Clouds don't cause climate change

^^Nice ad hom attack.

Anyway, more of interest on GCRs for those interested. Page 8 is pretty interesting.

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/IPAC10/talks/frymh02_talk.pdf

 

Btw sage, since you apparently are "the man" here perhaps you can explain Desslers dataset cherry picking, since nobody else has.

 

These are all good comments. One point that should be considered though is co2 correlates well (or poorly) with temperature depending on time scale. For instance, post ww2 co2 increased dramatically but there was no corresponding rise in temps for 40 years. And at geologic timescales co2 lagged temperature. Late 20th century correlation is pretty good overall but most of the temp increase is a step change post 1998 el niño, so what is the co2 - step change mechanism? Since early 2000s co2 temp don't seem to correlate as clearly (no change in ocean heat content, relatively flat satellite temp record and significant slowdown in rate of sea level rise). So just as co2 is a climate driver but doesn't always cleanly correlate, so too likely with GCRs. There are a lot of physical mechanisms running interference. ...

So agree with you much more research is needed and sensitivity needs to be nailed down.

 

Here you can see the step change post 1998...relatively flat trend line before and after 1998 if one were to plot it.

 

The black line is particularly interesting, but there is no explanation. I am left with the conclusion that it is meant to deceive us that the overall trend is sinusoidal. In particular note that is continues to the edges of the data (unlike the running average), and that those edges do NOT match the data at those points. For example the black line meets the red and blue lines in 1980. before that both the red line and blue line descend, while the black line rises. Of course a straight line fit for that data would support a generally rising temperature interpretation.

 

It is only ridiculous b/c it pulls blanket from under any CR argument. It makes it rather irrelevant.

Yes CR may or may not influenced climate in the past and present. Unfortunately there hasn't been any period of time when CO2 levels had risen with such speed (with exception of maybe final stage of PTE).

 

Your analogy shows you have a basic misconception about CO2.
Your 40,000 BTU heater should more realistically be represented by a few candles burning in the basement.
We are talking parts per MILLION here.
You are afraid that by leaving the candles burning it will somehow attract a guy with a 40,000 BTU heater to break in and turn it on in the basement.
Im not convinced.

 

Yes CO2 has risen,but temps and CO2 levels havent correlated .
For the past 10,000 years temps were higher and CO2 was lower.(both Greenland and Vostok ice cores illustrate this.)
CO2 rises 800 years after temp rises.Temp obviously causes CO2 levels .Except in the minds of those twisting reality to fit a poor hypothesis.
But GCR levels correlate with temperature throughout geologic timeframe.
GCR levels may merely be a proxy for the Suns activity.No one knows the mechanism yet.
It may be cloud formation it may be solar effects on the Earths magnetic field (as Piers Corbyn states.)
Personally I believe someone who makes correct predictions 85% of the time.
Whereas you continue to believe computer modelers who have been wrong 100% of the time.
And whats with trying to connect CO2 with mass extinction.Thats just pure FUD.

 

In the words of Richard Alley,
Climate must be caused by galactic cosmic rays ,"because we have no other way of explaining it."

Pretty ridiculous reasoning huh?
But thats the actual scientific proof of Alley's, and the consensus, AGW theory .

 

800 years after the Medieval warming period CO2 levels are rising.
I contend that not all of the current CO2 rise is anthropogenic.
800 years after any warm period CO2 would be expected to rise.

 

Ok. Where is all the CO2 which we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels going then? We know roughly how much that is. We know roughly how much CO2 is required to raise the ppm of it in the atmosphere. Those numbers are roughly then same (and the input is larger). If not all of the current rise is anthropogenic, you need to find NOT another (natural) source of CO2, those are in fact easy to find, but rather a sink of CO2. Not only a sink of CO2, but one that works ONLY on anthropogenic CO2.

 

You didn't even read that, or you are deliberately trying to mislead.

Yeah, that's a study of CR and temperature -- the link from changes in upper atmospheric temperature to change in the mix of cosmic rays hitting the ground. What it definitely is not is a study showing that cosmic rays influence the atmosphere. For this one, it's the other way around:

"What they observed was a strikingly close relationship between the cosmic-rays and stratospheric temperature - this they could understand: the cosmic-rays, known as muons are produced following the decay of other cosmic rays, known as mesons. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere expands the atmosphere so that fewer mesons are destroyed on impact with air, leaving more to decay naturally to muons. Consequently, if temperature increases so does the number of muons detected."

The point of the article is that they could use the mix of particles to detect changes in the upper atmosphere. It specifically does not show that cosmic rays affect the atmosphere.

OH, and maybe this is a good teachable moment. All the blather in this thread about correlation this and correlation that. Why don't these scientists then go off half-cocked about how cosmic rays are causing these events? (The way that, say, Anthony Watts immediately did.) They have a correlation right there, don't they. Why isn't the strong correlation sufficient? Why are they so certain about the direction of causality here?

 

By definition skeptics are not easily fooled.
But if you pay them $100 Billion you can have 97% of scientists saying that cosmic rays control climate.

 

"Consequently, if temperature increases so does the number of muons detected."
Interesting fact considering muons are the particular GCRs which are responsible for seeding clouds.
My hypothesis...
Atmospheric temp rises ,influencing a rise in muons.
Muons seed clouds in the low atmosphere.
Clouds in the low atmosphere lower Earths temperatures by increasing albedo.
Thats stability in the climate system.

 

There is not one step change mechanism, there is climate variability and long and short feedback for CO2. The ocean sequestration involves mixing of deep and shallow water and this may take hundreds of years. The changes polution controls for aerosols, SO2, and NOX also may have exacerbated this variability. The models do a poor job with this variability which is why we can't nail down a figure for CO2 sensitivity or rule out a contribution for GCR.

There actually is an easy explanation. There is a difference between climate change and climate variability. Some famous papers in 1999-2001 used a switch from a long average to yearly averages to "show" climate change. Statistically this is one way to lie or a trick. CRU after years of using the switch needed to explain it is not statistically valid to use these yearly or in this case 13 month averages to look at climate change. Climate is defined as a 30 year period, the solar cycle is 11 years and these are appropriate averaging times for change, but most smoothing is done on a 1,3 or 5 year line. When you use the longer periods you can clearly see the warming without the exagerations done a decade ago when the variability made it look as if warming was accelerating faster than it is.

A huge anthropological areas of CO2 change is deforestation. This is the removal of a natural sink, but often ignored by the fossil fuel evangelist global warming politicians. There are a great number of natural sources and sinks of CO2 but the biggest change in recent times is the effects of this deforestation.

 

So let me ask this: if we were to conduct a repeatable experiment which were to show directly measured CO2 radiative forcing, we could put this discussion to rest?

 

For the record after 1 day Spencer found a glaring major miscalculation in Desslers new paper.
Now Dessler is in the process of recalculating after Spencer schooled him properly.

 

It's great that you can make things like this up, but, back on point, that's not what the scientists who were being quoted said. So, again, keeping on point, the posting, which was presented to bolster the notion that cosmic rays are affecting climate, referred to a piece of work that said nothing of the sort.

 

Ah, so you are saying that Spencer identified a glaring miscalculation, and that Dressler has immediately agreed to publish a correction? Wow. Can you give me a cite for Dressler's concurrence with Spencer's calculation? Or is this more stuff that you kind of just think should be true?

Spencer, by the way, being the guy whose published work was so bad, and so clearly abused the peer-review process at Remote Sensing, that the editor resigned, now that he realized how dumb he was to let Spencer get something in print.

So, if you somehow know that Spencer is right, you'd better let the editor of the journal that published that paper know about it, because apparently he's resigning for nothing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tions-retractions-and-the-process-of-science/

You can see at the end of the posted comments a report of what Dressler will change in the paper, in response to Spencer's comments.

 

Read it and weep.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
I gather Dessler is correcting it before the paper is finally published.
The editor of Remote Sensing was obviously fired by the vast AGW industrial complex.To think otherwise is simply naive.
Especially after reading the climategate emails about blackballing journals and influencing the entire board to resign from a journal.