Russian Scientists Dismiss CO2 Forcing, Predict Decades Of Cooling, Connect Cosmic Ray Flux To Climate

Scientific Papers Predict

Cooling In Coming Decades

A new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences was just published in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics.

The scientists dismiss both “greenhouse gases” and variations in the Sun’s irradiance as significant climate drivers, and instead embrace cloud cover variations — modulated by cosmic ray flux — as a dominant contributor to climate change.

A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale.  More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans).   With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.

Stozhkov et al., 2017

Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate

Stozhkov, Y.I., Bazilevskaya, G.A., Makhmutov, V.S., Svirzhevsky, N.S., Svirzhevskaya, A.K., Logachev, V.I., Okhlopkov, V.P.

“One of the most important problems facing humanity is finding the physical mechanism responsible for global climate change, particularly global warming on the Earth. … Summation of these periodicities for the future (after 2015) allows us to forecast the next few decades. The solid heavy line in Fig. 1 shows that cooling (a drop in ΔT values) is expected in the next few decades.”

“Figure 2 shows the dependence between the annual average changes ΔT in the global temperature in the near-surface air layer and charged particle flux N in the interval of altitudes from 0.3 to 2.2 km. We can see there is a connection between values ΔТ [temperature] and N [charged particle flux]: with an increase in cosmic ray flux N, the values of changes of global temperature decrease. This link is expressed by the relation ΔT = –0.0838N + 4.307 (see the dashed line in Fig. 2), where the ΔT values are given in °C, and the N values (in particle/min units) are related to the charged particle flux measured at an altitude of 1.3 km. The correlation coefficient of the line with the experimental data is r = –0.62 ± 0.08.”

“Our results could be connected with the mechanism of charged particle fluxes influencing the Earth’s climate; it includes, first of all, the effect charged particles have on the accelerated formation of centers of water vapor condensation, and thus on the increase in global cloud cover. The total cloud cover is directly connected with the global temperature of the near surface air layer.”

Another newly published scientific paper also projects cooling in the coming decades.  Dr. Norman Page, geologist, attributes climate changes to natural (60-year and millennial-scale) cycles of solar activity (and cloud cover changes), and he notes that the rise in solar activity since the depths of the Little Ice Age has been the predominant climate driver.  The millennial peak in solar activity occurred in about 1991, with the corresponding (lagged) temperature peak in 2004.  Within the next few years the temperature is projected to drop significantly.  Annotated graphs depicting the robust correlation between cloud cover changes and global temperature, as well as the forecasted global cooling, are included below.

Page, 2017

The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers

“This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future, unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60 ± year and, more importantly, 1000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver are discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak – inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

“The global millennial temperature rising trend seen in Figure 11 from 1984 to the peak and trend inversion point in the Hadcrut3 data at 2003/4 is the inverse correlative of the Tropical Cloud Cover fall from 1984 to the Millennial trend change at 2002. The lags in these trends from the solar activity peak at 1991 (Figure 10) are 12 and 11 years, respectively. These correlations suggest possible teleconnections between the GCR flux, clouds, and global temperatures.”

“Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits, it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Given the lack of any empirical CO2-climate connection reviewed earlier and the inverse relationship between CO2 and temperature [during the Holocene, when CO2 rose as temperatures declined] seen in Figure 2, and for the years 2003.6–2015.2 in Figure 4, during which CO2 rose 20 ppm, the simplest and most rational working hypothesis is that the solar ‘activity’ increase is the chief driver of the global temperature increase since the LIA.”

61 responses to “Russian Scientists Dismiss CO2 Forcing, Predict Decades Of Cooling, Connect Cosmic Ray Flux To Climate”

  1. CO2isLife

    Cosmic rays may have ended the CA drought.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Did Cosmic Rays End the CA Drought?

  2. Robert Christopher

    “Scientific Papers Predict Cooling In Coming Decades”

    With the destruction of our electric ‘national grids’, à la South Australia (etc), I think people’s living rooms will be affected more than the climate, for those in higher latitudes, anyway.

  3. richard verney

    The main concern is the high cost of energy and its reliability both of which have needlessly been compromised by inappropriate energy policies.

