Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Best evidence: The story so far.

BBD, what should I "admit"? You say that aerosols are not CCNs. That is not true. Why you don't answer my question? I asked and asked and...

Aug 1, 2012 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

BBD

"Instead of cherry-picking your data set and methodology, do it properly"

No, you do it! I have done my work, I stand by it and have given an independant source of confirmation.

Now you get on with yours, you calculate what the WMO 30 year running trends are.

You cherry pick your data set and methodology and when you have come back and let us know if the 30year trend is increasing or decreasing and what the magnitude is compared to the various theoretical warming rates.

HadCRUT4? "a bit at the end? 3 months in 30 years is a bit at the end! Over 2 years is not "a bit at the end."

Aug 1, 2012 at 6:40 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

I can go into by garden every day of the year and meticulously record temperature measurements. I could then draw a nice graph and think up reasons for the temperatures displayed.

Basically I have proved nothing other than my wishful thinking in trying to find a cause for my nicely displayed data.

It could be cause A, or cause B, perhaps cause C ( they all seem valid ), or neither.

Perhaps I could tweak the data just a little bit to fit the curve to my favourite theory.

Whether it be HadCRAP 1 or 4 makes absolutely no difference - these are just simple noisy (tweaked) temperature measurements, with glaring errors enough to make any qualified engineer weep with exasperation.

They are a pastime for geeks and nerds to witter on about endlessly.

They PROVE NOTHING!

Aug 1, 2012 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

shub

The climate system is exceptionally stable at long timescales. Sorry.

Rubbish!!

Aug 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

What - less than 2.5 degs (my estimate) in 5 millions years? - That's about half a degree every million years. Looks pretty stable to me!

Aug 1, 2012 at 8:15 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

The climate system is exceptionally stable at long timescales. Sorry.

Rubbish!!

I really don't think that helps, BBD. If you don't agree maybe you could say why.
As matthu says, 2.5C over 5 million years seems pretty stable.
What causes you to say otherwise?

Aug 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I really don't think that helps, BBD. If you don't agree maybe you could say why.

Umm, let me see... the PETM perhaps? Eocene-Oligocene transition (Oi-1)? Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum? Mid-Pliocene Thermal Optimum? Not to mention the ~12C *fall* in GAT from 50Ma - present...

What causes you to say otherwise?

The ~ 5C swings between glacials and interglacials and the vigorous instability (notably interstadials) of glacial climates ...

Aug 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"Rubbish!"

I am looking at the same graphs. The exceptional stability of the climate system is amply evident.

Firstly, at the longest of timescales, an oscillatory set-up is evident. This automatically sets bounds between which the system swings. It is a bound system.

Secondly, open your eyes and mind, and look at the x-axis time scale. Compressing millions of years into a few inches fools the suggestible I guess.

Aug 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM | Registered Commentershub

BBD - when you say

Find out what happens to GCR flux when there is a massive and sustained reduction in the Earth's magnetic field. Look at the Be10 proxy spike ~40ka.

can we presume you are aware that most of the Be10 is the result of higher altitude interactions by incoming cosmic ray-particles of moderate energy while it is the higher energy muons that penetrate the lower atmosphere that are potentially associated with climate change?

And that even if the magnetic field of the earth were to disappear completely the incidence of high energy muons would be reckoned to vary by only about 3%?

Perhaps you weren't aware of this.

Because if you were already aware, then your oblique reference to Be10 is deliberately misleading, is it not? And not the final nail that you might like to imagine.

Aug 1, 2012 at 10:27 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

The ~ 5C swings between glacials and interglacials and the vigorous instability (notably interstadials) of glacial climates ...
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM | BBD

On short timescales, are the 10-20 degree swings (maybe 'catastrophically' 50C in sub-tropical deserts) between day and night stable or unstable weather/climate?

Aug 1, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

matthu

can we presume you are aware that most of the Be10 is the result of higher altitude interactions by incoming cosmic ray-particles of moderate energy while it is the higher energy muons that penetrate the lower atmosphere that are potentially associated with climate change?

And that even if the magnetic field of the earth were to disappear completely the incidence of high energy muons would be reckoned to vary by only about 3%?

Why *wouldn't* the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field during the Laschamp excursion *increase* the flux of high energy muons to the lower atmosphere? I'm puzzled.

And the climatologically significant effect of the *total* GCR flux increase during the Lashcamp excursion was... nowt.

And evidence for a climatological effect from a change in muon flux to the lower atmosphere in modern observations is ... ?

Nowt.

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Or come to think of it according to Wikipedia the polar bear capital Churchill in Canada seems to have a mean temperature of 12C in summer and -27C in winter. Is that nearly 40C mean swing in 6 months a sign of instability? Average high to low swing here is approaching 50C..

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

shub

I am looking at the same graphs. The exceptional stability of the climate system is amply evident.

Really? I think we have been playfully hacked.

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

He's successfully hijacked the thread again, yet I don't want him to go away, at least not until he's explained to me why the first law of thermodynamics is the damping factor on positive feedbacks, which it isn't. But please remember we have our own Muller who pretended to be a sceptic but claimed that he'd been persuaded by the science here.

Disappointed that Richard Betts is bored with us, but would be relieved if BBD was.

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

BBD - you ask

Why *wouldn't* the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field during the Laschamp excursion *increase* the flux of high energy muons to the lower atmosphere? I'm puzzled.


Don't worry - you made the same mistake as Wolfendale and Sloan so you are in good company. Perhaps this will help - and this paragraph in particular

We have come to the nub of the misconception, where the critics haven’t grasped an elementary point about Svensmark’s physics. For ten years he has said the clouds most affected by cosmic rays are low clouds. So the cosmic rays that matter are charged particles (mainly muons, heavy electrons) that penetrate low into the atmosphere. They’re generated mostly by very energetic protons from the Galaxy on which the Earth’s magnetic field has little influence. Hence the much reduced slope of the red curve, compared with Sloan & Wolfendale’s NM slope.

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link.

Since the subtext here is that this is is part of the 'best evidence' that CO2 is *not* the main driver of modern warming, you need to put something on the table.

Off you go...

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD - you ask

Why *wouldn't* the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field during the Laschamp excursion *increase* the flux of high energy muons to the lower atmosphere? I'm puzzled.

Don't worry - you made the same mistake as Wolfendale and Sloan so you are in good company. Perhaps this will help - and this paragraph in particular

We have come to the nub of the misconception, where the critics haven’t grasped an elementary point about Svensmark’s physics. For ten years he has said the clouds most affected by cosmic rays are low clouds. So the cosmic rays that matter are charged particles (mainly muons, heavy electrons) that penetrate low into the atmosphere. They’re generated mostly by very energetic protons from the Galaxy on which the Earth’s magnetic field has little influence. Hence the much reduced slope of the red curve, compared with Sloan & Wolfendale’s NM slope.
Aug 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM | matthu>>>>>

You're wasting your time.

He'll claim black is white in order to prove that it's CO2 wot dunnit!

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Er...

All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link.

You didn't.

Aug 1, 2012 at 11:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

You have to admire some aspects of BBD, indeed he could make a strong claim to be a member of the Bishop Hill gang ^.^
In stark contrast to Richard Betts and the Fab 4 or Tom Chivers or Mr Corner, BBD has stickability. BBD is here every single day and annoys the hell out of everybody despite what gets thrown at him. I do not enjoy BBD's attitude at all but I have to admire his courage.

Aug 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM | Registered CommenterDung

All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link

Sorry, BBD - but you have already demonstrated that you aren't really up to recognising a GCR-climate link if it stared you in the face. The behaviour of high energy muons puzzle you, remember?

I have already cited evidence of a 92% correlation between GCR and low level clouds - clearly there is a climate link there. Not all climate effects need to be directly temperature related all of the time: they simply need to be capable of being temperature related.

Aug 2, 2012 at 1:20 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

Really? I think we have been playfully hacked.

?

Aug 2, 2012 at 2:33 AM | Registered Commentershub

Aug 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM | Dung

I do not enjoy BBD's attitude at all but I have to admire his courage.

Indeed. I cannot imagine that any reasonable person would enjoy the zealot's attitude!

But courage?! What "courage" does it take to repeatedly engage in such thread-jacking, attention-seeking, disrespectful behaviours?! That aside ...

Seems to me that a day ago he said he was leaving because he was "bored". And he's back already!

Perhaps he mis-spoke himself and in a (rare but very short-lived) moment of honesty really intended to say: "Uh, oh ... I'm boring".

Some people leave and never say g'bye. Others frequently say g'bye and never leave. The zealot has indisputably placed himself in the latter group! This may just be his greatest "accomplishment" to date ;-)

Aug 2, 2012 at 6:30 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

"All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link."

I'm a Svensmark fan because I think the theory is cool. It doesn't make it right of course but there is loads of evidence suggesting the sun has an effect on climate. How about the Maunder Minimum coinciding with a cold period on the Earth. Also at least Svensmark is conducting experiments to test his theory

I come from a Geological, Oceanographic and Meteorological background and the GCR theory fits in very well on a geological tiime scale. Purely my opinion here but I think GCR's (or some other solar effect, with other plausible sounding theories around.) and ocean induced natural variability can account for the changes we've seen.

I also like the Miskolczi theory as it seems to fit in very well with the overall extremely stable climate wth seen in Earth History (500+ million years of continual abundant animal like during the Phanerozoic shows it is at least stable enough for animals to thrive.) Also how can CO2 be so dominant when H20 dwarfs it in effect and there is a unlimited amount of water around for GHG purposes if you want to warm your greenhouse up more.

Also BBD I linked in another thread to a random paper showing cloudiness dropping in the late 20th century. I asked whether GCR's (or other solar) or CO2 explained the drop better, but didn't see an answer. Also there is again other evidence for cloudiness dropping last century (Earthshine?) which doesn't fit with the CO2 theory at all does it?

Aug 2, 2012 at 8:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

matthu
Careful! the 0.92 correlation between GCRs and low-level clouds is still only a correlation. BBD is right to demand some evidence. What he cannot do, and certainly appears to have done further up this thread, is to argue that the link is not worth investigating because nobody has proved it exists.

Aug 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Aug 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM | Mike Jackson

I don't understand the no evidence line. I guess if you don't count any evidence you don't like it might be true. Just because a theory doesn't explain 100% of all the data doesn't make the physical hypothesis incorrect but may point out there are other factors in play which I'm sure everyone would think was true anyway.

Aug 2, 2012 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton