Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 103 out of 103:

101. Peter Hogarth at 07:54 AM on 27 September, 2011
     tblakeslee: Interesting, but here are some other recent papers. See: Erlykin 2011“The contribution of CR to ‘climate change’ is quite negligible” Magee 2011 “the scientific rhubarb over cosmic/cloud connectivity can be made into a delicious pie” (!) Sloan 2011 “It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900”
     0 0
102. Riccardo at 08:25 AM on 27 September, 2011
     Even a cursory reality check makes the 0.5 °C DTR change for a 10% decrease in cosmic rays unlikely. The same 10% are aproximately the GCR intensity variation during half solar cycle; this means that we should see a 1 °C swing in DTR every 11 years. Anyone noticed it?
     0 0
103. Philippe Chantreau at 09:27 AM on 27 September, 2011
     Re Tblakeslee at 100: Do you realize that this is the very same Dragic paper that Muouncounter linked to earlier to showq that events that may have an effect, as small as it might be, are rare and happen only a few times a year?
     0 0
104. muoncounter at 09:40 AM on 27 September, 2011
     Here's the prior comment. The Dragic paper is quite good: with FDs that reduce the count rate by 7%, there's a detectable increase in DTR, but for FDs with only a 5% decrease, the effect disappears. Did someone say 'hardly a robust result'?
     0 0
105. skywatcher at 09:50 AM on 27 September, 2011
     tblakeslee, I think we should ignore your arguments until you respond to David Lewis' comment at #99 regarding Richard Alley's presentation. If cosmic rays had little effect during this massive excursion 40kyr ago (cosmic ray flux doubled for a thousand years), why should the much smaller variations have any sizeable effect at all? This is quite apart from all the other reasons that we know cosmic rays are nothing more than a fine tuning knob.
     0 0
106. Stephen Baines at 09:58 AM on 27 September, 2011
     Riccardo makes a good point. Also the fact that there is a greater effect with a smaller sampling size (less events as amplitude of FD increases) also worries me. I would have conducted a more robust null model, maybe a Monte Carlo simulation that generated sets of randomly placed events, just to see what the odds of getting an apparent significant effect by random chance, and how that changed with the threshold used.
     0 0
107. tblakeslee at 07:08 AM on 30 September, 2011
     Muon 104 The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation has a threshold and interacts with other conditions such as temperature, humidity and dust particles. That's why the Forbush effect is robust when you work backward, starting with abrupt cloud changes. There are parts of the world that don't need cosmic rays for cloud formation because of dust or pollution. The arctic and the mid pacific probably account for most of the effect. If you look at contrails in the sky and ship trails on satellite photos of the ocean you will see how cloud formation often needs some seeding to make clouds. To really see the strong effect of cosmic rays you need to focus on areas that are usually dust free. Here are temperature anomoly graphs from a paper that focuses only on the Arctic. First, plotted with solar irradiance: Then plotted against CO2: "> http://www.epi-us.com/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf Which horse would you bet on?
     0 0
     Response:

     [DB] Your 2nd linked graphic has no URL.  It is considered good form to give a source (and a link where it exists) to outside sources used.  Example:

     Your first graphic is from:

     http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image023.gif

      

     And the last is from: 

     http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image024.gif

      

     BTW, appinsys.com is well-known to be a disinformationist site.  Original sources are best.

108. Philippe Chantreau at 07:24 AM on 30 September, 2011
     Usually dust free? Funny, another skeptic argument is that soot particles are the main culprit in the meltdown of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap. That would ahardly qualify as "dust free." But then again, skeptics using that argument always fail to show if there is any kind of trend in BC particles deposition in said regions. Oh well. Looking at these graphs Tblakeslee, I wonder how they look like with another 10 years of data? Don't we have a number of interesting data pieces on the "it's the Sun" threads?
     0 0
109. Albatross at 07:39 AM on 30 September, 2011
     tblakeslee @107, Quite compelling graph that Willie Soon produced for the Arctic there ;) Have you been truly skeptical about the data and methods he used? I have, and I suggest that you might want to be a true skeptic before uncritically posting stuff that supports your beliefs. Nowhere in his paper does Soon make reference to cosmic rays or GCRs, so odd that you are citing a paper to support your assertions about GCRs that does not even mention GCRs. Why would one expect regional temperatures to mimick CO2? A more appropriate measure of the influence of solar would have been the incident solar energy over the Arctic. Regardless, why use TSI reconstructions from Hoyt and Schatten (1993) when those data are at odds with those form Lean et al. (1995), Solanki and Fligge (1998) and Lockwood and Stamper (1999)? Why choose an outlier? And for the record, Willie Soon has, shall we say, a rather dubious track record when it comes to publishing papers. So citing him does not do one's credibility much good.
     0 0
110. Riccardo at 08:14 AM on 30 September, 2011
     When one sees the temperature in the arctic correlating with TSI in winter more than in summer, the alarm bell rings and one would expect a strong justification, instead of a generic call into action of a sharper temperature gradient. Closing the offtopic on TSI and back to GCR, it would be interesting if tblakeslee could tell something about the threshold effect for GCR induced cloud formation, I never heard about it.
     0 0
111. Tom Curtis at 08:35 AM on 30 September, 2011
     tblakeslee @107: 1) Why did Willie Soon use an obsolete (1995) reconstruction in 2005 rather than one of the more recent reconstructions that calibrate against satellite observations? As Willie Soon is an astronomer, he would certainly have know that direct observations contradict his chosen reconstruction over the period 1978-2005. 2) Given that six years is a long time in science, why are you not using one of the even more recent reconstructions, such as this 2010 effort by Krivova et al. 3) Do you really think the flat or declining insolation since c.1950 explains the rising Arctic temperatures? Or that the solar minimum lower than any other since 1910 over the last few years explains the record low actic sea ice extent in 2007 (and nearly matched in 2011)?
     0 0
112. skywatcher at 08:35 AM on 30 September, 2011
     I see Philippe beat me to it... regardless of the methods used, what happens as you go from 2000-2011 in Soon's graphs? Does the correlation hold? I think not...
     0 0
113. skywatcher at 08:39 AM on 30 September, 2011
     Should've thought of this before posting: Tamino has a nice graph of regional Arctic temperature. tblakeslee, see if you can match up that graph to any of Soon's, and of course much more importantly, to Tom's graphs above.
     0 0
114. KR at 09:00 AM on 30 September, 2011
     tblakeslee It's impossible to take anyone seriously if they have not looked at the available information. Please, please view the relevant portion of the Dr. Richard Alley 2009 lecture, the time between 42:02 and 43:17. You have been referred to it more than once now. Alley shows what I would consider extremely solid evidence in this debate. Once you have viewed it, I for one would be curious as to your opinion on that evidence.
     0 0
115. Tom Curtis at 11:11 AM on 30 September, 2011
     Skywathcer @113, here is Tamino's graph of gistemp arctic overlaid on a detail of the Krivova reconstruction. Graphic techniques only are used, so I do not claim an exact match, but it is clear that solar forcing is not the main player at any stage in 20th century, and runs counter to the temperature trend post 1980. Sorry about the lack of clarity of the gistemp data. I had to significantly compress its vertical scale to match it to the solar data.
     0 0
116. muoncounter at 11:49 AM on 30 September, 2011
     tblakeslee#107: "the Forbush effect is robust when you work backward" Dragic clearly shows the FDs are the very definition of 'not robust,' forwards, backwards or upside down: 7% FD = effect, 5% FD = no effect, not a robust statistic (resistant to errors in the results, produced by deviations from assumptions) Are you seriously suggesting that the CR/cloud connection is determined in this 2%?
     0 0
117. Bob Lacatena at 12:53 PM on 30 September, 2011
     tblakeslee, It amazes me that you'll fight and claw to prove that a long-shot theory like GCR is it, while you'll dismiss overwhelming evidence for theories that you don't want to be true. You'll take a graph off of a disinformation site that is riddled with errors. If you were at all skeptical, you'd look at half of those pages on appinsys, see for yourself how wrong they are, and know you couldn't trust anything there. Your two graphs are from the 2005 paper by the infamous Willie Soon. Read about his funding sources here. Read about his polar bear debacle here. Or read about him right here at SkS. I wish I could find someone who bothered to debunk that particular paper, but it seems to have been pretty much just ignored by everyone, probably because (a) the author is not credible and (b) the argument has been debunked in so many ways that a silly attempt to "argue" a strong solar correlation in the way he did is itself pitiable.
     0 0
118. Philippe Chantreau at 15:41 PM on 30 September, 2011
     Forard, backward and upside down defines how strongly some will held to their beliefs, but, as we've seen, not how critical they can be of a result's significance...
     0 0
119. Jonathon at 21:29 PM on 30 September, 2011
     Tom, I am trying to understand your conclusions from the graph. Assuming that I am reading it correctly, it appears that both solar output and temperatures were lower during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This was followed by a steady increase in both for several decades. The temperature appeared to reach a peak in the 1940s, while solar activity continued to rise until the 1950s. Then, both decreased, reachign a relative minimum around 1970. Both then increased for the remainder of the 20th century. From what I read from the graph, the greatest disconnect is during the 1950s. Please explain how you reach your conclusions from this graph.
     0 0
120. Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 30 September, 2011
     Jonathon @119: 1) The most dominant feature of the solar signal is the 11 year solar cycle, whose fluctuation between peak and trough is very large compared to the rise of the smoothed signal from c 1910 to c 1950. That large cycle leaves no obvious imprint on the changes in Arctic temperature such as we would expect if variations in solar output where the main driver of variations in Arctic temperature. 2) The variations of the temperature signal above and below the smoothed TSI signal are of a similar magnitude to the rise in the smoothed TSI signal from 1910-1950 indicating that at least one other factor of similar importance the rise in TSI influences the temperature signal, even if we assume (which we are not entitled to do on this data) that most of the rise in temperature from 1910 to 1940 is due to the increase in TSI. 3) Contrary to your claim, the greatest disconnect between temperature and smoothed TSI is in the early 21st century. That disconnect is greater than is indicated in that the next few years of the TSI which would bring the TSI to the same endpoint as the temperature signal show a continued decline. From (1) and (2), it follows that TSI is at most 1 of several factors influencing Arctic temperatures over the course of the 20th century. I doubt statistical analysis would show it to be responsible for more than 25% of the variation in the signal, and more than 66% of the early 20th century trend. (3) on the other hand shows clearly that changes in TSI become decreasingly important to variation in the late 20th century and early 21st century, and indeed, because of the opposite trend of TSI and temperature in that period, we know that TSI is responsible for none trend in temperature in that period. Indeed, the more responsibility TSI has for the early 20th century trend, the more changes in TSI are counteracting a stronger influence which is responsible for the late 20th/early 21st century trend. We know independently that that stronger influence is a combination of enhanced greenhouse warming and the ice/snow albedo effect. None of this is relevant to the main point of posting the graph, which is to show the absurdity of presenting Willie Soon's graph as evidence in 2011. Soon's graph was obsolete when he made it, and is doubly so now. Its reconstruction of TSI is known to be in disagreement with direct observations of TSI by satellites. In fact, it was known to be so by Soon when he first prepared the graph. What has not been specifically commented on in this thread (although alluded to by Skywatcher), Soon's "Arctic temperatures" are not "Arctic temperatures", but rather based on a small number of Icelandic, Scandinavian and one Russian station from north of the Urals. Apparently Soon's Arctic includes neither Alaska, the Canadian Archipelago, nor Siberia. The exclusion of three quarters of the Arctic from Soon's "Arctic temperatures" was necessary to have a mid century temperature peak as strong as that in the early 21st century, a peak needed to match the c 1950 TSI peak. Soon is an astronomer, so he may not known about the flaws in his temperature index the way he certainly knew of the flaws in this TSI index. But that certainly does not mean it is appropriate to use that flawed index today, when we certainly do know better. Finally, while on the subject, Soon would certainly have known that the CO2 forcing does not rise linearly with CO2 concentrations. Consequently displaying a "correlation" between CO2 concentrations and temperature instead of CO2 forcing and temperature is certainly calculated to mislead. That makes two graphs in one paper by Soon which he knew where deceptive and misleading, both reproduced here by tblakeslee. He may not have known the misleading nature of the graphs before now, but he certainly does now. Because Soon knowingly published two such misleading graphs, we can be sure his intent is not to inform. We know also of anybody using those graphs that they are not true skeptics, whatever they claim, but rather are simply seeking confirmation of beliefs they find convenient without sufficiently high premium being placed on those beliefs being true.
     0 0
     Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] tag fixed as requested (no problem)
121. tblakeslee at 03:09 AM on 4 October, 2011
     KR 114 I finally found time to watch the lecture to the 40 minute mark only to find a brief mention of Laschamp. I'm glad I watched it though as it brought me to discover some fascinating work on the interaction of the earth's magnetic field with that of the sun. During Laschamp event the earth's magnetic field was greatly reduced with little effect on the earth's temperature as measured by C14 and Be10 isotopes. The key seems to be in the fact that cosmic rays include a wide variety of energy levels: The Be and C isotopes are mostly formed high in the atmosphere. Only extremely high energy particles effect climate because they can survive all the way down to the low cloud altitude below 2000 meters. Here is a quote from a 2007 paper by Svensmark: "Although the climate changes of the last 12 000 years have indeed followed the cosmic-ray variations, Beer and Muscheler were already co-authors of a paper arguing strongly that the cosmic rays were not the driver (Wagner et al. 2001). They had striking evidence from 40 000 years ago, in the Laschamp Event when the geomagnetic field became very weak, in what may have been a failed reversal of the field. Without the screening effect of the geomagnetic field, the cosmic-ray influx increased dramatically. In a Greenland ice core, the counts of beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 atoms produced by cosmic rays went up by more than 50% –and no cooling ensued. The result was compelling because the climate indicators – oxygen-18 and methane abundances – came from the same layers of ice as the radionuclides. This clear example of the climate failing to follow the cosmic-ray variations was challenging. No quantitative answer was forthcoming until recent calculations traced the origin of the penetrating muons that are responsible for most of the ionization of the air at low altitudes (Svensmark and Svensmark 2007). Then a clear and consistent picture (figure 7) emerged from the CORSIKA program developed for the Karlsruhe Shower Core and Array Detector of orschungszentrum Karlsruhe, at progressively higher energies of the incoming primary cosmic rays. Most of the penetrating muons come from relatively rare primaries of such high energy that they are indifferent even to the solar magnetic field. Primaries of low enough energy to be repelled by the geomagnetic field account for only 3% of the low-altitude muons. So it is unsurprising that the near-disappearance of the geomagnetic field, whether in Laschamp-type events or full reversals, should have little effect on climate compared with changes due to solar modulation. On the other hand, radionuclides are mainly produced higher in the atmosphere, by cosmic rays of lower energy that are more susceptible to variations in the geomagnetic field. Although they remain invaluable for registering cosmic-ray changes due to solar variability, as in figure 5 for example, radionuclides can no longer be taken as infallible guides to climatically effective cosmic radiation, when either the geomagnetic or the galactic environment changes. http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf Our current understanding of the interaction between the sun and earth is undergoing rapid change. New satellite discoveries are confirming that Alfvin's ideas of an electrical basis were probably correct. Here is a recent discovery: "NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. "The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms". Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake." http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
     0 0
122. KR at 04:17 AM on 4 October, 2011
     tblakeslee - The Laschamp anomaly certainly indicates that magnetic field variations (induced either by solar activity or Earth field fluctuations) do not affect climate via throttling cosmic ray activity. And no matter what affect the magnetic fields have upon cosmic rays, there has been no appreciable change in cosmic ray amounts over the last 100 years during this time of global warming. Your other theories (as presented in this thread), including Landscheidt's cycles, are equally poorly supported. Cosmic rays are just not a major forcing.
     0 0
123. muoncounter at 04:22 AM on 4 October, 2011
     tblakeslee#121: "Only extremely high energy particles effect climate because they can survive all the way down to the low cloud altitude" I'm sorry, that is just not true. Muons routinely detected at surface have an average energy of approx 4 GeV; this is not 'extremely high.' The highest energy cosmic rays are in the 10s of EeV range. Anyone claiming that clouds decrease during Forbush events must know, at the level of Wikipedia, that those events are caused by relatively low energy solar cosmic rays.
     0 0
124. tblakeslee at 10:09 AM on 7 October, 2011
     KR " there has been no appreciable change in cosmic ray amounts over the last 100 years" That is not true. Please look at this paper in Nature: "The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field 7, 24. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood 15, 16. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change 17. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. Using surrogate interplanetary measurements, we find that the rise since 1901 is by a factor of 2.3. This change may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field." By changing cloud formation this field can account for most of the observed global warming. http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
     0 0
125. muoncounter at 11:49 AM on 7 October, 2011
     tblakeslee#124: The paper you linked (Lockwood et al) is from 1999, prior to these measurements: In 2008, the sun set the following records: A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. In addition, there's this report: "The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to," says McComas. "That means less shielding against cosmic rays." In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more." Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%. So, no, the sun is not more magnetically active; shielding from the dreaded GCRs is down, not up. This is not a mechanism to explain most of the observed warming. Further comments specific to the sun should go to the thread 'its the sun.'
     0 0
126. tblakeslee at 02:29 AM on 8 October, 2011
     The observed warming isn't happening anymore. The panic about global warming came near the end of the published graph. It was such a scary rise that we panicked and attributed it to the only thing we could think of that was increasing dramatically: CO2. That was an honest mistake but now that warming has stopped we should reexamine the evidence and realize that it wasn't CO2. It was the sun, which we cannot control. The ocean slows down the effect but we are already seeing the cooling trend. The last four July PDO readings were -1.67, -.53, -1.05 and -1.86. We have already had to start calling global warming "climate change." Soon we will be calling it "global cooling." It's OK for science to make an honest mistake but it is time to reexamine the decision to blame CO2 for all that the sun did and start rethinking the climate models.
     0 0
     Response:

     [DB] "The observed warming isn't happening anymore."

     Now you are simply trolling.  Perhaps you missed the announcements about 2010 being the hottest year on record?

     "It was the sun, which we cannot control."

     Waaay off-topic and very wrong as well.  Debunked and rebunked.  Use the Search function to find the "It's the Sun" thread for a more appropriate thread for this discussion. 

     Please note that this is a science-based discussion forum.  As such, unsubstantiated opinions, like those in your comment above, are given little credence.

127. pbjamm at 02:37 AM on 8 October, 2011
     tblakeslee@126 seriously? you think that the only connection between CO2 and warming is circumstantial correlation? You should inform yourself more if you are going to spout off. Or this is Olde Fashioned Trolling.
     0 0
128. DSL at 03:47 AM on 8 October, 2011
     tblakeslee, you say that with such confidence, yet you do so while failing to address the radiative physics of CO2. How do you explain away the warming that must be occurring with increased atmospheric CO2. I'm not saying you can't; I'm saying you aren't, and it's a major gap in your position.
     0 0
129. muoncounter at 04:26 AM on 8 October, 2011
     tblakeslee: Pick a position. First it was low cosmic ray counts, then it was contrails and ship trails, then the sun's magnetic field - all responsible for most of the observed warming. Now you've switched to its cooling. There is a somewhat dated (mid-2010) thread for that (see the 'Most used arguments' panel). On that note, the existing 'its cooling' thread needs an update, especially with the fact that it's not cooling.
     0 0
130. tblakeslee at 11:39 AM on 8 October, 2011
     Wow! That's a lot of words you are putting in my mouth. I never said that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming but I have consistently been saying the same thing: The sun's magnetic field influences cloud formation and clouds affect temperature more than CO2. Cosmic rays are affected by the sun's field. Contrails and ships trails show that conditions exist for cloud formation with a little help from a nucleus or ion. You will soon see who is right when the effect of the change in sun activity shows itself even more dramatically with cooling climate. If it gets hotter you win.
     0 0
     Moderator Response: [DB] All unsupported assertions. You have been repeatedly shown the errors of your ways yet you continue. That is your choice. As is the choice of all here to disregard those selfsame unsupported assertions in favor of science and physics.
131. KR at 12:28 PM on 8 October, 2011
     tblakeslee - "If it gets hotter you win." No, if it gets hotter, we all lose. This isn't a contest, tblakeslee, it's life, it's reality. Not a rhetorical contest, not a "who's hypothesis is bigger" comparison. Unfortunately, it gets hotter is what we can expect if you actually look at the data.
     0 0
132. Philippe Chantreau at 14:47 PM on 8 October, 2011
     I don't remember where that fantasy hypothesis about contrails came from. Contrails are a fairly well investigated and well understood phenomenon and, as a long time pilot and flight instructor, I am yet to read about any link between them and cosmic rays (?!?). Any scientific reference discussing this would be welcome. The burning of kerosene in an airplane's engine yields CO2 and H2O, i.e. water vapor. Contrails form because the addition of water vapor pushes the air past its saturation point. The most important factor, indeed the only factor of demonstrated importance in the formation of contrails, is the relative humidity at the altitude where the gases are released. In very dry air, contrails do not form at all, or dissipate shortly after their formation. Interestingly, aiplanes can also leave distrails, in which the increased temperature has the effect of decreasing relative humidity and returning water to the gaseous state. And they do this even when there is already plenty of CCN available, since clouds formed in the first place. Contrails are somewhat different from the condensation that can be seen forming in the cores of vortices generated by airfoils. They are due to a locally decreased temperature (pulling the air to its dew point) caused by a decrease in pressure due to the high angle of attack of the airfoil. These can be seen when airplanes fly slow in air that is very humid. High performance airplanes pulling high G maneuvers will sometimes create fog in the resulting area of low pressure, most often near the upper surface of the wing. Supersonic airplanes will create a cloud of fog at the boundary of the shock wave when passing the sound barrier, once again because of pressure drop. Interestingly, there is another fruitcake variety of conspiracy theory, postulating that contrails are some sort of "gubmint chemical spraying operation." It got way more attention than it deserved, as is usually the case with that kind of crackpottery.
     0 0
133. tblakeslee at 00:29 AM on 9 October, 2011
     Nice theory but here are a couple of quotes that disagree: "Jet contrails differ from ship tracks by forming where water vapour traces in the air are able to condense on fine particles of soot ejected from engines after the combustion of kerosene." http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/14/ship-trails-stop-rainfall-in-its-tracks/ also here is a quote from a research paper on jet airplane contrails: ". Soot controls ice formation in contrails for high number emission indices including the range of current global fleet values. A fivefold reduction of soot emissions from average levels of 5 × 1014 − 1015 (kg-fuel)−1 approximately halves the initial contrail visible optical depth. " http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036649.shtml
     0 0
     Response:

     [DB] Please take the discussion of contrails to a more appropriate thread, like CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

134. tblakeslee at 01:23 AM on 9 October, 2011
     Here is a map of temperature trends from satellite data that shows that global warming is not really global but rather concentrated in the arctic region. Note the graph on the right shows a slight cooling in the southern polar region: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tmt Much more info at: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm The influence of the sun's magnetic field is clearly visible in these regions by the northern lights aurora displays. Can someone tell me the explanation for this focus on the north polar regions under the theory that CO2 is the primary cause?
     0 0
     Response:

     [DB] Besides the obvious cherry-picking, using information derived from a known disinformationist website (appinsys) tremendously undermines your credibility here.

135. Riccardo at 01:36 AM on 9 October, 2011
     So, in tblakeslee's opinion, global warming is not global because a fraction of the earth (ocean to be precise) arounf 60° S is not warming. Talk of cherry picking! Not breaking news, though, GISS shows a similar plot here.
     0 0
136. tblakeslee at 02:35 AM on 9 October, 2011
     I asked a question because I am trying to find the truth. It appears that global warming is primarily an effect in the arctic area. Planetary averages simply mask the causes. CO2 is uniformly spread over the planet while magnetic fields are much stronger near the poles and of opposite polarity in the two hemispheres. In post 107 I posted some graphs showing excellent correlation of temperature anomalies with solar activity in the arctic. The responses rejected it with nitpics about the CO2 plot not being logarithmic. (Since there was only a 27% increase in CO2 the plot would have been virtually identical.) Denial makes it very hard to look at data that conflicts your beliefs but I suggest you look again with an open mind. The very idea that a world maximum temperature was reached in February 2010 is based on the averaging of world temperatures which was distorted by the very high numbers in the arctic. Here is a map of temperatures in that month: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/0210.jpg?w=500&h=339 If we are going to find the cause we must focus on the problem itself and not destroy data by averaging out most of the effects.
     0 0
     Moderator Response: (DB) Actually, the truth is global warming is but one aspect of a much larger issue: climate change.
137. Riccardo at 03:17 AM on 9 October, 2011
     tblakeslee do you want to build a climate theory on the anomaly of one single month? Given that you changed the graph to better meet your needs, I'd still call it cherry picking or trolling. As for why the arctic is warming more, look for "polar amplification".
     0 0
138. tblakeslee at 05:43 AM on 9 October, 2011
     No, but I think issuing a press release that it was the hottest month shows how unsound the global average is for decision making. The map I posted before shows how this pattern is not unusual. Global warming is really arctic warming.
     0 0
     Response:

     [DB] Alright, no more off-topic comments (and this applies to everyone).  If anyone wishes to pursue any of this further, please take it to the appropriate thread.  This thread is about CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate.

     tblakeslee, part and parcel of adherence to the Comments Policy of this website is staying on-topic to the OP of the thread you are posting on. Nearly 5,000 other threads exist here at SkS on virtually anything related to climate science.  Please use the Search function to find the most appropriate thread for comments not pertaining to this thread.
     

139. Riccardo at 05:53 AM on 9 October, 2011
     See, tblakeslee, there's something that makes me (and probably others) stop paying attention and responding: "The map I posted before shows how this pattern is not unusual." (emph. mine) Either you mean that this pattern is typical under global warming, which is true, or your claim is meaningless.
     0 0
140. tblakeslee at 02:21 AM on 10 October, 2011
     After years of writing editorials urging action to stop global warming (www.clrlight.org) I realized that it was possible that the IPCC had made a mistake. Before writing about my realization, I decided to discuss my ideas on this blog to hear the other side of the argument. The responses I received were mostly "straw man" arguments about mistatements of my position and ad homium attacks on my sources. It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma. I was hoping you would change my mind but instead you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith. Very disappointing!
     0 0
     Response:

     [DB] "I realized that it was possible that the IPCC had made a mistake."

     Certainly "possible", but do not conflate "possible" with "probable".  In a many-thousands-of-pages document, errors can creep in.  Typo's and some minor errata in WG2 and WG3, yes.  But the core of the science of climate change found in WG1 is unchanged and really not scientifically contested.  A long, but good, read.  I recommend it.

     "The responses I received were mostly "straw man" arguments about mistatements of my position and ad homium attacks on my sources."

     Please give examples to them.  Failing that, this is an unsupported and unsubstantiated attack on the other participants here and you will need to withdraw that attack with the requisite words of apology.

     "It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma."

     IBID.

     "I was hoping you would change my mind but instead you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith."

     Since you have no scientific position and basis to rely upon you fall back upon the usual rhetoric of those with a paucity of factual substance for their platform and the prosecution of their agenda.  Very disappointing and unoriginal.

     Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

     Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts (yes, you are still off-topic). We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
      
     Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

     Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

141. Dikran Marsupial at 03:21 AM on 10 October, 2011
     tblakesee The first post of yours I can find is this one, which shows you arrived here with an "attitude" and were not seeking try out your ideas. That post includes a dig at the IPCC (that they were "betting" on CO2, rather than having arived at ther position by rational science, a dig at the reviewers of Kikrby's paper suggesting that they had forced him to write stuff (unsubstantiated, and that is the reviewers job you know!). It also contains references to theories long debunked (Landscheidt - no statistical validity). I suggest that if you really want to test out some ideas, then you need to change the style of your posts, by (a) having some humility and (b) asking questions rather than making (largely unsupported) statements. I for one am happy to discuss Landscheidt and Svensmarks theories with you, but only as part of a calm rational dialogue. The ball is in your court.
     0 0
142. Eric (skeptic) at 05:17 AM on 10 October, 2011
     Thomas R Blakeslee, I looked through your website (link above) and saw that you are very talented and successful. Despite your proven track record in many areas, it is quite possible (and seems likely) that you have made some mistakes or received incorrect information regarding the effect of solar magnetic modulation of cosmic rays and thus clouds. Like other solar effects on weather, the cloud modulation is complex and multifaceted causing both cooling and warming depending on factors like cloud altitude, diurnal cycle, latitude, etc. It seems to me (and hopefully to the rest of the SkS regulars) that the ideas of the Clearlight foundation (linked above) are very useful to the cause of fossil energy mitigation. It would be a shame to lose that focus in arguments over various details of the cosmic ray effects.
     0 0
143. Philippe Chantreau at 08:09 AM on 10 October, 2011
     Tblakeslee, please provide clear concrete examples of real ad hominem arguments. If you can't, you should withdraw that accusation. R Pielke Sr. recently proved to be incapable of supporting the same argument and resorted to talking about other things. Not that talking about other things was a bad idea, but then he shouldn't have launched the accusation in the first place. Not to be off topic [DB] but Tblakeslee brought up contrails as an element that, as suggestedt, was related to GCRs. No substantiation. Is there any scientific information that would establish such a link? You provided a page talking about soot. The relatively abundant soot in aircraft exhaust makes any possible influence of GCRs deeply irrelevant. However, I stand by my assertion that the increased water vapor pressure is the most important factor in their formation. Proof of that is that they quickly dissipate or fail to form in dry air, despite the same concentration of soot particles. I am yet to see any study even atempting to link contrails and GCRs. Do you know of any? http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/oth/cntrl.rxml I note that you did a very selective quoting of the AGU abstract, here is more: Soot controls ice formation in contrails for high number emission indices including the range of current global fleet values. A fivefold reduction of soot emissions from average levels of 5 × 1014 − 1015 (kg-fuel)−1 approximately halves the initial contrail visible optical depth. Further soot reduction reverses this trend at temperatures well below the formation threshold temperature unless emissions of sulfur and organics are cut substantially. " Also, I noted that you said that Global Warming was Arctic warming, yet in your map in post 134, the entire globe is showing positive anomalies, except for a few patches in the Southern hemisphere. I don't see that as being limited to the Arctic, even if the Arctic is seeing more warming.
     0 0
144. skywatcher at 13:20 PM on 10 October, 2011
     tblakeslee, to add to the collection of mistakes, perhaps you'd like to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. Perhaps you could tell us all why that highlights one particular fallacious claim of yours?
     0 0
145. muoncounter at 07:41 AM on 11 October, 2011
     tblakeslee#140: "It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma. ... you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith. " What utter unsubstantiated nonsense. On this thread and on the parallel thread Cosmic rays: backing the wrong horse, knowledgeable people met your misconceptions with arguments backed by scientific literature; example here, to which you made no reply. And rather than admitting the factual errors in 'its the sun,' as shown here, you concoct a 'correlation is causation' argument that the well-known Arctic amplification is due to polar magnetic fields. There is nothing 'faith based' in this discussion, except your complete adherence to the doctrine of 'anything but CO2'. Now that's disappointing.
     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.