Does Solar Variability Affect Climate?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
David
Mar 27, 2008, 10:58:20 AM3/27/08
to globalchange
Dr. Joe Sobel & Elliot Abrams's Global Perspective
http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&blog=globalperspective&date=2008-03-17_15:30
Would others weigh in with their opinions of the truth?
David Christainsen
http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&blog=globalperspective&date=2008-03-17_15:30
Would others weigh in with their opinions of the truth?
David Christainsen
jdannan
Mar 27, 2008, 9:15:51 PM3/27/08
to global...@googlegroups.com
Really, RC should be your first point of call for things like this.
(This post may be discussing a different Scafetta paper - he's written a
few, but the overall message is similar, both in terms of what he's
written, and the reaction of most climate scientists.)
Oh, here are some later ones:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel/
James
David
Apr 4, 2008, 6:54:03 PM4/4/08
to globalchange
On Mar 27, 9:15 pm, jdannan <james.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Dr. Joe Sobel & Elliot Abrams's Global Perspective
> >http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&travele...
> David wrote:
> > Dr. Joe Sobel & Elliot Abrams's Global Perspective
>
> > Would others weigh in with their opinions of the truth?
>
> Really, RC should be your first point of call for things like this.
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variabili...
> > Would others weigh in with their opinions of the truth?
>
> Really, RC should be your first point of call for things like this.
>
>
> (This post may be discussing a different Scafetta paper - he's written a
> few, but the overall message is similar, both in terms of what he's
> written, and the reaction of most climate scientists.)
>
> Oh, here are some later ones:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attr...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenologi...
> (This post may be discussing a different Scafetta paper - he's written a
> few, but the overall message is similar, both in terms of what he's
> written, and the reaction of most climate scientists.)
>
> Oh, here are some later ones:
>
>
> James
Thanks for the info on Scafetta.
I add -
The Earth Times
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
"Singer emphasized, 'Humans have known since the invention
of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were
linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how.
Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer
cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the
low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into
space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.'"
David Christainsen
Hank Roberts
Apr 5, 2008, 2:37:06 PM4/5/08
to globalchange
On Mar 27, 7:58 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would others weigh in with their opinions of the truth?
I'm in favor of looking for it. Near as I can tell, looking at the
> Would others weigh in with their opinions of the truth?
paleo record, all the variables have had effects on climate over the
long term, and for the past couple of centuries one particular
variable --- level of CO2 in the atmosphere -- has been changing some
100x faster than at any previous time since the last major asteroid
impact happened.
The solar effect is probably as strong as ever, but getting lost in
the anthropogenic effect.
Eric Swanson
Apr 5, 2008, 3:16:33 PM4/5/08
to globalchange
David,
Your link is to a press release from the Hudson Institute.
It's written by Dennis Avery, who co-wrote the book "Unstoppable
Global Warming" with Fred Singer and is a lame sales pitch.
This PR stuff is not science and shows Singer's usual lack of interest
in
truth. For example, Avery makes a reference to work by Constance
Millar
which suggests that in one location, trees grew above the present
limit of
growth at the tree line. There's no reference given, but I think
Avery is refering
to Millar's report found here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/millar/psw_2006_millar027.pdf
As usual, great cherry picking of data from just one location, which
does not
prove anything about global conditions and is not new, as others have
found that
local drought conditions were much worse back then. If anything, this
is a warning
that future warming might well produce such extreme drought conditions
as
the Earth is expected to warm further.
I haven't read Singer and Avery's book, but I would expect it to be
like the crap
Singer presented at the fake climate conference the Heartland
Institute put
on, the so-called "NOT IPCC" report. Please post some science next
time.
E. S.
-------------------------------------------------
Your link is to a press release from the Hudson Institute.
It's written by Dennis Avery, who co-wrote the book "Unstoppable
Global Warming" with Fred Singer and is a lame sales pitch.
This PR stuff is not science and shows Singer's usual lack of interest
in
truth. For example, Avery makes a reference to work by Constance
Millar
which suggests that in one location, trees grew above the present
limit of
growth at the tree line. There's no reference given, but I think
Avery is refering
to Millar's report found here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/millar/psw_2006_millar027.pdf
As usual, great cherry picking of data from just one location, which
does not
prove anything about global conditions and is not new, as others have
found that
local drought conditions were much worse back then. If anything, this
is a warning
that future warming might well produce such extreme drought conditions
as
the Earth is expected to warm further.
I haven't read Singer and Avery's book, but I would expect it to be
like the crap
Singer presented at the fake climate conference the Heartland
Institute put
on, the so-called "NOT IPCC" report. Please post some science next
time.
E. S.
-------------------------------------------------
William Connolley
Apr 5, 2008, 7:26:03 PM4/5/08
to global...@googlegroups.com
On 04/04/2008, David <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Earth Times
> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
>
> "Singer emphasized, 'Humans have known since the invention
> of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were
> linked to the sunspot cycle..> The Earth Times
> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
>
> "Singer emphasized, 'Humans have known since the invention
> of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were
Singer talks a lot of cr*p, but isn't this blindingly obviously
twaddle? Even a century after the invention of the telescope, precious
little was known about climate history.
-W.
--
William M. Connolley | www.wmconnolley.org.uk | 07985 935400
David
Apr 5, 2008, 8:05:43 PM4/5/08
to globalchange
On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> wrote:
>...
I don't think you appreciate the science behind the short
Singer statement. Please consult the following link for
the Svensmark effect -
Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
"Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly
published what may prove to be the most significant paper
on Earth's climate in decades."
Please consult the 3 published papers, the media release,
and some pretty nice animations.
---
See The Economics and Politics of Climate Change by Nigel Lawson
http://www.cps.org.uk/latestlectures/
Here is a partial quote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apart from the trend, there is of course the matter of the absolute
numbers. The Hadley Centre graph shows that, for the first phase,
from
1920 to 1940, the increase was 0.4 degrees centigrade. From 1940 to
1975 there was a cooling of about 0.2 degrees. (It was during this
phase that alarmist articles by Professor James Lovelock and a number
of other scientists appeared, warning of the onset of a new ice age.)
Finally, since 1975 there has been a further warming of about 0.5
degrees, making a total increase of some 0.7 degrees over the 20th
century as a whole (from 1900 to 1920 there was no change).
Why, then, has this modest - if somewhat intermittent - degree of
global warming seems to have occurred. Why has this happened, and
what
does it portend for the future?
The only honest answer is that we don't know.
The conventional wisdom is that the principal reason why it has
happened is the greatly increased amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere as a result of the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based
energy consumption. Now, there is no doubt that atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide increased greatly during the 20th
century - by some 30 per cent - and most scientists believe this
increase to be largely man-made. And carbon dioxide is one of a
number
of so-called greenhouse gases whose combined effect in the earth's
atmosphere is to keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be.
Far and away the most important of these gases is water vapour, both
in its gaseous form and suspended in clouds. Rather a long way back,
carbon dioxide is the second most important greenhouse gas - and
neither, incidentally, is a form of pollution.
It is the published view of the Met Office that is it likely that
more
than half the warming of recent decades (say 0.3 degrees centigrade
out of the overall 0.5 degrees increase between 1975 and 2000) is
attributable to man-made sources of greenhouse gases - principally,
although by no means exclusively, carbon dioxide.
But this is highly uncertain, and reputable climate scientists differ
sharply over the subject. It is simply not true to say that the
science is settled; and the recent attempt of the Royal Society, of
all bodies, to prevent the funding of climate scientists who do not
share its alarmist view of the matter is truly shocking.
The uncertainty derives from a number of sources. For one thing, the
science of clouds, which is clearly critical, is one of the least
well
understood aspects of climate science.
Another uncertainty concerns the extent to which urbanisation (not
least in the vicinity of climate stations) has contributed to the
observed warming. There is no dispute that urbanisation raises
near-surface temperatures: this has long been observed from satellite
infra-red imagery. The uncertainty is over how much of the estimated
20th century warming this accounts for. Yet another uncertainty
derives from the fact that, while the growth in manmade carbon
dioxide
emissions, and thus carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere,
continued relentlessly during the 20th century, the global mean
surface temperature, as I have already remarked, increased in fits
and
starts, for which there us no adequate explanation.
But then - and this is the other great source of uncertainty - the
earth's climate has always been subject to natural variation, wholly
unrelated to man's activities. Climate scientists differ about the
causes of this, although most agree that variations in solar
radiation
play a key part.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now there seems also to be an increasing role for cosmic rays in the
formation of cloud cover.
---
David Chistainsen - meteorologist
>...
> I haven't read Singer and Avery's book, but I would expect it to be
> like the crap
> Singer presented at the fake climate conference the Heartland
> Institute put
> on, the so-called "NOT IPCC" report. Please post some science next
> time.
>...
> like the crap
> Singer presented at the fake climate conference the Heartland
> Institute put
> on, the so-called "NOT IPCC" report. Please post some science next
> time.
I don't think you appreciate the science behind the short
Singer statement. Please consult the following link for
the Svensmark effect -
Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
"Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly
published what may prove to be the most significant paper
on Earth's climate in decades."
Please consult the 3 published papers, the media release,
and some pretty nice animations.
---
See The Economics and Politics of Climate Change by Nigel Lawson
http://www.cps.org.uk/latestlectures/
Here is a partial quote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apart from the trend, there is of course the matter of the absolute
numbers. The Hadley Centre graph shows that, for the first phase,
from
1920 to 1940, the increase was 0.4 degrees centigrade. From 1940 to
1975 there was a cooling of about 0.2 degrees. (It was during this
phase that alarmist articles by Professor James Lovelock and a number
of other scientists appeared, warning of the onset of a new ice age.)
Finally, since 1975 there has been a further warming of about 0.5
degrees, making a total increase of some 0.7 degrees over the 20th
century as a whole (from 1900 to 1920 there was no change).
Why, then, has this modest - if somewhat intermittent - degree of
global warming seems to have occurred. Why has this happened, and
what
does it portend for the future?
The only honest answer is that we don't know.
The conventional wisdom is that the principal reason why it has
happened is the greatly increased amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere as a result of the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based
energy consumption. Now, there is no doubt that atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide increased greatly during the 20th
century - by some 30 per cent - and most scientists believe this
increase to be largely man-made. And carbon dioxide is one of a
number
of so-called greenhouse gases whose combined effect in the earth's
atmosphere is to keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be.
Far and away the most important of these gases is water vapour, both
in its gaseous form and suspended in clouds. Rather a long way back,
carbon dioxide is the second most important greenhouse gas - and
neither, incidentally, is a form of pollution.
It is the published view of the Met Office that is it likely that
more
than half the warming of recent decades (say 0.3 degrees centigrade
out of the overall 0.5 degrees increase between 1975 and 2000) is
attributable to man-made sources of greenhouse gases - principally,
although by no means exclusively, carbon dioxide.
But this is highly uncertain, and reputable climate scientists differ
sharply over the subject. It is simply not true to say that the
science is settled; and the recent attempt of the Royal Society, of
all bodies, to prevent the funding of climate scientists who do not
share its alarmist view of the matter is truly shocking.
The uncertainty derives from a number of sources. For one thing, the
science of clouds, which is clearly critical, is one of the least
well
understood aspects of climate science.
Another uncertainty concerns the extent to which urbanisation (not
least in the vicinity of climate stations) has contributed to the
observed warming. There is no dispute that urbanisation raises
near-surface temperatures: this has long been observed from satellite
infra-red imagery. The uncertainty is over how much of the estimated
20th century warming this accounts for. Yet another uncertainty
derives from the fact that, while the growth in manmade carbon
dioxide
emissions, and thus carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere,
continued relentlessly during the 20th century, the global mean
surface temperature, as I have already remarked, increased in fits
and
starts, for which there us no adequate explanation.
But then - and this is the other great source of uncertainty - the
earth's climate has always been subject to natural variation, wholly
unrelated to man's activities. Climate scientists differ about the
causes of this, although most agree that variations in solar
radiation
play a key part.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now there seems also to be an increasing role for cosmic rays in the
formation of cloud cover.
---
David Chistainsen - meteorologist
Eric Swanson
Apr 6, 2008, 12:17:14 AM4/6/08
to globalchange
David wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> wrote:
> >...
> > I haven't read Singer and Avery's book, but I would expect it to be
> > like the crap
> > Singer presented at the fake climate conference the Heartland
> > Institute put
> > on, the so-called "NOT IPCC" report. Please post some science next
> > time.
> >...
>
> I don't think you appreciate the science behind the short
> Singer statement. Please consult the following link for
> the Svensmark effect -
>
> Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
>
> "Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly
> published what may prove to be the most significant paper
> on Earth's climate in decades."
>
> Please consult the 3 published papers, the media release,
> and some pretty nice animations.
> Now there seems also to be an increasing role for cosmic rays in the
> formation of cloud cover.
>
> ---
>
> David Chistainsen - meteorologist
Your reference is from 2006. The Svensmark effect is unproven.
The latest research findings tend to disprove the claim that
cosmic rays have a major impact on climate.
"3 April 2008
BBC News
'No Sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that
modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's
activity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
Looks like another denialist claim shot down with data.
E. S.
---
deepslope
Apr 6, 2008, 6:47:55 AM4/6/08
to globalchange
To describe the sun's contribution to climate change since time
immemorial as "a denialist's claim shot down by data" is an absurd
statement, not worthy of a supposedly august forum like this one.
Quite apart from Singer's publications and presentations, there is a
huge body of literature, including peer-reviewed, on the correlation
of the earth's climate system with continuously changing solar
parameters. Some of the entry portals have already been mentioned in
this thread and a simple Internet search will lead you in the right
direction.
Remember, CO2 is a trace gas crucial for photosynthesis (and green
houses are known to produce excellent crops at elevated CO2
concentrations); 1934 is the well-documented warmest year of the past
150; there has been slight cooling since 1998 (more pronounced since
2004 - see new satellite data), and much more. And yes, as everybody
can check (below) after surviving an exceptionally harsh winter:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is ahead substantially from a year
ago and close to the mean from 1979 - 2000, whereas Southern
Hemisphere Sea Ice is considerably above the same mean...
Example for North: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
- Southern and global data are also there.
As an aside: the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings and Alpine
Glaciers that had receded much farther than currently are deniers'
illusions? as are the Little Ice Age and the year without summer
(1816), since Mann's careful and universally applicable data proved
that these climate events could never have happened...?
Are you willing to take credit for the likely global cooling of the
near future, together with Al Gore? The particulate load from new not-
so-clean coal plants may soon be rivalling well-documented volcanic
contributions to the mitigation of solar inputs...
All this does not mean that one should burn fossil fuels with
unbridled abandon. But look at the emerging land use and food cost
catastrophe built on an out-of-control biofuel craze! Isn't it time
to move toward a differentiated approach to natural resource usage and
conservation, to strive toward living in harmony with the constantly
changing metabolism of Earth? Isn't it time to re-evaluate arrogant
attitudes like "Save the Planet" and learn to understand what's truly
going on? Isn't it time to step away from the polarizing debates
between Hot Heads and to stop creating all that new Hot Air?
Is it not time to check the data a bit more carefully, including the
often sloppy practices of measuring and recording terrestrial
temperatures? Please study other relevant blogs (such as Climate
Science, Watt's up with that, ICECAP and others) with an objective
mind before denouncing the solar information as denialist claptrap...
respectfully,
UL
(my credentials: independent oceanographer specializing in deep-sea
imaging, holding a broad US Patent on aquatic habitat health using
biomonitoring methods)
immemorial as "a denialist's claim shot down by data" is an absurd
statement, not worthy of a supposedly august forum like this one.
Quite apart from Singer's publications and presentations, there is a
huge body of literature, including peer-reviewed, on the correlation
of the earth's climate system with continuously changing solar
parameters. Some of the entry portals have already been mentioned in
this thread and a simple Internet search will lead you in the right
direction.
Remember, CO2 is a trace gas crucial for photosynthesis (and green
houses are known to produce excellent crops at elevated CO2
concentrations); 1934 is the well-documented warmest year of the past
150; there has been slight cooling since 1998 (more pronounced since
2004 - see new satellite data), and much more. And yes, as everybody
can check (below) after surviving an exceptionally harsh winter:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is ahead substantially from a year
ago and close to the mean from 1979 - 2000, whereas Southern
Hemisphere Sea Ice is considerably above the same mean...
Example for North: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
- Southern and global data are also there.
As an aside: the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings and Alpine
Glaciers that had receded much farther than currently are deniers'
illusions? as are the Little Ice Age and the year without summer
(1816), since Mann's careful and universally applicable data proved
that these climate events could never have happened...?
Are you willing to take credit for the likely global cooling of the
near future, together with Al Gore? The particulate load from new not-
so-clean coal plants may soon be rivalling well-documented volcanic
contributions to the mitigation of solar inputs...
All this does not mean that one should burn fossil fuels with
unbridled abandon. But look at the emerging land use and food cost
catastrophe built on an out-of-control biofuel craze! Isn't it time
to move toward a differentiated approach to natural resource usage and
conservation, to strive toward living in harmony with the constantly
changing metabolism of Earth? Isn't it time to re-evaluate arrogant
attitudes like "Save the Planet" and learn to understand what's truly
going on? Isn't it time to step away from the polarizing debates
between Hot Heads and to stop creating all that new Hot Air?
Is it not time to check the data a bit more carefully, including the
often sloppy practices of measuring and recording terrestrial
temperatures? Please study other relevant blogs (such as Climate
Science, Watt's up with that, ICECAP and others) with an objective
mind before denouncing the solar information as denialist claptrap...
respectfully,
UL
(my credentials: independent oceanographer specializing in deep-sea
imaging, holding a broad US Patent on aquatic habitat health using
biomonitoring methods)
Eric Swanson
Apr 6, 2008, 10:52:12 AM4/6/08
to globalchange
deepslope wrote:
> To describe the sun's contribution to climate change since time
> immemorial as "a denialist's claim shot down by data" is an absurd
> statement, not worthy of a supposedly august forum like this one.
> Quite apart from Singer's publications and presentations, there is a
> huge body of literature, including peer-reviewed, on the correlation
> of the earth's climate system with continuously changing solar
> parameters. Some of the entry portals have already been mentioned in
> this thread and a simple Internet search will lead you in the right
> direction.
I'm well aware that there's climate variability associated with the
> To describe the sun's contribution to climate change since time
> immemorial as "a denialist's claim shot down by data" is an absurd
> statement, not worthy of a supposedly august forum like this one.
> Quite apart from Singer's publications and presentations, there is a
> huge body of literature, including peer-reviewed, on the correlation
> of the earth's climate system with continuously changing solar
> parameters. Some of the entry portals have already been mentioned in
> this thread and a simple Internet search will lead you in the right
> direction.
Sun's
changes. The Milankovitch orbital variations are thought to be the
cause
of the repeated Ice Ages seen in the paleo records. There's also
measured
variation in the total insolation from the Sun, as measured by
satellites
outside the Earth's atmosphere, changes which closely follow the
sunspot
cycle. However, the hypothetical linkage between solar activity and
cosmic
rays as postulated by Svensmark has not been proven and the latest
findings,
as described in the BBC article, tend to refute Svensmark's claims.
David Chistainsen's post was an obvious troll, as he has demonstrated
a
lack of understanding of the science and posts comments from non-
scientific
sources, such as Milloy's site, Junkscience.com. I replied in kind.
> Remember, CO2 is a trace gas crucial for photosynthesis (and green
> houses are known to produce excellent crops at elevated CO2
> concentrations); 1934 is the well-documented warmest year of the past
> 150; there has been slight cooling since 1998 (more pronounced since
> 2004 - see new satellite data), and much more. And yes, as everybody
> can check (below) after surviving an exceptionally harsh winter:
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is ahead substantially from a year
> ago and close to the mean from 1979 - 2000, whereas Southern
> Hemisphere Sea Ice is considerably above the same mean...
U.S., a situation which was directly tied to poor farming practices.
The
global data is another issue. Picking the unusually warm El Nino
year
of 1998 as a starting point to claim a trend just shows that you do
not
understand that there is short term variability, which masks the long
term changes. After all, we know that there is that obvious solar
cycle
to drive short term fluctuations. The same might be noted for the
last
few years, as the solar sunspot cycle is at it's minimum level. I
would
not be surprised that the climate is slightly cooler these days.
As for the recovery of the sea-ice, that's not unexpected. Last
summer's
strong melt may not be repeated this year, as the wind conditions
which
may have contributed to moving more sea-ice than usual thru the Fram
Strait, but the long term trend of the minimum is still downward.
Again,
short term variability does not disprove long term impacts of the
increase
in greenhouse gases.
> Example for North: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
> - Southern and global data are also there.
>
> As an aside: the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings and Alpine
> Glaciers that had receded much farther than currently are deniers'
> illusions? as are the Little Ice Age and the year without summer
> (1816), since Mann's careful and universally applicable data proved
> that these climate events could never have happened...?
colonization has not been proven. That the colonies died out may have
easily been related to the Black Death in Europe, not climate change.
Remember, about half of the population of Iceland died out due to the
Plague and there are no records of visits to Greenland for decades.
Colonies can not survive without support from their mother countries.
That said, conditions around the North Atlantic are not global
conditions
and the variations seem in the THC would impact this region the most.
> Are you willing to take credit for the likely global cooling of the
> near future, together with Al Gore? The particulate load from new not-
> so-clean coal plants may soon be rivalling well-documented volcanic
> contributions to the mitigation of solar inputs...
about 1940 and 1975 was due to the increased emissions of sulfate
and soot by coal burning power plants. When the Clean Air act began
to reduce these emissions, a result would have been a reduction in
the cooling effects of these emissions.
> All this does not mean that one should burn fossil fuels with
> unbridled abandon. But look at the emerging land use and food cost
> catastrophe built on an out-of-control biofuel craze! Isn't it time
> to move toward a differentiated approach to natural resource usage and
> conservation, to strive toward living in harmony with the constantly
> changing metabolism of Earth? Isn't it time to re-evaluate arrogant
> attitudes like "Save the Planet" and learn to understand what's truly
> going on? Isn't it time to step away from the polarizing debates
> between Hot Heads and to stop creating all that new Hot Air?
in California some 35 years ago, I found I could not tolerate the
smog.
I decided to leave the state, as it was obvious to me that CA was the
end of civilization for me. Is it arrogant to worry about your own
survival
when confronted with chronic life threatening insults? I think not.
As
for your comments about "stepping away from polarizing debates",
perhaps you should look a bit closer at the proliferation of numerous
anti-science propaganda efforts by the denialist. Scientists can't
ignore data that obviously refutes a hypothesis.
> Is it not time to check the data a bit more carefully, including the
> often sloppy practices of measuring and recording terrestrial
> temperatures? Please study other relevant blogs (such as Climate
> Science, Watt's up with that, ICECAP and others) with an objective
> mind before denouncing the solar information as denialist claptrap...
>
> respectfully,
>
> UL
I suggest that we start by reviewing the satellite data from Christy
and
Spencer, which I showed to have a basic flaw in a paper I wrote in
2003.
As for the other sources you mention, most of them which I have, on
occasion, observed, do not appear to be interested in science, only
in promoting climate denial. ICECAP is a Singer denialist site, as I
recall. Blogs are not science, BTW. That you seem to think they are
suggests that you do not understand the science as you claim.
Here's a novel idea. Read the NOT IPCC report and critique it for us.
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
Best Regards
E. S.
--
David
Apr 6, 2008, 1:46:34 PM4/6/08
to globalchange
On Apr 6, 10:52 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> wrote:
>...
Your language is intemperate for no good reason. I
have no dog in your fight as you could have seen
from my excerpt from Nigel Lawson's article.
For the benefit of others and possibly yourself, I've
probed deeper on the Svensmark effect.
Your BBC link is not compelling if only because of
Dr. Svenmark's objection midway in the article -
"Limited effect
Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.
'Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how
cosmic rays work on clouds,' he told BBC News.
'He predicts much bigger effects than we would do,
as between the equator and the poles, and after
solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see
those big effects, he says our story is wrong,
when in fact we have plenty of evidence to
support it.'"
-----
Please see -
Brett Anderson at Accuweather's Global Warming Center
Are Cosmic Rays the Culprit?
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/02/are_cosmic_rays_the_culprit.html
"Dr Svenmark tried for almost a decade to get
major science publications to print and review
his work."
-----
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
-----
Danish National Space Center
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/
Please see "Scientific work and publications"
"Experimental evidence for the role of ions in
particle nucleation under atmospheric
conditions, PRSA 2006" Svenmark PDF
"Cosmoclimatology, A & G, 2007" Svenmark PDF
-----
"Forecasting of the part of global climate change
caused by the influence of long-term cosmic ray
intensity variation on the planetary cloudiness"
L.I. Dorman
http://esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/workshops/eswwII/proc/Session2/ESWW2-DORMAN-Poster56-Sess2-climate.pdf
-----
David Christainsen
>...
> David Chistainsen's post was an obvious troll, as he has demonstrated
> a
> lack of understanding of the science and posts comments from non-
> scientific
> sources, such as Milloy's site, Junkscience.com. I replied in kind.
>...
> a
> lack of understanding of the science and posts comments from non-
> scientific
> sources, such as Milloy's site, Junkscience.com. I replied in kind.
Your language is intemperate for no good reason. I
have no dog in your fight as you could have seen
from my excerpt from Nigel Lawson's article.
For the benefit of others and possibly yourself, I've
probed deeper on the Svensmark effect.
Your BBC link is not compelling if only because of
Dr. Svenmark's objection midway in the article -
"Limited effect
Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.
'Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how
cosmic rays work on clouds,' he told BBC News.
'He predicts much bigger effects than we would do,
as between the equator and the poles, and after
solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see
those big effects, he says our story is wrong,
when in fact we have plenty of evidence to
support it.'"
-----
Please see -
Brett Anderson at Accuweather's Global Warming Center
Are Cosmic Rays the Culprit?
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/02/are_cosmic_rays_the_culprit.html
"Dr Svenmark tried for almost a decade to get
major science publications to print and review
his work."
-----
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
-----
Danish National Space Center
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/
Please see "Scientific work and publications"
"Experimental evidence for the role of ions in
particle nucleation under atmospheric
conditions, PRSA 2006" Svenmark PDF
"Cosmoclimatology, A & G, 2007" Svenmark PDF
-----
"Forecasting of the part of global climate change
caused by the influence of long-term cosmic ray
intensity variation on the planetary cloudiness"
L.I. Dorman
http://esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/workshops/eswwII/proc/Session2/ESWW2-DORMAN-Poster56-Sess2-climate.pdf
-----
David Christainsen
Michael Tobis
Apr 6, 2008, 2:42:19 PM4/6/08
to global...@googlegroups.com
David, I don't think quoting accuweather or the Telegraph is relevant to defend scientific points, though they may be sufficient to raise them. Singer and MiIloy should be considered only as part of our social quandary and not as reasonable inputs into scientific substance. If you feel otherwise there are numerous other mailing lists where such opinions might be entertained.
Eric, please remember our goals here are to be polite, interesting and constructive. Try to be circumspect and avoid falling into the trap of being provoked.
