Interesting Cosmic Rays Paper

I’ve seen this content before, on the website of Nir J. Shaviv, but this is the actual paper and it is more ‘formal’, both in content and in tone.

It has a lot of nice graphs and charts in it, but being a PDF it is harder to ‘lift one’ to put here as a teaser ;-) so you get to ‘hit the link’ to see them…

I particularly liked this bit from near the end, in the wrap up:


Our approach, based on entirely independent studies from astrophysics and geosciences, yields a surprisingly consistent picture of climate evolution on geological time scales. At a minimum, the results demonstrate that the approach is potentially viable, as is the proposition that celestial phenomena may be important for understanding the vagaries of the planetary climate. Pending further confirmation, one interpretation of the above result could be that the global climate possesses a stabilizing negative feedback. A likely candidate for such a feedback is cloud cover (Lindzen, 1997; Ou, 2001). If so, it would imply that the water cycle is the thermostat of climate dynamics, acting both as a positive (water vapor) and negative (clouds) feedback, with the carbon cycle “piggybacking” on, and being modified by, the water cycle (Nemani et al., 2002; Lovett, 2002; Lee and Veizer, 2003).

The web site states things more strongly:

Recently, it was also shown by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Center and their colleagues, that the variations in the amount of low altitude cloud cover follow the expectations from a cosmic-ray/cloud cover link (Usoskin et al., 2004). Specifically, it was found that the relative change in the low altitude cloud cover is proportional to the relative change in the solar-cycle induced atmospheric ionization at the given geomagnetic latitudes and at the altitude of low clouds (up to about 3 kms). Namely, at higher latitudes were the the ionization variations are about twice as large as those of low latitudes, the low altitude cloud variations are roughly twice as large as well.

Thus, it now appears that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant
. However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present.

Although above 100% saturation, the preferred phase of water is liquid, it will not be able to condense unless it has a surface to do so on. Thus, to form cloud droplets the air must have cloud condensation nuclei—small dust particles or aerosols upon which the water can condense. By changing the number density of these particles, the properties of the clouds can be varied, with more cloud condensation nuclei, the cloud droplets are more numerous but smaller, this tends to make whiter and longer living clouds. This effect was seen down stream of smoke stacks, down stream of cities, and in the oceans in the form of ship tracks in the marine cloud layer.

The suggested hypothesis, is that in regions devoid of dust (e.g., over the large ocean basins), the formation of cloud condensation nuclei takes place from the growth of small aerosol clusters, and that the formation of the latter is governed by the availability of charge, such that charged aerosol clusters are more stable and can grow while neutral clusters can more easily break apart. Several experimental results tend to support this hypothesis, but not yet prove it. For example, the group of Frank Arnold at the university of Heidelberg collected air in airborne missions and found that, as expected, charge clusters play an important role in the formation of small condensation nuclei. It is yet to be seen that the small condensation nuclei grow through accretion and not through scavenging by larger objects. If the former process is dominant, charge and therefore cosmic ray ionization would play an important role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei.

Further down the conclusion is also more strongly stated:

The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominant climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20th century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming.

In Conclusion

Once again we have folks coming to the same conclusion, that this is a Water World, and global climate is driven by our place in the solar system and the galaxy, with natural modifications of the water cycle. Different approaches, from different scales and with different data, all showing the same thing.

Here Nir Shaviv looks at things from a galactic point of view and on a global scale with a hundreds of million years time scale. On the micro end, tropical thunderstorms are shown to be activated by daily heating, and quiet as the sun sets, their daily and very local cooling job done for the day. In between we saw that variations in lunar tidal effects on the oceans match a medium time scale of oscillations and that changes in ocean currents can explain the hysteresis seen during D.O. Events and Heinrich Events. At every scale we come to the same conclusion. It’s the water, Jim

(For those not saturated with 1980s American cultural influence, the last line is a tortured play on the stock line from Star Trek where “Bones” would turn to Capt. Jim Kirk and say “He’s dead, Jim.” Done so often it became a cliché. So in this case it implies looking at the CO2 thesis and saying “He’s dead, Jim. (It’s the water)…” as often just after pronouncing ‘dead Jim’ we’d have an explanation of what / why…)

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Interesting Cosmic Rays Paper

  1. omanuel says:

    The carefully avoided question is just this: What fraction of cosmic rays striking the Earth actually comes from the Sun’s pulsar core, instead of the far regions of space?

    There is no reasonable doubt the core of the Sun is a pulsar [1] and very little doubt:
    _ a.) Circular polarized light from the pulsar separated d- and l-amino acids in carbonaceous chondrites [2] and
    _b.) Cosmic rays from the pulsar left a record of more intense cosmic ray bombardment in iron meteorites than in stone meteorites [3]

    1. Oliver K. Manuel and Alberto Boretti, “Yes, the Sun is a pulsar,” Nature (submitted 12 Dec 2012)

    2. J. R. Cronin and S. Pizzarello, “Enantiomeric excesses in meteoritic amino acids,” Science 274 (14 Feb 1997) 951-955.

    3. O. Eugster, G. F. Herzog, K. Marti, M. W. Caffee, “Irradiation Records, Cosmic-Ray Exposure Ages, and Transfer Times of Meteorites,” in Meteorites and the Early Solar System II (Lunar Planetary Institute, 2006) pp. 829-850

  2. crosspatch says:

    What fraction of cosmic rays striking the Earth actually comes from the Sun’s pulsar core, instead of the far regions of space?

    We know with relative certainty what the energy levels are of particles leaving the Sun … we have probes at the orbit of Mercury. We also know with relative certainty what the energy levels are of the particles from Galactic rays, we have probes beyond the orbit of Pluto. We also know the relative population density of the two as you move from the orbit of Mercury to the heliopause as we have actually been to those places and all points in between.

    So it isn’t so much the total population of particles because the Sun generates a lot. It is the energy of the particles. The GCRs are extremely high energy particles from supernovae and possibly polar jets of black holes. We know that when the sun becomes quiet, we see more of them reaching the inner solar system and when the sun becomes more active we see fewer of them. It really isn’t rocket surgery or brain science or whatever. Particles from the sun are at relatively low energy levels. If they were as energetic as those from supernovae, our atmosphere would have been stripped away a long time ago considering the population of them emitted by the sun.

  3. I must be missing something. Didn’t Kirky go to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate that ionizing radiation causes enhanced nucleation? I think it was called the “CLOUD experiment” using an accelerator at CERN.

    I don’t know why people are so coy about mentioning that cloud chambers have been used for a century, clearly demonstrating that atomic particles cause droplets to condense. Wilson got a Nobel prize for it in 1911.

  4. omanuel says:

    @ crosspatch “We (do not) know with relative certainty what the energy levels are of particles leaving the Sun” Particles of different energy are released at different times. The Sun is violently unstable.

    We did a careful analysis of cosmogenic noble gases in the Canyon Diablo meteorite in the early 1980s and found the minerals had been irradiated before compaction.

    @ gallopingcamel I don’t know why people are so coy about mentioning that cloud chambers have been used for a century, clearly demonstrating that atomic particles cause droplets to condense. Wilson got a Nobel prize for it in 1911.

    Exactly right.

  5. R. de Haan says:

    All in the line of Svensmark work over the past 10 years.

  6. crosspatch says:

    @ crosspatch “We (do not) know with relative certainty what the energy levels are of particles leaving the Sun” Particles of different energy are released at different times. The Sun is violently unstable.

    Well, we know with certainty that it has not been “violently unstable” for the past several thousand years. During that time, we have a pretty good idea of the energy levels of the particles leaving the sun because we have measured them. We also have a pretty good idea of the energy levels of the particles coming into the solar system from outside because we have measured them as well. We have also measured the relative population density of the them by traveling through the solar system. So, regardless of the long term stability of the sun over time, we know that during its recent period, the particles emitted by the sun do not have sufficient energy levels. We do know that the particles entering from outside the solar system do. That has been shown by direct experiment at CERN by Svensmark. We also have direct observations that support the hypothesis that we see an increased number of GCRs impacting the atmosphere of Earth when the sun goes quiet (not when the sun goes more active). At this point I will go with the direct observational evidence.

    Now it IS possible that we do get events more energetic than the Carrington event, possibly up to 20x stronger than that event as witnessed by the 14C anomaly in the 5th century which could have been caused by such an event.

  7. If I read that temperature graph correctly (figure 2 of the .pdf), it says we’re probably still in a temperature-rising phase, most likely, so the next ice-age should be quite a ways into the future. An extra 10-20 million years is long enough for me. On the other hand there all those shorter-term cycles that will probably still mean we’ll need to have some new forms of energy sorted out in the next decade or pay through the nose for oil.

  8. Allen Ford says:

    “It has a lot of nice graphs and charts in it, but being a PDF it is harder to ‘lift one’ to put here as a teaser ;-) so you get to ‘hit the link’ to see them…”

    The easiest way to “lift” graphics from pdf files is to convert the pdf file to a jpg file. A free online converter is available at . Once in jpg format, you can use any old graphics software, e.g., Microsoft Paint or Photoshop, to copy and paste the desired graphic into a word processor file, or do whatever you like with it.

  9. DocMartyn says:

    Bleeding odd, was thinking about this over at WUWT.
    Now the steady state level of cosmic ray flux sets the rate at which 14N is converted to 14C. Thus, [14CO2]atmos, is a good proxy of cosmic rays. Trees have good years and bad years, thick rings in good years and thin ones in bad years. The dendrochronology people have 14C incorporation levels and tree ring thickness for long lived species.
    Would be nice to see how the 14C changes in steady state match with ring width. My guess is that above average (rainy?) and below average (dry?) cosmic ray flux,equals narrower than normal tree rings.

  10. omanuel says:

    @crosspatch Do you have references for measurements and findings on the distribution of energy coming from the Sun?

    NASA should have been recording such information, but I do not recall seeing the data.

    Throughout the space age, hundreds of measurements were reported to be consistent with the Standard Solar Model of the Sun I personally know that some of those statements were false when I examined the data myself.

    I recall reading of crude measurements with a thermometer and a prism which revealed that most of the “heat” was transported by invisible light that later came to be called infrared radiation.

    Here is a link to the 1982 paper showing that minerals in the Canyon Diablo meteorite were exposed to cosmic rays before compaction, not afterwards as commonly assumed in reports of cosmic ray exposure ages [”Composition of the noble gases in Canyon Diablo,” Geochem J. 16, 157-178 (1982)]:

  11. E.M.Smith says:


    So are listening in on me, or am I channeling you? ;-)

    (FWIW, my spouse and I regularly seem to pick up what the other one is thinking. Even if not in the same room. I’ll hear “What did you say?” when I was pondering IF I ought to say something… or I’ll say “Would you like to go out?” and find her saying “I was just thinking about that…” Similar stores with some other family members and friends. On one occasion, a friend and I decided to ‘test it’. Randomly to “call the other one” and see if they expected it. We ended up having the phone “connect” without a ring as we both decided to call at the same time and the old relay based system didn’t lock out on a race condition… Damn spooky.)

    The tree rings ought to be a great matched proxy. Could likely get a wet / dry compare with two different regions with opposite rain profiles too. ( US Midwest vs Africa look to be in opposition and Florida vs Europe clearly are as seen in the Gulf Stream paper in the other story.)

    @Allen Ford:

    Will it cure my sloth too?

    ;-) Thanks, I’ll see if I can work up that level of ambition… ;-)


    Remember that “Ice Age” is ambiguous in common English usage, but this paper uses it in the technically correct form of “Long period of glacials on million years scale”. Usually when folks say “Ice Age” they really mean “A 100,000 ish year glacial interval in a millions year Ice Age punctuated by interglacials that divide it into glacials”. So yeah, we are warming and it’s a long way to the “Next Ice age“, but we are presently IN an Ice Age (interglacial) and the next glacial is just around the corner ( hundreds to thousands of years).

    I know, mind numbing unclarity. But that’s the language…


    Yeah, that always bothers me, too. We have used cloud chambers for decades, you’d think they know it works by now…


    That is the big question. How much is solar wind, vs solar source, vs galactic position vs nearby star having a fit, vs… I find it odd, but likely true, that stuff ‘out there’ millions of miles away matters more than we do…


    But do we know all the ‘modes’ of the sun? Seems to me we’re just barely getting our hands around the 180 year cycle ( unexpected low UV anyone? Carrington does what at the particle level?) and are still relatively clueless about the 5000 year and more cycle behaviours…

    @R. de Haan & Sabertoothed:

    Well, I guess I’m not watching TV for a while… those look more interesting that watching CNN blame Republicans for not doing what Obama wanted anyway ;-)

  12. crosspatch says:

    But do we know all the ‘modes’ of the sun? Seems to me we’re just barely getting our hands around the 180 year cycle ( unexpected low UV anyone? Carrington does what at the particle level?) and are still relatively clueless about the 5000 year and more cycle behaviours…

    No idea and actually beyond the scope of that on which my comments were based. What the point was is that we can see a direct correlation over the recent past between energetic particles reaching the vicinity of Earth and temperature changes at the surface. Whether or not the sun has ever released particles of these energies is rather beside the point because so far it hasn’t and I am talking about the period “so far” observed. We don’t have any evidence to show that the sun would have released such particles in any significant quantity and we do have some evidence that it hasn’t … the fact that we still have an atmosphere and have had one for many millions of years among them. If the Sun were to let loose with “pulsar” like quantities of particles, the atmosphere would likely last only a few milliseconds before being blasted out beyond the orbit of Pluto.

  13. crosspatch says:

    Bottom line is that I think Svensmark has hit on the unified theory of climate change if there were ever to be such a thing. A combination of variable cosmic ray population as we travel around the galaxy acting at very long time scales, orbital mechanics of Earth causing changes in insolation at medium time scales, and changes in solar magnetics resulting in shorter term changes pretty much explains everything we have seen overall. There will be some other changes having to do with other effects within those general boundaries but generally, we can bound everything we have seen so far within the general envelope of cosmic ray and orbital changes. Even many of the oddball events seem well-explained through random changes in local cosmic ray populations due to relatively local supernovae:

    The problem with the AGW notion is that it expects you to buy into the notion that warming is a result of amplification of the 1C per doubling (I buy a 1C per doubling of CO2 warming rate, by the way) x 3 through various speculative feedbacks run through a computer model which have not come to pass and do not match observations and which have no skill at even “hindcasting” climate change. When I first heard of the whole CO2 thing, I bought it somewhat in that I did (and still do believe) that if you increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, it will warm. I started to go cool on the whole notion when the now-discredited “Hockey Stick” graph appeared. I immediately knew it was, as it is known in engineering vernacular, “a load of hooey” because it went against things we KNEW to be true. We KNOW for example that it is not warmer today in Europe or North America than it was during the MWP and yet the MWP disappears in that paper, and so does the LIA. When that first came out, I figured it would last all of about six weeks before being thrown out. I was greatly surprised when it was not only accepted but people were trumpeting it. Then came M&M and I started watching Climate Audit. I started to wonder how in the world this “hooey” could be accepted by so many credentialed scientists. I then noticed a point where SteveM said it didn’t matter what numbers you plug into the thing, you always get a hockey stick out. You can plug random noise series in there and still get a hockey stick because part of the process is to select OUT any series that isn’t a hockey stick!

    Then a miracle happened and we had “Cimategate” and suddenly it was clear what was happening. I remembered seeing someone send a not to Briffa saying that he, too, noticed that when you plug random series into Mann’s stuff, out pop hockey sticks. So then I thought “ok, so they all KNOW this is bunk … but why are they going along with it?”. Then more emails emerge showing how Mann and Jones would attempt to destroy anyone’s career who came out against them and would try to destroy any journal that published dissenting material and would cast derision on any institution that sponsored work by anyone who didn’t toe the line laid down by Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al. So at that point is it really any wonder that Svensmark couldn’t get published?

    Then a second miracle happened and we had Climategate II and suddenly in digging through those emails, I discovered “The Syndicate”. At first I couldn’t understand why these people would go to such great length to prevent any alternative research on what might cause climate to change. Vanity can be quite powerful but there had to be something else involved and that something else is generally power and money but I didn’t notice the link to it until the second batch of Climategate emails when I discovered Tyndall Centre. That’s when it all fell into place for me. It is a bit of a 1930′s boogey woogie and it goes kind of like this:

    There is a place called University of East Anglia that has a thing called the Climate Research Unit (CRU) that does climate research. The boys at CRU are quite influential with a thing called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of the IPCC is to produce assessment reports that go to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC. The UNFCCC then issues recommendations for policy and the various governments around the world are expected to use these recommendations to base policy. Some governments, such as the one in the UK, have decided to “internationalize” their policy making such that Defra in the UK (Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs) simply adopt UNFCC guidelines as policy without input from their elected lawmakers. Basically, the UN makes UK environmental policy. Now, how do they actually go about implementing this policy? Well, they contract out at great expense to a group called Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research which happens to be a unit of … University of East Anglia. So the guys at CRU shove the raw material into the secret money machine in the form of their IPCC assessment reports and the money comes out the other end into UEA via Tyndal Centre who implements the various policies that are adopted by Defra via the UNFCCC who generally adopts policy suggestions that read surprisingly like the white papers produced by Tyndall Centre. Tyndall then rakes in the cash in implementing these recommendations and UEA has made a Lot-O-Cash. Not only that, but they get to nearly a single-handed (or very few-handed) manipulation of the economies of the entire industrialized world. They have more power than the legislatures and executives of these countries because these countries must kowtow to their whims. So … it is VERY important that it not be exposed that the climate is really not as sensitive to CO2 as they say it is or the entire jig is up and folks might get a little ticked at the hundreds of billions poured into the pockets of political cronies.

    It’s all one big giant theft. It was, until the Obama Administration in the US, the single largest theft ever perpetrated in the history of the world.

  14. crosspatch says:

    It’s called The Climate Change Boogie! Everyone can do it!

  15. omanuel says:

    @crosspatch Do you have references for measurements and findings on the distribution of energy (flux vs wavelength vs time) coming from the Sun? I doubt if such data exists.

    When UC-Berkeley astronomer Geoffrey Marcy conducted a survey of variable stars like the Sun during periods of low activity (less sunspots like the Maunder minimum), they found the surfaces of the stars were more iron-rich.

    I interpret their finding to indicate that the degree of mass fractionation decreases, and the stellar surface becomes more iron-rich when fewer magnetic fields penetrate through the surface.

  16. Katio1505 says:

    Crosspatch at 3.55am.

    I find it uncanny how similar your AGW journey resembles mine!

  17. sabretoothed says:

    Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years
    A paper published in Astronomy & Astrophysics reconstructs solar activity over the Holocene and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was near the highest levels of the entire 11,500 year record. Over the past 2,500 years, the paper shows a ‘hockey stick’ of solar activity, with a sharp increase following the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800′s.

    Multiple peer-reviewed publications have shown that small changes in solar activity can have greatly amplified effects upon climate via a variety of mechanisms

  18. omanuel says:

    @crosspatch et al.

    We had the illusion NASA wanted us to understand the Sun and probably collected basic information on solar changes over time, at least over one or two solar cycles.

    For example:
    a.) Intensity of IR, visible, UV, x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays over a solar cycle
    b.) Ratio of light/heavy elements (e.g., O/Fe) in the photosphere over a solar cycle

    NASA did not (or at least didn’t make the information available).

    When quantitative information threatened to expose the Sun’s actual composition and operation, NASA hid the data – as recorded by C-SPAN News on 7 Jan 1998:

  19. Larry Geiger says:

    Re: Kirk
    If you have to explain it, it’s better to just let it go.

    However, I thought it was hilarious! I love Bones and Kirkisms.

  20. crosspatch says:

    There have been several studies of the composition of both the photosphere and the corona going back many decades. Some of the most complete early ones were Goldberg, Muller, and Aller (1960) and another by Pottasch in 1964. There have been many since. As for solar radiation over a cycle, what does NASA have to do with anything? All of that information is available from various research institutions having nothing to do with NASA. The daily spectral data are available from many sources. Same with cosmic ray counts. I have no idea what you are on about.

  21. John Robertson says:

    Do not dispair the IPCC AR5 will insist that these reports are either” all wet” or nonexistent.

    Off topic, since your post, Do temperatures have a mean?, I have been paying better attention to anomaly graphs and attempting to find the number in degrees C used and then the accuracy of this estimate.As the significance of the deviation means little to me without this info.

    I went back and read the August 2012 WUWT postings(I was busy and missed most of these), and am even more annoyed by my inability to local the specific mean for each anomaly graph presented.And clicking the links provided has not been productive , for me.

    Is the failure to explicitly state the value and accuracy of the mean being used, an assumption of knowledge the reader is expected to have? Or is this more climatology fog?
    My problem here is, as I now suspect the fogging of the science issues by team IPCC is intentional, I see it in new places.

    Richard Courtney at WUWT referred me to his presentation to the UK govt of 2010,(link?) which has only increased my doubt that we have sufficient information to sensibly discuss changes in the planets energy flows. That each of the 3 official temperature groups has their own mean global reference temperature and resulting trend. But that if, what they are using has information value, there must only be one correct mean. Therefore at least two are incorrect and that he suspects all are GIGO.

    Now it maybe the effects of this new years flu, but where on the “official sites” is this info?

  22. John Robertson says:

    Sorry 2nd para,,, number in degrees C used for the reference mean.

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    @John Robertson:

    I think that the reference mean (and it’s error band) are not published, nor constant. For GIStemp it is calculated “on the fly” as one decade of history data in GHCN. Since GHCN “wanders” as it is adjusted AND as they add / remove stations and years, everything in it changes some. (See v1 vs v3 at the top of the page here).

    Furthermore, since we don’t know that temperatures are, or are not, a “standard normal distribution”, we can’t even say if the mean is a definable value at all. That, too, is ignored. Temperatures are an “intrinsic value” anyway, and it is also known that you can not average intrinsic properties and preserve any meaning, so even if the distribution is standard normal, the physics is nonsense. (What is the average temperature of an ice cube and steam? Depends on how much of each…)

    So aside from being a ‘polite fiction’ that is non-physical based on an undefinable mean from constantly changing data, no problem. AND they give it to you in 1/100 C precision… (Having never heard of false precision, one presumes…)

    At the NASA GISS site, you can even change the baseline range at will, so you can make any reference mean you like…. (Normally it is supposed to change once per decade, IIRC, but they froze it at the cold dip in the ’70s-’80s last I looked… for their regular reports.)

    Hope that helps…

  24. John Robertson says:

    E.M thank you.
    I have been known to stare the obvious in the face and not see it.
    I quit the state hydro in New Zealand 1984? when I came to a decision about bureaucrats I could not stomach.
    As a young engineering assistant I would routinely sign off on purchases of high priced, specialized technical equipment, without any question from the purchasing bureaucracy.
    I was asked to purchase a desk & chair for a new hire. Meeting upon meeting followed. Why did engineering need a desk and chair?
    What I learnt,One of the key rules of bureaucracy: If you do not know, do not ask?
    The career bureaucrats did not have a clue what the technical components were, but all knew what a desk and chair were. So it was safe for them to ask.

    This revelation made policy meetings hilarious and a civil service career impossible for an ex farm boy.Since then I have noticed the same pattern at both public and policy meetings here in Canada.
    Looks like its a law of bureaucrats and pompous people world wide and may underly the constant production of policy that no-one understands, with major unintended consequences.

    So is the animated discussions of temperature anomalies anomalous with how many angels can dance on a pin head?

  25. Gail Combs says:

    John Robertson,

    AJ Strata took a look at the error in the temperature:

  26. John Robertson says:

    Thanks Gail , just gave that a once thro, its climatology all right, each time I learn more, the stench grows. That was the gut take I got from the CRU emails yet I kept reading the WUWT postings concerning anomalies and those who are commenting appear to believe they are discussing useful information.
    Are the numbers derived from the satellite data any better ?
    Bob Tisdale says the SST uses an average of 18.1C for the base period1981-2000 and sent me some sources to investigate for the error band.(means I have not understood the site yet)
    Strikes me the conversations would be very short is the assumed mean , with error bars was posted on each anomaly graph.

  27. Pingback: AGW – What will the New Year bring us regarding this Pseudo-Science Scam? | The GOLDEN RULE

  28. omanuel says:

    @ crosspatch 3 January 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Please see the information NASA slipped past Big Brother censors yesterday (8 Jan 2013):

    NASA scientists admitted yesterday that over a single solar cycle, extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV): “the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.”

    Cosmic rays also vary over the solar cycle, but it may be a while before NASA finally admits the Sun is a giant neutron-generator, a pulsar, encased in an iron-rich mantle of elements found in rocky planets and ordinary meteorites.

    The Sun literally made our elements, birthed the world five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, sustained the origin and evolution of life, and endowed mankind with creative talents and inalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson acknowledged in 1776 and Big Brother foolishly overlooked on 24 Oct 1945 when the United Nations was established [Oliver K. Manuel and Alberto Boretti, “Yes, the Sun is a pulsar,” Nature (submitted 12 Dec 2012)]

Comments are closed.