Simple Question About AGW

[CapelDodger]

They're all part of the AGW conspiracy so it doesn't matter which one we attack!

This thing about anonymity is fairly new in the "sceptic" lexicon. Another was of playing the man, not the ball - which isn't at all new. It's not actionably an ad hominem argument, but skates very close to it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

How can you refute supposition and hypothesis? It's not at the stage to be called evidence. That you can try to refute. The CO2 basis for AGW, on the other hand, has been scientifically studied and researched for over a century now.

Have a look at the following articles:

H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage - a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., 59, 1225-1232 (1997);

H. Svensmark, Influence of cosmic rays on Earth's climate, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 5027 (1998).

Then tell me what you think.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So something is assumed to be true until it is refuted? How strange.

Yes, that is the usual interpretation of "refute". CapelDodger attempted to refute (I assume) the cosmic ray interpretation. He did not succeed, even a little bit. Hence, it was not refuted. You have a problem with this?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, that is the usual interpretation of "refute". CapelDodger attempted to refute (I assume) the cosmic ray interpretation. He did not succeed, even a little bit. Hence, it was not refuted. You have a problem with this?

With respect to the Svensmark hypothesis, I consider it as yet unproven, and therefore still possible, nothing more.

You do understand how this works, though?

I assert that global temperatures (and anything else you like) are dictated by undetectable Space Pixies. Prove me wrong.

I assert that the whole of Creation is the work of God/The Invisible Pink Unicorn/The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me wrong.

 

[Slimething]

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

You must be a mind-reader. I'm pointing out that there is no hard evidence for AGW apart from the planet warming and that cannot be presently distinguished from normal warming. I just couln't let AUP get away with a statement that the "other side" has no evidence, inferring that the AGW side does. About all either side has is theory at the moment.

How to differentiate AGW from GW promises to be a monumental task. I have no idea how I would do it. Right now, I'd settle for a decent model, AGW or no.

 

[DanishDynamite]

With respect to the Svensmark hypothesis, I consider it as yet unproven, and therefore still possible, nothing more.

You do understand how this works, though?

I understand how this works, but you appear not to. Let me help you.

No hypothesis or theory is ever proven. In fact, hypothesis and theories can only be refuted. Those theories which explain as much or more than others, and cannot be refuted, are the winners. They are the ones you see in textbooks.

I assert that global temperatures (and anything else you like) are dictated by undetectable Space Pixies. Prove me wrong.

I assert that the whole of Creation is the work of God/The Invisible Pink Unicorn/The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me wrong.

Those would be great theories if only they explained anything or predicted anything. They don't.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Undoubtedly, but that says nothing about any downward trend in cosmic rays. Across solar cycles, that is. The observed variation since the 50's - half a century is pretty good, five solar cycles or so - is within cycles, not across them.

Have a look at the article before criticizing.

I read it all before I embarked on the enterprise, and planned out how I'd go about it. If that's the best response you've got, you'd have done yourself a favour by keeping it to yourself, frankly.

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

What makes you think they're crackpots? And just how much of their - or CERN's - time do you think will be allocated to this particular project? How much of it is ancillary to more important experiments, and how much will be dedicated time?

You've read the article, so you know it says squat about that. 60 is a big number, though.

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

The physics behind the correlation can only be determined by investigating the real atmosphere. It's hard to see that being done at CERN. But what the hey, let me know how it works out.

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

One solar cycle of Danish cloud-cover is hardly definitive. And if I'm reading it right, the cloud varies by 2% over the entire cycle. That's what I'd call small, wouldn't you? And of course it still says nothing about the trend across solar cycles over the last 50 years.

Again, you are misinformed.

That's it? Again, if that's what you've got, I'd have counselled against saying anything at all.

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

Setting up the punch-line :

I don't see why. Neither does CERN.

You can't see it, so you argue from authority. Without being quite sure of the authority - you've read the article, where CERN is mentioned, but detail is lacking.

 

[Slimething]

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

No, AUP, I have no magic way of finding proof or evidence. You're way ahead of me on being up on the literature. What I'm pointing out to you is that, at the moment, there is no evidence that one can find that confirms or debunks the AGW hypothesis. What you've found that is good enough for you is basically statements of known physics or phenomena which have been cobbled together to form a hypothesis. There is no evidence. Sorry.

