Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 Next
Comments 23601 to 23650:
-
Eclectic at 20:56 PM on 6 August 2016They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Rex @12 : like you, I first thought that "Climate Change" was just a recently-coined euphemism for the harsher more-threatening sounding "Global Warming".
However, on learning more of the history of it, I found I had been wrong - the term is quite some decades old and has been contemporary over many decades with "Global Warming". Sure, "Warming" is more accurately depicting the mechanism and process and general effect of the Greenhouse Gas effect which has become so strong [geologically].
Nevertheless, "Change" is a term having its own virtue, in that both hotter and colder events [as you may have seen with the N.E. of USA having a previous very cold winter from the so-called Polar Vortex] can occur on top of the overall warming. So, "Climate Change" is not evasive or dishonest.
Rex, you are also wrong about the many other points you raise.
The very recent, very rapid global warming of the past century or two is a real, simple fact - and is nothing caused by "politics". It simply exists, and is getting worse - as a consequence of simple physics: the Greenhouse Gas effect, almost entirely triggered and driven by the geologically-sudden rise in atmospheric CO2 caused by [you guessed it!!] the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuel. The evidence is plain. Physical evidence - entirely free of politics.
In geological terms, the climate has been stable and unchanging for 8,000 years. The very slight wiggles (during that time) in planetary surface temperature have been tiny and insignificant - until the major change of the past 100 years or so.
To say that the climate is always changing, is a misleading/dishonest statement in terms of the context of our current modern problem of rapid Global Warming. Remember please, that the planet was a super-hot molten blob about 5,000 million years ago - but that is a dishonest statement if I mean it to imply it doesn't matter if you (or anyone else) dies in a modern wildfire which is "relatively cool" compared with conditions 5,000 million years ago.
-
shoyemore at 19:37 PM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
JWRebel,
I have previously noted what you point out - it is only in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and possibly New Zealand that Magical Thinking took root in the mainstream of political life. In the UK, neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland voted for Brexit .
While I would not tout the Celtic nations as models of brilliant governance, there does seem to be harder and more practical edge to decision making that is clouded in other English-speaking countries by deniers and ideologues who have somehow got a grip on parts of political life.
I trace it to the Reagan-Thatcher years and the installation of a "free market" ideology at the heart of political life. Now, I am as pro-free-market as most people, but not as an ideological fetish. But it is a fetish that greatly assists those already in positions of power.
-
chriskoz at 16:57 PM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
Tom@4,
and which [the media] gives climate science denial and racism no serious critical scrutiny (often being biased in favour of the former, and in noteworthy case, in favour of the later)
[my emphasis]
Can you please point that case? I've seen many cases of climate denial favourism in AUS media but not rasism. I think all major media here have commented unfavourably on Hansesn's racism be her party still recieved as big support as you describe. I think media did not fail in this case. If they only have been denouncing Robets as "Galileo" leader as widely as they did with Hansen's rasism, he would not have been elected, for sure.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:06 PM on 6 August 2016They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Rex @12:
" The American press NEVER uses the term Global Warming anymore and the same is true of our government and in the media. Period."
A google search for "global warming" limited to news finds articles using the term by USA Today, Voice of America, the New York Times and the New York Post, just on the first page, and all on the first page of the search results. Your doubly emphasized 'fact' is clearly a fiction. I generally find that when people have to invent 'facts' that just ain't so to strengthen their argument, their argument doesn't hold water.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:49 PM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
Digby @5, while I can interpret it as an inadvertent pun (given that elections sort parties), I am not sure how it makes sense as a Freudian slip. I wouldn't read too much into it in either event, given that I am a haphazard speller at best.
-
Rex at 15:46 PM on 6 August 2016They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
I have not read everything here so i apologize if my questions duplicate others. So, it seems to me that these changes have been tracked over an incredibly short time, geologically speaking. How do scientists (NOT just scientists who support Global Warming or Global Climate Change) position their theories in light of a very short time we have tracked this. In terms of geologic times we have seen evidence of major climate changes (not just warming). Also, there is plenty of evidence that many, many scientists, as late is the 1970s, were trying to convince us we were in the beginning of a global cooling that would have devastating effects. Of course, this leaves skeptics today, adamant about their skepticism and rightly so! Next, you say that the terms, Global Warming and Global Climate Change are "loosely" related after you make the case that this is not a loose relationship at all. Finally, you say that the charge that "they have changed the name...." and that the terms have always been used and that the term Global Climate Change has been used for many years is therefore evidence that there has been no "change of name." This is patently untrue. The American press NEVER uses the term Global Warming anymore and the same is true of our government and in the media. Period. There was a change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change. This is undeniable. This also stokes skepticism on two levels; first, suspicion as to the reluctance to commit to "Global Warming." If they are both legitimate according to your text, then why do proponents refuse to say the name?); second, it leaves many of us to charge that this is or at a minimum, has become a political, not a scientific issue. Liberals have clearly used this as a political issue to demean those who express skepticism. Your arguments are not conclusive. There IS science that puts this into question in terms of GEOLOGIC time and the nature cycles of global climate change. Plus, why the desire to use a term that does not enlighten and leaves itself open to skepticism? One cannot deny that when speaking geolically, Global Climate Change is the NORM, not the exception. It is not only NORMAL but EXPECTED and INEVITABLE. So why use a term that does not enlighten? Global Climate Change? Might as well make it even more generic and meaningless by calling it simply, "Change."
Moderator Response:[TD] You wrote "Also, there is plenty of evidence that many, many scientists, as late is the 1970s, were trying to convince us we were in the beginning of a global cooling that would have devastating effects. Of course, this leaves skeptics today, adamant about their skepticism and rightly so!" But you have repeated a myth--a false statement. For the facts, read the post "What Were Climate Scientists Predicting in the '70s?" After you read the Basic tabbed pane, read the Intermediate one. If you want to discuss that myth further, please do so on that thread, not this one.
You wrote "One cannot deny that when speaking geolically, Global Climate Change is the NORM, not the exception. It is not only NORMAL but EXPECTED and INEVITABLE." In fact, the change in global temperature from at least the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century was due partly and increasingly to human activities. The temperature change since the mid-20th Century has been due dominantly to human activities, and since the mid-1970s more than 100% due to human activities (because human emissions of reflective aerosols have caused cooling that offset some of the warming influence of greenhouse gases). See the posts "The Human Fingerprint in Global Warming," being sure to read not just the Basic tabbed pane, but then the Intermediate one and, crucially, the Advanced one. If you want to comment on that topic, do so on that thread, not this one.
-
davidOnewell at 15:45 PM on 6 August 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
I am having trouble finding support for the contention that most CO2 which enters the ocean gets there through the action of falling rain.
can you point me in the right direction or otherwise advise me?
Thank you.
dn
-
Digby Scorgie at 15:27 PM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
That was an interesting typo, Tom, or was it a Freudian slip?! "parties sort election". It took me a while to realize you meant "parties sought election", not that they "had the election sorted"! Never mind, we're all guilty of such slips from time to time — but sometimes they're especially intriguing.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:10 AM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
chriskoz @1, while it is a travesty that Malcolm Roberts got elected, it is not a travesty related to Australia's electoral system (which is one of the best in the world, and far superior to those of the US or Britain). Pointing to his 77 personal first preference votes in no way makes it so. The full statistics are that One Nation recieved 229,056 first preference votes above the line. Pauline Hanson, who had the number one position for One Nation in Queensland recieved a further 20,927 which would have likely gont to Roberts had he been in the number one position on the ticket. Combined, One Nation recieved 9.1% of the first preference vote. With 12 Senators elected, that represents 1.1941 quotas, so the real question is how did Roberts get elected with just 19.4% of a quota in first preference votes (after the quota for Pauline Hanson's election was removed); and the answer is from second or later preferences from people who voted for the various other racist, anti-science and irrational parties that sort election.
The failure in democracy here is not from the electoral system, but from the media which gave One Nation no serious critical scrutiny; and which gives climate science denial and racism no serious critical scrutiny (often being biased in favour of the former, and in noteworthy case, in favour of the later). It is also represents a failure of the education system which has failed to teach critical thinking and basic statistics to over 20% of the Queensland population. Finally, it represents a failure of the politicians of the established parties who have resorted to cheap untruths and half truths rather than having the courage to clearly articulate the reasons behind their policies; and who have refused time and again to make appropriate stands on principle (as for instance, against Australia's asylum seaker detention scheme).
Far better to have an electoral system where such fringe parties get into parliament in low numbers where they typically implode, and where their views can be directly adressed and criticized than to allow large groups in the population to become so disenchanted with government and government policy that we have a situation such as in the US (Trump), Phillipines (Duarte), of Britain (Brexit) where irrational or worse candidates or policies can become mainstream.
-
JWRebel at 11:00 AM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
One of the things that always strikes me is the stridency and intensity of much climate denial. At the same time, it seems largely limited to the Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere. In many other areas of the world (notably continental Europe) there is no such counter point. Shell in the Netherlands wouldn't dream of contradicting the science in public statements. There are a lot of people that think/hope that it isn't all that serious to varying degrees, but few who think climate science is made up.
Perhaps the paid disinformation campaigns and media ownership play a large role in this strange Anglo anomaly, but such a suggestion risks charges of conspiratorial thinking — the problem is that a lot of plots, racketeering, conspiracy, politics, alliances, etc., do in fact take place.
-
nigelj at 10:31 AM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
This webite is the voice of reason. Greenhouse fingerprints were the one thing more than anything else, that convinced me we are warming the climate.
This message needs wider public dissemination somehow. It shifts the debate away from endless arguments about hockeysticks and cosmic rays etc. Its something the wider public would generally grasp.
But I want to echo the comments by Chriskoz. How do these people even get elected? The trouble is politics is a "profession" open to anyone, and is sometimes persued by very uneducated people, or fanatics with ideological agendas.
Of course many politicians mean well and are nice people, but its the fanatics that get attention and sadly sometimes have influence. I don't know what we do, because democracy demands the political system be open and I generally support this. Sometimes democracy is its own worst enemy.
I imagine nothing will convince Malcolm Roberts, or he will soon forget, or is probably so invested in his particular world view he will be very reluctant to change. But we must still try to convince these people. I remain an optimist.
-
chriskoz at 09:17 AM on 6 August 2016One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
One mioght think that preference voting system in AUS (the most complex in the world) in all its preference flow rules, gives fair outcome.
Then, he's the outcome of senate election in QLD involving Roberts:
A One Nation Senator Got Elected With Just 77 Personal Votes
IMO, it's a farcical outcome, that just 77 votes for Roberts (probably only by his fellow members of so called "Galileo" movement - a marginal, flat-earth society type science denial group that we used to debunk here but don't bother anymore) resulted in Robetrs now representing 4.6m strong population in the parliament.
Roberts is unfit for that role not only because he denies basic science but also he denies basic rules of the society he lives in
One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts wrote bizarre 'sovereign citizen' letter to Julia Gillard
How can a person with any integrity run (and succeed!) for the tax funded public office, while not wanting to be part of this very taxable society? That's simply a self-contradiction. I call such outcome farcical, that the voting system trying to be as democratic as possible resulted in such absurd outcome. That proves the senate voting system in AUS needs improvement to avoid such outcome in the future.
The fact that the founder of so called "Galileo" movement got elected to the senate is more bizzare IMO, than the candidacy of Trump to US president. Although Roberts is less likely to do the damage to the society he represents (let's hope reasonable people will effectively silence him) than would-be trump-president would do.
-
gpace at 04:49 AM on 6 August 2016Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Hallo, this is my first post. I am Giancarlo Pace, ex- astronomer. I am spending some time checking some deniers' arguments. Most of them are easily debunked and do not deserve scientifical attention.
However, I did find something that still sounds reasonable to my non-expert ears. Bjorn Lomborg (who is not exactly a deniers but seems to be not too worried about climate change) shows in a video of a terrible youtube channel, a plot that seems to indicate that droughts are decreasing. Misteriously, he does not indicate the name of the authors of the paper, he says that it is a Nature paper of 2014. However, the paper exists: Hao et al. 2014
http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141The paper does not state any decline in droughts, but actually their Figure 5 shows what definitely seems to be a decline in number of droughts since the 80s.
If you want to watch the video, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWtaackIJU
I read here that collectively, the number of extreme weather events is declining, but I only get an insurance company as source. Do you have some scientific research on it?
Thanks a lot
-
climatehawk1 at 01:44 AM on 6 August 2016Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
Thanks, I understand about using the original headline, just want to urge careful consideration, as with all due respect, I don't think it's the best choice in this case.
chriskoz @2, the question is not scientific integrity, but of communication with a general audience. Try to see the headline for a moment with "fresh eyes"--as if you knew nothing about climate science. The other articles, with different headlines, are all scientifically accurate, as far as I can tell--the question is what the headline conveys.
OK, thanks all for listening.
-
Art Vandelay at 23:17 PM on 5 August 2016Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
"As I understand it, the Midwest has warmed more in the Fall, Winter and Spring than it has warmed in the Summer. Since they have not warmed much in the summer yet, they have not seen an increase in summer heat waves".
Perhaps that's an expected consequence of a falling temperature gradient between the equator and the N pole. (?)
The situation is different in Australia for a variety of reasons but it's nonetheless interesting to note that far more high temperature records are being set in urban areas than rural, and even with "angry summers" the pre 1980 state records have not yet been superseded.
-
Art Vandelay at 23:00 PM on 5 August 2016Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
"The six coastal stations are nestled quite closely together near the tip of the peninsula, as the map below shows. Together they cover an area equivalent to 1% of the Antarctic ice sheet. As the authors acknowledge, this means their results do not imply anything about the Antarctic Peninsula as a whole, much less the entire Antarctic continent"
The problem I see here is that it logically follows that previous high rates of warming at the tip of the peninsula must be as equally insignificant as the recent cooling trend.
I gues we call it global warming for good reason, because localised regional climate changes, regardless of sign or phase are not necessarily related to human induced climate change.
Whether intended or not, readers will infer fromn this study that the previous attributed warming of the peninsula to greenhouse warming was exaggerated.
-
chriskoz at 18:55 PM on 5 August 2016Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
climatehawk1@1,
There are different explanations for the processes going on in the Antarctic, that have little to do with "natural variability". For example, the observation:
The portion of ice that floats on the water rather than sitting on land has increased over the satellite record
can be explained by decreased salinity of the shalow waters in Southern Ocean, thus giving it better chance to the winter freezing.
The fact that this article does not focus on such explanations, but tries to find other factors, does not make it bad. Its title reflects the actual focus of the article therefore appears adequate. On top of that, the article does not claim that other factors do not exists. Your argument that Google search finds all those other unmentioned factors, does not invalidates the integrity of this article, nor its title.
-
topal at 13:00 PM on 5 August 2016New research shows penguins will suffer in a warming world
"But the important extension of this work is into the future." Making predictions is difficult especially about the future. At best, this work is a What-if analysis.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:03 AM on 5 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
MA Rodger @14, having crunched the numbers, to drop to an anomaly of 0 in one month requires a drop that is 3.55 standard deviations of the mean monthly drop in temperature anomaly over the period January 1981-present. The drop would be nearly one and a half times the largest monthly drop to occur in that interval, including during the Pinatubo eruption. Alternatively it would require an average drop of more than 1.6 times the maximum six month drop in that interval, including during Pinatubo. I would like to revise my opinion, and now agree with Robb that it is decidely optimistic.
With regard to presentation, I have no major problem with KT's chart, but think it needs a line indicating the benchmark, as shown below:
The idea is that the relevant comparison is not with monthly cumulative value, but with mean cumulative value over the full decade. If the 2010s line did drop back to the 2000s value in six month, and maintained the same average rate of increase thereafter, it would still win the bet for the climate realists.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:14 AM on 5 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
By my method for running decadal data, since current decade and previous decade are inclusive of a full 10 years, it would actually require both data sets to fall back to 0°C and stay there for six months in order to bring the current decadal average 0.001°C below the previous decadal average.
I agree. I'm thinking that's not in the cards.
-
MA Rodger at 03:25 AM on 5 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Rob Honeycutt @13.
Your opponent appears to be a true stary-eyed optimist. For is green & red lines to come back together by the end of the year (which is his 'guess' for what we can expect) let alone "cross back under", it would require the last five months of 2016 to average +0.063. Such a five-month average last happened back in early 2012 but to instantaneously happen following a value of +0.4 would require a leap into fantasy.
I say five months as July's UAH6 & RSS are both posted yielding a value of +4.3 - the divergence of red & green continues.
I have to say I am not very impressed with any of the graphical representation of this 2000s/2010s comparison so attempted a quick alternative here (usually 2 clicks to 'downlaod your attachment'). (Note, the reason why my graph suggests a warmer 2010s has been running since February while the Kiwi Thinker shows it only since May is because the first years of 2001-10 were on average warmer than the last years of 2001-10. It took a couple of extra months to match those warmer early years.)
-
climatehawk1 at 01:39 AM on 5 August 2016Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
MHO: There are several better headlines out there on this story, and I wish you had used one of them, instead of one that seems to play into the notion that all of this stuff is natural cycles. Just Google on "Antarctic peninsula" and you will see them. Your site is fantastic, and I'd like to see all the headlines be top-notch as well.
Moderator Response:[JH] When we reprint an article, we generally use the headline of the article as it appears on the originating website. Such is the case for this OP.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:37 AM on 5 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
I think we're saying essentially the same thing. The terms get confusing because of the progressive weighting method KT is using. If I'm not mistaken, for the current decade line to drop below the previous decade line would require a La Nina at least double the scale (or duration) of the recent El Nino. For that to happen within "the next 6 months" would require something even greater in scale than that.
But again, I think my running decadal chart is a much better indication of where things actually stand and is also a better illustrator for where things are likely going to end.
On the issue of data sets, I think the terms of the bet lock us into TLT data. We did update the UAH data to v6, and I assume RSS will eventually update their TLT to a v3 similar to their other data.
Right now we're using the cooler version of the RSS data, and the updated UAH TLT data acted to cool the data. Even at that we're still likely to win the bet. I ran a test of my chart using the new RSS TTT data and the effect was... um, dramatic to say the least.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:30 PM on 4 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Rob, he describes his method, saying:
"I have shown ‘the race’ as it progresses by graphing an accumulating total, ie: adding 1/120th of the average of the UAH and RSS monthly global anomalies month by month. The sum of these numbers after 120 months (10 years) is of course the global decadal average."
Given that method, in any month with a negative anomaly, the cumulative sum is decreased. Therefore, for a negative trend, a sufficiently strong La Nina would do it. Having said that, by some indices, 2008 was a record breaking La Nina, and by others 2011/12 was among the strongest La Ninas on record. While 2008 resulted in a distinctly negative short term trend due to several months in a row with a negative anomaly, 2011/12 only managed a couple of negative months interspersed among positive months so that the overall short term trend was flat. That negative short term trends are possible is clearly seen in the graph below in the 2008 values (around week 97 on the red line).
Given this, and global warming, for a new La Nina to actually generate a negative short term trend in this method, it would have to be off the charts. Likewise, for a volcano to do it, it would have to be larger than Pinatubo. Possible, but unlikely in both cases. An interval with no gain, ie, a flat short term trend, however, is possible with a moderate to strong La Nina.
Having explained that, it occurs to me that we may be talking at cross purposes. If you are maintaining that La Ninas cannot make the full trend negative (ie, from week 0 to the current week) I would agree. Global warming has taken that one of the cards. But in that case neither was KT claiming that it would likely occur.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:06 PM on 4 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Because of the way KT has created the graph, I'm not so sure a La Nina would do it. Because of the fact that he's weighting the graph as it goes, that gives his chart, essentially, a diagonal axis. As new cooler data is added, it would offset previous warming data and maintain the same diagonal (flat) trend. I believe the 2008 La Nina shows prominently because the previous warming data it offsets is much weaker.
-
chriskoz at 13:57 PM on 4 August 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #31
scaddenp@3,
Yes, Greg Hunt was env minister in the government that made the outrageous intervention you mention. The guy who explained their rationale (negative impact on tourism( is described as "the environment department spokesperson". That's obviously Greg himself or one of his staff working for him.
-
scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 4 August 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #31
This would be same guy that censored UN report on Great barrier reef?
-
chriskoz at 10:17 AM on 4 August 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #31
Big news about CSIRO this week:
Turnbull government [Greg Hunt] orders CSIRO U-turn towards climate science
Remember Greg Hunt is the same guy, who, as env minister couple years back, were famously learning about the science of AGW from Wikipedia, only those fragments that suited his denying narrative. He has also approved Adani’s Carmichael coal mine and dredging of Abbott Point (is it just a coincidence or a meaningful name after a person to take most shame) to export that coal thus maximise the "good for humanity" business. Certainly Greg did not undone damage his ignorance has done back them (will never undo) but he's trying in his new role as science minister to rebrand himself as climate science accepting guy.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:25 AM on 4 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Rob Honeycutt @9, the data used is the average of the RSS TLT (anomaly interval of 1979-1998) and UAH TLT (anomaly interval of 1981-2010). Because of the recent anomaly intervals, negative values are still possible with a strong enough La Nina (as happened in 2008) or volcano. Moreover, it is not clear that KT is projecting negative values, as five to six months of near zero values would bring about a cross over with the red line.
I think it is fairer to say that his comment is likely to be optimistic because it is consistent with his global warming skepticism. A La Nina as strong as that in 2008 would now result in a slowly rising trend rather than a flat or negative trend due to the increased underlying temperature in the interval.
On a side note, I presume the use of the most recent version of UAH (v6 Beta) is consistent with the terms of the bet. In that case the likely update of the RSS TLT inline with current update of the TTT and TMT products to version 4 will also be required by the terms of the bet before the bet is due. As that update resulted in a significant increase in the warming trend in the TTT and TMT products, it is also likely to do so in the TLT product, thereby increasing the overall trend (just as the update to UAH v6 will have decreased it). Given that, and given the decrease in the 2001-2010 cumulative sum in 2008 makes the "skeptic" side of the bet a poor one from the current outlook.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:25 AM on 4 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
KT is a little overly optimistic for his position, stating, "I’m guessing the green line will cross back under the red in five or six months as El Nino fades out and La Nina arrives."
He fails to grasp his own data. A La Nina will act to flatten the trajectory, not cause it to fall back below that trajectory. Meanwhile, models are actually projecting the La Nina to be a mild one.
-
barry1487 at 11:06 AM on 3 August 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
Couldn't find the widget for the bet on the right-hand side bar.
The "warmists" line has topped the "coolists" in recent months on Kiwi Thinker's chart.
http://www.kiwithinker.com/climate-bet/
(This is an updated link, so things may be different than today if you click on it later in time)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please use the link tool in the comment editor in future.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:45 PM on 2 August 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Aaron S @12:
1)
"I fail to see the connection between Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field. Are we are discussing climate relative to the sun's magnetic field deflecting Galactic Cosmic Rays? The Earth is something like a millionth the volume of the sun, and its magnetic field is weak regarding our solar system deflecticing Galactic Cosmic Rays."
From Scherer et al (2006):
"The Earth’s magnetic field shields us partly against galactic cosmic rays and solar
particles. The lower energy limit needed for a charged particle to cross the Earth’s
magnetosphere and access a specific position at the top of the atmosphere decreases
with the geomagnetic latitude of the observer, resulting in a cosmic ray flux on Earth
increasing poleward. The cosmic ray flux dependence on the geomagnetic latitude
was already observed shortly after World War II. Figure 28 represents the variation
of the flux of fast neutrons in the atmosphere with geomagnetic latitude measured
by Simpson (1951, 2000)."(My emphasis)
Fig 28:
Fairly obviously, if galactic cosmic rays where unaffected by the Earth's magnetic field, the variation of cosmic ray flux with geomagnetic latittude would be inexplicable. However, it is more interesting than that. To start with, according to Dunai (2010):
"Primary cosmic-ray particles with energies <10 GeV are modulated by the solar wind and by the Sun's 11-year solar activity cycle (Lal and Peters 1967, Eidelman et al. 2004). As a consequence of this modulation, galactic cosmic-ray particles with rigidities (see text box) smaller than 0.6 GV on average (Michel et al. 1996) cannot approach the Earth (at present the solar modulation potential parameter φ ranges from 0.3–1.2 GV, depending on solar activity; Michel et al. 1996, Masarik and Beer 1999, Usoskin et al. 2005, Wiedenbeck et al. 2005; see also Fig. 1.1).
Near-vertically incident particles dominate the primary cosmic-ray flux near the Earth's surface (Dorman et al. 1999; see also Section 1.3). Consequently, primary particles approaching the Earth's geomagnetic equator travel perpendicular to the geomagnetic field, whereas near the poles they travel essentially parallel to the magnetic field lines. Virtually all rigidities are permitted at the poles, while near the equator, rigidities well in excess of 10 GV are required to approach the Earth. The solar modulation limits the lowest energies at the poles to > 0.6 GV, having a consequence that the cosmic-ray flux does not increase monotonously approaching the poles, but levels off at rigidities close to the solar modulation potential (Fig. 1.4). Furthermore primary particles with energies close to the solar modulation potential are not energetic enough to generate a secondary particle cascade that can reach the surface. The resulting break in trend at high latitudes is referred to as the ‘latitude knee’. The decrease of the cosmic-ray flux with decreasing latitude below the latitude knee is sometimes referred to as the ‘latitude effect’."
(My emphasis)
In short, the rigidity induced by the Earth's magnetic field at the equator is approximatly 17 times that induced by the Sun, but while that induced by the Sun filters particles based on momentum equally regardless of terrestial location, the much larger terrestial rigidity at the equator falls to zero at the poles. That means in turn that the Laschamp event resulted in a large increase in bombardment of the Earth by galactic cosmic rays at the equator, but virtually zero effect at the poles. It also follows that the lack of climate perturbation at the Laschamp event represents a serious problem for the GCR/climate connection.
This point is proven by the close correlation between inverted Be10 production, and the strength of the Earth's geomagnetic field:
(Source)
2) Pursuing the effect of the Earth's magnetic field further, it means that if GCR do impact cloud albedo they will do so most strongly were the cut off rigidity is smallest. In fact, a map of the cut off rigidity should also be an inverse map of the strength of the effect:
That creates further problems for the theory. First, it means the strongest effect is at the poles, ie, where clouds overly ice and snow so that any change of albedo in the clouds will have limited effect on the albedo fo the Earth. Second, because of the angle of incidence, insolation per square meter at the surface (or cloud top) varies approximately with the cosine of latitude - approaching zero at the poles. So, the strongest impact of GCR on cloud albedo (if there is one) will be located where it has minimal impact on the energy budget.
3) I passed without note above that the cut off rigidity due to solar effects varies from 0.3 to 1.2 GV over the solar cycle, ie, by a factor of 4. In contrast, TSI varied by 0.12% between the solar maximum of 1958 (the strongest on record) and the solar minimum of 2008 (the weakes recent minimum). That difference in effect means it is not reasonable to assume that the GCR effect on climate (if there is one) is a linear function of TSI. Unfortunately I know of no formulation be advocates of the theory of what the relationship will actuall by (other than an assumed linear relationship). If somebody does know of such a formulation, I would welcome a link to it. Absent a formulation, however, the 'theory' that GCR effect climate is no sufficiently advanced as to even quantify the forcing effect. Indeed, given that the strongest effect will be at the poles where the greenhouse effect of clouds is far more significant than their albedo (because of the albedo of the underlying snow and ice), it cannot even securely determine the sign of the effect. That means in scientific terms it is not yet a theory, but at best a hint as to how a theory might be developed.
4) Despite (3) above, I will follow standard practise in this case and use TSI as a proxy for TSI plus GCR forcing. I will justify this base on the fact that if TSI plus GCR forcing increases at less than a linear rate with respect to increases of TSI, any GCR effect will be minimal and largely irrelevant. If it increases at greater than a linear rate, that should exagerate the apparent effect of TSI on climate even more than is shown by the linear assumption. Failure of a significant correlation between TSI and temperature will therefore show that the GCR effect is either very weak, or rises at a less than linear rate with rising TSI (and therefore is self damping).
Given the above, here is the normalized running eleven year means of TSI and Global Means Surface Temperature (BEST LOTI) from 1850-2008:
It is very clear that there is a poor correlation between the two. Indeed, the correlation between the unnormalized, annual values is just 0.416, with an r^2 of 0.173. Intuitively that means TSI explains 17.3% of the variation in temperature at most. Likely it explains much less once we allow for coincidental events and independence effects. For comparison, the correlation between CO2 concentration and the BEST LOTI (1850-2013) is 0.902, with an r^2 of 0.814.
-
MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 2 August 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
ArronS @12.
Do you not feel it is exceedingly presumptive of you to ask me, while examining your "abundant literature" on this subject of Svensmark's cosmic-ray conjecture, whether I have "addressed the new Nature paper"? Do you not realise that you had until now entirely failed to include this paper in your listing of "abundant literature"? And am I not disputing the existance of such an "abundant literature" and disputing your inclusion of papers you have so far listed? I am thus hardily the one who would know what you would or would not choose to include in your "abundant literature"!!
This particular paper Kirkby et al (2016) 'Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles' does follow on from papers addressed in the Original Post so comment on this new paper's relevance could be requested from the OP authors.
And if you do wish to include it in your list of "abundant literature", I would not go jumping to conclusions. In a Nature News item you will note Kirkby tells us of the results:-
"The latest experiments suggest that it may have been cloudier in pre-industrial times than previously thought. If this is so, then the masking effect, and in turn the warming effects of carbon dioxide, might have been overestimated, ... (but) ... itis too early to say whether this is true in practice, or by how much, because there are so many factors that play into such projections,"
And that comment is from one who in the past was supportive of Svensmark's conjecture. (The apperance in the paper's references of Kirkby (2007) 'Cosmic-rays & climate.' is indicative that the situation continues.) The other comment in the same Nature News item (from Knutti) says that the results will probably not affect the most likely projections of warming, as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Our best estimate is probably still the same," he says.
Regarding your various confusions w.r.t. Steinhilber et al (2012), you first confusion concerns quotes from the conclusions of their paper. Identifying how they reach such conclusions may be worth your consideration. Note that the word "significant" is used in a statistical sense & the word "remarkable" may be used more in its original less-sensational sense, meaning 'something worthy of remark'. Your second confusion appears to show you do not truly understand the first sentence of the Steinhilber et al (2012) abstract (You helpfully quote it @13.) which is perhaps clearer than my chosen quote from the paper. And just to be totally clear, the concensus view is that cosmic rays do not impact greatly on climate. The Steinhilber et al. position is that cosmic radiation proxies can be used also as proxies for solar magnetism and so in turn as proxies for TSI. Note this is the first three items in your causal chain @9 but backwards. Increase in solar activity-> stronger magnetic field -> less CR -> Less high albedo clouds -> more irradiance and warmer earth. The final two items are entirely absent (even by implication) from Steinhilber et al (2012) and thus their position represents a concensus position. The position presented by Tsonis et al (2015) is different: that a cosmic ray effect does exist which isn't yet addressed by climate modelling but that it is importantly not responsible for the recent global warming. A third position which is the one you appear presently signed-up to is the Svensmark conjecture that asserts that a major portion of the recent global warming results from cosmic-ray variations.
Concerning Tsonis et al (2015), the links @10 are presented for completeness & are in themselves of no great importance. Regarding Tsonis & Swanson, their seemingly-never-ending publications on what developed into their 'synchronised coupling' model of climate perhaps has apparently and thankfully ended with Tsonis & Swanson (2012). I feel that "dodgy" a reasonable description of it. If I address "character" it is the character of their writings not their persons so you high horse has no place here.
Concerning TSI since 1900, you wrote @9:-
"the last century stands out as one of 2 major increases in solar activity based on the isotope data, and is exceptional in the AA index, and SSN. You are probably confused about the duration of the trend becasue it is true that the last decade the sun's activity has dropped."
Unless you want to revise it, this statement very clearly implies you see a "trend" which is "one of 2 major increases in solar activity" lasting a century. You may not feel a century-long rise is much different to six decades of rise & four decades of slight decline, but the arbitor in this is the global climate and for the climate, the difference would be stark indeed.
-
chriskoz at 12:58 PM on 2 August 2016A climate scientist and economist made big bucks betting on global warming
Hope is just a calculated money-maker: he did not risk anything. Annan risked quite a bit by betting 4:1, i.e. his winning return was only 1.25. As the scientists he knew the actual odds of strong LaNina year being a local maximum along the warming signal were much smaller than that, so he could affford it.
Having denialist "put their money where their mouth is", does not teach them anything because the amounts involved (e.g. £1000 in Hope case) are too small. The problem is that the rewards from FF market are far surpassing (in the order of millions $) the losses from foolish and ignorant bets, like this by Plimer and Rudge. They happily pay it, meanwhile collecting cheques hundred times that much of perhaps laundered money, remunerating them for their service to GWPF.
-
michael sweet at 12:00 PM on 2 August 2016Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
Eksommer,
As I understand it, the Midwest has warmed more in the Fall, Winter and Spring than it has warmed in the Summer. Since they have not warmed much in the summer yet, they have not seen an increase in summer heat waves. The lack of increase in summer heat spills over into a lack of summer heat waves. Several years ago in spring there was a midwest heat wave where in several locations the minimum temperature at night was higher than the previous highest temperature measured during the day had been. That "heat" wave was not noticed by the general public much because the absolute temperature was not as hot as it gets in summer.
Thermal pollution is heat released into the enviroment. For example a central power plant heats up the cooling water that it returns to the environment. Black streets contribute thermal pollution to urban centers and cars release a lot of heat from the tailpipe. This heat is much less than global warming from carbon dioxide but can have severe local effects (for example if a river is increased in temperature by several degrees that affects the local fish). Occasionally the effects are positive. In Florida manatees like the warm water outflows from power plants in the winter.
-
Eclectic at 11:59 AM on 2 August 2016These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
Aaron S @10 . . . as an extra note for readers :- Aaron, in the "CERN CLOUD experiment" thread you had also mentioned (in more detail) some hypothesized effect on climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays.
In the same CERN thread, other posters refuted that hypothesis, also in more detail.
It seems evident that Cosmic Rays have little or no effect on climate changes.
-
wili at 11:20 AM on 2 August 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31
Thanks as always for this service. For July 24 you have this title twice:
Nuclear Subsidies Are Key Part of New York’s Clean-Energy Plan by Vivian Yee, New York Times, July 20, 2016
-
nigelj at 10:02 AM on 2 August 2016These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
Aaron @ 10.
We have a consensus on climate change at this point at time and its quite a strong consensus, like the consensus on evolution or basic theories of physics. These things could of course change, but it's unlikely.
Regarding cosmic rays. Science requires causation and correlation and currently causation is unproven, and over the last 50 years theres no increasing cosmic ray trend so no correlation. You must have both causation and correlation. If cosmic rays are contributing to recent warming, it looks at very low level to me at best.
Regarding solar irradiance and sunspots. We have various different cycles, and the 11 year sunspot cycles are too short to be a factor in the longer warming trend.
The longer sunspot / solar irradiance cycle shows a slightly falling tend over the last 50 years, so theres just no correlation. The affect of solar irradiance on temperatures is pretty instantaneous, so its hard to see how current temperatures would relate to increases in solar irradience over the early part of last century. The main potential feedback mechanism would be release of CO2 from the oceans, however the oceans have basically been acidifying from early last century so any feedback would probably be quite small.
So it's hardly surprising that most published science says all or nearly all recent warming is from CO2. Obviously there are also certain atmospheric changes which implicate CO2, such as nights warming faster than days, etc.
-
Aaron S at 02:30 AM on 2 August 2016These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
Not all skeptics of climate models deny that the trace gas CO2 is a significant GHG and directly capable of about 1.1deg C warming. Rather some debate the sensitivity of Earth's climate to changing the abundance of CO2 and other GHG because of uncertainties about the feedbacks that define most of the IPCC anticipated global warming (Base Case- say A2 scenario). Your consensus argument is problematic to me. Science is dynamic and so are scientists views (hopefully), and thus the claim of certainty in climate science is also dynamic. Even if there is certainty now, new data could introduce uncertainty as it guids us towards reality.
Currently, climate sensitivity is being challenged by data because Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) seem to keep emerging as a valid mechanism for forcing climate (3 recent papers below). This is significant because the sun spot number (SSN) is a valid proxy for solar activity (2), which includes TSI and magnetic field strength. The sun's pattern as observed in an 11 year running average of SSN shows that the sun's activity more than doubled from 1900 to 2000, and the absolute value of the slope of the trend was just under 3x as great from 1900 to 1950 as the negative trend was from 1950 to 2000. Currently, we are decending from the sustained solar maximum into a solar minimum. Your list above avoids this, and seems more a strawman argument by suggesting one man's opinion represents that of skeptics (Mann's link to an article about natural climate change says little about data and nothing about new insights into GCR). This page seems to also ignore the potential for the same sort of lags for solar activity that science envokes for the hiatus in explaining less antartic warming than anticipated or the hiatus.
I have almost no doubt that humans are causing significant global warming from GHG plus the feedbacks (as indicated in the papers below). In my own unpublished (for fun) models, I can not recreate global temperature data (HadCrut4) without significant AGW. For me, it is an invalid position to deny this. However, the body of literature for GCR forcing climate indicates to me they are 'likely' a climate forcing mechanism despite what the IPCC suggests, and to be fair several key papers have been published about GCR and solar activity's role in climate since the last IPCC publication. Also, there remains significant uncertainty about how much influence GCR and solar activity play in climate, there remains uncertainty if they play a role at all. However, there are valid questions lurking in the data:
What is the threshold for literature about GCR to actually be considered in an IPCC climate model? Do you really think the current assemblage of climate models has the low case confidently in its range? What happens to the IPCC and climate researcher credibility if we enter a significant Maunder like solar minimum and realize the sun is a stronger driver than in any model?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full -
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Aaron S:
The Sun’s magnetic field doesn’t stop all the cosmic rays from entering the inner parts of the solar system. The Earth’s own magnetic field stops much of the remaining from entering the atmosphere. A weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field – as happened during the Laschamp event – will thus have the same impact as the weakening of the Sun’s magnetic field during low solar activity.
As the chart in my last post shows, the flux of beryllium-10 (a proxy for cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere) nearly doubled. That change is comparable to the typical changes from solar maximums to solar minimums, but it lasted several hundred years. That should make any significant climate impact measurable in the climate proxies, but there is none.
In Alleys own words:
"We had a big cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And it is just about that simple! These cosmic rays didn’t do enough that you can see it, so it’s a fine-tuning knob at best."Like I said in my last post: Richard Alley pretty much killed the cosmic ray hypothesis!
-
eksommer at 22:35 PM on 1 August 2016Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
I don't understand this quote: The Midwest has not experienced any substantial summer warming and this spills over into heat waves," he said. What spills over into heat waves? The lack of experience?
Also, can someone explain "thermal pollution"?
Thank you!
-
chriskoz at 18:19 PM on 1 August 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #31
@1 is a dangerous spam. Do not open the link therein. Better be deleted by a mod ASAP.
Moderator Response:[BW] Thanks for the heads-up, chriskoz. Spam deleted.
-
Aaron S at 13:12 PM on 1 August 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
HK:
I fail to see the connection between Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field. Are we are discussing climate relative to the sun's magnetic field deflecting Galactic Cosmic Rays? The Earth is something like a millionth the volume of the sun, and its magnetic field is weak regarding our solar system deflecticing Galactic Cosmic Rays. The Sun is the player in our solar system. I need to watch the video- perhaps I am missing something, but no way does Alley imply we are talking solar cosmic rays. Then I can Revert.
MA Roger:
Did you address the new Nature paper that states:
"This could raise the baseline aerosol state of the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere and so could reduce the estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing from increased aerosol-cloud albedo over the industrial period."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
I am confused about a few of your points:
MA states:
"his comparison is not used to demonstrate some grand sun-effect on climate but rather to show the wobbles in their 9,200-year record can be found in climate data."
Steinhilber et al (2012) Concludes:
" A comparison of the derived solar activity with a record of Asian climate derived from δ18O in a Chinese stalagmite reveals a significant correlation. The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone."
MA states:
"Your first citation Steinhilber et al (2012) is certainly not part of such a literature as it tells us "TSI is taken as a proxy of solar activity" which is the particular position that Svensmark (& apparently you also) argue against."
Aaron S:
I don't understand what you mean. TSI is used for a proxy of solar activity. Solar Activity includes TSI, as well as magnetic field strength. Solar Forcing is the combination of both (perhaps even additional contributions from the exagerated flux of the UV spectrum of TSI).
Steinhilber et al (2012) (in Abstract):
"The new cosmic radiation record enables us to derive total solar irradiance, which is then used as a proxy of solar activity to identify the solar imprint in an Asian climate record. Though generally the agreement between solar forcing and Asian climate is good, there are also periods without any coherence, pointing to other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks. The newly derived records have the potential to improve our understanding of the solar dynamics and to quantify the solar influence on climate."
I think I am picking something up here: Are you guys thinking cosmic rays are from the sun- ie random solar storms that may interact with Earth? Just to be clear, the Svensmark theory are talking about Galactic cosmic rays from super nova explosions across the universe. These are relatively constant and originate from many different directions. The sun's magnetic field deflects these depending on strenght of solar activity, and then cloud cover is impacted by the amound of Galactic Cosmic Rays reaching the Earth. Yes the Earth's field plays a minor role to but clearly minimal compared to the sun. Yes our sun's cosmic rays can play a role in short term cloud cover and "weather" not climate, but again this is not what the Cosmic Ray theory is implying.
Regarding:
Tsonis et al (2015)- Please don't bring character into a data debate- not professional. I need to read your links to understand the problems. Have to revert back later.
MA issue with Solar Trend:
Really in fig 3D of the Steinhilber et al (2012) you don't see in 1910 we were in a solar minimum, characterized by increased CR intensity (weaker solar mag field, more cosmic rays, more nuclei, more clouds, more albedio, less sunlight), then by 1950 to 2000 we were in a very large and sustained solar max. Basically you have a very steep slope 1910 to 1950, then a very minor slope 1960 to 2010. This is difficult for me to understand how you say: "specifically that over the last century it has been a rising one." Furthermore, it is ironic to me when lags are accepted for things like the hiatus, but the role of the sun is considered invalid if there is a lag from say ocean circulation or whatever. It is bad logic.
-
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
I think Richard Alley pretty much killed the cosmic ray hypothesis here. The relevant part of the lecture starts at 42:00 if you don’t have the time to listen to all of it.
Below is the chart he’s referring to, showing how the flux of beryllium-10 produced by cosmic rays greatly increased as the Earth’s magnetic field weakened by 90 % about 40,000 years ago. The climate ignored it and that should be the end of the story.
-
MA Rodger at 23:23 PM on 31 July 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Aaron S @7&9.
I fail to see that there is any "abundant literature that does exist supporting the influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's climate." You certainly provide no evidence for such literature.
Your first citation Steinhilber et al (2012) is certainly not part of such a literature as it tells us "TSI is taken as a proxy of solar activity" which is the particular position that Svensmark (& apparently you also) argue against.
Perhaps you misinterpret the Steinhilber et al. comparison of their 9,200-year TSI record with the Dongge Cave δ18O record. This comparison is not used to demonstrate some grand sun-effect on climate but rather to show the wobbles in their 9,200-year record can be found in climate data.
(Note also that both sets of data are detrended as the "climate record has a large long-term trend due to orbital forcing." And further, even detrended, "this correlation, however, can only explain 10% in the total decadal to centennial variance in the AM (ie Dongge Cave) record." There is thus no grand Svensmark-type climate effect lurking in the Dongge Cave.)
Your second citation Tsonis et al (2015) is the work of a bunch which includes Tsonis and Swanson, a pair well know for publishing dodgy climate work. (Indeed, Tsonis et al (2015) is challenged here & reply here). Yet here Tsonis & Swanson let down denialism, their paper stressing that they agree here with the IPCC, saying:-
"it is important to stress that they (ie the findings) do not suggest that CR (cosmic ray) influences can explain global warming and should not be misinterpreted as being in conflict with the IPCC. Indeed, the opposite is true: we show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming."
I thus fail to see any coherent representation of an "abundant literature" supporting your position on the effects of cosmic rays on climate or your assertion that there is some sort of denial required to enable the IPCC's conclusions.
I also find fault in your description of the trend in solar output, specifically that over the last century it has been a rising one. Solar output did rise strongly 1900-60 but has since been on a declining trend. There has been decline not rise for the last 60 years.
Note that my position on all this is not anywhere greatly different to the comment by KR @8.
-
denisaf at 21:46 PM on 31 July 2016Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
This discussion of inevitable increase in heat waves and how they affect people provides some insight into a predicament that is bound to get worse in many global regions. However, there is a factor that will make the situation much more serious than depicted n this article. Society is very dependent on the services (such as air conditioning, the water supply, etc) provided by the existing infrastructure. This aging infrastructure uses irreplaceable materials for its operation and maintenance so the ineviable decline in the services it provides will make it harder for society to cope with the increase in heat waves and other manifestations of climate change (such as sea level rise).
-
Wol at 15:40 PM on 31 July 2016Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
@ nigelj : >>The largest problem is very high temperatures combined with humidity, as its harder to cool down because sweating is reduced. <<
I know where you are coming from, but sweating is not reduced - it increases greatly. Evaporation, cooling, is what is reduced.
-
Aaron S at 15:34 PM on 31 July 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
KR. Did you read the papers? Perhaps a reread is in order based on the consistent inconsistencies between your reply and the papers.
The first reference ( http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full) correlates the 9400 yr record to the equivalent Asian Monsoon proxy, which is not a global climate proxy, but represents a major regional data set. The authors conclude:
" A comparison of the derived solar activity with a record of Asian climate derived from δ18O in a Chinese stalagmite reveals a significant correlation. The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone."
So I am unclear what you mean by "not climate change"? It seems you missed a major part.
Second paper your quote is correct- the "Causation" was only found between CR and HadCrut3 after removing the warming trend. That is huge by itself and basically shows CR force climate, and yes the majority of modelers don't like this result- but I consider that as invalid reasoning for the validity of the conclusion. Also, please note that paper finds significant correlation between CR (AA) and the longer term (century scale) Gobal Temp trend (HC3), but not causation. The correlation is still significant and itself greatly strenghtens the case that CR play a role in climate change. It says little that it didn't pass the causation test becasue the Signal Noise Ratio was short given the data evaluated. I would be surprised to get a positive outcome for a centruy trend in a century and half of data. It would be a facinating study to use the 9400 yr data from the first paper and evaluate for causation as SNR increases with N.
Third. You say "CR trends over the last century would by those supposed mechanisms be a _cooling_ influence". Now I am really starting to question if you even read the papers as there is a significant increase in solar activity over the last century-> stronger magnetic field -> less CR -> Less high albedo clouds -> more irradiance and warmer earth, and the last century stands out as one of 2 major increases in solar activity based on the isotope data, and is exceptional in the AA index, and SSN. You are probably confused about the duration of the trend becasue it is true that the last decade the sun's activity has dropped. Of course, this is when the models start to run cool compared to the measured global temperatures of the satellite and Had Crut data sets, and given lags are a reality- we don't know the role of the decrease in solar activity yet.
Final point- Yes the IPCC discusses this in the text, but which model itteration has a stronger sun that considers CR? The text concludes not to use for models, models are used for predictions, predictions are used by society.
I hope this helps
Cheers,
Aaron S
-
KR at 13:19 PM on 31 July 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Aaron S - Your first reference details isotope proxy issues for cosmic ray and solar activity, not climate change, your second states "..although CR clearly do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales, providing another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability"; and even that influence is only supported by a minority opinion.
Add to that the facts that even the most generous estimates of CR influence are very very small, and that CR trends over the last century would by those supposed mechanisms be a _cooling_ influence, and it's no surprise that CR influences aren't considered a smoking gun in recent warming.
But not ignored; there is considerable discussion of CRs in IPCC AR5 WG1, Chapter 7, Clouds and Aerosols. You might want to look there before claiming that some significant issue is being overlooked.
-
Aaron S at 11:37 AM on 31 July 2016CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Based on the abundant literature that does exist supporting the influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's climate, how can anyone justify the IPCC ignoring cosmic rays and scenarios for stronger solar forcing in some of their global climate model iterations? The sun's activity significantly increased coeval with industrialization into a sustained solar max (see first link below), and it seems critical to understand the role of both solar activity and AGW to attempt to model Earth's climate.
Recent examples of the abundant literature that Cosmic Rays do influence Earth's climate (beyond the CERN nature paper above) include:
Pnas 9400 yr cosmic ray record correlated with asian monsoon.
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.fullPnas paper showing causation that cosmic rays force global climate in multi year time intervals and also a century of strong correlation
http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.fullVideo of Cern Paper (simple 5 min overview):
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought
Older papers include:
Geel, B.V. Raspopov, O.M. et al. The role of solar forcing upon climate change, Quaternary Science Reviews 18 (1999), pg 331-338.
The Svensmark set of papers like:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
Additionally literature: there are many papers that find the sun's highly periodic (22 yr today) signal of the Hale cycle paleomagnetic reversals preserved in regional climate proxy data like tree rings and lacustrine varves, and this solar magnetic periodicity most likely related to cosmic rays (here is one with an overview of some of the occurences):
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10933-008-9244-0
Question 2:
This list is just a fraction of the papers that support Cosmic Ray's forcing Earth's climate. What is the threshold for literature supporting cosmic rays to consider them as part of the climate system?
It seems pages like this keep deflecting the data driven debate and not dealing directly with the issue- now CERN and several other respectable climate physics labs have collectively made a statement in 'Nature' about the uncertainty of the models: "This could raise the baseline aerosol state of the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere and so could reduce the estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing from increased aerosol-cloud albedo over the industrial period."
I fear the threshold has been crossed and ignoring the context of the evergrowing literature and data about Cosmic Rays and the potential for a stronger sun for Earth's climate has become "DENIAL" of natural climate change potential that doesn't fit the IPCC dogma and introduces uncertainty in model predictions. Furthormore, this sort of denial could eventually erode public opinion of science and actually fuels the unwaranted denial of GHG influences and anthropogenic climate change.
Cheers,
Aaron S
Prev 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 Next
