Cosmic Rays and "No AGW" crackpots

[BenBurch]

Something we hear as an almost-constant drone from those "special" individuals who choose to deny that Global Warming is caused by human activities is that all of the warming we are experiencing is due to a very active sun, and that this high solar activity keeps away Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) and that GCRs cause low altitude cloud formation that cools the earth. It is, they say, the lack of GCRs that causes what we actually-sane people claim is Anthropogenic Global Warming. (They then go on to how AGW is a conspiracy of The Left run by the dastardly UN to destroy Western Civilization, but we'll skip that part now...)

Well, now we read that GCRs are at a space-age high! (http://www.physorg.com/news173445919.html) This is due to the amazingly quiet sun we have had for the last 18 months, in which there has been almost no sunspot activity.

So, then the world should have cools right down, and in fact we should be having unseasonably cold conditions planet-wide, right?

Sadly, this appears to not be the case.

Arctic ice loss matched the then-record conditions of 2005.

Australia is experiencing record warmth.

NOAA says ocean-surface temperatures this summer have reached a record high.

Ice sheet thinning is accelerating.

Greenland melt has reached unpredicted high levels.

None of this, in short, looks like the Earth has entered a cooling phase due to the very high GCR flux...

Yet these crackpots persist as though all observation proved their point?!

:eek:

Discuss.

[Wangler]

Hysteresis? You can't cool the earth overnight?

[BenBurch]

No. You would see a very strong trend change. Its not there.

[Wangler]

No. You would see a very strong trend change. Its not there.

We would? Even in sea temps? Lots o' thermal mass.

[macdoc]

Hysteresis? You can't cool the earth overnight?


It's not the earth it's the ocean where this occurs and the ocean is at an all time high while the landmasses lag.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

[BenBurch]

We would? Even in sea temps? Lots o' thermal mass.

They would not RISE if inputs went way down.

[macdoc]

We would? Even in sea temps? Lots o' thermal mass.

you make my head hurt at times....how could there possibly be a gain in SSTs with a negative forcing in play.....:mgbanghead:mgbanghead

What do you think there are volcanoes bubbling down below..:garfield:

[Wangler]

What do you think there are volcanoes bubbling down below..:garfield:

Well, funny you should mention.....ever hear of NW Rota-1 (http://nwrota2009.blogspot.com/)?

:odie:

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, funny you should mention.....ever hear of NW Rota-1 (http://nwrota2009.blogspot.com/)?

:odie:

Well so much for global warming.

Turns out it was an underwater volcano.

Take that, junk scientists.

[Wangler]

Well, since the last solar minimum in 1996, can we really say the SST has gone up?

Linky (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996/mean:12)

[Wangler]

The SST certainly hasn't gone up since the last solar maximum in 2001.

Linky (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/mean:12)

[BenBurch]

Well, since the last solar minimum in 1996, can we really say the SST has gone up?

Linky (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996/mean:12)

What part about that rising trend line at the end don't you comprehend?

If the greatest GCR flux in 50 years is happening now, there would be cooling?

How does SST compare to 50 years ago, eh?

You are trying too hard to not admit this isn't the cause...

[Captain.Sassy]

The SST certainly hasn't gone up since the last solar maximum in 2001.

Linky (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/mean:12)

If only someone had an explanation. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114085128.htm)

[macdoc]

Selective there Wangler???- what else is new :rolleyes:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/mean:12

meanwhile

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

[Wangler]

Selective there Wangler???- what else is new :rolleyes:

Selective, but only in regards to the discussion we are having.

The discussion is regarding the current record cosmic ray flux, and how the ocean temps would be expected to change with changing cosmic ray flux.

So, I looked at last solar maximum and last solar minimum, and showed that
SST's haven't gone up appreciably since then.

[Wangler]

What part about that rising trend line at the end don't you comprehend?

So you are attributing that rising trend line to AGW?

:eek:

[Megalodon]

Selective, but only in regards to the discussion we are having.

The discussion is regarding the current record cosmic ray flux, and how the ocean temps would be expected to change with changing cosmic ray flux.

So, I looked at last solar maximum and last solar minimum, and showed that
SST's haven't gone up appreciably since then.

Well, you could have looked at this (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1975/mean:12/scale:3/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1975/scale:0.01/mean:12) and see that there is no visible effect of the solar cycle on the temperature trend.

[Wangler]

Meg: True

[BenBurch]

So you are attributing that rising trend line to AGW?

:eek:

No, but nice try.

Though surface water can become cooler due to mixing when inputs are up, it cannot become warmer when inputs are down because there is no deep well of warm water to tap.

Elementary, and I know you know this.

[BenBurch]

Well, you could have looked at this (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1975/mean:12/scale:3/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1975/scale:0.01/mean:12) and see that there is no visible effect of the solar cycle on the temperature trend.

And the last 50 years;

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1957/mean:12/scale:3/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1957/scale:0.01/mean:12

[macdoc]

Selective, but only in regards to the discussion we are having.

The discussion is regarding the current record cosmic ray flux, and how the ocean temps would be expected to change with changing cosmic ray flux.

So, I looked at last solar maximum and last solar minimum, and showed that
SST's haven't gone up appreciably since then.



still dodging...the 1998 SST maximum shows ZERO correlation with the cosmic horsepucky you are touting.....

Get over it....C02/methane are drivers not some mHaze touted crap about cosmic rays...

If you had been an honest broker you would have gone back the 1996 point and shown the entire record - which blows a total hole in your claim.....but you didn't....and that just too typical for you and the whole denidiot crowd.
and you are ignoring the ocean temps in July and August which worldwide are record levels and why the extreme warming in the north.

It's contrarian crap you peddling with no merit.

[Wangler]

No, but nice try.

Though surface water can become cooler due to mixing when inputs are up, it cannot become warmer when inputs are down because there is no deep well of warm water to tap.

Elementary, and I know you know this.

Yes. ;)

[Wangler]

still dodging...the 1998 SST maximum shows ZERO correlation with the cosmic horsepucky you are touting.....

Get over it....C02/methane are drivers not some mHaze touted crap about cosmic rays...

If you had been an honest broker you would have gone back the 1996 point and shown the entire record - which blows a total hole in your claim.....but you didn't....and that just too typical for you and the whole denidiot crowd.
and you are ignoring the ocean temps in July and August which worldwide are record levels and why the extreme warming in the north.

It's contrarian crap you peddling with no merit.

Lighten up, Macdoc.

And don't even mention the July and August ocean temps...you are the one in deep, deep denial about those HadSST numbers for those months.

[macdoc]

You mean the rounding errors.....I notice you dodge the that energy gain graph like the plague.
Why the net glacial loss that is accelerating amongst other things...

let's have a summary of your nonsense against climate science from someone who understands far better than you or I....

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

“This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
“This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington


now put it to bed your noise factor is wearisome.....:garfield:

There is lots of value to discuss....you just haven't brought ANY of it to the table.
Dishonest or ignorant??? which is it for you???

[Wangler]

You mean the rounding errors

Rounding errors? Give me numbers, Macdoc. Time to put up or shutup. Your disregard for the numbers involved in the whole SSt issue is getting irksome.

I notice you dodge the that energy gain graph like the plague.

To which energy gain graph do you refer? The one in "Counter meme: Climate deniers in danger of extinction" that showed about a 2x1023 J heat energy gain since 1950?

The one for which I did a very basic "back of the envelope calculation" about in posts here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5157573#post5157573), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5157825#post5157825), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5159835#post5159835)?

Bonus points if you can discern what my crude analysis says about the heat gain by the planet, and global climate change.

(Hint: You will like the answer! I know you will!)

Dishonest or ignorant??? which is it for you???

For me, neither.

Unfortunately, when considering the responses I made directly in this post, I've come to the conclusion that for you it seems to be both......

[Wangler]

What part about that rising trend line at the end don't you comprehend?

If we are talking short term, that dip in the SST temperature began in 2007, reached a minimum in 2008, and is on the rise again.

If we look at the Moscow Neutron Monitor (http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm)for that time period, we see:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_235364ace24e76050c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17787)

It must be something else that is dominating the SST response over the past two years.

It certainly isn't cosmic rays.

[Wangler]

If the greatest GCR flux in 50 years is happening now, there would be cooling?

Well, it's not like GCR flux has been increasing monatonically for the past fifty years.

Moscow Linky (http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_235364ace265bc9fef.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17789)

[BenBurch]

No, but you have failed to comprehend the stupidity of the AGW denier GCR argument, and I think you are striking a rhetorical pose and really do understand it. Their claim is that GCR flux increased in direct proportion to warming observed since 1980, and that it is this effect that explains the warming.

Nothing of the sort is true, obviously.

And were there ANYTHING to their stick-stone-bone-stupid argument, we would see it right now as the last 18 months have been dominated by high GCR activity.

Of course this isn't stopping their claims.

[Wangler]

No, but you have failed to comprehend the stupidity of the AGW denier GCR argument, and I think you are striking a rhetorical pose and really do understand it. Their claim is that GCR flux increased in direct proportion to warming observed since 1980, and that it is this effect that explains the warming.

Nothing of the sort is true, obviously.

And were there ANYTHING to their stick-stone-bone-stupid argument, we would see it right now as the last 18 months have been dominated by high GCR activity.

Of course this isn't stopping their claims.

I agree....It seems that the GCR has little to no effect; at least, if there is an effect we can't seem to measure it.

It certainly doesn't explain warming observed since 1980, the way I see it.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Well, it's not like GCR flux has been increasing monatonically for the past fifty years.

Moscow Linky (http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_235364ace265bc9fef.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17789)

What are the units?

Comparing the GCR flux to global temperatures, one cannot disprove the contention that variations in the flux play a role in the noise. But I see no support for changes in the GCR flux being the main driver in the overall warming.

[Wangler]

What are the units?

I believe the units are divergence from an average imp/sec over a given time period....what time period, I cannot find.:confused:

Comparing the GCR flux to global temperatures, one cannot disprove the contention that variations in the flux play a role in the noise. But I see no support for changes in the GCR flux being the main driver in the overall warming.

Agreed.

[macdoc]

If we are talking short term, that dip in the SST temperature began in 2007, reached a minimum in 2008, and is on the rise again.

If we look at the Moscow Neutron Monitor (http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm)for that time period, we see:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_235364ace24e76050c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17787)

It must be something else that is dominating the SST response over the past two years.

It certainly isn't cosmic rays.

umm that would be back to back La Nina's rare but not unheard of and it has ZERO to do with forcing.

http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/default.php?news=She%26rsquo%3Bs+Back%3A++La+Ni%26 ntilde%3Ba+Returns+to+the+Pacific

[BenBurch]

umm that would be back to back La Nina's rare but not unheard of and it has ZERO to do with forcing.

http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/default.php?news=She%26rsquo%3Bs+Back%3A++La+Ni%26 ntilde%3Ba+Returns+to+the+Pacific

Might be CAUSED by additional heat in the system, though.

Remember the atmosphere is a huge heat engine.

[macdoc]

That's an SST graph....not troposphere.

[CapelDodger]

Well, funny you should mention.....ever hear of NW Rota-1 (http://nwrota2009.blogspot.com/)?


What of it?

[CapelDodger]

Selective, but only in regards to the discussion we are having.

The discussion is regarding the current record cosmic ray flux, and how the ocean temps would be expected to change with changing cosmic ray flux.

So, I looked at last solar maximum and last solar minimum, and showed that
SST's haven't gone up appreciably since then.

What did you conclude from that?

[Wangler]

What did you conclude from that?

That there is something dominating the SST signal, and it sure isn't cosmic rays!

[CapelDodger]

If we are talking short term, that dip in the SST temperature began in 2007, reached a minimum in 2008, and is on the rise again.

La Nina started in 2007, lasted throughout 2008, and faded in 2009.

Just saying.

If we look at the Moscow Neutron Monitor (http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm)for that time period, we see:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_235364ace24e76050c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17787)

It must be something else that is dominating the SST response over the past two years.

Indeed it must.

Not that the sea surface is terribly relevant given just how much ocean there is underneath. But you've never said that it is. You just brought the subject up.

It certainly isn't cosmic rays.

So certain that you're actually prepared to say so.

[CapelDodger]

What are the units?

Comparing the GCR flux to global temperatures, one cannot disprove the contention that variations in the flux play a role in the noise. But I see no support for changes in the GCR flux being the main driver in the overall warming.

The idea reeks of reverse-engineering to me. During the up-phase of the last solar cycle increased solar activity was the denialist cause of choice for global warming (which wasn't necessarily happening). Reduced solar activity, via GCR's, became the denialist CoC later. Not that warming was necessarily happening anyway.

There are now two divergent schools of denier thought, both subscribed to by mhaze. One is that there's cooling but not because of reduced solar activity, the other that there's warming caused by increased GCR's -also due to reduced solar activity.

At the same time models are useless because we don't know enough about cloud dynamics to incorporate their impact. mhaze subscribes to that belief as well. There's no apparent limit to what that guy can believe, not just over time but simultaneously.

[CapelDodger]

umm that would be back to back La Nina's rare but not unheard of and it has ZERO to do with forcing.

Indeed. To my mind there's far too much emphasis on surface temperatures, and in that I include the entire troposphere. It's a very poor measure of energy in the entire system. For a better measure you have to look to water, in both its temperature and its phase-changes.

The loss of global ice and increase in water-vapour tells us which direction the phase-changes are going. ARGO will tell us how things are going in the sub-surface ocean - not all of it, but a significant portion.

The importance of the surface lies in it being where the energy is taken in, and from whence it first departs. In that regard a La Nina reduces energy output, since a cooler surface emits less radiation. An El Nino increases it. The surface temperature record tells an opposite story, in the short-term.

[Wangler]

You just brought the subject up.

Well, to be pedantic about it, the subject of SST was brought up in the OP.

[Wangler]

The importance of the surface lies in it being where the energy is taken in, and from whence it first departs. In that regard a La Nina reduces energy output, since a cooler surface emits less radiation. An El Nino increases it. The surface temperature record tells an opposite story, in the short-term.

Capel, I am a bit confused.

If La Nina reduces energy output, isn't it acting somewhat like a forcing?

Radiation emission from the surface is driven by surface temperature, which is driven by La Nina.

[macdoc]

No - a forcing is not inside the grey box - La Nina just is cooler water upwelling ( or due to wind shift ) - no change in the energy balance of the planet.

A volcano is a forcing as it changes in coming radiation and could result in an SST reading similar to that of a La Nina. It IS changing the energy balance as it's preventing radiation for entering the geosystem.

La Nina and El Nino are only shifting energy already captured to different gradients.

What causes La Nina?

La Nina, also called El Viejo, is essentially the opposite of El Nino. La Nina exists when cooler than usual ocean temperatures occur in the eastern Pacific. La Nina occurs almost as often as El Nino, but has been lesser known. La Nina and El Nino are two stages of the same larger phenomenon.

Stronger than usual trade winds, which blow from east to west across the Pacific Ocean, define La Nina. As warmer water near the surface of the ocean is blown to the west, cooler water rises from deep in the ocean in the east Pacific to replace water that was moved away. The colder water cools the overlying air which hampers the formation of clouds and tropical thunderstorms in central and eastern areas of the Pacific Ocean. This suppression of rain-producing clouds leads to dry conditions from near the Date Line east to South America.

La Nina is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, as compared to El Nino, which is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific.

La Nina episodes typically occur every 3 to 5 years. However, this interval has varied from 2 to 7 years. La Nina episodes typically last 1 to 3 years. They tend to develop from March to June and reach peak intensity during the December to April period, weakening from May to July.

[Wangler]

No - a forcing is not inside the grey box - La Nina just is cooler water upwelling ( or due to wind shift ) - no change in the energy balance of the planet.

A volcano is a forcing as it changes in coming radiation and could result in an SST reading similar to that of a La Nina. It IS changing the energy balance as it's preventing radiation for entering the geosystem.

La Nina and El Nino are only shifting energy already captured to different gradients.

Thank you! I think that makes sense to me. But if the emissivity of the sea surface changes, energy is going to be lost from the grey box, right?

[Wangler]

But wait, the uptake would change too, so net change is zero.

Got it.

I think.

[BenBurch]

That's an SST graph....not troposphere.

Yes. But winds cause the mixing!

[macdoc]

Thank you! I think that makes sense to me. But if the emissivity of the sea surface changes, energy is going to be lost from the grey box, right?

that's in the box the exchange at the surface...it's the next stage to outer space that counts and where the problem arises.

[macdoc]

Yes. But winds cause the mixing! ??:con2: