Cosmic Rays and Global Warming 548
Overly Critical Guy writes "The former editor of New Scientist has written an article in the TimesOnline suggesting that cosmic rays may affect global climate. The author criticizes the UN's recent global warming report, noting several underreported trends it doesn't account for, such as increasing sea-ice in the Southern Ocean. He describes an experiment by Henrik Svensmark showing a relation between atmospheric cloudiness and atomic particles coming in from exploded stars. In the basement of the Danish National Space Center in 2005, Svensmark's team showed that electrons from cosmic rays caused cloud condensation. Svensmark's scenario apparently predicts several unexplained temperature trends from the warmer trend of the 20th century to the temporary drop in the 1970s, attributed to changes in the sun's magnetic field affecting the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere."
cult of global warming (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:cult of global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed! The fact that men like Galileo exist is proof that every lone nutter with a theory is utterly correct!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Informative)
It has been looked at [realclimate.org], and will definitely be "looked at" again iff someone were to come up with a new idea.
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
From the blog:
evil boogey-men (Score:4, Informative)
Have a look again, RC is attacking a PRESS RELEASE similar to the PRESS RELEASE that is TFA. If this guy (or anyone else) publishes a paper on cosmic rays and climate I am sure it will be treated with more respect.
"In case the writers didn't know - environmentalists are also widely regarded..."
Perhaps RC contributors are also evil boogey-men "environmentalists" in their spare time, but they are climatoligists first and foremost. The guy who started the blog is the hockey stick guy [realclimate.org] and has been a lead authour in the IPCC reports, many of the contribitors also have a long list of current peer-reviewed publications under their belt, there is a bio for all of them on the site and (unlike psuedo-skeptical sites there is a prominent list of "other opinions. OTOH: The guy in TFA is a journalist who's claim to fame is that he was once the editor of New Scientst.
Having said that I doubt it will slow you from dogmatically defending a psuedo-skeptical press release in the face of overwhelming contra-evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It does shed some light on some areas of uncertainty, and that's a good thing. I quote R
OK, once again with feeling (Score:4, Informative)
(2) We have proxies. Those proxies can be checked against more recent data to help determine margins of error. No, proxies are not perfect, but they do allow us to gather remarkable information back 800,000 years.
(3) Yes, the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. And, no, you're not a genius for "figuring out" that it might be related to climate change. There are lots of electrical engineers who no doubt know far more about climate science than you. If you disagree, you should publish a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal. Don't give me any conspiracy theory on that, either.
(4) Jupitor [sic] is not experiencing the "same" climate change as Earth. Jupiter takes a lot longer to go around the sun than Earth, so it's natural variations are also longer. According to your link, "We're sorry, but there is no SPACE.com Web page that matches your entry." If you're going to keep posting stuff that has been debunked, as least refresh your link list.
(5) Mars is also not experiencing the "same" climate change on Earth. Read the one link you posted (for this bullet) that actually works. It's experiencing climate change - which it should when it goes from summer to fall to winter to spring (which takes about a year and a half of Earth time). Of course, if Mars is experiencing the exact same climate change, then that kind of shoots down #3, right?
(6) And who is responsible for these livestock? Methane is an important factor. However, C13/C12 ratios (as well as simple math) determine that the vast majority of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuels. Luckily, methane has a much shorter "life span" in the atmosphere than CO2. Even so, why would it reduce our need to take action otherwise? Also, you realize that this "point" contradicts #4 and 5, right?
(7) Just like last time you posted this drivel and had it debunked, you stopped numbering at this point. Why can't you actually create new arguments?
(8) Just because slow climate change in the past was natural does not mean that the fast climate change now is natural. Just because cancer kills you, it doesn't mean that a bullet won't kill you as well. Do you understand your logical fallacy about bringing up past climate change? The basic science is:
(a) We've increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from the range of about 180-280 ppmv (over the last 800,000 years, where 180 ppmv = ice age) to over 380 ppmv.
(b) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
(c) Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium point.
No fancy computer simulations are required to understand this basic science. As for cosmic rays, sounds like a BOFH excuse to me.
