The follow is a published review paper by J. Kirkby that summarizes the data and analysis that supports the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes which modulation planetary clouds is a first order climate forcing function.

Kirkby includes 170 published papers to support the solar magnetic modulation of clouds hypothesis.

Is there any thread in against ATM that has 170 published papers to support it?

Is 170 published papers sufficient evidence that the mechanism in question is not ATM?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938

Technically, it depends on whether the papers actually support the supposed ATM idea. Alot of times people here link papers that dont actually say what the poster thinks they say.

This isnt ATM tho. It may not be really mainstream, but it is a decent theory.

Yes it is ATM -- if it weren't it would be included in the IPCC report as a climate forcing.

These papers show Milankovitch’s theory cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycle.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...664dd77c4d73e0

“Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change” by Carl Wunsch


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

Have there been warming periods in the past? Yes.

The planet shows peculiar regular changes in climate. As many authors have stated that fact, provides support of the assertion that there is a strong external climate forcing function. The forcing event occurs regardless of the state of the planet's climate.

How the planet's responses to the external forcing function, depends on the state of the planet's climate at the time of the occurrence of the external forcing event.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

Are there periodic solar magnetic cycle changes? Yes.

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...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

The following is a link to a Wikipedia article that discusses the “Little Ice Age” which coincided with the Maunder minimum, solar cycle magnetic minimum.

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

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article is not familiar with the research that supports the solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds. As noted above there are 170 papers that support the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary clouds.

The fact that the paper has 170 references does not immediately mean that all of those references support the findings of the paper. E.g. reference #21 Damon, P.E., and P. Laut, Pattern of strange errors plagues solar activity and terrestrial climatic data, EOS Transactions 85, 370–374 (2004), hardly sounds like a paper supporting the thesis.

In all, the higher the number of references in a paper does not immediately mean the better or the more important the paper is. It might just show that the author likes to show off about how much literature (s)he read.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

That was not my comment. It was a comment you received on RealClimate that I quoted on your other thread, and it is correct.

Ignoring the substance of the response and simply stating the same claims again isn't going to make them true.

The diagram to which you linked does not support either of your claims. It clearly shows that those others were not all the same as the Maunder Minimum and that they do not occur every 200 years.

It isn't mentioned because Wikipedia has rules about the promotion of ATM ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

Actually, whether or not it is in the IPCC report has little connection to whether the topic is ATM. If you look at the 4th IPCC report there is no significant discussion of the solar influence on climate - which is ridiculous considering the huge body of research indicating a significant solar influence on the Earth's climate on both small and large timescales - including significant influence in the last 100 years.

One area of research with regard to the solar influence on climate is the possibility that in addition to the variations in total solar irradiance - which have a direct influence on climate - there is also an indirect influence on climate due to mechanisms by which variations in solar magnetic activity can influence the amount of cloudcover. The proposed mechanism is a modulation of cosmic ray intensity due to variation in the strength of the solar magnetic field. As the solar field strengthens, fewer cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere. It has been hypothesized that interactions of cosmic rays with the earth's atmosphere can result in increasing cloud formation. So when you have a less active sun you would also have a greater amount of cloud cover which would re-inforce the reduced solar irradiance resulting in a cooling effect.

There have been some studies that seem to support the possibility for connection between solar activity and cloud cover, but others dispute it. It seems to be in the "Yes there are correlations." "No there are not correlations." stage of research.

At any rate, IMO the IPCC has been irresponsible in not providing any substantive background on the large amount of research into solar forcing of climate in their summary reports.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

The IPCC does include solar irradiance as a climate forcing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...e-forcings.svg

Being hypothesized does not make something mainstream. Being accepted by the mainstream does. The forcings that are accepted by the mainstream are included in the IPCC report.

You are looking at the summary report there. Chapter 2 of WG1 has more detail on solar variability. There isn't more about it in the summary because it has very little importance in the recent climate change.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

There is a list of scientific data and papers as long as your arm supporting the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds mechanism. All of the recent paleoclimatic research supports Shaviv's long term CFR hypothesis and the solar magnetic cycle and geomagnetic field intensity modulation of CFR levels. The evidence is overwhelming.

If you have any questions concerning the mechanism, the paleo data, paleoclimatic analysis, or what has happened in the past, please speak up.

As I said it appears quite evident that the sun is entering a deep solar magnetic cycle minimum, so we will have data to answer this problem. Because these abrupt climate changes are cyclic (have happened in the past), predicting what will happen now is fairly straight forwarded.

Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

Jerry,

The following is in response to your above comment.


Forcing of Doubling CO2? Positive or negative Feedbacks?

There is more than just solar irradiance variations. There are indirect influences such as the hypothesized cosmic ray influence. There is the large body of evidence demonstrating a significant solar-climate influence on both short and long time scales - including the 20th century. The summary report I linked to has absolutely no significant discussion on any of this - as if the science of the Sun's influence in climate doesn't even exist. Now the larger report you linked to has some more substantive discussion, but given that they talk about large uncertainties in the modeling of indirect solar influences one has to wonder how they can conclude that the solar influence is negligible. Given that the ignore the research on much larger time scales, that conclusion would seem very premature.

Where did I say that it did? I never said that the cosmic ray research is mainstream. I said that the IPCC does not do an adequate job of addressing the research on the solar influence - of which there is a large body of research in journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, climate journals, astronomical journals, oceanic journals ... Given that they don't adequately address this research it is pointless to argue about whether cosmic ray influences on climate should be treated as ATM or not. The IPCC's treatment of solar-climate research is too inadequate to conclude that its absence from their report makes the researhc ATM.

Sure, it is quite clear how the IPCC defines mainstream. That doesn't mean the IPCC has adequately addressed the solar influence in climate.

Again, I wonder how the IPCC could conclude that when they are claiming large uncertainty in the indirect solar forcing. That's a premature conclusion. They actually should take a look at the full scope of research on the sun-climate connection.

Extensive research on the Sun-climate connection is easy to find for anyone that is interested in considering it.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Long term solar magnetic cycle changes modulation of cloud cover is mainstream as it can explain the data.

The following is strong support for a mechanism such as solar magnetic cycle changes which can modulate planetary temperature. Note the mechanism in question is capable of cooling the planet in all climate conditions.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2006.08.008

“Millennial-scale paleoclimate cycles recorded in widespread Palaeozoic deeper water rhythmites of North America” by M. Elrick and L. Hinnov

Again you are citing a paper that does not support your claims, as you were told at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments...#comment-83065

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments...#comment-83162

When I see the IPCC (a political organisation) and RealClimate (a political advocacy blog) being cited as sources defining mainstream science, I know things have gone horribly wrong in the world of science.

Anyone who wants to can read the IPCC charter to see both it's plainly stated political purpose and the narrowness of it's examination of climate change (my bold):

So there is not even a pretense in the IPCC charter that it is anywhere near comprehensive in it's examination of climate change in spite of all the claims otherwise by it's more enthusiastic advocates, instead being focussed tightly on an already concluded "risk of human-induced climate change" hence the lack of much in the way of useful information there on direct and indirect solar factors which instead appear to have been 'played down' in the IPCC reports, given the quite extensive peer reviewed literature on the subject.

And if you look up RealClimate you will see that it is in fact hosted by Environmental Media Services and promoted by Fenton Communications, both highly political organisations with strong advocacy positions, in spite of the spin in the RealClimate disclaimer. Even if you do not accept the fact that being hosted by and promoted by political advocacy organisations is quite revealing in itself, the tone of many of their posts which are remarkably often appear to be preemptive strikes to try to discredit competing ideas rather than expositions of relevant to the broader context of climate science should alert you that they are in fact at least in part an advocacy blog.

