Bishop Hill CLOUD experiment links
Aug 24, 2011 Climate: solar Here's some links on the CLOUD experiment results.
New Scientist, hilariously has a piece entitled
Cloud-making: Another human effect on the climate.
I kid you not folks - these guys are away with the fairies.
Real Climate says that it doesn't matter because cosmic rays levels haven't changed anyway.
Nature, apparently through gritted teeth manages to say
"Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change"... but...
As readers may have gathered, Svensmark is not a co-author on this paper. There also seems to be a certain unwillingness among these journals to explain Svensmark's role in the cosmic ray experiments. New Scientist manages not to mention him at all.
The corruption of science.
Bishop Hill
Chemistry World can't bring itself to mention Svensmark either.
Nor the Guardian.
Hooray for the Institute of Physics.
Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute in Copenhagen and colleagues hypothesize that the ions that are formed as (charged) cosmic rays pass through the atmosphere act as a kind of glue that makes it easier for molecules to stick together and form aerosols. This hypothesis has proved controversial because it suggests a role for solar variation, as well as human emissions of greenhouse gases, in climate change – the idea being that the stronger the Sun's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth, resulting in the formation of fewer clouds and so a warmer Earth, with a weaker solar magnetism having the opposite effect.
Reuters' coverage is disgraceful
* Study does not prove cosmic rays drive climate change
* Academics see cosmic ray effect as only very small
Bishop Hill
Pallab Ghosh has now done the BBC take on CLOUD. Henrik who?
Reader Comments (95)
Talk about a conspiracy of ignoring the truth, not that one would.
I wonder what Richard Black and the BBC will say about this. Any bets?
We should not forget that when it comes to radiative forcing the IPCC itself has already conceded that a 1% change in cloud cover is the equivalent of a doubling of CO2.
Phillip: that BBC report in full:
Henrik Svensmark,
Thank you for starting mankind down the path of your hypothesis.
John
Naure, true to form, did not publish the ASW-killing graph....
Find it at "Watts up with That"
Naure, true to form, did not publish the ASW-killing graph....
Find it at "Watts up with That"
Woodentop
I assume the BBC can't report the CLOUD results because of Steve Jones report. To do so would be to give a voice to minority views.
Try again- poor spelling!
Nature, true to form, did not publish the AGW-killing graph....
Find it at "Watts up with That
For anyone really concerned about CAGW, the CLOUD results should come as a great relief. So many of the 'team' and politicians will need 'smelling salts' (NH4) that the increase in cloud cover could plunge us into the next glacial. :)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46953
...mentions Svensmark but ends with... "look over there...organic molecules"
Well Richard Black did report on this back in 2008;
'No Sun link' to climate change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
Perhaps a retraction is in order.
Occam strikes.
Really looking forward to this paper - from the Nature press release it looks like it's still only a first step (so don't go too far with it yet guys....!), but nevertheless it's an important and exciting one - especially if it ultimately helps improve interannual forecasting.
FYI Here is the section in our IPCC AR4 Radiative Forcing chapter on indirect effects of solar variability (including cosmic ray effects on clouds). BTW we do cite Marsh & Svensmark 2000....
It would appear that certain people/publications may have had time to co-ordinate how this release will be handled, therefore expect a concerted organised campaign.
Surely time will be needed to study the findings in detail before real meaningful comments, but some seem to be able to "decry" the findings in minutes/hours.
Certainly will be an interesting paper, posibly pointing to a re-tuning of forecasting models and tone of advice to governments!
From the New Scientist article:
So the organic component is important because it contributes to nucleation, but the cosmic ray component is not important because more small nuclei may not create cloud-genic large nuclei.
Stunning.
From the Reuters article, Piers Forster is quoted as follows:
Hmmm...which part of the Earth shows the greatest temperature trend? I seem to recall it was the Arctic Ocean.What we shouldn't lose in all of this, is that cosmic rays are not likely to be the whole story. But then again, neither is carbon dioxide. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
It's nothing short of blatant denial of reality.
These guys are in for one almighty shock when cold-turkey hits !
Here it is;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/pdf/nature10343.pdf
Paywalled at $32.
Beyond bizarre. Every scientific paper that shows human influence is minimal is always accompanied by a mandatory concluding shibboleth (or ecco la fica), stating that human greenhouse gases are the REAL cause of global warming. A shameful end for modern Science.
In a more sensible and sane modification of the past 30 years or so of climate science, these results would be stimulating discussion and excitement in a handful of university departments around the world. Real scientists would discuss their relative importance, and state forecasting services might in due course enquire about possible utility for their work.
Coming back to our more squalid, IPCC/UNEP-corrupted reality, the results will be bounced around by the spin merchants of alarmism to decide on the line they should take, and how best to organise the campaign over the next few weeks in order to lose as little as they can of the political momentum they have so successfully created to date.
The Sceptical Science Twitter Bot is going frantic on this one:
"no trend over 30 years", but no mention of longer time periods that show considerable changes..
"have had little impact on recent global warming", well what a surprise! Is that as little impact as CO2?
John Shade Aug 24, 2011 at 9:40 PM
My fear exactly and with this piece of science even more heightened fears, as prior to its publication it was met with the statement "the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment"! By no other than CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer.
Yeh, the science is settled, the thinking people are not.
Wilson would be pleased - he made his first cloud chamber to learn about clouds. The intervening foray into sub-atomic particles (Nobel prizes, etc.) was an accident. I speculate that he would be happy to know that this has come full circle.
The Bafflegab Cometh
Phillip Bratby
I wonder what Richard Black and the BBC will say about this. Any bets?
Started back from his holidays by wittering on about the warming climate causing wars, no enlightenment while he was away. We'll have to wait and see I guess.
waiting for Mashey to come storming in...big oil, plagiarism, woodworm...the usual irrelevances
John Shade 9:40pm
Hopefully you will have noticed a comment earlier in this thread (at 8:48pm) by a representative of the UK's state forecasting service on precisely what you say, ie: possible utility for their work....
Solar forcing (whether through the cosmic ray mechanism or other processes) may be key to climate forecasting on interannual timescales. A nice external forcing varying over a few years would be much more helpful than awkward, hard-to-predict internal variability and a gradual buildup of other forcings (like CO2).
Richard Betts Aug 24, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Thanks Richard, please keep going you may eventually get through even this old cynics armour.
Another three months or so and we (I) may comprehend some of the ramifications of the CLOUD results, in three years or so we may all be happy with them. Lot to go at and we will get there quicker and easier if we did not have to contend with the automatic spin of "this changes nothing".
I truly wish you well with your work, going to be interesting and hopefully enjoyable.
Has the time come for Josh to rewrite English Literature?
Are we to be treated to a new version of "The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,"
Svensmark! Prince of Denmark?
Have fun.
We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
back to the garden
-Joni Mitchell
The BBC report on CLOUD:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647
No epiphanies there.
Comment at WUWT
The last para is a keeper:
"Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds."
Let's try that logic again, with gander sauce this time:
"Other evidence shows that even if CO2 does affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity cannot explain global warming, as CO2 concentration has been increasing since 1998 even as the world has cooled - the opposite of what should happen if CO2 produces climate-warming effects."
Shameless.
Love the RC slant on all of this.
Four, or was it five, years ago I travelled to RC for the first time.
My first impression, and one much reinforced since, was what's the problem. We're killing the planet; who are these oil-funded denialists and why does RC need to ad hom them as much as it did.
It quickly became clear that RC was a propagandist site (sorry RC luvvies- but it is) for a strange, new breed of 'psyientists' that I'd never met before.
Their credentials appeared flawless but their tone was, and remains, disgraceful
Made me a sceptic. Gotta thank them for that but it shouldn't have happened that way.
I don't trust them and that is sad, 'cause (a) even if they speak the truth I remember the forked tongue and (b) I distrust, far more, those that appear to trust them.
Hiya DC and chums
From the Pallab Ghosh BBC article:
“Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sharp rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity”.
Sharp rise over the past 15 years? Surely not.
There are also links to other articles:
'No Sun link' to climate change 03 APRIL 2008,
and:
More doubt on cosmic climate link 18 APRIL 2008
Love the RC link, especially when they used this GISS graph to slime the Uni of Aarhus results. Note the peaks in cloud cover corresponding to the troughs in the solar cycle in 1986 and 1996. Perfect support for Svensmark's theory. Memo to RC: solar cycles are not always 11 years in length.
Link to GISS graph, which got lost sorry:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2CLOUDTYPES/B32glbp.anomdevs.jpg
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Let me speculate:
Richard Betts works for some offshoot of the Met Office that is charged by the government with just finding out about the weather. .He is paid in much the same way as any old bureaucrat and his organization will carry on whatever they find. Of course, there is also some pressure to support the government’s doctrine that mankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to calamity and must be curbed but it’s only a relatively small part of the job. So the downside in wading in here when something like this book crops up is small because its impact on the doctrine, although negative, does not effect the institution’s main task. There is even a possible scientific chitter-chatter upside.
The folks at the UEA, however, are paid under a contract with the government to undertake the hopeless task of clothing their doctrine in science. They must be wincing at this latest development. Heads down, boys, keep away from Bishop Hill, and send the talking head up to the corridors of power to spread some reassurance about. No need to cancel the contract or take our funds away. We will still be able to find some science that demonstrates the wisdom and truth of your doctrine. You can show the Treasury we haven’t wasted your money.
Now, I, the Ecclesiastical Uncle, believe that the mess over climate science persists in part, not because the UEA folks are intrinsically evil, but because of the institutional (contractual) arrangements under which much of the work is done. And at least part of the Government is very content with the arrangement. QED?
And for all those who studied tree rings in their pursuit of CO2, we have this from 2009;
...the relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than it was to any of the climatological factors we had looked at...
And a reminder of Svensmark 2007.
Green Sand, nice thought. Back from holiday now and what a great story to come back to!
"Reuters' coverage is disgraceful"
Well, what do you expect ... it is written by Nina Chestney and her short bio at Reuters' page tells everything you need to know about her abilities to cover this topic:
"Nina Chestney is the EU carbon market correspondent, based in London, UK. Her focus is on carbon emissions trading in the European Union but also looks at climate change policy and new environmental technologies. She previously covered EU energy policy and anti-trust for Thomson Financial News in Brussels."
@Uncle
A few seconds Googling (well, Binging) gives a full bio/present work &c. Not 'some offshoot', I think.
Dr Richard Betts
Leads Climate Impacts area, specialising in ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions but also overseeing work on urban, health, industry and finance.
"We know even reduction about aerosols than we suspicion we did," Kirkby told LiveScience. "So we had problems before and now we’ve got bigger problems."
See http://hackermuslim.com/2011/08/25/on-the-trail-of-a-mysterious-cloud-ingredient.html for the proof.
Actually jan-j impacts of climate change is an off-shoot of the Met Office, whose principal task is weather forecasting. That you believe the main job of the Met Office is climate change is clear evidence of the effects of warmist propoganda on the general public.
Weather forecasts, or good ones, have a direct effect on the financial and sociological well-being of the country as well as providing information for shipping and others travelling. That they do it so badly is because they have turned their attention to "climate change" presumably to get their hands on the money slushing around in this area of research. And I can't say I blame them for that, they have to live by what they can get in in cash, if there's easy cash to be found then they'll go for it.
Dr. Betts, if you don't believe the Met Office's forecasts both short term and long term, are crap, I suggest you spend a week or two on the main page of the BBC and note down the three-day forecasts they present there. Watch them change on a 24 hour basis. I swear the forecasts were better when a guy telephoned the weather in the West of Ireland through to the Met Office who then looked at the prevailing winds and with pencil in hand worked out what the weather would be like in the UK.
Back on topic. There's a lot still to do, and it's very complex. It looks like the good Doctor S' predicitons have been verified, but it remains to be seen whether this verification moves forward and refines the understanding of the effects.
Back to Dr. Betts, there is little doubt that WG1 with a few major exceptions is a scientific tour-de-force, but you do realise don't you, that few, if any, of the uncertainties, alternative explanations, or benefits arriving make it to the SPM? The SPM is 95% (very likely) certain that the unaccounted for rise in temperature is caused by human emissions of C02. It is, or was, also certain that the current global warming would lead to milder winters in the USA and Europe. I believe they've now modified that forecast to being milder, with for certain lots of freezing cold winters as well, caused by global warming. The SPM then passes through another filter for the public the MSM, and for the government it passes through the NGO filter of green lobby groups. One of which, in my view, is the Met Office. So the great science found in WG1 doesn't make it's way into the public domain, just the scaremongering from the activists, which is a great pity.
The good news: Cosmic rays can increase aerosol nucleation in clouds and reduce the heat from the sun, thereby reducing the effects of AGW.
The bad news: Nucleation relies on more concentrations of sulphuric acid.
Unintended consequence: AGW is the fault of all those greenies who campaigned against 'acid rain' so reducing the amount of sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.
Jan v J
Thanks for looking me up!
Actually if you click on my name in my BH posts you will find that I usually have included the URL for my personal page on the Met Office website, which I think is what you found through Bing. Which reminds me, it's a bit out of date, I need to see to that (doesn't include my AR5 role for example).
If you click around from that page you will then find how my team and I fit in with the wider scheme of things.
Just to explain about the Hadley Centre / Met Office relationship - the former is effectively a department of the latter (the official title of the former is Met Office Hadley Centre). I say "effectively" because it's more of a "virtual" department these days, as the boundaries between weather and climate are now less well defined in our internal structure (just like in the real world) - but you probably don't need to worry about such organisational niceties!!
Richard Betts mentioned earlier, "...from the Nature press release it looks like it's still only a first step"
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
"There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he [Kirkby] says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."
The inability to mention Svensmark is reminiscent of the same treatment for McIntyre in years past - but of course Steve's work never introduced a new, direct mechanism for increased cloudiness in the atmosphere. This is much more central and is real scientific progress - though Lindzen I'm sure would warn us against any monocausal explanation of either global warming or cooling. And of course Lindzen would already have said that the CO2 effect is far too small to be a worry, based on the data we have from 1850. The results of CLOUD and the history of solar activity simply make it even smaller.
And Svensmark is a 'real' scientist, not a semi-retired mining consultant. It is truly shocking that his name is not given in these reports. The thing it most reminds me of in the last ten days is Jon Stewart's hilarious piece about the media ignoring libertarian Ron Paul after he came a very close second in the Iowa straw poll of Republican presidential candidates. You don't have to agree with Dr Paul (or indeed Mr Stewart) to enjoy the segment. Let's hope such gifted satirists turn their attention again to climate science before long.