Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

The other is that, to be blunt about it, one can pick a whole department of 2/3 of the universities in the USA, and find that no one in said department has published in Nature. So you made some over reaching comments, got caught at it, and tried to recover by suggesting that "Submitting was easy".

No I said it is as easy to submit to Nature as it is to submit to any other journal. The process is pretty much the same for all journals. There is no recovering needed.
The fact that many papers are not submitted to Nature just means that there are more appropriate journals to submit the paper to. And there are other considerations, e.g. a busy journal may take longer to process a submission, people tend to publish in journals that they have published before, if your library does not carry the journal than there is litte point in submitting to it, there can be charges involved with publication, etc.
As an example (and I am tooting my own horn here ), I did a paper on the transport properties of nearly-magnetic alloys. It could have submitted to Nature. But the subject was too specific so it ended up in Physical Review B.

Indeed. So easy to submit. Wait, that's you making a simple misdirection. The question was actually publishing. Submitting is not publishing, and submitting is not a priori likely to result in publishing.

The subject was publishing as you quoted from my original post:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
FYI: Publishing in an obscure journal is taken as a sign that the author is not confident of their paper. Otherwise they would have published in a respected journal such as Nature where they know that their paper would be competently peer-reviewed and subject to criticism from a wide range of scientists

Submitting is not publishing, and submitting is not a priori likely to result in publishing.

Publishing is definitely easier in a journal that accepts papers of any quality, like E&E.

Irrelevant. But granted it's a point often parroted by Warmers.

Evading the review of your peers is relevant. Publishing in a journal known for the poor quality of the published papers is relevant.
But granted it's a point often ignored by Deniers (and other stereotyped groups with names beginning with capital letters).

 

[mhaze]

....Evading the review of your peers is relevant. Publishing in a journal known for the poor quality of the published papers is relevant. But granted it's a point often ignored by Deniers (and other stereotyped groups with names beginning with capital letters).

Well, we are in agreement that "submitting" is not relevant. And that Nature isn't really the best choice for a lot of stuff.

Of course, you've skipped over my rather unpleasant issue about the Climategate emails revealing purposeful intent to prevent publishing in numerous journals of articles by those felt to be skeptical to the pre determined conclusions of the UEA Team.

Why?

 

[Reality Check]

Well, we are in agreement that "submitting" is not relevant. And that Nature isn't really the best choice for a lot of stuff.

Of course, you've skipped over my rather unpleasant issue about the Climategate emails revealing purposeful intent to prevent publishing in numerous journals of articles by those felt to be skeptical to the pre determined conclusions of the UEA Team.

Why?

Because it is irrelevant to this thread. Post your question in the approriate thread. Start by listing exactly which papers were to be denied publication in which papers by whom and how this was to be done.

 

[ben m]

Is it related to the disclosures in Climategate emails that scientists of the Warmer cabel tried as best they could to prevent the publishing of papers contrary to their narrow pre conceived bias?

Please think about what the world would look like if your hypothesis were true---that mainstream journals reject high-quality climatology if it draws anti-AGW conclusions. What you would find would be a bunch of respectable climatologists whose routine scientific work is published in reputable journals, but whose big-climate-conclusion-drawing stuff gets rejected and shunted to E&E. You'd find Dr. Ralph Contrarian, Ph.D., publishing his postdoc work on advances in radiation transport through clouds, then being co-PI on a satellite spectrometer with ten publications, then getting invited to do a review article on clouds, and then adding up the numbers and drawing the "wrong" conclusion---at which point (not before!) the hypothetical "cabal" kicks into gear, and Ralph's twelvth paper gets shunted to E&E.

But that's not what you find, is it? The paper that the Cabal shunts to E&E is not Ralph's twelvth paper, nor sixth, nor second. Apparently the Vast Climate Conspiracy Cabal was able to go back in time and prevent Dr. Contrarian from publishing any climate research whatsoever! It's like getting peer reviewed by The Terminator---if you submit an anti-AGW paper today, Skynet sends a robot back to 1984 to sabotage your thesis defense. Or maybe it's super-foresight-conspiracy: there's a pool of water at the University of East Anglia where three psychic precogs can predict the eventual publication of anti-AGW papers, and they alert the cabal to reject all other papers by the same authors to preemptively trash their reputations---is that how it works, mhaze?

What the record shows is clear: the anti-AGW papers in "Energy & Environment" are all* written by people writing the first climate papers of their entire career. If you have a non-time-travel-related way of attributing that to a closed-paradigm conspiracy, I'd love to hear it.

* only one exception found in a random largeish statistical sample

 

[mhaze]

Because it is irrelevant to this thread. Post your question in the approriate thread. Start by listing exactly which papers were to be denied publication in which papers by whom and how this was to be done.

Well, I'll not be accused of derailing a threaded.

Another place and time, then we'll discuss why the fools of Climategate were so insistent of scheming to prevent skeptics from publishing.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, I'll not be accused of derailing a threaded.

Another place and time, then we'll discuss why the fools of Climategate were so insistent of scheming to prevent skeptics from publishing.

Yes, Another place and time, then we'll discuss why the scientists of the CRU were so insistent on preventing incorrect science from being pubished.

Put a link in this thread to the thread where you mean to discuss this paranoid delusion of Deniers .

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Is it related to the disclosures in Climategate emails that scientists of the Warmer cabel tried as best they could to prevent the publishing of papers contrary to their narrow pre conceived bias?

Please think about what the world would look like if your hypothesis were true---that mainstream journals reject high-quality climatology if it draws anti-AGW conclusions.
...

I think that mhaze is referring to another delusion held by global warming deniers. If I am wrong then he can correct me in the other thread where this will be discussed (according to him).

It is not the "the E&E is being persecuted because it publishes articles skeptical of global warming" one.

It is the "redefine peer reviewed literature" delusion where a couple of CRU emails expressing concern about some papers (in 2003 if I remember correctly) and discussing steps to pursue the matter are expanded by paranoid people into a global conspiracy to suppress all papers skeptical of global warming.
I think that the Illuminati get involved because they are obviously the only people with the power to control every scientific journal (or maybe every media outlet) in the world .

The Cabel does not need a time machine as these papers should not published at all. But they are really, really bad at their job because the papers get published anyway!

 

[mhaze]

If a delusion, then it was one only in the minds of Mann, Jones and the like. Hubris. But then I've already made this point in my prior post, haven't I?

 

[Reality Check]

If a delusion, then it was one only in the minds of Mann, Jones and the like. Hubris. But then I've already made this point in my prior post, haven't I?

Actually you did not make any point in your prior post. We were talking about E&E.
Mann, Jones and the like were not mentioned until you brought them up in this derail of the thread:

Is it related to the disclosures in Climategate emails that scientists of the Warmer cabel tried as best they could to prevent the publishing of papers contrary to their narrow pre conceived bias?

with its paranoid fantasy delusion and no evidence (what cabal? who are the members? how did they get the power to prevent publishing? how many 1000's of publications did they stop? how do you know that there is a " pre conceived bias"? etc.)

Please continue the discussion of this off-topic subject here.

 

[Haig]

One more time:

I think you and the Russian scientists will have to “agree to disagree” – shortly, events will show who's right.

Read what you have quoted: "Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels."
This means to me that they DO think that GHG and cosmic rays effects are compariable. Compariable means of the same order of magnitude.
They are not stating that it is only cosmic rays.
They are not stating that it is only GHGs.
No competent scientist would make that claim.
They are not even stating that cosmic rays are the dominant effect on climate.

I have and I think your misreading it! Here's the full paragraph:- "Beyond its semi-periodic 11-year cycle, the Sun displays unexplained behaviour on longer timescales. In particular, the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries have more than doubled duringthe last century [2]. The extra shielding has reduced the intensity of cosmic rays reachingthe Earth’s atmosphere by about 15%,globally averaged. This reduction of cosmic rays over the last century is independently indicated by the light radioisotope record in the Greenland ice cores. If the link between cosmic rays and clouds is confirmed it implies global cloud cover has decreased during the last century. Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels."

It seems pretty clear to me they are suggesting that the cosmic ray - cloud connection, if it is confirmed, can explain the global warming "presently attributed" to greenhouse gases. Another way of saying that is: it may not be GHG but the Sun and it's effects modulating cosmic rays that's causing climate change.

If you still have any doubts the first sentence of the next paragraph make it crystal clear:- "These observations suggest that solar variability may be linked to climate variability by a chain that involves the solar wind, cosmic rays and clouds."

That also applies to "solar wind plus magnetic flux", espcially the "magnetic flux" part.

Ah! but the point is: these varying “other effects” of the Sun are known to affect the amount of cosmic rays arriving in our atmosphere and that may affect the cloud cover and hence our climate. That’s what the CERN CLOUD scientists are saying.
BTW. This kind of thing is what I was suggesting may be lacking in the “current computer models” of AGW and climate change. I wonder what “other” factors may affect these models?

Are you aware that you are citing a proposal document from 2000?

1. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
2. It has been overtaken by later results as detailed in Could cosmic rays be causing global warming? which cites scientific papers published in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2007.

1. 
   Yes, but does that matter that much? It may be over shadowed by more recent papers, it may not, depending on your stance? Thanks for the link to "Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?" It has this:
   
   "While there was good correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature prior to 1970, the correlation breaks down sharply after 1970. The analysis concludes that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase" (Krivova 2003)"
   http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
   
   However if you look at these graphs from Project Astrometria:
   
   
   
   
   
   You can see the Sun was at it's most active in the period between 1970 to 1985 and that means cosmic ray flux was reduced and the climate warmer.
   
   Also, we are now on the down slope of a less active Sun and so a cooling climate has started.
   
   "First, the Harrison paper of 2006 states
   "Furthermore, during sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction, showing that the diffuse radiation changes are unambiguously due to cosmic rays."
   http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/07661/EGU06-J-07661.pdf
   
   
   Apparently,it is pointless to argue that cosmic rays do not affect cloudiness. The correlation is there on a timescale of hours to decades, and as others have shown, on centennial to billion of years. The mechanism might not be what Svensmark has proposed but it doesn't change the basic fact if he is wrong about that.
   
   
   Second, your argument is nonsensical, as what Svensmark and other argue is not that cosmic rays can account for all climate influences. But if he is right - and evidence is piling up that he is - two things follows.
   
   
   1) the parametrisation in current GCMs are wrong as they fit past temperatures without taking this effect in consideration. Hence they are not reliable as tools for forecasts.
   
   
   2) climate sensitivity is overestimated by earlier attempts such as Hansens, as one major forcing was not considered when calculating those sensitivity values.
   
   
   What "sceptics" such as me claim is that there is precious little evidence to support the higher estimates on future temperatures as presented by UN (IPCC). And quite a bit of evidence against it. Emission scenarios is, well, rather extravagant, as they include projections of emissions many times higher than todays in year 2100 in spite of our likelhood to develop good alternatives to the ever more pricier fossile fuel (current trends are cutting the cost of renewables at half each decade). Climate scenarios based on these extravagant emission scenarios is then calculated with GCMs that are likely overestimating the response to a particular forcing. In general I would say sceptics accept that the climate warms when we add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we believe its effect will be muted by the climate systems rather than enhanced.
   
   
   I also want to add that I recognise all other environmental (and geopolitical) problems associated with burning fossile fuel and find that a compelling reason to put higher efforts in developing alternatives.”
   http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
   
   
   Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
   "Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
   
   
   When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
   
   
   That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller."
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...eginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
   
   
   Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds
   "A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale," the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.
   
   
   "The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth's cloudiness is huge," Henrik Svensmark comments. "A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watt per square metre, and that's equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century."
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
   
   
   GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS – CLOUDS EFFECT AND BIFURCATION MODEL
   OF THE EARTH GLOBAL CLIMATE. PART 1. THEORY
   “Macroscopic physics accounting for the modulation of CRF via the solar wind is sufficiently evident. The main reason lies in the fact that the coupling between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere is mediated and controlled by the magnetic field in the solar wind through the magnetic reconnection [4, 5]. Therefore, the GCR intrusions into the lower atmosphere respond to variations in the Earth's magnetic field induced by its coupling with interplanetary magnetic field and magnetic perturbations by eruptive solar activity that propagate via the solar wind [6]. As far back as in the mid-1930-ies Forbush [7,8] provided experimental evidence of rigorous inverse correlation between the cosmic ray intensity and solar activity, and since then many scientists used analogous data on GCR intensity.”
   http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2765.pdf
   

   This is definitely not as bad as citing an astrologer as you did before

   Attacking the man RC! I'm very disappointed in you. So, like the others, you have double standards and a large dose of hypocrisy? the ad hom so unprofessional as well as uncivil, and says more about you than the target of your abuse.
   

   You misunderstand what the term "have validated the basic concept of the experiment" means.
   This was a pilot experiment. It was done to see if the experiment would work. The validation is that the experimental concept worked and now they can go onto doing the actual experiment.
   If you read the actual paper you will see this in the introduction

   I don’t agree: Here's a quote from the introduction and one from the conclusions:
   
   “The present results, while suggestive, are insufficient to unambiguously establish an effect of galactic cosmic rays on cloud condensation nuclei, clouds and climate, or to reach reliable quantitative estimates of such effects (Kazil et al.,2006; Yu et al., 2008; Pierce and Adams, 2009). The uncertainties largely stem from poorly-known aerosol nucleation and growth rates into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Experiments are planned for the CLOUD facility at CERN to resolve this deficiency”
   
   “In summary, the exploratory measurements made with a pilot CLOUD experiment at the CERN Proton Synchrotron have validated the basic concept of the experiment, provided valuable technical input for the CLOUD design and instrumentation,”
   http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.pdf
   
   Seems clear to me: They have the basics confirmed and further experiments with be designed to remove the "uncertainties" in their knowledge of nucleation and growth rates.
   

   Not quite right.
   The paper is about a pilot experiment. They have confirmed that the CLOUD experimental concept works and can produce nucleation. Now they have to go onto do the real experiment and then compare the data to the observations.

   We agree then,so far so good, right?
   

   Good enough. The effect they noted was not strong, however.

   Yes, but that was due to their lack of experimental knowledge, they will be more targeted with each step, that's science.
   

   Sure, it was, that was one of my points.
   
   
   The other is that, to be blunt about it, one can pick a whole department of 2/3 of the universities in the USA, and find that no one in said department has published in Nature. So you made some over reaching comments, got caught at it, and tried to recover by suggesting that "Submitting was easy".
   
   
   Indeed. So easy to submit. Wait, that's you making a simple misdirection. The question was actually publishing. Submitting is not publishing, and submitting is not a priori likely to result in publishing.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Irrelevant. But granted it's a point often parroted by Warmers.
   
   
   Is it related to the disclosures in Climategate emails that scientists of the Warmer cabel tried as best they could to prevent the publishing of papers contrary to their narrow pre conceived bias?
   
   
   There wouldn't be a relation, would there?

   
   
   

   No I said it is as easy to submit to Nature as it is to submit to any other journal. The process is pretty much the same for all journals. There is no recovering needed.
   The fact that many papers are not submitted to Nature just means that there are more appropriate journals to submit the paper to. And there are other considerations, e.g. a busy journal may take longer to process a submission, people tend to publish in journals that they have published before, if your library does not carry the journal than there is litte point in submitting to it, there can be charges involved with publication, etc.
   As an example (and I am tooting my own horn here ), I did a paper on the transport properties of nearly-magnetic alloys. It could have submitted to Nature. But the subject was too specific so it ended up in Physical Review B.
   
   
   
   The subject was publishing as you quoted from my original post:
   
   
   Submitting is not publishing, and submitting is not a priori likely to result in publishing.
   
   Publishing is definitely easier in a journal that accepts papers of any quality, like E&E.
   
   
   
   Evading the review of your peers is relevant. Publishing in a journal known for the poor quality of the published papers is relevant.
   But granted it's a point often ignored by Deniers (and other stereotyped groups with names beginning with capital letters).

   
   
   

   Well, we are in agreement that "submitting" is not relevant. And that Nature isn't really the best choice for a lot of stuff.
   
   
   Of course, you've skipped over my rather unpleasant issue about the Climategate emails revealing purposeful intent to prevent publishing in numerous journals of articles by those felt to be skeptical to the pre determined conclusions of the UEA Team.
   
   
   Why?

   
   
   

   Because it is irrelevant to this thread. Post your question in the approriate thread. Start by listing exactly which papers were to be denied publication in which papers by whom and how this was to be done.

   
   
   

   Please think about what the world would look like if your hypothesis were true---that mainstream journals reject high-quality climatology if it draws anti-AGW conclusions. What you would find would be a bunch of respectable climatologists whose routine scientific work is published in reputable journals, but whose big-climate-conclusion-drawing stuff gets rejected and shunted to E&E. You'd find Dr. Ralph Contrarian, Ph.D., publishing his postdoc work on advances in radiation transport through clouds, then being co-PI on a satellite spectrometer with ten publications, then getting invited to do a review article on clouds, and then adding up the numbers and drawing the "wrong" conclusion---at which point (not before!) the hypothetical "cabal" kicks into gear, and Ralph's twelvth paper gets shunted to E&E.
   
   
   But that's not what you find, is it? The paper that the Cabal shunts to E&E is not Ralph's twelvth paper, nor sixth, nor second. Apparently the Vast Climate Conspiracy Cabal was able to go back in time and prevent Dr. Contrarian from publishing any climate research whatsoever! It's like getting peer reviewed by The Terminator---if you submit an anti-AGW paper today, Skynet sends a robot back to 1984 to sabotage your thesis defense. Or maybe it's super-foresight-conspiracy: there's a pool of water at the University of East Anglia where three psychic precogs can predict the eventual publication of anti-AGW papers, and they alert the cabal to reject all other papers by the same authors to preemptively trash their reputations---is that how it works, mhaze?
   
   
   What the record shows is clear: the anti-AGW papers in "Energy & Environment" are all* written by people writing the first climate papers of their entire career. If you have a non-time-travel-related way of attributing that to a closed-paradigm conspiracy, I'd love to hear it.
   
   
   * only one exception found in a random largeish statistical sample

   
   
   

   Well, I'll not be accused of derailing a threaded.
   
   
   Another place and time, then we'll discuss why the fools of Climategate were so insistent of scheming to prevent skeptics from publishing.

   
   
   

   Yes, Another place and time, then we'll discuss why the scientists of the CRU were so insistent on preventing incorrect science from being pubished.
   
   Put a link in this thread to the thread where you mean to discuss this paranoid delusion of Deniers .

   
   
   

   I think that mhaze is referring to another delusion held by global warming deniers. If I am wrong then he can correct me in the other thread where this will be discussed (according to him).
   
   It is not the "the E&E is being persecuted because it publishes articles skeptical of global warming" one.
   
   It is the "redefine peer reviewed literature" delusion where a couple of CRU emails expressing concern about some papers (in 2003 if I remember correctly) and discussing steps to pursue the matter are expanded by paranoid people into a global conspiracy to suppress all papers skeptical of global warming.
   I think that the Illuminati get involved because they are obviously the only people with the power to control every scientific journal (or maybe every media outlet) in the world .
   
   The Cabel does not need a time machine as these papers should not published at all. But they are really, really bad at their job because the papers get published anyway!

   If a delusion, then it was one only in the minds of Mann, Jones and the like. Hubris. But then I've already made this point in my prior post, haven't I?

   Actually you did not make any point in your prior post. We were talking about E&E.
   Mann, Jones and the like were not mentioned until you brought them up in this derail of the thread:
   with its paranoid fantasy delusion and no evidence (what cabal? who are the members? how did they get the power to prevent publishing? how many 1000's of publications did they stop? how do you know that there is a " pre conceived bias"? etc.)
   Please continue the discussion of this off-topic subject here.

   Welcome Mhaze, you make very good points. This peer review process is relevant but it’s so murky it does need a thread of it’s own.
   
   Peer review does appear to have a lot of searching questions to answer in the incestuous and closed world of climate scientists, at least IMHO.
   Climate emails review panellist quits after his impartiality questioned
   
   “Nature editor Philip Campbell forced out of independent panel after saying there was nothing to suggest a cover up by scientists at the University of East Anglia.”
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...global-warming
   
   So Campbell has to resign because, publicly, his impartiality is in doubt. As editor in chief of Nature and in the privacy of his office, are climate skeptics papers likely to be given any chance at all of publication? I don’t think so! IMO.
   
   Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
   
   “Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not”
   
   “In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective.”
   http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/
   
   So, it seems clear to me, Peer Review is being use by scientists, in general, and the small group of AGW scientists, in particular, to defend their “beliefs” and block new idea’s and theories.
   
   Thanks RC for posting a link to a more suitable thread for thrashing out the pros and cons of this. Sorry, I haven’t the time to get more involved, I barely have any for this thread and I find this topic MUCH more interesting!

 

[Haig]

Getting back on track again, this from NC Media Watch:

The Sun Defines the Climate

"Here is a heads up by a Russian scientist that the planners at the Sustainability Center at might want to consider - Long term global cooling."

"Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. [...] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. [...] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. [...] We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis."

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2009/10/the-sun-defines-the-climate.html

Full Study is here.

SO, it seems, we should prepare for decades of global cooling?

Why should this come as a surprise or be treated as "not likely" by some?

The geological record and science tells us that the "natural" state of the Earth is glacial with the interglacial period being relatively short, about 10,000 years. Currently, ice ages are said to occur approx every 100,000 years and this interglacial period we are enjoying now, since the last ice age, is thought to be around 10,000 years. Suggesting that, maybe, the next glacial period is not far away?

Science is still not sure why ice ages occur but we can be sure it's not us!

Some more evidence for a Sun solar wind modulation of the cosmic ray flux affecting our climate:

The global atmospheric electric circuit and its effects on cloud microphysics

"The effects of the downward ionosphere-earth current density, Jz, on cloud microphysics, with its variability as an explanation for small observed changes in weather and climate"

Abstract here

The global atmospheric electric circuit, solar activity and climate change

"Our knowledge of the global electric circuit modulated by solar effects has improved. Changes to the global circuit are associated with changes of conductivity linked with the time-varying presence of energetic charged particles, and the solar wind may influence the global electric circuit by inferred effects on cloud microphysics, temperature, and dynamics in the troposphere"

Abstract here

 

[Reality Check]

"...Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels."
It seems pretty clear to me they are suggesting that the cosmic ray - cloud connection, if it is confirmed, can explain the global warming "presently attributed" to greenhouse gases. Another way of saying that is: it may not be GHG but the Sun and it's effects modulating cosmic rays that's causing climate change.

It seems pretty clear to me they are suggesting that the cosmic ray - cloud connection, if it is confirmed, can have an effect "comparable to that presently attributed" to greenhouse gases.

If you still have any doubts the first sentence of the next paragraph make it crystal clear:- "These observations suggest that solar variability may be linked to climate variability by a chain that involves the solar wind, cosmic rays and clouds."

Yes there may be a link. So what?

Yes, but does that matter that much? It may be over shadowed by more recent papers, it may not, depending on your stance?

You are missing the point:

This is a proposal document from 2000

• It is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is not a paper of any kind. It is an interal document for use within CERN. It is not even the complete dosument set (see CLOUD Proposal Documents)
• The link between cosmic rays and global warming mentioned in the document have been overtaken by later results as detailed in Could cosmic rays be causing global warming? which cites scientific papers published in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2007.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

However if you look at these graphs from Project Astrometria:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_382364b8e6e69af1d0.jpg
You can see the Sun was at it's most active in the period between 1970 to 1985 and that means cosmic ray flux was reduced and the climate warmer.

However if you look at these graphs from Project Astrometria, you see that they have nothing to do with the actual measured cosmic ray flux.

...
Apparently,it is pointless to argue that cosmic rays do not affect cloudiness.
...

No one is arguing that cosmic rays do not affect cloudiness. The link between cosmic rays and cloudiness is quite logical.

Second, your argument is nonsensical, as what Svensmark and other argue is not that cosmic rays can account for all climate influences. But if he is right - and evidence is piling up that he is - two things follows.

1) the parametrisation in current GCMs are wrong as they fit past temperatures without taking this effect in consideration. Hence they are not reliable as tools for forecasts.

2) climate sensitivity is overestimated by earlier attempts such as Hansens, as one major forcing was not considered when calculating those sensitivity values.

I know that Svensmark and other do not argue that cosmic rays can account for all climate influences. No one would be that ignorant.
GCMs not taking cosmic rays in account are not wrong - they would be inaccurate.
The problem with your argument is that they are accurate since they "fit past temperatures" . This proves that the effect of cosmic rays is small.

...Attacking the man RC! I'm very disappointed in you. So, like the others, you have double standards and a large dose of hypocrisy? the ad hom so unprofessional as well as uncivil, and says more about you than the target of your abuse.

Ignoring the credentials of the author Haig! I'm very disappointed in you. So, like the others, you have double standards and a large dose of hypocrisy?
There is no ad hom. Theodore Landscheit was an astrologer and an amateur climatologist. He produced a handful of published papers over a 20 year period. These papers have not been cited heavily. The paper on the web site is not listed in the Wikipedia article, probably because Energy & Environment is a trade journal rather than a science journal.

I don’t agree: Here's a quote from the introduction and one from the conclusions:

I don’t agree: Here's a quote from the introduction and one from the conclusions:
“The present results, while suggestive, are insufficient to unambiguously establish an effect of galactic cosmic rays on cloud condensation nuclei, clouds and climate, or to reach reliable quantitative estimates of such effects (Kazil et al.,2006; Yu et al., 2008; Pierce and Adams, 2009). The uncertainties largely stem from poorly-known aerosol nucleation and growth rates into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Experiments are planned for the CLOUD facility at CERN to resolve this deficiency”

“In summary, the exploratory measurements made with a pilot CLOUD experiment at the CERN Proton Synchrotron have validated the basic concept of the experiment, provided valuable technical input for the CLOUD design and instrumentation,”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.pdf

Seems clear to me: They have the pilot experiment working and further experiments will be designed to remove the uncertainties in their knowledge of nucleation and growth rates found in the pilot experiment.
At that point there will be comparisons to real-world data and a calculation of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and thus the climate.

We agree then,so far so good, right!

 

[Haig]

NASA's Solar Conveyor Belt Discovery

Solar 'Conveyor Belt' Runs at Record-High Speeds

"The current of fire is a conveyor belt-like system called the Meridional Flow which rises to the surface at the sun's equator and spreads out toward the poles where it sinks back into the sun. "Normally it reaches peak speeds of about 20 mph," says Hathaway. "However, in 2004 the speed increased to nearly 30 mph and has remained that fast since."

The faster pace is a revelation because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years and indications that the next solar cycle will be a weak one. This contradicts some theories that say a fast pace results in increased sunspot production. But it agrees with others that say a fast pace results in decreased sunspot production.

The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth. One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down, there would be fewer auroras, and to the extent that we depend on satellites, GPS, and cell phones there should be less disruption in service. "

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_plasma.html

(My bold) - It seems even NASA are beginning to think it's the Sun, not us, causing climate change and this can be viewed as support for Project Astrometria's idea the Earth is cooling.

 

[mhaze]

It seems pretty clear to me they are suggesting that the cosmic ray - cloud connection, if it is confirmed, can have an effect "comparable to that presently attributed" to greenhouse gases.


Yes there may be a link. So what?


You are missing the point:

This is a proposal document from 2000

• It is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is not a paper of any kind. It is an interal document for use within CERN. It is not even the complete dosument set (see CLOUD Proposal Documents)
• The link between cosmic rays and global warming mentioned in the document have been overtaken by later results as detailed in Could cosmic rays be causing global warming? which cites scientific papers published in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2007....

I'm not sure whether the biases in the skepticalscience.com website outweigh the outright errors or visa versa. Seems like I've pointed this out before, but here on the subject, there seem to be glaring issues just on the first page.

EG, bad choice for authority - that it ain't got.

 

[Reality Check]

[/list]I'm not sure whether the biases in the skepticalscience.com website outweigh the outright errors or visa versa. Seems like I've pointed this out before, but here on the subject, there seem to be glaring issues just on the first page.

EG, bad choice for authority - that it ain't got.

mhaze, I do not remember you pointing put the "glaring issues" on the skepticalscience.com blog.
Can you start a new thread with the list of "glaring issues" in the blog and the scientific papers that it cites?

Start with the link: Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?

 

[Reality Check]

"The current of fire is a conveyor belt-like system called the Meridional Flow which rises to the surface at the sun's equator and spreads out toward the poles where it sinks back into the sun. "Normally it reaches peak speeds of about 20 mph," says Hathaway. "However, in 2004 the speed increased to nearly 30 mph and has remained that fast since."
The faster pace is a revelation because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years and indications that the next solar cycle will be a weak one. This contradicts some theories that say a fast pace results in increased sunspot production. But it agrees with others that say a fast pace results in decreased sunspot production.
The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth. One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down, there would be fewer auroras, and to the extent that we depend on satellites, GPS, and cell phones there should be less disruption in service. "
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_plasma.html

(My bold) - It seems even NASA are beginning to think it's the Sun, not us, causing climate change and this can be viewed as support for Project Astrometria's idea the Earth is cooling.

You misunderstand the article (see my bolding)
The Meridional Flow affects the sunspot cycle.
The sunspot cycle affects the Total Solar Irradiance
The variations in the TSI is a known cause of changes in global temperature. The TSI is a factor that is included in the current climate models. If it decreases then the global warming that is already being measured could slow down.

NASA think exactly what climate scientists think - the TSI has a effect on global temperatures. Climate scientists know what this effect is, i.e. much less than that of GHGs.

 

[ben m]

NASA's Solar Conveyor Belt Discovery

Solar 'Conveyor Belt' Runs at Record-High Speeds

"The current of fire is a conveyor belt-like system called the Meridional Flow which rises to the surface at the sun's equator and spreads out toward the poles where it sinks back into the sun. "Normally it reaches peak speeds of about 20 mph," says Hathaway. "However, in 2004 the speed increased to nearly 30 mph and has remained that fast since."

The faster pace is a revelation because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years and indications that the next solar cycle will be a weak one. This contradicts some theories that say a fast pace results in increased sunspot production. But it agrees with others that say a fast pace results in decreased sunspot production.

The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth. One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down, there would be fewer auroras, and to the extent that we depend on satellites, GPS, and cell phones there should be less disruption in service. "

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_plasma.html

(My bold) - It seems even NASA are beginning to think it's the Sun, not us, causing climate change and this can be viewed as support for Project Astrometria's idea the Earth is cooling.

How does a press release mentioning that the Sun "slow the rate of increase" translate into your mind that "NASA thinks the Earth is cooling"? They're opposites. Anyway, did you even read the paper you linked to?

(a) This is (yet again) only relevant to climate via the TSI, not flares or flux transfer events.

(b) If you read the paper, it mentions climate only once, citing a mainstream article about the Maunder Minimum, which includes the same 1 W/m^2 number that you've ignored umpteen times. The only thing the Sun does in its minimum state is to decrease irradiance by something like 0.1%. That's already in all of our climate models, and it is a small negative forcing which doesn't overcome the large positive CO2 forcing.

Again, you're pulling the claim "The sun is going to turn way down and prevent global warming" out of thin air. All of the evidence you've been linking to has been the opposite---to evidence that the Sun cannot possibly turn down enough to prevent global warming.

Geez, I used to think that AGW deniers would dispute the strength of the feedbacks. "As a card-carrying Exxon lobbyist, I believe that the known +2 watt forcing, which is so obvious that not even I can deny it, will only increase the temperature by 0.1 degrees." You're doing something utterly nonsensical: You're arguing that a hypothetical -1W forcing from the Sun has honest-to-goodness cooling effect, but that +3W from CO2 is completely beneath your attention because you'd rather talk about the possibility of the -1.

It's like bobbing down the Niagara River and talking about how you plan to face upstream and dog-paddle. It's like buying a $200,000 house and bragging about how you might be able to sell it for $202,000, but plugging your ears when the realtor asks for their $10,000 fee.

 

[Haig]

You misunderstand the article (see my bolding)

No, I think you misunderstood me. I’m just quoting NASA “The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth. One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down” That means the Sun affecting the climate on Earth and notice they don’t mention GHG's or C02.

The Meridional Flow affects the sunspot cycle.

Well RC you misunderstood the article, as NASA aren’t sure that’s true. “Could it be that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? "That's one possibility" he notes. "Sunspots could be moving because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt." http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/12mar_conveyorbelt.htm

NASA think exactly what climate scientists think - the TSI has a effect on global temperatures. Climate scientists know what this effect is, i.e. much less than that of GHGs.

Not all climate scientists eg Project Astrometria scientists, CERN CLOUD scientists and the scientists at Weatheraction. BTW my statement was: “It seems even NASA are beginning to think it's the Sun, not us, causing climate change and this can be viewed as support for Project Astrometria's idea the Earth is cooling.” Notice ALL I said was “It seems even NASA are beginning.....” so don’t put words in my mouth.

How does a press release mentioning that the Sun "slow the rate of increase" translate into your mind that "NASA thinks the Earth is cooling"? They're opposites.

It doesn’t and your misunderstanding my post, just as RC has, please read it again. I said: “It seems even NASA are beginning to think it's the Sun, not us, causing climate change and this can be viewed as support for Project Astrometria's idea the Earth is cooling.” Notice the “and” in the middle of the sentence and nowhere do I say, "NASA thinks the Earth is cooling" What I am suggesting is both NASA(in this article at least IMO) and Project Astrometria link the Sun and climate change and that's all I'm pointing out!

This is (yet again) only relevant to climate via the TSI, not flares or flux transfer events.

The only thing the Sun does in its minimum state is to decrease irradiance by something like 0.1%. That's already in all of our climate models, and it is a small negative forcing which doesn't overcome the large positive CO2 forcing.

I don’t see how you can be so sure of that. In the article, they link magnetism and the sunspot cycles, as these quotes show “The top of the belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up knots of solar magnetism and carrying them toward the poles. SOHO is able to track those knots—Hathaway calls them "magnetic elements"--and thus reveal the speed of the underlying flow.” And “First, it coincided with the deepest solar minimum in nearly 100 years, contradicting models that say a fast-moving belt should boost sunspot production. The basic idea is that the belt sweeps up magnetic fields from the sun's surface and drags them down to the sun's inner dynamo. There the fields are amplified to form the underpinnings of new sunspots.”
The graph also plots the speed of the belt against sunspots. The sunspot cycles and climate change are commonly linked eg by the Russians.http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/12mar_conveyorbelt.htm

Again, you're pulling the claim "The sun is going to turn way down and prevent global warming" out of thin air. All of the evidence you've been linking to has been the opposite---to evidence that the Sun cannot possibly turn down enough to prevent global warming.

I believe that the known +2 watt forcing, which is so obvious that not even I can deny it, will only increase the temperature by 0.1 degrees."

You're doing something utterly nonsensical: You're arguing that a hypothetical -1W forcing from the Sun has honest-to-goodness cooling effect, but that +3W from CO2 is completely beneath your attention because you'd rather talk about the possibility of the -1.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding my part in this thread. I am “unsure” who’s right in this and as I’ve said many times,I'm sitting on the fence and I’m playing DA. So, you disagree with the Russian scientists of Project Astrometria and the scientists of the CERN CLOUD experiment and the rest who say, as they do, it’s NOT GHG’s and C02 driving climate change.
Another thing, I notice that you use “I believe” in your spiel, that’s not a good sign, science is not about belief, is it?
Here’s another quote from Hathaway, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center “This result may help to explain why this solar activity minimum is so peculiar”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223980 He seems puzzled, maybe, you should reflect a little more too!

Slightly OT but never the less fascinating is this piece:"The Magnetic Universe" by Bryan Gaensler
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/bi2009/301Gaensler.pdf “Magnets are everywhere, but we don't know how they got here”

So maybe, it is magnetism that is causing climate change! Don’t let it upset your “faith” it’s just the devil’s advocate talking

Here’s a piece about the failure of standard meteorology and in contrast, the success of the solar weather technique of Piers Corbyrn.

Met Office abandons long-term forecasts
“First it promised a "barbecue summer" that brought little but rain. Then came the "mild winter" which turned out to be one of the coldest in 31 years. Now the Met Office is simply scrapping its long-term seasonal forecasts.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-office-abandons-longterm-forecasts-1917059.html

However, it appears, if you know it’s the SUN driving weather and climate change you can make very successful long range forecasts as Piers Corbyn does:

6th March 2010 WeatherAction News No 13
WeatherAction offers to fill the gap as Met Office admits failure of seasonal forecasts; and calls on Met Office and politicians to give up Global Warming ?Religion? ?Global Warming is a paper tiger? ? Piers Corbyn
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact2&fsize=0

Piers Corbyn's Summary of the Weather December to February and Summary Weather Report for the UK for March 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSD5bMqCoE

Notice what PC say’s about the first M-class flares for two years on the 18-20 Jan and how they predicted the severe weather impacts on Earth, as a direct result, caused by them. That’s what he means by evidence based science.

Anybody else "unsure" about AGW? come and join me on the fence

 

[ben m]

No, I think you misunderstood me. I’m just quoting NASA “The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth. One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down” That means the Sun affecting the climate on Earth and notice they don’t mention GHG's or C02.

Note that that's a "temperature increase", not a decrease, i.e. heating not cooling. And that it might "slow down", not stop or reverse. Note the difference between that and the title of this thread. What do you think makes up the difference?

I don’t see how you can be so sure of that.

Because I clicked through and read the scientific article that the press release is talking about. I further clicked through the two articles cited by that article in the one sentence that it mentions "relevance to climate change". I don't have to read between the lines of the press release.

The magnetism they're talking about is rather deep in the Sun (i.e. NOT the surface magnetism that's involved in flares and connected to space weather.) The topic of this research is primarily the flow of material at the base of the Sun's convective cells---the magnetic fields and the sunspots are just tracers of how this material is moving. The result of studying these flows is a better understanding of the cycles themselves; one feature of these cycles is a change in TSI (over a range of 1 W/m^2) and that is the only feature of the Sun which these papers discuss as being connected with the climate.

 

[Haig]

Note that

that's a "temperature increase", not a decrease,

i.e. heating not cooling. And that it might "slow down", not stop or reverse. Note the difference between that and the title of this thread.

I didn't say it was "cooling" but it is apparent, to me at least,in the quote from NASA:
“The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth. One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down”
From that, it seems clear to me,they are saying the rate of temperature increase of the Earth "could" slow down. So that is climate change from a higher rate of heating to a lower rate of heating, caused by the Sun, as a suggestion from NASA, right?

Because I clicked through and read the scientific article that the press release is talking about. I further clicked through the two articles cited by that article in the one sentence that it mentions "relevance to climate change". I don't have to read between the lines of the press release.

The magnetism they're talking about is rather deep in the Sun (i.e. NOT the surface magnetism that's involved in flares and connected to space weather.) The topic of this research is primarily the flow of material at the base of the Sun's convective cells---the magnetic fields and the sunspots are just tracers of how this material is moving. The result of studying these flows is a better understanding of the cycles themselves; one feature of these cycles is a change in TSI (over a range of 1 W/m^2) and that is the only feature of the Sun which these papers discuss as being connected with the climate.

Yes, I see your point, there is more than one way to view the facts. I didn't say I was certain about it. Shall I move over to make room for you on the fence?