Real trend? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Any evidence to back that up? I can cite counter-examples. Lindzen, for example, has no problems getting funding (his most recent article cites 3 sources - NSF, DOE, and NASA), whereas scientists who are more cautionary are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Galileo is proof that a lone nutter with enough theories can fluke it occasionally. After all, most of Galileo's crank theories have been quietly forgotten, and what Galileo got into trouble with the authorities for wasn't so much for resurrecting the (then) long discredited heliocentric theory, but rather for suggesting that anybody who disagreed (up to and including the Pope) was a simpleton.
So what we really need to learn from Galileo is that just because a theory is espoused by a lone nutter doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
And those of you who like to throw Galileo's name around in support of your agenda, just remember, NOT EVERYONE IS CONVINCED. [catholicintl.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Eric
Re:cult of global warming (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know about that, have you looked at string theory lately?
Galileo Galilei (Score:5, Informative)
Just to nitpick, but Galileo Galilei wasn't the first nor the only one to describe heliocentrism - Nicolas Copernic was the forethinker of that system, and Galileo Galilei main discoveries (Saturn's rings, Jupiter's satellites, physics of the pendulum etc.) weren't in the line at his trial. Actually, most of the learned scholars of the time knew for a fact that heliocentrism gave far more accurate mathematicals results to build sailing tables.
Galileo Galilei faced troubles because he wrote that helliocentrism was the physical TRUTH. He would have escaped any trial (and was offered a plea bargain as a matter of fact) had he accepted to write that heliocentrism was a mere hypothesis. But he refused and the rest is history. As to know why he was so stubborn, we now know there was a mix of self-pride, and insurance he received from high profile individuals among the Catholic Church that the Pope was considering adopting a progressive doctrine. That turned out to be deceptive. Basically, he was caught in the middle of a political fight, and sided with the wrong persons.
Just a little nitpicking here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, Ptolemaic models with their fancy epicycles within epicycles
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
History seems to be repeating itself. Galileo was essentially required to put a sticker on his book's cover saying that "heliocentrism is just a theory; one among many and needs to be considered critically because of this"...
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, you just described dogmatic believers in communism/socialism/liberalism/conservatism/liber
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls...
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
So sure is it logically possible this guy is right and the rest of the scientific establishment wrong? Sure, though there are some quite compelling [realclimate.org] reasons not to think cosmic rays explain climate change. It's also logically possible that Xenu really did bring 50 billion aliens to earth on DC-10s and kill them with hydrogen bombs. Do you think we should plan for the future based on mainstream science or the threat from the thetans?
The question is how likely is this guy to be right. Now if you happen to be a climate scientists you should evaluate that based only on the merits of the idea, i.e., the evidence for it. If you don't read climate science papers and keep up with the subject it is just idiotic for you to evaluate the merits of his theory. Instead you have to compare the credibility of the vast vast majority of the scientific establishment and a few dissenters. There isn't much of a contest here.
Let's put the issue a little bit more concretely. Suppose some guy comes up to you with a proposal to mine gold based on a new process for leaching it from rocks other companies are ignoring. He wants you to invest money in his company but when you consult experts in chemistry, mining and geology they all tell you he is a complete quack and his idea is completely bogus. Would you invest?
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a thought: if someone presents a seemingly valid hypothesis and you aren't expert enough to assert if it is false or not, you either attempt to gain more knowledge or you reserve judgment. I know the appeal to authority thing is always in vogue, but that is not the rational reaction. Science is always wrecking accepted viewpoints. Very often those "few dissenters" prove the established majority wrong. You shouldn't dismiss arguments solely on the basis of current popularity. Climate change is still very much a science undergoing constant changes and revisions. It is very possible that many of our current theories are false. I'm not saying he's right or anything, but that is horrible, horrible argument you're making.
You always, always, evaluate the merits of the theory. If you can't and are incapable of making that judgement, then you shouldn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You make a good point that correlation != causation, which is a point drilled into just about every student of climatology at some point (at least this was true for me). However, in this case the belief of global warming has far less to do with statistics than with predictive modeling. To first order, the appealing logic behind global warming goes something like this:
Fact 1: CO2 is a good absorber of IR radiation
Fact 2: We have been increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
Fact 3: Historical
Cyclic weather vs. Global warming (Score:5, Informative)
Global warming was also a concern 30 years ago, as the mechanisms were well known. There were actually people warning about global warming a 100 years ago. However, only recently computers have become fast enough, and measurements accurate enough, that you can actually quantify the risk.
Interestingly enough, cyclic weather has until recently[1] been used to dismiss global warming, claiming that it was not man made but predicted by the coefficients in the Fourier series. Which does apparently conflict with the series predicting an ice age, but not really, as the series consist of overlapping cycles, and you can be on the way up on one of the short cycles, and on the way down one of the longer.
[1] You still see references to it by laypeople on the net, but it is no longer used that way by scientists.
~Accurate != ~Usefull (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, and that is why NASA should drop the "man on Mars" crap and refocus on our own biosphere.
"...enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself."
This is a totally assinine assumption on your part, "not accurate" != "not usefull".
As for "evidence speaking for itself" please refer to figure SPM-2 [www.ipcc.ch](PDF warning) in the 2007 IPCC SPM.
It's Pirates I tell Ye Laddy (Score:3, Funny)
FSM link (Score:4, Funny)
Re:FSM link (Score:4, Funny)
I have a few doubts about the cosmic ray advice, frankly. But, yes, iPods are cooler than an anal probe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just think how tired a meme Christianity is, then, and you're beginning to get at least one of the points of the whole FSM thing.
Re:FSM link (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pedantry (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a superb correlation, the curves track each other amazingly.
By itself that doesn't prove anything. Given only the correlation, you couldn't rule out that temperature increases cause increased CO2 levels. Which is plausible, since organic decay releases CO2 and goes faster when it's warmer (if you doubt that, unplug your refrigerator and see what happens).
Given only the correlation, you couldn't rule out that some other factor causes both warming and CO2 increases.
The reason to think it's causal is that there's a well-demonstrated mechanism and that the details match up.
>Florida may be the first state in the union to give fish the right to vote.
Hey, we already know all about Florida elections.
Re:Pedantry (Score:4, Interesting)
However: increased CO2 levels also cause temperature increases. There is a positive feedback mechanism at work.
The basic idea is that some effect causes a temperature increase, which in turn causes CO2 levels to increase, but those increased CO2 levels force the warming to continue where it otherwise would have leveled out. This warming/CO2/warming cycle continues until you hit other negative feedbacks which stop the warming.
Re:Pedantry (Score:4, Informative)
Incidentally, the "hockey stick" was not shown to be rubbish; McIntyre & McKitrick's work itself has plenty of flaws. You can read Mann's rebuttal, or Tim Lambert's independent analysis. And even if Mann's work was flawed, there are other reconstructions [wikipedia.org], performed by completely different methods, which also show a "hockey stick" shape. (In fact, all of them have a noticeable upswing in recent times, they just differ on when that upswing starts: 1800 vs. 1900.) I don't know why everyone singles out Mann's work in this respect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the warming was in the early part of the century followed by that cooling period from about 46-75ish, and then some warming again after that.
That cooling period is well explained by sulphate aerosols (pollution); it agrees in magnitude and timing with aerosol concentrations.
Also, there seems to be a pause in the warming since 2000 where AGT hasn't done much other than fluctuate a bit.
The observed variability is not much different than over any other 6-year period, e.g. here [earth-policy.org]. You can't really conclude "global warming has stopped", or even that it has slowed, on that basis.
Also, the deep ocean data doesn't seem to fit with the models either. None of the recent work of the Argosy project was included in the report.
I'm not familiar with the deep ocean data or the Argosy project. Do you have references?
Also, this article, and the work behind it, which I heard about back in October, has experimental proof of how their cloud formation works.
They have a laboratory demonstration, but they haven't established a correlation between cosm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My mind is open, but I think solar makes more sense to explain the warming before the modern era.
Solar probably does explain much of the climate changes over the last few thousand years, before the modern era. However, CO2 explains the warming in the modern era much better than solar possibly can; the solar variations just haven't been large enough.
Also, the sulphates that you are referring to are primarily the product of volcanoes. Man makes a lot, but not a lot compared to that.
No, that's not correct. Human particulate and aerosol emissions were easily large enough to produce the observed cooling mid-century. See, e.g., Meehl et al., J. Climate 17, 3721 (2004), for a comparison of models with various emissions included to obse
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
No reputible sources are disputing global warming and that humans are the cause.
RTFA. From the article:
After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Those 5 sentences say soooo much that so many people would like to ignore. 1) That there is a very major factor involved in cloud formation that, if anything, the IPCC is paying less attention to. 2) That the "peer reviewed" journals are indeed rejecting valid research that contradicts the herd mentality of human-induced global warming. 3) Contrary to what some people would like to believe, not all real scientists agree with the IPCC version of global warming. 4) These three things combined really DO undermine a heck of a lot of what the IPCC and their ilk is campaigning behind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hereby revoke your tree-hugging license for use of facts without intention to mislead. Please report to your neighborhood global warming organization for immediate compositing.
Re:cult of global warming (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All RealClimate did was claim that the cloud condensation "building blocks" weren't necessarily large enough and that further research was required. That's hard to do when nobody will publish your work and all the alarmist climatologists are getting the funding because they've latched onto the "greenhouse gases" trend where all the political donors are.
Re: (Score:3)
Although, it should be noted that it's mentioned right in the article (and it's been mentioned in other articles) that global temperature records show that global temps haven't risen since late 1998.
Re:cult of global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Informative)
---- No reputible sources are disputing global warming and that humans are the cause.
Uh, think again.
There's a fairly solid consensus that global mean temperatures have gone up about 1.5C in the last hundred and fifty years. There's good proof that humans are putting a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. There's still a lot of room for discussion of how much effect anthropogenic CO2 has on the global mean temperature, though.
Most scientists say, "at least some," but it's hard to pin anyone down to specific numbers. First and foremost, we don't understand the atmosphere well enough to say we know what acounts for natural variation. We know very little about the cloud system, for instance, which has a significant effect on planetary temperature.
If you want to make scientific statements about anthropogenic global warming, you need to be able to answer the following questions:
All measurements have some error, and you can't make meaningful statements about numbers smaller than that error. For most scientific work, an error margin of 5% is considered acceptable. I don't happen to know the error for converting 500-year-old tree ring data to global mean temperature, for instance, but I'd be surprised to find it less than 5%. The same is true for extrapolating global CO2 levels from a microliter of prehistoric gas trapped in an ice core sample.
By the same token, all real data populations have some amount of variation. It might be very small, or it might be very large. Statistically, about 2/3 of a sample falls within one standard deviation (aka: sigma) of the average. That means a variation of less than one sigma is 2/3 likely to be perfectly natural, and only 1/3 likely to be caused by external factors.
And finally we have coefficient of correlation. A CoC of .95 means that when factor A goes up, factor B also goes up 95% of the time. Again, it's scientifically invalid to claim correlations greater than your CoC.
So.. the scientifically valid way to discuss anthropogenic global warming is to say it's X% certain that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for Y degrees of variation in global mean temperature, plus or minus Z degrees of error.
And let's face it, when you carve out a 5% error for basic measurement, figure a standard deviation of between .4C and .75C in the historical temperature data, then factor in a CoC of .8 or so (which is generous for real-world science), there isn't much room left for sweeping pronouncements. If you want to be 95% certain that Y degrees of variation are due to human-produced CO2, you have to set Y somewhere around .1C.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read the table. Look at the net flux of natural CO2 sources and sinks. Look at the manmade flux for comparision. Look here [globalwarmingart.com].
There are some people out there who dispute the human impact on atmospheric CO2 trends, but this particular issue is a smoking gun. The data fits, and there is no plausible alternative hypothesis that explains the very striking trend in CO2 emissions (highest in 400k years, by a lot). If you want to pick apart global warming, spend your time on the climate sensitivity bit, not on t
Re:cult of global warming (Score:5, Informative)
USE=brain (Score:5, Informative)
Before you people start screaming, "what do they expect us to do about cosmic rays??//?/?" Think. This isn't about "debunking" global warming, nor is it about fearmongering about it. It's about building more accurate climate models.
Move along.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-Albert Einstein
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Umm... What?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why?
Pretty much unknown how big an effect ths has (Score:4, Informative)
This being a somewhat new theory everything is still quite uncertain how much effect this has on the heating of the earth.
I think the estimates we saw in class a year ago was that this could explain from 10% to maybe 30% of the heating that has happened in the last 30 years.
We don't have measurements of the amount of cosmic radiation from more than something like 30 years so it is hard to go further back to check this theory.
We have CO2 measurements from somewhat longer, but not that much longer, but we have trapped air in the ice cores which give us information almost 100K years back which gives the evidence of CO2 and methane quite strong support.
Cosmic radiation does is not "trapped" anywhere in the geologic layers to my knowledge.
I am no saying Svensmarks theory is wrong, it most likely has an effect, but how big this effect is is very hard to say by now.
Anyhow I think the critique of the UN-report is justified, if this theory is not part of the report. Not taking this theory into account and then saying there is a 90% certainty that humans have caused global warming is not scientific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you correct yourself and leave your mistaken assumption in the first sentence without erasing it before posting?
Re:Pretty much unknown how big an effect ths has (Score:4, Interesting)
Sort of like the carbon14/12 ratio which is used to date formerly living things.
If the Cosmic Ray flux has changed substantially over a few thousand year period, there should be some way to test for it's effects.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't read the draft of the latest report, but I did read the 2001 one.
There's a graph showing the effect they think various potential influences had, listed along with our scientific understanding of them. Solar influence was at the far right of the scale of our scientific understanding (at the lowest level), and was listed as having a comparatively small heating eff
Re:Pretty much unknown how big an effect ths has (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
wait! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Credentials (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you are slightly better off getting your science information from an author with doctorate in medicine [wikipedia.org] than politian with a bachelor of arts degree [wikipedia.org] (though in fairness, he did invent the internet).
Seems familar... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here we go again.... (Score:4, Insightful)
All those crazy "climate change has nothing to do with carbon levels" crackpots are going to have a field day. And all the "Yes it bloody well does!!" crackpots are going to get all defensive and who's going to win in the end? The trolls. That's who. The trolls.
In all this I'm reminded of a mock argument I heard on the radio between a geologist and a biologist about the source of oxygen in out atmosphere. Both "experts" were convinced that it was largely due to some effect described in their field of study and dismissed the other.
What I'm trying to say is that there is solid evidence that carbon in the atmosphere can trap heat. If we now discover that cosmic rays are warming the planet, that doesn't exclude the effect of carbon as an insulator from the equation. Now if both theories are true we have a serious problem. Cosmic radiation is warming the planet at a higher rate and carbon is preventing it from cooling.
What do we do about it?
1. Reduce carbon emissions.
2. reduce Earth's exposure to cosmic rays
If reducing cosmic rays can be done along the lines of Mr. Burns blocking out the sun with his big dish, I'm all for it, as long as I'm the one who owns the dish. Otherwise, with sincere apologies all the "I'm gonna fcsking well drive my big Ford SUV 2 blocks to buy my cheese in a can" crackpots, but it has to be option 1.
Re:Here we go again.... (Score:5, Informative)
And to make this worthwhile, consider: Earth's ecosystem handles the increasing luminance of the Sun by reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to reduce the warming effect. In 1 billion years, the concentration will hit zero and then earth fries. Cheers!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What, so if we do this and invest trillions of dollars, there will be no more major hurricanes? Like last year [wikipedia.org] you mean? Ooops.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that is exactly the scenario the parent suggested.
Evilviper: "IF Co2 is only responsible for 10% of global warming"
$uperJay: "If global warming was reduced by 10%,"
In order to get 10% out of 10%, that means a 100% reduction in CO2. You understand (or you may not, seeing your political inclination) this just a hypothetical, of course. Even in less extreme examples, you have exactly the same problems.
I'll wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, can we link to something more than someone's blog? Here's a link that has a lot more substance and not so much speculation: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/0207
same Nigel Calder? (Score:3, Informative)
several quote an article "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in the National Wildlife Federation's journal, International Wildlife attributed to a "Nigel Calder" in 70's
the line they like to quote is: "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
eg http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html [ncpa.org]
http://www.mises.org/story/2119 [mises.org]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhiloso
Re: same Nigel Calder? (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly, Wikipedia shows him as indeed the former editor of New Scientist - from the early 1960s. Since then he's been an SF writer, with a respectable list of publications.
As for "new ice age", within the past few years there has been an article in Scientific American where the author claimed that we would be slipping into an ice age right now, if not for anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately (according to the author), we're slightly overcompensating rather than keeping the temperature flat.
As for nukes, as I understand it it was Sagan et al.'s analysis of how a nuclear war could lead to a nuclear winter that got people thinking about the effects of all the stuff we've been putting in the air.
My own bias (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read something that says global warming is wrong, I want to say yes! Brilliant! When something confirms it, I can't help but think 'alarmist fear-mongering can't-think-for-themeselves idiots.' But at the same time I know those thoughts are ridiculous, and that I don't really have the understanding of all the parameters to make an intelligent decision.
I guess that's what happens when you politicize a scientific topic. Or maybe I'm just an optimist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why we really need to get this whole issue out of politicking and into the hands of experts. General population - politicians and /. readers included - simply does not have enough understanding of the subject for any purposeful rationalising on it.
You're a nerd. Go detail-oriented. (Score:4, Insightful)
Only some of the following statements are true or even supported by evidence:
1. The average temperature of the Earth is going up.
2. It is likely to continue doing so.
3. The largest cause is CO2.
4. The rise in CO2 levels is human-caused.
5. The results will be catastropic.
6. The result will be a mass extinction event.
7. The result will wipe out the human race.
8. This is proof that our economic system is evil.
9. We must destroy or replace the foundation of our economic system.
10. The planet is in jeopardy.
11. The Kyoto accord should be ratified.
It's logically consistent to snort with contempt at 8 and 10 while accepting 1-4 pending further data.
What frosts me (sorry) is that the policy implications don't have to be this politicized. We need a malaria vaccine anyway, regardless of whether the mosquito habitat moves north. We benefit a zillion ways from replacing coal burning by almost anything else. Fuel efficient vehicles are great just in terms of national security alone. Bangladesh is in trouble no matter what we do about future CO2 emissions and we need to make decisions about that (seawall? Resettle? (WHERE?!)).
>I don't really have the understanding of all the parameters to make an intelligent decision.
No one person does, but judicious application of "How do you know?" will cut through a lot of garbage and allow intelligent decision though not certainty.
Ignorance of solar effects. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look at our sunspot cycle (which has been recorded since the 1600's), it should be noted that Earth warms up every time we have many sunspots and cools down when we have few sunspots. The famous Maunder minimum that bridged the 17th and 18th Centuries with very little sunspot activity resulted in seriously cold winters at the higher latitudes, as noted by the Thames River through London freezing over in winter regularly during this period.
But getting back on topic, scientists have noted that almost every planet in our Solar System is experiencing a warmup during the last 4-5 years. Note that the Martian ice caps are getting smaller and smaller, the atmospheres on our "gas giant" planets are warming up quite a bit, and even Pluto's surface is experiencing warming. That tells us either the Sun is generating a lot of unusual radiation or our Solar System is going through an area of our Milky Way galaxy with higher than normal cosmic radiation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True. You remove the sun, and we turn into pluto. Now quantify that effect. Exactly how much does a change in the output of the sun affect the temperature on the earth? Note: correlation != causation.
Calling Bullshit on this. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
The notion that professional climate scientists have ignored solar forcing in estimating climate sensitivity is 100% false, and by now repeating it is slander.
By no means whatsoever have actual climatologists "forgotten" about the Sun since the earliest days of global warming studies in the 1960's and further. Of course popularizations ignore all the complexities but that's what they do.
The fact remains that by the best known observations and theory there is no way to explain the current observations WITHOUT major to dominant human greenhouse gas forcing.
There is no trend in solar activity observed or predicted which either explains recent past observations or will in any way nullify the clear and significant effect from greenhouse gas forcing. That depends on very predictable laws of physics, not statistical correlations.
And if the Sun does happen to be in an upswing in output, then that will just make the climate change we are causing that much worse. Since the upper extremes of events and risks are the greatest danger, any uncertainty in solar forcing adds to the variance in future forecasts, and not the mean. This means that doing something about the thing we can do something about is ever more urgent.
We only have one earth (Score:3, Insightful)
So... (Score:4, Funny)
What's missing in the discussion is science... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is missing from this forum so far, and from the linked essay, is any link to the actual scientific paper in question. If we are to judge how significant this paper is, and what it means, shouldn't we be taking a look at it?
The whole drama of hidden agendas, who profits from what, the desires of individuals to get attention and upset people of one political stripe or another, are in the end irrelevant to the questions of "Is human activity affecting the climate" and "What, if anything, do we need to be doing to protect our existence". The drama affects what we end up ACTUALLY doing, so may be very significant to the outcome of the next few hundred years of human history. But our individual responsibilities are to understand the science as best we can, even if we are not climatologists.
Richard Feynmann used to bemoan the fact that reporters asking him about his work constantly tried to "dumb it down" so the average reader could understand it. His point was that, first of all, all the important stuff got lost in this process, and second, even if the "average" person couldn't follow it, there are huge numbers of scientists, engineers, and others who would be able to grasp the main points if they were actually presented.
Given the nature of this forum (we're nerds, right?) I'd love to see the actual science... if only Mr. Calder, or any of the other writers on this subject would deign to show us the actual papers, rather than giving us their predigested interpretations.
Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Flat out, that's not what the science tells us. What science tells us is that climate is a complicated system with many inputs and feedbacks that we only crudely understand. Even so, we understand enough to know one significant input right now is anthropogenic CO2 emissions. How significant? That is the multi-trillion dollar question.
See, the question is not yes/no. Our choices are not "We're destroying all life! Dismantle capitalism before it's too late!" vs "we're doing nothing! Burn more coal!" What we're really looking at here is a serious study of how much we're influencing the climate we depend on (climate scientists agree enough to be worried). Following from that, we seriously need to look at the risks and how best to manage them without tanking our economy.
We have many choices and a lot will depend on the relative significance of our contributions to climate change. We NEED studies like this, not as a tool to discredit global warming, but as a way to refine our understanding to better understand what WE'RE doing, so we can more effectively do the cost/benefit analysis of various scenarios. Unfortunately, reasonable voices are being drowned out by trolls in the warring camps.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Attacking the idea that multinational corporations should be given the legal status of human beings, but not the responsibilities of human beings, does not constitute an attack on capitalism. Many people are faulting the left for a position it doesn't generally have (with a few outright communist examples) because, let's face it, the message "we oppose them because they want shareholders to be held responsible for what they profit from" isn't going to sell as well as "they hate capitalism!" This is about as cogent a criticism as saying that Republican Senators who want to debate the Iraq war are trying to help the terrorists. It's an attempt to front-load the argument with the assumption that the criticis of corporate unaccountability actually want to attack capitalism itself.
Basically some simple questions raised (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Why is East Antarctica cooling?
2) Why has air temperature apparently stabilized?
3) What caused the Medieval Warm Period?
4) What caused the mini Ice Age of the 1700s?
5) Why in the historical record do temperatures rise before CO2 rises?
And that's not even getting into the Holocene....
Well, maybe there is a simple explanation that results in it remaining plausible that the modern warm period is different from the Medieval being due wholly or mainly to CO2 emissions since what, 1850 or so, and not due to whatever caused the Medieval, and will not be followed by whatever caused the Mini Ice Age.
No, it can only be stopped by our ceasing to emit CO2. Like they suddenly did in 1400...?
Well, if there is a simple explanation along these lines, it would be very interesting to see someone write it down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your questions are talking points from global warming deniers and they have long since been answered. Like the "debate" about evolution, and questions such as the evolution of flagella or the eye, they distract attention from real science and waste people's time answering ignoramuses who refuse to do a little research on their own. Since I've got some free time though, I'll bite.
1) Why is East Antarctica cooling?
The mean surface temperature of the entire globe can be increasing even if local areas a
Are You a Climate Scientist? (Score:5, Insightful)
In any scientific discipline, and particularly complex ones like climate science, it is easy to select evidence (even honestly) to make almost anything appear to be the right explanation. The reason the scientific process works is because it doesn't just let each theory get up and give a stump speech but demands to know how it can answer tough questions and fit consistently with our other knowledge. The question is not, 'would cosmic rays make for a good hypothesis on the basis of our inexpert knowledge,' but 'given the vast body of knowledge scientists have is it plausible that cosmic rays explain climate variation.'
Thankfully, climate scientists have not only already addressed this question but even written lay explanations [realclimate.org] about it. You can find plenty of other discussions about cosmic rays over on realclimate.org [realclimate.org] and they point out that there is considerable reason to discredit the cosmic ray explanation for global warming.
What disgusts me about this whole buisness is that whenever something like this comes up a bunch of people who can't be bothered to actually read the journal articles but think they are entitled to second guess the people who have pipe up and complain about how global warming is just a dogma. Like any topic you have a choice. You can either choose to learn enough about the subject to intelligently weigh the evidence, which in this case would mean keeping up with the actual scientific papers not just media summaries, or you can count on experts to analyze that evidence for you and reach your conclusion on the authority of those experts.
Look it's simple really. Either you can read the scientific papers yourself and argue with the other experts about the evidence or you can argue about which experts are more credible. If you are debating the matter here you are doing the later. So do you really expect anyone to believe that the handful of climate change deniers are more credible than all experts who find the evidence for global warming compelling? If the positions were reversed and it was the deniers who were claiming it was global warming would you believe?
The worst part of all this is that these very idiots who claim that climate science is just some dogma pose a real threat to important dissent in the climate science community. While we may be sure of the vague outlines of human caused climate change there are many issues that still require vigorous scientific debate but if this debate is jumped on by skeptics as proof that global warming is a fraud then responsible scientists will be more reluctant to publicly express such disagreements.
Re:Are You a Climate Scientist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Telling everyone to shut up and listen to their betters is not going to make this stuff go away.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
- Adolf Eichmann.
Nir J. Shaviv (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages [sciencebits.com]
more on the climate debate: http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/ [sciencebits.com]
Shaviv's personal site: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ [huji.ac.il]
I'll cite this one (Score:4, Funny)
Antartica (Score:5, Informative)
One of the co-authors of that study is a friend of mine. He's bemused by how the press has gotten the data's implications entirely wrong. An average increase in global temperatures results - according to all models - in some local average decreases. The overall patterns change.
Consider the question some must be asking, "Why is there record snow in Mexico, New York now if our winters are warming?" It's because the Great Lakes are warmer than usual because of the unusually warm December and January, so there's more evaporation now that cold winds are finally blowing across, and that becomes snow. Global warming means as a planetary average it snows less (because it's more often rain instead). But locally it may be that Mexico, New York is in for a string of nasty winters.
It's similar effects we're seeing in Antarctica, where local regions have more snow buildup, or more cold, even though on the large scale major ice shelves are breaking off for the first time in tens of thousands of years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is labortory evidence that the excess CO2 we have been putting into the atmosphere "ought" to affect the climate. The empirical data doesn't support this.
Other than, um, the global warming we've observed. Are you really claiming that global warming hasn't happened at all?
The hockey stick curve is an artifact of data analysis and dependent upon data sets that are not correlated with temperature anyway.
1. Whether Mann's study is flawed is quite open to debate.
2. Mann's study (the one whose data analysis has been contested) is not the only reconstruction which leads to a hockey stick curve. In fact, reconstructions do, to one extent or another, and many of them use quite different methods of analysis.
3. Paleoproxies are indeed corre
Re:Red herrings (Score:4, Insightful)
Consensus is the process of finding a bunch of people who will attest to the same thing, while peer review is a process of criticism for an unproven idea.
Re:Incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me break it down for you.
Calder offers local cooling as an example of how anthropogenic climate change scientists are wrong.
However, anthropogenic climate change scientists predict local cooling in their models.
Therefore, one of Calder's 'proofs' that anthropogenic climate change scientists are incorrect is faulty.
Please note that I am not commenting on Cosmic Ray/Cloud formation experiment, until it is indepentantly reproduced (CERN is currently doing this [web.cern.ch]).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
However, before my appeal to Authority, I did quite clearly state that his arguments dismissing global 'warming" (due to localised cooling) were false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect. (Score:5, Funny)
Considering that the main cause is CO2 from fossil fuel, this statement is actually not too far off
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The only trouble with Svensmark's idea -- apart from its being politically incorrect -- was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
Why didn't the oil cartel fund his experiment if they were so interested in it? Or did you just choose to assume, without actually reading the article?
Re: (Score:2)
I was trained as a economist (as a result of a silly familiar pressure on programming not being a respectable profession), and because of that, I've seen the stupidity that can hap
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is also plenty of history in the fossil record to determine what happened during the past magnetic flips, but I have not read anything about what happened to the climate at those times.