Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 17001 - 17020 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 12, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
For the science-based community, Skeptical Science today reviews recent studies related to the cosmic-ray hypothesis.
This is a relatively new and interesting hypothesis, so it's become popular amongst climate contrarians as an alternative explanation to human-caused global warming. However, it's also been the subject of extensive scientific research over the past few years, and the hypothesis simply has not held up to scrutiny.

First, there's the obvious fact that cosmic rays cannot explain the recent global warming because solar activity and the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface have remained flat on average over the past 60 years. The sun and cosmic rays could only be causing global warming if there were a long-term upward trend in solar activity and downward trend in cosmic rays reaching Earth. In fact, the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth has increased since 1990, and reached record levels in 2009 (one of the hottest years on record).


Annual average cosmic ray counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower cosmic rays should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA.

A paper published in the journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics this August noted,

"Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that … even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming."

Two of the authors of that paper (Sloan & Wolfendale) have also just published another cosmic ray research paper in Environmental Research Letters, finding that the contribution of solar activity and galactic cosmic rays (combined) to global warming is "less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."

Sloan & Wolfendale also examine the influence of cosmic rays on the climate over the past billion years in another new paper published in the journal New Astronomy. They find that changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity are too small to account for significant climate changes on Earth. This was also the conclusion of a paper published this May in The Astrophysical Journal.

In another paper just recently published in Environmental Research Letters, Rasmus Benestad of The Norwegian Meteorological Institute compares measured changes in the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth to changes in temperature, precipitation, and barometric pressure measurements. Benestad finds no statistical evidence that cosmic rays can explain the recent global warming.

Finally, a paper published last month in Geophysical Research Letters compared measurements of cosmic rays and cloud cover changes, and found no detectable connection between the two. This study is consistent with many previous papers finding that cosmic rays are not effective at seeding clouds. Likewise, in the CERN CLOUD experiments, Almeida et al. (2013) found

"ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols [that form clouds]"

Thus every step in the galactic cosmic ray-climate hypothesis is fraught with problems. Evidence suggests that cosmic rays are not effective at seeding clouds. Solar activity has been flat, and even slightly downwards over the past few decades. Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has been flat, even slightly upwards over the past few decades. 2009, which saw a record number of cosmic rays reaching Earth (meaning it should have been cold), was the 5th-hottest year on record at the time.
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Nov 12, 2013 - 03:33pm PT
*"""""Most powerful storm ever recorded """""*

Do you have a reading disorder, comprehension disorder or cognitive disorder ?

I'm here to help you..

How are you not understanding the above sentence ??

It was a simple question. Instead of answering it, you got your panties bunched.

Hmm.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 12, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
Physicist Rasmus Benestad also has a new post today on Realclimate summarizing recent cosmic/climate research. His post, titled "Simple Physics and Climate," notes that en route to their cosmic ray analysis, the Sloan & Wolfendale (2013) paper
provides an example where they derive a simple conceptual model of how the greenhouse effect works from first principles. They show the story behind the expression saying that a doubling in CO2 should increase the forcing by a factor of log|2|.
Benestad concludes with this perspective,
Some may ask why we keep revisiting the question about cosmic rays and climate, after presenting all the evidence to the contrary.
One reason is that science is never settled, and there are still some lingering academic communities nourishing the idea that changes in the sun or cosmic rays play a role. For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST-action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the “hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change” (not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse).
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Nov 12, 2013 - 04:42pm PT
http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/science
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Nov 12, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

See natural variability.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2013 - 10:55am PT
To those who continually bark that green energy is not cost effective:


Fossil Fuel Industry Receives $500 Billion in Subsidies by Governments Worldwide


Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:06am PT
yes i feel a bit guilty for that typhoon, as every gas thirsty American should,
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:16am PT
Ed, good of you to look up and post some of my mentioned authors on the interest of keeping the argument going. I m staying in my motor home on a jobsite 80 miles from my nv home to eliminate a big commute and reduce my pollution footprint
I have no internet other than this blasted phone currently. Where am I drawing my conclusions? -from a variety of sources you are just touching on.First, in the abstract of your last posted paper it says we simply don't understand the extent of variation in the variable star we live around ( my take) , meaning ,among other things, that we lack direct data to reconstruct the extent of variability of solar events that had a role in climate change in periods like the MWP and LIA, which were more distinct changes than the late 20th century. Second, the predictions of Penn and Livingston and others are proving quite accurate with a ssn of around 67. Third, during the spotless sun of the low point of cycle 23, and absent major oceanic events like a strong El Nino, the global surface temp anomaly registeref a distinct drop. Fourth, in conjunction with the reduced solar activity the sea near surface temps and land temps are decreasing slightly.Fifth , we witnessed major jet steeam and polar vortex disruptions over the last decade consitent with a phase change to a cooling climate.
Maunder mimimum, maybe not, but the reduced solar activity to come will be an interesting test of natural variability versus greenhouse gas forcing. l
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
Rick doesn't understand order of magnitude. Your observation of laziness on his part he no doubt thinks outrageous and incredibly disrespectful of thee enormous pile of indecipherable gibberish he has been deciphering every evening for a few years now. He has yet to figure out that his level of dedication to the task is still a bit short .... By multiple levels of magnitude
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:43pm PT
Recent further evidence that the oceans are temporarily absorbing the excess heat.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131031-climate-ocean-temperatures-years/
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Nov 13, 2013 - 06:21pm PT
K-Man that vid is absolutely correct.

Giving Subsides to FF's is SOCIALISIM.

There are some here that do not understand that.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Nov 13, 2013 - 06:46pm PT
I read enough RW blogs here ,so here is a liberal slant.







thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/13/2933271/2013-heat-sea-level/
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 13, 2013 - 08:23pm PT
Humorous post Bruce but f-off anyway, same goes to the almighty turd Wyna. I beg your pardon Ed, the TSI variation from a solar max to a minimum is variously estimated to be as high as one percent , much more than the commonly ascribed tenth of one percent of the typical high to low of an eleven year schwab cycle. With that kind of variation over a period of decades it adds up as an imbalance to the plus or negative side. So you have that still unproven possibility. Then of course there is up to eight percent variation in some of the uv solar spectrum having effects on ozone and other constituents of the upper atmosphere causing theorized cascade events that have pronounced effects in the troposphere. What about cme's and variations in the velocity of the solar wind. And the jury is not in on magnetic flux and cosmic ray infuced cloud nucleation- did you see the Jasper Kirkby presentation I posted a link too- I would have thouhht him coming from Cern and being a fellow particle physicist would rate some credibility to his ideas on your part. . No, there is still much yo learn about our sun and the extent of its effects on our climate. For you to claim othrrwise w ould be disengenuous.
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Nov 13, 2013 - 08:29pm PT
where is The Chief?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 13, 2013 - 08:41pm PT
Chuff?

He is a bit preoccupied right now defending his mayorship of Toronto.
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Nov 13, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
so you mean he isn't out climbing?
meh
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:30pm PT
Humorous post Bruce but f-off anyway,

what makes you think I was cracking a joke?

Anyhoo, this is promising:



Climate Deniers Must Pay $90,000 For ‘Not Acting Reasonably,’ Court Rules
BY EMILY ATKIN ON NOVEMBER 13, 2013 AT 12:07 PM

CREDIT: NIWA
A New Zealand group dedicated to downplaying the existence of climate change has been ordered to pay close to $90,000 in court fees for bringing a “faulty” lawsuit that had sought to invalidate data that proved the country’s temperatures were on the rise.
The New Zealand Court of Appeals ordered The New Zealand Climate Education Trust — a group that seeks to “reflect the truth about climate change and the exaggerated claims that have been made about anthropogenic global warming” — to pay fees to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, an environmental science research firm. The lawsuit claimed that NIWA was unethically and intentionally misinterpreting temperature data to promote the idea that climate change was happening.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/13/2934861/climate-deniers-pay-80000-court-fees/

Cool huh? Maybe there's money to be made in this "scientism " stuff after all. Aparently all you have to do is demonstrate that your opponents are idiots, which is pretty simple as they like to demonstrate that themselves. Then you collect.

Rick, the way I see it you owe me about fifty bucks. Before you get too smug and think you're getting away with something (which you thrive on) consider the fact that if you owe me fifty, then you'll be paying for Eds retirement until either you or he is dead.

Better not quit your day job just yet. Keep banging up those fake adobe cookie cutter shitboxes with the sub code wiring in Summerlin or henderson or where ever.....

Which reminds me - where the hell do you hide the circuit box?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
I can visualize a class action lawsuit against the deniers since they are delaying a response; a delay that will increase the cost of mitigation. Of course the knuckleheads here are pisspoor ... which is why they are deniers in the first place.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:02am PT
Bruce you friggin idiot. Read your highlighted blurb yourself. They were ordered to pay because they brought forth a frivolous lawsuit that they lost, not because of verbalizing opposition to idiocy. I do agree with this. There should be consequences for tying the courts up with bogus legal actions. If this was universally adopted it would slow the environmental insanity that uses the frivolous legal course more than any other single group I can think of. Continue on with.your self delusion amigo, life is short and you need something to occupy your dwindling years.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:14am PT
oh there's lots to occupy my dwindling years, don't worry about that. The good thing about Lost Wages is not so much your shitboxes ( thanks by the way, 20 bucks a head per night, easy to over look the shitty wiring job) but the stellar sandstone climbing up the canyons. But that is just a side show to your side show, then there's Cirque de Solie, and Elvis meets Morrison and the daily medevacs long lining out of Red Rocks, and cheap beer, people watching at Whole foods..... I think I saw Sarah Palin there.

Nevadastan is good fun, just a bit dry and getting drier.
Messages 17001 - 17020 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews