Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming 656
flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."
Global Warming Heretics (Score:3, Informative)
Snowing today in Malibu, New Orleans and Vegas
Then of course there are these heretics
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 [senate.gov]
"I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly..As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history.When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.". Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of P
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/ [nasa.gov]
To quote from the linked article:
"The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a complete fabrication?
Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)
If you could read, you would notice the words they use are "seasonal and diurnal," which have nothing to do with longer term variations in sunspot activity, like what the parent is referring to.
Re:Say it with me... (Score:3, Informative)
I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se.
Actually lack of correlation is logically stronger than actual correlation. I'm going to simplify this a little bit, but it should stand. Let H = "Fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds." That's our hypothesis. Let O = "In periods where fewer cosmic rays are present, we would expect to observe fewer clouds." That's our expected observation. The statement H->O (H implies O) is TRUE: it literally states if fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds, then when we have a decline in cosmic rays we expect to see fewer clouds. Obviously true.
Now, H->O can be translated to ~H OR O (using ~ for not). They tested and found ~O (there was no reduction in cloud cover), so we get ~H OR FALSE. It should be trivial to see that the only way this statement is TRUE is if H is also FALSE.
(As an aside, notice that when O is true, the value of H doesn't matter. This is why correlation does not equal causation. H might cause O, or something else might cause O. )
Point being H is FALSE: fewer cosmic rays does not result in less cloud cover. The study didn't actually address the global warming aspect of it; they merely disproved the notion that fewer cosmic rays result in fewer clouds.
Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the change in global mean temperature is 0.7 degrees Celsius, 30% of that is about 0.2 degrees Celsius. That leaves about 70% or about 0.5 degrees Celsius due to anthropogenic global warming.
Science never proves anything. Science can either refute or support a hypothesis. No one has been able to successfully refute the hypothesis of manmade global warming. On the contrary, there's lots of evidence to support it.
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps we are just in favor of the climate recovering from the current ice age so that we can move away from a period where for a substantial portion of the planet, plant life largely shuts down for a significant part of the year.
Ask any geologist, we are in an ice age, and you can see this easily because we have ice-caps that do not completely melt every summer.
Perhaps we just want the planet to recover to what it has been for most of it's history: a warmer climate where the amount of energy harvested by the vegetative biomass is sufficient to support a far more abundant animal biomass than could ever get by in this energy-poor environment.
Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today. (Score:3, Informative)
OK, The graph you link to has it's last data point at 1950. On the graph, CO2 never gets above 300 ppm going back 400,000 years. Your graph also shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
This graph has come current data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ [noaa.gov]
It shows current CO2 levels at 385 ppm and rising.
The implication is that global temperature will see an equivalent rise above the norm of the past 400,000 years.
Your turn; ball's in your court.
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Common Sense (Score:1, Informative)
If it's long term you want to look at, then do it. G.W. alarmists conveniently stop going back in time when the data stops proving their point (thus the infamous "hockey stick" graph). There is evidence of many periods of higher-than-now amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as periods of hotter-than-now temperatures. In most cases, the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise (instead of preceding it).
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.
Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing [nasa.gov]
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing. [nasa.gov]
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing [nasa.gov]
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing. [nasa.gov]
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing) [nasa.gov]
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing! [nasa.gov]
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly [nasa.gov]
Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.
Talk about inconvenient...
Indeed.
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Informative)
Melting glaciers won't cause a sea level rise unless they're sitting on land.. think archimedes.
Re:Total Solar Output (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
Science isn't making shit up...
Don't think so? GW "data" is laced with examples of manipulation. The most recent is the July 2008 CO2 readings from Mauna Loa. It seems that the folks "maintaining" the Mauna Loa CO2 data has been caught "Hansenizing" it all the way back to 1974 to ELIMINATE a CO2 reversal. The GW folks are all about using "adjusted" data to support their agenda, Thankfully, the military doesn't buy into their schemes and use REAL temperature data in their guidance equations, otherwise their accuracy might falter from being able to hit a 1 sq meter target to missing by a mile. Here is the data showing the CO2 manipulation, from the posting by Dee Norris.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/mauna-loa-co2-january-to-july-trend-goes-negative-first-time-in-history/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
This is just one of many examples of data cooking by GW believers. With their GW as a hammer they see everything else as a nail. Earth warming? Proof of GW! Earth cooling? Proof of GW! Drought? Proof of GW. Unusual rain and floods? Proof of GW.
To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Informative)
Sort the average global temperatures for any decade and there'll be a hottest and a coldest. But being the coldest year in the hottest decade doesn't mean it's getting colder.
Re:Total Solar Output (Score:3, Informative)
some good videos (Score:1, Informative)
Climate Change -- the scientific debate
http://youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Climate Change -- the objections
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is you seem to be avoiding the simple point that global temperatures HAVE been rising. I'm sorry, but it's a recorded fact [slb.com]. The problem is you're setting up the classic straw man this argument alaways suffers from, namely, confusing the fact of a global rise in temperature with the theory of what is causing it or whether it is outside the realm of natural cycle.
That quote leaves out the fact that they're also necessary. The models may be bad, but until we get better ones we have to work with the ones we have now.
Actually, the currently scientific thinking is more complex than either side really wants to talk about. Historically, there is very strong evidence to suggest that large changes in Earth's temperature are actually caused by slight changes in its orbit. But, that being said, those changes can't account for the increase in CO2 by themselves. Generally, the thinking goes that the changes in orbit trigger a small initial change, which triggers CO2 buildup and temperature change in a feedback loop [wikipedia.org]. In other words, current understanding of the evidence doesn't provide strong support for either side of this debate. (search around if you want to find evidence supporting this explanation--it's easy to find)
So, I would say you got right, one sorta right, and one dangerously wrong.
Is global climate change a concern? YES!
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.
Is it the fault of humanity? Conclusively, we can't really say until it's all over of course. Currently accepted science, however, suggests it is.
And a fourth that nobody ever seems to ask:
If it's not the fault of humanity, is it a historically precedented change, or is there some other causal factor we aren't aware of?
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Informative)
The link between CO2 and temperature is causational, and this is experimentally proven: it absorbs more infrared light than the dominant gasses in the atmosphere, directly heating it. The earth's climate is of course dependent on many other factors, and the CO2 level in the atmosphere likewise depends on other factors than humans burning fossil fuel, and your sorry attempt at criticism just isn't valid.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Informative)
Yes coldest since 2000. Spinning the data point in the opposite direction - it was the 10th hottest year on record.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Informative)
To get models to work climatatologists have had to use models based on physics.
This is because we have been having other effects on the earth besides pumping out CO2. We have also been emitting fine particles of polution, and sulphate aerosols and ozone effecting chemicals, and chemicals that cause photo chemical smog.
The bad news is that a lot of those other polutions are masking the CO2 -> temperature signal to a large degree. So pure correlational models do not work well.
This is also bad news because arm chair climatologists like yourself will be unable to observe significant changes in their local climate before the net forcing from greenhouse gasses is already a lot worse. The time constants of most of the masking effects are much shorter than the CO2 time constant. So unfortunately when the 'skeptics' react to some really adverse conditions and we stop burning fossil fuels, we will find we have to ride out even worse problems. This is on top of the decade or so lag between CO2 concentration and surface temperature changes.
As vagulely alluded to, pre historical climate change CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. This is not a cause for celebration. In those cases climate change was caused by increased temperature (changes in distance to sun etc). In our case it is caused by increases in CO2. The two are both forcings that cause each other to rise.
This means more CO2 begets more temperature which begets more CO2. This is not a good thing, and certainly not a reason for skeptics to use to say global warming is not dangerous.
There are lots of mechanisms by which temperature makes more CO2e, trees suffering, marshes melting, rotting, methane clathrates.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Informative)
Funny enough, in Alaska glaciers are actually growing right now (http://www.pjstar.com/oped/x420257915/Op-Ed-Look-to-patterns-to-grasp-glacier-growth). That neither proves nor disproves AGW, but the growth of glaciers makes it a bit more important to set out parameters on how much of a pause in global warming do you need before going back to the drawing board. We've currently got a decade's worth of pause with a bit of cooling the last year to two.
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Informative)
Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments [skepticalscience.com] that have been debunked to death.
BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.
Re:Common Sense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Funny That (Score:3, Informative)
Funny how the proponents of the so called "Iris theory" fail to answer the obvious question. ie: There is no observable trend in cosmic rays since we started measuring them, so by what mechanisim does a LACK of trend in cosmic rays cause any trend in cloud cover?
Funny how some people ignore the fact that the role of CO2 in warming the Earth has been demonstrated experimentally time and time again for about a century now.
Actually the last two are sad, not funny.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Informative)
We'll give you the benifit of doubt that you are asking serious questions here.
1. People have actually though to measure the effect of solar radiation on the average global temperature. Fluxuations don't make enough difference to account for current trends. Sorry.
2. Yes, in the past our fuel souces have been 'ineffient' (although some of this 'old' technology is actaully pretty damn good). Just because we now have 'efficient' power sources doesn't mean we haven't been using more...much more...of them. You should also have a look at global population growth over the past 1000 years to understand the magnitude of the problem.
3. City air quality has nothing at all to do with CO2 emissions, sorry. Also I think you'd be surprised to find out what you're breathing in. Sure, it might not be sooty and black, but just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it's not there, and not bad for you.
Re:But carbon emissions have gone up every year (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Informative)
I'll bite, though I doubt this will be read by you, or honestly anyone.
How long until we go back to the drawing board? Who's to say we ever left it? That's the thing of scientific models and the whole thing about a hypothesis - you keep observing, making adjustments to your ideas, testing them some more, wash, rinse, repeat.
The major problem with proving/disproving climate change/global warming is that a) we're inside the running event of the planet, so it's hard to make outside observations, and b) we can't experiment. So yes, we today say "here's what we've been seeing. Here's why we think it's happening, and this is what that would mean for the future". Tomorrow, we'll say "gee, and this is what we actually saw. Let's adjust our thinking, and see what predicitons we can make from that".
Please keep in mind that current scientific theories are not what you hear spouted on TV, and even those are more advanced than what most people have in mind when they talk about climate change and global warming.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:2, Informative)
CO2 causes oceanic acidification. If you've ever owned a fish tank, you know how important pH is to keeping fish alive. Shellfish and Coral reefs will dissolve if it get's to acidic. So CO2 IS pollution.
Also, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. At some level, it will have an effect on the climate, either through self-regulating mechanisms like critics claim, or through feedback mechanisms. Either one is unpredictable and scary were they to happen in the short term. So, again, CO2 IS DEFIANTLY pollution.
If you say that C02 at it's current level isn't pollution, you've got an argument we might be able to work with. But at some level, CO2 is a very bad thing.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Informative)
Global warming -> Melting polar ice -> New source of fresh water in the ocean -> Golf stream cuts east earlier -> Colder coasts in US North East / Warmer Coasts in Greenland -> People in Northern US suffering colder winters -> People misunderstanding that global warming may cause some areas to get colder -> Your post.
Note, you may not live in the NE US, but I'm sure many places in the world suffer similarly.