# Probability of the Cosmic Ray Flux Theory of Climate Change

Should we believe the cosmic ray flux theory (CRF)? Here I attempt to answer this question quantitatively, by calculating the strength of evidence so-far presented for CRF as a major forcing factor in climate change. Specifically we need to ask, what is the probability of being wrong about CRF? This can be calculated by combining the significance values of independent lines of evidence.

Below I have started calculating and tabulating the P values. The first 8 rows were worked out from the difference of means from Shaviv’s paper, with and without CRF. I have a sense that independence of evidence can be judged by the manner in which CRF or its response is measured, so I have listed that in the table. At the long time scales I think CRF is estimated using an isotope of iron in meteorites (Fe). Over medium periods 10Be was used, while at shorter time scale the climate sensitivity was calibrated on the solar output TSI.

I take this roughly as three independent sources of evidence, as follows:

Period P=0 Time yrs Indicator
Phanerozoic 0.34 500,000,000 Fe/temp
Cretaceous 0.19 50,000,000 Fe/temp
Eocene 0.56 20,000,000 Fe/temp
LGM 0.25 10,000 10Be/temp
20thCentury 0.08 100 10Be/temp
SolarCycle 0.08 ~11yrs TSI/temp
CombinedC 0.09
CombinedLM 0.08
UK20thCent 0.01 50 Neutron/cloudiness
Forbush 0.05 0.1 Neutron/cloudiness

The last two lines are the effect of CRF as measured by neutron flux, on cloudiness in Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds (2006) by R. Giles Harrison and David B Stephenson. This paper finds a variations of 20% in cloudiness between the max and mins of CRF. The effect is detectable even at the shortest timescale of a Forbush event, a sudden and transient reduction in cosmic rays lasting a few days.

The combination of independent probabilities is simply their product. The probability of the theory that CRF affects climate is given by four probabilities, multiplied together:

0.33*0.15*0.08*0.01 = 4xe-5 = 4 sigma

Even a conservative estimate where some results are ignored provides a 4 sigma significance for the CRF theory. This level of significance is typical, nay expected in physics, while climate science is lucky to achieve 2 sigma, or around 95% confidence. The numbers show that the probability the CRF theory is wrong is very low indeed. In other words, the CRF theory has a 0.004 % or 1 in 25,000 chance of being wrong, so far.

The evidence shows CRF forcing climate change, at most time scales. In contrast, CO2 is uncorrelated at both the long and short time scales, and at the medium scales the direction of causation is uncertain. Only the PDO/NAO would there seem to be another major factor. Shaviv estimates that only 20% of the last centuries warming is possibly attributable to green house gases.

A lot of posts here have been negative — highlighting the sloppiness of climate change statistics and the self-serving exaggerations of climate effects scientists. For the first time I am becoming convinced that the evidence is really there to show CO2 is just a bit player in climate change, and there is another factor that can explain a large chunk of the wiggles that we see in global temperature changes.

Here is the data from Table 1. sens

Here is the turnkey R code.
``` d<-read.table("http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sens.txt&quot;)```

``` prob<-function(m1,s1,m2,s2) { s<-sqrt(s1^2+s2^2) z<-(m2-m1)/s pnorm(z) } run<-function() { for (i in 1:8) { m1<-d[i,4] s1<-d[i,4]-d[i,3] d2<-d[i+8,4] s2<-d[i+8,4]-d[i,3] print(prob(m1,s1,d2,s2)) } } ```

```run() ```

## 0 thoughts on “Probability of the Cosmic Ray Flux Theory of Climate Change”

1. Splendid, this is a huge step forward, you need to spread it far and wide! How about PNAS, after their self-serving publication of the rubbish by Joel Smith, Stephen Schneider (yes that one) et al last week – some hope!

2. Splendid, this is a huge step forward, you need to spread it far and wide! How about PNAS, after their self-serving publication of the rubbish by Joel Smith, Stephen Schneider (yes that one) et al last week – some hope!

3. Anonymous says:

I don’t know Tim, this is a bit ‘back 0f the envelope’ for publication. You would have to compare it with CO2. To get that probability you would have to compare the probability of the two causal direction, ΔT -> Δ CO2 vs Δ CO2 -> Δ T and I am not sure how to do that. Sometimes you do things for your own peace of mind, or use them as blog posts.

4. I don’t know Tim, this is a bit ‘back 0f the envelope’ for publication. You would have to compare it with CO2. To get that probability you would have to compare the probability of the two causal direction, ΔT -> Δ CO2 vs Δ CO2 -> Δ T and I am not sure how to do that. Sometimes you do things for your own peace of mind, or use them as blog posts.

5. Louis Hissink says:

David,

That’s quite an interesting result – it re-enforces the plasma universe approach that Earth weather is an effect at the interface between the Earth and the plasma of space, that it is space weather that is the principal driver of earth weather.

6. Louis Hissink says:

David,

That’s quite an interesting result – it re-enforces the plasma universe approach that Earth weather is an effect at the interface between the Earth and the plasma of space, that it is space weather that is the principal driver of earth weather.

7. questioning and recreating the work from within, extending its reach and replenishing its potential. It doesn’t matter
dating websites

8. questioning and recreating the work from within, extending its reach and replenishing its potential. It doesn't matter dating websites

9. i find
your blog very interesting lots of good post and readable articles. Keep it up
i will surely bookmark your site and visit it for future readings!

free cell phone spy

10. mandy mills says:

After all, what a great site and informative
datingsites

11. There are so many variables to consider when discussing such a
complicated process as the ever changing climate, and each one of us
certainly makes a difference whether you want to believe that or not.

12. I tried to research on this and I came reading this website that talks about cosmic rays have a hand in effecting shifts in human evolution, from Palaeolithic
times through to the modern day. Well, science is a very complicated thing for me especially astronomy.

free dating websites

13. The way you article making is unmistakably well known. I like the post you put here on this site. This one is sincerely significant for each one of the individuals who are looking this sort of stuff on web crawler. Thankful concerning Sharing such stunning data and continue posting. Article Writing

14. Pingback: www.seo-webdirectory.co.uk

15. Pingback: irus

16. Pingback: ???

17. Pingback: junk car buyer austin

18. Pingback: sliced pebble tile

19. Pingback: Pick up artist

20. Pingback: find

21. Pingback: aiéoi oaáa äéîaoéí

23. Pingback: aiéoi oaáa äéîaoéí

24. Pingback: aiéoi oaáa äéîaoéí

25. Pingback: zayiflama

26. Pingback: ????? ????

27. Pingback: ????? ?????

28. Pingback: makeanygirlwanttofuck

29. Pingback: aiéoi oaáa äéîaoéí.

30. Pingback: àìéøï òåáã äéîåøéí.,

32. Pingback: pix

33. Pingback: kliknij

35. Pingback: children's kids entertainment

36. Pingback: miami escorts

37. Pingback: how to hack google serp

38. Pingback: masöz

39. Pingback: AMT Mining

40. Pingback: bforex

41. Pingback: opinie status nieruchomosci

42. Pingback: Stanton Optical Roseville

43. Pingback: agenzia seo

44. Pingback: northpark residences

45. Pingback: Wholesale Moncler Clothing

46. Pingback: witryna

47. Pingback: strona www

48. Pingback: Gilbert Pest Control

49. Pingback: std testing

50. Pingback: Birmingham escort agency,

51. Pingback: orjinal lida

52. Pingback: Dive Gear Express

53. Pingback: camilo concha

54. Pingback: Bed bugs

55. Pingback: tomelloso

57. Pingback: las vegas escorts

58. Pingback: las vegas escorts.

59. Pingback: witryna www

60. Pingback: ????? ???? ???????

61. Pingback: ????? ???? ???????

62. Pingback: masaj

63. Pingback: exploding targets

64. Pingback: Kayak Fishing

65. Pingback: AVALON MALIBU