CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect
Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols. —Physics World, 24 August 2011
If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.–Terry Sloan, BBC News 3 April 2008
Henrik Svensmark welcomes the new results, claiming that they confirm research carried out by his own group, including a study published earlier this year showing how an electron beam enhanced production of clusters inside a cloud chamber. He acknowledges that the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation will not be proved until aerosols that are large enough to act as condensation surfaces are studied in the lab, but believes that his group has already found strong evidence for the link in the form of significant negative correlations between cloud cover and solar storms. Physics World, 24 August 2011
CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011
I have asked the CERN colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. –Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, Welt Online 15 July 2011
Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise. –-Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011
Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. –Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 23 Feb 2007
I hear rumbling.
As usual the BBC has reported this in the AGW context, It’s still CO2. No mention of Svensmark or his research prior to these experiments ar CERN.
I have complained but expect no reply as usual when a complaint is made about some outrageous statement about climate, storms, rising sea levels etc.
I can’t believe that the BBC allowed this news to get out. With a bit of luck this might be the sort of story that will appeal to the taste of the popular press. There must be some reporters out there who want to break the big story that actually contradicts the ‘concensus’.
Ah, but how did the water get into the atmosphere in the first place?
AGW of course
/sarc.
If Jasper Kirby was a politician I would vote for him. And congratulations to Svensmark!
Ah yes the BBC response is interesting – their lead quote in the analysis is:
“Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? – No” Professor Mike Lockwood Reading University.
Well that’s settled it then I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647
Interesting column by Lawrence Solomon. It would explain why Henrik Svensmark is not listed in as an author in the CERN CLOUD experiment results. Could Svensmark and Kirkby have agreed that his inclusion would be too controversial for the ‘climate’ community? Hard to say, but anyone who has studied Svensmark’s theory of Cosmoclimatology knows that is what was behind the CLOUD experiments. I would have hoped that Kirkby would have been more forceful in his presentation of the results, but I guess that will be up to us outsiders…
flows and bows of angel hair
icecream castles in the air
and feathered canyons everywhere…..
I think Joni ‘really’ understood clouds.
You can tune into YouTube and the DVD (that I got from a video hire shop) ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ one of the special features attached to the main feature (1 hr long) is a report from scientists employed to find out why anchovy and sardine shoals fluctuated some years more than others. The scientist explained it was the amount of rain that was received and poured into the sea as a run off. Clouds are formed by evaporation from the oceans, and when cosmic rays
that are always bombarding the earth from some ancient source like a Super Nova, combine with
water molecules they form more clouds. When there is solar activity flares, storms or sunspots,
these deflect cosmic rays from the planet and cloud cover decreases. Simple physics now CERN
has confirmed previous studies that the global alarmists have conveniently ignored.
Now it makes sense (to some?) 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapour, 4 % is CO2 and 1%
trace gases, like nitrous oxide etc. But over 3% of that CO2 is naturally formed. Clouds do
not only provide rain, snow etc., but they also keep the planet warm and also cold depending on the season. Deserts are hot during the day and temperatures plummet at night. Frost doesn’t form in winter when there is cloud cover.
Of course the BBC will not promote this important climate influence because it is only CO2 that they have invested a large percentage of their superannuation scheme in carbon credits.
At last there is evidence that the AGW is nothing but an figment of the imagination who wish to financially benefit from totally and fraudulently influencing governments to implement carbon taxes and clean energy projects.
I sincerely hope that “mainstream climate science” is not successful in crushing the work of Svensmark and Kirby. This work is the only experimental work in climate science. However, even now we hear from the MSC that this work can go nowhere because they know everything and, in particular, they know that the sun could not have a large influence on Earth’s climate.
I hope that the MSM picks up on the fact that this work is experimental and that the MSC has nothing comparable, no successful experiments at all whether passive or active.
I think that skeptics should announce a shortly forthcoming ‘Svensmark Day’, to be celebrated by every downtrodden tax payer around the world. There is a need for the MSM to be dragged into the open, kicking and screaming if need be.
Give science time and the truth will out. Give politicians and anarchists time and you’ll go broke and end up a slave. Science is never settled, so don’t ever trust anyone who says it is; especially if they were elected, or nominated and confirmed, for the job they’re in now, or their job depends on what these folks say. No doubt in 20-30 years we’ll know a lot more than we do today. Welllllll… the kids will.
Talk of the pot calling the kettle black. CERN must have employed Alastair Campbell to spin their stuff. The warmist media have clealry been pump primed ahead of everyone else to set the agenda with “nothing to see here folks move along”.
They must think the rest of the media are gullible morons if they think they are going to be fooled by such nonsense
As for the staff at CERN … those that kept quiet to avoid “politicising the issue” must be fuming!
As for the BBC … Just look at these:-:
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity. … (but)If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal. (2008)” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
“Results from an experiment built to study how clouds form suggests that our knowledge of this subject may need to be revised, Nature journal reports.(now)” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647
The official line is remains: Sunspots do not affect climate
So how this this one slip under the climate censor?
“The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm
Well the BBC has committed a large percentage of their superannuation scheme in carbon credits or trading. They better withdrew them now while they still have some value. Talk about the South Sea Bubble of the 18th Century, what about the 21st Century ‘Carbon bubble’.
But its governments who make the decisions on this, and who will be game enough to state the
AGW is a fraud to make some people money by deception.
Where is the NY Times? I expected the online edition this morning to feature Andy Revkin denying it meant anything at all, but instead there was nothing.
As far as I know/have read and understand, this….(from the BBC page linked to above + my emphasis)
Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sustained rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity. They also point to a vast body of research pointing to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to be the cause. According to Professor Lockwood, it is very unlikely that variations in cosmic rays have played a significant role in recent warming.
…is just plain wrong and/or a blatant lie, isn’t it?
and of course NewScientist argues that the CLOUD results are irrelevant. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
@Theo Goodwin says:
August 25, 2011 at 5:00 am
Don’t worry you cannot crush science you can only suppress it, the truth will always out. Especially science, although it may take decades/centauries.
The fact that Kirby is a lousy politician makes me more inclined to believe he’s a good Scientist.
I’m more inclined to think it was the acid.
Scottish Sceptic says:
August 25, 2011 at 5:13 am
So how this this one slip under the climate censor?
“The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm
There is that age old problem with lying. If you are going to lie, you must have a lie coordinator who keeps everyone informed about the progress of the lie and keeps everyone on the same page.
Note the last quote. and a sure-thing experiment put on ice because the money-sources wanted particular results.
We don’t KNOW the truth about climate change because there has been so very much of that.
I am personally a scientist. When I look for funding form the US goverment’s National Science Foundation, much of the first several pages mention global warming. It is emphatically and profoundly clear what you have to do to get funding.
Eisenhower warned us about that.
Warren Meyer has an article at Forbes explaining the science to the public. Wish the MSM were this good.
Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/
See the various “Cloud Experiment” lectures and videos, by Svensmark, Kirkby,
Calder and others at the Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science website.
Click the name “Axel” above to go there now.
On Video Wall #3
Cosmic Rays and Climate – by Jasper Kirkby (English – CERN Colloquium 2009)
On Video Wall #5
“climate change is due to cosmic rays.” (Jo Haig challenges Nigel Calder – BBC Newsnight)
Kampen om Klimaet – Svensmark (Danske & English with Norsk Commentary & Subtitles)
The Cloud Mystery – Henrik Svensmark (English with Danske Subtitles 2007)
On Video Wall #11
Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN – 2011 (English – updated)
From Harrabins article, referring the Prof Giles harrison, Reading university:
He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.
Surely thats what we have been seeing, not a drop in actual temps as there is still the natural warming trend coming out of the LIA, as well as decadal variation to allow for,but a definate drop off in the warming trend in the last 15 years or so. Perhaps some-one should explain to the good prof that he’s actually confirmed Svensmarks theory!
How is a BBC link from 2008 a reaction to the Cloud experiment that has only just reported?
Louise said:
August 25, 2011 at 11:25 am
> How is a BBC link from 2008 a reaction to the Cloud experiment
> that has only just reported?
It was not a reaction, it was a “preaction” 😉
I thought the response in skepticalscience was illuminating. I do not at all ‘get’ how this very theoretical explanation of GW can be considered better than the very convincing manmade c02 explanation!
James;
missing ‘sarc’ there?
Here’s a dupe of my comment on the Forbes page:
@James Hall
You wrote : “very convincing manmade c02 explanation!”
Either this is tongue in cheek, or you really do need to get informed.
Firstly, it is CO2 & not c02. The expression is a chemical formula.
Cabon Di-Oxide, meaning one atom of Carbon joined onto Two
atoms of Oxygen. The expression does not mean “carbon atom #02”,
or whatever your expression might signify.
This is NOT an esoteric debate over some fine points of science,
even though thats how it mean seem to you, if you stumbled on
the raging controversy in these pages. Yes there are debates, and
even arguments on fine points and nuances. There are also claims
of downright fraud and disinformation. Some explanations are pitched
at an easier to understand level.
Please do take the time to watch the two videos…….
The View from Galileo’s Window – the Sun, the CO2 Monster, and Earth’s Climate.
by Solar Physicist, Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard.
and ……
Real Facts about Climate Change
by Prof. R. Lindzen of M.I.T.
They can be found on Video Wall #1
at the website linked to the name “Axel” above.
Please watch those videos and tell your friends.
Thank You 🙂
The lack of positive reaction outside the immediate ‘climosphere’ is puzzling. Normally UK Telegraph, Fox News, and blogs like NRO and EUReferendum would take positive note of such a huge development. Are they participating in the blackout, or have they just missed the significance?
The timing couldn’t be worse……With Hurricane Irene bearing down on New York, you know what will dominate the climate change arena for the next few weeks don’t you? A perfect distraction for the warmists – they’ll stick with the religious hubris whilst the real science (CERN/CLOUD) will be ignored.
What century are we living in??!
For your Scandinavian readers: A Norwegian article / En norsk artikkel:
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/august/296200
As I have commented elsewhere, many commentators seem to have forgotten or just ignored, that these results just announced from CERN are not the end result of the research, but just the initial findings.
CLOUD is a multi year long experiment.
When completed, we will have an unbroken line from the incoming cosmic rays to the rain that is falling mainly on the Spanish plain (and elsewhere as well, for the pedantic).
What happens when the Solar Wind goes limp for too long?
i.e. – does a wall of Cosmic Rays come crashing into Earth?
Polistra said
“The lack of positive reaction outside the immediate ‘climosphere’ is puzzling. Normally UK Telegraph, Fox News, and blogs like NRO and EUReferendum would take positive note of such a huge development. Are they participating in the blackout, or have they just missed the significance?”
I cannot speak for Fox News etc. but neither the Online nor Print editions of today’s UK Telegraph
carry theCERN story. Its walltowall coverage of Libya plus yesterday’s release of the annual national schools examination results. Also it is the start of the Bank Holiday week end. However the 0nline pm edition just might have something
You must remember Prof Mike Lockwood is the one who said a couple of years ago that the quiet Sun would, if significant, show cooling, & it hasn’t happened. He just forgot to look at all four Global temperature metrics which, as Prof Jones testifies to, shows no significanat warming since 1995, & the last 10 years have flatlined pretty much. Besides I look upon it like switching your central heating on because you’re cold, but you don’t get warm straight away, it takes around an hour to reallt start feeling cozy, the Sun does the same trickonly on a rathr bigger scale, & vice-versa! Don’t forget William Herschell & his corn price predictions he was so good at just by counting Sunspots!
I tuned in at the very end of the program “One Planet” on BBC World Service this morning and heard that they had interviewed Prof. Kirkby about CLOUD. I wish I could hear what was said!!
IanM
Alan the Brit,
It was Mike Lockwood that went to the press just prior to a major U.N. meeting and announced the final “nail in the coffin” for solar/climate connections. Remember? Of course it was just coincidence he made that proclamation on that particular day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1
The Royal Society is not political, no not at all……and as we all know when things stopped working out so well for the snow-will-be-a-thing-of-the-past solar deniers, Lockwood had an epiphany and suddenly the sun does affect climate, but only in northern Europe. Yes, we’re so blessed to have such honest, objective and apolitical scientists as Mike Lockwood who never make knee jerk statements.
Enter Nir Shaviv, but remember, only CO2 is qualified to allow for lag effects; the ubiquitous heat “in the pipeline” scientists (Hansen, Trenberth et al) know will come back to haunt us any decade now..
http://landshape.org/enm/using-the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter-to-quantify-the-solar-radiative-forcing-the-background/
No OHC increase in the upper 700m since 2003….well the heat must be sinking to the bottom undetected, or somewhere.
Lack of surface warming for the past decade….blame the Chinese, except that Hansen already proclaimed it was coal that would surely cause the earth to burn up. Anyway, blame something.
No tropical tropospheric “hot spot”……nobody ever said that was a “fingerprint” of AGW, well except for IPCC, Santer 05 and countless others. 400% error in climate models is indicative of erroneous observational data, obviously. But hey, this is climate “science” and unfalsifiable hypotheses are the latest tools available so use them often.
Hydrological modeling……
Ocean currents……
Antarctic warming…
Katrina was a sure signal for AGW overwhelming natural variation and was only the beginning of what surely would be even worse hurricane disasters, just ask Trenberth. Oh and that Chris Landsea? How did such a denier get access to IPCC? When hurricanes didn’t make landfall for over 1000 days, the longest stretch since the 1860’s, that too is confirmation of AGW. But now Irene will most assuredly renew our confidence in the unequivocal truth that man caused it.
Am I missing some? There are so many to keep track of. Isn’t it great though that no matter what happens, it is consistent with AGW?
Jeff Alberts says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:55 am
charles nelson says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:47 am
flows and bows of angel hair
icecream castles in the air
and feathered canyons everywhere…..
I think Joni ‘really’ understood clouds.
I’m more inclined to think it was the acid.
+++++++++++++++
Thanks for being so astute. I had a good laugh. 🙂
The people at CERN do real science, and blog ‘scientists’ interpret it in curious ways. If the tentative results in the study are too difficult to understand, CERN has thoughtfully provided a press briefing that speaks directly to what their results mean regarding climate change.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf
“[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”
— Jasper Kirkby, Lead Author on the CLOUD publication in “Nature”.
Peter Stone:
Your quote from Jasper Kirkby is a good ‘holding action’ but no more than that.
Advocates of the AGW-hypothesis have proclaimed a false certainty about cause of the recent global warming, and the CLOUD experiment demonstrates the falseness of the proclaimed certainty in a manner the public and politicians can understand.
And, importantly, the CLOUD experiment demonstrates that nothing should be done in response to the AGW-scare at least until completion of the series of experiments at CERNE.
The following comments explain the above facts.
The advocates of the AGW-hypothesis have asserted the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ by proclaiming;
“Of course anthropogenic emissions must have caused the recent warming; what else could have caused it?”
The proper answer to that question is,
“Nobody knows the true cause of the recent warming which is probably the same natural cause as previous similar warmings”,
but that answer has always been met with a storm of abuse.
Now the answer can be
“Nobody knows the true cause of the recent warming which is probably the same natural cause as previous similar warmings and is likely to be changes in cloud cover as suggested by Svensmark and supported by empirical evidence”.
Also, advocates of the AGW-hypothesis have proclaimed the laboratory studies which show the radiative properties of greenhouse gases (GHG) as though those properties were evidence that changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration must induce global temperature change.
Now there are laboratory studies which show variations in GCR flux have cloud nucleation effects that are at least as likely to affect global temperature as variations in atmospheric GHG concentrations.
As you suggest, the implications of the CLOUD experiment are yet to be determined. And the completion of the studies at CERNE may prove or disprove the Svensmark Hypothesis.
If the completion of the CERNE studies prove Svensmark is right then the AGW-hypothesis is proved wrong (either in part or in whole) so there is no reason for harmful economic actions based on the AGW-hypothesis. In the interim, the Precautionary Principle says the harmful economic actions should not be adopted unless an until the CERNE studies prove Svensmark is wrong.
Richard
Richard,
I just posted what the lead author said about his own paper: that the paper “actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate”. I got the impression a lot of people jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions that this was a seminal paper that somehow debunked human-induce climate change. Hoping that this will debunk the state of modern climate science is fine, but hope is not part of the scientific method.
Kirby is doing legitimate, peer-reviewed science, and publishing in reputable and prestigious international science journals. So that’s cool; I prefer that to blog science. But Kirby himself says the findings show us nothing about climate, and it will be five to ten years of additional research to further under what – if any – impact aerosols have on nucleation. The IPCC itself recognized that further knowledge about cloud mechanics is needed, but it is widely thought in the climate science community that cosmic radiation, at best, might have marginal and limited influences on climate. Do you suggest we wait five to ten years, hoping that this research debunks human-induced climate change, before we do anything to reduce our carbon footprint and transition to alternative energy sources? I don’t agree with that. Risk management involves considering the weight of evidence, making reasoned judgments of the magnitude of risk based on the weight of evidence, and acting accordingly. Transitioning to alternative energy also has beneficial national security implications.
As for your assertion that climate scientists have stated with absolute certainty that humans are responsible for climate change, your assertion does not comport with the facts. The science organizations of the world have said no such thing. Science is probabilistic; it doesn’t provide 100% bullet proof guarantees. That would be inconsistent with the scientific method. The word’s national science academies, the IPCC, and other reputable science bodies have concluded that the earth is warming, and that it is “very likely” that human activity is the major cause of recent warming.
***********************************************************************************************************
”A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems”. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
-Source: U.S. National Academies of Science, 2011
“Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels……While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”
-Source: U.S. National Academies of Science, 2010
Last week I was asked what the main indicators of recent global warming were showing, so I ggrabbed a few graphs and concluded that not much was warming. Yes, I confess to using a cherry-picked starting date 15 years ago, but then it has not really warmed in that 15 years, has it?
So, here’s an incomplete memory jogger, just material that was recent and easy to access, some from WUWT, thank you, Anthony. It’s for an Australian audience, hence the first few words.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Email%20to%20Tex..docx
bushbunny says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:55 am
Of course the BBC will not promote this important climate influence because it is only CO2 that they have invested a large percentage of their superannuation scheme in carbon credits.
==========================
Is this verifiable, or just speculation?
peter stone:
At August 27, 2011 at 3:56 am you ask me:
“Do you suggest we wait five to ten years, hoping that this research debunks human-induced climate change, before we do anything to reduce our carbon footprint and transition to alternative energy sources?”
Yes, of course I do because I am not stupid.
You admit the AGW-hypothesis is dubious.
There are no available alternative energy sources that could significantly displace fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
Any attempt to “reduce our carbon footprint” would cost $billions with resulting great loss of human life. A wait of five to ten years is nothing when compared to the horrific consequences of the actions which you propose should be implemented now merely in case the AGW-hypothesis tuns out to be right despite everything that says it is wrong; e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, the ‘missing heat’, the missing ‘committed warming’, etc.
Richard
When Heuer said, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate”, he made it clear that he recognises that AGW is a political movement. Was he hinting that he, like so many scientists, wants it revealed for the scam it is? He should stand firm, raise his middle digit to those who pressured him, and let the CLOUD scientists speak their mind.
Lots of news articles on this experiment. Here’s another:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results
“You admit the AGW-hypothesis is dubious.”
The statements issued by the U.S. National Academies of Science accurately reflect what I think the state of modern climate science is. I trust them to weigh scientific evidence more than I trust blog scientists.
While you have asserted that the global climate science community has jumped to unsubstantiated and unsupported dubious claims, that is exactly what I’ve seen posters do on this website regarding the CLOUD paper. They’ve treated it as some sort of seminal paper debunking human induced climate change. When in fact, the lead author of the paper and the CLOUD press release made it a point to state this paper says nothing about a linkage between cosmic rays and climate.
CLOUD press release:
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf
You may continue to hope that research debunks human induced climate change. That’s fine. I remember that Climate Gate was supposed to prove that there was a vast global conspiracy of lying scientists who faked data. Personally, I don’t put much weight on hope, I generally defer to experts and prestigious science organizations in the field. Blog science and Blog opinion is not something I put a lot of weight in.
Peter Stone says:
“I trust them to weigh scientific evidence more than I trust blog scientists.”
Well then, you have a very naive view of how money and organizations interact.
And:
“I remember that Climate Gate was supposed to prove that there was a vast global conspiracy of lying scientists who faked data.”
Verbatim quote from the “Harry_read_me” file that was leaked along with the Climategate emails:
That is proof of a global conspiracy of lying scientists, who completely fabricated thirteen years of non-existent temperature data in order to further their agenda. More evidence of your credulous naiveté. Really, cultivate a little skepticism. They lie for money. Are you surprised?
peter stone:
I am assuming you have a brain and are capable of using it. On that assumption, I ask you to try to think instead of trusting those whom you choose to accept as authorities.
You said you wanted “transition to alternative energy sources”. Since you claim to be ignorant of the effects of what you suggest, I will spell it out for you.
The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture.
Most of us would not be here if it were not for the use of fossil fuels because all human activity is enabled by energy supply and limited by material science.
Energy supply enables the growing of crops, the making of tools and their use to mine for minerals, and to build, and to provide goods, and to provide services.
Material Science limits what can be done with the energy. A steel plough share is better than a wooden one. Ability to etch silica permits the making of acceptably reliable computers. And so on.
People die without energy and the ability to use it. They die because they lack food, or housing, or clothing to protect from the elements, or heating to survive cold, or cooling to survive heat, or medical provisions, or transport to move goods and services from where they are produced to where they are needed.
And people who lack energy are poor so they die from pollution, too.
For example, traffic pollution has been dramatically reduced by adoption of fossil fuels. On average each day in 1855 more than 50 tons of horse excrement was removed from only one street, Oxford Street in London. The mess, smell, insects and disease were awful everywhere. By 1900 every ceiling of every room in Britain had sticky paper hanging from it to catch the flies. Old buildings still have scrapers by their doors to remove some of the pollution from shoes before entering
Affluence reduces pollution. Rich people can afford sewers, toilets, clean drinking water and clean air. Poor people have more important things they must spend all they have to get. So, people with wealth can afford to reduce pollution but others cannot. Pollution in North America and Europe was greater in 1900 than in 2000 despite much larger populations in 2000. And the pollution now experienced every day by billions who do not have the wealth of Americans and Europeans includes cooking in a mud hut using wood and dung as fuel when they cannot afford a chimney.
The use of fossil fuels has provided that affluence for the developed world. The developing world needs the affluence provided by the development which is only possible at present by using fossil fuels.
We gained our wealth and our population by means of that use.
The energy supply increased immensely when the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. Animal power, wind power and solar power were abandoned because the laws of physics do not allow them to provide as much energy as can be easily obtained from using fossil fuels.
The greater energy supply enabled more people to live and the human population exploded. Our population has now reached about 6.6 billion and it is still rising. All estimates are that the human population will peak at about 9 billion people near the middle of this century.
That additional more than 2 billion people in the next few decades needs additional energy supply to survive. The only methods to provide that additional energy supply at present are nuclear power and fossil fuels. And the use of nuclear power is limited because some activities are difficult to achieve by getting energy from the end of a wire.
If you doubt this then ask a farmer what his production would be if he had to replace his tractor with a horse or a Sinclair C5.
So, holding the use of fossil fuels at its present level would kill at least 2 billion people, mostly children. And reducing the use of fossil fuels would kill more millions, possibly billions.
That is not an opinion. It is not a prediction. It is not a projection. It is a certain and undeniable fact. Holding the use of fossil fuels at their present levels would kill billions of people, mostly children. Reducing the use of fossil fuels would kill more millions or billions.
Improving energy efficiency will not solve that because it has been known since the nineteenth century that improved energy efficiency increases energy use: as many subsequent studies have confirmed.
Climate has always changed everywhere and always will: this has been known since the Bronze Age when it was pointed out to Pharaoh by Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dreamcoat). Joseph told Pharaoh to prepare for the bad times when in the good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the thousands of years since then.
That tried and tested policy is sensible because people merely complain at taxes in the good times, but they will revolt if they are short of food in the bad times.
But you want to move from the tried and tested climate policy that has stood the test of time since the Bronze Age, and to replace it with quasi-religious political madness which – if not stopped – will pale into insignificance the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.
Not only that, you say you are unwilling to wait “five or ten years” to see if your quasi-religious political madness has any validity.
Shame on you.
Richard
Wait five years and see if anyone dares to cite their opinions as trustworthy about anything.
“Wait five years and see if anyone dares to cite their opinions as trustworthy about anythingion.”
Speculation and guesswork doesn’t cut it. Which is one reason blog opinion and blog science doesn’t carry much weight with me. I trust the U.S. National Academies of Sciences and National Research Council to reach reasoned conclusions, based on multiple lines of evidence, and taking into account the weight of evidence.
I’ve been hearing for many years that the established scientific consensus on climate change is on the verge of being debunked. Wasn’t there a lot of breathless speculation, and premature celebration on this website that the “Climategate” was going to show once an for all that Climate science was corrupted by a vast global cabal of lying scientists who fake data and perpetrated a hoax on the world?
Jaspar Kirby is certainly doing reputable science, and is publishing in prestigious peer reviewed science journals. I don’t think anyone on this comment threat is publishing reputable science, although providing opinion and speculation can be fun…and sometimes hilarious.
But Jaspar Kirby himself, and the CLOUD News Release both warned against jumping the shark..they went to pains to state the research hasn’t shown anything about climate, its just a first step. I think their research could be valuable in aerosol research, and to what extent – if any – cosmic radiation plays in cloud formation. Some of the aerosals might be of anthropogenic origin, we’ll just have to wait and see.
As for speculation that this research debunks the state of climate science or cosmic radiation can be cited as a major force driving climate either in the present or in the geologic past, there is no evidence to support that. And this topic has been studied by many people other than Jaspar Kirby. Much remains to be learned about climate, and cloud mechanics in particular. But while much remains to be learned, the basic and core understandings of recent climate change are pretty well established.
Don’t take my word for it:
***************************************************************************************
“Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels……While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”
-Source: U.S. National Academies of Science, 2010
Seeing as there has been little trend of any kind in cosmic ray fluctuations for the last few decades (recent times), it would be false to purport that cosmic rays have been influencing climate recently.
Cosmic rays may have some influence on climate – whether or not, and to what magnitude is yet to be determined – but they can’t be responsible for global warming for the last few decades, unless they somehow magically force changes by maintaining a stable flux.
Yes, it has.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend
At the time of the Jones quote the trend was likewise positive, but it failed statistical significance tests, which is what Jones was talking about. I’ve plotted above with the CRU data Jones was basing his comments on. The trend from 1995 is now statistically significant and still positive (warming).
We expect warming from CO2 emissions. That’s just physics. At the very most, the CERN experiments may demonstrate a climatic role for galactic cosmic rays, but it’s not going to change mainstream understanding of anthropogenic greenhouse warming from industrial emission much. For example, if you ‘cherry pick’ since 1995, then there has been an upward trend in GCR, the opposite of what we should be seeing if GCR is responsible for global warming. Beware of wishful thinking.
barry,
You’re cherry-picking. Look at the temperature rise following the LIA: click
You’re only fooling yourself – the hallmark of the climate alarmist crowd. There is no recent rapid warming.
Smokey, that has nothing to do with the discussion. The LIA was cooler than today, as we know. We’re talking about attribution of temperature rises in the last few decades when there was no trend in galactic cosmic ray flux. Wherever possible, I always try to constrain data to satellite period measurements, particularly at skeptical websites, because skeptics appear to consider satellite-derived measurements more reliable than anything else. 30 years is not a cherry-pick, but a constraint imposed by using satellite data. GCRs may well influence climate, but the globe has warmed in the last 30 years with no significant change in GCR flux. It is illogical, then, to posit CERN’s tentative results are going to “overturn” AGW. Such overconfidence is merely wishful thinking.
Barry;
At August 27, 2011 at 8:34 pm you assert;
“Seeing as there has been little trend of any kind in cosmic ray fluctuations for the last few decades (recent times), it would be false to purport that cosmic rays have been influencing climate recently.
Cosmic rays may have some influence on climate – whether or not, and to what magnitude is yet to be determined – but they can’t be responsible for global warming for the last few decades, unless they somehow magically force changes by maintaining a stable flux.”
You are plain wrong on both counts.
In the reality we have this.
Cini Castagnoli, G.; Cane, D.; Taricco, C.; Bhandari, N. ‘GCR flux reconstruction during the last three centuries validated by the Ti-44 in meteorites and Be-10 in ice’, EGS – AGU – EUG Joint Assembly, Abstracts from the meeting held in Nice, France, 6 – 11 April 2003, abstract #5271
It can be read at
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA…..5271C
And it says;
“In a previous work we deduced that during prolonged minima of solar activity since 1700 the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) flux was much higher (˜2 times) respect to what we can infer from GCR modulation deduced solely by the Sunspot Number series. This flux was higher respect to what we observe in the last decades by Neutron Monitor or balloon and spacecraft-borne detectors and confirmed by the three fresh-fall meteorites that we have measured during solar cycle 22. Recently we have deduced the GCR annual mean spectra for the last 300 years, starting from the open solar magnetic flux proposed by Solanki et al.. Utilizing the GCR flux we have calculated the 44Ti (T1/2 = 59.2 y) activity in meteorites taking into account the cross sections for its production from the main target element Fe and Ni. We compare the calculated activity with our measurements of the cosmogenic 44Ti in different chondrites fell in the period 1810-1997. The results are in close agreement both in phase and amplitude. The same procedure has been adopted for calculating the production rate of 10Be in atmosphere. Normalizing to the concentration in ice in the solar cycles 20 and 21 we obtain a good agreement with the 10Be profile in Dye3 core. These results demonstrate that our inference of the GCR flux in the past 300 years is reliable.”
In other words, a variety of methods all show GCR activity fell in the period 1810-1997 and by about double the change indicated by sunspot number.
As for “the last few decades (recent times)”, there has been no statistically discernible global warming for ~15 years and global temperature has probably fallen over the last decade.
And clouds reflect solar heat. A mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).
Reality just refuses to obey what ‘warmists’ assert.
We now have this reality about GCRs and about clouds, and we already had
missing ‘hot spot’,
‘missing heat’,
missing ‘committed warming’,
steady rise in atmospheric CO2 but a halt to global warming since ~1995.
All this reality is ignored and/or excused by ‘warmers’ who seem to want to believe
The World Is Coming To An End.
Richard
re: BBC’s Lockwood quote/comment & Pete in Cumbria UK says: August 25, 2011 at 6:27 am
For anyone interested, here’s Svensmark & Friis-Christensen’s 2007 reply (it’s short easy reading) to the Lockwood & Frohlich paper which claimed that the link between solar activity and climate came to an end about 20 years ago… It’s well worth taking a look at – and it compares the cosmic ray changes from the 1950’s to 2005 to trophosperic and ocean temperature anomalies. It also includes a graph of cosmic rays vs. trophosperic temp. anomaly after removal of El Nino, volcanic aerosols, North Atlantic Oscillation, and a lineral trend of 0.14K/decade which results in a pretty darned close match. No idea if my attempt to copy and format a little table that’s included in the paper will work, but I’ll give it a shot (just to be kind & whet the appetite for those too lazy to click thru the link -grin-).
………………………..1960-1975……1975-1990……since 1990
CR (%)/decade…-1.44 ± 0.78…..3.80 ± 1.92…..-0.48 ± 0.75
Tropos. (K/dec.)..-0.13 ± 0.03…..0.32 ± 0.05……0.13 ± 0.02
Ocean (K/dec.)…-0.07 ± 0.02……0.05 ± 0.03….-0.10 ± 0.02
Table 1. The accompanying Table shows the variation in
trends for the three periods 1960-1975 1975-1990, and since
1990. The trends in ocean temperatures changed sign to
match the variations in solar activity. For the troposphere
the temperature trend changed sign in 1975, and since 1990
its magnitude has been greatly reduced. Note the cosmic ray
variation (CR) has been inverted.
I’ve no idea if Lockwood/Frohlich responded to the respose or not. Anyhow, here’s the link:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3tD8s9aBewMJ:icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf+Influence+of+Solar+Activity+On+Tropospheric+Temperatures+Svensmark+2002&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgl0fzr-9aY88uxxRqfWiXwv2yuPmFP7e_Xa3TJzUn_yqNm7RqQ6ERkbADa1Uc9BFdaEKQLeb585woFR6e8OrpZjD-hRWx4SKONJI0xyhq6x1JcqWhRytl0w-THGlQT-f9au10O&sig=AHIEtbST_pvs9OD-MSNTOQOtFSEzo8mngQ
Magnus says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:34 pm
For your Scandinavian readers: A Norwegian article / En norsk artikkel:
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/august/296200
Den er bra, men desverre vil man ikke finne noe om det fra NRK, yr.no eller andre. Jeg har funnet at Norge er en av de mest fordomsfull land i verden når det gjelder til globaloppvarming myten. Det er så mye propaganda og feil informasjon om klimaet.