Moderators, please be a little discriminating as the tone is starting to get a bit nasty and the quality a bit dubious.
thanks
mt
Eric, please remember our goals here are to be polite, interesting and constructive. Try to be circumspect and avoid falling into the trap of being provoked.
Moderators, please be a little discriminating as the tone is starting to get a bit nasty and the quality a bit dubious.
thanks
mt
David
Apr 6, 2008, 3:58:29 PM4/6/08
to globalchange
On Apr 6, 2:42 pm, "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, I don't think quoting accuweather or the Telegraph is relevant to
> defend scientific points, though they may be sufficient to raise them.
> Singer and MiIloy should be considered only as part of our social quandary
> and not as reasonable inputs into scientific substance. If you feel
> otherwise there are numerous other mailing lists where such opinions might
> be entertained.
You are overlooking the quality of my links which included
> David, I don't think quoting accuweather or the Telegraph is relevant to
> defend scientific points, though they may be sufficient to raise them.
> Singer and MiIloy should be considered only as part of our social quandary
> and not as reasonable inputs into scientific substance. If you feel
> otherwise there are numerous other mailing lists where such opinions might
> be entertained.
a 2006 and a 2007 Svenmark paper. Moreover, I showed that
Svenmark has been under-rated in the professional community.
> Eric, please remember our goals here are to be polite, interesting and
> constructive. Try to be circumspect and avoid falling into the trap of being
> provoked.
dog in his fight. Cosmic rays are one mechanism among many
that influence climate. The future task for meteorologists
is to put the climate factors into proportion.
> Moderators, please be a little discriminating as the tone is starting to get
> a bit nasty and the quality a bit dubious.
>
> thanks
> mt
the while upholding Dr. Svenmark markedly.
However, I assert that there has been nothing wrong with
the quality. We are simply disagreeing albeit with strong
emotions underneath.
Thanks,
dc
Eric Swanson
Apr 6, 2008, 4:46:29 PM4/6/08
to globalchange
David wrote:
> On Apr 6, 10:52�am, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> wrote:
> >...
> > David Chistainsen's post was an obvious troll, as he has demonstrated
> > a
> > lack of understanding of the science and posts comments from non-
> > scientific
> > sources, such as Milloy's site, Junkscience.com. �I replied in kind.
> >...
>
> Your language is intemperate for no good reason. I
> have no dog in your fight as you could have seen
> from my excerpt from Nigel Lawson's article.
>
> For the benefit of others and possibly yourself, I've
> probed deeper on the Svensmark effect.
>
> Your BBC link is not compelling if only because of
> Dr. Svenmark's objection midway in the article -
>
> "Limited effect
>
> Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.
>
> -----
> On Apr 6, 10:52�am, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> wrote:
> >...
> > David Chistainsen's post was an obvious troll, as he has demonstrated
> > a
> > lack of understanding of the science and posts comments from non-
> > scientific
> > sources, such as Milloy's site, Junkscience.com. �I replied in kind.
> >...
>
> Your language is intemperate for no good reason. I
> have no dog in your fight as you could have seen
> from my excerpt from Nigel Lawson's article.
>
> For the benefit of others and possibly yourself, I've
> probed deeper on the Svensmark effect.
>
> Your BBC link is not compelling if only because of
> Dr. Svenmark's objection midway in the article -
>
> "Limited effect
>
> Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.
>
>
> David Christainsen
--------------------------
David,
Of course Dr. Svenmark is "unimpressed", as the latest findings may
have shown his theory to be incorrect. I have not read the paper, so
I can't comment further, which is why I posted the link to the BBC
story. Since that story was in the popular media, it is likely to
have errors. That's why one absolutely must go to the appropriate
literature, which usually takes considerable effort to understand,
(as well as an appropriate educational background), before one can
seriously discuss the nuances of the reported research.
In addition to MT's comments, I suggest that your insertion of a long,
off topic comment in your preceding reply just shows that you are a
troll. Why throw in such a "red herring" into your post, except to
repeat the denialist line when you had the opportunity? Similarly,
referencing Avery (and thus Singer) does nothing to support Svenmark's
hypothesis either. For example, you just wrote:
"Cosmic rays are one mechanism among many that influence climate."
It's not proven that variations in cosmic rays resulting from changes
"Cosmic rays are one mechanism among many that influence climate."
in solar activity actually influence climate, but the way in which
your comment is structured implies that cosmic rays DO have such an
impact. If the solar variations actually have a large impact,
shouldn't it be rather obvious in the historical data? So, tell us,
where is the clear imprint of that solar influence?
Perhaps you are not familiar with the denialist efforts to subvert the
scientific study of climate change. You came here from
sci.environment, which has been taken over by rather rabid posters,
many of whom aren't interested in the science, only in the politics.
This group was founded because it had become impossible to carry on a
rational discussion about the various issues on the sci.environment
forum. I agree with MT that we should keep our discussions on topic
and civil and have tried to temper my remarks, although perhaps not as
well as MT might wish.
E. S.
David
Apr 6, 2008, 5:20:08 PM4/6/08
to globalchange
On Apr 6, 4:46 pm, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> David wrote:
>
> impact. If the solar variations actually have a large impact,
> shouldn't it be rather obvious in the historical data? So, tell us,
> where is the clear imprint of that solar influence?
>...
>
> impact. If the solar variations actually have a large impact,
> shouldn't it be rather obvious in the historical data? So, tell us,
> where is the clear imprint of that solar influence?
Had you read directly Dr. Svenmark's papers, you would
already know he does not say "large impact". I say
on my own authority as a meteorologist that it is a
limited impact.
As for Singer, clearly the mere brief quote of his
stirred you up. However, there is nothing wrong
with his take in the quote, if you read him carefully.
May I suggest that Brett Anderson and Katie Fehlinger
are doing a heroic job of presenting both sides in
the climate change debate on the Accuweather Global
Warming Center?
Thanks for your consideration,
David Christainsen
P.S.
Thanks for directing me out of the sci.environment
snakepit onto Globalchange.
Michael Tobis
Apr 6, 2008, 7:26:39 PM4/6/08
to global...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, David <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Had you read directly Dr. Svenmark's papers, you would
already know he does not say "large impact". I say
on my own authority as a meteorologist that it is a
limited impact.
If it's not a "large impact", what is the fuss about? I suppose if the effect exists at all it would be intellectually interesting and all but so are many other things.
I thought the point of dwelling on this work was the claim that more than half of 20th C warming could be attributed to this effect. This is extremely implausible under Ockham's Razor; you need to explain why the sun is acting up just now, why on exactly the time scale and in the expected range of amplitude of the greenhouse forcing, why the expected greenhouse effect is not working as expected, why the cosmic ray forcing is somehow concentrating at high latitudes (very peculiar, that) and so on.
It was very very much a long shot even before Sloan and Wolfendale showed that it could not possibly account for the majority of the change. ( http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.html )
Why bring it up now? There are plenty of real issues to talk about without dwelling on the endless supply of red herrings. It will be very difficult to get an alternative theory with comparable explanatory power to the one we already have. Why? Well, sometimes, you know, science actually gets results.
mt
David
Apr 6, 2008, 7:33:15 PM4/6/08
to globalchange
On Apr 6, 7:26 pm, "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
Major research is needed to find all the main drivers
for formation of cloud cover because cloud cover is
a major uncertainty in the models.
Dr. Svenmark's work is only the first step.
>...
> If it's not a "large impact", what is the fuss about? I suppose if the
> effect exists at all it would be intellectually interesting and all but so
> are many other things.
>...
> effect exists at all it would be intellectually interesting and all but so
> are many other things.
Major research is needed to find all the main drivers
for formation of cloud cover because cloud cover is
a major uncertainty in the models.
Dr. Svenmark's work is only the first step.
David
Apr 7, 2008, 1:17:29 PM4/7/08
to globalchange
On Apr 6, 6:47 am, deepslope <u.lobsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
You may be interested:
By Basil Copeland and Anthony Watts
Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally
Averaged Temperature Trends - Part 2
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/
"The periodicity revealed in the data, along with the strong
correlation of solar cycles to HadCRUT surface data, suggests
that the rapid increase in globally averaged temperatures
in the second half of 20th century was not unusual, but part
of a ~66 year climate cycle that has a long history of
influencing terrestrial climate. While the longer cycle
itself may be strongly influenced by long term oceanic
oscillations, it is ultimately related to bidecadal
oscillations that have an origin in impact of solar activity
on terrestrial climate."
-----
David Christainsen
>...
> (my credentials: independent oceanographer specializing in deep-sea
> imaging, holding a broad US Patent on aquatic habitat health using
> biomonitoring methods)
>...
> imaging, holding a broad US Patent on aquatic habitat health using
> biomonitoring methods)
You may be interested:
By Basil Copeland and Anthony Watts
Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally
Averaged Temperature Trends - Part 2
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/
"The periodicity revealed in the data, along with the strong
correlation of solar cycles to HadCRUT surface data, suggests
that the rapid increase in globally averaged temperatures
in the second half of 20th century was not unusual, but part
of a ~66 year climate cycle that has a long history of
influencing terrestrial climate. While the longer cycle
itself may be strongly influenced by long term oceanic
oscillations, it is ultimately related to bidecadal
oscillations that have an origin in impact of solar activity
on terrestrial climate."
-----
David Christainsen
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages