|
Post by jimcripwell on Jan 30, 2009 14:15:35 GMT
steve writes "I'm here because I want to prompt myself to learn about the climate, and I learn better through adversarial discussion (which prompts me to search for relevant literature). I've also posted quite a lot in the past on climateAudit for the same reason." I have done the same sort of thing on RealClimate. Taking you at your word, to me the whole IPCC science breaks down in AR4 to WG1 Chapter 2.7. This is not just a weak link in the logic, but a broken link. The trouble is that it is not what is INCLUDED in 2.7, but what is EXCLUDED. In other words, if you have not already done a lot of reading and research as to how the heliosphere might affect climate, you will read 2.7, and find it completely satisfactory. What it carefully does NOT say is that there is proof that there are no significant extraterrestrial effects on climate, other than a small change in the solar constant. This is, however, what Table SPM 2 IMPLIES. The SPM then concludes that it is very likely that the only explanation for the recent rise in temperature is an increase in CO2. If there are other extraterrestrial effects which are significant, then this is simply not logical. I knew Chapter 2.7 was a broken link before it was ever written. There is no way that the IPCC can establish that no significant extraterrestrial effects exist. The question is, have the IPCC been less than scientific in the way they present 2.7? The clear answer that they have not, to me lies in the fact that Svensmark et al Proc. Roy. Soc. A October 2006 is omitted from the discussion. When I ask myself why?, the only conclusion I can come to is that the IPCC knew that if they included this reference, then their whole case falls flat on it's face. But let me note, in conclusion, this whole subject is completely unsuitable for discussion in this sort of forum. But I thought you might be interested if you are serious.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 30, 2009 16:31:19 GMT
Jim, Do you mean this paper? journals.royalsociety.org/index/3163G817166673G7.pdfI would say that as it's a lab experiment it is still leaving quite a few steps out of the link between cosmic rays and clouds. Also, given that the theory has as yet not much provenance, it was probably a bit late for it to get into the IPCC report.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 30, 2009 17:11:09 GMT
Jim and Steve,
I agree with your point on AR4 - WG1 Chapter 2.7. But not for the same reason.
Although the papers from Svensmark and others raise other points that they should have addressed. The logic that we have discounted the Sun (and even Svensmark) and therefore it must be AGW is flawed as it assumes that the IPCC are omniscient and have a complete grasp of everything that affects Earth. As a result of recent research such as Themis there have been many discoveries of the effect on the magnetosphere and atmosphere that have literally turned some ideas on their head. Energy transfers to Earth from the Sun that were far stronger and more regular than expected.
I feel that the "we can't think of anything else so its CO2", is flawed logic and/or hubris - choose which one you want.
If the IPCC had proceeded to fund experiments to assess whether in the atmosphere the CO2 bands were saturated (rather than build models that are tinkered with to get the right result). Then from those experiments quantify the heating effects in the atmosphere of those traces of CO2 and identify the actual atmospheric behaviour when that heating occurs then they may have built a defensible hypothesis (or not). But the research was limited to building models and discarding all other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 30, 2009 17:23:23 GMT
Nope. The scientists can think of lots of things other than CO2. It's just that when they go to measure them, none have *yet* had the evidence behind them to significantly minimise the CO2 impact.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jan 30, 2009 17:36:10 GMT
nautonnier. I agree with you. Chapter 2.7 is flawed for a variety of reasons, and I only selected one. To answer steve, in 2.7 of AR4, I find a long paragraph starting "Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b)." Note that the IPCC specifically mentions Svensmark, and then goes on to discuss why the IPCC feels his ideas are not valid. It seems to me that to omit his Oct 2006 paper is scientifically improper. I am almost certain that you wont agree, and in this sort of forum, we wont get anywhere. The IPCC discussion of extraterrestrial effects is so biased, that it is the work of an advocate, not an analyst. There is nothing wrong with being an advocate; it is an honorable and essential profession in any democratic society. What is fundamentally dishonest is to act as an advocate, while pretending to be an analyst. This is where I find the IPCC to be grossly irresponsible. And it is Chapter 2.7 of AR4 that this is best represented.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 30, 2009 17:53:26 GMT
Nope. The scientists can think of lots of things other than CO2. It's just that when they go to measure them, none have *yet* had the evidence behind them to significantly minimise the CO2 impact. Except a geological record hundreds of millions of years long...
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 30, 2009 20:05:40 GMT
A most distressing part of the AGW proponent movement is the away it has been taken up by the Melbourne universities and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
By apparently not considering any mechanism for global temperature control other than carbon dioxide, they seem to have cut themselves off from real research on the topic. Feel for any member of those instititions who disagrees with the prevailing orthodoxy.
Very similar to the belief in 1900 that all physics was essentially understood.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Jan 30, 2009 20:42:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Jan 30, 2009 22:41:13 GMT
nautonnier. I agree with you. Chapter 2.7 is flawed for a variety of reasons, and I only selected one. To answer steve, in 2.7 of AR4, I find a long paragraph starting "Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b)." Note that the IPCC specifically mentions Svensmark, and then goes on to discuss why the IPCC feels his ideas are not valid. It seems to me that to omit his Oct 2006 paper is scientifically improper. I am almost certain that you wont agree, and in this sort of forum, we wont get anywhere. The IPCC discussion of extraterrestrial effects is so biased, that it is the work of an advocate, not an analyst. There is nothing wrong with being an advocate; it is an honorable and essential profession in any democratic society. What is fundamentally dishonest is to act as an advocate, while pretending to be an analyst. This is where I find the IPCC to be grossly irresponsible. And it is Chapter 2.7 of AR4 that this is best represented. I tried looking for the October 2006 paper on Google Scholar and couldn't find it. What journal was it published in? The IPCC report executive summary was published in February 2007 and they probably had a cut off of early 2006 for papers to be considered. The reasons for not giveing Svensmark's ideas more weight were fully disclosed in the section you chose to cut off. Here is the full text of that paragraph: In short, the cosmic rays don't have a great correlation with global cloud cover. In some areas, they correlate well, and in others there's an anti-correlation. In the areas they do correlate well, the reasons may be due to sea surface temperatures due to ENSO or warming/cooling due to the measured changes in TSI. BTW, here's a good picture showing cosmic rays and cloud anamolies. How well do you think they correlate?
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Jan 30, 2009 22:56:49 GMT
There is a 2008 paper that reviewed Svensmark's 2007 paper and found that the relative influence of the sun has been decreasing in recent decades and that greenhouse gases are responsible for at least 75% of recent warming. (Lack of major volcanic eruptions is responsible for most of the rest). Note that this paper includes references by Christy, Spencer, Linzden and Svensmark. Sceptical scientists do get published and their views are considered. It's the weight of the evidence that determines which views prevail. journals.royalsociety.org/content/e810603423v14t37/
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Jan 30, 2009 23:11:43 GMT
Here's a 2003 paper that looked at TSI, UV and cosmic ray flux: www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdfAnd here's a graph from the paper that clearly shows that cosmic rays (solid lines) do not correlate well to global temperature (dashed lines) from the 1980s on:
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Jan 30, 2009 23:31:22 GMT
CO2 has been proven (in a lab) to be a greenhouse gas. There is both satellite evidence and measurements of increased downdwelling longwave radiation that demonstrate an increased greenhouse effect. There are decades of studies (in the field and labs, in addition to the computer models) that provide overwhelming evidence that AGW is a problem.
It's the deniers who insist it must be cosmic rays or some other solar influence in the face of so little evidence, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence for the increased greenhouse effect, that are guilty of the flawed logic/and or hubris.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 31, 2009 0:57:42 GMT
CO2 has been proven (in a lab) to be a greenhouse gas. There is both satellite evidence and measurements of increased downdwelling longwave radiation that demonstrate an increased greenhouse effect. There are decades of studies (in the field and labs, in addition to the computer models) that provide overwhelming evidence that AGW is a problem. It's the deniers who insist it must be cosmic rays or some other solar influence in the face of so little evidence, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence for the increased greenhouse effect, that are guilty of the flawed logic/and or hubris. www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N14/EDIT.phpRead it and weep. No evidence for increasing greenhouse effect. None of the previous "studies" warmers love to quote were based on observational data. Climate models are not evidence. Wherever did you get the absurd notion they are? Where are the lab experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect? Where is the missing "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere? Patiently waiting..... geology.gsapubs.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/71.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 31, 2009 1:40:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 31, 2009 5:04:43 GMT
CO2 has been proven (in a lab) to be a greenhouse gas. There is both satellite evidence and measurements of increased downdwelling longwave radiation that demonstrate an increased greenhouse effect. There are decades of studies (in the field and labs, in addition to the computer models) that provide overwhelming evidence that AGW is a problem. It's the deniers who insist it must be cosmic rays or some other solar influence in the face of so little evidence, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence for the increased greenhouse effect, that are guilty of the flawed logic/and or hubris. Actually there's a simple mechanism that shows all the signs of this being caused by solar forcing. The upper atmosphere is simply responding to the MASSIVE increase in UV output of the sun in the latter part of the century. While the sun's overall output only varies .1% (currently it's more than that though) the UV output fluctuates by greater than 4% or more in the higher frequencies (all at the expense of other frequencies of light of which approximately 50% is reflected) The added heat coming down was simply coming down from outer layers of the atmosphere where the MASSIVE amount of oxygen in our atmosphere gobble up 100% of this UV. yes...100% The link between cosmic rays is quite possibly an unrelated side effect of the sun's magnetic activity...it has a correlation with global temperatures but is not necessarily causing warming/cooling either directly or indirectly. Now that the sun is in a minimum this excess UV energy has been removed. The lack of energy to excite the outer atmosphere has resulted in it lowering by 100 miles...further reducing the capture cross section of the earth by as much as 2.7%(having so much oxygen means even when it's very, very thin...it still absorbs a lot of the UV). So again, CO2's past behavior and the physics of its absorption of IR make it a poor candidate compared to solar forcing via UV fluctuations and their affects on oxygen, a greenhouse gas. This is truly a time to "wait and see". We should know within a few years and since there's been no increase in global temperatures for 11 years or more (with recent decreases) I really don't see the harm in waiting a couple more.
|
|