What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

while the following article does not specifically mention the piece you have presented it does cover the subject rather well. I thought it interesting that it also confirms my belief that there was no corroborating deviation from the CR norm that might correspond to the recent warming trend

Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
Filed under:

* Climate Science
* Sun-earth connections

— rasmus @ 6 December 2004

There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth’s climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth’s cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).

Svensmark’s failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.

The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth’s climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth’s temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.

http://www.realclimate.org/cicerone0203_fig3.jpg
don't you just love real climate
its such a great resource

FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level). The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison. [Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html'' , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and ``ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA'].

References:

Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth’s Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3

Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370

Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen (1991), Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 254: 698-700

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, T.M.L. wigley, J.M. Arblaster, A. Dai (2003): Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century, J. Climate, 6: 426-444

Shindell, D., D. Rind, N. Balachandran, J. Lean and P. Lonergan (1999): Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone and Climate, Science, 284: 305-308

Svensmark, H. (1998), Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate, Physical Review Letters, vol 81, num 22, 5027-5030

[Boston]

so now since that parameter has been layed to rest I'll check out the level of CFC's over the last say 50 yrs

from
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...OZ_wtAOdsITLCA



looks like only chloroform is declining at a significant rate
but Ill keep looking

found a longer term look at
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...OZ_wtAOdsITLCA



and again at
http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/ttd_figs/cfchistory2.png



I did find the following article to be informative

The original CFCs were powerful greenhouse gases (about 0.34 W/m2 forcing since 1850), and even allowing for a cooling due to the subsequent depletion in stratospheric ozone (-0.15 W/m2), they had a net warming effect. Therefore the ongoing phase-out will help both the stratospheric ozone problem and reduce the forcings leading to global warming. CFC concentrations are indeed now starting to level out and are expected to decrease further in coming decades. However, some of the replacement gases (for instance HFC-23) which are not as harmful to ozone, nonetheless have an significant greenhouse warming potential. The total forcing from these replacements is expected to be small compared to increases in CO2, but any reductions that can be easily made can potentially offset some increases in CO2. Thankfully, some other replacements exist (for instance ammonia) which neither affect ozone nor the greenhouse effect. The cure for ozone depletion has not turned out to be worse than the disease!

On the other hand, some of the climate change effects on ozone were discussed previously in connection with Arctic ozone levels. These effects are both chemical and dynamical. The chemical impacts relate mainly to increasing levels of methane and stratospheric water vapour directly affecting the local chemistry. Additionally, stratospheric cooling (caused by increasing CO2 as well) has an indirect effect on the rates of many of the ozone-destroying reactions (accelerating ozone loss). Dynamically, planetary and gravity wave activity, (related to convection and the jet streams, for instance) all affect the momentum balance in the stratosphere and control the Brewer-Dobson overturning circulation. Therefore changes to those can potentially affect the stratospheric circulation and thus change stratospheric winds and stability. These dynamic effects can often lead to local changes of temperature (particularly in high latitudes) much greater than any radiative change e.g through possibly changes to the strength of the polar vortex (Shindell et al, 1998).

So, as we learn more about stratospheric ozone and climate change, what were once two separate problems have become more and more entwined. It therefore appears unlikely that meteorologists are going to get a break anytime soon from explaining exactly how the two issues do, and don’t, connect.

which indicates to me that while there would be some cooling or at least reduced warming should the levels of CFC's drop it would not negate the rise in co2 as a major player in Rapid Global Climate Change

after looking at about a dozen graphs Im not seeing a correlation between CFC and temp but feel free to post what you have
the ones I posted were all from NOAA and various universities

on a whole other note there is an interesting anomalous piece of data come up in the wild world of anthropology
http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895972/
apparently the 11 hobbit skeletons discovered are really screwing up modern anthropology

cheers
B

[samjohnnylee]

Hey all,

Its been long time since I have gone through one site that is truly technical and more over its great to be here.. Its helpful its informative.. It's rocking..

Boston.. Tremendous work done.. You deserve a appreciation !!.

Thanks,
Sam.

.
tower light || uk tower light

[Boston]

I am but a flee on the ass of life

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by samjohnnylee

Hey all,

Its been long time since I have gone through one site that is truly technical and more over its great to be here.. Its helpful its informative.. It's rocking..

Boston.. Tremendous work done.. You deserve a appreciation !!.

Thanks,
Sam.

.
tower light || uk tower light

Hi Sam, rocking allright...how rocking cold is it over there? No matter how nice technical they get on this thread, still no warming coming up. No matter how much CO2 Al Gore and Co lets go up in the air, still no warming.
Bummer, must crank up that open fire to see if this year is the year it turns around.... "rapidly!"

[Boston]

and the abuse begins

[hoytedow]

Central Florida and the temperature hasn't gone above 60 degrees Fahrenheit for days now. Same in the Bahamas where they don't have heat for the homes. Damn that AGW. hehe haha. It was warmer in Vancouver, B.C., yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.

[Boston]

And thats one of the big misconceptions about Rapid Global Climate Change
that its only got to do with warming. It isn't

Instead its all about a disturbance in typical weather patterns resulting in a-typical occurrences. Like the Jet stream moving off course or an unusual arctic oscillation like what caused the cold weather in the south this year.
The mechanism might be well known but the strength of the reaction is outside of typical parameters.

Welcome to the new world. Try and notice how many plants and animals are having a hard time coping and then realize this is what Ive been saying all along. That the more frequent alterations from the norm are going to continue happening until the stress it puts on local intransigent populations simply overcomes them.

Those weather patterns that have been the norm for ~600,000 years are what has made for the ecosystems. Alter that and you disturb the balance of the system. If you create a change so rapid that the plants and animals cannot adapt or move fast enough and you get mass extinctions.

Manatee's, dropping like flies
fish, dropping like flies
birds ?
Reptiles, dropping out of trees

I read several articles that mentioned the smell is so bad its hard to go into some areas

I've also heard its not quite cold enough to kill off the invasive pythons though

B

[BlackSnow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2rotlX9Js

[Boston]

ok now that was bloody priceless
lmao

[Boston]

little tid bit about plastics in the ocean

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americ...ex.html?hpt=C2

[Guillermo]

Boston, my predictable one:
Those blogs where you get the info from seem to have not realized yet that when solar influence on Earth's temperature and climate is being talked about, it is not only solar irradiance alone (or then you are finding and quoting not enough up to date documents). A similar thing happens with the CFCs thing. I'm going to give you another chance: try to look for falsifying papers to the more recent info I have posted lately in this thread. Go for them, my boy, and bring them here for us to learn something new. You keep on posting info already known. C'mon, we deserve a better effort on your side (Although I have to recognize you are the only one in the "warmgnotist" side in this thread -let's call it like that- who at least does some effort. The rest only rant around. That's why I like you).

Originally Posted by Boston

I am but a flee on the ass of life

(Flee? :we may asume you want to say "fly" or "flea". I take it as "fly")

Quite true!
As we say in Spain, we can call you now "La Mosca": vuela, vuela, vuela... y donde se posa la caga.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Boston "la Mosca",

As it is quite clear now you do not read (or then understand) my posts, nor the linked info, let me give you a little clue quoting something else from Komitov:

"It has been marked by many authors that the ”overall sunspot activity −− > TSI −− > climate” relationship is far not enough to explain the real climate dynamics during the last 400 years since AD 1610. As it is pointed out by Thompson (1997) only 25% of the global warming effect after AD 1850 could be explained by the TSI increasing during the this time. Additional factors should be searched to explain the remaining 75%. Especially after AD 1975/80 there is a total divergence between the TSI and the global temperature changes (Solanki, 2002; Usoskin et al., 2005; Lockwood & Frohlich, 2007). This phenomena could not be explained satisfactory even if the GCR flux is taken additionaly into account. That is why for the last 30-35 years by the opinion of many researchers the human activity is the factor, which play the dominant role for the climate changes."

Hey! realize what I'm quoting here Boston! what the hell is happening? Is good old Komitov totally nuts...?

More to come....

Cheers.

[Boston]

oh very funny

pero no que le hace los caballos asno?

I must have "settled" on a sore spot eh

my take on what you are presenting is to go through the parameters one by one and check the veracity of the claim based on what we think we know so far

1) is there an increase in the level of CR

the answer seems to be no but that does not mean that there cant be a reaction with an increased or altering level of CFC's

2) are the levels of CFC's changing

answer seems to be that they look to have stabilized but that does not necessarily mean that what changes did occur in recent times didn't correspond to the rise in temp.

3) are the levels of CFC's corresponding to the changes in temp

I checked to see if the levels of CFC's might be mirroring the alterations in temp and again the answer seems to be no

not only do they not appear to be moving in unison but neither do they seem to be following or preceding an alteration in temp
basically depending on how you want to draw up the trend lines there is really very little observable comparison among the parameters

once you can establish that you have a viable paper you then might think of whether that paper is one of those famous bits of anomalous data I keep talking about
just because a paper is for real and based on good science does not necessarily mean it fits in the puzzle
a few pieces left over and science has a tendency to say "oh well a few loose ends but all in all a good theory"
whereas if you have a lot of anomalous data like in anthropology then then science tends to say "our theory is incomplete" or some such dismissive tripe like that rather than just admit it does not know something
point is that the amount of corroborating evidence far outweighs the amount of anomalous data when it comes to climate science

I might ask though whats up with taking 4679 posts to come up with one viable paper though

assuming that is it holds up to further investigation

cheers
B

our posts must have crossed

I skim a lot of stuff till I hit something of interest

the idea that there was some kind of increase in CR over the last say 1000 or even 600,000 years just is not born out in the data
our sun is dynamic through a predictable range and the data does not show it deviating from that range in quite some time.
Where you are getting the idea it is somehow growing in intensity is beyond me
CFC's at least had a shot at mirroring the warming but upon looking at more graphs Im just not seeing the correlation

looks to me like you might be about ready to crack and admit that mans activities are altering the climate
or at least thats what I'm reading into it

good on ya mate
I knew you would see reason eventually

where the hell is Jim by the way

is he off hacking the realclimate site again

[hoytedow]

Old Limerick I remember from my youth:

A flea and fly in a flue,
Were imprisoned so what could they do?
Said the flea let us fly.
Said the fly let us flee.
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

Unrelated but it does help con el vocabulario.