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.

Mike

As I understand the Cloud experiment at CERN, they proved that GCRs do produce or can produce low level clouds. For me this beats any models or unproven (by empirical experiment) GHG theory.
The Maunder Minimum "coincided with" the little ice age, we appear to be approaching another significant solar minimum. A graph on the GWPF site today showed the latest Had Crut figures and a global cooling.
Strangely for the last 50 years total solar irradiance has been at its strongest since the little ice age and so during that period BBD is correct and temperature has been rising while sunspot activity has been falling :)
I have to admit that I have no knowledge of what controls solar irradiance hehe.

Jul 29, 2012 at 8:43 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung
One area where I am more than happy to confess my ignorance is on the time-lapse relationship in climate or weather, and I sometimes wonder whether the "experts" know the answer or in some cases would rather not know the answer!
Temperature certainly does some to have been continuing to rise while sunspot activity was falling but is this necessarily surprising? What is the time lag between a sunspot peak and a temperature peak? If it takes the sun's light 8 minutes to reach the earth does that mean that 8 minutes after the sunspot activity peaks the temperature peaks? Almost certainly not!
To drag Shakespeare into it!! ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Dung, than are dreamed of in our philosophy".

Jul 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike

I think we are in the same boat ^.^, intelligent laymen trying to get their heads round as much science as they can (well you are intelligent anyway hehe)
As I understand it:

Solar irradiance happens now (well after your 8 minutes anyway)
The GHG effect "should happen" now. Also this effect is constant and rising and so temperature should be constantly rising IF CO2 is the main driver.
The suns magnetic field changes over time (just like solar irradiance) but once the magnetic field is strong then GCRs should be deflected and less should hit our atmosphere and seed clouds.
But recently solar irradiance and sunspot activity have acted in opposite directions.
This just goes to show that many many things affect our climate, we dont fully understand the ones we know about and obviously have no clue about the ones we have not yet discovered.
Well the experts have said it is ALL CO2. I found a graph here (not attributed sadly) http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/04/4593/
and the claim that solar irradiance has produced an increase at the rate of 3 watts/metre squared which is about what CO2 is supposed to have produced?

Jul 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Mike Jackson

I'm sorry, BBD, but that doesn't work any more.
Your habit of referring to other people's work as a diversionary tactic to prevent having to actually answer a question is too well-known.

I'm sorry that's your take on my provision of references to support what I say here.

The problem is that nobody else can find a GCR signal in climate. Unless others can find that signal, what Svensmark says is neither here nor there. That's how it works.

It's amusing to see so much made of an unsupported hypothesis by people normally demanding unambiguous correlation between T and CO2 :-)

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Dung

As I understand the Cloud experiment at CERN, they proved that GCRs do produce or can produce low level clouds. For me this beats any models or unproven (by empirical experiment) GHG theory.

The experiment showed that GCRs may cause increased aerosol formation in the mid troposphere (not the lower troposphere where the climatological effects would be stronger). Aerosols are not cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs) and nobody has show that this process will lead to even an increase in mid-tropospheric cloud formation, let alone climatological effects.

And I repeat, nobody else can find a GCR signal in climate. Until they do, Svensmark is on his own.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Well, when BBD is the moderator of the whole climate debate in all of the internet ...

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM | Registered Commentershub

BBD:

          "Aerosols are not cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs)".

To me, BBD, your comments in our "discussions" on this blog were absurd. You seem to continue to be out of all reason, aren't you?

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

September 2011

Aerosols are not CCNs. You are free to check for yourself, of course.

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

So far I've never called anyone a troll online..., but, of course, first, do you have a source, BBD?

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

CERN Cloud, old chap :-)

You might try reading up about the results to date.

Jul 30, 2012 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, I can not help but to call you, for example, a troll, can I?

Jul 30, 2012 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

BBD says

The problem is that nobody else can find a GCR signal in climate. Unless others can find that signal, what Svensmark says is neither here nor there. That's how it works.

Well, now that Anthony Watts et al have demonstrated how climate signals may have been effectively jumbled by injudicious adjustments it remains to be seen how long it takes for various analyses to be repeated and whether they will produce better results.

What we should not do is place too much reliance on the results of previous studies which themselves may be underpinned by dubious temperature trends.

Jul 30, 2012 at 6:34 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

"The problem is that nobody else can find a GCR signal in climate. Unless others can find that signal, what Svensmark says is neither here nor there. That's how it works."

There is plenty of evidence in the literature of both a GCR and ocean circulation effect on global temperatures, if you look. I can't see any fatal flaws that these 2 can't explain virtually all the changes.

Picked at random from the top of a Google search.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.887/pdf

BBD, do you think the CO2 theory explains the change in cloudiness in Krakow as hown here better than an ocean oscilllation and/or GCR theory?? I would really like to know what caused the global decrease in cloudiness at the end of the 20th century.

Jul 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Do you expect to see the GCR signal in temps? I would not. I would expect to see it in cloud cover and in albedo, if it is there, and I'd expect that to be pretty much lag-free. Trouble is that we see daily variations in cloud but not in GCRs, except maybe when there is CME. We'd need to identify those conditions where CCNs are what is causing clouds to form when they would not do so otherwise. A lot of the time clouds can form on their own from existing CCNs and GCRs will make no difference. The engine of climate is in the tropics, and there convection, evap and clouds dominate (IMO) and manage prefectly well on their own. That is the thing abut Svensmark. Even given the effect is true, how much difference does it make?

Still need to see the measurements of CO2 heating actually happening. Why have so few experiments been done? Or should I say reported? If I had that theory and wanted to prove it, I'd look for the signal. On the ground, in the air, over the sea. Actual measurements of heat transfer. Over 24 hours, over a year, all over the globe. Why doesn't anybody do that? Why is an oxfordshire housewife the one who is asking, why not the Met or CRU or GISS?

Jul 30, 2012 at 8:18 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda
I'm beginning to think this "oxfordshire housewife" business is just a front — and hiding a sharper brain than many around here!
The answer to you last question, I think, was made by Roger Pielke Sr in his comment on Anthony Watts' paper (emphasis mine):

Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings.
"Confirmation bias" is the polite term, I believe.

Jul 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Rhoda

Watts is very important for best evidence because thermometer readings are exactly that. If Watts is correct we have had rising CO2 and dramatically falling temp recently (just like in the ice core samples hehe)

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM | Registered CommenterDung

rhoda

That is the thing abut Svensmark. Even given the effect is true, how much difference does it make?

Exactly. And nobody can find a *climatologically significant* GCR effect.

WRT your general sense of being a lone voice asking vital questions: unless you listen to the answers more carefully, you will plough a long, unhappy furrow leading nowhere. Doubtless this sincere and well-meant advice will in turn be ignored.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Please define *climatologically significant*, BBD? (Just so as we all know what you are talking about.)

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

BBD

This is the kind of arrogant twaddle that makes you unpopular:

WRT your general sense of being a lone voice asking vital questions: unless you listen to the answers more carefully, you will plough a long, unhappy furrow leading nowhere. Doubtless this sincere and well-meant advice will in turn be ignored.

Is it not possible for you to simply discuss things without ridiculing those who do not agree with you?

What caused Svensmark to begin his investigations was the accepted fact that sunspots activity closely correlated with temperature BUT nobody understood the mechanism. Whether or not Svensmark has got it right, the correlation between sunspots and temperature remains unchallenged (except by you?).
What seems to be more and more obvious is that it is not possible to predict or understand climate on the basis of just one variable. Regardless of whether or not solar irradience is the main driver or not, it is still a driver. Regardless of whether or not sunspots (solar magnetic activity) are the main driver, sunspots (or a variable dependent on solar magnetic activity) are a driver.
The orbit of the Earth around the sun drives climate.
CO2 and other GHGs are drivers of climate (many reputable scientists claim that the effect is reduced as ppm levels increase).
It is a nobrainer to say that there are effects that we dont even know about.
All of this says to me that there is no way that CO2 "controls" climate.

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:21 PM | Registered CommenterDung

"I'm beginning to think this "oxfordshire housewife" business is just a front — and hiding a sharper brain than many around here."

Mmnn, it took you a long time to spot the sharper brain Mike, certainly sharper than mine. BBD hasn't noticed it and is giving her fartherly advice when to all but the dumbest neutral she is, and has been, running rings round him using common sense. Rhoda claims not to be scientifically educated, but then Mozart wasn't musically educated.

Marion too is an Oxfordshire housewife I believe, the WI meetings in that county must be humdingers:

"This week's speaker will tell us the exciting story of the building of the CERN particle accelerator and explain to us the evidence they have with respect to the existence, or not, of the Higgs Boson, and what thw exact implications this has for the future of particle physics.

Will those of you entering the August Rhubarb Jam competition bring your exhibits clearly marked with your names and leave them at the back of the hall."

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

BBD, as impressed as I am with your wide knowledge of the scientific literature Rhoda, I believe is asking questions she knows the scientific literature doesn't address, but which are critical to our knowledge of whether there is positive or negative feedback. You either don't understand her questions, or are choosing not to answer them on the grounds that you know (as I believe Rhoda does) that the scientific literature cannot answer them. She is asking how much we really know about the formation of clouds, because it is difficult for me to understand why an increase on water vapour in the atmosphere on the scale we're talking about (did Peter Stott just tell us that it has increased by 4%? Although I suspect that like much information coming from the Met Office, this is simply a half truth) does not result in more cloud. Of course a small increase in albedo ( in percentage terms) will result in cooling. So what are the mechanisms holding back this water vapour from turning into cloud and leading to negative feedback?

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

it took you a long time to spot the sharper brain Mike,
I'm just getting a little slow on the uptake these days, geronimo, is all! She's been very good at "playing the daft lassie" when it suits her, laying elephant traps along the way.
BBD is very busy falling into them with his eyes wide shut and I think the time has come for me to sit back and watch the fun.
As for WI meetings in 'Middle England' these days — you have no idea! Remember the Calendar Girls.

Jul 30, 2012 at 4:03 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

The clue for me was when Rhoda told us as an aside that she was only half way through reading Agenda 21. That set the alarm bells ringing and sirens howling. Half way through Agenda 21! the previous record had been halfway through the introduction, my own sorry attempt had made it half way through the first paragraph when I realised I'd seen all the words before but never put together like that and retired hurt. So here we have someone, genuinely half way through the whole document! It had the same effect on me as someone saying, "I'm halfway through A la Recherche du Temps Perdu," it's very exciting! I knew then that we had a superior presence amongst us and have watched in awe as she keeps asking the simple questions and BBD patronises her with platitudes and bombast in equal measure little realising she's employing Rutherford's dictum:

If you can’t explain your theory to a barmaid (Oxfordshire Housewife) it probably isn’t very good physics.

And of course that's what Rhoda has spotted, they can't explain their theories simply, or at least when they try, they are easily refuted. So Rhoda has come back and asked for the best evidence and despite the many climate scientist who visit this site, has not had anyone provide the best evidence because, with a certain exception who converted to alarmism before our very eyes, to a man and woman, they kow there isn't any best evidence.

You can be forgiven MIke, Rhoda is hiding her light under a bushel, but it is funny watching her run rings round BBD I must say.

Jul 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

The really fascinating thing is that he doesn't appear to have noticed yet!

Jul 30, 2012 at 5:39 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Twasn't me G'mo, I'd never even think about reading agenda 21. I'd probably explode well before halfway.

No, I have no formal scientific education post 1966 and that A level Physics. I have worked in areas requiring a firm grip on reality though. I find the CO2 thing to be akin to a cop show where one detective has pretty much decided the prime suspect did it, while the dogged unkempt hero wants to look at it sideways and investigate that guy who doesn't need to be in it and is played by a well-known actor.

There are good and bad approaches to problem solving. In this case we have not really defined the problem properly at all, and that it necessary before we can solve it. Trouble is, a lot of the protagonists know the answer already, they don't need to look any further. And that includes all-round good guy Richard Betts. He pretends to an open mind, but he always ends up with the same suspect. He pays lip service to uncertainty in a statistical sense, but don't you reckon he is pretty certain in himself? I do.
Only undue certainty or actual bias could explain how the warmist scientists approach this problem.

Jul 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda