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
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.