Bishop Hill Striking back at Svensmark
Oct 7, 2011 Climate: solar Nigel Calder reports on a new paper that purports to rebut Svensmark's cloud hypothesis.
During recent years, so the story goes, the Sun has been weak, cosmic rays have been relatively intense, and yet the expected increase in low clouds has not occurred. On the contrary, we’re told, low cloud cover has remained relatively sparse. That’s according the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, ISCCP, which pools data from the satellites of several nations.
However, the ISCCP data are apparently problematic:
The conspicuous downward trend in the ISCCP cloud data is almost certainly unreal. An expert view is that it results from changes in the operational status of the satellites from which the data are pooled.
In other words, the jury is still out.
Calder is very critical of the authors of the new paper - Agee et al - suggesting that they have cherrypicked the ISCCP figures rather than mentioning any of the other data sources, which tell a different story. He calls the paper "shoddy".
Reader Comments (183)
@ BBD - Because if there was no greenhouse effect, it would be too cold and we would not be having this or any conversation.
I was going to apologise for my last remark but having just read your response I think I hit the nail on the head.
I urge you again to watch the Brehmer video. He makes a very good case for the +33K attributed to the greenhouse effect due to the heat of compression and good old gravity. I agree that it sounds incredible that the greenhouse effect is not responsible for the cosy 14C, but as climate scientists have seriously fucked up over data integrity, statistics, sensitivities, uncertainties and whether feedbacks are positive or negative, maybe it is not such a stretch for them to fuck up big time over the basic physics also. Watch the video and tell me where his analysis is wrong. Huffman's essay likewise. Just think, it could save you years of wasted research and time spent arguing on blogs like this. ;)
Shub
My last comment after 1:30am was when? Yet I always find your latest waiting for me in the morning whenever we are having a chat.
That's called referenced argument. Not something you do, I note. These, again, are my own words:
"Do you see now? GCR/cloud effects may be real, but they have had no significant effect on climate over at least the last century.
And the evidence for climatically significant reductions in low cloud as an explanation for recent warming looks weak."
See "" above. The alternative hypothesis - CO2 forcing - stands up better.
I've spent a long time looking at the figure from Arndt (2010) as you suggest. Not least because I agree with what you say about false absolute values but valid trends. We are into eyeball vs eyeball territory. The apparent antiphase between ISCCP and PATMOS could be somewhat resolved as you suggest, but the likely result would be reduced variability, surely? I don't want to go any further with this; too subjective. I understand what you are saying but doubt that it strengthens your argument. We'll have to agree to differ.
Real scientific argument is that RF from CO2 is emerging as the dominant climate forcing. I may have mentioned something like this during the discussion.
"Do you never have a sense that since you are clearly confused by the science"
BBD, I'm asking you to present the basis for your belief (whatever it is), and you can't even tell me what your belief is.
Andrew
BBD,
This re-posted from the Hanson thread (I wondered why it had gone quiet):
"It seems we agree with Huffman concerning the basic thermodynamics and radiative physics. His calculations are easy to check; the back of an envelope rather than the output of millions of lines of computer code that can not be checked except by comparison with other model results. The perfect example of Occam's Razor??
His final conclusion, if I understand it correctly - there is no such thing as the planetary greenhouse effect - is profound. With the true scientific method applied I would like to see a concerted attempt to try to disprove it (not because I wish it to be disproved, but because that is the only way that it can gain mainstream traction)."
Tempers seem to be wearing thin here, but I think that you owe lapogus a proper and sensible reply.
Lapogus
It does indeed sound incredible (synonym: unbelievable).
What you need is a solid rebuttal for the hypothesis that increasing the atmospheric fraction of CO2 increases RF and causes the climate system to warm, slowly and discontinuously, but inexorably.
If you think that this is going to turn up on an internet video clip before it makes it into the reviewed literature, then I suggest you are mistaken.
A paradigm shift of this magnitude would surely have made it into the Daily Mail first?
Roger Longstaff
Apologies, we crossed.
Sorry for the delay, but I was reading Harry Dale Huffman (self-described as 'an independent physical scientist unbound by current paradigms') on other matters. It is fascinating stuff:
As has been said before, excuse me while I light my spliff.
BBD,
With respect, I think that your reply to lapogus is the wrong way round - he asked you to comment on Huffman's hypothesis.
Any reasonably competent physicist can reproduce Huffman's hypothesis from first principles in less than half an hour. If there is a flaw it should be obvious. However, as it seems to correctly predict the lapse rates of Earth, Mars and Venus, it is at least worthy of serious study. I, for one, would be very interested to know why the hypothesis is flawed, if indeed it is.
BBD,
I am certain that if you simply start typing in all caps with a big font,everyone will agree with you.
\
hunter
THANKS FOR THE TIP!
Sorry, but I'm still giggling over the HDH stuff. This man is definitely going to overturn the consensus. I see it now.
BBD,
The consensus needs no help in being over turned.
It is failing in the face of the ultimate skeptic: reality.
Don Pablo, where are you?
This is good weed.
hunter
Really?
The evidence that the rate of warming is increasing is clear when the trend 1900 – present and the trend 1950 – present are compared.
To make the trend lines more visible (and for no other reason) annual means for HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP are shown:
HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP annual means. Trends: 1900 - present; 1950 – present.
BBD,
We are not having any of the predicted climate catastrophes. Everyone of them has failed.
The hotspot is missing and the ocean is declining to obey the AGW dogmas.
You can point at all of the processed, dubious and trivial data you want. Consider it your sad version of a rosary that you can pray with and keep your ritual prayer in your memory.
None of the alleged temperature changes you offer are more than barely outside the range- at best- of randomness.
It is OK to be sad for being wrong, but at least be happy because once again the apocalyptic cults got it wrong.
hunter
And your data are where?
Your referenced body of work, where?
Your rebuttal for the hypothesis that increasing the atmospheric fraction of CO2 increases RF and causes the climate system to warm, slowly and discontinuously, but inexorably... where?
Roger Longstaff
This is online. If it's a paradigm-breaker, it will out; no, it is out. There's no stopping it now. Oddly, there's no sign of alarm amongst the orthodoxy as yet. Doubtless they will be destroyed next week.
It's a genuine privilege to have a ringside seat as this plays out.
...
BBD - Huffman is certainly coming out with challenging stuff about Atlantis having drifted up to become Iceland. But fyi he is correct about there being problems with plate tectonics (e.g. the Falkland Islands continental shelf), which incidentally was a theory adopted with remarkable haste and very little scrutiny by the geological establishment. I am not an advocate of Professor Hapgood's floating continents theory, but do think it is quite possible that the thin crust is much more malleable than we like to think, and continents or subsea areas can rise or fall (irrespective of isostacy) a wee bit every now and again. Anyway, I digress.
There are a number of individuals who unlike you do not have a high regard for either the peer review process or peer review journals. Perhaps they have good reason to be on the outside, or like Willis Eschenbach, perhaps they just can't be bothered with academia because life is too short. The internet has also changed the ball game somewhat. Sure, at least 95% of the stuff on the web it is junk, but there are still the odd gems to be found with careful sifting.
Anyway, it is for you to to come up with a solid rebuttal for the physical facts that CO2 has a higher co-efficient of thermal expansion than air, that the heat of compression does not apply in the real world atmosphere, and that the Earth's atmosphere isn't under the influence of the same gravitational field that we all feel everyday.
Instead you have resorted to ad hominem.
BBD,
Not playing your game.
Your team has failed to prove their thesis.
I am under no obligation at all to do more than point out you are wrong.
I do not need a competing thesis.
Go play the show me yours game with yourself.
Nice ploy, trying to bring in plate tectonics to wander off topic, by the way. It is what a typical loser does.
BBD: "Quoting Eschenbach is completely beside the point until you address the amazing vanishing CO2 forcing"
I was using his numbers to quantify part of the uncertainty, he kindly replied to questions I asked him after reading his paper, I did not refer to his paper, just relevant numbers he gave me.
I did not ignore RF from CO2, that is in the consensus number 1.6w/m2 total anthropogenic forcing, which is dwarfed by the uncertainty.
I see you as AGWs ugly sister (since we'll soon be in panto season again) with size 20 feet, levering on a size 1.6 slipper proclaiming "It fits... It fits"
Frosty
You haven't got a clue, have you?
Hunter
I'm still laughing at you too hard to be offended by your whining.
lapogus
You have committed credibility suicide and you must surely know it.
Uh-oh, toys thrown out of the pram.
Maybe something to do with smoking "illegal substances".
RL
No, it's more a case of getting fed up with advancing carefully considered, referenced argument for days on this thread, to no avail. The reason: what you mistakenly call scepticism, and I recognise as blind obstinacy underpinned by ignorance of the subject matter.
The HDH space gods and atlantis bollocks was hilarious, but also the last straw.
BBD,
I have no interest in Atlantis as part of a science issue. If I recall, you brought it up in the first place.
If you think the drivel you post carefully considered or well referenced bon mots, you might be interested in a high bridge over in Houston I have for sale.
What drivel, Hunter?
Please point to my errors or apologise and withdraw 'drivel'.
Now.
And where exactly did you do this?
To show that the current scientific understanding of the radiative properties of atmospheric gasses is wrong, you have to falsify it. You have not done so personally, and I do not believe that HDH has either.
You are just making a far-out claim with absolutely nothing to back it up.
You are also wrong to say that you are under no obligation blah blah. Actually, you are. You are directly challenging a significant body of work. You, right here, right now. Unless you back that challenge with solid arguments, I can dismiss it as scientifically weightless.
Which I do.
"To show that the current scientific understanding of the radiative properties of atmospheric gasses is wrong, you have to falsify it."
No you don't. When you see the "current scientific understanding" is presented as mere assertion, you don't "have to" do anything you don't want to. You certainly don't "have to" believe it.
Andrew
BA
Wrong, as usual.
The current understanding I refer to is not 'mere assertion'. It is the synthesis of a large number of studies over a long period of time.
What you and others do, repeatedly, is make mere assertions that this understanding is incorrect. evidence.
At the same time, you loudly and inappropriately demand 'proof' for the very things you claim are incorrect. In fact it's up to you to provide high quality evidence if you wish to challenge an orthodoxy (any one; it does not have to be climate-related).
That you fail to understand this shows that you do not understand logical debate, within or without a scientific context. I explained this to you earlier.
Do we have Jo Nova to thank for this nonsense by any chance?
Forget it chaps. He's obviously on the spliffs again.
"In fact it's up to you to provide high quality evidence if you wish to challenge an orthodoxy"
No it's not. It's up to the orthodoxy to provide the high quality evidence if they want anyone to believe what they say.
Andrew
BBD,
This stuff is borderline drivel.
You want us to take your objection to tallbloke seriously, and consider your 'radiative forcing' mantra seriously. You are/were disturbed by the fact that tallbloke advanced a theory that he claimed explained late 20th century warming (your pet cause/main crutch for your lukewarmism/alarmism/conversion to orthodoxy). You are now busy rejoicing in the supposed repudiation of tallbloke's hypothesis by a point made by Calder - because - he is a sceptic as well.
All this is political jostling and not really science. However careful and well-considered such arguments may sound to your own ears.
I've read tallbloke's posts. It certainly seems that you are more happy that there is some ammunition in your bag now to oppose his hypothesis, than he seemed putting his hypothesis forward. This is exactly why I asked you to provide a link to his post. You did not. Lapogus did.
If you recognize that we do not have high-quality cloud cover data (as you so unabashedly demand critics of the orthodoxy to bring to the table), you should realize by now, that neither is tallbloke in a position to firmly advance his thesis, nor are you in any position to reject it either.
Total oxymoron failure.
BA
It does. Problem is, you haven't troubled to read any of it.
Shub
Radiative forcing isn't a mantra, as you would know if you bothered to do some reading.
I don't think I have ever seen you advance a scientific argument. And demands for links and references coming from you are a joke. You provide about one every 20 comments. Presumably because you make most of what you say up as you go along.
Roger Longstaff
You are either too daft to recognise heavy-handed sarcasm or you are being gratuitously childish. Please indicate which or I will decide unilaterally and respond accordingly.
Alternatively, you might wish to consider either saying nothing else, or upping your game massively.
Some new lows reached on this thread.
"It does. Problem is, you haven't troubled to read any of it."
BBD,
Words arent 'evidence'. A person doesn't 'read' evidence. A person looks at evidence. The Orthodoxy produces lots of words, but no evidence.
So what evidence has the Orthodoxy presented that I get to look at?
Andrew
Hey man, calm down!
Whatever you smoke is OK with me.
I always thought that when scientists came up with a new idea it was up to them to provide sufficient evidence that this idea was correct or likely to be correct.
It now appears that the boot is on the other foot. It is now sufficient to say that (just as an example, you understand) CO2 has never been responsible for warming before and all the evidence has been that warming causes the increase in CO2 (presumably by outgassing from the oceans) with a time lag of 800-1000 years (which would seem to tie in nicely with the MWP, I would have thought) but this time, my masters, it must be CO2 that's causing the warming because without CO2 our models don't seem to work.
So there's a new hypothesis on the block and it ought to be up to the proponents of this idea to produce some sort of evidence or proof or call it what you like.
But apparently that's no longer the case. We are now at the stage of "we know we are right and if you don't agree you are [insert insult of choice here.]".
And there appear to be enough alternative hypotheses flying around at the moment to have given this whole caboodle a new lease of life ... if people would stop sneering at them and try to have something that vaguely resembles an open mind.
By a happy coincidence, there's a handy essay up at Judith Curry's by Andy Lacis (BH bloggs above).
It provides a number of useful links, and plenty of intelligible information about the physical properties of CO2.
But there's a problem. Some here prefer to sit on their arses and poke 'fun' at me instead of doing some focussed reading. Others generate impenetrable waffle to cover for their lack of understanding and substantive engagement.
Here's my proposal. Prove me wrong by reading Lacis' essay and all links as many times as necessary to achieve a good understanding of what it says.
Then let's start again. Since the learning process will take a while, this will be on another thread. However, I will not forget what I have said here, and I will remind you of it if necessary.
If you decline to do this, you will have proved that you are not interested in science. You will have confirmed that you prefer to argue from ignorance with only your bias to guide you. This means that I will not take you seriously.
>>Mike
I don't want to speak harshly to you now, but if this is a swipe at me, it is noted. If you think your mind is more open than mine, then read Lacis' essay, as I have (and his 2010 paper while you're at it). I've read them, and a bloody sight more besides. You know full well you haven't, so who has the open mind?
Also ask yourself how insulted you might be, in my shoes, to be repeatedly accused of stupidity and bias. You are far from the worst offender, of course. Perhaps that's why I'm asking you to think about it - you probably will.
I say my science in my own words. And I know when to open my mouth about data. These are more scientific than you can shake a stick at.
Or are capable of realizing.
Your amateur science credentials are more than evident from your style of 'referenced argument'. It indicates to me, that you read and memorize a lot, than digest anything.
I don't think I want to add anything more here. Thanks for playing.
First fail.
Just curious.
What is your scientific background?
Shub
Adequate for the conversations we have here.
So you cannot answer that question?
I'll let you in on my background. I have postgraduate training in a medical specialization; and ~5 years of professional and scientific practice afterward. I have a handful of peer-reviewed publications - all in indexed journals. I have, and I continue to work, as a collaborator and as first author on projects and papers. My branch of practice deals with 'uncertainty' everyday (as do a lot of medical specialties), and uniquely, deals with certainty as well (which only a few specialties do).
I don't ask this to question your ability to participate in these discussions. I just want to know in what area of science, they cultivate or encourage the style/type of argument you use.
Shub
You mean logical, supported argument? That's the normal mode for scientific discussion. 'Saying stuff' is frowned upon.
I cannot imagine what you do, even after considerable exposure to your thought processes. But then, I'm not trying to crack your anonymity, or anything like that. Nor do I introduce nonsense like competing claims to qualification by anonymous posters.
If I were you, I would not have done that.
I openly revealed my qualifications to demonstrate good faith. I don't want to ask for your qualification when I hide my own background - that was the idea.
You make statements about the scientific ability and scholarly ability of your co-commenters at every availably opportunity.
I cannot imagine what you do either which is why I am asking.
Shub
I suggest that some people should read more widely as they clearly lack basic information yet feel free to 'say stuff'. At every available opportunity.
This is a joke, surely?
You are anonymous. You 'demonstrate' nothing, starting with good faith.
Shub
That is exactly the opposite of the way scientists are trained to write.
So,
I revealed my qualifications in science. You cannot. And you are trying to cover that up by poking fun?
Next time you shoot your mouth off, keep in mind who you are speaking to.
No. You are wrong.
Scientists are not created by 'training'.
A scientist will think, and then say things on his/her own. Instead of spraying citations and using others' language and formulations.
Shub
No, I pointed out that you 'revealed' nothing.
For example, let's say I claimed to be an oceanographer. Or a lawyer, or a postman. It's meaningless.
To expect me to take your nebulous self-description seriously is silly. You are anonymous.? Which makes me wonder what you think you are trying to do.
My view of your background is based on the way you express yourself. It is not characteristic of scientific training, so I suspect that you are bluffing.
I do hope other people are reading this.
"Adequate for the conversations we have here."
BBD,
Another mere assertion.
Andrew
You suspect that I am bluffing? But you haven't even said what you are!
As soon as you tell me what your background it, I'll let you know the meaning of it myself.
And like I said, it is nothing nefarious. For instance, engineering dudes/dudettes are reductionist in approach - and expect everything to fold over into mathematical equations. And so on.