cloud cover you pointed out earlier because the water vapor had not changed. We know the temperature and water vapor are not consistent throughout the atmosphere column and the formation of clouds requires a temperature differential. I do not see this leap in logic really showing anything.

Quote:
Quote:
Why would we see an increase in water vapor at height since there would not be any increase in temperature thoughout the entire atmosphere? The convection of water vapor is different at the different levels for just this reason.


Unless there is an ocean in the stratosphere, which would cause water vapour to decrease, overall Water Vapour would increase in all parts of Earth's Atmosphere, if temperature has been driving Cloud Cover. This has not been the case.


How did you reach that conclusion? The atmospheric column is supposed to be consistent throughout now?

Quote:
Quote:
I see you have forgotten all about staitstics when makin gclaims of trends. I suspect there is no sginficance to the total water trend,


I should have been more clear: A statistically insignificant decrease in Water Vapour.


There is no statisically insignificant decrease. If it is not significant you cannot be sure if it is noise or not. You are dealing with noise, which is no trend.

Quote:
Certainly not the increase in Water Vapour that one would want, if they want to blame temperature changes for GCC decrease.


What is the statisically significant trend if there is one? That would be critical in this case. We see there appears to be some change in water vapor at different levels, which also appear to be offset by changes in other levels.

Quote:
Quote:
Huh?


As in GCRs driving the Clouds, instead of temperature.


That has yet to be proved.

Quote:
Quote:
You mean where the authors state the correlation is not statistically significant? That is why the original source is always helpful. To take the data from the original auther and draw a significantly different conclusion takes something more than wishful thinking.


That particular paper is very interesting in the sense that it blames solar activity modulating ocean temperatures as the primary driver for Cloud Cover changes. However, you did miss this one key detail from the section you quoted:


No, I did not miss it. A substantial increase which is not indicated to be statistically significant is proof of what?

Quote:
Quote:

However, we do not find this correlation to be statistically significant. The correlation between low cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays is much weaker than that for solar irradiance and low clouds, although detrending of the cloud cover data substantially increases the correlation.

This is due to the fact that ENSO modulates Cloud Cover changes and they have not been removed. They state this in the abstract of their paper.

Quote:
...it
should be noted that non-solar effects such as El Ni~no and volcanic eruptions have not been removed.


The detrending makes it significant how? It increases the correlation, but must not have made it statistically significant or the author would probably have used that data in the paper. Unless the basis for the detrending itself was questionable, of course. You are left with no statistically significant correlation to your evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
So the graph is of a small portion of the world and not of any global measurments.


The graph is for western Europe, yes. They also state this in the Abstract:


But not in the graph you presented as evidence without the complete data.

Quote:
The
cosmic ray–climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver
which effectively operates on different time scales, but its exact
mechanism and relative importance still remain open questions.


A plausible driver with unknown mechanisms or importance pretty much sums up the position of the scientists, so how do you leap to THE primary driver when your evidence clearly states otherwise?

Quote:
Quote:
The label for the graph puts it more into perspective as to the coverage. Some of the same temperature reconstructions we have seen slammed are now more acceptable.


Yes, Proxy data is obviously not a Total Global Measurement, so it would be confined to one or two locations or so. This is why there are such huge error bars in the Proxy Data. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph shows the error margins increase quite nicely, as you go back further and further back in time.


Now how does that relate to manual alignment of the temperature reconstructions and GCRs over millions of years? It would seem to me that would increase the error bars significantly.

Quote:
Quote:
When the "fit" is made artificially by moving one or the other by millions of years, you cannot honestly claim one drives the other.


The fit was moved for visual purposes only.


You mean to mislead those poor souls expecting science to be honest? So the visual means nothing to the data .... now what?


Quote:
The slopes were very similar, and were statistically significant.


But the graph means nothing and YOU claimed it showed the driving aspect when it does nothing but draw random pretty lines.

Quote:
Quote:
That would require a source for that time period and not the calcualtion you tried. I do not know of a short term data set for such a calculation.


:eh:


You would need the data for that time period in order to determine the average.

Quote:
Quote:
I know that, but you claimed the warming was totally the result of the 7 w/m^2, which would have to be converted to a global temperature to be taken into consideration. You do not have that temperature conversion to support your claim.


You don't have to convert energy into temperature in order to find how much of the warming CO2 has caused.


You do when you make the claim you did. You claimed the 7 w/m^2 was responsible for the temperature increase. To make such a claim you have to be able to put that measurement into a temperature increase for comparison.

Quote:
According to my calculations, over the 21 year timeframe, (again, just hypothetically assuming Clouds and CO2) 7.28 w/m^2 has been added to the Energy Budget. The .28 w/m^2 coming from the CO2 forcing over that timeframe.


But we know your calculations are flawed and therefore the conclusion is also flawed.

Quote:
Earth has warmed about .35 Degrees C since 1979.

Since according to my calculations, CO2 has caused about 4% of the warming, we can multiply .35 by .04 and we get .014 Degrees C which is hardly noticeable.


Assuming your claim was correct in the beginning and using circular logic to support it. You have not shown the direct connection of 7 w/m^2 to any specific temperature, which would be required to say it was responsible for the increase we have measured.

Quote:
Another problem with the notion that one needs to convert energy into temperature in order to get accurate readings on the amount of warming CO2 has caused, is that there is no consensus on the Climate Sensitivity. CAGW Advocates claim that the Climate has High Sensitivity- that it only takes a little bit of energy in order to warm the Earth substantially.


I was not asking about the CO2 contribution though. I was dealing with your claim of 7 w/m^2 causing the specific increase in temperature.

Quote:
Climate Skeptics claim the opposite. That it takes a lot of energy in order to warm the Earth a little bit.

The problem is, is that we don't know how much warming additional energy will cause.


Then why did you make the claim relating to the 7 w/m^2 if it is unknown?

Quote:
Quote:
As I said, that is not what the link indicated. The link indicated the mean average of the monthy cloudless data set was compared to the mean average of the data set containing only cloudy days and the difference was given as a seasonal range.


The image is supposed to represent 100% Cloud Cover.


Of high or low clouds? The site indicates the measurement of clear skies and seasonal cloudy skies during each month. Some months are more cloudy than others in the various regions.

Quote:
Their data would obviously have to include clear skies if they want to separate the energy flows that a clear day has in one particular region, in comparison to a cloudy day. But the image itself is a hypothetical 100% Cloud Cover covering the entire Earth.


Where exactly is that stated?

Quote:
And if there was 100% Cloud Cover, 13-21 w/m^2 would be lost from Earth's Energy Budget, which is the bolded section in the second paragraph that you quoted.


Or it could be that the mean seasonal cloud cover for each region indicates a 13-21 w/m^2 differential over the mean seasonal cloudless measurements. This would take into consideration the seasonal cloud cover aspect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
I have been busy for the past few days... sorry for keeping you waiting Wayne. :-#

Quote:
Do you really want to get into a contest to see how many papers there are for the different drivers? The GHG papers go back over a century and will indeed be a tremendous number.
There is still no evidence of a significant impact on temperature outside of the solar output change.


The papers that go back in a century mainly just identify Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas. This does not tell us if it is the driver of climate change or not. Outside of the small group of GHE skeptics, almost everyone believes that Carbon Dioxide has an impact on temperatures. Albeit, the lukewarmers feel that Carbon Dioxide is a very minor player in the climate, (in my case x<4%) but it does have an effect.

Quote:
Then why are you stating it is the major driver if it is still being debated with no basis for a mechanism yet?


We know it has an effect on temperatures, so there's no getting around that. Carbon Dioxide also has an impact on temperatures. We also know that.

But Carbon Dioxide has never correlated to temperature in the geological timescale, ever. It has been the GCRs that have driven climate on a geological scale.

Image

We can see that 450 million years ago, CO2 was 10X as high as today, yet temperatures were in one of the coolest ice ages that there could possibly be.

We can also see that while we were in an ice age, Cosmic Rays were fairly high, as seen in Nir J. Shaviv's graph.

Image

So while Carbon Dioxide levels were at 4000+ ppm, the Earth was in an ice age, because there were higher amounts of GCRs.

While we are debating the significance that GCRs have on the Climate, clear evidence shows that they drive Climate, in addition to knowing for 100% that they have an effect. CO2 has never driven climate, as seen in the paleoclimatological data due to feedbacks within the chaotic climate system.

Quote:
OK, what credible scientist has proven GCRs are the primary driver of cloud cover? Give us the name, peer-reviewed publication, and quote where that is stated.


Only one? Okay.

Bondo et. al 2006

The scientists who authored this paper were Torsten Bondo, Henrik Svensmark, and Jacob Svensmark.

From the abstract:

Quote:
Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.



Falls in Global aerosoles coincide with falls in the GCR flux. Decreasing Cloud Cover has been observed.

There is no other mechanism known that is currently decreasing, that can decrease aerosol production, which decreases total GCC.

Quote:

You mean the correlations which were made to fit?



And remained within the error margins?

Quote:
How exactly does no trend in a short time span prove the GCRs do anything to the climate?


If temperatures, (which are the only other known source that could have an influence on Cloud Cover) were the driver of Cloud Cover, you would notice a trend upward in Water Vapour and GCC, since warming would speed up the Water Cycle, producing more evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.

This would mean that there should be more water vapour and cloud cover overall. But there's not.

There are some non-scientific arguments that try and claim that a decrease in Cloud Cover is consistent with increasing temperatures, because the clouds would have to condense at a slightly higher level in atltitude than before, but I do not see how that would produce a decrease in Cloud Cover.

Quote:
They do? Where was this proven? I have only seen the recent publication indicating the possibility of GCRs causing the formation of aersols, which is still a few steps away from cloud formation and climate impact.


From the link in my previous post:

Quote:
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

Their paper can be viewed here.

Quote:
A correlation, which is not causation, with relation to another known and very significant driver called solar output.


How would solar output create a decrease in Global aerosoles? :eh:

Quote:
I agree GCRs are probably impacting the clouds, but there is NO PROOF of the level of the impact on clouds nor is there proof of the impact on cloud cover trends on the climate.


No other forcing known would create a decrease in Water Vapour, while observing a decrease in Clouds, and Global aerosoles.

Clouds over a 21 year timeframe have added 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget. (LINK)

While CO2 has added 1.4 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget over a 104 year timeframe.

Here, Clouds alone can completely coverpower the CO2 Forcing.

Here are the calculations for what timeperiod the radiative forcing of Cloud Cover is to equal the radiative forcing of CO2.

1.4 X
____ = ______

7 21

7X= 29.4

X= ~4

4 year Cloud Changes are equal to the radiative forcing CO2 has had over 104 years!

Quote:
You just leaped to an unsupported conclusion all on your own?


Nope, I leaped to a conclusion after looking at all of the evidence. ;)

Quote:
It is A primary driver. There are others, but at the moment we are not crewing those up by increasing components. The evidence relating GHGs and temperature is greater than the recent question on GCR impact.


A few questions.

If CO2 was the primary driver of temperatures, why then was CO2 10X as high 450 million years ago, and we were in an Ice Age? GCRs were very high during this Ice Age, which is very interesting.

Second, why has CO2's radiative forcing been 1.4 w/m^2 over a 104 year period, when Cloud Cover changes alone over a 21 year period have added 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget?

Quote:
Sorry, but I did not find the cloud cover data even mentioned in the link much less the determiantion of the data.


It is plotted via the KNMI Climate Explorer. The data is available at the link I provided.

Quote:
If the solar output also follows that pattern, how do you separate the driving of the sun from the driving of the clouds?


Again, how would solar output create a decrease in Global aerosoles? :-k As seen in a paper I have linked, oceanic changes can impact the climate. Currently we have a +PDO and a +AMO. This would mean that if the oceans are driving the Clouds, then we would see an increase in Cloud Cover since 1983, around the time the PDO turned positive. We would also notice a change in the slope of the decline in Cloud Cover when the AMO turned positive in 1995. None of those trends have been observed.

So while the sun has an impact on the oceans, which have an impact on Cloud Cover, it is not the primary driver of Cloud Cover, or else we would have seen the trends expressed above.

Quote:
And nothing else has an impact?


Temperature and oceanic changes have an impact, but they're not the primary drivers of Cloud Cover.

Quote:
Not exactly, the correct way to determine what is going on with the water vapor would be to extend the timeframe until a statistically significant trend could be determined. That would tell us the direction of trending. There seems to be a disconnect there, as you claim the temperature could not cause the decreased cloud cover you pointed out earlier because the water vapor had not changed. We know the temperature and water vapor are not consistent throughout the atmosphere column and the formation of clouds requires a temperature differential. I do not see this leap in logic really showing anything.


The problem is that we started measuring water vapour, alongside with Clouds in 1983. So this is the furthest the water vapour data can be extended.

Again, if temperature was driving the current Cloud Cover changes, we would notice a statistically significant increase in Water Vapour. This is not the case.

Quote:
How did you reach that conclusion? The atmospheric column is supposed to be consistent throughout now?


The amount of atmospheric water at different altitudes in the atmosphere is definitely not the same.

However, they should exhibit similar trends.

Quote:
There is no statisically insignificant decrease. If it is not significant you cannot be sure if it is noise or not. You are dealing with noise, which is no trend.


In statistics a statistically insignificant trend and no trend are the same, since it has not reached the 95% Confidence level, so I would agree, to a degree.

Quote:
What is the statisically significant trend if there is one?


There should be a statistically significant increase in water vapour, if an internal forcing were driving Cloud Cover, VS. an external forcing. We observe little to no trend in Water Vapour.

Quote:
That has yet to be proved.


Again, the data suggests otherwise...

A person on another board posed these excellent questions. If GCRs are not driving the Cloud Cover... then...
Quote:

-Why is Water Vapor Decreasing?
-Why are Clouds Decreasing?
-Why do cloud changes precede temperature changes?
-Why does the solar AA-index correlate to temperature?
-Why have global temperature stopped warming?
-Why do all the warm periods in the past correlate to high solar activity?
-Why do all cold periods in the past correlate to low solar activity?
-Why are GCM's failing, despite the good agreement amongst them?


Quote:
No, I did not miss it. A substantial increase which is not indicated to be statistically significant is proof of what?


ENSO plays a significant role in year to year variations in Clouds, but the long term driver is the GCRs.

Quote:
The detrending makes it significant how?


ENSO.

Quote:
A plausible driver with unknown mechanisms


Huh?

The GCR mechanism is well known.

Solar AA Index changes the GCR flux which then changes Cloud Cover, which then changes temperatures.

Quote:
You mean to mislead those poor souls expecting science to be honest? So the visual means nothing to the data .... now what?


The adjusted line is within the error margin... if it were outside of the error margin, then I would be questioning it. Overall, the proxy temperature data and the proxy GCR flux have a very nice correlation.

With their slopes being very similar, you can see that there is likely a cause and an effect.

Since it is within the error margins, Cosmic Rays are likely the driver of temperatures on a geological scale.

Quote:
But the graph means nothing and YOU claimed it showed the driving aspect when it does nothing but draw random pretty lines.


It shows that the correlation is statistically significant. And it does show that GCRs are driving temperature over 500 million years, since the adjusted data shows that the GCR flux is in the error margin, and it has a significant correlation with temperature.

Quote:
You would need the data for that time period in order to determine the average.


Absolutely.

Quote:
You do when you make the claim you did. You claimed the 7 w/m^2 was responsible for the temperature increase. To make such a claim you have to be able to put that measurement into a temperature increase for comparison.


Adding 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget would get you a temperature increase. The calculations with CO2 having a 4% or less contributation to current Global Warming are based off of the radiative forcing of Cloud Cover changes in comparison with the radiative forcing of Carbon Dioxide.

Quote:
But we know your calculations are flawed and therefore the conclusion is also flawed.


I actually found out that my calculations are slightly flawed. The radiative forcing that CO2 has had over 21 years is still .28 w/m^2, but I forgot to add the .28 w/m^2 to the 7 w/m^2 in the demoninator, to get the total radiative forcing over the 21 year timeframe.

You get a slightly lower number of 3.8%.

Quote:
Assuming your claim was correct in the beginning and using circular logic to support it. You have not shown the direct connection of 7 w/m^2 to any specific temperature, which would be required to say it was responsible for the increase we have measured.


Are you saying that 7 w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy budget will not bring temperatures up, and is less than .28 w/m^2?

In these calculations, CO2 has contributed 3.8% to the total increase in radiative forcing since the satellite era.

To get the warming that CO2 has had, we multiply .35 (the warming that has occured during this period) by .038.

You get .013 Degrees C.

Quote:
I was dealing with your claim of 7 w/m^2 causing the specific increase in temperature.


Again, assuming that CO2 and Clouds are the only factors on Earth's Climate, (but they are not) the total radiative forcing is 7.28 w/m^2 instead of 7 w/m^2.

Quote:
Then why did you make the claim relating to the 7 w/m^2 if it is unknown?


Huh?

I claimed that the 7 w/m^2 was the radiative forcing that Clouds have had on Earth's Climate over a 21 year period. CO2's radiative forcing is .28 /m^2 over this period in time.

Quote:
Of high or low clouds? The site indicates the measurement of clear skies and seasonal cloudy skies during each month. Some months are more cloudy than others in the various regions.


GCC.

Quote:
Where exactly is that stated?


On the image.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:58 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Y'all really shouldn't use the word "prove" or any of its derivatives in a discussion of science. Those two go together like habaneros on an ice cream sundae.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
I have been busy for the past few days... sorry for keeping you waiting Wayne. :-#


Not a problem.

Quote:
Do you really want to get into a contest to see how many papers there are for the different drivers? The GHG papers go back over a century and will indeed be a tremendous number.
There is still no evidence of a significant impact on temperature outside of the solar output change.


Quote:
The papers that go back in a century mainly just identify Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas. This does not tell us if it is the driver of climate change or not. Outside of the small group of GHE skeptics, almost everyone believes that Carbon Dioxide has an impact on temperatures. Albeit, the lukewarmers feel that Carbon Dioxide is a very minor player in the climate, (in my case x<4%) but it does have an effect.


So you think you can show all of the papers you referenced earlier make the claim of GCRs being a climate driver and not just a possible impact on climate? It seems to be a case of a double standard to me. I do not care what your opinion of CO2 is in relation to the climate as it is not prven by anything outside of your beliefs. I do care that you have made a very bad misrepresentation of the scientific status of CO2 as a being a referenced climate impact compared to the newer hypothesis of GCRs.

Quote:
Quote:
Then why are you stating it is the major driver if it is still being debated with no basis for a mechanism yet?


We know it has an effect on temperatures, so there's no getting around that. Carbon Dioxide also has an impact on temperatures. We also know that.


There is a correlation, but where is there any separation from the solar output increase to show an a level for GCR?

Quote:
But Carbon Dioxide has never correlated to temperature in the geological timescale, ever. It has been the GCRs that have driven climate on a geological scale.


Now you are just plain wrong.

Image

Quote:
Image

We can see that 450 million years ago, CO2 was 10X as high as today, yet temperatures were in one of the coolest ice ages that there could possibly be.


You are sure of the accuracy of the three methods of the determination of CO2, the determination of temperature, and the corresponding timescale to combine the two? If you added the error bars for this, you would not make such a strong claim. Maybe if we "adjusted" the fit to make the peaks align it would look better to you? That is the basis for your GCR graphic isn't it?

Quote:
We can also see that while we were in an ice age, Cosmic Rays were fairly high, as seen in Nir J. Shaviv's graph.

Image


Except for that whole manipulation of the peaks by MILLIONS of years for visual effect, which negates ANY use of the graph for comparisnon between graphs whithout similar "adjustments".

Quote:
So while Carbon Dioxide levels were at 4000+ ppm, the Earth was in an ice age, because there were higher amounts of GCRs.


Or not, considering you do not know where the fit was adjusted for visual effect.

Quote:
While we are debating the significance that GCRs have on the Climate, clear evidence shows that they drive Climate, in addition to knowing for 100% that they have an effect. CO2 has never driven climate, as seen in the paleoclimatological data due to feedbacks within the chaotic climate system.


We KNOW nothing of the sort. You want to BELIEVE that is the case based upon manipulated data, which I see as less than useless in such a discussion especially since there is the solar output component which is not quantified for subtraction.

Quote:
Quote:
OK, what credible scientist has proven GCRs are the primary driver of cloud cover? Give us the name, peer-reviewed publication, and quote where that is stated.


Only one? Okay.

Bondo et. al 2006

The scientists who authored this paper were Torsten Bondo, Henrik Svensmark, and Jacob Svensmark.

From the abstract:

Quote:
Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.



You seem to have a problem with proof of a singluar impact.

Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.

A link which appears to exist between these factors is not proof of a driver of the climate. Where is there any reference to climate driver in the paper?

Quote:
Falls in Global aerosoles coincide with falls in the GCR flux. Decreasing Cloud Cover has been observed.


And? You still have to prove the climate driver aspect.

Quote:
There is no other mechanism known that is currently decreasing, that can decrease aerosol production, which decreases total GCC.


And? You still have to prove the climate driving aspect.

Quote:
Quote:

You mean the correlations which were made to fit?



And remained within the error margins?


There are no error margins shown and YES they will always we within the error margins because the manipulations only increase the size of the margins.

Quote:
Quote:
How exactly does no trend in a short time span prove the GCRs do anything to the climate?


If temperatures, (which are the only other known source that could have an influence on Cloud Cover) were the driver of Cloud Cover, you would notice a trend upward in Water Vapour and GCC, since warming would speed up the Water Cycle, producing more evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.


You do understand that short periods of time make trend identification very difficult? Have you extended the timeframe to the point a trend can be statistically determined to know of which you speak?

Quote:
This would mean that there should be more water vapour and cloud cover overall. But there's not.


And there are no other impacts? It seems there was a ENSO reference you mentioned earlier?

Quote:
There are some non-scientific arguments that try and claim that a decrease in Cloud Cover is consistent with increasing temperatures, because the clouds would have to condense at a slightly higher level in atltitude than before, but I do not see how that would produce a decrease in Cloud Cover.


Non-scientific arguments? In what way are they "non-scientific"? You do not see how that would produce a decrease so it must not be the case? You have a good mind, but you also have a very minimal education in this regard.

Quote:
Quote:
They do? Where was this proven? I have only seen the recent publication indicating the possibility of GCRs causing the formation of aersols, which is still a few steps away from cloud formation and climate impact.


From the link in my previous post:

Quote:
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.


As I said the POSSIBILITY of the increase since this does not prove the increase actually occurs in relation to the GCRs in the atmosphere. The contribution may or may not be significant.

Quote:
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity.



Solar activity variations would not affect the temperature? :eh: Unless and until you can separate the two impacts you cannot know whether the primary impact is clouds or solar output and if it is clouds how much is due to the GCR effect.

Quote:
An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models


Possibly, as all factors which can be included are beneficial to the model, but the importance relies on the level of the impact, which is still unknown.

Quote:
“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

Their paper can be viewed here.


There is a huge difference between an impact and a significant impact. The level of significance is still unknown ... except in your claims.

Quote:
Quote:
A correlation, which is not causation, with relation to another known and very significant driver called solar output.


How would solar output create a decrease in Global aerosoles? :eh:


It would increase or decrease the energy input and thus increase or decrease the temperature. Remember you have to connect to the temperature to support the cliamte driver claim.

Quote:
Quote:
I agree GCRs are probably impacting the clouds, but there is NO PROOF of the level of the impact on clouds nor is there proof of the impact on cloud cover trends on the climate.


No other forcing known would create a decrease in Water Vapour, while observing a decrease in Clouds, and Global aerosoles.


Just because there is no other known explanation to you does not mean there is not one. The key point is the impact on the climate being the lareger unknown.

Quote:
Clouds over a 21 year timeframe have added 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget. (LINK)

While CO2 has added 1.4 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget over a 104 year timeframe.

Here, Clouds alone can completely coverpower the CO2 Forcing.


Possibly in the short term, as we have noted in the volcanic eruptions, but not in the long term.

Quote:
Here are the calculations for what timeperiod the radiative forcing of Cloud Cover is to equal the radiative forcing of CO2.

1.4 X
____ = ______

7 21

7X= 29.4

X= ~4

4 year Cloud Changes are equal to the radiative forcing CO2 has had over 104 years!


Still having trouble with math and averages in making unqualified claims.

Quote:
Quote:
You just leaped to an unsupported conclusion all on your own?


Nope, I leaped to a conclusion after looking at all of the evidence. ;)


Since there is no evidence to support your conclusion, you are out passed the limb at this point.

Quote:
Quote:
It is A primary driver. There are others, but at the moment we are not crewing those up by increasing components. The evidence relating GHGs and temperature is greater than the recent question on GCR impact.


A few questions.

If CO2 was the primary driver of temperatures, why then was CO2 10X as high 450 million years ago, and we were in an Ice Age? GCRs were very high during this Ice Age, which is very interesting.


First off, there is a HUGE set of error bars with that conclusion. The concentration/timeframe was not adjusted to make them overlap as was the case in your GCR paper, so we have to realize the extent of the possible range for the graphs.

Quote:
Second, why has CO2's radiative forcing been 1.4 w/m^2 over a 104 year period, when Cloud Cover changes alone over a 21 year period have added 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget?


The short term impacts are not as important with climate. Clouds and moisture are a short term variable.

Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but I did not find the cloud cover data even mentioned in the link much less the determiantion of the data.


It is plotted via the KNMI Climate Explorer. The data is available at the link I provided.


No, the link went to a homepage with no data listed for cloud.

Quote:
Quote:
If the solar output also follows that pattern, how do you separate the driving of the sun from the driving of the clouds?


Again, how would solar output create a decrease in Global aerosoles? :-k


It is the temperature (climate) impact that would be the concern not the aerosoles.


Quote:
As seen in a paper I have linked, oceanic changes can impact the climate. Currently we have a +PDO and a +AMO. This would mean that if the oceans are driving the Clouds, then we would see an increase in Cloud Cover since 1983, around the time the PDO turned positive. We would also notice a change in the slope of the decline in Cloud Cover when the AMO turned positive in 1995. None of those trends have been observed
.

There are no trends observed, there is noise, but no trend. You are making a lot of assumptions concerning the driver aspect.

Quote:
So while the sun has an impact on the oceans, which have an impact on Cloud Cover, it is not the primary driver of Cloud Cover, or else we would have seen the trends expressed above.


The clouds being a driver is the point which has yet to be proven.

Quote:
Quote:
And nothing else has an impact?


Temperature and oceanic changes have an impact, but they're not the primary drivers of Cloud Cover.


Temperature is not an impact on the climate? You assume the impact on the climate and argue that flawed position. The point is there are other impacts on the climate which track with the cloud data.

Quote:
Quote:
Not exactly, the correct way to determine what is going on with the water vapor would be to extend the timeframe until a statistically significant trend could be determined. That would tell us the direction of trending. There seems to be a disconnect there, as you claim the temperature could not cause the decreased cloud cover you pointed out earlier because the water vapor had not changed. We know the temperature and water vapor are not consistent throughout the atmosphere column and the formation of clouds requires a temperature differential. I do not see this leap in logic really showing anything.


The problem is that we started measuring water vapour, alongside with Clouds in 1983. So this is the furthest the water vapour data can be extended.


So you cannot prove or disprove a trend yet.

Quote:
Again, if temperature was driving the current Cloud Cover changes, we would notice a statistically significant increase in Water Vapour. This is not the case.


As if that matters since the temperature is one of the primary climate measurements? If the solar output decreases cloud cover in some fashion while increasing temperature, there is a correlation, but not the cause and effect you are assuming.

Quote:
Quote:
How did you reach that conclusion? The atmospheric column is supposed to be consistent throughout now?


The amount of atmospheric water at different altitudes in the atmosphere is definitely not the same.

However, they should exhibit similar trends.


How can they when there are no trends determined and when the total does not dip when the various levels do? The graph of the total and the lower level do not track each other.

Quote:
Quote:
There is no statisically insignificant decrease. If it is not significant you cannot be sure if it is noise or not. You are dealing with noise, which is no trend.


In statistics a statistically insignificant trend and no trend are the same, since it has not reached the 95% Confidence level, so I would agree, to a degree.


What confidence level would you claim for the trend?

Quote:
Quote:
What is the statisically significant trend if there is one?


There should be a statistically significant increase in water vapour, if an internal forcing were driving Cloud Cover, VS. an external forcing. We observe little to no trend in Water Vapour.


You also have a short time frame from which to work, which significantly impacts the ability to determine a stistically significant trend.

Quote:
Quote:
That has yet to be proved.


Again, the data suggests otherwise...


The data may suggest a lot to you but the lack of proof is clear.

Quote:
A person on another board posed these excellent questions. If GCRs are not driving the Cloud Cover... then...
Quote:

-Why is Water Vapor Decreasing?
-Why are Clouds Decreasing?
-Why do cloud changes precede temperature changes?
-Why does the solar AA-index correlate to temperature?
-Why have global temperature stopped warming?
-Why do all the warm periods in the past correlate to high solar activity?
-Why do all cold periods in the past correlate to low solar activity?
-Why are GCM's failing, despite the good agreement amongst them?


If they are "good questions" concernign the GCR impact on cloud cover, why are several not related to either?

Quote:
Quote:
No, I did not miss it. A substantial increase which is not indicated to be statistically significant is proof of what?


ENSO plays a significant role in year to year variations in Clouds, but the long term driver is the GCRs.


I know that is your assumption, but that is unrealted to the question posed.

Quote:
Quote:
The detrending makes it significant how?


ENSO.


That does not answer the question. Detrending makes is significant how? The portion being detrended is not an answer.

Quote:
Quote:
A plausible driver with unknown mechanisms


Huh?

The GCR mechanism is well known.


Really? You should recheck the papers and see how strongly they stress the lack of knowledg on the mechanisms.

Quote:
Solar AA Index changes the GCR flux which then changes Cloud Cover, which then changes temperatures.


You need to also learn what the defintion of mechanism is too. [-X

Quote:
Quote:
You mean to mislead those poor souls expecting science to be honest? So the visual means nothing to the data .... now what?


The adjusted line is within the error margin...


What? The error margin is MOVED by the adjustments.

Quote:
if it were outside of the error margin, then I would be questioning it.


You really need to learn how error margins are determined before leaping to conclusions.

Quote:
Overall, the proxy temperature data and the proxy GCR flux have a very nice correlation.


When they are made to correlate, EVERTHING can have a nice correlation.


Quote:
With their slopes being very similar, you can see that there is likely a cause and an effect.


No, you cannot see a likely cause and effect, but you can see a possible correlation. The temperature and CO2 level graphs have similar slopes so we could now claim the cause and effect there with no other data as well?

Quote:
Since it is within the error margins, Cosmic Rays are likely the driver of temperatures on a geological scale.


No, there is no way to determine likely driving based on manipulated time scales.

Code:
[quote]
But the graph means nothing and YOU claimed it showed the driving aspect when it does nothing but draw random pretty lines.
[/quote]

It shows that the correlation is statistically significant.


No it doesn't. There is no way to show actual significance by manipulating data timescales.

Quote:
And it does show that GCRs are driving temperature over 500 million years, since the adjusted data shows that the GCR flux is in the error margin, and it has a significant correlation with temperature.


It shows the manipulated data gives that appearance, but giving the appearance is not proving the actual existance.

Quote:
Quote:
You do when you make the claim you did. You claimed the 7 w/m^2 was responsible for the temperature increase. To make such a claim you have to be able to put that measurement into a temperature increase for comparison.


Adding 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget would get you a temperature increase. The calculations with CO2 having a 4% or less contributation to current Global Warming are based off of the radiative forcing of Cloud Cover changes in comparison with the radiative forcing of Carbon Dioxide.


You do realize the difference in saying "a" temperature increase and "the" temperature increase, right? You said "the" increase earlier, which is unproven.

Quote:
Quote:
But we know your calculations are flawed and therefore the conclusion is also flawed.


I actually found out that my calculations are slightly flawed. The radiative forcing that CO2 has had over 21 years is still .28 w/m^2,


No, that is wrong. You have calculated that average, but there is no way to prove yuor average in anyway correlates to the time frame in question.

Quote:
but I forgot to add the .28 w/m^2 to the 7 w/m^2 in the demoninator, to get the total radiative forcing over the 21 year timeframe.

You get a slightly lower number of 3.8%.


You also forgot the basis for the average cannot give you an actual average for the time period in question.

Quote:
Quote:
Assuming your claim was correct in the beginning and using circular logic to support it. You have not shown the direct connection of 7 w/m^2 to any specific temperature, which would be required to say it was responsible for the increase we have measured.


Are you saying that 7 w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy budget will not bring temperatures up, and is less than .28 w/m^2?


No, I am saying your claims were wrong and used circular logic to support themselves.

Quote:
In these calculations, CO2 has contributed 3.8% to the total increase in radiative forcing since the satellite era.


Those calculations are flawed from the beginning.

Quote:
To get the warming that CO2 has had, we multiply .35 (the warming that has occured during this period) by .038.

You get .013 Degrees C.


So? You basis was still flawed and the conclusion is just as flawed.

Quote:
Quote:
I was dealing with your claim of 7 w/m^2 causing the specific increase in temperature.


Again, assuming that CO2 and Clouds are the only factors on Earth's Climate, (but they are not) the total radiative forcing is 7.28 w/m^2 instead of 7 w/m^2.


Yes, they are not, thus the clouds could not be responsible for THE temperature increase.

Quote:
Quote:
Then why did you make the claim relating to the 7 w/m^2 if it is unknown?


Huh?

I claimed that the 7 w/m^2 was the radiative forcing that Clouds have had on Earth's Climate over a 21 year period. CO2's radiative forcing is .28 /m^2 over this period in time.


And that was the cause of the temperature increase during that period outside of CO2, of course.

Quote:
Quote:
Of high or low clouds? The site indicates the measurement of clear skies and seasonal cloudy skies during each month. Some months are more cloudy than others in the various regions.


GCC.


So you do not know. That explains a lot.

Quote:
Quote:
Where exactly is that stated?


On the image.


Where in the image is the 100% theorectical coverage mentioned? Why is there a variation over the images?

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:32 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Y'all really shouldn't use the word "prove" or any of its derivatives in a discussion of science. Those two go together like habaneros on an ice cream sundae.



:razz: Proofs are more math too. :razz:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy seems to have abandoned the discussion for some reason.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:52 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy and cotton both leaving their positions here .... could it be related to white fluffy things? That hypothesis is about as strong as some of theirs.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:43 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Do you really want to get into a contest to see how many papers there are for the different drivers?


Well, no. But there are some who claim that there is not a single peer reviewed paper that rejects the notion that Carbon Dioxide is not the primary driver of the climate system.

Quote:
I do care that you have made a very bad misrepresentation of the scientific status of CO2 as a being a referenced climate impact compared to the newer hypothesis of GCRs.


Well, the 'scientific status of CO2' is a phrase that is used by the AGW Proponents as a way to describe CO2 causing most of the warming in the 20th Century. I think that sooner or later, a consensus will actually be made on what is driving the temperatures. But it is blatently clear that no one can really say anymore that this is all anthropogenic or all natural. With the latest CERN results, that have basically confirmed what skeptics have been long saying: That Cosmic Rays modulate cloud cover. To what extent is unknown. However, as climatologist Piers Forster accurately states,

Quote:
"it probably raises more questions than it answers".


No one can claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, when there is so much uncertainty regarding GCRs.

However, Global aersoles have been decreasing as seen in Svensmark's 2009 paper. Cloud Cover has decreased in response to decreasing aerosoles. We know that Cosmic Rays are one of the only factors that could decrease Cosmic Rays. This was seen with the new CLOUD paper. When there are more GCRs, more aerosoles are formed.

Image

Global aerosoles are in clear decline.

Image

The caption for this image on Nigel Calder's blog...

Quote:
Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011




The image shows that with time, GCRs produce particles, or aerosoles into the atmosphere. This is undisputable.

Quote:

There is a correlation, but where is there any separation from the solar output increase to show an a level for GCR?


I'm actually starting to think that you think the sun has more of a direct impact on temperature than I actually do, which is interesting, in my view. I think that TSI has little to do with temperature changes, but it is the feedbacks that are caused by the Solar AA Index and the Solar Wind that are driving the temperatures.

Quote:
Now you are just plain wrong.


That's not a geological timeframe. What you have selected from Earth's Climatic history is like selecting one second from my life and basing conclusions off of that one second. Here is the true geological timeframe.

Image

Quote:
You are sure of the accuracy of the three methods of the determination of CO2, the determination of temperature, and the corresponding timescale to combine the two? If you added the error bars for this, you would not make such a strong claim.


Fair enough. Here are the error bars.

Image

We can see that CO2 was still roughly 10X as high as today, when we were in an Ice Age, even with the error bars.

Quote:
Except for that whole manipulation of the peaks by MILLIONS of years for visual effect, which negates ANY use of the graph for comparisnon between graphs whithout similar "adjustments".


The "manipulation" is well within the error margin, which indicates a statistically significant correlation between temperature and the GCR flux over 500 million years, since the GCR fit to temperature is within the error margin.

Quote:
Or not, considering you do not know where the fit was adjusted for visual effect.


The Red line was the fit for the temperature best. The indication that this adjustment was in the error margin indicates a link between temperature and GCRs on a geological scale- ie the primary driver of the temperature.

Quote:
You want to BELIEVE that is the case based upon manipulated data, which I see as less than useless in such a discussion especially since there is the solar output component which is not quantified for subtraction.


Well keep in mind that TSI according to the IPCC has contributed to .1-.3 w/m^2 since 1790, to Earth's Energy Budget, compared with Cloud Cover changes that 7 w/m^2 over a 21 year period.

Quote:
You seem to have a problem with proof of a singluar impact.


Well, if Global drops in aerosoles do not indicate that GCRs are the primary drivers of the drop in aerosoles, (which it clearly states in the paper) then what is the cause of the drop in Global aerosoles, which is leading to less cloud cover overall?

Quote:
And? You still have to prove the climate driver aspect.


Well, if Global drops in aerosoles do not indicate that GCRs are the primary drivers of the drop in aerosoles, (which it clearly states in the paper) then what is the cause of the drop in Global aerosoles, which is leading to less cloud cover overall?

Let's try and agree on one thing: regardless of the cause, Clouds have contributed the most to the temperature increase of the late-20th Century.

Image

The image above shows changes in Reflected Shortwave Radiation compared to models from Lindzen and Choi 2011. The RSR is largely dominated by albedo changes due to changing GCC. We can see that the computer guidance suggested that the RSR should not change much, while in actual observations, RSR has decreased substantially, which would lead to warming of the planet, since there are fewer clouds to reflect the ISR.

There is no other mechanism known that is currently decreasing, that can decrease aerosol production, which decreases total GCC.

Quote:
There are no error margins shown and YES they will always we within the error margins because the manipulations only increase the size of the margins.


No they do not. Shaviv and Veizer found two proxies and constructed an error margin based off of those three proxies. The blue line is the mean of all of the proxies, and the red line is the adjusted proxy.

And if there are no error margins, explain what the yellow shading is in the top image?

Quote:
And there are no other impacts? It seems there was a ENSO reference you mentioned earlier?


We have had more positive ENSO events in the last 30 years due to a +PDO. This would have created an increase in Water Vapour, but it is not observed. Something has been driving Water Vapour and Cloud Cover... and it's not temperature... what is it?

Quote:
Non-scientific arguments? In what way are they "non-scientific"?


Science is based off of evidence. Claims such as that do not have any evidence to back them up.

Quote:
As I said the POSSIBILITY of the increase since this does not prove the increase actually occurs in relation to the GCRs in the atmosphere.


So, then what has caused the Global decrease in atmospheric aerosoles?

Quote:
Solar activity variations would not affect the temperature? Unless and until you can separate the two impacts you cannot know whether the primary impact is clouds or solar output and if it is clouds how much is due to the GCR effect.


Again... the IPCC cites .1-.3 w/m^2 for TSI changes, compared to 7 w/m^2 over 21 years for Cloud Cover changes.

Quote:
Possibly, as all factors which can be included are beneficial to the model, but the importance relies on the level of the impact, which is still unknown.


So basically you're saying that the forcing is unknown, so the climate model could be wrong? That is an interesting statement for an AGW Proponent to make.

Quote:
It would increase or decrease the energy input and thus increase or decrease the temperature. Remember you have to connect to the temperature to support the cliamte driver claim.


This does not answer the question. The first question was what powerful driver could also decrease aerosoles Globally besides Cosmic Rays, and you replied "Solar Activity." So I asked how do changes in TSI change the Atmospheric Global Aerosoles?

Quote:
Just because there is no other known explanation to you does not mean there is not one. The key point is the impact on the climate being the lareger unknown.


Well yes, and that also shows our lack of a understanding of the climate system. Anyone who thinks that the science is settled on this issue, is dead wrong.

Quote:

Possibly in the short term, as we have noted in the volcanic eruptions, but not in the long term.


Volcanic Eruptions are not a driver of climate, as is ENSO. They are usually drive temperatures over a year to year basis.

Quote:
First off, there is a HUGE set of error bars with that conclusion. The concentration/timeframe was not adjusted to make them overlap as was the case in your GCR paper, so we have to realize the extent of the possible range for the graphs.


There are error bars, true, but as we can see, even with the error bars, it is clear that CO2 is significantly higher than it was today, and we were in the midst of an Ice Age.

Image

Quote:
The short term impacts are not as important with climate. Clouds and moisture are a short term variable.


So you're saying that a long term decline in Cloud Cover would have no impact on the climate?

Quote:
It is the temperature (climate) impact that would be the concern not the aerosoles.


This does not answer the question that I asked earlier. I asked what other factors could produce a decrease in Global aerosoles, where you replied "solar activity." I asked how solar activity could play a role in decreasing aerosoles, and you dodged that question.

Quote:
There are no trends observed, there is noise, but no trend. You are making a lot of assumptions concerning the driver aspect.


Correct, the PDO and AMO are cyclical oscillations that have no trend, hence they can not be driving the decrease in Water Vapour and Cloud Cover, because they have no trend.

Quote:
The clouds being a driver is the point which has yet to be proven.


Well, according to Project Earthshine, the energy added to Earth's Energy Budget by GHGs since 1790 is dwarfed by albedo changes over a 21 year period.

Image

The red line is the amount of energy in w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy Budget due to GHGs. The black and blue lines are the albedo changes that add energy to Earth's Energy Budget. Note that when albedo started increasing in 2002, we had no Global Warming at all. The Met Office now says that we have not warmed for 8 years... but it's due to natural variability. (LINK.) Isn't it funny that when the Earth doesn't warm, it's attributed to natural variability, but when it warms, it's anthropogenic? Do albedo changes lookmore significant, compared to the GHG forcing?

Quote:
Temperature is not an impact on the climate? You assume the impact on the climate and argue that flawed position. The point is there are other impacts on the climate which track with the cloud data.


This is a straw man. Here is what I originally had said.

Temperature and oceanic changes have an impact, but they're not the primary drivers of Cloud Cover.

Quote:
What confidence level would you claim for the trend?


Since SH and RH have been decreasing as well, I would say a fairly high confidence level.

Quote:
You also have a short time frame from which to work, which significantly impacts the ability to determine a stistically significant trend.


RH and SH have also been decreasing... and we've been measuring them since 1947.

Image

RH since 1947.

Caption for the image...

Quote:
Relative atmospheric humidity (%) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948. The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2011. Last diagram update: 6 July 2011.


SH since 1947.

Image

Quote:
pecific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948. The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2011. Last diagram update: 6 July 2011.


Quote:
If they are "good questions" concernign the GCR impact on cloud cover, why are several not related to either?


They are all very much related... just ask which one's you don't think are related... and I'll explain how they're very much related.

Quote:
That does not answer the question.


:-s

Quote:
Really? You should recheck the papers and see how strongly they stress the lack of knowledg on the mechanisms.


The way GCRs impact Cloud Cover is well known. It is just uncertain with how much they impact Cloud Cover.

Quote:
You need to also learn what the defintion of mechanism is too.


A mechanism is a process for a system to achieve a result.

Quote:
What? The error margin is MOVED by the adjustments.


Um, no. This is not correct.

From the paper...

Quote:
The blue line depicts the
nominal CRF, while the yellow shading delineates
the allowed error range.



The yellow shading is the error margin for the blue line, not the red line.

Quote:
No, you cannot see a likely cause and effect


Are you arguing that the temperature changes produced the increase in GCRs?

Quote:

No You have calculated that average


And the average forcing CO2 has had over 21 years is dwarfed by albedo changes.

Quote:
Yes, they are not, thus the clouds could not be responsible for THE temperature increase.


Of course.

Clouds are not causing all of the warming- they are causing a large chunk of it, though.

Quote:
So you do not know. That explains a lot.


No, GCC is an abbreviation for Global Cloud Cover at all altitudes.

Quote:

Where in the image is the 100% theorectical coverage mentioned?


Um, it says "CLOUD FORCING" on the upper side of the image. This means that the whole globe hypothetically has 100% Cloud Cover.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:51 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy and cotton both leaving their positions here .... could it be related to white fluffy things? That hypothesis is about as strong as some of theirs.


My grandpa died in late July, my aunt died a couple of weeks ago, I am in Band Camp right now... it's fairly hectic for me right now. I apologize for not replying to your posts earlier.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Do you really want to get into a contest to see how many papers there are for the different drivers?


Well, no. But there are some who claim that there is not a single peer reviewed paper that rejects the notion that Carbon Dioxide is not the primary driver of the climate system.


No, there are such papers, but they are not held in any esteem by the scientific community. There are no published peer-reviewed papers from reputable sources which refute CO2 as being a primary driver of climate systems. In reality the primary driver would have to be the sun, which inputs the energy, but which is not the driver responsible for the increasing warming.

Quote:
Quote:
I do care that you have made a very bad misrepresentation of the scientific status of CO2 as a being a referenced climate impact compared to the newer hypothesis of GCRs.


Well, the 'scientific status of CO2' is a phrase that is used by the AGW Proponents as a way to describe CO2 causing most of the warming in the 20th Century. I think that sooner or later, a consensus will actually be made on what is driving the temperatures. But it is blatently clear that no one can really say anymore that this is all anthropogenic or all natural. With the latest CERN results, that have basically confirmed what skeptics have been long saying: That Cosmic Rays modulate cloud cover. To what extent is unknown. However, as climatologist Piers Forster accurately states,

Quote:
"it probably raises more questions than it answers".


The cosmic rays have been shown to have the potential to impact cloud formation to a small degree. The correlation between cloud formation and climate variation is still to be shown after this.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... teresting/

However, the most intriguing result is that despite going to a lot of trouble to make sure the chamber was ultra-free of contaminants, the researchers found that within most of the aerosols that formed, there were traces of organic nitrogen compounds that must have been present in almost undetectably low concentrations. The other intriguing finding is that aerosol nucleation rates in the chamber don’t match (by a an order of magnitude or more) actual formation rates seen in real world near-surface atmospheric layers at realistic temperatures (only in unrealistically cold conditions do rates come close). The authors speculate (quite convincingly) that this is precisely because they didn’t have enough volatile organic compounds (which are ubiquitous in the real world) to help get the nucleation started. This result will surely inspire some of their next experiments. All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere.

Quote:
No one can claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, when there is so much uncertainty regarding GCRs.


That is faulty logic. The impact of CO2 has been shown with the same types of research as the cloud studies. Thus, there is more than sufficient evidence to show CO2 as a primary driver in the current climate era.

Quote:
However, Global aersoles have been decreasing as seen in Svensmark's 2009 paper. Cloud Cover has decreased in response to decreasing aerosoles. We know that Cosmic Rays are one of the only factors that could decrease Cosmic Rays.


Yes, cosmic rays are one of the only factors that could decrease cosmic rays. I suspect you meant to say "decrease clouds" but then again we know that to be less than accurate from the study since the production of aerosoles was much too low by an order of magnitude or more in the study.

Quote:
This was seen with the new CLOUD paper. When there are more GCRs, more aerosoles are formed.

Image

Global aerosoles are in clear decline.

Image



You are assuming the clouds are a driver based on the formation of aerosoles?


Quote:
The caption for this image on Nigel Calder's blog...
Quote:
Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011


The image shows that with time, GCRs produce particles, or aerosoles into the atmosphere. This is undisputable.


And some production of aerosoles was shown, but not sufficient quantities nor the connection to climate impact, which all must follow to make your case.



Quote:
Quote:

There is a correlation, but where is there any separation from the solar output increase to show an a level for GCR?


I'm actually starting to think that you think the sun has more of a direct impact on temperature than I actually do, which is interesting, in my view. I think that TSI has little to do with temperature changes, but it is the feedbacks that are caused by the Solar AA Index and the Solar Wind that are driving the temperatures.


It does not matter what is thought but what can be supported. Unless one can separate the increased energy aspect from the increased output impact on the cosmic rays, you have a big problem. The increased impact on the cosmic rays also bring an increase in energy which will warm the planet. To connect the warming to the cosmic rays may not be causation but merely correlation.

Quote:
Quote:
Now you are just plain wrong.


That's not a geological timeframe. What you have selected from Earth's Climatic history is like selecting one second from my life and basing conclusions off of that one second. Here is the true geological timeframe.


No, 400,000 years is still a geological time frame and one with a better accuracy for measurements compared to the later proxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chron

Image

Three different proxy methods for CO2 and one for temperature and again with no error bars, which will be significant.

Quote:
Quote:
You are sure of the accuracy of the three methods of the determination of CO2, the determination of temperature, and the corresponding timescale to combine the two? If you added the error bars for this, you would not make such a strong claim.


Fair enough. Here are the error bars.

Image


No, there are no error indications for date determinations nor temperature. Remember in a comparison such as that all of the errors are important.

Quote:
We can see that CO2 was still roughly 10X as high as today, when we were in an Ice Age, even with the error bars.


Yes, and the solar output was also much different too. The lack of complete data in the comparison does not really make your case, does it?

Quote:
Quote:
Except for that whole manipulation of the peaks by MILLIONS of years for visual effect, which negates ANY use of the graph for comparisnon between graphs whithout similar "adjustments".


The "manipulation" is well within the error margin, which indicates a statistically significant correlation between temperature and the GCR flux over 500 million years, since the GCR fit to temperature is within the error margin.


You will have to prove that assertion, since there are no error margins provided for the temperatures, time frames, or CO2 concentrations. Where is the statistical determination of the "manipulated" data? It seems you are making a lot of very big assumptions with this data.

Quote:
Quote:
Or not, considering you do not know where the fit was adjusted for visual effect.


The Red line was the fit for the temperature best. The indication that this adjustment was in the error margin indicates a link between temperature and GCRs on a geological scale- ie the primary driver of the temperature.


Yes, the red line is the ADJUSTED fit, but the UNADJUSTED fir is not provided to know the level of the adjustments. But, again, there are NO error margins provided for the temperature, CO2 nor the timescales before or after the adjustment.

Quote:
Quote:
You want to BELIEVE that is the case based upon manipulated data, which I see as less than useless in such a discussion especially since there is the solar output component which is not quantified for subtraction.


Well keep in mind that TSI according to the IPCC has contributed to .1-.3 w/m^2 since 1790, to Earth's Energy Budget, compared with Cloud Cover changes that 7 w/m^2 over a 21 year period.


Which means nothing to this data whatsoever. What was the solar output for the same time periods of the graph?

Quote:
Quote:
You seem to have a problem with proof of a singluar impact.


Well, if Global drops in aerosoles do not indicate that GCRs are the primary drivers of the drop in aerosoles, (which it clearly states in the paper) then what is the cause of the drop in Global aerosoles, which is leading to less cloud cover overall?


It could be lowered VOC content, it could be many things, but you miss the point. There is still no evidence of GCR impact on cloud formation in any significant fashion, there is no evidence of cloud impact on climate in any significant fashion, and the combination of the two is even less supported by any evidence. That is what the sinular impact problem is in this case.

Quote:
Quote:
And? You still have to prove the climate driver aspect.


Well, if Global drops in aerosoles do not indicate that GCRs are the primary drivers of the drop in aerosoles, (which it clearly states in the paper) then what is the cause of the drop in Global aerosoles, which is leading to less cloud cover overall?


You missed the climate driver aspect of the point. You have yet to show clouds have been a significant driver of climate.

Quote:
Let's try and agree on one thing: regardless of the cause, Clouds have contributed the most to the temperature increase of the late-20th Century.


Where is the evidence to support the contention?

Quote:
Image

The image above shows changes in Reflected Shortwave Radiation compared to models from Lindzen and Choi 2011. The RSR is largely dominated by albedo changes due to changing GCC. We can see that the computer guidance suggested that the RSR should not change much, while in actual observations, RSR has decreased substantially, which would lead to warming of the planet, since there are fewer clouds to reflect the ISR.


The image doesn't show anything ..... I believe the credibility of Lindzen and Choi's paper is still waiting to be determined.

Quote:
There is no other mechanism known that is currently decreasing, that can decrease aerosol production, which decreases total GCC.


The compound assumption again .....

Quote:
Quote:
There are no error margins shown and YES they will always we within the error margins because the manipulations only increase the size of the margins.


No they do not.


Yes, they do. There is an error with any measurment which is multipled with each successive measurement or comparison.

Quote:
Shaviv and Veizer found two proxies and constructed an error margin based off of those three proxies. The blue line is the mean of all of the proxies, and the red line is the adjusted proxy.


HUH? The numbers change and do not match the figure in any reference. There is a red. blue, and two dashed lines. The blue line could not be an average of the two dashed lines since it is below both lines in places. The fact the adjustments are not indicated leave much to be assumed.

Quote:
And if there are no error margins, explain what the yellow shading is in the top image?


How does that correlate to the time frame error or the adjusted fit? If the dotted lines are proxies the error bars should be larger given the both bump the spread in opposite directions at the same time, which indicates no error for either of them, but possibly an error for the combination only. The initial erros would be multipleid by that error range.

Quote:
Quote:
And there are no other impacts? It seems there was a ENSO reference you mentioned earlier?


We have had more positive ENSO events in the last 30 years due to a +PDO. This would have created an increase in Water Vapour, but it is not observed. Something has been driving Water Vapour and Cloud Cover... and it's not temperature... what is it?


You seem to claim it is cosmic rays, yet you have no evidence of causation.

Quote:
Quote:
Non-scientific arguments? In what way are they "non-scientific"?


Science is based off of evidence. Claims such as that do not have any evidence to back them up.


They have the same level of evidence as your claims.

Quote:
There are some non-scientific arguments that try and claim that a decrease in Cloud Cover is consistent with increasing temperatures, because the clouds would have to condense at a slightly higher level in atltitude than before, but I do not see how that would produce a decrease in Cloud Cover.


Quote:
Quote:
As I said the POSSIBILITY of the increase since this does not prove the increase actually occurs in relation to the GCRs in the atmosphere.


So, then what has caused the Global decrease in atmospheric aerosoles?


Better pollution controls? The paper on the CERN research points to the importance of VOc in the formation. But, the increase in temperature is still unconnected by evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
Solar activity variations would not affect the temperature? Unless and until you can separate the two impacts you cannot know whether the primary impact is clouds or solar output and if it is clouds how much is due to the GCR effect.


Again... the IPCC cites .1-.3 w/m^2 for TSI changes, compared to 7 w/m^2 over 21 years for Cloud Cover changes.


And that covers what percentage of the time period covered by your evidence of cloud impact?

Quote:
Quote:
Possibly, as all factors which can be included are beneficial to the model, but the importance relies on the level of the impact, which is still unknown.


So basically you're saying that the forcing is unknown, so the climate model could be wrong? That is an interesting statement for an AGW Proponent to make.


No, being wrong is different from being more accurate, but the fact you go to the absolute does say a lot about your position if not your science background.

Quote:
Quote:
It would increase or decrease the energy input and thus increase or decrease the temperature. Remember you have to connect to the temperature to support the cliamte driver claim.


This does not answer the question. The first question was what powerful driver could also decrease aerosoles Globally besides Cosmic Rays, and you replied "Solar Activity." So I asked how do changes in TSI change the Atmospheric Global Aerosoles?


It was more in line with the statement connecting the cloud cover to climate driving "cloud cover, which is the primary driver of the Climate"

Quote:
Quote:
Just because there is no other known explanation to you does not mean there is not one. The key point is the impact on the climate being the lareger unknown.


Well yes, and that also shows our lack of a understanding of the climate system. Anyone who thinks that the science is settled on this issue, is dead wrong.


Not really, since the fact science is built upon the work of earlier science unless and until there is evidence that original science was flawed we do not continually try to "reinvent the wheel" because it is possible the wheel may not turn.

Quote:
Quote:

Possibly in the short term, as we have noted in the volcanic eruptions, but not in the long term.


Volcanic Eruptions are not a driver of climate, as is ENSO. They are usually drive temperatures over a year to year basis.


Per major eruption or equivilent, but they can be an impact of climate. The eruption of Yellowstone would be a significant short term climate impact

Quote:
Quote:
First off, there is a HUGE set of error bars with that conclusion. The concentration/timeframe was not adjusted to make them overlap as was the case in your GCR paper, so we have to realize the extent of the possible range for the graphs.


There are error bars, true, but as we can see, even with the error bars, it is clear that CO2 is significantly higher than it was today, and we were in the midst of an Ice Age.


Yes, and during a period of low solar output ...... which is why taking partial data is misleading.

Quote:
Quote:
The short term impacts are not as important with climate. Clouds and moisture are a short term variable.


So you're saying that a long term decline in Cloud Cover would have no impact on the climate?


No, the percentage decline and time frame would determine that. A 0.01% decrese per decade would not be an impact even over a long period, but a 50% decrease per decade might be. The driver of that impact might still offset the cloud impact too.

Quote:
Quote:
It is the temperature (climate) impact that would be the concern not the aerosoles.


This does not answer the question that I asked earlier. I asked what other factors could produce a decrease in Global aerosoles, where you replied "solar activity." I asked how solar activity could play a role in decreasing aerosoles, and you dodged that question.


Again that reply was in relation to your connection of clouds being a major climate driver in connection to the aerosole production assumed by cosmic rays.

Quote:
Quote:
There are no trends observed, there is noise, but no trend. You are making a lot of assumptions concerning the driver aspect.


Correct, the PDO and AMO are cyclical oscillations that have no trend, hence they can not be driving the decrease in Water Vapour and Cloud Cover, because they have no trend.


No, there are no trends presented period. The cloud "increase/decrease", temperatures, nothing has been show to have a statistically significant trend during the period discussed.

Quote:
Quote:
The clouds being a driver is the point which has yet to be proven.


Well, according to Project Earthshine, the energy added to Earth's Energy Budget by GHGs since 1790 is dwarfed by albedo changes over a 21 year period.


And the accuracy of that energy budget compared to the 21 year period is what?

Quote:
Image

The red line is the amount of energy in w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy Budget due to GHGs. The black and blue lines are the albedo changes that add energy to Earth's Energy Budget. Note that when albedo started increasing in 2002, we had no Global Warming at all. The Met Office now says that we have not warmed for 8 years... but it's due to natural variability. (LINK.) Isn't it funny that when the Earth doesn't warm, it's attributed to natural variability, but when it warms, it's anthropogenic? Do albedo changes lookmore significant, compared to the GHG forcing?


Not all warming is anthropogneic, but your leap to absolutes makes it difficult to even try to discuss them.

Quote:
Quote:
Temperature is not an impact on the climate? You assume the impact on the climate and argue that flawed position. The point is there are other impacts on the climate which track with the cloud data.


This is a straw man. Here is what I originally had said.

Temperature and oceanic changes have an impact, but they're not the primary drivers of Cloud Cover.


And you also said "cloud cover, which is the primary driver of the Climate" which is the flawed starting position to prove the impacts of clouds on climate based on the impacts on clouds.

Quote:
Quote:
What confidence level would you claim for the trend?


Since SH and RH have been decreasing as well, I would say a fairly high confidence level.


No, what statistical confidence level do you place on the trend?

Quote:
Quote:
You also have a short time frame from which to work, which significantly impacts the ability to determine a stistically significant trend.


RH and SH have also been decreasing... and we've been measuring them since 1947.

Image


Since relative humidity is relative to temperature, the moisture content of the atmosphere is still not quantitfied with this set of graphs, is it?

Quote:
RH since 1947.

Caption for the image...

Quote:
Relative atmospheric humidity (%) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948. The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2011. Last diagram update: 6 July 2011.


So the data for pre-1973 may not be that good? That leaves less than 40 years.

Quote:
SH since 1947.

Image


The upper level appaers to show a decreasing trend, the center level is possibly no trend and the lower shows a slight rising trend. That is not the clear decreasing trend you claimed.

Quote:
pecific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948. The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2011. Last diagram update: 6 July 2011.


Again the last 40 years may be the only really good data.

Quote:
Quote:
If they are "good questions" concerning the GCR impact on cloud cover, why are several not related to either?


They are all very much related... just ask which one's you don't think are related... and I'll explain how they're very much related.


I highlighted the ones which are not connected to the GCR impact on cloud cover.

[b]-Why is Water Vapor Decreasing?
-Why do cloud changes precede temperature changes?
-Why does the solar AA-index correlate to temperature?
-Why have global temperature stopped warming?
-Why do all the warm periods in the past correlate to high solar activity?
-Why do all cold periods in the past correlate to low solar activity?[/b]


Quote:
Quote:
That does not answer the question.


:-s



How does detrending make it significant? ENSO does not answer the question of how it becomes statistically significant after detrending.

Quote:
However, we do not find this correlation to be statistically significant. The correlation between low cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays is much weaker than that for solar irradiance and low clouds, although detrending of the cloud cover data substantially increases the correlation.



Quote:
Quote:
Really? You should recheck the papers and see how strongly they stress the lack of knowledg on the mechanisms.


The way GCRs impact Cloud Cover is well known. It is just uncertain with how much they impact Cloud Cover.


That would cover the mechanisms aspect.

Quote:
Quote:
You need to also learn what the defintion of mechanism is too.


A mechanism is a process for a system to achieve a result.


So if there is no change in cloud cover an increase in solar output will not correlate to an increase in temperature? You are assuming that is the case here.

Quote:
Solar AA Index changes the GCR flux which then changes Cloud Cover, which then changes temperatures.


Quote:
Quote:
What? The error margin is MOVED by the adjustments.


Um, no. This is not correct.


Yes it is. When a data point is moved the error margin must move accordingly. The adjustments to fit also increase the error margins proportionally.

Quote:
From the paper...

Quote:
The blue line depicts the
nominal CRF, while the yellow shading delineates
the allowed error range.



Neither of which are shown for the adjusted data beign discussed. The allowed error range seems to be different from the error range of the measurements as the error for measurement via proxy does not have any specific error ranges established. These errors seem to be those in addition to the errors in measurment.

Quote:
The yellow shading is the error margin for the blue line, not the red line.


Which is not even on the same graph as the data line shown to be adjusted to fit.

Quote:
Quote:
No, you cannot see a likely cause and effect


Are you arguing that the temperature changes produced the increase in GCRs?


No, I am saying the cause for both movements may be the same, thus neither are the cause just affected in similar fashion.

Quote:
Quote:

No You have calculated that average


And the average forcing CO2 has had over 21 years is dwarfed by albedo changes.


No, you still have it wrong. The average forcing over the measurement period applied to those specific years is dwarfed by the albedo changes you listed. You have no average for those years from which to work.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, they are not, thus the clouds could not be responsible for THE temperature increase.


Of course.

Clouds are not causing all of the warming- they are causing a large chunk of it, though.


That is your assumption, but still lacking in the evidecne to support it.

Quote:
Quote:
So you do not know. That explains a lot.


No, GCC is an abbreviation for Global Cloud Cover at all altitudes.


Which would have a variable impact since the effect of clouds at different heights is different where temperatures are involved.

Quote:
Quote:

Where in the image is the 100% theorectical coverage mentioned?


Um, it says "CLOUD FORCING" on the upper side of the image. This means that the whole globe hypothetically has 100% Cloud Cover.


No, if that were the case there would be no variation in cloud cover shown. A 100% coverage would be a uniform coverage over the globe, which is not the case. It is the cloud forcing for the average cloud cover for the specific lattitudes for that period of time. That is why there are variations in the coverage.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy and cotton both leaving their positions here .... could it be related to white fluffy things? That hypothesis is about as strong as some of theirs.


My grandpa died in late July, my aunt died a couple of weeks ago, I am in Band Camp right now... it's fairly hectic for me right now. I apologize for not replying to your posts earlier.



I am sorry to hear of your losses. My condolences to you and your family. The post was to be more toungue in cheek than it appeared ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group