Simple Question About AGW

[TrueSceptic]

Do you have anything on why the biased trend has gone away during this recent period of non-warming of which you speak? Urbanisation goes on apace since 1998, after all, and land-use change generally has been extensive over that period.

I wondered that too.

It isn't.

Indeed

I'd say the match is pretty good.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
Do you have anything on why the biased trend has gone away during this recent period of non-warming of which you speak? Urbanisation goes on apace since 1998, after all, and land-use change generally has been extensive over that period.
​

I wondered that too.

I have the feeling that this question, a reasonable one based on not having read the article(s) in question, is a non starter. Good question, though.

If in fact there is a question, care to be more explicit and base it on the work in question?

 

[mhaze]

I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot...... As an alternative explanation for the current warming period Svensmark's hypothesis is shaky at best.

Well, I'm glad that you've done your best to refute the work of this team of scientists, before we know the results. Let's see....experts in their fields apply for and get funding for an experiment into the possible effects of cosmic rays on clouds, and Capeldodger would like to discredit it before the results are in.

This is nonsense, except from the point of view of one who has already made his mind up, whom does not want anything getting in and fracturing those nice little mental belief constructs, and whom would like to enlighten others as to those beliefs.

Capeldodger has scoffed at and belittled perhaps 90% of the scientific peer reviewed articles in climate science that have been discussed on JREF.

Why?

Because those articles did support his views, of course.

 

[mhaze]

Because those articles did support his views, of course.

Correction!

Because those articles did not support his views, of course.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, I'm glad that you've done your best to refute the work of this team of scientists, before we know the results. Let's see....experts in their fields apply for and get funding for an experiment into the possible effects of cosmic rays on clouds, and Capeldodger would like to discredit it before the results are in.

This is nonsense, except from the point of view of one who has already made his mind up, whom does not want anything getting in and fracturing those nice little mental belief constructs, and whom would like to enlighten others as to those beliefs.

Capeldodger has scoffed at and belittled perhaps 90% of the scientific peer reviewed articles in climate science that have been discussed on JREF.

Why?

Because those articles did support his views, of course.

Because there is nothing more than hypothesis at the moment, based on which is dodgy at best correlation.

 

[Slimething]

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

I'm afraid you've mistaken a hypothetical construct for evidence. Evidence, please.

 

[Slimething]

Because there is nothing more than hypothesis at the moment, based on which is dodgy at best correlation.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm afraid you've mistaken a hypothetical construct for evidence. Evidence, please.

There has been plenty of evidence presented already. CO2 as gas in the atmosphere slows down the radiation of heat into space. It's pretty simple. Add more CO2, slow down that rate of radiation, warm the earth.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Cli...limateVol1.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

There is nothing theoretical about it. The effect was first observed in a lab over 100 years ago.

 

[Slimething]

There has been plenty of evidence presented already. CO2 as gas in the atmosphere slows down the radiation of heat into space. It's pretty simple. Add more CO2, slow down that rate of radiation, warm the earth.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Cli...limateVol1.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

There is nothing theoretical about it. The effect was first observed in a lab over 100 years ago.

Bolding mine. You haven't presented evidence. You have presented hypothesis and extrapolation. Again, evidence please.

Real science is not easy. Sorry.

 

[fsol]

Cynicism noted.

That event may have occurred after one of the times that GISS banned his IP from their servers.

Oh, look another mistake! Steve McIntyre didn't write that blog post! OMG!!!!

 

[a_unique_person]

Bolding mine. You haven't presented evidence. You have presented hypothesis and extrapolation. Again, evidence please.

Real science is not easy. Sorry.

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

 

[a_unique_person]

I wonder if you want us to present you with paper that was published 100 years ago, or the Air Force papers from the '50s? There is the MODTRAN database, but that isn't what you want either, apparently.

 

[fsol]

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

If I was uncharitable I might think he was arguing from a god of the gaps standpoint. I don't actually think he is, but what he is asking for probably is going to be unavailable to us. What we have is multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same thing. AGW.

 

[jimbob]

Htis is a slight cross-post from another thread: nbut, here also seems to be a good place for it:

Does this look like a warming trend that has stopped?

<originating post>

running a cusum (discussed in originating post) you can see that the temperature started unambiguously rising about the 1920's

Now tried with a higher "running temperature" for the cusum target:
Target 0.225°C above LTA (Long Term Average {mean}):
this was appropriate for the 1980's but it is now warmer than that, and although there isn't yet enough evidence to be certain, the gradient seems to be getting steeper, which would indicate an increase in the rate of temperature change.

I like using cusums, as they are pretty robust, and they account for historic data.

An upwards slope means the parameter is running above "target", a downwards one lower, and a level one at target.

 

[mhaze]

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

Various studies that (mostly) do not correlate historical CO2 and temp.

From www.co2science.org

CO2, Methane and Temperature: More Insights from the Dome Concordia and Vostok Ice Cores
New Antarctic Ice Core CO2 and Proxy Temperature Data
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations: AD 800-2000
A New Ice Core from North Greenland
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Half a Billion Years of CO2 and Climate
400,000 Years of Atmospheric CO2, Methane and Temperature Data: What Can They Tell Us?
Reconstructing Past Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations from Stomatal Density Measurements of Leaf Macrofossils
The Art of Swallowing Camels Just Got a Whole Lot Harder
The Climate of Central Alaska During the Last Interglacial
Variations in Atmospheric CO2, Temperature and Global Ice Volume Derived from the Vostok Ice Core
The Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature Records of Dome Concordia, Antarctica
CO2 and Temperature: Who Leads the Dance of the Geophysical Parameters?
The Pathetic Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 and Earth's Temperature Over the Past Sixty Million Years
CO2 and Sea Level: Who Leads Who?
The "Unprecedented" Surface Air Temperature of the Past Decade
CO2 and Temperature: What Drives What?
Climate Intrigue at the Mid-Holocene
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations in the Middle Eocene
Miocene Climate and CO2
Nearly Half a Million Years of Climate and CO2
Temperatures of the Last Millennium
CO2 and Temperature: Ice Core Correlations
CO2 and Temperature: The Great Geophysical Waltz
Warmer Temperatures at Lower CO2 Concentrations
Persistent Millennial-Scale Climate Oscillations of the Past Million-Plus Years
Probing the Climatic Secrets of the Great Barrier Reef
Comparisons of Climate and Atmospheric CO2 Changes During the Last Glacial Period

 

[TrueSceptic]

Htis is a slight cross-post from another thread: nbut, here also seems to be a good place for it:

Does this look like a warming trend that has stopped?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449447af6df244038.png[/qimg]

Of course it has! Those last 3 diamonds prove it.

 

[mhaze]

Htis is a slight cross-post from another thread: nbut, here also seems to be a good place for it:

Does this look like a warming trend that has stopped?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449447af6df244038.png


running a cusum (discussed in originating post) you can see that the temperature started unambiguously rising about the 1920's

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449447af6bdf2c579.png


Now tried with a higher "running temperature" for the cusum target:
Target 0.225°C above LTA (Long Term Average {mean}):
this was appropriate for the 1980's but it is now warmer than that, and although there isn't yet enough evidence to be certain, the gradient seems to be getting steeper, which would indicate an increase in the rate of temperature change.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449447af6bdf7ce49.png

I like using cusums, as they are pretty robust, and they account for historic data.

An upwards slope means the parameter is running above "target", a downwards one lower, and a level one at target.

Why would using the cumulative sum be valid with highly autocorrelated data?

 

[varwoche]

From www.co2science.org

Of course, it has already been shown (to you, repeatedly) that CO2 Science is ready, willing and able to twist the facts beyond recognition, taking studies and spinning the results 180 degrees.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Of course, it has already been shown (to you, repeatedly) that CO2 Science is ready, willing and able to twist the facts beyond recognition, taking studies and spinning the results 180 degrees.

Surely not? They are sceptics and represent only mainstream climate science, not the distorted lefty/enviro propaganda that has fooled most governments and national scientific bodies since the 1980s. Those people are clever: they've even fooled Bush into believing that global warming is happening and that the USA needs to do something.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot.

Thanks.

Cosmic rays are directly measured, and have been since the 50's. There's no observed decrease (or increase) in cosmic rays. In light of that, Svensmark's staetment is a little surprising.

You are misinformed. Cosmic rays have been measured since 1935 and it is a well known phenomena that cosmic rays decrease with heightened solar activity. Look up Forbush decrease for your enlightenment.

As I recall, this was something along the lines of how to use a cloud-chamber. It's hard to see how he could have performed an experiment on any larger scale - in the real atmosphere, for instance - so its relevance remains questionable in the real world.

Have a look at the article before criticizing.

The words and wisdom of a Torygraph science corresponent. The scientists involved are not "hoping" to "prove" anything. They're going to conduct another lab-experiment and see what comes up.

Yep, all 60 of them. At CERN. Wonder how these 60 crackpots managed to get time allocated at the premier particle accelerator facility of the world.

Svensmark's argument seems (from what I've seen) to be about cosmic rays creating nucleation sites, not about whether those nucleation sites actually lead to more clouds. That's only going to happen if the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation sites, taking into consideration temperature and relative humidity. Which is to say, it will only influence near-saturated air.

Why do you think this work at CERN is being done? Svensmark admits that although a clear correlation can be shown between changes in cosmic ray intensity and changes in global cloud cover, the manner of this correlation is not perfectly clear. Hence the experiment.

A small relationship, and no mention of a trend in that quote. "Variablility" works both ways, and doesn't necessarily involve a trend.

Oh, the relationship is very clear. Have a look at figur 4 of this article (sorry, in Danish). Shows the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic radiation during the 11 year solar cycle given.

Svensmark's hypothesis involves several assumptions. That there's been a reduction in cosmic rays - which there hasn't during the current warming period. That there's been a decrease in global cloud-cover - which I've yet to see any evidence for.

Again, you are misinformed.

AAnd a third assumption is that cloud-cover has an overall cooling effect, but opinion's still divided on that. It has a cooling effect by increasing albedo, but that only operates during day-time; it has a warming effect day and night. The cosmic rays are coming in day and night as well, of course.

I'm sure that relationship is down pat by now.

Night-time (and winter) warming has been more rapid than day-time and summer warming, which would be an odd result were increased insolation behind the warming.

As an alternative explanation for the current warming period Svensmark's hypothesis is shaky at best.

I don't see why. Neither does CERN.