Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Facefirst said:
I'm particularly enjoying the arguments here when they played out last time.
They won't be played out again if I can help it.
We need something new - a visible causal signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxide in global climate data would do. In fact it's the only thing really.
We've seen the rest before n times, been over it all m times, and there's no basis for either n+1 or m+1 to arise.
Guam said:
"You and others have vociferously argued that main stream science is trying hush up alternative theories and then CERN go ahead and run an experiment attempting to validate one. The spin? That they are trying to suppress the results. A more rational explanation is that they are waiting to finish their experiments before interpreting them. Nothing more than that."
There is no spin here that I can find, it is information translated from an interview in german from Die Welt IIRC.
As there has as I understand it, been NO rebuttal of the comments made and they appear to be reproduced in their entirety, then no alleged spin exists.
On the subject of not being a scientist, can I ask in that case you are clearer in your posts, where you did use the term "We" as it related to climate scientists.
I believe I read it correctly others may not though?
Cheers
My interpretation of his comments are that the results will hopefully give an indication of wether there's a real physical basis for the hypothesized GCR effect on cloud formation which has been lacking so far (a bit like establishing wether CO2 is a GHG which was done over a century ago). It's an important step but seeing as the debate around GCRs has proceeded mostly on the assumption that a physical basis exists and wether it has a visible effect on climate it probably won't change anything overnight (unless the result is negative of course). Hence the CERN people will just release the result without commenting on the ongoing debate.There is no spin here that I can find, it is information translated from an interview in german from Die Welt IIRC.
As there has as I understand it, been NO rebuttal of the comments made and they appear to be reproduced in their entirety, then no alleged spin exists.
On the subject of not being a scientist, can I ask in that case you are clearer in your posts, where you did use the term "We" as it related to climate scientists.
I believe I read it correctly others may not though?
Cheers
It's so bewildering to see warmists defend the cause when,
The climate refuses to comply with what the models and predictions say
There is no warming
There is still (despite numerous requests) no evidence of a proven link between MM Co2 and climate change.
Any paper peer reviewed by an advocacy group or person with a vested interest in the contents and findings is worthless.
The climate refuses to comply with what the models and predictions say
There is no warming
There is still (despite numerous requests) no evidence of a proven link between MM Co2 and climate change.
Any paper peer reviewed by an advocacy group or person with a vested interest in the contents and findings is worthless.
kerplunk said:
My interpretation of his comments are that the results will hopefully give an indication of wether there's a real physical basis for the hypothesized GCR effect on cloud formation which has been lacking so far.
Shift change AICMTP 
You'll have seen this, presumably.
An open letter from Nigel Calder to the unlucky person named as lead author of a paper which insists that when observations fail to tally with a model then the data is wrong not the model namely graduate student Eimear Dunne said:
Dear Eimear,
In any other branch of physics, if a model and observations are at odds, there’s almost certainly something wrong with the model. But you’ve evidently been encouraged to think that doesn’t apply in climate research.
I must admit that you have a dreadful role model in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It keeps shrugging off glaring mismatches between real-world data and the models used to predict man-made global warming.
As for your new association with the CLOUD experiment at CERN, you may not know that the project was conceived as a direct result of a lecture that I gave at CERN in December 1997, reporting Henrik Svensmark’s discovery of the influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover.
But you should also be aware that, although Henrik inspired the project, some people in the CLOUD team now try to disparage his research whenever they can.
Why? Because Henrik keeps insisting, in a politically incorrect manner, that the Svensmark effect is important. Crucial, in fact, for understanding past, present and future climate change.
Fainter hearts would like the link between cosmic rays and clouds to be just a technical footnote to the climate debate. Not so trivial, mind you, as to undermine the case for spending public money on CLOUD. But not so significant, either, as to alarm the politically correct funding agencies.
It grieves me, Eimear, that your mentors have launched you into such a difficult balancing act. It’s bound to produce wobbly results.
But in any case I know that you, together with Prof. Carslaw, signed a declaration in December saying, ‘As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
So you’re not exactly open-minded about the Svensmark hypothesis. You really don’t want to find an important effect of cosmic rays, do you?
Best wishes
Nigel Calder
You will also presumably be aware that the CERN chief, and who knows possibly under politically motivated funding duress, has forbidden "intepretation" of the Cloud results. Also presumably, this suggests that the results support Svensmark, but we must wait and see.In any other branch of physics, if a model and observations are at odds, there’s almost certainly something wrong with the model. But you’ve evidently been encouraged to think that doesn’t apply in climate research.
I must admit that you have a dreadful role model in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It keeps shrugging off glaring mismatches between real-world data and the models used to predict man-made global warming.
As for your new association with the CLOUD experiment at CERN, you may not know that the project was conceived as a direct result of a lecture that I gave at CERN in December 1997, reporting Henrik Svensmark’s discovery of the influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover.
But you should also be aware that, although Henrik inspired the project, some people in the CLOUD team now try to disparage his research whenever they can.
Why? Because Henrik keeps insisting, in a politically incorrect manner, that the Svensmark effect is important. Crucial, in fact, for understanding past, present and future climate change.
Fainter hearts would like the link between cosmic rays and clouds to be just a technical footnote to the climate debate. Not so trivial, mind you, as to undermine the case for spending public money on CLOUD. But not so significant, either, as to alarm the politically correct funding agencies.
It grieves me, Eimear, that your mentors have launched you into such a difficult balancing act. It’s bound to produce wobbly results.
But in any case I know that you, together with Prof. Carslaw, signed a declaration in December saying, ‘As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
So you’re not exactly open-minded about the Svensmark hypothesis. You really don’t want to find an important effect of cosmic rays, do you?
Best wishes
Nigel Calder
Somebody possibly in need of a change of undergarment said:
I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.
It looks as though an artificial equivalent to the natural process has produced the goods - here's nature.
Also
Laken et al in Atmos Chem Phys 2010 said:
The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux on Earth's climate is highly uncertain. Using a novel sampling approach based around observing periods of significant cloud changes, a statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude (60°–30° N/S) cloud decreases operating over daily timescales; this signal is verified in surface level air temperature (SLAT) reanalysis data. A General Circulation Model (GCM) experiment is used to test the causal relationship of the observed cloud changes to the detected SLAT anomalies. Results indicate that the anomalous cloud changes were responsible for producing the observed SLAT changes, implying that if there is a causal relationship between significant decreases in the rate of GCR flux (~0.79 GU, where GU denotes a change of 1% of the 11-year solar cycle amplitude in four days) and decreases in cloud cover (~1.9 CU, where CU denotes a change of 1% cloud cover in four days), an increase in SLAT (~0.05 KU, where KU denotes a temperature change of 1 K in four days) can be expected. The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.
This paper hasn't been discussed before iirc and I'll put a shilling on the side for suggestions on which words in the abstract were requested at the review stage.
turbobloke said:
Blimey you located and read that list pretty damn quick
The variation in temperature that occurs from a daytime high to a night-time cold will be affected by a number of factors, highlighting one among many is selectivity at work. Any particular location, over any particular timescale?
One factor will be that the Sun rises and then sets, another that there is weather inbetween, also that the measuring instrument may be sited next to an aircon unit, or a chimney stack, or trash burner, or by airport tarmac, or a major road, or a car park, also that cosmic ray measurements used in comparison may or may not be 10 to 15 GeV.
I imagine, from my own forays into climate alarmist advocacy blogs, that the origin of such a query arises from a simplistic list of so-called 'problems' with the Svensmark CRF mechanism. If so, you will have also noticed that in spite of the wealth of factors at play, and selectivity writ large, some sources which attempt to make a particular point nevertheless have to acknowledge such matters as this in coverage of Erlykin and similar:
...a correlation was found in Europe between diurnal temperature range (difference between daily maximum and minimum temperatures) and strong cosmic ray flux changes (Forbush decreases and ground level enhancements)
Your post and approach suggests a recent visit to SkepticalScience's incomplete and partial coverage of the issue, but who knows.
It doesn't do any damage to the Svensmark mechanism, since critiques such as those covered on SkepticalWhatever don't look too closely at methodology. Nor do they adduce a visible causal signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxiode in global climate data.
Good luck with the reading list, I realise it will take some time.
The more I think about this answer the less satisfying it is.The variation in temperature that occurs from a daytime high to a night-time cold will be affected by a number of factors, highlighting one among many is selectivity at work. Any particular location, over any particular timescale?
One factor will be that the Sun rises and then sets, another that there is weather inbetween, also that the measuring instrument may be sited next to an aircon unit, or a chimney stack, or trash burner, or by airport tarmac, or a major road, or a car park, also that cosmic ray measurements used in comparison may or may not be 10 to 15 GeV.
I imagine, from my own forays into climate alarmist advocacy blogs, that the origin of such a query arises from a simplistic list of so-called 'problems' with the Svensmark CRF mechanism. If so, you will have also noticed that in spite of the wealth of factors at play, and selectivity writ large, some sources which attempt to make a particular point nevertheless have to acknowledge such matters as this in coverage of Erlykin and similar:
...a correlation was found in Europe between diurnal temperature range (difference between daily maximum and minimum temperatures) and strong cosmic ray flux changes (Forbush decreases and ground level enhancements)
Your post and approach suggests a recent visit to SkepticalScience's incomplete and partial coverage of the issue, but who knows.
It doesn't do any damage to the Svensmark mechanism, since critiques such as those covered on SkepticalWhatever don't look too closely at methodology. Nor do they adduce a visible causal signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxiode in global climate data.
Good luck with the reading list, I realise it will take some time.
Clouds have both a warming and cooling effect in the lower atmosphere. At night the net effect seems to be zero or slight warming, in the day time they net cool through albedo etc. See for example:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
So for GCR flux to be causing observed warming, we would need a decrease in GCR and a decrease in cloud cover. Has that been observed? Leaving the CGR monitoring for now (as you dispute the importance of the trend or lack thereof), lets turn instead to cloudiness.
The data is pretty poor TBH but studies looking at it conclude no reliable trend in cloudiness:
http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pap...
If GCR's seed clouds, and clouds cool the planet, and we don't have a trend in cloud cover or GCR's, then we don't have much supporting data for the hypothesis. Even if CERN validate the mechanism. we'd still need to measure the high energy GCR and have a reliable measure of cloudiness.
Plus, this would still not address the DTR trend observed.
WARNING: No advocacy blogs were using the making of this post.
Facefirst said:
The more I think about this answer the less satisfying it is.
Clouds have both a warming and cooling effect in the lower atmosphere. At night the net effect seems to be zero or slight warming, in the day time they net cool through albedo etc. See for example:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
So for GCR flux to be causing observed warming, we would need a decrease in GCR and a decrease in cloud cover. Has that been observed? Leaving the CGR monitoring for now (as you dispute the importance of the trend or lack thereof), lets turn instead to cloudiness.
The data is pretty poor TBH but studies looking at it conclude no reliable trend in cloudiness:
http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pap...
If GCR's seed clouds, and clouds cool the planet, and we don't have a trend in cloud cover or GCR's, then we don't have much supporting data for the hypothesis. Even if CERN validate the mechanism. we'd still need to measure the high energy GCR and have a reliable measure of cloudiness.
Plus, this would still not address the DTR trend observed.
WARNING: No advocacy blogs were using the making of this post.
Where is the 'observed' warming? Clouds have both a warming and cooling effect in the lower atmosphere. At night the net effect seems to be zero or slight warming, in the day time they net cool through albedo etc. See for example:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
So for GCR flux to be causing observed warming, we would need a decrease in GCR and a decrease in cloud cover. Has that been observed? Leaving the CGR monitoring for now (as you dispute the importance of the trend or lack thereof), lets turn instead to cloudiness.
The data is pretty poor TBH but studies looking at it conclude no reliable trend in cloudiness:
http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pap...
If GCR's seed clouds, and clouds cool the planet, and we don't have a trend in cloud cover or GCR's, then we don't have much supporting data for the hypothesis. Even if CERN validate the mechanism. we'd still need to measure the high energy GCR and have a reliable measure of cloudiness.
Plus, this would still not address the DTR trend observed.
WARNING: No advocacy blogs were using the making of this post.
Yes indeed Diderot and moreover what is it that got all the data and all the relevant content in various papers I cited to be rejected so quickly?
As before, the lasting impression is of a foregone conclusion into which convenient spots and ignores are being fitted.
If I wasn't open minded I could dismiss CRF-LLC-albedo and the auroral oval mechanisms, but they are there in the data and peer-reviewed science. Obviously there's next to no mention in IPCC terms compared to the welter of junkscience on the absent influence of tax gas, but then the core acolytes have worked hard to keep out sound science that could do real damage, as seen from their e-mails to each other.
As before, the lasting impression is of a foregone conclusion into which convenient spots and ignores are being fitted.
If I wasn't open minded I could dismiss CRF-LLC-albedo and the auroral oval mechanisms, but they are there in the data and peer-reviewed science. Obviously there's next to no mention in IPCC terms compared to the welter of junkscience on the absent influence of tax gas, but then the core acolytes have worked hard to keep out sound science that could do real damage, as seen from their e-mails to each other.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
My interpretation of his comments are that the results will hopefully give an indication of wether there's a real physical basis for the hypothesized GCR effect on cloud formation which has been lacking so far.
Shift change AICMTP You'll have seen this, presumably.
An open letter from Nigel Calder to the unlucky person named as lead author of a paper which insists that when observations fail to tally with a model then the data is wrong not the model namely graduate student Eimear Dunne said:
turbobloke said:
You will also presumably be aware that the CERN chief...
For your interest Gavin Schmidt recently said this on the matter when asked about it on RC:
Response: The context is that people (specifically Svensmark and Calder) have been grossly overinterpreting the results from earlier experiments to the almost certain embarrassment of anyone sensible connected to the CERN project. The fact of the matter is that these experiments will not by themselves demonstrate the impact of GCR on climate however well they turn out. This is because it is not that the role of ionisation in creating aerosols that is disputed, but rather how modulations of that effect impact the overall growth of the much larger cloud-condensation nuclei and where this makes a difference to clouds (via an aerosol indirect effect). The demonstration of an ionisation source of aerosols doesn't even tell you the sign of the impact on climate, let alone the magnitude. And furthermore, the trends in GCR have been flat for over half a century and so have no role to play in recent trends in climate, regardless of the size of the putative GCR-clouds link. - gavin
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 20th July 19:35
Diderot said:
I think the delay between them responding could either be attributed to a frantic search for observed data which proves warming, or another change of shift. I'm oscillating between the two at the moment, but not considering either as mutually exclusive.
knock it off with this off-topic worthless conspiratorial s
t ffs.mods - apologies but I can ignore it for only so long
kerplunk said:
Mathematician and climate modeller Gavin Schmidt:
The demonstration of an ionisation source of aerosols doesn't even tell you the sign of the impact on climate, let alone the magnitude. And furthermore, the trends in GCR have been flat for over half a century and so have no role to play in recent trends in climate, regardless of the size of the putative GCR-clouds link. - gavin
The first bit of the statement, not quoted, is mostly waffle with wishful thinking and reasoning by assertion to break the tedium. As to the above, curiously the production of aerosols by China's coal burning power stations was recently and definitively held up as having a particular sign of impact (cooling) as a fudge factor explaining away a lack of tax gas global warming, lack of = cooling. As to the last bit, GCR flux once again refers to the soup of particles not high energy, 10 to 15 GeV or more - though there may be a correlation between total flux and high energy particle flux at times it isn't always that simple - and the timescale is cherry picked to the few recent decades where climate alarmists have retreated.The demonstration of an ionisation source of aerosols doesn't even tell you the sign of the impact on climate, let alone the magnitude. And furthermore, the trends in GCR have been flat for over half a century and so have no role to play in recent trends in climate, regardless of the size of the putative GCR-clouds link. - gavin
Reconstructions using 10Be that allow a look over a more realistic period of climate relevance reveal a different picture. A horizontal line crayoned in through the last 50 years isn't convincing even in this context of general GCR. Click to enlarge.
In comparison, SkepticalScience argues for and from a 50-year flat trend in cosmic ray flux by looking at particles of less than 0.5 GeV rather than 10 to 15 GeV or more.
Diderot said:
Ok, so where's the observed warming KP? The delta between reality and the model(s) must surely be troubling you at this juncture?
I'm not aware of a 'delta' between the GMT obs and the models. Running towards the low end recently, perhaps.
The beginning of a real divergance from the models, perhaps.
An illusory feint before warming re-asserts itself, perhaps.
The latter is where I'd put my money after the (almost) record-breaking 2010 obs, but time will tell.
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Ok, so where's the observed warming KP? The delta between reality and the model(s) must surely be troubling you at this juncture?
I'm not aware of a 'delta' between the GMT obs and the models. Running towards the low end recently, perhaps.
The beginning of a real divergance from the models, perhaps.
An illusory feint before warming re-asserts itself, perhaps.
The latter is where I'd put my money after the (almost) record-breaking 2010 obs, but time will tell.
And in the context of the above comment on after-the-fact fiddelfactoring here, yet again, is the evidence of computer climate model inadequacy and resulting abject failure. The thing is, to fiddlefactor a headline temperature newsgrab for the BBC, Guardian and Independent, other aspects go off the boil. Model inadequacy and failure are clear and unequivocal.
As for pumping the GIGO effluent of climate models into impacts models, don't get me started on that as it's nearly lunch.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 21st July 13:03
turbobloke said:
And as for the repeated desperation in 'nearly a record in blah' such pointless hyperbole is utterly meaningless without established causality.
Perhaps we can be spared from further suffering.
I think we all noticed that bit of hyperbole - proof if proof were ever needed that they must be in the pay of this propaganda machine - no normal person states such things.Perhaps we can be spared from further suffering.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff