Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[ben m]

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?

How many times have we said this, Haig? I will say it again: mainstream climate science already includes solar variation. It is not a big surprise. It's a straightforward "extra forcing" that is in the models already and has been for a long time. The reason we are concentrating on CO2 is that the CO2 forcing is much bigger than the solar TSI forcing---not, as you keep implying, because 'everyone ignored the TSI forcing until the Corbyn and/or the Russians told us about it'. The CO2 forcing is bigger than the TSI forcing right now; the CO2 forcing is getting bigger rapidly and will still overwhelm the TSI forcing even if the Sun goes into a Maunder minimum---which, as we've pointed out ten times now, is exactly the scenario which is modeled in a paper you yourself linked to.

In other words, NASA is saying exactly the usual thing, the same thing all climate scientists have been saying for 20 years now. The temperature of the Earth depends on the net radiative forcing. The biggest forcing is CO2. The second biggest forcing is methane. The third biggest forcing is aerosols. The fourth biggest forcing is a tie for land use change, ozone, and solar variations.

You seem to think that every mention of the words "sun" and "climate" in the same sentence means that CO2 might be exonerated. I have no idea why you are doing this.

 

[Haig]

How many times have we said this, Haig?

You seem to think that every mention of the words "sun" and "climate" in the same sentence means that CO2 might be exonerated. I have no idea why you are doing this

Ben, this can sum up my position and why I’m “unsure” and also why I’m looking at the sceptics like Project Astrometria, CERN CLOUD and Weatheraction with renewed interest and trying hard to be unbiased. Without overstating it, I’m rather disappointed with the lies/errors coming from the AGW side. I also don’t understand why they need to demonize those that disagree with them(all that “deniers” rhetoric), that’s not science as I understand it, is it?

What to say to a global warming alarmist
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
http://www.1776-redux.com/climate/Hadley_Climate_Prediction.pdf

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS,
UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

“Climate fluctuates. The world isn't going to follow our preconceived ideas even if a panel of scientists says it should. But that's what we call leaning; if we knew everything we'd have nothing to learn, and when it comes to climate we obviously have a lot. Things like this are very interesting to read and learn about, it just isn't a surprise, especially involving climate where one would expect there to be a lot of fluctuations.

I guess we'll find out in another year more of what's going on (what the trend is, or if this is just a blip so to speak), but this has definitely been one heck of a winter.”

 

[ben m]

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

I think Megalodon's third plot is the best response:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5627008&postcount=26

Saying "global warming has stalled" in light of this data is like sitting at a slot machine, $2000 in the hole already, and saying "well, my last three spins gained some ground so maybe the 'house-always-wins' people are wrong."

 

[Haig]

I think Megalodon's third plot is the best response

: And the best answer to that is the Russians Graph showing us on the downslope of a less active Sun.

Saying "global warming has stalled" in light of this data is like sitting at a slot machine, $2000 in the hole already, and saying "well, my last three spins gained some ground so maybe the 'house-always-wins' people are wrong."

Seems like, the "bums" rush to panic us into Cap and Trade, to many skeptics. We have done very little to stop the rise of C02 yet the there is no "statistically significant" warming for the last decade. We have time to check whose right, it appears! At any rate, we need to recheck the facts before taking such drastic steps, in IMHO.

 

[ben m]

: And the best answer to that is the Russians Graph showing us on the downslope of a less active Sun.

Yep, another plot of TSI varying by 1 W/m^2 between now and the minimum in 2050. You can look closely and see the TSI dropping by 0.1 watts---100mW---over the past decade.

So apparently this plot convinces you that losing 0.1 watt of irradiance makes the difference between warming and cooling---that's what the TSI did in the past decade, Haig---and that it does so so quickly and thoroughly that you can see it in the cooling effect already in only one decade's worth of noisy data. That seems to be what you're saying.

If that's what you really think the Earth is doing, Haig, then you ought to be pants-wetting terrified of climate change. CO2 + methane is already giving us a +1.5 watts of extra power---it's like having fifteen times the TSI swing that you're attributing so much to. We're currently on track towards adding an additional +3 watts of power. IF, as you claim to, you think -100 milliwatts somehow got amplified into a hyper-cooling decade, then you OUGHT TO conclude that +4,500 milliwatts---that's business-as-usual CO2---is something to worry about. It's something to worry about even if the Maunder minimum chops it down to +3,500 mW---remember, you just told us that you think -100 mW has a huge climate effect.

I'm not making these numbers up. The +1.5W is already there, that's a measured quantity in the atmosphere above you right now. The next +3W is a projection, but a pretty straightforward one.

So apparently you believe that the Earth can be easily be forced cool, but hard to heat. Or perhaps you believe that you get some sort of different heat from a watt's worth of IR photons than you get from a watt's worth of visible light. Or maybe you really do believe that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared light at all.

But I don't think you really believe any of this, Haig. You're Googling around for random climate information. if you find anything remotely non-CO2 related you decide that it'd be fun if it were true---you get to play devil's advocate, you get to be right when everyone else is wrong, and you don't have to worry about paying $4.00/gal for gasoline. And apparently it's no less fun if the list of things you believe is mutually inconsistent.

 

[Haig]

Yep, another plot of TSI varying by 1 W/m^2 between now and the minimum in 2050

Sure, it’s what the Russians think and they can do math too. Project Astrometria, CERN CLOUD and Weatheraction all have different approaches to climate change. However, they ALL agree that AGW and C02 are NOT driving climate change and that it is a natural process. For Project Astrometria, and Weatheraction it’s the Sun as the main driver of climate change and for CERN CLOUD it’s the Sun modulating Cosmic rays that’s doing it.

So apparently this plot convinces you that

No, it’s what the Russians think! I’m “unsure” remember?

If that's what you really think the Earth is doing, Haig, then you ought to be pants-wetting terrified of climate change.

Nope, it’s Project Astrometria’s view. BTW I’m not terrified of climate change at all, it’s a natural process. Man has got through the MWP and the LIA and with our modern technology and some forewarning and planning of the changes we should manage. A full blown Ice Age would be more difficult, I know ;-)

as you claim to, you think

you just told us that you think

It’s Project Astrometria, CERN CLOUD and Weatheraction I’m on the fence.

I'm not making these numbers up. The +1.5W is already there, that's a measured quantity in the atmosphere above you right now. The next +3W is a projection, but a pretty straightforward one

I’m sure you think your math is right but remember the Wright Bros. Also the CERN CLOUD concept of the Sun controlling the Cosmic rays (as the Greenland ice cores confirm) over the last 100 years of warming with an “active” Sun surpressing the Cosmic rays.

So apparently you believe that the Earth can be easily be forced cool, but hard to heat.

No, I don’t “believe” anything. The evidence shows that cooling AND heating can happen relatively fast but dampened by the mass of water on the surface of the earth..

But I don't think you really believe any of this, Haig.

As I said: “belief” doesn’t come into my thinking. I am waiting to see who is right in this debate on the causes of climate change.

if you find anything remotely non-CO2 related you decide that it'd be fun if it were true---you get to play devil's advocate,

I don’t find this funny at all and devil's advocate is a valid stance on the JREF as I understand it!

 

[Reality Check]

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.

They do not mention GHG's or C02 becasue thay are NASA and the article is about the Sun.
The variations in the TSI is a known cause of changes in global temperature (even to NASA). 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.

Not all climate scientists eg Project Astrometria scientists, CERN CLOUD scientists and the scientists at Weatheraction

You really should read your sources and look at the authors.

• There are no climate scientists at Project Astrometria. Just astrophysicists.
• There is no evidenc eof climate scientists at Weatheraction. Just an astrophysicist with an advertasing campain about a secret, unpublished, unverified technique of long rang weather forecasting.
• There are no climate scientists at CERN CLOUD that I know of (CERN is primarily particle physicists).

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.

I did not - so don’t put words in my mouth.
You stated:

Originally Posted by Haig

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.

My response was

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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.

This is not how you have wrongly misinterpreted a news article:

1. The article states exactly what what climate scientists and NASA have known for decades - changes in the Sun cause changes in climate. Climate scientists also know that this effect is a few percent of the effect of GHGs.
2. There is no mention of any anthropogenic cause of global warming.
3. You are ignoring what the article actually states:
   

   One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down

   This is a slow down in the rate of global warming (whatever the cause). It does not say that the warming will turn into a cooling.
4. The "temperature increase of the Earth" is not a quote from a scientist. It is a statement by that author (Janet Anderson). She is not NASA. Her news articles are not official NASA statements on the thinking of all of NASA. They are not even indications that NASA's current stance on global warming is even begining to chnage.
5. Project Astrometria's idea that the Earth is cooling is just that - a fantasy that is ruled out by reality and science. You know this as it has already been pointed out to you over many posts.

