Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?

[Eyeron]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

[lomiller]

Not really.

The suns energy output has been on slight decline since about 1950, which makes it improbable that it has caused any recent warming. The sun is credited with 1/3 - 1/2 the warming in the early part of the 20th century (1900 - 1940)

[Myriad]

If the sun weren't there the earth wouldn't be warming, so I guess you could say the sun causes global warming.

Similarly, gravity causes suicides by hanging.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mhaze]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?There are some ongoing experiments at CERN regarding this. The results are not in yet, but there could be some surprises therein.

[macdoc]

aka The "faint hope" clause they allow the lifers. :garfield:

[cbish]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?Is he talking about Sun Spots and Solar Flairs? These are common topics among AGW deniers.

[Thunder]

The Sun does indeed cause global warming. but then, the sun goes away, and the moon causes global cooling.

its a very Zen like balance. kinda ying and yang, if ya know what I mean.

[Kestrel]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

There is evidence to the contrary. See this article (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html), published in the Sept. 14, 2006 issue of Nature.

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.

[mhaze]

There is evidence to the contrary. See this article (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html), published in the Sept. 14, 2006 issue of Nature.

Strawman argument based on plucked cherries.

Everything you want to know about solar is here....

www.solarcycle24.com

[DogB]

Everything you want to know about solar is here....

See this (http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf) one hazy?

I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment.

BTW, that's a preprint version. The actual ref is (Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989) but I suspect it's behind a paywall.

[Aussie Thinker]

Up until the last 20 years or so it seemed that GW pretty much followed solar activity.

The current warming does not seem to follow solar activity and is one of the major reasons many scientists believe that the current trend is more related to CO2 levels, especially mans output.

That would be fair enough if there was an historic link to rise in CO2 related to rise in temperature or if it could be solidly linked in some other way.

It should be pretty clear if the next cycle of warming/cooling does not happen that man be somewhat to blame.

[macdoc]

:rolleyes: :eusa_doh: :garfield:

[DogB]

Is it random smilie time? OK
:jedi: :pidelighted: :Banane36:

OK, I’m outa here.

:alien009:

[macdoc]

What you want a Rosetta stone? :rolleyes: I'd say the intent was rather clear...:garfield:

[Aussie Thinker]

Here we go again face... Facepalm face.. Aussie Thinker (the garfield being my screwy tiger) ??

I can do Hieroglyphs ?

[DogB]

I'd say the intent was rather clear...

Let's just say I prefer my arguments cogent as well as clear.

[Trakar]

See this (http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf) one hazy?

I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment.

BTW, that's a preprint version. The actual ref is (Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989) but I suspect it's behind a paywall.

Try this (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/docs/pierce_et_al_jcli939_rev2B.pdf) instead, the scientific results are a lot more clear cut and easy grasp.

[a_unique_person]

Up until the last 20 years or so it seemed that GW pretty much followed solar activity.

The current warming does not seem to follow solar activity and is one of the major reasons many scientists believe that the current trend is more related to CO2 levels, especially mans output.

That would be fair enough if there was an historic link to rise in CO2 related to rise in temperature or if it could be solidly linked in some other way.

It should be pretty clear if the next cycle of warming/cooling does not happen that man be somewhat to blame.

IIRC, there have been a few events where CO2 did lead a warming cycle. Apart from that, the physical basis is there. It's a GHG. The level is well on the way to doubling.

I also provide a logical rebuttal to your hasty generalisation. If I have a loaded gun in my house and it has never been fired, does that mean it can't ever fire?

[Belz...]

Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?

Ultimately, yes :D

[BenBurch]

Here we go again face... Facepalm face.. Aussie Thinker (the garfield being my screwy tiger) ??

I can do Hieroglyphs ?

Face looking at your dodgy post, facepalm, sarcastic cat smilie. I think you got it, though. But I will translate;

[mhaze]

Try this (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/%7Epierce/docs/pierce_et_al_jcli939_rev2B.pdf) instead, the scientific results are a lot more clear cut and easy grasp.If it seems clear cut and easy to grasp, that is only because the arthur starts by stating the bias that he has and intends to confirm. This article is 2005, and may be discarded in 2009 irregardless of bias because the Argoes float data will clear up shortly the inaccuracies in calculations of this sort which could not have been avoided in 2005.

Basically, the uncertainties are way larger than the numbers you are trying to measure or extract from noise. With the oceans this is compounded by another factor which is that only with Argos do we start to know equally precisely temperatures at various depths.

RE DogB's "Calorimeter" article, this is quite good. It explores the underpinnings of the concept of using ocean heat capacity to figure changes in global warming. In particular it discusses the required sensitivities for solar forcing to be causative of said ocean heat capacity, either in whole or part.

I'm not through comparing them and contrasting, those are just some initial comments.

[Kestrel]

Strawman argument based on plucked cherries.

Everything you want to know about solar is here....

www.solarcycle24.com

Your response doesn't contain enough logic to qualify as a logical fallacy.

[mhaze]

Your response doesn't contain enough logic to qualify as a logical fallacy.

Oh, I think it was quite clear. You said "Evidence to the contrary..." and cited a study by Frolich. You picked one study, hence my asserting cherry picking.

But note the disclaimers by the writers:

Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Even when you try hard to be a Denier of Solar influences like all good Warmers, the scientists you cite are more careful and their knowledge of the various influential factors shows.

[Kestrel]

Oh, I think it was quite clear. You said "Evidence to the contrary..." and cited a study by Frolich. You picked one study, hence my asserting cherry picking.

I was responding to a request for evidence and provided evidence in the form of a link to a peer reviewed scientific study. You responded with a link to a personal web page tracking changes in solar output, claiming that was all we needed to know.

if you don't understand the difference, it's clear you are not a skeptic.

[lomiller]

IOW mhaze thinks that study is a strawman because it confined its results to studying the amount of energy the sun is emitting, but ignored the magic pixy rays emitted by the neutron star inside the sun. Sure these don’t impart any energy into the earth’s climate, but who knows what effects they may cause!

[mhaze]

I was responding to a request for evidence and provided evidence in the form of a link to a peer reviewed scientific study. You responded with a link to a personal web page tracking changes in solar output, claiming that was all we needed to know.

if you don't understand the difference, it's clear you are not a skeptic.Oh, a decent point. Solarcycle24 isn't a peer reviewed study, it's a web site about the sun. Apples and oranges. No problem with that distinction.

IOW mhaze thinks that study is a strawman because it confined its results to studying the amount of energy the sun is emitting, but ignored the magic pixy rays emitted by the neutron star inside the sun. Sure these don’t impart any energy into the earth’s climate, but who knows what effects they may cause!

Unscientific Warmer Denial of solar influences on climate noted by comparison of Lomiller's attitude with actual, real scientists, who happen to be believers in man made global warming, incidentally (Frolich 2005 quoted)

Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Such is the difference between real science and the pseudo science of the Warmer. Also note DogB's article, Shaviv 2008 (http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf), and his comment "I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment."

I can see where the simple ideas of Warmer Pseudo Science would definitely appeal to some people.

[lomiller]

Real scientists accept that increases in the Suns energy output should cause the earth to warm. Real scientists have shown no such increase in the suns energy output is currently occurring. mhaze would have you believe “it’s the Sun, but the heat the Sun is generating has nothing to do with it”

[Corsair 115]

Real scientists accept that increases in the Suns energy output should cause the earth to warm. Real scientists have shown no such increase in the suns energy output is currently occurring. mhaze would have you believe “it’s the Sun, but the heat the Sun is generating has nothing to do with it”


What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases? So, how's the temperature on Mercury these days? Given that it's far closer to the Sun than the Earth which consequently means the intensity of light falling on it is much greater, then shouldn't Mercury be showing a considerable increase in surface temperatures if the Sun is the culprit?

[lomiller]

What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases? So, how's the temperature on Mercury these days? Given that it's far closer to the Sun than the Earth which consequently means the intensity of light falling on it is much greater, then shouldn't Mercury be showing a considerable increase in surface temperatures if the Sun is the culprit?

You don’t even need to approach that question indirectly, we have been measuring the energy coming from the Sun directly with satellites for more then 3 decades and it’s showing a slight downward trend. Hence mhaze’s insistence that “it’s the Sun, just not the heat from the Sun, it’s something else that may be discovered some day.”

[drkitten]

I can see where the simple ideas of Warmer Pseudo Science would definitely appeal to some people.

Yes. The simpler you are, the more likely you are to think that global warming is Pseudo Science.

[Kestrel]

Real scientists accept that increases in the Suns energy output should cause the earth to warm. Real scientists have shown no such increase in the suns energy output is currently occurring. mhaze would have you believe “it’s the Sun, but the heat the Sun is generating has nothing to do with it”

Real scientists have good measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, an understanding of how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and estimates of the extent that man's activities are responsible for the observed rise in CO2 levels that happens to track the observed rise in global temperatures.

They don't have data showing that magnetic fields, plasma or pixie dust from the sun track the observed changes in global temperature, or a model that explains for how these phenomena would cause global temperature change.

[mhaze]

Real scientists have good measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, an understanding of how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and estimates of the extent that man's activities are responsible for the observed rise in CO2 levels that happens to track the observed rise in global temperatures.

They don't have data showing that magnetic fields, plasma or pixie dust from the sun track the observed changes in global temperature, or a model that explains for how these phenomena would cause global temperature change.Oh???

Hmm....

I'm glad that you are firm and unshaken in your Beliefs.

From DogB's article (just using what is currently being discussed, for convenience) bolding is mine:With respect to simulating climate dynamics, the results have two very interesting ramifications. First, they imply that any attempt to explain historic temperature variations should consider that the solar forcing variations are almost an order of magnitude larger that just the TSI variations now used almost exclusively. It would imply that the climate sensitivity required to explain historic temperature variations is smaller than often concluded.
The over reaching myopic Certainty of the Warmer that I comment on. Particularly in a case such as solar influences on climate, where subject is, by those actively working on it, said to be poorly understood.

What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases?...Given that they have radically different atmospheres or lack of, I can't see why this would be true. A water planet would be different than a methane or hard vaccuum planet, right?

[Captain.Sassy]

Given that they have radically different atmospheres or lack of, I can't see why this [i.e. that increasing solar output would warm other planets than earth as well] would be true. A water planet would be different than a methane or hard vaccuum planet, right?

Actually I think that [i.e. that increasing solar output would warm other planets than earth as well] is right mhaze. If the TSI of the sun goes up, you should see an impact on all planets' temperatures ceteris paribus. The feedback effects would vary from planet to planet according to the atmosphere.

Sami Solanki is a good source for solar forcing's effect on the observed temperature record, fwiw.

[mhaze]

Right, more solar should show up as increased albedo or brightness, but certainly not to a similar extent between the various planets.

[DogB]

Does anybody really think that the sun's effect on earth can be completely defined by measuring total flux? I mean the guys at CERN don't for one. Otherwise why would they be running the CLOUD experiment?

[DogB]

Try this (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/docs/pierce_et_al_jcli939_rev2B.pdf) instead, the scientific results are a lot more clear cut and easy grasp.

Thanks. I have that one already. Did you have a specific problem with the paper I linked?

[DogB]

Sami Solanki is a good source for solar forcing's effect on the observed temperature record, fwiw.

Good call. I second that.

[mhaze]

Does anybody really think that the sun's effect on earth can be completely defined by measuring total flux? I mean the guys at CERN don't for one. Otherwise why would they be running the CLOUD experiment?I think if you try to pin them down on this they will go into a dodge of "well there might be an effect but it is tiny if at all".

Essentially the stand of a Denier of solar effects (over and above the TSI).

This is required for Warmers, because they can't allow anything to impact their imagined high sensitivity of climate to CO2. That's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, CO2 is.

Unfortunately these attitudes seem to prevent a spirit of scientific inquiry.

Buy hey, prove me wrong.

[Aussie Thinker]

I think you guys completely miss the point MHaze is making and the one I make.

(DogB excluded)

Our understanding of the Suns effect on climate is actually very poor. It is constantly changing.

As new discoveries are made about the suns output it seems to always fit in with climate patterns.

Scientists ADMIT their understanding is poor yet put their hands on their heart and say.. ITS NOT THE SUN !

Does that make sense to anyone.

Scientists also KNOW CO2’s effect on climate is small.. but for lack of anything else it IS to blame !

This also doesn’t make any sense.

[bobdroege7]

I think if you try to pin them down on this they will go into a dodge of "well there might be an effect but it is tiny if at all."

Essentially the stand of a Denier of Carbon Dioxide effects (over and above the galactic cosmic ray effects).

This is required for Deniers, because they can't allow anything to impact their imagined low climate sensitivity of climate to Carbon Dioxide. That's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, galactic cosmic rays, that is.

