http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11648

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-72677

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...al-warming.htm

Speculation.

A new Maunder minimum would not cause cooling and your claim that we are going to have one is unsupported speculation:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-72252

So sunspot magnetic field strength is mysteriously declining.

Solar cycle #24

The solar conveyor speed is reduced by 70%.

Solar cycle #24

The sun in the 20th century was at its highest activity in 8000 years.

Solar cycle #24

Past cold periods are concurrent with abrupt changes in cosmogenic isotopes.

Solar cycle #24

The data overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that past abrupt climatic changes were caused by solar magnetic cycle changes which modulates the amount of planetary clouds.

On it’s own no it doesn’t but you are building a strawman. You cannot explain any warming or cooling of the planet without invoking the amplifying effect of greenhouse gasses. Every proposed cause of climate change fails utterly when you don’t include this amplification. With feedback amplification Milankovitch cycles explain glacial cycles perfectly.

Furthermore, of you are going to discount Milankovitch cycles you need to come up with an alternate explanation form their near 100% correlation with climate change over the last 3 million years (which is as far back as there is good data). Good luck with that.


Hint… CO2…

There is no particular mystery about 41Kyr cycle, it comes from the earths obliquity.

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

Lomiller,
Look at the above link. The geological record shows clear evidence of cyclic warming and cooling which effects the entire planet. What would cause CO2 levels to cyclically change? You make statements without supporting logic. Defend your statement or stop making it. You have picked the losing side of a scientific argument and then continue arguing without supporting data and logic.

Solar magnetic cycle changes which modulating planetary cloud cover have and the past and are currently causing the cyclic changes in planetary temperature. I have more than 40 papers from different authors that support the mechanism and that assertion. There is 20th century data that supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was due to solar magnetic cycle changes that reduced planetary cloud cover.

I provide specific papers that show the Southern and Northern Hemisphere are simultaneously cold and warm which rules out orbital insolation changes as the insolation affects are 180 degrees out of phase comparing Northern Hemisphere to Southern Hemisphere. I have a list of papers that provides evidence that cosmogenic isotopes are found concurrent with the abrupt planetary temperature changes.

There is evidence of a serial climate forcing function that keeps showing up at the scene of the crime. The serial climate forcing function is solar magnetic cycle changes, which modulate planetary cloud cover.

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

Did you even bother to read the link you were responding to in that post?

Since you apparentyly didn’t I’ll summarize it for you.

a) Mid Troposphereic temperature trends are not related to CO2, they are dominated by adiabatic effects and show up in the models when warming occurs from any cause at all.

b) the disagreement between modeled and measured values is being resolved in favor of the models. As the measured values become more accurate they become closer and closer to the model predictions.

As for the rest of it, you don’t even seem to understand what the outstanding issues with Milankovitch cycles are. The 41Kyr cycle come from the earths Obliquity, there is no particular issue surrounding that at all. If you go a little further back the cycle is dominated by the earths Obliquity which has nodes of 95Kyr and 125Kyr.

The “100 Kyr problem” relate to the whether you can resolve those two properly with the current data. Specifically they tend to merge into a 100Kyr cycle and it’s unclear if this is simply a lack of resolution in the data, or if there is some other effect involved.

In all cases, however, everyone looking for other contributions on this scale must first filter the effects of Milankovitch cycles because they are so strong they swamp all other effects.


I suggest you go and learn a little more about feedback systems. When you have feedback any input becomes amplified (or attenuated) by an amount determined by the feedback. In the normal course of things the “input” is the distribution of solar energy as a result of Milankovitch cycles and the primary feedback effects are CO2, and ice albedo. The simplified version is that the Milankovitch cycles cause the initial changes to CO2 levels, and the changes in CO2 are self sustaining until a new equilibrium point is reached.

All you have presented so far is some quotes mined from papers that do not support your position and the one paper the crackpot Sevensmark has managed to get published on the subject. The recent IPCC report cited over 2000 papers regarding the cause and effect of current warming. A 2004 literature review published in science found that of over 900 papers published over the previous decade not one disagreed with the consensus view that current warming is primarily human in origin.

Current insolation at the critical 60 degree North is the same as it was at the coldest period of the last glacial cycle. The question obviously is when will the massive ice sheets start to form, if one believes in Milankovich's theory.

The Milankovitch cycle trigger to create the end of a glacial cycle is maximum planetary tilt and the orbital perihelion occurring during the Northern Hemisphere summer which creates the warmest summers in the Northern Hemisphere. Due to orbital precission the timing of perihelion and aphelion changes. The Northern Hemisphere is now at perihelion in January, so Northern winters are warmer and Northern summers colder which is the conditions to bring the massive ice sheets back according to Milankovitch’s theory. Also planetary tilt is less now as compared to when the ice sheets melted. Both of these orbital changes (orbital tilt and perihelion timing) cause Northern Hemisphere summers to be colder and winters to be warmer.

The proxy climate data shows a series of cycles of warming and cooling, all of which have cosmogenic isotopes which indicates a solar magnetic cycle change occurred concurrently with the planetary temperature change events. The strong cycles are spaced 2400 years apart and the next cycle is coincidentally due to occur now.

In the later part of the 20th century oceanographers hypothesized that changes in the Atlantic drift current were causing the climate cycles. There was however no explanation, as to what could cause the cyclic changes in ocean currents. Another issue with the ocean forcing mechanism is the temperature change due to complete stoppage of the ocean current is an order of magnitude less than that required to explain the change and in addition the ocean current change only affects specific regions in Western Europe whereas recent data showed the actual cooling was planet wide.

In the later part of the 20th century computer based climate models were created that amplified the small planetary temperature change due to stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current to create a large temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere. These computer models appear to have no basis in reality. The computer models in question cooled the Northern Hemisphere and created minor cooling in the Southern Hemisphere which does not agree with data.

It is possible to create a climate computer model that has no connection with reality. The IPCC still uses the knife edge model.

Abrupt climate change in the computer: Is it real?

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1362.full.pdf+html


Kaplan et al's recent finding that both Northern and Southern Hemisphere simultaneous warmed and cooled disproved the ocean forcing function and shows the general climate models have no basis in reality.


http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...100348&org=ATM

As noted above Kaplan's recent finding that the Northern and Southern Hemisphere warm and cool concurrently can not be explained with a Milankovitch orbital mechanisim. In addition to the glacial/interglacial cycles driver problem there is problem of what is driving the cycles of roughly 2400 year abrupt warming and coolings which are found in the paleo record. (See above graph.)


http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407005


“The Glacial Cycles and Cosmic Rays” by J. Kirkby, A. Mangini, and R. Muller

Richard Muller is a specialist in paleo climatology and was one of the first to find specific evidence that disproved Milankovitch's mechanism and theory.

There is two set of data which can not be explained by Milankovitch's theory: 1) Kaplan's finding of synchronous Northern and Southern Hemisphere warming and cooling and 2) Richard Muller finding of specific glacial termination that can not be explained using Milankovitch's theory and mechanism. In addition to Muller's and Kaplan's fundamental discrepancies, Milankovitch's mechanisms are slow and hence can not explain what is causing the shorter 2400 yr cyclic warming and cooling in the data.


Comment:
In addition to GCR modulation by the planet's magnetic field and the solar heliosphere there is a fourth mechanism where solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere can via the process called electroscavenging remove cloud forming ions. (There is a description of the electroscavenging process and a link to Tinsley and Yu's paper above.)

The variance of GCR flux cause a change in planetary cloud cover which when there is an increase in planetary cloud cover cools the planet and when there is a decrease in planetary cloud cover warms the planet.

It appears the 20th century abrupt warming was caused by solar magnetic field changes, not due to CO2 increases. I will in the next two comments present data to defend that assertion.

I will take anyone on to defend the above assertion, from this forum or other forums.

The implication, if that assertion is correct, is based on past solar magnetic cycles and planetary temperature data, that the planet is about to abruptly cool. I will also defend that assertion.

There is in the paleo temperature data a cyclic series of abrupt planetary temperature increases which have been followed by abrupt planetary cooling (Roughly 27 major abrupt planetary temperature changes in the last 100 kyrs.)

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

At the turn of the 20th century the solar magnetic cycle modulation of cloud mechanisms were not well developed or discussed, so although the timing of the these cyclic abrupt warming and cooling events was found by looking for changes in cosmogenic isotopes which occur concurrently with the abrupt planetary warming and cooling, it was assumed that the abrupt changes were not due to solar changes as there was no known solar mechanism that could cause the temperature changes in question.

At the turn of the 20th century it was hypothesized by oceanographers that the abrupt increases in planetary temperature which in all cases are followed immediately by an abrupt drop in planetary temperature back to glacial temperatures were caused by some external force which was cyclically turning the Atlantic drift ocean current abruptly off and then on.

Comment: It is not clear how the THC mechanism could possibly warm the planet during the glacial phase and then return the planet to glacial cold. The THC would need to normally be off and then turn on to create the abrupt warming. Needless to say the THC mechanism appears to be a myth for there is no logical explanation as to how it could create the observed cyclic temperature changes.

As noted above (see two published papers by Seager linked to in above comments), basic fundamental back of the envelope analysis, indicates an abrupt stoppage of the Atlantic drift current is not capable of causing the massive abrupt planetary temperature changes so the THC hypothesis is dead on arrival. In addition, to that fundamental issue, there has never been any explanation proposed as what planetary mechanism could cyclically turn the Atlantic drift current on or off.

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

The following is an analysis of cosmogenic isotope data which shows the periodicity of the cosmogenic isotopes. The cosmogenic isotopes correlate with the abrupt warming and cooling periods. It is accepted by all that the cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes and some unknown force which is cyclically affecting the geomagnetic field.

Comment:
The solar magnetic cycle changes are hypothesized to be periodic because the large planets cyclically abruptly accelerate the sun at a point in the solar barycentre motion when the acceleration disturbs the solar tachocline region. How the solar acceleration affects the tachocline is also dependent on internal solar cycle mechanisms. The solar tachocline region is the region where the magnetic ropes which create sun spots are hypothesized to be formed. So when the tachocline is disturbed there are a number of solar magnetic cycle changes.

The ~2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration: bi-spectrum of 14C data over the last 8000 years

http://www.ann-geophys.net/20/115/20...0-115-2002.pdf

Absolutely. Using my THC mechanism always leaves me acutely sensitive to cold.

I can't help noticing that none of your arguments touch on whether anthropogenic CO2 forcing will change the climate in future. They all relate to furthering fringe explanations for past climate changes.

Future C02 increases (CO2 doubling) will not appreciably warm the planet. The 20th century planetary warming was caused be the electroscavenging mechanism which removes cloud forming ions. The earth’s albedo decreased during this period. The earth warmed because less sunshine was reflected into space.

C02 Mechanism and Predictions
I provided a link to Douglas et al’s 2007 paper that shows mid troposphere temperatures in the tropics have not warmed in the last 40 years. (Note Douglas et al published a similar paper in 2005. The 2007 paper re-examined the 40 years of data to confirm that it was statistically valid and to confirm it disproved the predictions of the general climate models as to what will happen if CO2 levels double.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by D. Douglass, J. Christy, B. Pearson, and S. Singer


I provided a link to Palle et al.'s Earthshine paper that provides data from observation of the variations of the earthshine reflected off of the moon, that show the planetary cloud cover was reduced 1994 to 2001, which is equivalent to a planetary forcing of 7.5W/m^2, as compared to the in IPCC calculated 2.4 W/^2 due to the increase in C02.

The reduction in cloud cover is due to Tinsley and Yu’s electroscavenging process. High speed solar wind bursts create a charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. The high speed wind bursts were created when large solar coronal holes formed at the solar equator and did not move to the solar poles at end of the last two solar cycles. Normally at the end of the solar cycle the reduction in the solar heliosphere causes increased cosmic ray flux to strike the earth’s atmosphere. The higher cosmic ray flux in turn creates more cloud forming ions which causes an increase in clouds. Due to solar coronal wind bursts electroscavenging removed the cloud forming ions and the planet warmed due to less clouds. Less clouds also caused the troposphere to cool as there was less reflected short wave radiation to heat the ozone layer.

The following is Palle’s earthshine data that supports the above assertion. Palle also published a paper using satellite data that supports the same conclusion.

“The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements”, by E. Palle, P. Rodriguez, P.R. Goode , J. Qiu , V. Yurchyshyn, J. Hickey, M. Chu, E. Kolbe, C.T. Brown, S. Koonin

http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf

The solar magnetic cycle is moving toward a deep magnetic cycle minimum. (Three published paper predicted a solar minimum, one based on a physical model, another based on an analysis of C14 in the paleo record, and the third based on solar barycenter motion which correlates with past solar magnetic cycle minimums.) Also a hint is that there are a large number of spotless solar days rather than sunspots on the surface of the sun.

Based on analysis of the last 20 years, the last 8000 years, and the last 120 kyrs when the sun moves into a deep minimum the planet abruptly cools.

I am not sure what addition evidence or analysis is required to convince you. I am not sure why you and others so strongly believe the GHG hypothesis.

1) There is in the paleo record evidence which all agree shows that there were cyclic changes (abrupt increases in temperature followed by cooling) in the planet's temperature in the past.
2) There is concurrent changes in the amount of cosmogenic isotopes that correlates with past temperature changes.
3) All agree cosmogenic isotope changes indicates there were concurrent solar magnetic cycle changes when the planet abruptly warmed and then abruptly cooled.
4) There is current data and analysis that supports the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover.
5) There is data and analysis that disproves the predicted magnitude of warming that would be expected from the CO2 forcing mechanism. 6) There is data that shows the majority of 20th century warming was due to a reduction in planetary clouds.

Is this the same paper that people keep mentioning has already been sent to the dustbin by new data, more diligent research, and considerable criticism of their statistical methods?

Why do you keep citing that paper?


(ETA: Their earlier paper went over like a brick, too. Notice how they're caught out basically cooking the data.)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. The fact that GHGs can increase planetary temperature was accepted in planetary science long before terrestrial AGW became an issue, so it will take a lot of evidence to convince scientists that the same does not apply to Earth. I will leave this discussion to those better qualified.

In reply to nauthiz’s comments:
The general climate models all predict the mid-troposphere will warm more than the earth’s surface due to GHG. Douglass et al’s 2005 and 2007 paper’s data and analysis shows the mid-troposphere temperature in the tropics has not warmed as predicted by the general climate models.

Some assert that 40 years of radiosonde data (weather balloons) and 15 years of satellite data must be incorrect. The Realclimate summary does not state Douglass et al’s data is “cooked” or that Douglass et al’s analysis is incorrect. Douglass et al’s 2007 paper presents a statistical validation of the data they used in their 2005 paper. The problem is not cooking of data, but rather accepting the conclusions of Douglass et al’s analysis that the magnitude of GHG warming estimated for a doubling of CO2 is too large by a factor of around 3.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ropopshere-ii/

If you read through the discussion, there is a second problem identified with the general climatic models, prediction versa measurement: The satellite data shows in addition to the tropical mid-troposphere not warming as predicted by the general climate models, the data indicates the stratosphere has cooled significantly more than predicted by the general climate models.

The papers quoted by Realclimate suggest that if 15 years of satellite data and 40 years of weather balloon data were both biased - Biased to measuring temperature too low - then there would be no disagreement with the atmospheric temperature data and the general climate models. (i.e. Blame the data rather than the general climate models.) There is no assertion in the papers quoted in Realclimate or in the comments in that forum that Douglass et al “cooked” their data.

Another explanation is the 20th century warming was caused by a reduction in planetary clouds, rather than GHG. Less planetary cloud will result in less sunlight reflected into space. The stratosphere contains ozone which absorbs short wave radiation. As all of the short wave radiation is not absorbed first pass through the stratosphere, the cloud reflected short wave radiation has a second chance to warm the stratosphere.

Nauthiz I have in the above comments provided links to paleo climate papers that shows there was in the last 100 kyrs 27 abrupt short periods of planetary warming. The 27 past abrupt planetary warming periods, which in all cases, were followed by abrupt cooling, were not caused by GHG changes.

Do you support that assertion?

As noted above the solar magnetic cycle in the 20th century was at its highest level in 8000 years.

I provided a link that shows the planet’s albedo decreased in the later part of the 20th century which is consistent with satellite data that shows there was a decrease in planetary clouds. The analysis included in Palle’s earthshine albedo paper shows the reduction in planetary clouds is equivalent to a forcing of 7.5 W/m^2 as compared to the GHG forcing of 2.5 W/m^2.

If there was only one paper, one author, perhaps we could question the author, the data, and the analysis.

What is provided above, however, is a holistic set of data and analysis from a set of published papers by a large group of authors from different specialities, that appears to disprove the magnitude of the GHG warming predicted for a doubling of C02 and that appears to answer the question what mechanism forces the glacial/interglacial cycle.

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?


dmr81, your comment is not correct. There have been five solar minimums in the last 1000 years. (i.e. One every 200 years.) The Dalton minimum, Maunder minimum, Spörer Minimum, Wolf Minimum, and Oort minimum.

C14 in the atmosphere is inversely proportional to the strength of the solar magnetic cycle. The following image from Wikipedia shows how the solar magnetic cycle strength is the highest in 1200 years. The C14 data on the graph stops around 1980, the current C14 is now around -25, which is particularly impressive as the geomagnetic field intensity has dropped 30% in the last 1000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ity_labels.svg

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

This is a link to the actual data that was used to make the graph.

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04%...s/intcal04.14c

Whatever his reasons, the paper itself is dead. The discrepancies it complains of turn out not to exist, they were simply a combination of measurement error and errors in Douglass’s work.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...tract?SRETRY=0

BTW, some trivia. One of the co-authors of Douglass’s paper is Fred Singer. Before Singer got involved in the climate change debate he worked for cigarette companies developing research to challenge the notion cigarettes cause cancer.

This is a reference to a new paper that refutes the conclusions of Douglass et al's 2007 paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...opopshere-iii/

If you read through the details of the counter paper summary, the issue appears to still not be settled.

The authors' of the paper refutting Douglass et al 2007, have reduced the GHG ocean temperature increase (the reduction is due to more accurate sensors), the atmospheric data has been adjusted for other planetary temperature changes. After the adjustments one set of satellite data (mid tropospheric temperatures) agrees with the general climate models, the second set of satellite data does not.

What would resolve this issue is how the planet responses to the current solar magnetic cycle change. Douglass et al's finding would make sense if the majority of the observed 20th century planetary warming was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. A rapid and significant drop in planetary temperature, in response to a deep solar magnetic cycle minimum, would validate that hypothesis.

B. Santer et al’s Fact Sheet.

The following is an authors’ question/answer sheet written by B. Santer et al. (Santer et al. in their paper assert they have refuted the conclusions of Douglass et al. 2007.) Looking at the Santer et al’s data, there is an alternative explanation which is supportive of Douglass et al 2007’s conclusion and there are some unanswered questions.

Look at the graph in the fact sheet which shows the tropical surface temperature & troposphere temperature Vs year, 1980 to 2005. First note the two trend lines are not appropriately drawn. There are two changes pre 1992 vs post 1992.


https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/...-factsheet.pdf


If you note there is almost no warming 1980 to 1992. As Douglass et al. state for that period there is no relative difference in troposphere and surface temperature.

After 1992 there is a sharp warming of both surface and troposphere. From 1992 to 2005 the troposphere does warm more than the surface. There is however no explanation as to why starting in 1992 the troposphere warming suddenly occurs.

Another explanation as to what is observed, is staring in 1992 there was a change in solar cloud forcing.

Prior to 1992, planetary cloud cover (higher latitudes) closely followed GCR. Post 1992 planetary clouds no longer track GCR. From that period on there are solar wind burst at the end of solar cycles which cause a reduction in planetary cloud.

What would be interesting is data over the next four or five years.

lomiller1, Have you looked at the data in the fact sheet? Have you had a chance to read the above comments which link to papers that discuss fundamental problems (lack of simple correlation) between the insolation hypothesis and the glacial/interglacial cycle?

Do you see the data that shows past abrupt planetary warming? The authors of those papers were not involved in cigarette research. As far as I know neither was Douglass.

The data and analysis linked to above indirectly supports Douglass et al's conclusion. (i.e. The data and analysis supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle is a major climate forcing function which means the GHG effect must saturate early.)

This is a valid scientific problem, that has not been solved. Not some sort of conspiracy.

Provide a citation from the IPCC showing the magnitude of this alleged forcing.

In reply to dmr81’s above comment.

Dmr81,

Scientific issues are resolved by logical discussions. Scientific discussions include data and analysis, if possible from published papers. This is not a religious discussion.

Do you have a scientific argument?

I provided data, logic, and published papers which shows:

1. Some first order climate forcing mechanism is simultaneously warming and cooling the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. The paleo data shows the abrupt warming and cooling is periodic.
2. Paleo data (cosmogenic isotopes in the ice sheets and C14 in ancient trees) shows there has been a major change in the solar magnetic cycle concurrent with the specific warming and cooling events.
3. A link has provided to Palle’s earthshine and satellite data analysis that supports the assertion that solar wind bursts reduce planetary cloud cover via the “electroscavenging" process. I provided a link to Tinsley and Yu’s paper that explains the mechanisms as to how solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary clouds.
4. A link has provided to data in Wikipedia that shows there have been five solar grand minimums (one roughly every 200 years in the last 1000 years.) The Dalton minimum, Maunder minimum, Spörer Minimum, Wolf Minimum, and Oort minimum. A link has provided to three papers that predict a imminent solar grand minimum. (One uses a physical solar model, second based on an analysis of periodicity in the paleo cosmogenic record, and the third based on solar motion about the solar barycenter which correlates with grand solar minimums.)
5. As noted in the above comments, current solar insolation at the critical latitude of 60 North is now the same as the coldest period of the last glacial cycle. Based on Milankovitch’s theory the large ice sheets should be forming now.
6. Links to papers were provided that show past planetary warming and cooling (The glacial/interglacial cycle) does not agree with Milankovitch’s theory.
7. Links to data, analysis, and papers were provided that show that changes in ocean currents are not physically capable of causing the cyclic warming and cooling events. As noted even if the ocean current changes were capable of causing cyclic warming and cooling of the planet there is no explanation as to why ocean currents would be cyclically changing. In addition, data was provided that shows the entire planet warms and cools. Ocean current changes only effect specific regions of the planet and the affect for those regions is an order of magnitude less than the observed planetary temperature changes.
8. Douglass et al’s 2007 paper provides data and analysis that if correct would show that the majority of the 20th century warming was not due to GHG. I provided a link to Santer et al.’s paper that is alleged to refute Douglass et al’s finding. I showed how Santer et al’s conclusion was not correct. (i.e. There is a step change in mid troposphere temperatures, staring in 1992 which also correlates with Palle’s observation of a reduction in planetary cloud cover due to the electroscavenging mechanism.

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

The follow published paper by J. Kirkby summarizes some of the recent data and analysis that supports the assertion that solar modulation of planetary clouds is a first order forcing function.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938

Good answer William!

William, do you check your private messages (PM) at the top of this page?

You have caught my attention on the barycenter correlation and I would like to discuss a possible mechanism without all of the residual noise on this thread.

If you would like to discuss it let me know by PM.

Jim

__________________

Yes, and that has been done. Your ATM idea has been shown to be worthless.

All you have done is repeat yet again the same claims that have already been debunked many times here, just as they were debunked many times when you made them on RealClimate.org:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-82871

If you are claiming that I have brought religion into this discussion, provide a citation to support your claim or explicitly withdraw it. Otherwise explain precisely what you meant by that remark.

Drm81,

The blog you linked to states that there is no astronomical evidence to support Shiva’s paper’s assertion that the earth’s ice epochs were caused by an increase in galactic cosmic rays, that occur when the solar system passes through the galaxy’s spiral arms.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...alactic-glitch

That statement is not correct. Shiva provided an ingenious analysis of meteorite material which was used to determine the time variance of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) magnitude that strikes the earth over the last 500 million years.

Shiva's meteorite analysis provides independent analytical support for his hypothesis that the earth’s ice epochs are caused by large scale GCR variations. There is no mention in the blog comment of Shiva's meteorite analysis. (See a link to his paper below.)

In addition to Shiva’s meteorite analysis, there are other authors who support Shaviv’s hypothesis. There is astronomical analysis that supports Shiva's assertion that the solar system has passed through the galaxy's spiral arms four times in the last 500 million years.

“Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy” by D. R. Gies and J. W. Helsel Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503306

For those who are interested in science, this is a link to Shiva and Veizer’s paper “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?”

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/I...s/GSAToday.pdf

This paper written also by Shiva and Veizer, is a response to criticism of their paper, is also interesting.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/C...torfDebate.pdf

P.S.
I will scientifically debate this subject with anyone. Besides name calling, there has been no refutation or alternative hypotheses presented in the blog you linked to explain what is the mechanism that caused the earth's four ice epochs, including the current ice epoch.

dmr81, are you aware the start of the current very long term cooling period coincided with the start of the movement of the solar system through our galaxy's spiral arms? That would of course provide logical support for Shiva's hypothesis.

There is a standard and very effective scientific process to solve scientific problems. Competing hypotheses are compared without emotion, based on data, logic, and analysis.

If you review this thread there seems to be a set of interconnecting papers that all support a specific logical premise.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

When this thread was transferred to ATM there has a comment that was missed.

The question was:
Shaviv estimates that 0.47C +/-0.19C (67%) of the 0.7C observed 20th century warming is due to both solar TSI increases and due to reduction in planetary clouds based on the changes in GCR for the 20th century Vs known temperature changes that have occurred in the past for specific GCR changes. If total solar irradiance (TSI) is considered the solar contribution to 20th century warming would only be 0.16C +/- 0.04C.


Comment:
Electroscavenging would likely increase that amount of 20th century warming attributable to solar changes. The IPCC document states there is uncertainty in modelling planetary cloud, in general. Solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds is not included as a 20th century forcing function in the IPCC document.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA010866.shtml

“On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget” by N.Shaviv


If Shaviv’s estimate is correct then the GHG forcing function must be less, which would agree with R.Lindzen’s conclusion that the GHG forcing function was over estimated by roughly a factor of three based on his analysis of Douglass et al's 2007 paper.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Ar...rm-lindz07.pdf

“Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously” R. Lindzen

If you read through this thread there is data and analysis that indicates the IPCC have over estimated GHG warming by a factor of 3.

As the planet did warm in the 20th century, if GHG warming was not the major cause of the 20th century warming, another mechanism is required to explain the observations.

If you read through this thread there is data and analysis that indicates solar magnetic cycle changes were responsible for at least 67% of the 20th century warming.

Now as the sun appears to be moving toward a deep solar magnetic minimum, it should be possible over the next year or two to determine which side in this debate is correct.

I will return to this subject when there is sufficient data to determine which side in the debate is correct.

^ Again repeating the same claims that have already been debunked in this thread.

BTW, William, you have still not responded to my questions from post #51, as you are required to do:

This is one of the silliest things I have ever read. Since there is no understanding of the attributed of the 'dark matter' except in very general terms, there is no such thing as a 'realistic model' for the galactic gravitational potential. There is a broad range of initial conditions that must be assumed, and no way to test the assumptions. Likewise, the assumption that you can tally the history of cosmic rays with meteor extractions: No one knows the history of any meteorite family with enough certainty to even begin to guess how much 'cosmic filming' they have been involved in. Bad, bad science! And bad mud to throw at a topic as important as global warming! Would you likewise conclude cosmic rays are responsible for desertification of what were once forests and range lands?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

drm81, If you ask a scientific question I will answer it.

You state over and over that tbe data and analysis in the papers I am quoting is not discussed in the IPCC climate change document which is correct.

The data and analysis present in this thread is from published papers not blog sites. The data and analysis from published papers supports Shaviv's assertion that at least 67% of the 20th century warming was due to solar magnetic changes which modulate that amount of planetary cloud.

If you are interested in the mechanisms and science I can explain it.

What percentage of the 20th century warming is due to solar TSI changes and GCR modulation of clouds VS GHG?

Shaviv estimates that 0.47C +/-0.19C (67%) of the 0.7C observed 20th century warming is due to both solar TSI increases and due to reduction in planetary clouds based on the changes in GCR for the 20th century Vs known temperature changes that have occurred in the past for specific GCR changes. If total solar irradiance (TSI) is considered the solar contribution to 20th century warming would only be 0.16C +/- 0.04C.


Comment:
Electroscavenging would likely increase that amount of 20th century warming attributable to solar changes. The IPCC document states there is uncertainty in modelling planetary cloud, in general. Solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds is not included as a 20th century forcing function in the IPCC document.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA010866.shtml

“On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget” by N.Shaviv

If Shaviv’s estimate is correct then the GHG forcing function must be less, which would agree with R.Lindzen’s conclusion that the GHG forcing function was over estimated by roughly a factor of three based on his analysis of Douglass et al's 2007 paper.


http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Ar...rm-lindz07.pdf

“Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously” R. Lindzen


Comment:
Santer et al's refute of Douglass et al's paper is flawed. If you go to RealClimate site were Santer et al's paper is discussed, I have an unanswered question which explains the problem with Santer et al's analysis and conclusion.

This in response to a criticism of Shaviv's paper by an author who writes in the RealClimate site. Read through Shaviv's response. Which side is correct in the debate?

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/C...torfDebate.pdf

This a link to Palle's earthshine paper which supports the assertion that starting in 1992 solar wind bursts have been removing cloud forming ions.


“The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements”, by E. Palle, P. Rodriguez, P.R. Goode , J. Qiu , V. Yurchyshyn, J. Hickey, M. Chu, E. Kolbe, C.T. Brown, S. Koonin

http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf

In reply to

Jerry's comment 1) - The paper that attempts to estimate the periodicity of the solar system movement through the Milky Way spiral arm passage is not by Shaviv. I included it because Realclimate stated that basic astronomical analysis conclusively proved the solar system could not have passed through the spiral arms with the frequency determined by Shaviv and to coincide with the Ice Epochs on this planet.

That is incorrect. As you correctly note there are many mysteries concerning the galaxies and this galaxy which have not been answered. Therefore astronomical analysis cannot prove or disprove the timing of the solar system's movement through the spiral arms. The Realclimate blog statement was therefore incorrect which we both support. Now to Shaviv's meteoroid analysis.

Jerry's comment 2) - This is an early paper where Nir Shaviv explains in some detail why the meteoroid analysis can be used to determine the (cosmic ray flux) CRF history of the solar system and our planet. Shaviv's meteoroid analysis does show CRF has varied periodically and that during ice epoch's on the earth there was very high CRR as the solar system was passing through the spiral arms of the galaxies.

I am not sure if you have any comments. You must first read the paper.

If you have heard of an alternate theory to explain the periodicity of the Ice Epochs on this planet I would be interested. (Please note all of the new data supports Shaviv's hypothesis and Tinsley and Yu cloud modulation mechanisms.)

As noted above the planet has been warm for long periods in the past when CO2 levels were low and cold for long periods when the CO2 levels were high. The long term CFR variance theory (as the solar system moves about the galaxy) which modulates planetary clouds explains that observation and the long term 10 million year ice epochs.

The CRF modulation by the solar magnetic cycle and geomagnetic field intensity also explains the shorter term abrupt planetary temperature changes on this planet and glacial/interglacial cycle. Please note there is correlation of CRF changes and the temperature changes on this planet.

Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a possible climatic connection? Nir Shaviv

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0207637v1.pdf

Jerry's comment 3) -

What specific part of above data and analysis do you question? Yes the planet is warmer. What you are repeating is not correct.

A) Increased CO2 reduces desertification. (See next comment concerning C4 plants (i.e. Trees and CO2 starvation.)
B) A warmer planet also reduces desertification.

As 71% of the planet's surface is covered with water, when the planet is warmer there is more precipitation. During the glacial phase a 1/3 of the Amazon forest become grassland.

Grasses have adapted to handle the very low levels of CO2 and have a different mechanism to absorb CO2. Trees and old plants (i.e. Not grasses) died of CO2 starvation during the coldest part of the glacial phase when C02 levels reached around 120 ppm. Trees leaves increase the number of stomata in response to a reduction in CO2 which causes them to loss water and hence causes an increase in desertification.

During the abrupt cold changes there is an order of 10 increase in atmospheric dust in the ice sheet cores which shows a massive increase in desertification.

From Wikipedia:

Solar magnetic field changes that modulate planetary clouds together with increased TSI are based on data and research responsible for at 67% of the 20th century warming. Based on the mechanisms and paleoclimatic record its seems the planet is about to cool.