Last week, a Norwegian official-looking – and in my view – climatesceptic website praised Eigil Friis-Christensen from the Danish space center (featuring in the Great Global Warming Swindle) and hailed him for having given the best speech ever in the annual Birkeland seminar organized by Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (NASL). There were rumours of controversy behind the scene before the seminar, as the NASL is regarded as a prestigious body in Norway.
Furthermore, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen have written a response (title ‘Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing’; DNSC Scientific Report Series 3/2007) to a recent paper by Lockwood and Frohlich (LF2007). In this response, they state ’… [LF2007] argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago‘. Another quote from their response is ‘Here we rebut their argument comprehensively’. So the cosmic ray theory isn’t quite dead after all?
There are several earlier posts here on RC that provide a background to the story about the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and our climate (here, here, here, here). There is still no long-term trend in the GCR, not even in the Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s response (see also figure below). This seems to be acknowledged now.
The LF2007 paper and the response focus on just the last 2-3 decades for which there were direct measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI= solar energy summed over all wavelength), but if they had read my paper on this issue in GRL 2005, they would have seen that there has not been any trend in solar activity or GCR since 1952 (also seen in the figure below).
In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover (IPCC AR4), and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere. The only explanation we can offer is an enhanced greenhouse effect.
It may be of interest for historians that the story about the GCR has been a long-winded epic (total cloud cover, low clouds, adjustment of ISCCP cloud data, etc.), and now new characters are thrown onto the stage: radiosonde measurements (HadAT2) representing the tropospheric temperatures and data from a ‘simple’ ocean data assimilation (SODA).
SF2007 argue that: ‘When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record’. This is a rhetorical question, and not a very scientific one. For starters, one cannot exclude the possibility that near-surface processes dominate at lower altitudes thus degrading any correlation. But, in the mind of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, it is perhaps the GCR that is the most dominant driver.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen do not disclose the geographical coverage of the ocean temperature they use to correlate with GCR, but the strong annual cycle and inter-annual variations are typical characteristics of local observations rather than global fluctuations. Note, the global surface temperature includes the world oceans (~70%) of the surface.
Another interesting aspect is the improved correlation with altitude. This is not what one would expect to see if the GCR mechanism played a key role, as changes in cloudiness would affect the planetary albedo, and hence the solar energy absorbed by the surface. The troposphere would then respond to the surface changes.
A more likely explanation could be that changes in UV associated with the solar cycle affects the stratosphere (a little disputed hypothesis), and that the signal then propagates down into the troposphere. Thus, we cannot rule out that solar activity influences our climate in ways that do not involve GCR and clouds.
The physical link between any ultra-small particles and much larger the cloud condensation nuclei is still lacking, even after the experiment performed in Copenhagen. Thus, the hypothesis is still speculative. The GHG-effect, on the other hand, is well-established.
According to the official looking Norwegian climatesceptic website, Friis-Christensen states that his work has been controversial, but mainly because of political and not scientific reasons. The fact that he and Svensmark now offer a response to LF2007 seems to contradict his own belief.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen object to LF2007 by stating ‘Lockwood and Frohlich erase the solar cycle from various data sets by using running means of 9 to 13 years’. It is interesting to note that Svensmark and Friis-Christensen now acknowledge the fact that filtering time series can produce misleading impression after the dubious curve-fitting magic in the famous Friis-Christensen & Lassen (1991) science paper.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen further argue ‘In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero’. This is not true, as the IPCC AR4 highlights. I think the the statements in their response ‘use of a long running mean creates the illusion that the temperatures are still rising rapidly early in the 21st Century’ and ‘global surface temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998’ are dishonest (see figure above ).
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen should know of the chaotic nature of our climate system and the fact that it takes more than a few years to determine whether there is a trend or a pause in the trend. The most convincing explanation is that there are also many factors (such as aerosols) playing a role, adding to inter-annual and inter-decadal variations.
It is worrying that the director of the Danish space center makes such misleading claims and then receives honours in Norway by NASL. The controversy running up to the event was therefore understandable, even though Friis-Christensen was supposed to talk about geomagnetism rather than climate.
To answer the question I posed in the beginning of this post, I think that the chapter on the connection between GCR and clouds is not yet closed, but all the evidence goes against the notion that GCR are the cause of the present global warming.
ray ladbury (#150) wrote:
There are the negative forcings as well as the positive. A positive forcing which turns out to be stronger than we thought could be balanced against a negative forcing which is stronger than we thought and leave the other positive forcings unaffected.
And I believe that there is still a fair amount of uncertainty regarding the sulfate aerosols, the albedo effects of increased cloud formation (a negative feedback), the recently discovered twilight zone which invisibly extends clouds tens of kilometers. These are areas of uncertainty.
The forcing of the greenhouse gases? Well-established. And virtually something which one can calculate on the basis of the first principles of quantum mechanics.
Our biggest uncertainty there is due to our lack of exact knowledge of the distribution of the gases in the atmospheric column. We know the distribution fairly well, and the uncertainty which exists doesn’t have that much of an effect.
Re #120 leebert
Further to my earlier post (#137) it’s worth pointing out that while your statement: “Hansen states that although the Arctic melt-off represents 25 percent (yes, 25%) of all observed global warming, he was most concerned about the other 75 percent (attributed to CO2).”, is correct (although you should say that this refers to all warming since 1880 – see my post #137))…
..it should also be noted that more recent work by Hansen (with a gazillion co-authors) indicates that more detailed analysis indicates that the contribution from black carbon effects on ice albedo is only 0.065 oC. In other words the estimate has been downshifted by a factor of 3, and the black carbon effect contributes less than 10% to the total warming since 1880 (in Hensen’s analysis).
see: J. Hansen et al. (2005) Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophysical Res. 100, D18104.
Also, can you clarify the correct reference for your statement:
“Hansen (2003, Hansen & Nazarenko) found that soot deposition is responsible for *most* (90%) of the Arctic melt-off due to the snow-darkening heat-absorbent effect of soot (lowering ice & snow albedo in the Arctic & sub-Arctic tundra, taiga, etc.).”
I can’t find any mention of that (i.e. the 90% statement) in Hansen and Nazarenko (2004) [i.e. J. Hansen and L. Nazarenko (2004) Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 101 423-428], and there doesn’t seem to be a “2003, Hansen and Nazarenko” in the database.
Re: yorick #141
”The validity of the paper does not rest on my defense of it, or your bulldog like tenacity in “refuting” one particular line about the surface temps.”
Tamino’s refutation stands. Others have pointed out the same thing on this thread. S&F-C’s point about the surface temperature is not only incorrect but seems to be specious. Their complaint about Lockwood’s and Frolich’s (L&F) use of the temperature data (Figure 3f of Lockwood and Frolich) is also spurious (see my post #72). Don’t badger tamino for pointing out Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s atrocious non-science in a web-site report.
“I take it that you have nothing to say about the signal in the troposhperic and near surface ocean temps, on which the paper centered?”
What do you make of these yorick? They’re decidedly odd wouldn’t you say? Figure 1a and Figure 2a show the same data I think we agree. An overlay in each case of the tropospheric temperature and the CRF. The tropospheric data is identical in Figure 1a and Figure 2a it seems. The CRF data is a bit different, for some reason. Figure 1a seems designed to visually portray a similarity in the tropospheric temperature and CRF. For some reason the similarity in Figure 2a is lost. The data seems slightly phase shifted so that on most of the rising portions (around 1977-ish and 1986-ish) the temperature rise precedes the CRF (inverted) rise.
So if Figure 2a was used in place of Figure 1a we’d say that the similarity (presented to assert a correlation I think we agree) was spurious. How could the temperature rise (the effect) lead the cause (the solar contribution)?
Never mind. The point of Figure 2 is to present the possibility that if one does a great deal of unspecified data mangling, a close match of the CRF and tropospheric temperature can result (see Figure 2b).
What’s the conclusion from Figure 2b? That solar contributions to the earth’s temperature budget since 1958 have been effectively zero (perhaps a bit negative). Do we agree or disagree with that? Taking it at face value it seems perfectly consistent with all the other pukka data (including that of Lockwood and Frolich (L&F) that mid to late 20th century and contemporary warming has become, at least for this period, “uncoupled” from solar contributions due to the predominance of the greenhouse enhancement, and the apparent relative stability of the sun.
” One of my biggest objections to the alarmism is the lack of a trend in the troposphere while surface temps are claimed to be on a 1.9C per century tear, per tamino, anway.”
Which lack of trend yorick? Looking at the data of S&C-F, the tropospheric temperature trend has been a rising one since the 70’s. Eyeballing S&F-C’s Figure 2a, the tropospheric temperature has risen by 0.7-0.8 oC since the early 70’s. You seem to disagree with S&C-F here. Do you think they’ve got this wrong?
In fact if we play the same trick as S&F-C in their cherrypicking of 1998 and 2002 to attempt to “magic” away recent surface warming (which tamino and other’s have highlighted), and in their clever selection of a piece of the tropospheric temperature trend to attempt to show that the warming trend has stopped in recent years (see their Figure 3), we can pretend that the tropospheric temperature has risen by 1.2 oC since around 1972 (see their Figure 2a), a whopping 0.34 oC per decade (3.4 oC per century in your parlance).
Your comments just don’t seem to reflect the reality of either what tamino says or of what Svensmark and Friis-Christensen show in their report. Unless one is playing at defending the indefensible I don’t see how Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s web-site report has got any scientific validity whatsoever. It has no validity as a rebuttal of L&F, since L&F neither said nor implied “.. that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago.” It is no validity as a demonstration of the influence of Cosmic Ray Flux on the earth’s energy budget (no evidence there one way or another). If we take the report at face value we could accept that the solar cycle leaves a signature in the tropospheric temperature (not convinced about the ocean surface temperature), but I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that (L&F certainly don’t claim otherwise). It is a very poor example of science (low scientific validity) since it’s based on a false premise (a misinterpretation of L&F), specious argumentation, and completely undefined data manipulation. It’s an unpublished web report.
Perhaps we can applaud them for hanging out their dirty washing in public, and they can be pleased that we’ve spent so much effort examining it!
I found one link referring to a “2003, Hansen and Nazarenko”story.
It’s at a page belonging to the American Coal Council:
Important New Developments in Climate Change Science
• “Soot Climate Forcing via Snow and Ice. Albedos” by Hansen & Nazarenko, Dec. 2003.
http://www.americancoalcouncil.org/events/GrahameHg04.pdf
Ah, here are more, found by searching without quoting the string.
BLACK SOOT AND SNOW: A WARMER COMBINATION …
December 22, 2003 – (date of web publication)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1223blacksoot.html
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
2003 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA …. http://www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.2237157100.
Hansen and Nazarenko …
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/2237157100v1.pdf
re 152
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/2237157100v1
Hansen and Nazarenko (2003) on soot. Not sure about the 90% as I do not have a copy handy.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the recent exchanges highlight the fact that the denialist camp continue to try the same tactics. Indeed these are the same techniques of pretty much all the anti-science movements–right and left–from creationism to homeopathy. Different denialist camps sieze on one particular research result or development they see as a weak point of the theory and concentrate all of their efforts on that one aspect. It never occurs to them that even if they were right about that being a weak point, the theory that replaces the old one will look a whole lot more like the old one (with some tweaking) than it will look like the theory the anti-science camp is pushing. The reason is that any reasonable scientific theory will draw support from multiple lines of evidence. Its basic parameters will be pretty well constrained, leaving room only for tweaking around the edges. This type of inductive reasoning seems to elude denialists of all camps. That is why the posts on this site that tell how forcings are evaluated are so important.
Re #155/156 Hank and Aaron
Thank’s for that. That’s a tiny part of the confusion sorted. Hansen & Nazarenko (2003) is actually J. Hansen and L Nazarenko (2004) Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 101 423-428.
it was published online on Dec. 29th 2003 (some poor sub-editor working through the XMas holiday!) but has a proper publishing date of 2004.