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

Anything that would falsify either side of the debate.

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

As you should well realize by now, none of that is evidence. Papers published regarding warming observations cannot distinguish between AGW and GW. Absorbance data do not establish warming. Restating the hypothesis ad nauseam doesn't qualify either.

I'm 53 year old. Per the hypothesis, the warming has been occuring over my entire life and then some. Have I noticed anything? No. If the planet keeps warming at current rates, will I notice it? No. If the planet begins to cool, will that disprove AGW? No.

I am a scientist. I respect the work of other scientists who specialize differently. I'll let them do their work and judge it thereby. So, far, it's fairly interesting stuff.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Undoubtedly, but that says nothing about any downward trend in cosmic rays. Across solar cycles, that is. The observed variation since the 50's - half a century is pretty good, five solar cycles or so - is within cycles, not across them.

Again, you are misinformed. Solar activity in fact varies across the centuries and not just in accordance with the 11 year solar cycle. And although cosmic rays have only been measured since 1935, it is possible to determine solar activity many centuries back in time. This is due to the variation in the amount of Carbon 14 produced as solar activity changes. And the variation of Carbon 14 can be measured via tree rings and by other methods. And once all the data is assembled, the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature is shown.

I wish I could find the Danish article I linked earlier in English as it is very informative.

I read it all before I embarked on the enterprise, and planned out how I'd go about it. If that's the best response you've got, you'd have done yourself a favour by keeping it to yourself, frankly.

I was referring to the article referenced here: "Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences." Did you read this article?

What makes you think they're crackpots? And just how much of their - or CERN's - time do you think will be allocated to this particular project? How much of it is ancillary to more important experiments, and how much will be dedicated time?

You've read the article, so you know it says squat about that. 60 is a big number, though.

I don't think they are crackpots. You seemed to be implying they were.

Glad to see we are in agreement that they are not crackpots.

The physics behind the correlation can only be determined by investigating the real atmosphere. It's hard to see that being done at CERN. But what the hey, let me know how it works out.

It's also hard to take this kind of "refutation" seriously.

One solar cycle of Danish cloud-cover is hardly definitive. And if I'm reading it right, the cloud varies by 2% over the entire cycle. That's what I'd call small, wouldn't you? And of course it still says nothing about the trend across solar cycles over the last 50 years.

It is not a solar cycle of "Danish" cloud-cover, but of global cloud cover. And yes, the graph concerns +/- 2% of cloud cover. Which is pretty significant. Imagine if the global temperature changed 2% as a consequence! (Temperature in Kelvin, naturally).

That's it? Again, if that's what you've got, I'd have counselled against saying anything at all.

You had nothing further to respond to. If you disagree, please tell me what it was.

Setting up the punch-line :

You can't see it, so you argue from authority. Without being quite sure of the authority - you've read the article, where CERN is mentioned, but detail is lacking.

Sorry, I can't see what? I just said that I can't see you claiming the hypothesis is weak as you have shown no reason for me to think so. You still haven't.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, that is the usual interpretation of "refute". CapelDodger attempted to refute (I assume) the cosmic ray interpretation. He did not succeed, even a little bit. Hence, it was not refuted. You have a problem with this?

I set out explicitly to refute the article, a quixotic enterprise but it doesn't cost anything. Nobody's going to refute Svensgard's hypothesis. Plenty of us can point out its inherent difficulties, though. Lack of any downward trend in cosmic rays, for instance, or the miniscule observed variation in cloud-cover during an entire solar cycle.

As presented in the article, a downward trend and signifcant cloud-response are givens. Which they aren't. Svensgard needs to be out there photographing cosmic-ray measuring stations to give some substance to his downward trend before he bothers the good folk at CERN.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I set out explicitly to refute the article, a quixotic enterprise but it doesn't cost anything. Nobody's going to refute Svensgard's hypothesis. Plenty of us can point out its inherent difficulties, though. Lack of any downward trend in cosmic rays, for instance, or the miniscule observed variation in cloud-cover during an entire solar cycle.

Then once again, it is well known that there is less cosmic rays when there is greater solar activity. And it is also well known that solar activity as such varies across the centuries. When solar activity is high, production of Carbon 14 is low. And temperatures are high presumably because fewer cosmic rays are getting through and hence fewer clouds are formed.

As presented in the article, a downward trend and signifcant cloud-response are givens. Which they aren't. Svensgard needs to be out there photographing cosmic-ray measuring stations to give some substance to his downward trend before he bothers the good folk at CERN.

There is no "trend". There is a variation depending on solar activity.

 

[a_unique_person]

So it doesn't explain why there is a trend up in temperature, when there is no trend up in solar activity.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So it doesn't explain why there is a trend up in temperature, when there is no trend up in solar activity.

A random page regarding solar activity here.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, AUP, I have no magic way of finding proof or evidence. You're way ahead of me on being up on the literature. What I'm pointing out to you is that, at the moment, there is no evidence that one can find that confirms or debunks the AGW hypothesis. What you've found that is good enough for you is basically statements of known physics or phenomena which have been cobbled together to form a hypothesis. There is no evidence. Sorry.



Anything that would falsify either side of the debate.



As you should well realize by now, none of that is evidence. Papers published regarding warming observations cannot distinguish between AGW and GW. Absorbance data do not establish warming. Restating the hypothesis ad nauseam doesn't qualify either.

I'm 53 year old. Per the hypothesis, the warming has been occuring over my entire life and then some. Have I noticed anything? No. If the planet keeps warming at current rates, will I notice it? No. If the planet begins to cool, will that disprove AGW? No.

I am a scientist. I respect the work of other scientists who specialize differently. I'll let them do their work and judge it thereby. So, far, it's fairly interesting stuff.

Understanding and attributing climate change.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

9.4.1.2

Where I live climate change seems to be real. Australia is the 'canary in the coal mine', since most of it is desert, with the vast majority of the population clinging to the coast. The South East, as predicted, is experiencing a shift to drier conditions.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Understanding and attributing climate change.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

9.4.1.2

Where I live climate change seems to be real. Australia is the 'canary in the coal mine', since most of it is desert, with the vast majority of the population clinging to the coast. The South East, as predicted, is experiencing a shift to drier conditions.

No serious person is doubting that global temperatures are increasing.

 

[Slimething]

Where I live climate change seems to be real. Australia is the 'canary in the coal mine', since most of it is desert, with the vast majority of the population clinging to the coast. The South East, as predicted, is experiencing a shift to drier conditions.

I live in a desert, too. As a matter of fact, I live at the junction of the three great North American deserts. Our weather is cooler and wetter. Come visit. Lots to do here.

 

[CapelDodger]

Again, you are misinformed. Solar activity in fact varies across the centuries and not just in accordance with the 11 year solar cycle. And although cosmic rays have only been measured since 1935, it is possible to determine solar activity many centuries back in time. This is due to the variation in the amount of Carbon 14 produced as solar activity changes. And the variation of Carbon 14 can be measured via tree rings and by other methods. And once all the data is assembled, the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature is shown.

I am well aware of all that, but what about the trend over the last fifty years? That's the period during which the relevant warming has taken place, and direct measurements have been available. Forget the glorious past, what about the recent past? That's the period you're invoking Svensgard to explain, in preference to the more established view (AGW).

I wish I could find the Danish article I linked earlier in English as it is very informative.

Just pass along what you learned from it. Solar cycles, cosmic rays, and cloud-cover correlations we've already got. What else is in there?

I was referring to the article referenced here: "Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences." Did you read this article?

I was explicitly referring to the Torygraph article, which is what you referenced before. And this quote adds nothing to that anyway.

I don't think they are crackpots. You seemed to be implying they were.

Perhaps you have an over-active imagination. Perhaps that's what you assumed I would say, and then read the implication into what I did say. Who can really know?

Glad to see we are in agreement that they are not crackpots.

Why suggest that they might be in the first place? You brought the word into the conversation, after all, in order to defend them. Like a pushy lawyer.

It's also hard to take this kind of "refutation" seriously.

It's almost impossible to take that sort of response seriously. Really, if that's all you've got to say, keep your gob shut. I say this as a well-wisher.

It is not a solar cycle of "Danish" cloud-cover, but of global cloud cover. And yes, the graph concerns +/- 2% of cloud cover. Which is pretty significant. Imagine if the global temperature changed 2% as a consequence! (Temperature in Kelvin, naturally).

OK, global, my Danish wasn't up to that. But it's certainly not +/- 2%. That would be - not imply, but be - a 4% interval, not the 2% interval that I referred to. It goes up to +1%, then it drops down to -1%,then it goes back to pretty much where it started. You then imagine that global temperature varies by some equivalent during that period, and that nobody's noticed it before. Hardly likely, is it?

You had nothing further to respond to. If you disagree, please tell me what it was.

How can I respond to "Again, you are misinformed"? I disagree with it, obviously, but I'm none the wiser as to why I shouldn't. And that was the entirety of the contribution I was responding to. So you're right, there was nothing further to respond to, and I responded anyway, with what I regard as sound advice. Ignore it if you will.

Sorry, I can't see what? I just said that I can't see you claiming the hypothesis is weak as you have shown no reason for me to think so. You still haven't.

In that case, I doubt I can. I doubt anybody can, for that matter.

Do let us know how the CERN thing works out.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I am well aware of all that, but what about the trend over the last fifty years? That's the period during which the relevant warming has taken place, and direct measurements have been available. Forget the glorious past, what about the recent past? That's the period you're invoking Svensgard to explain, in preference to the more established view (AGW).

The data fits going back before the time of the Vikings. The graph is in the Danish article I referred to previously. But if you are especially interrested in the latest decades, I can provide this random article I googled for AUP here.

Just pass along what you learned from it. Solar cycles, cosmic rays, and cloud-cover correlations we've already got. What else is in there?

Hard to summarize a summary. Sorry. I suppose I could translate the entire article....

I was explicitly referring to the Torygraph article, which is what you referenced before. And this quote adds nothing to that anyway.

In other words, you didn't read it. OK.

Perhaps you have an over-active imagination. Perhaps that's what you assumed I would say, and then read the implication into what I did say. Who can really know?

Perhaps you thought they were top-notch and just failed to make your view clear.

Why suggest that they might be in the first place? You brought the word into the conversation, after all, in order to defend them. Like a pushy lawyer.

See above.

It's almost impossible to take that sort of response seriously. Really, if that's all you've got to say, keep your gob shut. I say this as a well-wisher.

Then stop making throw-away comments which I can only answer in the way I did. Make substancial, constructive ones. Thanks.

OK, global, my Danish wasn't up to that. But it's certainly not +/- 2%. That would be - not imply, but be - a 4% interval, not the 2% interval that I referred to. It goes up to +1%, then it drops down to -1%,then it goes back to pretty much where it started. You then imagine that global temperature varies by some equivalent during that period, and that nobody's noticed it before. Hardly likely, is it?

No, the scale goes from -2% to + 2%. Not sure which figure you were looking at?

How can I respond to "Again, you are misinformed"? I disagree with it, obviously, but I'm none the wiser as to why I shouldn't. And that was the entirety of the contribution I was responding to. So you're right, there was nothing further to respond to, and I responded anyway, with what I regard as sound advice. Ignore it if you will.

You can respond by admitting that you were misinformed. Very simple.

In that case, I doubt I can. I doubt anybody can, for that matter.

Do let us know how the CERN thing works out.

I shall do my best. Let me know when you become a skeptic.

 

[mhaze]

Danish Dyn:
It is not a solar cycle of "Danish" cloud-cover, but of global cloud cover. And yes, the graph concerns +/- 2% of cloud cover. Which is pretty significant. Imagine if the global temperature changed 2% as a consequence! (Temperature in Kelvin, naturally).
​

OK, global, my Danish wasn't up to that. But it's certainly not +/- 2%. That would be - not imply, but be - a 4% interval, not the 2% interval that I referred to. It goes up to +1%, then it drops down to -1%,then it goes back to pretty much where it started. You then imagine that global temperature varies by some equivalent during that period, and that nobody's noticed it before. Hardly likely, is it?

1,2, or 4% charge in global cloud cover....

is a really big deal!

 

[a_unique_person]

1,2 or 4 degree rise in temperature

is a really big deal!