by Judith Curry
The publication last week of results from the CERN CLOUD experiment on cosmic rays is generating significant buzz, with substantial debate on the implication of these results for climate change,
Nature News reports:
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.
Other notable media/blogosphere articles include:
1) Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link Physics World, 24 August 2011
2) David Whitehouse: CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect – The Observatory, 25 August 2011
3) Nigel Calder: CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Action – Calder’s Updates, 24 August 2011
4) RealClimate The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting
This afternoon, Nir Shaviv gave a comprehensive overview on his perspective of the cosmic ray – climate connection. I don’t yet have that presentation available, but will post when available.
JC comments: this is a fascinating topic, and the CERN CLOUD experiment seems very well designed. I look forward to digging into this topic at some point when I have more time. At this point I will only state that this experiment doesn’t tell us much about the climate system. Climate models have “overegged” the aerosol forcing IMO, and aerosol indirect effects ranks as a very large uncertainty. Hopefully the results of this experiment will motivate an enhanced consideration of this issue in the context of climate variability and change.
Addendum: Oops, I forgot to include Josh’s UnCERNtainty Monster cartoon
No egg in fudge.
========
No, but there is a pulsar at the core of the Sun!
The key question is what fraction of “cosmic rays” are in fact high energy radiation from the solar core.
I tried unsuccessfully this afternoon to get Nir Shaviv to answer that question at an ACS webinar: “Critical Look at Global Warming Data: Wickedly Complex System Called Climate.”
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/OM_Links_for_ACS_Webinar.doc
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/OM_Links_for_ACS_Webinar.pdf
Oliver
No egg in fudge, looks like it’s back to chocolate cake for breakfast.
It is interesting. As with most papers in poses more questions than it answers. It doesn’t appear to indicate a significant climate/sun relationship, but the surprise ammonia factor indicates there may be more surprises.
I thought the purpose of the experiment was to test Svensmark’s conjecture regarding the cosmic ray-cloud linking mechanism, and that the test was positive. The test is not about a sun-climate link per se because that involves things like solar wind modulation of the cosmic ray flux. But the test opens the door for an indirect solar forcing mechanism, which has long been sought. Am I wrong?
The purpose of the experiment was to “put it into the long grass” (i.e. hit the ball where the other side were prevented from using it).
No one else could get funding for the same experiment, but they could damn right ensure that it didn’t produce a result for long enough for all the terrible doomsday calamities to appear.
The problem is that after 10 years, the other side have finally found the ball and brought it back into play.
Now what do they do? Kick in back in the long grass? Declare the game is already over (the science is settled), pretend that there isn’t a ball?
Same as it ever was, they’ll pretend they are the umpires.
=============
Kim, they don’t pretend. They are the judge, jury, execution,
If this were football, they’d be one dwarf on our side, who was then blindfolded, then bound and gagged, then told entirely the wrong pitch on which to play. Then when they found the right pitch, there would be multiple balls, the rules would be rewritten as the game went on and the umpire would be miraculously occupied doing something else (kicking the dwarf) when there was a foul.
According to all the laws of “sport”, the dwarf is loosing 99: -5, but somehow it’s not us hanging our heads in despair: it it the other side who are furious because the audience think we are winning!
A Scot using a golf analogy! Anyway the new battle line is that while this mechanism may in fact exist it cannot explain the observed warming, or the apparent sun-climate link. That is, it is “true but unimportant.” This is a standard defense. It has already appeared.
Well, it isn’t association rules, that’s fer shur.
============
Actually, it seems to have been a fairly consistent reaction.
From RealClimate in 2006:
Patience, my boy, patience.
================
Indeed, Joshua, this line has always been manned, as it were. It is just that now it is the front line. The first argument is it is not true. That having failed, the second argument is it is not important. But this has always been said as well.
“Anyway the new battle line is that while this mechanism may in fact exist it cannot explain the observed warming, or the apparent sun-climate link”
Uhhh it was always the case that “this mechanism may in fact exist”, both before and after this paper. This paper doesn’t even make it “more likely”. It’s lacking in any quantification of how GCRs impact cloud formation and so adds no information about the significance of GCRs as a forcing on climate.
The fact that GCRs don’t even trend in the right direction to explain recent warming is not so much a last battle line as an inconvenient fact skeptics are trying to ignore addressing even though it’s the easiest thing to look at.
There is currently no quantifiable mechanism to provide the answer for how big the GCR forcing is. But in the meantime we could at least look at the GCR trend in the last 30 years and consider whether it’s downwards (warming), upwards (cooling), or flat (negliable).
But yeah skeptics don’t want to ruin the Very Not The IPCC chatter by looking at such data.
“But in the meantime we could at least look at the GCR trend in the last 30 years and consider whether it’s downwards (warming), upwards (cooling), or flat (negliable).”
How about a step increase at around the time of LIA that has been warming us ever since?
Tim,
go back to Svensmark’s papers and make sure you are looking at GCR’s that are high enough energy. Several papers were written purporting to debunk Svensmark that used data for all CR’s instead of high energy GCR’s. Sorry, I don’t remember the energy level he specifies.
Several papers written before CLOUD? Ummm yeah. Not very convincing.
To clarify… There are apparently other factors involved than just energy levels (eg Ammonia) so its not as simple as has been previously assumed.
With too low of an energy level ammonia or other aerosols will make little difference.
Well if the interaction between the GCRs and Ammonia wasn’t even known during the time of this debunking, then it can hardly be “too low level” as a result of that debunking can it.
Tim,
don’t act like a troll. The papers simply showed that there was no correlation between a count of ALL CR’s and Climate.
Since the correlation would only have been for the HE GCR’s they were not well posed and were touted even though Svensmark tried to point out the errors.
lolwot suggested checking the correlation and I only suggested making sure the correct things were being checked. If you have good data on atmospheric ammonia by all means include that data in your correlation check. Don’t see how that will tell you much about the GCR correlation, but, knock yourself out.
“The papers simply showed that there was no correlation between a count of ALL CR’s and Climate.”
Correlation over such a short timespan when looking for signals in the climate is irrelevent and you ought to know better. Its already been pointed out in this thread that the CO2 warming signal during the satellite era is lost in the noise.
Besides as I said earlier (and Jeff ID pointed out originally as far as I’m concerned) a one off step change say around the time of the LIA could easily be responsible for warming. How would you detect it if there is no subsequent trend or correlation?
Its like turning on a second bar on a radiator and the room starts to warm up. Then someone comes in and wonders why the room is warming up…
Tim,
Svensmark CLAIMS GCR’s over 12.9GeV cause his theorized effect, at least that is what he graphs:
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Marsh%2520Svensmark%25202000%2520Cosmic%2520Rays%2520Clouds%2520and%2520Climate.pdf
IF someone is going to look for correlations they need to use the correct data. That is what I am saying and that is ALL I am saying. Kapish??
“Correlation over such a short timespan when looking for signals in the climate is irrelevent and you ought to know better. Its already been pointed out in this thread that the CO2 warming signal during the satellite era is lost in the noise.”
You are absolutely wrong of course. Short term correlations are “DIG HERE” sign posts. They prove nothing but help researchers find useful areas to investigate. If there is no correlation there would be no reason to investigate. It does help to have a small amount of common sense in looking for those correlations though.
“If there is no correlation there would be no reason to investigate.”
So if there was a step change in GCRs the past and warming has resulted ever since, you’re saying that because you cant see any correlation or trend in GCRs there is no reason to investigate it as a possibility.
This is very much the “What else can it be but CO2 because its the only thing changing” argument and it isn’t very convincing.
Tim the tool,
I will ask you again, what is your point. I STILL do not know what point you are trying to make. Do you have a point? What is it? Try and lay it out in simple low syllable words I can understand. So far our communication has not been, yet, you appear to be making an effort. I can only conclude you are talking over my head.
Well its not surprising to see you’ve sunk to insults.
Originally I posted this
How about a step increase at around the time of LIA that has been warming us ever since?
And you replied with this
go back to Svensmark’s papers and make sure you are looking at GCR’s that are high enough energy. Several papers were written purporting to debunk Svensmark that used data for all CR’s instead of high energy GCR’s. Sorry, I don’t remember the energy level he specifies.
So I thought my point was clear. A step change in the past could possibly account for continued warming. I even gave the bar radiator analogy. Your reply was less obvious as to its meaning. You’re saying that because there is no correlation there can be no warming associated with GCRs.
Please be very careful to caution your readers to observe the differences between the NatureNews release and the actual content of the Kirkby paper. The headline of the news release overstates the findings of the paper. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation. There are also questions about contamination in the experiment chamber and whether the medium energies used in the experiment are actually necessary to achieve the same experimental effect. If low energy gamma rays produce the same enhanced nucleation as the CERN particle beam, then GCRs may well have nothing to do with cloud formation.
Note especially the last sentence of the press release: “it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate;” a long way from the ‘bombshell’ that some have claimed.
“Please be very careful to caution your readers to observe the differences between the NatureNews release and the actual content of the Kirkby paper.”
Oh yeah because SkS never sensationalises and over-extrapolates papers does it.
This is the first careful scientific step in exploring the hypothesis that cloud formation is effected by GCRs and so far its a solid step. Its perfectly valid to ponder where the hypothesis takes our current knowledge of the climate and its safe to say that its a possible game changer for CO2’s role.
Right now the only valid assessment of the situation is that the IPCC previously stated CO2 was very likely responsible for the majority of the recent observed warming and now it must accept its a little less likely than it was in AR4. Not because GCRs are necessarily implicated in the recent warming (although they could be) but rather because the determination of sensitivity based on paleo data becomes much less certain.
The closer you get to water vapour, closer we are to the end of co2 hyperbole;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/
CO2 is a minor GHG, the experiment reminds us again.
cwon1,
And do not forget that clouds are not water vapor.
They are made from water vapor.
Clouds are either water or ice.
But you are correct: water in the atmosphere has been given short shrift.
Warmists freak over the co2 natural cycle and water related. That is my point. Both dwarf CO2 in impact and destroy the AGW narrative. So this is just another reminder AR4 falls short.
Add to this the use on an experiment, I love it. What can be worse for agw supporters than relating real world results as compared to fudged models.
“Both dwarf CO2 in impact”
The forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7wm-2
What is the numeric forcing you suggest dwarfs CO2? And on the off chance that you can’t give a number, how are you so sure it dwarfs CO2?
“What is the numeric forcing you suggest dwarfs CO2?”
Well Peter Minnett measured about 100W/m2 difference in DLR between clouds and no clouds. I’d say from that clouds can dwarf CO2 on moment to moment timescales and only a 3.7% change in cloud cover over the longer term equates to the same as a complete doubling of CO2.
Tim, I think you lost lolwot. He’s probably looking in his “Math for Warmists” book for how to prove 3.7 >> 100.0!
actually i ignored it because it was wrong. The 3.7wm-2 co2-doubling forcing is globally and annually averaged. The 100wm-2 figure is not, rendering the two incomparable.
lol, wot?
Which part of the entire argument which was that a 3.7% change in cloud cover equates to the doubling of CO2 is wrong?
The effects of clouds is large therefore a small change matters.
“Surface solar radiation variations in Europe after 2000 are dominated by a large positive anomaly in the year 2003 with its unprecedented summer heat wave, exceeding 10 Wm−2 on an annual and 20 Wm−2 on a summer mean basis in central Europe.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011382.shtml
The supposed 3.7W/m-2 is far into the future. Besides, doesn’t CO2 cool the earth by block IR?
The CERN experiments and preliminary analysis are interesting not only from the point of view of the current state of climate science and knowledge but more tellingly, from the commentry and extrapolations of both sides of the AGW debate.
IMO the cosmic rays from the sun would only be one factor in a multitude of factors which are likely to affect climate and because of the complexity of the system, it would not be possible to deduce the effect of this by holding all other factors constant under the tenets of scientific method.
I therefore agree with the thrust of the press release in cautioning readers not to jump to conclusions and that a lot more work remains to be done.
But Peter … “the science is settled”. … and now this CERN results proves conclusively that the science isn’t settled. Moreover, taking this result with others I think the balance of evidence now shows that cosmic rays to affect the climate. In contrast, I don’t think there is any empirical evidence for the positive feedbacks required for the massive CO2 induced warming.
Those who say the cosmic ray link is “not proven beyond doubt” are really the pot calling the kettle black, because the positive feedback hypothesis is as far as I can see utterly without empirical evidence to support it.
But, the real question I have to ask is why the cosmic ray theory has been so sidelined. Why e.g. did it take 10 years for CERN to get this experiment completed? Why was it another 9.5 months for Nature to publish, and then why were all the warmist press pump primed with the press release even though CERN said they did not want to politicise it.
As I said, taken as a whole, the balance of evidence now clearly points to a cosmic ray link, and taken as a whole, I’m waiting to find any empirical evidence for the climate multipliers except the argument: “CO2 must have done it so the warming must be due to CO2” (and other selected gases).
Now the argument from ignorance has been put to bed. You can’t argue that “because we don’t know what did it, CO2 must be responsible”, because that argument can be BETTER used to implicate cosmic rays.
SS –
The answer to that question is obvious. It’s all a big conspiracy, woven together by a huge cabal of tens of thousand of people engaged in disparate activities across a wide diversity of organizations without any coherent infrastructure to link them all together. Apparently, they use ESP to make sure everyone is in lockstep.
Impressive, isn’t it?
No the leaders of the conspiracy use e-mail to keep in lockstep (we got to read a few of those leaked out in Climategate). They then use a perverted version of the peer review system to fool the tens of thousands of people necessary to keep continuing it.
Actually, what it is is worse than a conspiracy, it is a consensus. Not of the science, but of the people who want to make a living in climate science and those politicians who want to destroy economic activity and control people. The only consensus is that this is a convenient way to accomplish both of those goals. As you will not by repeated Warmist calls that say, even if we are wrong the economic changes (damages) we are forcing on the world are a good thing.
This research was scheduled in 1998 until one of the scientists involved stated that it would prove that half to all of the global warming would be attributable to cosmic rays. That had to be delayed if policy was more important than sciene, something they have proven time and again.
Giving you some benefit of the doubt with respect to “those emails” (i.e., that they prove a conspiracy among climate scientists), how many of the thousands of emails made public are evidence to support a conspiracy of the magnitude and reach you’re alleging?
Emails between the co-conspirators in the “MSM” and the scientists whose email was revealed?
Emails between the “those” politician co-conspirators and the scientists whose email was revealed?
I don’t know – given the lack of such evidence, I think that you should stick with the ESP argument.
Take it now, as I haven’t yet pursued getting proprietary ownership over that idea; I might have to charge you in the future.
Scottish Sceptic –
The answer to that question is obvious. It’s all a big conspiracy, woven together by a huge cabal of tens of thousand of people engaged in disparate activities across a wide diversity of organizations without any coherent infrastructure to link them all together. Apparently, they use ESP to make sure everyone is in lockstep.
Impressive, isn’t it?
Naw, it’s an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd.
You can get off your conspiracy horse, Joshua. Though there was ‘breathing together’ it will be very difficult to separate the racketeering from the madness.
=============
Yeah, Kim. Scottish Sceptic is clearly right.
The breathless post at WUWT is all the proof you need of that “warmist press pump primed with the press release even though CERN said they did not want to politicise it.”
Hmm, must be a fossil fuel funded conspiracy.
=============
Another good point, kim.
Clearly, specious logic on one side proves specious logic on the other side.
Naw, just demonstrating your projection. And having a little fun with the demonstration. Too bad you don’t get the joke.
Don’t worry, I’ll tell it again. And again. And again.
==========
I knew it!!!
CRU : “This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum,Shell,Sultan of Oman
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
One tell of the true beleiver is that they use the false choice of, “we are correct, or our people are in a massive conspiracy.”
People engaging in group think, noble cause corruption or thinking in an echo chamber- the most common sources of error- are ignored by the believer community.
Your reference to the classic on popular social manias is excellent.
Actually, hunter – that would be an unfair characterization of my argument. I was reacting to an assertion of a conspiracy.
This comment is doubly ironic – because only a few seconds go, you wrote a comment openly in support of a conspiracy theory.
I offer no such limited, binary conclusions as you suggest I do. I see valid reasons for “skepticism.” What I find implausible are allegations of conspiracy. – and that would apply to either side of the debate.
I am still waiting for Eli, to answer the question of just what his definition of ‘degaussed’, is? Joshua, how do you explain these two stories? Why Hollywood, do you think?
NASA fired everybody that knew anything first? What’s next ‘Magic Bullet’?
http://evidencebasedthought.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/apollo-11-degaussed/
http://www.examiner.com/indie-movie-in-washington-dc/hollywood-movie-firm-helps-nasa-restore-apollo-11-moonwalk-video
Oh, the invisibility…of old binary conclusions.
Scientific proof that “skeptics” can have their cake and eat it too:
From WUWT:
Silence of the Jams.
=============
He He! Someone’s not forgotten to bring that sense of humour!
Sorry, Andy, who actually rocks. He’s just a little lamb led to slaughter.
=================
Nir Shaviv’s blog is Science Bits
He had earlier posted on Cosmic Rays and Climate which shows some of his slides he presented today.
Re Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays> Kirby/CERN paper in Nature August 2011, Shaviv writes:The CLOUD is clearing
WUWT earlier posted: BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds, and Some reactions to the CLOUD experiment
CosmoClimatology A New Theory and other pages at DTU Space on Svensmark,
For source papers via Google Scholar see Svensmark cosmic
cwon1 – Kirkby mentions neither water vapor nor CO2, so the experiment reminds us of nothing of the sort.
res ipsa loquitur
See especially Kirby’s Graph on which Nigel Calder observes: “The global warmists’ dam breaks”
I like this:
“Hall of Shame
Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?
For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.
And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.”
It now appears that the deep roots of Climategate only emerged after nearly four decades of growth in the rich soil of space science studies:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/OM_Links_for_ACS_Webinar.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/OM_Links_for_ACS_Webinar.doc
I feel Climategate is the result of a “perfect storm” of circumstances:
1. Post modern science – this was based on a philosophical movement that said that absolute truth was unobtainable, and therefore placed far more emphasis on individual views. When translated to science it became “science lite” … science without the need to prove anything by experiment, science through “consensus”.
2. The development of satellite imaging and a US space agency keen to prove that there was some point sending all those satellites into orbit. As such there was plenty of money for anyone who could find anything to do with satellite images. One of those areas was looking at the ecology, another was weather. Then looking at changing ecology (how man was affecting vegetation that could be seen from space … and the next obvious step .. was how mankind was changing the weather.
3. Ice cores, Along similar lines, people started going to the poles (mainly to assert political ownership and e.g. for the US to stop the USSR claiming it) … but what do you do with all these scientists? What else is there but ice? So, yet again there was a lot of money poured into “ice research” and then people discovered that the ice could be used to indicate climate. And as it was awash with money various theories came out like the camp century cycles … which led to predictions of impending cooling, which then led to massive work to get lots of temperature records, which then led to a whole sector trying to find something to do with the temperature records when the global cooling scare fizzled out.
4. Long time periods. Now, we get to the crux. Climate takes an awful long time to change. So, e.g. you can make a prediction as a PhD student, get your doctorate, get a lectureship, become a professor and even head of department (in the new subject) with perhaps only one full ten year period of results. By shear luck, 50% of the research is going to get their “predictions right “(it’s going to cool/warm).
5. Three decades of warming. Then we get to the awful coincidence of three decades of warming. Perhaps caused by reducing global dimming, perhaps with a CO2 component. But the real cause didn’t matter, because those who had predicted warming had the perfect support for their wacko theories. In effect, they were unassailable and those who had predicted warming came to dominate a subject. They couldn’t be questioned, they couldn’t be challenged, because for 40 years their predictions were “proved” right.
In other words, shear chance and politics let a bunch of wackos gain control of a subject, convince themselves and many other scientists and all the heads of “science” (in science those who can’t get to the top) that they were miracle makers. No one questioned them, they were allowed to run climate science like a little fiefdom and …. then
It stopped warming!!
Eeverywhere Hansen looks, he sees Venus.
But when he looks at Venus he only sees his poorly constructed model based on ignorance.
How are you defining ‘stopped’?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2012/trend/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2012
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2012
Clouds may affect the weather, but they cannot affect the climate, as represented by the mean global surface temperature. The proper comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth shows, among other seminal results, that the thick clouds of Venus do not affect the overall temperature-vs-pressure curve of that planet, except within the clouds themselves:
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
and the scattered clouds on Earth similarly do not affect its temperature-vs-pressure curve, which is essentially the same as that for Venus, when just the difference in the two planets’ distances from the Sun is taken into account. In short, the detailed pressure and temperature data of two planetary atmospheres inescapably show that the only things that affect the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures from 1,000 mb down to 200 mb, are the hydrostatic temperature lapse rate structure that governs the long-term vertical distribution of temperatures in both, and the intensity of the incident solar radiation, which depends only upon the distance of the planet from the Sun. Climate science needs to face the definitive facts of the Venus/Earth comparison I have done, because they demolish all current climate theories, whether consensus or skeptic.
The amount of sunlight that REACHES the earths surface has varied by as much as 20W/m-2 in the 20th century.
Global brightening/dimming/brightening is real and documented and pretty much ignored by the IPCC.
Man-made aerosols may be part of this, but a major part could be cosmic rays affecting cloud formation.
http://i55.tinypic.com/34qk01z.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/eb3pmb.jpg
The 20W/m-2 reference:
“Surface solar radiation variations in Europe after 2000 are dominated by a large positive anomaly in the year 2003 with its unprecedented summer heat wave, exceeding 10 Wm−2 on an annual and 20 Wm−2 on a summer mean basis in central Europe. The brightening seen at sites in Antarctica during the 1990s, influenced by a recovery from the low atmospheric transparency after the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, fades after 2000. The brightening tendency also seems to level off at sites in Japan. In China there is some indication for a renewed dimming, after the stabilization in the 1990s. A continuation of the long-lasting dimming is also noted at the sites in India. Overall, the available data suggest continuation of the brightening beyond the year 2000 at numerous locations, yet less pronounced and coherent than during the 1990s, with more regions with no clear changes or declines. Therefore, globally, greenhouse warming after 2000 may be less modulated by surface solar variations than in prior decades.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011382.shtml
Clouds define albedo, don’ they? In fact, they mostly determine albedo – for most of the earth is water with albedo otherwise of less than 10%. It is in fact amazing that clouds keep earths albedo in such a narrow envelope to allow temperature to change by no more than 0.1% !!. Amazing, simply amazing…
There are numerous conditions in the universe that had to work out millimetre perfect in order for the formation of our solar system to occur and to create the preconditions for biological life on planet Earth.
Something seems to be tinkering with the laws of physics to make it all happen? It can’t be the Anthropic Principle at work surely? :)
I think you misunderstood me, I wasn’t talking about either intelligent design, fine-tuned universe or anthropic principle. In fact I don’t believe in all that shit – I think that in a sufficiently complex universe life is bound to happen, at least microbial. In fact, I believe that if you take a parameter space for all imaginable ‘tunable’ universes, the measure of a life-spawning subset is non-zero. Which means, that if you take a random universe, there is non-zero (although may be small) probability it will be full of life.
however, here i just replied to ‘clouds affect weather but not climate’ gibberish. The central coefficient that goes into 0-dimensional equation determining temperature of earth – albedo, is fully determined by cloud. Clouds ‘have’ immense control over it, and yet they ‘choose’ to keep it nearly constant. And that’s amazing.
“Clouds ‘have’ immense control over it, and yet they ‘choose’ to keep it nearly constant. And that’s amazing.”
Why is it amazing when it may just be a strong negative feedback resisting temperature change?
damn it, my comment either disappeared or don’t show. Anyways, what i said has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
In clarification, I was alluding to a great many coincidences that arise in relation to our physical world, of which the seemly negative feedback of clouds helping to maintain temperatures within such a narrow envelope would seem to be another example.
Harry
Re: “Clouds may affect the weather, but they cannot affect the climate”
Please review physics that increasing/decreasing albedo via varying clouds will affect surface insolation.
On the cumulative impact of small insolation changes see
David R.B. Stockwell Accumulation of Solar Irradiance Anomaly as a Mechanism for Global Temperature Dynamics
Stockwell shows that cumulative solar energy alone explains the global temperature better than CO2.
Furthermore, H2O and CO2 absorption must be included when thermodynamically modeling the lapse rate. See
Robert Essenhigh
Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S−S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions Energy Fuels, 2006, 20 (3), pp 1057–1067 DOI: 10.1021/ef050276y
Some people, mainly on warmist side, often refer to Venus as best demonstration of GreenHouse effect as well as best picture (caricature should I say) of probable Earth future, if mankind keeps releasing GTons of CO2 in the atmosphere. “Eh folks look at Venus : 460°C of Surface Temperature (Solar system record) due to huge greenhouse effect, caused by large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. “
Acually comparing Venus / Earth climates is definitely a pure nonsense.
Just because the specificities of Venus’ orbital parameters as well as its atmosphere’s composition make this planet just an unique case in our solar system :
– Retrograde orbit (clockwise instead counter clock-wise for other planets)
– Almost circular orbit with very low excentricity (< 0,01) as opposed to elliptical orbit for other planets
– Very slow rotation rotation speed resulting in a ratation period of 243 (earth) days, i.e longer than revolution period of 225 days only (i.e a Venus' day is longer than a Venus' year)
– Heavy atmosphere (surface pressure of 93 bar) mainly composed of CO2 (95%), with thick clouds of sulfuric acid, providing high albedo effect (0,67 for geometric albedo & 0,9 for bond albedo), all of this contributing to the strongest GH effect in the Solar System.
In french we say "comparaison n'est pas raison" …. "comparison is not sound"
People are impressed with Venus heat but the pressure is probably a bigger problem. It’s like being at the bottom of the ocean and being concerned about how cold it is.
If you on Venus at an altitude of 1 atm, it’s warm be not exciting, and at nite it’s cold.
Rather than average temperature the freaks should be terrified about average global pressure.
Eric,
have you seen any computations as to whether the earth has enough accessible carbon and oxygen that could conceivably be converted to the amount of CO2 in Venus atmosphere??
For some reason your post made me wonder whether it is even physically possible?? Kinda like the fact there probably isn’t enough fossil fuels for us to push CO2 on earth to 2000ppm.
What I find interesting is that we are observing science, postulate, hypothesis, hypothesis is tested, provisional results. Now comes better experimental design. They be able to look at potentiation, especially with things like DMS/DMSO and methylbromide.
Both the cosmic ray hypothesis and the CO2 hypothesis are plausible, but only one of these is being tested. Moreover, the former hypothesis lends itself to to prediction, experiments will reveal a signature of ‘something’ that can be measured in the atmosphere, that no one has examined before.
Science is better than models.
ONe is believed by 98% of scientists, so need to test. The other barely by 98 scientists so could be wrong. /sarc
Right on the money! My hat is off to you, Sir.
Anyone outside in the summer daytime can state that when the Sun is blocked by a thick low cloud, it feels cooler. Take it to the next step, overlap weather satellite data that measures the amount of low clouds globally with cosmic ray measurements, and a significant conclusion is a direct relationship between cosmic rays and low clouds. It only takes a few percentages of decreased low clouds globally to account for the modern warming period of the 1980’s & 90’s. In addition, as global cosmic ray totals have increased lately, global warming has slowed it’s pace. Common sense tells me that our Sun is the major driver of climate, but we are not smart enough to understood all the ways. Perhaps the CERN results will allow the scientific method to properly investigate this hypothesis and allow us to better understand a very complex subject called climatology. Keep an open mind as early in my life the Plate Tectonics Theory was not fully accepted until valid data allowed for acceptance.
Like Calder, I have to wonder if any measurements of particles > 2.5 nm was attempted. It appears the particles are progressively growing in size, why would it stop at 2.5 nm?
correction: measurement of particles > 2.5 nm was …
There’s something very strange with that.
As a matter of fact, Kirkby and colleagues did obtain aerosols much bigger than 2,5 nm in the CLOUD chamber: they measured particles of diameters up to ~85 nm, with very great concentration for diameters up to ~70 nm!
Moreover, this was reported and illustrated with measurement graphs by Kirkby in a sort of pre-press article, entitled ‘The CLOUD project: Climate research with accelerators’, referenced at Proceedings of IPAC’10, Kyoto, Japan (pages 4774-4778).
The figures (5 & 6), explanations and conclusion given in page 4777 are perfectly clear: in a chamber initially deprived of particles above ~1 nm large, after the beam is turned on one measures increasingly large particles, with the highest concentrations for diameters reaching ~15 nm after ~15 minutes and ~25 to 70 nm after ~30 minutes.
Kirkby concluded: “Shortly after the start of the run, a clear ion-enhancement of the nucleation rate was established by the reproducible observation of a sharp increase of the nucleation rate when the beam was turned on (examples are shown in Figs. 5 and 6). The detector showed excellent technical performance, and a large amount of high quality data were recorded during the two-week run” and added: “The data from the first run are currently being analysed and a journal paper on the key new results is in preparation, for expected publication later this year.”
Of course, we can always imagine that further experiment led them to invalidate those results. As a French retired researcher – a sceptic (there are so rare, here…) – put it on his blog : “one should be aware that CLOUD-type experiments are much difficultly reproducible and verifiable by other teams like are, for example, the experiments of lighter physics. It is thus fundamental that the results published are irreproachable, which requires a great number of tests and checks to make sure that the results correspond well to reality and do not result from artifacts which are relatively frequent and often difficult to detect and eliminate. All this takes time, much time… In this kind of experimentation, we need to be patient, especially as the progress made by the scientists of the CERN remains generally very confidential… until the publication (generally co-signed by several tens of authors).”
However, that sort of pre-press article was put (and is still…) on the CERN server
…
… and most strikingly, those pictures enclosed in that written version of the article submitted to the IPAC conference were not included in Kirkby’s talk!
Which cast doubt on the hypothesis that the choice to remove them from the Nature paper derive from further analysis invalidating those first results.
Sorry, the pictures were indead included in his talk (see pages 34-35). Now, this doesn’t explain why there are not in the Nature paper.
Samedi — I’ve been watching these stories get released for years and it’s blatantly obvious when one or other side are pushing a story. Now, I can’t conclusively implicate Nature or CERN (or both), but very clearly there was a massive pro-warmist slant on this story. In other words, warmist news outlets were fed the story well in advance to ensure that the warmist slant on the story was the dominant “message”.
So, why was the story so politicised in its release?
Now we know that the head of CERN stated they wanted to ovoid politicisation. Either this was a blatant lie and what they really meant was “we don’t want CERN staff who don’t support our heavily pro-warmists to comment” or they were extremely naive in the extreme and allowed someone else (Nature?) to spin a heavily pro-warmist slant.
But, given the 10years it took to get this research out, the 9.5months it took to get published (at the start of peak hurricane season?), the way the paper so overtly pushed the warmist line and downplayed the evidence of a cosmic ray link, the evidence of political shenanigans at CERN is undeniable.
Why would CERN have got involved in such warmist politics? The answer for a physics institute which prides itself on its science, must surely be that it is being leant on.
In other words, CERN have been leant on and I think there’s zilch chance of us getting another result from this experiment anytime this century.
It’s more than a bit naive for such a prestigious director to believe that research with such huge policy implications won’t have those implications discussed.
So is he naive or disingenuous? Always the same question, Marcia, Marcia.
==========
“given the 10years it took to get this research out, the 9.5months it took to get published…”
… and the fact that the next IPCC “AR” broadcasting is planned for 2014, which should imply a dead-line in 2013 for the latest pear-reviewed papers. ;)
Kirksby tried what amounts to ammonium sulfate, since nitric acid is also present in the atmosphere, what about ammonium nitrate? It is more soluble in water than ammonium sulfate and is hygroscopic.
Based both on the recent CERN data and earlier studies by Svensmark, there appears to be little doubt that cosmic ray flux (CRF) can affect the nucleation process generating cloud condensation nuclei potentially capable of influencing cloud formation. The magnitude of the effect is a matter to be determined by further study.
In this regard, some recent data are relevant. The RC post on the CERN data shows a graph of Cosmic Ray Flux since the 1950’s. Over the entire interval, CRF varied with the solar cycle but showed little overall trend. The most recent data, however, suggest a slight rise in average CRF since the year 2000.
This can be compared with cloud data from the ISCCP project, with particular relevance to the 2000-2010 interval. As shown in ISCCP Part 1 , total cloud amount changed little during this interval. Because cloud types vary in their warming/cooling propensities, it is interesting to see variations according to type, as shown in ISCCP Part 7. Low clouds, which exert predominantly cooling effects, decreased during this interval, while high clouds, which tend to warm, increased slightly. Mid-level clouds also exhibited an increase whose net effects are unclear. In general, it appears that cloud behavior from 2000-2010 did not correlate well with the CRF changes. This does not exclude a role for CRF in cloud modulation, but implies that other factors are likely to be of greater quantitative importance.
The part of the graph that jumped out at me was the 1970s (the ice age scare decade) where the peak of cosmic rays was wider instead of a sharp point which means cosmic rays were above 0 for a longer period of time. And then the steep drop in the early 1990s which correspond to the build up to 1998.
The cosmic ray peak alternates from sharp to flat in alternate solar cycles. With approx. three solar cycles in each phase of the PDO there is a mechanism for the alteration of warm and cool phases of the PDO if the shape of the peak has anything to do with climate. There will be two cycles of one shape and one of the other in alternating phases of the PDO.
============
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/
First skeptics are holocaust deniers, now we are racists.
I’m glad it’s only a “science” debate or it might get personal.
This is science that just “feels good” A well designed experiment based upon a well studied hypothesis. Most of all Kirksby doesn’t attempt to overstate or extrapolate too much from it. I have always believed (and taught) that the best and most honorable scientists were those who expressed the most limitations within their own work. An interesting and exciting first step.
If the world of climate science to gain respect, than all reasonable possibilities should be considered and funded.
Dr. Curry, don’t you think the uncertainty monster will grow significantly before it is vanished (if it ever will be)?
er, that is ‘vanquished’ Also kudos to A Svensmark whose beliefs this experiment supports
I’m thinking of changing my name to Cosmic Ray.
Droplets usually requires a foreign particle to lower the effective energy of nucleation. So if they don’t have these particles to form droplets around, the air will get supersaturated and perhaps something else will kick in to nucleate the cloud droplets.
So the fact that cosmic rays can activate this formation a little bit earlier may not be that important? That’s what I am wondering about.
Is this the first experiment in the field of “climate science” since the IPCC era began?
I have seen nothing but computer models and data (of poor quality) collection.
In fact, are there any experimentalists in the “climate science” field? The bedrock of good science is a good experiment.
Well, one might consider every measurement ever made of the spectral absorption of atmospheric trace gases to be “experiments in climate science”. Just for starters.
Those are measurements. They aren’t experiments.
1. Observations
2. Experiments
3. Models
Learn the list and how they differ ;)
So tell me what you think about the fact Harde came up with a figure of half that of the climate models based on the latest HITRAN 2008 database?
Somehow, I don’t seem to see any climate “scientists” updating their climate models using this latest database!
Climate scientists “experiment” by proposing more things they can measure within the one system (earth’s atmosphere) that is so unique and large and complex that no experiment could ever be valid.
I have tried to see if anyone is keen to try to collaborate to design an experiment that might settle some of the to-and-fro arguments (eg about 3000+ counterpunches in the greenhouse dragon threads), but people seem to like to argue from their own belief of theory base.
Bottom line for me. When someone does actually get round to doing some proper experiments, some people are going to look like proper fools…..
Number of important points:
– The Earth’s magnetic field (gmf) is by far stronger modulator of the GCRs then the heliospheric mf (protects the Earth from deadly radiation from both the sun and the cosmic rays).
– Since 1800 the gmf lost about 10-15 % of its strength, so the GCR count should have strongly gone up ( and clouds, causing albedo related temperatures to cause down, but opposite is the case!).
– The Arctic’s gmf intensity moves in the opposite direction to the solar mf: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm (first identified by M.Vukcevic 2009, any earlier reference is welcome)
– There is a good correlation between temperature movements and the gmf: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-dBz.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
So, if there is a GCR-climate link than the feedback is positive (clouds also have warming effect, prevent heat escape particularly at night and winter).
Despite all of the above, I think that the GCR count is too low (unless there is some kind of unknown ‘chain reaction’ within cloud formation process) to make any significant difference.
Some time ago I wrote to Svensmark for any comment on the stronger modulation by the gmf, but I never got a reply.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard (solar scientist-Stanford University) says:
Furthermore, the solar modulation of cosmic rays is much smaller than that stemming from the Earth’s magnetic field, see slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
vukcevic, or Leif, thanks, but the more direct GCR-proxy C14 shown in the graphs to the upper left in the same slide 18 show a 20th century decline in C14 (and thus GCRs), no? – do you know where they´re from btw?
I have no fate in either the C14 or 10Be reconstructions. Only good GCR data, for assessing the intensity of solar magnetic output, are the satellite records (excluding the atmospheric effects) available since 1970s, and that appears to have a flat trend.
Here is a presentation by Shaviv (about a year ago) which may be of interest.
Again, as in many other cases, the inconvenient (very relevant) facts relating to the Earth’s magnetic field changes
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/#comment-105959
are ignored (not a single reference in the presentation) !
Gyptis444, thanks for the link: a superb video.
Judith,
Assumption is the mother of all screw ups to conclusions.
The sun gives off individual particles and yet the thought is this effects the whole planet and not just regions of the planet where the particles are hitting.
Not a word on collisions with other particles on a ROTATING planet with an dense atmosphere of particles.
As M.A.Vukcevic says:
August 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm on WUWT
“Let’s remember that the principle was discovered decades ago, when the Wilson’s cloud chamber was invented.”
this is not new, only confirmation of what seems to be forgotten or ignored science from 1911.
A.C.,
It misses the motion of a rotating atmosphere and planet in it’s experiments not to mention the size differences of the equator and poles.
When I read the IPCC TAR and AR4 reports, it always struck me that the weakest parts of these, from a scientific point of view, were those relating to extraterrestrial effects. The IPCC set itself an almost impossible task of proving a negative; that there were no other extraterrestrial effects other that a small change in the solar constant. So we find parts which tried to prove that the Svensmark theory that GCRs affect cloud formation, which are not very convincing. However, if the IPCC was to maintain the idea that the only effect that could explain the rise in global surface temperatures at the end of the 20th century was due to a CO2 signal, then it was essential that there were no other possible extraterrestrial effects; except for the change in solar constant. TAR and AR4 claim that the idea that the only extraterrestrial effect is the change in the solar constant is essential, if the idea that it is very likely that the CO2 signal caused the global warming was to be given prominence in the SPM.
It seems to me that experiments such as CLOUD can never prove that Svensmark is correct. It is extremely difficult to carry out experiments on the earth’s atmosphere. So the only realistic outcome of an experiment like CLOUD is the show that Svensmark MIGHT be correct. The question I would suggest that the proponents of CAGW must ask themsleves is, therefore, does CLOUD show that Svensmark MIGHT be correct? If the answer to this question is a resounding YES!!! as I believe it does, then one MUST conclude that those parts of the TAR and AR4 which refer to extraterrestrial effects are just plain wrong.
And if the parts of the TAR and AR4 relating to extraterrestrial effects are wrong, then the conclusion that the rise in global surface temperatures at the end of the 20th century is very likely to have been caused by a CO2 signal is just plain wrong as well. However, I doubt that any supporters of CAGW will ever agree to this logic.
The global temperature is essentially determined by only two factors incoming energy and outgoing energy The climate change debate pits one side which states that there is virtually no change in incoming energy and the observed warming was due to changes in outgoing energy due to an enhanced greenhouse effect from increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, against the side that states it is changes to incoming energy due to solar variation and cosmic effects with virtually no enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions reducing the outgoing energy.
The 1991 Christensen Lassen paper contains a plot of solar cycle length and global temperature anomaly dating back to 1860 demonstrating a near perfect correlation of better than 95%. When atmospheric CO2 concentration is plotted against this same temperature anomaly data there is no possible correlation because the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been steadily increasing at an accelerating rate reaching an asymptote of approximately 2ppmv/year while the temperature has been increasing in a cyclic fashion with an approximate 64 year periodicity believed to be related to a superposition of the 11 year solar cycle and the 80 to 90 year Gleisberg cycle.
Since a unidirectional driver cannot force a cyclic event (without other influences) it is not possible for atmospheric CO2 concentration increases regardless of whether they are human or naturally sourced to be driving the observed cyclic overall increase in global temperature while it does remain possible for cyclic solar variation to be the driver of the observed cyclic temperature increase.
Since this paper was written in 1991 and predates the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change; proper scientific practice would have ruled out changes to outgoing energy resulting from a CO2 induced enhanced greenhouse effect in favour of changes to incoming energy and instead of trying to protect a failed hypothesis the IPCC should have put its efforts into solar research.
Instead the IPCC 2001 TAR adopted the MBH98 and MBH99 temperature proxies to hide a fatal flaw of the CO2 forcing parameter used in the climate models to support the CO2 caused global warming conjecture but by doing this and showing this “hockey stick graph” five times in the 2001 Report the IPCC showed the cyclic warming and cooling that supported the solar theory and refuted the greenhouse gas theory. (Rapid warming from 1910 to 1942 with a lower rate of CO2 increase than the cooling from 1942 to 1975 with a much higher rate of CO2 increase.)
Interestingly the IPCC 2007 4AR did not include the “hockey stick graph” but did include the Hadley Climate Research Unit HadCRUT3 temperature anomaly graph that had been altered to remove the 1942 to 1975 cooling eliminating the cyclic variation in the global temperature which now miraculously matched the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
This all appeared justified because the 2006 NASA prediction for solar cycle 24 was that it would be at the same level as solar cycle 23. The 2009 NASA prediction for solar cycle 24 changed dramatically predicting it to be less than half of solar cycle 23, and the most recent 2011 NASA prediction now that we have actually entered solar cycle 24 is that it will be even lower and perfectly mimicking the Dalton Minimum
(http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/02/no-warming-until-after-2014-and-maybe-not-then-.html
There is another piece of very interesting evidence in support of the cosmic theory; Project Earthshine. The nucleation of clouds by cosmic rays would increase the albedo reflecting more of the incoming energy causing the Earth to cool (as it has been doing since 2002). Project Earthshine (http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html ) shows a decrease in albedo up to 1998 explaining the warming and a decrease in albedo since explaining the, current cooling with this 2008 update (http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/ ).
This fits perfectly with Svensmark’s work which was validated by the CERN CLOUD Experiment.
What is becoming abundantly clear in all this is that since its inception in 1988 the IPCC has failed to produce a single piece of physical evidence demonstrating even the possibility that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels could have a detectable influence on global temperature let alone cause catastrophic global warming, but somehow in all this has managed to refute the concept of solar driven temperature change in spite of overwhelming supportive evidence and more importantly not a single piece of physical evidence that refutes this premise.
From your mouth to the cosmic powers’ ears.
===============
You wrote all that for nothing. The 1991 Christensen Lassen paper turned out wrong. It’s a good example of why good correlation can be misleading.
Cern-Cosmic Rays-Clouds… Hurricanes? Irene may not have been much of a disaster, but I have a feeling that she’ll shed far more light on weather and climate over the course of the next 10 years (as will her brothers and sisters as well). Talk about a Mega-Cern Experiment! This little girl has more data than any storm on record todate. Makes you wonder what’s going to be done with it all, and by who, and where, and when, and how. I have a feeling we already know why.
The point is that there is an alternative hypothesis, and that is a very big deal scientifically.
AGW’s strenght has always been that it was the only actual mechanism in the game. Natural variability was a set of known unknowns, that is, possible explanations with no known specific mechanism. Indirect solar forcing was a leading contender among these known unknowns. Svensmark’s conjectute pointed at a specific mechanism for indirect solar forcing. CLOUD seems to have confirmed that mechanism. It has not by any means shown that it actually explains observed climate change. That is the research program that lies ahead.
But AGW has lost its status as the only known mechanism. This means the science is much less settled than it was before CLOUD. Having multiple hypotheses at once is a normal state for science. So is having just one. We have just taken a big step toward having more than one for global warming.
One question is will NASA pick up on this? They own most solar research in the USA. They tried to launch a sun-climate program a few years ago, without success. I imagine they will revive it now, especially if skeptics do well in the House elections and/or we get a skeptical President.
They’ve been busy lately launching an outreach program, also without success.
===========
My understanding is that “AGW” has long acknowledged the mechanism examined in this study – but found evidence lacking to prove a significant effect. Does that qualify as not being in the game?
No, the mechanism was never acknowledged to my knowledge. If it were then CLOUD would have been unnecessary.
Even acknowledged, studies such as CLOUD would be necessary. We do want to figure this out, right?
Yes, I know, lots of people breathed together that they didn’t want to find this out. Imagine an emperor draped with clouds rather than a rare gas.
============
From RC, August 2011:
and
and
Gavin, I assume, has his strong points. It makes his dogmatism so much more mysterious.
=============
Gavin’s strength is his weakness. I debated him a few times in the early RC days. He is very good at coming up with counter arguments, but as soon as he thinks of something, no matter how speculative, it becomes a fact in his mind. That is when I coined the term “RC fallacy.” It means taking speculation as established fact. AGW proponents do this all the time. Is is a specific species of false confidence.
How would you characterize this quote, from RealClimate, from October of 2006?:
Ultry-violet light works on phytoplankton which contribute to the ‘real world atmospheric conditions.
H/t anna v.
============
Joshua, are you skilled enough to note the dissonance between your Oct ’06 Real?Climate quote and the one from Aug ’11?
==============
“Dissonance?” No. I lack such skill.
They both acknowledge a potential “mechanism.” The second post acknowledges more evidence in re that potential – as the result of subsequent experimentation. They both discuss the problems of scaling the experimental results up to conclusions about a real world impact on climate.
The two posts were in response to different papers. The first post criticized the first paper’s authors for overextrapolation. The second post noted a lack of such over-extrapolation in the second paper.
That doesn’t look like “dissonance” to me.
It is discussing a possibility, certainty not an acknowledgement of its reality. Note the characteristic language: “of some interest”, “among the most uncertain”, “might be useful”, “but by far the biggest problems lie in the study’s relevance to the real world .”
It acknowledged a potential impact from aerosols – the study of which might be useful (depending on the scientific outcome of the research). This is a clear indication that AGW might not be the “only game in town,”- in the sense that the impacts of those phenomena are unknown.
The use of terms of qualification are entirely appropriate. Do you disagree that the “biggest problems lie in the study’s relevance to the real world?” If so, then I would suggest that you re-read the conclusion from CERN’s press briefing:
Very similar qualifications to those offered at RC.
It attempted to do what AGW always does when confronted with disconfirmation – to damn with faint praise.
NASA think UV does modulate climate:
“The increase of incident solar UV during solar maximum conditions leads to increased generation of stratospheric ozone in the mid-to-upper stratosphere, which ultimately results in greater ozone in the tropical lower stratosphere. This helps warm that region via both short- and long-wave absorption. In response to this more stable vertical profile for tropical tropospheric processes, tropical convection preferentially shifts off the equator, favoring monsoonal effects during Northern Hemisphere summer and on the annual average.”
“Total solar irradiance changes, though of small magnitude, do appear to affect sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most obviously at latitudes where cloud cover is small and irradiance is abundant, such as the Northern Hemisphere subtropics during summer. The increased SSTs then help intensify circulations spiraling away from the subtropics, again favoring reduced rainfall near the equator and to the south, as well as northern mid-latitudes. Hence, both the UV and TSI forcings produce similar effects, with the latter helping to sharpen the response.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/
I would characterize this as damning with faint praise.
“No, the mechanism was never acknowledged to my knowledge”
It’s mentioned in AR4 isn’t it?
David, you write “One question is will NASA pick up on this?”
In addition, will the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, the World Meteorological Society, and all the other learned societies pick up on this? Surely those members of these bodies who oppose CAGW now have even more ammunition to force the leadership of these societies to change their rigid, and unscientific, support of CAGW.
.
And most important of all, will Dr. Judith Curry pick up on this and renounce her uncompromising support of CAGW?
Jim, I am more interested in seeing the needed research done than in the political reaction, which is pretty predictable. As for Dr. Curry, I have seen no evidence that she endorses CAGW. AGW yes, but CAGW no. Moreover, the Svensmark mechanism is evidence against neither. It merely increases the uncertainty. That is, it is evidence against the AGW consensus (which is your point I think), not against the AGW hypothesis per se. It is an alternative hypothesis, neither more nor less.
its not an alternative hypothesis. Its an Additional casual factor in the formation of clouds. period. C02 still does what it does.
And CO2 is still <0.04% of the atmosphere
yes amazing stuff. The CLOUD experiment showed that you only needed 1 in 30 billion parts of ammonia to trigger the reaction. That’s an amazingly small amount. Funny, you cant draw any conclusion about the size of an effect from the % of a substance in the atmopshere. GCRs are even more rare than C02, So if we used your “logic” we would conslcude that they have no effect.
the CLOUD experiment killed one argument and killed it very effectively. Namely the argument that you can conclude something about the size of an effect from the percent of an agent. The “trace gas” argument is dead. cause GCR are super trace and they need only tiny traces of ammonia to kick into action.
Trace that
love, miss Piggy
not “no” effect, but a small effect. Water is also a GHG and on average about 25 times more abundant than co2 in the air
Another inadequate sceptic argument rightly bites the dust. In fact the atmosphere of scholarly discussion probably only contains very small traces of one adequate sceptical argument, to do with real world data and climate sensitivity. To think that this, alone, is enough to overturn the whole CAGW applecart is indeed counter-intuitive to many.
“That’s an amazingly small amount. Funny, you cant draw any conclusion about the size of an effect from the % of a substance in the atmopshere.”
And each time that reaction happens we get a flood??
You are really funny sometimes Steven!!
I disagree strongly. The Svensmark mechanism offers to explain all of global warming. That makes it an alternative explanation to AGW. The CO2 increase does what it does to temperature, but what it does is unknown. Perhaps it does nothing.
Wrong. The experiment shows how GCR may effect the formation of clouds. It is not an alternative explanation to AGW. very simply, the AGW theory seeks to explain changes in climate ( long term statistics) by looking at the forcings. 1 sun, 2, aerosols,3. GHGs ( including C02, methane, ozone, h20) 4. clouds.
Here is what we know. We know from first principles that if we increase any forcing by 3.7W/m^2 that the planet will warm by about 1.5C.
any forcing. 3.7 more watts of forcing results in 1.5C of warming.
And we know that doubling c02 will create an additional forcing of 3.7W (absent feedbacks).
Nothing we can discover about the genesis of cloud formation can change energy balance physics or radiative physics. They dont share any terms in any of the equations. none.
I find your post rather amusing. First, I have a reasonable understanding of the progress of science, and as a result I have little respect for what is ‘known’ because oddly enough it changes pretty frequently. And it has never been pretty. I would cite for example the Schroedinger-Heisenberg dustup where all the great physicists of the day had to lock themselves in a room while everyone tag-team wrestled to a conclusion about what was ‘known.’ Science is hardly immutable. And by allowing for the impact of GCR, and your assertion of the impact of a trace gas like CO2, it seems to me that the door has been opened to a huge number of possible contributing effects whose interactions are beyond your ‘knoweldge’ to deal with. Just admit it, Steve, its all about money. Do you actually believe that if CO2 was the demon you make it out to be, that the governments of the world would fail to agree on a course of action simply becasue they cannot agree on how much money the US should pay Bangladesh?
Approximative syntax usually prevents good understanding. However, I assume one must read “:” after “forcings“, so you mean “the AGW theory” considers clouds as a forcing — i.e. not a “feedback“!
At first glance, I’d say you’re plainly wrong, here. Moreover, if by chance you were right, here, this would give us an idea of how a victory CLOUD first results actually are… That would be indeed a stricking improvement for climate science if most carbocentrists ceased to relegate clouds in the category of “feedbacks. But I’m afraid this won’t happen tomorrow.
Rather, the promoters of the “the AGW theory” (what’s that?…) will gladly focus on the ammoniac — as you can see, that’s what they’re doing right now — which they have already classified as an anthropogenic “forcing” for the most part, i.e. with emissions at a much bigger anthropogenic/natural ratio than CO2… Whatever the sign of the change expected in the end — as we can see, at least in Europe, the word “warming” in the political debates has been dropped years ago and replaced by “change”… Maybe this will allow the less scrupulous “changers” (ex-“warmists”) to invent a virtual GHE with triple effect, only diminished by human use of “other” polutants having a cooling effect.
????!! Possibly wrong conjugation here; I can’t see what else than clouds you could talk about when saying they “dont share any…” Anyway, you’re speaking complete nonsense here: now, you’re saying that clouds (or whatever pnenomenon one usually relates to the climate) are neither “forcing” nor “feedbacks”; neither causes nor effects; neither primary nor intermediate agents in climate… That’s how one translateds in non-mathematical language the lack of any sharing of terms in any of the equations… Of… Yes, there’s an alternative: the bulk of equations you associate with “the AGW theory” describes an imaginary world (where, in turn, clouds have no link with the unreal climate).
As a first step for sobering up (or in any other event), I’d recommand this interesting critique of the forcing-feedback terminology.
“We know from first principles that if we increase any forcing by 3.7W/m^2 that the planet will warm by about 1.5C.”
WRONG!!!
You know that on some mythical earth where things don’t interact that if you increase forcing by 3.7W/m^2 that the planet will warm by about 1.5C. You don’t KNOW what will happen on this earth and that is why these interminable arguments about what ifs and poorly constructed models CLAIMED to be built on first principles..
Mosh, I can’t find the 1.5 C derivation from first principles you mention. Everything I can find is 1.0 C by several people. This was all hashed out before in this thread, http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/ with little satisfaction.
The big issue was using basic radiation physics with control theory without more completely considering the various amplitudes, timings and instabilities associated with the feed backs.
Steve – I think you’ve made an important point in identifying what I call “the default fallacy” – the notion that the effect of CO2 is what is left over after everything else is accounted for. In fact, there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating a substantial role for CO2 in global temperature change, associated with a range of climate sensitivity values that generally lies between 2 and 4.5 C rise per CO2 doubling, although with outlying numbers on either side. That range leaves room for additional mechanisms, but not infinite room.
In the case of the cosmic ray flux mechanism, the evidence has always supported its plausibility, and the question has therefore been magnitude. Based on recent cloud data linked to above – see Comment 105909 – the cosmic ray influence appears to be very small, but the evidence can’t yet be considered conclusive, and so future observations will offer us a more precise estimate.
Fred Moolton writes “In fact, there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating a substantial role for CO2 in global temperature change, associated with a range of climate sensitivity values that generally lies between 2 and 4.5 C rise per CO2 doubling, although with outlying numbers on either side.”
This is, of course, the key issue. It is easy to state this, but to provide the physics that supports the statement is entirely another matter. What the various threads on Climate Etc have clearly demonstrated to me, is that there simply is NOT a ” there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating a substantial role for CO2 ” Such evidence, in the form of observed data, simply does not exist. That is, and always will be, the key issue.
I agree Jim. In fact as I read the UAH data, there is no discernible evidence of CO2 warming in the last 30+ years. There was no warming before the 1998-2001 ENSO cycle, and there has been no warming after it. The only warming in the entire period is that the no-warming flat line after the ENSO is warmer than the no-warming flat line before it. That is not CO2 warming by any mechanism I know of.
The data is noisy. You shouldn’t expect temperature to increase in a perfect straight line.
You cannot discern the effect of c02 or water vapor or increased TSI or ANY of the many forcings by merely looking at the temperature trace. Cannot. You basically have a various forcings working in different directions with different time constants. A volcano effect is seen immediately because it blocks the only input: TSI. the C02 effect happens over decades. so you cannot diagnose the equillibrium climate response of C02 from a short time series. AGW in fact tells you that you cannot! Its a consequence of the theory that you cannot find the signal by just looking at a couple of decades. Century scale measurements are required to get the transient response, and Fred and I are talking about the equillibrium response. in short the fact that you cannot find it in noisy short term data is predicted by the theory. Thanks for confirming it
Well let’s see. UAH goes back to 1978 with no sign of GHG warming. Before that HadCRU goes back to around 1940 with no sign of GHG warming. That is about 70 years with no warming, except the single ENSO step. No GHG warming for the last 70 years should be enough to falsify AGW, so I conclude it has been falsified. It is very simple.
All this hand waving rhetoric rhetoric about noise and multiple time scales is just theory saving in progress. If there is no GHG warming in the last 70 years it does not exist.
“Well let’s see. UAH goes back to 1978 with no sign of GHG warming. Before that HadCRU goes back to around 1940 with no sign of GHG warming. That is about 70 years with no warming, except the single ENSO step.”
That is nonsense, David. Both of those data sets show warming to a very high degree of statistical significance. Your claim that this is somehow due to ENSO is utterly and completely without evidence or theoretical justification whatsoever.
You are just making up facts and explanations to suit your ideological beliefs.
Let me get this right Mosher, there is no discernible CO2 effect on climate over the last 160 years and will not be for another 100 years and we should take it on faith that nothing else is affecting climate.
LOL
Joel, I am just reading the data. It is extremely simple, perhaps too simple for AGW advocates to see.
So I can only repeat what is there to see. UAH shows no warming from 1978 to 1997, prior to the 1998-2001 ENSO, and no warming afterward, except the latter flat line is warmer than the former. This is fact one. A simple pattern. HadCru shows no warming from 1940 until UAH takes over, it being the better data. So according to the best available data the only warming in the last 70 years is the step up coincident with the big ENSO. There is no evidence of GHG warming in this pattern. Like I said, painful simple. Sorry.
David: You are trying to desperately find patterns in data…which you can do with data that has noise + trend…and then trying to use that to deny the trend that is actually in the data. And, you wonder why people use the term “deniers”?
You can’t just wish away a trend you don’t like by dividing the data into pieces with no trend and putting a jump in between. What you are doing is numerology, not science.
David: Just to amplify a bit, here tamino has a nice example of how people think that they see things in data that have a trend + noise when we know for a fact that it isn’t actually in the data because we know exactly how the data was produced: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/learning-from-bastardis-mistakes/
The Andrew Lang quote that applies to Tanimo is
“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts – for support rather than for illumination”
And, just to amplify a bit more, eye-balling at this figure, http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wiggle2.jpg , I could fit a flat or slightly downtrending line between 1996 and 2007. I could fit another fairly flat line (maybe with a slight upward trend) between 1984 and 1995. I could then fit another essentially flat line between 1977 and 1984. There would of course be jumps between these lines, which I would then attribute to the apparent El Ninos in 1984 and 1996-1998.
Of course, the problem with this analysis is that we know how this “data” was produced and we know that such an interpretation is not correct. In fact, this “data” was produced by taking a linear trend and adding gaussian noise to it.
[Kermit: I think you just don’t like tamino because he uses statistics to show that nonsense that you want to believe is in fact nonsense.]
Your and Tanimo’s eye balls are very imaginative.
Kermit: No more imaginative than David Wojick’s are with the real temperature data.
Joel Shore | August 31, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
David: You are trying to desperately find patterns in data…which you can do with data that has noise + trend…and then trying to use that to deny the trend that is actually in the data. And, you wonder why people use the term “deniers”?
Ugly debating Mr Shore. You are a propagandist of a particularly low sort.
There are many ‘trends’ in the data, depending on choices of start and end points and choices of smoothing etc. Both sides of the debate interpret the data in ways which fit their points of view. We both present arguments as to why we believe our interpretations and choices to be the better ones for the understanding of climate patterns, or the lack of them.
That you are unable to see that Tamino is just as guilty of this as anyone else demonstrates your myopia and bias nicely.
Kermit,
“The Andrew Lang quote that applies to Tanimo is
“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts – for support rather than for illumination””
And I thought he did a random walk into them occasionally illuminating his indescretions!!
“the notion that the effect of CO2 is what is left over after everything else is accounted for.”
Nothing else is accounted for. No one has every presented any evidence that the only change of significance over the 20th century is CO2.
IPCC ignored (or pretended to accout for but essentially ignored) all other climate changes.
Hell, the IPCC pretty much totally ignored global brightening.
They ignored cosmic rays as well.
You say the IPCC ignored but the report contains these things. Weren’t you the one who claimed before that the IPCC had ignored global brightening and then I showed you the page in the report that discussed it?
Maybe it was someone else.
“How well do IPCC‐AR4/CMIP3 climate models simulate global dimming/brightening and twentieth‐century daytime and nighttime warming?”
“they underestimate the decadal variations in the warming and particularly also in diurnal temperature range, indicative of a lack of decadal variations in surface solar radiation in the models.”
Martin Wild
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D00D11, 10 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2008JD011372
I disagree Fred. I read Steve as asserting the usual fallacy, namely that just because no feedback sensitivity exists in principle, so the full feedback climate system must exhibit it. It is well known that this is generally not true. Complex systems with nonlinear feedbacks often exhibit what is called counter intuitive behavior, that is, they do not behave as their simple components would in isolation.
No. I am saying this. Fundamental energy balance physics tells us if you increase the forcing by 3.7W the temperature will go up. Not down. Up. If the sun increases by 3.7W you would expect a warmer planet. Second, we know from radiative physics that doubling C02 adds 3.7Watts of forcing. GCR dont change that. they cant change that.
Assuming GCRs are a mechanism they work best when the sun is quiet. when TSI is lower, and they work to increase clouds which further cool. That says nothing about the ability of volcanos to also cool. and it says nothing about the ability of water vapor to warm the planet or methane to warm the planet or co2 to warm the planet.
Its not and either or question.
There are multiple mechanisms in which energetic particles such as GCR can effect climate through ionisation of the upper atmosphere,eg Reid
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v275/n5680/abs/275489a0.html
We can also see that low energy particle precipitation can effect climate this is well known eg Thorne
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/195/4275/287.abstract
One of the more interesting observations we can make is that the frequency of t excursions such as el nino decrease from TSI minima to maxima and inversely for GCR modulation ,
“Assuming GCRs are a mechanism they work best when the sun is quiet. when TSI is lower, and they work to increase clouds which further cool.”
What is that statement based on? Are you suggesting they cant work to warm the plant when there are fewer of them, and consequently fewer clouds produced?
Steven, the point you are missing is that in a complex system with negative feedbacks adding a small forcing need not cause warming, or more generally, any change in the “direction” of the forcing. More technically, the basic fact with such systems is that you cannot abstract a component process, such as GHG forcing, make a change and calculate the effect, then project that effect back into the overall system. It does not work that way.
The overall system response may well be opposite that predicted. That is why I will only take the climate models seriously when I see some runs showing a CO2 increase causing cooling, because it certainly can. In fact for a modest grant I will build a simple climate model that shows this.
Fred,
Please. The cosmic ray hypothesis was ridiculed, laughed at, and the scienist who developed is still being largely ignored by the AGW community.
is this going to be like in 2009 when after it was shown definitively that the IPCC was flat out lying about Himalyan glaciers, the AGW community rewrote the history to pretend it was a minor little road bump?
Fred – You claim “In fact, there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating a substantial role for CO2 in global temperature change, associated with a range of climate sensitivity values that generally lies between 2 and 4.5 C rise per CO2 doubling”
I would take issue with you on that.
The genuine evidence that I have seen for [equilibrium] climate sensitivity being in the range 2 – 4.5 C appears surprisingly weak. Most of the evidence cited prominently in Chapter 9 of IPCC AR4 WG1 can be seen, on closer examination, to be much poorer than it looks at first sight, and the statistical bases used in a number of cases bias the climate sensitivity esimates produced towards high values.
As you are presumably aware, some studies based directly on observational evidence (e.g. by Lindzen and Choi) indicate climate sensitivity to be under 1, possibly closer to 0.5, far below the IPCC 2 – 4.5 C range.
For good reasons, I do not count AOGCM simulations as genuine evidence – only evidence fairly directly based on observations. Nor do I (in common with the IPCC) regard evidence from the Last Glacial Maximum as at all strong, because so many uncertainties exist, such as in relation to the forcings at that time.
Nic – This thread is an inadequate venue for discussing climate sensitivity, but it has been a topic of past threads. I’m familiar with much of the extensive data on the subject, only part of which involves application of GCMs to paleoclimatolgogic data, and although I can’t claim the 2 to 4.5 C range to be an absolute guide to the true value, I believe confidence levels of about 90 to 95% are justified when the totality of the evidence is examined.
I do feel secure in concluding that the Lindzen/Choi data (also discussed previous threads) are of little value in estimating the long term climate sensitivity to rises in CO2 or other factors that originate in the atmosphere and exert global effects over long intervals. The L/C papers have serious flaws, but even if these are ignored, they represent short term responses mainly to ENSO events – phenomena arising regionally in the tropical Pacific and originating in the ocean rather than the atmosphere, with very different patterns in terms of advective changes, changes in humidity, changes in clouds, or changes in convection. I interpret the evidence regarding CO2 to strongly support climate sensitivity values reflective of substantial positive feedbacks sufficient to yield a figure between 2 and 4.5 C.
You might wish to review some previous threads on this subject to see some of the discussion.
Fred
When CO2 based predictions show strong warming in the face of a decade of negligible warming, that clearly shows that at least decadal natural fluctuations are stronger than any anthropogenic CO2.
See Lucia Lundgren HadCrutNH&NH for Jan 2000- May 2011
This further raises the question of which comes first, the warming or the CO2?
David Stockwell at NicheModeling finds an accumulative solar forcing theory to give equal correlation to global temperatures as CO2. Furthermore, his model provides the correct time lag between solar forcing and ocean temperatures – which CO2 does not.
See Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on global temperature
David R.B. Stockwell 4 August 23, 2011
Isn’t Science supposed to follow the best model that fits the evidence and which gives the best predictions?
“C02 still does what it does.”
An astounding bit of deduction, Steven Mosher. Let’s all go home.
Andrew
Steven,
It is what other things do or do not do in response to CO2 forcing that is the area of interest.
CO2 does NOTHING. It sits quietly in the back of the bus, driven by temperature. Only temperature can impact atmospheric CO2. Any temperature independent disturbances in CO2 fluxes (anthro or not) will be “corrected” in a matter of years.
David, you write “As for Dr. Curry, I have seen no evidence that she endorses CAGW. AGW yes, but CAGW no”
I disagree. I agree with AGW; I know very few scientists who do NOT agree with AGW. I strongly disagree with CAGW, and from all my readings on Climate Etc. Dr. Curry has never stated clearly that she disagrees with CAGW. When the chips are down, she always sides with the supporters of CAGW. That is the vital issue.
Time will tell who is right or wrong on CAGW. If someone believes there is enough uncertainty to warrant further study before declaring the science as settled don’t sell yourself short, mark it in the win colume.
Actually Jim, on reflection Dr. Curry is not even a proponent of AGW. Her big point is to question the over confident IPCC claim about AGW being the cause of late 20th century warming. If that claim is uncertain then so is AGW.
Jim,
I think you are being a little rough on Dr. Curry. Please see below a the last sentence in a reply she gave me on a post last week.
“Bill, thanks for bringing up Georgia. Two years ago I attended a workshop of the Atlanta Regional Commission, their main planning meeting, and climate change was the main topic, and how that should influence their planning. They were very anxious to find out what the next IPCC model results would show, thinking that this might change their planning. I told them that atlanta was facing a climatic rainfall change of +/- 20%. I made the point that this number is in the noise, if population doubles as projected over the next few decades. And the big problem is the tri state water wars, which is political. Add to that, until 2007 drought no one in the state of Georgia seemed to have heard of low flush toilets, etc. And in metro atlanta, tons of water is lost to leaky pipes. so any climatic change in rainfall is trivial relative to policy and engineering issues.”
For those who still claim that CERN did not spin this story to support the AGW community, think on this:
If the CERN experiment had given results that were favorable to the AGW consensus, would the director have demanded his scientists take a vow of silence?
No.
The news would hve been shouted from rooftops.
In the intermediate the warmists are hurting their cause again. We and the society have the group think repression thing down cold. This is just another anecdote like the FOI requests, lost data sets, temp record obfuscations, Climategate et al, withheld model codes and closed summary minutes at the IPCC.
The political explaination of the group think isn’t fully understood by the larger population. There is a government and media cartel to get past but many people know the score there as well. The slow “drip-drip-drip” will only increase the agw damages in the coming years. Of course the reverse engineering is in the works as we write. No matter how convoluted RC will have a reason it supports CO2 theory at the end of the day. We live in the age of doublethink as well.
The only group spinning the story are the skeptics. See Calder’s spin for example including the “hidden graph” conspiracy theory. Supposedly the global conspiracy was clever enough to hide the dangerous graph right in plain sight in the supplementary info where everyone could find it….
What an ingeniously stupid conspiracy theory.
lolwot
Huh?
In discussing Kirkby’s work, we should not make the error of assuming that the question is whether or not Kirkby’s work supports or undermines “mainstream climate science.” In fact, to do so is to commit a Red Herring fallacy, to change the topic.
What Kirkby has done is create a pristine experiment that explores the interactions among water vapor, sulfates, and ammonia when subject to a beam of GCRs. He seems to have concluded two things. (1) The effects are in line with Svensmark’s hypothesis but nothing can be inferred about cloud formation at this time. (2) The artificial environment of water vapor, sulfates, and ammonia is not sufficient to support the kind of aerosol formation that he wishes to study or that is relevant to questions about global warming. He is off on a search for an additional ingredient.
To my mind, what is most important about Kirkby’s work is that it is a pristine example of an experiment conducted entirely in accordance with scientific method. For comparison, “mainstream climate science” offers as its account of aerosol formation computer models which can generate simulations that track observed numbers in Earth’s atmosphere, though the quality of this tracking is questionable. So, to my mind, the questions raised by Kirkby’s work are two. (1) Do the computer models offer something of the same quality as Kirkby’s phyiscal hypotheses that can be used to make scientific predictions about his experimental chamber. (2) Why has “mainstream climate science” failed to undertake experiments of their own, especially this particular experiment, that can be conducted entirely within the confines of scientific method and that are clearly germane to fundamental questions about their CAGW theory? This second question is key to understanding the quality of communication from “mainstream climate scientists” because public distrust rests to a great degree on the fact that the “mainstream” offers no experiments that tie their theories to the world of shared human experience or to scientific method.
Dr. Curry indicated in the introduction to this post by her that it is preliminary and that she will return to this topic. For those who are interested in more detail on this topic than I have stated here, please see the comments section at WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#comments.
Theo, that would be an entirely reasonable and proportionate if climate “science” were any other science. But this isn’t any other science. On this one question rests something like $trillion of public expenditure for “the greatest problem facing mankind”.
On that basis alone, you wouldn’t expect CERN to be running an experiment like this, you would expect CERN to be completely turned over to experimental verification of the “science” – not the UEA “home guard” with corporal Jones. You wouldn’t expect CERN to be waiting 10-14 years to do this experiment, you’d expect them to be doing multi versions of the experiment ASAP.
And you wouldn’t expect Nature to be waiting 9.5months to squeeze this in, you’d be expecting Nature to devote a whole issue hot from the press.
Moreover you wouldn’t expect universities involved to be holding back data based on trivial contractual terms. Nor would you wouldn’t expect them to engage in petty squabbles over intellectual rights. SURELY IF THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING MANKIND, and everyone else has to totally change their lifestyles, housing, transport, jobs .. EVERYTHING. Then you’d expect the researchers involved to similarly jump through hoops to ensure all that data they say backs them up is available to the public.
For heaven’s sake … why didn’t they just ask parliament to pass a special law allowing them to publish, if petty legal niceties was all that prevented them publishing the data that they say proves their case?
The simple fact is that the climate community have not themselves treated this as a serious subject. They have woefully under spent: the temperature network is absolutely atrocious. The level of skills of the climate “scientist “just beggars belief. The ethics and work practice (Jones loosing data) is just incredible. The petty politicing and total disregard for informing the law through FOI law just beggars belief.
In short It is as if Winston Churchil turned up at the allied control centre the eve before D-Day and discovered the Warmington on Sea home guard were in charge.
I do not disagree with anything you wrote. I am trying to keep the discussion focused on the science. Kirkby gives us an excellent example of experimental science done in the arena of climate science. I want to emphasize the difference between Kirkby and “mainstream climate science.” The latter do no empirical work at all.
As regards what you emphasize, you are right that the poor treatment of Kirkby and of empirical research in general can only reflect badly on “mainstream” climate science. They need to explain why they do not engage in empirical research and why they believe that computer models can substitute for reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses, hypotheses of the kind used by Kirkby and Svensmark.
Theo. Well said. So, what do you think about Wikipedia and the way they have removed all discussion on the CLOUD experiment on the basis it’s only some meaningless paper?
Long ago, I told my students that Wikipedia is useful for only for fun because it rarely provides decent references. A couple of years ago, I told them that it should not be used even for fun because of its ideological blinders. Well, unless the fun is teasing out the ideological blinders.
“I want to emphasize the difference between Kirkby and “mainstream climate science.” The latter do no empirical work at all.”
Totally wrong. What’s Cryosat2 if it isn’t empirical? How do you think the radiation databases were developed?
Even Svensmark will have to go to pure theory once all measurements in cloud chambers have been completed. There’s only so far you can go with experiment. At that point I look forward to you bemoaning his lack of “empirical work”.
Define empirical in terms of scientific method. Cryosat2 can be viewed as a passive experiment but the sum total of its output will be records of measurements. It will produce or test no hypotheses at all. You cannot produce some set of physical hypotheses that explain the records that Cryosat2 will produce.
If you think that empirical testing is somehow limited, ask the people at CERN who are searching for the Higgs Bison just what the heck they are doing?
“If you think that empirical testing is somehow limited, ask the people at CERN who are searching for the Higgs Bison just what the heck they are doing?”
Here and I thought they were looking for Higg’s bow son. Good thing I read these updates!! Are they looking for Bison droppings??
(sorry, I’m a dumba$$ at heart)
I regard your complaint as being much like that proverbial NASA space pen, which was designed at great cost as a solution to writing in zero gravity. The punchline being that the russians got by with a pencil.
There are some things you don’t need to spend a lot on. The spaceship sure, the writing instruments not so much.
Similarly climate science does put a lot of effort and money into satellites for example, those represent experiments you both seem to have not considered. There may be lab experiments going on that none of us know about because they aren’t politicalized as CLOUD.
The surface temperature records are good enough. You could probably pour in a few millions to get a few extra % points of knowledge, but it’s diminishing returns. It’s like complaining about the pencil and demanding a proper expensive space biro be developed. It’s needless.
lolwot –
The surface temperature records are good enough.
As an engineer whose main activity for decades was instrumentation of everything from wind tunnels to spacecraft/science instruments, I find that statement utterly ignorant.
“Ignorance is strength” Jim.
It’s core AGW alarmist value set.
“(2) Why has “mainstream climate science” failed to undertake experiments of their own, especially this particular experiment, that can be conducted entirely within the confines of scientific method and that are clearly germane to fundamental questions about their CAGW theory?”
Because climate scientists are scientists in the way than sanitary engineers are engineers or the way in which turf accountants are accountants.
If you do not use the scientific method to reach you conclusions, you are not using science. A scientists is not a scientists because of their prefixes, Mr Chandrasekhara V Raman was a scientist because he did science, not because he had a Dr. prefix.
Models are fantastic, if you want a model to examine a ‘what if’. Game theory, especially Evolutionary game theory, has completely changed the way we view cooperation, pray/predator relations and mutualistic behavior. What these models do not tell us is that the reason this lion is killing this lion cub is because he is trying to increase his gene penetration into the feline gene pool.
The major sin in modeling is making one you don’t understand. If you do not know the ‘elasticity’ of your constants, you are a moron.
Well said and reasoned. You have touched upon an interesting point. It would seem that all scientists should be excited by the CERN CLOUD work. This is an exceptional departure in the right direction from this too often political debate. CLOUD is akin to opening Pandora’s box and scientist’s like yourself should be salivating. Questions and potential new directions? What If the modulation of cosmic rays did impact the grand cycles like glaciation? That excites an old man!
Climate modeling has a human bias which is nearly impossible to obviate. You are pushing for Good Science. Keep on pushing! Svensmark would likely being smiling at your post.
So perhaps someone could fly an airplane to where the cloud forming regions and measure the amount of cloud condensing particles and how many of them are charged and compare that with the amount of charged particles produced by cosmic rays and put this baby to bed one way or the other.
As I understand it, this initial experiment was a huge success. It proved that (simulated) cosmic rays increase nucleation particle formation by a factor of 10 or more. Even sceptics must admit that is an unambiguous result.
Of course, this is just one element of the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, so the CLOUD experiment cannot prove or disprove all of Svensmark’s hypothesis. It does, however, prove a crucial part of it.
I have not seen data linking cosmic ray modulation to variations in the solar wind, but I have seen many abstracts of papers claiming that such a relationship exists.
The particles formed in the CLOUD experiment were too small to influence water condensation. This is not a problem, in my view. The big difficulty with this experiment is how to limit the number of variables without excluding one that may be crucial to producing a positive result. If no nucleation had occurred, the experiment would have been inconclusive, since the atmosphere in the chamber was rather limited in composition and certainly not typical.
The fact that nucleation has been enhanced by ionising radiation in a very simple atmosphere, is not just a positive result, it creates the possibility that a more complex atmosphere could enhance the nucleation process.
For example, we know that the chamber was free of any dust, yet this is a common component of the atmosphere as well as a cloud nucleation agent. I suspect that the products of cosmic ray ionisation could lead to free radicals and other species that could adsorb on dust particles, greatly increasing their chemical reactivity, electrostatic attraction capability and reduction of contact angle. Increase of the hydrophilicity of the dust particles by cosmic radiation could be a powerful factor in cloud formation.
Yes, well said. Kirkby’s experiment promises many more important experiments to come. My guess is that this work will remove all the lustre from the computer model only approach to climate science.
This presentation by Vincent Courtillot may be of some interest.
He gives two examples of the professional impediments placed in front of those who do not conform. Why does he not go to someone/someplace with the evidence of the poisoned peer review and career prospects that a student of his would have? This needs to be exposed.
The rhetoric of the politicians and the bureaucrats is now overwhelmingly
absolute: ‘all scientists agree’, ‘overwhelming evidence’.
cgp Thanks for your comment. Government propaganda and MSM bias have combined to keep most citizens ignorant of how the journal editorial processes have been hijacked so that ‘peer-review’ has morphed into ‘pal-review’ and any authors with evidence contradicting IPCC’s view of the world are marginalised and their work does not get published.
In fact most people are simply unaware of the adverse findings (scathing criticisms) in the IAC’s review of the IPCC’s procedures and processes.
See http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
The IAC report identifies major deficiencies which impact substantially on the credibility of AR4.
As a matter of fact, Kirkby et al. did obtain aerosols much bigger than 2,5 nm in the CLOUD chamber: they measured particles of diameters up to ~85 nm, with very great concentration for diameters up to ~70 nm!
This was reported and illustrated with measurement graphs by Kirkby in a sort of pre-press article, entitled ‘The CLOUD project: Climate research with accelerators’, referenced at Proceedings of IPAC’10, Kyoto, Japan (pages 4774-4778).
The figures (5 & 6), explanations and conclusion given in page 4777 are perfectly clear: in a chamber initially deprived of particles above ~1 nm large, after the beam is turned on one measures increasingly large particles, with the highest concentrations for diameters reaching ~15 nm after ~15 minutes and ~25 to 70 nm after ~30 minutes.
Kirkby concluded: “Shortly after the start of the run, a clear ion-enhancement of the nucleation rate was established by the reproducible observation of a sharp increase of the nucleation rate when the beam was turned on (examples are shown in Figs. 5 and 6). The detector showed excellent technical performance, and a large amount of high quality data were recorded during the two-week run” and added: “The data from the first run are currently being analysed and a journal paper on the key new results is in preparation, for expected publication later this year.”
I have no acces to the Nature paper (under paywall) but I’ve never heard of those pictures being published in it (or in the online additionnal material).
Of course, we can always imagine that further experiment led them to invalidate those results. As a French retired researcher – a sceptic (there are so rare, here…) – put it on his blog : “one should be aware that CLOUD-type experiments are much difficultly reproducible and verifiable by other teams like are, for example, the experiments of lighter physics. It is thus fundamental that the results published are irreproachable, which requires a great number of tests and checks to make sure that the results correspond well to reality and do not result from artifacts which are relatively frequent and often difficult to detect and eliminate. All this takes time, much time… In this kind of experimentation, we need to be patient, especially as the progress made by the scientists of the CERN remains generally very confidential… until the publication (generally co-signed by several tens of authors).”
However, that sort of pre-press article was put (and is still…) on the CERN server
.
Strange, isn’t it?
Yes, you offer important details about Kirkby’s experiment. I did not address them in my post because I wanted to stick to the absolute basics.
The IPAC conference paper emphasizes that the effect was visible for negative particles implying that, what we see for positive particles, is not similarly relevant, but the difference between figures 6a and 6b. The large particles appear similarly in both, the difference is strong at the early time 5:25-5:30 for aerosol sizes up to 8 nm. This appears to be the observation judged significant by Kirkby. Thus the effect seen for larger aerosol droplets is perhaps not related to the charged particle beams but to other phenomena related to the experimental settings.
Kirkby doesn’t tell directly, whether my interpretation is correct, but that seems to be the most logical interpretation of the paper. If the interpretation is correct, the experiment is, indeed, set up to study only the first part of the nucleation process, and results for larger droplets might be totally unreliable.
I think I’ve found some clue in another progress report they put on the CERN server: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf2009 PROGRESS REPORT ON PS215/CLOUD.
Fig. 9 (page 10) shows a similar result, with aerosols growing up to about 75 nm (maybe it was exacly the same run).
And below the figure they added this comment:
Unfortunately, they didn’t say how high this intensity was.
However, as the GCR agent is only one among others, there’s no reason to believe that an aerosol particle will stop growing once the ionization stops. There are plenty of mechanisms acting at the same time. Now, as they put in the conclusion of the Nature paper:
Anyway, we all know the Nature paper is only preliminary results. We also know the circumstances of the highly politicized doubts and that the peer-review process lasted for almost a 1 year, so we may conclude that only the most robust results and conclusions were given.
Besides, except being an AGW desperate fanatic, it’s obvious that those results: in no way cancel the hypothesis of Svensmark and others that GCRs have a significant (or even huge) impact on the climate; already support this assumption. Moreover, the second part of the conclusion, though remarkably fuzzy, is strickingly confident:
In that paper again the clearly visible difference between the negative particle beam and the other cases is emphasized implying that the authors consider only the results on aerosol size well below 10 nm significant. That’s, where the negative particles give clearly different results from positive particles.
To Pekka Pirilä,
sorry I’ve just seen your post.
I had noticed the point about the differences between negative ions (with the genuine “banana” shape) and positive ions.
I also have thought about something similar to what you’ve said, that the only relevant result (in this run / experiment) could be restricted to the first stages of the nucleation process.
But maybe my last post will give additional hints. In particular, why write that the beam intensity for this run was high and not representative of the atmosphere” in the case of that fig. 9, if they were only suppose to test something only happening in a stage you can’t represent in this figure ?
Yes, the point is that no experiment up to now have been designed to give all the answers, i.e. quantitify the GCRs effects in the hole process. However, my point was mostly about questionning their “priorities”.
In addition (Pekka Pirilä),
your guess is that the authors consider only the results on aerosol size well below 10 nm significant [in the case of this experiment, for what concerns the effects of the GCRs on nucleation].
However:
– the fig. 9 I told about in my last post only shows results with a detection threshold of about 8 nm;
– again, under fig. 9 they put a comment about the (too high) intensity if the pion beam for this run;
– moreover, also under fig. 9 they wrote:
My conclusion is that you’ve guessed only part right, at best: even if they expect a large part of the effect in the first stages of the nucleation process, they clearly seem to expect the process to involve ionization effects also after that.
John,
You would have been far better not posting this pile of rubbbish.
The VP of the US, for starters, does not write or make or change tax code or environmental regulations.
Valerie Plame was not outed by Scooter Libby, as history shows.
Outing her was not a capital offense under any law of the US.
But that is merely a quick listing of why you would have been better off not opening your mouth and removing doubt.
Your stuff will do much better at Daily Kos.
She was outed by REDACTED, er Armitage and a lynch mob of journalists.
H/t MJW.
===========
Kim,
Valerie Plame was outed in the 90’s to the Russians and again in the 90’s to the Cubans. That is why she was at the headquarters. Her field life was past its use by date!!!
There was no crime to investigate!! There was only a Dhimmicrap WITCHUNT driven by idiot media types outraged that Bush wasn’t nearly as dumb as they are!!
Since there was no crime involved Armitage could not have been charged with anything. As there was no crime involved there was no reason for Libby to lie. The witchunt got its witch anyway as they always do by CLAIMING he lied when he gave conflicting statements to the investigators.
Wait, what were they investigating again?? Apparently we can be arrested and convicted for alledgedly lying to “officials” who aren’t even doing their jobs!!!!!
The FBI one morning
Lost its notes suborning.
Eckenrode,
Where is that toad?
He’s wanted at a harrowing.
=================
If it’s any consolation, KoolKat, I believe Tim R. roasted in Hell until he died. After that is not up to me.
===============
Wood-int-U-know…
Fitzgerald asked Miller if she’d ever had occasion to talk with Libby after the two meetings at which she said he told her that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Yes, she said, she ran into him in August 2003 at a rodeo in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Miller said she didn’t recognize Libby at first; he was wearing cowboy boots, jeans, a black T-shirt and sunglasses, and she’d only seem him in suits before. Once Libby identified himself — “Judy … it’s Scooter” — Miller said that they talked for a bit. Fitzgerald asked Miller what they discussed. “It was just some banter about the meeting at Aspen I had just come from … a meeting of the Aspen Strategy Group.”
Group.”http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2007/01/31/aspens
How do you think their ‘Strategy’ is working out?:o)
OK, Kirkby gave us the talk about their experiment NOT showing large enough particles or clusters to actually create clouds.
Then there are Jim2 and Samedi pointing out that at least one of their runs created significantly larger clusters and was stopped.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/#comment-105965
So, is Kirby trying to protect funding by slowing down the real results that shows a hard connection between high energy GCR’s and Cloud formation?? His pre-release caution to the scientists to NOT use their professional discretion to interpret their results would certainly appear to be in the debunk direction rather than a full and honest accounting of the experiment!!!
“His pre-release caution to the scientists to NOT use their professional discretion to interpret their results would certainly appear to be in the debunk direction rather than a full and honest accounting of the experiment!!!”
I cant see any argument that the experiment hasn’t been fully and honestly reported without reading into the results. Think of what would happen if they extrapolated a specific result and later found it to not be true even if the bulk of the work held up.
Its important that this science be conducted free from political influences.
Kirkby’s boss gave the caution. However, I believe that you are correct in your guess that Kirkby is bending over backward to avoid offending the powers that be. The extended information is all over the internet by now and promises to support a much stronger hypothesis. Check out the comments at WUWT that I referenced in a post above.
“Think of what would happen if they extrapolated a specific result and later found it to not be true even if the bulk of the work held up.”
Yes think of it!!! There might actually be a dialogue instead of a small cadre telling everyone what to think about the results!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Like there is a dialogue regarding CO2’s role in warming? There are plenty of legitimate questions being asked and results such as this one also have the possibility of changing CO2’s role significantly and yet skeptics are labeled as deniers and more recently likened to racists.
A dialogue? Yeah right.
It was not Kirkby who asked the scientists to not venture into non-pc interpretations – it was his boss.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%e2%80%9cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%e2%80%9d/
My mistake.
Thank you for the correction.
Subscribe
Hansen arrested again;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/29/nasas-james-hansen-arrested-yet-again/#more-46218
We should just ignore political profiles and talk data right? Willing to be arrested for the “cause” but his work must surely be “professional”?
When will Dr. Curry comment on the political DNA of the IPCC members? Of course it matters.
I’m waiting for Dr. Curry’s posts on Money And Climate Science and The Abuse Of The English Language And Climate Science.
I think they are on the list right after her post series on Uninfluential French Philosophers.
Andrew
You have to remember how the game is played, those who “named names” even if they did the patriotic thing during the McCarthy hearings were vilified for life. Dr. Curry is committed to avoiding the subject of the IPCC activism by direct mention. She does talk about “group think” but isn’t going to connect the obvious dots of what the IPCC and Dr. Hansen are connected to. There is too much history and culture, she is a weaker but somewhat more rational link in the same tribe. Whittaker Chambers she is not. She is a controlled middle road critic of the IPCC and real reform will never be achieved via this method. It panders to dishonesty.
It’s not a good excuse but it’s the likely human nature of the situation. It leads to billions more power point charts than should be required to move this back to academic obscurity. Hansen is the perfect working model, in lock-step his work will not be questioned by insiders. Who really does more damage? Those like Hansen who honestly disclose their cultures or those who play make-believe that the consensus science hasn’t been impacted and it’s rude to question peoples politics?
Dr. Curry’s silence on the topic is more damaging than Jim Hansen being an eco-fringe fool getting arrested. Same can be said for the silent sympathy he will get from fellow consensus players who are publically underground on their similar views. Same for the MSM running interference babbling about “science” being the core of the debate.
I won’t argue with your conclusions, cwon, for I suspect they are spot on. But Dr. Curry has herself preached a Salon of Ideas theme for this blog. I want to see if maybe she really means it (I always leave room for hope, even in the silliest of circumstances like current climate science), or is it just Lip Service.
Andrew
Andrew,
It’s a questionable “salon” if we have an obvious “taboo” of asking consensus (IPCC) members where their general political leanings are or more important what is the objective conclusion about that of the IPCC political culture and predisposition. Especially since they have gained so much hiding behind the meme “we are experts on climate” and politics could only be second to our conclusions.
It’s obvious on this and many other blogs. The media (in the AGW tank for the most part with very similar political trending) support the hide in plain sight IPCC policy guide to political disclosure of its members. Dr. Curry obfuscates but is supporting the policy as well. Dancing around with terms like “activists”, “group think” and “bias” but not applying it or being specific about the eco-left establishment that owns the IPCC and is the beating heart of AGW consensus. Quiet enablers and fence sitters while an obvious abuse of science has taken place have made it so much worse than needed.
“Science first” on this topic is a sad joke, quietly in surveys as long as it’s label vague most IPCC members agree. Go look at the IPCC survey. As long as they get to make a partisan confession that doesn’t make them look bad and the cover of being “experts” is preserved everything is ok.
cwon14
Interesting revisionism there.
Ronald Reagan was vilified for life? Yeah, poor guy, how rotten things turned out for him.
And Walt Disney? A name synonymous in the public mind with all things dark and diabolical, of course.
And that William F. Buckley Jr. guy, practically disappeared from the public eye, so demonized he became. I bet most people in America have never heard of him.
JFK and RFK, ardent McCarthy boosters, their popularity took a real hit, then, didn’t it.
J. Edgar Hoover, pretty much ruined by his support for McCarthy, wasn’t he, then? And the FBI, too? It’s only the most popular law enforcement agency on the planet, to this day.
The MPAA and SAG, two more organizations that completely supported McCarthy. You’re calling them ‘vilified for life’ too?
This seems to be just more cwon-artistry.
If you want revisionism you should consult the NYTImes, Public Broadcasting or High School text book on the phony demonization of the HUAAC. I of course was focused on the former communists who turned on their peers and how they were treated, for life. Elia Kazan, Whittaker Chambers etc. while Alger Hiss became a folk hero of the left. Same for many of the Hollywood Ten who were in fact communists. It took guts to name names something Dr. Curry isn’t inclined to do in regard to the culture of the IPCC and likely for very similar social reasons dressed as principal.
At least quote me in context.
cwon14
Are you saying it took more guts, backed by the full power of Congress and the biggest players in the entertainment industry, to name names than to take a stand against such power?
Quote you in context? I quoted you in thread, not more than a few paragraphs from your full post. How much more in context do you need?
It’s a funny old world. Some of the people involved in McCarthyism on both sides came out smelling like a rose, as if coated in teflon; others were vilified for life, again on both sides.
The naming of names isn’t what determined who was the target of demonization and who was beatified. It was for most the coincidence of where they landed at random in the narrative America chose to tell itself, decided to remember, so it could sleep soundly at night.
I don’t need any further improvement to my night’s sleep at the cost of becoming a bully, invading the privacy of others without reason, or being a paranoid conspiracy nut who would toss the US Constitution in the trash rather than risk that the whisperers I imagine behind my back might sneak fluoride into my drinking water.
Get a grip, man.
So you vilify along classic left wing principals, one of my points proven.
The other point Bart is that there really were communist operatives very active in impacting public opinion to their cause. They lied and hid their motives very much the way the IPCC and it’s operative hide today. Those who did the right thing and reported in the 50’s are still hated by the descendants of the old left which is the current left such as yourself. Classic Arthur Miller talking points Bart.
The IPCC is a political organization and active arm of the global eco-left among other features. Dr. Curry knows it but refuses to speak out under the cover of centerism which she in fact many be no where near culturally. This why I use the McCarthy anology. Those who should be truely despised were the dishonest communists who wouldn’t own up to there agenda and were in power positions; very much similar to many IPCC participants who couldn’t give a hoot about “science” but realize the power of AGW mitigation and power gathering for statism that they are fully invested in but work in direct agenda silence and disinformation; “this is science”. After that we have the fake moderates who engage in word destruction; “no-labels” to maintain their center status. These are the equivalent of those who hid behind the 5th rather than state their histories and past alliances. Those who did own up, named names are to you the worst but in fact did a great service at great personal cost within their similar culture. Dr. Curry has yet to make it that far. It doesn’t matter that I and/or millions see the UN/Eco-Left/Global Statist IPCC as we do and as I and others have described. It would be hugely important that Dr. Curry cross the Rubicon and described the IPCC political culture in the most blunt terms and confess that this is the central bias in the current “consensus”. Like minded people I’m sure of many types who believe in carbon management and statism for it’s own sake, AGW being only a contrived device for decades.
The public has a right to know from those on the inside. The cloak of “we are scientists not political” is for the weak minded. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. Campus life is one of the most politically nuanced enclaves in our society aside from media, creative communities or politics itself. The core of AGW agenda setting is involved all three of these enclaves much of which march under the same tune and act in AGW agenda concert. If the science was strong rational people would have no trouble disclosing their political cultures. The opposite is of course the current status quo among advocates in the IPCC as the filth work is outsourced to left-wing bloggers, eco-left pop culture and the Old School MSM. The IPCC just pumps out the propaganda and hides under “objective expert status”. Again, apply the laugh test.
BartR,
so you think Reagan wasn’t treated the same as Bush while he was in office and for years afterward?? Just because they change their tune a little after the man came down with alzheimers doesn’t mean he WASN’T demonized for most of his life and many made fun of his disease.
McCarthy?? I believe the word McCarthyism is STILL used as a derogatory term.
J. Edgar?? I believe he is still called a pervert based on the testimony of ONE woman who was the ONLY person to have seen him in a dress at a well attended party!! He is also still blamed for horrible intrusions into peoples private lives. Funny thing is there is little if any evidence of that either.
William F. Buckley IS still bad mouthed in most Universities where leftards teach. Oh yeah, that even includes religious universites in modern times!! Leftards HATE people so much smarter, and more urbane, than they could ever dream of being.
I really don’t know what psychotropics you have been ingesting. but, it is apparently the wrong thing to do before posting such drivel here.
kk
I think Reagan ought be compared to the Hollywood 10, if we’re discussing McCarthyism. And by all measures, he fared far better than they.
I think being listed prominently in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded might justly warrant turning one’s name into a derogatory term.(With the notable exception of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Reed_Giddings, and censures for unparliamentary language would be redundant to such treatment).
Hoover’s popularity post 1954 until his death remained unsullied. Silly red dress argument would require time travel to be valid.
If Buckley’s being vilified for being smart and urbane, it’s hardly likely that’s connected to Joe McCarthy, who pretty much was Buckley’s diametric opposite in those domains.
Are you sure you’re on your own side? Your arguments do your case more harm than good.
Bart R,
why woudl we compare Reagan to the Hollywood 10? He didn’t have Communist connections. In fact, he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild that BLACKBALLED all those Hollywood types who he and the rest of the guild found to be Communist influences. I’m sorry, you thought McCarthy was somehow involved?? I would also point out that the Hollywood 10 sailed to Europe where they were feted by their Socialist and Communist friends for their brave stand against that horrible America and its Freedom!! Strangely enough, even though we were such a terrible country most of them came back and worked in Hollywood again!! Ya think that could have happened if the FBI was really after them??
Lemme see, McCarthy was also accused of trying to poke his nose into peoples bedrooms, er, except that was the FBI under that guy wearing dresses wasn’t it?? He was also accused of dragging citizens into hearings and ruining them, er, but, that was the House Committe On UnAmerican Affairs I believe. I also believe that Tailgunner Joe (another long story) was a Senator under investigation by the press and the Dhimmicraps of the time. He is accused of NAMING NAMES causing the death by suicide of at least one person. I would point you to the Dhimmicrap investigation where he was badgered in open testimony to the point where he DID realease ONE NAME. That person immediately committed suicide. That person also turned out to be a very good friend of a certain New York Times editor and ALSO turned out to be a Communist spy working in a Military top secret code room. (you just can’t make these things up) Why was Joe being investigated?? Well, what Joe was really trying to push was investigation into our military, government employees, and politicians as to THEIR communist connections and obvious National Security issues!! (think State Department or Kremlin West) NOT Hollywood or private citizens. He had a run in with an Army General. Then, as now, the military has a lot of officers there to line their and their friends pockets He was not interested in his branch being investigated. We can assume he was afraid his buddies money making would be impacted. There is also a SMALL chance he knew Communists in the military or just didn’t like the idea of Politicians sticking their noses in the militaries business!! This was before the code agent was outted in the military code room!!
I would also throw out another name to go with Hiss and other traitors who provided Nuclear information to the Communists. Al Gore’s father had a rich guy who helped him become a senator and who he in turn helped in the best Gubmint back rubbing display that still goes on. The man’s name was Armand Hammer, you know, the guy who started Occidental Petroleum? Seems to me that being an agent of the Soviets WOULD have given him just a slight edge in his business dealings. Al still has their Occidental stock. Yes, he also turned out to be a Soviet Agent!!
You might want to do some research on the Venonia Project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/
Anyway, all this old history is simply to give you a little taste of how the dialogue has been seriously warped by the media and our Institutions of Indoctrination. People who speak against their agenda get smeared in ways too numerous to count, like Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Spencer, Dr. Lindzen and others too numerous for me to even have heard of much less remember.
kuhnkat,
Good points, my use of the anology is of course to shame Dr. Curry who refuses to politically profile the IPCC, core AGW supporters in very direct terms. All the obfuscations on abstract and speculative science far more complicated than the obvious eco-left, statist UN/IPCC cultures which is the equivalent of the square root of four.
It may be social reasoning, it may be underlying political loyalty that many of those who named names also struggled with. Whatever it is, it’s no excuse given the global stakes and those who can already be counted dead under CO2 regulations and the slower growth and higher costs that have been passed down under AGW agenda reasoning.
See if I have this straight?
In your views, Dr. Curry is a traitor selling Cosmic Ray secrets to the eco-left global conspiracy to take over the world and force you to drink fluoride, and the only way she can prove her patriotism is to stand before a committee of Congress and declare, “I do not now nor have I ever supported any of the positions held by the IPCC,” and then to name as many names of unAmerican academics, businessmen, bureaucrats and actors who she suspects of eco-left sympathies?
Does that about sum it up?
BartR,
Your delusions about what you THINK I said are absolutely amazing. I look forward to more such imaginative responses and insight into your though processes in the future.
Maybe they’ll keep him this time.
Three strikes and you’re on the bench. Or before it, bigtime.
=============
Yikes! May I suggest this comment is OT?
Dr. Curry,
As always, another great post with many informative comments. Thank you.
Cheers,
Big Dave
“Steven Mosher | August 30, 2011 at 1:42 am |
Here is what we know. We know from first principles that if we increase any forcing by 3.7W/m^2 that the planet will warm by about 1.5C.”
Here we go again. We know nothing of the sort. We have been over this many times, and there cannot be any observed data to confirm this value of 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2. It assumes that the lapse rate does not change. It is a completely meaningless number. As long as people like Steve Mosher can continue to pretend that this number of 1.5 C has some sort of meaning in physics, then there will be a disconnect between those people who belive in CAGW and those of us that dont.
From all that I have read, this number of 1.5 C assumes that all the problems of adding CO2 to the atmosphere can be solved by assuming that all that needs to be considered is the transfer of energy through the the atmosphere by radiation alone. We can neglect all other forms of energy transfer. I have always found this to be completely unbelievable, and until I see some proper treatment of this subject in the peer reviewed literature, I will continue to do so.
It does seem that they over simplify by assuming the change in forcing is felt directly at the surface as radiant energy. There is a lot of interaction in the mid to upper troposphere, where most of the uncertainty lays, that tends to be glossed over. Vaughan Pratt started the kind of discussion I think that is really needed. Eli Rabett mentioned part of the radiation issue at the surface. But nearly everyone seems to think, or at least communicate, that the radiation window from the surface to the TOA is the same as from the middle of the troposphere to the TOA. There is a change in the window that shows why CO2 has a stronger impact high in the atmosphere and not so much at the surface.
A better illustration of the interaction of radiant and conductive heat transfer doesn’t change the possible impact of double CO2, but it does show the uncertainty of water vapor and water liquid response, which is likely responsible for the less than estimated warming modeled, after considering more realistic aerosol/solar variations.
With a frame of reference in the mid to upper troposphere you can better show why instantaneous CO2 doubling initially has a stronger cooling impact progressing to an overall warming impact.
Then you can show how the ocean surface skin layer is a conductive/radiant interface and better weigh the varying impact of each.
Basically, simple analogies and models just don’t cut it anymore.
Thank you Dallas. Every time I ask for a reference that shows “from first principles” that the 1.5 C is real, I get the run around. I get references that do no such thing. If you are going to establish something from first principles.then you make no assumptions, no “trust me, I am an expert”, you dot the last i and cross the last t. No-one has done this. The last time I went over this with Pekka Pirilla, he assured me that the reference I am looking for does not exist. And I believe him.
,
The 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 is nothing more than a myth. Everyone believes it, but no-one knows how it has been established. People like Steve Mosher should learn to behave like proper scientists. Dont believe anything anyone tells you. Get the references for yourself, and satisfy yourself that the science is solid. if anyone does that with this 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2, then I can assure them they will agree with me.
Jim,
Unfortunately, I don’t remember the papers, but I have skimmed several good arguments for a CO2 doubling response of 1 to 1.2 C. Over than requires too many assumptions about water vapor and aerosol feedbacks. Since most of the models used the older TSI reconstructions, the estimates of aerosols seem to be high (aerosols were assumed to account for the difference). Not outrageously high, around 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. That would reduce Mosher’s 1.5 to 1.3-1.4, which better agrees with a variety of estimates using instrumental data, implying overall feed backs are on the lower end of estimates.
That does not mean that somethings else, the in the pipeline stuff, may not be significant, but that some of the uncertainty is due to poor accounting of improved research on the reconstructions originally used. I mean really, Lean 1995 and 2000 should not still be used without reference to more recent papers by Lean, Svalgard, etc. because there is a difference.
Dallas you write “most of the models”
Why on earth do models have anything to do with this? Steve Mosher states that the 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 comes from “first principles”. Surely models and first principles are completely incompatible.
I can’t find Mosher’s 1.5C derivation, but I am pretty sure in includes a water vapor response due to CO2 increase. Whether it is a big time computer or simply math application, the water vapor response needs to be modeled since it is not a well mixed gas. All things considered, the big time computer models can provide a better estimate IF the physics is correct AND forcing values accurate.
Here is a link to Climate Audit where they discuss James Annan’s attempt at show 2.5 C warming due to double CO2. “The change in outgoing radiation as a function of temperature is the derivative of the RHS with respect to temperature, giving 4s.T_e^3 = 3.76 . This is the extra Wm^-2 emitted per degree of warming, so if you are prepared to accept that we understand purely radiative transfer pretty well and thus the conventional value of 3.7Wm^-2 per doubling of CO2, that conveniently means a doubling of CO2 will result in a 1C warming at equilibrium, *if everything else in the atmosphere stays exactly the same*.”
A doubling of CO2 will cause a 1 C increase IF everything else in the atmosphere stays exactly the same, there is no simple derivation of what doesn’t stay the same.
Dallas you write “*if everything else in the atmosphere stays exactly the same*.””
This is the same as saying the lapse rate stays constant. This is where I asked Pikka Pirilla for a reference, and he said that no such reference exists.
So we come back to the fundamental issue. There is no reference which derives ANY estimate of change in surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 that has any basis whatsoever in physics. It is impossible to go from change in radiative forcing to change in surface temperature, while at the same time being true to the fundamental physics. It simply cannot be done. Anyone who claims it can be done is either being deliberately dishonest, or simply does not understand what physics is all about.
I hope I am wrong, but if anyone wants to claim that I am wrong, would they please provide the reference which shows how it is possible to go from change in radiative forcing to change in surface temperature, while staying within the bounds of fundamental physics.
“It is impossible to go from change in radiative forcing to change in surface temperature, while at the same time being true to the fundamental physics.”
Agree. It’s abuse of the fundamental physics. Little knowledge.
I don’t know of any that fill the full bill. The CO2 only makes a reasonable base line estimate based on simple radiation physics, but you only get an idealized estimate because of the number and uncertainties involved in the possible feed backs. Then the range of sensitivities assumes that there is no value below zero and in many cases no value below 1. If the climate system had only one set point that would be fine, but the glacial periods prove there is another, arguably more stable set point, likely controlled by northern hemisphere albedo. So I have issues with attempting to apply control theory to an unstable system without considering the instability. If that was done, the range would be roughly -6 C to +4 C with 1.2 to 2.5 most likely given the available data.
That link didn’t make it. Try this http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/02/james-annan-on-25-deg-c/
Thanks for the reference Dallas. It seems that Steve McIntyre came to the same conclusion that I have come to, only he did it by Jan 2008. Now I have read the reference, I am even more certain that I am right.
.
There is no way in physics to convert change in radaitive forcing to change in surface temperature. And that assumes that one can estimate change in radiative forcing; which is another problem that is just as bad.
Not unlikely, D, the instantaneous cooling. Since the anthropogenic component is much slower than instantaneous, the response curve will vary accordingly, and we may more evenly than otherwise face the next descent into glaciation.
Has the bottle been shaken before being opened? I see no evidence of that.
===========
The ice age is interesting. It does look it would be easier to kick the system into a 5 degree colder than 5 degree warmer state.
“We know from first principles that if we increase any forcing by 3.7W/m^2 that the planet will warm by about 1.5C.”
Please learn to read. I said nothing about C02 in this sentence.
nothing.
please read it again.
Increase the forcing by 3.7W/m^2….. for example, turn the sun up by 3.7W
This basic temperature response estimate is straightforward physics. It refers to the temperature response to increased forcing. Nothing more nothing less. C02 isnt even in the equation.
Steve Mosher writes “This basic temperature response estimate is straightforward physics. It refers to the temperature response to increased forcing. Nothing more nothing less. C02 isnt even in the equation.”
Fair enough. Are you claiming that the 3.7 Wm-2 in the change of radiative forcing allegedly produced by a doubling of CO2 causes an increase in surface temperature of 1.2 C at the surface of the earth?
I suspect a change of forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 from the sun is completely different from a hypothetical 3.7 Wm-2 for a change in radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. It is quite conceivable that if you ratchet the sun up by 3.7 wm-2, then you will change the lapse rate. The two processes are completely different. When the sun increases it’s output, it will warm the whole earth, including all the earth’s atmosphere.
Forget cosmic rays, you want to get attention from the IPCC?;
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110825/ipcc-unfccc-climate-change-house-republicans-budget-appropriations-state-department?page=show
Defund them now.
“Target critical uncertainties for priority further analysis” — Judith Curry
Higher Priority for the mainstream:
Target areas of mainstream ignorance.
Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) are the arbiters of climate disputes. They point unambiguously to solar & lunisolar variations.
This certainty is ignored by the mainstream.
However, Dr. Curry was wise to highlight the political utility of uncertainty beliefs:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/22/can-we-make-good-decisions-under-ignorance/
Best Regards to All.
If it takes hundreds of years to achieve the equilibrium temperature then how much are we going to subtract from the most recent warming as warming to equilibrium from previous forcings so that we can obtain the transient response to recent forcings?
Sometimes one can be careful of that for which one wishes.
It may be foolish to dismiss the possibility of some form of solar/galactic non-TSI modulation of the weather and climate, if one later comes to rely on such to make one’s position tenable, similarly one could bank on it being a large unquantified effect and have it turn into a moderate quantified one.
There seems to exist something between room for, and a necessity for, such an effect to fit the pattern of 20th Century temperatures into the “standard” model. More so if it turns out to be the case that the accepted “small” solar influence turns out not to be directly related to variation in TSI. This is the potential conundrum that may exist if the solar varation does result in a deficit in sub-UV insolation during TSI maxima. I beleive that Kirkby has included this topic when speaking of the motiviations behind the CLOUD project, but I know little else about it.
There are issues in the 20th Century record, perhaps the anomalous, with respect to the “standard” model, warming prior to 1945, and the anomalous lack of increasing SSTs in the current millenium. A moderate non TSI effect may be necessary to fit these into the “standard” model.
It is my prejudice that an enhanced solar/galactic effect of between 2-4 times what the “standard” model incorporates may fit the bill.
Similarly, any that might wish to imply that such an enhanced effect belies the role of the increased volume of IR active gasses in the atmosphere, might find it necessary to show that any multiplier of the TSI synchronous effect due to none TSI origins is very large. A little, perhaps 2-4 times, might be seen to strengthen the role of the gasses as it would explain known anomalies with a resulting minimisation of a required role for other natural variability.
FWIW, it is my opinion that some may have risked being held captive to fortune by permature dismissal of both an enhnaced effect and the possibility that it has driven some part of the recent SST “stagnation”. If I be right in this, they will come to lose some credibility if they come late to the party.
Similary, any that over state the role of such an effect may come to lose some credibility if it does a goldilocks on them and explains just the right amount of an anomaly but no more.
Alex
As others have remarked here, the most important take-home from the recent CERN release is NOT what it claims specifically with relation to cosmic rays and our climate, but rather the uncertainty that is raises regarding the notion that “the science is settled”.
As Judith pointed out in her uncertainty presentation, IPCC has worded this notion with the statement:
No matter how it is worded, it no longer rings quite that certain following the preliminary CERN work.
Max
Judith writes:
This is what IPCC AR4 WG1 had to say about cosmic rays back in early 2007:.
From AR4 WG1 Ch.2 (p.192)
(and p.193)
IPCC’s “very low level of scientific understanding” of “cosmic ray influences” may have gotten a slight boost with the new CERN data, but hopefully there will be a more definitive report of the CLOUD results once all work has been done, which IPCC can then incorporate into its new AR5 report.
Max
kuhnkat | August 30, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
Svensmark CLAIMS GCR’s over 12.9GeV cause his theorized effect, at least that is what he graphs
The higher the energy, the fewer GCRs there are and the less are they modulated by solar activity [or by anything else for that matter]. At these higher energies forget about significant solar modulation.
Sorry, I posted this on the wrong thread.
Svensmark’s theory is already dead. . . it does not match past paleo events, the current GCR data, etc.
The CLOUD research is to help the aerosol modelers
In addition to my previous post:
I didin’t know the online supplement to the Nature CLOUD paper was freely accessible and contained a pair of graphs, fig. S 4., which reproduces almost exactly one of the figures I was talking about.
Looking at those figures:
– it’s clear that after a few hours, most of the ions reach diameters above 20 nm, and a great proportion must be much more than that;
– Why cut the graph above 40 nm then?
– Why not publish it in the body of the paper with conclusions?
– Why not add the other figure I indicated, which vertical scale allows a representation of nuclei up to 100 nm, with so many of them about 80 nm large among those obtained in the CLOUD experiment?
– Last but not least: under the same fig. S 4. of the online supplement, the authors said those results where obtain without additional NH3.
Someone under the pseudo Cosmos (sic) just wrote, here: “Svensmark’s theory is already dead… it does not match past paleo events, the current GCR data, etc. The CLOUD research is to help the aerosol modelers”
I’ve never been less convinced about that.
What “paleo event” (past-, by definition), by the way?
Lots of info re the latest claims from the AGW deniers:’Nope, Cosmic Rays Still Not Driving Climate Change
‘http://thinkprogress.org/romm/… “Lead author Jasper Kirkby has tried to set the record straight, stating (all following emphases mine): ” [The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.” ”
And this
RealClimate has a good explanation of the new CLOUD paper.’The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
‘http://www.realclimate.org/ind…
“Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure). ”
And of course there’s this
Palaeoclimate’http://www.ipcc.ch/publication…
Read more: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2011/08/gop-objects-to-the-global-in-global-warming/#ixzz1Wj6hls2P
Incidentally, your links, the 4 of them, don’t work (or lead to other pages that aimed)… Poor result, as your only argument consist in forwarding other’s comments. Like we say in french, “y a pas marqué La poste” (in reference to an old advertisement, meaning something like: hey! Why don’t you do the job, I’m not your servant).
I’ve already read the RC comment, and Joe Romm’s as well.
Regarding the latter:
– the only sentence you quoted is irrelevant as an answer to my post: I was talking about possible sensorship leading to publish less politicaly disturbing conclusions in the Nature paper, whereas Romm is satisfied with it;
– the first part of his comment is absolutely uninteresting from a technical point of view. It’s just hand-waving about so-called deniers (evil and stupid manner to call ennemies, at least in the case of climate, and the use this single word should be enough to detect people uninterested with searching for truth), even without references;
– in the second part, he attemps a sort of survey…. but quotes none of the papers he lists — like you (though with much more success in spelling the adresses…) So I let you translate (quote from the very source) if you want.
As for the RC comment, the argument you quote, though looking trivial, is indeed very poor and one can easily see several reasons for that. Let me articulate here some of them.
First, replace “cosmic rays” by “CO2” and do the same reasoning, for example, for the period 1940-1970. Needless to remind us what the “observations” of the “global temperature” say for this period. But how would you respond? There must have been another agent (or several) espacially active at that time, more than compensating the effects of increasinf CO2 in the atmosphere? Why not, but why would the argument hold only for CO2 and only for that period?
Now take the period 1999-2011. Needless to say I’m still talking about what looks like a “divergency”, exactly like they do. Another argument? Too short period… must take into account the delay, thermal inertia due to oceans, ice and whatever. Why not (good), but GCR-cloud effect is supposed to be a radiative agent, like CO2 is. Now why a 30 years period would be enough? Who knows?
Now take longer times and consider… DO-events: you get a very bad correlation (none) between CO2 and temperature, whatever the period.
It’s now evident that there argument is simply ridiculous. RC either should consider the same argument for CO2, or they should no that this arguments doesn’t hold.
The reason of the abuse is that they jump to a correlation with (simultaneous) temperature with an argument which only holds for correlation between GCR flux and there radiative effects, i.e. cloud cover effects… Hop! Let’s drop all the other agents and delays involved…
The simple fact that they use this argument shows how dishonnest (or incompetent) they are…
By the way, if you focus on the relation between GCR flux and cloud cover effects, RC claim that there are no sign of the 11-year cycle (for example) is ridiculous: see the stricking inverse correlation e.g. on Fig. 1 in Lockwood (2010).
This also implies that radiative phenomena have a small part of their effects on the temperature which is almost imediate (limited to areas with low heat capacity). But most of the effects, if existing, is of course to be seen in the long term.
To finish with their silly or highly dishonnest argument, I see another bias due to the fact they point the (lack of immediate) correlation with temperature: they rely on the idea that there has been a significant trend in the “global temperature” in the last 3 decades. Even if we forget the problem of the lack of physical meaning of that “global temperature”, there are still a lot of problems, here. There’s the issue of spacial averaging, i.e. projecting values measured at points which are very badly distributed on a regular meshing. And there’s also this one: looking at satellites mesurements of the “global temperature”, you can see only 0.14°C/decade; try and deduce the trend for the surface with the hypothesis of an unchanged atmospheric rate… All in all, you get an unsignificant (and even unmesurable) trend… like for GCRs…
Here is what a real climate scientists has to say about someone who defends Svensmark.
I agree that this is not the slam dunk proof that the denialists claim it is. But it does lend support to Svensmark’s theories. At the very least, it doesn’t disprove them. In the text you provide additional steps that would be needed to show the correlation, so, you clearly are not dismissing the possibility that cosmic rays influence on cloud formation could be a much more significant contribution to global temperature change that previously thought.
I think what this paper most significantly shows is that the science is definitely not settled.
[Response: This idea far predates Svensmark – going back to Ney in the 1950s or Dickinson in the 1970s. What people have objected to in Svensmark’s work is not the idea that there are potential connections between GCR fluxes and climate, but rather the ridiculous overselling of their results, the inappropriate manipulation of data, and the lack of predictability of any of their proposed correlations when new data arrives. There are many issues in climate that are worth more study and this is certainly one of them, regardless of the previous overwrought hyperbole. – gavin
I’m not disputing the content, just note another typo mistake of yours: you mean a RealClimate scientist [Gavin Schmidt].
the CLOUD research doesn’t really change the AGW theory, and it’s being done to help the aerosol modelers.
‘Conservative Media Predictably Butcher Study Of Cosmic Rays ‘
http://mediamatters.org/resear…
“The research doesn’t call into question the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, Kirkby emphasized, but rather refines one facet of the research. Climate models currently predict an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
The data generated by the CLOUD experiment (CLOUD stands for “Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) will feed into global models of aerosol formation, Kirkby said, which in turn will carry into global climate models.
“It’s part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you could say it adds to the understanding of the big picture,” he said. “But it in no way disproves the other pieces.” [Live Science, 8/24/11]”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201108310023
“The science is settled”, said Gore
“So let’s tax and do research no more”
But to Gore’s consternation
There’s a new explanation
Which may shake the “science” to the core.
Please provide a link to that quote.
National Post;
“Science Settled”
http://www.financialpost.com/news/Science+settled/5315908/story.html
“Bart R | September 1, 2011 at 2:17 am |
See if I have this straight?
In your views, Dr. Curry is a traitor selling Cosmic Ray secrets to the eco-left global conspiracy to take over the world and force you to drink fluoride, and the only way she can prove her patriotism is to stand before a committee of Congress and declare, “I do not now nor have I ever supported any of the positions held by the IPCC,” and then to name as many names of unAmerican academics, businessmen, bureaucrats and actors who she suspects of eco-left sympathies?
Does that about sum it up”
People should be honest, especially those who have stood idle while AGW has been shoved down the worlds throat with weak science for weak minds or because it support a general political narrative they always seem to forget to mention.
You or she can be a communist, AGW fanatic or anything you want. When it’s obfuscated that many of the people who support AGW because they favor the policy result that would rhyme with any statist solution support and pretend the “science trumps politics” when obviously it doesn’t then you get called out on it. The IPCC tries to pass itself off as an objective science authority when in fact it’s been developed and honed as an AGW and staist authority advocate filled with people who would favor the typical group think your represent bartr, all I’m saying is be honest to Dr. Curry.
Are you trying to say the IPCC/UN/AGW advocate community isn’t deeply based in traditional left/eco-green culture? What is so hard for Dr. Curry or you to own up to the obvious? What next, the NYTimes is a right wing publication?
There is a reason so many of the threads get circular very quickly, I’m at least addressing the reason upfront instead of going back in forth over abstract and limited climate stats and charts on either side. Not that the burden of proof is on skeptics, it isn’t. It’s on those who seek policy with such weak science and have a purpose in their lives to promote it. Not that there is a single magic bullet reason for any one person supports AGW but the willful silence of Dr. Curry on the obvious general political qualities of the UN/IPCC/Core AGW nucleus simply wastes time. The McCarthy analogy is just that. You don’t go to jail for being stupid or political or for that matter being a communist in the 50’s. Does the society have a right to decide the level of support it might offer extreme groups like the UN and statist status quo? Yes. You and your peers will have a cow when President Perry or Bachmann might appoint someone who privately supports Intelligent Design in an unrelated department to that view for the same hypocritical reasons you refuse to profile the political culture of the IPCC.
So your question; “I do not now nor have I ever supported any of the positions held by the IPCC,” is a bogus straw of what I’m saying. It’s simply Dr. Curry playing the word destruction game of skating around with “no-labels”, “advocates” (without defining what they are really advocating and why when she she knows full well what the eco-left is and may well be an operative for in her DNA.) etc.
All I’m talking about is honest conversation instead of BS of liberals who understand how poor the brand is calling themselves “moderates” or “centerist with libertarian leanings” which is afterall a pathetic line bordering Orwellian language abuse.
Wow
So it turns out false patriotism really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Who knew?
You cannot start the thread with Curry, leap to lists of infamous alleged traitors, praise the censured and disgraced McCarthy to the rafters, and then call the exact denouncement you have been repeating a bogus straw without revealing yourselves for what you really are.
No one should have to put up with this sort of abuse in America, least of all scientists.
BartR,
“praise the censured and disgraced McCarthy to the rafters”
you just can’t keep out of the doo doo can you? What don’t you understand about political assasination??
“¶ He had been contemptuous of, and had obstructed, the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, which in 1951-52 had attempted to investigate him; he had denounced, “without reason or justification,” a member of that subcommittee, New Jersey’s Republican Senator Robert C. Hendrickson.
¶ He had acted in an “inexcusable” and “reprehensible” manner toward an honorable and honest soldier, Brigadier General Ralph Zwicker, who was a witness before his investigating committee.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,857533,00.html#ixzz1WlH72qP5
Of course, what did they finally censure him for??
Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.
Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with “deliberate deception” and “fraud” for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a “lynch-party”; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a “lynch bee” in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of “the most unusual, most cowardly things I’ve ever heard of” and stating further: “I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn’t think he’d be stupid enough to make a public statement”; and in characterizing the said committee as the “unwitting handmaiden,” “involuntary agent” and “attorneys-in-fact” of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report “imitated Communist methods — that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization” in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=86&page=transcript
Yeah, if everyone in Congress were held to these types of standards they would all be out on the sidewalk!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Read more:
LOL BartR.
Regardless of whatever flaws may have existed you are still left exempting communists who hid under the very laws and culture they sought through their lives to destroy. With some success as the AGW movement indicates.
My analogy stands.
Alger Hiss and many of the Hollywood Ten “alleged traitors”?
For a culture that spend every waking moment targeting opponents with ad hominems; “Right-wing”, “Holocaust Denier”, “anti-science”, “backwards” etc. you have very tilted memories and thin skins. Of course you address my points with straw since you have lost the talking points. Dr. Curry talks about communication as long as she can keep her own set of sacred cows like maintaining the silence on her academic and climate science peers political zealotry.
Who’s getting abused on this board?
Jim Cripwell had questions about estimate of sensitivity using first principal. Steven McIntyre has been looking for an “Engineering Quality” estimate for some time, and is still searching. I have my own opinion why most attempts are not satisfactory. So I took some time to organize my thoughts and here is a rough draft of what I believe would be included in an “Engineering quality” analysis:
This is to many the holy grail of the climate change issue. An engineering approach using the fundamentals of physics to prove what carbon dioxide is likely to cause in the climate system if increase by double in a fairly rapid time. That is the definition of climate sensitivity, the response of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Attempts have been made to provide an engineering quality derivation, but they all have their detractors for various reasons.
Since carbon dioxide has a known radiative effect from the Tyndal Gas Laws, a reasonable estimate of the changing in forcing due to changing CO2 is possible with the Stephan-Boltzmann equations, that estimate is 1 degree C. While this estimate is somewhat criticized, the response of other climate variables to the change in forcing is more controversial because they are much more complex.
These responses are feed backs to CO2 forcing. Feed backs are common in engineering and can be analyzed with control theory. So a properly developed derivation using control theory is a reasonable way to build an engineering quality analysis. How useful that analysis is depends on how well the feed backs are known and treated. Uncertainty in the feed backs needs to be included in the analysis so the impact of the magnitude of the uncertainty on the confidence range of the result can be determined. In engineering, if you know how much you may be off you can determine ways to reduce the impact or decide to go with another option. In climate you are stuck with the design you have, but you may be able to reduce the impact of modifications.
Since this topic keeps coming up here is a link to a discussion on Climate Audit initiate by an Email from James Annan, “We can get part of the way with simple direct calculations, though. Starting with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation,
S (1-a)/4 = s T_e^4
where S is the solar constant (1370 Wm^-2), a the planetary albedo (0.3), s (sigma) the S-B constant (5.67×10^-8) and T_e the effective emitting temperature, we can calculate T_e = 255K (from which we also get the canonical estimate of the greenhouse effect as 33C at the surface).
The change in outgoing radiation as a function of temperature is the derivative of the RHS with respect to temperature, giving 4s.T_e^3 = 3.76 . This is the extra Wm^-2 emitted per degree of warming, so if you are prepared to accept that we understand purely radiative transfer pretty well and thus the conventional value of 3.7Wm^-2 per doubling of CO2, that conveniently means a doubling of CO2 will result in a 1C warming at equilibrium, *if everything else in the atmosphere stays exactly the same*.”
I have no quarrel with Dr. Annan’s derivation so far. This is a reasonable starting point and while the 3.76 may not be the actual result, the differences, other than due to feed backs, should be small enough to work with.
Dr. Annan continues, “But of course there is no strong reason to expect everything else to stay exactly the same, and at least one very good argument why we might expect a somewhat increased warming: warmer air can hold more water vapour, and I’m sure all your readers will be quick to mention that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas anyway. We don’t know the size of this effect precisely, but a constant *relative* humidity seems like a plausible estimate, and GCM output also suggests this is a reasonable approximation (AIUI observations are generally consistent with this, I’m not sure how precise an estimate they can provide though), and sticking this in to our radiation code roughly doubles the warming to 2C for the same CO2 change. Of course this is not a precise figure, just an estimate, but it is widely considered to be a pretty good one. The real wild card is in the behaviour of clouds, which have a number of strong effects (both on albedo and LW trapping) and could in theory cause a large further amplification or suppression of AGW-induced warming. High thin clouds trap a lot of LW (especially at night when their albedo has no effect) and low clouds increase albedo. We really don’t know from first principles which effect is likely to dominate, we do know from first principles that these effects could be large, given our current state of knowledge. GCMs don’t do clouds very well but they do mostly (all?) suggest some further amplification from these effects. That’s really all that can be done from first principles.
If you want to look at things in the framework of feedback analysis, there’s a pretty clear explanation in the supplementary information to Roe and Baker’s recent Science paper. Briefly, if we have a blackbody sensitivity S0 (~1C) when everything else apart from CO2 is held fixed, then we can write the true sensitivity S as
S = S0/(1- Sum (f_i))
where the f_i are the individual feedback factors arising from the other processes. If f_1 for water vapour is 0.5, then it only takes a further factor of 0.17 for clouds (f_2, say) to reach the canonical S=3C value. Of course to some extent this may look like an artefact of the way the equation is written, but it’s also a rather natural way for scientists to think about things and explains how even a modest uncertainty in individual feedbacks can cause a large uncertainty in the overall climate sensitivity.”
This is also a solid communication of the feed back issues, only it is limited to a warming perspective by its example. I am sure Dr. Annan was not attempting to portray a warming bias, but he is attempting to explain the S=3C, not do a complete derivation in a short email.
This is however exactly how an engineering quality analysis would be done for this problem, only the list of feed backs, fi’s, would be much longer and each would have its own analysis. To avoid the reciprocal notation, I will make a partial list of the potential feed backs that need to be included.
The first is the initial forcing of CO2 with respect to radiation, Cfr =approximately 0.333 which once you take the reciprocal would be one or S0. There may be another CO2 related feed back that is poorly understood, so a Cf? should be added. Next you have water vapor radiative feed back, WVfr, then water vapor unknown WVf? Water in its liquid form in the atmosphere has a radiative impact so Wfrs and Wfri, where Wfrs is solar and Wfri is infrared and to be consistent, Wf? which may be very small or not. The feed backs for water vapor will include most of the cloud radiative feed back since they are water vapor and liquid water. On thing is not included though is water as a solid which would be WSfa and WSfs for ice or snow in the atmosphere, WSfa and WSfs, ice and snow on the surface which changes solar absorption. One final radiative feed back would be transported energy, TEf with its know and unknown values.
The more that is understood about the process the less impact the unknowns have. To get a rough estimate of how big the impact of the unknowns can be you have to look at the overall system’s past performance to get a rough idea. While far from perfect, when have estimates of past climates resulting in a range of temperature from about 6 degrees cooler to about 2 degrees warmer. Assuming that CO2 warms, is perfectly rational, so the 2 degrees warmer will be at least one degree higher (+3) with 3 degree somewhat likely (+5)and 5 degree not out of the realm of possibility (+8). Assuming what is most likely provides a better estimate of the realistic upper range, so -6 to +5 is an reasonable range estimate for determining the impact possible by the unknown feed back values.
While all this can be done by hand with a slide rule, computers are a valuable tool, so a computer model is useful determining the range of known and unknown values that would result in the range of likely out comes, -6 to +5 degrees. That range could be extended at any time should one of the feed backs be capable of providing more than initially anticipated impact.
There are of course other factors which may or may not be significant. For a more complete model all of their known and unknowns with estimated values would be included. Solar forcing varies on various time scales with pretty good estimates but there is some uncertainty for example.
What is missing in most of the attempts at an engineering quality analysis is the true range of possible values required to determine uncertainty. Uncertain is a part of any quality analysis, properly handled, you have a true engineering quality analysis.
Enjoy.
Dr. Curry,
Thank you and your readers! Some very interesting assesments and engagements.
The two Youtube insertions!!! That must have been a great scientific meeting. Nice to see people that can contrast ideas without being political or bombastic. What is the world coming to?
The astophysicist’s (and friends in associated disciplines) are taking the good science/method to the climate debate in several fronts. Great tactics. The hubrice of Mann, Smith and the IPCC seems to have brought some Impressive antagonists into the fray. Would it not be a great outcome if mankind and the scientific method wins?
Great reading
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576554063768827104.html
I was struck by Gavin Schmidt argument:
Incidentaly, Gavin should know that replacing ‘cosmic rays’ (GCRs possible radiative effects via low cloud cover) by ‘CO2’ in his same statement and considering, for example, the 1940-1970 period and numerous other ones (with or without man’s emissions) would lead him to the same disturbing and disappointing conclusion… How can he have missed that?
Now, sorry to be that rude, but Gavin seems to have mixed heat transfer and temperature, even radiative net flux and temperature. It’s like mixing a function and its integral, if you allow me to use a simple picture. At best, he forgot the huge thermal inertia of oceans and every non-linearity in the climate system.
In no way the fluctuations of ‘global temperature’ – if such a thing exists (indeed, this concept lacks physical sense) – or any regional temperature is expected to follow the variations of the radiative fluxes with a given (constant delay), not to mention a short one.
Moreover, the choice of the last 3 decades is very unfortunate. 5 decades would have been even more unfortunate, as the GCR flux trend in the last 5 decades was also null but the satellites ‘measurements’ of temperatures yield only a very small trend (0,14°C per decade) for the last 3 decades.
Why? Just have a look at this graph, showing the variations of 10Be during the last 6 centuries, as measured in the ice core from Dye-3, Greenland (Beer et al. [1994]). BTW you can compare them to the fluctuations of the solar spots number. It is well known that of 10Be is a good proxy to evaluate GCRs flux (and solar activity which modulates it).
Interestingly, the atmospheric 10Be concentration has been remarkably constant in the last 50 years… but changed a lot before: from ~11 000 atoms/g in 1900 to ~7 000 atoms/g since ~1960!
Which should correspond to a 6% increase in cosmic ray induce ionization according to Shaviv [2005].
So, even if there is indeed a lot more to demonstrate, there’s nothing shocking at all in the idea that a dramatic decrease of the GCRs flux in the last 3 centuries, followed by a plateau at a very low level (for historical ages) of 5 decades can induce a significant temperature increase having started 150 years or more ago and going on a few decades after.
Let me try to get this right: we had an unprecedented (probably a false claim) rise in temperature which could not then be explained. We had a cool computer model proven theory about man and his increased CO2 unbalancing the delicate balance of nature (not that I have ever noticed nature (the real chaotic world) stand still in a fragile state of equilibrium before) forcing warming. And the critical part was that because we had no other explanation the cool theory must explain it all, just as it worked in the theoretical computer models. Now we have another explanation. Therefore the first conclusion was … ???