While both the IPCC and RealClimate have a surface look of trying to appear scientifically respectable, neither of these can be be considered as objective scientific sources by any stretch of the meaning of 'scientific'.

BTW, sorry for appearing to hit and run, but I am not going to be in a position to hang around and debate this - the fact is I start chemotherapy again tomorrow and will probably not be in a fit state to do so for some time - and in any case, the facts are as I state above, something anyone can check out for themselves, so there is nothing to left to debate except for any political spin someone may like to try on it.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

The "risk of human-induced climate change" was already well known when the IPCC was founded and there has been a strong consensus about it among climate scientists at least since the Charney Report of 1979. That consensus is now overwhelming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm

The extensive peer reviewed literature on the subject concludes that the sun is not responsible for the recent climate change.

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

Your conspiracy theory is simply not credible given the vast number of people who would have to be involved, not just in the IPCC but in the climate science community as a whole as well as the scientists who measure solar activity.

Looking at the temperature, total solar irradiance graphs in your links, the TSI levels off after 1970 while the temperature continues to increase. Hence the argument that TSI variation is not correlated with temperature variation.

Now if you plot atmospheric carbon dioxide vs temperature, you will note that between 1940 and 1970, CO2 increases while temperature decreases. Thus the same argument says that CO2 variation is not correlated with temperature variation.

TomT

From the link

"Surface measurements of solar radiation found a global trend of dimming from 1960 which reversed around 1985. From that point, there has been a general trend of brightening. As solar output has been steady over this period, this is consistent with measurements of aerosol levels that have fallen since the early 80's. Note - this doesn't explain current warming but does explain why CO2 warming has been masked from 1950 to 1980."

Questions - Do you know:

1. What do they mean by solar output: solar irradiance, solar magnetic field, or solar wind?

2. What is cause of global changes of atomospheric aerosols?

Thanks for any input.
TomT

Possibly because you don’t know how to identify science?

The contributors over at realclimate have hundreds of papers on the topic of climate science in major journals to their credit while the IPCC reports constitute the largest literature review in the history of science citing nearly 2500 peer reviewed papers in reaching it’s conclusions.

In contrast there have only been a handful of contrarian papers published in the last decade.

Temperature decreases only for ~5 years in the early 40’s. From 1950 on it’s stable or increasing. Add in the effects of ozone, aerosols and volcanic actively and you get a very nice match with 20th century temperature.

20th century Temperatures from HadCRUT3
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...ure_Record.png


Attribution from from Meehl et al. (2004)
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...ttribution.png

Irradiance.

They increased due to the postwar industrial boom and then decreased (at least relative to CO2) when emissions were cleaned up due to pollution regulations.

Following all the data sources and claims is at times baffling. Some examples from the links presented in the last few posts.

1. http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

Here the first figure shows the temperature following solar irradiance nicely including the decrease in temp. 1940 to 1970 and the beginning of the temp rise starting in 1980.

The second figure shows 11 year averages of land/ocean temperature anomaly (not temperature) and solar irradiance. This does not allow an apples to apples comparison to the first figure.

2. 20th century Temperatures from HadCRUT3
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...ure_Record.png

Here temperature decrease begins in the mid 1940's, stays at a lower level until about 1975, and then increases to the 1990's. Solar output follows the very same trend including, amazingly, matching most of the little up and down variations for the whole period.

3. Attribution from from Meehl et al. (2004)
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...ttribution.png

Here both a 1 year and 5 year average temperature are given up to 2008. These seem to follow the same trend as the HadCRUT data up to 1990 where the HadCRUT data end. Both sources follow the solar trend given in the HadCRUT source up to 1990.

Where is the contradiction in the claim that temperature follows solar irradiance from 1940 to 1990? As for the land/ocean temperature anomaly differing from the atmospheric temperature trend, doesn't that introduce many additional variables? One additional comment is that it would be better to make data comparisons using the same parameters, units and averaging techniques to allow apples to apples comparison.