Slashdot Mirror
Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
Overly Critical Guy writes "The former editor of New Scientist has written an article in the TimesOnline suggesting that cosmic rays may affect global climate. The author criticizes the UN's recent global warming report, noting several underreported trends it doesn't account for, such as increasing sea-ice in the Southern Ocean. He describes an experiment by Henrik Svensmark showing a relation between atmospheric cloudiness and atomic particles coming in from exploded stars. In the basement of the Danish National Space Center in 2005, Svensmark's team showed that electrons from cosmic rays caused cloud condensation. Svensmark's scenario apparently predicts several unexplained temperature trends from the warmer trend of the 20th century to the temporary drop in the 1970s, attributed to changes in the sun's magnetic field affecting the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere."
oh noes he discredited the cult of global warming! he MUST be in the pocket of big business.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Before you people start screaming, "what do they expect us to do about cosmic rays??//?/?" Think. This isn't about "debunking" global warming, nor is it about fearmongering about it. It's about building more accurate climate models.
Move along.
http://outcampaign.org/
I have had some classes on this theory at university.
This being a somewhat new theory everything is still quite uncertain how much effect this has on the heating of the earth.
I think the estimates we saw in class a year ago was that this could explain from 10% to maybe 30% of the heating that has happened in the last 30 years.
We don't have measurements of the amount of cosmic radiation from more than something like 30 years so it is hard to go further back to check this theory.
We have CO2 measurements from somewhat longer, but not that much longer, but we have trapped air in the ice cores which give us information almost 100K years back which gives the evidence of CO2 and methane quite strong support.
Cosmic radiation does is not "trapped" anywhere in the geologic layers to my knowledge.
I am no saying Svensmarks theory is wrong, it most likely has an effect, but how big this effect is is very hard to say by now.
Anyhow I think the critique of the UN-report is justified, if this theory is not part of the report. Not taking this theory into account and then saying there is a 90% certainty that humans have caused global warming is not scientific.
"Global warming" is the net effect on the planet's surface, taken as a whole. "Climate change" describes the local effects of global warming.
http://outcampaign.org/
I for one refuse to comment on this subject until Michael Crichton tells me what is right!
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Also, pretty much summed up in a recent Mark Steyn commentary.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
It's well know that the decline of seafaring pirates correlates the rise of global warming me hearties. sunspots too
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm all for exploring all avenues. We don't know enough, by far to know even what we know or don't know yet. We're making theories without any idea what all forces play in the big scale. If this man figures out just ONE more variable, then his work was worth the time and effort.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
It surely be pirates, jim lad. Never a truer tale been told. All this shows is that pirate decline may be associated with cosmic rays.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Apparently he doesn't need to. At least he thinks so, as long as the consensus is with him. Who are you to criticize him? are you some of those deniers who insist on old fashionable things as reproducible results?
Your ad could be here!
unlikely since this is a 5 year long research project recently completed. even less likely since it's nothing to do with oil.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
All those crazy "climate change has nothing to do with carbon levels" crackpots are going to have a field day. And all the "Yes it bloody well does!!" crackpots are going to get all defensive and who's going to win in the end? The trolls. That's who. The trolls.
In all this I'm reminded of a mock argument I heard on the radio between a geologist and a biologist about the source of oxygen in out atmosphere. Both "experts" were convinced that it was largely due to some effect described in their field of study and dismissed the other.
What I'm trying to say is that there is solid evidence that carbon in the atmosphere can trap heat. If we now discover that cosmic rays are warming the planet, that doesn't exclude the effect of carbon as an insulator from the equation. Now if both theories are true we have a serious problem. Cosmic radiation is warming the planet at a higher rate and carbon is preventing it from cooling.
What do we do about it?
1. Reduce carbon emissions.
2. reduce Earth's exposure to cosmic rays
If reducing cosmic rays can be done along the lines of Mr. Burns blocking out the sun with his big dish, I'm all for it, as long as I'm the one who owns the dish. Otherwise, with sincere apologies all the "I'm gonna fcsking well drive my big Ford SUV 2 blocks to buy my cheese in a can" crackpots, but it has to be option 1.
I don't therefore I'm not.
... until the experiment has been independently reproduced and there is some more data on whether and how much cosmic radiation affects our climate. So far, there is one paper on this topic (July 2002 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics), and not much else. The experiment is interesting, but rather tenuous in its conclusions. We have a potential mechanism, along with some ways on testing the validity of its predictions. But it's far too early to make this anymore than it is - an idea that needs further exploring.
3 1080631.htm
Besides, can we link to something more than someone's blog? Here's a link that has a lot more substance and not so much speculation: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/0207
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
From TFA:
The only trouble with Svensmark's idea -- apart from its being politically incorrect -- was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
Why didn't the oil cartel fund his experiment if they were so interested in it? Or did you just choose to assume, without actually reading the article?
Just wait and we will hear theories that dinosaurs have caused current global warming.
:-)
Considering that the main cause is CO2 from fossil fuel, this statement is actually not too far off
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
This the same Calder often quoted derogatorily on certain websites with anti environmentalist leanings?p hy/BG1143.cfm
several quote an article "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in the National Wildlife Federation's journal, International Wildlife attributed to a "Nigel Calder" in 70's
the line they like to quote is: "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
eg http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html
http://www.mises.org/story/2119
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhiloso
You know what I hate most about these articles? My own bias is plainly obvious to me.
When I read something that says global warming is wrong, I want to say yes! Brilliant! When something confirms it, I can't help but think 'alarmist fear-mongering can't-think-for-themeselves idiots.' But at the same time I know those thoughts are ridiculous, and that I don't really have the understanding of all the parameters to make an intelligent decision.
I guess that's what happens when you politicize a scientific topic. Or maybe I'm just an optimist.
you don't do anything to support your argument in that quote.
Let me break it down for you.
Calder offers local cooling as an example of how anthropogenic climate change scientists are wrong.
However, anthropogenic climate change scientists predict local cooling in their models.
Therefore, one of Calder's 'proofs' that anthropogenic climate change scientists are incorrect is faulty.
Please note that I am not commenting on Cosmic Ray/Cloud formation experiment, until it is indepentantly reproduced (CERN is currently doing this).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I think most of the global warming crowd conveniently forget that by far the biggest determinant of Earth's climate is this object about 150 million kilometers from us called the Sun.
If you look at our sunspot cycle (which has been recorded since the 1600's), it should be noted that Earth warms up every time we have many sunspots and cools down when we have few sunspots. The famous Maunder minimum that bridged the 17th and 18th Centuries with very little sunspot activity resulted in seriously cold winters at the higher latitudes, as noted by the Thames River through London freezing over in winter regularly during this period.
But getting back on topic, scientists have noted that almost every planet in our Solar System is experiencing a warmup during the last 4-5 years. Note that the Martian ice caps are getting smaller and smaller, the atmospheres on our "gas giant" planets are warming up quite a bit, and even Pluto's surface is experiencing warming. That tells us either the Sun is generating a lot of unusual radiation or our Solar System is going through an area of our Milky Way galaxy with higher than normal cosmic radiation.
Apparently he doesn't need to. At least he thinks so, as long as the consensus is with him.
Since science doesn't operate by consensus, any "consensus" is irrelevant. Brutal facts are simple. There is labortory evidence that the excess CO2 we have been putting into the atmosphere "ought" to affect the climate. The empirical data doesn't support this. The hockey stick curve is an artifact of data analysis and dependent upon data sets that are not correlated with temperature anyway. There is a clear chemical signature but the predicted climatic signal is largely missing. Between 1950 and 2000 the empirical data indicates that the amount of light reaching the ground decreased immensely; more than enough to explain the missing CO2 signal. Now the Danes have shown an alternative source of climatic effects in the incidence of cosmic rays, mediated by solar weather.
The short conclusion is, we have NO CLUE how the climate really works, nor do we know the full list of inputs that drive it nor their relative importance. Nor is there any convincing -i.e. not overly simplified- model of how our own inputs affect climate. It may well be that CO2 warming is all that is keeping us from a particulate driven cooling and ice age.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
It's too risky to not ALWAYS be looking at worst-case scenarios. For our very survival, we need to assume things are our fault and we must be willing to change, even if it may not be our fault.
infrared radiation from the sun causes global warming... Who'd have guessed
The term "global warming" conceals several completely different ideas with completely different levels of evidence and likelihood.
