2011-09-26 23:53:49RealClimate Cloud Post
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

[I just put this on the General Chat thread, which is the wrong place, I realized...]

RealClimate has a post up today on clouds and cosmic rays.  I've barely started reading it, but I can already say that I think it would be great to get permission to repost this on SkS.  It's pure science, clear, impartial, and I think a very valuable synopsis of what we do and do not know about the subject.

2011-09-27 00:03:29
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.57

Sphaerica,

I don't quite get the point of re-posting the whole thing. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to quote the end:

"Final thoughts

While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change."

and link back to the original?

Or maybe just to provide some un-packing of the Summary ahead of it?

2011-09-27 00:20:44Neal
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
199.19.138.101

Maybe a summary, and a link to the original.  I know that many SkS regulars frequent both sites, but I think a lot of people who visit SkS see RealClimate as too high-level (complex?) and so do not visit it for information.  It's the SkS packaging and "brand-name" that gets some readers to come here, especially many of those on the fence who are true skeptics and open to learning.

I also think many people simply do not follow links.  They're lazy.  They want to see what they're looking for on the spoon held lovingly right in front of them.  The energy to actually click a link, reorganzie their brain, and change contexts is too daunting.

2011-09-27 00:34:05
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.57

Sphaerica,

If people don't want to go to RC, quite honestly, I don't think they will want to read RC here. There may be a perfectly good reason they don't go to RC: because the articles are too demanding for them. We are not competing with RC, we would like to make their materiail more approachable. Copying them doesn't do that, it just makes it harder to read SkS.

2011-09-27 02:04:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

At some point in the near future when jg finishes putting together a graph of cosmic rays and temperature, we'll do another post on the subject.  At that point we can quote and link to the RC post.

2011-09-27 04:24:59
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
66.7.151.194

Let me know when you guys get closer to doing another post on GCRs-climate. I have some cites/plots that are relevant and haven't appeared on RC or SkS yet (or my site for that matter).

2011-09-27 05:33:27Yes we can
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
216.227.243.189

"we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes"

 

Actually we can.  See the comments on the Laschamp magnetic minimum and its totally underwhelming (as in absent) affect on paleoclimate.  So we now have a firm example in the paleo record of a massive cosmic ray increase with no climate effect, no climate effect from strong modern era cosmic ray events (GLEs) and (Pierce's Rc article) a mechanism explaining why there's no connection and of course, no pattern of cosmic ray flux matching recent climate change.  The other side has inconclusive results, weak correlation with only the very few strongest FDs (Dragic), and a strong suggestion that solar cosmic rays coming from the sun cause cloud nucleation - and yet we don't have all clouds all the time.  The weight of the evidence is increasing.  But still they get the popular press and the denier (I cannot bring myself to say 'skeptic' here) blogosphere crowing 'Eureka'.  

2011-09-27 19:29:56
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.219.156.247

mc

I LIKE Alleys graph.

Since this is 'your area' can I suggest a few posts on the subject....