2011-09-15 18:25:00Can anyone help sex up this graph of cosmic rays?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

The cosmic ray argument is back in vogue. In keeping with the new research indicating the importance of graphs, we need to step on this myth hard with a strong graph. The core fact re cosmic rays is that regardless of whether GCR cause clouds, climate and cosmic rays have been going in opposite directions over the last few decades. This is best communicated in the following graph:

Problem is that graph sucks! It's ugly and confusing (like most graphs from peer review). Can anyone help us create a new SkS graph comparing GCR to temperature over at least 100 years? I imagine it would involve either digitising this graph or combining the GCR from this graph to GISS temp data or tracking down new GCR data. However it's done, I think it's important we create a new powerful SkS graph with lots of colours, strong bold time-series and clear core messaging. Can anyone help with the data?

2011-09-16 03:56:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good idea.  Here's the recent data with the 2009 record high which, ironically, I found on WUWT.

cosmic ray record

If we do a post highlighting an updated GCR graph, we might think about referencing that WUWT post.  Like "as noted by Anthony Watts in September 2009, cosmic ray flux hit a record high that year, which was also one of the hottest on record."

2011-09-16 04:01:51data
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

The U of New Hampshire provides the cosmic ray intensity data from 1951 through 2006 here.  Maybe we could use that and splice the data from the graph above (which came from NASA).

2011-09-16 04:28:50
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

I can redraw graphs as needed.  Happy to help.

2011-09-16 04:32:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think the raw NASA data is here, but you need a CDF viewer to see it, and I'm not sure which file it is.

2011-09-17 12:49:40Neutron data
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Oulu has more or less continuous neutron data going back to 1964.  You can pull up as long a time frame as you'd like.  The vertical  axis in in percent change during the time period graphed, so it rescales depending on what you pull up.

 

Alternatively, take the text file option and plot your own graph.  Use the pressure-corrected counts.

2011-09-17 12:58:02
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76
Thanks for this reference and advice. I obtained the CLIMAX dataset and started plotting it but my graph didn't look like the graph John C posted. I'll try your suggestion.
2011-09-17 13:16:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

We'd like to get data as far back as possible to clearly show the recent divergence in GCRs vs. temperature, so we'll probably also have to digitize the Solanki graph in John's post above (though we can combine it with more recent data as well).

2011-09-17 13:29:37
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76
By "digitizing" do you mean precision tracing, e.g., I redraw the line so you can't tell it from the original? That's easy.
2011-09-17 14:17:00Copying WUWT is not a good idea.
jyyh
Otto Lehikoinen
otanle@hotmail...
193.199.143.214

"Here's the recent data with the 2009 record high which, ironically, I found on WUWT"

Anything found on WUWT must be checked, very carefully. It's very easy to change locations of one or two dots on an image, so they get to accuse any copier of their images of fraud. This is obvious and should always be remembered.

 

2011-09-17 14:23:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

jg - sort of.  Apparently there's software that can trace the graph and create data points from it, which can then be plugged into a spreasheet to recreate it.  Riccardo has digitized a bunch of graphs for me for the lessons from past predictions series.  But if you can do it too, go for it.

jyyh - I traced the graph back to NASA, no worries.  It would just be funny to credit WUWT with helping disprove the GCR theory they love so.

2011-09-17 14:25:30
jyyh
Otto Lehikoinen
otanle@hotmail...
193.199.143.214

Ah, OK. Still, please try to overlay the NASA version to the WUWT one. But giving Anthony a reference here would probably be interpreted there as being a validation of his lies.

2011-09-18 02:07:46
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76

Here's a sample for you to evaluate whether I should continue with the hand-tracing method:

Here's the redrawn graphs over the original scan, so you can assess the fidelity to the original:

In the original, the temperature scale in the year scale markers weren't consistently spaced (e.g., temp anomoly -0.4 is inconsistent and the years between 1850-1900 are scrunched). The result is that my redrawn graph is accurate to within a few pixels.

I'm also working on getting the data cited on this thread into an interactive graph.

Question: What are the dotted lines and gray areas in the original representing?

2011-09-18 02:18:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Not sure, but the gray area may be the area between different temperature data sets or revisions. The horizontal line marks when more modern GCR measurements began, I think.
2011-09-18 05:53:12Similar shape graph
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Here's Oulu's neutron monitor graph from 1999 to now.  It ought to overlay the NASA graph.

 

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1999/01/01&starttime=00:00&enddate=2011/09/10&endtime=00:00&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on

currently down about 10% from the late 2009 peak.  That means fewer clouds; the 'warming stopped in 1998' crowd, if they accept Svensmarkism have to admit we're in for some warming.  Then why do they keep saying it's not warming?  Are they that confused?

2011-09-18 06:03:44
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76

I went to the OULU site and it looks like one has to send an email to request the neutron data going back to 1964. I couldn't find the data to 1964 online. Muoncounter, is that your observation, too?

Before I send an email requesting the data on behalf of SkepticalScience, I want to confirm that 1) someone else hasn't already done so, and 2) is it ok for me the represent this site on this request? I would defer to one of the primary contributors for the sake of maintaining a consistent professional front.

2011-09-18 06:31:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Feel free jg. You can just identify yourself as an SkS contributor - that's what I do.
2011-09-18 06:46:141964 data will graph and download as txt
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Just type in 1964/01/01 into their data entry form as your start date; I verified that it works before posting above.

 

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/01/01&starttime=00:00&enddate=1974/09/10&endtime=00:00&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on

 

2011-09-18 06:55:51
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76

I must report that I'm over my head on the data part. I can generate the graphs, like Muon's above, and I can download the data. However, the data is expressed in numbers shown below, which I believe correspond to cosmic ray counts (and not as an anomoly as shown above). I also plotted the data that was corrected for pressure.

I'm confused because the values hover around 1000 whereas the chart I retraced shows values around 3200-4400. This seems like a jump, so I assume I'm in error.

If I can get the correct numbers, I can plot it and make it look seductive and sexy, but I don't know how to get the correct numbers from the data OULU provides. Any advice is welcome. Alternatively, I can defer the data gathering to someone more competent. However, I'd like to learn what I'm doing wrong, as I think I can do a lot to this site's graphs if I get through the learning curve.

(time: Jan 1999 - Sept 2011)

2011-09-18 06:57:53
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76

Muon, I posted the above before I saw your comment. I did try typing the date for 1964 but nothing happened and I got a red box outline on the date field, suggesting they were indicating an error. I'll try again.

2011-09-18 07:09:29Evidence cosmic rays don't do diddly squat
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

I'm working on a short post showing that the GCR boys are all wet.  A recent paper on the big GCR in 2005 found lots of atmospheric ionization, but "no clear atmospheric effect."  In addition, the obvious increase in flux of ultra high energy GCRs between 2004 and 2009 is accompanied by no obvious difference in global temperature anomalies for those years at opposite ends of the solar and GcR spectrum.

2011-09-18 07:14:08Oulu txt file format
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

You need the pressure-corrected values in column 5.  For the graphs generated by their website, find the mean count rate over the time interval to be plotted.  You can then get % above and below the mean.

2011-09-18 07:24:16
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76

Thanks. Some learning on my part but worth it.

2011-09-20 09:26:10
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

I've taken the original graph that I traced and added the data generated graphs (CLIMAX, OULU, GISS, and Sunspots). I'd like to find the datasource for the reconstructed cosmic ray estimate and I'd like to resolve why the traced graph is so different from the CLIMAX dataset.

 

2011-09-20 09:36:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

jg, bear in mind on the traced graph, your dashed lines are temperature anomaly, not cosmic rays.  See the y-axis on the right hand side.

2011-09-20 10:21:16source?
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Isn't the graph from this Krivova and Solanki paper?

2011-09-20 10:30:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yup, their Figure 8.

2011-09-20 11:24:12
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76
Thanks, Dana. I was confused about which data were which. I'll move the GISS data to replace the redrawn temperature. The CLMAX and OULA match well. Does anyone know why the Krivova cosmic ray data look different from these?
2011-09-20 12:35:35Krivova and Solanki
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

They put the raw data through some kind of filter.

 

"convert through linear regression the indirect record into cosmic-ray flux for the earlier period. Lockwood [2001] found that curves for different hardness factors are proportional to each other so that it is sufficient to consider a single representative value."