Only some of the following statements are true or even supported by evidence:
1. The average temperature of the Earth is going up.
2. It is likely to continue doing so.
3. The largest cause is CO2.
4. The rise in CO2 levels is human-caused.
5. The results will be catastropic.
6. The result will be a mass extinction event.
7. The result will wipe out the human race.
8. This is proof that our economic system is evil.
9. We must destroy or replace the foundation of our economic system.
10. The planet is in jeopardy.
11. The Kyoto accord should be ratified.
It's logically consistent to snort with contempt at 8 and 10 while accepting 1-4 pending further data.
What frosts me (sorry) is that the policy implications don't have to be this politicized. We need a malaria vaccine anyway, regardless of whether the mosquito habitat moves north. We benefit a zillion ways from replacing coal burning by almost anything else. Fuel efficient vehicles are great just in terms of national security alone. Bangladesh is in trouble no matter what we do about future CO2 emissions and we need to make decisions about that (seawall? Resettle? (WHERE?!)).
>I don't really have the understanding of all the parameters to make an intelligent decision.
No one person does, but judicious application of "How do you know?" will cut through a lot of garbage and allow intelligent decision though not certainty.
>there is a well established correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
It's a superb correlation, the curves track each other amazingly.
By itself that doesn't prove anything. Given only the correlation, you couldn't rule out that temperature increases cause increased CO2 levels. Which is plausible, since organic decay releases CO2 and goes faster when it's warmer (if you doubt that, unplug your refrigerator and see what happens).
Given only the correlation, you couldn't rule out that some other factor causes both warming and CO2 increases.
The reason to think it's causal is that there's a well-demonstrated mechanism and that the details match up.
>Florida may be the first state in the union to give fish the right to vote.
Hey, we already know all about Florida elections.
"Since science doesn't operate by consensus, any "consensus" is irrelevant."
BULLSHIT! Peer-review is an integral part of science, without it everything deteriorates into "he said - she said" politics.
Also the red herrings in TFA have been around for years and have been debunked ad-nauseam.
For all those wondering about attribution please look at the latest IPCC SPM, it has a diagram that has been peer-reviewed and agreed apon by ALL the national science bodies on the planet. It includes such things a volcanos, solar variation, ect, most impotantly it also includes error bars. The reason this guy has picked on clouds as other so called "skeptics" have done before him is because NOBODY has a good model of cloud formation.
"The short conclusion is, we have NO CLUE how the climate really works..."
The alternative conclusion is that you were deliberately aiming for the +Funny mod that you recieved.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
What is missing from this forum so far, and from the linked essay, is any link to the actual scientific paper in question. If we are to judge how significant this paper is, and what it means, shouldn't we be taking a look at it?
The whole drama of hidden agendas, who profits from what, the desires of individuals to get attention and upset people of one political stripe or another, are in the end irrelevant to the questions of "Is human activity affecting the climate" and "What, if anything, do we need to be doing to protect our existence". The drama affects what we end up ACTUALLY doing, so may be very significant to the outcome of the next few hundred years of human history. But our individual responsibilities are to understand the science as best we can, even if we are not climatologists.
Richard Feynmann used to bemoan the fact that reporters asking him about his work constantly tried to "dumb it down" so the average reader could understand it. His point was that, first of all, all the important stuff got lost in this process, and second, even if the "average" person couldn't follow it, there are huge numbers of scientists, engineers, and others who would be able to grasp the main points if they were actually presented.
Given the nature of this forum (we're nerds, right?) I'd love to see the actual science... if only Mr. Calder, or any of the other writers on this subject would deign to show us the actual papers, rather than giving us their predigested interpretations.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 /07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
4 /12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic -rays/
6 /10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
The notion that professional climate scientists have ignored solar forcing in estimating climate sensitivity is 100% false, and by now repeating it is slander.
By no means whatsoever have actual climatologists "forgotten" about the Sun since the earliest days of global warming studies in the 1960's and further. Of course popularizations ignore all the complexities but that's what they do.
The fact remains that by the best known observations and theory there is no way to explain the current observations WITHOUT major to dominant human greenhouse gas forcing.
There is no trend in solar activity observed or predicted which either explains recent past observations or will in any way nullify the clear and significant effect from greenhouse gas forcing. That depends on very predictable laws of physics, not statistical correlations.
And if the Sun does happen to be in an upswing in output, then that will just make the climate change we are causing that much worse. Since the upper extremes of events and risks are the greatest danger, any uncertainty in solar forcing adds to the variance in future forecasts, and not the mean. This means that doing something about the thing we can do something about is ever more urgent.
Just to nitpick, but Galileo Galilei wasn't the first nor the only one to describe heliocentrism - Nicolas Copernic was the forethinker of that system, and Galileo Galilei main discoveries (Saturn's rings, Jupiter's satellites, physics of the pendulum etc.) weren't in the line at his trial. Actually, most of the learned scholars of the time knew for a fact that heliocentrism gave far more accurate mathematicals results to build sailing tables.
Galileo Galilei faced troubles because he wrote that helliocentrism was the physical TRUTH. He would have escaped any trial (and was offered a plea bargain as a matter of fact) had he accepted to write that heliocentrism was a mere hypothesis. But he refused and the rest is history. As to know why he was so stubborn, we now know there was a mix of self-pride, and insurance he received from high profile individuals among the Catholic Church that the Pope was considering adopting a progressive doctrine. That turned out to be deceptive. Basically, he was caught in the middle of a political fight, and sided with the wrong persons.
Cue the climate trolls, both pro and con.*sigh*It is impossible to have a serious discussion about climate change (or any environmental issue) these days. Personally, I more fault the environmental movement for allowing itself to be hijacked by anti-capitalism and anti-globalization movements. However, I don't discount the role of industry wanting to maximize short term profits for a few at any cost (including search for the probable truth). In a way, it doesn't matter. Any piece of science gets immediately picked up and stretched for all it's worth to further a particular agenda. For instance, "cosmic ray flux may influence terrestrial climate" becomes "Man-made global warming is a myth because the real culprit is cosmic rays!"
Flat out, that's not what the science tells us. What science tells us is that climate is a complicated system with many inputs and feedbacks that we only crudely understand. Even so, we understand enough to know one significant input right now is anthropogenic CO2 emissions. How significant? That is the multi-trillion dollar question.
See, the question is not yes/no. Our choices are not "We're destroying all life! Dismantle capitalism before it's too late!" vs "we're doing nothing! Burn more coal!" What we're really looking at here is a serious study of how much we're influencing the climate we depend on (climate scientists agree enough to be worried). Following from that, we seriously need to look at the risks and how best to manage them without tanking our economy.
We have many choices and a lot will depend on the relative significance of our contributions to climate change. We NEED studies like this, not as a tool to discredit global warming, but as a way to refine our understanding to better understand what WE'RE doing, so we can more effectively do the cost/benefit analysis of various scenarios. Unfortunately, reasonable voices are being drowned out by trolls in the warring camps.
The "we are headed towards an ice age" meme was due to the belief in cyclic weather, basically that the global temperature could be predicted by a Fourier series. You can always fit any measured data to a Fourier series, but here at least some of the coefficients had astronomical explanations.
Global warming was also a concern 30 years ago, as the mechanisms were well known. There were actually people warning about global warming a 100 years ago. However, only recently computers have become fast enough, and measurements accurate enough, that you can actually quantify the risk.
Interestingly enough, cyclic weather has until recently[1] been used to dismiss global warming, claiming that it was not man made but predicted by the coefficients in the Fourier series. Which does apparently conflict with the series predicting an ice age, but not really, as the series consist of overlapping cycles, and you can be on the way up on one of the short cycles, and on the way down one of the longer.
[1] You still see references to it by laypeople on the net, but it is no longer used that way by scientists.
There is really no need for accusations about funding and so on. Just answer some simple questions:
1) Why is East Antarctica cooling?
2) Why has air temperature apparently stabilized?
3) What caused the Medieval Warm Period?
4) What caused the mini Ice Age of the 1700s?
5) Why in the historical record do temperatures rise before CO2 rises?
And that's not even getting into the Holocene....
Well, maybe there is a simple explanation that results in it remaining plausible that the modern warm period is different from the Medieval being due wholly or mainly to CO2 emissions since what, 1850 or so, and not due to whatever caused the Medieval, and will not be followed by whatever caused the Mini Ice Age.
No, it can only be stopped by our ceasing to emit CO2. Like they suddenly did in 1400...?
Well, if there is a simple explanation along these lines, it would be very interesting to see someone write it down.
The Copernican model didn't offer very good astronomical predictions compared to the most sophisticated Ptolemaic models. When Galileo saw Venus go through complete phases (full -> new -> full), it pretty much convinced anyone conversant in astronomy that geocentrism was wrong. Why? Because in a geocentric system Venus can't go through all the phases; only half the phases depending on whether it's inside or outside the Sun's orbit.
Still, Ptolemaic models with their fancy epicycles within epicycles within epicycles gave better results. It wasn't until Kepler came along and put the planets on elliptical paths that the Ptolemaic models were finally thrown out.
Do you read the research papers in climate science? If you answered no to both these questions then you shouldn't be trying to weigh the evidence yourself based on what you read in newspapers.
In any scientific discipline, and particularly complex ones like climate science, it is easy to select evidence (even honestly) to make almost anything appear to be the right explanation. The reason the scientific process works is because it doesn't just let each theory get up and give a stump speech but demands to know how it can answer tough questions and fit consistently with our other knowledge. The question is not, 'would cosmic rays make for a good hypothesis on the basis of our inexpert knowledge,' but 'given the vast body of knowledge scientists have is it plausible that cosmic rays explain climate variation.'
Thankfully, climate scientists have not only already addressed this question but even written lay explanations about it. You can find plenty of other discussions about cosmic rays over on realclimate.org and they point out that there is considerable reason to discredit the cosmic ray explanation for global warming.
What disgusts me about this whole buisness is that whenever something like this comes up a bunch of people who can't be bothered to actually read the journal articles but think they are entitled to second guess the people who have pipe up and complain about how global warming is just a dogma. Like any topic you have a choice. You can either choose to learn enough about the subject to intelligently weigh the evidence, which in this case would mean keeping up with the actual scientific papers not just media summaries, or you can count on experts to analyze that evidence for you and reach your conclusion on the authority of those experts.
Look it's simple really. Either you can read the scientific papers yourself and argue with the other experts about the evidence or you can argue about which experts are more credible. If you are debating the matter here you are doing the later. So do you really expect anyone to believe that the handful of climate change deniers are more credible than all experts who find the evidence for global warming compelling? If the positions were reversed and it was the deniers who were claiming it was global warming would you believe?
The worst part of all this is that these very idiots who claim that climate science is just some dogma pose a real threat to important dissent in the climate science community. While we may be sure of the vague outlines of human caused climate change there are many issues that still require vigorous scientific debate but if this debate is jumped on by skeptics as proof that global warming is a fraud then responsible scientists will be more reluctant to publicly express such disagreements.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Non-critical followers of the religion "believe" that this doctrine is the truth, no matter what scientific evidence is brought up against it. Worse, when people insist the doctrine is not true, they proceed to use force against them.
t arianism/global warming/string theory/kibology/bigfoot/socialized healthcare/anarchism/(insert your favorite belief system here). What you're faulting is not a behavior unique to religion, but is something that can be categorized as something bad all on it's own. Namely the behavior of destroying those who disagree with you instead of just trying to prove them wrong. As a good example, Edison did it to Tesla, and at no point was religion involved. People do it in politics everyday.
Funny, you just described dogmatic believers in communism/socialism/liberalism/conservatism/liber
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Here's a nice "Cosmic Rays and Climate Change for Dummies" article that has pretty pictures and graphs. At least give it a read before dismissing this. I found it compelling.
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
more on the climate debate: http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/
Shaviv's personal site: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/
"The measurements are not accurate..."
Agreed, and that is why NASA should drop the "man on Mars" crap and refocus on our own biosphere.
"...enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself."
This is a totally assinine assumption on your part, "not accurate" != "not usefull".
As for "evidence speaking for itself" please refer to figure SPM-2(PDF warning) in the 2007 IPCC SPM.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well, you are slightly better off getting your science information from an author with doctorate in medicine than politian with a bachelor of arts degree (though in fairness, he did invent the internet).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The Ural Sea dried up because the rivers that fed it were siphoned off to irrigate crop production in Soviet Georgia. From the sixties on up there wasn't any water going into the sea. While this was man made, it wasn't because of global warming.
the next time my boss looks suspiciously at me when I blame the server outage on sunspot activity.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've been asking that same question for some time. In the NOVA documentary about this it appeared that the diameter of the magnetic ring at the poles was increasing. The photos seemed to look just like the ozone hole. I wish I could get two similar photos and overlay them.
There is also plenty of history in the fossil record to determine what happened during the past magnetic flips, but I have not read anything about what happened to the climate at those times.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
(1) As I said the first time you posted this exact same diatribe - which media are we not hearing this from?
(2) We have proxies. Those proxies can be checked against more recent data to help determine margins of error. No, proxies are not perfect, but they do allow us to gather remarkable information back 800,000 years.
(3) Yes, the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. And, no, you're not a genius for "figuring out" that it might be related to climate change. There are lots of electrical engineers who no doubt know far more about climate science than you. If you disagree, you should publish a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal. Don't give me any conspiracy theory on that, either.
(4) Jupitor [sic] is not experiencing the "same" climate change as Earth. Jupiter takes a lot longer to go around the sun than Earth, so it's natural variations are also longer. According to your link, "We're sorry, but there is no SPACE.com Web page that matches your entry." If you're going to keep posting stuff that has been debunked, as least refresh your link list.
(5) Mars is also not experiencing the "same" climate change on Earth. Read the one link you posted (for this bullet) that actually works. It's experiencing climate change - which it should when it goes from summer to fall to winter to spring (which takes about a year and a half of Earth time). Of course, if Mars is experiencing the exact same climate change, then that kind of shoots down #3, right?
(6) And who is responsible for these livestock? Methane is an important factor. However, C13/C12 ratios (as well as simple math) determine that the vast majority of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuels. Luckily, methane has a much shorter "life span" in the atmosphere than CO2. Even so, why would it reduce our need to take action otherwise? Also, you realize that this "point" contradicts #4 and 5, right?
(7) Just like last time you posted this drivel and had it debunked, you stopped numbering at this point. Why can't you actually create new arguments?
(8) Just because slow climate change in the past was natural does not mean that the fast climate change now is natural. Just because cancer kills you, it doesn't mean that a bullet won't kill you as well. Do you understand your logical fallacy about bringing up past climate change? The basic science is:
(a) We've increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from the range of about 180-280 ppmv (over the last 800,000 years, where 180 ppmv = ice age) to over 380 ppmv.
(b) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
(c) Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium point.
No fancy computer simulations are required to understand this basic science. As for cosmic rays, sounds like a BOFH excuse to me.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
One of the co-authors of that study is a friend of mine. He's bemused by how the press has gotten the data's implications entirely wrong. An average increase in global temperatures results - according to all models - in some local average decreases. The overall patterns change.
Consider the question some must be asking, "Why is there record snow in Mexico, New York now if our winters are warming?" It's because the Great Lakes are warmer than usual because of the unusually warm December and January, so there's more evaporation now that cold winds are finally blowing across, and that becomes snow. Global warming means as a planetary average it snows less (because it's more often rain instead). But locally it may be that Mexico, New York is in for a string of nasty winters.
It's similar effects we're seeing in Antarctica, where local regions have more snow buildup, or more cold, even though on the large scale major ice shelves are breaking off for the first time in tens of thousands of years.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
2. Mann's study (the one whose data analysis has been contested) is not the only reconstruction which leads to a hockey stick curve. In fact, reconstructions do, to one extent or another, and many of them use quite different methods of analysis.
3. Paleoproxies are indeed correlated with temperature, and there is a large literature on this subject.
4. You don't need a "hockey stick" reconstruction at all to see that there has been global warming; you can look at the instrumental record. Between 1950 and 2000 the empirical data indicates that the amount of light reaching the ground decreased immensely; more than enough to explain the missing CO2 signal. The empirical data indicates no such thing. There have been solar variations, but they are quite small. Stott et al. and Foukal et al. are the usual references. Similarly, the Earth's albedo (determining how much light gets reflected back into space instead of reaching the ground) has not changed to an extent that can account for global warming. I am also puzzled as to how a decrease in light reaching the ground can lead to a warming trend. Now the Danes have shown an alternative source of climatic effects in the incidence of cosmic rays, mediated by solar weather. They haven't shown any such thing. They've demonstrated an influence of cosmic rays on condensation in a laboratory. They have not given observational evidence that this effect is correlated with actual cloud formation in the atmosphere, and they have not demonstrated that this effect drives climate change. The short conclusion is, we have NO CLUE how the climate really works, nor do we know the full list of inputs that drive it nor their relative importance. You are confusing your personal ignorance with that of the scientific community. The existence and relative importance of different drivers of climate have been studied for over a century. While there are uncertainties, they are not on the level of "whoops, insolation effects are really 5x bigger than we thought they were" or whatever. Further, if you want to propose hitherto-unknown non-anthropogenic driver of global warming, you have to also propose an even larger unknown source of cooling to explain why the known large amounts of anthropogenic CO2 haven't been warming the Earth even more than your proposed natural warming driver. It is not credible. It may well be that CO2 warming is all that is keeping us from a particulate driven cooling and ice age. That's possible, but it still doesn't mean that we want global warming, either. If CO2 is staving off an ice age, then what we want is not necessarily "business as usual", but probably reduced CO2 emissions which warm us, but not too much.
From the article:
"The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999."
Ice in a glass of water will cause the water to stabilize right around the freezing point. Even if you slowly heat it, the temperature will remain around freezing...that is until the last of the ice melts.
It's logical to think that the same is happening in the oceans. The ice is helping keep the oceans at a fairly constant temperature and the oceans are absorbing the extra heat from the atmosphere.
The problem is that it looks like the oceans' ice is melting at an alarming rate.
Really? Any evidence to back that up? I can cite counter-examples. Lindzen, for example, has no problems getting funding (his most recent article cites 3 sources - NSF, DOE, and NASA), whereas scientists who are more cautionary are having trouble (see recent /. article). Without evidence, it's your claim that's FUD, not sober reports such as the recent IPCC.
I'm glad that you're in favor of reducing our impact on the climate regardless of your personal belief on the strengths of anthropogenic global warming, but I do recommend that you read some climatology journals and try to get first hand information. I suggest that perhaps your current source of information is quite filtered and biased.
Are you aware of biased or sensationalist coverage in the scientific community? The press has problems with accuracy, of course, but I'm not aware of any problems in the scientific community itself. (No more than with other fields, that is. No community is perfect.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"I think he meant serious, peer reviewed investigation"
Have a look again, RC is attacking a PRESS RELEASE similar to the PRESS RELEASE that is TFA. If this guy (or anyone else) publishes a paper on cosmic rays and climate I am sure it will be treated with more respect.
"In case the writers didn't know - environmentalists are also widely regarded..."
Perhaps RC contributors are also evil boogey-men "environmentalists" in their spare time, but they are climatoligists first and foremost. The guy who started the blog is the hockey stick guy and has been a lead authour in the IPCC reports, many of the contribitors also have a long list of current peer-reviewed publications under their belt, there is a bio for all of them on the site and (unlike psuedo-skeptical sites there is a prominent list of "other opinions. OTOH: The guy in TFA is a journalist who's claim to fame is that he was once the editor of New Scientst.
Having said that I doubt it will slow you from dogmatically defending a psuedo-skeptical press release in the face of overwhelming contra-evidence.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.