Comments on: No, a new study does not show cosmic-rays are connected to global warming http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/ Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:12:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Messier Tidy Upper http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305663 Messier Tidy Upper Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:33:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305663 @ ^ Carl Pham : It is. (1) Its what the scientific evidence actually shows especially from the 1970's or so onwards. There's lots of empirical carefully observed and recorded data all trending in the same directions. All indicating that basic physics i.e. the interaction of carbon dioxide and other molecules with thermal radiation is doing what physics predicts it will. Sometimes corelation <i>*does*</i> indicate causation - especially if there's a well understood mechanism and science behind it. (2) Sometimes appeal to authority is justified when we're talking things like medicine, a doctor will know better than some guy in the pub, ditto for rocket science and the same principle also applies for climatology. Qualified experts who've dedicated years of their lives to studying in a given field are rightfully considered worth listening to when the discussion is about that field. Or do you think "we should stand up to the experts" as one republican politician famously claimed? :roll: If so, do you argue with your doctor, lawyer or accountant and think you know better than they do about the basics and details of their respective fields? @ 156. Randolph Ortlieb asked : <blockquote><i>I will remain a vigorous skeptic until someone can explain to me the many recorded instances of major prehistoric global warming without any human CO2 Work on it and let me know please…</i></blockquote> No worries - belated but who knows you may stumble on this again. Please see the link in my name : <i>Climate Change isn't it natural </i> from Potholer54 on youtube explains your question very nicely and clearly I think. Climate change in the past has been naturally occurring but now it isn't - there are a number of factors involved but currently human GreenHouse Gas emissions are the primary driver of climatic change. @165. Greg Goodknight : <blockquote><i>Eventually the effort to demonize CO2 will stop.</i></blockquote> Climatologist aren't demonising co2 and it isn't the only GHG. <blockquote><I>t was something like 2000ppm when our earliest mammalian ancestors were scampering about on all fours in the Triassic park, and we’ll run out of cost effective fossil fuels long before it gets halfway there.</i></blockquote> Our daytime star was a lot dimmer in the Triassic than it is now among many other relevant factors such as the continental configuration and the clip in my name has more on that more Co2 in past geological eras canard too. Basically, its not relevant to today's conditions. @ ^ Carl Pham : It is.

(1) Its what the scientific evidence actually shows especially from the 1970′s or so onwards. There’s lots of empirical carefully observed and recorded data all trending in the same directions. All indicating that basic physics i.e. the interaction of carbon dioxide and other molecules with thermal radiation is doing what physics predicts it will.

Sometimes corelation *does* indicate causation – especially if there’s a well understood mechanism and science behind it.

(2) Sometimes appeal to authority is justified when we’re talking things like medicine, a doctor will know better than some guy in the pub, ditto for rocket science and the same principle also applies for climatology.

Qualified experts who’ve dedicated years of their lives to studying in a given field are rightfully considered worth listening to when the discussion is about that field. Or do you think “we should stand up to the experts” as one republican politician famously claimed? :roll:

If so, do you argue with your doctor, lawyer or accountant and think you know better than they do about the basics and details of their respective fields?

@ 156. Randolph Ortlieb asked :

I will remain a vigorous skeptic until someone can explain to me the many recorded instances of major prehistoric global warming without any human CO2 Work on it and let me know please…

No worries – belated but who knows you may stumble on this again.

Please see the link in my name : Climate Change isn’t it natural from Potholer54 on youtube explains your question very nicely and clearly I think.

Climate change in the past has been naturally occurring but now it isn’t – there are a number of factors involved but currently human GreenHouse Gas emissions are the primary driver of climatic change.

@165. Greg Goodknight :

Eventually the effort to demonize CO2 will stop.

Climatologist aren’t demonising co2 and it isn’t the only GHG.

t was something like 2000ppm when our earliest mammalian ancestors were scampering about on all fours in the Triassic park, and we’ll run out of cost effective fossil fuels long before it gets halfway there.

Our daytime star was a lot dimmer in the Triassic than it is now among many other relevant factors such as the continental configuration and the clip in my name has more on that more Co2 in past geological eras canard too. Basically, its not relevant to today’s conditions.

]]> By: Carl Pham http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305662 Carl Pham Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:32:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305662 Amazing. You savage the press for leaping from the point that "cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and hence may influence changing climate temps" -- which is just as basic physics and incontrovertible as the point that "carbon dioxide has a good-size IR cross section, and may influence changing climate temps" -- to the wholly unjustifed conclusion that "global warming is caused by cosmic rays!" and then in the very same esay summarize your case for anthropogenic combustion-drive climate change with (1) correlation = causation ("The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution") and (2) an appeal to authority ("approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans"). Wow. I thought when you called this blog "Bad Science" you were referring to the science of others! Amazing. You savage the press for leaping from the point that “cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and hence may influence changing climate temps” — which is just as basic physics and incontrovertible as the point that “carbon dioxide has a good-size IR cross section, and may influence changing climate temps” — to the wholly unjustifed conclusion that “global warming is caused by cosmic rays!” and then in the very same esay summarize your case for anthropogenic combustion-drive climate change with (1) correlation = causation (“The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution”) and (2) an appeal to authority (“approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans”).

Wow. I thought when you called this blog “Bad Science” you were referring to the science of others!

]]> By: Greg Goodknight http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305661 Greg Goodknight Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:19:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305661 Had the politically incorrect (CERN and the IPCC are neighbors) CLOUD experiment not had its funding yanked circa 1998, we'd be eight years ahead of where we are now. One person above mentions astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, also one of the signers of the recent Wall Street Journal letter. His finding a decade ago the orbit of our solar system clearly matches the amounts of carbon 14 (created in the upper atmosphere by the impact of galactic cosmic rays) that appear in our ecosystem, and that also matched the findings of geochemist Jan Veizer who was on the verge of abandoning his studies of oxygen isotope ratios of ocean shellfish. His temperature graph of nearly the entire Phanerozoic, the last 500+ million years of visible life on the planet, didn't match anything he could find, especially CO2, which is what he was expecting. The correlation with CO2 was poor, but the correlation with galactic cosmic rays was phenomenal. See "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" Shaviv & Veizer 2003. Integrated over literally tens of thousands of solar cycles and 100's of Milankovich cycles, the effects of GCR are shown to be the cause of the *averaged* temps of equatorial oceans to vary by about 7C.. There is no possible way for GCR not to be the cause, because there's absolutely no possibility that the temps of our oceans caused stars to go supernovae, the source of those GCR, millions of years earlier. Perhaps the Bad Astronomer can prove that wrong but I suspect that is beyond even his ability to conjure up. There have been a number of advances in physics contrary to "the consensus" since the IPCC set off to show how bad CO2 was. Svensmark's SKY paved the way for CLOUD's funding to be reinstated. There have since been (Svensmark again) clear indications that short term decreases in GCR called Forbush events cause significant drops in low level cloud volume and moisture content. There have been a number of other important papers starting with Friis-Christensen's 1991 paper showing a good correlation of solar cycle length and world temperatures, but it was Svensmark that the Bad Astronomer just couldn't bring himself to name in the sixth paragraph in the post that started this thread: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/ Eventually the effort to demonize CO2 will stop. It was something like 2000ppm when our earliest mammalian ancestors were scampering about on all fours in the Triassic park, and we'll run out of cost effective fossil fuels long before it gets halfway there. Had the politically incorrect (CERN and the IPCC are neighbors) CLOUD experiment not had its funding yanked circa 1998, we’d be eight years ahead of where we are now.

One person above mentions astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, also one of the signers of the recent Wall Street Journal letter. His finding a decade ago the orbit of our solar system clearly matches the amounts of carbon 14 (created in the upper atmosphere by the impact of galactic cosmic rays) that appear in our ecosystem, and that also matched the findings of geochemist Jan Veizer who was on the verge of abandoning his studies of oxygen isotope ratios of ocean shellfish. His temperature graph of nearly the entire Phanerozoic, the last 500+ million years of visible life on the planet, didn’t match anything he could find, especially CO2, which is what he was expecting.

The correlation with CO2 was poor, but the correlation with galactic cosmic rays was phenomenal. See “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” Shaviv & Veizer 2003. Integrated over literally tens of thousands of solar cycles and 100′s of Milankovich cycles, the effects of GCR are shown to be the cause of the *averaged* temps of equatorial oceans to vary by about 7C.. There is no possible way for GCR not to be the cause, because there’s absolutely no possibility that the temps of our oceans caused stars to go supernovae, the source of those GCR, millions of years earlier. Perhaps the Bad Astronomer can prove that wrong but I suspect that is beyond even his ability to conjure up.

There have been a number of advances in physics contrary to “the consensus” since the IPCC set off to show how bad CO2 was. Svensmark’s SKY paved the way for CLOUD’s funding to be reinstated. There have since been (Svensmark again) clear indications that short term decreases in GCR called Forbush events cause significant drops in low level cloud volume and moisture content. There have been a number of other important papers starting with Friis-Christensen’s 1991 paper showing a good correlation of solar cycle length and world temperatures, but it was Svensmark that the Bad Astronomer just couldn’t bring himself to name in the sixth paragraph in the post that started this thread:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/

Eventually the effort to demonize CO2 will stop. It was something like 2000ppm when our earliest mammalian ancestors were scampering about on all fours in the Triassic park, and we’ll run out of cost effective fossil fuels long before it gets halfway there.

]]> By: Eddy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305660 Eddy Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:41:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305660 I think some of the changes in earths climate are more to do with how we've physically changed land surfaces of the planet. For instance if surfaces are darkened through agricultural activities or more recently, through the laying of vast areas of concrete and the expansion of urban areas, this will change local climates. More heat then can be absorbed and released into the atmosphere. A lot of this extra heat has been absorbed by the oceans. This is only a fraction of the storey. The sun has been very active over the decades, resulting in a thicker ozone layer over much of the planet, especially near the equator. It also has an insulating affect on the earth. Another factor is infact cloud cover. The earth is covered in 60-70% cloud, which really keeps our climate quite cool. Increases in solar activity, the expansion of the suns heliosphere, does slow down the rate of high energy protons and nuclei from entering the atompshere. There is some very good data out there, that shows the correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures on the earth. Data from iron meteorites, trees and glacial ice at the poles and high mountains record variations in a type of carbon 14. This carbon 14 in produced through the bombardment of gas molecules in the atmosphere. Then there is the affect UV light has on the stratosphere. When solar activity is high plenty of ozone is being produced releasing heat into the stratosphere. When the stratosphere cools due to lack of UV it cools unevenly....simply because it impacts equatorial regions more quickly. Near the poles stratospheric temperatures are more stable. So we can quickly end up with a situation where parts of the stratosphere near the poles can be warmer than the stratoshere nearer the equator. Pressure gradients can change i.e the occurance of high pressure areas over the north atlantic and the weakening the the polar vortex due to a warmer upper atmosphere at the poles. C02 alone does have a greenhouse affect, but on it's own it is tiny. If the planet is warmed and especially if the oceans are warmed, more co2 is going to be released into the atmoshere. However given the right conditions the oceans can absorb all the co2 humans have released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. There's many factors contributing to our warming planet, but saying that humans are responsible for all of it....smacks of ignorance and a kind of closed minded self serving need to claim power over our environment. I think some of the changes in earths climate are more to do with how we’ve physically changed land surfaces of the planet. For instance if surfaces are darkened through agricultural activities or more recently, through the laying of vast areas of concrete and the expansion of urban areas, this will change local climates. More heat then can be absorbed and released into the atmosphere. A lot of this extra heat has been absorbed by the oceans. This is only a fraction of the storey. The sun has been very active over the decades, resulting in a thicker ozone layer over much of the planet, especially near the equator. It also has an insulating affect on the earth. Another factor is infact cloud cover. The earth is covered in 60-70% cloud, which really keeps our climate quite cool. Increases in solar activity, the expansion of the suns heliosphere, does slow down the rate of high energy protons and nuclei from entering the atompshere. There is some very good data out there, that shows the correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures on the earth. Data from iron meteorites, trees and glacial ice at the poles and high mountains record variations in a type of carbon 14. This carbon 14 in produced through the bombardment of gas molecules in the atmosphere.
Then there is the affect UV light has on the stratosphere. When solar activity is high plenty of ozone is being produced releasing heat into the stratosphere. When the stratosphere cools due to lack of UV it cools unevenly….simply because it impacts equatorial regions more quickly. Near the poles stratospheric temperatures are more stable. So we can quickly end up with a situation where parts of the stratosphere near the poles can be warmer than the stratoshere nearer the equator. Pressure gradients can change i.e the occurance of high pressure areas over the north atlantic and the weakening the the polar vortex due to a warmer upper atmosphere at the poles.
C02 alone does have a greenhouse affect, but on it’s own it is tiny. If the planet is warmed and especially if the oceans are warmed, more co2 is going to be released into the atmoshere. However given the right conditions the oceans can absorb all the co2 humans have released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age.
There’s many factors contributing to our warming planet, but saying that humans are responsible for all of it….smacks of ignorance and a kind of closed minded self serving need to claim power over our environment.

]]> By: WayneJ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305659 WayneJ Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:59:36 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305659 The pre industrial CO2 ppm was found to be 334 ppm in a study released around 1955. The wet chemistry method of atmospheric CO2 determinations has been denied by the global warmists. These deniers refuse to accept the voracity of the chemists results and have substituted their own low-balled ice core/tree ring data. The wet chemistry analysis has been cross checked with plant stomata studies with very good results. So, the increase in CO2 has really been 390-334=56 ppm. The atmosphere's CO2 is not in a mixed steady state in the lower troposphere. This too is a falsification of the facts. The pre industrial CO2 ppm was found to be 334 ppm in a study released around 1955. The wet chemistry method of atmospheric CO2 determinations has been denied by the global warmists. These deniers refuse to accept the voracity of the chemists results and have substituted their own low-balled ice core/tree ring data.
The wet chemistry analysis has been cross checked with plant stomata studies with very good results. So, the increase in CO2 has really been 390-334=56 ppm. The atmosphere’s CO2 is not in a mixed steady state in the lower troposphere. This too is a falsification of the facts.

]]> By: The ICR’s Acts and ‘Facts’ – November « Eye on the ICR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305658 The ICR’s Acts and ‘Facts’ – November « Eye on the ICR Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:28:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305658 [...] time this came up I gave the following links: See No, a new study does not show cosmic-rays are connected to global warming, Are we headed for a new ice age? and Is global warming solar induced? from Phil Plait for an [...] [...] time this came up I gave the following links: See No, a new study does not show cosmic-rays are connected to global warming, Are we headed for a new ice age? and Is global warming solar induced? from Phil Plait for an [...]

]]> By: mrb http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305657 mrb Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:18:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305657 You SAYING something is a "fact" --does NOT make it a fact. Controlled, reproducible, scientific experimentation makes it a fact. That is what CERN is doing. That is what IPCC has NOT done. That is what you have not done. We are supposed to be scientists. Not propagandists. To believe the IPCC theory-- and it is and only will ever be a theory not a fact-- you have to believe the sun has no bearing on the world climate. That cosmic radiation and cloud formation have no bearing on the world climate. That just isn't true. And doesn't even make sense. Let the science speak for itself and quit trying to make truth by opinion instead of experimentation. You SAYING something is a “fact” –does NOT make it a fact. Controlled, reproducible, scientific experimentation makes it a fact. That is what CERN is doing. That is what IPCC has NOT done. That is what you have not done. We are supposed to be scientists. Not propagandists. To believe the IPCC theory– and it is and only will ever be a theory not a fact– you have to believe the sun has no bearing on the world climate. That cosmic radiation and cloud formation have no bearing on the world climate. That just isn’t true. And doesn’t even make sense. Let the science speak for itself and quit trying to make truth by opinion instead of experimentation.

]]> By: Lemuel Franco http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305656 Lemuel Franco Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:48:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305656 #77, Confused wrote: "Look at Nigel Calder’s credentials – one can’t dismiss him." No, one can't dismiss the fact that he is a journalist with a book to sell, rather than a climate scientist. Or that he often goes off on paranoid rants about how mainstream science stifles nay sayers but provides little evidence for such activities. http://safle.org/wordpress/2007/02/20/a-graph-that-suggests-nigel-calder-is-wrong-on-climate-change.html Here is a good rebuttal of Calders' opinions. http://www.frogworth.com/stuart/blog/?p=43 #77, Confused wrote:

“Look at Nigel Calder’s credentials – one can’t dismiss him.”

No, one can’t dismiss the fact that he is a journalist with a book to sell, rather than a climate scientist. Or that he often goes off on paranoid rants about how mainstream science stifles nay sayers but provides little evidence for such activities.

http://safle.org/wordpress/2007/02/20/a-graph-that-suggests-nigel-calder-is-wrong-on-climate-change.html

Here is a good rebuttal of Calders’ opinions.

http://www.frogworth.com/stuart/blog/?p=43

]]> By: Lemuel Franco http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305655 Lemuel Franco Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:39:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305655 #158, whoa! Tea party supporter and NRA member conservative blogs really are truthful, and aren't biassed to an extreme degree are they? #158, whoa! Tea party supporter and NRA member conservative blogs really are truthful, and aren’t biassed to an extreme degree are they?

]]> By: Jin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#comment-305654 Jin Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:07:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=36774#comment-305654 97% of climate scientists, yeah right read on. http://toryaardvark.com/2011/09/12/climate-scam-97-of-climate-scientists-are-in-consensus-is-a-lie/ 97% of climate scientists, yeah right read on.

http://toryaardvark.com/2011/09/12/climate-scam-97-of-climate-scientists-are-in-consensus-is-a-lie/

]]>