Unfortunately, these attitudes seem to prevent a spirit of scientific inquiry.

Buy me a beer, but hey prove me wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There are some ongoing experiments at CERN regarding this. The results are not in yet, but there could be some surprises therein.

There was a NASA mission that I believe would have conclusively answered the question too. I forget the name of it. Bob Park likes to mention it. The thing was built and then put in a warehouse by the Bush administration.

ETA: It was DSCOVR I was thinking of. Bob Park's most recent mention was Oct. 22nd (http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/previous_issue.html):

5. CLIMATE: LEFT FOR DEAD FOUR YEARS AGO, DSCOVR TWITCHES.

Congress appropriated $9 million to refurbish the climate observatory, and its instruments have now been removed at the Goddard space flight Center for refurbishing. That's a good sign, but of course NASA says $9 million is not enough. The observatory is meant to be located at the L1 point between the Earth and Sun from which it will determine whether climate change is due to variation in solar emission or human activity.

[bobdroege7]

Right, more solar should show up as increased albedo or brightness, but certainly not to a similar extent between the various planets.




And how does an increase in the sun's output change the albedo of a planet?

Cause and effect please, with a reasonable mechanism.

But then as usual, I'm dreaming

[BenBurch]

We can quantify the maximum effect of GCRs. And we observe warming many times that amount.

[DogB]

I think if you try to pin them down...

And you don't see any significance in the fact that both sides of this argument can (and do) accuse each other of the same unscientific attitude?

[DogB]

We can quantify the maximum effect of GCRs. And we observe warming many times that amount.

Cite?

[DogB]

And how does an increase in the sun's output change the albedo of a planet?

Warming increases atmosphere moisture thus increasing cloud cover? Just off the top of my head.

[DogB]

Slight derail for lovers of solar science.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0911/09110203

[mhaze]

And you don't see any significance in the fact that both sides of this argument can (and do) accuse each other of the same unscientific attitude?

Actually bobdroeg picked up on and Parodied my Parody.

But you see, they (Warmers et al) cannot accuse me of the same unscientific attitude, because I lack the dogmatic certainty and belief regarding galactic cosmic rays and climate, which these Warmers have regarding CO2. And I've never said that GCR was a strong effect, only that it was plausible that it could be, and that it was under active scientific investigation.

This seems to bring the worst of a warmer out. Strange, but of course the low level sniping then provides a useful purpose, of preventing active discussion of heretical and blasephemic stuff.

[Megalodon]

And you don't see any significance in the fact that both sides of this argument can (and do) accuse each other of the same unscientific attitude?

No, in the same way that similar accusations by creationists are dismissed as ludicrous.

Mhaze et al. start from an ideological position that allows no room for externalities such as the CFCs impact on the ozone layer or the GHGs impact on climate. From there it's a simple exercise of grasping at straws, equivocation and outright lying, as years of threads attest. No more scientific backing than ID, but the same attitude.

[Megalodon]

This seems to bring the worst of a warmer out. Strange, but of course the low level sniping then provides a useful purpose, of preventing active discussion of heretical and blasephemic stuff.

Just in case someone needed an example of outright lying...

[DogB]

Strange, but of course the low level sniping then provides a useful purpose, of preventing active discussion (snip)

That's a standard (if low brow) debating tactic and both sides should be above it.

[DogB]

Mhaze et al. start from an ideological position that allows no room for externalities such as the CFCs impact on the ozone layer or the GHGs impact on climate.

Actually AFAIKT both side of the argument are guilty of this. As evidence I offer a quote from this very thread.

We can quantify the maximum effect of GCRs. And we observe warming many times that amount.

Is this a statement you'd associate yourself with?

From there it's a simple exercise of grasping at straws, equivocation and outright lying, as years of threads attest.

Again, neither side has clean hands here.

No more scientific backing than ID, but the same attitude.

I offered a scientific paper, published in a peer reviewed journal. It was dismissed without discussion.

[macdoc]

Still trying to make it an "represent" both sides manufactured controversy...:boggled:

•••

Hail Mary faint hope attempts to discredit mainstream does not qualify for discussion...it qualifies for derision given the source and the source's history.

If the paper you refer to is this

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0911/09110203

Pray tell how that relates to the OP :con2:

Arguing if curbing methane might have more leverage in the short term than C02 as suggested in this article regarding a recent paper
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6895907.ece

- that's a valid discussion.....but it requires accepting

we are warming
it's mostly us

Can't get by that for some....so no basis for "discussion" - much basis for derision.:garfield:

[DogB]

If the paper you refer to is this...

If you're not going to bother paying attention, why I should answer your irrelevant questions?

[macdoc]

If you're not going to post on topic why should I bother. :garfield:

[DogB]

If you're not going to post on topic why should I bother. :garfield:

Did you see this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5273693#post5273693) post?

Did you see where I stated the link you referenced was a derail.

Slight derail for lovers of solar science.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0911/09110203

You with us now mac?

[bobdroege7]

Warming increases atmosphere moisture thus increasing cloud cover? Just off the top of my head.

But warming increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold thus reducing the amount of cloud cover, Just off of the top of my head.

Oh and warming melts ice, which has one of the highest albedos, turning the surface to something with a much lower albedo which increases the warming in a positive feedback sort of a loop.

And I have actually tried to have honest discussions with posters about the cosmic ray link to warming but they fail to follow the analysis of why the link does not exist.

Basically, if there were enough cosmic rays to change the weather, the radiation levels would be higher, both on the ground and at the cloud level.

They are not, and I have measured them, after all, I fly alot and carry radiation measuring devices with me.

[macdoc]

Cloud cover is double edged - it has a higher albedo than ocean but also is very effective at trapping heat at night - why deserts get real cold at night.

Cloud in the Arctic in summer may slow melt but over open water trap heat.

However it is sliced - it's marginal against GHG

[DogB]

But warming increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold thus reducing the amount of cloud cover, Just off of the top of my head.

That seems possible too. Be interesting to find out which it is don't you think?

Oh and warming melts ice, which has one of the highest albedos, turning the surface to something with a much lower albedo which increases the warming in a positive feedback sort of a loop.

And perhaps turns forest into desert which has a higher albedo. And this happens in the tropics where incident solar flux is much higher. Be interesting to find out if this is happening don't you think.

And I have actually tried to have honest discussions with posters about the cosmic ray link to warming but they fail to follow the analysis of why the link does not exist.

Basically, if there were enough cosmic rays to change the weather, the radiation levels would be higher, both on the ground and at the cloud level.

They are not, and I have measured them, after all, I fly alot and carry radiation measuring devices with me.

Have you discussed it with CERN? I'm certain they'd love to know they're wasting millions trying to prove or disprove this.

Go on, shoot them an e-mail. Tell them “you fly a lot and carry radiation measuring devices with you”.

[DogB]

Cloud cover is double edged - it has a higher albedo than ocean but also is very effective at trapping heat at night - why deserts get real cold at night.

True but large areas of the tropics develop cloud during the day and clear up at night. I think the role of thunderstorms in albedo changes (and heat transport) really needs close examination.

Cloud in the Arctic in summer may slow melt but over open water trap heat.

Really? Open water is pretty dark.

However it is sliced - it's marginal against GHG

Says who?

[mhaze]

True but large areas of the tropics develop cloud during the day and clear up at night. I think the role of thunderstorms in albedo changes (and heat transport) really needs close examination.
Really? Open water is pretty dark.
Says who?

I can't really recall, did you follow the discussion of a month ago about Miskolczi and optical depth of the atmosphere?

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/

Granted that while ploughing through Shaviv, you don't need another mess of equations.

But it does seem relevant to these questions. EG, how does the optical depth change with increases in CO2, and thus the radiative balance?

A brief excerpt:

The climate system makes regulatory adjustment to compensate for changes in CO2 with changes in humidity and clouds, in order to most efficiently convert short wave incoming solar energy, into long wave outgoing energy. The problem with radiative models used until now is a discontinuity between the atmospheric and surface temperatures. This violates Kirchhoff’s law, that two bodies in thermal equilibrium must have equal temperatures, and is one of the reasons for mysterious unphysical behavior of climate models. Incorporating this simple constraint introduces an energy minimization principle that makes runaway greenhouse warming impossible. This corrects a major deficiency in the current theory, which doesn’t explain why “runaway” greenhouse warming hasn’t happened in the Earth’s past.

[mhaze]

....Go on, shoot them an e-mail. Tell them “you fly a lot and carry radiation measuring devices with you”.If the goal was to get a more precise set of bounds for the effect of CO2, then you have to get some precision in the other effects on the planet. Seems like Warmers would like to ignore some of these effects...

But note that there is a trend in the scientific findings, as a comparison of the IPCC's guesses on forcings and feedbacks shows:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447fe2edb3f946.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11678)

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/IPCC_lies_exposed.pdf

And now ten years of no warming. What can they do, what can they do, what can they do????

[BenBurch]

Cite?

I'm not going to go dig it out for the 23rd time and post it. Go look at the myriad of other debunkings of the GCR lie.

[DogB]

I can't really recall, did you follow the discussion of a month ago about Miskolczi and optical depth of the atmosphere?

I did see it and I go back and hack away at it every now and then. Right now I'm trying to work out if Kirchoff's law actually applies at the atmosphere/surface boundary - logically it doesn't seem to (no equilibrium) but I not really convinced either way at the moment.

[daenku32]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

The conclusion is based on a negative, so no.

What I'd like to know is why the friend started down that kind of path. Did a scientist urinate in his corn flakes on a nice Sunday morning?

[DogB]

I'm not going to go dig it out for the 23rd time and post it. Go look at the myriad of other debunkings of the GCR lie.

Maybe I should write the e-mail.

Dear CERN dudes. I mean I know you’re like particle physicists and all that but there’s this guy on JREF, BenBurch, and he says you’re all like wasting your time and that. He says everybody knows that the whole GCR cloud seeding thing is a lie. So there.

[DogB]

But note that there is a trend in the scientific findings, as a comparison of the IPCC's guesses on forcings and feedbacks shows...

Doesn't this kinda remind you of the 'god of the gaps' argument?

[mhaze]

I did see it and I go back and hack away at it every now and then. Right now I'm trying to work out if Kirchoff's law actually applies at the atmosphere/surface boundary - logically it doesn't seem to (no equilibrium) but I not really convinced either way at the moment.The simple questions are usually the hard ones. Maybe you could simply use the global heat transport mechanism, equator to poles, to say that Kirchoff does not apply to any given square meter or km.

[mhaze]

Doesn't this kinda remind you of the 'god of the gaps' argument?Yes.

So the God of the urban athiest progressive, Environmentalism, is shrinking?

That would induce Denial.

Hmm...actually, isn't it the Devil of the atheist progressive, Environmentalist, which is shrinking?

Devil = CO2, AGW, etc

[mhaze]

No, in the same way that similar accusations by creationists are dismissed as ludicrous.

Mhaze et al. start from an ideological position that allows no room for externalities such as the CFCs impact on the ozone layer or the GHGs impact on climate. From there it's a simple exercise of grasping at straws, equivocation and outright lying, as years of threads attest. No more scientific backing than ID, but the same attitude.At least Bobdroeg got the joke. You exhibit the fierce, seriousness of Warmer. One of the characteristics of being too far to the lunatic fringe of one side or the other is an impassioned but rigid seriousness.

I'm off to have some fun. See ya.

[DogB]

The simple questions are usually the hard ones. Maybe you could simply use the global heat transport mechanism, equator to poles, to say that Kirchoff does not apply to any given square meter or km.

That just adds a layer of complexity. One I didn't need thank you very much. :)

[lomiller]

That seems possible too. Be interesting to find out which it is don't you think?

Whatever the answer is it cannot act to keep temperatures from growing warmer then today because temperatures have been warmer then today, perhaps not in the time homo sapiens sapiens has been around, but that’s a blink in geological time.

In any case, just how are you expecting these cosmic rays to warm the planet to begin with, they don’t bring enough energy to the earth to warm it.

[lomiller]

Maybe I should write the e-mail.

Dear CERN dudes. I mean I know you’re like particle physicists and all that but there’s this guy on JREF, BenBurch, and he says you’re all like wasting your time and that. He says everybody knows that the whole GCR cloud seeding thing is a lie. So there.


Who, knows maybe there will be some type of surprise but CERN clearly isn't expecting any answer mhaze will like.

[BenBurch]

Maybe I should write the e-mail.

Dear CERN dudes. I mean I know you’re like particle physicists and all that but there’s this guy on JREF, BenBurch, and he says you’re all like wasting your time and that. He says everybody knows that the whole GCR cloud seeding thing is a lie. So there.

Don't be an ass.

1. None of them have said the effect they are looking for explains global warming. Not one.

2. I never said there is no such thing as a Wilson Cloud.

3. You're lack of attention to my postings in the past on this issue is not my problem.

[DogB]

Whatever the answer is it cannot act to keep temperatures from growing warmer then today because temperatures have been warmer then today, perhaps not in the time homo sapiens sapiens has been around, but that’s a blink in geological time.

Um, OK. Don't see your point but I don't disagree with what you've said.

In any case, just how are you expecting these cosmic rays to warm the planet to begin with, they don’t bring enough energy to the earth to warm it.

:confused:

Sorry lomiller, I must have I missed something. You do know the whole active sun, solar wind, magnetic field, GCR, cloud seeding hypothesis don’t you?

[DogB]

Who, knows maybe there will be some type of surprise but CERN clearly isn't expecting any answer mhaze will like.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait for the data before I judge.

[macdoc]

Just what do you think the "data" will tell you sans mechanism? :popcorn1

[DogB]

Don't be an ass.

You started it amigo.

1. None of them have said the effect they are looking for explains global warming. Not one.

Utter balls. Direct quote from page 1 of the proposal document:

Beyond its semi-periodic 11-year cycle, the Sun displays unexplained behaviour on longer timescales. In particular, the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries have more than doubled during the last century [2]. The extra shielding has reduced the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere by about 15%, globally averaged. This reduction of cosmic rays over the last century is independently indicated by the light radioisotope record in the Greenland ice cores. If the link between cosmic rays and clouds is confirmed it implies global cloud cover has decreased during the last century. Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

Source here (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf)

2. I never said there is no such thing as a Wilson Cloud.

Duly noted.

3. You're lack of attention to my postings in the past on this issue is not my problem.

Perhaps true but if they’ve been of the quality of your postings in this thread I can explain my indifference.

[DogB]

Just what do you think the "data" will tell you sans mechanism? :popcorn1

I'm hoping they might posit a mechanism.

Edit: Several basic mechanisms have been proposed. I'm hoping CLOUD might point to which is most likely to be correct.

[lomiller]

Sorry lomiller, I must have I missed something. You do know the whole active sun, solar wind, magnetic field, GCR, cloud seeding hypothesis don’t you?
what you have missed is every other discussion of the VERY far fetched hypothesis. There is simply no evidence to support it, no tests have shown the physical mechanism to be anywhere near as strong as it would need to be, none of the expected correlations have been demonstrated work out and it doesn’t explain the earths climate history the way CO2 does. Consider Milankovitch cycles, for cosmic ray cloud seeding to work the earths orbit has to be controlling the Sun.

[lomiller]

Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait for the data before I judge.


I've no doubt there will always be some test you insist on waiting for.

[BenBurch]

And another denier enters my ignore list. Sad.

[DogB]

what you have missed is every other discussion of the VERY far fetched hypothesis.

Apparently.

There is simply no evidence to support it,

What sort of evidence would you be suggesting we look for?

no tests have shown the physical mechanism to be anywhere near as strong as it would need to be,

What tests? The only one I know of is CLOUD and it's still underway.

none of the expected correlations have been demonstrated work out

OK, amuse me. What correlations are we talking about?

and it doesn’t explain the earths climate history the way CO2 does.

Others would disagree with that statement. Remember this may be a relatively short term type effect. LIA, MWP etc.

Consider Milankovitch cycles, for cosmic ray cloud seeding to work the earths orbit has to be controlling the Sun.

Why? Are you suggesting that both effects can't be acting simultaneously? Seems a little silly to me.

[DogB]

And another denier enters my ignore list. Sad.

It is sad. I thought he had more guts than that. :(

[DogB]

I've no doubt there will always be some test you insist on waiting for.

It's a little disturbing that you think this is wrong of me.

[macdoc]

What tests? The only one I know of is CLOUD and it's still underway.

You still have not answered what you expect it to show - there is no forcing that is clear as to positive, negative or both in different areas of the planet.

Meanwhile GHG mechanism and evidence is clear.....timing of consequences is not.

[DogB]

You still have not answered what you expect it to show

I don't expect it to show anything. I hope it will either prove or disprove a possible feedback effect. If proved, a ballpark effect magnitude would also be really nice.

- there is no forcing that is clear as to positive, negative or both in different areas of the planet.

Restating the hypothesis doesn't make it right.

Meanwhile GHG mechanism and evidence is clear

Mechanism - yes. Evidence of warming - yes. Correlation is not causation.

.....timing of consequences is not.

[fishbob]

What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases? So, how's the temperature on Mercury these days? Given that it's far closer to the Sun than the Earth which consequently means the intensity of light falling on it is much greater, then shouldn't Mercury be showing a considerable increase in surface temperatures if the Sun is the culprit?

You haven't been paying attention. The denialistas are claiming exactly that.
Not that there is anything like actual evidence to support their position, but that is apparently not a concern.

[DogB]

Not that there is anything like actual evidence to support their position, but that is apparently not a concern.

Besides Uranus is actually cooling. (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf)*

*This fact has the added advantage of being perhaps the best straight line I've ever heard.:)

[a_unique_person]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

The simplest rebuttal is the cooling of the stratosphere. If the sun was responsible for warming, the stratosphere would be warming too. It's not, it's been cooling.

[Corsair 115]

You haven't been paying attention.


That's entirely possible. :D


The denialistas are claiming exactly that. Not that there is anything like actual evidence to support their position, but that is apparently not a concern.


Well, mhaze's reply to my post seemed to suggest that Mercury wouldn't be warming up due to increased solar output because it doesn't have an atmosphere, while the Earth does and consquently is warming up.


Mechanism - yes. Evidence of warming - yes. Correlation is not causation.


Perhaps not, but on the other hand, what is the likelihood of that correlation happening purely by chance?

[DogB]

Perhaps not, but on the other hand, what is the likelihood of that correlation happening purely by chance?

But there's another correlation that seems to fit. That is the increase in GCR over the last century.

You can make a good case the CO2 fits the bill but does that mean we should ignore the other possibilities?

[Megalodon]

Actually AFAIKT both side of the argument are guilty of this. As evidence I offer a quote from this very thread.

Is this a statement you'd associate yourself with?

Yes, Ben is right. That doesn't mean that the CERN experiment is not interesting or important. Only not really for the main AGW debate.

Again, neither side has clean hands here.

Bovine droppings. You can keep trying to establish an equivalence, but you'll continue failing.

I offered a scientific paper, published in a peer reviewed journal. It was dismissed without discussion.

You linked to a pre-print. You didn't try to discuss it, or offer any comments on it. For all we know you can think it's right, wrong or written by an envoy of Planet X.

[Megalodon]

At least Bobdroeg got the joke.

It might surprise you, but if I was referring to any of your posts in this thread I would have quoted them. And all your posts are a joke, so your distinction is as irrelevant as your ideas.

You exhibit the fierce, seriousness of Warmer.

Not really, I just dislike liars...

[Megalodon]

The simplest rebuttal is the cooling of the stratosphere. If the sun was responsible for warming, the stratosphere would be warming too. It's not, it's been cooling.

Forget it, he's not going to acknowledge that. Or the fact that we would have to can a substantial part of physics if CO2 was not having the effect we know it has.

[Megalodon]

And now ten years of no warming. What can they do, what can they do, what can they do????

Don't look now, but you're lying again...

[DogB]

Yes, Ben is right. That doesn't mean that the CERN experiment is not interesting or important. Only not really for the main AGW debate.

That is a confusing statement. The CERN experiment directly references it's implications to the climate change debate. See my reply to Ben that he got all het up about.

Bovine droppings. You can keep trying to establish an equivalence, but you'll continue failing.

I'm comfortable letting the readers of this thread (for example) make up their own mind about who is guilty of what.

You linked to a pre-print. You didn't try to discuss it, or offer any comments on it. For all we know you can think it's right, wrong or written by an envoy of Planet X.

There was no intent on my behaf to discuss it at all. I simply wanted to see if mhaze has seen it. Perhaps it would have been better to do so via pm but I don't like speaking behind peoples backs. Nevertheless the paper was quickly dismissed without comment and an alternative 'better' one was offered. The 'better' paper was years older and did not address the exact subject of the paper I linked.

If the poster had wanted to discuss the paper I would have been intersted. If he wasn't intersted in doing so then he was quite welcome to not comment at all.

[DogB]

Please note. Due to power failure the proceeding post (and this one) were typed on my mobile phone and it was a PITA. Thus I will not be posting again till this storm passes and I get mains power back. Cheers.

[Megalodon]

That is a confusing statement. The CERN experiment directly references it's implications to the climate change debate. See my reply to Ben that he got all het up about.

Why is it confusing... something can be helpful to clarify the details of a matter without having influence on the main arguments.


There was no intent on my behaf to discuss it at all. I simply wanted to see if mhaze has seen it. Perhaps it would have been better to do so via pm but I don't like speaking behind peoples backs. Nevertheless the paper was quickly dismissed without comment and an alternative 'better' one was offered. The 'better' paper was years older and did not address the exact subject of the paper I linked.

If the poster had wanted to discuss the paper I would have been intersted. If he wasn't intersted in doing so then he was quite welcome to not comment at all.

Then why are you whining? You complain that a paper was dismissed without discussion when you didn't want to discuss it yourself, and in fact didn't...

But I understand... throw enough sand in the air, and maybe action can be stopped for another couple of decades. Unfortunately for Internet denialists, reality keeps existing outside of the basement, and most politicians take advice from scientists instead of bloggers.

[a_unique_person]

Please note. Due to power failure the proceeding post (and this one) were typed on my mobile phone and it was a PITA. Thus I will not be posting again till this storm passes and I get mains power back. Cheers.

Must have been all that extra energy and water vapour in the atmosphere.

[bobdroege7]

Have you discussed it with CERN? I'm certain they'd love to know they're wasting millions trying to prove or disprove this.

Go on, shoot them an e-mail. Tell them “you fly a lot and carry radiation measuring devices with you”.


No, I wouldn't say that.

But I would ask if they had considered the effects of Ultraviolet rays on the formation of clouds as they are present in more quantity than cosmic rays and also produce ions, and thus would also have an effect on cloud formation.

I would also ask them what the holdup on their experiment is, as the paper to propose the experiment was written in 2000 with proposed data collecction to start in 2002.

[mhaze]

No, I wouldn't say that.

But I would ask if they had considered the effects of Ultraviolet rays on the formation of clouds as they are present in more quantity than cosmic rays and also produce ions, and thus would also have an effect on cloud formation.

I would also ask them what the holdup on their experiment is, as the paper to propose the experiment was written in 2000 with proposed data collecction to start in 2002.

Does not sound right. You may be thinking of a preliminary experiment. The "real one" is now in progress. Here from June is the arrival of the test chamber. Note: Video does not stream right to my browser, might need to download to run. Other status updates from the same link via keywords.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181089

[mhaze]

......the paper was quickly dismissed without comment and an alternative 'better' one was offered. The 'better' paper was years older and did not address the exact subject of the paper I linked.

If the poster had wanted to discuss the paper I would have been intersted. If he wasn't intersted in doing so then he was quite welcome to not comment at all.Actually the alternative "better" one was offered without even an examination as to whether the former paper was from "Denier scientists" or not, or whether and in what fashion it might support assertions of Deniers. Quite laughably presumptive, really.

[Trakar]

Besides Uranus is actually cooling. (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf)*

*This fact has the added advantage of being perhaps the best straight line I've ever heard.:)


Its also near the start of winter (which lasts 40 years on Uranus).

[BenBurch]

Its also near the start of winter (which lasts 40 years on Uranus).

Pluto is cooling too. In fact it will be cooling for the next 120 years. Same reason...

[drkitten]

Its also near the start of winter (which lasts 40 years on Uranus).

Interesting how seasons on Uranus cover the whole planet, while seasons on the Earth are confined to specific hemispheres. My understanding is that Melbourne is lovely in the spring -- right about now.

[lomiller]

Are you suggesting that both effects can't be acting simultaneously?


Sure, if the effect is minor or trivial. For it to be anything else you need to have a third unknown cause in play that negates much of what is already known. Clearly the most straightforward answer is that you stick with the one answer that works, and not bring multiple speculative effects into the discussion without strong evidence. Occams razor at work…


It's a little disturbing that you think this is wrong of me.

What should be disturbing you is your drift towards denial and away from skepticism. You can find a nice essay on the topic of denial in the link below, but the short and easy version is that if no evidence is ever satisfactory you are not a skeptic and an endless line of “what about this” is not skeptical inquiry.

http://www.theness.com/skepticism-and-denial/

I’d recommend everyone read that link btw. It never mentions climate, but describes climate deniers to a T.

[macdoc]

and add this to the mix as well
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

Manufactroversy was never so appropo as in the case of climate...:mgbanghead

Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

[lomiller]

I don't expect it to show anything. I hope it will either prove or disprove a possible feedback effect. If proved, a ballpark effect magnitude would also be really nice.

FYI the cloud formation thing mhaze is proposing isn’t a feedback it’s a forcing. If it’s a dominant forcing is should leave very clear markers in the earths paleo-climate history. By that I mean if there is another large forcing at play there would be significant divergence from the orbital forcing that have dominated the earths climate for the last 3 million years.

[BenBurch]

Interesting how seasons on Uranus cover the whole planet, while seasons on the Earth are confined to specific hemispheres. My understanding is that Melbourne is lovely in the spring -- right about now.

Its because it lies on its side so it goes through phases where one pole faces the sun at a time, and there is a real difference in the albedo of the two poles for reasons not well understood.

[mhaze]

FYI the cloud formation thing mhaze is proposing isn’t a feedback it’s a forcing. If it’s a dominant forcing is should leave very clear markers in the earths paleo-climate history. By that I mean if there is another large forcing at play there would be significant divergence from the orbital forcing that have dominated the earths climate for the last 3 million years.Gee, today I'm lazy.

Would you like to clarify for everybody the style and drift of your misrepresentations of me for me?

Then we can see your snarkyfest more clearly.

[lomiller]

How exactly is a simple statement of fact a “snarkfest”? The hypothesis, as it’s been presented thus far would be a forcing, if you want to claim it’s a feedback, by all means lay out the feedback loop for us.

[BenBurch]

How exactly is a simple statement of fact a “snarkfest”? The hypothesis, as it’s been presented thus far would be a forcing, if you want to claim it’s a feedback, by all means lay out the feedback loop for us.

He thinks temperatures on earth change the sun.

[Megalodon]

And why not... I thought he believed that changes in the sun caused warming 10 years in the past... Your hypothesis also fits the data and is more compelling.

[mhaze]

Well, mhaze's reply to my post seemed to suggest that Mercury wouldn't be warming up due to increased solar output because it doesn't have an atmosphere, while the Earth does and consquently is warming up.....Well, for example, suppose that one a planet, you had water which was frozen. The water melts and goes into the sky, then you have clouds which reflect incoming light. The result might be (while those clouds existed) less radiation hitting the planet than before with completely clear skys.

Way different than a planet with little or no atmosphere.

...Perhaps not, but on the other hand, what is the likelihood of that correlation happening purely by chance?This is why climate (for meterologists and others who are real people and or real scientists) is measured in 30 year averages. Yes it averages out a lot of the variation which may contain data, but it allows looking at trends.

[Trakar]

Interesting how seasons on Uranus cover the whole planet, while seasons on the Earth are confined to specific hemispheres. My understanding is that Melbourne is lovely in the spring -- right about now.

Actually, season (at least with regards to the Earth) is determined by axial tilt relative to the sun more than the position in orbit around the Sun. In the case of Uranus, whose axis is almost in the the plane of its orbit. The tilt isn't as important as the distance from the Sun. Uranus is well past the perihelion point of its orbit and well along the path toward aphelion in its 84 (IIRC) earth year orbit of the Sun.

Seasons, much liike climate issues, are much different when referring to all of the factors involved with other planetary systems. Uranus isn't a bigger Earth, further away from the Sun, attempting to even relate the two (or any aspects of the two)in that manner, isn't even *just* wrong.

[bobdroege7]

Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away,



And now ten years of no warming. What can they do, what can they do, what can they do????





While today





This is why climate (for meterologists and others who are real people and or real scientists) is measured in 30 year averages. Yes it averages out a lot of the variation which may contain data, but it allows looking at trends.




Kinda hard to keep your story straight isn't it.

[macdoc]

Notice he ignores the ocean.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Total-Heat-Content.gif

Tunnel vision on atmospherics...:garfield:

[mhaze]

...Kinda hard to keep your story straight isn't it.Not at all, I only poke fun at Warmer Alarmist fantasies which do often involve 10 years only or in the alternate, Warmers use the last 30 years to figure "a trend line" when in fact the last 30 years is one data point.

It Warmers who suffer the ills of over reaching on insufficient data and poorly thought our concepts.

And who are so utterly serious, because of the importance of the Mission to Save the Earth by Fighting Deniers on the Internet.

BWAHAHAHA!

[DogB]

Why is it confusing... something can be helpful to clarify the details of a matter without having influence on the main arguments.

Sure, but how is that relevant? Again let me quote directly from the CLOUD proposal document. (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf)

If this link between cosmic rays and clouds is real, it provides a major mechanism for climate change. During the 20th Century the cosmic rays reaching the Earth diminished by about 15% as a result of increasing vigour in the solar wind, which scatters the cosmic rays. The inferred reduction in cloud cover could have warmed the Earth by a large fraction of the amount currently estimated to be due to man-made carbon dioxide. In that case, the effect of carbon dioxide may have been overestimated. If, on the other hand, the link to cosmic rays proves to be illusory, present diplomatic efforts to curb emissions of carbon dioxide will be more strongly supported scientifically. Settling the issue, one way or the other, is therefore an urgent task.(Bolding mine.)

Continuing to insist that this experiment has ‘no influence on the main argument’ is just making you look a little silly to be frank. Getting an accurate figure for CO2 sensitivity is practically the only game in town. Unless you believe that it has no effect at all which I doubt many here do.

Then why are you whining?

Whining: I resemble that remark.

You complain that a paper was dismissed without discussion when you didn't want to discuss it yourself, and in fact didn't...

No you don’t get to dump this back on me. If one had no desire to discuss the paper the correct reaction would have been to ignore my post. Instead the paper was dismissed shortly after I posted it. No explanation was offered – even after I prompted the poster (thinking he may have more knowledge of the subject than I).

The only logical explanation for this behaviour is that the paper was dismissed because of its conclusions rather than its contents. Exactly the kind of conduct you were talking about when you associated ‘warmers’ with the unscientific behaviours of IDers.

But I understand... throw enough sand in the air, and maybe action can be stopped for another couple of decades.

Oh please. You have no idea what my goal is here.

Unfortunately for Internet denialists, reality keeps existing outside of the basement, and most politicians take advice from scientists instead of bloggers.

Long may they continue to do so.

[DogB]

Must have been all that extra energy and water vapour in the atmosphere.

There was a lot of energy and all the water vapour fell down!

[DogB]

No, I wouldn't say that.

But I would ask if they had considered the effects of Ultraviolet rays on the formation of clouds as they are present in more quantity than cosmic rays and also produce ions, and thus would also have an effect on cloud formation.

That’s a good question. I'm not an expert but I believe the difference is energy and charge rather than total radiation flux. I do suspect that the CERN guys considered UV.

I would also ask them what the holdup on their experiment is, as the paper to propose the experiment was written in 2000 with proposed data collection to start in 2002.

I believe the full experiment was only resourced in 06.

[Megalodon]

Sure, but how is that relevant?

If this link between cosmic rays and clouds is real, it provides a major mechanism for climate change.... If, on the other hand, the link to cosmic rays proves to be illusory, present diplomatic efforts to curb emissions of carbon dioxide will be more strongly supported scientifically.

Continuing to insist that this experiment has ‘no influence on the main argument’ is just making you look a little silly to be frank.

Only to deniers... this experiment will clarify detail, but not establish a major mechanism. If it did, then you would need a third mechanism to balance the known effect of CO2, as lomiller has noted. Possible, but unlikely.

Getting an accurate figure for CO2 sensitivity is practically the only game in town. Unless you believe that it has no effect at all which I doubt many here do.

That's funny... I know of many other games in town, when it comes to AGW. In fact, I'm presently playing.

Whining: I resemble that remark.

:D


No you don’t get to dump this back on me. If one had no desire to discuss the paper the correct reaction would have been to ignore my post. Instead the paper was dismissed shortly after I posted it. No explanation was offered – even after I prompted the poster (thinking he may have more knowledge of the subject than I).

Reviewing the posts, you are right. It was bad form by that poster.

The only logical explanation for this behaviour is that the paper was dismissed because of its conclusions rather than its contents.

Since you didn't discuss the paper, that explanation is neither logical or unique. I skimmed the paper in question, and it didn't say anything terribly new.

Exactly the kind of conduct you were talking about when you associated ‘warmers’ with the unscientific behaviours of IDers.

Not really, no...


Oh please. You have no idea what my goal is here.

Not really talking about you in that rant. More of a general statement. I apologize for not being more clear.


Long may they continue to do so.

Agreed.

[Bill Thompson]

The facts are right there in the bible for anyone to read. God seperated the light and the dark before he created the sun and the moon. So even if the sun was not there (which it isn't at night, in fact, science has yet to figure out how it passes between the columns of the underworld) there would still be global warming. My personal theory is that global warming is caused by man's sins on earth and satan and his demons from hell are beginning to raise and armageddon is coming soon. And now I will write one more sentence for dramatic pause before I type the next sentance. I am joking.

[DogB]

Sure, if the effect is minor or trivial. For it to be anything else you need to have a third unknown cause in play that negates much of what is already known.

Why? Why can't the orbital signal cause the big stuff like glaciations while the GCR effect causes the little stuff like the LIA and the MWP?

Clearly the most straightforward answer is that you stick with the one answer that works,

Straightforward? Who said science was straightforward. It's a search for the truth with neither fear nor favour.

and not bring multiple speculative effects into the discussion without strong evidence. Occams razor at work…

That’s a good basic ideal. However in this case CERN believe the evidence is strong enough. Given their expertise, I'll take their word for it.

What should be disturbing you is your drift towards denial and away from skepticism. You can find a nice essay on the topic of denial in the link below, but the short and easy version is that if no evidence is ever satisfactory you are not a skeptic and an endless line of “what about this” is not skeptical inquiry.

http://www.theness.com/skepticism-and-denial/

I’d recommend everyone read that link btw. It never mentions climate, but describes climate deniers to a T.

It is an excellent essay. Precisely which of the behaviours discussed do you believe I am exhibiting?

[DogB]

FYI the cloud formation thing mhaze is proposing isn’t a feedback it’s a forcing.

I sit corrected.

If it’s a dominant forcing is should leave very clear markers in the earths paleo-climate history. By that I mean if there is another large forcing at play there would be significant divergence from the orbital forcing that have dominated the earths climate for the last 3 million years.


Sorry, I don’t see how that follows.

[CapelDodger]

That seems possible too. Be interesting to find out which it is don't you think?

When you consider that the droplets of liquid water which form clouds are as subject to evaporation as any other water-surface. Which is why warmer air holds more water-vapour and doesn't result in more clouds. Absolute humidity rises while relative humidity remains the same.

[DogB]

Only to deniers... this experiment will clarify detail, but not establish a major mechanism. If it did, then you would need a third mechanism to balance the known effect of CO2, as lomiller has noted. Possible, but unlikely.

What ‘known effect’? CO2 sensitivity is a highly contentious issue. The most recent article I read put the 95% confidence interval as between 1.5 and 6.2 deg. That’s hardly a nice tight law.

Not really talking about you in that rant. More of a general statement. I apologize for not being more clear.

No sweat. Generalisation is almost impossible to avoid when you’re debating multiple posters.

[DogB]

Hi CD

Glad to see you're still speaking to me.:(

When you consider that the droplets of liquid water which form clouds are as subject to evaporation as any other water-surface. Which is why warmer air holds more water-vapour and doesn't result in more clouds. Absolute humidity rises while relative humidity remains the same.

Sure. Could result in less clouds overall I guess (hotter troposphere?).

IPCC always admitted that cloud modelling was a bit of a blind spot.

[CapelDodger]

Hi CD

Glad to see you're still speaking to me.:(

But of course! I'm just speaking less :).

Sure. Could result in less clouds overall I guess (hotter troposphere?).

I think it just varies the height at which various types of cloud form (off the top of my head). Convection and adiabatic cooling are always with us.

IPCC always admitted that cloud modelling was a bit of a blind spot.

Not really. The gross behaviour of clouds is well characterised and can be modelled; the problem lies in this behaviour being averaged across cells of the models. This means they miss out such things as individual storms and other fine details. Clouds have long been studied and are well-understood.

Until now nobody saw the need to bring cosmic rays into the subject. There's no question demanding that answer. So cosmic rays may have some effect, but it's not significant. The subject only has prominence now because it's been grasped at by the usual suspects as a possible alternative explanation to what is readily explicable by established science. Even the guy basking in the publicity is at odds with them.

The CERN experiment is a joke. Cloud formation (or not) in the atmosphere involves a contest between evaporation and condensation over some time - probably hours. That can't be even vaguely approximated in a glorified cloud-chamber.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by lomiller http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5279711#post5279711)
Clearly the most straightforward answer is that you stick with the one answer that works,



Straightforward? Who said science was straightforward. It's a search for the truth with neither fear nor favour.

What's wrong with you, DogB? You need your thinking ReCorrected. You are not With the Program there.

....
I think it just varies the height at which various types of cloud form (off the top of my head). Convection and adiabatic cooling are always with us.
.....
The CERN experiment is a joke. Cloud formation (or not) in the atmosphere involves a contest between evaporation and condensation over some time - probably hours. That can't be even vaguely approximated in a glorified cloud-chamber.So a guy who by his words shows little understanding of meterology is qualified to say "The CERN experiment is a joke".

Nice that we have your confident assertion there.

POSTSCRIPT: I do soooo much enjoy speculating on JREF about GCR. For some reason, GCRs bring out the absolute moonbattery of Warmers.

No idea why, really.

[CapelDodger]

That is a confusing statement. The CERN experiment directly references it's implications to the climate change debate.

As in "might have implications to the climate debate", which is a very good way to get attention these days. Defence implications are the implications of choice, of course, but there was no chance of that in this case. Climate implications were a no-brainer.

And it worked. All the way to CERN, no less.

[Corsair 115]

Well, for example, suppose that one a planet, you had water which was frozen. The water melts and goes into the sky, then you have clouds which reflect incoming light. The result might be (while those clouds existed) less radiation hitting the planet than before with completely clear skys.


Er, doesn't that just support the notion that surface temperature increases caused by increased solar output should be even more detectable and noticeable on Mercury than on the Earth since there are no albedo effects due to cloud cover?

[Kestrel]

Until now nobody saw the need to bring cosmic rays into the subject. There's no question demanding that answer. So cosmic rays may have some effect, but it's not significant. The subject only has prominence now because it's been grasped at by the usual suspects as a possible alternative explanation to what is readily explicable by established science. Even the guy basking in the publicity is at odds with them.

Even if we presume some relationship between cosmic rays and cloud cover, were is the data showing a trend in cosmic ray levels that would account for the trend in global warming?

[CapelDodger]

Sure, but how is that relevant? Again let me quote directly from the CLOUD proposal document. (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf)

If this link between cosmic rays and clouds is real, it provides a major mechanism for climate change. During the 20th Century the cosmic rays reaching the Earth diminished by about 15% as a result of increasing vigour in the solar wind, which scatters the cosmic rays. The inferred reduction in cloud cover could have warmed the Earth by a large fraction of the amount currently estimated to be due to man-made carbon dioxide. In that case, the effect of carbon dioxide may have been overestimated. If, on the other hand, the link to cosmic rays proves to be illusory, present diplomatic efforts to curb emissions of carbon dioxide will be more strongly supported scientifically. Settling the issue, one way or the other, is therefore an urgent task.



This is a proposal document. He's selling it. This is not evidence that it is an urgent task. In fact it is not, which is why the Copenhagen Conference is going ahead without waiting for the results. Nobody's paying attention except in venues like this.

CERN aren't spending millions on this, they're providing spill-over from more important experiments. Apart from technical assistance the rest is down to the experimenters themselves.

It's a non-issue vamped up by the people who preach to mhaze. And it has the beauty of being "scientific" and having CERN associated with it (CERN aren't averse to publicity themselves, of course), and is unresolvable by the experiment that keeps not having happened yet.

Give it up. When they could no longer blame the Sun directly (remember global warming on Mars?) they searched out an indirect answer and found one in GCR's. It's a very similar story to the PDO saga.

A good thing about accepting the AGW science is that emerging evidence remains consistent with it. It's relaxing. There's none of this constant scrabble for new alternatives as events unfold over them.

[BenBurch]

Even if we presume some relationship between cosmic rays and cloud cover, were is the data showing a trend in cosmic ray levels that would account for the trend in global warming?

There isn't any correlation.

In fact, cosmic ray flux is at the highest level it has been since the space age began, and if these guys had ANYTHING, we should be seeing a marked cooling trend, because they posit the relationship to be an inverse one.

[Hindmost]

Not at all, I only poke fun at Warmer Alarmist fantasies which do often involve 10 years only or in the alternate, Warmers use the last 30 years to figure "a trend line" when in fact the last 30 years is one data point.

It Warmers who suffer the ills of over reaching on insufficient data and poorly thought our concepts.

And who are so utterly serious, because of the importance of the Mission to Save the Earth by Fighting Deniers on the Internet.

BWAHAHAHA!

I have a question...why do you consider 30 years of data as one data point. I understand that climate changes are considered over a 30 year period, but that shouldn't be considered as one data point.

glenn

(please answer sans grade school taunts if possible.)

[DogB]

The CERN experiment is a joke. Cloud formation (or not) in the atmosphere involves a contest between evaporation and condensation over some time - probably hours. That can't be even vaguely approximated in a glorified cloud-chamber.

Well maybe you know more about it than I do. I’m surprised they got budget for it if it’s a flawed as you suggest.

[DogB]

For some reason, GCRs bring out the absolute moonbattery of Warmers.

I have been surprised at the vehemence of the opposition to an experiment that’s already running. A devils advocate might suggest there’s some fear of the results.

But that can’t be right can it? :D

[CapelDodger]

Even if we presume some relationship between cosmic rays and cloud cover, were is the data showing a trend in cosmic ray levels that would account for the trend in global warming?

The whole thing fails on so many levels. Consider the proposal DogB provided :

During the 20th Century the cosmic rays reaching the Earth diminished by about 15% as a result of increasing vigour in the solar wind

During the 20thCE. In fact during the first half of the 20thCE. Relevance to the second half : damn' slight. This guy is really working hard to sell his proposal.

Nobody contests the increase in solar activity in the early 20thCE, and It may have contributed to global warming at that time. It seems unlikely that the direct component (from insolation) wouldn't dwarf any GCR component. So this is just transparent BS.

[CapelDodger]

Well maybe you know more about it than I do. I’m surprised they got budget for it if it’s a flawed as you suggest.

People got budget to stare at goats (it was defence related). This is promoted as "climate related" which is the next best thing these days, especially if it's "controversial". Even CERN likes to be edgy sometimes, and I don't know that it's costing them anything. The experiment itself is of some limited interest, but not because of its climate implications.

When it comes to real clouds in atmosphere (not in cloud-chambers) it reveals nothing. It just say something about very short-term nucleation, and there are lots of long-term nucleation sites out there already. So it's pure misdirection, not a real issue.

[CapelDodger]

Not at all, I only poke fun at Warmer Alarmist fantasies which do often involve 10 years only ...

People who accept the science never do that. If you think back, you didn't until there was a sniff of the "not warmer than 1998 yet" line. Which is eleven years now, of course. Back in the 90's you went all the way back to the Middle Ages to establish a trend. Or at the very least 1850 (which "it's been warming since"). Remember?

.. or in the alternate, Warmers use the last 30 years to figure "a trend line" when in fact the last 30 years is one data point.

We have thirty years of temperature data which we didn't have thirty years ago. That's rather more than one data point.

And who are so utterly serious, because of the importance of the Mission to Save the Earth by Fighting Deniers on the Internet.

I do it for fun. Where better for an intellectual bully to entertain himself?

There may have been a time when it mattered but not any more. Science won, you lost.

[CapelDodger]

I have been surprised at the vehemence of the opposition to an experiment that’s already running.

There's no opposition to the experiment. It's the overblown significance of the experiment that we're pointing out.

[macdoc]

+1 :thumbsup:

Hail Mary attempts get wearisome after while :eusa_doh:

[Megalodon]

There may have been a time when it mattered but not any more. Science won, you lost.

Unfortunately, now we're a bit too deep for (relatively) simple solutions. We'll have to spend a lot of money and resources in CCS and CCC technologies, and even those might not cut it on time when it comes to deep-ocean acidification. Yes, boys and girls, we're in for a ride...

[CapelDodger]

See this (http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf) one hazy?

I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment.

BTW, that's a preprint version. The actual ref is (Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989) but I suspect it's behind a paywall.

Shaviv, the Young Turk of denialism. Big hit at the Heatland Follies, as you'd imagine. This work has been kicked to shreds by experts in the various fields Shaviv dances around in. Forget the "order of magnitude" that everybody was wrong by before his revelations.

[mhaze]

Well maybe you know more about it than I do. I’m surprised they got budget for it if it’s a flawed as you suggest.No doubt. They did get some collaborators:
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2006/cosmicclouds.asp



University of Aarhus, Denmark;
University of Bergen, Norway;
California Institute of Technology, USA;
CERN, Switzerland;
Danish National Space Centre, Denmark;
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland;
University of Helsinki, Finland; University of Kuopio, Finland;
Lebedev Physical Institute, Russia;
University of Leeds, United Kingdom;
Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany;
University of Mainz and Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany;
Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany;
Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland;
University of Reading, United Kingdom;
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom;
Tampere University of Technology, Finland;
University of Vienna, Austria.

But they did not consult the self described "intellectual bully" of JREF, Capeldodger.

What a shame.

[DogB]

During the 20thCE. In fact during the first half of the 20thCE. Relevance to the second half : damn' slight. This guy is really working hard to sell his proposal.

Nobody contests the increase in solar activity in the early 20thCE, and It may have contributed to global warming at that time

Maybe we’re not looking at the same data. It’s a noisy signal but I see a ramp up to maximum in the 70’s followed by a long decrease that continues to a double trough across the 90’s then an increase to the current peak which is rapidly eclipsing the 70’s.

This seems to match the twentieth century profile fairly well to me.

. It seems unlikely that the direct component (from insolation) wouldn't dwarf any GCR component. So this is just transparent BS.

But since we’ve been able to directly detect cloudiness we know that the peak cloud occurs in the time of weakest sun activity.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9284af38b8b08f6d.jpg

The blue line shows variations in global cloud cover collated by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. The red line is the record of monthly variations in cosmic-ray counts at the Huancayo station.

[DogB]

Shaviv, the Young Turk of denialism. Big hit at the Heatland Follies, as you'd imagine. This work has been kicked to shreds by experts in the various fields Shaviv dances around in. Forget the "order of magnitude" that everybody was wrong by before his revelations.

In this case I'll agree with you. Someone I trust (another denier) says "the statistical analysis is tortured to the point of uselessness". As he's forgotten more about maths than I'll ever know I'll defer to his opinion.

[Megalodon]

Let's see what happens to that picture when global temperatures (green) and CO2 (orange) are added:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814af3907ca7349.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18111)

Do you have a picture with the 70s data, as well as the mos recent ones?

[DogB]

There ya go CD. How could you doubt this guy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9284af390b4d0b49.jpg

:):):)

[BenBurch]

Let's see what happens to that picture when global temperatures (green) and CO2 (orange) are added:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814af3907ca7349.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18111)

Do you have a picture with the 70s data, as well as the mos recent ones?

No correlation at all.

[Megalodon]

No correlation at all.

And somehow I think one will not appear after the rest of the data is in...

[DogB]

Do you have a picture with the 70s data, as well as the mos recent ones?

Best I can do on short notice. I think I have a somewhat clearer one on a different computer if this is no good.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9284af392b60546f.gif

[BenBurch]

And somehow I think one will not appear after the rest of the data is in...

From http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/

[Poptech]

The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Svensmark_FriisChtr-Reply%20to%20Lockwood.pdf) (PDF (http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/reports/scientific%20reports/dnsc-scientific_report_3_2007.pdf)) (The Danish National Space Center)

Over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]

When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record (http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf). For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]

...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]

The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Enews/releases/2002/june/060602.html) (Dartmouth College)
Breathing Cycles in Earth's Upper Atmosphere Linked to Solar Wind Disturbances (http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/32abc3f111047d1a5ec153cc27e63d5d.html) (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies (http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420) (University of Rochester)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (http://news.ufl.edu/2001/05/17/maya/) (University of Florida)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uom-efs122204.php) (University of Maine)
Flares From Sun's Far Side May Affect Space Weather Of Inner Planets (http://www.europlanet-eu.org/demo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=41) (Swedish Institute of Space Physics)
Greater Solar Activity May Bring United States More Gray Days (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010712cloudcover.html) (NASA)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000315080417.htm) (Long Island University)
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/nilef-20070319.html) (NASA)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html) (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/1998/suncycle.html) (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (http://news.illinois.edu/scitips/03/0925alaska.html) (University Of Illinois)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071113142105.htm) (University of Colorado)
Scientists Determine Biological And Ecosystem Changes In Polar Regions Linked To Solar Variability (https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2003/NR-03-09-09.html) (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx) (UCLA)
Small Fluctuations In Solar Activity, Large Influence On Climate (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/haog-sfi082709.php) (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Solar Cycle Linked to Global Climate (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207) (National Science Foundation)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (http://news.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html) (Duke University)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm) (University of New England, Australia)
Sun's Past Strength Took Toll On Tropical Glaciers, Worsens Today's Outlook (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7656) (University of Alberta, Canada)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm) (University of Washington)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html) (NASA)
The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/) (Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research)

[Megalodon]

Best I can do on short notice. I think I have a somewhat clearer one on a different computer if this is no good.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9284af392b60546f.gif

Not good, I'm afraid... this one and the previous you've shown don't seem to match in the overlap

[Megalodon]

From http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/

Since you were there you could have cited this one

http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/gcr-vs-temp.jpg

But we've been this way before... Next month it will be forgotten, some old new thing appear and later, when we least expect it will rise again...

[DogB]

Not good, I'm afraid... this one and the previous you've shown don't seem to match in the overlap

Yeah I know, they're from different stations using different techniques. Unfortunately there's no simple way to present this data. I'll see what I can dig up this weekend if you'd like.

[DogB]

Since you were there you could have cited this one...

Could you link this? For some reason my firewall at work has this site listed as malicious.

[Megalodon]

Could you link this? For some reason my firewall at work has this site listed as malicious.

It's this image... Still needs more of the back and front data for full impact, and I prefer doing my own graphs, but it will do for now

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814af39ca42667f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18114)

[DogB]

Not good, I'm afraid... this one and the previous you've shown don't seem to match in the overlap

Actually I just assumed you were right - now that I bother to look they seem to line up fine. Remember you need to invert one.

[DogB]

It's this image...

Ok thanks. I assume in the top graph C is counts?

Man that temperature record is heavily smoothed. I assume they've removed the ENSO signal?

[Megalodon]

Actually I just assumed you were right - now that I bother to look they seem to line up fine. Remember you need to invert one.

Can't see how you can get those two figures to line up.

Found a figure for counts that aligns with your first one in the overlap. It looks like this with the temp:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814af3a0059bb39.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18115)

No correlation...

[Megalodon]

Ok thanks. I assume in the top graph C is counts?

Man that temperature record is heavily smoothed. I assume they've removed the ENSO signal?

Don't really know, the reference paper didn't open... which is why I like doing my own graphs.

[DogB]

No correlation...

That's because climax is a neutron counter. Look for muon counts.

[DogB]

... which is why I like doing my own graphs.

Well yours was labelled which puts you ahead in my book.

[Trakar]

Maybe we’re not looking at the same data. It’s a noisy signal but I see a ramp up to maximum in the 70’s followed by a long decrease that continues to a double trough across the 90’s then an increase to the current peak which is rapidly eclipsing the 70’s.

This seems to match the twentieth century profile fairly well to me.



But since we’ve been able to directly detect cloudiness we know that the peak cloud occurs in the time of weakest sun activity.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9284af38b8b08f6d.jpg

The blue line shows variations in global cloud cover collated by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. The red line is the record of monthly variations in cosmic-ray counts at the Huancayo station.

The ISCCP has tracked and correlated many different cloud layer patterns in their studies over a wide range of geographic locations, exactly which clouds and which locations are we looking at in this graph? As the Huancayo station ceased operations in 1992 due to political unrest in Peru, this data would seem to be either from another source or a composite of some other construction, what is the source of the cosmic ray data, and precisely what energies of cosmic rays are we talking about here?

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/background.html

...Our station at Climax, Colorado has been in continuous operation since 1950/51 and is the longest-operating station in the world-wide network of neutron monitors. Unfortunately, our Huancayo station (1951-1992) was recently forced to cease operation because of political unrest in Peru...

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/00HaleakalaHuancayoNorm.txt
...In the mid-1980s political unrest in Peru, especially in the Huancayo area, made it increasingly difficult for University of Chicago staff to
travel to the station and perform the yearly maintenance and calibration
procedures essential for the long-term stability of this monitor. In
1988 we began planning for a replacement for Huancayo, knowing that the
long-term outlook for its operation was questionable, and that a contin-
ued lack of maintenance was going to reduce the scientific value of this
station....

I'm sure the other data components are adequately filled in by other world-wide sources, but, this is an issue which should be cleared up. Data integrity is a requisite to properly analyzing and understanding any patterns or traits that may show up in displays purporting to represent that data. Claiming that this is Huancayo station data when the data shows an uninterrupted string of data points from the early 1980s through 2005, and we know that the data was somewhat questionable in the late eighties and the station was shut down in the early 1990s, and I've been unable to find any statement as to its re-opening, raises many questions as to the graph and the data it purports to represent.

[varwoche]

The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/) (Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research) Pardon me for jumping to the bottom of your list. This stands out out because I recall seeing studies out of the Planck Institute indicating that the sun is not the primary driver of GW. So I clicked your link and lo and behold, at the bottom there's this text/link...

How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate? (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/)

... leading to: Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming Poptech, I suggest you actually read the articles you link to (what a concept) rather that blindly copying these lists from whatever idiotic web site you copy them from.

[DogB]

The ISCCP has tracked and correlated many different cloud layer patterns in their studies over a wide range of geographic locations, exactly which clouds and which locations are we looking at in this graph? As the Huancayo station ceased operations in 1992 due to political unrest in Peru, this data would seem to be either from another source or a composite of some other construction, what is the source of the cosmic ray data, and precisely what energies of cosmic rays are we talking about here?

Huancayo was abandoned by the university of Chicago but I was under the impression that it was still being operated by the Instituto Geofisico del Peru. It’s still listed on their website but the link appears to be broken. I’ll try and check up on this. The source document didn’t specify particle energies.

The cloud data was described as global coverage data from the ISCCP. The graph shape strongly indicates low level cloud.

I'm sure the other data components are adequately filled in by other world-wide sources, but, this is an issue which should be cleared up. Data integrity is a requisite to properly analyzing and understanding any patterns or traits that may show up in displays purporting to represent that data. Claiming that this is Huancayo station data when the data shows an uninterrupted string of data points from the early 1980s through 2005, and we know that the data was somewhat questionable in the late eighties and the station was shut down in the early 1990s, and I've been unable to find any statement as to its re-opening, raises many questions as to the graph and the data it purports to represent.

Good points all. I’ll try and dig up some raw count data.

[BenBurch]

... leading to: Poptech, I suggest you actually read the articles you link to (what a concept) rather that blindly copying these lists from whatever idiotic web site you copy them from.

His technique is to overwhelm the reader with hundreds of links to papers with titles that appear as though they might support his case, hoping that the reader is too busy to find out the truth behind the links;

1. Many are there dishonestly as they are either neutral or support the opposite effect.

2. Many are dishonest publications paid for by monied interested whose ox will be gored if they cannot mine out their mineral rights.

[Belz...]

Not at all, I only poke fun at Warmer Alarmist fantasies which do often involve 10 years only or in the alternate, Warmers use the last 30 years to figure "a trend line" when in fact the last 30 years is one data point.

You know, what's fun about deniers is that no matter what happens to the climate within the next X years doesn't matter, because you'll still be able to cling to the "but it wasn't man-made" belief.

[Belz...]

His technique is to overwhelm the reader with hundreds of links to papers with titles that appear as though they might support his case, hoping that the reader is too busy to find out the truth behind the links;

And hoping he doesn't actually take the time to read them all because it's too intimidating a task.

[mhaze]

Pardon me for jumping to the bottom of your list. This stands out out because I recall seeing studies out of the Planck Institute indicating that the sun is not the primary driver of GW. So I clicked your link and lo and behold, at the bottom there's this text/link...

How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate? (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/)

... leading to: Poptech, I suggest you actually read the articles you link to (what a concept) rather that blindly copying these lists from whatever idiotic web site you copy them from.

Note that content of the discussion on this forum. It is a discussion as to how and if the influence of the Sun may exceed total TSI. This implies an acknowledgement by the posters to this forum that TSI is not the primary or dominant cause of "recent warming".

Part of the background of such general knowledge is such as this article.

... leading to: Varoche, I suggest you read the context of the thread you post into before blindly thrashing around looking for the closest, loudest Warmer rebuttals to Denier assertions.

[macdoc]

Still trying to put denier nonsense on an equal footing with mainstream climate science....wearisome..:garfield:

[Trakar]

Huancayo was abandoned by the university of Chicago but I was under the impression that it was still being operated by the Instituto Geofisico del Peru. It’s still listed on their website but the link appears to be broken. I’ll try and check up on this. The source document didn’t specify particle energies.

The cloud data was described as global coverage data from the ISCCP. The graph shape strongly indicates low level cloud.



Good points all. I’ll try and dig up some raw count data.

Your efforts will be appreciated. Even if the graphs only indicate tropical coverages of high level clouds and lower energy nuclei more common to solar wind than GCRs, it would still be an interesting correlation, deserving of more detailed exploration and understanding.

[varwoche]

Note that content of the discussion on this forum. It is a discussion as to how and if the influence of the Sun may exceed total TSI. This implies an acknowledgement by the posters to this forum that TSI is not the primary or dominant cause of "recent warming". Nonsense. PT introduced this list under the heading "Extensive Evidence of the Sun Controlling Climate" which Planck explictly contradicts.

Varoche, I suggest you read the context of the thread you post into before blindly thrashing around looking for the closest, loudest Warmer rebuttals to Denier assertions. Huh? My "loudest Warmer rebuttal" is the very same source that PT cited. Your posts are (perpetually) baffling.

[mhaze]

Nonsense. PT introduced this list under the heading "Extensive Evidence of the Sun Controlling Climate" which Planck explictly contradicts....Which Planck DOES NOT, only that the TSI correlation does not stand up, as I already stated.

Just trying to clue you in, EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS the point you are making. As for whether the article should be in the list for "sun controlling warming", maybe I don't see things quite as narrowly and black and white as you.

Oops!!! Oh yeah, I'm not a Warmer!!!!

[George152]

Is the Sun causing Global warming ?
No! Of course not.
That big heater in the sky?

[Hindmost]

Nonsense. PT introduced this list under the heading "Extensive Evidence of the Sun Controlling Climate" which Planck explictly contradicts.

Huh? My "loudest Warmer rebuttal" is the very same source that PT cited. Your posts are (perpetually) baffling.

The links also discuss the use of "models" to validate the conclusions for which PT and Mhaze have consistently shown a fair amount of disdain. Interesting info however.

glenn

[a_unique_person]

Is the Sun causing Global warming ?
No! Of course not.
That big heater in the sky?

You are not distinguishing between maintaining the current temperature and changing it. The sun is not acting as a 'forcing' to the same degree that CO2 is.

[macdoc]

Not quite- the sun is not acting as a increasing positive forcing the way C02.

If the sun's output slowly climbed it would act the same as C02.

The the sun IS the major forcing but it's equilibrium that counts and we ain't at it thanks mostly to GHG.

[mhaze]

Can't see how you can get those two figures to line up.

Found a figure for counts that aligns with your first one in the overlap. It looks like this with the temp:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814af3a0059bb39.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18115)

No correlation...What is this utter nonsense? I'm curious, can you take one of the actual hypothesis concerning cosmic ray effects on climate and argue against it?

Making a weak argument up, then arguing against it is really quite silly.

Argue against a hypothesis of CERN quality, please. If you can. (and yes, that would involve actually reading and learning what the hyptheses were...)

[Megalodon]

I'm curious, can you take one of the actual hypothesis concerning cosmic ray effects on climate and argue against it?

Be my guest... pose a coherent one and it shall be argued against.... again.

Making a weak argument up, then arguing against it is really quite silly.

It 's funny seeing you say that, since that's the extent of your debating skills.

Argue against a hypothesis of CERN quality, please. If you can. (and yes, that would involve actually reading and learning what the hyptheses were...)

If you find someone to defend the CERN hypothesis, I will argue against it. You can even start a thread about it. Somehow I doubt that you will do it, considering how you ran from defending all the previous depressing notions you had.

[bobdroege7]

Hey, let's change the subject.

The ice extent for today is less than the ice extent for Nov 7, 2007.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

[mhaze]

Be my guest... pose a coherent one and it shall be argued against.... again.



It 's funny seeing you say that, since that's the extent of your debating skills.



If you find someone to defend the CERN hypothesis, I will argue against it. You can even start a thread about it. Somehow I doubt that you will do it, considering how you ran from defending all the previous depressing notions you had.

In your inane surliness of manner, you have exposed the flaws of your own bias. Nobody cares that you "argue against the CERN hypothesis". They laugh at you for such hubris.

What scientists do is investigate the hypothesis by experimentation.

These guys.


University of Aarhus, Denmark;
University of Bergen, Norway;
California Institute of Technology, USA;
CERN, Switzerland;
Danish National Space Centre, Denmark;
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland;
University of Helsinki, Finland; University of Kuopio, Finland;
Lebedev Physical Institute, Russia;
University of Leeds, United Kingdom;
Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany;
University of Mainz and Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany;
Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany;
Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland;
University of Reading, United Kingdom;
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom;
Tampere University of Technology, Finland;
University of Vienna, Austria.

Yet you again think that misrepresentation is progress. Let's look at my words:
Argue against a hypothesis of CERN quality
And then at your misrepresentation:
If you find someone to defend the CERN hypothesis, I will argue against it
Which was based on my noting that you'd made up a false argument to knock down a silly strawman argument on cosmic ray effects. Quality refers to a well thought out hypothesis capable of being tested, and thence proven or disproven in part or whole.

Got quality?

[mhaze]

Hey, let's change the subject.

The ice extent for today is less than the ice extent for Nov 7, 2007.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

Wow, less ice?

More cool water for the bears to swim in.

Cool.

[Megalodon]

I told you you would run... again...

[Megalodon]

Wow, less ice?

More cool water for the bears to swim in.

Cool.

Yes, you are a poor excuse for a human being... but we already knew that, so it's back to your silly notions.

I tell you what... Why don't you explain to everyone why the CERN hypothesis is not an hypothesis of CERN quality. Then people will understand why you ran away from discussing it... again.

[Tubbythin]

No doubt. They did get some collaborators:
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2006/cosmicclouds.asp



University of Aarhus, Denmark;
University of Bergen, Norway;
California Institute of Technology, USA;
CERN, Switzerland;
Danish National Space Centre, Denmark;
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland;
University of Helsinki, Finland; University of Kuopio, Finland;
Lebedev Physical Institute, Russia;
University of Leeds, United Kingdom;
Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany;
University of Mainz and Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany;
Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany;
Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland;
University of Reading, United Kingdom;
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom;
Tampere University of Technology, Finland;
University of Vienna, Austria.



Which totally undermines your conspiracy theory that AGW is a government conspiracy to get more taxes.

[mhaze]

Misrepresentation, reframed argument to make a false point, poorly executed.

Well, unless you have thought so little about this that you believe what you just said.

[mhaze]

Yes, you are a poor excuse for a human being... but we already knew that, so it's back to your silly notions.

I tell you what... Why don't you explain to everyone why the CERN hypothesis is not an hypothesis of CERN quality. Then people will understand why you ran away from discussing it... again.Now you make No Sense, except to further display petty vindictiveness.

[Megalodon]

Now you make No Sense, except to further display petty vindictiveness.

Are you going to contribute to the thread with anything but noise?

Maybe with a coherent argument of sorts?

[Trakar]

Are you going to contribute to the thread with anything but noise?

Maybe with a coherent argument of sorts?

Careful, I think this falls into the "repeating the same action expecting different results" category.

[mhaze]

Are you going to contribute to the thread with anything but noise?

Maybe with a coherent argument of sorts?Already have.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5286581&postcount=183

And I have no need to do your cut and paste from CERN's experimental protocols for you. Do it yourself, and take your pick, rather than just duck and dodge.

Oh, and by the way. Be clear about whether you argue against:


CERN hypotheses
CERN protocols
CERN experimental paradimns
or the blasphemous, unacceptable concept of doing any research that could disprove cherished Warmer creeds.

I do suspect that the last of these is your toadstool.

[Megalodon]

Running again, I see...

[Corsair 115]

Yes, you are a poor excuse for a human being... but we already knew that, so it's back to your silly notions.

I tell you what... Why don't you explain to everyone why the CERN hypothesis is not an hypothesis of CERN quality. Then people will understand why you ran away from discussing it... again.


I'd like to return to the idea that somehow increased solar output would not be warming Mercury while it is warming Earth. This notion seems to defy basic physics, at least from my understanding of it.

[mhaze]

I'd like to return to the idea that somehow increased solar output would not be warming Mercury while it is warming Earth. This notion seems to defy basic physics, at least from my understanding of it.There are two separate things here to distinguish. We can call them "TSI", which is the term for total solar illumination, and "Other". Other would include possible effects of the magnetosphere of the sun, the solar wind, and the interaction of these with global cosmic rays.

TSI

There is no question but that an increase or decrease in solar TSI would result in a similar effect on planets, however there is no proportionality to distance from the sun. So it's different than if you simply measured lumens from a lamp at progressively farther distances. This is because of variations for each planet in albedo (think reflectivity) but also phase change issues (on earth, water can evaporate to form clouds, no such thing on mercury).

A further issue is the relevance of the total spectrum: UV has specific action in the upper atmosphere of earth, and this is not a function of radiance. However, on mercury the only effect of UV would be that of radiance.

OTHER

These are the effects that are under serious scientific investigation by CERN and others. They are not well understood. One relates to the interaction of GCR (global cosmic rays) with the solar wind and the subsequent breakdown into muons which in certain geographical areas cause cloud formation.

These effects have the possibility of destroying in part the common "AGW theories", and any discussion of them seem to drive Warmers insane. This is the worthless recent discussion that you'd move away from. I agree with you, once the insanity is obvious, then it is polite to move on.

[Megalodon]

These are the effects that are under serious scientific investigation by CERN and others. They are not well understood. One relates to the interaction of GCR (global cosmic rays) with the solar wind and the subsequent breakdown into muons which in certain geographical areas cause cloud formation.

Now, was that so hard? The next step is for you to posit some recorded facts that would make sense in the light of this effect, that are not equally explained by other current hypothesis.

These effects have the possibility of destroying in part the common "AGW theories", and any discussion of them seem to drive Warmers insane.

No they don't, and no they don't. As was repeatedly said in this thread, those experiments are important to clear up details, but will not change that there is a known forcing at work to begin with. The only insanity is for the last couple of years to grasp at any straw that might allow to deny the established physics of GHGs...

This is the worthless recent discussion that you'd move away from. I agree with you, once the insanity is obvious, then it is polite to move on.

You're too amusing to move on :D

[macdoc]

Quote:
These effects have the possibility of destroying in part the common "AGW theories", and any discussion of them seem to drive Warmers insane.

you are far too polite Mega...give it the reception it deserves....
:dl: :dl::dl:

Hail Mary attempts of this sort are just getting to the point of theatre of the absurd. :garfield:

[CapelDodger]

Which Planck DOES NOT, only that the TSI correlation does not stand up, as I already stated.

As you did, leaving yourself with the eternal "Other" - unspecified and unvalidated. I thought you were hot on validation, but in this case, apparently, it's too demanding.

Just trying to clue you in, EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS the point you are making.

If you do you have no response to it. I very much doubt that you do see the point that's being made.

As for whether the article should be in the list for "sun controlling warming", maybe I don't see things quite as narrowly and black and white as you.

Pathetic.

Oops!!! Oh yeah, I'm not a Warmer!!!!

Even without that.

So how's the argument going for you guys? Winning? Is the world coming to its senses at last? What's the consensus in your world?

[CapelDodger]

These are the effects that are under serious scientific investigation by CERN and others.

CERN isn't investigating it.

And what "others"? Are they the ones doing the investigation at the CERN facilities?

[BenBurch]

CERN isn't investigating it.

And what "others"? Are they the ones doing the investigation at the CERN facilities?

Correct. CERN investigates very little. CERN provides a facility. Usually experiments are proposed by a consortium of investigators and given access based on a number of factors, including how useful a disproof of the hypothesis would be...

[CapelDodger]

Correct. CERN investigates very little. CERN provides a facility. Usually experiments are proposed by a consortium of investigators and given access based on a number of factors, including how useful a disproof of the hypothesis would be...

... and how much funding they bring with them. Enough to cover CERN's marginal costs at the very least.

The puffing-up of wossname's speculations by association with CERN is is as spurious as they come.

[mhaze]

... and how much funding they bring with them. Enough to cover CERN's marginal costs at the very least.

The puffing-up of wossname's speculations by association with CERN is is as spurious as they come.Ah, CapelDodger's classic argument by minutae. But in truth, I've got no problems with your nitpicking. Restate the issue, then to say instead of "CERN""researchers using CERN facilities from the enumerated list of institutions working on the CLOUD project".
Restate the argument and objection to misrepresentation and mis framing of arguments by Warmers in this thread to:"the actual scientific hypotheses being tested by researchers from the enumerated list of institutions working on the CLOUD project at CERN facilities"
End effect is the same.

Warmers in denial of the validity of scientific research protocols into solar effects on climate by actual research scientists.

[DogB]

Your efforts will be appreciated. Even if the graphs only indicate tropical coverages of high level clouds and lower energy nuclei more common to solar wind than GCRs, it would still be an interesting correlation, deserving of more detailed exploration and understanding.

Just a quick update.

Huancayo was definitely been operational in the last decade. The last time period I can confirm is that data was produced in 2004. Unfortunately the Instituto Geofisico del Peru isn’t answering my e-mails (which is probably more a reflection on my Spanish than anything else).

There also appears to be a link with the University of Manchester and I’m currently trying to run this down.

[DogB]

...The next step is for you to posit some recorded facts that would make sense in the light of this effect, that are not equally explained by other current hypothesis.

As CD has suggested, it is ‘politically’ prudent to tie CLOUD in with AGW but I image the ultimate goal is, in reality, slightly more esoteric. IMHO I think the intent is just to better understand climate.

The link between solar variability and climate has long been suggested but no real mechanism has been suggested until now.

[BenBurch]

... and how much funding they bring with them. Enough to cover CERN's marginal costs at the very least.

The puffing-up of wossname's speculations by association with CERN is is as spurious as they come.

When I was employed in High Energy Physics, there were a LOT of marginal experiments that people didn't think would show what they set out to show, and in fact most did not. But the good thing is that even a failed experiment is a publication and provided doctoral dissertations to dozens of grad students. (My name is even on a few of those papers.)

[Trakar]

Just a quick update.

Huancayo was definitely been operational in the last decade. The last time period I can confirm is that data was produced in 2004. Unfortunately the Instituto Geofisico del Peru isn’t answering my e-mails (which is probably more a reflection on my Spanish than anything else).

There also appears to be a link with the University of Manchester and I’m currently trying to run this down.

What is your reference to operational data in 2004?

[mhaze]

As CD has suggested, it is ‘politically’ prudent to tie CLOUD in with AGW but I image the ultimate goal is, in reality, slightly more esoteric. IMHO I think the intent is just to better understand climate.

The link between solar variability and climate has long been suggested but no real mechanism has been suggested until now.The intent is just to better understand climate?

What foolishness. Do you not know that

1) CO2 causes a green house effect
2) increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect
3) the planet is warming
4) no other cause need be looked for, since 1,2,and 3 explain the effect
5) there is not any need to study things like solar effects

The scientific debate is over.:clap:

[justcharlie09]

The scientific debate is over.:clap:

But, if it's really scientific, then the debate is never really over. It might shift gears, but it isn't really over. If it were, then the scientific establishment itself would become a priesthood.

:D

Not anti-GW here, no problem with climate change as a reality, I just wonder about climate in general.

[cornsail]

So a guy who by his words shows little understanding of meterology is qualified to say "The CERN experiment is a joke".

What are your qualifications? Since you admit the importance of qualifications, do you accept the IPCC position (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf)? Are you aware of these studies on scientific opinion?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Or the positions of science academies/organizations?

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
http://www.grida.no/polar/news/2427.aspx
http://amap.no/acia/
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/11840/11842.aspx
http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://www.eurogeologists.de/images/content/panels_of_experts/co2_geological_storage/CCS_position_paper.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf

[Megalodon]

Making a weak argument up, then arguing against it is really quite silly.

The intent is just to better understand climate?

What foolishness. Do you not know that

1) CO2 causes a green house effect
2) increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect
3) the planet is warming
4) no other cause need be looked for, since 1,2,and 3 explain the effect
5) there is not any need to study things like solar effects

The scientific debate is over.:clap:

And this is why I don't put you on ignore... you are just too amusing :)

[macdoc]

The CERN experiment if it ever comes to fruition MIGHT contribute to the understanding of cloud formation under certain conditions and in certain terrains.

It's totally a wild outrider to think it will have significant impact on the current warming due to GHG let alone supplant it.

[BenBurch]

Again, if GCRs were a significant forcing we would be in a pronounced cooling now.

We aren't;

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

[BenBurch]

However, here is a SHORT term cycle in weather, and by connection climate, that is absolutely controlled by the sun;

http://pda.physorg.com/sunsrotation-sun-lightning_news177169609.html

[mhaze]

But, if it's really scientific, then the debate is never really over. It might shift gears, but it isn't really over. If it were, then the scientific establishment itself would become a priesthood.....Yes. Which was the point of my ridicule. Here, rest assured you stand admist not the priests, but the supplicants and fervent believers.

But don't worry though about not being able to see through the crowd, as you stand among dwarfs of intellect, that being stunted by Belief.

....Not anti-GW here, no problem with climate change as a reality, I just wonder about climate in general.Oh, it changes all right. That it do. It's cold down here today.

[mhaze]

The CERN experiment if it ever comes to fruition MIGHT contribute to the understanding of cloud formation under certain conditions and in certain terrains.

It's totally a wild outrider to think it will have significant impact on the current warming due to GHG let alone supplant it.Well, to someone who's mind was already shut, I would agree with that person's conclusion, that from the point of view of his shut mind, contrary evidence would be wild outriders.

Not only wild outriders, but scary, demonic monsters, thundering hooves or crawed feet, on the edges of the flocks of sheeple. Ravenous creatures, taking down a gullible weak sheeple. Creatures hat come only in the most disturbing of storms, only to be seen in flashes of lighting.

Yes, macdoc. The spirit of scientific inquiry is scary.

[Megalodon]

Well, to someone who's mind was already shut, I would agree with that person's conclusion, that from the point of view of his shut mind, contrary evidence would be wild outriders.

Not only wild outriders, but scary, demonic monsters, thundering hooves or crawed feet, on the edges of the flocks of sheeple. Ravenous creatures, taking down a gullible weak sheeple. Creatures hat come only in the most disturbing of storms, only to be seen in flashes of lighting.

Yes, macdoc. The spirit of scientific inquiry is scary.

Well, whenever you're ready put down the drama flakes and posit an hypothesis that explains one observable fact not explained by the current GW theories, as I asked you in the previous page.

Or keep running... you're good at that...

[brantc]

Well, whenever you're ready put down the drama flakes and posit an hypothesis that explains one observable fact not explained by the current GW theories, as I asked you in the previous page.

Or keep running... you're good at that...

"Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

[Megalodon]

"Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

Are you going to try to make an argument of any kind, or just copy-paste from a newspaper?

[macdoc]

What "contrary evidence" would that be??

You've provided none.... only Hail Mary speculations.

••••••

Either cite my purported lurid alarmism or withdraw it.

[bobdroege7]

Keep an eye on this, no matter what the denialosphere says that it is impossible to happen cause it's just too cold down there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4126979/The-mystery-of-Antarcticas-speeding-glacier.html

One little old glacier could do a lot of damage all on it's own.

[Belz...]

The intent is just to better understand climate?

What foolishness. Do you not know that

1) CO2 causes a green house effect
2) increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect
3) the planet is warming
4) no other cause need be looked for, since 1,2,and 3 explain the effect
5) there is not any need to study things like solar effects

The scientific debate is over.:clap:

Ah! So that's what you think. No wonder you don't understand.

[Mr Clingford]

Notice he ignores the ocean.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Total-Heat-Content.gif

Tunnel vision on atmospherics...:garfield:

macdoc (or anyone), where can I find the data that forms this graph?

[Poptech]

Are you aware of these studies on scientific opinion?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
Oreskes study has long ago been debunked.

The fact remains that Oreskes deliberately and deceptively called a paper "The scientific consensus on climate change" while using the search term "global climate change" thus leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers. This alone debunks her study. But only 13 (1%) of her cherry picked papers explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

- 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey
- 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change
- The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 "specialists" out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.

Or the positions of science academies/organizations?
Can you show the vote or survey of the membership of these organizations in support of these statements, otherwise they are nothing more than the opinion of the dozen or so council members who voted on them.

There is no consensus.

[Poptech]

You've provided none.... only Hail Mary speculations.
What do you think computer climate models are?

[mhaze]

Actually, neither the argument that computer models have faults, or that cosmic rays and the solar wind affect Earth's climate in ways we don't fully understand, constitutes a "Hail Mary" argument with respect to AGW.

These are both pretty factual matters that scientists are looking into.

It is the AGW argument as opined by the True Believers, in which CO2 is the cause of fantasized warming that when it doesn't exist, is said to be buried deep in the oceans, or off in the future, itself which is the "Hail Mary" argument.

Ah! So that's what you think. No wonder you don't understand.That I parody the Warmer concept of "understanding" is lost on those to whom "understanding" is limited by rigid semi religious Beliefs.

Thank you for proving my point.

Cheers!

[BenBurch]

Ah! So that's what you think. No wonder you don't understand.

Indeed. He has stunningly missed the point. Unless, of course, he is not being actually honest.

[cornsail]

Oreskes study has long ago been debunked.

The fact remains that Oreskes deliberately and deceptively called a paper "The scientific consensus on climate change" while using the search term "global climate change" thus leaving out 11,000 papers!
The search term was "climate change" according to the paper. Why is that a problem exactly?

567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change
Were they climate scientists?

- The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 "specialists" out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.[/B]
It was 75 out of 77 climate scientists who had published in the last 5 years. Obviously it's not a survey of all climate scientists, but if you couldn't extrapolate from sample to an extent, then no one would conduct polls.

Can you show the vote or survey of the membership of these organizations in support of these statements, otherwise they are nothing more than the opinion of the dozen or so council members who voted on them.
The council members are elected by the vote of the members, though.

There is no consensus.
There is no spoon.

[BenBurch]

...
There is no spoon.

Sporks, however, are still a matter of debate.

[Megalodon]

These are both pretty factual matters that scientists are looking into.

Yes, real scientists... not like those fake communist scientists with their "Dr" and "Prof" at the LEFT of their names that have been studiyng the CO2 effects for the past decades...

...fantasized warming...

You lose, again...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814accd954a88b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17776)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147cd8e2bb41e8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11124)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814a3f327f48acf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16728)

Run boy, run...

[macdoc]

and again

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Total-Heat-Content.gif

all based on OBSERVATION....

anyone care to calculate the amount of thermal energy represented there.....:boggled:

little wonder Pine Island is being melted from below

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/antarctica-pine-island-glacier-melting-four-times-faster-than-10-years-ago.php

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/is-pine-island-glacier-the-weak-underbelly-of-the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet/

and Arctic cover just dipped below 2007.....

[lomiller]

The search term was "climate change" according to the paper. Why is that a problem exactly?



That was latter corrected to “global climate change” and it’s irrelevant to the papers results since it returned enough papers for statistically valid results and contains no obvious sampling bias.

[CapelDodger]

As CD has suggested, it is ‘politically’ prudent to tie CLOUD in with AGW but I image the ultimate goal is, in reality, slightly more esoteric. IMHO I think the intent is just to better understand climate.

I think the intent is to justify someone's long years of work trying to back up a favourite hypothesis.

The link between solar variability and climate has long been suggested but no real mechanism has been suggested until now.

The link has long been sought, ever since the solar-cycle was identified in fact. And it has long failed. This GCR mechanism is hardly the first to be posited just to fill that particular gap, but the real problem is in the observations. The solar-cycle hypothesis addresses a question which is not asked by the data. Instead the question has to be wrung out of it.

The experiment at CERN does not advance climate science. It involves nucleation by charged particles over very short periods. Meanwhile the same team is pushing an overwrought correlation between GCR's and cloud formation with a 4-7 day lag. Note the imprecision. Another mechanism will have to be conjured up to explain that, and so ad infinitum.

Of course they do have to hand the argument that cloud-formation, even given nucleation, is not fully understood. It iss, in fact, quite well understood when applied to long-lived nucleation, which in cloud-chamber terms applie to every bit of dust, soot, salt, spore, metor dust and what all else. Fleeting effects of GCR nucleation are supposed to show up through all that, days later? It doen't make any sense, does it?

Clear it from your mind, make room for more serious stuff.

[CapelDodger]

It was 75 out of 77 climate scientists who had published in the last 5 years. Obviously it's not a survey of all climate scientists, but if you couldn't extrapolate from sample to an extent, then no one would conduct polls.

Polls are a typical warmer tactic. Petitions get at the truth. irony


The council members are elected by the vote of the members, though.

So was the Politburo.

There is no spoon.

Not under socialism there isn't.

(Hi, I'm CapelDodger, like your style :))

[CapelDodger]

That was latter corrected to “global climate change” and it’s irrelevant to the papers results since it returned enough papers for statistically valid results and contains no obvious sampling bias.

PopTech will cling to his belief, even though he had to invent a "common myth" strawman as a surrogate for the Oreskes study (if a blinding glimpse of the obvious really requires much study) to launch a thread on. His strawman, as we all remember, included papers on the physical and economic impacts of climate change set against some invented "catastrophic" norm.

The norm, as we all know, is still just this side of "disastrous".

eta : Poptech has reopened the "common myth" thread, using Sen Kerry as evidence of the myth's existence. Denialists think they won that exchange. Bizarre, but true.

[macdoc]

Must be heat islands :garfield:

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US

ScienceDaily (Nov. 12, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows.
continues
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm

[Poptech]

The search term was "climate change" according to the paper. Why is that a problem exactly?
No it was "global climate change" and the problem is this left out 11,000 papers from the study. Which is both dishonest and deceptive.

Were they climate scientists?
Please provide me with the scientific procedure to determine who is a climate scientist.

It was 75 out of 77 climate scientists who had published in the last 5 years. Obviously it's not a survey of all climate scientists, but if you couldn't extrapolate from sample to an extent, then no one would conduct polls.
Determining the 77 was subjective irrelevance. (those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change). This is clearly a joke as the survey has no way to determine who is an expert in climate science (it clearly state's "those who listed") and did not verify their subjective irrelevant requirement of more than 50% of their papers being on the subject of climate change.

The council members are elected by the vote of the members, though.
No they are not.

There is no consensus.

[Poptech]

That was latter corrected to “global climate change” and it’s irrelevant to the papers results since it returned enough papers for statistically valid results and contains no obvious sampling bias.
No it does not as the paper is making sweeping claims of "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." without mentioning that every paper was not looked at. She has a clear sampling bias by using a biased search phrase.

[Poptech]

Poptech has reopened the "common myth" thread, using Sen Kerry as evidence of the myth's existence.
It does not get anymore common of a myth than for a former U.S. Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator to repeat it.

[BenBurch]

http://pda.physorg.com/icesheet-massloss-mass_news177258173.html

Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.

This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland's fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.

[CapelDodger]

No it was "global climate change" and the problem is this left out 11,000 papers from the study. Which is both dishonest and deceptive.

How can it be dishonest and deceptive before the change was made? It was entirely accurate in its own terms. It's for you to judge how deceptive it might be but it clearly didn't work on you.

Please provide me with the scientific procedure to determine who is a climate scientist.

You guys are so demanding. It's a sign of infantility.

There is no consensus.

There's a cast-iron consensus in your shrinking world. In the real world there's a very different one.

[CapelDodger]

It does not get anymore common of a myth than for a former U.S. Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator to repeat it.

How common are US Senators? I've never met one myself.

Sen Kerry didn't repeat your strawman myth. He issued a challenge to the sad AEI front-man loser smirking at his own opinion. Where's the list that the loser promised? What was his name again?

[BenBurch]

Is he still here? I love that ignore button.

What do you think about Greenland?

If that accelerates at this rate we will be talking centimeters per year soon in sea level rise.

[CapelDodger]

Is he still here? I love that ignore button.

So you missed Poptech rising to Sen Kerry's bait. Which is something I was watching for :).

What do you think about Greenland?

If that accelerates at this rate we will be talking centimeters per year soon in sea level rise.

Whatever, I really can't care that much about Greenland. Nor the Antarctic. It's the denialism itself that I find interesting.

[daenku32]

I think this is new: Arctic sea ice below this time '07.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

[Poptech]

How can it be dishonest and deceptive before the change was made? It was entirely accurate in its own terms. It's for you to judge how deceptive it might be but it clearly didn't work on you.
The paper explicitly (http://www.menerga.si/pdf/clanki/c4.pdf) states...

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change"Are you telling me Oreskes is so stupid as to not know what search words she used? Or did she not think anyone would bother to check her work? The real reason is more likely that using those search words did not give her the conclusion she was looking for.

You guys are so demanding.
So you are unable to answer this simple request? Fail again.

[BenBurch]

...
Whatever, I really can't care that much about Greenland. Nor the Antarctic. It's the denialism itself that I find interesting.

I guess I still hope there is a future for my species.

[CapelDodger]

I think this is new: Arctic sea ice below this time '07.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

What annoys me in myself is that I specified a summer Arctic sea-ice extent record minimum in 2009 in my 2007 prediction. Had I been aliyttle less specific I could claim success on scant evidence. As it is I had to concede failure.

I can take it.