Cosmic Ray Discussion

CSS-12 Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) is a topic you will not find in Mainstream “Climate Change” discussion. You might find a reference dismissing CRF (and any other solar forcing) outright, but you will not be presented with any data by the CAGW alarmist crowd. This Climate Short Story will present some of the short and long-term data, showing the effect that CRF has on the planet’s climate. The first slide shows the Holocene temperature (Antarctica and an average of Antarctica (Law Dome C) and Vinther et al), the Solar Activity (Steinhilber et al 2012, roughly correlated with Antarctica temperatures) and CO₂ concentrations. CO₂ is not responsible for any of the temperature fluctuations over the pre-MTR (Modern Temperature Record, HadCRUT4 shown here) Holocene. Those fluctuations are all based on natural forcings and are solar or solar related with CRF playing a significant role. The role will become clearer as the data is presented.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The CRF story gets started with a look at the Phanerozoic. Over this 600-million-time frame, the CRF is driven by the position of our solar system within the galaxy. When the planet was traversing the galaxy’s spiral arms, the planet was subjected to higher CRF. Higher CRF correlates well with the planet’s major ice ages. Roughly every 150 million years, the planet passes through the spiral arms and the planet gets colder. The cold can be tempered to some degree if the planet is above or below the galaxy’s horizontal plane when the planet is traversing a spiral arm. The CRF correlation is significantly better than the primarily non-existent correlation that CO₂ has with global temperatures on this time frame. CSS-12d slide tightens up the CRF data to the last 90 million years and then compares that data to the δO₁₈ data presented in my recent post CSS-10 – A Ride Through The Cenozoic. Note that the red curves in the lower plot are essentially the same data (δO₁₈) presented in grey and light blue in the upper plot (but inversed). Westerhold et al (2020) consolidated the available deep-sea benthic foraminifera data which would have included the Zachos et al. (2001) and Prokoph et al. (2008). The CRF does not act alone over the Cenozoic, but the continually increasing CRF is continually driving temperatures lower.

The CRF background changes over tens or hundreds of million years are due to the solar system’s position within the galaxy. So, to be fair, the sun has nothing to do with these very long-term CRF changes. However, on smaller time scales, the sun’s activities do affect the CRF, which in turn has a direct effect on the planet’s climate. Those effects can be seen right down to a scale of a few days. Forbush Decreases (FD) are a natural experiment that shows the direct effect CRF has on earth’s cloud cover. When the sun experiences a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), the increased speed and density of the solar wind reduces the CRF that reaches the planet’s atmosphere. Within a week the planet’s cloud cover drops. Cloud cover (i.e.: albedo) is a major climate driver. When cloud cover goes up, the planet cools overall, because a significant portion of the sun’s energy is reflected directly back to space and never reaches the planet’s lower atmosphere and/or surface. A drop in cloud cover will lead to increased temperatures (during the day) and lower temperatures (overnight), the Diurnal Temperature. Those subtle FD temperature changes were measured in Europe’s Diurnal Temperatures and are included in this post (A. Dragic et al. 2010).

The FD have serious implications for the CAGW alarmist computer programming reliability. With respect to natural (i.e.: solar forcings), their computers are programmed to respond to only Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). So, what happens during a CME? The TSI drops. The computer models (geared solely to TSI) would register this event as a decrease in energy. Completely ignoring the 1,000 times increase in X-ray energy and the 10,000 times increase in high energy particles. And let us not forget CRF (one more inconvenient dataset that the CAGW alarmist continue to ignore). The computer programs can (and do) adjust cloud cover (i.e.: albedo) effect. They just (in general) do not bother to adjust the cloud cover so that the planet’s temperatures are reflected accurately. Dr. John Christy (CSS-6 – January 2021 Presentation Review) has repeatedly shown that the IPCC computer models consistently overestimate the Lower Troposphere temperatures. The Russian model (using CMIP5 protocol) was the only run that came close to accurately modelling LT temperatures. Not surprisingly, the Russian Model used a low CO₂ Climate Sensitivity and a negative cloud cover albedo. Hmmm…. Sadly, with the new CMIP6 protocol, forecasts (including the Russian Model) have become less accurate and more erratic (CSS-6b). That erratic/accuracy problem could easily be fixed by using the new solar forcings (CRF and high energy particles) introduced with the CMIP6 protocol. The CMIP6 beta testing showed that the MTR temperatures could be modelled with no CO₂ forcing. That still unsubstantiated computer modelling over several decades has cost the taxpayer billions of dollars. I showed the same results with a simple, free spreadsheet that used just TSI (as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (more detail – Open Letter Addendum and OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model).

The remaining slides expand the solar activity/CRF discussion out to months, years, decades and hundreds/thousands of years. The CRF datasets are not always available, but (as shown) their levels can be inferred by solar activity. Basically, when solar activity rises, CRF decreases. The CSS-12h slide shows this relationship well. Over the last 600 years, CRF is high during every solar minimum and temperatures are low. And as shown on slide CSS-12i (and my Holocene Logic posts), CO₂ simply cannot be responsible for the pre-MTR Holocene temperature fluctuations. The CAGW alarmists continue to push their simplistic CO₂ emission narrative when natural forcings are obviously more important than the minor, beneficial temperature effects CO₂ might have on the planet.

And where are we headed? The Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) is coming and NOAA has confirmed that with their recent Sun Spot Number (SSN) Predictions. SSN Cycle 25 is forecasted to be like Cycle 24 (which has given us significantly higher than normal Northern Hemisphere snowfalls over the last 4 years and declining temperatures (0.75 °C) since the peak “HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER” in February 2016 to the 30-year average in June 2021, despite the recent, localized Pacific Northwest “Heat Wave”). Their Cycle 26 forecast (No Sun Spots) screams GSM. The computer models are simply not programmed to recognize this coming GSM or any historical Solar Minimums. The cold (definitely not CO₂ induced) was real through the Spörer, Maunder GSM and Dalton Solar Minimums, and the cold will be real through the Modern (Eddy) GSM. The models cannot recognize natural forcings since they are programmed to essentially ignore them and respond almost exclusively to CO₂ changes. This approach is not only stupid, but also dangerous and more than likely fraudulent. Qualified/Competent climate scientists would use all the available data and honourable/ethical politicians (admittedly an oxymoron) would demand that standard. That is not happening!