Double Standards - Is Science not Science Anymore?

[MPS]

I’ve been reading the new study by Sloan and Wolfendale on the theory of cosmic rays and cloud formation in regards to global warming. I’ve also been reading the associated press coverage.

This theory was advanced in the book by Svenmark called "The Chilling Stars" and is a theory that has been repeatedly attacked by the man-made global warming lobby and cited by the "deniers". The main point of this paper is summed up in the abstract..

Click Here to Read Full Story

[dana1981]

Svensmark's theory is being "attacked" (the correct term would be 'critiqued') because it's full of fundamental flaws. In fact, I wrote a whole section on it in my wiki article.

[Climate Heretic]

Fundamental Flaws?

You mean like the ones in the Sloan and Wolfendale paper?

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale

Includes a response from Sloan in the comments.

I think if anything this one comes out as a high 95% confidence that 23% of 1.4WM2 Forcing is attributed to CRF( if the S&W paper is the definitive authority )one that is significant enough to be included in natural variability in the climate system. Just another piece of the puzzle as it was always intended to be. Read the paper not just the news coverage.

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008)

I think the theory and physics are still valid and I expect to see more papers by the end of the year on this subject.

Once we get all the peces in place will will have a much better understanding on how big an impact we can have on the climate and what the response to CO2 concentrations will be, but as long as natural conditions can "mask" the AGW signal ( as cited as a reason for refutation in the above paper ) we really should not discount any forcing/feedback in the climate system.

As the original post states there is a double standard because the AGW Theory also fails this test.

[dana1981]

Fundamental Flaws?

You mean like the ones in the Sloan and Wolfendale paper?

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale

I wouldn't call those fundamental flaws. Besides which, this paper was only one of many undermining the GCR theory. The largest fundamental flaw is that there's been no long-term trend in GCR flux on Earth. You can't really escape that one.

as long as natural conditions can "mask" the AGW signal ( as cited as a reason for refutation in the above paper ) we really should not discount any forcing/feedback in the climate system.

Natural variations can only mask the AGW signal over short timeframes. That's why there's been a nearly 1 deg C warming trend over the past century and over 0.5 deg C warming over the past 30 years. There have been brief lulls in the warming, but the long-term trend is clear.

As the original post states there is a double standard because the AGW Theory also fails this test.

Fails what test?

[Climate Heretic]

Citations for your claim one of many papers.

I am aware of this and one other.

So still you do not concede the actual findings of the S&W paper that clearly state a measurable effect from CRF? That is quite amazing, and you call us "deniers"?

The correlation argument, for the full 150 year record there are periods of non-correlation where other natural factors influence the temperature in both directions, regardless of the CO2 concentration, aerosols and other GHG, only by tweaking the feedbacks that are not in any data sets can you approximate the record. Variations explained as noise in the system, as experienced by S&W in regards to their statistical analysis of CRF, yet they felt it was enough to discount the theory from 100% to 23%. So the effect of CO2 as a primary driver should be subject to the same reduction of effect if this form of statistical analysis is valid.

"Natural variations can only mask the AGW signal over short timeframes. " You mean like Ice Ages and Interglacials? Those annoying short periods?

[dana1981]

Citations for your claim one of many papers.

I am aware of this and one other.

They're discussed in links in my wiki article, linked in my first post.

So still you do not concede the actual findings of the S&W paper that clearly state a measurable effect from CRF?

Which findings? Are you referring to the finding that GCRs at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness? Sure, I'll concede that.

The correlation argument, for the full 150 year record there are periods of non-correlation where other natural factors influence the temperature in both directions, regardless of the CO2 concentration, aerosols and other GHG....

Sure, up to this point I agree.

...only by tweaking the feedbacks that are not in any data sets can you approximate the record. Variations explained as noise in the system, as experienced by S&W in regards to their statistical analysis of CRF, yet they felt it was enough to discount the theory from 100% to 23%. So the effect of CO2 as a primary driver should be subject to the same reduction of effect if this form of statistical analysis is valid.

I'm really not following you here. I don't know what nonexistent feedbacks you're proposing are being tweaked.

"Natural variations can only mask the AGW signal over short timeframes. " You mean like Ice Ages and Interglacials? Those annoying short periods?

AGW = anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic = human-caused. Humans haven't been burning fossil fuels for very long, so no, I don't mean those periods.

[Climate Heretic]

Ok regarding your linked studies 3 Real Climate Blogs and 2 BBC articles (which one is about solar irridance - Lockwood et al 2007 and not CRF), as I mentioned before, there is one other paper.

I never said non-existent I said values applied to forcing that cannot be empirically measured through experimentation mostly in the realm of aerosols and cloud feedbacks.(we are not even sure of the sign of total combined cloud effects)

Last part was sarcasm as these periods equate to massive shifts in our climate which are rapid in geological terms and 100% natural. I subscibe to the rapid Ice Age Shift (over say 20-30 years to Ice over the Northern Hemisphere) rapid change with No human influence required. If an Ice Age comes you will be out digging up all the coal you can find my friend and AGW will not seem like such a bad thing.

Just so you know I get the AGW Theory and do not discount it totally, I believe that the amount of warming attributed to it, the hypothetical tipping point in regards to feedbacks and the hypothesis of catastrophic consequences is incorrect and alarmist with no real grounding in the basic science. For example I readily accept the figure of 1C for doubling of CO2, I do not accept the amplification estimates that pushes that 1C to 3-6C.

So the CRF theory stands as is and is not disproven as your Wiki post seems to suggest, though the effect may be somewhat reduced, and I will accept that for now, but as I said look for more papers this fall.

[dana1981]

The Lockwood paper was not just about TSI, it was about all solar effects on the Earth's climate.

The bottom line is that the GCR theory has nothing going for it. No long-term trend in GCR flux, no long-term trend in any solar climate influences (including magnetic field), no evidence that GCRs even have a significant impact on cloud formation. It's just a theory based on no supporting evidence.

[Climate Heretic]

I guess we can simply say my idea of significant and yours seems to very different, and since that is the case little more common ground can be tilled on the subject.

Never once did I say this was a replacement theory for AGW, only that it was a part of the natural variations, you seem to discount all solar influences outright, your opinion is a valid as mine with the current state of the science.

You seem to be able to concede a point but then make a much wider discounting of solar influence to dismiss solar variability all together. Rather unique debating style; concede and then dismiss.

Good discussion, thank you.

[dana1981]

you seem to discount all solar influences outright, your opinion is a valid as mine with the current state of the science...You seem to be able to concede a point but then make a much wider discounting of solar influence to dismiss solar variability all together.

No, I don't discount solar effects altogether. However, based on the data, I would be very surprised if solar effects accounted for more than 10% of the wawrming over the past 30 years. It's pretty hard to argue otherwise when you consider the ACRIM/PMOD data, as well as the cosmic ray flux measured on Earth.

I never said anthropogenic effects were the only ones, but they're clearly dominant over the past 30 years.

[Climate Heretic]

I never said anthropogenic effects were the only ones, but they're clearly dominant over the past 30 years.

Even if they are constantly over-ridden by the natural system variability in BOTH directions, and there may actually be a natural trend as a basline and the AGW contribution exists but is much less than theorized?

Look at the longer term record from 1850 on , the trend is up for the entire record. Is it possible, even remotely for you to except that perhaps the world has been warming over a longer time scale then our temperature record?

I put low stock in proxy temperature data calculated in the 100/s of Degrees Celcius used prior to the instrument record. There is also limited resolution for these proxies. It is even more subject to interpretation then the current record.

The rate of increase is not an issue because the trend is fairly equal over the entire instrument record. Take the trend from 1912-1941 for example. -.34 to +.11 or 0.15C /per decade.

Then take 1969-1998 .08 to .57 or .16C /per decade

No significant increase in warming rate for these two periods ( I picked 30 years down from the peak in both cases) that would suggest a catastrophe is rushing towards us and that the warming rate is unusual.

The past temperature has never bounced back and forth over a baseline ( we do not even have a standard baseline for current record sets) except perhaps in the long geological record, so why would you expect it to on a 10 year or even 100 year timescale is beyond me to comprehend.

You seem to also like to point out measurement errors in the methodology for the satellitle records, but do not even consider we are only as accurate as the tools we create, this goes for all aspects of the temperature record and methodologies used to adjust it.

Be as cynical about the huge revisions Hansen had to do to his 1999 landmark paper that he used to show the temperature increase from land based observations in the USA, or the constant month to month revisions they make to the historical record.

Hansen et al 1999 -

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html

Hansen et al 2001 -

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html

The Main Change
"Changes in the GISS
analysis subsequent to the documentation by Hansen et al. [1999] are as follows: (1)
incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the
United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a], (2) reclassification of rural, small-town, and
urban stations in the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico based on satellite
measurements of night light intensity [Imhoff et al., 1997], and (3) a more flexible urban
adjustment than that employed by Hansen et al. [1999], including reliance on only unlit stations in
the United States and rural stations in the rest of the world for determining long-term trends."

My Favorite Part of 2001...

"We suggest further studies, including more complete
satellite night light analyses, which may clarify the potential urban effect. There are inherent
uncertainties in the long-term temperature change at least of the order of 0.1°C for both the U.S.
mean and the global mean."

This uncertainty is equal to a minimum of one decade of warming.

Where is that plotted or stated on each graph? They refer to the paper but do not state uncertainities where common people looking at the charts can see them. Look at HADCrut3 charts the uncertainty bands are all shown.

Data interpretation by the public is very much a factor of how it is presented, I get it in a blog but not on a Government funded research site.

[dana1981]

I never said anthropogenic effects were the only ones, but they're clearly dominant over the past 30 years.

Even if they are constantly over-ridden by the natural system variability in BOTH directions, and there may actually be a natural trend as a basline and the AGW contribution exists but is much less than theorized?

See this is the thing, you argue "there may actually be a natural trend", but what is this trend? What is its supposed source? There are only so many factors which can add energy to the planet's climate system, and they've been ruled out as causing the recent warming.

Look at the longer term record from 1850 on , the trend is up for the entire record. Is it possible, even remotely for you to except that perhaps the world has been warming over a longer time scale then our temperature record?

Not likely because

a) I trust proxies more than you do, and
b) The LIA ended not long before then.

The rate of increase is not an issue because the trend is fairly equal over the entire instrument record. Take the trend from 1912-1941 for example. -.34 to +.11 or 0.15C /per decade.

Then take 1969-1998 .08 to .57 or .16C /per decade

No significant increase in warming rate for these two periods ( I picked 30 years down from the peak in both cases) that would suggest a catastrophe is rushing towards us and that the warming rate is unusual.

These two trends are similar, yes. The former was caused mainly by a combination of anthropogenic and solar effects (TSI increased over that period). The latter is caused almost entirely by anthropogenic effects. The difference is in the causes.

The past temperature has never bounced back and forth over a baseline ( we do not even have a standard baseline for current record sets) except perhaps in the long geological record, so why would you expect it to on a 10 year or even 100 year timescale is beyond me to comprehend.

I don't expect a baseline. Again, you're only examining the result (temperature change), while I'm examining the causes and extrapolating. If the cause is mainly CO2 (as all evidence indicates), and CO2 continues to rise, then the warming will continue to rise. Then you examine what the results will be if the planet continues to warm at roughly the current rate, and they're overwhelmingly negative, even ignoring the likelihood of tipping points.

My Favorite Part of 2001...

"We suggest further studies, including more complete
satellite night light analyses, which may clarify the potential urban effect. There are inherent
uncertainties in the long-term temperature change at least of the order of 0.1°C for both the U.S.
mean and the global mean."

This uncertainty is equal to a minimum of one decade of warming.

Where is that plotted or stated on each graph? They refer to the paper but do not state uncertainities where common people looking at the charts can see them. Look at HADCrut3 charts the uncertainty bands are all shown.

Data interpretation by the public is very much a factor of how it is presented, I get it in a blog but not on a Government funded research site.

The error bars are currently +/- 0.05°C, as shown on the NASA GISS graph. The warming trend is well outside the margin of error.

[Climate Heretic]

So let me get this right; you work from a theory stating that CO2 causes X amount of temperature increase and then adjust and change your formulas for other feedbacks and forcings until it matches the empirical data, and I look at empirical data and work back to a assign a value to CO2 contributions by removing all quantifiable and reasonably understood natural factors to arrive at the AGW portion ,let me ask you who is more likely to have bias in his observations?

So if solar variance impacted climate during this period when did CO2 take over? and how would the change in CO2 from 1941 until that date actually accomplish that?

Please cite where it states the current margin of error is +-0.05C, I see and cite 0.1C error bar for the long term record.

My fault I was refering to the Monthly temperature graphs, the 5 year mean is useless in its present form from GISSTemp as is their tabular data that is also sans uncertainties.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

As far as impacts on the future planet from temperature rises, I have no idea what they will be and no one else does either. There are a lot of theories as to what will happen but just like climate variance the effects can be mild to extreme, this line or debate is pointless because is ultimately unknowable until it occurs and is simple speculation. I can say with 100% certainty what will happen if the planet enters a New Ice Age, because it has before and the effects are in the geological record. Unless of course you believe the planet has been warmer in the past than it is now, then you would know the effects, but that would falsify your AGW predictions of catastrophic climate change.

[dana1981]

So let me get this right; you work from a theory stating that CO2 causes X amount of temperature increase and then adjust and change your formulas for other feedbacks and forcings until it matches the empirical data, and I look at empirical data and work back to a assign a value to CO2 contributions by removing all quantifiable and reasonably understood natural factors to arrive at the AGW portion ,let me ask you who is more likely to have bias in his observations?

You didn't get it right.

When you say "you", you're talking about scientists working with global climate models (except you didn't get that part quite right either). Me personally - I basically work the same way you do. I remove all natural factors (which amount to very little over the past 30 years) and arrive at the AGW portion.

So if solar variance impacted climate during this period when did CO2 take over? and how would the change in CO2 from 1941 until that date actually accomplish that?

Well, CO2 started to dominate about 30 years ago, if that's what you mean. Actually among warming forcings it dominated about 60 years ago, but aerosol cooling effects offset the warming from 1940-1970.

Atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing. It's much higher now than it was in 1940. That's how the change in CO2 accomplishes that.

As far as impacts on the future planet from temperature rises, I have no idea what they will be and no one else does either. There are a lot of theories as to what will happen but just like climate variance the effects can be mild to extreme, this line or debate is pointless because is ultimately unknowable until it occurs and is simple speculation. I can say with 100% certainty what will happen if the planet enters a New Ice Age, because it has before and the effects are in the geological record. Unless of course you believe the planet has been warmer in the past than it is now, then you would know the effects, but that would falsify your AGW predictions of catastrophic climate change.

So your opinion is that if a prediction isn't 100% certain it's useless? So if I can predict with 90% certainty that the Sierra Nevada snowpack will decrease due to global warming, we should just ignore that prediction?

Also, of course the planet has been warmer in the past than it is now. Millions of years ago it was much warmer. That doesn't falsify AGW predictions in any way.

[Climate Heretic]

Well, CO2 started to dominate about 30 years ago, if that's what you mean. Actually among warming forcings it dominated about 60 years ago, but aerosol cooling effects offset the warming from 1940-1970.

This is my point exactly to get the record to match you ( Climate Scientists who believe that CO2 is the dominate driver of climate) have to imply certain feedbacks and forcing that are not very well understood in the system. They simply say that it has to be this way or it does not work out.

Your position is that everytime the record does not behave like you expect from CO2 dominance it is another factor natural or otherwise "suppressing" the warming?

I simply state that after the little Ice age the earth started warming and has been warming at the same rate since the end of that climate episode. The TSI acting as a proxy for all solar inputs track the temperature through the record except for a divergence during the last 20 years, now this in itself is not actually unusal to the extent that that there was a building divergence in the record running up to 1950 in the NH, when TSI reversed and cooling occurred, there was then a build up to today with a period of maintained elevated TSI higher than any point since the Little Ice Age.

This is the underlying natural trend, it may have been amplified by rising CO2 as I believe in the science behind the AGE. Yet the underlying trend matches the TSI proxy. Latent heat and other factors such as solar amplification by feedbacks being non-linear as the data suggests can take up much of the deviation as the TSI is highest in the record since the 1700s right now. Simply look at the divergence with temperatures being much higher than TSI at the height of solar activity in the 1940s, this supports a non linear response. This would then match the real temperature response to increased CO2 concentration, 1C for doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Here is a paper to read and pay special attention to the conclusion [18].

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2006GL027142.pdf

Now my point is that extrapolation to CATASTROPHIC climate change is unwarranted based on the current science and that we know the earth was warmer even during this interglacial period, if the results at that time were catastrophic I think we would have some historical record of it.