OT:The Svensmark paradox

[Roger Chapman]

in September 2009 (see link above) Svensmark (TNP's guru) predicted that the Earth was entering a cooling phase. Indeed he said it had already begun. Presumably that is why TNP claimed that 2008 was the hottest year ever even though, by some counts at least it was only the

11th hottest. Anyway Sv claims ?The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun?s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, ?It is likely that the current year?s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.?" But I can?t square that with the crude graphs giving sunspot frequency. ( I can?t square much of what Sv says with those graphs. The highest sunspot count was about 1959 in the middle of the post war cool period which yet again doesn?t square with sun spots being the cause of global warming. However with a little bit of imagination it is possible to see some sort of link between the local peaks and troughs of the yearly average global temperatures and the peaks and troughs of the sun spot graphs. The scale of the graphs I have been looking at are such that imagination has to play a considerable part. Sv seems to have already been proved wrong in his prediction about the Earth already being in a cooling phase in 2009 but could he perhaps be half right with his theory with the variation in sun spots providing a ripple in the temperature trend caused by AGW or is the link I think I can see just not there, or is it perhaps the ripple caused by the alternating El Nino/La Nina events.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not my guru. just an example of something that looks worth further investigation.

predicted

well I am sure you as a convinced warmist are familiar with the difference between weather = 'data that doesn't fit your hypothesis' and 'climate' = 'data which DOES fit'...:-)

There are several 'strange attractor' sort of wobbly multidecadal fluctuations in climate/weather that are reasonably well established..off the top of my head the PDO the NAO, ADO and a couple of others whose name escapes me.

Here is a good starting point

Obviously over certain periods all of these can combine to produce periods of years of warmer or cooler weather..over the whole planet, that can be mistaken for 'climate change' ;-)

Note that as far as I have delved into Svensmark, the linkage is not necessarily between *total* cosmic ray flux and cloud formation: The latest seems to indicate that its low altitude (hence high energy) muons that 'make' the clouds.

Those are less affected by the solar wind and earth's magnetic fields*.

So solar flares would lessen but not hugely, the low level high energy muon flux.

The most convincing bit of his theory to me was the linkage between extreme heat/cold events and the proximity of the earth to galactic spiral arms. Where supernovae formation is denser.

It would also imply a linkage between reversal or cessation of the earth's magnetic filed and climate change.

By the way, whether or now we are in a cooling phase already is strongly open to argument: The met office claims that we haven't had such a cold year since 1997, as this one. Of course they somehow manage to make this 'evidence of global warming'

its this sort of thing that makes my hackles rise. Their chart shows that its the coldest year since 1997, but the headlines and statements say 'global warning continues'

This time they are blaming la Nina.. they never attributed its absence to generating 'positive climate change' though.

The more amusing aspects of their chart show that the best way to cool the earth rapidly is to have a world war. There's a distinct drop post

1914 and a massive drop post 1940...

Probably down to burning all that fossil fuel to power the industries and weaponry :-0

In any case the graph is pretty clear, since 2000 it hasn't got noticeably warmer, and if we haven't had a war, we certainly have had a global slowdown.

*I think. I am NOT a cosmic ray specialist.

[Martin Brown]

>> Back in September 2009 (see link above) Svensmark (TNP's guru) predicted

really were *very* few decent sunspots between 2007 and the start of 2010 - almost three lean years. 2008 was a record blank year in the past half century although 1954 probably still beats it.

More details online at NASA Science:

solar cycle does vary in length a bit and this recent period of inactivity has managed to coincide with mass produced narrow band H-alpha prominence telescopes and so annoyed a lot of amateur astronomers. It is no fun at all looking at an inactive sun!

There is only a tiny signal in the global temperature record at the eleven-ish year period of the solar cycle. I suspect but have not had time to look at it that the result for the northern hemisphere might be more rewarding. This would be more consistent with the other mechanism suggested for explaining recent cold winters due to altered UV fluxes.

Regards, Martin Brown

[The Natural Philosopher]

Remember Svensmark has not established convicingly nor claimed linkage to *total* CR flux: The CLOUD and his own experiments suggest that the place where the flux makes the difference is at low altitudes and here the energy spectrum of the CR is much higher - the weaker ones having already been dissipated.

There is rather a low correlation between sun (spot) activity and high energy muon flux so the linkage is more with galactic and extragalactic events than solar system ones.

Indeed his hypothesis fits far better with the 62My periodicities that are consistent with passage through the spiral galactic arms, than as a predictor of this or next years temperature.

That's what makes it convincing.

We simply dont know enough about exactly what CR types are relevant, or exactly how much difference they make, or how they are modulated by solar activity: Nevertheless the coincidence of the Little Ice Age with the Maunder minimum is at least suggestive.

Sadly to the warmists Svensmrk is seen as a competing, not a complementary theory, because it does rather make CO2 a bit of a side show, when its protagonists want it center stage, so the tendency is to find anything that will discredit it - as you have done - without understanding what its actually saying, and how far its got in saying it.

On the other hand, if it has any truth at all, it probably represents a hugely cost effective way of lowering global temperatures..we can easily generate low level muons from particle accelerators...;-)

A LOT cheaper than carbon capture or bloody windmills

[Roger Chapman]

>>>>> Back in September 2009 (see link above) Svensmark (TNP's guru)

I am familiar with the difference between weather and climate.

most prominent.

You need to take a long term view to be sure of a trend. The Met Office's rolling binomial average spans 21 years and that is probably too short a period to be absolutely sure of a trend, but it does at least smooth a curve with wide variations between individual years. All you get over shorter periods is a hint of what might possibly turn into a trend.

Was that change before or after he predicted a cooling phase?

You got6 one of those for the Maunder Minimum? That seems a bit too close to home.

Don't you get a cessation during the reversal which would spell disaster to those unlucky enough to be trying to live through the event?

Well the latest claim is that 2011 is the hottest year yet with a La Nina event in it and if you look back through the temperature record large year on year variations are no means uncommon. An even lower figure next year might be a hint of a change. On the other hand the relentless rise might be back on track by then.

Merkins incidentally don't include 1997 in their top 12.

A very strong El Nino is the reason given for the 1998 sore thumb result.

It think the downward pointing sore thumb (almost a mirror image of the

1998 year) is 1916 but the temperature record post war is very different with a sustained rise post WW1 and and a marginally downward drift post WW2.

More likely all that HE. And that didn't stop in 1945. Korea and Vietnam continued the HE consumption.

I haven't time to do my usual trick of averaging the first 5 years of a decade and then the second 5 to see which half has been warmer but I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. (2008 isn't even included in the Met Office top 12 or perhaps I would have tried it even though it is now way past my normal bedtime). Still it will not rank with the post WW2 drift another 3 decades.

Goodnight.

[The Natural Philosopher]

?what change? And what prediction?

I am not aware he ever made any predictions.

[Roger Chapman]

last time there had been such low activity so we are not exactly into the virgin territory that Svensmark's 2009 article suggested.

[Brian Gaff]

I think that something so complex and large as this has a great amount of lag before things start to be noticed. All I'll say is that at best, any cooling effect will buy time on the warming rather than actually stop it. I expect as usual with us humans, everyone will disagree mess stuff up then have to bodge around to live with the consequences.

Brian

[The Natural Philosopher]

Non sequitir.

A computer is very complex and totally free of lag.

Heating a kettle is very simple and full of lag.

Next statement?

before things start to be noticed.

These enough instrumentation up there by now that if you light a match in the sahara I suspect its noticed.

All I'll say is that at best, any

Evidence to support this?

At last you are on to territory you are familiar with.

[Martin Brown]

>>>>>

You can also find papers claiming the effect works in both directions!

Not any more. Astronomers have been looking at galactic spiral arms more carefully to try and verify Svensmarks crossing hypothesis and improved mapping of the galactic spiral arms has removed the old enforced symmetry that Svensmarks results depend on.

It now looks less likely that the cosmic ray hypothesis is a major player in long term climate change although it may be a useful indicator of something. The dO18 correlation is interesting none the less. See for example:

are taking Svensmarks suggestion seriously and looking for the relevant evidence to verify or refute it. And so far it doesn't look much like it is a viable explanation.

But that could equally well be the influence of the UV variability that is associated with a quiet sun. The cosmic rays just happen to exploit the suns weakness correlation does not imply causation.

It doesn't look at all likely as a contender for why we have seen so much warming in the recent past. The solar cycle variation in Earths global temperature is too small to have been amplified by his effect. It is roughly what you would expect from the TSI flux change alone.

Regards, Martin Brown

[Roger Chapman]

The change from sun spots per se to high energy muons.

See the link at the head of this thread.

[Steve Firth]

Utter bullshit. no surprises there then.