It’s still not the right reference for leebert’s statement “Hansen (2003, Hansen & Nazarenko) found that soot deposition is responsible for *most* (90%) of the Arctic melt-off due to the snow-darkening heat-absorbent effect of soot (lowering ice & snow albedo in the Arctic & sub-Arctic tundra, taiga, etc.).”
I guess leebert will clarify this if he sees it.
> Leebert
Same claim here on his own website:
scientificblogging.com/leebert/2003_nasa_study_soot_fall_in_arctic_has_22_percent_global_warming_impact
Source given as a link to here:
scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml
quote there:
“… in the Journal of Geophysical Research,… UCI scientist Charlie Zender … in the past 200 years, the Earth has warmed by about 0.8 degrees Celsius … up to 20 percent of this rise could be attributed to dirty snow.
“… in Arctic areas, where Zender believes that more than 90 percent of the warming could be attributed to dirty snow.”
No cite to JGR given; date of that blog post is 7 June 2007
Leebert: “found” means actual research was done and published.
It’s “et al. and Zender
Press release:
… Arctic climate change are particles in the atmosphere, including soot; …
today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1621
Paper:
Present-day climate forcing and response from black carbon in snow
MG Flanner, CS Zender, JT Randerson, PJ Rasch – J. Geophys. Res, 2007 – http://dust.ess.uci.edu/ppr/ppr_FZR07.pdf
The “90” percent figure is a belief, attributed to Zender in a news story, it’s not a number from the published paper.
Sorry for the digression.
#127, Mars does lase on CO2 (high up in very thin atmosphere)
#134 Most analytical chemists are confused by the fact that the temperature of the glow bar in an IR spectrometer is 5-700 K (look at the peak and use the Wien distribution law). CO2 in the atmosphere has a temperature of 300K, thus the absorption is much higher (16X) than the emission. Moreover, the emission is into 4 pi radians so very little of the emission gets to the detector and what you see in the normal system is the absorption. However, if you set the system up correctly you can see emission from CO2 in the lab. Of course, you have to know what you are doing. See, for example Applied Optics 35 1519 (1996) by Evans and Puckrin.
Chris (129): If you’re referring to evolution theory, I’ve already pointed out some specific holes, to which you said there are too explanations for them, which generated my post 121-2, which brings us full circle on the merry-go-round! [;-). If your referring to AGW, in my skeptic mind I have difficulty with some of the assumptions and presumptions in certain aspects of the physics. This probably does not rise to the level of “holes”, however (which is a somewhat subjective quality). There might be “holes”, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to have detected them yet, if they are even there…
For the record there are many wonderful folks posting here who have not one milligram of skepticism when it comes to GW and AGW.
Concerning post 157:
Ray, you seem to be trying to squeeze as much hatred into a single paragraph as possible: “Denialist”, “anti-science”, suggesting all hypotheses that don’t attribute warming to man as being on the same level as “creationism” or “homeopathy”.
A “Theory” is supported most by attempting and failing to refute it. Those who are confident of the merits of their theories should welcome competing “theories”.
With regard to the subject of this thread, I personally think solar dynamics are kind of neat, and the Cosmic ray – cloud hypothesis is kind of neat. Why exactly should it “die” as the subject of this thread suggests? It actually seems rather difficult to say at the moment what, if any, merit the hypothesis has. If the hypothesis has merit, it will survive; otherwise, it will not.
Believe it or not Ray, I do believe the fundamental theory is the same for both camps. Do you think anthropogenic green house gases are responsible for 100% of the current warming? I rather doubt Svensmark and Friis-Christensen believe solar fluctuations and cosmic ray-induced clouds are responsible for 100% of the observed warming. Do you know what the percentage is? Are antropogenic GHG responsible for 90%? 50%? 10%? Have you considered that the same feedback cycles so necessary to support the GHG hypothesis are also at play in the solar hypothesis? Have you considered that other contributing factors may also be involved that just perhaps don’t involve anothropogenic forces?
I don’t think the IPCC has completely high-jacked all of science just yet. A person can do science that is unrelated to antropogenic GHG. The Sun still exists. Other fields still exist. The Earth still receives all of it’s heat from the Sun.
It’s rather pompous of you to apply labels like “creationist”, “denier”, and “anti-scientist” to (apparently) anyone who’s opinion differs from your own. The Sun is not “cold fusion” after all … it’s good old ordinary hot fusion – the kind that can be replicated.
Eli Rabett (#161) wrote:
So the main limiting factor in “earth-like” conditions would appear to be our relatively high air pressure. Collisions are too frequent to permit the atom to remain stimulated long enough for a second photon to be absorbed and result in stimulated emission. But as you put it, very high up in the Martian atmosphere – presumably where the atmospheric pressure is quite low and collisions far less common, a second absorption by the same molecule prior to a collision happens.
Not so much the density of the photons, but the low density of the atmosphere. Anything like this in the uppermost parts of the earth’s atmosphere? If not, would you know why?
Eli Rabett (#161) wrote:
Alright, Eli.
Now you have me confused. And just when I thought I had everything neatly sewn up. Not that I mind as long as everything begins to make sense in the end.
You state, “CO2 in the atmosphere has a temperature of 300K, thus the absorption is much higher (16X) than the emission.” As I understand it, this would mean that the symmetry between absorption and emission embodied by Kirchoff’s law does not apply. Likewise it would suggest that the atmosphere is actually heated by CO2.
Setting aside Kirchoff’s law for the moment, I would like to focus on the implication of heating. Now of course I remember that there is a range over which CO2 presumably results in some slight heating of the atmosphere at approximately 200 mb and between 600-700 cm-1, but…
Earlier Raypierre had stated, “For example, in the troposphere, the net infrared absorption-emission is a cooling effect, which balances convective heating.” (Inline to comment #37 to post Part II: What Angstrom didn’t know.) Then there is the cooling of the stratosphere, which in the earlier part of the process is due to the fact that less longwave radiation is making it up to the stratosphere – while the surface heats up.
But even after the surface heats up to the point that the same amount of radiation is making it out of the atmosphere as before, the stratosphere is cooler. Now I believe the longrun cooling of the stratosphere as the result of the enhanced greenhouse effect is in part due the expansion of the atmosphere. As the troposphere warms, it expands, and expands the rest of the atmosphere along with it.
However, this still leaves the issue that for the most part greenhouse gases presumably cool the troposphere (per Raypierre) and the diagrams from line-by-line calculation which show that the domains over which net cooling is the result of greenhouse gases are few and small. (Three, actually: the small region for carbon dioxide I mentioned above, the larger zone for ozone where ultraviolet light is absorbed directly from sunlight, and a weak albeit larger zone for water vapor at high altitudes – in the less than 1 mb non-LTE region of the atmosphere.)
Here is one of those diagrams:
Radiation & Climate: Major Projects
Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates 2
http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/rc/m-proj/abstracts/rc.clrt2.html
… which appeared in:
Clough, S.A. & M.J. Iacono, Line-by-line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates 2: Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons, J. Geophys. Res, 100, 16, 519-16, 535, 1995.
You will note that in the diagram what little warming occurs as the result of the direct effect of greenhouse gases is actually of a much smaller magnitude than nearly all of the domains over which cooling occurs – both in the troposphere and the stratosphere.
Given the apparent conflict between what you have stated, how I understand Kirchoff’s law, and the presumably widespread nature of the cooling which is the direct effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what gives?
Hoping that you (or one of the contributors) can make some sense out of this for me…
Rod B stated:
“I’ve already pointed out some specific holes, to which you said there are too explanations for them, which generated my post 121-2, which brings us full circle on the merry-go-round! [;-). If your referring to AGW, in my skeptic mind I have difficulty with some of the assumptions and presumptions in certain aspects of the physics.”
Have you ever considered in your “skeptic” mind, that you may have some basic reluctance to understand science? You seem to be proud that you have identified “holes” in evolution theory, in real life such holes exist only in the minds of creationists. Similarly, there should not be any problems with your reasoning, still you continue to have difficulties to understand basic observations made in climate science on human’s influence on atmosphere.
Would you like to make any progress in understanding science, identify the pre-formed blocks in your mind, and get rid of them. There are ample of forums in the net to discuss on those blocks.
Without that exercise you are deemed to repeat the same hackneyed arguments ad infinitum.
Rob Huber posts:
[[With regard to the subject of this thread, I personally think solar dynamics are kind of neat, and the Cosmic ray – cloud hypothesis is kind of neat. ]]
Yes indeed. Solar effects on climate are certainly real, and cosmic ray effects on climate are probably real. The problem rests with trying to assign a significant share of recent global warming to either. Neither has had a significant change in the level of flux density for the past 50 years or so, so neither can account for a significant amount of the sharp upturn in warming of the past 30 years or so.
Ray Ladbury wrote in #9:
“If we were seeing significant systematic changes in the GCR fluxes, then the rates for single-event upsets (bit flips) in microcircuits flown on orbit would deviate systematically from the predicted rates. They do not, and we have been using essentially the same model for the predictions since the early 1980s.”
Oh, my dear Ray, now you’ve done it. At this very moment, dozens of people have beetled off to generate claims that (i) there is a Special Type of GCR that can change without causing bit flips; (ii) there is a yet undiscovered anti-bit flip force that prevents bit flips during GCR flux; (iii) bit flips don’t exist; (iv) if they do exist, you don’t know how to recognize and measure them; and/or (v) you’re just generally opposed to the generation of profit from the flipping of bits and the fixing of bit flips.
That scenario leads to a possibly dumb question: is there a defined academic framework for the process of attacking/denying unwelcome news? We’ve lived through so many similar recurring campaigns attacking the identification of health/environmental threats–lead, tobacco, pesticides, food additives, now AGW–that surely there must be a recognized defined recipe for mounting such campaigns. A ‘Baron von Munch Hosing’s guide to issue fogging’ sort of thing. Maybe it’s not a true vein of social science, but a general guide to public relations. After all, “PR means never having to say you are wrong.”
re: #150 (Ray).
Ray, you wrote:
“…This is one of the aspects that raises the ire of responsible climate scientists when outsiders come in and make a hash of science they do not understand. The other aspect that puts them on edge is the disingenuous use of data like that cited by Tamino. Interogators know that torture is an unreliable questioning technique, but it is especially unlikely to yield the truth when applied to data…”
I read this as a rhetorical point, esp. “responsible climate scientists” and “outsiders.” I’m an outsider who had no such nefarious or invidious intentions. By so doing you brought up the question of authority which certainly seemed rhetorical to me. I pointed that out, sorry to be blunt, but I’ve been hassled by right-wing & left-wing polemics on the net & I tire of it. I had no intention of bringing politics into the temple.
Also in response to you I then pointed out that I based all my points on statements made by Hansen & Ramanathan, well-regarded authorities, not flacks or anti-AGW skeptics or propagandists. Again, to clarify my post against your apparent objections. I assure you I wouldn’t have bothered to post anything if I thought the sources were disreputable and wouldn’t pass muster. If you think I was offended (and no, my “ego” wasn’t “wounded,” again more rhetoric) but you didn’t intend offense, then we’re even. I’m done with explicating my rhetoric vs. yours.
I see Hansen has since down-graded his estimation of the Arctic’s role in AGW (yes, since 1880’s). EDF & others reported on the 2003 work just this past summer, so I’m not the only one not caught up w/ the most-current studies. Other studies cite that soot deposition in the Arctic is up again – some are citing forest fires, others citing south-westerly air currents from Asia, others citing Russian oil fields in the Arctic.
Sorry for the confusion about Hansen & the 90% soot-related estimate. I don’t have time to be careful with posting, I’m just trying to point people toward a finding that surprised me.
I make no assumptions about who here is an expert or not (I’m not, never tried to present myself as such), but I find the rhetoric very annoying & felt compelled to point it out. I’m not here to try to fool anyone, I’m assuming everyone here is as skeptical as I, and when I speculate, I speculate as a layperson. I hope that much was abundantly clear from my initial post “ballparking.”
I think the most important comments are those of Ramanathan, he sees this as a potential nexus & pivotal. He’s the one that’s saying that WITHIN brown clouds soot is taking up HALF the heating formerly ascribed to CO2. Take it up with Ramanathan, he’s the one that said this might provide an answer to the global conundrum (almost verbatim). Again, I’m not here to exculpate CO2, it’s long-term effects will prove insidious.
Again I’m a lay man. I bumped into the soot question first from Democratic Underground, where any AGW apostasy is attacked with sadistic glee. I can see it was naive on my part to ballpark & tally total effects with different time frames. I’m interested in what you’ll make of it. FWIW, the right wing bloggers are already making hay of Ramanathan’s brown cloud work.
And just to be totally up front, I think we should combine nuke & coal to keep oil prices down so that there’ll be less slash & burn agriculture in the tropics. Use some nuke power or photovoltaics to crack CO2 into CO & O2 as an antecedent to FT synthesis & start mitigating, recycling and trapping CO2 incrementally. I don’t see the countries of the world sufficiently replacing their use of fossil fuels (coal, petrol, methane), so maybe humanity will have to engineer the planet instead.
Consider what numbers I suggested as back-of-the-napkin speculation. But if, say, industrial soot constitutes a quarter all AGW & could be readily abated within 5 – 10 years, wouldn’t that be a good starting point? I gather Ramanathan thinks so, I’m just passing that along.
Regards,
/lee
PS a Correction to #165
The following paragraphs…
… are irrelevant to the comment in response to Eli Rabett as they have to do with the dynamic evolution of an enhanced greenhouse effect. The question I have in that post is a problem which is strictly related to a static climate system insofar as it is dealing with the validity of Kirchoff’s Law.
Sorry about mashing the two contexts together. Flustered.
One other thing … I believe it was James Hansen who stated that soot abatement would greatly aid Arctic ice reclamation. If he’s since recanted that statement I don’t know. Hence my “advocacy” of what looked to me to be a largely overlooked question. AFIAK, a great deal of the evidence about soot’s effect in the Arctic has fallen into the sea & Greenland benefits comparatively from cleaner westerlies borne from Canada.
Thanks for the links & critique, I’ll revise my “soot” blog accordingly. It serves no purpose if it’s not credible, clear or overly exuberant… :-)
One last passing comment, I think the regular forum members here would benefit by refraining from rhetoric and polemics. It does nothing for the reputation of the poster to “get political” in the context of factual discussion and it incites frustration and defensiveness in others. Everyone’s reputation suffers from abuse of rhetoric, and I think that’s the last thing anyone here wants.
Hope that helps,
/lee
Rob Huber, I’d be happy to use a terminology you find less offensive if you can come up with one that is appropriate for those who reject the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Would you perhaps prefer “faith-based,” since the proponents reject not only empirical evidence but also theoretical understanding?
Yes, solar dynamics is neat. So is the whole subject of cosmic rays. However, science can be neat and entirely irrelevant to the problem at hand. I would be happy to reassess this judgement about the putative GCR mechanism if you could come up with a real mechanism whereby a putative tiny change in a flux that is only 5 particles per square cm per second could drastically affect climate AND if you could provide even a modicum of evidence that the proposed underlying cause (GCR flux) is actually changing! Absent that empirical evidence and theoretical understanding, I’m afraid we have to consign this mechanism to the imaginary axis.
Now, there is of course no sin in being irrelevant or in writing fiction about neat science. The sin comes when you manipulate the data by doing things like selectively choosing dates or casting aspersions onto the vast majority of the scientific community (got new for you, it’s not just the IPCC–it’s every relevant professional society or independent gourp of scientists out there). When you start claiming that science has been hijacked (note spelling), you have just joined the lunatic fringe and should start getting to know your fellow lunatics–creationists, homeopaths, etc..
(sigh…), sorry Petro (166). Recognizing holes in a theory is science. Refusing to recognize them is religion. And blasting others for recognizing holes that your religion says is not there is bigotry.
Which “basic observations” of climate science do you think I have difficulties with??
As the sun appears to moving towards a Maunder minimum, there may be a real life opportunity to determine which portion of global warming was due greenhouse gas, as opposed to solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. Solar cycle 23 is not following past patterns. There have been papers published predicting a Maunder minimum. As I have said before, the sun can directly modulate cloud cover by electroscavenging and Enric Palle’s data supports that it has.
An alarmist global cooling scenario would seem ludicrious at this point in time, however, a case can be made for rapid cooling, based on the climatic past. To me, the competing hypothesis, seems to be valid/possible and the planetary response to a Maunder like minimum would validate or invalidate the hypothesis. I would hope those who have picked a side in this debate would appropriately help in the response to rapid cooling.
1. Re #163 Rob Huber
Much of the discussion on this “thread” circulates peripherally around its subject, namely the web-site report of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen.
So why don’t we consider some of your questions in relation to S&F-C’s report? I hope my response’s don’t appear flippant – they’re not meant to be – I’m taking S&F-C’s data and answering your questions assuming that what S&F-C show us is correct.
Here’s your questions:
Do you think anthropogenic green house gases are responsible for 100% of the current warming?
According to S&F-C’s data there is zero solar contribution to current warming (see their Figure 2b) since they’ve “dissected out” the solar contribution, and found it to be zero at “best” (since around 1960 the solar contribution fits a mild cooling trend if anything).
Based on S&F-C’s presentation, therefore warming must arise somewhere else (i.e. non-solar). They suggest it might be due to the effects of water vapour. Is that a reasonable proposition? What do you think?
I rather doubt Svensmark and Friis-Christensen believe solar fluctuations and cosmic ray-induced clouds are responsible for 100% of the observed warming. Do you know what the percentage is?
According to what S&F-C show us, they presumably believe that solar fluctuations and cosmic-ray-induced clouds make zero contribution to recent and current warming. After all that’s what their own analysis shows (see their Figure 2b).
Are antropogenic GHG responsible for 90%? 50%? 10%?
Why not 110% of the warming? After all S&F-C consider that the solar contribution has been a mild cooling one since 1960 or so (see their Figure 2b). So not only might anthropogenic greenhouse effect enhancement have resulted in all the recent warming, it (or something) has had to counter the slight solar-derived cooling that S&F-C have presented (see their Figure 2b).
Have you considered that the same feedback cycles so necessary to support the GHG hypothesis are also at play in the solar hypothesis?
Of course. However S&F-C demonstrate that there hasn’t been any solar contribution to recent and current warming, and therefore there can’t have been any feedbacks resulting from a solar contribution…
[notice by the way that “the same feedback cycles” are not “necessary to support the GHG hypothesis”…the feedback cycles are an integral part of the “greenhouse” phenomenon!]
Have you considered that other contributing factors may also be involved that just perhaps don’t involve anothropogenic forces?
Such as? S&F-C have shown us that these aren’t solar ones. What did you have in mind?
…etc. etc..
In other words, why not take Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s data at face value and see where they lead us?
Rod B claims:
Recognizing holes in a theory is science.”
It is not just recognizing them, it is seeking explanations. Any fool can ask ten question a minute.
“Refusing to recognize them is religion. And blasting others for recognizing holes that your religion says is not there is bigotry.”
Refusing to accept that your so-called problems in theory has been explained scientific manner, is not only religious bigotry but very-rigid minded thinking as well.
“Which “basic observations” of climate science do you think I have difficulties with??”
What else are your various dubios you raise in this forum than reluctance to accept significant impact of humanity in global warming?
Petro (176)
Biologists and other scientific scholars are doing just fine trying to better explain the holes in evolution theory. Why do you think they need my help?
I guess there’s two religions, then: refusing to recognize the evolutionary holes; refusing to not recognize the evolutionary holes.
I have always suspected that if global warming progresses as currently predicted it will eventually create havoc for many people(s). I do have doubts over what I see as deficiencies (though probably not “holes”) in AGW theory/physics. But then that’s probably just my priest.
Ray re Huber:
How’s ’bout “skeptic”??? Nice accurate description; misses the histronics and invectives though.
Well leebert some of us are skeptical when we see polemical headlines like “Don’t Blame Kilimanjaro’s Melting on Global Warming” on a blog that contains instructions on how to write a science article. Acme instruction manual?
Rod B confessed:
“But then that’s probably just my priest.”
Yeah, I think you nailed it.
William Astley posts:
[[As the sun appears to moving towards a Maunder minimum]]
It doesn’t appear that way at all. Output has been flat for 50 years. Here’s a table and chart:
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/LeanTSI.html
Re 178. Rod B. A true skeptic does not take a position that contradicts or denies the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, but rather argues against a position based on the evidence. To group together those firmly in denial with those who, while dissenting, are still playing by the rules of science is to do the latter a disservice.
In fact, there are a hierarchy of dissidents on climate:
true skeptics–admit the climate is changing but may dispute how dominant anthropogenic forcers are or how severe will be the consequences. These are few and far between now.
contrarians–take a position of dissent precisely because it is a minority position and they get more press attention that way (Lindzen comes to mind)
Denialists–simply take a position due to ideological considerations or because of a mistaken notion that the proof required of a scientific theory should be in proportion to the desirability of its consequences. Few if any of these are actual climate scientists, although the majority of dissidents fall here.
Enthusiasts–fall in love with a theory, often because it attributes climate change to a cause within their own narrow field of expertise–Svensmark et al. come to mind. Usually the mechanism proposed is weak if one is proposed at all.
Ray, there is no overcoming definition as declared by one side of a debate. You simply (and conveniently) define anyone not in accord with what you deem as clear and convincing to be irrelevant. Kinda like the defense not being allowed to present its case in a trial on the basis that it disagrees with what the prosecution has already declared and defined as true. Doubly so if the defendent doesn’t have the academic credentials that the prosecutor has.
Rod, the place to present a scientific argument is in the open, peer-reviewed scientific literature. The judge and jury are the relevant community of scientific experts. Nobody else matters in terms of rendering a scientific verdict based on the evidence. It is not credentials I value but experience. In my own field, many have PhDs, some Masters degrees, some just Bachelors of Science. That does not matter to me. I go by their engineering judgement, and if I perceive that they have an ideological axe to grind, my perception of their argument gets filtered through that lens.
Climate science is not a simple field–as you no doubt realize through your own praiseworthy efforts to understand it. Given, that, I think it is very unwise to equate the opinion of someone who has studied the issue for decades and published multiple contributions that have earned him the respect of his peers to the opinion of a rank neophyte (e.g. me). Science is not a democracy, but it is a meritocracy. That should not change just because some people and groups find the consensus of the experts unpalatable.
> one side of a debate ….
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=857#comment-52757
“… Lindzen … differentiated “industry stooges” as a separate category, people who were interested in obfuscating the issue towards supporting their own agenda, as opposed to people that are interested in the scientific truth. This is an important distinction, separating the Marshall Institute type reports (many of which are of the stooge nature), vs the more credible scientific scepticism. The challenge is for a bona fide skeptic to steer clear of being associated with stoogedom.”
The “skeptic” defense team fails to make a valid case Rod B. This isn’t the same as not being allowed to present evidence. They just don’t have any that flies. Ever see those movies about the first airplanes? Kind like those really.
Re: #181
William Astley posts:
[[As the sun appears to moving towards a Maunder minimum]]
It doesn’t appear that way at all. Output has been flat for 50 years. Here’s a table and chart:
There are indicators (e.g. length of solar cycle) in the current solar cycle that the sun is entering a phase which is more typical of the 19th century rather than more recent 20th century cycles. Whether this will result in a maunder minimum type phase is still in question.
Re #187
Evidence please John Finn! I don’t think anyone really has a clue what the sun is going to do during the next 20-50 years or beyond. However you seem to think that there’s evidence that “the sun is entering a phase which is more typical of the 19th century rather than more recent 20th century cycles.” No doubt this is based on some careful scientific analysis. Can you point us to the relevant scientific literature?
It seems to me that this notion must be based on some significant cycles in the long term variation of the sun’s properties (in other words we think that the sun is about to do such-and-such, since that’s where such-and-such a cycle is trending), or is based on the notion that the sun gives a “signal” of some sort of it’s impending behaviour (much as we would like to have, say, for predicting volcanic eruption – e.g. these are non cyclical, but the possibility arises that one might nevertheless predict an eruption via some analysis of events stirring underground – or because animals start acting oddly).
Which of these (or other) possibilities has science identified as predictable elements of the sun’s future behaviour?
I’m a non-scientist who was quite dubious about the idea of global warming when it first began coming to public attention. Like many others, I clearly remembered the 1970s claims of a coming ice age, one of those ideas I found silly at the time (with no scientific justification for so believing of course, just “common sense”!) and which, in the end, was a theory that was discarded within a short time. My reaction to claims of global warming was that it was more of the same. Over time, however, I’ve accepted that the evidence for AGW is highly convincing. Conversely, the arguments against both “generic” global warming and more specifically AGW range mostly from the patently absurd to the easily debunked. Some of them, however, are not so easily dismissed by a layman like me, especially when presented in a sophisticated fashion. That’s one of the reasons that I find Real Climate so helpful in better understanding the issues, the research that is being done (which, unfortunately, is largely unknown by the general public and therefore is deemed non-existent by too many), and the rebuttals to many of the more convincing anti-GW arguments. I wouldn’t say that I’m 100 per cent convinced of AGW–but pretty close, as are, I gather, most climate scientists.
Recently I read a NYT article entitled “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus” about Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” a book debunking diet myths. According to writer John Tierney, Taubes’ book examines “what social scientists call a cascade” and its effect on current thinking about diet. Although I haven’t yet read the book, Tierney’s article indicates that Taubes makes a pretty good case. I also read Tierney’s article on Bjorn Lomborg, BTW, so I imagine he’s familiar to many posters here.
Anyhow, at long last, here is my question: How much of a possibility is there that the current state of consensus on global warming, and more particularly AGW, has been influenced by that pesky “cascade” effect? Taubes may be right or wrong on his conclusions about diets and, as Gina Kolata points out in another NYT article, it helps if you know what Taubes has left out. However, I, like I suspect most of us, have had personal experience of the “cascade” effect in our own lives, and Tierney points to some research that demonstrates that it actually exists. Although the scientific method would, if it worked perfectly, perhaps prevent such an effect, the truth is that scientists are obviously subject to many of the same human tendencies as the rest of us. As Taubes seems to demonstrate and as various scientific issues over the years have shown, consensus is not necessarily indiciative of the truth even in the scientific realm.
There are a lot of good reasons for proceeding with mitigation efforts IMO whether or not global warming theories ultimately prove to be correct or not, but the fight from dissenters has in many cases gotten vicious. Should it turn out that the current state of consensus is wrong, it seems like science would suffer a devastating public relations blow.
Mary C (189) — There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the climatology, leading to the conclusion that current global warming is due to humans, is flawed. There are simply too many lines of evidence which all lead to this conclusion.
There remain for further study some questions about the size or importance of various trace gases in the atmosphere, the role of the ground in stroing carbon dioxide, etc., etc.
Perhaps the most urgent question is to explain the rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. My amateur take on this is that nobody expected so much melting so soon.
Becky, read some of the history of industry lobbying over the “food pyramid” since the 1960s.
One I recall — corn syrup was being pushed hard as a replacement for sugar-caane sugar. That meant lots of corn being subsidized. At the same time corn-oil margarine was being pushed hard as a replacement for butter for example, and then they had to make it solid so it would “spread” like butter so it was hydrogenated (making it a “trans-fat”). Only after a lot of people ate a lot of that did the statistics add up showing it was a bad choice. By that time the industry was finding other reasons to keep selling corn — like ethanol.
We’ll be wanting to watch for industries that get big enough to distort the science and the informed marketplace in all areas, always.
The “cascade” shouldn’t be attributed solely to scientists in their ivory towers. Lots of money goes into shaping these social choices.
I am a little bit late, but just one remark:
S and FC relate to the tropospheric temperature and thus try to imply that they have found something new. However, the tropospheric temperature and surface temperature are so closely correlated that you get the same thing when using surface temperature instead of tropospheric temperature. If you account for El Nino (e.g. subtract MEI-Index/10 from global temperature anomaly), volcanic eruptions, and detrend the data, you get quite a nice correlation to cosmic ray flux. However, as mentioned in many comments, you have to detrend the data to get the fit, which says everything. CRF does not explain any positive trend.
Urs, would you spell out why this is true or point to a basic explanation: “you have to detrend the data to get the fit, which says everything.”
Good comment here as well:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/11/jan-veizens-cosmic-ray-climatology.html
Re #192 Urs, has this been published anywhere? I’m curious to see what it looks like (the solar cycle in the detrended surface temperature with non-solar contributions removed). In particular what the amplitude is, and whether there is any sort of a discernable lag. Does S&F-C’s version (their figure 2b) provide what you would consider to be a reliable illustration of the solar “signature” in the surface temperature anomaly? (their “peak to trough” amplitude of ~ 0.4 oC seems rather large to me but maybe there’s a good reason for that??)
Re #193 This might be a good place to have a straightforward description of what “detrend” actually encompasses, since it comes up quite a lot. I’ve assumed that “detrend” means just that. That one mathematically removes a trend from a series (in climate science normally a time series). It’s easy to see how one can remove a linear trend, and I assume (right or wrong?) that a cyclical trend can be removed by detrending too…and maybe any function???
But I have no idea if it is as straightforward as that! Can someone explain (or point to an explanation?).
I imagine that there are lots of questions that arise with respect to detrended data. Like “what is the justification in relation to the evidence for removal of a trend”? And “how was the magnitude etc. of the trend determined”? And maybe “was the trend predetermined independently of any expectation and then removed or was the detrending done according to the optimization of some preconceived outcome?”
My understanding of Urs’ comment in relation to uncovering the solar-cycle-contribution to the temperature anomaly is that (referring to S&F-C’s data in Figure 2b) the solar-“signature” matches the temperature anomaly only after removal of various non-solar contribution and a linear trend amounting to 0.14 oC +/- 0.4 oC per decade
Another question I have about that is that I can see how one can remove a linear trend of 0.14 oC per decade. But what does the +/- 0.4 oC refer to? Clearly a linear trend is just a linear trend and it has a discrete slope (0.14 oC per decade). Does the +/- 0.4 oC mean anything other than as an indication of the SD of the slope in the original determination of the trend, or does it contribute to the detrended data in some way (for example by introducing noise equivalent to +/- O.4 oC)?
Re: #195 (Chris)
“Removing” a trend from data (“detrending”) means simply subtracting the values of the trend pattern from the data, to generate new numbers (“residuals”). The residuals are the difference between the original data values, and what they would be if the data followed the trend exactly.
Cyclic patterns can be removed similarly, but they’re not generally referred to as trends.
Trends are usually removed only if their presence can be established with statistical significance. The magnitude of the trend removed is generally determined by a least-squares fit of the trend pattern to the data.
I believe your understanding of Urs’ comment is essentially correct. I would add that the solar signal is present even without removing the other patterns, but until they are removed the solar-cycle pattern is not present with statistical significance. The presence of signal patterns (like trends and cycles) increases the variance in the data, which is the “yardstick” against which we measure the significance of possible patterns. But if we can identify a trend with statistical significance, then we know that at least some of the data variance is due to this trend, and should not be counted as part of the variance which needs to be “explained” in order to call some other signal pattern “significant.” By removing the trend, we remove its contribution to the variance. This “lowers the bar” which the other pattern must clear in order to be called significant.
The +/- 0.4 deg.C/decade does indeed refer to the uncertainty in the trend rate.
The following are some of the observations related to solar cycle 23 which I find troubling. What are the implication for planetary temperature, if the sun enters a sever Maunder minimum?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2…_longrange.htm
The following is an excerpt from the above link:
The sun’s “Great Conveyor Belt”
“Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s (has recently slowed down to 0.25 m/s – my comment) in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
The above comment concerning the slowing of the solar conveyor belt was made May, 2006. Hathaway, later in 2007 notes the sun is no longer following the set of cycle rules.
The following is a 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ…605L..81B
“We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology, the Schove series for the last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle.”
The following is a link to a daily solar report. As can be seen the sun is currently spotless and has been oscillating lower and lower as the solar flux (a measure of the solar large scale magnetic field) drops.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
A prediction based on past solar behaviour that solar cycle 23 should have ended in August, 2006.
Based on the last 12 cycles, “large cycles usually start early”, Hathaway told New Scientist. He expects the cycle to begin in late 2006 or early 2007: “We’re anxiously awaiting the appearance of those first spots in the new cycle.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
Well, there were “over 45 published and submitted predictions” as of the latest thing I find in Google Scholar, and they take 2-1/2 years _after_ the beginning to settle on a final prediction.
Anyone know if the current situation is an outlier, anyone have something like the Arctic Sea Ice charts showing variations?
I’m just Googling. If anyone has their Wisdom button enabled and can say something knowledgeable, please please do so.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AAS…210.9206B
“Between October 2006 and March 2007, the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel met …the panel considered over 45 published and submitted predictions. The first panel prediction was announced in April, 2007. Here, we present that prediction, along with other recommendations of the panel. This prediction is just the first prediction by this panel and it is expected to be updated annually until a final prediction is issued approximately 30 months after cycle 24 has begun.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s11207-007-0475-4
“… there are indications that solar minimum may occur as late as March 2008.”
A recent paper by Camp and Tung in GRL (2007) proposes the solar cycle has a strong and clear footprint in Earth’s climate. They state they are the first to have established a statistically significant coherent solar response at Earth’s surface, basing this on a composite mean difference and using a spectral-based Monte-Carlo technique (MC) to show it is unlikely that this pattern could occur due to chance.
It is not clear, however, it the MC was done for the raw data with more high-frequency data with more degrees of freedom (d.o.fs; and the pattern is less likely to happen by chance) or using the filtered series with lower frequency and fewer d.o.fs.
Most of the strong response was seen in the NCEP reanalysis in the Arctic where the observations are missing/sparse and the data suffer from high uncertainties/errors (besides, the Arctic represents a fairly small area of the planet and a very low number of spatial d.o.fs). Furthermore, before the satellite observations (1979), there was little information about the sea-ice extent in that area. The arctic temperature is closely coupled to the sea-ice extent (which are also strongly affected by the surface winds). So, how real is the response in the Arctic then? (I don’t think it can be trusted).
For the remainder of the globe, the patterns does not look all that coherent with both positive and negative responses. also, I’d like to see a similar analysis done with the ECMWF reanalysis (ERA40).
Again, this issue is unrelated to the fact that there has been no trend in the solar acticvity since 1952.
Re 193,194,etc.
No, that has not yet been published. I will see if I can put a graph on the web when I am back in the office. What detrending means has been explained. If you do not detrend the temperature data you will see that temperature shows up and downs more or less coherent to cosmic rays on the time scale of roughly 10 years, but that it is impossible to get a fit between the two data sets because the temperature values at the end of the period (1958-2006) are much higher than at the beginning, while for cosmic rays the values are more or less the same. If there is only a fit when you detrend the temperature data, this means that cosmic rays cannot explain the trend. Of course this statement is only valid for the period you are detrending for. If you detrend for another period you will get other residuals and another fit. We can only draw conclusions about the period we are examining (1958-2006).
There is no apparent lag of the 10y cycles. In contrary, there are certain lags, but with changing sign as you can see in their Fig. 2. However, if you extend the comparison to before 1958 (using e.g. magnetic index or other solar variables) the correlation is not that good anymore and maxima of temperature sometimes coincide with minima, sometimes with maxima of solar influence.
Concerning the amplitude, you also can see in their figure 2, that temperature does not coincide with cosmic rays on the short term, except a few rare cases (possibly accidental). To get an idea of the amplidude you have to look at the scale where there is really a correlation, i.e. on the (roughly) 10y cycle. There you get about 0.1K amplitude of global surface temperature for the solar cycle. I haven’t done this analysis for tropospheric temperature yet.