    Let us hope that if the globe cools, the politicians will wake up, smell the coffeee and start taking steps to reverse the crazy policies that they have enacted and foistered upon us.

    1. SebastianH

      If the globe cools. And what happens if it doesn’t?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        If it doesn’t cool, that would be a good thing. The climate of the Little Ice Age (1300-1900 C.E.) or the Dark Ages (400-800 C.E.)led to shorter growing seasons, crop failures, more droughts, more famines, the demise of civilizations, more hurricanes, etc.

        Why do you believe that cooling is better than warming?

      2. richard verney

        Personally, I consider that if the globe were to warm say a further 3 to 5 degrees above its present day temperatures, that would be a very good thing for life in general here on planet Earth.

        Life has in the past flourished when the globe was far warmer than today. There is no reason to thing that things would be different this time round. The greatest bio diversity is seen in warm tropical rain forests and the least in cold arid places such as Antarctica.

        Obviously there would be some winners and losers, but overall for life and bio diversity a warmer world is a better world.

        The world is presently CO2 deficient. It needs far more CO2 and if adding CO2 brings about some warming then that would be a win win scenario. Unfortunately, it appears that the Climate Sensitivity to CO2, if any at all, is small such that adding CO2 is unlikely to bring about any significant warming. What a pity.

  4. Current and Possible Future Cooling | Pearltrees

    […] Russian Scientists Dismiss CO2 Forcing, Predict Decades Of Cooling, Connect Cosmic Ray Flux To Clima…. A new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences was just published in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics. The scientists dismiss both “greenhouse gases” and variations in the Sun’s irradiance as significant climate drivers, and instead embrace cloud cover variations — modulated by cosmic ray flux — as a dominant contributor to climate change. A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). […]

  5. SebastianH

    The Stozhkov is a bad joke, right? Lets do a FFT and reconstruct the curve from it predicting the future. Throw in some cosmic ray theory about cloud cover being dependent on cosmic rays and further temperature and voila … finished is the new paper 😉

    As a suggestion for the peers who “reviewed” that one: the author should have deducted his characteristics for the four curves/waves from a previous period of time and then should have tested if it accurately forcasts the last hundred or so years. As I recall this is not the first paper that tried to do science like this, someone linked to something similar in the comments a few weeks back.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      So are we to assume that you believe decadal-scale cloud cover variations are modulated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

      1. SebastianH

        Are we to assume cosmic rays are dominating the cloud formation process? There is a possible connection and the experiments are still running as far as I know

        Also: anything to say about this rebuttal?

        To answer your question directly: if clouds are a feedback of changing temperature, why not? Before you answer: no, it’s probably no single thing influencing anything when we talk about climate changes. And because you don’t understand what underlying, increasing change means in a periodic (your cited paper) temperature curve, I’ll repost my image from before:

        1. AndyG55

          sebs little meaningless fantasy curve again.

          So funny.

      2. AndyG55

        Seb has absolutely zero idea how anything in the atmosphere actually works. Pointless asking him to explain anything.

        He has given up looking for a paper to support his AGW scam religion.

        1. SebastianH

          Have you ever explained something here and replied to criticism about your explaination without insults masking your insecurity?

          1. AndyG55

            Keep hunting for that mythical paper, little seb.

            So far you have found absolutely NOTHING except fairy-tales.

            An EMPTY vessel, making a lot of meaningless sounds.

          2. Bindidon

            SebastianH, you shouldn’t mind about AndyG55: this person never proposes valuable arguments. Insulting others is all he is able to do.

          3. AndyG55

            I have presented lots of provable scientific arguments, I’m sorry if you are incapable of comprehension…. Your problem to fix.

            You also are welcome to produce a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Until then you are just another FAILED AGW shill.

  6. sod

    If i were you folks, i would bet all my money on this one paper and start building a major skiing resort in the middle of Germany.

    Go for it, there are millions to be made that way!

    1. P Gosselin

      There you go again, ignoring the many natural factors that no one can predict. And no one sees you planting palm trees in the middle of Germany either. Your arguments are poor, as usual.

      1. Eckbach
    2. Kenneth Richard

      Actually, there is more than just one paper – and more than just the Russian Academy of Sciences – predicting global cooling for the coming decades. Cooling predictions have become more and more commonplace.

    3. DirkH

      Well the pomegranate plantations didn’t work out so well, sod, right?

    4. mwhite
    5. Alfred (Melbourne)

      Actually, the temperature has been dropping in January – by 3C over 30 years – at Germany’s highest mountain.

      I guess they know it already.

      1. SebastianH
        1. WAM

          If you use a trend then it is better to understand what you are doing.
          The equation of the DWD January temperature trend is : T = 8.201*e-3*x – 27.057 [C], where [x] is the year.

          It means that in year 1 the January temperature at Zugzpitze would be (-27. deg C). So almost Ice Age, I would say.
          So careful with trends. Surely you can see increased/decreased trends in these data.

        2. WAM

          And using these trends (not advised), but just as you are trying to use:
          0.8 C January temperature increase in 2117, and 1.6 C July temperature increase in 2117.
          Surely below these holy 2 degrees.

  7. Bob Weber

    Thanks again Kenneth Richard. Your compilations are epic!

    As to this paper, ‘This one is a bad joke’ is right!

    There is no cosmic ray cooling; there is solar radiation cooling, which is what we’re experiencing now. These people are 100% backwards!

    We are at nearly the highest cosmic ray counts since 1964, and the only major cloud cover is still originating near the tropics, not the poles, no different than it was during the recent solar max.

    Cloud cover is formed from tropical evaporation and moves towards the poles, not the other way around. Cooling comes from low TSI.

    AFAIK, there is no more evidence for CR cooling than for CO2 warming.

    Cosmic ray theory will join Co2 theory in the junk science bin.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “There is no cosmic ray cooling; there is solar radiation cooling, which is what we’re experiencing now. These people are 100% backwards!”

      You do agree that cloud cover increases are a net negative feedback because shortwave cloud forcing dominates over longwave cloud forcing, right?
      “The shortwave cloud effect exceeds the longwave one at both surface and top of the atmosphere, thus producing a cooling.”
      “The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect”

      In other words, as cloud cover increases, the more cooling there is. As cloud cover decreases, warming occurs (like it did from the 1980s to 2000s – “global brightening” depicted in the graph above). In this way, warming or cooling is modulated by decadal-scale variations in albedo, or cloud cover.

      TSI variations (in the Sun’s output itself) are also influential, yes, but in indirect ways.

      The cosmic ray explanation for climate change is just a still-controversial theoretical conceptualization as to how clouds are formed. So yes, it isn’t “cosmic ray” cooling or warming. It’s cloud radiative forcing affecting the radiation budget, and cloud cover changes are connected to cosmic ray flux.
      “[I]n all cases, two rapid changes in the atmosphere can bring the outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere almost exactly (a difference of 0% to 0.3%) to the observed pseudo-balance values of clear and cloudy skies. According to the true energy balance values, the slightly nonlinear cloud forcing would be -0.56 Wm-2 per 1% increase in cloudiness and -0.1 °C per 1% increase in cloudiness over the normal cloudiness range variation from 60% to 70%. According to this study, the commonly used cloud forcing in the units of W/m2 yields effects that are about 40% too low for the long-term cloudiness changes. Cloudiness changes could alone explain the global warming [of recent decades].”

      1. AndyG55

        “The cosmic ray explanation for climate change is just a still-controversial theoretical conceptualization as to how clouds are formed”

        Maybe so, but it still has FAR more scientific integrity than the “CO2 causes warming” fallacy !

  8. Bob Weber

    One can observe the CR radiation at 15km over the NH here

    The darker colored area is less intense today than it was a week ago, when it was in the 25-30 range, ie darker red. This means the CRs are becoming less intense during the current seasonal insolation change to NH spring & summer, and in reaction to incoming variable solar radiation, such as the geomagnetic storm yesterday, which caused a Forbush decrease (in CR).

    It seems logical that the major CR cloud formation would occur over the area of highest CR intensity, the polar region, and if there were to be cooling clouds formed that effected temperatures they would have to move from the north southward to have such an effect, but as I said before, there appears to be scant evidence for that happening.

    The tropical ocean isn’t very easily capable of being mediated by theoretical CR cloud formation from the far north, and my research shows tropical temperatures and evaporation are controlled by TSI.

  9. Ash

    I don’t have good citations (though a quick google yielded this amongst others in general press: ), but I read a while back how marine bacteria especially are major drivers of cloud formation; further that the bacteria themselves have something to do with whether or not they start lifting off and floating into the sky. Since reading that have often wondered if climate scientists would be able to assess their degree of influence in cloud formation. Similarly, would be nice to get general stats of X increase in cosmic rays due to Y decrease in sunspot activity results in Z increase in cloud formation. Unless things like this can be measured in some way, over time, everything seems to be just one interesting sounding theory (like the CO2 one) after another.

  10. Steve Johnston

    The surface of the earth is about 59F warmer due to greenhouse gases. Yet people find it inconceivable that doubling the level of the second most important heat trapping gas coupled with its positive feedbacks could make a few degrees difference.

    1. AndyG55

      “The surface of the earth is about 59F warmer due to greenhouse gases.”

      Pure supposition.

      Please provide a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      1. SebastianH

        The radiation from different greenhouse gases can be measured and therefor it has an effect.

        Please provide a paper that proves you magic gravito/thermal thing with lightspeed convection and magic energy reservoirs.

        1. AndyG55

          dodge and weave. little seb. I provided several links to papers proving the gravito/thermal effect.

          Go and find them.

          Maybe, perhaps, you will find one to prove the MYTH of CO2 warming in a convective atmosphere.

          So far you are firing NOTHING BUT BLANKS.

          1. SebastianH

            Oh we play the “I already did that” game now … then please search my replies to yours … I already did that too 😉

            Seriously, provide something that isn’t just fantasy physics like the last few times you linked to something about that gravito/thermal effect of yours.

            Mean while the rest of us know why the surface is warmer then it would be without an atmosphere. Since it has been measured and the mechanism is rather simple physics …

          2. AndyG55

            You have still not produced a single paper proving CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            No amount of pretending and DENYING that fact, will allow you to avoid it.

            You are the one DENYING the proven facts of the gravito/thermal effect.

            There is only one master denier here.. and its not me.

        2. AndyG55

          Radiation form bushfires, industrial processes etc produce FAR more radiative energy.

          Does this energy get “trapped”? NO, IT DOESN’T

          What is so mystical about a tiny amount of CO2 radiation that the heat from it get trapped??


          It is dealt with just the same as any other extraneous heat, because the energy in the atmosphere is regulated by the gravito/thermal/pressure effect.

          There is no mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

          And your continued anti-science DENIAL of this fact, and your inability to produce one single paper to back up the fallacy that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere can only be described as RELIGIOUS DOGMA.

  11. John Aspray

    It has been proven that uvB radiation is now the prominent wavelength of the uv spectrum reaching the Earth’s surface. It now contributes 60% of the spectrum, ie 55% above the official figure. The shorter wavelength will cause increased evaporation, resulting in more water vapour in the atmosphere. uvA creates ozone, uvB destroys it. Ice caps reflect around 80% of uv, hence the ozone holes above the polar regions.
    In areas of little cloud cover, drought will prevail. The major problem will be reliable crop production. Skin cancers and eye problems will also sky rocket.

    1. tom0mason

      I’m interested in finding this information, and have attempted to find it on NASA site but found too many dead-ends.
      Could you please provide a link for the data?

      My best link is about general spectral changes —

      Recent observations made by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) spacecraft suggest that the Sun’s visible and infrared spectral irradiance increased from 2004 to 2008, even as the total solar irradiance measured simultaneously by SORCE’s Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) decreased. At the same time, solar ultraviolet (UV) irradiance decreased 3–10 times more than expected from prior observations and model calculations of the known effects of sunspot and facular solar features.

      Short period — 2004 to 2008.

      So visible and IR increase, UV radiation was falling. And the overall effect on the weather during this period was…

  12. CO2isLife

    Cosmic rays may have ended the drought in CA.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Did Cosmic Rays End the CA Drought?

  13. Dr Norman Page

    Richard. Your introduction to my paper reads “The millennial peak in solar activity occurred in about 2004 ….” It would better read “The millennial peak in solar activity occurred in 1991.The corresponding lagging RSS temperature data peak in about 2004,and within….”

  14. cementafriend

    Certainly, Russian scientists and engineers can dismiss the term CO2 forcing because there is no such thing. CO2 in the atmosphere can not force anything. By definition a force is mass times acceleration. In SI units a force is called a Newton. A mass of snow when it moves will have a force. Similarly a sudden flow of water will have a force. Pressure in units called Pascals is defined as a force per unit area. Atmospheric pressure is at standard conditions is 101.3 kPa.
    So-called climate scientists do not understand basic units and dimensional analysis. They have no idea of thermodynamics, or heat&mass transfer which are engineering subjects. Their predictions fail because they do understand the basic. The Russian engineers who landed space craft on the surface of Venus, took pictures of the surface and horizon and made measurements of pressure and temperature know more than all the so-called climate scientists and hangers-on put together.

    1. SebastianH

      I’m guessing your native language is not English, isn’t it? The term “forcing” is just that … a forcing. It has nothing to do with the SI units for force.

      1. AndyG55

        “It has nothing to do with the SI units for force.”

        Ahhh , so no energy is involved.

        Wouldn’t you agree, seb 😉

        1. SebastianH

          Oh dear And … you never fail to disappoint.

          1. AndyG55

            I can’t help it if you keep talking with your foot in your mouth.

            You seem to have FARCE mixed up with force.

            Where’s that CO2 warming paper.. found it yet ?

            Everybody is waiting and waiting and waiting for you to produce something…. ANYTHING !

            BLANK… EMPTY !!

            Maybe when you get your EV you will be able to drive far enough to find it.

  15. Intelwars2 – March 23 & 24, 2017 – (We welcome Donald J. Trump as the 45th President Of The United States Of America!) *Breaking News Headlines!* The Constitution – The Bill of Rights – And The Ten Commandments Are NOW UNDER RESTORATION! 24 Ho

    […] Scientific Papers Predict Cooling In Coming Decades:Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the …  […]

  16. tom0mason

    Yep, as described the sun is our controller of climate, everything else is just a bit part player.

  17. Chris Frey

    I do not understand figure 1 on top of this article. The solid line shows the decline, but the fine curve shows a sharp uptick.

    Is there an explanation for that?

    Chris Frey

    1. AndyG55

      The dark line is highly smoothed. no detail.

      The fine line is temperatures, looks like NOAA/GISS at much finer detail.

      The up-tick is the recent El Nino transient, which has now decayed back down to near the pre-El Nino temperature.

      The only worry with this graph is that it matches NOAA/GISS temperature data, and this puts a large query over the whole thing.

  18.  Cosmic Rays Increase Cloud Cover, Earth’ Surface Cools | The Next Grand Minimum
  19. Russian Scientists: Greenhouse Gas Theory Dead, Global Cooling Coming - Principia Scientific International

    […] – See more at: […]

  20. John

    Is it a sign of great intelligence to to suspect that something else might be causing the warming besides the .002 percent of the atmosphere that is manmade carbon dioxide? And the release of 10^23 Joules of heat energy into the ocean from a magnitude 9.2 earthquake is somehow irrelevant to warming of the ocean and the environment and melting of the Arctic sea ice not to mention the fact that the graphs are just about identical. Stupid is the new smart.

  21. Links 208 | Cindy's Zone 2

    […] Dr. Phil Exposes Elite Government Pedophile Ring On Mainstream TV No age discrimination: Muslim ‘migrants’ rape elderly German women, 90 and 79:In Europe, no female of whatever age is safe from Muslim ‘migrants’: Steve Quayle on Rockefeller’s Death and the Impact on All of Humanity:This is one of the most telling interviews in the history of The Common Sense Show. Interview Interference with Satanic Music and Backwards Masking Isis claims responsibility for London terror attack that killed at least three victims British-born attacker ‘known to MI5’ : Leftists laugh at Tommy Robinson for calling it a Muslim attack at the scene(videos) Scientific Papers Predict Cooling In Coming Decades:Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the … […]

  22. Statistik: Kalter April mit weißen Ostern 2017? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Russian Scientists Dismiss CO2 Forcing, Predict Decades Of Cooling … […]

  23. Joe

    What I find interesting is one of the more well-known solar physicists out there, Piers Corbyn, doesn’t agree with the cosmic ray-cloud formation theory because “it should give 11yr cloud-temp cycle but FAILS”:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy