Earth's Climate Correlated to the Milky Way's Spiral Bands...perfectly.

[BethesdaWX]

I read through all the Linked Papers on this Website: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

Essentally long term, the earth's temperature has correlated to GCR activity in the 95th percentile.

• The first paper describing the link between the Milky Way spiral arms was - published in Physical Review Letters (4 Journal Pages, Abstract, PDF)
• An extremely detailed analysis of the link between Milky Way spiral arm passages and Ice-Age epochs. It includes a reconstruction of the past cosmic ray flux variations from Iron meteorites. Published in New Astronomy (29 Journal Pages, Abstract, PDF)
• Shaviv & Veizer article in GSA Today. A quantitative comparison between the reconstructed cosmic ray flux and the reconstructed global temperature. (7 Journal pages, External PDF, local PDF or HTML)
• Towards resolving the Faint Sun Paradox - How the Cosmic Ray flux / Climate link helps resolve the faint sun paradox by explaining 2/3s of it. (Appeared in JGR, PDF or PS)
• On Climate Response to Changes in the Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative Budget (Appeared in JGR-Space, Abstract, PDF).
  

More online material:

• An online article originally written for PhysicaPlus - Yet another general description of the topic with an emphasis on the background.
• Climate Debate - More on the debate that this topic has given rise too.
• Anthropogenic or Solar? - More on the attribution of global warming.
• Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle - More on the above research from a geochemist's point of view
  

C) Various articles in general press:

• AIP newsletter #599-2: Ice-Ages and Spiral Arms
• "A Far-Out theory about ice ages", The Toronto Star, Sep 8, 2002.
• New Scientist, "Journey through Milky Way may keep us cool", July 20, 2002 Issue.
• BBC Online "Galaxy 'may cause ice ages', July 31, 2002
• 'Spiral arms, cosmic rays and ice-ages', Physics Today, September, 2002
• The Boston Globe, "Earth Travels linked to Ice Ages", September 3rd, 2002
• NASA Astrobiology Latest News: "Solar System's Path May Have Spurred Ice Ages", July 2002
• www.space.com, "Solar System's Path May have Spurred Ice Ages", July 25, 2002
• Discover Magazine, "Story no. 34 from 100 Top science stories of 2002", January 2003 Issue.
• Cosmic Weather - California Wild, Winter 2003
• Article in Scientific American which mentions the above work (and also the work of my friends and colleagues at CITA), May 2003
• nature's science update, "Galactic dust cooling Earth?", July 8, 2003 (and no, dust has nothing to do with it).
  

D) And some non english articles:

• Die Zeit, Kosmische Klimamacher, Aug 1st, 2002
• Sciences et Avenir, La glace venue du cosmos, Octobre 2002 and Scan of Printed Version
• Pravda, НАУКА: УЧЕНЫЕ УСТАНОВИЛИ, ЧТО ЛЕДНИКОВЫЕ ПЕРИОДЫ ВЫЗВАНЫ КОСМИЧЕСКИМИ ЛУЧАМИ , July 30th, 2002
• Linnunrata kylmentää Maata, Tieteen Kuvalehti magazine (in Finnish), February, 2003
• Mælkevejen giver Jorden kuldechok, Illustreret Videnskab magazine (in Danish), February, 2003
• Die nächste Eiszeit kommt 7bestimmt, P.M.
  • Die Moderne Welt des Wissens, January, 2003

And a movie made on the topic.

[Clifford]

Interesting.

Never forget the impact of the sun's input to the system.

So, the slippage between arms on the Milky Way would occur on the scale of 100 to 200 million years (not the 100,000 time frame that the recent glacial/interglacial cycles have been on).

As we slip out of the Sagittarius arm,one would expect that temperatures would naturally warm back up towards the Eocene Optimum. But, this gradual warming would likely occur over millions of years, not a few decades.

However, I don't believe that the motion through the Milky Way is known with any precision, and it is likely that these studies are very interdependent.

[BethesdaWX]

Well it is within reasonable timeframe of correlation, obviously not perfect, but it'd make sense, and would be an easy explanation for earth's climate long term, especially the two "Snowball Earth" periods.

As for multiple decade centuries, the effect woudl be seen more in a 200-300yr timespan, and at 1.8W/m^2 to 3W/m^2, thaty is a significant impact potential. Sc to SC, (11yr), probably would not see as significant a correlation...multi-decadal/century changes in solar acvivity are what interests me, as TSI isn't a factor there.

[Hambone]

Well, there you go. Plant a tree, cruise around the Milky Way and we're good to go.Problem solved.

[Sundog]

Well it is within reasonable timeframe of correlation, obviously not perfect, but it'd make sense, and would be an easy explanation for earth's climate long term, especially the two "Snowball Earth" periods.

As for multiple decade centuries, the effect woudl be seen more in a 200-300yr timespan, and at 1.8W/m^2 to 3W/m^2, thaty is a significant impact potential. Sc to SC, (11yr), probably would not see as significant a correlation...multi-decadal/century changes in solar acvivity are what interests me, as TSI isn't a factor there.

Snowball Earth was primarily caused by the placement of the Earth's continents on the surface, straddling the equatorial regions therefore preventing heat release and transfer from the topics.

[BethesdaWX]

Snowball Earth was primarily caused by the placement of the Earth's continents on the surface, straddling the equatorial regions therefore preventing heat release and transfer from the topics.

Was actually referring to the Ordovician Ice Age, bad terminology on my part, although that theory does have come controversy in regards to long term feedback possibilities.

Here is the Dilemma. Scenario1: The sun was 30% weaker back in the pre-historic age & beforehand, although the solar wind was immensly strong. If the sun were 30% weaker today, we'd quickly freeze to death. GHGes cannot explain the extremely warm climate for much of that time period, simply based on the basic RF physics/properties of the molecular clusters. It doesn't matter how much CO2 you have, the RF is logorithmic, the first 20ppm account for almost all of the RF. Even if you were to max potential, it still doesn't cut it. AGWers use that unexplainable temperature to re-enforce the massive positive feeback, based on the Myth (yes, myth), that GHGes are the most powerful driver in the climate system, with small contributions from TSI & Volcanism. However, the physics don't mach up.

FYI Even an increase from 275ppm to 400ppm yields an estimated 1.6W/m^2 of increased RF...tiny...as we've seen, compared to what a drop in LLGCC of 1% can do, in 0.6W/m^2 per 1% WITHOUT a logorithmic effect! 3% equates to 1.8W/m^2 RF change, blowing out the 1.6W/m^2 from CO2. 5-7% is within the realm of possibility, equating to 3-4.2W/m^2 of RF change. This not accounting for increased UVA/UVB rays due to stratospheric ozone depletion.

Scenario 2: Same physics, only the Solar Wind/LLGCC theory is applied. Would 0.6W/m^2 per 1% change be enough to keep the Earth warm? (to put it simply). Just going to drum up a number here, we assume that the stronger solar wind and low GCR count end up driving LLGCC down 30% in relation to todays counts. That is 18W/m^2 more RF. And with a weaker sun, less overall evaporation & likely a supression forcing, the Earth could have had very little cloud cover in the low levels, while the upper levels would not see as much change, if any. So imagine 20-30W/m^2 more RF, but yet a weaker balance... Kind of simple to rationalize, but complicated from a scientific standpoint.

Just to note that The building blocks of CCN's (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) were created in a reaction chamber, these include Vater Vapor & Sulfuric Acids, fired rapidly in the chamber upon the application of a magnetic charge..GCR's, or as close as we can get to them, were all rapid fired into the chamber. The study concluded without a doubt that there is an effect, and was published in the Geophysical research letters immediately upon conclusion.

[valkhorn]

This is 100% not correct.

http://www.universetoday.com/33538/past-climate-change-cannot-be-tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/

Two things to keep in mind:

1. The research found a correlation between what was THOUGHT to be when Earth moved through a spiral arm and climate change. Correlation doesn't equal causation, and so a mechanism has to be found. Cosmic Rays were thought to be the mechanism, however there has been shown to be absolutely no correlation between cosmic rays and climate when dealing with our own sun and our own climate. They are divergent.
2. Notice your links are all from about 2002 and 2003. When the papers trying to show this correlation were published, we assumed a certain type of galaxy for our Milky Way, and a certain type of size. Because we now know the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy (only two arms), and that it's more massive than we realized, this correlation no longer holds.

[BethesdaWX]

This is 100% not correct.

http://www.universet...galactic-plane/

Two things to keep in mind:

1. The research found a correlation between what was THOUGHT to be when Earth moved through a spiral arm and climate change. Correlation doesn't equal causation, and so a mechanism has to be found. Cosmic Rays were thought to be the mechanism, however there has been shown to be absolutely no correlation between cosmic rays and climate when dealing with our own sun and our own climate. They are divergent.
2. Notice your links are all from about 2002 and 2003. When the papers trying to show this correlation were published, we assumed a certain type of galaxy for our Milky Way, and a certain type of size. Because we now know the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy (only two arms), and that it's more massive than we realized, this correlation no longer holds.

This is false. Cosmic Rays for one have been proven to have an effect on Cloud Development within a reaction chamber as of May 2011, where GCR's fired into the chamber in contact with two magnetic poles result in the rapid formation of Sulfuric Acids and WV molecular clusters, which are thought to be the building blocks for CCN's (Cloud Condensation Nuclei).

And where can you say that GCR's don't effect climate? We do not have a reliable measurement of Cloud Cover, the best system we have right now (ISCCP) has huge error bars. It isn't the GCR's that have the effect, but the response in cloud cover that actually is figured to be somewhat chaotic. Remember that A change in low clouds only results in 0.6W/m^2 per 1%, this assuming an equal change distributiojn globally, and 1.2W/m^2 in the tropical regions only (TLT is thought to be the focal point for change). Nww 2-3% can equate to 1.2W/m^2 to 1.8W/m^2 in Equal Distribution, and 2.4W/m^2 to 3.6W/m^2 per TOT change only. It cannot be rules out that over multi-century timescales clouds may vary 5-8% in the Low Levels, equating anywhere from 3W/m^2 to 9.6W/m^2 of RF change.

Also keep in mind the young sun paradox, (Sun was 30% weaker, but had a much stronger solar wind), should have frozen us solid no matter the CO2 PPM, if we have the RF properties behind CO2 correct. AKA, W/m^2 per CO2 change vs the change in W/m^2 for a 30% weaker sun = frozen Earth. Unless there was another factor working...this would have to be cloud cover, there is no logorithmic RF issue here. So there is a possibility that the earth had very little LLGCC, or at least LCTGCC.

I believe the proxy itself was a measurement of the GCR counts over time vs the Temperature over time, obviously we can't know exactly when we crossed the Arms, but it isn't "just" the sprial arms that may/will cause Long Term GCR fluctuations, also figure how long it takes for us to cross the spiral arms, and the numerous areas of higher/lower GCR concentration within the milky way that we have, and will continue to oscillate through.

If there is one thing for certain it is that the correlation is by far better than that of CO2, and that CO2 alone cannot explain the temperature fluctuations throughout climate history. The Ordovician Ice age is another example of this.

[valkhorn]

This is false. Cosmic Rays for one have been proven to have an effect on Cloud Development within a reaction chamber as of May 2011, where GCR's fired into the chamber in contact with two magnetic poles result in the rapid formation of Sulfuric Acids and WV molecular clusters, which are thought to be the building blocks for CCN's (Cloud Condensation Nuclei).

And where can you say that GCR's don't effect climate? We do not have a reliable measurement of Cloud Cover, the best system we have right now (ISCCP) has huge error bars. It isn't the GCR's that have the effect, but the response in cloud cover that actually is figured to be somewhat chaotic. Remember that A change in low clouds only results in 0.6W/m^2 per 1%, this assuming an equal change distributiojn globally, and 1.2W/m^2 in the tropical regions only (TLT is thought to be the focal point for change). Nww 2-3% can equate to 1.2W/m^2 to 1.8W/m^2 in Equal Distribution, and 2.4W/m^2 to 3.6W/m^2 per TOT change only. It cannot be rules out that over multi-century timescales clouds may vary 5-8% in the Low Levels, equating anywhere from 3W/m^2 to 9.6W/m^2 of RF change.

Also keep in mind the young sun paradox, (Sun was 30% weaker, but had a much stronger solar wind), should have frozen us solid no matter the CO2 PPM, if we have the RF properties behind CO2 correct. AKA, W/m^2 per CO2 change vs the change in W/m^2 for a 30% weaker sun = frozen Earth. Unless there was another factor working...this would have to be cloud cover, there is no logorithmic RF issue here. So there is a possibility that the earth had very little LLGCC, or at least LCTGCC.

I believe the proxy itself was a measurement of the GCR counts over time vs the Temperature over time, obviously we can't know exactly when we crossed the Arms, but it isn't "just" the sprial arms that may/will cause Long Term GCR fluctuations, also figure how long it takes for us to cross the spiral arms, and the numerous areas of higher/lower GCR concentration within the milky way that we have, and will continue to oscillate through.

If there is one thing for certain it is that the correlation is by far better than that of CO2, and that CO2 alone cannot explain the temperature fluctuations throughout climate history. The Ordovician Ice age is another example of this.

1. Your thread said that the Earth's climate correlated 'perfectly' to the Milky Way's spiral bands, and I showed how this couldn't possibly be true with what we now know about the Milky Way.
2. Yes, there might be some causal effect on GCR counts with cloud cover, I admit that, however, it cannot be the 'sole' factor since the cosmic ray count and climate lately has been divergent.
3. General cosmic rays from other stars would and always have been outweighed by the Sun.
4. No climate scientist says that CO2 is the 'lone' factor in 'all' climate changes. What they do say is that it can be a trigger, and ceterus parabus (all other things being equal) if CO2 rises, then a climate probably will change.

For someone who is so adamant against anthropogenic global warming, you sure are fairly biased and quick to jump to conclusions so long as it sides with your own argument.

[valkhorn]

1. Your thread said that the Earth's climate correlated 'perfectly' to the Milky Way's spiral bands, and I showed how this couldn't possibly be true with what we now know about the Milky Way.
2. Yes, there might be some causal effect on GCR counts with cloud cover, I admit that, however, it cannot be the 'sole' factor since the cosmic ray count and climate lately has been divergent.
3. General cosmic rays from other stars would and always have been outweighed by the Sun.
4. No climate scientist says that CO2 is the 'lone' factor in 'all' climate changes. What they do say is that it can be a trigger, and ceterus parabus (all other things being equal) if CO2 rises, then a climate probably will change.

For someone who is so adamant against anthropogenic global warming, you sure are fairly biased and quick to jump to conclusions so long as it sides with your own argument.

EDIT: Also, that image is very old. Did you even read what I posted? We now know the Milky Way only has two spiral arms thanks to the Spitzer Space Telescope.

[valkhorn]

Also, this is a full refutation (excluding the fact that the Milky Way only has two spiral arms, and is larger than thought):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at-galactic-cosmic-rays.html

I won't cut and paste the whole thing, or even parts of it. I will assume that if Bethesda responds to it, he will have actually read it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Also, this is a full refutation (excluding the fact that the Milky Way only has two spiral arms, and is larger than thought):

http://www.skeptical...osmic-rays.html

I won't cut and paste the whole thing, or even parts of it. I will assume that if Bethesda responds to it, he will have actually read it.

Thanks for posting.

Super Fascinating stuff.

It seems that outer space has a decent role,albeit small. Still fascinating.

[BethesdaWX]

1. Your thread said that the Earth's climate correlated 'perfectly' to the Milky Way's spiral bands, and I showed how this couldn't possibly be true with what we now know about the Milky Way.
2. Yes, there might be some causal effect on GCR counts with cloud cover, I admit that, however, it cannot be the 'sole' factor since the cosmic ray count and climate lately has been divergent.
3. General cosmic rays from other stars would and always have been outweighed by the Sun.
4. No climate scientist says that CO2 is the 'lone' factor in 'all' climate changes. What they do say is that it can be a trigger, and ceterus parabus (all other things being equal) if CO2 rises, then a climate probably will change.

For someone who is so adamant against anthropogenic global warming, you sure are fairly biased and quick to jump to conclusions so long as it sides with your own argument.

Read carefully bro. Cosmic rays are caused by Supernova FYI.

1) There is more to it than the "Spiral Arms" alone...cosmic rays (supernova induced) will not reach the planet is a constant flux, the proxy I posted was a simple long term GCR-count to Temperature proxy. And no matter what coud have caused the drops in GCR counts, the fact is they correlated to a change in temperature very well.

2) Cosmic ray count and cloud cover will not correlate on a short term basis, the Cosmic Ray influence is a longer term, cumulative thing, evidenced in Be^10 proxies. Do not focus on the 11yr solar cycle...if the correlation was that short term then we'd see massive fluctuations in temps every solar cycle. What is important in this case is longer time-periods of GCR counts higher than previous, we've had higher GCR counts for only 5 years now, that is not nearly long enough.

Also note that the equilibrium response-time range is extended...it is like boiling a pot on the stove, turn the flame up, the flame will remain steady but the water will warm until equilibrium is reached, same goes for the cool down, it is an extended process.

3) What are you Talking about? Cosmic rays are Caused by Supernova, I certainly hope the sun would not blast us with cosmic rays. If you're referring to the solar wind and its "blowing away" of GCR's, then yes it would effect the GCR counts we see enter the atmosphere, but the correlation is through clouds and that is, again, a cumulative thing.

4) If you had understood the argument in the first place, then you wouldn't have posted a response such as above. I didn't argue that CO2 was the "lone" climate change driver either, but it is often incorrectly argued that it is the biggest driver, or even a moderate driver, with little evidence to demonstrate such other than in hypothesis.

[BethesdaWX]

Also, this is a full refutation (excluding the fact that the Milky Way only has two spiral arms, and is larger than thought):

http://www.skeptical...osmic-rays.html

I won't cut and paste the whole thing, or even parts of it. I will assume that if Bethesda responds to it, he will have actually read it.

Why are you posting Blog Posts to refute peer reviewed studies such as below? If the only place you can find this is on blogs, it means the Science is not Good Enough to be published/peer reviewed. This is becoming all too common. You can post a peer reviewed study on the matter, and I can post others in response, if thats what you want to do...but you don't link blog posts to refutre anything.

http://www.agu.org/p...1GL047036.shtml

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks for posting.

Super Fascinating stuff.

It seems that outer space has a decent role,albeit small. Still fascinating.

Be careful who you decide to cheerlead for. I'd suggest going with the one who is posting peer reviewed datsets/studies and is abiding by the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[valkhorn]

Why are you posting Blog Posts to refute peer reviewed studies such as below? If the only place you can find this is on blogs, it means the Science is not Good Enough to be published/peer reviewed. This is becoming all too common. You can post a peer reviewed study on the matter, and I can post others in response, if thats what you want to do...but you don't link blog posts to refutre anything.

http://www.agu.org/p...1GL047036.shtml

The blog I posted cited peer-reviewed science, and even dealt with what you posted.

I wanted to assume that you were going to actually read what I posted, but I don't think you did. Further, with the other things I posted, you still haven't really comprehended them.

Since the time it takes to orbit the Milky Way is different than what your original post suggests, and since the spiral arms are different, then it completely blows your original post out of the water because it destroys any correlation there might be. This makes the effect obviously significantly reduced, and more than likely insignificant.

[valkhorn]

Be careful who you decide to cheerlead for. I'd suggest going with the one who is posting peer reviewed datsets/studies and is abiding by the 1st law of thermodynamics.

What does this even mean? Follow what I post and it cites real peer-reviewed science. How in the devil am I not abiding by the laws of thermodynamics?

You know from my physics days in college (yes I was a physics major) I learned one important thing about thermodynamics - most people have no idea what it even is. Helpful hint, the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not at ALL violate any laws of thermodynamics. Maybe you can figure out why? It's the same reason why I can turn on my stove and heat water to a degree much higher than it can be heated out in the sun. Think about it.

[BethesdaWX]

The blog I posted cited peer-reviewed science, and even dealt with what you posted.

I wanted to assume that you were going to actually read what I posted, but I don't think you did. Further, with the other things I posted, you still haven't really comprehended them.

Since the time it takes to orbit the Milky Way is different than what your original post suggests, and since the spiral arms are different, then it completely blows your original post out of the water because it destroys any correlation there might be. This makes the effect obviously significantly reduced, and more than likely insignificant.

Zoom...over your head.

Even if the Milky Way only had 2 spiral bands, we have passed through/experienced periods in our history with lower GCR counts that are recorded in our proxies...these also correlate perfectly with temperature fluctuations.

So yes cosmic rays not only have been proven in a reaction chamber to affect the climate through cloud modulation, but we know from proxy data that that have done so before.

[BethesdaWX]

What does this even mean? Follow what I post and it cites real peer-reviewed science. How in the devil am I not abiding by the laws of thermodynamics?

You know from my physics days in college (yes I was a physics major) I learned one important thing about thermodynamics - most people have no idea what it even is. Helpful hint, the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not at ALL violate any laws of thermodynamics. Maybe you can figure out why? It's the same reason why I can turn on my stove and heat water to a degree much higher than it can be heated out in the sun. Think about it.

The Law of energy conservation you seem to have little understanding for in your relation of GCR counts to temperature...or any forcing to temperature, for that matter...you know this I think. Because it is the modulation of clouds that matters, and in this case while cloud changes on their own cannot be measured, you thus cannot claim GCR's to have little effect since their effect on clouds in cumulativ over time, thus the Earth will warm until equilibrium is met even if cloud cover flat-lines or even increased slightly...refer to the "Pot on a stove" comparison.

And Again who says AGW violates the laws of physics? I didn't...yet another strawman.

[valkhorn]

Zoom...over your head.

Even if the Milky Way only had 2 spiral bands, we have passed through/experienced periods in our history with lower GCR counts that are recorded in our proxies...these also correlate perfectly with temperature fluctuations.

So yes cosmic rays not only have been proven in a reaction chamber to affect the climate through cloud modulation, but we know from proxy data that that have done so before.

Read the new data.

They NO LONGER correlate.The location, the number, and when we pass through the spiral arms are now different than when they thought they were thanks to the Spitzer telescope.

[valkhorn]

The Law of energy conservation you seem to have little understanding for in your relation of GCR counts to temperature...or any forcing to temperature, for that matter...you know this I think. Because it is the modulation of clouds that matters, and in this case while cloud changes on their own cannot be measured, you thus cannot claim GCR's to have little effect since their effect on clouds in cumulativ over time, thus the Earth will warm until equilibrium is met even if cloud cover flat-lines or even increased slightly...refer to the "Pot on a stove" comparison.

And Again who says AGW violates the laws of physics? I didn't...yet another strawman.

I have no idea if you're just trolling or what. You were the one who invoked the 1st law of thermodynamics. Why, I have no idea, but I assumed you had some argument that AGW violated it?

GCRs have little effect because we aren't exactly bathed in them, nor were we ever bathed in them. They may increase somewhat, but their effect is little compared to other MAJOR factors like solar activity, land mass and overall albedo, and other cycles that are outside of GCRs. They simply aren't going to outweigh what happened during 'snowball earth' - which was an increased feedback loop thanks to a super continent in a particular location. Additionally, the existence, or even lack thereof of them, has absolutely NO impact on current AGW arguments since they are based in man made CO2 and not GCRs. We can't control GCRs, they likely have little effect if any since they are so few, and CO2 since it is a forcing factor has a larger impact over time.

Again, your original premise that Earth's climate is correlated to the spiral bands cannot hold anymore since the points when we THOUGHT we passed through them in 2003 are now no longer true thanks to what we now know about the Milky Way.If you want to be scientific, then learn intellectual honesty. You cannot make this claim anymore because it cannot be true since they no longer correlate. GCRs have got nothing to do with it. The points where we had 'ice ages' and the like simply no longer correlate to those intervals, and your old data is now invalid thanks to Spitzer.

[WeatherRusty]

I have no idea if you're just trolling or what. You were the one who invoked the 1st law of thermodynamics. Why, I have no idea, but I assumed you had some argument that AGW violated it?

GCRs have little effect because we aren't exactly bathed in them, nor were we ever bathed in them. They may increase somewhat, but their effect is little compared to other MAJOR factors like solar activity, land mass and overall albedo, and other cycles that are outside of GCRs. They simply aren't going to outweigh what happened during 'snowball earth' - which was an increased feedback loop thanks to a super continent in a particular location. Additionally, the existence, or even lack thereof of them, has absolutely NO impact on current AGW arguments since they are based in man made CO2 and not GCRs. We can't control GCRs, they likely have little effect if any since they are so few, and CO2 since it is a forcing factor has a larger impact over time.

Again, your original premise that Earth's climate is correlated to the spiral bands cannot hold anymore since the points when we THOUGHT we passed through them in 2003 are now no longer true thanks to what we now know about the Milky Way.If you want to be scientific, then learn intellectual honesty. You cannot make this claim anymore because it cannot be true since they no longer correlate. GCRs have got nothing to do with it. The points where we had 'ice ages' and the like simply no longer correlate to those intervals, and your old data is now invalid thanks to Spitzer.

Bethesda likes to argue a decrease in global cloud amount (low clouds) is responsible for the past several decades of warming. Never mind that most of the warming is evident at night rather than during the daytime. The thing about low clouds, they have a net cooling effect during the daytime as they both deflect shortwave radiation to space (cooling) and add to Earth's greenhouse effect by absorbing IR radiated from the surface (warming), on balance cooling winning out. However at night the affect is all warming by slowing the loss of heat energy to space in the total absence of insolation. Recall that a signature of greenhouse warming is the preference for nighttime warming over daytime warming and low clouds increase the greenhouse effect. Can we put 2 and 2 together?

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda likes to argue a decrease in global cloud amount (low clouds) is responsible for the past several decades of warming. Never mind that most of the warming is evident at night rather than during the daytime. The thing about low clouds, they have a net cooling effect during the daytime as they both deflect shortwave radiation to space (cooling) and add to Earth's greenhouse effect by absorbing IR radiated from the surface (warming), on balance cooling winning out. However at night the affect is all warming by slowing the loss of heat energy to space in the total absence of insolation. Recall that a signature of greenhouse warming is the preference for nighttime warming over daytime warming and low clouds increase the greenhouse effect. Can we put 2 and 2 together?

I do not think that you understand why less cloud cover in the tropical regions would not lead to more daytime warming/more nighttime cooling, and the problem of attributing nighttime warming at the surface to CO2...the same would have to be true in the LT. First, 90% of the tropical regions are covered by water, and decreasing clouds over an extended period of time will increase OHC significantly even by a 1% decrease. An increase in OHC relative to daytime & then the diurnal-anti-diurnal temperature relativity would, if anything, increase night time temperatures. Since we're talking 2-3% globally, maybe 5-6%, most likely in the tropics, why would we see any noticable effect? This won't cause differences.

It has been shown that daytime warming trend has been underestimated, and nighttime warming trend has been overestimated, in a peer reviewed study published earlier this yr. And much of this is due to UHI, Land Use changes, and Simply Latent Heat from a warmer atmosphere. And the LT does not have a difference in this regard, or one that can be measured.

And No, the GHG profile is NOT accomplished, because the LT as a whole...as an anomaly alltogether, needs to warm 20% faster than the LT. It has NOT done so. OLR has INCREASED.

[A-L-E-X]

Also, this is a full refutation (excluding the fact that the Milky Way only has two spiral arms, and is larger than thought):

http://www.skeptical...osmic-rays.html

I won't cut and paste the whole thing, or even parts of it. I will assume that if Bethesda responds to it, he will have actually read it.

Hmmm, this seems to go along with the finding that M31 Andromeda is also larger than originally thought....although Andromeda is not an Sb. I guess this means the Milky Way is more like M109 (the famous barred spiral in Ursa Major), then it's like M31 in the Local Group? The Magellanic Clouds are also thought to have once been barred spirals disrupted by the Milky Way's gravity. Interesting!

[BethesdaWX]

I have no idea if you're just trolling or what. You were the one who invoked the 1st law of thermodynamics. Why, I have no idea, but I assumed you had some argument that AGW violated it?

GCRs have little effect because we aren't exactly bathed in them, nor were we ever bathed in them. They may increase somewhat, but their effect is little compared to other MAJOR factors like solar activity, land mass and overall albedo, and other cycles that are outside of GCRs. They simply aren't going to outweigh what happened during 'snowball earth' - which was an increased feedback loop thanks to a super continent in a particular location. Additionally, the existence, or even lack thereof of them, has absolutely NO impact on current AGW arguments since they are based in man made CO2 and not GCRs. We can't control GCRs, they likely have little effect if any since they are so few, and CO2 since it is a forcing factor has a larger impact over time.

Again, your original premise that Earth's climate is correlated to the spiral bands cannot hold anymore since the points when we THOUGHT we passed through them in 2003 are now no longer true thanks to what we now know about the Milky Way.If you want to be scientific, then learn intellectual honesty. You cannot make this claim anymore because it cannot be true since they no longer correlate. GCRs have got nothing to do with it. The points where we had 'ice ages' and the like simply no longer correlate to those intervals, and your old data is now invalid thanks to Spitzer.

lol

It is tiresome correcting posts that reflect somewhat inferior undestanding of the climate system. GCR's do not directly effect temperature, they effect cloud cover cumulatively, long term, over multiple decades at a time, and Changes in Clouds are more than 10X stronger RF wise into the Climate System than changes in the Sun. GCR's DO NOT have a short term effect in a MESURABLE sense on clouds...and cloud cover changes are much stronger than TSI changes (Output from the Sun). TSI is something near 1/4 of a W/m^2. 1% change in LLGCC equates to 0.6W/m^2 of increased SW RF, If you apply this 1% global change to tropical regions specifically, you get something greater that 1W/m^2. Now we're looking at a small, cumulative, effect, so 2W/m^2 to 3W/m^2 in the tropical percentile, or 1.2W/m^2 to 1.8W/m^2 in the global mean. And this is a long term effect.

If you cannot realize that Changes in TSI are minor relative to changes in cloud cover, then you cannot debate AGW, because this is proven fact. TSI varies by a fraction of a percent, 0.1% to maybe 0.2%, with 0.25W/m^2 RF changes in this time. CO2 since 1850 has led to 1.6W/m^2 of RF increase! Clouds, per 1% change, equate to 0.6W/m^2 in a global mean deviation, to sourcing them in the tropics, 1.2W/m^2.

The GCR effect has been proven, the effect has to exist. Obviously the effect would be Minor, very minor, on the order of 2-3% per 50yrs (something like that) on cloud cover, but that alone equates to at least 1.2W/m^2, at most >3W/m^2.

[A-L-E-X]

Actually this is what the Milky Way probably looks like to outside observers-- NGC 1365 (there are more than 2 arms, but the others are minor and emerge from the 2 logarithmic main arms which have a pitch of 12 degrees):

[BethesdaWX]

Actually this is what the Milky Way probably looks like to outside observers-- NGC 1365 (there are more than 2 arms, but the others are minor and emerge from the 2 logarithmic main arms which have a pitch of 12 degrees):

Yep, and the Earth is not located in the farther outreaches where you have two sipral pands...the galaxy isn't symmetrical, or even orderly, in form.