Patrick
Richard Courtney.
According to UAH satellite temperature record, the globe has warmed by 0.13C per decade since 1995.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1995/trend
Phil Jones’ comment is out of date, BTW. From a few months ago, the HadCRU temperature trend since 1995 is statistically significant. And it’s positive.
The study you cited doesn’t go beyond 1997. You seem interested, like Smokey, on referring to a completely different time period (last few centuries instead of last few decades). But we don’t need to reach into the dim dark proxy record when we have much more accurate satellite information. GCR starts anti-correlating with global temps in the 90s – GCR lags temps in the early 90s – and from ~1994, GCRs increase – which should bring global cooling. Global temps rise instead. For the last 30 years, there has been little trend in GCR flux while global temps have risen.
References:
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Lockwood &, Frohlich 2007
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
Cosmic Rays and Global Warming, Sloan &.Wolfendale 2007
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf
And,
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Following is a study examining trends in cloud formation and GCR. They conclude:
Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment using MODIS data,
Kristjansson et al 2008
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf
None of these papers discount the possibility that GCR has an influence on climate, but they all suggest that GCR has not driven recent warming.
I am a skeptic. To me these papers do not represent ‘nails in the coffin’ to the GCR theory of climate change. They are tentative conclusions, all suggesting more work needs to be done to determine what role, if any, GCR plays in cloud formation and climate.
Unfortunately, true skepticism is as rare as hen’s teeth in the climate blogosphere, and particularly so amongst critics. CERN’s recent results are indeterminate WRT GCR and climate. CERN makes this very clear in the study, in the press briefing… but there appear to be people with some kind of axe to grind that ignore these clear statements and contrive a false conclusion.
Regarding your reference: it has never been cited in the literature. How did you come across it? I’m curious.
barry,
You say skeptics limit themselves to the satellite record. I am a skeptic, and I provided a chart going back to the early 1800’s. As I pointed out, you’re cherry-picking.
Also, I never mentioned the CLOUD experiment. I simply commented: “Look at the temperature rise since the LIA.” The chart I posted shows that there has been no unusual warming, therefore the default position must be that “carbon” has had little to no effect on temperatures.
The CLOUD experiment failed to falsify Svensmark’s hypothesis. Some folks have a problem with that, because it ruins their narrative.
Finally, anyone who says “the GCR theory of climate change” doesn’t understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. There is no “theory” of climate change, GCR or otherwise.
Richard S Courtney says:
August 27, 2011 at 11:11 am
Bullseye!
This should belong to common sense …
Peter Stone;
I am a “skeptic”, but definitely not the way “believers” think! (For some reason they have problems to understand this …)
What I really am skeptical about, is the effect of the man-made impact on climate. Regarding the impact of carbon dioxide, a few percent of some parts of a million, is of course an enormous amount … Not! Especially when it is surpassed by the water molecule, both in effect and volume. The latter has in practice been regarded as harmless … (For example, IPCC: cloud formation is too complicated to include in a computer model, so we can ignore this … Yep, they did …! Exclusion of obvious facts in an analysis is No No! Eq. cherry-picking. Knowledge of secondary school level!)
The reference value of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at one (active) volcano (Mauna Loa)? Someone must be joking! All volcanoes regardless of their status (active, dormant or “dead”) are emitting carbon dioxide. Due to “measuring contamination” it gives at best an indication of when the volcano explodes … Has anyone compared this with other emitted gases at the same location? Sulfur dioxide, etc.? (Knowledge of secondary school level!)
—–
Climate change is real and has always been so, since the climate occurred 3-3.5 billion years ago. (This is why a 30-year period should be considered as cherry-picking!) Ice cores from Vostok show that climate is cyclical and therefore repetitive. It also shows that we are in a phase where we have a natural increase of temperature. The lag of about 800 years of the level of carbon dioxide relative temperature change, is not to forget … All this is often ignored …
—–
Trust for authority? EPA stated (against common sense) that carbon dioxide is dangerous … (Where do you think most of the oxygen in the atmosphere comes from …?) Confused it with carbon monoxide? What’s next …? (Knowledge at primary school level!)
“Science hock Made Enormous Progress towards understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, Documenting That Earth is warming. …”
All roads lead to Rome! Oops sorry, my mistake! Correction: to CRU’s manipulated data …
—–
About satellites, one have to realize what they actually measures, before comparing with the temperatures measured at the (often artificially heated) locations at ground level (like airports and urban locations) … (Knowledge of secondary school level!)
Correction to my post August 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm.
The things I mentioned about volcanoes, is not knowledge at secondary school level!
Correct is primary school level … (Sorry!)
barry:
I am always willing to have sensible discussion. If I wanted my own opinions, interpretations and views then I would talk to a mirror. So, I enjoy discussion with those who disagree with me, and I am very grateful when such discussion shows I am wrong because then I learn.
Knowing the facts I have provided in the previous paragraph you (and everyone else) will understand that I am giving you all the reply warranted by your post at August 28, 2011 at 7:18 am. My reply is as follows.
Answer the points I made (I sincerely doubt you know enough to discuss any of them).
Consider the data both you and I have cited and its stipulated error bars.
Discuss the contents of the references I provided and refute them if you can, but do not make irrelevant comments concerning how many pals have cited them.
Irrelevant waffle with the clear intent of side-tracking discussion deserve contempt and not a considered answer.
You are deluded if you really believe what you have written
Richard
Smokey,
I posted about the last few decades and you ignored that when you replied. If you had dealt with my points and time period substantively, instead of creating your own set of goalposts and arguing post-hoc that I was ‘cherry-picking’, I might be inclined to move on to what you want to focus on.
And that is also why I didn’t pick up on your point. I’m interested in discussing the topic of this thread, which is about how the latest results from CERN are being interpreted in the popular and semi-popular literature.
If Svensmark’s hypothesis is that GCRs affect climate, then yes, CERN’s results certainly don’t refute that. As I’ve said. If Svensmark’s hypothesis is that GCRs are responsible for all the warming of the past century, then he is very probably wrong, as the references I linked for Richard indicate, and as the trendlessness of GCRs over the last 30 years strongly recommends. CERN’s recent results don’t speak to that conclusion.
The latest results from CERN are being hailed, like every result that has a whiff of contra-mainstream on AGW, as the Big Truth that will undermine AGW (and as the Big Truth that the powers that be are trying to cover up). Look upthread if you doubt me. This is the ‘narrative’ I’m talking about. It’s hardly a skeptical one.
Now that AGW has been proven to be an out and out “concoction of a massive SCAM” does anyone agree that the main “players” in this preposterous attempt to “mislead the world” should be JAILED? The amount of human tragedy that has been caused due to this fake hypothesis is at the very least “criminal behaviour” and should be dealt with at length by people who are learned in the Faculty of Law, now that this eco-movement has moved out of the scientific arena!
First on the list should be “Maurice Strong”, followed by “Al Gore”, then work your way down the green ladder to the rest of the ring leaders like “Pachauri” just to name a few. Too bad this is just “wishful thinking”!
Thebiggreenlie @4:42 pm
Ya don’t suppose there’s a reason that Strong is hiding out in China, hmmm?
barry:
At August 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm you have the gall to claim you are not “cherry picking” data that promotes your (blatantly false case) and then you write:
“If Svensmark’s hypothesis is that GCRs affect climate, then yes, CERN’s results certainly don’t refute that. As I’ve said. If Svensmark’s hypothesis is that GCRs are responsible for all the warming of the past century, then he is very probably wrong, as the references I linked for Richard indicate, and as the trendlessness of GCRs over the last 30 years strongly recommends. CERN’s recent results don’t speak to that conclusion.”
No, the data is insufficient to indicate that GCRs are or are not “responsible for all the warming of the past century”. But, as I explained in my post addressed to you at August 27, 2011 at 11:49 pm, the GCRs could be “responsible for all the warming of the past century” .
The experiments at CERN will prove the possibility one way or the other.
Importanty, the fact that the ‘warmist’ assertion of
“It must be CO2 that caused recent warming because we cannot think of any other cause”
can now be laughed away.
The assertion was always the same logical falacy as,
“It must be witches that caused recent crop failure because we cannot think of any other cause”,
and it had similar dear-inducing effect on some of the public. Now it can be pointed out that there is another possible cause of the warming so the fear-mongering can be defeated.
Indeed, the fact that GCRs may be another possible cause of the recent warming is the reason why ‘warmist’ trolls are swarming over WUWT and other rational blogs and are proclaiming their denialist message that GCRs have not caused the warming.
And, as you are doing here, the ‘warmist’ trolls ignore everything which refutes their assertions and ‘data mine’ the internet for anything which seems to support their assertions then post it here. That is not rational debate: it is a disruption of rational debate.
Lief is arguing about the GCR trends rationally in this thread. He disputes the ‘Svensmark Hypothesis’. Read his posts and you will see what proper dispute of the hypothesis looks like.
But you and other ‘warmists’ are attempting to prevent rational debate of the subject.
As my post to you at August 27, 2011 at 11:49 pm concluded:
“Reality just refuses to obey what ‘warmists’ assert.
We now have this reality about GCRs and about clouds, and we already had
missing ‘hot spot’,
‘missing heat’,
missing ‘committed warming’,
steady rise in atmospheric CO2 but a halt to global warming since ~1995.
All this reality is ignored and/or excused by ‘warmers’ who seem to want to believe
The World Is Coming To An End.”
Richard
I am puzzled by the posters here that appear to celebrate the results of this experiment as confirmation that Svenmark’s hypothesis that GRC affecting low cloud are the main ‘control’ of cloud albedo that has been the cause of most of the recently observed warming.
While these CLOUD results are preliminary, and the production of very small aerosol particle (2-3nm) has little implication for the formation of large cloud condensation nuclei, the experiment does report one crucial result which would seem to REFUTE Svenmark’s hypothesis.
The sentence in the abstract –
-”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-
Would seem to indicate that the specific detail of the Svenmark hypothesis – the GCR effect on low altitude clouds – is likely to be of negligible influence.
I would ask those who have claimed this research vindicates or validates the ideas of Svenmark WHAT in the results justifies that opinion ???
Richard,
I’ve been reading Lief’s comments in the other thread (not this one). Like me, he has said that there has been no trend in GCR for the last few decades. GCR *appears* to have had no affect on climate for the latter 20th century to present. Still, there is a possibility GCR affects climate. We shall see if it does and to what magnitude, hopefully sooner rather than later.
My contention here all along has been that many have leapt upon CERN’s latest results as ‘a nail in the coffin’ of AGW. It is not, and I think you will agree that this interpretation is far too extreme.
Regarding your comments about me being a “warmist” and other characterisations: name-calling is absolutely no way to conduct a decent discussion.
REPLY: “Leif” – Anthony
Latest article about this by Lawrence Solomon:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/
re: barry says: August 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Barry, I posted a link to a paper by Svensmark (@August 28, 2011 at 12:47 am ) that is a rebuttal to the Lockwood claims and also addresses the GCR changes over the past 60 years or so. Why haven’t you bothered to look at that? You keep repeating the same claims, when I posted a link that rather nicely rebutts much of those claims. Try giving that paper a read.
RD,
there are many comments here.I hadn’t got to yours before I commented, and then the conversation continued beneath.
I’m familiar with that paper. Svensmark discounts surface air temperatures and focuses on tropospheric and ocean temps, because they believe global surface air temps doesn’t respond to solar cycles. That is at odds with the literature I’m familiar with, but that is a small point.
The bigger and most damning point is that they remove the linear trend of 0.14K from the tropospheric temperature record (and some other ‘confusions’), whereupon there is a good fit to solar flux.
Svensmark’s analysis confirms little trend in solar flux/GCR since 1960 (see Fig 2), roughly what I’ve been saying (also Leif on the other thread). This is at odds with global temperature, which has risen significantly since then. Svensmark has to remove the temperature trend to get a good fit. My take on the paper is that he has just shown there is an ~11 year cycle in the tropospheric temperature record, which is what we expect, and is in agreement with similar analyses.
There are many papers besides the ones I mentioned above which find little trend in solar flux for the last 30 – 60 years. I will post links here upon request (just want to know if you are genuinely interested in broadening your reading before I do that).
Please check to see if my commentary matches the contents.
Climate Models enshrined by AGW believers are known to be unreliable when extrapolated into the future. The the widely publicized efforts of climate modelers to “predict” the future climate have had a persistent problem, their predictions don’t happen. The reason for this is climate models, as constituted, do not obey the rules of causality. To be causal, climate models must contain all relevant physics. Which they don’t. Now we have more new physics from CLOUD. Evidently, this significant physical process was simply ignored (and left out of) famous climate models of the 1990’s and 2000’s. Does this affect the reliability of their predictions? Sure does. But that’s not the only problem with climate models. Another violation of causality occurs when the fluid equations are butchered by modelers. Modelers often do this butchering to come up with something they can solve, but they simply do not solve the complete set of fluid equations that describe physics of the climate. Is this a problem? Sure is. The methodology of climate models, the use of incomplete and truncated sets of model equations solved on a course grid, itself limits the valid range of extrapolation (into the future.) Not surprisingly, predictions made by climate models ca. 2000 (generalized global warming thru 2011) … didn’t happen. We believe those modeling folks have some serious explaining to do. They need to be honest about the real limitations of their models. The bottom line is: climate models are even more unreliable than we thought.
Rational Debate,
Svensmark’s co-author on the 2007 paper you cited has since conceded that the correlation between solar activity and global temps breaks down in the last few decades.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html
I was surprised that the paper you cited had passed peer-review. But then I checked the provenance of the publication, and it seems it may not have been submitted for a formal, anonymous review after all. The paper is a ‘report’ under the auspices of the institute Svensmark works at as Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research. It was not published in a refereed journal, to my knowledge.
But that is only a quibble. This fact remains about the paper – Svensmark found a correlation between GCR and tropospheric temperature – by removing the linear trend of 0.14K per decade from the temperature trend. By doing this and announcing it, he effectively demonstrates that solar activity and GCR trends do not fit the global temperature trend for the same period (~1960 to ~2006).
This does not mean that GCR’s do not affect cloud formation,or that they can have an effect on climate. It strongly suggests that GCRs have played little to no part in the global warming of the last 50 years.
@Charles Nelson: for what its worth , the song was “Both Sides Now” and it was by Judy Collins not Joni Mitchell
Here’s a good one from JD of the telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
Smokey says:
August 28, 2011 at 11:12 am
barry,
You say skeptics limit themselves to the satellite record. I am a skeptic, and I provided a chart going back to the early 1800′s. As I pointed out, you’re cherry-picking.
While you’re just seeing what you want to see. You ought to try looking at the numbers in the data.
The Hadley trend up to 1900 (from ~1850) is effectively ZERO (i.e. less than 0.01 deg per decade). The trend since 1900 is ~8 times that at ~0.075 deg per decade and since 1950 it’s been ~0.12 deg per decade.
Hadley does not show a consistent monotonic trend since 1850 (or earlier) – nor do any of the long term regional records. CET, for example, shows total warming of just 0.03 deg between 1800 and 1900 but warming of 0.65 between 1900 and 2000.
Recovery from LIA? Cobblers!
barry says:
August 30, 2011 at 8:43 am
…..This fact remains about the paper – Svensmark found a correlation between GCR and tropospheric temperature – by removing the linear trend of 0.14K per decade from the temperature trend. By doing this and announcing it, he effectively demonstrates that solar activity and GCR trends do not fit the global temperature trend for the same period (~1960 to ~2006).
De-trending the data is a fairly common and mostly legitimate practice. However, as we’ve seen with other ‘studies’, it can result in people jumping to the wrong conclusions. Svensmark may well have found a correlation between GCR and short term temperature fluctuations but, as you quite rightly say, this demonstrates that GCR cannot be responsible for the longer term warming trend.
John Finn says:
“Recovery from LIA? Cobblers!”
Is that cherry cobblers? I like cherry cobblers!
In fact, the planet has been emerging from the LIA, and if you want several more charts to show you, please just ask and I will post them. In the mean time, this chart is from WFT. It doesn’t go all the way back to the 1600’s because the relevant data is not in the WFT data base, but it clearly shows the gradual, natural warming trend. [And “carbon” has nothing to do with it.]
See? It’s all natural. And it’s all good.☺
Smokey says:
August 31, 2011 at 6:29 am
In fact, the planet has been emerging from the LIA, and if you want several more charts to show you, please just ask and I will post them. In the mean time, this chart is from WFT…..
Another one who has trouble reading. Ok – let’s give it another go. This chart is also from WFT. It shows a graph of Hadley data between 1850 and 1900 wth trend superimposed.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1900/trend
See – no warming. You can look at just the NH if you prefer
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1850/to:1900/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1850/to:1900/trend
Ooops – seems to be cooling.
SasjaL (Aug 28th) refers to “The lag of about 800 years of the level of carbon dioxide relative temperature change”. The present simultaneous increases of both are clearly not subject to this lag. In that respect, this time is really different. And there is a reason for a natural increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to lag the temperature rise. The prehistoric temperature rises were each triggered by some other event, usually a cyclic change in the orbit of the earth or in its angle of tilt, causing the earth to start to warm. However the oceans cannot warm as quickly as the atmosphere or the land surface, due to mixing throughout their great depth, and the high specific heat capacity of water (the amount of energy required to raise a given mass of water is far greater than that for most substances.). Now sea water contains a vast amount of dissolved CO2 – far more than that in the atmosphere. It is well known that warmer water can hold less dissolved CO2 (or any other gas) than colder water. Therefore, as the oceans warm, they give up some of their dissolved CO2 to the atmosphere, in a process known as positive feedback. This leads to more atmospheric CO2, a stronger greenhouse effect and more atmospheric warming. The good news is that, after 800 years or so, this process has always stopped. The reasons are not quite known, but they probably include biological processes such as the absorption of carbon by marine life and its deposition on the sea bed.
We cannot afford to wait 800 years for anthropogenic global warming to run its course.
I have another issue with SasjaL. He discounts the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa on the grounds that even dormant volcanoes emit CO2. Even if this is the case (I am a meteorologist, not a vulcanologist), there is another series of measurements from Mace Head in Ireland, going back to 1992, and many other sites have begun to record data since then. The correlation between these data is very high.
John Finn:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1850%20C4Y.gif
Smokey says:
August 31, 2011 at 10:28 am
John Finn:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1850%20C4Y.gif
So the LIA ends in 1910 now, does it? It was ~1850 a few posts. Still that figures. The LIA seems to cover whatever period is convenient to the argument being put forward.
And what caused the LIA? Between 1780 and 1800, solar activity was identical to that between 1990 and 2010. I was right earlier – it’s cobblers.
John Finn,
I find it amusing that you refuse to accept the conclusions of an international authority on the climate. Prof Humlum constructed the chart that you have a problem accepting.
There is ample evidence of the Little Ice Age, and we’re not about to discard that mountain of evidence just because it doesn’t fit in with your climate alarmism. As we can see here, the planet is still naturally emerging from the LIA – whether you like it or not, and whether you agree or not.
And begging the question of what caused the LIA: I don’t know, and neither do you. We don’t have to know the exact mechanism to know that the LIA, the MWP, etc., existed, just as a cave man didn’t have to know how the sun produced its energy, in order to know that the sun warmed him during the day but not at night.
One thing we do know: CO2 has at most a minuscule effect on temperature.
Smokey says:
August 31, 2011 at 11:34 am
John Finn,
I find it amusing that you refuse to accept the conclusions of an international authority on the climate. Prof Humlum constructed the chart that you have a problem accepting.
I find it amusing that you seem to think it’s ok to shift the LIA around on a whim. If Prof Humlum thinks the LIA ended in 1910 then it’s not just me hat has trouble accepting his chart but a number of your fellow sceptics as well.
There is ample evidence of the Little Ice Age, and we’re not about to discard that mountain of evidence just because it doesn’t fit in with your climate alarmism.
Except you appear to be having trouble locating this mountain of evidence – including the period covered by the LIA. And, by the way, I’m not a “climate alarmist”. I can point to numerous posts where I’ve argued with ed Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt on various issues. I challenged Michale Mann on the ‘hide the decline ‘ trick in 2004 – long before climategate.
As we can see here, the planet is still naturally emerging from the LIA – whether you like it or not, and whether you agree or not.
I don’t know what you mean by “emerging from the LIA”. There were warm periods in the 18th century and in the 16th and 19th
One thing we do know: CO2 has at most a minuscule effect on temperature.
I don’t believe we do know that. It’s clear from emission spectra observed by satellites that CO2 is highly influential in the higher, drier and colder regions of the troposphere. It is here that terrestrial radiation is ultimately emitted to space. It is perfectly plausible, therefore, that any increase in concentration could have a quite significant effect.
John Finn won’t believe this chart, because he’s convinced himself that CO2 is a major cause of temperature changes [“CO2 is highly influential… any increase in concentration could have a quite significant effect.” etc.]
If CO2 had any more than a minuscule effect on temperature, then this chart would show ΔT closely tracking ΔCO2. But they go in the opposite direction, thus debunking the claim that CO2 drives temperature.
The only real correlation between CO2 and temperature is over much longer time periods, where we have evidence that CO2 follows temperature.
The whole stupid catastrophic AGW argument is based on the repeatedly debunked notion that more CO2 will cause runaway global warming. But there is zero evidence supporting that belief system, and further, current CO2 levels are far below historical levels. Contrary to what the evidence-challenged crowd wants to believe, CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.
Smokey is wrong in writing that current CO2 levels are below historical levels. They are much higher than they have even been since man first walked on two legs on this earth. As his (or her?) chart shows, he refers to PREHISTORIC LEVELS. He may think the distinction is pedantic and a matter of semantics. But it is unlikely that mankind would survive, over much of the earth, any recurrence of temperatures associated with his high CO2 values. It is no accident that mankind first started to thrive and multiply less than 10,000 years ago, but did not do so during earlier interglacial periods. This was due to the Climatic Optimum, when an easily calculated shift in the earth’s orbit and angle of inclination caused the last ice age to end. The present warming and (coincidental, as he would believe) increase in CO2 to 392 ppm in July 2011 was caused by no such astronomical event, nor by cosmic dust, nor by anything else he might like to imagine. It is caused by mankind’s DAILY emission of 17 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, containing 7 million tons DAILY of carbon. Why should this not be so? Never in the history of the earth have such large amounts of fossil fuels been oxidised in such a short time. It is commonsense, and it fits the scientific conclusions of 19th century scientists such as Kirchoff, Wien, Stefan, Boltzman etc., all of whom discovered that CO2 is transparent to incoming solar radiated energy, but opaque to outgoing terrestrial radiated energy.
Secondly, he raises the old chestnut about CO2 increases FOLLOWING temperature rises, not preceding them. This, emphatically, is not happening during the present warming episode that can be traced back to the start of the Coal Age, a.k.a. the Industrial Revolution about 1750. Previous, natural, CO2 increases have followed temperature rises with a time lag of some 8 centuries, for a very good reason. Previous warmings have always had a different trigger mechanism to start them, usually a shift in the earth’s orbit bringing it closer to the sun, or a change in its inclination. This starts a temperature rise in the atmosphere and land surface. However the oceans take much longer to warm, because any warming at their surface is diffused throughout their great depth. Also water has a much higher specific heat capacity than most other substances. Therefore it takes some centuries for sea temperatures to respond throughout their depth to air and land temperatures. The oceans hold vast amounts of dissolved CO2, far more than the atmosphere ever does. When water becomes warmer, even by one degree, it cannot hold as much dissolved gases. (It is well known in drinking circles that champagne, or lemonade, will retain its fizz better if it is chilled.) Warmed sea water will give up some of its CO2 to the atmosphere, which in turn causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, which in turn causes the sea to warm further, which …. you get the picture. It’s called Positive Feedback. The good news is that it will end, as it always has on past occasions. Global warming will end when biological processes in the oceans absorb the additional CO2 that falls in rainwater, and deposits the carbon as calcium carbonate and other compounds on the ocean floor.
Smokey, weather variation can account for a flat or cooling period of a decade or so even when there is underlying warming. We have the strongest el Nino on record in 1997/98, and two very strong la Ninas in the latter part of the naughties. El Nino/laNina are internal weather events that influence global temps, and for time frames shorter than a couple of decades, these weather influences can dominate the trend we’re looking at, obscuring any climate signal that may be there.
I’d like to beg your attention on this, because it’s a very common error made (on both sides) in these popular blogs.
Climatology is usually derived from 30-year blocks, so that the internal variabilities, or weather, have enough time to cancel out, revealing any underlying trend. However, you can use 20 year periods to establish a climatology if you employ the surface records (satellite records have more weather ‘noise’, month to month). The great thing about this is that the 20 – 30 year minimum is a statistical, not an arbitrary result. The numbers don’t lie in this, and we are prevented from having to make arbitrary choices.
One of the better web pages where this is explained is this one;
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html
Now, these minimum time periods apply to surface temperature records. You’d need a bit longer than 20 years for satellite records, but less for sea ice trends because the annual data is cyclical and doesn’t fluctuate too much.
The bottom line is that when you use less than 20 years for global surface temperature analyses, you run the risk of getting a trend line that is more a product of weather variability than an underlying climate signal. Often, 16 or 17 years is just enough – these time periods may pass statistical significance tests. That was what Phil Jones was talking about in the famous 1995 trend quote. He wasn’t saying there was no significant warming, he was saying that the warming displayed (0.12C/dec IIRC) was not statistically significant. IOW, the time period wasn’t long enough to be sure that the trend was more a product of weather variability than climate change. A few months ago, the trend since 1995 became statistically significant (passed 95% confidence tests). Now, the time period is long enough to be confident the trend from 1995 is a climate trend instead of a product of weather variation.
To bring it back to your point, CO2 can rise, and because the year-by-year forcing is small, weather variability can dominate the climate signal, and sometimes you’ll get 10 years or so of no, or even cooling trend. That’s happened many times over the centennial surface record, even while the whole centennial trend is upwards. We expect it will continue to happen from time to time in the future, even if the globe warms as the IPCC projects.
When we were discussing galactic cosmic rays the other day, I pointed out that there had been a divergence of trends between GCR and temperature records over several decades. Though this was not particularly necessary, because solar influence on global temperature is relatively immediate (< 1 year), even accounting for oceanic thermal lag (< 6 years), still I was careful to keep the period long enough to be statistically significant for the temperature record.
If everyone was aware of this, and abided by this, it would spare a lot of errors from the debate. It is possible to talk meaningfully about shorter time periods, but that needs to be accompanied with sound reasoning as to why. As a general rule, applying 20-year minimums to any discussion involving global temperature trends will keep us all from erring on the side of weather when discussing climate.
4caster says:
“Smokey is wrong in writing that current CO2 levels are below historical levels.”
There are so many misquotes and red herrings in your comment that I won’t bother answering them all. To answer some of them:
By ‘historical’ I referred to Earth’s history. You can see how very, very low atmospheric CO2 currently is. Note that the chart was labeled “HISTORIC.” Therefore, your assertion that I was wrong is itself wrong. It is you who are mistaken. Next time, before opining, at least glance at the charts.
I agree that human emitted “carbon” [a misnomer if there ever was one] has contributed to current levels. But so what? CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. More is better. You cannot produce any empirical, testable evidence showing global harm from increased CO2, therefore CO2 is harmless; QED. And there is voluminous evidence showing that more CO2 increases agricultural productivity, therefore more CO2 is clearly beneficial. So stop trying to alarm folks with your big numbers [“…mankind’s DAILY emission of 17 million tons of CO2…]. CO2 comprises only 0.00039 of the atmosphere. It is a very tiny trace gas. Quoting big scary numbers is typical alarmist rhetoric that doesn’t fly here at the internet’s “Best Science” site.
Next, you state unequivocally: “Never in the history of the earth have such large amounts of fossil fuels been oxidised in such a short time.” How would you know? That is similar to your other statements for which you have no evidence, and which is contradicted by other alarmists. One of their claims of is that methane calthates erupted from a warming ocean, causing CO2 to skyrocket and bring about rapid global warming. Another is that asteroid strikes could have released enormous amounts of CO2 from coal seams and oil reservoirs. The fact is, you just don’t know. You only Believe. No sign of the scientific method there.
You assert that I raise “…the old chestnut about CO2 increases FOLLOWING temperature rises, not preceding them. This, emphatically, is not happening during the present warming episode that can be traced back to the start of the Coal Age, a.k.a. the Industrial Revolution about 1750.” Emphatically?? Again, how would you know that? FYI, it has been ±800 years since the MWP. By your own free-association rambling you’re acknowledging that at least part of the current CO2 rise is the result of the MWP.
You assert that: “Previous warmings have always had a different trigger mechanism to start them”. And how would you know that for a fact? That assumption flies in the face of the null hypothesis, which has never been falsified. In fact, you have zero testable evidence of the cause of previous warmings. But True Believers don’t need evidence, do they?
You assert that: “Warmed sea water will give up some of its CO2 to the atmosphere, which in turn causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, which in turn causes the sea to warm further, which…” &etc. That is simply another evidence-free assumption of the belief in runaway global warming, for which you have no testable, empirical evidence.
It appears that you are simply repeating the anti-science found at blogs like Skeptical Pseudo-Science, and expecting a free pass. Belief syatems like that don’t get very far here. Either provide testable evidence per the scientific method supporting your conjectures, or expect them to be rightly dismissed as baseless opinion.
barry,
Here is a trend that conforms to your criteria. It shows the planet’s continuing emergence from the LIA.
And here is a report that shows the approximately 60 year warming/cooling cycle riding on the trend line from the LIA. CO2 appears to have no effect.
Smokey says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:50 pm
barry,
Here is a trend that conforms to your criteria. It shows the planet’s continuing emergence from the LIA.
Only if the LIA ended in 1910, Barry. As I showed earlier, the trend was flat between 1850 and 1900. The calculated (LS) trend over that period is just ~0.01 deg per decade.
We could look at some of the longer term regional trends, e.g. the CET here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Note that while there are cycles between 1800-1900 they are just that, i.e. cycles, in that they return to the point of origin on completion. Smokey seems to misunderstand the concept of a cycle.
Whatever – the total warming between 1800 (Dalton Minimum) and 1900 was ~0.03 deg. This apparently is a “recovery” and the ~0.7 deg warming between 1900 and 2000 is just a continuation of that recovery.
We can find losts of regional records like this. However people like Smokey like to stick trend lines through the entire record to make it look as though it’s a continuing warming trend when it is totally inappropriate to do so.
And here is a report that shows the approximately 60 year warming/cooling cycle riding on the trend line from the LIA. CO2 appears to have no effect.
While I’m prepared to accept that climate sensitivity to CO2 is possibly open to debate, I don’t consider the tosh you posted a reliable source. While it’s true that many different scientists have been happy to seek publicity for their own theories on future climate, support for the CO2 effect had been steadily and consistently growing throughout the 20th century. In fact some of the most important discoveries came during the 1950s when the world was most definitely not warming. Read about the work of Kaplan and Plass which followed on from the ideas of Hulburt and Callendar. This is not some new latest ‘scare’.
Smokey, this ’emergence’ from the LIA. To what do you attribute it? What is/are the causal mechanism/s? If you purport it is natural variability, then what natural mechanisms made the planet warm?
When I check the graph you linked, I see no warming trend until the early 1900s. Eg,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/trend
Warming appears to start from ~1910, just from eyeballing, and the 60 year period prior exhibits a slightly cooling trend. Would you agree?
barry says:
“Smokey, this ‘emergence’ from the LIA. To what do you attribute it? What is/are the causal mechanism/s? If you purport it is natural variability, then what natural mechanisms made the planet warm?”
Ah, that’s the question, isn’t it? If we knew the answer the debate would be settled. [For the warming trend since the LIA, see the link below.]
John Finn says:
“Smokey seems to misunderstand the concept of a cycle… people like Smokey like to stick trend lines through the entire record to make it look as though it’s a continuing warming trend when it is totally inappropriate to do so.”
Not really, John. In fact, it is totally appropriate to use trend lines. What is inappropriate is using charts with a zero anomaly line like the one you posted here. Using a zero reference line like that makes it appear that there has been recent rapid warming, when in fact it is just a continuation of the warming trend since the LIA.
What’s occurring now is nothing unusual. The same trends have happened repeatedly, and before most of the increase in CO2. There is no evidence that the current *mild* warming cycle is anything but a slow, natural uptrend.
The alarmist crowd makes natural cycles look scary by using charts of impossible accuracy, when they should be using realistic charts with a realistic y-axis. And they avoid mentioning the fact that along with higher CO2 levels, the climate has been moderating, and temperatures are no longer correlating with CO2. It’s an inconvenient truth that doesn’t fit the alarmist narrative.
Smokey,
The baseline is completely irrelevant to the trend. Put the zero line wherever you like, the trends will remain the same.
I dispute that the global temperature record exhibits a ‘continued warming trend’ from the LIA. The graph linked below is a very straightforward analysis, and is exactly of the time period you have asked me to comment on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/trend
The 60 year period 1850 to 1909 exhibits a very slight cooling trend of -0.01C/dec. It seems clear that the modern warming period commenced from ~1910.
Would you agree?
(Here is the same plot with the zero line moved upwards by 4C. The trend lines are exactly the same. The temperature profile is exactly the same. All that’s happened is that every anomaly has had 4C subtracted from it.)
barry says:
“The baseline is completely irrelevant to the trend. Put the zero line wherever you like, the trends will remain the same.”
I’m afraid you just don’t get it, barry. I’ve posted charts showing the gradual warming trend from the 1600’s, and charts showing shorter cycles that ride on that trend line.
But when a zero baseline is used, it appears that there has been recent, rapid warming. The use of the zero baseline is deliberately mendacious. Everyone in Alarmist Town uses a zero baseline. Why? Because it makes for a scary chart. If you don’t understand that, there’s no use for further discussion, is there?
Smokey, you keep moving the goalposts and changing the subject. It’s about the psychological impact of baseline choice now, is it? A conversation where one party talks past the other can’t progress. I completely agree that further discussion is a waste of time.
I will finish by asserting, since that is all we have left.
Any talk of ‘rebound’ from LIA or natural causes of climate change in the industrial era that includes no analysis of cause is just hot air. This argument runs – “the current warming is natural because it’s natural.” It’s the epitome of faith-based ‘reasoning’. It’s entirely empty of any substance. “It’s natural because that’s what happens.” “It’s a cycle.”
Explanations of climate change with no physical basis for them are useless.
barry, you still don’t understand. I never discussed a “rebound,” so that’s just a red herring argument, and I don’t move the goal posts. I have simply been pointing out the mendacious claims of the climate alarmist crowd. And I back up my assertions with verifiable facts – which you do not. You just express your opinions. That’s weak.
You say, “Explanations of climate change with no physical basis for them are useless.” So tell us, barry: what, exactly, is your evidence-based, testable, replicable “physical basis” of climate change?
Provide us with testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method. We’re tired of the hot air and the vague generalities, so please inform us of your putative exact causes of “climate change.” Based on testable, empirical evidence, of course. Don’t forget that the null hypothesis has never been falsified, so make the evidence real good. If, in fact, you have any evidence.
Thanx in advance.
That’s the problem. I’m trying to have a discussion with you, not crowds of other people. And i’m talking about the science, where you’re more interested in the politics.
You asserted that there has been a continuing warming phase out of the LIA, buttressing your comment with a graph of HadCRU temp trend since 1850. I replied that the first 60 years of that trend is cooling, not warming. I provided a graph using the same data. You did not respond to that.
Instead you replied that you had no opinion on the cause of the ’emergence’ from the LIA.
I tried again to get you comment on the 60 year cooling period. Again you ignored that. Instead you remarked on the psychological impact (‘scary’) of establishing a zero line on a time series chart.
Smokey, i’m not interested in the psychological or political on this subject, only the science. You appear at first to be talking about the science, but then you say your purpose is to “point out the mendacious claims of the climate alarmist crowd.”
My purpose is to separate fact from fiction, politics from science. Join me if you’re interested. My reply to your assertion awaits your attention. I will repeat it for the third time and see what happens:
I dispute that the global temperature record exhibits a continued warming trend from the LIA. The graph linked below is a very straightforward analysis, and is exactly of the time period you have asked me to comment on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/trend
The 60 year period 1850 to 1909 exhibits a very slight cooling trend of -0.01C/dec. It seems clear that the modern warming period commenced from ~1910.
Would you agree?
barrry,
You wrote: “i’m talking about the science, where you’re more interested in the politics.” I agree completely. Because the CAGW scare is fueled by grant money, and has nothing whatever to do with science. It may have started based on a question of science, but that is long past. Now, it is entirely political. But you have been patient, so I’ll respond regarding the science as I understand it.
The rise in T from the LIA is, of course, not a straight line. There are cycles upon cycles, causing random, unpredictable ups and downs during the gradual warming trend. But you can surely see the overall warming trend from the LIA, can’t you? And the never-falsified null hypothesis indicates that this warming is natural, and that CO2 is not a significant factor. The planet has gone through much more severe changes throughout the Holocene and before, without CO2 rising appreciably. So CO2 has to be a very minor player.
You say “It seems clear that the modern warming period commenced from ~1910.” OK, fine, stipulated since you used the term ‘modern’. But that is not the question. The question is: did CO2 cause that particular warming cycle? If you believe it did, post your evidence.
Regarding your complaint that I didn’t respond to the 60-year cycle, in fact I did, here. It’s all natural. You can see that it goes in cycles.
Now, can we agree that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial?
My view is that it is warmer now than during the LIA. There are various periodic fluctuations within the climate system (PDO, NAO, ENSO, AMO etc) these shift energy around within the system. While they may affect the ups and downs of global temperature, they cannot be responsible for long-term trends. I intend first to show that with two popular themes amongst skeptics – the sun and the PDO. I’ll use woodfortrees, the HadCRU temp record (because you did), and I will use time periods no less than 30 years, to establish strong statistical significance with respect to the temperature data. The topic of this post is attribution, and I’m spending time on it because you seem to dismiss it our of hand.
The sun
The linear trend for solar activity (sunspot count) from 1904 to present is positive, which is in agreement with the long-term temperature record. (graph) I was constrained to select 1904 as the start date because the SIDC monthly sunspot index at woodfortrees starts at 1900, and at 1904 sunspots are of similar count and phase to present.
However, for the last few decades, solar activity has been the opposite sign to global temperature. Again, I was constrained in my choice of start date by matching phase with the beginning and end of the time series – ie, I don’t want to start the series with a high sunspot count and end with a low sunspot count or that would skew the results (by increasing the negative trend in this case). Therefore, here is the trend comparison from 1956 to present, and for 1978 to present. You can pick any cycle for your start point for the last 60 years and get the same result, which is: in the last few decades, solar and global surface temperature trends are anti-correlated. The sun has not been causing the warming since about the middle of last century.
Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Again, we have data from 1900. It is difficult to discern where phases begin and end, so I will go with the phases of the temperature record. First of all, though, the full PDO record. (graph) There is no trend at all in the PDO index, which is kind of obvious, as it is an oscillating system (but see further down). Like all internal ocean/atmosphere systems, it fluctuates around a mean. It can’t work as a forcing agent for global temperature in the long term, it just shifts energy around the system. In the parlance of the IPCC, it is not an external forcing.
However, there appears to be good correlation with global temperature fluctuations, even if a trend is not apparent. It would be tempting to posit that PDO is a 60 year cycle, but it exhibits no particular cycling for the first 30-40 years, and the phase shifts thereafter are not temporally symmetrical. Nevertheless, let’s see how it correlates with the various phases of the temperature record. The classic climate shifts of the 20th century to now are, roughly, 1910 to 1940, 1941 to 1975, and 1976 to 2005, or to present. Let’s plot trend lines for those periods. (graph) Correlation is good until the last 30-year climate period, where the trends diverge.
It should be pointed out that the JISAO (PDO) index data is detrended from global warming, and some people argue that this effectively (and unfairly) takes PDO out of the running as a cause for long-term climate change. I think these arguments are specious, as PDO does not create energy, it just moves it around. In any event, the argument is moot, because the linear trend for the last 30 years (1981 to 2010) in HadCRU is 0.15C/decade, and the trend of PDO for the same period is -0.48/decade. Even if you put the global warming trend back in the PDO, the last 30 years would still wildly diverge. PDO is not the cause of the warming of the last few decades.
These experiments are simple. There are other factors to consider, like delays in warming (lag) for example, but all this has been done before and continues to be done. Where you declare the warming is natural by default, scientists have been examining that possibility in great detail for decades. The reason confidence has grown since the first IPCC report that CO2 has been warming the planet is that natural factors have been more intensely studied, and for the last 30 – 40 years have almost universally been in the wrong direction to cause warming.
Apart from the empirical evidence I detailed and you agreed with last week, there are signatures of greenhouse warming that provide further evidence that CO2 is currently the main driver of global temperatures. The stratosphere has cooled. In the last 60 years, nights have warmed faster than days and winters faster than summers. Satellites have recorded less long-wave radiation escaping to space in precisely the spectra absorbed by CO2 (that is some serious empirical evidence). The troposphere has increased in height.
We know CO2 traps heat. We know we have added almost all the CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere for the last 100 years or so. We know global temperature has increased. We have predicted, since at least 1856, that global temperature will increase if atmospheric CO2 does. The earliest, crudest GCMs of the last century didn’t predict with great accuracy the temperature rise, but they were in the ballpark. We have intensely examined natural causes of climate change and found that they cannot account for recent warming.
We have a scientific literature of tens of thousands of documented studies, from spectral analysis to temperature records converging on the conclusion that industrial emissions of CO2 are warming the planet. We have the mechanism of cause, and the corroboration of correlation, and confirmation also from empirically observed data. We see patterns of warming specific to GHG warming, and not other forcings. At this point, to my mind, the null hypothesis is that increased CO2 is warming the planet, and this has now to be disproved by a very cogent argument, answering all the fingerprints of CO2 warming that are evident. A study that explains why the troposphere is warming, but can’t explain why, for example, the stratosphere is cooling, or why there is less long-wave radiation escaping to space in the spectral bands absorbed by CO2, is not enough. Not nearly enough.
Smokey, i think that pretty much all skeptics only ever fix on whatever the meme du jour is, and never ever ever consider the whole picture. There is now multiple lines of evidence and direct observation. It isn’t a house of cards, it’s a house of solid walls. Models are not needed to determine that increasing CO2 causes warming, and indeed, no serious, qualified earth scientist disagrees with that. Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke’s Snr and Junior, Christy, Lomborg – the skeptic scientists, particularly the atmospheric and earth scientists we are familiar with, and who are critics of the IPCC, do not deny this simple fact.
Notice, in this post I have not claimed any future catastrophe.. I am not advocating you lower your greenhouse emissions. I haven’t relied on models. I am not interested in politics or psychology. The whole issue boils down to the science. The rest is pointless if the science is misunderstood.
CO2 beneficial/harmless? It’s plant food and keeps us from freezing. If it makes the planet warm quickly, that could destabilize agriculture and water resources and change the surface of the planet in some places faster than those populations could deal with comfortably.
Smokey, I’m guessing you’ll want to respond to the last paragraph. Please respond to my comments on attribution as well. That was the major effort in the post.
Smokey, the “very tiny trace gas” CO2 proportion of the atmosphere, the maximum of 0.00028 that pertained for nearly a million years before the industrial revolution, is responsible for the mean temperature of the atmosphere during interglacial periods being some 18 deg C higher than it would otherwise be. You have no evidence that the increase to 0.00039 that has accompanied man’s emissions since 1750 will be beneficial. Oh yes, you would like us to wait and see.
You write: “You cannot produce any empirical, testable evidence showing global harm from increased CO2, therefore CO2 is harmless; QED.” Where is your evidence that it won’t cause global harm? Again you are suggesting we can afford to wait and see.
“And there is voluminous evidence showing that more CO2 increases agricultural productivity, therefore more CO2 is clearly beneficial.” Where is this voluminous evidence? On the contrary, experiments conducted in artificial atmospheres with slightly higher proportions of CO2 show plants producing more and bigger leaves, but lower crop yields.
800 years happens to be the approximate lag between a naturally-induced temperature rise and the accompanying increase in CO2 levels, as shown in ice core samples. The closeness to the 1,000-year time difference between now and the medieval warm period is coincidental.
You ask: ” ‘Previous warmings have always had a different trigger mechanism to start them’. And how would you know that for a fact?”
Well a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels that occurs after a temperature rise obviously has not caused the temperature rise. If B has followed A 800 years later, then B cannot have caused A. Therefore something else must have caused A. I have drawn attention to the known property of water to give up some of its dissolved gases when warmed. It is a logical sequence of cause and effect. You can suggest another one if you like. Or you can challenge the logic. But don’t just dismiss this, like everything else, as a “natural cycle”.
You finish that posting: ” ‘Warmed sea water will give up some of its CO2 to the atmosphere, which in turn causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, which in turn causes the sea to warm further, which…’ &etc. That is simply another evidence-free assumption of the belief in runaway global warming, for which you have no testable, empirical evidence.”
Either provide testable evidence per the scientific method supporting your conjectures, or expect them to be rightly dismissed as baseless opinion.”
Well I have given an opinion based on long-known properties of the atmosphere, CO2 and water. On the other hand, you have suggested nothing scientific, just a vague belief in “natural cycles”. All natural cycles have causes: to be take seriously you need to specify the precise natural cycles to which you refer. We know about some of them, such as variations in the orbit of the earth and its angle of tilt, which we can predict but not influence. There are others such as solar cycles which we know happen, but we don’t know their precise causes, and certainly cannot influence them, nor predict them exactly. Other, less regular cycles include the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which meteorologists struggle to forecast. Volcanic eruptions are even harder to predict. But all of these events influence annual global temperatures. The job of climate statisticians is to eliminate the random variations and those with other known causes, and to correlate the man-made pollution with its consequences. They are having some success.
barry says:
“…If it makes the planet warm quickly, that could destabilize agriculture and…” &etc.
barry me boi, you shoulod know better than to engage in evidence-free “what ifs.”
.
4caster says:
“Where is your evidence that it [CO2] won’t cause global harm?”
You’re almost too sly for me, trying to get me to prove a negative. So, where is your evidence that ghosts don’t exist, eh?☺
Next, regarding the benefits of added CO2, you ask, “Where is this voluminous evidence?” Glad you asked:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Got more if you want ’em. But I think we can agree that more CO2 increases agricultural productivity. Therefore, more CO2 is beneficial, ipso facto.
And since none of the catastrophic scare stories about rising CO2 have panned out, along with the fact that there is no evidence of any global harm resulting from the rise in CO2, then we must conclude that CO2 is harmless.
Therefore, more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. QED.
If you really want, I can just as easily deconstruct the rest of your beliefs. But I’m losing interest. There are more current articles I want to read.
Smokey,
I specifically asked you to answer the 95% of the post that was science based, guessing correctly that you would focus on the one sentence that was conjectural. Unfortunately I’ve wasted a few hours constructing posts on the science, hoping you would be able to elevate your thinking beyond the ideological and political. Apparently not. This is not the first time you have avoided a facts-based conversation.
You can’t have an informed opinion if you don’t understand the science. You not only do not understand it, you avoid it if it doesn’t suit your opinion. That is a shame.
barry,
Sorry you wasted a few hours [?!?] writing your posts arguing with me. Is it so hard putting together a comment? You need to write a little faster. My posts are constructed in a few minutes – and IMHO they make my points better, clearer, and more concisely.
And your opinion that I ‘don’t understand the science’ is pretty weak tea, considering your admission that your own comments are only ‘conjectural’. If & when you can competently refute my assertion that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, wake me and we can play some more.☺
It’s very easy putting together a comment. They’re all over the net and a dime a dozen.
Understanding and/or explaining climate science – any science of complex systems – takes time. You have to knuckle down and do some actual work. When corresponding with you, I don’t regurgitate talking points. I construct my replies based on what you’ve said. You use the HadCRU temp record? Fine, I’ll go with that. You are interested in temp data from 1850? OK. You assert that the warming is natural? Then I’ll deal with that point. From these points I can make a post that is science-based and propaganda free. Some graphs took ten minutes or so to fiddle with scale, offsetting etc, in order to make it as clean as possible so the results could be seen easily. I also had to re-read and edit out non-substantive content that I figured you would pounce on, ignoring the substantive stuff. Half the exercise when talking to you is trying to get you to focus on the science, and to focus on the points YOU’VE made when I reply to them. But you don’t seem to be able to concentrate.
Like Lucy sweeping the ball away from Charlie Brown when he goes to kick it, you reply to the one non-substantive comment in my post (which was a reply to a politically framed question from you – more fool me for trying to reply comprehensively to you), and ignore the 95% of the rest of the post that was substantive.
You like short posts and sound-bytes because you’re not interested in the science. You want to win points, not understand them. I want to have a constructive conversation but it’s impossible. You want to tell me about the mendacious alarmists. I want to talk about facts – the scientific underpinning that is the nuts and bolts one needs to be familiar with before one can make an informed opinion. This takes time, and you don’t have time for it apparently. So you’ll never learn anything. Not from me anyway. And I’ll never learn anything from you, because when I take up a point of yours, you move on to the next talking point. Nothing gets discussed.
So that’s it I guess. I know when I’m licked.
(This post took 10 minutes. I spent some time thinking of the clearest, most honest way to say what I wanted to say)
Thank you Barry, you have not wasted your time. Smokey will not try to understand the basic science, which has rested undisputed for well over a century.
In 1824 a Frenchman, Joseph Fourier, discovered the greenhouse effect, whereby gases in the atmosphere trap heat like glass in a conservatory.
And 37 years later, an Irish physicist, John Tyndall, identified carbon dioxide as one of its causes.
In 1894-95 a Swede, Svante Arrhenius, took a year to calculate that doubling the amount of the gas would cause global temperatures to rise by 5C-6C. Extraordinarily, that is almost exactly the conclusion reached by today’s scientists, armed with superfast supercomputers.
I would like to conclude with a short, step-by-step, scientific explanation of the mechanism of anthropogenic climate change.
1. In order to maintain a constant average temperature the earth needs to radiate outwards exactly the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun.
2. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are transparent to the mainly short-wavelength incoming solar radiation, but opaque to the outgoing radiation from the earth (which is longer-wave because the earth is cooler than the sun, and cooler bodies emit radiation at longer wavelengths than hotter bodies like the sun). These relationships are not new, but were discovered by 19th century scientists such as Stefan, Wien, Planck, Kirchoff and Boltzman.
3. For nearly a million years until the industrial revolution, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied from 180 to 280 parts per million. (If there were no CO2 at all, the earth’s average surface temperature would be minus 18 degrees C.) The 180 ppm levels have been associated with ice ages, and the 280 ppm values with interglacial periods such as the present one. For the last 10,000 years the average surface temperature has been close to 15 degrees C, in a range that has been conducive to the development of mankind.
4. In the 250 years or so since we started burning fossil fuels (which have been locked into the earth’s crust for some 300 million years) the CO2 level has risen to 392 parts per million. That is an increase of 37% over the 1,000,000-year maximum, and the rate of increase is accelerating. We presently emit 17 million tons of CO2 daily, which contains 7 million tons of carbon atoms.
5. Terrestrial temperatures have risen since the industrial revolution, subject to natural variations such as El Niño events, volcanic eruptions and known recurring solar cycles. The rise since the 1970s is particularly well-documented.
6. We can forget the natural greenhouse gas emissions, because they are in equilibrium with the natural absorptions, which cannot be expected to counter our emissions in addition!
The onus is on disbelievers to prove that this sequence of cause and effect is flawed.
barry,
There is a lot of psychological projection in your last comment. I posted this chart more than once, but you completely ignored it.
That one single chart [and I have plenty of others showing the same thing] deconstructs all the other pseudo “science” purporting to claim that the planet’s temperature has begun rising fast as a result of rising CO2.
You need to look at the big picture, not just ΔT from 1900 to current. The big picture shows that nothing unusual is happening. In fact, we are currently in an extremely benign climate.
.
4caster says:
“In 1894-95 a Swede, Svante Arrhenius, took a year to calculate that doubling the amount of the gas would cause global temperatures to rise by 5C-6C. Extraordinarily, that is almost exactly the conclusion reached by today’s scientists, armed with superfast supercomputers.”
What 4caster conveniently omits is Arrhenius‘ 1906 paper, which recanted his 6°C rise for 2xCO2, and replaced it with a very mild ≤1.5°C rise. Such a rise for a doubling of CO2 [which is anyway very unlikely] is no problem at all. A warmer planet would open millions of arable acres in Canada, Siberia, Mongolia, etc. The alarmist crowd always ignores the 1906 Arrhenius paper because it confounds their narrative. Where’s the grant money for a degree or so more warmth – especially since that warming would occur primarily at night, in the winter, and in the higher latitudes?
4caster lists known factors, which I have no problem with [other than using big scary numbers, instead of comparable percentages]. But he presumes those factors cover all known and unknown climate forcings, and then he concludes with a logical fallacy: “The onus is on disbelievers to prove that this sequence of cause and effect is flawed.”
Wrong: ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.
Regarding the claim that CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming, the onus lies entirely on the alarmist contingent. Regarding the belief that a rise in CO2 will cause a 5 – 6°C rise in global temperatures, the onus lies entirely on those who claim that is so; not on scientists skeptical of that evidence-free belief.
Finally, the planet itself is falsifying the preposterous 5 – 6°C claim. So whom should we believe, the alarmist crowd’s self-serving but evidence-free claim? Or the IPCC’s still highly exaggerated scare numbers? Or should we look at observational evidence of what is actually happening in the real world?
4caster says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:34 am
” …The present simultaneous increases of both are clearly not subject to this lag. In that respect, this time is really different. …”
You can’t possibly be sure of this, unless You were present at previous times … Especially when NO ONE has been able to demonstrate that carbon dioxide is the primary reason why the temperature HAS risen (not rising), due to human activity! If a (natural) event is repetitive and relatively similar each time, it is difficult to say that the latest change is caused by the artificial reason. Especially when it can’t be proven! Unless someone has a wild imagination or an agenda … Also, try to understand the concept of (repeating) cycles …
“I have another issue with SasjaL. He discounts the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa on the grounds that even dormant volcanoes emit CO2. Even if this is the case (I am a meteorologist, not a vulcanologist), there is another series of measurements from Mace Head in Ireland, going back to 1992, and many other sites have begun to record data since then. The correlation between these data is very high.”
First, if I was a “He”, we (I) need some gender bending … [OT] Sasja (including Sasha, Sacha and Sascha) is certainly a Russian male nickname for “Alexandr” (sic!), but this is (normally) in Russia! Outside of Russia it’s a nickname for the female form of “Alexander”, ie. “Alexandra”. I am baptized and officially registered as “Sasja”, because my parents thought it was a beautiful name … My closest and only relationship to Russia is a couple of acquaintances, who were born and raised in Siberia and now lives in the same country as me, here on the Scandinavian peninsula … Nothing else. [/OT]
Secondly, You’re missing the point! Measuring carbon dioxide levels at a vulcano, would be something like measuring the same thing at a highway (with traffic) … If You can’t, have possibility to or even want to separate what You intend to measure from the contributing sources of error, there is NO WAY that You can manage to draw a correct conclusion … As a meteorologist, You should know this! (As a meteorologist, You must also know and understand that it is not possible to predict the weather (locally) with sufficient precision, longer than five days into the future, because weather is EXTREMLY complex and chaotic. It’s then perfectly illogical when You try to predict the climate for a period of one hundred years or so into the future (globally), when it’s EVEN MORE complex and chaotic … In short, it’s nonsense!)
Also, You should have looked more closely at what is measured at Mace Head … A look at their mission (http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/mission.htm), You’ll find the following:
CFCs, bromocarbons, N2O, CH4, CO, H2, CH3Cl, CH3Br, CH2Cl2, CHCl3, OH radicals via CH3CCl3
but CO2 is not mentioned … Why? Well, if You take a look on the start page, You’ll find the following:
“The AGAGE is distinguished by its capability to measure over the globe at high frequency almost all of the important gases species in the Montreal Protocol (e.g. CFCs and HCFCs) to protect the ozone layer and almost all of the significant non-CO2 gases in the Kyoto Protocol”
Note that it specifically states “non-CO2” … Ie, measuring carbon dioxide levels is not their “mission”!
However, there are some information about they had previously been measured carbon dioxide levels, but the information indicates some few periods with no direct continuity.
(Then there’s another thing if concerned gases actually destroys the ozone layer. It is questionable, as some observant people have realized that both ozone holes, north and south, existed much earlier before they were discovered, probably at simular sizes as present …)
——
Excuse me if any of the following I have written, already has been commented by someone else (like Smokey), but this can never be mentioned too many times (as opposed to political and religious dogma) … but I have unfortunately not been able to read all recent comments yet …
I’ve noticed something in one of Your comments in reply to Smokey, regarding Your arguments about prehistoric levels:
“But it is unlikely that mankind would survive, over much of the earth, any recurrence of temperatures associated with his high CO2 values.”
Explain then why the tomato producers who use carbon dioxide levels up to 1200 ppm in their greenhouses, without getting themselves any harm. This happens in real life … They can even increase this a lot further, without any problems. (Try even explaining to a tomato producer that carbon dioxide is harmful. You will probably be laughed at or at least be regarded as a madman, a corrupt politician, a religious fanatic or even a combination of these …)
“It is no accident that mankind first started to thrive and multiply less than 10,000 years ago, but did not do so during earlier interglacial periods.”
Correct, it is no coincidence, but not for the reason You think. You’ll realize it if You learned anything about biology, specifically on anthropology and evolution of species. (You should have received a dose of this during Your period in school …) You also commit a logical somersault, when You don’t realize (or is it deliberately?) that the predecessors of the modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) were not sufficiently developed to accomplish something similar to what happened the last two thousand years of human history … Linguistic development is of great importance in this context, as the design of the human throat and specifically the vocal cords is quite unique and this is relatively late developed. I hope You realize that if we not have progressed further in development than our “cousin” (the chimpanzee) regarding communication, we would never have this discussion or anything close to it …
In addition, the more people who gathers and exchange ideas and experiences, the greater is the possibility that it leads to something new and to further development (but unfortunally also it leads to the opposite like the AGW concept) … This possibility was extremely limited for the modern human’s predecessors. Furthermore, biological evolution are often driven by mutations and have a guess about what causes them …? This is a very slow and self-regulatory process (as GMO advocates clearly don’t understand …).
If all species were developed at the same rate as humans have done the past two thousand years, the world would have looked very different. How much different, the wildest imagination would not be close to it.
“It is caused by mankind’s DAILY emission of 17 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, containing 7 million tons DAILY of carbon.”
So what …? All the green species on the Earth loves this! It (still) represents only 2-4% of the total net! (And this is only a rough estimation! Try to figure out why this is basically impossible to measure correctly …) The rest are natural sources. Don’t You realize the proportions? (As I tried to explain in my previous comment.) The greener the Earth gets, the more oxygen we have the opportunity to use … “Forgot” this?
“Warmed sea water will give up some of its CO2 to the atmosphere, which in turn causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, which in turn causes the sea to warm further, which …. You get the picture.”
Warmed sea/ocean water will evaporate and cause far more “greenhouse effect” then the carbon dioxide, when it gets into cloud formations … Also, the “green stuff” will also compensate this. You don’t get the picture.
“It’s called Positive Feedback.”
In a system, regardless of type, where the sum of all the feedbacks are positive, it will soon reinforce itself in an uncontrolled manner. This is not happening with the climate and we have seen this happening before from traces of previous cycles. … (It’s self-regulating) Compare with acoustic feedbacks, then You might understand what it’s all about … (Nevertheless, an acoustic feedback is largely limited by the the speaker (elements) and amplifier designs respectively, but it gives You an idea how it works.)
Even later You wrote some funny stuff:
“The closeness to the 1,000-year time difference between now and the medieval warm period is coincidental.”
Just as man’s industrial development coincides with the third rise in the Vostok curves … (Third time’s a charm!)
barry says:
August 31, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“The great thing about this is that the 20 – 30 year minimum is a statistical, not an arbitrary result.”
Then You don’t understand the concept of statistics and science … For a human being, 20-30 years might be considered as a long period, but from a climatic point of view, it’s extremly short. Regarding the full time span that has to be involved, 20-30 years are concidered as statistical noise (ie. within error margins.). With a period of 20-30 years, basically You can prove anything about the climate … This is a presentation technique (aka “smokescreens” and “cherry-picking”) that is common among politicians, when they want to hide something that’s unlikely to accepted by the public. This also applies to bluffing companies …
SasjaL,
You write very well for someone whose first language is not English. [I should mention, however, that “You” is not normally capitalized.]
The several corrections you made to 4caster’s misinformation indicates that he is engaging in psychological projection [imputing his faults onto others] when he accuses others of not understanding basic science.
I can forgive the occasional error as an absent minded mistake. But 4caster’s numerous, flagrant and basic errors indicate he has picked up bits and pieces of misinformation at Warmist blogs, and posts them here, trying to appear knowledgeable on the subject. I’m not so sure that MLO data is wrong, but you pointed out several other instances of misinformation that 4caster tried to pass off as facts.
People like 4caster come here regularly from Warmist blogs, convinced that they’re going to set everyone straight with their error-prone, scanty knowledge of the subject. The beauty of WUWT is that unlike most alarmist blogs, it allows all points of view to be posted un-censored. In the ensuing discussion, the truth is separated from pseudo-science like wheat from chaff, and the purveyors of pseudo-science usually just drift away, leaving readers with what is as close to the truth as we can get given our current knowledge.
Smokey says:
September 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm
You’re saying I project my own shortcomings on to you. I said that you ignore the substantive points I make and keep throwing up other ones. And so you do. I’ve made a post about attribution of temperature change. Was this because i ignored a point you made? Nope. You asserted that the warming since LIA is natural – or that is the default position because ‘the null hypothesis is not disproved’. Ever since, I’ve been trying to engage you on that assertion, but you’ve avoided that and been cycling through talking points. My last substantive post was 12 paragraphs, complete with graphs on attribution. Your entire response to that was based on one sentence, which was not what the post was about, and which I told you in the post you’d probably be most incline to reply to. I was exactly right. You replied.
“barry me boi, you shoulod know better than to engage in evidence-free “what ifs.””
12 wasted paragraphs of substance and science. What happened to you there, Smokey?
Now you demand I pay attention to more of your assertions. But why would I? You’ll just ignore the substantive response and cycle to the next bunch of talking points. You’ll discuss nothing.
And now the proof of what I’m saying, and proof that I’m not projecting. here are the answers to each of your points from your last post, having ignored the substance of several posts of mine. You won’t reply substantively. you won’t delve into the point. you’ll say something smart-alecky, or respond to something else in this post, but you won’t deal with the rebuttals to your assertions in any substantive way.
Ready? here we go.
“I posted this chart more than once, but you completely ignored it.”
The chart is of a total of 8 locations. It does not, and cannot represent global temperatures. It is well known that local temperature records have more amplitude and climate variability than global averages. Furthermore, whatever point you are trying to make with the graph is quite obscure. If it is that different locations show different temperature trends, then, you have shown us nothing new. Of course they do. the global is not a featureless billiard ball where the weather and climate change at the same time and in the same way everywhere. That chart, for these reasons, and because there is no analysis of any kind attached to it, is completely meaningless.
In the “big picture” chart, the first words are “it is said that our current global warming is unprecedented”. But that is not what is said. What is said to be “apparently unprecedented” is the rate at which CO2 is going into the atmosphere, and the rate at which the globe is warming. That morphing chart of Greenland ice core data begins with an utter straw man, and is, again, just one location on Earth. The first claim is false, and the data is not global. Fail.
The chart of “nothing unusual” shows the Mauna Loa CO2 record above the HadCRUt global temperature record. The immediate problem is that the downward trend at the end of the record is 10.5 years of data. As I discussed in another post to you at length (which you also completely ignored), this is way too short to establish a climate trend. The mid-century flat or cool period is also 17 years shorter than it should be. There is no explanation for the choice of start/end points of trend analyses, and it is patently obvious that selecting 1958 as a start date and 1977 as the end will emphasise a negative trend mid-century. When a temperature trend line is run for the entire Mauna Loa series period, the correlation looks like this. We don’t expect monotonic rise of temperature with incrementally increasing CO2. Weather factors will dominate for short time periods. Graphs without explanation or physics don’t cut it. And that is all you are offering – charts and no commentary. You are interested in getting out a message, not investigating what stuff means.
Finally, the “benign climate” graph, the third with no explanation, shows a temperature graph covering the last glacial maximum up to the current interglacial. Our civilizations have flourished in moderate stable climatic conditions. You have implied the obvious, but as there is no discussion from you on this, no reply can be made. It is the fourth in a series of non-sequiturs that you appear to believe construe an ‘argument’. Nope, it’s just propaganda.
Ok, all your points answered. Prediction: you will do anything but deal on point and substantively with what I’ve written in reply to your ‘points’, such as they weren’t. And if you had the wit to observe yourself fulfilling my prediction, you’d see that there is no projection from me onto you, just clear observation of your behaviour.
If we’re lucky, your reply will be interesting.
First, an apology, SasjaL. Being ignorant of the gender of your name, I should not have referred to you as “he”. I should have written “he or she”. (I never use the plural pronoun “they” to refer to a singular person of unknown sex, like many do. In attempting to be politically correct, they become grammatically incorrect.) I agree with Smokey about one thing: your excellent English. I would like my fluency in any second language to be one tenth as good.
You question my statement: ” …The present simultaneous increases of both [CO2 concentrations and mean air temperatures] are clearly not subject to this lag. In that respect, this time is really different. …” I was referring to the substantial warmings which started various inter-glacial periods in the last 700,000 years, and the associated atmospheric CO2 increases as measured by analysing air bubbles in ice-cores in Antarctica and Greenland, from which it has been observed that temperature rises precede CO2 increases, typically by eight centuries.
You write: ”You can’t possibly be sure of this, unless you were present at previous times …” If that is the case, then none of us can be sure about anything that we have not personally observed. I was not present to see dinosaurs, but archeologists say they existed, and I am sure they are right, just as I am sure that ice-core analysts are right.
The delayed CO2 rises following the warmings at the end of ice ages are not part of the argument that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. On the contrary, these ice-core observations are an inconvenient obstacle to that argument, cited by people who are ignorant of air/sea interactions in order to discredit the causal link between CO2 and global warming. I wrote about it merely to anticipate and pre-empt such a comment.
Atmospheric analysis at Mauna Loa was begun in 1958 for the purpose of measuring emissions from its volcano. There have only been two eruptions since then, a minor one in 1975 and a more substantial one in 1984. Neither is identifiable on the biennial CO2 concentration graph. Mace Head may have been established to measure other gases, but the CO2 measurements have become a valuable by-product, and agree closely with those from Mauna Loa.
SashaL also writes: “Warmed sea/ocean water will evaporate and cause far more ‘greenhouse effect’ than the carbon dioxide, when it gets into cloud formations …” I can agree with that (also before it gets into cloud formations, because water vapour in unsaturated air is a greenhouse gas too). But the magnitude of the warming due to water vapour is difficult to assess. That is the job of cloud physicists and those who create climate models incorporating their advice. The most sophisticated of computer models will not predict every puff of cumulus, even in the short term. But the parameterisation of air convection has improved, and I believe it will continue to improve.
“Also, the ‘green stuff’ will also compensate this. You don’t get the picture.” To make this argument you need to predict quantities, and to demonstrate that this extra “green stuff” will exceed that being destroyed by man through, for example, tropical rain-forest destruction. You expect increased “green stuff” to absorb 17 millions tons of CO2 daily in addition to the natural emissions with which they were in balance until mankind started burning fossil fuels.
barry,
Your WFT graphs can be scaled to show anything. By going back before 1959 and re-scaling, looky here. Not so scary now, is it? And here’s a chart by an internationally esteemed climatologist with an impressive CV. Don’t you think the AGW alarm is way overblown? Preposterous, even? Looks to me like everything is normal, and we’re very lucky to be in a benign, naturally warming part of the Holocene.
There is no evidence, per the scientific method, showing that the rise in CO2 is any more than coincidental with the rise in temperature since the LIA. You cannot show that it isn’t an artefact. The null hypothesis and Occam’s Razor tell us that what is happening now is routine, natural, normal, and minor compared with much more severe past episodes of warming and cooling. You’re trying to peddle an argumentum ad ignorantium by assuming that since you can’t think of any other reason besides CO2 for the rise in temperature, then it must be due to CO2. But we are far from knowing everything about what drives the climate. There are certainly more unknown unknowns, and it is hubris to presume anyone understands all the forcings and feedbacks.
So there’s the scientific method in action. CO2=AGW is simply an unproven hypothesis, and all the horse manure about our “carbon footprint”, “sustainability”, and the rest of the eco-crap is just so much nonsense. The whole enviro agenda is explicitly designed to grab more tax money and more political control. “Climate change” is just the ostensible veneer to give ruthless people and organizations necessary cover for their plans.
barry, there is as much testable evidence, per the scientific method, that CO2 causes global warming as there is for ghosts [I don’t happen to believe in ghosts. But I do think that CO2 causes some minor warming. But the benefits far outweigh any problems – even though there is still no empirical evidence showing that CO2 does cause warming. I base my thinking on radiative physics, while keeping in mind that we don’t know very much about how the earth’s overall climate actually works]. So if you’re trying to convince me to unquestioningly accept a hypothesis for which there is zero physical evidence, you’re arguing with the wrong guy.
Finally, you denigrated the chart I posted because it shows ‘only’ 8 locations. OK then, here is a chart showing 150 locations all around the globe. Most urban locations that are affected by UHI, but even so, there’s nothing scary about the trends – which pretty well match the chart showing 8 locations.
barry, to support your position you’re going to have to produce testable, empirical evidence directly connecting AGW to what appears to be natural climate cycles and temperature changes. Otherwise, you should be a skeptic of AGW. Because as we know, a skeptical scientist is the only honest kind of scientist.
Smokey,
at least i’m not projecting. You didn’t respond to my points, except to tell me i jigged my graph.
You keep asking me for empirical evidence. I gave it to you a week ago, and you even said you agreed with the points.
Also you say in one paragraph.
And in the same paragraph.
You are incoherent. Either CO2 warming is superstition, or you base your belief on radiative physics. Not both. What sloppy reasoning!
You’ve offered up yet more graphs with little explanation. It’s the visual form of talking points. What on Earth are we supposed to make of a bunch of locales’ temperature records? Some have mighty temperature rises over climatic periods, much greater than the global record, and some don’t show much or any warming at all. So what? This is a mess of data that could be interpreted by anyone in any way. Meaningless, until some propagandist spins a story out of it.
Let’s stick to one topic and really discuss it, shall we? I’d like to see you try to defend the extraordinary claim that there is no empirical evidence for AGW. Answer the following, please.
Empirical evidence (here we go again).
1) Earth’s atmosphere contains CO2
2) CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation
3) Increasing the amount of CO2 in a volume of atmosphere receiving steady heat, will make that volume warmer
I remind you that you agreed with these points a week ago. Based on empirical evidence, the null hypothesis must be that more CO2 makes the atmosphere warm. Re-read points 1 – 3.
There is more empirical evidence – this you also agreed with a week ago.
4) Human industry has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly 40% since the industrial revolution
5) The Earth has warmed
6) Satellites have observed the spectra of radiation that CO2 absorbs darkening over the last few decades – CO2 is retaining more heat in the atmosphere.
These 6 points are empirical evidence. This is how we know that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere.
So, Smokey, how on Earth can you hold that there is “no empirical evidence” for AGW? I really want to know.
@- tallbloke says:
September 6, 2011 at 3:52 am
“It is not a logical impossibility that clouds are causing temperature change and temperature change is causing cloud change simultaneously. The world is a big place, there are many different processes going on in it.”
There are indeed and clouds causing temp changes and temp changes causing clouds are all part of that.
But however big the world you DON’T get two things that are the primary cause of each other.
Causal chains are unidirectional. It is a logical impossibility for A to be the #1 cause of B, AND B to be the #1 cause of A.
The dispute here is over whether the pattern of events seen in the ENSO cycle is caused by the movement of thermal energy in the pacific over several years which then causes changes in the wind and cloud patterns.
OR whether the cloud patterns cause the slow movement of thermal energy through the ocean.
There is no dispute that the cloud patterns CAUSED by the ocean thermal changes modify the total ENSO cycle – just as a cough may add irritation to an infection. But there is no dispute amonst MOST rational observers that the oceans cause the clouds, NOT the other way round.
And it is just logical nonsense to claim that causation can run BOTH ways.
Oceans are the cause, clouds are the feedback.
@- tallbloke (-Re: the claim that GCR has negligible effect on low altitude clouds.)
“Interesting assertion, which you haven’t backed up with any argumentation here. Anyway, GCR’s are not the only way cloud might be affected by another factor other than temperature.”
I quoted the sentence from the abstract in the thread discussing this –
-”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-
perhaps you missed that ?
barry,
You’re playing word games by cherry-picking a part of my quote that you want to argue with. That’s a strawman argument. Here’s my verbatim quote: “I don’t happen to believe in ghosts. But I do think that CO2 causes some minor warming. But the benefits far outweigh any problems – even though there is still no empirical evidence showing that CO2 does cause warming. I base my thinking on radiative physics, while keeping in mind that we don’t know very much about how the earth’s overall climate actually works.” [my emphasis]
See, barry, I think that CO2 causes some very *mild* warming. But I point out that there is no testable, empirical evidence per the scientific method showing a direct connection between AGW and CO2. All we have so far is correlation. Reading comprehension, barry me boi. You needs it.
You appear to have no real understanding of the scientific method and its rigorous application. You simply want to believe in climate alarmism like some folks want to believe in ghosts. Earth to barry: there is nothing unusual happening. Nothing. All current climate parameters, including temperatures, rates of change, and trends are well within the past parameters of the Holocene. Read up on the null hypothesis, it’s a function of the scientific method that you don’t seem to understand. It clearly demonstrates that the wild-eyed AGW predictions are bunkum. Nothing unusual is occurring. You want to believe what’s not there, barry. That’s religion, not science.
The so-called “evidence” you presented is not evidence of AGW at all, it is simply correlation. Correlation does not meet the standard of the scientific method. Further, real world evidence shows that there is little correlation between the steady rise in CO2 and changes in temperature: click That lack of correlation indicates that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 has been wildly exaggerated.
You’re trying to sell us a bill of goods, but when we ask you to prove it, all you can do is show correlations. Considering the $billions wasted every year to “study climate change”, that’s not nearly good enough. We need direct, testable evidence that CO2=AGW, but there is none.
Finally, my basic argument is, and always has been, that the rise in CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Provide verifiable evidence of global harm directly attributable to CO2, and you will have a tenable argument. Otherwise, you might as well try to convince us that ghosts exist.
Smokey,
<blockquote.The so-called “evidence” you presented is not evidence of AGW at all, it is simply correlation
No, it is not. You asked for empirical evidence. Do you know what the words mean?
Emprirical:
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment
I gave you a list of 6 empirical results derived by observation and experiment. They are well verified, and you agreed that they were so a week ago. The first 3 points alone are evidence enough.
Evidence
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
I gave 6 verified facts as evidence that the proposition of AGW is valid. The first 3 points alone validate the proposition.
I answered your challenge. Exactly as you wrote it.
Don’t link me up to graphs, don’t talk about whether CO2 is benign or harmful. Tell me how I have failed to show empirical evidence that CO2 will warm the planet. Stick to the point, please.
Let’s keep it really simple. Tell me what is wrong with the first 3 points. Are they not empirical data? Do they not constitute evidence?
(Prediction: you will shift the goalposts instead of admitting you are wrong)
barry,
Reading comprehension, me boi. You needs it. You can’t just pick out two words and leave it at that. The scientific method doesn’t work that way.
I’ve repeatedly pointed out that there is as much testable, replicable evidence per the scientific method that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming as there is for ghosts. I know you want to believe in AGW, but there is no testable, replicable evidence directly connecting human-emitted CO2 with global warming.
See, if there was definitive evidence, then there wouldn’t be this endless argument over whether human-emitted CO2 changes global temperatures. The reason that the argument is endless is specifically because there is no quantifiable, testable evidence that X amount of CO2 raises the global temperature by Y degrees.
The onus is on you and the rest of the alarmist crowd to show conclusively that human-emitted CO2 causes the global temperature to rise. Sorry you don’t have any testable evidence, but you just don’t. And neither does anyone else – thus the interminable argument, where climate alarmist True Believers try despearately hard to convince scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] that correlation equals causation.
The charts I’ve posted show that the ΔT appears to be irrespective of the steady rise in CO2. When U.S. postal rates show significantly greater correlation to temperature than CO2, you’ve got a credibility problem. I understand that you fervently believe in CO2=CAGW. But it’s an internalized Belief system. When you can provide quantifiable, replicable proof of causation, I’ll sit up straight and pay attention.
In the mean time, remember that the ultra-rational Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, truly believed that invisible faeries lived in his garden. Today, he’d probably be squarely in the alarmist camp. Now, we use the scientific method to weed out the believers in ghosts, witch doctors and CAGW.
Major troll infestation
Sean Peake says:
September 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Major troll infestation
=========================
Like invasive, opportunistic unwanted pests, they do tend to swarm, don’t they?
So if they infest and attempt to “overwhelm” the opposition by volume and number, their reasoning, the opposition will wither.
Guess again, “swarm.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
barry never responded to Ole Humlum’s thorough deconstruction of AGW in his Climate4You website that I referenced. Dr Humlum has invested a lifetime of research studying climate forcings. barry constantly accuses me of ‘moving the goalposts’. That is clearly barry’s own psychological projection at work. If barry truly wants to get up to speed on the subject, Dr Humlum’s informative site is a great place to begin.
barry needs to produce testable, empirical evidence directly connecting AGW – in what otherwise appears to be simply natural climate cycles and temperature changes – to “carbon”. But he can’t, because there is no such evidence! If there were, we would certainly hear it trumpeted 24/7/365 by the alarmist claque.
So barry argues and argues. But he can’t produce. Poor barry. Another alarmist lacking facts to support his
ghost storiesBelief in catastrophic AGW.Smokey is asking the impossible.
He wants ‘”testable, empirical evidence directly connecting AGW – in what otherwise appears [to him] to be simply natural climate cycles and temperature changes – to “carbon”’.
“Empirical” is defined in my Chambers Concise Dictionary as “resting on trial or experiment; known or knowing only by experience”. In my early days as a weather forecaster (in the 1960s) we used many empirical formulae to predict, for example, night minimum temperatures, fog formation temperatures and vertical velocities in mountain wave conditions. Empirical methods are a poor substitute for calculations based on equations linking the values of all the variables, but we did not have the number-crunching computers in those days. Thankfully the case for anthropological global warming does not rest upon empirical evidence.
No forecast can be verified until after the event. Therefore the Scientific Method, in its purest form, withstanding any number of replicated experiments, cannot be applied to a forecast of terrestrial conditions decades or centuries into the future. We and our descendants will be part of the experiment!
From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming. The warming is closely correlated with the carbon dioxide. Based on the known physics of greenhouse gases, the amount of warming predicted by the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, and the physical relationships of solids, liquids and gases, very closely matches observed increases. This is basic physics.
What Smokey describes as “simply [undefined by him] natural climate cycles and temperature changes” can be attributed to just that, until man started adding to atmospheric CO2. He needs to prove his assertion that temperature changes since then have remained natural. Overwhelming evidence, from past and present relationships between CO2 levels and temperatures, refute that assertion.
There is no precedent for knowing the global effects of CO2 at 392 parts per million (ppm) since at least 700,000 years ago, because the range found in ice core bubbles lies between 180 and 280 ppm. The extra CO2 in our lifetimes is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess, 1958).
By analysing its isotopic signature we can reliably differentiate between naturally-occurring CO2 present in the carbon cycle and that produced by the burning of fossil fuels.
What more evidence does he want, apart from wanting future measurements now?
Smokey,
my last post was not permitted by the moderators. I don’t know why. You asked for empirical evidence. I gave you six points – observed, tested, verified facts. All you need to do is explain why a) they are NOT empirical observations, or b) why they do not constitute relevant bits of evidence that increased CO2 causes warming.
You asked for “any evidence” of empirical credentials supporting the proposition that increasing CO2 warms the globe. I will not chase up the dozens of graphs and topic changes you continually introduce until you have explained a) and b). I will not go in circles. I will go step by step. Please do likewise.
4caster and barry,
Let me repeat: “…if there was definitive evidence, then there wouldn’t be this endless argument over whether human-emitted CO2 changes global temperatures. The reason that the argument is endless is specifically because there is no quantifiable, testable evidence that X amount of CO2 raises the global temperature by Y degrees.
“The onus is on you and the rest of the alarmist crowd to show conclusively that human-emitted CO2 causes the global temperature to rise. Sorry you don’t have any testable evidence, but you just don’t. And neither does anyone else – thus the interminable argument, where climate alarmist True Believers try despearately hard to convince scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] that correlation equals causation.”
Try to let that sink in: there is no agreement regarding definitive evidence of AGW, none at all, thus the constant debate and argument. The AGW debates resemble pre-Keplerian arguments over epicycles. You demand that scientific skeptics jettison the scientific method, and that we accept your evidence-free belief system. But that would be dishonest on the part of skeptics, and we would descend to the same level as climate alarmists.
Also, I did not ask for “any evidence of empirical ‘credentials’ supporting the proposition that increasing CO2 warms the globe.” I specifically asked for testable, falsifiable, replicable evidence. But of course, there is none. Please don’t invent strawman quotes.
The requirements for an accepted scientific theory – which AGW is certainly not – are listed in Karl Popper’s six rules:
Thus there is no AGW theory, because AGW cannot make consistent, accurate, testable predictions. Neither can Astrology. Both AGW and Astrology are belief systems that fail the scientific method and are disconfirmed by the null hyothesis. They may be true. But neither one is able to make accurate, testable predictions.
And barry, if you don’t click on the links I provide and study them, that simply means you don’t want to see those inconvenient truths because your mind is already made up and closed tight. Saying “La-la-la-la-la, I can’t hear you!” is not the result of scientific thinking.
So ‘scientific skeptics’ are ‘the only honest kind of scientists’.
According to dictionary.com, a skeptic is:
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.
Ignoring definition 3, which would open whole new can of worms, I am happy to be counted in definition 1. Smokey definitely falls into category 2. He maintains his scepticism in the face of overwhelming scientific and pre-historical research, on the grounds that confirmation or refutation of the forecast, based on that testable, falsifiable, replicable research will not be available until the period of the forecast has ended.
John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, is reported to have said, when his alleged inconsistency was challenged: “When the facts change, I change my mind? What do you do, sir?”
I, previously a type 1 skeptic, changed my mind in 1980 during a Royal Meteorological Society lecture by Prof. Hubert Lamb of University of East Anglia. But, however much data accumulates, and however great the correlation between data and theoretical calculations, Smokey will never change his mind until the complete data-set is available retrospectively. I predict that none of us will be around then. But perhaps Smokey won’t believe that forecast until it has been verified, tested, falsified and replicated.
Correction: The quote from Keynes had incorrect punctuation. It should read:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
4caster has established the fact that he has no concept whatever of the climate null hypothesis. To quote an esteemed climatologist: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
A null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. To falsify the climate null hypothesis requires that the current climate must differ in some respect – primarily in temperature – from the parameters of the Holocene. But there are no such differences. None at all. Temperatures, trends and rates of change have all far exceeded curent parameters numerous times in the past. Tornadoes and hurricanes have been stronger and more numerous in the past, and all when CO2 was under 300 ppmv. Thus, the null hypothesis has never been falsified.
The entire CAGW edifice is built upon always-inaccurate climate models. That is why Trenberth complains: “…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.” Trenberth knows that the never-falsified null hypothesis wrecks his CO2=CAGW alarmist hypothesis. Since there are no unusual changes, the null hypothesis, the scientific method, and Occam’s Razor all say that since the AGW hypothesis has no discernible or provable basis in the real world, the rational position is to throw out the repeatedly failed CAGW hypothesis, which hasn’t been able to predict it’s way out of a wet paper bag. So Trenberth now wants skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] to be forced to prove a negative! As if.
At least Trnberth has a rational motive for his anti-science: he’s making a pile of money from it. What I really wonder about are the mindless lemmings who trumpet debunked alarmist talking points, and who can’t answer a simple question like: What X amount of human-emitted CO2 results in Y degree of global warming? And if they have a putative answer, they can’t provide verifiable observations of their Belief from the real world.
CO2 is uniformly well-mixed gas throughout the atmosphere, but almost all the warming is taking place in the Northern Hemisphere. And R.W. Wood’s experiment showed no warming due to CO2. And Venus, with a 96%+ CO2 atmosphere at one Bar gradient shows no CO2 effect. And Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere, is freezing cold. And as CO2 steadily ramps up, the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining for almost a decade and a half. And at a steady ±280 ppmv CO2 for millions of years, the planet has been much warmer – and much, much colder. Inconvenient facts, eh? Facts that force every honest person to be a skeptic of CO2=CAGW, which anyway only exists in computer models.
This endless argument exists in blogs, not in the real world of science. Roy Spencer agrees that the globe will warm due to CO2 increase. He has been guested at this website explaining how.So does Richard Lindzen. So does Roger Pileke Snr. So does any qualified Earth scientist. The “endless argument” is being carried out by you and not many others. Even the staunches skeptical scientists agrees that CO2 will warm the Earth. Your view is not shared by science, I’m afraid. It’s a wonder you haven’t noticed.
Speaking of “ghosts”, what is the specific mechanism that caused warming for the last 60 years? For the last 30? CO2 explains it because we know CO2 traps long-wave energy. You keep asking for hard evidence and facts – and you’re given them – but whenever you’re asked to explain the warming in the industrial age, you posit “cycles”, and “recovery”. what is the actual mechanism, or are you going to promote your belief in the Gaia spirit?
Let’s have facts and not assumptions and guesswork. What, specifically, has made the globe warm?
Smokey’s latest contribution is just a rant. He now purports a steady plus or minus 280 ppmv CO2 for millions of years. (I congratulate him on finding the symbol for “plus or minus”, but what does he mean by it? How can a proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere ever be negative?) What makes him think that all the warming is taking place in the northern hemisphere? Is it just that most observing sites are there? Or that most of the land mass is there? He asserts that Venus, with a >96% CO2 atmosphere at one Bar gradient (whatever that means) shows no CO2 effect. But it is hotter than Mercury, which sits only half of the distance from the sun as does Venus, and, significantly, has little or no atmospheric CO2.
The people who are making a pile of money from anti-science are those who say what people like to hear: that we can continue plundering and polluting the planet with no ill-effects. People like Christopher Booker and Professor Plimer have a very receptive audience. It is music to the ears of most people, who yearn for “Business as Usual”. Real scientists just want to make an honest living.
Once more, Smokey is asking mainstream scientists to prove a negative, quoting an unidentified but “esteemed” climatologist : “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” When two variables are observed to change almost in lockstep, the null hypothesis must be that one is dependent on the other. If Smokey wishes to argue that “the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability”, he needs to explain the causal process. He also needs to explain why carbon dioxide changes can be discounted as the major cause.
Smokey also asks: “What X amount of human-emitted CO2 results in Y degree of global warming?” Well, perhaps someone else can answer this more directly, but according to http://www.skepticalscience.com the correlation between the rates of change of CO2 and temperature from 1880 to 2008 is 0.874. The difference between observed and expected data is only (1 -0.874) = 0.126, which is good enough correlation for most people, given that no-one is suggesting that CO2 is the only cause of temperature variability.
barry me boi, you’re still striking out. I don’t know how you do it, it must be a God-given talent!☺
How many times do I have to explain to you that I accept the radiative physics that says CO2 warms the atmosphere? My view is closest to Prof Lindzen’s, and it has not changed for years. You have a habit of presuming things that aren’t so, and as a result you’re consistently hitting foul balls and striking out. Cut ‘n’ paste my quotes verbatim, and you might start getting some base hits. Inventing strawman positions that I don’t agree with only embarasses you when I post what I actually wrote.
As I also have patiently explained to you, if we knew all the mechanisms that control the climate, the debate would be over. You say: “What, specifically, has made the globe warm?” Since I don’t know, why don’t you tell me? The planet has been much warmer in the past, when CO2 levels were very low. Very much colder, too. So CO2 can’t be the driving force, can it? The null hypothesis says “No.” And Occam’s Razor says: Don’t add extraneous entities… like CO2, for instance. It’s not necessary to explain the climate during the Holocene, and it’s not necessary now. It probably has a minor effect. But that effect is incidental to much stronger forcings.
You’re also incorrect regarding your belief that “Even the staunches skeptical scientists agrees that CO2 will warm the Earth.” You just made that up, didn’t you? C’mon, admit it.
Here are some estimates for Climate Sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 (CO2x2)
Temperature Change (°C):
Miskolczi:
0.0 [ZE-RO]
Idso:
0.37
Spencer:
0.46
Lindzen:
≈ ≥1
Schwartz:
1.1
Chylek:
1.4
And the preposterous IPCC:
3.0+
See? The estimates range all over the map, from zero on up. And the debate continues unabated, because CO2—> AGW is not a testable theory. It is a conjecture, promoted to a weak hypothesis that the planet itself is falsifying.
Finally, you always misconstrue my essential point that there is no testable, empirical evidence per the scientific method directly connecting X rise in CO2 with Y rise in temperature. I never asked for physics-based evidence, I already agree with that. But it’s a leap to say there is replicable evidence proving a direct connection between human emissions and global warming. There is still no evidence of that, and an internationally esteemed climatologist like Dr Miskolczi knows more than you and me put together about the subject. He estimates sensitivity at zero. Just because you like to scare yourself with IPCC ghost stories doesn’t mean they’re accurate. So far, there is no direct evidence supporting any CO2 sensitivity number [but as I said, my view is closest to Dr Richard Lindzen’s].
4caster is clueless as usual. For his edification on what a Bar is [root word, “barometer”, see?] here is a deconstruction of the putative CO2 effect.
4caster is wrong about Mercury because a planet with virtually no atmosphere can’t be compared with a planet with a thick, heavy atmosphere like Venus. We’re discussing atmospheric physics – at least I am. Apples & oranges, my clueless friend.
4caster congratulates me on finding the ± symbol [which I have been using for many years, along with others such as °, ≥, ≤, ≈, ∆, µ, etc., etc. But 4caster asks, “what does he mean by it? How can a proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere ever be negative?” Here’s a clue, my clueless friend: it means more or less.
4caster asks, “…one Bar gradient (whatever that means).” See the link above, it has clues so hopefully you will learn something. We can always hope, right?
4caster says, “Once more, Smokey is asking mainstream scientists to prove a negative, quoting an unidentified but “esteemed” climatologist : “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” When two variables are observed to change almost in lockstep, the null hypothesis must be that one is dependent on the other.”
Well… No. By the numbers: first off, the climatologist who made that quote was Dr Roy Spencer. Who, I think, has forgotten more atmospheric physics than Mr 4caster will ever learn. And second, it is quite clear that 4caster still has no understanding of the null hypothesis, none at all. “Two variables” indeed, heh. And of course the null hypothesis has nothing whatever to do with “the causal process.” Mr 4caster still has no clue about what the null hypothesis is, or how it works.
Finally, linking to the debunked Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog? Really? That’s a propaganda blog run by a cartoonist who IIRC is funded by Soros. Lubos Motl, a real scientist, has completely debunked Cook’s blog: ttp://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html His last paragraph sums up the whole website: ”There exists no climate threat and there exists no empirically rooted evidence that the human impact on the climate deserves the attention of anyone except for a few excessively specialized experts who should investigate such speculative questions. All opinions that the climate change is dangerous, man-made, or even relevant for policymaking are based on the irrational attitude, cherry-picking, intimidation, censorship, and the general sloppiness of the kind that Mr Cook has shown us once again.”
More debunking of Skeptical Pseudo-Science:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/as-usual-john-cook-doesnt-get-it
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/an-exercise-in-just-how-clueless-they-are
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/cooks-hokey-stick
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/skeptical-science-climate-sensitivity-negative
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/skeptical-science-completely-missed-the-point
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/john-cooks-logical-flaw
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/talking-out-of-both-sides-of-the-alarmist-mouth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/18/sea-ice-extend-answer-to-skepticalscience-com
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/11/pielke-senior-misinformation-on-the-website-%E2%80%9Cskeptical-science-%E2%80%93-getting-skeptical-about-global-warming-skepticism%E2%80%9D
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-cooks-blog-photosynthesis-is.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/skeptics-iphone-app-endorsed-de-facto-by-critic
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/rebuttal-to-the-skeptical-science-crux-of-a-core
And this one is not really a rebuttal, but it’s something to laugh about: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/07/thanks-to-john-cook-for-boosting-the-our-climate-app
4caster, your comments are literally riddled with factual errors. Tell us exactly who said: “we can continue plundering and polluting the planet with no ill-effects.” C’mon, who said that? Or are you just making stuff up? And why does China get a free pass from folks like you? Really, it’s too easy debunking your misconceptions. Give me more, this is fun & easy.
By an unhappy coincidence, that is exactly what I did with the post that wasn’t allowed.
Either you have trouble expressing yourself, or something else makes your position incoherent. Now you tell us that you accept there is an empirical basis for CO2 warming (“radiative physics”). You confused things when you said upthread.
This reads to me that there is no empirical evidence AT ALL that CO2 would cause warming. But you’ve also said that radiative physics (demonstrates? suggests? is an empirical basis for?) CO2 warming. Even here, your views on ‘radiative physics are vague – I quote you on this below).
Now look at these quotes from YOU.
Ie – NONE. But then you follow with.
I took out the bit about harm/benefit, because these are qualitative judgements. If we just look at your reasoning here as to whether there is an empirical basis for CO2 increase to cause warming – well, you contradict yourself. Either there is evidence supporting CO2 warming, or there is not. It can’t be both. Either radiative physics is evidence that CO2 increase can cause warming, or there is as much evidence for this phenomenon as there is for ghosts – NONE. And if you think that radiative physics is not a sufficient basis for CO2 warming, then why do you hold any such belief that increased CO2 will cause any warming at all?
You can’t have it both ways.
I challenge you to make a post of one sentence, no more than 20 words, agreeing that radiative physics is an empirical basis for CO2 warming, or that it is not. Less than 20 words. One sentence. No links or further arguments or reams of links. Just to be crystal clear. Please. It is otherwise impossible to understand your position on this single point, and it is basic to any discussion that follows.
barry says:
“Less than 20 words. One sentence. No links…” & etc.
Now you’re assigning me homework?? Sorry, barry, but as of 9 am this morning [GMT minus 8] Mrs Smokey and I are leaving on a one week vacation [“holiday”] to the tropical paradise of Maui, Hawaii.
Sorry that I can’t complete your homework assignment, but WiFi permitting, maybe I can respond in the next day or two. You’ll understand that under the circumstances, homework is not my primary concern at the moment.
My mission is to relax and have fun, which includes a zombie-style existence with an umbrella-covered drink in front of me, furtively glancing at young female homo sapiens in skimpy outfits, and hoping that Mrs Smokey doesn’t notice. [Of course, she does notice. But she understands that reading the menu is not the same as ordering take-out.]
So au revoir to you and your pal Skippy [AKA 4caster]. I wish you both the best in your ongoing ghost stories predicting the imminent destruction of Planet Earth by that evil and dangerous molecule, CO2.
OK, gotta finish packing now. See you in the next thread.☺
I wish Smokey a happy holiday. He certainly needs it, and he will not be a bit bothered by his carbon footprint as he jets off to Hawaii.
Returning to his posting of 7th September at 6.37 p.m., his definition of ± takes some beating. I understand it to mean “plus or minus”, or “negative or positive”. He thinks it is “more or less”, which to me means approximately. So when I write that the square root of 2 to three decimal places is ± 1.414, he thinks that means it is more or less 1.414.
Of course I am aware that a bar is a pressure of 1,000 millibars, or hectopascals as we call them nowadays. But his term “one Bar gradient” is gobbledygook. A gradient is a ratio. I think he must mean One Bar Pressure Level, which is more or less (groan!) the average surface pressure on earth, where the temperature averages 15◦C or 288 K.
But that is not the effective emission temperature for outgoing long-wave radiated energy. I quote from University of Dublin Lecture Notes, Physical Meteorology: “Te is known as the effective emission temperature. It is determined solely by the insolation and the planetary albedo. On Earth, Te is much colder than the observed global mean surface temperature of 15◦C or 288 K. The difference must be due to the atmosphere.”