What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Thanks, Boston.

A sense of humor is just about all I have left.

Go down swinging.

[Boston]

in the end its all any of us have left
I know for me if I wasn't laughing even at myself most of the time
I'd be barking mad by now

no worries
all in good fun

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

I have been barking for a while now, with a little howling thrown in for good measure.

No I didn't.
Ye, I did.
Not.
Did.
Not.
Did.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

I have been barking for a while now, with a little howling thrown in for good measure.

No I didn't.
Ye, I did.
Not.
Did.
Not.
Did.

They say it's OK to talk to yourself. And that it's even OK to argue with yourself sometimes. But when you start losing the arguments on a regular basis, you might be in trouble.....

[Boston]

another darling little graph that I know you will all appreciate



seems to indicate that the radiation levels have remained relatively stable

while at the same time the level of radiation absorbed seems to have gone up

well thats strange

might be that there is also a measurable alteration in the chemical make up of the atmosphere exactly corresponding to those changes in absorption

most notably
CO2

or at least it seems awfully suspicious that the two might correspond so nicely eh

just a thought folks
just a thought

"There's just so many numbers and stuff - I have a hard time keeping organized." - Phil Jones
RIP AGW LOL!

[Guillermo]

As Boston evidently refuses to read my posts showing the state of the art investigations, but pigheadedly insists in bringing once and again the same old, incomplete and biased info from his favourite warmists bolgs , let me bring here again what I posted in post #4071 and 4081


Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Accepted 26 November 2009.
editor: S. Peyerimhoff.
Available online 3 December 2009.

Post 4071:

"The extraordinary Quing-Bin Lu peer-reviewed paper states that the observed data from 1850 up to the present seem to indicate that CFCs conspired with Cosmic Rays are the major culprits for not only atmospheric ozone depletion but global warming for around 1950 to 2000. The observed data point to the possibility that the global warming observed in the late 20th century was dominantly caused by CFCs, modulated by Cosmic Rays Effect-driven ozone depletion. This depletion is expected to decrease after 2010 due to the CR cycles, but the Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC) will keep decreasing.

As they found that global surface temperature change has an excellent linear dependence on the EESC, if their observations are confirmed authors expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades. Indeed, global cooling may have started since 2002, based on the observed data. They think this could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century and that it certainly deserves for further examinations and studies.

The paper also says that due to the increasing trend of the CR intensity, the recovery of the ozone hole may be significantly delayed; the full recovery might not occur even by the end of this century.


I have bought the paper, but I think I may not upload it here as this could breach publishing rights. It is available on-line at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...02b75dafd01dc3



Post 4081:

"So cosmic rays seem to have at least a double effect on Earth's temperature:
- One through the link with CFCs, as per Lu's work
- The second through low clouds formation, as per Svenmark's work, already multicited in this thread.

BTW, on top of their previous work, Svensmark et al. have published a recent 2009 paper in the Geophysical Research Letters where a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale:

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds



Perhaps you should begin to buy and read some relevant recent papers and begin to take into account other info than the one from your Warmist Bible, the Real Climate blog, my scatterbrained boy.

Cheers.

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

As Boston evidently refuses to read my posts showing the state of the art investigations, but pigheadedly insists in bringing once and again the same old, incomplete and biased info from his favourite warmists bolgs , let me bring here again what I posted in post #4071 and 4081

Understanding your message is not the game G. He just likes to play the line and a good fighting fish.

[Guillermo]

Yes, most probably.
But I love to bang him in the head. It's free fun

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Another guy who is learning the hard way: more from Phil Jones at Nature

"....the authors used data from weather stations around the world; those in China "were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times", they wrote.

But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.

Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. "I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services," says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that "the stations probably did move", and that the subsequent loss of the details of the locations was sloppy. "It's not acceptable," says Jones. "[It's] not best practice." CRU denies any involvement in losing these records.

Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations' locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study's lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? "I will give that some thought. It's worthy of consideration," he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1002...s.2010.71.html

Cheers.

[rasorinc]

I have no dog in this fight. I only supply info.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...es_confes.html

[Boston]

ah
thank you sir may I have another

actually I was busy with the new biz looking for a better storage yard and adding a new page to the site
that and if you can imagine it I have some spelling to correct


and do you have any corroborating data concerning the cosmic ray intensity
other than what is presented in this paper

cheers
B

by the way this graph you present in no way supports the predictions overwritten on it

the trend lines for consmic rays do not indicate an increase nor does the trend line for temp indicate a decrease
as least according to the data plotted



not sure who drew in that Mediterranean blue prediction line but it deviates completely from the data set depicted

[Boston]

Here is Cosmic Ray data from NOAA and if there is an trend increase over the time frame of the data set then Im sure not seeing it


Neutron Monitors. Ground-based neutron monitors detect variations in the approximately 500 Mev to 20 GeV portion of the primary cosmic ray spectrum.


Ill keep looking for corroborating evidence but so far after four source searches Ive found nothing to indicate any increase in CR intensity with all indicating a stable level of cosmic ray energy over the period recent warming

a good resource you might check is the network of worldwide cosmic ray data stations

http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/common/links.htm

[hoytedow]

...as if

[Boston]

long term graph shows no major increases or decreases in trend



now I realize you are talking Cosmic Radiation ( which I have addressed in my previous ) but I thought I'd just include the sun spot data in case anyone is confusing the two

and according to Dr Moore PHD at Stanford

Swindle: Sun spots show a near-perfect correlation with temperature over the last 400 years – the more sun spots the higher the temperature. This is because sun spots cause solar wind, solar wind prevents cosmic rays from reaching the earth, fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds, and fewer clouds mean more heat. This accounts for all climate change.

The Truth: Sun spots are a proxy for solar energy output, which is also influenced by solar flares and other phenomena. Solar energy output does affect global temperature, and it made a clear contribution to global warming until 50 years ago. But the temperature spike in the last 50 years cannot be explained by a change in solar energy output.

As you can see in the graph below, solar output has not been trending upward since 1978.

basically Im not finding any corroborating evidence for the paper you are presenting and I have looked at at least a half dozen well respected sources