Here is the actual paper: Variations in the Sun’s Meridional Flow over a Solar Cycle. I do not have access to the full paper but the abstract has nothing about climate in it.

 

[Reality Check]

Sure, it’s what the Russians think and they can do math too. Project Astrometria, CERN CLOUD and Weatheraction all have different approaches to climate change. However, they ALL agree that AGW and C02 are NOT driving climate change and that it is a natural process. For Project Astrometria, and Weatheraction it’s the Sun as the main driver of climate change and for CERN CLOUD it’s the Sun modulating Cosmic rays that’s doing it.

It is what the Russions think and they show no sign of having done the math (hand drawn graphs!). Climate scientists have done the math. The math shows that the Russians are wrong.

Until scientific evidence is presented, Weatheraction is just a scam being run to make an astrophysist rich. If anyone believes his advertising - well I have a certain bridge in New York that they may be interested in.

You are lying about CERN CLOUD. As you quoted from their 2000 proposal document:

"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 is clear 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. Compariable means of the same order of magnitude.
It does not mean that greenhouse gases have no effect.



In addition

• 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 document set (see CLOUD Proposal Documents).
• As an internal proposal document to CERN by scientists who want to do the experiment you would expect them to put possible results in the best light.
• 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.

 

[Haig]

They do not mention GHG's or C02 becasue thay are NASA and the article is about the Sun.The variations in the TSI is a known cause of changes in global temperature (even to NASA). 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.

My comments about NASA “and notice they don’t mention GHG's or C02.” was in response to Ben and if you scroll back to the exchange you’ll see why I made them or maybe you won’t ;-)Yes, NASA follows the AGW line but there is no harm in pointing out areas where, it appears, they don’t quite conform IMO.

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.

Yes, there seems to be a “groupthink” going on and this could shed some light on it: “Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/
However, there is some hope :- Granddaddy of green, James Lovelock, warms to eco-sceptics “I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way” “he is concerned that the projections are relying on computer models based primarily on atmospheric physics, because models of that kind have let us down before.”http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece

You really should read your sources and look at the authors.

• There are no climate scientists at Project Astrometria. Just astrophysicists.
• There is no evidenc eof climate scientists at Weatheraction. Just an astrophysicist with an advertasing campain about a secret, unpublished, unverified technique of long rang weather forecasting.
• There are no climate scientists at CERN CLOUD that I know of (CERN is primarily particle physicists).

That’s just my layman’s view: They are all scientists with expertise/experience in the climate. I think this is another example of “Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/ Interestingly, the astrophysicist at Weatheraction has shown the climate scientists at the Met Office to be incompetent at predicting long range weather. Note: many of these climate scientists are peer-reviewed and were using the latest AGW computer based climate models. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1917059.html

I did not - so don’t put words in my mouth.You stated:

My response was

My opinion is clear on this, maybe not to you, but let’s not go around in circles over it

This is not how you have wrongly misinterpreted a news article:

This doesn’t make sense to me. I guess you think I misinterpreted a news article?

1. The article states exactly what what climate scientists and NASA have known for decades - changes in the Sun cause changes in climate. Climate scientists also know that this effect is a few percent of the effect of GHGs.
2. There is no mention of any anthropogenic cause of global warming.
3. You are ignoring what the article actually states:This is a slow down in the rate of global warming (whatever the cause). It does not say that the warming will turn into a cooling.
4. The "temperature increase of the Earth" is not a quote from a scientist. It is a statement by that author (Janet Anderson). She is not NASA. Her news articles are not official NASA statements on the thinking of all of NASA. They are not even indications that NASA's current stance on global warming is even begining to chnage.
5. Project Astrometria's idea that the Earth is cooling is just that - a fantasy that is ruled out by reality and science. You know this as it has already been pointed out to you over many posts.

Here is the actual paper: Variations in the Sun’s Meridional Flow over a Solar Cycle. I do not have access to the full paper but the abstract has nothing about climate in it.

NASA do excellent science so don't get me wrong here when I say this piece seems a little weak IMHO it's more like a statement the IPCC would make ie too much politics! What I mean is that NASA in the article on global warming say this:
“majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.”
“A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.”
Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
None of the contributors to this paper are astrophysicists, so how can they say it’s not the Sun; they don’t even appear to be climate scientists. They say, “believe” but faith shouldn’t come into this subject, should it?
Anyway, Consensus has no place in science. Science is not democratic. ... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. ... We would still think that the Sun circled the Earth if consensus was to be the rule in science.

It is what the Russions think and they show no sign of having done the math (hand drawn graphs!). Climate scientists have done the math. The math shows that the Russians are wrong.

I wonder if you are genuine RC? The expense, planning and effort that Project Astrometria has put/will put the Russians too and You think they haven’t done the MATH! Get real! You may not agree with them or their math but give them some credit.

Until scientific evidence is presented, Weatheraction is just a scam being run to make an astrophysist rich. If anyone believes his advertising - well I have a certain bridge in New York that they may be interested in.

I could understand if you called the Met Office long range forecasts a “scam” because they were taking money from taxpayers and private clients for them and they were useless eg the last three winters and two summers ALL totally wrong and that’s why they gave up. Weatheraction got them ALL correct from months in advance. Piers Corbyn is a great example of evidence based science in action. Cause and effect that even a layman can check out and it doesn’t need “faith” You may ask how he does it and most of it is very clear from his videos and site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSD5bMqCoE
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact1&fsize=0

You are lying about CERN CLOUD. As you quoted from their 2000 proposal document:

Sober up, RC I don’t need to “lie” about this.

It is clear 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. Compariable means of the same order of magnitude.It does not mean that greenhouse gases have no effect.

What they say IMHO and in my words, is GCR effects on our climate can have the same effect that GHG’s are claimed to have. So, there in NO need to invoke man-made climate change.

In addition

• 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 document set (see CLOUD Proposal Documents).
• As an internal proposal document to CERN by scientists who want to do the experiment you would expect them to put possible results in the best light.
• 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.

You really try to use this peer-reviewed scientific paper argument too much IMO. Don’t you understand this peer-reviewed scientific paper on the “peer-review process” and it’s implications for science? “Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/

Take a look at this more recent papers on CERN CLOUD

Interactive comment on “Results from the CERN
pilot CLOUD experiment” by J. Duplissy et al.
Received and published: 12 October 2009

“These pilot experiments explored the influence of cosmic rays on new-particle formation. In some experiments there clearly is evidence that ionization from cosmic rays increase new-particle formation rates; however, a major finding of this paper is the sensitivity of new-particle formation rates to undesirable inputs, such as out-gassing of chamber walls, which made it difficult to isolate the factors affecting nucleation. Thus, this pilot experiment provided very important information for improving the design of the CLOUD experiment.”

http://editor.copernicus.org/index....file&_ms=1643&c=3347&salt=6032276981310090637

Nothing in that to suggest they have gone back on their views in the 2000 paper!

COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE
CERN-PH-EP/2008-005
26 March 2008

“Until recently, even the existence of solar-climate variability has been controversial—perhaps because the observations had largely involved correlations between climate and the sunspot cycle that had persisted for only a few decades. Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate.”


“Two different classes of mechanisms have been proposed to link the GCR flux with clouds. The first hypothesis is that the ionisation from GCRs influences the production of new aerosol particles in the atmosphere, which then grow and may eventually increase the number of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), upon which cloud droplets form. The second hypothesis is that GCR ionisation modulates the entire ionosphere-Earth electric current which, in turn, influences cloud properties through charge effects on droplet freezing and other microphysical processes.”

“Is there any link between lightning variability and GCR-cloud-climate effects? The answer is yes, perhaps, in two2 quite distinct areas: aerosol production and Milankovitch orbital cycles.”

“There are several important general characteristics of a putative GCR-climate forcing. The first, which has been described in detail, is that it can act on any time scale from days to hundreds of millions of years. In particular, the GCR flux is a candidate for the presently-unknown forcing agent for centennial and millennial scale variability.”

CONCLUSIONS
“Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV?
Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover, numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation.

Cosmic ray forcing of the climate could in principle operate on all time scales from days to hundreds of millions of years, reflecting the characteristic time scales for changes in the Sun’s magnetic activity, Earth’s magnetic field, and the galactic environment of the solar system. Moreover the climate forcing would act simultaneously, and with the same sign, across the globe. This would both allow a large climatic response from a relatively small forcing and also give rise to simultaneous regional climate responses without any clear teleconnection path. The most persuasive palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/GCR forcing involves sub-orbital (centennial and millennial) climate variability over the Holocene, for which there is no established forcing agent at present.”

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, there seems to be a “groupthink” going on and this could shed some light on it:
...

No, there is no "groupthink" going on. There is science going on.
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.
This is from the sceintific evidence.

Interestingly, the astrophysicist at Weatheraction has shown the climate scientists at the Met Office to be incompetent at predicting long range weather.

Interestingly, you are still obsessed with the advertisements from this astrophysicist.
You are also obsessed with weather. We are talking about climate.

I guess you think I misinterpreted a news article? NASA do excellent science so don't get me wrong here when I say this piece seems a little weak.

I am saying that you grossly misinterpreted a news article by reading into it things that it does not state and that the paper it describes probably has no mention of.

What I mean is that NASA in the article on global warming say this:
“majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.”

That is correct - the majority of climatologists are convinced by the scientific evidence that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. A small number are not.

Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
None of the contributors to this paper are astrophysicists, so how can they say it’s not the Sun; they don’t even appear to be climate scientists.

Climate scientists know about the Sun because they have to include its effects in their study of the climate.
Astrophysists do not have to know about GHGs in order to study the Sun.
You have a point there about the last author. My guess is that the first author (Earth Sciences includes climate science) did the climate stuff and teh second author did the impact stuff.

They say, “believe” but faith shouldn’t come into this subject, should it?

There is no failth. “believe” = the scientific evidence has convinced them.

Anyway, Consensus has no place in science. Science is not democratic.

Correct.
But you keep on stating that you are a layman. In terms of climate science I am also a layman. So how are we to judge the results of climate research?

My strategy is to look at the scientific consensus, look at the evidence for that consensus, look at dissenting opinions and their evidence and make a judgement as to whether the consensus is valid. I am lucky in that I have a good grounding in physics and so can

Your strategy seems to be to ignore the sceintific evidence, pick out one web page that is not written by climate scientists and then blindly believe what they state. To boost your belief you then use an astrophysicist who is selling his services as an unverified, long range weather forecaster.

I wonder if you are genuine RC? The expense, planning and effort that Project Astrometria has put/will put the Russians too and You think they haven’t done the MATH! Get real! You may not agree with them or their math but give them some credit.

I wonder if you are genuine Haig?
The stated main goals of Project Astrometria is to study the Sun. They did the MATH to do that.
One more time: There is no evidence of climate science MATH. Their graphs look hand drawn. They cite no climate models used to do their predictions.

Sober up, RC I don’t need to “lie” about this.
What they say IMHO and in my words, is GCR effects on our climate can have the same effect that GHG’s are claimed to have. So, there in NO need to invoke man-made climate change.

You were lying when you stated "for CERN CLOUD it’s the Sun modulating Cosmic rays that’s doing it" where it is "main driver of climate change".

• The proposal CERN CLOUD document states that the effects would be compariable. This does not mean that cosmic rays dominate or GHGs dominate.

If they are correct then there IS STILL need to invoke man-made climate change to make up for the part of global warming that is not due to cosmic rays.

You really try to use this peer-reviewed scientific paper argument too much IMO. Don’t you understand this peer-reviewed scientific paper on the “peer-review process” and it’s implications for science? “Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/

Yes I do understand it.
Of course if it is correct then according to your logic it is wrong - it was peer reviewed !

Take a look at this more recent papers on CERN CLOUD
http://editor.copernicus.org/index.p...76981310090637

Nothing in that to suggest they have gone back on their views in the 2000 paper!

Nothing in your comment to suggest that you understand that thre is nothing at all about their views in that abstract.
This is a paper about the experimental setup and results.

COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE
CERN-PH-EP/2008-005
26 March 2008
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.1938v1.pdf

You seem to think that I do not believe that cosmic rays have an effect on climate. I do think that there is no reason that they should not. I know that there are several papers that show a correlation between cosmic ray flux and global temperatures in the past. The next step is to find viable mechanisms to show causation to explain the correlation. That is what the CERN CLOUD experiment is about.
The other question is whether cosmic rays have an effect compariable to the large increase in GHGs in the half century or so. The evidence is no since the correlation has borken down recently.

P.S. Disi you notice that the abstract ends with:

However, a concerted effort is now required to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.

(my emphasis added)

 

[Haig]

No, there is no "groupthink" going on. There is science going on.

That’s a matter of opinion but also some fact as this paper clearly shows http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/
Scientists are shown to “herd” together to defend the status quo, their “beliefs” and careers against new or different views that threaten them.

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. This is from the sceintific evidence.

Seems like “groupthink” to me This approach hasn’t taken into account GCR and their affect on our climate or even acknowledge it’s possible impact that CLOUD math show it’s equivalent to any GHG’s effect. The Greenland ice cores confirm the 15% to 20% (approx) reduction in GCR’s during the last 100 years of warming.

Interestingly, you are still obsessed with the advertisements from this astrophysicist.

Interestingly, you are still obsessed with the ad-homs on this astrophysicist with expertise in climate science. Can you explain why the, peer-reviewed, climate scientist at the Met Office, who use the latest computer climate models, based on AGW, can’t get their long range forecasts right! but PC can?

You are also obsessed with weather. We are talking about climate.

They are only separated by time say NASA. “The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.” http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

I am saying that you grossly misinterpreted a news article by reading into it things that it does not state and that the paper it describes probably has no mention of.

That is how I interpret it and you saying I “grossly misinterpreted a news article” doesn’t make it true.

That is correct - the majority of climatologists are convinced by the scientific evidence that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. A small number are not.

Consensus has no place in science. Science is not democratic. The small number have often been shown to be right against the majority, time and evidence will decide.

Climate scientists know about the Sun because they have to include its effects in their study of the climate. Astrophysists do not have to know about GHGs in order to study the Sun.

As a layman I can see the demarcation in Science can lead to “turf wars” but do you really think the CERN CLOUD Astrophysists don’t know all about GHG’s?

You have a point there about the last author. My guess is that the first author (Earth Sciences includes climate science) did the climate stuff and teh second author did the impact stuff.

You make no comment on the political nature of the paper reading like one from the IPCC, why not? They don’t even mention GCR’s as a possible cause of climate change, why not?

There is no failth. “believe” = the scientific evidence has convinced them.

James Lovelock doesn’t agree with that view: “They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7061020.ece

Correct.
But you keep on stating that you are a layman. In terms of climate science I am also a layman. So how are we to judge the results of climate research?

By their evidence and results. Also, is the climate doing what they predicted it would do? If not, why not? Can it explain past climate change? Like the LIA, MWP and the regular Ice Ages.

My strategy is to look at the scientific consensus, look at the evidence for that consensus, look at dissenting opinions and their evidence and make a judgement as to whether the consensus is valid. I am lucky in that I have a good grounding in physics and so can

Mmmm by that strategy we would still have the Sun circling the Earth. Why not look at evidence and theories that can explain our climate past, present and predicted future? AGW doesn’t do that in my DA view.

Your strategy seems to be to ignore the sceintific evidence, pick out one web page that is not written by climate scientists and then blindly believe what they state. To boost your belief you then use an astrophysicist who is selling his services as an unverified, long range weather forecaster.

Your wrong, I stated my actual position (DA off) in my post #222 I don’t “ignore” or “blindly believe” anything! (DA on) Piers Corbyn makes more sense than the IPCC, the Climategate sientists and most of the AGW alarmist views I’ve heard to date, put together.

I wonder if you are genuine Haig?

Sure I am

The stated main goals of Project Astrometria is to study the Sun. They did the MATH to do that.

Agreed

One more time: There is no evidence of climate science MATH. Their graphs look hand drawn. They cite no climate models used to do their predictions.

Don’t agree, http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/Symp_223.pdf and http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/KPhCB22_3_141.pdf are just a couple of the peer-reviewed papers they cite. They are not the computer climate models of AGW you use but they haven’t been that successful according to the Met Office.

You were lying when you stated "for CERN CLOUD it’s the Sun modulating Cosmic rays that’s doing it" where it is "main driver of climate change".

• The proposal CERN CLOUD document states that the effects would be compariable. This does not mean that cosmic rays dominate or GHGs dominate.

• I don’t lie, that’s my interpretation of what it says in the 2000 paper as can be judged in these few quotes:
  “In 1997 Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1] announced a surprising disco very that global cloud cover correlates closely with the galactic cosmic ray intensity, which varies with the sunspot cycle. Although clouds retain some of the Earth’s warmth, for most types of cloud this is more than compensated by an increased reflective loss of the Sun’s radiation back into space. So more clouds in general mean a cooler climate—and fewer clouds mean global warming.”
  
  “The observed absolute variation in low cloud cover of about 2% over a solar cycle (Fig. 6c) corresponds to about 7% relative variation. From Table 1, this would imply a solar maximum-to-minimum change in the Earth’s radiation budget of about 1.2 Wm−2 (0.3% of the global average incoming solar radiation). This is a significant effect—comparable to the total estimated radiative forcing of 1.5 Wm−2 from the increase in CO2 concentration during the last century.”
  
  “However there is clear evidence of longer-term and unexplained changes both in the Sun’s and in the Earth’s magnetic behaviors and these, in turn, seem to have had long-term effects on the Earth’s climate.”
  
  “The rise of about 0.6◦C in global temperatures over the last 100 years is consistent in magnitude and time dependence with the observed changes in cosmic ray flux—and thereby cloud cover—over the same period. If the cosmic-cloud link is confirmed then it provides a new mechanism for climate
  change that may significantly revise the estimated contribution to global warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
  

  If they are correct then there IS STILL need to invoke man-made climate change to make up for the part of global warming that is not due to cosmic rays.

  Maybe, maybe not! They seems to suggest that GCR’s modulated by the Sun can explain most, maybe all, of the climate change.
  

  Yes I do understand it.

  Glad to hear it but you don’t act as if you do!
  

  Of course if it is correct then according to your logic it is wrong - it was peer reviewed !

  Nice one
  

  Nothing in your comment to suggest that you understand that thre is nothing at all about their views in that abstract.
  This is a paper about the experimental setup and results.

  Yes, results “Overall, the exploratory measurements provide suggestive evidence for ion-induced nucleation or ion-ion recombination as sources of aerosol particles” so far so good then! http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/18235/2009/acpd-9-18235-2009.html
  

  You seem to think that I do not believe that cosmic rays have an effect on climate. I do think that there is no reason that they should not. I know that there are several papers that show a correlation between cosmic ray flux and global temperatures in the past. The next step is to find viable mechanisms to show causation to explain the correlation. That is what the CERN CLOUD experiment is about.

  I had my doubts about you but glad to hear you’re ….. a “believer”? Wonder why NASA or the IPCC don’t acknowledge the CERN CLOUD experiment?
  

  The other question is whether cosmic rays have an effect compariable to the large increase in GHGs in the half century or so. The evidence is no since the correlation has borken down recently.

  Can you give a source for that claim? And explain in what way you think it has broken down?
  

  P.S. Disi you notice that the abstract ends with:evaluate their climatic significance (my emphasis added)

  Yes, so what? That’s what scientists do – evaluate results - right?
  
  Something’s to consider:
  
  Recent work by Compo and Sardeshmukh (Climate Dynamics, 32:33-342, 2009) is illuminating. The abstract includes the statement: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
  
  Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
  Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity
  
  Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
  http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml “It is evident in this paper that ENSO (ocean-atmosphere heat exchange) is the primary driver of MGT (i.e. El Niños cause global warming and La Niñas cause global cooling). All other mechanisms are small in comparison.” “The results in Figure 7 clearly show that the SOI related variability in MGT is the major contribution to any trends that might exist, although the McLean et al study did not look for this. The key conclusion of the paper, therefore, is that MGT is determined in most part by atmospheric processes related to the Southern Oscillation”. “The paper by McLean et al does not analyse trends in MGT; rather, it examines the extent to which ENSO accounts for variation in MGT. The research concludes that MGT has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5-7 months earlier and shows the potential of natural mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.”
  
  2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed
  
  "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."- Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007) http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html
  
  The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, (essentially starting at the low point of the LIA) while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials
  
  The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
  
  Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
  
  The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.
  
  Gregory F. Fegel

 

[varwoche]

Gregory F. Fegel

LO f'in L.

Note to self: Add Gregory Fegel, Editorialist and 911 Truther to the list.

Does your barrel know no bottom? This takes the cake and then some.

 

[Haig]

LO f'in L.

Note to self: Add Gregory Fegel, Editorialist and 911 Truther to the list.

Does your barrel know no bottom? This takes the cake and then some.

Nope, a DA has no problem with Gregory Fegel but remember attack the man's arguments not the man.

I did say "Something’s to consider:" but maybe you've prejudged them and him!

It's all new stuff for me

 

[Haig]

NASA scientist, Dr. Hathaway, said something like the Dalton Minimum is possible.

“It’s been as dead as a doornail,” David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said a couple of months ago.

“Among some global warming skeptics, there is speculation that the Sun may be on the verge of falling into an extended slumber similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, several sunspot-scarce decades during the 17th and 18th centuries that coincided with an extended chilly period.

Most solar physicists do not think anything that odd is going on with the Sun. With the recent burst of sunspots, “I don’t see we’re going into that,” Dr. Hathaway said last week.

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible, Dr. Hathaway said. (The minimums are named after scientists who helped identify them: Edward W. Maunder and John Dalton.)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

So, NASA is, coming part of the way to, agreeing with Project Astrometria that the Earth may be cooling?

 

[Dancing David]

I think we need to add the use of the term 'groupthink' to the crackpot index.

Seriously Haig, you do not rate at all on the crackpot index. That is a good thing. However I do think that you are trying to stick together a bunch of disparate elements and have engaged in many tactics that are not related to science.

 

[Haig]

I think we need to add the use of the term 'groupthink' to the crackpot index.

Pity, I quite liked using it

Seriously Haig, you do not rate at all on the crackpot index. That is a good thing. However I do think that you are trying to stick together a bunch of disparate elements and have engaged in many tactics that are not related to science.

Thanks, but I have my moments It's obvious I'm letting the devils advocate role run riot, a bit, but these skeptic's views are new to me and I do take their arguments at face value (as DA) and past "crimes" or personalities shouldn't be brought into this! If, AGW is sound it should be able to defend itself, rationally, scientifically and without ad homs.

I still say the science on man-made climate change isn't settled and exploring other possibilities is helpful, at least to me

Edit: I object to "groupthink" being put into the crackpot index:

"Groupthink is an interesting phenomenon which can occur when a group of people gathers to make a decision. Essentially, desires for group cohesiveness and a quick decision cloud the judgment of the people in the group, leading to a decision which is less than ideal. Social psychologists have studied groupthink extensively in an attempt to understand the warning signs of this phenomenon, and to develop methods for avoiding groupthink"
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-groupthink.htm

 

[Haig]

NASA scientist, Dr. Hathaway, said something like the Dalton Minimum is possible.

“It’s been as dead as a doornail,” David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said a couple of months ago.

“Among some global warming skeptics, there is speculation that the Sun may be on the verge of falling into an extended slumber similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, several sunspot-scarce decades during the 17th and 18th centuries that coincided with an extended chilly period.

Most solar physicists do not think anything that odd is going on with the Sun. With the recent burst of sunspots, “I don’t see we’re going into that,” Dr. Hathaway said last week.

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible, Dr. Hathaway said. (The minimums are named after scientists who helped identify them: Edward W. Maunder and John Dalton.)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

So, NASA is, coming part of the way to, agreeing with Project Astrometria that the Earth may be cooling?

More support from NASA for Project Astrometria's view that the Earth is cooling?

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

 

[varwoche]

attack the man's arguments not the man

No sale. Not when you appeal to (mind-numbingly) false authority.

I did say "Something’s to consider:" but maybe you've prejudged them and him!

Something to consider. Just asking questions. Whatever.

It's all new stuff for me

Here then is a little tip: As you flail about on google for juicy tidbits to support your whimsical, anti-science biases, take a moment to consider the source. Really, this is a joke.

 

[Haig]

Evidence of the Sun's "spaceweather" direct effect on Earth

Prof. Price explains. "We noticed that this bouncing was modulated by the sun, changing throughout its 27-day cycle. The variability of the lightning activity occurring in sync with the sun's rotation suggested that the sun somehow regulates the lightning pattern."
http://www.physorg.com/news177169609.html

www.physorg.com/pdf177169609.pdf

Looks like this discovery supports what Piers Corbyn has been saying about the Sun and it's effects on Earth?

 

[Dancing David]

Pity, I quite liked using it
Thanks, but I have my moments It's obvious I'm letting the devils advocate role run riot, a bit, but these skeptic's views are new to me and I do take their arguments at face value (as DA) and past "crimes" or personalities shouldn't be brought into this! If, AGW is sound it should be able to defend itself, rationally, scientifically and without ad homs.

I still say the science on man-made climate change isn't settled and exploring other possibilities is helpful, at least to me

Edit: I object to "groupthink" being put into the crackpot index:

"Groupthink is an interesting phenomenon which can occur when a group of people gathers to make a decision. Essentially, desires for group cohesiveness and a quick decision cloud the judgment of the people in the group, leading to a decision which is less than ideal. Social psychologists have studied groupthink extensively in an attempt to understand the warning signs of this phenomenon, and to develop methods for avoiding groupthink"
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-groupthink.htm

Well I understand the group think idea. BUT it is sooooooo often dragged out as an excuse by people who are crackpots, it is used by the anti psychiatry crowd, the anti vax crowd, the anti relativity crowd, the electric universe crowd, the plasma cosmology crowd, the creationism crowd.

Not even to mention the role of its use in Politics.

But you haven't defined the criteria nor have you shown that it is pervasive at all in AGW. Warning there is an epic fail extant of the board already.

I think that the first thing you need to show is that valid scientific data is being ignored on a wide scale basis and that there is not a dismissal on valid scientific grounds.